Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Justice Project Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant shares draft performance-measurement plan for Whatcom County Justice Project; data gaps flagged
Summary
A VillageReach consultant presented a draft theory-of-change and performance-measurement plan for the Justice Project's 15 component projects, recommending performance and outcome evaluations and flagging significant data gaps that will constrain some indicators.
WHATCOM COUNTY, Wash. — Julia Garrett, a consultant with VillageReach, presented a draft evaluation and performance-measurement plan for Whatcom County's Justice Project on May 12, telling the county's Incarceration Prevention and Reduction Task Force that the draft maps a theory of change across 15 projects and identifies both immediate performance indicators and longer-term impact measures.
Garrett said the draft links near-term operational definitions of success to four higher-level goals: reducing jail bookings, shortening average jail stays, increasing connections to care on release and lowering recidivism. "The main framework being used is results-based accountability: asking the questions of how much did we do, how well did we do it, and is anyone better off," she told the task force.
The plan separates levels of evaluation into process (implementation of the 15 projects), performance (outcomes for program participants) and impact (population-level changes across Whatcom County). Garrett said most of the proposed indicators fall under performance accountability, while impact evaluation would require more extensive data and resources to tie countywide changes to the Justice Project specifically.
Garrett said she has shared a draft with the county's Dean (project lead) and will follow up by seeking detailed input from project leads and people familiar with each data system. She warned that many desirable indicators lack reliable data sources or interoperable systems, and she is investigating what data exist and what would be feasible to collect. She also said the plan includes disaggregation by communities of focus, notably people of color and people experiencing behavioral-health conditions.
Task force members asked about feasibility and a road map for attaining more complete data. Dan Hammel questioned how the plan would account for multiple jurisdictions (courts, health systems) and the limits of the task force's authority. Garrett said she is cataloguing data sources, noting feasibility constraints and listing follow-up steps that would require additional work beyond her current scope.
Heather Flaherty, a co-chair, asked who would define the higher-level impact measures such as "increased health and safety." Garrett said impact is difficult to measure and to attribute solely to the Justice Project; she and staff plan to convene a JPOP session to consult members about definitions of "health" and "safety" and will solicit written input. Garrett said she expects to finalize the plan in late June.
The task force agreed to circulate Garrett's draft to interested members and to convene additional feedback sessions. Garrett said immediate next steps include cataloguing which indicators are currently measurable, identifying missing data and creating mock-ups for a dashboard to report progress.
Ending: Garrett will continue to collect detailed feedback from project leads and data experts and aims to present a final plan by the end of June.
