2016 Marion County Conference on Re-entry

Transcription

1 2016 Marion County Conference on Re-entry Conference Evaluation - Summary Report - November North Meridian Street, Suite 206 Indianapolis, IN Tel: Web:

2 Overview At the conclusion of the Third Annual Marion County Conference on Re-entry in October 2016, attendees were asked to complete a Conference Evaluation Form. The evaluation asked about attendees overall conference experience as well as their satisfaction with the breakout sessions they attended. A total of 196 individuals completed the evaluation sufficiently to be included in the analysis. Conference Details Sponsored by: Marion County Re-entry Coalition (MCRC), United Way of Central Indiana (UWCI), Central Indiana Community Foundation (CICF), Indy Public Safety Foundation, and PEN Products Date/Time: Tuesday, October 18 th, 7:45am-4:00pm Location: IUPUI, Hine Hall (875 W. North Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202) Objective: The goal of the conference was to provide capacity-building and networking opportunities to community- and faith-based providers as well as criminal justice agencies that provide services to individuals who are either currently incarcerated or are re-entering the community after incarceration. Registration and Attendance Registered (including speakers and volunteers): Conference: 424 from approximately 205 agencies Conference: 457 from approximately 225 agencies Conference: 398 from approximately 185 agencies Attended (including speakers and volunteers): Conference: 316 from approximately 146 agencies, includes 7 walk-ins Conference: 367 from approximately 172 agencies, includes 22 walk-ins Conference: 306 from approximately 155 agencies, includes 28 walk-ins Survey Response Rate 2016 Conference: 196 individuals completed the Conference Evaluation Form; 62% of attendees 2015 Conference: 198 individuals completed the Conference Evaluation Form; 54% of attendees 2014 Conference: 152 individuals completed the Conference Evaluation Form; approximately 50% of attendees 1 P a g e

3 Overall Conference Feedback Respondent Information Attendees were asked to indicate which sector describes them the best. The largest share of respondents (51%) at the 2016 Conference reported being a case manager/ direct line staff. Almost one-third of respondents (32%) described themselves as agency/ program leadership. Only 9% and 5% of participants selected Interested citizen and Government official, respectively, as the role that describes them, while five respondents (2%), the smallest share of respondents, identified as law enforcement. There was movement among all of the items, but the shifts were subtle. Similar to previous years, case managers/direct line staff continue to represent the majority of attendees. However, the percentage of respondents who selected this item decreased slightly in 2016 from the previous years. The shares of attendees who are agency/program leadership and interested citizens have steadily declined since Attendance from government officials and law enforcement remain relatively low. Case manager/direct line staff Agency/Program leadership Interested citizen Government official Law enforcement Attendees by Sector 5% 4% 5% 2% 4% 3% 9% More than one-half of evaluation respondents (56%) did not attend the 2015 Marion County Conference on Re-entry. Despite the decrease of attendees who selected No from 2015 to 2016, the conference continues to be primarily comprised of individuals who are attending the conference for the first time. 16% 20% 32% 37% 44% 51% 56% 49% 0% 20% 40% 60% 2016 N= N= N= not available 100% Did you attend last year's conference? 80% 60% 40% 44% 29% 56% 71% 20% 0% Yes No 2016 N= N=194 2 P a g e

4 More than three-fifths of respondents (63%) heard about the 2016 Marion County Conference on Re-entry through . A little over one-third (34%) selected Word of Mouth as the primary method of hearing about the conference. and work of mouth have been the top methods for communicating the conference opportunity over the past two years. 80% 60% 40% How did you hear about this year's conference? 63% 47% 50% 34% 20% 0% Word of Mouth* Social Media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) 1% 2% 1% 1% News Article 2016 N= N=191 *The phrasing of the item From a Friend/Colleague changed to Word of Mouth in the 2016 version of the survey Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the statements listed in the chart and table below. The answer choices were strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree. The following chart and table present the aggregated response choices of strongly agree and agree for each statement. The conference met my expectations The networking opportunities at the conference were valuable to me The conference increased my knowledge about reentry work I learned new skills that will help me in my work The conference was well organized I would be interested in attending similar conferences in future years Conference Satisfaction 96% 95% 98% 96% 93% 94% 95% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2016 / 2015 / 2014 / 100% 90% 99% 99% 98% The conference met my expectations N = 184; 2015 N= 193; 2014 N= not available The networking opportunities at the conference were valuable to me N = 186; 2015 N= 194; 2014 N= not available The conference increased my knowledge about re-entry work N = 185; 2015 N= 193; 2014 N= not available Sample Size by Statement and Year I learned new skills that will help me in my work N = 184; 2015 N= 193; 2014 N= not available The conference was well organized N = 187; 2015 N= 194; 2014 N= not available I would be interested in attending similar conferences in future years N = 186; 2015 N= 193; 2014 N= not available 3 P a g e

5 Open-Ended Questions Participants were asked what types of topics, presentations or trainings they would like to see in future years. Top 10 responses are listed below (129 total): Re-entry as it relates to mental health and substance abuse. More panel discussions with employers, formerly incarcerated individuals and their families, and criminal justice entities e.g., law enforcement, probation, and parole officers. Housing barriers affecting returning citizens; current housing programs serving this population; solutions to mitigate housing obstacles faced by reentrants. Available resources, services, and programs in Marion County that case managers/direct line staff and agency/program leadership serving the re-entry population can access. Sub-groups of formerly incarcerated individuals, like sex offenders, women, juveniles. More advanced, practical and hands-on application opportunities, like how-to workshops, effective case management strategies, and technical skill building. Professional development: networking opportunities and coalition building. The political climate/legislation as it relates to re-entry and how agencies can influence policy. How to effectively implement a re-entry program, and challenges and successes experienced during the process. Programming specific to the re-entry population e.g., Cognitive-based interventions, HIRE program, VR services. Respondents were asked to share suggestions for improving the conference. Top 10 responses are listed below (68 total): Increase the length of the conference e.g., 2-day conference - so attendees can attend more sessions. Repeated breakout sessions. Ensure sessions are diverse in their level of understanding i.e., more advanced sessions. Incorporate incarcerated individuals as speakers into each presentation. Have the resource area include more agencies. Professional development resources/opportunities - e.g., business card exchange activity, built-in networking time, networking lunch). Potentially reach out to include judges, prosecutors, law enforcement, and employers on panels. Session titles and descriptions should match the information being presented. More time allotted for the opening panel portion of the conference. Panel discussions and sessions should offer time/allow more time for Q&A. Participants were asked to provide any additional comments about the conference as a whole. Top 10 responses are listed below (67 total): The conference was well organized. Great venue for the conference. The lunch was wonderful. Presenters were terrific and knowledgeable. The information was invaluable. Great networking opportunities. The conference fostered communication and allowed for ample learning. The communication prior to the event was nice. Fabulous this year! So many improvements from the 2015 Conference on Re-entry. The Opening Panel was my favorite part. 4 P a g e

6 Opening Panel and Breakout Session Feedback Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the statements listed in the charts below. The response choices for Q1 were,, nor,, and. Each answer choice was weighted, with a value of 4 assigned to, down to a value of 0 assigned to. The response choices for S1 were,, nor,, and. Each answer choice was weighted, with a value of 4 assigned to, down to a value of 0 assigned to. The following charts and tables present the average responses to each statement. Opening Panel Attendees had the opportunity to hear formerly incarcerated individuals share their stories and experiences in a panel discussion. Overall, respondents were satisfied with the panel discussion and gained valuable insight that they can apply in their work. Average level of agreement with the following statements nor nor Q1 Response Q1: Overall, how satisfied were you with the panel discussion? (N=191) S1: I gained valuable insight that I will be able to apply in my work. (N=190) S1 Response Evaluation participants were asked to share any comments they had regarding the Opening Panel. The top 10 responses are listed below. (77 total) More age diversity with panelists and more people recently released from incarceration More time allotted to the panel discussion overall Allow more time for panelists to answer questions Panel moderator should be familiar with the re-entry field A well-organized panel discussion with insightful perceptive from the panelists This was by far the best part of the conference. Panelists should avoid self-promotion Improve the structure and facilitation of the panel discussion so panelists do not get off topic Incorporate other sub-populations e.g., women, service providers into discussion Allow panelists to discuss more of their personal history *See Appendix A for full list of comments 5 P a g e

7 Breakout 1 Sessions Overall, participants were somewhat satisfied or very satisfied with all the session presenters, and most respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement I learned specific strategies that I will be able to use in my work. The session with the greatest average level of agreement for satisfaction (3.88) is Suicide: Myths, Facts, and Interventions while Fair Housing Rights received the lowest average level of agreement (3.16) for session satisfaction. The session with the greatest average level of agreement for learned skills (3.61) is Suicide: Myths, Facts, and Interventions while Fair Housing Rights received the lowest score (2.93). Average level of agreement with the following statements nor nor A B C D Q1 Response Q1: Overall how satisfied were you with the session presenter(s)? S1 Response S1: I learned specific strategies that I will be able to use in my work. Label Breakout 1 Sessions Q1 Score N S1 Score N A Suicide: Myths, Facts, and Interventions B What s All the Buzz About Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT)? C Vocational Rehabilitation Services Can Support Individuals during Re-entry D Fair Housing Rights *See Appendix A for session comments 6 P a g e

8 Breakout 2 Sessions Most evaluation participants were somewhat satisfied or very satisfied with their session presenters, and most respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement I learned specific strategies that I will be able to use in my work. The session with the greatest average level of agreement for satisfaction (3.86) is The Collateral Consequences of a Conviction: Obstacles and Progress 2016 while Stopping the Revolving Door: Forensic Mental Health in Central Indiana received the lowest average level of agreement (2.75) for session satisfaction. The session with the greatest average level of agreement for learned skills (3.63) is The Collateral Consequences of a Conviction: Obstacles and Progress 2016 while Stopping the Revolving Door: Forensic Mental Health in Central Indiana received the lowest score (2.45). Average level of agreement with the following statements nor nor A B C D Q1 Response Q1: Overall how satisfied were you with the session presenter(s)? S1 Response S1: I learned specific strategies that I will be able to use in my work. Label Breakout 2 Sessions Q1 Score N S1 Score N A The Collateral Consequences of a Conviction: Obstacles and Progress B Utilizing Services for a Holistic Approach to Re-entry C D "Keepin' It Real": A Case Manager's Guide to Working with Young Adults Who Have Criminal Convictions Stopping the Revolving Door: Forensic Mental Health in Central Indiana *See Appendix A for session comments P a g e

9 Breakout 3 Sessions Overall, participants were somewhat satisfied or very satisfied with their session presenters, and most respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement I learned specific strategies that I will be able to use in my work. The session with the greatest average level of agreement for satisfaction (3.52) is Understanding Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Efforts to Aid Ex-Offenders Living with TBI while Community-Based Supervision: A Panel Discussion received the lowest average level of agreement (3.20) for session satisfaction. The session with the greatest average level of agreement for learned skills (3.33) is Rehabilitation: Is It Lost in the Translation? while Community-Based Supervision: A Panel Discussion received the lowest score (2.90). Average level of agreement with the following statements nor nor A B C D Q1 Response Q1: Overall how satisfied were you with the session presenter(s)? S1 Response S1: I learned specific strategies that I will be able to use in my work. Label Breakout 3 Sessions Q1 Score N S1 Score N A Understanding Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Efforts to Aid Ex- Offenders Living with TBI B Recovery Works: Past Present, Future C Rehabilitation: Is It Lost in the Translation? D Community-Based Supervision: A Panel Discussion *See Appendix A for session comments 8 P a g e