text:
Hot or Not? « Read Less
Hot Or Not? Kristen Stewart's Cheery Paris Fashion Week Look
Kristen Stewart may be in the bummer zone due to her recent scandal and break-up, but if she is, her clothes certainly don't show it. For her first red carpet appearance post Rupert-gate, she wowed in a stunning floral frock, and she's showing no sign of switching to shame clothes. Maybe this is because her and Rob have patched things up? On Sept 27 the actress attended the Balenciaga show in Paris (naturally, as she is the face of the house's new perfume) wearing black-and-white floral pants, a pastel yellow moto jacket, and a twist on her signature sneaks (the high-fashion version, anyway). Altogether the outfit was pretty cheery, and while the girly printed pants were unexpected on a tomboy like Kristen, they somehow totally work with her laid-back style.
What do you think of Kristen's look?
The Evolution of Kristen Stewart
Hot Or Not? Kristen Stewart's Floral Moment
Real Or Rumor: Rob And Kristen Are Living Together Again? (VIDEO)


text:
White House to Convert Millennials with Emoji
The White House is preparing to make the pitch to young people that it's economic policies are working in their favor, despite their record unemployment. They're apparently desperate for the youth to turn out in the mid-terms, since pretty much every other demographic has abandoned the President's agenda (and for that matter, the President's closest allies). Young people, they feel, are just the low-information demographic they need to retain the Senate and continue their proud tradition of partisan disrespect.
And so, this week, the White House will launch a campaign aimed at 18-35 year olds on social media, starring - what else? - emoji. Those adorable digital pictures you can append to your text messages to make give your utterly incoherent text an inscrutable, yet visual, emotional angle.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
(310) 553 - 6060 (800) 487- 4255
The ten passenger Lincoln Stretch Limousine is perfect for travel in the Los Angeles area with friends and family. Contact our Sales Team with your itinerary and preferences to get the best price available for your event with your specifications in LA
ITS limousine services in Los Angeles provide chauffeured transportation at its best.
We guarantee our executive transportation service to every client.


text:
Multi-vehicle crash closes one lane on US 60
HUNTINGTON -- One westbound lane in the 3100 block of U.S. 60 was closed briefly Saturday night following a multi-vehicle crash that occurred shortly before 8 p.m., according to Cabell County 911.
Two people were injured and transported to a local hospital.
The Herald-Dispatch welcomes your comments on this article, but please be civil. Avoid profanity, obscenity, personal attacks, accusations of criminal activity, name-calling or insults to the other posters. Herald-dispatch.com does not control or monitor comments as they are posted, but if you find a comment offensive or uncivil, hover your mouse over the comment and click the X that appears in the upper right of the comment. If you do not want your comment to post to your personal Facebook page, uncheck the box below the comment.


text:
« Quote Request Product List »
Update Quantity
508031-001 HP SATA 300GB 10KRPM Form Factor 2.5 Inches Serial Ata Sq Sff With Smart Technology Hard Disk Drive. New Bulk Pack With 2 Year Manufacturer Warranty.
To add more products, click "Quote" button from product pages.
To remove any product from the list, set quantity to '0'.


text:
General James L. Jones, commander of the United States European Command (USEUCOM) and NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (SACEUR) will conduct a news briefing at 10:30 a.m. EST, March 6, in the DoD Briefing Studio, Pentagon 2E579, to provide an update of NATO transformation, NATO operations and USEUCOM theater security cooperation activities.
Journalists without a Pentagon building pass will be picked up at the North Parking Entrance only. Plan to arrive no later than 45 minutes prior to the event; have proof of affiliation and two forms of photo identification. Please call (703) 697-5131 for escort into the building.


text:
Comment Re:We are going to start an endless loop.... (Score 1) 197 197
Comment Re:It's a long term policy (Score 1) 264 264
Several states have already passed laws that prevent employers from using social network content in their hiring practices . .
Not that I don't think that ethically, that's great, but it's also utterly unenforceable. How is someone going to prove he or she was denied employment because a hiring manager or HR checked out content on Myfacetwiitter?
Comment Re:No worries (Score 1) 420 420
Because when you marry someone with children, you assume responsibility for the children?
It looks like you've confused marriage with adoption.
Comment Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? (Score 1) 233 233
Comment Re:Only if they reported it. (Score 1) 197 197
Comment Re:Only if they reported it. (Score 1) 197 197
. I think the majority of the stolen phones are left in taxis, bar stools, bathrooms, and park benches. so they are not stolen.
Yes, the are. The "finders keepers" rule of childhood playgrounds does not apply in adult life. Someone who finds property someone left behind has a legal duty to either find the owner and return it or turn it in to the police. If the police can't find the owner, then the finder may get to keep the property.
Comment Re:This wrong thinking is pretty common. (Score 1) 503 503
Comment Re:When people abuse prices go up (Score 1) 503 503
Comment Re:When people abuse prices go up (Score 1) 503 503
Comment Re: (Score 1) 463 463
Comment Re:As California is home to... (Score 1) 194 194
Comment Re:To quote Joe Jackson... (Score 1) 398 398
Comment Re:California (Score 1) 398 398
What I can't see, are your turn signals when you have your hazard lights on.
Joke's on you--people from the East Coast don't use their turn signals!


text:
Each of India Circus' screen-printed throw pillow covers is a canvas for cultural vibrancy. Featuring neon chandeliers overlaid on an elaborately patterned backdrop, the Tamara Chandelier Pillow is a delightfully enigmatic accent piece.
Design is one-sided. Solid red backside with hidden zipper. Cover only, insert not included.
This product has no reviews yet. Be the first to review this product. Write a review
Enjoy 10% off your first order*


text:
Compression hose; Pressure stockings; Support stockings; Gradient stockings
You wear compression stockings to improve blood flow in your legs. Compression stockings gently squeeze your legs to move blood up your legs. This helps prevent leg swelling and, to a lesser extent, blood clots.
If you have varicose veins, spider veins, or have just had surgery, your doctor may prescribe compression stockings.
Wearing stockings helps with:
Talk to your doctor about what kind of compression stockings are right for you. There are many different compression stockings. They come in different:
Call your health insurance or prescription plan.
Wear your compression stockings all day. Your compression stockings should feel strong around your legs. You will feel the most pressure around your ankles and less pressure higher up on your legs.
If your stockings feel too uncomfortable, call your doctor or nurse. Find out if there is a different kind of stocking that will work for you. Do not stop wearing them without talking to your doctor.
Cohen JM, Akl EA, Kahn SR. Pharmacologic and compression therapies for postthrombotic syndrome: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Chest. 2012 Feb;141(2):308-20.
Robertson L, Yeoh SE, Kolbach DN. Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing venous insufficiency in a standing worker population. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jan18;1:CD006345.
CancerPregnancy & Prenatal ClassesWeight LossOrthopedicsHeart DiseaseNeurologyWomen's HealthMore Medical Care
Hospitals Immediate CareHealth CentersEmergency RoomDoctors OfficesSpecialistsAffiliate Hospitals
MyChartPay Your BillRequest an AppointmentGet HealthySupport GroupsFitness GroupsMobile ApplicationsClinical TrialsOnline NurseryClasses and EventsSend an eCardPatient StoriesPatient and Family Advisory CouncilPlaces to StaySay ThanksRisk Assessments
Quality Report CareersWays to HelpCommunity OutreachContact Us(502) 629-1234


text:
RACINE — Tuesday, July 10th marked a tragic anniversary for a Racine family, after their son was shot and killed two years ago. Giovani Tirado's killer has never been found. He was 19 years old.
FOX6 News has profiled this case twice as part of Wisconsin's Most Wanted.
Investigators have followed leads, but so far, no arrests have been made, and there's been no closure for the Tirado family.
On Tuesday, July 10th, 2012, the Tirado family visited Giovani's memorial site, and remembered the shooting inside the "Warning Track" bar two years ago that took Giovani's life.
Officials say Lewis Hinojosa fired the gun, but what triggered the shooting isn't entirely clear.
Officials say on the way out of the bar, Hinojosa pistol-whipped Giovani's brother, who says the only reason he's still alive is because Hinojosa ran out of bullets.
Now, two years later, the Tirado family continues to look for closure, while officials seek Giovani's killer.
Anyone with information into this case or Hinojosa's whereabouts is asked to contact the U.S. Marshals at (414) 297-3707.


text:
Article ID: 318774 - View products that this article applies to.
This article was previously published under Q318774
This article is a consolidation of the following previously available articles: 318774, 329617
On This Page
If you are an administrator, you can use Microsoft Exchange recipient policies to automatically configure and customize e-mail addresses for all Exchange recipients by using address generation rules. The Recipient Update Service applies addresses in bulk to new and existing users according to the specified rules. To configure these rules, use Exchange System Manager to access the properties of recipient policy objects.
However, in some situations, you may use a rule that causes duplicate or that causes multiple addresses to be applied across the Exchange organization. When duplicate e-mail addresses are detected during an ordinary Exchange operation, non-delivery reports (NDRs) with a 5.1.4 error code may be sent by the server, and you may experience other unexpected behavior. Additionally, the following event ID message may be logged in the Application Event log:
This article describes a situation where duplicate addresses are applied and how to remove these duplicate addresses.
The following rule is a typical rule for an SMTP (Internet) mail format address:
@domain.comWhen you use this rule, an e-mail address is added to each recipient object that is covered by the recipient policy of email@example.com. Therefore, if a user's Exchange e-mail alias is user1, the address email@example.com is applied to the user.
You can also use Exchange to define auto-naming rules. For example, you may want the Internet e-mail address for recipients to be configured as "firstname.lastname@example.com" instead of "firstname.lastname@example.com." You can use the following address generation rule to make this change:
%email@example.com additional information about available auto-naming specifiers and syntax, click the following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
285136If you are using auto-naming specifiers, you must make sure that the fields that you reference in the address generation rule actually exist for each of the recipients that are covered by the rule. If you do not do so, you may cause duplicate or multiple e-mail addresses to be generated on objects throughout the Exchange organization.
(https://support.microsoft.com/kb/285136/ )How to Customize the SMTP e-mail Address generators through recipient policies
The effects of this problem vary depending on what recipients are involved. Several Exchange system objects are mailbox-enabled. If the wrong address is applied to these system objects, problems may occur. For example, public folder replication may be unsuccessful or databases may not be able to mount. Additionally, the event ID message that is described in the "Summary" section of this article may be logged.
As an example of this behavior, suppose that you have defined the %firstname.lastname@example.com address generation rule. This rule takes the values for the givenName attribute and the sn attribute of an Active Directory object and uses these values to construct an e-mail address. If a user's givenName attribute value is Jeff and the sn attribute value is Smith, the e-mail address is firstname.lastname@example.com.
But the givenName attribute and the sn attribute are not mandatory, and mail-enabled objects such as distribution lists and system agents may lack these attributes. In this situation, the %firstname.lastname@example.com address generation rule devolves to the firstname.lastname@example.com address generation rule. For objects that do not have the givenName and the sn attribute value, the rule becomes the equivalent of a rule to hardcode the e-mail address as email@example.com.
When you apply new e-mail addresses, the Recipient Update Service checks to see if the same address already exists on any object in the forest. If it does, a numeric value is added to the new address to differentiate it. For example, if there are multiple users named Jeff Smith, an additional user account that is processed by the Recipient Update Service may receive an e-mail address of firstname.lastname@example.com.
This means that objects without the givenName and the sn attribute values who are processed according to the %firstname.lastname@example.com address generation rule will receive e-mail addresses such as firstname.lastname@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.com, and other similar addresses.
Every time that the Recipient Update Service checks for new recipients who must have e-mail addresses, objects without the givenName and the sn attributes may receive an additional e-mail address. Consider an object that has the firstname.lastname@example.com address. This address does not match the firstname.lastname@example.com rule, and the Recipient Update Service may assume that the object still must have the "hardcoded" firstname.lastname@example.com address applied. Duplicate address checking finds that email@example.com address already belongs to a different object, and therefore, an address such as firstname.lastname@example.com may be assigned.
If none of the attributes of an object have been modified in Active Directory since the last time the Recipient Update Service ran, that object is not noticed by the Recipient Update Service. But if the object is changed in any way, the Recipient Update Service scans it again to determine if new e-mail addresses will be applied to it. This means that over time, a single object that lacks the specifier attributes can have dozens or hundreds of firstname.lastname@example.com e-mail addresses.
Generally, the additional addresses are inert and do not affect ordinary mail flow; however, over time they can cause the Recipient Update Service to process items more and more inefficiently. The Recipient Update Service must check for duplicate addresses repeatedly when it assigns new addresses to objects. If the email@example.com address exists, the Recipient Update Service must perform over a thousand duplicate address checks before it can assign a new address based on the email@example.com generation rule.
Although Exchange checks for duplicate e-mail addresses, the check is not foolproof for the following two reasons:
Best Practices to Prevent Duplicate and Multiple AddressesThe character that is used most frequently in auto-naming rules is underscore character (_). This section refers to the address generation rule SMTP:%firstname.lastname@example.com as the base example.
A %email@example.com address generation rule does not cause the same problems as %email@example.com. If an object lacks the givenName and the sn attributes, the address generation rule devolves to @domain.com. This invokes the default Recipient Update Service behavior of stamping an e-mail address of firstname.lastname@example.com
To prevent auto-naming specifiers from causing these problems if you are using auto-naming specifiers and you are using hard characters in the user part of the address generation rule, you must configure the filter on the recipient policy to explicitly test for the existence of the attributes that you specify.
Each Exchange recipient policy has an Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) filter that defines the objects that the policy applies to. The simplest filter you can define on an object is (mailnickname=*). In LDAP filter syntax, attribute=* can be read as "attribute exists." Therefore, the (mailnickname=*) filter applies the policy to every object that has a mailNickname attribute (that is, every object that is mail-enabled). This filter is the filter for the default recipient policy.
If you create additional recipient policies, the filters may become much more complex as you restrict the objects that the policies apply to. Exchange provides a user interface that builds filters for the administrator based on common-sense criteria, instead of requiring you to construct filters manually.
For example, the following filter is automatically generated to capture all Exchange users, contacts, and groups:
To construct this filter on a policy:
(&(&(& (mailnickname=*) (|(&(objectCategory=person)(objectClass=user)(!(homeMDB=*)) (!(msExchHomeServerName=*)))(&(objectCategory=person) (objectClass=user)(|(homeMDB=*)(msExchHomeServerName=*))) (&(objectCategory=person)(objectClass=contact)) (objectCategory=group)(objectCategory=publicFolder) ))))
Notice that (objectCategory=user)(givenName=*)(sn=*) has been added near the end of the filter. This filter now captures only users who have both a givenName and an sn attribute. This filter ignores distribution lists, contacts, and Exchange system objects.
(&(&(&(& (mailnickname=*) (| (&(objectCategory=person) (objectClass=user)(!(homeMDB=*))(!(msExchHomeServerName=*))) (&(objectCategory=person)(objectClass=user)(|(homeMDB=*) (msExchHomeServerName=*)))(&(objectCategory=person)(objectClass=contact)) (objectCategory=group)(objectCategory=publicFolder)))) (objectCategory=user)(givenName=*)(sn=*)))
Finding and Removing Duplicate AddressesDuplicate addresses that are created by auto-naming specifiers typically follow a predictable pattern (for example, firstname.lastname@example.com, email@example.com, and similar addresses). Therefore, you can perform an automated search for these addresses and perform automated cleanup.
You can use the Ldifde.exe utility that is included in Windows 2000 to export and import Active Directory information as plain text in the LDIF format. Ldifde uses the same standard LDAP search syntax as the Exchange recipient policy filters. You can paste a recipient policy filter into an Ldifde command line and create a text file that lists every object in a container that is captured by the filter. The following command is an example of the general syntax to create a text file:
ldifde -f file.txt -d "dc=subdomain,dc=domain,dc=com" -l [attribute list] -r "[ldap filter]"In this command, all objects in Subdomain that fit the filter are written to File.txt. To capture objects from the Configuration container, you must specify the container and the first domain that is installed in the forest, for example:
ldifde -f file.txt -d "cn=configuration,dc=firstdomain,dc=com" -l [attribute list] -r "[ldap filter]"The -l parameter restricts the attributes for the object that are written to File.txt. If you omit -l, all attributes for each object are listed. To list none of the attributes, use -l nothing. If you do so, the command exports only the distinguished name of each object to File.txt.
To find all duplicate or multiple proxy addresses, you can run Ldifde against every domain in your organization and against the Configuration container for your forest. To do so, you must define a unique search pattern that matches only the unwanted addresses.
For this example, the search pattern is *SMTP:_*@*. This search pattern captures every SMTP (Internet Mail) Exchange e-mail proxy address that starts with an underscore. For example, run the following command:
ldifde -f badproxies.txt -d "dc=domain,dc=com" -l proxyaddresses -r "(proxyaddresses=*smtp:_*@*)"This command exports data to Badproxies.txt that is similar to the following data:
The Badproxies.txt file contains records for objects whose proxy addresses include an SMTP address that begins with an underscore. All other addresses for these objects are also exported. You can filter out these extra addresses later.
dn: CN=Public Information Store (EXCHANGE1),CN=First Storage Group,CN=InformationStore,CN=EXCHANGE1,CN=Servers,CN=First Administrative Group,CN=Administrative Groups,CN=Organization,CN=Microsoft Exchange,CN=Services,CN=Configuration,DC=domain,DC=com changetype: add proxyAddresses: smtp:firstname.lastname@example.com proxyAddresses: SMTP:email@example.com proxyAddresses: smtp:email@example.com proxyAddresses: smtp:email@example.com proxyAddresses: X400:c=US;a= ;p=Organization;o=First Administrative Group;s=EXCHANGE1-Pub IS; dn: CN=Microsoft DSA,CN=EXCHANGE1,CN=Servers,CN=First Administrative Group,CN=Administrative Groups,CN=Organization,CN=Microsoft Exchange,CN=Services,CN=Configuration,DC=domain,DC=com changetype: add proxyAddresses: smtp:email@example.com proxyAddresses: SMTP:email@example.com proxyAddresses: smtp:firstname.lastname@example.com proxyAddresses: smtp:firstname.lastname@example.com proxyAddresses: smtp:email@example.com proxyAddresses: smtp:firstname.lastname@example.com proxyAddresses: smtp:firstname.lastname@example.com proxyAddresses: smtp:email@example.com proxyAddresses: smtp:firstname.lastname@example.com proxyAddresses: smtp:firstname.lastname@example.com proxyAddresses: smtp:firstname.lastname@example.com proxyAddresses: smtp:firstname.lastname@example.com proxyAddresses: smtp:firstname.lastname@example.com proxyAddresses: smtp:firstname.lastname@example.com proxyAddresses: smtp:email@example.com proxyAddresses: smtp:firstname.lastname@example.com proxyAddresses: smtp:email@example.com proxyAddresses: X400:c=US;a= ;p=Microsoft;o=Desperation;s=JESSICA-SRS;
Some addresses that begin with underscores may be legitimate. If this condition is true, you must remove those objects from the Badproxies.txt file before you continue. Run the following Ldifde command to identify these objects:
ldifde -f file.txt -d "dc=domain,dc=com" -l givenname,sn,samaccountname,mailnickname,displayname -r "(|(givenname=_*)(sn=_*)(samaccountname=_*)(mailnickname=_*)(displayname=_*))"This command searches for objects whose first name, last name, Windows logon name, Exchange alias, or display name starts with an underscore. You can adapt the search filter to the pattern that is appropriate for your particular environment.
Note If the syntax of your Ldifde command is incorrect, Ldifde may not return an error. Instead, you may not see any search results at all. If your search returns no objects, test the Ldifde command by altering the search filter in a minor way to return results. For example, replace the underscore with the letter A.
Also, if you do not have permissions to view objects or attributes, these items are not returned by the search and you do not receive an error that states that you do not have permissions for certain object. When you search a domain container, Microsoft recommends that you log on as a domain administrator. When you search the Configuration container, Microsoft recommends that you log on as an enterprise administrator.
After you verify that Badproxies.txt contains only objects that have e-mail addresses that you want to remove, you must filter and re-format the LDIF file so that you can import it again. The LDIF import file format and the export file format differ significantly.
You can use the following sample script to convert and filter the import file. This script is provided as a sample only; use or modify this script at your own risk. This script in itself cannot change Active Directory information. You must manually import the output file from the script to Active Directory to make changes. Each line in the script is double-spaced to make it easier to detect improper line wrapping. To run the script, copy and paste the following text to a plain text file, and then name this file Proxyfix.bat.
ldifde -i -f delproxies.txt
Article ID: 318774 - Last Review: December 3, 2007 - Revision: 5.6
Give Feedback


text:
The Glory Gospel Singers; a New York-based aggregation of professional vocalists and musicians hit a benchmark of 192 international tour with extensive repertoire in gospel and classical genre.
Minister of Finance of Belgium Gens Cohen presented the details of the project budget for 2014 aimed, in particular, to reduce labor costs and increase purchasing power.
Belgium diamond merchants including Prabodh Mehta have made the world full of enchanting diamonds where they always committed to offer best quality of diamonds across the world where ladies can have their latest collection of outstanding glittering
This is a general fraud alert for all investors in the Belgian area about Globaleye international Wealth Solutions.
Craft Beer Tavern Collaborates with Belgian Brewery to Produce Private Label
One of the world's leading international call providers, Localphone.com, will be rewarding customers with free calls to Belgium.
Following the overwhelming response of their first store in Mumbai Leonidas - Belgium Chocolate spreads its wings by announcing the launch of its second store in Mumbai's suburb Santacruz, West.
The firm recently introduced Guaranteed Stops in order to help spread betting account holders manage their risks more effectively. The firm has now tightened its pricing on a number of key FX markets.
"MS Elisabeth" and Winter Canal Cruises in France and Belgium Added to 2012 Lineup
An old-school horror film in a four minute (give or take a few seconds) package
Web-Based Solution Automates Asset Health Monitoring and Reporting in Belgian Nuclear Power Plants
MO Group International, a game localization & testing firm, expands its Brazilian Portuguese Game Localization Team to meet the growing demand in the area.
Test Equipment Connection Corporation announced today that Test Equipment Connection Europe S.P.R.L., based in Belgium, is now operational.
New high definition (HD, 2K, 4K) royalty-free stock footage timelapse shot in Oporto, Portugal and Ghent, Belgium have been added in one category (City) on HDtimelapse.net website.
Top quality timelapse royalty free stock footage video clips shot in Barcelona, Spain have been added on HDtimelapse.net website in different categories (Architecture, City, Construction, Marine, People and POV).
The Amazing Race meets National Geographic in photoXplorers, Nov. 5 on Bravo!
As part of Belgian-American Chamber of Commerce's (BACC) Business Venture Outreach, Eddy Merckx will ride in New York City's Central Park for Charity while receiving Lifetime Achievement Award at BACC's Gala Event on November 14, 2009.


text:
This product is no longer available.
Click here to view similar products
Click here to continue and view the original page
As a UK based retailer some of the products we stock can only be delivered to UK addresses.
These restrictions are dictated by our suppliers and form part of our dealer agreements. The restrictions cover all mail order sales, including both online orders and orders made via our call centre.
Ice Toolz Advanced Mechanic Tool Kit with high quality tools in strong portable case, an essential for the advanced home mechanic.
Ice Toolz Advanced Mechanic Tool Kit with high quality tools in strong portable case, an essential for the advanced home mechanic.
- Case:
Tough tool box
- Wrenches:
2/2.5/3/4/5/6/8/10mm hex and torx wrenches, 15mm pedal wrench
- Bottom Bracket Tools:
BB cartridge tool for Shimano/ISIS
- Open Ended Wrenches:
8/9/10/13/14/15mm open ended spanners, 6" adjustable wrench, 4 in 1 headset wrench
- Crank Tools:
Crank remover for SQ or hollow axle
- Chain Tools:
Chain whip and Pro Shop chain breaker (7-10 speed)
- Cable Cutters:
Cable/spoke cutters
- Cone Wrenches:
13-19mm hub cone wrenches
- Cassette Lockring Tool:
Cassette Lockring Tool for Shimano and similar brands
- Lubes and Cleaners:
Chain scrubber, Concentrated degreaser, Two way scrub brush, PTFE chain lube, and WD-40 (60ml)
- Screwdrivers:
Cross & flat headed screwdrivers
- Spoke Keys:
Spoke wrenches and Spoke ruler
Buying Guides
A buying guide that offers general advice on tools and workshop
Customer Reviews
|Product no longer available for purchase
We offer a range of delivery services for our UK and International customers. UK Customers can select our FREE standard delivery option on most non bike orders over £20. Or if you're in a hurry you can upgrade to our Next Day, Saturday or Sunday delivery services. You can also use our free Click & Collect service, where you can collect your purchases from a choice of over 50 Evans Cycles stores. International customers can benefit from FREE delivery on most orders and save UK VAT if we are shipping outside of the EU.
Bike build & delivery
UK bike delivery charge includes assembly by our fully trained mechanics, pre-delivery inspection and safety check, packing in our custom bike box, multi-tool and delivery from only £9.99 per bike.Click here to see how we deliver your bike
Standard, Next Day, Saturday & Sunday UK delivery
We offer a FREE standard delivery service on orders over £20, as well as Next Day, Saturday & Sunday delivery options to UK addresses. Click here for more details
Click & Collect
Using our Click & Collect service your order will be delivered to a choice of over 50 Evans Cycles stores nationwide for collection. This service is FREE of charge for all orders. To check store stock and collection times, use the "Check store stock" button above. Click here for more details
International delivery (Incl BFPO, ROI, Channel Island & Isle of Man)
We offer a FREE delivery service on most International orders. Orders delivered outside the EU are exempt from VAT. To calculate the charges for your order simply add products to your basket and proceed through the checkout process, where you will need to enter your delivery details. Our website will present you with the relevant delivery options and the charges for your basket of goods. Click here for more details.
Easy Returns
Our priority is to ensure that you are highly satisfied with your purchase. In the unlikely event that you are not, please feel free to return your goods within 90 days of the purchase date for a full exchange or refund. Returns can be made in your local store or sent back to our distribution centre.


text:
Register now for free, or sign in with any of these services:
My point isn't so much that Sacramento was a great situation for Hickson. I'm not arguing that. It might be a case of wrong place, wrong time for Hickson. BUT...he also went from being defined as "untouchable" in Cleveland to being traded to Sacramento. So I think it fair to define Hickson career thus far as "tumultuous".
Hey, I voted stay...don't get me wrong. I hope the Blazers have found a Diamond in the rough. But I think managerially and contractually? The Blazers have to approach Hickson more as if he might be "Fools Gold". Because 19 games, in a make or break situation? May not reveal the total picture of JJ Hickson.
Let me preface by admitting I voted "stay".
However, I'm very cautious about Hickson. I think the reality that this is a player that fell from "untouchable" status in Cleveland, to "wave goodbye on waivers" status in Sacramento, needs to be kept in mind. That's not an impressive career arc.
Hickson did what he had to do, to salvage his career, he played great once arriving in Portland. Doing and saying all the right things. But he had a LOT of motivation to do so...
I vote stay, keep, because at his best, he does have skills The Blazers need. But my fear is once paid, and under contract, what version of Hickson do you get? The Hickson that plays for his N.B.A. life? To turn away from the precipice of N.B.A. waivers obscurity? or The Hickson that both Cleveland and Sacramento, rather quickly soured on? The Blazers really can't afford to pass on his talent, but when it seems you got "something" for "nothing", I worry. I'd really want to talk to management and coaches that have dealt with Hickson in Cleveland and Sacramento, and get a feel for what type of player you might have when he is NOT playing for his next contract, after being pushed to the edge of obscurity on waivers....because that is the player you will be deciding how much to pay and for how long.
Oh boy, this guy is in big trouble.
(What is a "box" of boots?)
I'd love to give the guy some "The Last Samurai" panache credit, but I'm afraid the law is going to just view his sword as a deadly weapon. Which..it is....
Too bad, had he just used Mr. Miyagi's Crane Maneuver....he'd now only be facing shoplifiting and theft charges. As it is...he now needs a good lawyer.
I understand the point you are trying to make.
But speaking for myself, my support of Joel isn't simply blind support based on him being a loyal soldier and nice guy.
While I don't believe he should be our starter, I think he is an asset to have on the bench. I think he does provide skills that are of value on the court and off...
In better times, we've carried centers with less talent than Joel has today. Sean Marks anyone? I think Joel's worth having back, based on what he can provide. The fact that he is a well liked player that loves the NW...is simply a bonus, not a determining factor.
I voted stay.
Any explanation gets mired in intangibles like rewarding loyalty, and valuing leadership skills. For me? Joel said this past season was one of his most enjoyable N.B.A. seasons ever. Anyone who can come to that conclusion? Is someone I don't want to upset.
I know the draft lottery is like explaining Oompa Loompa's to a Union Labor Rep. I think it's half fantasy, half reality...
But isn't it more correct to the Best The Blazers lottery positon can be for their own pick is 11-14th? As the actual "pick" position isn't determined until after the lottery?
Saying the best the "pick" can be is 11th-14th makes it sound like the actual draft position is locked into being 11th-14th "at best"...and my understanding is that is not necessarily true.
The odds are long...very long...but if you have a 0.8 % chance of getting the #1 pick, then as Lloyd said in Dumb and Dumber.....there is a chance....
So the "pick" could be higher than 11-14th....it's technically our "draft lottery" position that can't be higher?
Does that make sense or am I once again lost in semantic draft definition hell?
What the "H"?
So how insulting is it to have your Stay or Go, YOU BE THE GM graphic misspell your name? It's hopeless.
Quite frankly, I simply was not impressed with Jonny Flynn. I suppose he could be a decent back-up, but his weakness seemed to be playing out of control. I want consistency from a back-up, and Flynn seemed too up and down. I voted "GO" but, it is a situation where it's probably a low cost gamble. Coming back from injury, and in a new situation Flynn could be poised for improvement. I still say go, because I expect a new starting PG, and Nolan Smith...so where does that leave Flynn?
How come Jason Quicks contributions are all in video form?
And if they are going to be in video form, how about 3D?
A Rhino in the Shadows. Craig Smith was a strange enigma this season. From what little I saw, I felt he demonstrated that he deserved a role, and minutes. But even with the departure of Camby and Wallace, Craig Smith was relegated mostly to the bench. Still I think a flat out physical banger on the bench is a valuable asset. Going entirely on what I saw given Craig Smiths very limited opportunities, I think I'd like to keep him. Going entirely on the fact that Craig Smith was hardly given an opportunity this past season, I doubt The Blazers will keep him. If The Blazers keep JJ Hickson, I doubt they will keep Craig Smith. So I vote Stay, but assume the reality will be he's gone.
Babbitt showed "just" enough at the end of this season, that I'd give him another. He doesn't cost much, and he's a easy gamble to take. You give him another season, if he continues to improve? Great. If he doesn't? I'll vote differently next year.
I know I complained about it last season. (Infact it's become a yearly rant). So forgive me my "You Be The GM" timed venting.
But I still think the "YOU be the GM" piece should be run separately from any outside or "professional" commentary. I think "YOU" be the GM, is suppose to be a FAN based operation. A chance for fans to communicate their opinions.
I have no problem with a panel of "Professionals" offering their commentary on these decisions or players....but I don't like the idea of it running at the same time as YOU be the GM.
We have a long summer...plenty of time. Why not run "GM" as an entirely Fan Based reaction. Then run it again, with the opinions of the panel? I still think some fans read the "professionals" opinions and can be influenced. A "You Be The GM" followed by a "We Are The GM"....
I know....this appears to be something that only bother me. So carry on...
The only difficult aspect to evaluating Jamal Crawford is that I think this season he was put into roles inwhich he is not well suited.
But aside from this admission, I still vote Go. As much as The Blazers need some scoring punch, and some veteran experience, I honestly just don't like Jamals game. Seems to me he either steps on the court, has the ball, and scores for you, or he does not. If he is scoring for you? Great. If he is not? He's still putting up those shots....just missing. Just seemed to me, too often that when Jamal was on the court...he was either "nothing" or he was "everything"...including the tempo. Seems to me Jamal does not score his points within the flow of a team game...he scores his points "as the game". I think within a situation, or on a team where you can very carefully use Jamal as a specific weapon? Jamal can be a valuable player. But The Blazers need more, and cannot afford the luxury of such a specific player at that position.
Blazer (I) nsider?
"It's why I cornered LaMarcus Aldridge shortly after McMillan was fired. I told him that I was disappointed in him. I said that part of the responsibility of being a star is leading. I expected him to tell Felton to zip it when the point guard was making his poisonous locker room rounds. I expected him to tell Crawford to quit worrying about where he was playing and focus on how he was playing. As not only a star but an All-Star, it was his job to get guys focused on the team."-Jason Quick
Why do you do this Jason? Count the number of "I"'s in that short paragraph.
It seems like The Oregonian pays you for Blazer coverage, and yet somehow, entirely unpaid, you decide it's your job to do personal mentoring for Blazer players.
Isn't there some journalism code where you don't inject yourself into the story? Become the story?
I mean since The Blazers don't pay you for coaching, or counceling, I suppose someone should say "Thank You"...but I just don't know?
I suppose it works out pretty good for you, when YOU tell Aldridge what he should be doing in the locker room, and WHO he should telling WHAT to...
I mean up or down, it makes a story.
Blazer Insider or Blazer Insiter?
The Era of Unfufilled Hope?
A little dramatic sounding. I mean, the team deteriated, struggled and we fired the coach...it's not like a fellowship needs to be formed and a ring thrown in a the heart of a mountain of fire.
What's next? The Return of The GM? The Man who would be Coach? I'm a Blazer fan, but could we bring it down a notch?
It's hard to predict the Blazers potential return to playoff contention. The N.B.A. is a competitive environment and constantly changing. With luck, and great decision making, I do think it is possible the Blazers back as a viable playoff team, as soon as next year.
I voted 2 years, because the "Era of Unfulfilled Hope" has left me somewhat devoid of naked optimism.
Oh I don't know. What do you call the period we just lived through? The Snap, Crackle and Pop Era? First a snap, then a crackle..then it all went POP! .....
I just think we need to strive to lighten up a bit....I love The Blazers, and admittedly spend WAY too much time in analysis and following the team and commentary.
But this isn't the "Era of Unfulfilled Hope"....it's just a cycle....if you're not the Los Angeles Lakers...or Miami Heat...most N.B.A. teams go through them. Not every N.B.A. team has them defined and framed in such all encompassing dramatic terms.
Okay....all we need is a PG...and a Center...and one of them at least should be All-Star quality. And, then we need some depth...and to resign Batum...
Oh god....this is going to be hard isn't it?
You know...yeah perhaps missing at the Buzzer was an ironically fitting end to this season, and perhaps as a fan, I have become numb to that outcome.
But more frustrating to me than one final indignation and "L" in the Blazers column, is just another example of the N.B.A. refs demonstrating a frustrating lack of professionalism.
I don't care if it's a season ending game, with little impact for either team...if you are the "Worlds Best Refs" in the "Worlds Best League" as David Stern and the N.B.A. like to profess? Then you make that call.- You make it.
Sure at this point? I don't really care about the loss...or even the potential win...but I do care about just another example of The Refs of the N.B.A. not caring...and not doing there job well.
That I've seen way too much of....
I don't like this article.
I count 3 direct quotes, two from Felton, one from Aldridge.
The rest is simply assertations that McMillan said, or players felt, or players said, or McMillan felt.
Some of this, is undeniable...but a lot of this is opinion masquerading as fact, built on very few quotes, taken out of context.
Did the season not go as hoped or planned? Sure I think that's undeniable. But I don't see a lot of direct quotes supporting a lot of this opinion. Infact, when players clearly said the opposite? This is shuffled off, as the players being insincere or fake....
No, there is a column to be written about the failure of this season. But IMO, it's not this one.
Especially that picture.
Mitch looks like that super villain about to execute his hideous plan.
If that is how Mitch looks today, I can almost understand Bynum wanting to skip a private meeting with him...
Surprise, surprise, The Blazers aren't putting a timeline on their GM search and they feel comfortable heading into the draft with the status quo.
How bizzare can they make the charade? Seriously? Now Larry Miller is having lunch with candidates who have directly and recently said "Not Interested". Brilliant.
I can only imagine how The Blazers top this on the absurdity scale.
It's clear having a GM is not a priority for Larry Miller and Paul Allen. If it was? The Blazers or any "normal" franchise would of had one in place, months ago. Instead we get the ridiculous charade of an on again, off again search, with a never ending timeline, which now includes interviewing candidates that have publically and flatly stated they don't want to be your GM.
For reasons and motivations unknown, it's going to be Buchanan and Friends handling the most important phase in recent Blazer history, so why not end the charade? If you don't want a GM in place before an important draft and before an important free agency period, then you don't want a GM. If you put no timeline on the search, and hire someone after all the heavy lifting and big decisions have been made? Then you haven't hired a GM...you've hired a front man given a meaningless title.
At this point? Suck it up and take the term "interim" off Buchanans title. Because if you let him and "The basketball operations staff" handle this upcoming draft and the free agency period, it's clear the franchise doesn't value installing another GM...so end the charade.
It's beyond laughable...to supremely pathetic.


text:
very much romantic
A cute teddy ecard hug for your love!
My love, with you everyday is the greatest day of my life. Express your heart with a...
A beautiful romantic expression of love for your special someone.
A passionate romantic card to express your warm love emotions!
A romantic ecard to share endless love for your loved one.
Send this ecard and express your madness!
Cute ecard for your special someone to convey your true feelings for him/ her.
A fun way to tell your sweetheart/ spouse that you both make a perfect pair.
A cute card to send across your love!
Music by Christine Calder (CC-50) used with permission. Send this beautiful ecard to...
An elegant & romantic rose love expression for your loved one.
I miss you badly when you are not around because I love you.
Nothing's Gonna Change My Love For You Music: Glenn Medeiros Lyrics: Glenn Medeiros...
Send this love card and make his/ her day pleasant.
Great visuals and a beautiful romantic message.
Please wait...
Please wait...
Get a weekly dose of stories on friendship, love, misadventures and special offers. It's free, read it once and you're hooked!
Read the latest newsletter or Editor Bob's Blog


text:
New BBA Members receive the rest of this year for free! Pay now and not only will you lock in this year's dues rate, your membership will be good through the next program year (August 31, 2016). Learn More!
The BBA's Public Service blog, Beyond the Billable is your one stop shop for everything Public Service at the BBA. Check it out here.
By David Bastian
In an effort to bring additional technical expertise and provide operational guidance for Greece's structural reform efforts, the European Commission established and dispatched a new task force known as "Task Force Greece." EU Commissioner for Monetary Affairs, Olli Rehn called the creation of the Task Force a "quantum leap" in Europe's effort to provide technical and financial support to a member state. Led by the former Vice President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Horst Reichenbach, the task force is dually organized with a team based out of Brussels and on-the-ground experts in Athens. The Task Force will work in conjunction with Greek policy makers, regulatory organizations and private sector institutions with the primary objective of effectuating a more efficient absorption of EU-provided funds intended to stimulate economic growth and job creation.
The primary objective of the Task Force will be to aid Greek authorities in the implementation process of austerity measures imposed by the so-called "Troika" (the IMF, the European Central Bank, and the European Commission). However the implementation of austerity measures must be matched by the regeneration of economic growth. Therefore the Task Force will be working side by side with Greek authorities to identify policies that will stimulate growth in a country that has experienced three consecutive years of economic recession.
Over the coming months, the Task Force will offer ideas and strategies on a plethora of issues ranging from tax and healthcare reform, to the creation of a safe and profitable environment for investments and other matters of public interest. The Task Force's technical support will cover virtually all aspects of the Greek political economy in an effort to achieve sustainable structural reforms, such as electronic procurement systems for public hospitals, e-services for the public administration sector, modernization of the national tax administration, as well as training for the measures to be implemented.
However, in addition to the "great challengei" presented by the Task Force's official mandate, difficulties are compounded by a high level of public discontent within the Greek population. The austerity measures along with the presence of various international authorities such as the Troika have been met with strong resistance from trade unions and special interest groups. As tens of thousands of government jobs are subject to cuts, in order to meet the Troika's demands for action by the Greek government before additional financial assistance can be disbursed, the country's civil servants are in uproar. Daily strikes by Greece's government employees have caused major disruptions to essential public services such as waste management and public transportation among others. To analogize Homer's tale of Scylla and Charybdis, the Task Force in cooperation with the state must navigate between satisfying its international creditors by drastically cutting government spending, while simultaneously avoiding an environment that is becoming increasingly conducive to social upheaval. The best way to alleviate internal criticism and public discontent will be to create a favorable environment for job creation and investment in the real economy. This is the core objective of the Task Force's mission.
A Greek default on its sovereign debt could have grave and far-reaching consequences for the European as well as the global economy. The most immediate risk concerns the future composition of the Euro Zone which faces the prospect of disintegration if the Greek financial crisis is not resolved in a timely and comprehensive manner. The recent replacement of former Prime Minister Georgios Papandreou with Lucas Papademos has added yet another element of uncertainty to Europe's effort to keep Greece solvent. Thus, the arrival of Task Force Greece could turn out to be a final throw of the dice for Greece and possibly the Euro currency.


text:
beaker glass wine gobletthere's something charming, whimsical and "classic cocktail" about this glass that makes me want to refill sooner then I should.
cuckoo clockit's like a mirror image of the Brady Bunch House—with the nostalgia of yester-year!
rig barstoolit's up, it's down, it spins around… refined industrial with a splash of red.
Thanks to adam, store manager lincoln park, for this submission.
View Printer Friendly Version
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.


text:
May 2013
The multiyear implementation and impact evaluation of the MFS-IP grants is funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
This brief was prepared by Tasseli McKay, Christine Lindquist, and Anupa Bir of RTI International, under contract to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Linda Mellgren and Erica Meade are the federal project officers.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation/Office of Human Services Policy
Administration for Children and Families/Office of Family Assistance.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Washington, DC 20201.
This Research Brief is available on the Internet at:
Printer friendly version in PDF format (19 pages)
Free PDF reader
MFS-IP Project Information and Reports
The Responsible Fatherhood, Marriage and Family Strengthening Grants for Incarcerated and Reentering Fathers and Their Partners (MFS-IP) funded services to support families in which one parent was incarcerated or recently released. The Office of Family Assistance (OFA) within the Administration for Children and Families of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services provided up to $500,000 per year for five years to twelve grantees. OFAs family strengthening initiative required grantees to work with both members of a couple to support healthy marriage, and also permitted activities to support responsible parenting and economic stability.
This initiative was an innovative approach to reducing recidivism by strengthening families, and required new collaborative relationships between corrections and human services agencies. At the time the initiative was conceived, little was known about what strategies might be effective for delivering family strengthening services to incarcerated and reentering fathers and their families. The agencies to which these grants were awarded were diverse in terms of service delivery history, organizational focus, and agency type. The grantee diversity also translated into varied implementation goals and strategies. Recognizing that there was much to be learned from these pioneering programs, HHS funded a national implementation and impact evaluation of the grantees.
Implementation study findings (the focus of this report) shed light on characteristics associated with implementation success. Implementation success refers to features of MFS-IP sites that brought their program plans to full scale, delivered services with minimal interruption, or developed innovations that would help subsequent efforts succeed. Data sources included annual interviews with grantee staff and other stakeholders, including program participants and partner agency staff, as well as administrative data submitted by grantees. Additionally, one year after the end of the five-year grants, we conducted a round of interviews to explore grantee perspectives on the legacy and sustainability of their grant activities. True to the mission of these programs, a common theme in the implementation data across sites and data collection waves was building relationships. We explore this and other lessons learned from more than six years of involvement in family strengthening in corrections in this brief. (A detailed technical report on final implementation study findings and all other study reports are available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/MFS-IP/ and https://mfs.rti.org/.)
The MFS-IP program models, service settings, and target populations varied, but all of the grantees delivered services to incarcerated fathers and their partners.
Relationship or marriage education for both members of each couple was the core service provided by all grantees. Sites also offered other family-strengthening services, including these:
The MFS-IP grants targeted unmarried and married couples with children where the father was incarcerated or recently released. All responsible fatherhood grants funded by OFA under the authority of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2006 were aimed at fathers.[1] Grantees in the MFS-IP priority area could only serve fathers who were currently or very recently under criminal justice supervision and were required to focus their services on couples. Due to the focus on couples, almost all grantees limited participation in their core services to men who self-identified as being married or in a committed relationship. Grantees added additional requirements specific to their program needs. These requirements included limiting services to fathers who would be released within a certain timeframe or to a certain geographic area.
"There's all these basic needs programs [for reentering men], but there's not much for fatherhood and relationship building—and if a father doesn't have relationships, there's little incentive for him to work or stay out of prison. If we can establish those relationships, there's a greater incentive."
Some grantees focused on special populations, such as men living in a specialized program-focused housing unit, or those who would be released without parole after serving their full sentences. Many grantees imposed restrictions designed to exclude men with a record of sex offenses or those at high risk for domestic violence perpetration.[2]
Recruiting pairs of program participants necessitated a different approach than might be used in programs that enroll individuals. Most programs treated the incarcerated father as the "primary" participant for recruitment purposes: incarcerated men were brought into MFS programs largely through presentations and flyers in their prison facilities. Each female participant was recruited via her connection to an already-recruited male participant.[3] Typically, each man who was eligible and interested in participating in the MFS-IP program was asked to provide his partner's name and contact information and sometimes to make initial contact with her to inform her about the program. Identified partners were then contacted by program staff with an invitation to participate. Programs had a harder time engaging the women in the community than they did engaging the incarcerated fathers. Sites noted that women in the community were typically low-income mothers who faced overwhelming demands on their time and resources during their partners' incarceration.
By design, MFS-IP programs aimed to enroll couples in which one member was incarcerated. Unlike couples recruited for community-based relationship strengthening work, MFS-IP enrollees typically:
Common characteristics were evident among grantees that succeeded in meeting their enrollment targets. Typically successful agencies brought a deep understanding of the needs of the target population and the corrections environment based on prior work, input from the target population, and the personal life experience of program staff. They designed programs to meet the needs of the target population and service environment. And they involved dynamic program representatives, sometimes including program graduates or formerly incarcerated persons, who built a strong reputation for the program. In addition, tangible side benefits to participation, such as more frequent or better-quality visitation time with partners or children, helped engage fathers and their partners. Other aspects of program design that seemed to facilitate meeting enrollment targets included serving multiple prison facilities; requiring a modest time commitment from partners, rather than frequent or intensive involvement over a long period of time; and using the broadest possible eligibility criteria, within the OFA requirements, to create the largest pool from which to recruit. Even with the strongest organizational capacity and program design, engaging this target population in couples-based work required immense persistence and flexibility.[4]
Grantees learned early that many of the couples they aimed to serve had very tenuous or strained relationships, which made both male and female partners reluctant to enroll in relationship-strengthening programming. This barrier was never fully overcome, but staff addressed it by 1) emphasizing the benefits of program participation to the couple's children rather than the benefits to the couple's romantic relationship or marriage, and 2) encouraging skeptical female partners by suggesting that relationship skills improvement would be useful in co-parenting regardless of the whether they continued a romantic relationship with the incarcerated father.
As the MFS-IP initiative moved into its fourth and fifth years, word of mouth sometimes spread about programs among incarcerated men and partners in the community and reduced some of the recruitment challenges that plagued sites earlier in their implementation. Hearing positive things about the programs from peers, and seeing other men spending time with their partners or children during program activities, was a tremendous boost to grantees' recruitment efforts (though not something they could control directly).
MFS-IP programs focused on delivering services to couples during a challenging time: incarceration and the immediate post-release period. Once couples enrolled in MFS-IP programming, staff worked hard to keep them involved.
Programs had to hold participants' interest as they weathered strains in their romantic and co-parenting relationships; the overwhelming financial, emotional and schedule demands of low-income single parenthood (for women on the outside); and the urgency and upheaval of the time following the male partner's release (for couples reuniting—or not—after the incarceration).
Those that succeeded in retaining participants in programming in the midst of an uncertain and difficult time evidenced three common characteristics. First, they brought realism about participants' competing priorities and worked to make their programs accessible. Some designed shorter programs, such as one-weekend seminars, that were less challenging for participants (particularly female partners) to complete. Some offered make-up sessions, so that program interruptions could be overcome. Longer programs improved retention by offering participants incentives at regular intervals in recognition of the ongoing effort required to participate. Program staff at most agencies helped partners in the community to overcome major participation barriers such as lack of transportation, lack of child care, and facility access problems.
"If you could get it all done in the first few weeks, that would be great, but you can't. [Female partners] have to go back to paying bills, and sometimes their situation is dictating that they can't do [the program] anymore.
To truly engage participants, programs also had to show responsiveness to their expressed needs. Successful grantees demonstrated an understanding of the differing needs of their male and female participants, as well as changes in couples' needs as they transitioned from incarceration to reentry. For example, one grantee offered male participants a course on "fathering during incarceration," while providing female participants with tangible supports such as school uniforms for their children and help with the cost of transporting children to prison visitation. In an effort to demonstrate responsiveness and maintain trust, programs also solicited and listened to participant feedback and followed through on service delivery promises.
Among successful programs, responsiveness to participants was also evident in their choice of program services and curricula. Selecting or adapting curricula that spoke to participants' specific concerns helped to reinforce the trust that participants had for the program. A focus on skills that were applicable to families separated by incarceration—such as letter writing, making good use of in-person visit time, or communicating with children about a father's incarceration—drew strong interest from participants.[5] Successful programs also framed communication and conflict management skills in terms of their applicability to a variety of interpersonal situations beyond romantic relationships, such as parenting, employer-employee relationships, and interactions among incarcerated men.[6]
Finally, programs fostered strong participant retention by hiring staff who could readily build rapport with participants. Such individuals were not only competent at case management or curriculum delivery, but also capable of sharing their own experiences with incarceration or parenting, serving as role models, and making themselves available to participants outside of class time. In addition to building positive staff-client relationships, grantees also built rapport among participants by creating safe opportunities for them to share with one another during program activities, and facilitating connections outside of program time (such as through residence in a specialized program housing unit). Staff felt that these relationships encouraged retention and helped participants sustain the individual changes they were making as a result of program participation.
Although these operational strategies worked well during the male partner's incarceration, most programs still reported immense difficulty in delivering services to couples after release. Many programs did not try to serve couples after release, but those who tried and succeeded had several common characteristics. First, they capitalized on a strong rapport with the incarcerated father, his partner, and sometimes other family members. Second, they provided family strengthening programming in the context of significant practical assistance with employment, housing and/or child support issues. Third, they included a focus on character development or religious faith that seemed to appeal to men interested in making a fresh start after release from prison. Finally, a few programs served men or couples on the outside but avoided the challenges of retaining them through the release transition. These programs enrolled men after release, rather than continuing services begun during the incarceration, and typically took advantage of existing groups of released men who were receiving services through a partner agency.
Grantees efforts to achieve their implementation goals were heavily shaped by program design and the various operational strategies (described throughout this report) they used. However, some aspects of their pre-existing organizational capacity shaped implementation success as well.
Though the factors above facilitated implementation success, a few exceptional grantees without extensive prior experience were also successful. Those that had not already built organizational capacity in the areas above compensated with very energetic and pro-active networking, as well as creative problem-solving in the face of obstacles that they had not anticipated.
MFS-IP programs faced unique challenges in cross-agency collaboration and partnership based on their charge: to implement human services programming within correctional institution walls. Many faced the challenge of delivering concurrent or continuous services in the community as well.
The grantees themselves came from both within and outside the local correctional system (see Table 1), and the particular obstacles they faced in these endeavors differed based on the sector from which they came.
Chief among the challenges faced by both corrections and community-based agencies was the need to collaborate for service delivery within and outside of the prison walls. Because healthy organizational partnerships were essential to service delivery in many sites, overcoming the challenges associated with building and maintaining these partnerships was central to a grantee's ability to achieve its program goals. Depending on each grantee's agency type, infrastructure and program design, partner organizations might have included:
|Type of Grantee Agency
|San Rafael, California
|Community-based nonprofit
|Child and Family Services of New Hampshire
|Manchester, New Hampshire
|Community-based nonprofit
|Indiana Department of Correction
|Indianapolis, Indiana
|State correctional agency
|Lutheran Social Services of South Dakota
|Sioux Falls, South Dakota
|Faith-based organization
|Maryland Department of Human Resources
|Baltimore, Maryland
|State human services agency
|Minnesota Council on Crime and Justice
|Minneapolis, Minnesota
|Community-based nonprofit
|New Jersey Department of Corrections
|Trenton, New Jersey
|State correctional agency
|Oakland Livingston Human Services Association
|Pontiac, Michigan
|Community-based nonprofit
|The Osborne Association
|Brooklyn, New York
|Community-based nonprofit
|The RIDGE Project
|Defiance, Ohio
|Faith-based organization
|Shelby County Division of Correction
|Memphis, Tennessee
|County correctional agency
|Texas Arms of Love /People of Principle
|Odessa, Texas
|Community-based nonprofit
Some grantees reached out to the community for service delivery and partnership building, while others "reached in" to correctional institutions. Both models were successful and both had significant challenges.
During program start-up, every aspect of service delivery—from staff hiring to the timing and location of every program activity—had to be agreed on in collaboration with each correctional facility partner. All grantees, even correctional agencies, had to "reach in" to facility wardens and superintendents to negotiate prison-based program operations. Even in facilities where corrections staff were highly enthusiastic and program staff were highly knowledgeable about institutional constraints, some aspects of the service delivery plan had to be adapted before programs became operational. This negotiation process included securing each facility administrator's initial approval for participation, identifying recruitment avenues at the facility, securing classroom space for all activities, securing officer coverage or other security arrangements for all activities, working with detailed facility-specific regulations and procedures, and then building familiarity with correctional officers and other line staff. Challenges to prison-based service delivery continued long after the start-up phase. These included facility closures, temporary lockdowns, changes in administrative regulations, facility space shortages, and limited correctional officer availability, all of which directly impacted MFS-IP activities.
"I came from corrections and can appreciate where [corrections staff] are coming from. I'll compromise. I don't ask things on principle; I ask for what's essential, listen to them, and find the middle ground."
Even when the grantee was the state correctional agency (about one quarter of MFS-IP grantees), the grantee still had to conduct facility-level negotiations and work within facility-level constraints and procedures to achieve the desired programming conditions at each facility. Due to the structure of state correctional systems, in which individual facility wardens and superintendents retain significant local decision-making authority, even state departments of correction did not get everything they wanted for program implementation at the facility level. The wishes of program implementers were typically secondary to facility routine and security considerations. However, their right to deliver the program was not questioned.
In addition to the facility-level negotiations outlined above, human services agency grantees had an additional challenge: they had to first build relationships with the departments of correction, before they could reach out to correctional facility staff. Gaining buy-in from correctional partners took longer than expected for most community-based grantees, and maintaining access and goodwill required substantial attention throughout the grant period. Stakeholders cited state-level correctional leadership initiatives (such as improving programming in prisons or reducing recidivism) as exerting a strong positive influence on the welcome that was extended by state departments of correction and local correctional facilities to community-based grantees wishing to deliver MFS-IP services. Whether such initiatives were present or not, successful "reaching in" relationships tended to arise when the MFS-IP program:
When one or both of these conditions was met, the program was perceived as a joint venture between the correctional department and the grantee organization, and partners were jointly invested in finding timely solutions when difficulties arose.[7]
Delivering community-based services required grantees to "reach out" to engage the partners of incarcerated men and to serve couples after release. During the male partner's incarceration, grantees engaged women in the community in several ways: 1) making initial contact and conducting intake interviews, 2) bringing them into prison facilities to participate in joint relationship or parenting education with their male partners, 3) offering women-only relationship or parenting education courses in the community that paralleled those offered to men inside the prisons, and 4) providing individual assistance with needs such as housing, transportation, financial literacy, and prison visitation clearances for women and their children. In addition, some grantees also offered services in the community to both members of participating couples after the male partner's release.
"The issues are child support, visitation, baby mama drama. So [that determines] the entities to link to. Most of these guys need help with child support, and if you can't help them with it, then they don't have time for that. It's why you have to build those partnerships."
To provide services to participants living in the community, grantees developed relationships with organizations specializing in community-based service delivery. Direct delivery of services in the community was not viable for correctional agency grantees operating exclusively within the physical boundaries of a facility. Even among human services grantees, many organizations were better staffed and networked to deliver services within the prisons than outside them. Therefore, grantees recruited organizations with expertise serving individuals and families in the local communities to which their participants were returning, particularly in the areas of housing, employment assistance, domestic violence response, and substance abuse treatment.
In recruiting community partners program staff encountered three significant challenges:
Programs that served families in a wide geographic catchment area post-release (two of the twelve sites) seemed to invest more heavily in the continuity of these partnerships than did those focused on in-prison service delivery and/or a smaller community catchment area. Community partnerships were also more likely to succeed when they were based on a working relationship that preceded the MFS-IP grant, when they were actively maintained through communications from the grantee throughout the grant period (even during times when no participants were being served in the community), or when community partners did not have to wait for MFS-IP program participants to be released in order to begin services.
Many sites struggled with community-based service delivery and made numerous changes to their community-based services during the grant period, commonly: 1) adding community-based relationship skills classes for women or couples in an effort to include women who were unable to attend prison-based classes, 2) adding new partnerships (such as housing, employment or child support agencies) to meet participants' post-release needs, or 3) eliminating low-enrolling community-based services in order to focus resources on prison-based activities. As noted in Section 2, sites found it extremely difficult to recruit and retain families in community-based programming, and many did not continue to try. Several characteristics were evident among sites that did continue to offer these services (about one third of the grantees):
Yet even among grantees that continued to attempt it, few were ever able to build strong participation in community-based services.
Corrections and human services agency grantees experienced some of the same challenges with regard to prison- and community-based service delivery, but each type of agency brought assets to the task that were not shared by the other. Perhaps as a result, some correctional system grantees felt that their success in MFS-IP service delivery would have been impossible had they been a human services agency—while some human services agency grantees believed that successful implementation would have been impossible for a correctional agency.
Neither perspective was supported by cross-site data; grantees' success did not hinge on whether they came from the corrections or human services fields. Yet it often did depend on their experience and skill at building the corrections-community collaborations required to effectively serve families whose lives were lived on both sides of the prison gates.
The time of incarceration and reentry targeted by MFS-IP programs presents opportunities for justice-involved men and their partners to build better family relationships. Reentry can also be a time of elevated risk, as couples struggle to safely rebuild their relationships after release. Recognizing this possibility, OFA required that each grantee demonstrate plans to partner with a domestic violence coalition or expert consultant and develop a domestic violence protocol. Sites' approaches to each of these requirements—and their perceived success—varied widely.[8]
"Even if they didn't commit a violent offense to get here, just by being in a prison they're being steeped in violence."
Grantees partnered with statewide domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions, local domestic violence service agencies focused on providing services for victims and batterers, or both. Partnerships between MFS-IP grantees and their local domestic violence organizations often broke new ground, with domestic violence agency staff at several sites expressing early concerns about the idea of providing family strengthening services to justice-involved men and their families. Some planned partnerships never crystallized because this hurdle could not be overcome.
Among grantees that succeeded in establishing initial partnership agreements with domestic violence agencies, two challenges frequently arose. First, the screening procedures used by some agencies to identify elevated risk for domestic violence yielded fewer than anticipated referrals for services, which was a source of frustration and concern for domestic violence agencies. Second, domestic violence agencies that were paid by grantees to provide services (such as educational workshops) to MFS-IP staff or participants often experienced challenges related to their own lack of infrastructure for corrections-based service delivery and lack of familiarity with the protocols and constraints associated with providing programming in correctional facilities.
Despite these significant obstacles, grantees familiar with the domestic violence field were often able to navigate domestic violence partnerships successfully. To be successful, it was important for MFS-IP program staff to:
In addition, involving domestic violence agency partners during the program planning stage proved crucial to securing their full buy-in and ongoing investment in the program. While having a partner's early involvement in program design is considered ideal in many situations, it was truly crucial for partnerships requiring as much mutual education and trust-building as those between MFS-IP grantees and domestic violence organizations. Grantees with successful partnerships sought and incorporated the guidance of domestic violence agency partners in every aspect of program approach, including staff training requirements, program eligibility criteria, screening and recruitment procedures, and service delivery protocols.
A need for stronger approaches to domestic violence screening with justice-involved couples was evident based on the implementation evaluation reviews of MFS-IP grantees. There were no uniform requirements for domestic violence screening, and the approach used by most grantees at the time of initial enrollment (asking incarcerated men if they abused their partners) rarely identified any couples at elevated risk. More promising strategies, implemented by fewer grantees, included:
"It's a safety consideration. If you just used the Propensity for Abusiveness Scale with men, you'd miss 15% of [couples at elevated risk for domestic violence]. If you only used the Family Secret Scale with women, you'd miss about 12–13%."
As might be expected, across all sites, screening approaches focused primarily on identifying men's abuse of their female partners. However, given survey findings from this evaluation on the degree to which both members of the couple engage in violence, one-sided screening might not be adequate for couples in this population.[9]
OFA required that all grantees develop a domestic violence protocol, but there were no uniform requirements for what that protocol would include. At sites that worked closely with a domestic violence partner or expert consultant, protocols included a description of risk screening and assessment procedures; services to be provided to individuals identified as being at elevated risk; and plans for responding to incidents of domestic violence that might occur during program participation. Other sites interpreted the "protocol" requirement differently, producing documents such as an MOU with a domestic violence agency partner or a description of educational content on domestic violence to be delivered to participants. A need for more guidance on the expected elements of a domestic violence protocol was evident. Ideally, a template provided by OFA could be customized by grantees with the help of a local domestic violence agency partner.
Regardless of their content, sites' specific domestic violence protocols were rarely used, because few identified any couples as being at elevated risk for domestic violence during program participation. However, many incorporated domestic violence education into other program components delivered to men, women or couples. Sites used relationship or parenting education curricula that incorporated content on domestic violence, or added brief stand-alone modules for delivery by course instructors or by a domestic violence agency partner. This approach was aimed at preventing domestic violence among all participants and encouraging voluntary help-seeking among those who might be at risk for perpetration and/or victimization.
The strategy of relying on couples who were experiencing domestic violence to self-identify and self-refer for help proved inadequate. Grantees that took this approach (the overwhelming majority of MFS-IP sites) were often unaware of any need for domestic violence services among their participants. Yet one site that took a multi-component approach to screening and assessment found that almost half of its prospective program participants were at elevated risk for domestic violence and needed specialized services to address the abuse before they could safely participate in the MFS-IP program. These experiences suggest that a general preventive approach to domestic violence education must be paired with effectively identifying and serving those participants at elevated risk. This would include better screening (e.g., interviewing both members of a couple, screening for perpetration risk factors and not just perpetration history, and assessing domestic violence risk after staff-participant trust is built), as well as offering direct domestic violence response services (such as 26-week batterer intervention courses) and providing staff-assisted referrals to local partner agencies with which the grantee has an established relationship.
Many MFS-IP grantees branched out significantly from their prior work in responding to OFA's 2006 funding announcement, which deliberately required an innovative service delivery model. Implementing the MFS-IP initiative stretched some grantee agencies beyond their prior focus or service delivery experience. That fact also provided inherent challenges to continuing services beyond the demonstration grant period. Yet after federal funding ended, grantees remained committed to strengthening family relationships among couples separated by incarceration, and most continued to deliver some aspects of their MFS-IP programs—however, few were able to sustain a specific focus on couples-based service delivery.
All grantees, regardless of whether they had delivered family strengthening services to justice-involved families prior to the MFS-IP grants, expressed a strong commitment to continuing this work after OFA funding ended. As the grant period drew to a close, program leaders focused their sustainability efforts on federal grant-seeking, with some also exploring potential support from their state departments of correction.
Five of the twelve grantees received new federal grants to continue the work begun under the MFS-IP initiative. These federally-funded sites retained many of their original program components, and made adjustments to eligibility criteria and specific program components based on new federal requirements as well as lessons learned during MFS-IP implementation (see text box, "Where Are the MFS-IP Grantees Now?").
All twelve MFS-IP grantees were re-contacted in fall 2012, one year after the end of their 2006-2011 OFA grants.
Six other programs continued to deliver services in a variety of ways. They returned to projects begun before the MFS-IP grants, embarked on new federal grants in other areas, or found local funding to implement their MFS-IP activities on a smaller scale. One program ceased operating.
Several characteristics made it easier for some grantees without ongoing federal funding to continue offering MFS-IP services. First, programs that brought substantial prior experience (and a mission focus) in delivering family-oriented services to justice-involved families often offered related services through other funding streams. This allowed MFS-IP program components to be more readily incorporated into other, similar programs or to be delivered by longer-term agency staff members who were retained after the MFS-IP grant ended.
Second, certain program models lent themselves more readily to "scaling down" to lower funding levels. Curriculum-driven programs (those that centered on delivery of relationship and parenting education courses) proved easier to sustain in the absence of federal funding than programs focused on high-intensity, individualized service delivery (such as intensive case management). Sites found they could offer family strengthening courses as frequently or infrequently as their resources allowed. In addition, some grantees had the opportunity to train a wide pool of volunteers or long-term staff on their curricula during the course of their MFS-IP grants. This gave them the option of continuing relationship or parenting courses at lower cost after the grant ended.
"Right now inside San Quentin, there isn't a day that I go in there that a member of the corrections staff or a person who lives there doesn't ask me when we're going to bring back the program. I've committed myself to do that."
Finally, the strength of the reputation that programs developed in the prison system—with state-level correctional administrators, facility-level administrators, correctional staff, and incarcerated men—exerted an important influence on their ability to continue delivering family strengthening services without federal funding. Programs that built a strong reputation inside the correctional institution(s) where they operated found that stakeholders would not accept the program's discontinuation, and in some cases decided to fund continued programming rather than see it disappear.
When asked what they had learned from program implementation, many grantees identified specific components that they wished they had included in their original MFS-IP program designs. These included fathers-only relationship or parenting classes and employment-related supports. Above all, program leaders stressed the importance of job placement assistance to men's reentry success, family relationships, and continued attachment to family strengthening services. They believed that holistic programming designed to address a variety of needs beyond relationship and parenting education (including substance abuse treatment, employment and housing) could increase program uptake and impact. The experiences of MFS-IP grantees that embedded family strengthening services in the context of faith- or character-based programming (one third of sites) suggested that supporting individual transformation was crucial in preparing participants for reentry into families and communities.
"We're now spending more time directly with the dads while they're incarcerated. That has helped us keep in contact with them on the outside [after release]."
Grantees also argued that the timing of services was key. During the grant period, several sites switched the order in which they offered their family skills courses. They suggested that providing men with parenting and/or character-building courses before offering relationship education (rather than the other way around) proved more effective in engaging prospective participants. Perspectives differed somewhat on the most desirable timing of services relative to the incarceration term, but several grantees (including those that had focused more on immediate pre-release services in their MFS-IP programs) argued for engaging men early and often during the incarceration term. Staff-participant relationships that were built via frequent contact before men began preparing for imminent release seemed more likely to endure through the transition out into the community. Grantees also suggested that frequent contact after release could make the difference between meaningful ongoing engagement and complete loss of contact with the program.
"As someone is getting close to getting home, they're focused on getting out there and getting a job. You have to engage them in the family stuff way before they're anticipating getting out of the gate—ideally as they're coming in."
Some grantees felt that defining "family" more broadly when serving incarcerated fathers would help increase the impact of programming. They suggested that incarcerated men's romantic and parenting relationship structures are often complex, and also that incarcerated men often draw on crucial support from a family member other than a romantic partner (e.g., their mothers). Their ideas for refocusing eligibility criteria for family strengthening services for this population included:
Grantees believed that relationship strengthening work was a crucial aspect of reentry support for fathers, yet they had mixed perceptions of the MFS-IP initiative's focus on serving the romantic partners of these fathers. Sites that continued to offer services after their MFS-IP grants tended to eliminate the requirement for a spouse or committed partner's participation and to lessen their focus on providing services for these partners in the community. Those organizations that had expanded their eligibility criteria to allow incarcerated parents to participate without a co-enrolled partner tended to state that doing so had allowed them to serve more families with their resources.
"The eligibility criteria are much expanded compared to our MFS-IP program. [We're] getting more bang for the buck and being able to meet more families' needs."
To support the success of future programs serving correctional populations, grantees suggested that clear, consistent communication about eligibility requirements and allowable activities was crucial. Every detail of MFS-IP service delivery had to be painstakingly negotiated within correctional system bureaucracy, so even minor changes in plan caused enormous delays. Grantees whose original program plans were consistent with OFA objectives and requirements fared much better during program start-up than those who had to modify their plans (and partnership agreements) to comply. Those who had a clear understanding of OFA's eligibility requirements, particularly with regard to relationship and parenting status and whether both members of the couple were willing to participate, experienced greater program stability through the grant period.
Grantees noted that communication among program directors of similar MFS-IP programs proved invaluable to implementation success. In many cases, grantees' efforts were pioneering and they had few models or peers to draw on besides one another. OFA's efforts to facilitate peer-to-peer contact helped to encourage innovative solutions to common obstacles and challenges.
One year after their MFS-IP grants ended, program leaders described a lasting impact of the initiative on their own work, their organizations, and their communities. Many sites attributed the following changes to MFS-IP program implementation:
"I think there's been an actual cultural shift. Facilities, administration, custody [staff] are now seeing programs that help, and it's changed their attitudes overall."
A few sites noted other changes, such as improved data sharing between corrections and human services agencies, and more recognition of the importance of a case management or case advocacy approach in serving incarcerated and reentering fathers.
The MFS-IP initiative represented a groundbreaking effort to recognize and respond to the impact of incarceration on families and the crucial role of family support in reentry success. No one program model was required for MFS-IP grantees, and sites varied widely in the program components delivered and service delivery approaches implemented. The MFS-IP implementation evaluation identified common elements of program design, organizational capacity, and operational strategy that shaped grantees' successes and failures in bringing their programs to scale.[10] These implementation findings can help inform ongoing work with families in correctional and reentry settings.
For those working to support reentry through collaboration among correctional agencies, community-based reentry organizations, employers, housing providers, and others serving reentering persons and their families, these evaluation findings suggest:
Examining successes and failures among the array of program models and curricula implemented by MFS-IP grantees, several lessons emerge for designing future programs in this area:
Successful implementation is a key prerequisite for building program models that can be rigorously tested. Strategies for program development suggested by the MFS-IP evaluation include:
"Fatherhood and healthy marriage has been the missing component to successful reentry. Even if you have the job, the treatment, the housing, if you don't have the connections and support, you're just treating the symptoms and you aren't treating the root problems that most often exist within family relationships. We're starting to be a part of a cultural shift in which people realize the importance of family relationships in successful reentry."—former MFS-IP grantee (OH
This initiative brought together organizations from fields that had not historically collaborated—corrections, human services, and domestic violence agencies—in support of healthy relationships, positive parenting, and economic stability among justice-involved families. The efforts of these pioneering practitioners have yielded insights that build the growing field of implementation science and support HHS's continued commitment to identifying effective approaches for serving parents and children affected by incarceration.
[1] All grantees were required to provide services to all eligible persons, regardless of a potential participant's race, gender, age, disability, or religion.
[2] For more on target populations, see the ASPE Research Brief, Program Models of MFS-IP Grantees (McKay & Lindquist, December 2008) available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/MFS-IP/models/rb.pdf.
[3] Under the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act, the Federal government did not recognize same-sex marriage, thereby limiting services to "promote healthy marriage" to heterosexual couples.
[4] For more on involving female partners, see the ASPE Research Brief, Bringing Partners into the Picture (McKay, Bir, Lindquist, Corwin, Herman-Stahl, & Smiley McDonald, August 2009). The brief is available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/MFS-IP/Partners/rb.pdf.
[5] For more on strategies to support parenting, see the ASPE Research Brief, Parenting from Prison (McKay, Corwin, Herman-Stahl, Bir, Lindquist, Smiley McDonald, & Siegel, April 2010). The brief is available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/MFS-IP/Innovative/rb.pdf.
[6] For more on relationship education and skills-building approaches, see the ASPE Research Brief, Strategies for Building Healthy Relationship Skills among Couples Affected by Incarceration (Lindquist, McKay & Bir, March 2012). The brief is available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/MFS-IP/RelationshipSkills/rb.pdf.
[7] For more on working with and within correctional facilities, see the ASPE Research Brief, Strengthening the Couple and Family Relationships of Fathers behind Bars: The Promise and Perils of Corrections-Based Programming (Smiley McDonald, Herman-Stahl, Lindquist, Bir and McKay, August 2009). This brief is available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/MFS-IP/Corrections-Based/rb.pdf.
[8] For more on domestic violence, see the ASPE Research Brief, Addressing Domestic Violence in Family Strengthening Programs for Couples Affected by Incarceration (McKay, Bir, Lindquist, Steffey, Keyes, and Siegel, March 2013). This brief is available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/13/MFS-IPDomesticViolence/rpt.pdf.
[9] Ibid.
[10] For complete implementation study findings, see the final technical report prepared for ASPE, The Implementation of Family Strengthening Programs for Families Affected by Incarceration (Lindquist, McKay, Corwin and Bir, June 2013). The report is available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/mfs-ip/.
[ Go to Contents ]
Funded by the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) and the Office of Family Assistance (OFA), the National Evaluation of Marriage and Family Strengthening Grants for Incarcerated and Reentering Fathers and Their Partners is focused on exploring the effectiveness of relationship and family-strengthening programming in correctional settings.
Implementation Study: Implementation interviews were conducted with each grantee yearly through fall 2010, and again in fall 2012. Interview respondents included program staff, community partners, and participants. Interview respondents included program staff, community partners, and participants. The implementation evaluation focused on program context, program design, target population and participants served, and key challenges and strategies.
Impact Study: Survey data collection with incarcerated men and their partners is currently under way in 5 impact sites selected from among the 12 grantees. Beginning in December 2008, couples participating in MFS-IP programming and a set of similar couples not participating in programming were enrolled in the national impact study and completed the first of four longitudinal surveys designed to collect information about relationship quality, family stability, and reentry outcomes. Baseline data collection is complete, with follow-up data collection expected to continue through approximately April 2014.
This brief and other publications related to the MFS-IP evaluation are available from the HHS ASPE website: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/MFS-IP/. A program overview and evaluation summary, as well as links to publications of interest and other Web resources, may be found at the national evaluation Web site,: https://mfs.rti.org.
For additional information about the MFS-IP evaluation, contact Anupa Bir: (781) 434-1708, email@example.com; Christine Lindquist: (919) 485-5706, firstname.lastname@example.com; or Tasseli McKay: (919) 485-5747, firstname.lastname@example.com.
Suggested citation: McKay, T., Lindquist, C., and Bir, A. (May 2013). Five Years Later: Final Implementation Lessons from the Evaluation of Responsible Fatherhood, Marriage and Family Strengthening Grants for Incarcerated and Reentering Fathers and Their Partners. ASPE Research Brief. Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.