1 / 20

Evaluation of the Second Chance Act Adult Demonstration Project: Implementation Study Findings

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.

cerise
Download Presentation

Evaluation of the Second Chance Act Adult Demonstration Project: Implementation Study Findings

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. Evaluation Team Three Organizations

  3. Agenda • Study Purpose and Design • Key Findings from the Implementation Study • Key grantee successes • System Level Changes

  4. Study Purpose and Design

  5. About the Evaluation • 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

  6. About the Grantees • 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

  7. Participating SCA Grantees Impact & Implementation Study • Kentucky Dept of Corrections • Oklahoma Dept of Corrections • South Dakota Dept of Corrections • Marion County (OR) Sheriff’s Office • Allegheny County (PA) Dept of Human Services • San Francisco (CA) Dept of Public Health • San Mateo (CA) County Health and Recovery Services Implementation Study Only • City of Memphis (TN) Div of Public Services • New Hampshire Department of Justice • City of Richmond (VA) Sheriff’s Office

  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

  10. 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

  11. Case Management was the Key Service

  12. Other Program Services Other Services were Either: • Directly provided • Provided through a formal partnership • Provided through referral

  13. Grantees Differed in Important Ways

  14. Implications of Case Manager Types Type of Case Manager

  15. 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

  16. Implementation Findings --System-Level Changes

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. For Further Information https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/243294.pdf Ronald D’Amico, Ph.D. Project Director & Principal InvestigatorSocial Policy Research Associates510-788-2484ron_damico@spra.com Christian GeckelerTask Lead for Data CollectionSocial Policy Research Associates510-788-2461christian_geckeler@spra.com

More Related