Evaluability Assessment and Baseline Study of the Supporting Collective
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The author(s) shown below used Federal funding provided by the U.S. Department of Justice to prepare the following resource: Document Title: Evaluability Assessment and Baseline Study of the Supporting Collective Healing in the Wake of Harm Program Author(s): Kelle Barrick, Elizabeth Tibaduiza, Caitlin Dean, Amanda Young, Merissa Gremminger Document Number: 254632 Date Received: April 2020 Award Number: 2017-VF-GX-0006 This resource has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. This resource is being made publically available through the Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. December 2019 Evaluability Assessment and Baseline Study of the Supporting Collective Healing in the Wake of Harm Program Final Report Prepared for National Institute of Justice 810 7th Street NW Washington, DC 20531 Prepared by Kelle Barrick Elizabeth Tibaduiza Caitlin Dean Amanda Young Merissa Gremminger RTI International 3040 E. Cornwallis Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 RTI Project Number 0216149 This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. RTI Project Number 0216149 Evaluability Assessment and Baseline Study of the Supporting Collective Healing in the Wake of Harm Program Final Report December 2019 Prepared for National Institute of Justice 810 7th Street NW Washington, DC 20531 Prepared by Kelle Barrick Elizabeth Tibaduiza Caitlin Dean Amanda Young Merissa Gremminger RTI International 3040 E. Cornwallis Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 _________________________________ RTI International is a registered trademark and a trade name of Research Triangle Institute. This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Table of Contents Chapter Page Executive Summary ES-1 ES.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.2 Study Design.................................................................................................................... ES-2 ES.3 Study Findings ................................................................................................................. ES-5 ES.4 Evaluation Recommendations ........................................................................................ ES-14 ES.5 Recommendations for Evaluating Future Community Initiatives.................................. ES-19 1 Introduction 1-1 1.1 Collective Healing Initiative Overview ..............................................................................1-2 1.1.1 Programmatic and Timeline Changes ....................................................................1-2 1.1.2 Brief Overview of Demonstration Sites and Programmatic Activities ..................1-3 1.2 Baseline Study and Evaluability Assessment .....................................................................1-8 2 Study Design 2-1 2.1 Research Questions............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Data Collection and Analytic Strategy ................................................................................2-3 2.2.1 Conference Calls and Document Review ..............................................................2-4 2.2.2 Site Visit and Semistructured Interviews...............................................................2-4 2.2.3 Capacity and Network Survey ...............................................................................2-6 2.2.4 Stakeholder Survey ................................................................................................2-8 3 Study Findings 3-1 3.1 Cross-Site Findings ............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.1 Partnerships and Collaboration ..............................................................................3-2 3.2.1 Approaches to CHI Implementation ....................................................................3-13 3.2.3 Community Perceptions of CHI...........................................................................3-28 3.2.4 TTA Needs and Delivery .....................................................................................3-30 3.2 Site Descriptions ............................................................................................................... 3-37 3.2.1 Baton Rouge.........................................................................................................3-37 3.2.2 Houston................................................................................................................3-42 3.2.3 Minneapolis .........................................................................................................3-44 3.2.4 Oakland................................................................................................................3-48 3.2.5 Rapid City ............................................................................................................3-52 4 Evaluation Recommendations 4-1 4.1 Cross-Site Evaluation Recommendations...........................................................................4-1 4.2 Site-Specific Evaluation Recommendations .......................................................................4-9 5 Recommendations for Evaluating Future Community Initiatives 5-1 References R-1 Final Report iii This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Appendix A IRB Documentation A-1 B Instruments B-1 B.1 Capacity and Network Survey – Grantee Version ............................................................. B-1 B.2 Capacity and Network Survey – Partner Version ............................................................ B-10 B.3 Site Visit Interview Guide – Grantee Version ................................................................. B-13 B.4 Site Visit Interview Guide – Partner Version .................................................................. B-19 B.5 Stakeholder Survey .......................................................................................................... B-24 C Logic Models C-1 C.1 Baton Rouge Collective Healing Initiative Logic Model .................................................. C-1 C.2 Houston Collective Healing Initiative Logic Model .......................................................... C-3 C.3 Minneapolis Collective Healing Initiative Logic Model ................................................... C-6 C.4 Oakland Collective Healing Initiative Logic Model .......................................................... C-8 C.5 Rapid City Collective Healing Initiative Logic Model .................................................... C-10 iv Final Report This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Figures Number Page 1-1. Map of Demonstration Sites ......................................................................................................... 1-4 1-2. Key Components of the Collective Healing Initiative ..................................................................1-5 1-3. Project Timeline ........................................................................................................................... 1-8 3-1. Collective Healing Initiative Logic Model ...................................................................................3-2 3-2. Grantee/Partner Overall Trust, Baton Rouge ................................................................................3-9 3-3. Grantee/Partner Overall Trust, Houston .....................................................................................3-10 3-4. Grantee/Partner Overall Trust, Minneapolis ...............................................................................3-11 3-5. Grantee/Partner Overall Trust, Oakland .....................................................................................3-12 3-6. Grantee/Partner Overall Trust, Rapid City .................................................................................3-13 4-1. Collective Healing