|
Evaluating a Cross-systems Training Approach to Prepare Communities to Better Serve the Needs of Justice-involved Individuals with Co-occurring Disorders
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Chanson Noether,
Policy Research Associates,
cnoether@prainc.com
|
| Wendy Vogel,
Policy Research Associates,
wvogel@prainc.com
|
| Abstract:
This session will present the results of an evaluation of the ACTION approach to cross-systems collaboration among the criminal justice, mental health and substance abuse systems that was developed through the NIMH-funded Adult Cross-Training Curriculum (AXT) Project. The goal of this approach is to promote recovery for incarcerated people with co-occurring disorders re-entering into the community through education, facilitated strategic planning and follow-up technical assistance. A comprehensive process and outcome evaluation methodology was developed to assess the effectiveness and impact of the AXT Project, as well as the value-added of receiving follow-up technical assistance. As a direct result of participation, communities implemented an array of systems-level changes over the 10 month follow-up period following the cross-training. Sites that received follow-up technical assistance reported an even greater level of achievement. Changes reported by communities were primarily associated with transition planning, community preparedness for re-entry, and development of effective cross-system collaboration strategies.
|
|
Explaining Program Outcomes: Analyzing the Joint Effects of Individual, Program and Neighborhoods With Cross-classified Hierarchical Generalized Linear Modeling
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Heidi Grunwald,
Temple University,
grunwald@temple.edu
|
| Philip Harris,
Temple University,
phil.harris@temple.edu
|
| Jeremy Mennis,
Temple University,
jeremy.mennis@temple.edu
|
| Zoran Obradovic,
Temple University,
zoran.obradovic@temple.edu
|
| Alan Izenman,
Temple University,
alan@temple.edu
|
| Brian Lockwood,
Temple University,
brian.lockwood@temple.edu
|
| Abstract:
Risk measures have been used in program evaluation both to examine changes in risk and to control for risk when analyzing program outcomes. These studies have been criticized for ignoring the impact of neighborhoods on recidivism. Programs are, in effect, competing with environmental forces. The study reported here is part of a larger NIJ-funded study to develop spatially-integrated models of juvenile recidivism incorporating neighborhood, program, and individual characteristics. Using a sample of 11,659 Philadelphia male delinquents nested in 35 programs, we explore the following questions: 1) Which individual traits are the strongest predictors of recidivism ignoring neighborhood and program effects? 2) Do recidivism rates vary across neighborhoods? 3) If so, controlling for individual traits, what neighborhood contexts predict recidivism? 4) Do recidivism rates vary across programs? 5) If so, controlling for individual traits, what program characteristics predict recidivism? 6) Do neighborhood contexts and/or program characteristics predict relationships between individual traits and recidivism?
|
| |