Having said that, we were looking over our shoulder at three things while preparing the RFP Becoming competitive for SCA one of main purposes of reentry initiative Need to be consistent with Ohio 5 year plan We needed to tailor it to what we think we need to know about reentry programs in Ohio Going to go through priorities identified in RFP. KEEP IN MIND evaluation is not limited to these priorities. There are many other factors that can be taken into account when assessing reentry programs. Encourage you to include additional factors you think are important. NOTE – when say “we”, mean OCJS and Ohio Reentry Coalition.
Start with Category II Two things we want to assess: Process in developing the plan (e.g. involvement of correct parties) We want to be able to suggest to other counties things they might want to do or not do in developing their Plan. The Plan itself : CONCEDE - an outcome of the process However, to suggest how other counties should develop their Plan, it must be with an end in mind. The ends to use are SCA, Ohio 5 Year Plan, and does it look like the Plan will accomplish the county’s goals?
Two types (p. 2 of RFP) SCA and Ohio Plan part of funding decision Want to know if doing what they said they were going to do Re: models – especially thinking of treatment models for substance abuse, mental health, employment, etc. This assumes their services were developed using evidence based models. If not, we do want evaluation to note it. Evidence based currently “in”. It can refer to at least two different things – evidence based models and collecting information about services in order to improve their services. We want to get at both. Others Risk/needs – not just that they administer it but that actually used in planning services. Continuity of care – e.g. Center for Court Innovation evaluation of Harlem reentry. Activities and outcome links – The key is whether the reentry program itself can identify the links between what they are doing and outcomes.
Arrests, convictions, re-commitments to prison or jail. Want to know at what points in time they will be measured. TA vs new crimes Must look at other outcomes – e.g. substance abuse, mental health, employment. Their choice. Usual research matters of how collect, how analyze, etc. HOWEVER, what we really want to know is why the outcome(s) selected.
We are looking for recommendations 50% part of SCA Based on study, what program models suggest using Based on study, what program practices suggest [EXPLAIN DIFFERENCE AS WE SEE IT].
NOT asking for C/B EXAMPLE – Drug court C/B focus on costs/benefits for court and corrections system. 1. Not all reentry projects include a reentry court. While assessing C/B for specialized dockets may be a good thing, we think it is especially true for reentry projects. It cannot ignore courts and corrections (e.g. Justice Reinvestment Act), However, we think C/B to other systems will be important to decision makers (e.g. state budget). May want to include the C/B to other systems in selecting the outcome measures you will use other than recidivism.
2/3 of team review score from Lit Review and Project Description. Project Description counts for ½ of score
Ohio state budget generally; Justice Reinvestment initiative in particular.
The first point gets at do the reviewers understand what you intend to do? Only two questions get 8 points – this and the ARRA jobs Objectives.
#2 a reference to inclusion of factors other than OCJS and Coalition priorities.
#2 - Your decision on whether make statements in the form of objectives or research questions or other type. Also, your choice on format. The point is we want explicit statements of what it is you are going to test. #3 – Gets at whether the proposed study has an overall coherence or just a grab bag of doing this or that.
Subject matter experience Staff qualifications Institutional experience handling grants of this type An overall statement of capacity that allows inclusion of other factors you think are relevant. Can range from software to institutional resources beyond those of the research team.
2009 American Recovery and Investment Act Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Grant Programs REENTRY EVALUATOR Guidance for Potential Applicants presented by Bob Swisher, Policy and Research Office of Criminal Justice Services Sharon Schnelle, Researcher Office of Criminal Justice Services
The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program was established by the FFY 2005 omnibus spending bill. The program is administered by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance. JAG Byrne funds are designed to allow states and local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime based on their own local needs and conditions.
Emphasis of ARRA funding is on Job Creation and/or Job Retention.
The Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services (OCJS) is a division of the Ohio Department of Public Safety. By statute, OCJS is the lead justice planning and assistance office for the state, and is responsible for administering millions of dollars in state and federal criminal justice funding every year. OCJS also evaluates programs and develops technology, provides training, and products for criminal justice professionals and communities.
OCJS was designated by Governor Ted Strickland to administer 2009 Recovery and Investment Act Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program funds.
Ohio’s Reentry Efforts- State Agency Offender Reentry Coalition (HB130) April 1, 2009-Governor Strickland signed Reentry bill Mission Statement- The mission of the Reentry Coalition is to ensure successful offender reentry, reduce recidivism and enhance public safety. The Coalition will achieve these goals through collaborative partnerships with government entities, faith and community-based organizations, and other stakeholders. It will utilize a holistic evidence-based approach that starts at the point of contact with the criminal justice system and includes an emphasis on education, families, health services, alcohol and other drug treatment, employment, mentorship and housing Provide evidence of collaboration with state and local stakeholders Developed a comprehensive strategic reentry plan that contains annual and 5 year performance outcomes with a goal of reducing recidivism by 50%.
Applicants were expected to integrate best practices into their proposed service delivery models, and/or develop strategies to establish, develop, and maintain viable Reentry Taskforces, and assess and develop services to respond to the needs of offenders re-entering their communities.
Local reentry programs should be led by collaboratives indigent to the community and designed according to local needs and resources Second Chance Act.
Application: For technical assistance on any part of the JAG application, call OCJS at: 614.466.7782 or e-mail: [email_address] .
Award: If awarded, notifications will be faxed to selected projects. Before final approval, projects must complete and return all required forms. All awards will be for 24 months of funding, operating from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2012.
FOCUS on JOBS! This is a unique funding stream one that emphasizes job creation and/or job maintenance. The required objectives are included in the objectives section.
5 – DAY Reporting Period – grantees will only have 5 days to submit programmatic and financial reports.
a) Ensures they were received by the closing date and time and they have complied with the basic requirements as outlined in the program solicitation. b) Verifies requested amount doesn’t exceed the limitations detailed in the RFP.
c) Ensures subgrantee is compliant with all reporting requirements.
OCJS Team Review (60%) Applications that pass the Compliance review will be reviewed and scored by a panel comprised of OCJS and DRC research staff and academics from schools not applying for these funds. The review will be based on the program elements and review criteria as presented in the RFP. The basis for this review is outlined and detailed in the scoring matrix.
Director’s Review (30%) Applications will be reviewed by the OCJS Executive Director and final funding recommendations will be forwarded on to the Director of Department of Public Safety and the Governor for final approval.
The level to which the applicant identifies the relevance and potential for reentry programs in reducing recidivism and jail populations, controlling criminal justice costs, and protecting public safety. (up to 6 points)
The level to which the applicant clearly identifies additional major public policy issues related to reentry. (up to 2 points)
The level to which the applicant clearly identifies major research issues related to reentry. (up to 2 points)
The level to which the applicant explains the strengths or weaknesses of reentry evaluations conducted to date. (up to 2 points)
The extent to which the literature review is linked to the proposed study. (up to 6 points)
The level to which applicant provides a detailed description of the study design, methods of data collection, the type of data analysis that will be used (including any source limitations), and strengths/weaknesses of the design. (up to 8 points)
The level to which the proposed study will address the OCJS and Coalition Priorities for the Category I process evaluation. (up to 6 points)
The level to which the proposed study will address the OCJS and Coalition Priorities for the Category II process evaluation. (up to 6 points)
The level of justification and adequacy of the measure(s) of recidivism in the Category I outcome study. (up to 6 points)
The level to which the applicant justifies the outcome measure(s) other than recidivism in the Category I study and the adequacy of the proposal for the measure(s). (up to 6 points)
The level to which the applicant describes and explains topics the study will address that are in addition to OCJS and Coalition priorities. (up to 4 points)
The level to which the applicant clearly describes the IRB review process the study will utilize, including identifying the IRB that will review and approve the proposed study and the timeline for IRB approval of the study. ( up to 2 points)
The level to which the proposal ensures the confidentiality of individuals in the study group(s). (up to 2 points)
Level and extent to which applicant presents a comprehensive, thorough task management plan that charts the expected length of each project task and completion dates for each study deliverable. (up to 4 points)