Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:21 pm
Time: 9:21 pm
Results for program implementation
3 results foundAuthor: Willison, Janeen Buck Title: Process and Systems Change Evaluation Findings from the Transition from Jail to Community Initiative Summary: In 2007, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) partnered with the Urban Institute (UI) to develop and test an innovative, comprehensive model for effective jail-to-community transition. Designed to address the unique challenges and opportunities surrounding jail reentry, the Transition from Jail to Community (TJC) initiative and TJC model advance systems-level change through collaborative and coordinated relationships between jails and local communities to address reentry. Enhanced public safety, reduced recidivism, and improved individual reintegration outcomes are the overarching goals of the TJC model. Two pilot sites, Denver, Colorado, and Douglas County, Kansas, were invited to be learning sites implementing the TJC model in September 2008, with four additional learning sites—Davidson County, Tennessee; Kent County, Michigan; La Crosse County, Wisconsin; and Orange County, California—selected to join them in August 2009. The TJC initiative provided all six sites with intensive, targeted technical assistance to implement the key elements of the model, and each was engaged in a systems change evaluation conducted by the Urban Institute. The primary objective of the cross-site systems change evaluation was to test the viability of the TJC model and to document factors which facilitated or inhibited its successful implementation. In doing so, the initiative sought to expand the knowledge base regarding effective jail transition practice. The implementation and systems change evaluation will be followed by an outcome and sustainability analysis commencing in 2012. A participatory action research framework guided the cross-site implementation and systems change evaluations. Evaluation activities supported measurement of systems change and generated relevant and timely information for the sites that would inform planning and implementation, as well as promote monitoring and sustainability. Evaluation-related technical assistance focused on building site capacity for self-assessment and outcome analysis activities; a performance measurement framework formed the core of the initiative’s strategy to build local capabilities for ongoing self-assessment. Regular stakeholder interviews, site visits, analysis of administrative data, and multiple waves of stakeholder survey data informed the evaluation and this report. This report examines implementation of the TJC model across the six learning sites, including key activities, site accomplishments and challenges, and lessons learned both about the TJC model and the technical assistance provided. Key findings from the implementation and cross-site systems change evaluations are presented, following a brief overview of the TJC model and description of the sites’ TJC strategies. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2012. 143p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9, 2012 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412670-Process-and-Systems-Change-Evaluation-Findings.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412670-Process-and-Systems-Change-Evaluation-Findings.pdf Shelf Number: 126649 Keywords: Jail InmatesPrisoner Reentry (U.S.)Program Implementation |
Author: Willison, Janeen Buck Title: Process and Systems Change Evaluation Findings from the Transition from Jail to Community Initiative Summary: In 2007, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) partnered with the Urban Institute (UI) to develop and test an innovative, comprehensive model for effective jail-to-community transition. Designed to address the unique challenges and opportunities surrounding jail reentry, the Transition from Jail to Community (TJC) initiative and TJC model advance systems-level change through collaborative and coordinated relationships between jails and local communities to address reentry. Enhanced public safety, reduced recidivism, and improved individual reintegration outcomes are the overarching goals of the TJC model. Two pilot sites, Denver, Colorado, and Douglas County, Kansas, were invited to be learning sites implementing the TJC model in September 2008, with four additional learning sites—Davidson County, Tennessee; Kent County, Michigan; La Crosse County, Wisconsin; and Orange County, California—selected to join them in August 2009. The TJC initiative provided all six sites with intensive, targeted technical assistance to implement the key elements of the model, and each was engaged in a systems change evaluation conducted by the Urban Institute. The primary objective of the cross-site systems change evaluation was to test the viability of the TJC model and to document factors which facilitated or inhibited its successful implementation. In doing so, the initiative sought to expand the knowledge base regarding effective jail transition practice. The implementation and systems change evaluation will be followed by an outcome and sustainability analysis commencing in 2012. A participatory action research framework guided the cross-site implementation and systems change evaluations. Evaluation activities supported measurement of systems change and generated relevant and timely information for the sites that would inform planning and implementation, as well as promote monitoring and sustainability. Evaluation-related technical assistance focused on building site capacity for selfassessment and outcome analysis activities; a performance measurement framework formed the core of the initiative’s strategy to build local capabilities for ongoing self-assessment. Regular stakeholder interviews, site visits, analysis of administrative data, and multiple waves of stakeholder survey data informed the evaluation and this report. This report examines implementation of the TJC model across the six learning sites, including key activities, site accomplishments and challenges, and lessons learned both about the TJC model and the technical assistance provided. Key findings from the implementation and cross-site systems change evaluations are presented below, following a brief overview of the TJC model and description of the sites’ TJC strategies. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2012. 143p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 24, 2012 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412670-Process-and-Systems-Change-Evaluation-Findings.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412670-Process-and-Systems-Change-Evaluation-Findings.pdf Shelf Number: 126789 Keywords: Corrections - Community PartnershipsJailsPrisoner Reentry (U.S.)Program Implementation |
Author: Jannetta, Jesse Title: Transition from Prison to Community Initiative: Process Evaluation Final Report Summary: The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) launched the Transition from Prison to the Community (TPC) initiative in 2001, recognizing the need to provide states with support and guidance in developing an effective reentry system to help prisoners prepare for their release, navigate their transition back to the community, and overcome short- and long-term barriers to reintegration. Along with its cooperative agreement partners, NIC developed the TPC model, a comprehensive model for a systems approach to transition from prison that would incorporate the lessons of evidence-based practice, emphasize the importance of collaboration and a unified vision throughout the reentry continuum, and provide a practical framework to guide corrections agencies and their non-correctional partners in efforts to advance reentry practices. The TPC model was first implemented in a group of eight states from 2001 to 2009. In 2009, NIC and its cooperative agreement partner the Center for Effective Public Policy (CEPP) selected six states to receive a second round of TPC technical assistance; Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming. In order to assist jurisdictions in implementing the TPC model, CEPP organized TPC implementation into a ten-step organizational change process necessary to fully implement TPC: 1. Create and charter teams 2. Develop a clear vision and mission 3. Develop a work plan 4. Understand current policy, practice, populations, and resources 5. Align with evidence-based practice 6. Conduct a gaps analysis 7. Identify targets of change 8. Develop an implementation plan 9. Execute, monitor, adjust, and correct 10. Evaluate TPC work in all six sites unfolded consistent with this framework and TPC technical assistance provision was structured around it. The Urban Institute (UI) conducted an implementation evaluation of this second phase of the TPC initiative. The evaluation included a process evaluation to tell the story of TPC in each state, including whether implementation proceeded as designed, the range of activities pursued, factors that facilitated or inhibited TPC implementation, lessons learned, and a systems change analysis to examine the effect of TPC on each state’s reentry system and operations including changes in policy, procedures and processes. The evaluation drew upon stakeholder interviews, direct observation, document review, and review of performance measurement data. It was clear that system changes occurred in the TPC sites. Regardless of the state of transition practice when the six states joined TPC, at the beginning of building a reentry system or with a strong system in place, advancing in accordance with the TPC model created opportunities for focus and system improvement. All six states developed or modified collaborative structures to oversee reentry, including policy teams with executive-level leadership and implementation teams to oversee the details of key changes, and stakeholders in each state described enhanced collaboration around reentry. Kentucky, Tennessee implemented risk/needs assessment, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wyoming worked to improve their use of existing assessment tools, and Minnesota and Texas planned for implementing new assessment tools to improve their process. All states worked to determine the quality and evidence basis of institutional and community programming. And each state worked to better understand current client-level practice, and measure and monitor reentry performance. Cross-site observations from the process evaluation include: TPC Structure and Collaboration It was important to have many people in the core agencies working on TPC who understand the big picture. Turnover in key positions is inevitable, and occurred in all TPC states. Without a network of people who understood and had ownership of the state’s reentry work, a change in a linchpin position could delay the effort for months. Even successful collaborative efforts experience growing pains. The early stages of building a collaborative effort were often characterized by stakeholder frustration with the pace of the initiative and the perception that it was unfocused. However, these frustrations generally abated (without necessarily disappearing completely) over the course of the initiative as common goals were developed and concrete accomplishments were realized. Establishing a clear charter and defining roles within a TPC effort helps partners engage. A clear charter for the collaborative bodies driving the transition work provided valuable focus to TPC work and made the initiative more transparent to external stakeholders. Securing buy-in from line staff requires special attention. Stakeholders described resistance to change from line staff arising from several sources. TPC states dealt with these challenges in a variety of ways, including focusing on staff recognition, building staff skills, general education, reporting results of reentry efforts, and empowering staff to access leadership and innovate. Middle managers have a vital role to play. TPC leaders felt that middle management in corrections agencies, meaning those directly supervising line staff, were a crucial group to engage in the TPC change process. Their influence on staff and ability to directly support or impede transition practice and transmit (or not) the message that reentry was a priority made them a critical determinant of whether desired system changes were fully executed. Dedicating staff to the change effort makes a difference. Staff dedicated to managing a change process to support transition had a tremendous impact on processes in several states. A person or team able to devote substantial, consistent attention to the TPC effort helped maintain momentum, organization, and focus in the effort. Everyone needs to own reentry. Many of the TPC states identified the need to ensure that all correctional staff, as well as community partners, felt an obligation to facilitate reentry. Establishing reentry-specific units or staff positions facilitated reentry progress in many ways, but stakeholders noted that there was a risk that other staff would feel less ownership over reentry, believing that it belonged to reentry staff. Systems change work requires patience. When asked directly what advice they would give peers in other states seeking to make changes along the lines of the TPC model, many stakeholders stressed the importance of patience with the process and recognizing that changing systems takes a long time. Implementing Systems of Integrated Case Management Assessment of criminogenic risk and need, and a case plan based on the results are the backbone of the transition effort. Once these tools were implemented and automated, it allowed for both evidence-based and consistent work at the client level, and provided vital information regarding the distribution of risk and need across the reentry population necessary for resource allocation and strategic planning decisions. Implementing assessment is just the first step. While putting a valid risk/needs assessment into place was a substantial achievement, TPC stakeholders emphasized the need to ensure that those assessments were being done correctly, consistently, and were being used to build case plans and direct individuals to the appropriate programs. Providing information and training on how to use assessment results increases buy-in to a risk and need-driven reentry system. TPC stakeholders stressed the importance of ensuring that everyone expected to utilize assessment information understood what that information meant and how it could be used. They felt that when this was done properly, assessments were recognized by staff as valuable tools for effective correctional work and decision-making. States grappled with losing program staff. Staff reductions reduced the capacity to deliver programming in a number of TPC states, and reductions in supervision staff in some states had similar effects. Minimal social service infrastructure in many rural areas is a major challenge. Rural reentry posed a difficulty in the participating states, particularly due to the scarcity of community-based treatment and program providers, the distance between them, and the absence of transportation infrastructure. Placing new requirements on staff must be balanced with removing responsibilities. States needed to seek ways to reduce workload to make room for new practices, as well as to create time for offender engagement, motivation enhancement, and positive reinforcement. Iowa, for example, is planning to simplify its case plan for this reason. Assessing Practice and Measuring Performance Capacity to draw and analyze data is limited and overtaxed. TPC states experienced challenges related to both the design of their data systems and lacking staff or sufficiently-skilled staff to retrieve data or conduct analyses using the systems. Gauging the content of line-level practice requires special effort. Every state in TPC needed to conduct activities to determine what was occurring with transition practice at the line level. There is an ongoing need to check and monitor practice at this level to ensure that policy changes are reflected in practice, but also to learn from line-level practice and innovation to guide policy improvements. Data integration is hugely beneficial when it is achieved, but requires upfront investment. Differences in data systems for institutional corrections and field supervision made it difficult to measure progress. Creating integrated data systems is a resource-intensive undertaking, but states that had done so believed it to be tremendously valuable. Measurement questions are strategic questions. It was not possible to define the correction measures to track TPC process until there was clarity at the strategic level of the initiative regarding what should be measured and why. Only once the strategic questions were answered was it possible to move to the technical questions regarding what was possible to extract from the data systems, or what data system modifications might be needed to track progress. Both performance measurement and performance management are important. Gathering measures of transition performance was difficult, and the full benefit of doing so was not realized unless there was a process for the consistent review of those measures to assess progress and identify issues. Tennessee’s Joint Offender Management Plan (JOMP) process was a good model of the regular review of data as part of a systems change process. Disseminating evidence of success builds support for the reentry effort. Summarizing and publicizing evidence of reentry success, both internally within partnering agencies and publicly, helped substantiate progress and increase buy-in at all levels of partnering organizations, as well as solicit support from elected leaders and the public. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2012. 104p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2013 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412690-Transition-from-Prison-to-Community-Initiative-Process-Evaluation-Final-Report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412690-Transition-from-Prison-to-Community-Initiative-Process-Evaluation-Final-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 128656 Keywords: Offender ReintegrationPrisoner Reentry (U.S.)Program ImplementationTransition from Prison Program |