Upload
cerise
View
49
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Evaluation of the Second Chance Act Adult Demonstration Project: Implementation Study Findings. Christian Geckeler Social Policy Research Associates Oakland, CA. ACJR-CA Spring Conference 2014 Sacramento, CA. Evaluation Team. Three Organizations. Agenda. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
www.spra.com
Evaluation of the Second Chance Act Adult Demonstration Project: Implementation Study Findings
Christian Geckeler Social Policy Research Associates
Oakland, CA
ACJR-CA Spring Conference 2014Sacramento, CA
2
Evaluation Team
Three Organizations
3
1. Study Purpose and Design
2. Key Findings from the Implementation Study• Key grantee successes• System Level Changes
Agenda
4
Study Purpose and Design
5
· Funded by US DOJ’s National Institute of Justice to study SCA Adult Demonstration Grantees
· Impact Analysis RCT design Examines impacts on recidivism (arrests, convictions,
incarceration), employment and earnings and other outcomes
· Implementation Study– Multi-day site visits to participating study sites– Explores program administration, service design, and service
delivery
About the Evaluation
6
· SCA Adult Demonstration Grantees $55 million awarded to more than 100 SCA Adult
Demonstration grantees nationwide Grants awarded in FY 09 (15 grantees), FY 10 (49 grantees),
FY 11 (36 grantees), and FY 12 (19 grantees)
· FY 09 Grantees Selected for the Study– Seven FY 09 grantees selected by DOJ to participate in the
impact and implementation study– Three additional FY 09 grantees selected by DOJ to
participate only in the implementation study
About the Grantees
7
Impact & Implementation Study1. Kentucky Dept of Corrections2. Oklahoma Dept of Corrections3. South Dakota Dept of Corrections4. Marion County (OR) Sheriff’s Office5. Allegheny County (PA) Dept of Human Services6. San Francisco (CA) Dept of Public Health7. San Mateo (CA) County Health and Recovery Services
Implementation Study Only8. City of Memphis (TN) Div of Public Services9. New Hampshire Department of Justice10.City of Richmond (VA) Sheriff’s Office
Participating SCA Grantees
8
Project Timeline
Finalize design Summer/Fall 2011
Random assignment Jan 2012 – March 2013
Site visits Spring/Summer 2012
Interim report Summer 2013
Participant survey July 2013 – Sept 2014
Admin data collection Summer 2013 - Fall 2014
Final report Spring 2015
9
Implementation Findings--Structure and Services
Overview of Program Design
· Each SCA project was built on existing reentry efforts
· Grantees worked through pre-existing networks of providers and services
· Many grantees had formal authority for reentry planning in the area
· Grantees had a 50% matching requirement
10
Case Management was the Key Service
11
Case Management
Education and Training
Employment Services
Substance Abuse
Treatment
Mental Health
Cognitive Behavioral
Therapy
Pro-Social Services
Housing and Supportive Services
12
Other Program Services
Other Services were Either:
· Directly provided
· Provided through a formal partnership
· Provided through referral
Grantees Differed in Important Ways
Grantee Type • 4 state Departments of Corrections• 2 local Sheriff’s Offices• 4 health/social services/other
Different Populations Targeted
Some programs targeted women or participants of different ages
Point of Enrollment • 3+ months pre-release (4 grantees)• Just prior to release (4 grantees)• Post release (2 grantees)
Program Duration 3 to 18 months
Who Provided Case Management
• A specially assigned PO (5 grantees)• A case manager from a CBO or social service agency (5 grantees)
13
Implications of Case Manager Types
POs Non-POs• Increases retention in
services• Avoids dual reporting
requirements• Avoids “turf” issues
• Mitigates lack of trust some participants have with POs
• More typically embrace therapeutic approach
• Provides another source of support for SCA participants
14
Type of Case Manager
Obstacles to Achieving Success
· Well-known challenges of serving this population· Need for substantial ramp-up time
– Develop partnerships– Train staff
· Challenge in incubating a culture of change in some instances
· Heavy reliance on weak partnerships for providing many services
15
16
Implementation Findings--System-Level Changes
System Change #1
Partnerships Grew Stronger· Partnerships were crucial for
service delivery – grantees lacked capacity to do it all themselves
· Programs developed new partnerships to enhance services
· Coordination between probation/ parole and other agencies/ departments strengthened
17
System Change #2
Services Became “More Whole”·Continuity of services from pre-release to post-release
·Special training for staff·Using assessments for service planning
·More time for case management·Availability of new additional service
18
System Change #3
Reentry was Rethought· Fundamental “cultural shifts” in
service delivery mindsets:– Away from “enforcing regulations”– Embracing a rehabilitative philosophy– Accepting evidence-based practices
· Overcame skepticism through communication, planning and training
19
20
For Further Information
Ronald D’Amico, Ph.D. Project Director & Principal InvestigatorSocial Policy Research [email protected]
Christian Geckeler Task Lead for Data CollectionSocial Policy Research [email protected]
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/243294.pdf