Training & Technical
Assistance
Workplan Review Scoring Questions
The federal partners in the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative
are scoring the following questions to determine if grantees have submitted
a workplan that meets the specifications of the workplan instructions. The
numerical totals will enable the federal partners to determine the degree of
funding to be allocated to the grantees, whether in part or in whole. If it
is determined that a grantee receives only partial funding, the federal partners
will assist the grantees in revising their workplan so it may qualify for full
funding.
The scoring sheet is divided into nine sections:
Each section corresponds to a major step in the grant application process.
For each question, the grantee’s workplan will be rated as follows:
4 = Excellent coverage and explanation of issue; no changes necessary.
3 = Average to good coverage and explanation of issue; a small amount of further
documentation is needed.
2 = Below average coverage and explanation of issue; significant further documentation
required.
1 = Issue not covered or is inadequately documented.
Section 1: Determine Problems To Be Addressed
In order to target federal, state, and local funding sources most effectively,
the grantee determines the specific problems to be addressed. Relevant data
are used to determine the specific problems that need to be addressed and to
analyze the population eligible for the program and resources available. This
information is used to determine how to implement the program most effectively
and serve the population at greatest risk of recidivism.
1. Does the selected target population meet the requirements of the grant
solicitation (i.e., serious offenders returning from post-adjudicatory facilities)?
2. Does the grantee document the types of juvenile and/or adult offenders
assessed as posing a high risk of recidivism and who would be eligible
for the program?
3. Does the grantee identify the number of eligible offenders who leave institutions
annually and return to the geographic area targeted by the program?
Back to top
Section 2: Determine Project Goals and Objectives
The project’s goals and objectives are developed from the problems, needs,
resources, and capabilities identified by the grantee in Section 1. The project’s
goals and objectives are clearly stated and are compatible with and relate
to the goals and objectives of the overall Initiative. They are measurable
and attainable within the timeframe of the Initiative.
1. Does the grantee demonstrate how project goals and objectives relate to
the three phases of the reentry process (i.e., institutional, transition, and
stabilization)?
2. Are objectives specific, measurable, and attainable within the timeframe
of the Initiative?
Back to top
Section 3: Select Target Population/Develop
Plan To Select High-Risk Offenders
The target population is selected from high-risk juvenile or adult offenders
who face multiple challenges reentering their communities. The grantee submits
a plan that details how members from the target population will be selected.
The plan identifies the geographic area to be targeted based on an analysis
of quantifiable data, the characteristics of the population to be served, and
how the intervention proposed will address the risks the target population
poses to the community.
1. Does the grantee articulate the current risk assessment process for selecting
the population to be served?
2. Does the grantee describe how offenders will be induced to participate
in the program (i.e., incentives for participation)?
3. Are stated age ranges of selected participants aligned with the federal
requirement (e.g., juveniles 14–18, adults 18–35)? If an adult population is
selected, has the grantee targeted the population most likely to be predatory
(18–24)?
4. Does the grantee describe the level and availability of services for non-participating
eligible offenders (i.e., what is the current norm of service provision for
this population)?
5. Does the grantee document how many eligible offenders will be served each
year throughout the three phases?
6. Does the grantee provide a timeline or other method illustrating how the
cohorts in each phase progress through the program?
Back to top
Section 4: Determine Organizational Capacity/Decisionmakers
To ensure success, grantees will have relevant knowledge and experience selecting
the target population; leading collaborative, communitywide efforts involving
systems change; successfully conducting strategic planning; and managing staff
in a collaborative environment. Collaborative, communitywide efforts such as
this require partnerships with all relevant decisionmakers. The identification
and role of the key decisionmakers must be documented.
1. Does the grantee provide detailed examples of its experience in working
with the target population?
2. Does the grantee adequately describe prior experiences in leading and planning
successful collaborative projects with other federal, state, and/or local agencies?
3. Does the grantee clearly describe a plan for leveraging necessary state,
local, or tribal resources to ensure funding after the grant expires?
4. Has the grantee identified and received commitment from the key decisionmakers
(i.e., corrections, education, human services, victims, community, etc.)
that extends through the life of the program in the form of Memoranda of
Understanding (MOUs)?
Back to top
Section 5: Design of Each Phase: Phase One (Institutional)
Following a comprehensive risk assessment process, an institutional readiness
plan is developed to provide resources during the institutional phase. This
plan highlights programs that offer a continuum of services in the institution,
such as education, treatment, and job training and placement. The grantee works
in partnership with the state adult and/or juvenile department of corrections
to develop or enhance programs in correctional institutions and to use best
practices to provide a wide range of services. Coordination with the existing
community and faith-based service delivery systems ensures the seamless transition
of the offender from the institution to the community (i.e., Phase One and
Phase Two).
1. Does the grantee identify existing programs and funding sources in the
institution that are designed to facilitate reentry and that can assist offenders
in the areas of education, substance abuse treatment, faith-based programs,
job training, etc.?
2. Does the grantee document a system for constructing reentry plans?
3. Has the grantee described the composition and role of the transition team?
4. Does the grantee document the proposed terms and conditions (i.e., incentives
for offender participation, the consequences of failure during this phase)?
5. Does the grantee articulate the importance of risk assessments that inform
the development of the institutional readiness plan?
Back to top
Section 6: Design of Each Phase: Phase Two (Transition)
Based on the Phase One risk assessment and the successful completion of the
institutional readiness plan, programs develop a Phase Two assessment and reentry
plan. This plan addresses the identified areas that will impact the probability
of the offender’s successful reintegration into the community and, correspondingly,
reduce the risk of the offender’s recidivism. A community reentry authority
is identified to establish and implement the conditions of the reentry plan.
1. Does the grantee identify existing offender transition programs and funding
sources designed to facilitate reentry and assist offenders in the areas of
education, substance abuse treatment, faith-based programs, job training, etc.?
2. Does the grantee identify a community reentry authority?
3. Does the grantee describe its plan to ensure continuity of service in this
phase?
4. Does the grantee describe its plan to ensure continuity of supervision
in this phase?
5. Does the grantee articulate the importance of risk assessments to inform
the development of the Phase Two reentry plan?
Back to top
Section 7: Design of Each Phase: Phase Three (Stabilization)
Based on the offender’s successful completion of the reentry plan in Phase
Two, programs establish long-term support networks to sustain offenders in
the absence of criminal justice supervision. The support networks include existing
community and faith-based programs that promote positive social relationships
and enhance links to education and community resources.
1. Does the grantee identify existing programs in the community that are designed
to facilitate assimilation and that assist offenders in the areas of education,
substance abuse treatment, faith-based programs, job training, etc.?
2. Does the grantee describe its plan to ensure continuity of service in this
phase?
3. Does the grantee describe its plan to ensure oversight and case management
in this phase?
Back to top
Section 8: Project Management
To fulfill the requirements of the program, grantees must have adequate management
resources and communication systems in place, including the identification
of staff resources, development of a management plan, and design of a management
information system that allows the transfer of offender information through
each of the three phases. The offender’s history, which includes assessment
data and service plans, should be accessible to all participating agencies.
1. Does the grantee provide details of current staff resources and document
additional staff needs for system development, project management, and case
management?
2. Does the management plan articulate the obligations that partners have
to ensure the sustainability of the program (e.g., cross-system protocols,
MOUs)?
3. Does the grantee define a method to coordinate and communicate the goals
and objectives among partnering agencies (e.g., regular meetings, newsletters,
cross-training)?
4. Has the grantee proposed a plan for the sharing of information among partnering
agencies through an Integrated Transition Management Information System?
Back to top
Section 9: Develop the Project Budget
The grantee’s workplan documents the use of federal discretionary grant funds
over the three phases of the initiative and is compatible with the funds allocated
by the federal partner agencies. The federal discretionary grant funds are
intended to fill gaps that would otherwise be unfilled by existing federal,
state, and local resources necessary to implement the overall strategy.
1. Is the grantee’s proposed budget compatible with each phase and component
of the reentry program?
2. Is the grantee’s proposed budget compatible with the funding allocations
of the federal partner agencies?
Back to top
For further information about the training and technical assistance resources
available to grantees of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative,
e-mail the Technical Assistance Coordinating
Center (TACC). TACC is an initiative of OJJDP’s
National Training and Technical Assistance Center.
Back to Training & Technical Assistance
U.S. Department of Justice | Office of Justice Programs
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | FOIA |
