evaluation report€¦ · clean slate administrators submitted the evaluation design, consent...

EVALUATION REPORT

Clean Slate Initiative August 2019

Prepared by Danielle de Garcí a, Independent Evaluator

Prepared for the Deschutes County District Attorney’s Office

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents

Introduction and Project Background __________________________________________________________________ 1

Evaluation Purpose ______________________________________________________________________________________ 3

Evaluation Questions ____________________________________________________________________________________ 3

Evaluation Design and Methods ________________________________________________________________________ 4

Findings and Conclusions _______________________________________________________________________________ 6

Effectiveness _______________________________________________________________________________________ 6

Implementation __________________________________________________________________________________ 14

Recommedations________________________________________________________________________________________ 20

Introduction and Project Background

Deschutes County has a recognized drug prevention problem, with high levels of recidivism and, until recently, a traditional prosecutorial strategy. In trying to understand the broader context of community safety, the District Attorney’s office identified both a challenge and an opportunity in drug-related offenses. A key driver of increasing drug arrests is that known offenders are being re-arrested for drug possession or for committing other crimes, including theft. The county recognized its traditional prosecutorial strategy as having been ineffective in combatting this issue and, as such, launched the Goldilocks initiative in 2017 in partnership with a variety of local law enforcement and medical provider partners to try to address the problem. The Goldilocks model works in three primary tiers:

- Clean Slate: A pre-charge diversion program for those suspected to have Possession of a Controlled Substance (PCS). The program aims to divert people from the criminal justice system and instead moves them towards health facilities to deal with addiction, mental health issues, and other health-related needs. The program has had about 200 participants to-date.

- Boost: For suspects who were not successful in Clean Slate, or who are charged with a drug crime more severe than PCS. These individuals are prosecuted via the “traditional” criminal justice system model. If eligible, and subject to availability, people in this tier may have the opportunity to enter the Circuit Court’s Family Drug Court program.

- Deter: The District Attorney seeks the maximum sentence for individuals that are charged with a commercial drug offense and have a history of drug manufacturing, delivery, or selling drugs to a minor.

By launching the Goldilocks initiative, Deschutes County is committed to addressing the root causes of this issue through a model which recognized linkages between criminal justice, addiction, community safety, and mental health. As the program has now been implemented for a year and half, and thus has its first batch of eligible individuals for graduation, the District Attorney’s office along with all of the Goldilocks partners and staff have rightly recognized the need to measure, monitor, and evaluate the Clean Slate portion of the initiative to determine what is working well, what isn’t, and where the model or its implementation could be improved.

THEORY OF CHANGE

Safer communities in Deschutes County

Reduced burden on criminal justice actors

Reduced # of cases

Reduced days in jail

Reduction in crime rates (PCS and theft)

Reduction in recidivism

rates

Improved health outcomes

Fewer substance

abuse disorders

Improved access to medical

facilities and treatment

By linking PCS suspects to available medical resources; through targeted screening tools, facilitation of

meetings and referrals with healthcare providers and insurance providers, Clean Slate intends to

contribute to community well-being through the following (simplified) outcomes:

IMPLEMENTATION

The original Goldilocks plan was drafted for the 2016 John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

Safety and Justice Challenge. The grant funds received through this Challenge enabled the Goldilocks

partners a full year to plan and refine the initial program concept and implement a six-month pilot of the

program. During this planning period, the Clean Slate program evolved significantly - moving from a

concept that required a fulltime dedicated DDA, to a program with a weekly orientation. Two months prior

to program launch, which was in November 2017, and through the first three months of program

implementation, the administration team conducted a substantial outreach effort with all law enforcement

and the medical partners. The outreach effort provided trainings for all partner organizations to ensure

that staff were aware of the program and could ask questions. It was recognized that the program would

require a culture change and that a mechanism was necessary to share program goals, the model, and any

updates with staff that didn’t participate in the planning meetings.

At the end of the pilot study (May 2018), the program was funded through the COQHA grant supported by

the Central Oregon Independent Practice Association. Over the course of the first full program year, all

partner and individual agency meetings continued to occur regularly to address identified needs and

challenges, which fostered the continued growth and evolution of the program. A second outreach effort

was conducted in fall 2018 that included visiting each law enforcement agency's briefings to provide

updates on the program to ensure officers and deputies were aware of program changes. It also provided

another opportunity for the staff at each agency to ask questions and address concerns in hopes of building

more program buy-in.

Working with law enforcement and the health care providers to implement the program, the DA's Office

manages the program on a small budget with two part-time program administrators. As envisioned, when

an individual is cited with a charge of Possession of a Controlled Substance, the law enforcement officer is

supposed to provide the participant with a Clean Slate card, which informs them of the program, advises

that they must attend an orientation meeting within one week, and offers a bus pass to attend the meeting,

if needed. They are also informed that, upon successful completion of the program, their charge will be

dismissed. During the orientation meeting, the District Attorney talks about the program, and the

individuals fill out individual screening documents (ACES and Conner Davis screening tools). The

individual then meets with a defense attorney and later with an alcohol and drug counselor, who

administers the TCU tool. Based on a total score gathered from the three assessments, the participant is

placed into one of two categories. Level I participants are deemed to be lower risk, and their case is

immediately dismissed. They are offered an appointment with a medical provider, but are not required to

accept or attend it. Level I participants are only eligible for program graduation if they do not incur any

further citations within a year. For Level II participants, individuals must attend a meeting with a

healthcare provider and follow their provider’s treatment advice while also not getting re-arrested. That

treatment plan will vary significantly based on the individual. After one year of compliance with their

medical provider and no new arrests, their case is dismissed. Failing to attend the orientation, failure to

comply with treatment, or getting re-arrested results in revocation from the program, or placement from

Level I into Level II.

To address a lack of enrollment in the program (in part due to trust in the program and inconsistencies

with handing out program cards), participants are now given until their arraignment date to learn about

the program. The program administrators attempt to reach eligible participants from when the DA’s Office

received the police report until the Thursday prior to the individual’s arraignment date. The front office

staff at the DA’S office also hand out cards to eligible participants who visit the window upon not seeing

their name on the docket for court on the day of their arraignment. The administrators also work closely

with the health centers to enable schedules and locations which align with participant needs, to the best

extent possible. Finally, the program has been working to improve its tracking of participants and to align it

with the database used by prosecutors.

Evaluation Purpose

While the primary user of this evaluation is the Goldilocks collaborative team (listed below), the evaluation

will also be made available to the public and other jurisdictions, particularly within the MacArthur

Foundation's Safety and Justice Challenge network that are interested in implementing a pre-trail drug

diversion program:

• Mosaic Medical;

• La Pine Community Health Center;

• Bend Treatment Center

• Best Care

• Deschutes County Sherriff ’s Office (DCSO);

• Bend Police Department (PD)

• Redmond Police Department (PD);

• Sunriver Police Department (PD);

• Black Butte Ranch Police Department;

• District Attorneys and Defense Attorneys;

• Pfiefer & Associates; and

• Other criminal justice actors, police departments, medical providers, and government agencies

interested in potentially scaling, modifying, or replicating this intervention.

The evaluation is intended to primarily serve a learning purpose. In doing so, the evaluation will help the

DA and partners modify the implementation of the Clean Slate Initiative – whether that be through

modified targeting approaches, expanding access, changing implementation thresholds, or trying

something new entirely. Further, the evaluation is intended to enhance buy-in from partners and other

agencies and/or donor organizations through a demonstration of its commitment to evidence-based

decision-making. Research Questions

Evaluation Questions

In order to meet the above purposes, this evaluation will prioritize the following five research questions,

categorized into two principal categories:

EFFECTIVENESS

1. To what extent is Clean Slate meeting its targets in terms of reduced recidivism rates and other

criminal justice outcomes?

• How, if at all, do participant demographic information, TCU/ACES scores, and/or criminal history

affect success rates?

2. To what extent, if any, is participation in Clean Slate associated with secondary medical benefits?

• These might include visits to emergency facilities, incidence of diabetes, preventative health care,

or other.

IMPLEMENTATION

3. What are the key barriers and enablers of participation in the program?

4. What do stakeholders believe is working well in the initiative to-date?

5. What obstacles to success remain?

Evaluation Design & Methods

The evaluation utilized a mixed-methods snapshot design for the evaluation, capturing views from law

enforcement and medical providers, program administrators, current and former participants, and eligible

participants who chose not to take part in the program. Due to the sensitive nature of the evaluation topics

(health and criminal justice outcomes) and the marginalization of the target population, the evaluator and

Clean Slate administrators submitted the evaluation design, consent forms, and protocols to an

Institutional Review Board (IRB) prior to roll-out, in order to ensure the appropriate respondent

protections were in place.

SAMPLING

Quantitative data used a census approach, capturing monitoring data for all Clean Slate participants and, as

relevant, eligible non-participants. Data for eligible individuals (participants and non-participants)

included information on arrest rates and demographics. For participants, quantitative data further

included scores for social determinants of health, completion rates, and additional demographic

information.

Qualitative data collection sampling was purposive in nature, a combination of convenience and snowball

sampling strategies. Despite an attempt to conduct simple random sampling for participants and eligible

individuals who chose not to participate, the lack of response rate necessitated attempting every eligible

individual and interviewing those who responded affirmatively. The team used phone calls, emails, and

social media to reach non-participants. Due to a relatively small sample size, and the fact that this is subject

to heavy selection and response bias, the evaluation results are not a statistically representative sample for

this population, as was anticipated.

PROCESS

The evaluator conducted two trips for this evaluation. The first served as a scoping trip to better

understand the program, key stakeholders, and needs. The evaluator conducted a number of semi-

structured interviews to ascertain evaluation priorities, perceptions, and utilization needs; as well as to

probe as to initial perceptions of programmatic design and implementation. She also attended an

orientation session to conduct direct observation of the implementation process. The second trip was

conducted following IRB approval and included interviews and focus groups with approximately 35

individuals.

DOCUMENT REVIEW

The evaluator reviewed program records, application materials, available reports, and monitoring data.

This included working with Clean Slate administrators to pull data relating to a number of key variables of

interest. This includes the following data, though some data may be limited based on completeness of and

access to full databases:

TYPE OF DATA VARIABLES OF INTEREST

Demographic Information Age, location, type of controlled substance cited, housing situation, previous arrest record, employment status

Implementation Information % of participants in Level 1 vs Level 2, % of participants in each level successfully completing the program

Criminal Justice Information Absolute recidivism rates,

Medical Information Scores on social determinants of health pre/post data; intake scores (ACES, TCU, etc.); % no-shows for doctors’ appointments

KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS AND GROUP INTERVIEWS

Semi-structured key informant interviews were conducted with health care providers, law enforcement

officers, judges, defense attorneys, and Clean Slate implementers. These interviews focused on topics

related to evaluation questions on implementation, covering questions such as:

• What obstacles do you encounter in administering the program?

• What do you feel is working well within Clean Slate?

• To what extent, if any, do you believe the intervention is successful? Has the potential to be

successful?

• What recommendations or improvements do you have to improve the likelihood of success?

INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUPS

Semi-structured individual interviews and focus groups (where possible) were conducted with Clean

Slate’s target population. This included participants and individuals who were eligible to participate but

chose not to. Focus groups were disaggregated by gender, where feasible. These discussions focused on

implementation-focused evaluation questions, and covered topics such as:

• What factors influenced your decision to participate in Clean Slate or not?

• What did you like about the program? What didn’t you like about it?

• How easy or difficult was it for you to comply with Clean Slate’s requirements? Why?

• How did you hear about Clean Slate?

• If you chose not to participate – is there something Clean Slate did not offer that you needed?

• If you did choose to participate - what was the biggest change that resulted from your engagement

with Clean Slate?

• What recommendations do you have to improve the effectiveness of the program?

LIMITATIONS

Given the lack of a statistically valid comparison group and the relatively small number of participants (‘n’)

thus far in Clean Slate, this evaluation will not attempt to draw statistical inferences regarding the causality

of variables and outcomes. As feasible, the evaluation will try to compare outcomes and demographic

variables of non-participants in order to identify correlations as a way to mitigate this. Due to the nature of

the population being studied (and therefore the risk of response bias and selection bias due to willingness

to participate), some answers – particularly those relating to the implementation side of the evaluation, are

not expected to be statistically representative of the broader population. To the extent possible, the

questions on effectiveness will have valid data from all participants and therefore be representative of the

participating population (and, to some extent, relevant comparable non-participant groups).

Questionnaires were structured in such a way as to reduce threats to validity resulting from response bias

through intentional sequencing, best practice consent and communication protocols, and follow-up to non-

responses. Analysis Plan

Findings and Conclusions

Of the 535 individuals in the database, at the time of the evaluation, approximately 42 percent were female

and 58 percent identified as male. The population was overwhelmingly white (91 percent), and ages

ranged from 18-71 years old, with an average age of 35. Approximately 67 percent of citations were for

methamphetamine, and 18 percent were for heroin. Forty-six percent of the citations given were from Bend

PD, with the Deschutes County Sheriff ’s Office giving 32 percent, and the Redmond PD giving 21 percent of

citations included in this evaluation.

EFFECTIVENESS

Of the 535 total eligible individuals, 292 were rejected (meaning they didn’t show up to the initial

meetings, therefore becoming non-participants). One hundred and ninety-nine (199) were accepted into

Clean Slate, and another 25 were still eligible and pending continuation.

For Level I participants, seven of seventy-one potential applicants have been revoked (typically due to re-

arrest). That means, to-date, more than ninety percent of Clean Slate Level I applicants are successfully

enrolled or have graduated without additional law enforcement encounters. Of those participants who are

eligible for graduation (that is, who have had at least one year pass between enrollment and the date of the

evaluation), all twenty-one have graduated.

The Level II success rate is much lower, perhaps unsurprisingly due to increased risk, trauma, and severity

of cases in this population. Of the 128 potential Level II participants, only two have successfully graduated.

These two cases are likely not the full story, as both medical providers and Clean Slate administrators noted

delays and confusion around requirements to demonstrate compliance and successful treatment and

completion required for graduation. For example, of 40 who enrolled prior to May 1, 2017 (meaning they

are potentially eligible for graduation), 67% of them were revoked from the program. For another 11, final

status is unknown as the team is awaiting paperwork regarding substantial medical compliance. Given that

nearly half of all Level II participants have been revoked, it is unlikely that the graduation rate will

substantively improve over time. Although many of those revoked were for re-arrests, a a few were due to

missing initially-scheduled medical appointment. Of the 45 Level II participants listed as ‘in progress,’ it is

difficult to ascertain the extent to which they are en route to completion and successfully complying with

medical advice due to HIPAA regulations and a lack of understanding on the part of some medical providers

regarding the forms to fill out which document progress or lack thereof (see implementation barriers

below for more information on this point).

Outcomes: Qualitatively, for those individuals who are either currently enrolled or who have graduated,

the program has made a significant impact on their lives. Level I participants and graduates often noted

that this was their first arrest or that they were cited during a relapse after a long time of being sober or

clean and the program may have substantively changed their future by not having a record. In one case, the

Total Individuals

Rejected (i.e. non-participant)

Accepted into Clean Slate

Eligible for Clean Slate

Level 1

Revoked In progress Completed

Level 2

RevokedPending

treatment appointment

In progress Completed

Revoked (missing level)

Missing Data

535

292 199 25 17 2

71 128

7 43 63 18 45 21 2

program allowed the participant to continue to receive benefits they otherwise would have been ineligible

for. Participants in Level II, though quantitatively fewer in number, noted much higher magnitudes of

change. One currently enrolled participant, who had been a drug user for more than 16 years, noted,

“This program saved my life: I would have been dead by now…. I reconnected with my family,

haven’t been arrested, gained weight, got healthier, and have less sick days at work. It’s a miracle –

my whole life has changed”.

Another noted that, due to Clean Slate, they have been able to go on field trips with their child and attain

housing in a complex close to family, both of which would not have been possible had they had charges on

their record. Anecdotally, health care providers also cite unintended consequences – particularly of

involvement with Level II of the program. Even for those who have been re-arrested, a number of them

have now established relationships with health care providers and have been diagnosed for other medical

conditions (including chronic illnesses such as diabetes and hepatitis). However, these health benefits are

not able to be tracked quantitatively due to aforementioned privacy reasons and therefore the evaluation

was unable to determine any correlations in outcomes related to these effects.

Stakeholders from all groups noted that ‘success’ of the program is dependent on how one defines success.

Health care providers tended to believe some of the success of the program was in its ability to connect

individuals with medical treatment. One noted that they “have patients that (they) have built relationships

with because of Clean Slate that will come see [them] for unrelated things”. Others note that longer periods

staying clean (for example, 6 months when they hadn’t been clean for 5 years) should be counted as

success. Law enforcement stakeholders tended to disagree. A few stated that just getting treatment is not

enough, and that they should have to be clean to be considered successful. For law enforcement,

respondents often defined success as: well defined: people getting clean and reducing recidivism rates.

Many felt it was particularly problematic when they saw individuals repeatedly, and still were not being

charged due to repeated attempts at entry into the Clean Slate program. (It should be noted that although

this was the perspective of respondents, the program only allows for Level I individuals to re-enter the

program once, as a Level II participant, before being permanently banned from re-entry. Level II individuals

do not receive a second chance to re-enter). That stated, health care providers and law enforcement

officers both noted that the individuals for whom this is most effective is a small group of individuals and

that, for those struggling with substance abuse, it is really about catching them at the right time.

With respect to community relationships, participants in the Clean Slate Program (Levels I and II) noted

more positive views of the law enforcement community. One Level II participant noted that, “the police

officer who arrested me actually checks up on me. He gives me hugs. That never would have happened

where I’m from. He’s a good guy – I’ve never known a cop before.” Similarly, an individual working in law

enforcement noted that the best thing about the program is that, “If we come across a person we haven’t

met yet, it helps develop a little bit of rapport. It gives a way to show them I’m empathetic.” Another

stakeholder noted that they felt the program creates community buy-in, showing that the District

Attorney’s office isn’t just about prosecution. Rather it shows that the office is “here to create community

safety and help the community. That’s a big bonus”. That said, a number of other stakeholders believed that

the other benefits, outside of recidivism rates to be outside of the scope of the DA’s Office and would best

be left to other stakeholders, which the DA’s office could coordinate with.

With respect to general differences between graduates and non-graduates, the below table includes

descriptive statistics for the mean differences between these groups for a variety of variables.

Table 1: Differences in means between Graduates and Non-Graduates

Characteristic Non-Graduates

(N=87)

Graduates (N=23)

Difference1

Female 46% 52% -0.06 (0.1179)

White 93% 96% -.03 (0.0577)

Age 32.72 43.22 -10.50*** (2.524)

Internal Referral 46% 32% 0.15 (0.1187)

Level II 90% 9% 0.81*** (0.0718)

TCU Score 7.113 2.695 4.417*** (0.7537)

ACE Score 3.507 2.435 1.072** (0.6275)

CDRISC Score 27.592 29.522 1.930 (1.8602)

Total Score 9.237 3.654 5.583*** (1.0606)

Recidivism -3 years prior to 11/1/2017 1.080 0.6521 0.43 (0.3705)

Recidivism – 3 years prior to 3/17/2019 4.977 1.478 3.5*** (0.8398)

Primary charge – methamphetamine 60% 72% -0.12 (0.1262)

Primary charge - heroin 29% 6% 0.24** (0.1109)

Employed2 35% 57% -0.21* (0.1169)

Has transport3 79% 96% -0.17* (0.8945)

Has permanent housing4 28% 57% -0.28** (0.1112)

Standard errors are indicated in parenthesis *** p<0.01; ** p <0.05; * p<0.1

1 Difference is mean of non-graduates subtracted from mean of graduates 2 Employed refers to any full-time or part-time work 3 Having transport refers to having a vehicle or reporting use of public transportation 4 Refers to both owning or renting

A look at these differences in means (averages) show that there are statistically significant differences between graduates and non-graduates. According to the means only (linear regression models below), individuals who have permanent housing, who are older, Level I, and who have transportation, a charge other than heroin, employment, and/or permanent housing are statistically more likely to graduate than those who do not fall into those categories. Similarly, those with lower TCU, ACE, and overall scores are more likely to graduate than their counterparts with higher scores. Those with the lowest standard errors (less than .01) are the differences between graduated and non-graduates with respect to TCU scores and age. Overall score is most likely correlated with the TCU difference.

One important point to note is that graduates, unsurprisingly due to the conditions of graduation, by their nature have lower recidivism rates that their non-graduate counterparts. The program as a whole, however, does not seem to have reduced recidivism rates of the eligible population as calculated by comparing a 3-year average prior to November 2017 with that of March 2019, even after accounting for one citation per eligible participant to incorporate them into the program. That stated, recidivism rates have increased much faster for non-participants and those who have failed out of the program than they have for participants in Clean Slate.

Predictors of Success: The evaluator also ran bivariate and multivariate linear regression models on these variables to determine correlations and statistically significant relationships in the data. There were no statistically significant relationships in regressions 1, 2, 5, 10, 14, and 18 (see Table 2), but other regressions did show interesting correlations.

The results of these regressions depict a number of interesting findings. For example, though qualitative interviews predicted that younger individuals would be more likely to graduate from Clean Slate, each additional year of age is associated with a 1.32 percentage point increase in the probability of graduating (see Table 2, Regression 3). This is a minor increase but does run counter to the perspectives of many in law enforcement and Clean Slate administrators. Similarly when comparing a 20-year old participant with a 40-year old participant, the 40-year old is more than 25% more likely to graduate than their younger counterpart. Males and females were equally likely to graduate or not from the program and, once they enrolled in the program, internal (DA's Office) and external (law enforcement or defense attorney) referrals into the program were equally likely to graduate from a statistical standpoint (Regressions 1 and 5 in Table 2).

On the other hand, prior arrests do indeed correlate with graduation rates, as stakeholders had predicted. Every additional citation is associated with a 2.8% percentage point decrease in the probability of graduating (Regression 13). Similarly, individuals charged with possession of heroin are associated with

Clean Slate Status Mean Recidivism,

Nov 2017 Mean Recidivism,

March 2019

Clean Slate Level 1 Accepted 0.38 1.65

Clean Slate Level 1 Successful Completion 0.67 1.52

Clean Slate Level 2 Accepted 0.72 1.90

Clean Slate Level 2 Successful Completion 0.50 1.00

Clean Slate Rejected 1.36 4.47

Clean Slate Revoked 1.03 4.93

Grand Total 1.17 3.88

an 18 percentage point decrease in the probability of graduating from Clean Slate compared to individuals who received a primary charge related to other drugs (Regression 15). Qualitatively, stakeholders believed that this was in part due to the fact that Suboxone was used prevalently to treat heroin addiction but was often being abused or ineffective in treating the addiction itself.

Individuals with access to transportation are, somewhat unsurprisingly, associated with higher graduation rates – a 21.95 percentage point increase compared to those reporting a lack of access to transport (Regression 17). Individuals in La Pine are associated with a 52.87 percentage point increase in the probability of graduating from Clean Slate compared to Bend. The other cities do not have statistically significant relationships. The reasons for this are unknown, though it should be noted that the sample size for La Pine is smaller than those from other cities, containing only 11 percent of eligible individuals in the sample (less than 60 individuals). That stated, La Pine providers noted that they work with participants to provide transportation, which could combine for an improved outcome.

Each additional point on the TCU assessment is associated with a 6.15 percentage point decrease in the probability of graduating from Clean Slate (Regression 8), though this regression does not control for other factors and is not statistically significant. Of the 14 individuals with TCU scores below a 3 who were categorized as Level II participants, only 4 have been revoked (less than a third, which is significantly better than the average revocation rate for Level II participants). Similarly, every additional point of the Clean Slate total score is associated with a 4.14 percentage point decrease in the probability of graduating (likely associated with the previously noted TCU score), though this one does show a statistically significant relationship. Of the 17 individuals in Level II with a Clean Slate score of below a 6, seven of them (or 41%) have been revoked – again lower than the average percentage of revocations from Level II.

As individuals classified as Level II are associated with a 71.92 percentage point decrease in the probability of graduating through bivariate analysis (Regression 7), the evaluator ran multivariate regressions on these individuals (see regressions 19 and 20) to control for other possible mitigating factors and to better understand the extent to which this relationship was indeed highly correlated. Controlling for other factors (including referral type, age, recidivism rates), Level II participants are still 54% less likely to graduate. In both cases, being Level II indicates a very strong, statistically significant, negative relationship to graduation (in terms of p-values and co-efficient magnitude).

Table 2. Linear Probability Model Regression Results - Clean Slate Graduates versus Clean Slate Non-graduates

Dependent Variables Regression (1)

Regression (2)

Regression (3)

Regression (4)

Regression (5)

Regression (6)

Regression (7)

Regression (8)

Regression (9)

Regression (10)

Female 0.0411 - - - - - - - - - White - 0.0707 - - - - - - - - Age - - 0.0132*** - - - - - - - City – Redmond1 - - - 0.0764 - - - - - - City – La Pine1 - - - 0.5287*** - - - - - - City – Other cities1 - - - -0.0546 - - - - - - Internal Referral - - - - -0.0969 - - - - - Law Enforcement – DCSO

- - - - - 0.1890* - - - -

Law Enforcement – Other

- - - - - 0.1795 - - - -

Law Enforcement – RPD

- - - - - -0.0538 - - - -

Level2 - - - - - - -0.7192*** - - - TCU - - - - - - - -0.0615*** - - ACE - - - - - - - - -0.0286* - CDRISC - - - - - - - - - 0.0059 Total Score - - - - - - - - - - Recidivism – three years prior to 3/17/18

- - - - - - - - - -

Recidivism – three years prior to 11/1/17

- - - - - - - - - -

Primary charge - methamphetamine

- - - - - - - - - -

Primary charge - heroin

- - - - - - - - - -

Employed3 - - - - - - - - - - Has transport4 - - - - - - - - - - Has permanent housing5

- - - - - - - - - -

Constant 0.1897 0.1429 -0.2501 0.1379 0.2459 0.1538 0.7500 0.6159 0.3378 0.0765 Number of Observations

110 110 110 110 108 110 93 94 94 94

R-squared 0.0025 0.0018 0.1380 0.1647 0.0142 0.0588 0.5848 0.2718 0.0308 0.0116

Dependent Variables Regression (11)

Regression (12)

Regression (13)

Regression (14)

Regression (15)

Regression (16)

Regression (17)

Regression (18)

Regression (19)

Regression (20)

Female - - - - - - - - - 0.0552 White - - - - - - - - - -0.0666 Age - - - - - - - - - 0.0059 City – Redmond1 - - - - - - - - - 0.2002 City – La Pine1 - - - - - - - - - 0.4372*** City – Other cities1 - - - - - - - - - 0.0392 Internal Referral - - - - - - - - - -0.0759 Law Enforcement – DCSO

- - - - - - - - - -0.1675

Law Enforcement – Other

- - - - - - - - - -0.5150***

Law Enforcement – RPD

- - - - - - - - - -0.2090

Level2 - - - - - - - - -0.6889*** -0.5448*** TCU - - - - - - - - 0. 6184 0.2933 ACE - - - - - - - - 0.6325 0.2973 CDRISC - - - - - - - - -0.0358 -0.0189 Total Score -0.0414*** - - - - - - - -0.6243 -0.2893 Recidivism – three years prior to 3/17/19

- -0.0395*** - - - - - - - -0.0121

Recidivism – three years prior to 11/1/17

- - -0.0285* - - - - - 0.0100 0.0162

Primary charge - methamphetamine

- - - 0.0718 - - - - 0.0031 -0.0834

Primary charge - heroin

- - - - -0.1795*** - - - -0.0084 -0.0151

Employed3 - - - - - 0.1635* - - - -0.0303 Has transport4 - - - - - - 0.2195*** - - 0.0681 Has permanent housing5

- - - - - - - 0.2300 - 0.1086

Constant 0.5710 0.3771 0.2374 0.1282 0.2179 0.1786 0.0625 0.1639 0.8391 0.5261 Number of Observations

94 110 110 104 104 94 94 94 85 83

R-squared 0.2315 0.1385 0.0122 0.0084 0.0422 0.0348 0.0368 0.0652 0.5449 0.6504

IMPLEMENTATION

Enrollment: Success once enrolled is dependent on a multitude of factors, as described above. However, the

program to-date has struggled with enrollment in the program itself. 292 of 535 eligible individuals

(approximately 55%) have not enrolled in the program at all, which is surprising to both Clean Slate

Administrators as well as to participants who were asked about this. As such, the evaluator also ran a series of

regressions to determine correlations between participants and non-participants. There was no statistically

significant relationship between age, gender, and race as predictors of enrollment, nor were there strong

associations for arresting law enforcement agency, city, or methamphetamine vs. heroin citations.

That stated, each additional arrest/citation prior to the program start is associated with a 3.68 percentage point

decrease in the probability of participating in Clean Slate. Most striking (Regression 7 in Table 3). Aligned with

Administrator experience, individuals being internally referred to the Clean Slate program (that is, by

administrators rather than by the Law Enforcement Agency) are associated with a statistically significant 20

percentage point decrease in the probability of participating in Clean Slate compared to those referred to the

program by law enforcement (Regression 5). Both correlations (citation records and internal vs. external

referrals) hold true when controlling for eight other variables via multivariate regressions (Regression 10).

This also aligns with eligible participant perspectives, who noted that they felt the program ‘sounded too good

to be true’ and only believed it to be credible when a police officer handed them a card. Coming from law

enforcement, they felt the program held additional sway and authority. The difficulty getting law enforcement

to hand out cards has been a huge source of frustration for stakeholders outside of law enforcement. As Clean

Slate administrators recognized that many individuals were not receiving a card during their citation, they have

allowed for additional opportunities for entry into the program. This has included allowing individuals who

visit the court house for their arraignment (date provided on their citation) one last opportunity to learn about

the program, in case they had not heard otherwise, and attend the orientation the very next Friday. While this

has worked to some extent, and lends the needed credibility to eligible individuals, it has also created some

tensions due to workloads and tracking.

Views from law enforcement officers varied regarding why they do or do not hand cards out. Even within the

same agencies, many openly noted they did not agree with the program or did not believe in handing out cards,

while others advocated strongly for their use. The single biggest reason cited for not giving the card is that they

don’t believe in the program or do not know whether it is effective. Nearly all law enforcement officers

complained that they have no insight as to whether or not the program is working, success rates, and whether

they should prioritize certain individuals. Rather, a few have given out cards and have seen the individuals

return, which has made them less likely to hand it out in the future. One noted, “They’re not being honest with

themselves about the program. There’s no need to make it look successful on the first shot, but be real with the

numbers. I would be more inclined if they [Clean Slate administrators and the DA’s office] had honest tracking.

It makes me less want to go out and do more because I don’t feel they [participants] are held accountable.”

Another reason cited by one agency in particular, was that Clean Slate has interfered with the officers’ ability to

‘flip’ an individual and have them become an informant. They stated that “If they know they’re eligible for Clean

Slate, there isn’t any incentive to flip. Some are hearing about [Clean Slate] in the community. If you try to talk to

them, they used to give you information off the bat. Now they say they want Clean Slate instead.” As such,

another noted they “intentionally don’t Clean Slate people that I want to sign as informants.” Officers from

multiple agencies also cited a lack of accountability for repeat offenders and a lack of knowledge regarding

participant status in the program.

Table 3. Linear Probability Model Regression Results – Clean Slate Participants versus Clean Slate Non-Participants

Independent Variables

Regression (1)

Regression (2)

Regression (3)

Regression (4)

Regression (5)

Regression (6)

Regression (7)

Regression (8)

Regression (9)

Regression (10)

Female 0.0699 - - - - - - - - 0.0812*

White - -0.0141 - - - - - - - 0 .0348

Age - - -0.0012 - - - - - - 0.0005

City – Redmond1 - - - -0.0094 - - - - - -0.0555

City – La Pine1 - - - -0.0903 - - - - - -0.1579*

City – Other cities1 - - - -0.1093* - - - - - -0.1521**

Internal Referral - - - - -0.2001*** - - - - -0.1885***

Law Enforcement – DCSO2

- - - - - 0.0213 - - - 0.0925

Law Enforcement – Other2

- - - - - 0.1813 - - - 0 .1934

Law Enforcement – RPD2

- - - - - 0. 0216 - - - 0.0289

Recidivism – three years prior to Nov. 1, 2017

- - - - - - -0.0368*** - - -0.0282***

Primary charge – methamphetamine

- - - - - - - -0.0719 - -0.1320*

Primary charge – heroin

- - - - - - - - 0.0313 -0.0716

Constant 0.3767 0. 4186 0.4443 0.4351 0.5357 0.3901 0.4454 0.4430 0.3892 0.5891

Number of Observations

489 488 489 487 466 490 490 476 476 447

R-squared 0.0049 0.0001 0.0007 0.0088 0.0382 0.0022 0.0201 0.0048 0.0006 0.0786

*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1 Notes: 1 The reference category is Bend. 2 The reference category is BPD.

As one put it, “Law enforcement is here to investigate and hold people accountable to mistakes. I see [Clean

Slate] as a way that we don’t fully hold PCS accountable as far as that individual goes. I don’t feel that our PCS

charges are being held as accountable as they should be – it’s a big issue in our region and we’re slowly starting

to turn a blind eye to it.” One noted an instance where they found an individual who immediately asked the

officer(s) to ‘Clean Slate her.’ The officer didn’t know whether the individual was in the program or failed out

without extensive work to determine the status.

What is working well: Stakeholders had a wide range of views regarding what works well within the Clean

Slate program – largely associated with their experiences with the program and views of the approach. For

participants (and the few non-participants who responded), they believe the model is a good one – which

allows for second chances and facilitates connections with treatment and healthcare providers. Level I and

Level II participants generally felt that the orientation meeting was particularly useful, and that they

appreciated the format (having the District Attorney speak, which they believed lent credibility to the program

and facilitated a personal connection), in addition to a defense attorney and health professional. Most felt that

the level of treatment or involvement was right for them, based on where they were at the time. Level I

participants also appreciated the lack of paperwork and to-do tasks, enabling them to continue with their work,

school, or lives with minimal disruption.

For Level II participants, they generally believed that the level of treatment was appropriate. Two participants

noted that they started with very regular (one to three times a week) meetings, which became less frequent

(monthly) as they improved. One stated,

“Clean Slate holds you really accountable. If you weren’t accountable having to do all of this, wouldn’t stay

clean. Getting clean is hard – when you don’t have to have a charge and are able to get your life back on

track, get the job you need, think about what you want to do in school, it makes all of the options available.

Clean Slate gives you an option to be what you want to be.”

Administrators, defense attorneys, and healthcare providers are particularly aware of the health-related

successes for these individuals. One stakeholder noted that “For those who enter and stay with the program,

there has been a real opportunity for them to get medical help. I have seen a number of them who said that they

hadn’t seen a doctor in years. It works well for those who enter and stay in the program.” Another noted that

participants are “for the most part, showing up for the initial appointment and assessing key needs. Some are

newly diagnosed diabetic and actually getting care for the first time.” As one stakeholder put it, “Offering this

engagement is huge in winning their trust and possible access to care that they otherwise wouldn’t have

themselves. By offering a carrot, the incentive, they don’t have a lot to lose…. Care coordination, seeing referrals,

and collaboration reduces barriers and challenges.” Another noted that “We’ve had some pretty good feedback

from a few of the different participants… Not a ton of those, but definitely a handful. That’s a start, a step in the

right direction.”

Many administrators and medical providers believe in the model, saying “From where I sit and what I see, I

think this is the right model… It’s better than the traditional way of looking at things for sure”. Another noted

that “we’re getting people who need primary medical care into primary medical care and we’re not getting

people in the criminal justice system that shouldn’t be there.” While another stated, “We are providing the

opportunity to meet with medical providers and there are people taking advantage of it – people who hadn’t

been in years.”

On the implementation side, partners and administrators cite strong partnerships and internal coordination. As

one noted, “People were interested and wanted to help participate and set it up. It’s wonderful to see that

process.” Another noted that “We have a good relationship with almost all partners. That’s positive. They come

to me if they’re having any issues.” All partners but law enforcement tended to agree – noting the

responsiveness of administrators, willingness to adapt, and to figure things out together. The program has been

flexible with both partners and participants, and they have developed advocates in some of the agencies. La

Pine, for example, has been able to maintain a wait time of only 1-2 weeks due to both the lower number of

individuals participating but also by reserving a slot for Clean Slate participants and releasing it to others if it’s

not needed. The partnership with Oregon Health Plan was also cited as a key success, recognizing the lack of

insurance or care that many in the population struggled with. Stakeholders believed it was easy and efficient,

and less bureaucratic than some were worried it could have been. One respondent noted that “It’s a slow tide

that’s turning. We have great partners and team members, and our meetings have been consistent. Word is

getting out in the community that the initiative exists, which is a positive as well.”

Finally, a number of stakeholders also referenced the community aspect of the program – that Clean Slate shows

a “face of criminal justice that they’ve never seen before.” It can help create buy-in into the system, and

participants state that their families and communities see that and benefit from it as well.

Barriers to Success: Barriers to success typically fall within a couple of key categories: tracking and feedback;

lack of buy-in and support to the program; and implementation challenges.

Nearly all stakeholders noted the lack of buy-in as an inhibitor of success, which was particularly prevalent for

law enforcement agencies. As law enforcement officers themselves noted, they are often not handing out the

cards despite data showing that the program is more effective when they do so. This lack of buy-in to the

program is multi-faceted and mirrors the perspectives of other stakeholders. The reasons cited for this include:

• Perceptions that the program is politically motivated. A number of stakeholders believed the Clean

Slate program to be politically motivated. When probed as to why they felt it was a politically motivated

initiative, they cited the lack of accountability and number sharing on success rates, and the fact that

they felt it was directive with respect to who participates and how. Similarly, a few respondents said

that Clean Slate was supposed to roll out in conjunction with harsher sentences for dealers and others,

but that they have not seen that to be the case. Rather, the focus seems to have been on lowering or

dropping charges rather than also on enhancing prosecution on the other end of the spectrum.

• Beliefs that the model is ineffective. A number of individuals, particularly in law enforcement, did

not believe the model to be one that would work. This was based on their experience with similar

populations, seeing the same individuals arrested repeatedly, and experiences seeing jail time help

some individuals become sober. As noted previously, some also felt that the secondary health and

community benefits, while potentially useful, should not be within the purview of the District

Attorney’s office, and rather should be left to agencies or organizations with those mandates. Some

others noted that they did not believe doctors should be the ones determining whether or not

individuals stayed in the program – that they could note adherence to treatment, but that someone else

should make that decision to avoid a conflict of interest. (It should be noted that doctors provide

confirmation of compliance, not of graduation, which did not seem to be widely understood. When

clarified, stakeholders often desired more clarity on what compliance was – and noted that they would

only consider compliance to be clean urine analyses as opposed to subjective treatment decisions). As

one put it “In general, it’s not well received among law enforcement. We’re not mad at it for being

touchy feely – we just want to see cases of success.”

The impacts of this are significant. When law enforcement is not bought in, and therefore do not hand

out the Clean Slate card, eligible individuals are significantly less likely to participate in Clean Slate, as

noted above. Similarly, when they are not handed a card and find out about the program later, the

process becomes delayed and burdensome to a variety of stakeholders along the chain (postponing

court dates, etc.). This leads to a vicious cycle of lack of buy-in, as stakeholder then feel the process is

inefficient or burdensome. Thus, the lack of buy-in from law enforcement in particular, is seen by many

as a key barrier to success.

• Feeling that the program is a burden to their already heavy workload. For some law enforcement

officers, adding to their workload by asking officers to give Clean Slate cards, bus tickets, and make

note of the program in their records seemed an undue burden. For others, they said this was not an

issue. Still others cited having to track and re-arrest the same individuals numerous times because they

had been given additional chances by Clean Slate5; or informants decided not to provide information

because they would prefer the Clean Slate program. For other stakeholders, there has been additional

burden to track and/or reschedule participants and cases due to their involvement in the program, and

due to delays in learning about and participating in the program, as noted above.

• Lack of data on success rates and feedback. Perhaps the single largest source of frustration is the

sense that stakeholders do not know how successful the program is or is not. They do not feel they

have easy access to understanding who is enrolled in the program, who has failed out, and who has

graduated. The lack of understanding regarding the extent to which there are successes or not has

frustrated many stakeholders, contributing to a lack of enthusiasm for the initiative. As one noted, “A lot

of people don’t trust it because there’s no communication about numbers.” The lack of feedback has

also led to difficulties in tracking cases throughout the different systems – allowing some cases to go

unprosecuted after lingering in limbo during a database management systems transition. As one

stakeholder put it, “The problem is that when we don’t follow through when they fail out, then word

gets out that it doesn’t matter when you fail out. Under a conditional discharge at least we can monitor

them. With Clean Slate, we just don’t know what’s happening.” There are some logistical implications to

this as well, including for district attorneys and law enforcement. For example, typically the agencies

attempt to charge within six months. If a Clean Slate participant fails out after nine months, that means

they need to hold onto evidence, track and prosecute nearly a year later – all of which do have costs.

Finally, a few stakeholders noted that they would be interested in understanding what the cost of the

Clean Slate program is – that they might be more willing to support it if they understood both where

the money was coming from and how much it cost.

5 Again, it should be noted that the program only allows for re-entry into the program once, for Level I participants who can re-enter as Level II participants. Many used this statement to refer to individuals with a long record of engagement with law enforcement prior to the start of the Clean Slate program; or who misunderstood or perceived re-entry to be more common than it is.

Beyond stakeholder buy-in and ownership, the other category of obstacles were related to programmatic

implementation. Many stakeholder groups agree on programmatic challenges, which vary in nature from

smaller, easy-to-remedy items to larger issues.

At the intake stage, a few stakeholders did not fully agree with the methods used to determine entry into the

program; and categorization into Level I or Level II. For example, some law enforcement officers and district

attorneys noted that there are “individuals in Clean Slate who have no business being in the program,” and that

they would like the ability for staff to recommend individuals for participation or not based on their knowledge

of the individual, their criminal history, and where they seem to be in their personal journey upon citation. With

respect to categorization into Level I vs. Level II, while the three assessment tools are all evidence-based, the

cut-off point is not. An individual may rate highly on the ACES assessment due to no fault of their own and

therefore automatically be placed into Level II, even if the SUDS counselor or other stakeholders do not believe

that is the appropriate level of risk for that individual. There is little ability to use the professional and trained

judgement of the counselor in determination, which forces more reliance on self-reported scores than would be

ideal.

One key barrier exists in getting individuals engaged early on after their citation. Some noted that waiting six

days for an orientation (depending on their citation date) can be too late. Similarly, while the medical providers

had hoped to get appointments for individuals within a couple of weeks, but that is often not possible, and the

wait time can lead to drop outs. As one stakeholder noted, “When we first started, the goal was to get medical

appointments within a week. Then it became ten days, then seventeen, and the number seems to continue to

creep up.” Together, they note that “our original plan was to come within a week of the citation. Now we’ve

allowed that to go out a month, and then when they show up it can be another three weeks to get a medical

appointment. And some keep rescheduling.”

Further, a few health care providers noted that the integration with behavioral health is lacking somewhat, as

they feel nearly all Clean Slate participants should have access to behavioral health treatment almost

immediately. Some also noted that direct drug and alcohol treatment referrals were no longer happening, and

that this created roadblocks and bottleneck. A number of stakeholders across all categories also cite a lack of

coordination with housing and other agencies, as many initiatives are dealing with the same population and

recognize the linkages between these issues. As one noted, “Getting them a step in the direction is good, but a

doctor doesn’t make up for the lack of a job, a hot meal, and a house.”

On the substantial compliance side, doctors are often uncomfortable with determining whether or not a

participant is successful in the program. They are often delayed in sending the paperwork after one year, in part

due to a lack of understanding regarding how to define success or their comfort level in determining that. One

noted that “they may be compliant with us medically but not compliant with what the program is trying to

achieve. We haven’t gotten clarification if we have to do drug screens. We don’t want to break their trust with

us.” Another noted that “this makes me uncomfortable as a primary care physician. It’s unlikely but conceivable

that someone could be at an inpatient rehab facility… Because they haven’t followed up with us doesn’t mean

they aren’t getting care.” Law enforcement officials also do not understand what this means and are hesitant to

trust success if it does not include sobriety.

For Level I participants, they noted that they felt the program was in some ways ‘too easy’, and would have liked

a check-in after 3 or 6 months; and another upon completion to show them someone was paying attention and

that the program was real. Level II participants (as well as administrators and health care providers) also felt

that the lack of resources contributed to a lack of adequate case follow-up and personal contact with a Clean

Slate individual they could trust. These stakeholders noted addiction, accessibility, mental illness, and workload

pressures as contributing to missed appointments or forgetting to comply with certain requirements.

Other logistical challenges include finding and maintaining accurate contact information for eligible

participants, having access to resources to pay for medical tests if individuals do not qualify for the Oregon

Health Plan insurance, and access to transportation. The bus passes are widely believed to be an ineffective use

of resources, as law enforcement admits to not handing them out to Clean Slate participants or, at times, using

them for other purposes.

Recommendations

The evaluation recommends a series of modifications to the program to enhance buy-in, participation, and

effectiveness. It should be noted, however, that these recommendations stem from data collected through the

course of this evaluation. As many non-participants declined to respond, there may be additional changes

needed to enhance their participation in the program. Similarly, these recommendations are for consideration

and have implications (some positive, some negative) and, as such, should be considered by a broad group of

stakeholders prior to implementing.

Considering the data collected to date, the model shows promise, but given continued changes to

implementation and the small sample of eligible graduates, more time is needed to show whether or not the

program is truly effective on a broader scale. As such, the evaluator recommends continuing the program

while implementing the following changes to increase its chances of success:

Provide more regular tracking and feedback to partners regarding programmatic and

participant success rates, and/or the lack thereof. This could include quarterly reports to all

partners with quantitative data regarding enrollment, graduation, and recidivism rates, as well as

success stories and other qualitative data from graduates and partners. To the extent feasible, this

could also include an easily accessible database or list of names regarding participant status. As Clean

Slate administrators enhance their monitoring, tracking, and database integration processes, this

should become more feasible to implement and readily available. Rather than waiting for requests

regarding status, proactively providing information, particularly to law enforcement agencies, is likely

to positively affect buy-in. Similarly, participants would appreciate more proactive communication

advising them of their graduation from the program. For example, this could be automated within the

system as well. Finally, administrators should consider revising the tracking categories. Currently, for

example, the ‘rejected category can mean they never participated in the program, or that the individual

failed out of the Level I. This can lead to confusion during analysis and complications in understanding

the true impact of the program.

Work with stakeholders to determine better process flow for cases and prosecution. Given

difficulties maintaining records and following up on prosecution for those who have failed out of Clean

Slate, changes to the process are necessary to ensure that the Clean Slate program is implemented as

envisioned, and that word does not spread in the community that enrollment (not graduation) is

enough to erase charges. Consider whether aspects of the conditional discharge model would help with

workflow and processing6. Similarly, ensure the other aspects of the Goldilocks initiative are enforced

(those associated with deterrence and harsher penalties) to improve buy-in from law enforcement.

Consider expanding Level I participation. Given the success of Level I participation, it may be worth

expanding Level I participation to other individuals. This may include individuals with TCU scores

below a 2 or 3, for example, or could be at the recommendation of the law enforcement officer, district

attorneys, or SUDS counselor. Incorporating recommendations from these other professionals may also

help to promote buy-in and ownership of the program, although lends itself to subjectivity.

As resources allow, incorporate more case management. This case management should include

checks on Level I participants, as well as reminders and follow up with Level II participants. It may also

include coordination with other agencies on existing resources, coordination regarding transportation,

and outreach to potential applicants. Further, as feasible, this individual could help facilitate record

sharing between behavior health, treatment centers, and the medical providers.

Reconsider eligibility requirements. As those who have been arrested numerous times are less likely

to succeed, are costly in terms of outreach, and diminish stakeholder perspectives of programmatic

success, Clean Slate might consider only allowing individuals with few law enforcement encounters to

be eligible for participation in the program.

Modify the substantial compliance and graduation process for Level II. This might include very

brief quarterly checks to catch individuals who are no longer participating in the program, and to

prosecute accordingly. Similarly, Clean Slate administrators might be responsible for determining

successful graduation from the program rather than the primary care physician. As such, the

substantial compliance form could be more aligned with the treatment and scope of the medical

provider, and the team could work directly with doctors to ensure a common understanding of how the

form should and should not be used.

Dig deeper into La Pine successes. Given that La Pine has had more success than other cities,

administrators should work with La Pine partners to see whether there are any differences with

respect to how they understand and implement Clean Slate; and whether it is feasible for those

successes and processes to be replicated with others.

Continue to build buy-in with law enforcement agencies. The program will not be successful

without increased buy-in from law enforcement. Some of this can be built using the recommendations

above, but more work has to be done by leadership in these agencies to communicate and support the

program - not solely as a top-down or DA-driven directive, but to demonstrate commitment and belief

6 This model was referred to by a number of stakeholders as one which makes case processing easier and more streamlined. The evaluator is not a sector expert and therefore does not know the intricacies of the model, but a few individuals noted that this ensures rapid processing of charges when a participant fails out of the program and avoids some of the back-and-forth that the Clean Slate program has had to deal with.

in the model. This could be done by having police officers with positive experiences with the program

present to their colleagues, or to hold one-on-one discussions with officers who are not handing out the

cards to fix misunderstandings about how the program works and its intended processes and

purposes. Those individuals from each agency who were involved in signing MOUs and designing the

program could also lead updates and discussions around the program (rather than Clean Slate

administrators doing so) to further explain the motives for involvement and demonstrate commitment

and buy-in to the Clean Slate approach.

evaluation report€¦ · clean slate administrators submitted the evaluation design, consent...

Documents