State leaders engaged in a roundtable discussion to share lessons learned and accomplishments in planning and managing federal assistance from the Recovery Act.
→ Highlights
→ Creating and Retaining Jobs
→ Strategic Planning and Evidence-Based Practices
→ Creative and Innovative Programs
→ Equipment and Technology Purchases
→ Challenges
|
Highlights |
|
♦ Many of the participants reported positive outcomes related to meeting the Recovery Act goal of “creating and retaining jobs.” |
|
♦ Significant funding was used to offset state budget cuts and add personnel. However, many SAAs acknowledged that sustaining programs beyond the grant period will be difficult. |
|
♦ Those participants from states that had an existing strategic plan, acknowledged that having a plan assisted them in quickly identifying priorities and expediting the distribution of funds to meet community needs. |
|
♦ Many states reported that the infusion of Recovery Act funds allowed them to support creative and innovative programs; and made it possible to fund initiatives they had wanted to support for a long time. Some states reported that they encouraged the implementation of evidence-based programs in awarding funding. |
|
♦ Other states however reported that the expedited Recovery Act implementation time frame, worked counter to the creation of new programs and several states reported using the one-time Recovery Act funding to buy equipment and update technology and information sharing systems. |
|
♦ Several states indicated that while they were able to meet the Recovery Act reporting requirements, it was difficult to provide the additional performance measures information and meet the expedited reporting deadline. The expedited deadline required extra training for staff and sub-grantees and it was particularly difficult for those SAAs that had to report through another state agency (centralized reporting states). Those states with electronic grants management systems were better able to meet reporting requirements. |
Return to the top
|
Creating and Retaining Jobs |
|
♦ All SAAs reported that they were able to accomplish the primary goal of “creating and retaining jobs” with Recovery Act funding. Many states provided hard figures for the number of new positions created or retained due to this influx of funding. These figures ranged from 11 new positions in a smaller state to 700 jobs saved in a larger state. Other states provided examples of using the funding to support overtime salaries for law enforcement or to keep nonprofit agencies from going under. |
Return to the top
|
Strategic Planning and Evidence-Based Practices |
|
♦ The Byrne JAG statute encourages states to engage in community-based strategic planning and develop a statewide plan. SAAs who had an existing statewide plan, reported being in a better position to quickly allocate the Recovery Act dollars because priorities were already established allowing them to develop funding solicitations to address pre-identified needs and gaps in services. Many states, however reported they were lacking a strategic plan or needed to update their existing strategic plan. The team exercise on day two addressed action steps for addressing that void. |
Return to the top
|
Creative and Innovative Programs |
|
Some SAAs also discussed how they were using the funding to implement creative or innovative programs. Examples of some of these programs included: |
|
♦ Money and training went to rural agencies and village police officers and was used to form law enforcement partnerships and provide public safety services on tribal lands. |
|
♦ Funds were used to start “Unheard Voices,” a sexual assault awareness and prevention program. |
|
♦ Funding was provided to the Department of Corrections to work with known gang members while incarcerated. The program works to find ways to get people out of gangs once they are able to separate them. Research shows some success intervening with long-term gang members. |
|
♦ Funds were used to expand drug courts and reentry efforts. |
|
♦ Funds were used to address the mental health needs of the criminal justice population. |
|
♦ Funding was used to support a female diversion program. |
Return to the top
|
Equipment and Technology Purchases |
|
Several SAAs reported using Recovery Act funding for equipment and technology purchases. Some examples provided by the states include: |
|
♦ Development of an e-grants management system. |
|
♦ Funding to support Live Scan fingerprinting. |
|
♦ Funding to support a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system. |
|
♦ Development of an electronic citation system that will help implement standardized risk and needs assessments and classification for those coming into the criminal justice system. |
|
♦ Establish an infrastructure for criminal history records checks. |
|
♦ Standardize arrest reporting. |
|
♦ Purchase digital cameras for evidence collection. |
Return to the top
|
Challenges |
|
While all the SAAs recognized and discussed the benefits this funding has provided to their state and local communities, they also shared the challenges in administering this new funding. |
|
♦ Many SAAs acknowledged the difficult economic times facing their state and indicated that in some cases state legislators tried to use the money to reconcile state budgets and support other functions of government that were threatened by budget cuts. Some SAAs indicated they were able to award the funding quickly without legislative intervention but many states were not. For example, in New York the Governor and Legislature were very involved and decided to use the funding to support the Rockefeller Drug Law Reform and large reentry programs and in Virginia, all of the funding was used to address the state deficit; $23 million was directed toward the budget shortfalls for sheriffs. |
|
♦ Many SAAs also called the expedited time frame for distribution of the funding and additional reporting requirements a challenge. Due to hiring freezes in their state many SAAs were unable to hire any additional staff to meet the additional responsibilities. |
|
♦ While the infusion of funds brought opportunities to fund new programs or initiatives it also resulted in many new grantees who were unfamiliar with the grant process and reporting requirements. SAAs had to provide additional training regarding concept papers, applications, and reporting requirements. |
|
♦ SAAs also had to receive training on the new reporting requirements associated with the Recovery Act and were required to approve the data submitted by sub-grantees in a very short time frame (10 days at the close of each quarter) SAAs in centralized states (where data is submitted to another state agency for ultimate approval and submission) faced shorter time frames and more difficulty meeting deadlines. Those SAAs that had an e-grants management system or an online reporting process in place reported that implementation was much easier because of it. |
|
♦ Many SAAs shared concerns regarding the issue of sustainability beyond the grant period. Several SAAs supported one time purchases of equipment and technology upgrades for that reason. |
Return to the top
