1 / 23

Mentoring Children of Prisoners Peer Monitoring Reviews

Mentoring Children of Prisoners Peer Monitoring Reviews. MCP National Conference April 7-9, 2010 New Orleans, Louisiana. Today’s Training Objectives. Gain a basic understanding of the MCP Peer Monitoring Review process

briana
Télécharger la présentation

Mentoring Children of Prisoners Peer Monitoring Reviews

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Mentoring Childrenof PrisonersPeer Monitoring Reviews MCP National Conference April 7-9, 2010 New Orleans, Louisiana

  2. Today’s Training Objectives • Gain a basic understanding of the MCP Peer Monitoring Review process • Increase knowledge of the laws and grant announcement that support MCP funding • Develop an understanding of the roles and responsibilities for the members of the review team

  3. Today’s Training Objectives • Develop an understanding of the grantee’s role • What to expect via e-mail • Become comfortable with the content and use of the review instrument • Final report and corrective action plan when required

  4. What Are Peer Monitoring Reviews and Why Do We Have Them? MCP is a discretionary grant program within the Administration for Children and Families ACF discretionary grant programs are required to have a peer monitoring review process

  5. Purpose of the On-Site Review Gather factual data of the grantee’s performance at that point in time and report on the grantee’s efforts in achieving compliance with MCP legislation, the applicable FYSB funding opportunity announcement and the funded grant application

  6. Is the grantee doing what they said they would do in their grant application? The Peer Review Focus

  7. Basic Structure of the Review Personal Introductions Agency presentation Introduction of the review process Fact finding – document review, interviews Exit interview

  8. Who Will Be On The Review Team and What Are Their Roles? • MCP project officer – Team Leader • Federal fiscal specialist • Two peer reviewers

  9. Code of Conduct All review team members are required to maintain complete and strict confidentiality on all matters associated with the grantee being reviewed, including all files and documents reviewed All review team members must excuse themselves from review participation or discussion at any point that a perceived conflict of interest may arise

  10. The Team Will Be Looking for Compliance Based Upon: • MCP Legislation • MCP funding opportunity announcement • Funded grant application

  11. Three Fact Finding Methods(We need at least two) Observation (what is seen) Document Review (what is read) Interview (what is heard) Facts gathered are: - Shared - Discussed - Debated - Analyzed

  12. MCP Legislation Public Law 107-133 Promoting Safe and Stable Families (January 17, 2002) Public Law 109-288 Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (September 28, 2006)

  13. Purpose of Legislation • Authorization for the awarding of discretionary (competitive) grants to applicants with substantial numbers of children with incarcerated parents • Support the establishment or expansion and operation of programs offering mentoring services

  14. Purpose of Legislation Using a network of public and private communities entities to provide mentoring services for children of prisoners.

  15. Programmatic Expectations Mentoring • Structure managed program • Children are appropriately matched with screened and trained adult volunteers • One-on-one relationship • Involved in meetings and activities on regular basis

  16. Programmatic Expectations Mentoring Services • Services and activities that support a structured, managed program • Management of trained personnel • Outreach to and screening of eligible children • Outreach to and education/training of volunteers

  17. Programmatic Expectations • Screening of adult volunteers • Matching of children with suitable adult volunteers • Support and oversight of the mentoring relationship • Establishment of goals and outcomes for mentored children

  18. Grantee Information • E-mail detailing the scope of the review • Proposed agenda for the visit • Grantee training document • Grantee responsibilities document • MCP Peer Monitoring Instrument and • Letter from FYSB officially scheduling the review

  19. Review Elements • Recruiting Mentors • Recruiting Mentees • Screening • Training Staff • Training Mentors • Matching

  20. Review Elements • Ongoing Support, Services, Supervision, and Monitoring • Collaboration with Other Programs • Internal Assessment • Fiscal Management • Administration

  21. Preparing for the Exit Interview • The review team leader will assure that the grantee knows there will be an exit interview at the close of the review, which will include: participation of the agency head & which agency staff must/may attend

  22. Peer Monitoring Review Report • Peer monitoring review report responsibilities • Sample peer monitoring review report • Sample peer monitoring review report cover letter

  23. Grantee Response • If the peer monitoring review reports identifies services/activities that were found to be out of compliance with MCP legislation and/or regulations, the grantee must prepare a corrective action plan to address those areas • The corrective action plan is due thirty days from recent of the report

More Related