improving reentry for ex-offenders in san ......improving reentry for ex-offenders in san diego...

IMPROVING REENTRY FOR EX-OFFENDERS IN

SAN DIEGO COUNTY: SB 618 SECOND ANNUAL

EVALUATION REPORT

FEBRUARY 2009

Darlanne Hoctor Mulmat, M.A. Cynthia Burke, Ph.D.

Elizabeth Doroski Lisbeth Howard Debbie Correia

401 B Street, Suite 800 • San Diego, CA 92101-4231 • (619) 699-1900

This evaluation was funded by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) through SB 618. Preliminary findings presented in this second annual evaluation report are those of the authors and do not necessarily

reflect the official position or policies of the CDCR, SB 618 partner agencies, SANDAG, or its Board of Directors. Material in this publication may be reproduced, provided full credit is given to its source.

ii

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum for regional decision-making.

SANDAG builds consensus; plans, engineers, and builds public transit; makes strategic plans; obtains and allocates resources; and provides information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the region’s quality of life.

CHAIR Hon. Lori Holt Pfeiler

FIRST VICE CHAIR Hon. Jerome Stocks

SECOND VICE CHAIR Hon. Jack Dale

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Gary L. Gallegos

CITY OF CARLSBAD Hon. Matt Hall, Councilmember (A) Hon. Bud Lewis, Mayor (A) Hon. Ann Kulchin, Mayor Pro Tem

CITY OF CHULA VISTA Hon. Cheryl Cox, Mayor (A) Hon. John McCann, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. Steve Castaneda, Councilmember

CITY OF CORONADO Hon. Carrie Downey, Councilmember (A) Hon. Al Ovrom, Councilmember (A) Hon. Michael Woiwode, Councilmember

CITY OF DEL MAR Hon. Crystal Crawford, Mayor (A) Hon. Carl Hilliard, Councilmember (A) Hon. Richard Earnest, Deputy Mayor

CITY OF EL CAJON Hon. Mark Lewis, Mayor (A) Hon. Jillian Hanson-Cox, Councilmember

CITY OF ENCINITAS Hon. Jerome Stocks, Councilmember (A) Hon. Teresa Barth, Councilmember (A) Hon. Dan Dalager, Deputy Mayor

CITY OF ESCONDIDO Hon. Lori Holt Pfeiler, Mayor (A) Hon. Sam Abed, Councilmember

CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH Hon. Jim Janney, Mayor (A) Hon. Patricia McCoy, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. Jim King, Councilmember

CITY OF LA MESA Hon. Art Madrid, Mayor (A) Hon. Mark Arapostathis, Councilmember (A) Hon. David Allan, Councilmember

CITY OF LEMON GROVE Hon. Mary Teresa Sessom, Mayor (A) Hon. Jerry Jones, Councilmember (A) Hon. Jerry Selby, Councilmember

CITY OF NATIONAL CITY Hon. Ron Morrison, Mayor (A) Hon. Frank Parra, Vice Mayor (A) Hon. Rosalie Zarate, Councilmember

CITY OF OCEANSIDE Hon. Jim Wood, Mayor (A) Hon. Jerry Kern, Councilmember (A) Hon. Jack Feller, Councilmember

CITY OF POWAY Hon. Mickey Cafagna, Mayor (A) Hon. Don Higginson, Councilmember (A) Hon. Betty Rexford, Councilmember

CITY OF SAN DIEGO Hon. Jerry Sanders, Mayor Hon. Ben Hueso, Council President (A) Hon. Anthony Young, Councilmember (A) Hon. Todd Gloria, Councilmember

CITY OF SAN MARCOS Hon. Jim Desmond, Mayor (A) Hon. Hal Martin, Vice Mayor (A) Hon. Rebecca Jones, Councilmember

CITY OF SANTEE Hon. Jack Dale, Councilmember (A) Hon. Hal Ryan, Councilmember (A) Hon. John Minto, Councilmember

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH Hon. Lesa Heebner, Councilmember (A) Hon. Dave Roberts, Councilmember (A) Hon. Mike Nichols, Mayor

CITY OF VISTA Hon. Judy Ritter, Councilmember (A) Hon. Bob Campbell, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. Steve Gronke, Councilmember

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Hon. Dianne Jacob, Chairwoman (A) Hon. Bill Horn, Chair Pro Tem (A) Hon. Ron Roberts, Supervisor Hon. Pam Slater-Price, Vice Chairwoman (A) Hon. Greg Cox, Supervisor

IMPERIAL COUNTY (Advisory Member) Hon. Victor Carrillo, Supervisor (A) Hon. David Ouzan, Councilmember

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Advisory Member) Will Kempton, Director (A) Pedro Orso-Delgado, District 11 Director

METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM (Advisory Member) Harry Mathis, Chairman (A) Hon. Ron Roberts (A) Hon. Ernest Ewin

NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT (Advisory Member) Hon. Bob Campbell, Chair (A) Hon. Jerome Stocks, Planning Committee Chair (A) Hon. Dave Roberts, Monitoring Committee Chair

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (Advisory Member) CAPT Steve Wirsching, USN, CEC, Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command (A) CAPT Robert Fahey, USN, CEC Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT (Advisory Member) Laurie Black, Commissioner (A) Michael Najera, Commissioner

SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY (Advisory Member) Mark Muir, Commissioner (A) Howard Williams, Commissioner

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRIBAL CHAIRMEN’S ASSOCIATION (Advisory Member) Chairman Robert Smith (Pala), SCTCA Chair (A) Chairman Allen Lawson (San Pasqual)

MEXICO (Advisory Member) Hon. Remedios Gómez-Arnau Cónsul General of Mexico Hon. Martha E. Rosas, Deputy Cónsul General of Mexico As of February 3, 2009

iii

ABSTRACT

TITLE: Improving Reentry for Ex-Offenders in San Diego County: SB 618 Second Annual Evaluation Report

AUTHOR: San Diego Association of Governments

DATE: February 2009

SOURCE OF COPIES:

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 699-1900 www.sandag.org

ABSTRACT: In October 2005, California Senate Bill (SB) 618 was signed into law. This law is based on the concept that providing tangible reentry support services will increase parolees’ successful reintegration into the community. As the first county authorized to create a multiagency plan, and with the leadership from the District Attorney’s Office, San Diego County brought together a diverse group of stakeholders to develop policies and programs to educateand rehabilitate non-violent felony offenders. Key program components are based on best practices and include conducting screenings and assessments and providing case management and services to meet identified needs. The process begins before sentencing and continues through imprisonment, as well as up to 18 months post release. As part of this effort, process and impact evaluations are being conducted by SANDAG. This second annual evaluation report describes project implementation to date, outlines the research methodology, and presents preliminary research findings from the process and impact evaluation.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special appreciation is extended to all of the capable individuals who worked diligently to design and implement the SB 618 program, including staff from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) (specifically, the Division of Community Partnership, Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, California Institution for Women, and Division of Adult Parole Operations); San Diego County Sheriff’s Department; San Diego County Probation Department; San Diego County District Attorney’s (DA) Office, including AmeriCorps*VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) members; San Diego County Public Defender’s Office; University of California, San Diego; and Comprehensive Training Systems, Inc. Their level of expertise and commitment to the program, as well as to the evaluation process, are greatly appreciated. This second evaluation report would not have been possible without the help of numerous individuals. Special thanks are extended to Tom Rietz from CDCR’s Division of Community Partnership and Program Manager for the SB 618 program, Jeffery (“JJ”) Anderson from the DA’s Office, and Ken Worthington from Probation for their leadership and guidance. In addition, it should be noted that the San Diego SB 618 program would not have been possible without the leadership and vision of District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, as well as Vaughn Jeffery, who authored the legislation. Fin Park and Marla LaRue at the DA’s Information Systems Department are gratefully acknowledged for creating the project’s database and providing information necessary for the evaluation and this report. Although anonymous, the SB 618 program participants who completed satisfaction surveys and allowed the researchers access to their data are greatly appreciated. Finally, the production of this report was made possible through the assistance of numerous SANDAG staff, including Donna Allnutt, Sara Andrews, Debbie Correia, Sandy Keaton, Gwen Kruger, Betty Kuo, Grace Liwanag, Casey Mackereth, Cristina Magaña, Karin Michonski, Kristen Rohanna, Pedro Ruiz, and Becki Ward.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 3

Introduction and Project Background .................................................................................................. 3

What is SB 618? ................................................................................................................................. 4

Purpose of Evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 5

Preliminary Process Evaluation Findings ............................................................................................... 6

What Do the Preliminary Impact Assessment Findings Reveal? ............................................................ 7

Recommendations for Local Consideration ......................................................................................... 8

Lessons Learned for Other Potential Sites ............................................................................................ 10

Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 13 CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT OVERVIEW

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1-1

Literature Review ................................................................................................................................ 1-1

Incarceration and Recidivism in California and the United States.................................................. 1-1

Reasons for Prison Population Growth......................................................................................... 1-2

Reasons for Deceleration of Population Growth........................................................................... 1-3

What Works in Reducing Recidivism ............................................................................................ 1-4

Project Overview ................................................................................................................................. 1-11

Program Background................................................................................................................... 1-11

Key Program Components........................................................................................................... 1-12

Evaluation Overview .................................................................................................................... 1-25

Program Implementation and Management........................................................................................ 1-26

Development and Outreach......................................................................................................... 1-26

Milestones ................................................................................................................................... 1-27

Modifications............................................................................................................................... 1-29

Staffing Changes......................................................................................................................... 1-30

Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 1-31 CHAPTER 2 – EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 2-1

Research Overview.............................................................................................................................. 2-1

Process Evaluation............................................................................................................................... 2-2

Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 2-2

Data Sources and Measures......................................................................................................... 2-3

Analysis Plan................................................................................................................................ 2-8

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)

CHAPTER 2 – EVALUATION METHODOLOGY (CONT’D)

Impact Evaluation ............................................................................................................................... 2-9

Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 2-9

Data Sources and Measures......................................................................................................... 2-9

Research Design .......................................................................................................................... 2-11

Study Group Assignment Methods .............................................................................................. 2-13

Analysis Plan................................................................................................................................ 2-16

Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 2-20

CHAPTER 3 – PROCESS EVALUATION: STAFF AND COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 3-1

Sample Descriptions............................................................................................................................ 3-1

Program Partners ......................................................................................................................... 3-1

Key Staff...................................................................................................................................... 3-2

Community Members.................................................................................................................. 3-2

How Did Program Partners, Key Staff, and Community Members View Implementation and Management? ........................................................................................... 3-3


Key Staff...................................................................................................................................... 3-10


Was the Program Implemented as Designed? What Modifications Were Made and Why? .................. 3-23


Key Staff...................................................................................................................................... 3-25

What Was the Nature of the Partnerships That Developed and What Systemic Changes Resulted, if Any?.................................................................................... 3-27


Key Staff...................................................................................................................................... 3-31


What Were Staff Views on Rehabilitation and Were Culturally-Competent and Gender-Responsive Services Provided? ......................................................................................... 3-34


Key Staff...................................................................................................................................... 3-35


Was the Assessment Process Considered Useful by Staff? ................................................................... 3-37

Lessons Learned.................................................................................................................................. 3-38


Key Staff...................................................................................................................................... 3-40

Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 3-41

vii


CHAPTER 4 – PROCESS EVALUATION RESULTS: PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 4-1

How Many Offenders Were Screened for Eligibility and How Many Were Found to be Eligible?.......... 4-1

What Was the Program Participation Refusal Rate?............................................................................. 4-2

What Were the Characteristics of Eligible Participants? ....................................................................... 4-3

What Is the Study Groups’ Level of Past Criminal Involvement?........................................................... 4-4

What Was the Treatment Study Group’s Level of Need at Program Entry? .......................................... 4-6

Education and Life Skill Level ....................................................................................................... 4-6

Substance Use and Treatment ..................................................................................................... 4-8

Family and Community Ties ......................................................................................................... 4-10

Emotional, Physical, and Sexual Abuse History ............................................................................. 4-11

Severity of Need for Intervention and Services ............................................................................. 4-12

Did Timing Decrease in Terms of Identifying Participant Needs and Providing Needed Services?.......... 4-13

What Types of Services Were Provided to Participants in Prison?......................................................... 4-16

Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 4-16

CHAPTER 5 – IMPACT EVALUATION

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 5-1

Timing of Recidivism Analysis .............................................................................................................. 5-1

Sample Description ............................................................................................................................. 5-2

Participant Satisfaction........................................................................................................................ 5-3

Defense Attorney ........................................................................................................................ 5-3

Probation Officer ......................................................................................................................... 5-4

Multidisciplinary Team ................................................................................................................. 5-6

Comparison to Prior Prison Experiences ....................................................................................... 5-7

Prison Case Management ............................................................................................................ 5-9

Life Plan....................................................................................................................................... 5-11

Prison Programs........................................................................................................................... 5-13

Overall Opinions of SB 618 .......................................................................................................... 5-17

Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 5-23 CHAPTER 6 – SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 6-1

Major Evaluation Findings ................................................................................................................... 6-1

Program Implementation and Management ................................................................................ 6-1

Participant Characteristics and Needs........................................................................................... 6-2

Facilitation of In-Custody Programming ....................................................................................... 6-3

Participant Satisfaction ................................................................................................................ 6-3

viii


CHAPTER 6 – SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS (CONT’D)

Recommendations for Local Consideration ......................................................................................... 6-4

Lessons Learned for Other Potential Sites ............................................................................................ 6-6

Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 6-8

APPENDICES

Appendix A SB 618 Legislation......................................................................................................... A-1

Appendix B SB 618 Participant Eligibility Criteria .............................................................................. B-1

Appendix C SB 618 Participant Flow Chart ....................................................................................... C-1

Appendix D Participant Program Forms ............................................................................................ D-1

Appendix E Faith Assessment........................................................................................................... E-1

Appendix F List of Data Elements..................................................................................................... F-1

Appendix G References .................................................................................................................... G-1

ix

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT OVERVIEW

1.1 Program Partners and Their SB 618 Function ............................................................................... 1-13

1.2 SB 618 Program Was Designed With Components Related to Best Practices................................ 1-14

1.3 Assessment Timing Design........................................................................................................... 1-17

1.4 SB 618 Services Compared to “Treatment as Usual” ................................................................... 1-26

1.5 SB 618 Development and Outreach Activities .............................................................................. 1-28

1.6 SB 618 Program Milestones ......................................................................................................... 1-29

CHAPTER 2 – EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

2.1 Availability of Assessment Data.................................................................................................... 2-5

2.2 Dependent Variables and Statistical Analyses .............................................................................. 2-17

2.3 SB 618 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis .............................................................................................. 2-20


3.1 Program Partners Cite High Levels of Collaboration and Communication as Factors Aiding Program Management...................................................................................... 3-5

3.2 Key Staff Share Positive Views About Many Aspects of SB 618 .................................................... 3-13

3.3 Most Key Staff Satisfied With Resources and Practices ................................................................. 3-14

3.4 Key Staff Generally Satisfied With Work Conditions, but Some Feel Room for Change ................ 3-15

3.5 Community Members Report Employment and Housing as Top Needs for Returning Ex-Offenders................................................................................................................ 3-22

3.6 Rehabilitation Through Addressing Underlying Needs Seen as Top Correctional Priority by Program Partners .............................................................................. 3-24

3.7 All Key Staff Agree That Addressing Participants’ Underlying Needs Is a Priority for SB 618 ......... 3-26

3.8 Key Staff Report Each SB 618 Role Has Multiple Missions ............................................................ 3-27

3.9 Program Partners Report Good Working Relationships With One Another ................................... 3-29

3.10 Majority of Surveyed Community Members Express Support for SB 618 ...................................... 3-33

3.11 Key Staff Share the View That Rehabilitation Works .................................................................... 3-35

3.12 Program Partners and Key Staff Have Different Views Regarding the Value of Different Assessment Components ......................................................... 3-37

3.13 Program Partners Perceive Variety of Accomplishments and Challenges in Implementing and Managing SB 618 .............................................................. 3-39

3.14 Key Staff Note That Local Collaboration and Communication Are Greatest Accomplishment,

but Also Greatest Challenge ........................................................................................................ 3-40

x

LIST OF TABLES (CONT’D)

CHAPTER 4 – PROCESS EVALUATION RESULTS: PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS (CONT’D)

4.1 SB 618 Study Groups Are Comparable on Most Demographic Characteristics ............................. 4-4

4.2 SB 618 Study Groups Have Extensive Past Criminal Involvement .................................................. 4-5

4.3 More Than Half of SB 618 Participants Read at or Above High School Level at Intake .................. 4-6

4.4 SB 618 Participants’ Life Skills Level at Intake Appropriate for Vocational Training ....................... 4-7

4.5 Majority of SB 618 Participants Reported Drug Use in the 30 Days Prior to Intake........................ 4-9

4.6 SB 618 Participants Most Likely to Report Close Relationships With Their Children ...................... 4-11

4.7 Drug Treatment Is the Greatest Need for SB 618 Participants at Program Intake .......................... 4-13

4.8 SB 618 Participants’ Level of Need Assessed Within the Expected Timeframe............................... 4-14 CHAPTER 5 – IMPACT EVALUATION

5.1 Respondent Characteristics Similar to Non-Respondents .............................................................. 5-3

5.2 Respondents Indicate That Defense Attorneys Clearly Explain SB 618 .......................................... 5-4

5.3 Respondents View Interactions with the Probation Officer as Positive .......................................... 5-6

5.4 Respondents View Interactions with the Multidisciplinary Team as Positive .................................. 5-7

5.5 Respondents View the SB 618 Prison Experience Better Than Prior Prison Terms .......................... 5-9

5.6 Respondents Report Frequent Interaction With Prison Case Manager Early in Prison Term ........... 5-10

5.7 Respondents Report Increased Interaction With Prison Case Manager Over Time......................... 5-10

5.8 Respondents View Interactions with Prison Case Manager as Positive .......................................... 5-11

5.9 Respondents Provide Input in Life Plan Design ............................................................................. 5-12

5.10 Respondents Indicate Little Change in Life Plan During Prison Stay .............................................. 5-13

5.11 Substance Abuse Program Participation Highest of All In-Prison Services...................................... 5-14

5.12 Reasons for No Service Vary by Type of Program ......................................................................... 5-15

5.13 Majority of Respondents Rate Program as Helpful........................................................................ 5-16

5.14 Opinions of In-Prison Programs Generally Positive........................................................................ 5-17

5.15 Ability to Meet Needs Unclear Three Months After Prison Entry ................................................... 5-18

5.16 Ability to Make a Difference Unclear Three Months After Prison Entry ......................................... 5-20

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER 2 – EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

2.1 Study Group Identification Process............................................................................................... 2-15


3.1 Almost All Program Partners in 2007 Favorably Described Program Implementation .................... 3-3

3.2 Program Partners Continue to Feel That Program Management Has Gone Well........................... 3-4

3.3 Program Partners More Likely to Feel Eligibility Criteria Were Appropriate in 2008....................... 3-6

3.4 Most Program Partners Feel the Life Plan and Multidisciplinary Team Are Effective ...................... 3-7

3.5 Program Partners Rate Education, Mental Health, and Vocational Programs at RJD Higher Than Other In-Custody Components at This Facility ............................................... 3-8

3.6 Program Partners Express More Favorable View of In-Custody Programs Offered at CIW ............. 3-9

3.7 Program Partners View Community Case Management Most Positively Compared to Other Community Program Components ............................................................... 3-10

3.8 Almost All Key Staff Reported Program Implementation Went Well in 2007 ................................ 3-11

3.9 More Key Staff Gave Highest Rating to Program Management in 2008 ....................................... 3-12

3.10 Majority of Key Staff Who Have Given Input to Management Felt It Has Been Well Received....... 3-14

3.11 Key Staff Give High Ratings to Life Plan and Multidisciplinary Teams............................................ 3-17

3.12 Key Staff Ratings of In-Custody Components at RJD: Some More Effective Than Others .............. 3-18

3.13 Key Staff Ratings of In-Custody Components at CIW: Higher Compared to Those at RJD ............ 3-18

3.14 Key Staff Give Highest Rating to Community Case Management................................................. 3-20

3.15 Three-Quarters of Community Members Feel SB 618 Has Been Managed Well............................ 3-21

3.16 Two-Thirds of Community Members Feel SB 618 Has Addressed Important Ex-Offender Needs at Least Somewhat Well ................................................................................ 3-23

3.17 Almost All Program Partners Favorably Rate Level of Communication With Other Agencies......... 3-28

3.18 Most Program Partners Give Favorable Ratings to Operational Meetings...................................... 3-30

3.19 Most Key Staff Surveyed in 2008 Positively Describe Level of Partner Communication ................. 3-32

3.20 Most Surveyed Community Members Feel Like They Have Been Kept Up to Date on SB 618 ....... 3-33

3.21 Program Partners Feel Gender and Cultural Issues Being Met by Program Services....................... 3-34

3.22 Key Staff Feel SB 618 Provides Gender-Responsive and Culturally-Competent Services ................ 3-36

3.23 Community Members Least Likely to Feel That Gender and Cultural Needs Are Being Met .......... 3-36

CHAPTER 4 – PROCESS EVALUATION RESULTS: PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS

4.1 Offender Screening and Study Group Assignment – February 2007 to August 2008.................... 4-2

4.2 Almost Half of SB 618 Participants Have Previously Received Drug Treatment.............................. 4-10

4.3 Female SB 618 Participants More Likely to Report Prior Abuse ..................................................... 4-12

xii

LIST OF FIGURES (CONT’D)

CHAPTER 5 – IMPACT EVALUATION

5.1 Respondents Report Initial Meeting With Probation Officer as Useful........................................... 5-5

5.2 Respondents Perceive Multidisciplinary Team Meetings as Useful................................................. 5-6

5.3 Respondents Indicate SB 618 Prison Experience More Positive Compared to Past......................... 5-8

5.4 SB 618 Meets Needs by the Time of Prison Release...................................................................... 5-19

5.5 Respondents Recommend SB 618................................................................................................ 5-21

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Improving Reentry for Ex-Offenders in San Diego County: SB 618 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT BACKGROUND As historically high numbers of ex-offenders parole to California communities, the issue of reentry poses a significant problem to policymakers, public safety officials, and community leaders alike. Reentry is a key issue facing many communities, because over the last 30 years, more individuals have been locked up than ever before, due in part to changes in many jurisdictions from indeterminate sentencing to determinate sentencing (which mandates specific sentence type and length for many crimes). As a result, by 2008, the United States had the highest incarceration rate in the world with 1 of every 100 adults behind bars. Without a commensurate expansion of prison infrastructure, prisons have become overcrowded. At the same time that more offenders have been locked up for longer periods of time, many rehabilitation programs that were offered in prisons have been cut back or eliminated completely. These changes have been related to budget constraints associated with detaining a greater number of individuals at one time. Thus, many of the issues these offenders entered prison with and which may have been related to their criminal activity (such as substance abuse and illiteracy) have gone unaddressed during the confinement period, decreasing the chances of successful reintegration.

With researchers and policymakers across the country noting these trends and their implications for communities, there has been more attention paid to determining how this revolving door to prison can be closed for a greater number of individuals, thereby increasing public safety and ensuring best use of citizens’ tax dollars.

SENATE BILL (SB) 618 ELIGIBILITY

All participants are selected from the

District Attorney’s (DA’s) felony

prosecution caseload. The opportunity to

apply for the program is offered to both

male and female nonviolent offenders.

To be considered, the candidate must be

in local custody (i.e., not out on bail), be

a legal resident of San Diego County,

and agree (or “stipulate”) to a prison

sentence for the instant offense of 8 to

72 months. Those with prior convictions

for great bodily injury or murder are

excluded, as are arson and sex offender

registrants. Candidates with prior violent

convictions over five years old are

evaluated on a case-by-case basis. All SB

618 participants are housed at either the

Richard J. Donovan (RJD) Correctional

Facility or the California Institute for

Women (CIW) and, therefore, also must

meet any housing restrictions at these

facilities.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4 Improving Reentry for Ex-Offenders in San Diego County: SB 618

WHAT IS SB 618?

SB 618 (Speier), effective in January 2006, is one of several efforts across California to reduce recidivism and increase the probability of successful reentry, addressing concerns cited about the State’s correctional system by the Little Hoover Commission in 2003 and 2007. Authored by the San Diego County DA’s Office, SB 618 is based on best practices and the concept that providing tangible reentry support services will increase parolees’ chances of successful reintegration into the community (as evidenced by increased completion of parole conditions and desistence of criminal activity). The ultimate goal is to produce law-abiding and self-sufficient members of the community and enhance public safety.

Although SB 618 allowed for the possibility of three California counties to implement a program, San Diego County was the first, and at the time of this report, the only one authorized to create a multiagency plan and develop policies and programs to educate and rehabilitate nonviolent felony offenders. The diverse group of program partners, led by the DA’s Office, includes the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), San Diego County Public Defender’s Office, San Diego County Superior Court, San Diego County Defense Bar, San Diego County Sheriff’s Department (including a subcontract with Grossmont Union High School District to do educational assessments), San Diego County Probation Department, University of California, San Diego, and Comprehensive Training Systems, Inc.

SB 618 KEY COMPONENTS

Incorporating evidence-based practices, the

local SB 618 program is unique compared to

traditional California correctional practices in a

number of ways, including the following:

Service provision begins at the time of sentencing and continues up to 18 months after release from custody.

Participants’ needs are assessed before the prison sentence begins, and an individualized Life Plan is created by a multidisciplinary team comprised of program staff. The Life Plan is designed to be modified and is created to ensure services meet identified needs.

Case management, both during prison and after release, is provided to ensure services meet identified needs.

Upon release, a Community Roundtable (comprised of the Community Case Manager, Parole Agent, Vocational Specialist, and other individuals identified by the ex-offender) meets regularly to ensure reintegration challenges are addressed.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


PURPOSE OF EVALUATION

The Criminal Justice Research Division of SANDAG is conducting both an impact and a process evaluation of SB 618.

The purpose of the impact evaluation is to determine whether participation in SB 618 improved reintegration and reduced recidivism and to identify the conditions under which the program was most likely to accomplish these goals. Additionally, the impact evaluation will determine whether the reentry program was cost-effective relative to traditional procedures and whether positive change was realized in other areas of participants’ lives (e.g., employment). The following research questions will be answered:

What was the level of prison rule compliance for participants relative to the comparison study group?

Were there any improvements in program participant needs and family and/or social bonds over time?

Was recidivism reduced among treatment study group participants relative to the comparison study group?

Was the program cost-effective?

To answer the impact evaluation questions, the most rigorous research design possible, given programmatic constraints, is being used and compares SB 618 participants to individuals who would have been eligible to receive services, but were not approached to do so. To help mitigate possible confounding factors between the two groups, statistical techniques are being used to ensure equivalency so the effect of receiving SB 618 services can be isolated to determine if goals are met.

The purpose of the process evaluation is to determine if the program was implemented as planned, measure what system changes were made, and assess program operations. More specifically, research questions to be answered include:

How was the program implemented and managed?

How well did the partners work together to accomplish program goals?

How many individuals were screened and agreed to participate in the program, and what were their characteristics?

Were participants’ needs adequately assessed and were gender-responsive and culturally-competent services provided to meet these needs during detainment and after release?

To answer these process and impact evaluation questions, data are being collected from both archival (e.g., program assessment data, service data, and criminal history records) and original sources (e.g., surveys with key staff, program partners, community members, and participants, as well as follow-up interviews with participants). Additionally, the research team is monitoring other factors that could affect SB 618 participants, including changes at the State level (such as legislation that releases individuals from parole at earlier points in time), tracking staffing, and observing all key program activities.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


PRELIMINARY PROCESS EVALUATION FINDINGS Program Implementation and Management In 2007 and 2008, program partners (individuals who have been integral participants in planning and managing the SB 618 program) and key staff members (individuals who work directly with participants) were surveyed. The purpose of these surveys was to: understand their perceptions regarding how well program implementation and management had gone; what challenges had been successfully addressed and which still remained; and what lessons could be shared with other jurisdictions. In addition, the community (members of the Reentry Roundtable and Interfaith Advisory Board) was solicited for their views regarding program implementation and management. Key findings included the following.

Overall, program partners, key staff, and community members shared positive views of program implementation and management. For the program partners and key staff surveyed in 2007 and 2008, these favorable opinions have increased. Difficulties in coordination with CDCR revealed during the 2007 survey improved based on responses completed in 2008. Similarly, views regarding unclear leadership expressed during 2007 were absent in 2008 surveys.

Collaboration and regular communication (particularly through weekly Operational Procedures Committee meetings) continued to be strengths (i.e., aspects of the program working particularly well) according to program partners.

Program partners and key staff specified multidisciplinary teams (MDT), Life Plans, prison case management, in-prison education, in-prison vocational programs, and community case management as the most effective program elements.

Despite successes, program partners, key staff, and community members shared areas for improvement as the following indicates.

There was variability regarding in-prison programming between the California Institute for Women (CIW) and the Richard J. Donovan (RJD) Correctional Facility, particularly with respect to prison case management and drug treatment.

Resource allocation was insufficient in some areas to meet program needs according to key staff. Program partners believed funding issues also could have a negative impact on the program.

More than half of key staff indicated that caseload/workload was too large, making it difficult for individuals to work with participants effectively.

Implementation of incentives and graduated sanctions had yet to be finalized.

Additional communication and feedback with the Reentry Roundtable and the Interfaith Advisory Board was desired.

Lack of a cognitive behavioral component was viewed as detrimental to program delivery.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Participant Characteristics and Needs Based on data compiled from July 2007 through August 2008, 284 individuals were assigned to the treatment study group and 289 to the comparison study group, with an average of 6 participants entering the program each week. The treatment and comparison study groups are comparable with respect to age (about 35 years of age), gender (mostly male), and criminality (i.e., property and drug-related felons, with an average of six prior criminal offenses). With respect to race/ethnicity, a significantly larger proportion of Whites were in the treatment study group relative to the comparison study group. Further, 40 percent of those offered SB 618 services from July 2007 through August 2008 declined to participate. Statistical matching techniques (i.e., propensity score matching) will be used to ensure that both study groups are comparable and eliminate any potential bias as the evaluation continues. SB 618 treatment study group participants have a functional level of education and significant life skills based on assessment data at program entry from the Test for Adult Basic Education (TABE) using CDCR’s threshold for placement in educational programs and Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS). Based on the ASI, there is a high level of need for substance abuse treatment, particularly for methamphetamine and marijuana use. Consistent with this assessment, most respondents to client satisfaction questionnaires (CSQ) administered at prison exit indicated that they had participated in substance abuse treatment while in prison. Participants reported having weak family and community ties, except as related to their children.

Facilitation of In-Custody Programming One goal of SB 618 is to efficiently utilize custody time to begin addressing needs through participation in rehabilitative services. The realization of this goal has been challenging. Preliminary research findings indicate that it takes about five weeks following prison entry for participants to enter the general prison population and start receiving in-prison services. Though this length of time in the reception center is shorter for participants than for other individuals housed at RJD and CIW, program partners continue their efforts to further reduce the days spent in reception in order to expedite entry into prison services, reduce costs, and reduce the opportunity for violence indoctrination (e.g., recruitment into prison gangs) that often occurs in the reception center.

WHAT DO THE PRELIMINARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT FINDINGS REVEAL? Data for the impact assessment are restricted to participant satisfaction because sufficient time following prison release has not elapsed for a large enough number of the treatment study group to allow for meaningful analysis of recidivism. The CSQs were administered to the SB 618 participant study group three months following prison entry and at prison exit. As the following research findings indicate, in general, participants had positive opinions of the program.

Meetings with the Probation Officer (PO) and MDT were rated as useful, and interactions with the PO and MDT members were considered positive.

Life Plans were viewed as accurately describing needs and inclusive of participant input.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


The prison experience associated with SB 618 participation was listed as more positive than previous prison stays due to a higher motivation to change, increased likelihood of in-prison program participation, efficient use of time, and receiving greater support.

In general, defense attorneys clearly explain the program, though more details were desired, particularly with respect to what to expect from the program.

The frequency of meetings with the Prison Case Manager (PCM) reported at prison exit was higher than what was shared three months after prison entry. In addition, interactions with PCMs were rated favorably. However, the ability of PCMs to facilitate entry into in-prison programming was less clear, probably impacted by delays in the start-up and/or re-establishment of rehabilitative programs, particularly at RJD.

Participation in substance abuse programs was high (76% of the treatment study group completing the prison exit CSQ), and about two-thirds received medical and dental services. The high substance abuse program participation is consistent with the proportion needing services related to drug use as assessed through the Addiction Severity Index (ASI). Receiving educational and vocational services was less common, with less than half participating in education or vocational programs.

For those not receiving specific services, lack of program participation was related to a short prison term for educational programs, lack of program availability for vocational programming, and lack of need for substance abuse and mental health treatment.

Regarding the helpfulness of specific in-custody services, Drug Treatment Furlough (DTF) was viewed more favorably than substance abuse programs (SAP), according to opinions shared by participants as they exited prison. Though the sample size is small (and therefore, the data should be interpreted with caution), this information is worth consideration. These differences may be due to the compatibility between the learning styles of each SB 618 participant and the DTF and SAP program designs.

With respect to the ability of SB 618 to meet needs and make a difference in the lives of participants, many respondents indicated that it was too early to determine the program’s impact. Delays in re-instating rehabilitative programs in RJD could be impacting these research findings, as suggested by the proportion of respondents stating the lack of prison programs as the worst thing about SB 618.

The proportion indicating that they would recommend SB 618 to others rose from the first three months of the prison sentence (71%) to prison exit (87%). The best aspects of the program listed by survey respondents included the staff, vocational services, and support following prison release.

The treatment study group was optimistic about what they would be doing one year following prison release, including being employed, furthering their education, achieving financial self-sufficiency, staying clean and sober, finishing parole, living independently, and rebuilding family relationships.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOCAL CONSIDERATION These preliminary findings from the process and impact evaluation described above highlight the many successes of the SB 618 program. In addition, areas for program improvement have been identified through the research findings, many of which are under consideration by SB 618 program partners based on information provided throughout the year by the research team. Clear communication of program expectations with participants

Data gleaned from the treatment study group through CSQs indicated an overall positive view of SB 618; however, the importance of informing participants of how SB 618 works and building rapport from the beginning cannot be overemphasized. Program partners have held forums with participants in prison and the community to obtain feedback (both positive and negative) about how the program is going. In addition, starting in 2008, MDT meetings have focused on reducing participants’ confusion regarding potential services available. These forums provide an opportunity to clear up any misunderstandings regarding program delivery. As the evaluation progresses, the impact of these efforts on client satisfaction will be examined.

Consistency in prison case management and drug treatment

The differences between the services provided at RJD and CIW may impact program effectiveness, particularly with respect to prison case management and drug treatment services. In May 2008, changes were made to increase the consistency in prison case management between the two prisons. Though gender-responsive needs dictate differences between the two prisons (because males are housed in one and females in the other), variations related to drug treatment may be due to other issues which are worth investigating.

Appropriate caseload size

While key staff surveys indicated effective communication with and appreciation by SB 618 management, there was less agreement regarding caseload size. Though the California State budget crisis negatively impacted the ability of program partners to address this issue for prison case management, steps are underway to ensure caseloads are appropriate and allow staff to work with participants effectively.

Implementation of incentives and graduated sanctions

The use of graduated sanctions to support treatment goals was another potential area for improvement based on the results of the key staff surveys. Discussions at Operational Procedures Committee meetings have included not just the use of graduated sanctions, but also incentives to facilitate program compliance. As the evaluation continues, the implementation of this system will be explored.

Enhance outreach to community groups

Though community survey respondents indicated favorable views of SB 618 management, some respondents felt there was room for improvement. One suggestion for improving information-sharing among these groups is giving regular updates on the SB 618 program at the Reentry Roundtable and Interfaith Advisory Board meetings (i.e., including this update as a regular

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


agenda item). In addition, respondents suggested receiving regular updates of the current research data on SB 618 participants’ characteristics and outcomes as they become available.

Provide behavioral health services

Program partners surveyed indicated that one program modification negatively impacting SB 618 was the elimination of the behavioral health contract. The Operational Procedures Committee hopes to fill this gap in 2009 by leveraging funds through existing contracts in order to meet the needs of participants with co-occurring disorders.

Include a cognitive behavioral component

Operational Procedures Committee meeting discussions revealed cognitive behavioral therapy as a gap in the SB 618 program. Though one-on-one meetings with female prisoners at CIW include cognitive-behavioral treatment, there is no assessment related to criminal thinking and there are no specific cognitive behavioral programs at either prison. As of November 2008, program partners are working toward implementing cognitive behavioral programming through PCMs and CCMs.

Reduce prison reception center time

Initially, when the SB 618 program was designed, the plan was for participants to move directly from local custody to the general prison population, eliminating time in the reception center. When a federal court appointed a medical receiver to oversee all medical services for the California prison system, this plan changed because medical and mental health assessments were required at the prison reception center, and local assessments were not considered sufficient. Discussions during Operational Procedures Committee meetings resulted in an initial goal of limiting time in the reception center for these assessments to two weeks. As the program progressed, it became clear that this goal was unrealistic, and it was modified to one month in November 2007. Based on data available through August 2008, the treatment study group spent an average of 37 days in the reception center. Though this average is lower than that reported at each of the prisons housing SB 618 participants (58 days at RJD and 54 days at CIW), it seems that additional work needs to be done in order to reduce reception time to the desired level.

Emphasize vocational programming over educational services

Since assessment data suggest that SB 618 participants have a functional level of education and possess significant life skills, their time in prison may be best used for vocational programming, rather than educational services.

Enhance outreach to employers

Community members surveyed shared a desire for more communication related to the SB 618 program. These groups, the Reentry Roundtable and Interfaith Advisory Board, are potential sources for outreach related to employment opportunities for participants that could enhance the work already underway by Comprehensive Training Systems, Inc.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


LESSONS LEARNED FOR OTHER POTENTIAL SITES The following lessons are provided as guides for others considering implementation of similar prisoner reentry programs. What Has Worked Well? Conducting more thorough substance use and vocational assessments

As part of SB 618, assessments are conducted locally, beginning before a participant is transferred to the prison reception center. During program development, partners thoroughly discussed which assessments should be conducted and agreed that additional information would be useful regarding participants’ substance use and vocational needs. The information gained from these assessments is used in the creation of each participant’s Life Plan. Because this is a dynamic document administered and modified over the course of the participant’s enrollment in the program, it allows program staff to measure improvement. Key staff and program partners surveyed as part of the process evaluation indicated that these assessments are effective.

Utilizing an interdisciplinary team approach

Attention was paid to best practices in developing the SB 618 program by incorporating interdisciplinary team approaches at two key points in a participant’s progress. The first of these is the MDT meeting held prior to the participant’s sentencing to review eligibility and discuss screening and assessment results. These meetings are staffed by a PO, CCM, PCM, a prison classification counselor, and a Vocational Specialist (as needed). The second of these interdisciplinary forums, the Community Roundtable, is convened on an ongoing basis from the participant’s release to their exit from the program. The Parole Agent, CCM, Vocational Specialist, participant, and any other individuals significantly involved in the participant’s reentry effort attend these meetings. The MDT meetings were noted as particularly effective by key staff and program partners surveyed as part of the process evaluation. As the study progresses, similar information will be available related to the Community Roundtable.

Ensuring ongoing communication between program partners

A culture of open communication has been fostered among program partners and key staff across agencies through weekly Operational Procedures Committee meetings. These meetings were first convened in November 2005 and have been regularly attended by key individuals to discuss issues, brainstorm possible solutions, and come to agreement on the best course of action. There have been numerous examples of problem-solving through open communication during these meetings. For example, in response to discussions about prison funding constraints related to obtaining college textbooks in Fiscal Year 2007-08, University of California, San Diego purchased books through its own contract savings.

Creating a project-specific database

One of the more behind-the-scenes successes of the program is the development of a Web-based data management system designed specifically for the local SB 618 program. With frequent input from program partners and key staff, the DA’s office information systems staff

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


created a user-friendly database that captures data on each participant from screening/assessment through program exit. Hands-on training was provided to all users, and the DA’s staff members have been flexible in revising the system as needs for additional data elements arise. The database includes automation of the Life Plan to allow it to be updated online and shared among program staff. The database also has proven crucial to program partners, key staff, and the evaluators in monitoring program implementation.

What Could Have Been Done Differently? Acknowledging that certain positions require certain skill sets

Originally, the role of the PCM at CIW was filled by social workers and by educators at RJD. This staffing difference was debated early in the design stages of the program, with CIW staff emphasizing a history of using social workers for any type of case management. RJD staff felt their educational personnel were qualified to provide appropriate case management services, and the program partners agreed to implement the program with this staffing difference in place. However, over the course of program implementation, qualitative differences between the case management provided at CIW and RJD became more apparent, and program partners concluded that the PCM role (which includes advocating for the participant during their incarceration) could be better suited to social work staff.

Anticipate, to the greatest degree possible, the logistical needs and possible pitfalls

for service delivery

The implementation of vocational services at RJD was delayed due in large part to drastic funding cuts that occurred in 2002, which essentially dismantled all vocational programming. These cuts resulted in a loss of the infrastructure needed by RJD to provide vocational training for participants. As a result, RJD faced considerable bureaucratic hurdles to remodel classrooms, purchase up-to-date equipment, and hire instructors. Prison overcrowding in RJD limited programming because prisoners were housed in areas traditionally used for rehabilitative services. CDCR implemented welding in August 2007, machine shop in February 2008, and cable technology in April 2008 and is in the process finalizing the cabinet making program. Based on feedback from the treatment study group at RJD obtained through client satisfaction questionnaires, it was clear that they felt misled by what they were told the program would offer and the dearth of programs available to them in prison. It would be beneficial for other jurisdictions to take stock of their existing programming resources and fully develop their capabilities prior to implementation. Being proactive in this regard could help avoid facing time-consuming bureaucratic hurdles delaying full implementation.

What Else Should Other Potential Sites Know About The San Diego Experience? Factors beyond a program’s control can significantly impact program implementation

A key component of the original SB 618 program design was to conduct assessments locally, rather than waiting until a participant arrived at the prison reception center. However, as previously mentioned, a federal court decision was made for a medical receiver to have complete oversight of all CDCR medical services as SB 618 was being implemented. The first individual appointed to this receivership position made the decision that medical screenings conducted by San Diego County could not be honored. Similarly, RJD decided in early 2007 not

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


to honor local mental health assessments. As a result, duplicate screenings occurred, and decreases in the time spent at the reception center were smaller than originally anticipated. The medical receiver and SB 618 program partners continue to be in communication and plan to revisit these issues in the hope of allowing the local screenings, as well as develop other strategies to reduce the length of time in the reception center. For example, as of January 2009, a program used in the San Quentin prison to complete all diagnostics on the first day in the reception center is being tried at RJD. Future reports will examine the length of time in the reception center for both the treatment and comparison study groups to examine the impact of these policies and any changes that may arise from ongoing negotiations.

Remain committed to instituting best practices, despite delays that may occur along

the way

As previously mentioned, a key component of the initial program design, and a best practice, was the provision of behavioral health services (i.e., for substance use and mental health issues). While it was not feasible for this to be put into place as early as planned, program partners remain committed to it and are continuing to investigate ways for its implementation (as previously discussed). In the interim, residential drug treatment is available through Substance Abuse Services Coordinating Agencies, though mental health services are still lacking.

SUMMARY Based on the preliminary research findings in this second annual evaluation report, the SB 618 Prisoner Reentry Program in San Diego has had many successes, though there are areas for improvement. Over the next year, the evaluation will continue to document the process of program implementation and further assess program impact. As the treatment and comparison study groups have longer periods in the community following release from prison, meaningful recidivism and cost analysis will be possible and included in research reports.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT OVERVIEW

Improving Reentry for Ex-Offenders in San Diego County: SB 618 1-1


INTRODUCTION As historically high numbers of ex-offenders parole to California communities, many of whom have issues related to substance abuse, education, employment, housing, and health, the issue of reentry poses a significant problem to policymakers, public safety officials, and community leaders. Along with this issue are concerns related to public safety, as many individuals return to custody in the immediate years following release. One of several efforts across California to reduce recidivism and increase the probability of successful reentry is Senate Bill (SB) 618. This law is based on the concept that providing tangible reentry support services will increase parolees’ chances of successful reintegration into the community (i.e., successfully completing parole conditions and desistance to criminal behavior). As a result, parolees become law-abiding and self-sufficient members of the community and public safety is enhanced. This chapter describes this effort and relates it to the current status of reentry in California and the United States and what experts in the field know about best practices.

LITERATURE REVIEW Incarceration and Recidivism in California and the United States During the 1980s and 1990s, the number of individuals under the supervision of the criminal justice system grew considerably. Specifically, between 1987 and 2007, the number of sentenced prisoners under the jurisdiction of state and federal correctional authorities across the United States increased from 585,084 to 1,596,127. By mid-year 2007, California surpassed Texas in having the highest number of adults under state or federal correctional jurisdiction (176,059 and 172,626, respectively). The United States has the highest rate (not absolute number) of incarceration in the world, with more than 2.3 million people (or one in every 100 adults) behind bars at the beginning of 2008 (Pew Center on the States, 2008). The surge in the national incarceration rate is partially due to nearly seven million Americans having drug dependence issues (Mumola & Karberg, 2006). Of those in U.S. state prisons in 2004, 17 percent were incarcerated for committing crimes to get money for drugs (Mumola & Karberg, 2006). It stands to reason then, that by reducing the demand for drugs through treatment, public safety will improve. In a report by the Justice Policy Institute, 19 of the 20 states with the highest rate of drug treatment admissions had lower incarceration rates than the national averages. The national average for drug treatment admissions was 434 per 100,000 and the national average for incarceration rate was 491 per 100,000. California ranked 18th (out of 20), with a drug treatment admission rate of 493 per 100,000 and an incarceration rate of 466 per 100,000 individuals (Natarajan, Petteruti, Walsh, & Ziedenberg, 2008).


1-2 Improving Reentry for Ex-Offenders in San Diego County: SB 618

However, this trend may be shifting somewhat both nationally and in California. Despite an increase in absolute numbers, there has been a slowing trend in the state prison population growth rates. For example, the national growth rate dipped slightly from a 2.0 percent increase in the first half of 2006 to 1.4 percent in the same period of 2007 (Sabol & Couture, 2008). This trend has held true for California as well, which saw a growth rate of less than one percent from 2006 to 2007, compared to five percent from 2005 to 2006. In California, data for the beginning of 2008 also indicate a decline, with approximately 2,000 fewer individuals (for a total of 170,973) in an adult correctional facility in the first quarter of 2008 (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), no date-b). There also was a small decline (0.2%) in the number of those under some form of CDCR jurisdiction between mid-year 2007 (320,155) and 2008 (319,364) (CDCR, no date-b). While California saw a decrease in its institution population from 2007 to 2008, there was a 1.4 percent increase in the number of individuals placed on parole. The CDCR data from their second quarter of 2008 show a total of 125,097 individuals released to parole across California, with 90 percent returning to the county of their last legal residence. According to CDCR (no date-b), approximately 35,000 (or 6%) were described as returning to Region IV - San Diego/Southern California. Two questions arise from this information: Why have correctional institutions experienced such high rates of population growth over the last few decades? Why does this trend appear to be slowing down? Reasons for Prison Population Growth In reviewing research that addresses why the country experienced such a sharp increase in the number and rate of individuals being incarcerated, it becomes clear that approximately 30 years ago, a groundswell of public intolerance to higher crime emerged (National Institute of Corrections [NIC], no date). Policy shifts that occurred as a result included implementation of stiffer penalties and refocusing time spent in prison as “punishment” rather than “rehabilitation.” During the same period, indeterminate sentencing (in which judges are given broad discretion in meting out sentence terms) was coming under scrutiny by stakeholders from various sides of the political spectrum, including civil rights advocates (who believed judges may not always have been fair in their sentencing decisions), as well as political conservatives (who preferred a more concrete sentencing structure to minimize a judge’s tendency toward leniency) (Austin, Clear, Duster, Greenberg, Irwin, McCoy, Mobley, Owen, & Page, 2007). According to experts in the field, under indeterminate sentencing, prisoners were more motivated to obey prison rules and participate in rehabilitative programs in order to convince parole boards they were ready to be law-abiding citizens if granted release (NIC, no date). However, with the change to determinate sentencing in many states (including California in 1976), there was less incentive for good behavior, and as a greater number of individuals were incarcerated for longer periods of time, the increased cost of housing these individuals also resulted in a drastic paring down of rehabilitative programs (Austin et al., 2007; Travis, Solomon, & Waul, 2001). These two related policy shifts (de-emphasizing rehabilitation and determinate sentencing) led to a third factor that increased prison population – a rise in the number of individuals returning to prison, either because of failing to reintegrate into society and committing a new offense, or because of a technical violation while under parole supervision. For example, in one analysis

De-emphasizing rehabilitation and implementing determinate

sentencing are credited for increased prison populations.



(Langan & Levin, 2002) utilizing 1994 discharge data from prisons in 15 states (including California), the researchers found that within three years of release from prison, 68 percent were rearrested for a new offense, 47 percent were reconvicted for a new crime, and 52 percent were back in prison serving time for a new sentence or a technical violation. When Solomon, Kachnowski, and Bhati (2005) examined what type of supervision this sample of ex-offenders received and how it was related to being reincarcerated, they concluded that parole supervision had little effect on the largest group of released prisoners (males who were drug, property, or violent offenders), mandatory supervision was the least successful type of supervision, and discretionary release was only beneficial to select offenders, namely females, individuals with few prior arrests, public order offenders, and technical violators. In California, where almost all prisoners are placed under a Parole Agent’s direct supervision through mandatory release (as opposed to discretionary supervision or unconditional release with no supervision), the range of interventions for parole violators may be more narrow than is desirable (as reflected by increasing parole revocation rates). For example, the percentage of parolees returning to prison in California grew from 25 percent in 1980 to 71 percent in 2000 (Little Hoover Commission, 2003), and around two-thirds of all prison commitments in California were returning parolees versus one-third nationally (Petersilia, 2006). Thus, while crime across the country is considerably lower than it was decades earlier (Petersilia, 2006), jurisdictions across the country are spending large amounts of money on a system that, in the long run, may not be in the best interest of public safety or the community in general. Reasons for Deceleration of Prison Population Growth There are several factors and events that are possibly linked to the slowing trend in prison population growth, including increased awareness of the issue by policy makers at various levels, as well as the dedication of additional resources than in the recent past. In his 2004 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush proposed a “four-year, $300 million prisoner reentry initiative to expand job training and placement services, to provide transitional housing, and to help newly released prisoners get mentoring, including from faith-based groups.” Since then, the Prisoner Reentry Initiative, which is supported by a diverse group of federal partners (the U.S. Departments of Justice, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Labor), has been implemented, reflecting that the issue of reentry is not solely under the purview of the criminal justice system (Department of Justice, 2008). Also passed by President Bush in 2004 was the Mental Illness Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act (MIOTCRA) designed to promote collaboration between the criminal justice and mental health systems, divert mentally ill offenders from jail and prison, and provide treatment to these individuals in order to reduce criminality (Department of Justice, 2008). More recently, the Second Chance Act of 2007, which President Bush signed into law in April 2008, will fund both state reentry programs and research to identify barriers to reentry, as well as authorize grants from the Department of Justice to fund community-based services for mentoring and other reentry support to adult and juvenile offenders. In California, one of the earliest published reports on the ramifications of skyrocketing incarceration rates was authored by the Little Hoover Commission in 2003. This publication sent a clear message to State agencies that there was an urgent need to reverse the trend of the past several decades of



locking offenders up and failing to address underlying factors that may have contributed or been related to their illegal activity:

California’s parole system is a billion-dollar failure. As the State built and filled prisons over the last 20 years, the number of felons who serve their time and are given a bus ticket home has swelled to 125,000 a year. But the real problem is that a growing percentage of those 125,000 parolees are unprepared to get a job, steer clear of drugs and alcohol, and find a home. Not surprisingly, before long most of these parolees are back on a bus to prison (p. i).

In elaborating on these series of strong statements, the Little Hoover Commission described four fundamental problems with California’s system as it existed at the time: 1) prison stays are not being used to prepare prisoners for their eventual release; 2) available resources – particularly those in communities – are not being used to help parolees get a job and stay out of trouble; 3) when parolees do get into trouble, the vast majority go back to prison, even if drug treatment, short jail stays, or some other intervention would cost less and do more to help them refrain from crime; and 4) thousands of times each year, parole revocation is used in lieu of prosecution for parolees who are suspected of committing new serious crimes. Four years later, these concerns were repeated with the release of a second report (Little Hoover Commission, 2007) that described the failing correctional system as “the largest and most immediate crisis facing policymakers” (p. i) and stated that “California’s parole system remains a billion dollar failure.” In this follow-up report, the Little Hoover Commission acknowledged the ambitious efforts of Governor Schwarzenegger to rework the system but also noted that politics have continued to “trump good policy in correctional reform efforts” (p. i). In response to the debate over parole effectiveness and the crisis of prison overcrowding, two significant pieces of legislation were signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2007. The first of these, SB 1453, allowed CDCR to discharge eligible offenders (nonserious and nonviolent) from parole once they successfully completed 90 consecutive days of in-prison drug treatment followed by 150 consecutive days of residential drug treatment in the community. The second, Assembly Bill (AB) 900, provides over $7 billion for the construction of additional prison and jail beds. In addition to allocating construction dollars, the bill also focuses on restructuring CDCR to emphasize rehabilitation to a greater degree. To help implement AB 900, the governor requested input from two strike teams (one focusing on rehabilitation reform and one on construction efforts). While the Construction Strike Team recommended transferring prisoners to out-of-state prisons, constructing additional dorms within existing prisons, and building reentry facilities (CDCR, 2008), the Rehabilitation Strike Team (RST) proposed four strategies for reviving prison programming that had been at best underutilized (i.e., substance abuse programming), and at worst, dismantled altogether (i.e., vocational training) over many years. These four strategies include: 1) focusing on case management in prison, incorporating assessment of prisoners at prison entry, and assignment to appropriate programming throughout their sentence; 2) training CDCR staff on the core tenets of rehabilitation; 3) implementing “New Start,” an evidence-based, prison-to-employment program; and 4) instituting parole reforms, such as improving the ways offenders’ risks and needs are identified at release and matching them with appropriate community resources (Rehabilitation Strike Team, 2007).



What Works in Reducing Recidivism The average prison sentence imposed in California is 47 months with an average of 25 months actually served. with estimates that nearly all (95%) prisoners under its jurisdiction are eventually released (CDCR, 2007). With that as a backdrop, it is crucial to know what communities need to do to prepare themselves for this influx of high-need individuals. Although the research designs evaluating prisoner reentry programs vary in complexity, a large body of work offers direction regarding what should be provided to ex-offenders in order to reduce recidivism. Best practices recommendations are outlined below, beginning with sentencing and following through with service provision in prison and in the community. Finally, a recap of the research shows how program partners can best collaborate. When San Diego stakeholders began envisioning the SB 618 program, they based its design on the literature regarding proven strategies (i.e., evidence-based practices). The following section outlines the literature, which includes new findings to serve as a resource for the program as implementation continues to evolve. Sentencing According to best practices, offenders should be maintained in the community whenever possible (i.e., when they are deemed low risk for re-offending) because community-based services are more effective in reducing recidivism than programs in institutional settings (Andrews, 2006; Matthews, Hubbard, & Latessa, 2001; Sherman, Gottfredson, MacKenzie, Eck, Reuter, & Bushway, 1997). Distinguishing between high- and low-risk offenders (to determine who can safely be released to the community) requires objective, standardized, reliable, and valid assessment tools that identify risks and needs, as well as responsivity to direct programming and supervision decisions (Andrews, 2006; Aos, Miller, & Drake, 2006; Burke & Tonry, 2006; Latessa, no date; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005; Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Holsinger, 2006; Matthews et al, 2001; Reentry Policy Council, 2005; Petersilia, 2007). Within the choice of community supervision as a sentence, the literature also is clear that the most intensive treatment and intervention programs should be reserved for offenders at high risk for re-offending (Andrews, 2006; Lowenkamp et al., 2006; Latessa, no date; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2004; Gendreau, 1996) and to achieve intensive supervision, 40 to 70 percent of an offender’s time (i.e., majority of the waking hours) should be occupied by the program (Matthews et al., 2001; Gendreau, 1996). Research also has documented that successful community supervision requires high levels of advocacy in order to ensure access to community services for offenders (Andrews, 2006; Matthews et al., 2001; Sherman et al., 1997). Service Provision Assessing an individual’s needs and risks helps guide service provision both in prison and in the community. The following section describes some of the most common needs faced by ex-offenders (i.e., substance abuse, medical, mental health, employment, and debt management) and summarizes the field’s current understanding of best practices.

Best practices suggest low-risk offenders should be maintained in the community to receive services.



Substance Abuse

In California, more than half (53%) of all prisoners in 2004 reported having a drug use issue (Mumola & Karberg, 2006). Based on this rate, it can be estimated that more than 90,000 California prisoners may be dealing with drug dependence. However, despite research that has found that the greatest benefits are realized when prisoners participate in prison drug treatment and aftercare services upon release (Rosenfeld et al., 2008; Andrews, 2006; California Expert Panel Report, 2006; Matthews et al., 2001; Lipton, 1997; Taxman & Spinner, 1997; CDCR, 1995; Field & Karacki, 1992), individuals may not always receive the treatment in prison they need. For example, national estimates show that in 2004 only 40 percent of those with drug dependence participated in treatment during incarceration (Mumola & Karberg, 2006). In California’s state prisons, that number is even lower, with approximately ten percent of those needing drug treatment receiving it while incarcerated, due in large part to issues related to overcrowding (CDCR, no date-b). Upon release from custody, supervision should be treatment-oriented rather than focused upon violation detection. For example, community-based drug treatment that includes drug testing should be provided with responses to noncompliance consisting of increased treatment rather than incarceration time (Rosenfeld et al., 2008; Aos et al., 2006; Burke & Tonry, 2006; National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study, 1997). While in-prison drug treatment may reduce recidivism to some degree, treatment after release (combined with work release, treatment, and aftercare) is more effective (Butzin, O’Connell, Martin, & Inciardi, 2006).

Medical Not surprisingly, there is a close association between substance abuse (including tobacco) and illness, with nearly half a million deaths among the general population in 2000 related to current or prior substance abuse (NIDA, no date). Some of the direct and indirect health effects of drug use include cardiovascular disease following the use of certain stimulants, such as cocaine, ecstasy, and amphetamines, and an increased risk for AIDS and hepatitis C following a history of intravenous drug use (NIDA, no date). When one considers that the mortality rate for ex-offenders is 3.5 times higher than the general population (Binswanger, Stern, Deyo, Heagerty, Cheadle, Elmore, & Koepsell, 2007), that prisons and jails are part of and not separate from communities, and that nearly all prisoners will come home at some point, it is clear that providing adequate medical care both in and outside of prison is important to the safety and well-being of the ex-offender, as well as the community at large. Medical care inside prisons is at a crisis in many states, including in California.1 Recently, this issue has become increasingly urgent as more prisoners report current medical problems (Maruschak, 2008), overcrowding forces prisoners to share close quarters, and the aging prison population becomes more prone to health issues. In the words of CDCR Chief Deputy Secretary Scott Kernan, “Housing inmates in nontraditional quarters presents serious safety concerns for

1 The California state prison medical system has been under federal jurisdiction since 2006 due to the state’s inability to

protect prisoners’ constitutional rights (CDCR, 2008).



both inmates and correctional staff. The overcrowding of CDCR facilities has led to increased numbers [of] infectious disease outbreaks and riots and disturbances systemwide” (CDCR, no date).2 In terms of best practices, research suggests that providing a continuum of medical care from prison to parole is most desirable, including utilizing community-based health care providers in custody to expand service options and increase probability of aftercare (Reentry Policy Council, 2005); however, this ideal is not easily accomplished due in part to issues related to logistics (i.e., distance between prison and community care facilities, releasing prisoners at odd hours of the night when no immediate care is available) and to more systemic challenges (i.e., inability or unwillingness by prisons and/or community-based organizations to collaborate and exchange information and a lack of funding/resources). However, a few states have successfully traversed these barriers with marked reductions seen in recidivism, including Rhode Island (which established a model of collaboration between corrections and a local hospital using staff to begin discharge planning in prison and which serves as the releasee’s community medical provider after release) and Massachusetts (where prisoners with serious medical concerns are linked to health care teams in their own ZIP Code with care by these teams beginning in prison and continuing post-release) (Hammet, Roberts, & Kennedy, 2001).

Mental Health A third issue that often intersects with drug dependence and medical problems is mental illness. For example, nearly three-quarters (74%) of all state prisoners in the United States with mental health issues also are coping with substance abuse. Across the United States, more than half (56%) of state prisoners had some type of mental health problem (as defined by having either a recent history or exhibiting symptoms of a mental illness), with the most prevalent mental disorders being mania (43%), major depression (23%), and some form of psychosis (15%) (James & Glaze, 2006). Mental health providers serving prisoners face significant challenges in treating these individuals, including the propensity of the mentally ill prisoner to develop exaggerated adaptive behaviors to help them adjust to life in prison (i.e., being overly reluctant to provide information to staff and exhibiting an extremely intimidating demeanor) (Rotter, McQuistion, Broner, & Steinbacher, 2005). These behaviors can sometimes be misconstrued by treatment staff as noncompliance or as further symptoms of mental illness (Rotter et al., 2005).

2 The California Prison Health Care Services (CPHCS) reports that there has been an 18 percent drop in prisoner deaths since

2006. They credit this drop in part to filling medical staff positions and creating a database to streamline the state prison’s medical records system (Kelso, 2008).

Best practices suggest programs are most effective when they

link service provision in custody to services in the community.



Challenges to treating mentally ill offenders continue after prison with systemic barriers, including lack of funding to provide enough beds to house the mentally ill, lack of competitive salaries for competent and trained personnel, and fragmentation among systems (health, substance abuse treatment, housing agencies), which impairs effective engagement and treatment of parolees coping with a mental health condition and other day-to-day problems (Reentry Policy Council, 2005). According to best practices known in this area, the greatest improvements can be realized when service delivery is coordinated, consumers are included in the design of service plans, service providers are culturally competent, and case management is provided to ensure medication compliance (Reentry Policy Council, 2005; Byrne, Taxman, & Young, 2002).

Employment and Debt Management Research suggests that employment and training related to finding and keeping a job after release greatly reduces recidivism (LaVigne, 2008; Aos et al., 2006). Having a job that pays a decent wage can reduce the likelihood of turning to crime for financial support and, at the same time, alleviate the considerable debt many offenders accumulate during incarceration (e.g., fines, restitution, public cost recovery assessments, and child support) (Levingston & Turetsky, 2007). However, many prison vocational programs were dismantled in the 1980s and 1990s and have not been fully replaced, and many in-custody opportunities are merely maintenance details that do not prepare these individuals for skilled, well-paying jobs after release (Bloom, 2006). Upon release, many parolees struggle with low educational levels and spotty work experience, as well as the reluctance by many employers to hire people with a felony record (Solomon, Johnson, Travis, & Cincotta McBride, 2004). Some options for addressing these barriers that have been tested in other jurisdictions include: having the judge set realistic orders and suspend obligation during incarceration; providing pre-release services that help offenders identify their debt and create payment plan strategies; making employment of ex-offenders more lucrative to the private sector by offering tax credits and other financial incentives; and eliminating the practice of asking job candidates whether they have a criminal background until after they have been screened and deemed qualified based on their skills and experience (Levingston & Turetsky, 2007; Johnson & Fletcher, no date).

Intervention Strategies and Staffing While addressing identified needs in these previously described areas is key to prisoner reentry, research also is clear in terms of best practices about how services should be delivered to maximize positive results. That is, interventions that encompass the following principles may be more successful than those that do not.

Interventions should be highly structured, involving multiple treatment components that are skill oriented (e.g., development of social, academic, and employment skills) (Matthews et al., 2001; Sherman et al., 1997). Specifically, the focus should be on criminogenic needs (i.e., crime-producing factors) (Andrews, 2006).



Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) has been found to reduce recidivism on average by 27 percent (Lipsey & Landenberger, 2006). CBT programs should be used to replace anti-social associations and behaviors with pro-social ones by reinforcing clearly identified overt behavior. These programs should include: structured social learning that teaches new skills while consistently reinforcing pro-social behaviors and attitudes; programs that address values, choice of peers, substance abuse, and anger; and family-based interventions that train families on appropriate behavioral techniques (Andrews, 2006; Aos et al., 2006; Latessa, no date; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005; Reentry Policy Council, 2005; Matthews et al., 2001; Sherman et al., 1997).

A detailed service plan should include the ex-offender in the planning process, and the services outlined in this plan should be matched with learning style, motivation, aptitude, and needs identified through assessment (Rosenfeld et al., 2008; Andrews, 2006; Lowenkamp et al., 2006; Latessa, no date; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005; Reentry Policy Council, 2005; Byrne, Taxman, & Young, 2002; Matthews et al., 2001; Sherman, et al, 1997; Gendreau, 1996).

Contact between program participants and staff should be frequent, interpersonally sensitive and constructive to maximize client motivation and appropriateness of services delivered (Matthews et al., 2001; Sherman et al., 1997; Gendreau, 1996).

Cultural and gender compatibility between staff and the target population are important in order to facilitate cultural sensitivity and gender responsiveness (Campbell, 2005; Gendreau, 1996).

Program compliance is impacted by the ability of participants to trust staff; therefore, trust should be cultivated by including participants in the decision-making process, applying rules consistently without bias, acknowledging participants’ rights, treating participants with dignity and respect, communicating honestly, and considering participants’ concerns in program delivery (Campbell, 2005).

Informal social supports (e.g., family members, society, and peer groups) should be engaged in the pre-release, decision-making process to ensure a seamless transition into a crime-free living environment (Petersilia, 2007; Burke & Tonry, 2006; Reentry Policy Council, 2005; Backer, Guerra, Hesselbein, Lasker, & Petersilia, 2005; Byrne et al., 2002; Matthews et al., 2001).

For low-risk offenders, reentry plans should focus on returning them to the environments that made them low risk (Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2004). That is, strategies should build upon previously existing social supports and employment rather than starting with a blank slate.

Program participation should be cultivated through positive reinforcement/incentives, with a structured hierarchy of sanctions for noncompliance that includes: a 4:1 ratio of rewards to punishments; punishments that are meted out swiftly and consistently; and a process in which punishments are followed by instruction on pro-social alternatives (The Pew Center on the States, 2007; Reentry Policy Council, 2005; Byrne et al., 2002; Matthews et al., 2001; Gendreau, 1996).

Research suggests that details regarding how services are

provided are as important as what the intervention is.



Relapse prevention strategies should be incorporated, including: planned and rehearsed pro-social responses to situations potentially resulting in relapse; anticipation of problem scenarios; practice of new pro-social behaviors; reinforcement of pro-social behavior by significant others; and availability of support following program completion to refresh pro-social responses when needed (Gendreau, 1996).

To adequately meet the needs of female offenders and increase their chance for successful reentry, gender-specific programming should be provided that acknowledges the needs of female offenders are different than their male counterparts. Key components should include providing a safe environment and fostering dignity and respect, while addressing substance abuse, trauma, mental health, socioeconomic, and family reunification issues (Bloom, Owen, & Covington, 2003; Sydney, 2005).

Staffing and Collaborative Partners Finally, programs designed with all the components proven to effectively address reentry issues may still not succeed if issues related to unsuccessful partnerships and poor staffing exist. With respect to these issues, the field offers a number of practical guidelines for consideration that are summarized here.

Objectives and goals should be concrete, attainable, related to community needs, and shared by all partners (Backer et al., 2005).

Membership in the partnership should be clearly defined and include an appropriate cross-section of the community of those directly affected (e.g., families of offenders, faith-based organizations, and victim advocacy groups). All members of the partnership should have the necessary skills and knowledge to participate in the collaboration (Backer et al., 2005) and be involved in all levels of implementation (e.g., policy development, operational practice, and staff decision-making) (Byrne et al., 2002).

The ideal partnership should be based on mutual respect, trust, understanding, ability to compromise, flexibility, adaptability, clear leadership, and frequent, open communication that utilizes both formal and informal methods (Backer et al., 2005).

A full-time project director should provide strong leadership and there should be detailed plans regarding frequency of meetings, agendas, decision-making processes, and responsibilities (Byrne et al., 2002).

There should be sufficient resources and a favorable political/social climate (Backer et al., 2005; Byrne et al., 2002).

Barriers to reentry that exist in the community should be identified, and support should be solicited from decision-makers who can advocate for far-reaching change and draft policies that eliminate or minimize roadblocks to parolees trying to make their way on the outside (Johnson & Fletcher, no date).

Staff recruitment, hiring, performance reviews, and professional development all should focus on the skills and motivation necessary to delivering services and match to the needs of the target population (Matthews et al., 2001; Gendreau, 1996).



Staff members should have at least an undergraduate degree or equivalent training in theories, prediction, and treatment of criminal behavior. Three to six months of formal and on-the-job/internship training should be provided in applying behavioral interventions (Gendreau, 1996).

PROJECT OVERVIEW Program Background SB 618 Legislation In response to California’s growing crisis of recidivism and subsequent prison overcrowding, the San Diego County District Attorney’s (DA) Office authored the SB 618 legislation in 2005. The bill was successfully steered through the legislature by State Senator Jackie Speier (D-San Francisco/San Mateo), passed into law in October 2005, and became effective January 1, 2006 (see Appendix A for a copy of the bill). This bill is based on the concept that providing tangible reentry support services will increase parolees’ reintegration into the community. Although the bill allowed for the possibility of three California counties to implement a program, San Diego County was the first one authorized to create a multiagency plan and develop policies and programs to educate and rehabilitate nonviolent felony offenders. As part of this plan, male offenders sentenced to Richard J. Donovan (RJD) Correctional Facility3 and female offenders sentenced to the California Institution for Women (CIW)4 would be eligible for the program. As noted in last year’s evaluation report, CDCR’s intention is to continue moving forward with the San Diego County program before making any further budgetary commitments to other counties; however, there has been interest shown by other jurisdictions in replicating the San Diego SB 618 model. Most recently, in August 2008, several representatives from the public and private sectors of San Bernardino County visited San Diego to meet with program partners and ask questions regarding the design and implementation processes. Program Partners One of the many positive aspects of the SB 618 program is the unprecedented collaboration between local and state agencies. Coordinated by the DA’s Office and representatives from CDCR, stakeholders began meeting in December 2005 to begin the task of hammering out a forward-thinking, best-practices approach to reentry. Since that time, a core group of program partners – referred to as the Operational Procedures Committee – has met weekly to design, implement, and tailor the program and confront issues and challenges as they arise. In June 2006, the local SB 618 leadership submitted its multiagency plan to the County Board of

3 RJD is located approximately 24 miles south of downtown San Diego. According to CDCR statistics accessed on August 20,

2008, RJD had a total population of 4,770 and a design capacity of 2,208. 4 CIW is the nearest women’s facility, located approximately 90 miles northeast of downtown San Diego in Riverside County.

According to CDCR statistics accessed on August 20, 2008, CIW had a total population of 2,443 and a design capacity of 1,026.

Collaboration has been crucial in the

design and implementation of the local SB 618

program.



Supervisors, which unanimously approved it, paving the way for full implementation. Table 1.1 shows each of the SB 618 program partners and their function(s) within the program, including the DA’s Office, Defense Bar, Sheriff’s Department, Probation Department, CDCR (RJD, CIW, and Parole), Grossmont Union High School District, University of California, San Diego (UCSD), and Comprehensive Training Systems, Inc. (CTS). In addition, program partners have negotiated working relationships with several agencies to facilitate wrap-around service provision for participants. These agencies include the San Diego County Department of Child Support Services, California Department of Motor Vehicles, Veterans’ Affairs, and Social Security Administration. Additionally, partners entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the California Department of Rehabilitation. Key Program Components Research finds that wrap-around services are most effective when provided through a team process consisting of shared goals, objectives, and strategies for monitoring results based on successes (Walker, 2008). The San Diego SB 618 program has incorporated these and other evidence-based practices learned from national models, as shown in Table 1.2, by providing case management services to facilitate successful reintegration into the participants’ family and community. This level of care begins with the administration of several standardized screenings and assessments prior to entering the prison reception center5 to determine level of risk and identify primary needs. Services continue throughout the duration of participants’ prison sentence and are facilitated by a designated Prison Case Manager (PCM). The PCM meets regularly with participants to ensure expedited access to programs (educational, vocational, and substance abuse treatment). Six months prior to release, PCMs apply focused case management efforts with participants to ready them for reentry. Also at this time, the Community Case Manager (CCM) comes to the prison to conduct an intake assessment, review and make adjustments to the Life Plan, and discuss steps for transitioning to the outside world. CCMs meet monthly with participants in their final six months of incarceration to maintain a high level of motivation and rapport. In addition, PCMs and CCMs meet monthly to discuss programming and staffing issues and troubleshoot resolutions. This process also involves collaboration with the Parole Agent, and has had a positive effect on team building and ensures a smoother reentry transition for participants. Once released, participants continue to receive consistent care from the CCM, Vocational Specialist, and Community Roundtable (comprised of the participant, CCM, Parole Agent, Vocational Specialist, and other individuals deemed useful to successful reentry).

5 All arriving prisoners are processed at one of CDCR’s 14 reception centers where they are screened before being assigned

to one of the state’s 33 prisons. Both RJD and CIW have a reception center within their facilities. See Chapter 4 for data regarding average time spent in the reception for all prisoners as well as for SB 618 participants.

SB 618 relies on evidence-based practices, including pre-sentencing

assessment, multidisciplinary input into service plans, and

ongoing case management from prison

to the community.



Table 1.1 PROGRAM PARTNERS AND THEIR SB 618 FUNCTION

CDCR - Division of Community Partnerships

Cooperates with staff from the District Attorney’s Office and the Probation Department to provide leadership and oversee program activities. San Diego County District Attorney’s Office

Authored SB 618 legislation; coordinates committees to design and implement the local program; provides leadership; pre-screens cases for eligibility; coordinates local court process to facilitate program entry; developed and maintains SB 618 database. San Diego County Public Defender’s Office

Facilitates resolution to legal issues unrelated to the current case and potentially impacting reentry. San Diego County Defense Bar

Confirms offenders’ eligibility and willingness to participate. San Diego County Sheriff’s Department

Administrator of local jail facilities; transports participants from jail to prison; conducts dental and mental health screenings and Addiction Severity Index (ASI)*. San Diego County Probation Department

Serves as the fiscal agent for local SB 618 contracts; provides leadership; conducts pre-sentencing interviews; administers the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS)*; coordinates and staffs multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings; and produces the Life Plan. CDCR – Richard J. Donovan (RJD)

Prison for male prisoners; conducts medical and mental health screenings; classifies all prisoners for housing status; provides prison case management and rehabilitative programs (educational, vocational, and substance abuse treatment); administers the Test for Adult Basic Education (TABE)*; participates in MDT. CDCR – California Institute for Women (CIW)

Prison for female prisoners; conducts medical screenings; classifies all prisoners for housing status; provides prison case management and rehabilitative programs (educational, vocational, and substance abuse treatment); administers TABE*; participates in MDT. CDCR – Parole

Supervises participants post-release; participates in Community Roundtable; administers COMPAS*; collaborates closely with CCM to coordinate community services for participant. Grossmont Union High School District Adult School

Correctional education services subcontractor with the Sheriff’s Department; administers TABE and CASAS*. University of California, San Diego (UCSD)

Subcontractor providing community case management; prepares participant, family, and community for reentry; administers ASI and COMPAS*; participates in MDT and Community Roundtable; under separate contract, serves as SB 618 training coordinator. Comprehensive Training Systems, Inc. (CTS)

Subcontractor providing vocational services (such as referrals to employers and employment placement) for participants with needs which are unmet through community services; administers pre-release vocational assessments (O*NET and Myers Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI)*); participates in MDT (as needed) and Community Roundtable; conducts outreach to employers .

*All standardized assessments are discussed in detail in Table 1.3.

SOURCE: SANDAG SB 618 Second Annual Evaluation Report



Table 1.2 SB 618 PROGRAM WAS DESIGNED WITH COMPONENTS RELATED TO BEST PRACTICES

Program starts at signing of Letter of Intent (pre-sentence)

Ongoing needs assessment conducted

A multidisciplinary team approach is utilized

Life Plan is created with input from the participant and builds on identified strengths

Prison case management and community case management provides advocacy and brokerage both

in prison and after release in the community

Custody time is focused on rehabilitation

Services are tailored to meet identified needs

Services include drug treatment and vocational training

Physical and mental health needs are addressed

Treatment orientation continues upon release from custody

Emphasis is placed on high-quality staff contact

Life Plan evolves with input from participants community members

Staff roles are clearly defined and collaboration and community are emphasized

Services are gender responsive and culturally competent


Eligibility and Exclusion Criteria All SB 618 participants are culled from the DA’s felony prosecution caseload6 and all serve their prison sentences at either RJD or CIW. The opportunity to enroll in the program is offered to both male and female nonviolent offenders. To be considered for the program, the candidate must be in custody, a legal resident of San Diego County, and have previously agreed (or “stipulated”) to a prison sentence of 8 to 72 months. Individuals with prior convictions for great bodily injury or murder are excluded, as well as arson and sex offender registrants. Offenders with a violent conviction over five years old are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The program is not offered after sentencing. Participation in the SB 618 program does not affect the individual’s prison sentence in any way. For more detailed information about eligibility criteria, see Appendix B. Participant Enrollment Process For the first four months of the program (February to May 2007), all potential participants were obtained from the San Diego Superior Court’s downtown branch, the largest of the four operated in San Diego County. The decision was made to focus on one branch in order to facilitate program start-up. Beginning in May 2007, the program expanded to include the East County branch in the City of El Cajon and increased from six per week (a number selected for program start-up and written into the Public Entity Agreement (PEA) between the county and the state) to seven per

6 The DA prosecutes all felony and misdemeanor offenses occurring within the County of San Diego, with the exception of

misdemeanors in the cities of San Diego and Poway.



week in order to make up for the smaller than expected numbers (less than six per week) during start–up. This increase, though only one per week, placed a strain on the assessment staff at both the Probation Department and the Sheriff’s Department. In January 2008, at the request of the Probation Department and with the agreement of all program partners, the number of intakes was returned to six participants per week. This decision was in response to Probation’s staffing constraints and the fact that the program’s initial, low numbers had been offset by the eight months of increased intake. While the program partners are committed to expanding the San Diego SB 618 program to the other two County courthouses (North County and South Bay) and providing the program to all eligible offenders, these plans have yet to be finalized due to the budget deficit and delay in passing a state budget. The partners’ original expansion plan was to increase to 16 participants per week, but in their Request for Program Expansion submitted to the State in March 2008,7 they reduced that number to 12 due to continuing obstacles, such as limitations in housing at RJD, programming space availability, and staffing. A detailed diagram outlining how individuals are identified, screened, and enrolled in SB 618 is provided in Appendix C. Screening A cursory screening of potential participants is conducted by a trained Deputy District Attorney (DDA) in order to identify individuals who are potentially eligible based on type of current offense, criminal history, and potential prison sentence of 8 to 72 months with time to serve of 4 to 36 months. When defendants decide to plead guilty and agree to the stipulated sentence, they express their agreement to participate by signing a Letter of Intent (LOI) and Release of Information Waiver (Appendix D) at the time the court takes the change of plea. At this point, a sentencing date is set for at least 20 court days from the date of the plea, during which time more formal screenings and assessments are conducted by the Sheriff’s Department, Probation Department, and CDCR classification.8 Within 14 days of court referral, four standardized assessments are conducted to determine the level of risk for substance abuse and recidivism and the need for life skills, basic education, and literacy training. The next section and Table 1.3 summarize the timing of these assessments, which go beyond what is traditionally assessed when offenders are sentenced to prison. Along with the assessments, a Probation Officer conducts a thorough, pre-sentencing interview with participants to explore the facets of their criminal and personal history. At the sentencing hearing, the participants are required to sign a contract (Appendix D) between themselves and the program indicating what is expected of both parties throughout program participation. 7 The Request for Expansion has not been approved as of this report. 8 CDCR classification staff screens all prisoners to determine appropriate housing placement. For example, RJD does not

accept offenders who are HIV positive or who are confined to a wheelchair because the prison is not equipped to meet these special needs. CIW is able to accommodate these special needs for females.



Assessment The following provides details of the assessments utilized for the SB 618 program (also shown in Table 1.3), which demonstrates the partners’ efforts to broaden the assessment of criminogenic risk factors.

Medical Screenings: The program was designed to have the Sheriff’s Department screen for medical, dental, and mental health issues in order to bypass lengthy stays in the reception center and streamline entry into prison programming. However, due to CDCR’s medical system being placed under federal jurisdiction (as a result of lawsuits filed by prisoners) and subsequently turned over to be administered by a court-appointed medical receiver, medical screenings were not conducted by the Sheriff, but rather only upon prison entry in the reception center. The Sheriff continues to conduct dental and mental health screenings.

Addiction Severity Index (ASI):9 The ASI is used to measure individual risks, needs, and improvements related to substance abuse, mental health, and trauma-related issues for SB 618 participants. The tool is administered by the Sheriff’s Department prior to imprisonment and by CCMs within 30 days of prison release and again at the end of program participation. This tool is not part of the traditional prison assessment process. Therefore, this assessment goes beyond treatment as usual.

Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS):10 Educational issues and life skills are assessed through a contract between the Sheriff’s Department and the Grossmont Union High School District. This assessment goes beyond basic math and reading skills examined by the TABE (described below) to include listening, writing, and speaking skills. This tool also is used in the prisons.

Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS):11 The COMPAS assesses criminogenic risk factors and is administered to SB 618 participants three times: one-on-one by Probation prior to sentencing; in groups by Parole prior to release from prison; and one-on-one by the CCM upon completion of the program. This timing provides an opportunity to examine changes over the course of the participant’s involvement in the program. This tool is administered to all prisoners as they are paroled, though not prior to sentencing as it is with SB 618 participants.

9 Numerous studies have verified the validity and reliability of the ASI with different populations (Alterman, Brown,

Zaballero, & McKay, 1994; Hendricks, Kaplan, Van Limbeek, & Geerlings, 1989; Hodgins, & El-Guebaly, 1992; Kosten, Rounsaville, & Kleber, 1983; Leonhard, Mulvey, Gastfriend, & Shwartz, 2000; Stöffelmayr, Mavis & Kasim, 1994), including prisoners (Amoureus, van den Hurk, Schippers, & Breteler, 1994) and the homeless (Joyner, Wright, & Devine, 1996; Zanis, McLellan, Cnaan, & Randall, 1994).

10 According to the CASAS Web site (www.casas.org), the reliability and validity of the tool have been verified through “rigorous statistical procedures.” SB 618 uses the CASAS 85R level C Reading Life and Work.

11 Northpointe Institute for Public Management, Inc. (the company that designed the COMPAS) indicates that all risk factor items were developed using standard factor analytic and psychometric procedures. In addition, validation studies have been conducted across the nation supporting the predictive and construct validity and generalizability of COMPAS (Austin & McGinnis, 2004).



Test for Adult Basic Education (TABE):12 Educational issues are examined through the TABE. Administration is conducted with participants while in local jail by the Grossmont Union High School District, which contracted with the Sheriff’s Department to conduct TABE assessments for SB 618 participants. Prison educational staff administer subsequent TABEs every six months to any prisoner with an initial score less than or equal to 6.0 and who are participating in educational classes in prison.

Vocational Assessments: Vocational Specialists assess vocational aptitudes, interests, and abilities using the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) and Myers Briggs Type Indicator®

(MBTI) tools after prison entry. As with the ASI, vocational assessments are only available to SB 618 participants and goes beyond treatment as usual.

Partners agreed that participants’ need for cognitive behavioral therapy was not being adequately assessed, and in April 2008, UCSD began to administer the Criminal Thinking Scale (from Texas Christian University) with a test group of participants (approximately 10) to see if the instrument would be useful. As of this report, results from the preliminary test group are forthcoming as the partners continue to discuss whether to fully incorporate this instrument into the program.

Table 1.3 ASSESSMENT TIMING DESIGN

Assessment Pre Mid Post

Medical/Dental/Mental Health Pre-MDT None None

ASI Pre-MDT 30 days after prison release Treatment exit

CASAS Pre-MDT None None

COMPAS Pre-MDT 6 months prior to release SB 618 exit

TABE13 Pre-MDT Post-imprisonment Every 6 months

O*NET14 & Myers Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI)

Post-imprisonment None None


Multidisciplinary Team and Life Plan Development The local SB 618 program incorporates best practices by utilizing an MDT to discuss participants’ eligibility and level of risk and need based on standardized assessments. The MDT is comprised of staff from Probation, CDCR (PCM and Classification Counselor), UCSD, and CTS (as

12 The TABE is a nationally-normed test of adult basic education developed by CTB/McGraw-Hill. SB618 uses the TABE form 9. 13 The TABE is only re-administered for participants with an initial TABE score of less than or equal to 6.0. The post TABE is

conducted until a reading level above 6.0 is reached. Initially, literacy is assessed; however, reassessments also include math.

14 The specific O*NET tool utilized for SB 618 focuses on interests, values, and abilities.

Decisions regarding service delivery and

programming are made by consensus among

program staff and participants.



needed). MDT meetings are held within 14 days of the participant’s referral by the court and before sentencing. The purpose of the MDT meeting is to: discuss the results of the screenings, assessments, and pre-sentencing interview; agree on the participant’s suitability for the program; and create a course of action for services and case management. These meetings take place at one of two local jails (Las Colinas Detention Facility for females and George Bailey Detention Facility for males) and allow participants to meet the MDT members, ask questions, and learn more about the program and their role in it. Unique to the SB 618 program is the creation of the Life Plan (Appendix D), a formal and dynamic document that charts participants’ needs and progress from assessment to program completion. Information maintained in the Life Plan includes personal demographics, results from the various screenings and assessments, and case management notes entered by the PCM and CCM pre and post release. It also provides a section for participants to add their own comments and give feedback. Based on preliminary results from Client Satisfaction Questionnaires (described in more detail in Chapter 5) that indicated participants’ desire to give greater input into their Life Plan, key staff modified the MDT system to bring participants into the process earlier in order to give them greater opportunity to identify their goals and provide input, as well as generate ownership for the Life Plan. For example, team members identify three core issues (education, vocation, and substance abuse) and then provide participants with information about services available in prison and in the community. At that point, they ask participants for their ideas on what services they feel would help them most in overcoming these issues. At no particular point in service delivery does any one program staff member make a stand-alone decision regarding participants’ course of programming. Rather, decisions are made by consensus among program staff and participants. Three forums at which the Life Plan is formally discussed include: prior to prison at the MDT meeting; during incarceration through discussions between the PCM and CCM; and post release at the Community Roundtable meetings. The Life Plan is made available to participants throughout their involvement in the program with the intention that it will be particularly useful as they reintegrate into their family and community. Prison Services

PRISON CASE MANAGEMENT

One of the unique features of the SB 618 design is ongoing case management during the participants’ prison sentence. This feature is believed to encourage participants to remain constructively engaged while serving time. The role of the PCM is to advocate on behalf of the participants as they maneuver through the complex prison system and ensure that participants are expedited into classes and programs relevant to their Life Plan objectives. The program is designed for one PCM to maintain a caseload of approximately 60 participants. As the number of participants increases, additional PCMs are hired to maintain this caseload size. Initially, RJD employed educational staff to serve as PCMs and CIW hired Licensed Clinical Social Workers (LCSW) for the PCM position. Over the course of the past year, the program partners felt it would be in the best interest of the program and participants to maintain consistency in the PCM’s professional backgrounds at both prisons. As a result, four LCSWs were hired in



May 2008 to replace the existing PCMs at RJD. Initially, the new LCSWs were under the supervision of the prison’s Associate Warden until a supervising LCSW was hired (December 2008).

The first step in any therapeutic relationship is engagement, or building rapport and trust between the helping professional and client. In the case of the PCM component, engagement involves: asking participants questions regarding their goals while in prison, as well as after release; formulating a programming plan; and providing more information about the SB 618 program. Although the program strives for consistency between the two prisons with regard to programming and staffing, there are differences as far as when engagement begins. At RJD, PCMs begin the engagement process while participants are in the prison reception center awaiting final classification and housing placement. In contrast, believing this to be a better practice, CIW PCMs have selected to begin engaging with participants prior to prison entry by meeting privately with participants at the jail before the MDT meeting to begin establishing rapport. Once participants transition to permanent housing within the general population, PCMs at both CIW and RJD meet regularly with participants to review and update the Life Plan and ensure that participants are expedited into appropriate programs. Program partners believe the benefit of entering programs more quickly will be an additional enticement for program recruitment.

VOCATIONAL

TRAINING Research shows that having a stable job that a parolee wants to keep will reduce the likelihood of recidivating (Rosenfeld et al., 2008). However, over the past few decades, many vocational training programs in California’s prisons, including RJD, were dismantled as a result of the emphasis on “punishment” rather than “rehabilitation” (CDCR Expert Panel, 2007). Since 2005, when CDCR shifted its emphasis to “rehabilitation,” prisons have struggled to restore these programs, and have encountered bureaucratic hurdles in doing so. For example, in order to provide SB 618 participants with relevant vocational training, RJD, which in 2002 had all of its 19 vocational programs completely cut due to budgetary constraints, found it necessary to remodel classrooms, install new equipment, ensure safety standards were met, and recruit and hire new instructors. As a result of these efforts, RJD opened classes for welding in August 2007, machine shop in February 2008, and cable technology in April 2008. A fourth vocational program (cabinet making) is in the process of certifying a newly hired instructor and anticipates enrolling prisoners in the classes in December 2008.

Unlike RJD, CIW’s vocational programs were not negatively impacted by prior budget cuts to the same degree, with training continuing to be provided in Sewing, Construction, Graphic Arts, Word Processing,



and Office Services and Related Technologies. However, the Cosmetology program had been cut due to funding and space constraints. With the advent of SB 618, which allocated resources to reinstitute the Cosmetology program, CIW is currently in the process of constructing a new modular classroom to house the program and hopes to have it operational during Fiscal Year 2008-09.

EDUCATION Individuals involved in the justice system are less likely to have

completed higher education compared to those with no history of incarceration. For example, around two in five (41%) prisoners and one in three (33%) probationers have not completed high school or obtained a General Equivalency Diploma (GED), compared to 18 percent of the general population. In addition, dropping out of school has been found to be negatively associated with employment (prior to incarceration) and positively associated with recidivism (Harlow, 2003); however, the relationship between educational attainment and an increased propensity for criminal activity is not necessarily a simple one. It is important to note that: individuals who recidivate usually have criminal histories that began at an earlier age than non-recidivists; act out in more hostile and nonconformist ways; have suffered from abuse in the past; have mental health issues; and are often homeless, unemployed, and addicted to alcohol and other drugs. While not having the ability to read does not cause one to commit crime, it can be an important part in the equation (Newman, Lewis, & Beverstock, 1993). With these findings in mind, it is clear that by improving prisoners’ educational status, gains also will be made to self-esteem and chances of obtaining gainful employment upon release.

Upon entering local custody, SB 618 participants are administered the TABE, which rates an individual’s basic educational skills. Based on the TABE results,15 SB 618 participants can enroll in level-appropriate classes, such as basic literacy, GED coursework, or college classes to give them a better foothold upon release. Using contract savings, UCSD purchased college textbooks in January, May, and August 2008, specifically for SB 618 participants at both prisons.

SUBSTANCE

ABUSE TREATMENT

According to Petersilia’s 2006 report, Understanding California Corrections, 21 percent of California’s prisoners are serving time for a drug-related offense, 43 percent have a “high need” for alcohol treatment, and 56 percent are facing a “high need” for drug treatment (compared to the national average of 49%). Based on these statistics, as well as data from the DA’s caseload, local SB 618

15 The initial assessment examines reading comprehension. Reassessments are administered only to those with reading levels

below 6.0. These reassessments examine reading comprehension and math.



leaders have expected the majority of program participants will be confronting serious substance abuse issues. Prison Substance Abuse Programs (SAP) are administered by CDCR’s Division of Addiction and Recovery Services (DARS) (formerly the Office of Substance Abuse Programs [OSAP]).16 According to CDCR, DARS administers both in-prison and community aftercare substance abuse treatment, which adheres to the therapeutic community model and provides gender-specific services for females. CDCR contracts with outside agencies at both RJD and CIW to provide in-prison substance abuse programs. Drug Treatment Furlough (DTF) programs in San Diego County (i.e., Lighthouse for males and Freedom House for females) are available to eligible prisoners. Through DTF, prisoners may complete their sentence in one of the two above-mentioned community drug treatment facilities. At RJD, the requirements for entering DTF are to have no more than 120 days left to serve in prison and currently be enrolled in SAP. CIW offers two options: female prisoners may either be enrolled in an in-prison drug treatment program (SAP) or attend an orientation17 before entering DTF. The use of DTF is a good example of how SB 618 utilizes existing resources to maximize treatment and services for participants.

Between July and October 2008, the SAP program at RJD was suspended due to breaches in security by contracted staff. As a result, CDCR gave the contractor the opportunity to remedy the problems that allowed such a breach to occur. Steps taken thus far include the termination of 18 out of 36 contractor employees and improved screening and training for new employees. This unfortunate event has raised considerable concern among program partners who feel that not only will this jeopardize SB 618 participants’ recovery efforts, but also their ability to enter DTF, as well as aftercare treatment funded by Substance Abuse Services Coordinating Agencies (SASCA)18 upon release. SASCA funding requires that prisoners complete 90 uninterrupted days of SAP treatment immediately prior to release from prison in order to qualify for residential treatment services in the community.

16 In February 2007, the California Office of the Inspector General issued a report to the governor outlining myriad problems

within CDCR’s OSAP. One result from this report was the restructuring and renaming of OSAP to DARS. 17 Originally, this orientation was 10 hours in length. As of December 2008, the orientation has been consolidated into 90

minutes. 18 SASCA is instrumental in placing parolees into community-based programs within the county to which they parole.



Post-Release Services As the number of parolees returning to the community soars, it is clear that neighborhood leaders and public safety officials have a vested interest in exploring strategies to reduce recidivism and promote a productive way of life for parolees. With this in mind, SB 618 was designed to include a seamless transition of case management between prison and the community. As previously mentioned, in addition to being supervised by a Parole Agent, participants receive post-release case management by the CCM, as well as vocational services as needed by the Vocational Specialist. All of these professionals, as well as the participant and any other individuals (i.e., family, friends, and clergy) deemed helpful to reentry efforts, meet regularly as the Community Roundtable. These post-release services are described in more detail below.

COMMUNITY CASE MANAGEMENT

As discussed in the literature review, community-based services that include intensive advocacy have been shown to be more effective than institutional programs in reducing recidivism (Andrews, 2006; Matthews et al., 2001; Sherman et al., 1997). As such, UCSD’s Center for Criminality and Addiction Research, Training and Application (CCARTA) provides community case management to all participants. The role of the CCM is multipronged and includes pre-release discussions with the PCM, Parole Agent, and participant to review and revise the Life Plan as necessary. This pre-release engagement strategy is rooted in the belief that by putting a helpful face to life on the other side of the prison door and creating a structured plan of action, participants will begin to see that successful reintegration can be a reality. At this time, the CCM and participants discuss concrete plans for residential options immediately after release.

The CCM‘s role is to further ensure a seamless transition by meeting participants at the prison gate and transporting them directly to the agreed-upon residence. The CCM remains on call for 72 hours after the participants’ release to answer any questions and continue the momentum of post-release engagement and motivation. Once in the community, participants meet with their CCM on a regular basis19 to receive resources and services. CCMs also conduct two post-assessments: the ASI for substance abuse issues and the COMPAS, which explores criminogenic risk factors. Both of these assessments also are conducted prior to the MDT. Currently, UCSD has seven full-time staff devoted to the project, including one Program Manager, five CCMs, and one Housing Specialist (who assists participants in finding stable and affordable housing). The Program Manager and

19 The frequency of meetings between CCMs and the participant depends on needs and resources available to the

participant. One-on-one meetings typically take place one to six times per month.

Major achievements of the SB 618 program are the

continuation of case management and multi-

disciplinary collaboration after participants’ release.



three CCMs have Master’s degrees, one CCM has a Bachelor’s, and one CCM is currently working toward a Bachelor’s. The CCM caseload is 30 to 1, and as the number of participants increases, UCSD hires additional staff to meet the demand. Partners from both UCSD and Parole are in the process of developing a system of graduated sanctions and positive reinforcements to motivate participants to stay on the right path. For example, the CCMs have wrap-around (“stabilization”) funds at their disposal to help participants offset costs for items such as clothing for work, public transportation passes, and other amenities as needed. The program expects to finalize the rewards-sanctions process during the next fiscal year.

VOCATIONAL

SERVICES The SB 618 program includes a Vocational Specialist staffed by Comprehensive Training Systems, Inc. (CTS), which subcontracted with Probation in September 2007. The Vocational Specialist’s role begins while participants are in prison by administering the O*NET and MBTI

assessments within 90 days of the participant’s entry into the general prison population. The results of these assessments are interpreted and explained to the participants. A follow-up visit with each participant by the Vocational Specialist further explores their employment strengths as demonstrated from the O*NET assessment in conjunction with past employment history. Employment Readiness workshops are conducted near the end of their incarceration to assist with resume and application development and job interviewing techniques. In addition, local labor market information is reviewed and given to each participant. This combined information is used to develop an Individual Employment Plan (IEP) to assist with post-release job search and employment placement or referral into vocational, education, or post-secondary educational opportunities. If, after release, participants require assistance with vocational readiness beyond what is currently offered in the community, the Vocational Specialist assists with job-readiness skills and resources, as well as creating positive linkages with prospective employers to maximize participants’ vocational success. CTS employs two Vocational Specialists, one of whom has a Master’s degree and one who has 20 years of experience in vocational rehabilita-tion. Beginning in April 2008, CTS staff began holding job-readiness workshops in prison for any interested participant. During these workshops, participants learn soft skills, such as interviewing skills and resume writing, as well as realities of the job market in San Diego County.



COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE

Another best practices approach is the inclusion of informal social supports and the community in the participant’s reentry plan (Backer et al., 2005; Byrne et al., 2002; Matthews et al., 2001; Petersilia, 2007; Reentry Policy Council, 2005). The local SB 618 program has followed that guidance by developing the Community Roundtable, a multidisciplinary forum, which formalizes regular meetings among the participant, Parole Agent, CCM, and Vocational Specialist to discuss existing needs, review the Life Plan, and ensure that the participant is on the right path. In addition to the above-mentioned professionals, participants are encouraged to invite to the Community Roundtable any individuals they feel are supportive of their success. These individuals could include family, friends, sponsors, and clergy. The Community Roundtable is another example where decisions regarding the participant’s Life Plan are made in concert with the participant and program staff.

The program held its first Community Roundtable in January 2008, approximately two months after the first participant was released from prison. Using feedback from participants and staff, program partners were able to refine the process and make it as productive as possible. One example of the collaborative effort was the agreement reached between the CCMs and Parole Agents to hold Community Roundtables the third and fourth Tuesday of each month at the Parole Agent’s office. This system has ensured consistency in scheduling and maximized attendance by all key stakeholders. One hurdle encountered has been the transfer of the paper copies of Life Plans between prison, CCM, and Parole. Since the main purpose of the Community Roundtable is to review the Life Plan and update participants’ goals in the community, this deficiency was a significant problem, but was rectified by automating the Life Plan and other uses of technology.

AFTERCARE Upon release from California prison, parolees are typically ordered to

remain under Parole supervision for three years, however, parolees actively participating in parole programs are eligible for a 13-month discharge and a selective few are discharged after five months. During this time, the parolee and their Parole Agent agree upon appropriate aftercare services, such as drug treatment, employment training, and other services needed for reentry; however, due to a high caseload carried by most Parole Agents, case management is limited. In response to the lack of adequate case management after prison, SB 618 was designed to provide one year of post-release case management to strengthen the safety net for parolees and facilitate continued success. After this time, participants can request assistance and support for up to an additional six months (i.e., the aftercare period), with CCMs checking in on them on an as-needed basis regarding progress.



Another aftercare service available to eligible offenders is SB 1453 (mentioned earlier in this chapter), which allows early discharge from parole upon completion of prison and community substance abuse treatment. Program partners have voiced concern that individuals who are participating in SB 618 and also are eligible for SB 1453 may choose not to continue with the SB 618 program once discharged from parole. It is anticipated that a number of SB 618 participants will qualify for SB 1453, and the evaluation will explore the extent to which these individuals choose to continue with program services.

BEHAVIORAL

HEALTH SERVICES

One of the original features built into the SB 618 program was pre- and post-release behavioral health case management to focus on participants’ substance use and mental health needs. This service component not only adheres to best practices (Osher, Steadman, & Barr, 2003) but is considered vital by program partners to serve the high number of SB 618 participants anticipated to be struggling with serious substance abuse and mental health issues. However, this program component has yet to be implemented due in large part to bureaucratic obstacles in procuring these services despite several attempts to do so. In April 2008, program partners met with the Director of DARS to request authorization to issue a Request for Proposal for a broader range of substance abuse and mental health services. The partners stated their case for creating a treatment model for behavioral health services, which could free them from SASCA restrictions. The partners believe that a “one-size-fits-all” approach to treatment is not effective, but that using various treatment modalities (i.e., therapeutic community, psycho-educational, and cognitive behavioral) to individualize treatment adheres to best practices. Unfortunately, the state explained that there were competing interests for community-based, aftercare treatment bed space, straining an already bleak funding climate. The program partners remain steadfast in their commitment to offering a range of individualized behavioral health services to SB 618 participants.

Program Services Compared to “Treatment as Usual” While the previous discussion has highlighted what services are provided to SB 618 participants, the effect of the services cannot be easily understood without having a comparison study group which receives “treatment as usual.” While more information is provided in Chapter 2 regarding the research design and how this comparison study group is selected, Table 1.4 outlines the differences between services available to SB 618 participants and those receiving “treatment as usual” within the prison and parole systems. Specifically, while prisoners not in SB 618 complete a pre-sentence interview with Probation, have access to prison services, are eligible for parole supervision, and can access community services, they do not receive the full array of services previously described.



Table 1.4 SB 618 SERVICES COMPARED TO “TREATMENT AS USUAL”

Treatment as Usual?

Yes No Prior to Entering Prison

Pre-sentencing interview with Probation

Screening and assessment Individualized Life Plan MDT meeting

In Prison

Prison case management Expedited entry into prison services Access to all prison services

Vocational assessment in prison Post-Release

Community case management

Parole supervision

Vocational services Community Roundtable Access to community services


Evaluation Overview CDCR believes a formal evaluation of the SB 618 program is warranted to show other interested parties how the program was designed, implemented, and whether or not it worked for participants. Discussions were held throughout 2006 with various researchers to provide expertise in developing a research design and offer insights into best practices learned from other jurisdictions. SANDAG’s Criminal Justice Research Division was a regular participant at these early meetings and was selected to conduct the independent process and impact evaluations. SANDAG contracted with the Probation Department in September 2006 to complete a three-year evaluation, with the possibility of an extension to continue collecting and analyzing outcome data. SANDAG has a rich 30-year history serving as the Clearinghouse for crime data analysis for the San Diego region. Over the years, SANDAG has: conducted various reentry-related research studies with a variety of populations (e.g., programs for adults, juveniles, and mentally ill offenders); collaborated with the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office on the Reentry Mapping Network, part of a cross-site project managed by the Urban Institute and funded by the Anne E.



Casey Foundation; and served as an active member of the San Diego Reentry Roundtable20 since its inception in 2003. The program also employs a method of self-evaluation by hosting forums, or group meetings, with participants at both RJD and CIW, which allows participants to air grievances and offer positive feedback on how the program is, or is not, working for them. This demonstrates an openness by the program to receive direct feedback from those individuals being served. Program partners from the DA’s Office, Probation, and UCSD have attended these forums on a regular basis, most frequently at RJD, but also at CIW. In addition, in July 2008, a similar forum was held with 12 released participants (11 males and 1 female) and hosted by one of the DTF treatment facilities in the downtown San Diego area. During this forum, participants expressed frustration about the cumbersome process involved in obtaining identification documents. As a result of this feedback, the CCMs made extra efforts by contacting the Department of Motor Vehicles and securing an agreement to honor participants’ parole identification card (which had not been done in the past) and reduce the cost of a state identification card.

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT Development and Outreach Table 1.5 shows the key professional development and outreach activities conducted by program partners and key staff over the past year. Since October 2007, a number of different entities have visited San Diego County to observe SB 618 program activities and participate in an Operational Procedures Committee meeting. Reasons for these site visits included interest in replicating the program model (San Bernardino County), monitoring the program’s progress (e.g., Legislative Analyst’s Office and California Reentry Advisory Committee), and brainstorming ways to address gaps in behavioral health services (Department of Addiction and Recovery Services). In addition, during approximately the same time period, ten local events were held or attended by program partners and/or key staff with the goal of further developing staff competencies (e.g., ASI training), educating others about SB 618 (e.g., defense bar training), or both (e.g., the International Community Corrections Association (ICCA) conference). Finally, in an attempt to educate the community about the issue of prisoner reentry as well as the details of the SB 618 program, a local television news station aired a story about the program and one of its participants.

20 The Reentry Roundtable is a local collaborative comprised of approximately 200 community members, private and

governmental agencies, and formerly incarcerated individuals. Meeting monthly, the Reentry Roundtable serves as a forum to share information, discuss ways to provide integrated services, review existing policies and procedures, and recommend necessary changes.



Table 1.5 SB 618 DEVELOPMENT AND OUTREACH ACTIVITIES

Site Visits

Legislative Analyst Office Oct 2007

CDCR Reentry Advisory Committee Feb 2008

CDCR, Division of Addiction and Recovery Services Apr 2008

San Bernardino County Sep 2008 Trainings/Conferences

CDCR AB 900 Community Forums Various 2007

Addiction Severity Index (ASI) Training Oct 2007

San Diego Defense Bar Symposium Oct 2007

ICCA Annual Conference Oct 2007

California State Association of Counties (CSAC) Criminal Justice Workshop Nov 2007

Parole Agent Overview Jan 2008

District Attorney’s Office Symposium Mar 2008

Making It Work Conference May 2008

Participant Community Forum Jul 2008

ICCA Annual Conference Oct 2008 Media

Series on SB 618 on Local TV Station May 2008


Milestones SB 618 program implementation began in February 2007 when the first participant was enrolled, and key milestones from that time through September 2008 are outlined in Table 1.6. The more recent accomplishments have focused mainly on coalescing services by bolstering prison vocational programming, holding the first Community Roundtable, and streamlining services with governmental agencies to help ease participant’s transition into the community.



Table 1.6 SB 618 PROGRAM MILESTONES

SB 618 is signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger Oct 05

DA and CDCR coordinate ongoing meetings to finalize program design Nov 05-Jun 06

San Diego County Board of Supervisors approves the Multiagency Plan Jun 06

SANDAG is selected as independent evaluator of SB 618 Sep 06

Presentation on SB 618 to local stakeholders at the executive level Oct 06

Presentation on SB 618 to local community and service providers Nov 06

First participant enrolled in program Feb 07

Program officially began with weekly intakes Mar 07

Program expands to the El Cajon/East County Courthouse May 07

SB 618 database is operational and program partners and key staff are trained to use the database May 07

UCSD coordinates training for staff at CIW and RJD about SB 618 program elements Jun 07

First participant signs Informed Consent formally enrolling him in the evaluation Jul 07

First vocational program re-established at RJD Aug 07

One hundredth participant enrolled in program Aug 07

Vocational services contractor hired Sep 07

Training held for defense bar Sep 07

First participant is released from prison Nov 07

Draft of first annual evaluation report provided to program partners Dec 07

First Community Roundtable Jan 08

RJD implements second vocational program Feb 08

Request for Program Expansion submitted to State Mar 08

RJD implements third vocational program Apr 08

RJD hires four LCSWs to fill PCM role May 08

Life Plan automated in SB 618 database May 08

San Diego County Probation receives the National Association of Counties Award for SB 618 Jun 08

SB 618 team holds first Retreat Jun 08

New modular classroom installed at RJD allowing for expanded programming in prison Jul 08




Modifications While program staff members are committed to maintaining program fidelity and adhering to proven practices, several administrative decisions have been made, which necessitated changes to the original design. While a description of how staff viewed these decisions is provided in Chapter 3, they are highlighted here to provide context for later analyses.

Streamlining Entrance Into Programming: In February 2006, the Medical Receiver21 announced he would not honor San Diego County’s medical screening, requiring that they be administered in the prison reception centers. As of this report, this arrangement is still the process for medical screenings at both prisons. In addition, beginning in early 2008, RJD felt they could not accept the mental health assessments conducted by the local Sheriff’s Department. As a result, RJD staff members have been duplicating these assessments in the prison’s reception center.22 Consequently, one of the benefits to enrolling in SB 618 was eliminated (bypassing the reception center and, thereby, more quickly assimilating into the general prison population). Analysis of the data from July 1, 2007, to August 28, 2008, revealed that the length of stay in the reception center has been averaging 36.25 days at RJD and 39.38 days at CIW, approximately two weeks longer than desired. Although still shorter than the approximately 60-day stay in reception for non-SB 618 prisoners (Petersilia, 2006), the program continues to work toward the original goal of eliminating time in reception altogether. Strides taken at CIW to reduce time in reception included having the Classification Counselor I (CCI) travel from RJD to CIW to complete the classification process on site, and scanners have been installed to expedite this process. While the program continues to troubleshoot ways to reduce time spent in reception, the goal of reducing costs by eliminating time spent in reception may not be realized to the extent originally planned.

Inclusion of Faith Needs Assessment: Although most of the research conducted on the relationship between faith involvement and recidivism has focused on juveniles, there is some belief among researchers that spiritual support both inside prison and out can be a positive step in bringing order to parolees’ sometimes chaotic life on the streets (Johnson, 2007; McRoberts, 2002). Both CIW and RJD allow community-based faith representatives into the prison to meet with participants about their faith-related needs. At RJD, the Chair of the San Diego Interfaith Advisory Board meets individually with participants and assesses their faith-related needs using a Faith Needs Assessment, which is included in this report as Appendix E.

Retention Policies: To bolster retention in the program, staff associated with SB 618 at RJD formed an Advisory Group (consisting of the Associate Warden and Classification Representative) and began meeting in May 2008 with individuals showing signs of non-participation in the program. The purpose of these meetings was to help motivate the participants to take more initiative in the program. After 90 days, staff followed up with participants to monitor their progress. To date, RJD staff members have met with 14

21 As a result of a 2001 class action lawsuit brought against the State of California, which found the prison’s medical system

violated prisoners’ constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment, a federal judge transferred all authority for managing prison medical care to a court-appointed Medical Receiver. The mission of the Medical Receiver is to ensure that medical care within the California prisons meets constitutional guidelines.

22 CIW staff honor the Sheriff’s mental health screenings and do not duplicate them in reception.



participants, all of whom have been retained in the program. Data on participant enrollment at CIW has shown no need for a similar Advisory Group. At CIW, the PCM Coordinator and her supervisor (the Classification and Parole Representative) meet with any participant who has violated prison rules to reiterate the expectations of the program and reevaluate the Life Plan if needed.

Exclusion Policies: In July 2008, there was an increase in the number of participants excluded from the program, which concerned program partners. As a result, they decided to review a sample of exclusions for a two-month period. One observation was the practice by RJD of excluding any participant who was transferred from General Population to Administrative Segregation (AD-SEG) housing (for security purposes), thereby precluding the participant from attending programs. In August 2008, RJD agreed to use a case-by-case review for determining exclusions, leaving the door open for participants to remain in the program and take advantage of SB 618 services after release. As of December 2008, this policy was amended so that only individuals requiring a transfer out of RJD would be excluded. This issue has not been a problem at CIW, which has had to transfer three prisoners to AD-SEG for relatively minor offenses.

Staffing Changes Below is a description of changes made in SB 618 staffing, including both program partner participation and key staff. There were no vacancies among program partners that affected service delivery; however, in the key staff category, there have been delays in replacing a PCM (who transferred in July 2008) and hiring a new PCM Coordinator at RJD. These vacancies have had a negative effect on the three remaining PCMs with regard to caseload size and quality of supervision. These particular issues are described in greater detail in Chapter 3, which analyzes results from surveys conducted with program partners and key staff. Program Partners Of the 42 program partners who had actively participated in the first year of the program design and implementation, 21 discontinued their participation for a variety of reasons. The majority of these (12) were at the table on a regular basis during the first year of start-up due to their position as decision-makers, and once the program was up and running, their input was no longer required at weekly Operational Procedures Committee meetings. Other reasons for partners leaving the project were retirement and reassignment within or resignation from their agency. There were nine new partners who joined the Operational Procedures Committee, four of whom were hired to replace partners who left and five who began participation for the first time this past year. These five individuals included a newly hired Assistant to the Program Manager, a chaplain involved in offering faith-based counseling to prisoners at RJD, the Associate Warden of RJD prison, a retired annuitant from CDCR hired to help facilitate programming at RJD, and the President of CTS (vocational services subcontractor).



Key Staff In the first year of the program, 18 individuals were characterized as key staff (having regular direct contact with participants in a service provision role). Over the second year, this number increased to 23 key staff, 11 of whom remained since last year. There are various reasons for the increase of key staff active in the program. For example, four transitioned to program partner status due to their increased involvement in the Operational Procedures Committee (3) or were promoted (1). Seven staff left the program, including four PCMs at RJD23 and UCSD’s Housing Specialist, who left to take a teaching position elsewhere. Nine new key staff members were hired due to caseload increases (four CCMs, three Parole Agents, and two positions at RJD). There were two promotions of the Senior Probation Officer (SrPO) position within a very short timeframe. The first SrPO was hired at the very start of program design (January 2006) and was promoted and transferred to another project in November 2007. His replacement began in December 2007 and was promoted and left the program in January 2008. Her replacement began in February 2008 and is currently on the project. There were no apparent effects on program implementation during these transitions other than an adjustment period to bring the current SrPO up to speed on the project.

SUMMARY In response to California’s growing crisis of recidivism and subsequent prison overcrowding, the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office sponsored and drafted SB 618, which was signed into law in October 2005 and became effective January 2006. Key components of SB 618 include providing an array of screenings and standardized assessments prior to the individual entering prison to identify risks and needs and match appropriate services to address those needs. Additionally, seamless case management, vocational assistance, and input from a multidisciplinary team are incorporated. Since the program became operational, a number of modifications have been made, and some staff turnover has occurred; however, staff and partners remain committed to the initial goals of the project, resulting in achieving several milestones, increased stakeholder support, and improved staff capabilities and service delivery. This second annual evaluation report produced by SANDAG provides an overview of recent and relevant literature, describes program implementation to date, outlines the research methodology, and provides preliminary process and impact evaluation results.

23 These individuals were reassigned within the prison outside the SB 618 program after the partners decided to hire LCSWs

to fill the PCM position.

CHAPTER 2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY


CHAPTER 2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

INTRODUCTION As part of Senate Bill (SB) 618, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is conducting process and impact evaluations1 to ensure that valid and reliable information is available to inform program staff and policymakers regarding what works to better meet the needs of nonviolent ex-offenders returning to San Diego County. The evaluation also is documenting how limited resources can best be used in the interest of public safety. SANDAG has strong research and evaluation expertise in the areas of public safety and public health and has proven experience in participatory evaluation and program model documentation. The research team brings academic and real-world experience to the project, conducting and publishing results from similar evaluations, including ones specific to the issue of reentry. This chapter describes the methodology for the process and impact evaluations, including research questions, data sources and measures, and analysis plans. Appendix F presents a complete list of all data elements and their sources.

RESEARCH OVERVIEW The goals of the process evaluation are to describe program implementation and service delivery to highlight any systemic changes necessary to achieve this type of collaborative effort, as well as to determine if the program was implemented as designed. The goals of the impact evaluation are to determine if the program reduced recidivism (i.e., being returned to prison for a parole violation or new felony conviction), resulted in other positive outcomes, and was cost-effective. To determine if the program is “producing the desired results… generating the greatest possible impact… and making the most efficient use of public funds” (Reentry Policy Council, 2005), multiple methodologies are being used to gather information, addressing inherent weaknesses that would exist if only one method were relied upon (e.g., self-report, historical, etc.). As part of this impact evaluation, a research design2 is used which involves comparing 320 participants who receive SB 618 services to 320 who do not. Because random assignment to conditions was not possible (as discussed later in this chapter), potential bias is minimized by statistically examining the two groups on characteristics predictive of recidivism to ensure that the groups are balanced.

1 SANDAG’s research protocol was developed with input from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s

Office of Research. 2 In order to protect the rights and welfare of the individuals under study, the research protocol for this project has been

reviewed and approved by a local nonprofit, independent Institutional Review Board (IRB).

CHAPTER 2

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY


PROCESS EVALUATION The purpose of the process evaluation is to: determine if the program was implemented as planned based on the underlying theories of offender reentry; to measure what systemic changes occurred; to examine the extent to which the program built effective partnerships between criminal justice, behavioral health, and social services systems; and to assess program operations (e.g., staffing and participants served). This information provides a basis for program improvements and facilitates replication. Since this reentry program is the first SB 618 demonstration site in California, this analysis is essential as the program may be expanded to other jurisdictions. In addition, the process evaluation identifies any problems occurring during implementation, the source of these problems, and potential solutions. Research Questions Specifically, the process evaluation has two primary areas of focus: program implementation/ management and service delivery. The research questions investigated in each area are as follows: Program Implementation/Management:

1. How did the program partners, key staff, and community members view program implementation and management?

2. Was the program implemented as designed? What modifications were made and why?

3. What was the nature of the partnerships3 that developed and what systemic changes resulted, if any? Were the roles of faith based and community members in reentry enhanced? If so, how? If not, why?

4. What were staff views on rehabilitation and were culturally-competent4 and gender-responsive5 services provided? If not, why?

5. Was the assessment process considered useful by staff? If not, how could it be improved? Service Delivery:

1. How many offenders were screened for eligibility, and how many were found to be eligible? What was the program participation refusal rate?

2. What were the characteristics of eligible participants, including level of past criminal involvement and assessed need?

3 The nature of the partnership is based on a common understanding of goals and objectives, staff training, and staff

continuity. 4 The working definition of “culturally-competent” is the set of behaviors, attributes, and policies enabling an agency (or

individual) to work effectively in cross-cultural situations. This definition includes recognition that cultural differences exist, a commitment to providing services facilitated by multicultural staff, and a design that incorporates cultural differences (adapted from Elias, 2001).

5 Gender-responsive is defined for this evaluation as services designed with the specific needs and issues of women in mind.

CHAPTER 2



3. Did timing decrease in terms of identifying participant needs and providing needed services (i.e., time normally spent at reception centers)?

4. What types of services were provided to participants in prison? What was the dosage/intensity? Did the services relate to the participant’s needs identified during assessment? If not, why?

5. Did participants receive priority placement in the available programs? If not, why? Was there a waiting period for entry into programs? If yes, how long?

6. What services were participants referred to after release? Which post-release services were accessed? What was the dosage/intensity? Did these services relate to the needs identified during assessment? If not, why?

7. How many participants completed the program, what was the average length of participant participation, and what participant characteristics were predictive of completion? What was the program attrition rate in the prison? For what reasons? What was the attrition rate upon release and during parole? For what reasons?

Data Sources and Measures The following presents each data source, the measures included, and the research questions addressed for the process evaluation. Meeting Attendance and Review of Meeting Minutes Minutes from Operational Procedures Committee meetings are reviewed to document the progress of SB 618 implementation, as well as programmatic changes and issues. This qualitative information provides a context for data collected as part of the process evaluation. Additionally, these meetings allow the research team to meet with SB 618 staff on a regular basis, with the frequency increasing as needed to ensure reliable ongoing communication. These meetings also provide an opportunity for research staff to review and ask questions, obtain other qualitative information, share evaluation findings, and address any concerns related to the evaluation. Using content analysis, notes and minutes from these meetings are reviewed to break down the information into manageable categories in order to examine trends and patterns that reveal representation at the meetings, implementation issues, challenges, solutions developed, and other elements critical to program success. This information is used primarily to address program implementation/ management questions 1, 2, and 3. Annual Key Staff and Program Partner Surveys All key staff members and program partners involved with the program are surveyed annually during the evaluation to obtain their input regarding the SB 618 program. These surveys are administered electronically using SurveyMonkey.com. Hard copies are supplied to any individuals without Internet access or who prefer this method. The list of potential respondents is developed each year with input from the Operational Procedures Committee to ensure that all relevant individuals are included.

CHAPTER 2



The purpose of these surveys is to obtain feedback regarding: the philosophy behind the program; the challenges and successes of implementation, management, and administration; effectiveness of specific program components; and overall program impact, as well as lessons learned to share with others implementing similar programs. Additionally, key staff members give feedback on their interaction with program participants and/or program partners, the SB 618 working environment, and roles within the program. This information is used to address program implementation/management questions 1 through 5. Community Survey Starting in the third year of the evaluation, members of the community interested in prisoner reentry issues also are being solicited for input regarding the SB 618 program through a survey administered electronically. The timing of the survey allows a sufficient start-up period upon which community members can base their opinions. Members of the San Diego Reentry Roundtable and the San Diego District Attorney’s Faith-Based Advisory Board were chosen to represent the community due to their composition (i.e., community members) and focus of regular meetings (i.e., on prisoner reentry). The purpose of this survey is to obtain the perceptions by the community regarding offender needs and the ability of SB 618 to address these needs, program implementation and management, program impact, and the nature of community involvement in the program. This information is used to address program implementation/management questions 1, 3, and 4. Review and Analysis of Intake Assessments and Reassessments As part of the evaluation, the research team is analyzing data collected for program purposes through the standardized assessment process. All assessment information is obtained through data files extracted monthly from a firewall-protected server hosted at the San Diego County District Attorney’s (DA) Office. Details regarding the assessed needs of participants are used to address study questions 2, 4, 6, and 7 regarding service delivery. The assessments conducted as part of this process were previously described in Chapter 1. Some assessment information is available for both the treatment and comparison study groups, while other information is restricted to the treatment study group, as shown in Table 2.1.

CHAPTER 2



Table 2.1 AVAILABILITY OF ASSESSMENT DATA

Assessment Group Medical/Dental/Mental Health Treatment study group only*

ASI Treatment study group only

CASAS Treatment study group only

COMPAS Treatment and Comparison study groups**

O*NET & Myers Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI) Treatment study group only

TABE Treatment and Comparison study groups***

* Focus is primarily on length of time to screening.

** For the treatment study group, COMPAS data is available for program entry, six months prior to release from prison, and upon program exit. In addition, because the COMPAS is conducted with all prisoners 240 to 90 days prior to release from prison by Parole, comparisons between the treatment and comparison study groups at this point in time can also be conducted.

*** Initial measures (i.e., upon prison entry) will be available for both the treatment and comparison study groups and comparisons can also be made for the treatment study group over time.

Data Collection from Paper and Electronic Records In order to answer service delivery questions 1 through 7, official records regarding each participant are being examined. As part of the development of the SB 618 program, a comprehensive database was designed by the Information Technology staff at the DA’s Office with input from all program partners. Through monthly downloads via encrypted files, this database provides the numbers of eligible participants, program refusal rate, information regarding the demographics of each eligible participant that agreed to participate, and dates used to measure timing of services. Regarding timing of services, the following variables are compiled from the SB 618 database: date of conviction, date of SB 618 offer/readiness hearing, date of exclusion, date of reception center entry, and date of transfer to the general prison population. The information regarding length of time in the reception center will be contrasted to the time experienced for the comparison study group by collecting these dates from electronic data maintained by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). The length of time to SB 618 exclusion will be examined for treatment cases as an additional illustration of the process of program implementation. The monthly availability of the data allows research staff to notice and capture missing data early in the process, providing an opportunity to request missing information from program staff in a timely manner. Services received in prison (documented by the Prison Case Manager (PCM)) and in the community (recorded by the Community Case Manager (CCM) and the Vocational Specialist) for the treatment study group are collected by the research team in collaboration with program staff.

CHAPTER 2



In-Custody Client Satisfaction Questionnaires In summer 2007, program leaders felt it would be helpful to administer a satisfaction questionnaire within three months of participants’ entering prison to capture opinions while they are still fresh regarding the quality of services received from the DA, Defense, Sheriff, and Probation, as well as in prison. All participants are mailed a survey by the research team with a pre-addressed, stamped envelope to return to SANDAG. Questions on the survey focus on knowledge of the Life Plan, as well as interactions with defense attorneys, probation officers, and PCMs as related to the SB 618 program while in jail and during the first three months in prison. These surveys are being administered primarily to provide timely feedback to program partners and answer question 4 regarding service delivery. Prison Exit Participant Satisfaction Questionnaires As all study participants are released from prison, a survey regarding satisfaction with the SB 618 program is distributed. The survey includes questions about the services utilized as part of the program, the level of helpfulness of these programs, the positive and negative aspects of program participation, evaluation of staff, and prospects for the future. This survey focuses on in-custody programs (opinions regarding community programs are collected through follow-up interviews described below). To ensure anonymity and confidentiality of their responses, as well as encourage honesty, respondents are asked to complete and return the survey in a pre-addressed, stamped envelope via U.S. Mail. The participant feedback collected from this survey instrument is used to address program implementation/management questions 1 and 4. Follow-Up Interviews with Treatment Participants As part of the research design, SB 618 treatment participants complete an Informed Consent prior to being involved in any research. The consent asks for their willingness to participate in follow-up interviews 6, 12, and 18 months after their release from prison. As an incentive to participate in these interviews, participants are offered a $20 gift card to a local retail establishment. To ensure research staff members are able to successfully locate the maximum number of participants for follow-up,6 detailed contact information (street addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, etc.) are obtained regularly from the CCM and directly from the individual (at the time of consent) using a participant locator form. It is not uncommon with this population7 for contact information to change between program intake and prison release. In order to ensure accurate and up-to-date contact information, the research team conducts a quality control process for each form two weeks prior to prison release. If it is determined that there is not adequate contact information, the PCM is notified so that additional information can be obtained from the participant prior to release. As the interview date approaches (6, 12, and 18 months following prison release), the research team uses the information previously obtained in order to contact the participant. If these leads result in 6 A sample size of 256, which is approximately 80 percent of the treatment study group, was selected to ensure that basic

univariate statistics will be available for analysis throughout the 18-month follow-up, while also taking into consideration attrition rates, the overall project budget, and other tasks to be accomplished.

7 It is anticipated that participants will be assigned to medium-level parole supervision (i.e., controlled supervision). It is not uncommon for individuals within this level of supervision to become a parolee at large (PAL), meaning that they cannot be located.

CHAPTER 2



“dead ends,” the CCM is contacted for updated information. The research team considered additional efforts to maintain updated contact information with participants (e.g., sending a reminder postcard three months prior to the interview date), but it was determined that the efforts of the CCM to know the whereabouts of all participants would be a more efficient process. All participants in the treatment study group are selected for follow-up to maximize the number of follow-up interviews completed. To maximize the number of respondents in each time period, lack of participation in a prior interview does not exclude the individual from subsequent follow-up.8 Questions relevant to the process evaluation that are on the follow-up interview include opinions about services received through the SB 618 program, relationship with staff members, and service responsivity. These qualitative data address program implementation question 4 and service delivery question 6. Family/Friend Satisfaction Questionnaires Program implementation/management question 1 and service delivery question 6 are further assessed based on input of a family member or friend actively involved in each participant’s reentry process. These individuals are identified through a series of screening questions administered to participants during the follow-up interviews asking them to specify the names of individuals that they confide in and rely on for support. The individual listed most frequently across the screening questions is chosen for the family/friend questionnaire, and contact information is obtained from the participant. The survey, sent six months following the participant’s prison release, includes questions regarding program components (e.g., case management, vocational training, substance abuse treatment, Community Roundtables, etc.) and the participant’s rehabilitation. Prior to sending the survey, family members/friends are contacted by phone to let them know that the survey will be coming in the mail, give a brief overview of the survey’s purpose, provide assurance that all input will remain confidential, and explain that a $10 gift card to a local retail establishment will be provided as a “thank you” for their time and assistance when the completed survey is returned. Since follow-up interviews are being conducted with every individual in the treatment study group, this survey will be sent to one person associated with each participant as well. Other Qualitative Efforts While not directly related to the research questions previously described, a number of other efforts are being undertaken as part of this research process to provide context for the data that are collected. These include conducting a literature and policy review, tracking staffing, and observing program activities as described here.

Literature and Policy Review: In order to put the research findings in context, the literature regarding best practices in prisoner reentry programs is being summarized, both to demonstrate how the current program model relates to the knowledge of what works to reduce recidivism, as well as keep program partners informed about recent additions to this literature. In addition,

8 The research team is investigating statistical techniques to accommodate the inclusion of different cases at each point in

time in the analysis.

CHAPTER 2



statewide and local policy decisions (e.g., other legislation, such as SB 14539) are documented and discussed to highlight elements potentially affecting outcomes.

Staffing Transition Review: Successful program implementation is impacted by staffing stability. To examine the rate of staff turnover and longevity, records are maintained regarding length of time involved in the program for each individual in each position.

Observation of Program Activities: A number of program activities are being observed by the research team including multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings, Community Roundtable meetings, in-custody programs, and community services. Detailed notes from these observations are being examined using the same content analysis approach described for meeting minutes.

Analysis Plan This process evaluation is based on data collected through key staff, program partner, and community surveys, follow-up interviews with treatment participants, satisfaction questionnaires, intake assessments/reassessments, official records, meeting minutes, and notes from observations of program activities. Specifically, the theoretical framework, resources required and available, program components, sequence of activities, relationships between activities, and desired results are described. The purpose of this presentation is to facilitate discussion and improve implementation through clarifying the connection between resources, program activities, and desired outcomes, as well as highlighting any necessary course corrections. The program description is modified as adjustments are made to the overall design. Further, the process evaluation validates this description to determine if service delivery goals are met with respect to reaching the intended population at the desired dosage. In addition, the process evaluation follows best practices from the field using evaluation guidelines created by the Reentry Policy Council (2005), as well as standardized tools for assessing the program’s consistency with the accepted principles of correctional intervention (e.g., the National Criminal Justices Treatment Practices Survey by Taxman, Young, & Fletcher (2007)). With respect to content analysis, emergent coding is used in which categories are developed as the meeting minutes and notes are reviewed. This system ensures that no themes or issues are overlooked. Participant characteristics are examined using frequency distributions and cross-tabulations. When comparisons can be made (i.e., to the comparison study group), difference of means tests for ratio level data (e.g., time between identification of needs and service provision) and Chi-square statistics for nominal measurement (e.g., the match between needs assessed and services delivered) are used to determine if differences are significant. Significant differences are determined using the .05 significance level unless otherwise indicated. That is, there is a 95 percent chance that the differences between the two groups are true. Statistically significant results are further examined to determine the extent of the relationship through measures of effect size.10

9 SB 1453, which was enacted into law January 1, 2007, allows nonviolent, nonserious offenders to be discharged from

parole supervision upon successfully completing 150 days of aftercare treatment in a CDCR-approved facility. If parolees do not successfully complete aftercare, they will remain under standard parole supervision.

10 While significance tests show if differences are “real” and not the result of chance, effect size measures the magnitude of the differences. That is, effect sizes will determine how effective SB 618 services are.

CHAPTER 2



IMPACT EVALUATION The purpose of the impact evaluation is to determine whether participation in SB 618 improved reintegration and reduced recidivism (i.e., increased desistence) and to identify the conditions under which the program was most likely to accomplish these goals. Additionally, the impact evaluation will determine whether the reentry program was cost-effective relative to traditional release procedures. To determine what effect the program had on participants, the following impact evaluation questions are being investigated: Research Questions

1. What were the number and level of rule violations committed by participants in prison? Did the treatment study group exhibit fewer behavioral problems in prison than the comparison study group?

2. Were there any improvements in program participant needs over time?

3. Was recidivism (being returned to prison for a parole violation or new felony conviction) reduced among treatment participants relative to the comparison study group? Did participants have fewer parole violations post release? Were violations less severe?

4. What improvements were made in participants' family and/or social bonds following release from prison?

5. Did participants make improvements in other areas of their life? Did the participants create or resume healthy attachments to outside social institutions post release (e.g., employment, substance abuse services, medication management, housing, support groups, and spiritual)?

6. What was the participants’ level of satisfaction with services received? What was the level of satisfaction among participants’ family members/friends with services received?

7. What factors are associated with desistence from crime?

8. Was the program cost-effective? Data Sources and Measures Review and Analysis of Intake Assessments and Reassessments The assessments conducted by program staff, that help explain the needs of this population and answer process evaluation questions previously described, also are used to understand change in need over time. These changes are assessed for the treatment study group only and are based on the ASI, COMPAS, and TABE. This information is used to answer impact evaluation questions 2 and 4.

CHAPTER 2



Data Collection from Paper and Electronic Records As previously described, electronic data are maintained by the SB 618 program through the DA’s database. For the impact evaluation, this database and other electronic sources are being used to answer questions 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8. Data related to offender behavior11 and services received during incarceration also are being collected from the SB 618 database for the treatment study group and the CDCR database for the comparison study group, as well as details regarding parole violations for those who have been released from prison in both study groups. Data related to offender monitoring post release are being collected by the CCM and entered into the SB 618 database for analysis. In order to monitor the criminal history and recidivism rates (i.e., desistence) of individuals in both study groups, contact with the criminal justice system prior to and following selection for the evaluation is being collected from a variety of sources. The Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS) is the source for arrest information (a computer system for information sharing among local justice agencies), and the DA’s computer system is the source for conviction and sentencing information. Booking information (i.e., another arrest measure) and custody time are obtained from the Sheriff’s computer system. In-Custody and Prison Exit Participation Satisfaction Questionnaires As previously described in the process evaluation section, participants’ input is solicited regarding the SB 618 program three months following prison entry, as well as at prison exit. This information will be used for the impact evaluation to explore changes in needs, in family and/or social bonds, and other areas of life over time, and satisfaction with services received (i.e., to answer questions 2, 4, and 5). Follow-Up Interviews with Treatment Participants This research method was previously described in the process evaluation section. For the impact evaluation, the questions asked on the follow-up interview for treatment participants focus on current living situation, employment status, recent substance use, opinions about SB 618 in retrospect, and future prospects. These qualitative data will be utilized to provide another aspect to the effect of the program on participants that would otherwise be unavailable and will address impact evaluation questions 4, 5, and 6. Family/Friend Satisfaction Questionnaires As previously described, family/friend satisfaction questionnaires are administered six months following release from prison, as well as at program exit. Data from the satisfaction questionnaires previously described will be used to answer impact evaluation questions 5 and 6.

11 Offender behavior will be based on the frequency of the following reports: rule violation (CDCR report #115), serious

incident (CDCR report #837), and inmate appeal (CDCR report #602), as well as time lost due to serious incidents.

CHAPTER 2



Cost Measures A key component of this project is determining if the additional costs related to implementing and managing the SB 618 program are justified in terms of reduced recidivism (or increased desistence from criminal activity) and increased community safety. To answer question 8, research staff members are working with the program partners to compile the justice system information required to estimate the cost per offender for both SB 618 participants and non-participants, including costs for arrest, court processing, and confinement, as well as costs associated with program delivery. Research Design To determine if SB 618 resulted in improved service delivery and reduced recidivism (or increased desistence), it is necessary to ask, “Compared to what?” For the current evaluation, four possible research designs were proposed. First, a true experimental, randomized design was proposed in which all eligible candidates who met program criteria and agreed to participate in this project would be randomly assigned to receive SB 618 services (the treatment study group) or to receive “treatment as usual” (the comparison study group). This research design would have been the strongest by ensuring that both study groups were equivalent starting out. In addition, if demand for the program was greater than capacity, it would have been more equitable; however, because this design requires flexibility that was not feasible in the number of assessments done per week (because every eligible person should be able to be in either study group and staffing levels permitted only six assessments could be done per week), an experimental design was not possible. A second design option, pseudo-random assignment, also was proposed that would have entailed SANDAG’s preparing random assignment procedures for a certain number of participants per week (10 for example) based on a pipeline study (which would track how many offenders were eligible each week); however, this design option also required more flexibility than was possible given staffing constraints. That is, workload did not allow for catch-up in one week for a smaller number of cases in a previous week. A third option, a quasi-experimental research design aimed at preventing selection bias, was proposed in which the first six eligible candidates each week who met program criteria and agreed to participate would be assigned to receive SB 618 treatment services (the treatment study group). The remaining participants who were deemed eligible and also agreed to participate, but were not enrolled in the program because of lack of space (e.g., first six slots that week were already filled), would be placed into the comparison study group to receive “treatment as usual.” However, due to concerns from program staff that it was not ethical to ask people to participate in a program in which they do not have a chance of actually participating, it also was not an option. Given these constraints, the only practical option was a quasi-experimental, nonequivalent study group design with possible selection bias. As such, the first six participants per week who are eligible and willing to participate after July 1, 2007, are assigned to the treatment study group. This date was chosen to allow sufficient time for the program to become fully operational. The comparison study group consists of individuals who have been eligible since the program began (March 2007), but were never asked if they would have participated. Those offered the program but who declined to participate since March 2007 also are tracked (i.e., refusals). Study group selection

CHAPTER 2



will continue until 320 individuals have been assigned to the treatment and comparison study groups.12 Since this research design does not include random assignment, individuals in the treatment study group may differ systematically from those in the comparison study group, potentially biasing the results of the impact evaluation (i.e., it is unknown if the comparison study group would volunteer for the program if it was offered). In an effort to account for this self-selection bias, the research team and SB 618 program partners met to discuss variables to use in a propensity score matching model.13 In order to have a valid propensity score matching model, variables that are related to why someone chose to participate (or not to participate) in the program need to be included. Ideally, the research team could solicit input directly from individuals declining to participate in the program, which is not feasible due to logistical and budgetary issues. The research team and SB 618 program partners discussed if there were any patterns (e.g., demographic, criminal history, or other) that influenced why someone chose to participate in the program or not. This discussion did not reveal any measurable factors influencing whether someone chose the program or not. Meeting attendees felt that participants and non-participants did not systematically differ on demographic or criminal history characteristics; however, they did speculate that the one factor potentially influencing whether someone participates or not could be their criminal system knowledge. This “system sophistication” would be hard to measure and could not be captured in a single variable. The group discussed possible proxy variables, but it was determined that there was not any that could be reliably documented. Prior criminal history was determined to be an inadequate measure because a large number of prior criminal offenses could be reflective of a drug addiction (e.g., property crimes to fund drug purchases) or an entrenched thief. Furthermore, the meeting attendees felt that program participants (or non-participants) were basing their participation choices on short-term reasons (i.e., what benefits they get in prison rather than after prison), suggesting that any unidentified self-selection bias may not be directly related to recidivism. For example, participants are not choosing the program because they want to make sure they do not re-offend in the future, but rather because they can receive benefits in prison that make their stay better. In addition to this process, the research team searched the literature for information regarding predictors of volunteerism related to criminal justice programs with similar results. While the literature review and group discussion did not produce any measurable factors related to “volunteerism,” propensity score matching will be used to match factors predictive of recidivism and to factors that could potentially be related to “volunteerism.” Ideally, these variables will be naturally balanced because there is no pattern of who chose or refused the program, even though the research team cannot account for hidden biases that only a random sample could accommodate.

12 This sample size was based on a power analysis, using a conservative measure of recidivism (50%) and a 20 percent

estimated variance between the two study groups in recidivism (based on meta-analysis by Andrews, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta, Gendreau, and Cullen (1990) as summarized by Gendreau (1996)). Using a .05 threshold for significance (the alpha level), it is anticipated that 80 percent power will be achieved with the 320 target sample size each for the treatment and comparison study groups. Statistical power is the probability one can detect a meaningful difference if one truly exists. This sample size will enable comparisons between the study groups (i.e., two sample tests), as well as examinations of changes over time to the treatment study group only (i.e., pre-post, single sample tests).

13 This technique matches participants with non-participants according to multiple determinants of program participation. Of all the potential comparison individuals, only those who are actually comparable to the treatment study group are retained in the sample.

CHAPTER 2



The following variables (based on the recidivism literature and availability of valid and reliable measures) are included in this analysis to test for any hidden self-selection biases between the two study groups leading to an imbalance regarding factors that are related to recidivism:

age;

race/ethnicity;

prior criminal history;

marital status;

education;

employment status; and

history of substance abuse (Rosenfeld, Petersilia, & Visher, 2008). There are three possible ways to address an imbalance of the above variables (i.e., there are statistically significant differences between the two study groups): 1) regression analysis could be used to hold the imbalanced variables constant while checking for differences on the dependent variable (the factor being measured); 2) statistical matching techniques, such as propensity score matching, could be used to match similar cases between the two study groups and to remove dissimilar cases from the analysis and then run statistical tests; or 3) statistical matching and regression analysis can be used together. The methods used will depend upon the type of analysis required, the number of cases in each study group, and the number of imbalanced variables. Study Group Assignment Methods This participatory program evaluation involves data collection by practitioners, as well as the research team. The responsibilities of program staff begin at study group selection. Cases are screened for SB 618 eligibility on an ongoing basis until the treatment study group slots have been filled each week.14 Anyone identified as eligible after that is added to the comparison study group. As additional eligible cases cross the desk of the Deputy District Attorney (DDA) assigned to the program, they are put in the comparison study group (i.e., the “not offered” group). The intention was to complete this process in a systematic manner so that the pool from which these cases were pulled could be described; however, the process of processing nonviolent felony cases is not centralized, and there is no way to know all potential cases eligible for SB 618 until data have been entered into the DA’s Case Management System (CMS). To identify a more complete set of cases for inclusion in the comparison study group, a list of nonviolent felony cases prosecuted in the Central and East County Divisions of the DA’s office was compiled quarterly from CMS. This list includes cases meeting the following criteria previously described in Chapter 1 and outlined in Appendix B:

assigned to the Central or East County districts of the DA’s Office;

not assigned to the following special divisions within the DA’s Office: Gangs, Sex Crimes, Family Protection, Cold Case, or Special Operations;

readiness hearing date between March 2007 and August 2008;

nonviolent current offense as defined by Penal Code 667.5(c);

14 Any participants deemed ineligible through the assessment process during the same week are replaced with another

individual.

CHAPTER 2



not diverted to drug treatment;15

sentence length of 8 to 72 months; and

not sentenced to life in prison or death. Each case file in this group is individually screened by the DDA assigned to SB 618 based on the following criteria:

in custody throughout judicial process;

legal residence in San Diego County;

no prior convictions of great bodily injury or murder;

prior violent felony convictions (defined by Penal Code 667.5(c)) over five years old are screened on a case-by-case basis;

agree to a stipulated sentence;

time to serve of no more than 36 months and no less than 4 months;

no mental health or medical holds;

no holds by another jurisdiction;

no immigration holds;

no arson registrants; and

no sex offender registrants. All cases previously assigned to the program (i.e., signed the Letter of Intent) are kept in the treatment study group.16 The remaining cases meeting these criteria are placed in the comparison study group (i.e., the “not offered” group). Cases not meeting any one of the above criteria are put in the ineligible group and not tracked as part of the evaluation. The selection process is shown in Figure 2.1.

15 Proposition 36 and PC 1000 are the two types of drug diversion in California. 16 Upon prison entry, participants may be excluded from the program due to: housing issues (i.e., HIV positive status for male

participants); a previous history of maximum security housing (i.e., Level IV) in prison; prison gang affiliation; and extensive psychiatric needs and/or physical disabilities that preclude housing.

CHAPTER 2



Figure 2.1 STUDY GROUP IDENTIFICATION PROCESS


Individuals Arrested forNonviolent Offenses

Eligible Participants Ineligible Offenders

First 6-7 eligible candidates per week offered and accept SB 618 program

Rest of those eligible in week assigned to Comparison Study Group

Agrees to participate and signs Letter of Intent

Declines to participate: Refusals

Assessments given andLife Plan developed

Refuses to participate in evaluation

Contract SignedIneligible for program due to

results of full assessments

Treatment Study GroupSigns SANDAG consent form

CHAPTER 2



Analysis Plan Appendix Table F provides a detailed listing of all data elements and sources. Variables available for the treatment study group only will be examined using a single-group, pre-test/post-test design (i.e., comparison of measures before and after program participation). The wide variety of measures used in this evaluation includes measures addressing many of the guidelines articulated by the Reentry Policy Council (2005). Specifically, some measures are linked to the goals of SB 618 (e.g., return to prison rates to examine the impact on recidivism), and some are specific to the program partners involved (e.g., ASI to examine the effectiveness of substance abuse services). Participant satisfaction also is measured and appropriate measures tailored to diverse groups (e.g., gender-responsiveness) are included. Comparability of Groups Before determining the impact of the reentry program, the treatment and comparison study groups must be assessed for comparability. As previously explained, the two study groups will be checked for balance on variables identified as factors predictive of recidivism. This assessment will be accomplished through the use of frequency distributions and Chi-square statistics for nominal measurement17 (i.e., prior criminal history, marital status, education, employment status, and history of substance abuse) and differences of means tests for ratio level data (i.e., age). These analyses will test the theory that there is no pattern of volunteerism for SB 618 potentially impacting recidivism. If the study groups are not balanced, statistical controlling and/or matching techniques will be used to adjust for differences. Recidivism The overriding goal of SB 618 is to reduce recidivism. Therefore, using the study groups previously described, the first objective of the impact evaluation is to determine the effectiveness of the reentry program relative to traditional procedures in reducing recidivism (i.e., release from prison to parole with no reentry services) and identify the correlates of participants’ success or failure. To measure program effectiveness, treatment participants will be compared to the comparison study group using multiple measures of recidivism/desistence/relapse and a variety of analytical techniques. The dependent variables and statistical analysis planned are presented in Table 2.2. While the SB 618 program seeks to reduce return-to-prison rates, the additional measures of recidivism/desistence/relapse listed in Table 2.2 are included in this evaluation in order to provide a more complete picture of the impact of SB 618 on offender behavior in San Diego, as well as assess cost-effectiveness. This information will be obtained from official records (i.e., arrest records, court records, and results of drug tests administered by PCM and Parole). All criminal activity will be collected in six-month intervals to facilitate reporting of intermediate results rather than waiting until cases have been in the community for three years, as well as to ensure that prior criminal history is comparable to post-release behavior.

17 Yes/no variables will be coded as one and zero so that t-tests can be conducted to evaluate differences in proportions.

CHAPTER 2



Table 2.2 DEPENDENT VARIABLES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES

Variable Comparison Significance

Test

Effect Size/ Strength of

Relationship Test Drug test results (# positive for drug use) Means t-test Cohen’s d

Parole violation (PV)* Means (proportions) t-test Cohen’s d Type of PV Cross-tabulation Chi-square Cramer’s Phi

Number of PVs Means t-test Cohen’s d

Days from release to PV Means t-test Cohen’s d

Arrest for misdemeanor* Means (proportions) t-test Cohen’s d Type of misdemeanor arrest Cross-tabulation Chi-square Cramer’s Phi

Number of new misdemeanor arrests Means t-test Cohen’s d

Days from release to misdemeanor arrest Means t-test Cohen’s d

Arrest for felony* Means (proportions) t-test Cohen’s d Type of felony arrest Cross-tabulation Chi-square Cramer’s Phi

Number of new felony arrests Means t-test Cohen’s d

Days from release to new felony arrest Means t-test Cohen’s d

Arrest for new felony drug crime* Means (proportions) t-test Cohen’s d

Arrest for new violent felony* Means (proportions) t-test Cohen’s d

Number of arrests without convictions Means t-test Cohen’s d

Misdemeanor conviction* Means (proportions) t-test Cohen’s d

Felony conviction* Means (proportions) t-test Cohen’s d

Jail sentence for new offense* Means (proportions) t-test Cohen’s d

Prison term for new offense* Means (proportions) t-test Cohen’s d

Sentence length (days) Means t-test Cohen’s d

Parole length (days) Means t-test Cohen’s d

* yes = 1 / no = 0


In order to isolate the effect of participation in SB 618 from other predictors of recidivism/ desistence/relapse, the following variables will be examined relative to recidivism/desistence/relapse using the statistics noted:

age (means with t-tests);

race/ethnicity (cross-tabulations with Chi-square statistic);

gender (cross-tabulations with Chi-square statistic);

employment status (cross-tabulations with Chi-square statistic);

level of education (cross-tabulations with Chi-square statistic);

family situation (cross-tabulations with Chi-square statistic);

living arrangements (cross-tabulations with Chi-square statistic);

prior criminal history (cross-tabulations with Chi-square statistic);

history of substance abuse (cross-tabulations with Chi-square statistic); and

assessment scores over time (COMPAS, TABE, and ASI) (means with t-tests).

CHAPTER 2



The analysis will begin with bivariate comparisons using the statistics previously mentioned. These comparisons will be followed with multivariate analysis (i.e., regression) to isolate factors related to success. There are two goals of this regression analysis: 1) to determine which factors are predictive of success; and 2) to control for other factors that might account for recidivism/desistence/relapse differences in an attempt to isolate the impact of the SB 618 program in San Diego (i.e., whether SB 618 contributes to reduced recidivism or increased desistence from criminal activity). The type of regression analysis will depend upon the nature of the dependent variable. Logistic regression will be used to analyze the dichotomous dependent variables (i.e., yes/no), and ordinary least squares (OLS) regression will be used to analyze the interval level variables (e.g., days to first arrest post release). The previously mentioned variables will be controlled for in the regression analysis in order to build a model of factors related to success and to determine if SB 618 participation lowers recidivism and improves desistence. One factor that logistic regression does not handle well is time. Therefore, survival analysis using the Kaplan-Meier statistic will be used to examine the impact of time on recidivism/desistence. The number of days until relapse or recidivism (“time to failure”) is the focus of this analysis. The advantage of survival analysis is that recidivism during the beginning of the evaluation period is treated differently than behavior at the end. Using these techniques, it will be determined whether program participants have significantly lower levels of recidivism (or higher levels of desistence) than offenders in the comparison study group and if program participants recidivate at a slower rate than offenders in the comparison study group. Finally, the factors that predict recidivism among program participants will be identified. This final analysis will determine the types of offenders most likely to benefit from the SB 618 program and quantify the specific benefits of program participation. Risk Reduction Another indicator of the SB 618 program’s success is a reduction in the number and type of risk factors for recidivism, such as unemployment, homelessness, lack of education or vocational opportunities, and weak connections with family members and support groups. Therefore, the second objective of the impact evaluation is to determine whether the program was effective in providing opportunities for participants to reduce risk factors for recidivism. To measure this relationship, a single-sample, pre-test/post-test design is used because this information is not available for the comparison study group. The social circumstances for treatment participants will be compared over time using the previously mentioned analytical techniques measuring improvement (e.g., Chi-Square statistics, difference of means tests, and measures of effect size). The dependent variables will include the following:

changes in COMPAS scores over time;

improvements in participants' family and/or social bonds (yes/no) based on COMPAS;

stable housing (yes/no);

length of time (in days) to stable housing;

improvements in education based on TABE scores over time;

enrollment in education programs or vocational training (yes/no);

length of time (in days) to education or vocational training;

CHAPTER 2



completion of education programs or vocational training (yes/no);

new employment (yes/no);

length of time (in days) to new employment; and

changes in ASI scores over time.

Similar to the process evaluation, the .05 threshold of significance will be used. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis The purpose of the cost-effectiveness analysis is to determine if the SB 618 program is a worthy investment for the taxpayers by weighing the program costs against the benefits (i.e., individuals not recidivating) relative to the traditional approach with no services specifically designed to address reentry issues. Cost-effectiveness analysis is often used when the monetary amount of the benefit would be the same for both the treatment and comparison study groups. For example, in this case, the cost offset (the amount saved) from an individual not re-offending would likely be the same regardless of which group they were in. The costs will be based on the “taxpayer” perspective, which means it will take into account only the costs incurred by local and state government. Treatment (assessment and services) and criminal justice costs (incarceration, including prison and work camp, probation, parole, arrests, and convictions) will be collected and analyzed as part of the cost-effectiveness analysis.18 The cost-effectiveness analysis will measure the monetary cost differences between the treatment study group and comparison study group, as well as benefits by successful cases (those not recidivating, measured as not returning to prison) within 18 months of release from prison. Previous analysis will determine the recidivism differences between the study groups. The cost-effectiveness will build upon this analysis by comparing cost per successful case (i.e., those not recidivating). This efficiency measure will help inform whether SB 618 is having the expected recidivism impact compared to the cost of providing the program. This cost will be calculated by dividing total cost by total number of successful cases (previous analysis will check for statistically significant differences). Sensitivity analysis also will be conducted, which varies key assumptions to test if the results are robust. The following impact measures will be examined: costs to the County, costs to the State, and average cost per successful individual (not recidivating) for both study groups. Table 2.3 summarizes the cost-effectiveness analysis plan. The end result will be an estimate of the benefit returned for each dollar spent on the SB 618 program to ensure efficient allocation and expenditure of funds.

18 Start-up costs will be excluded from this study because they are not appropriate to add without also adding the start-up

costs for the current system. Additionally, start-up costs were not part of the Public Entity Agreement and were minimal since local agencies used existing resources.

CHAPTER 2



Table 2.3 SB 618 COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS

Group Costs ($) Benefits (Cases) Impact Measures TREATMENT STUDY GROUP

Initial arrest and conviction

Reception center time

SB 618 assessment

SB 618 services (in prison and in community)

Incarceration

Probation

Parole

Individuals not re-offending within 18 months of release

Costs to county

Costs to state

Average cost per successful case

COMPARISON STUDY GROUP

Initial arrest and conviction

Reception center time

Other services received in prison

Incarceration

Probation

Parole

Individuals not re-offending within 18 months of release

Costs to county

Costs to state

Average cost per successful case


SUMMARY The Criminal Justice Research Division of SANDAG is conducting a process and impact evaluation of the San Diego SB 618 program. As described in this chapter, this participatory evaluation involves a variety of methods, including: meeting attendance; review of meeting minutes; key staff, program partner, and community surveys; examination of participant characteristics and assessments; collection of recidivism data; follow-up interviews with SB 618 participants; participant and family/friend satisfaction questionnaires; and cost-effectiveness analysis. The information gleaned through this ongoing evaluation will help local policymakers identify areas for further improvement as the SB 618 program is potentially expanded both locally and statewide.

CHAPTER 3 PROCESS EVALUATION:

STAFF AND COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS


CHAPTER 3 PROCESS EVALUATION: STAFF AND COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS

INTRODUCTION A key component of the process evaluation is gaining feedback from staff members responsible for program implementation and management (i.e., program partners) and the provision of services (i.e., key staff), as well as community members. In 2007 and 2008, surveys were distributed to program partners and key staff to gain their views regarding program implementation and management, specific program components, partnerships and working relationships, and possible areas for improvement. In addition, in 2008, members of the community were surveyed through the San Diego Reentry Roundtable and District Attorney’s (DA’s) Interfaith Advisory Board to gain another perspective on how the program had been implemented and managed to date. The responses from these surveys are summarized here, with comparisons made over time and across perspectives (as possible) to provide information related to five of the process evaluation questions. When interpreting this information, it is important to remember that the number of respondents is relatively small, but percentages are presented regardless of this number to better enable comparisons. In addition, while the two samples of program partners who returned surveys over the two years was relatively stable, key staff respondents changed considerably, due in large part to the growth of the program, possibly affecting the pattern of responses presented for this survey from 2007 to 2008.

SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS Program Partners In September 2008, an electronic version of the program partner survey was distributed to 28 individuals. Similar to the previous year, the list of individuals who were invited to participate in this survey was created with input from the Operational Procedures Committee and was defined as “individuals who have been integral participants in planning and managing the Senate Bill (SB) 618 program (either currently or in the past), whether or not they have had direct contact with SB 618 participants.” A total of 22 surveys were completed and returned, yielding a 79 percent response rate. For the first program partner survey (which was administered in July 2007), 32 of 42 surveys were returned, yielding a 76 percent response rate.1

1 Fourteen (64%) program partners surveyed in 2008 indicated they had also completed a survey in 2007 and eight (36%)

reported this was their first time providing feedback.

CHAPTER 3

PROCESS EVALUATION: STAFF AND COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS


Surveys were returned by a diverse sample, reflecting the Operational Procedures Committee itself.2 Specifically, 18 percent of survey respondents represented the DA’s Office; 14 percent from each one of the two prisons, the Sheriff’s Department, or the Probation Department; 9 percent each the University of California San Diego (UCSD), the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) (in an administrative role), or the County of San Diego; and 5 percent each Comprehensive Training Systems, Inc. (CTS), or CDCR Parole. About one-quarter (23%) had been with SB 618 since its inception (prior to January 2006), 41 percent were hired during 2006, 23 percent during 2007, and 14 percent during 2008. In terms of education, 23 percent reported receiving some education after high school, 45 percent had a college degree, and 32 percent had an advanced degree (Master’s Degree, Ph.D., or professional licensure) (not shown). Key Staff Similar to the program partner survey, an electronic version of a survey was distributed during September 2008 to 22 key staff, individuals who were identified as working directly with SB 618 participants. A total of 15 surveys were returned, yielding a 68 percent response rate. These 15 respondents included five individuals employed in one of the two prisons as Prison Case Managers (PCMs), five by UCSD as Community Case Managers (CCMs), two by the Probation Department (who were responsible for screening/assessment), two by CTS (responsible for vocational services), and one by Parole (responsible for post-release supervision). Two of these individuals had been with the program since 2006, six since 2007, and seven since 2008; 14 of the 15 were still with SB 618 (and one had left approximately three months prior to completing the survey). Each of the 15 had 16 years or more of education (3 had a Bachelor’s Degree and 11 reported having a Master’s Degree/professional licensure) and three-quarters (10) reported they had worked with incarcerated individuals previously (for a median of 5.00 years, range 2.00 to 13.00). In the first administration of the survey (November 2007), 18 surveys were distributed, and 14 were returned3 (not shown). Community Members In October 2008, the first community member survey was distributed electronically to 69 individuals. Surveys were completed by 33 respondents (48% response rate), which included members of the Reentry Roundtable (23), the DA’s Office Interfaith Advisory Board (2), both groups (5), or neither (3). The 28 individuals affiliated with the Reentry Roundtable reported being members of this group for an average of 3.00 years4 (range 1.00 to 7.00) and most (93%) said they attended the monthly meetings quarterly, if not more frequently. The seven members of the Interfaith Advisory Board reported being affiliated with this group an average of 2.57 years5 (range 1.00 to 5.00) (not shown).

2 Based on attendance recorded in the meeting minutes from August 2006 through August 2008, the following

organizations were consistently represented at these weekly meetings: Sheriff’s Department (1.90 attendees on average), District Attorney’s Office (6.01), California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2.24), California Institution for Women (1.01), Comprehensive Training Systems, Inc. (.46), Parole (1.17), Probation (2.85), University of California San Diego (.92), and Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (2.49). Other groups periodically represented included the San Diego County Public Safety Group, Public Defender, the faith community, and other community-based organizations.

3 Five (33%) key staff surveyed in 2008 indicated they had also completed a survey in 2007 and ten (67%) reported this was their first time providing feedback.

4 The Reentry Roundtable began in April 2002. 5 The Interfaith Advisory Board was formed in February 2005.

CHAPTER 3



HOW DID PROGRAM PARTNERS, KEY STAFF, AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS VIEW PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT? Program Partners Program Implementation In 2007, program partners were asked to rate (on a four-point scale) how well they thought the program had been implemented.6 As Figure 3.1 shows, almost all (93%) of those surveyed gave favorable ratings regarding implementation. When asked to describe why they felt implementation had gone well, common responses included that the program had been successfully implemented and was operational (39%), challenges had been effectively addressed (25%), and good communication/collaboration among the partners had enhanced the process (21%) (not shown).

Figure 3.1 ALMOST ALL PROGRAM PARTNERS IN 2007 FAVORABLY DESCRIBED PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

61%

32%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Implementation

Well Very Well

93%

TOTAL = 31

NOTE: Cases with missing information not included.

SOURCE: Program Partner 2007 Survey, SANDAG SB 618 Second Annual Evaluation Report

When respondents (in 2007) were further asked to describe what key factors had aided or had a beneficial impact on program implementation, responses included the willingness of the partners to collaborate (54%), open and regular communication (42%), strong leadership and staff (12%), a willingness to do what was necessary to get the job done (12%), and flexibility in terms of budgeting and programming (12%). When asked to further describe what factors may have had a negative impact on program implementation, noted factors included communication and

6 Questions regarding program implementation were not included in the second survey administered in 2008 since the

initial implementation had been completed.

CHAPTER 3



collaboration issues with CDCR (29%); that implementation occurred too quickly, causing some issues to remain unaddressed (11%); and lower-than-expected client numbers (7%) (not shown). Program Management As Figure 3.2 shows, program partners also reported very favorable views of program management, both in 2007 (94%) and 2008 (95%). When asked to explain these ratings, respondents again cited good communication and collaboration among the project team (38%), that issues were addressed in a timely fashion (25%), strong leadership (19%), and having clearly defined roles (13%). Compared to the prior year, fewer respondents noted difficulties coordinating with CDCR as having a negative impact on their rating (26% in 2007, compared to 6% in 2008) and none of the respondents in 2008 felt that mistakes had recently been made or described any issues with unclear leadership (not shown).

Figure 3.2 PROGRAM PARTNERS CONTINUE TO FEEL THAT PROGRAM MANAGEMENT HAS GONE WELL

42%50%

52%45%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2007 (n=31) 2008 (n=22)

Well Very Well

94% 95%

NOTES: Cases with missing information not included. In 2007, respondents were given the rating choice of “well”

and in 2008 this was changed to “somewhat well.”

SOURCE: Program Partner 2007 and 2008 Surveys, SANDAG SB 618 Second Annual Evaluation Report

Partners feel that program implementation and

management have gone well, due in large part to good

collaboration and communication.

PROGRAM PARTNER RESPONDING TO 2008 SURVEY

“I think the management of the program works very well considering the multiple county and state agencies involved and the collaboration involved with each group.”

CHAPTER 3



When asked to describe what key factors have aided or had a beneficial impact on program management, a number of themes emerged in both years, as Table 3.1 shows. Reiterating comments made elsewhere on the surveys, the most common factor described in 2008, by over half of the respondents (53%), was the open and regular communication among the partners (an increase from 37% in 2007). For example, one respondent noted “the weekly meetings keep us together and up-to-date and [allow] us to address any challenges immediately and in person.” In addition, over one-quarter (29%) noted recent program changes that had been positive (which included implementing vocational programs in the Richard J. Donovan (RJD) Correctional Facility, changes in staffing of the PCMs at RJD, effective community case management, and administrative support from the institutions), and almost one in five (18%) acknowledged that many staff members were willing to do what was necessary to get the job done. While fewer respondents noted the spirit of collaboration as a key factor in 2008, compared to 2007 (24% versus 44%), it was still the third most frequently cited reason.

Table 3.1 PROGRAM PARTNERS CITE HIGH LEVELS OF COLLABORATION AND COMMUNICATION AS FACTORS AIDING PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

2007 2008

Willingness to collaborate 44% 24% Open and regular communication 37% 53% Strong leadership/staff 30% 12% Willingness to do what is necessary 4% 18% Flexibility 4% 0% Clearly defined roles 4% 6% Good training 4% 0% Changes in program components 0% 29% Stability in staffing 0% 12% TOTAL 27 17

NOTES: Cases with missing information not included. Percentages based on multiple responses.


CHAPTER 3



Program Eligibility

In both 2007 and 2008, all of the partners surveyed reported that they were familiar with the eligibility criteria (described in Appendix B) for program participants. As Figure 3.3 shows, when asked whether they thought these criteria were appropriate, a slightly higher percentage felt so in 2008 (45%), compared to 2007 (35%). When further queried regarding how the criteria should be changed, the most common response (in both years) was that the pool of participants should be expanded by changing the criteria related to risk level, prior criminal history, and/or

current sentence (83% in 2007 and 100% in 2008)7 (not shown).

Figure 3.3 PROGRAM PARTNERS MORE LIKELY TO FEEL ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA WERE APPROPRIATE IN 2008

6%

58%

35%

5%

50%45%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Appropriate Appropriate for Now Inappropriate

2007 (n=32) 2008 (n=22)

NOTE: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.


Program Components In 2008, program partners were asked to rate each of the program components, including aspects serving as a foundation for service delivery (e.g., Life Plan), in-custody components at each of the facilities, and services offered following release from prison. As Figure 3.4 shows, around nine in ten of the program partners described the Life Plan8 positively, with 41 percent rating it as “very effective,” the highest rating on the five-point scale. Similarly, 90 percent described the

7 Expansion of the program beyond nonviolent offenders would require a change in the SB 618 legislation or alternate

funding. 8 As described in Chapter 1, the Life Plan is a formal and dynamic document that charts participants’ needs and progress

from assessment to program completion.

More partners thought program

eligibility criteria were appropriate in 2008,

but half still think they should be

revisited in future.

CHAPTER 3



multidisciplinary team (MDT)9 approach positively, but an even higher percentage (71%) gave it the highest positive rating, making it the second most positively rated component overall by program partners.

Figure 3.4 MOST PROGRAM PARTNERS FEEL THE LIFE PLAN AND MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAM ARE EFFECTIVE

50%

19%

41%

71%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Life Plan (n=22) Multidisciplinary Team (n=21)

Somewhat Effective Very Effective

91% 90%



In terms of in-custody components, program partners were asked to rate the effectiveness of the programs offered at RJD and the California Institute for Women (CIW) on the same five-point scale from “very effective” to “not effective at all.”10 Figure 3.5 presents the percent of program partners who gave the highest (“very effective”) or second highest (“somewhat effective”) rating on six different program in-custody components for RJD. As this figure shows, the educational programs, as well as the mental health component and vocational programs, received the highest ratings overall (81%, 72%, and 76%. respectively). However, less than half (44%) of the respondents favorably rated drug treatment at RJD, which is related at least in part to the issues described in Chapter 1 that are being addressed with the contractor.

9 As described in Chapter 1, the MDT, which is comprised of staff from Probation, CDCR, UCSD, and CTS, meets within 14

days of participants’ referral by the court and before sentencing to discuss the results of the screenings, assessments, and pre-sentencing interview; agree on participants’ suitability for the program; and create a course of action for services and case management.

10 Similar questions were asked in 2007, but only 2008 responses are presented since additional time has passed to implement these components.


“The increase in participant participation in the MDT meetings has improved participant buy-in and enthusiasm in the program.”

CHAPTER 3



Figure 3.5 PROGRAM PARTNERS RATE EDUCATION, MENTAL HEALTH, AND VOCATIONAL PROGRAMS

AT RJD HIGHER THAN OTHER IN-CUSTODY COMPONENTS AT THIS FACILITY

45%33%63%56%47% 25%

18%

25%13%

25%

27%

19%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Prison CaseManagement

Education VocationalPrograms

Medical Mental Health Drug Treatment


65%

81%76%

58%

72%

44%

TOTAL = 11 - 17



In comparison, the same program components at CIW received higher ratings from the program partners, with all or almost all of the respondents giving the two highest ratings, and considerably more giving the very highest rating. As Figure 3.6 shows, 100 percent of the respondents felt that prison case management, educational programs, vocational programs, and mental health treatment at CIW was either “very effective” or “effective,” with three-quarters or more feeling the same about the drug treatment (87%) and medical components (79%).


“The substance abuse treatment program at RJD lacks essential components … as well as [suffers] from poor management.”

CHAPTER 3



Figure 3.6 PROGRAM PARTNERS EXPRESS MORE FAVORABLE VIEW

OF IN-CUSTODY PROGRAMS OFFERED AT CIW

6% 47%69%50%47%35%

40%

31%

29%53%

65%

94%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%





100% 100% 100% 100%

79%

87%

TOTAL = 13 - 17



Finally, program partners also were asked for their opinion regarding the effectiveness of seven services received post-prison release. As Figure 3.7 shows, more than two-thirds rated six of the post-release program components as effective – community case management (86%), the Community Roundtable (81%), assistance obtaining important documents (81%), drug treatment (77%), child support services (70%), and housing assistance (67%). For vocational programs offered after prison release, about one in five (19%) of the partners described this component as “very effective” and 43 percent said it was “somewhat effective.” When the five individuals who gave poor ratings to any of these components were asked to provide suggestions for improvement, three noted the need for more intensive services, two for more space, and one for more partners to be involved (not shown).

Program partners view prison case management at

CIW, the MDT, and community case

management as the most effective program

components.

CHAPTER 3



Figure 3.7 PROGRAM PARTNERS VIEW COMMUNITY CASE MANAGEMENT MOST POSITIVELY

COMPARED TO OTHER COMMUNITY PROGRAM COMPONENTS

50%33%43%48%43%48%19%

20%

48%

24%29%

19%

67%

33%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Community CaseManagement

Roundtable VocationalPrograms

Drug Treatment HousingAssistance

DocumentAssistance

Child SupportService


86%81%

62%

77%

67%

82%

70%

TOTAL = 20 – 21



Key Staff Program Implementation Key staff members were asked identical questions to the program partners in 2007 in regard to how they viewed program implementation. As Figure 3.8 shows, 92 percent of the key staff also felt implementation had gone “well” or “very well,” comparable to the 93 percent shown in Figure 3.1 for program partners. When asked to describe their rating regarding implementation, positive feedback included that the program was operational, challenges had been effectively addressed, and there was good collaboration/communication in place. However, there also were concerns, including challenges not being addressed, difficulties collaborating with CDCR, and disinterest by upper management in regard to receiving feedback from line staff (not shown).

CHAPTER 3



Figure 3.8

ALMOST ALL KEY STAFF REPORTED PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION WENT WELL IN 2007

75%

17%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Implementation

Well Very Well

92%

TOTAL = 12


SOURCE: Key Staff 2007 Survey, SANDAG SB 618 Second Annual Evaluation Report

Program Management

In both 2007 and 2008, key staff members also were asked to rate program management on a four-point scale. As Figure 3.9 shows, while most of the respondents gave positive ratings in both years (92% and 93%, respectively, comparable to the ratings made by program partners shown in Figure 3.2), the percent giving the highest rating (“very well”) increased from 25 percent in 2007 to 40 percent in 2008. When asked to describe the reasons for their ratings, respondents in both years noted strong leadership, with 2008 staff

being more likely also to note strong staffing and addressing issues in a timely fashion. In terms of areas for improvements noted in the most recent survey, three staff members noted unresolved staffing issues that needed to be addressed, and one each felt there was too much emphasis on the out-of-custody component of the program and that some issues lacked resolution (not shown).

Key staff members also view program

implementation and management

positively.

CHAPTER 3



Figure 3.9 MORE KEY STAFF GAVE HIGHEST RATING TO PROGRAM MANAGEMENT IN 2008

67%

53%

25%

40%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2007 (n=12) 2008 (n=15)

Well Very Well

92% 93%

NOTES: Cases with missing information not included. In 2007, respondents were given the rating choice of “well” and in 2008 this was changed to “somewhat well.”

SOURCE: Key Staff 2007 and 2008 Surveys, SANDAG SB 618 Second Annual Evaluation Report

When probed regarding their perceptions of staff involvement and day-to-day operations, the majority of key staff felt that the program had long-term purpose and direction (100%), that there is agreement regarding how things should be done (93%), and that staff share a vision for the program (87%) (Table 3.2). In addition, more than half also felt that collaboration is encouraged, approaches to conducting business are consistent, and staff have input in decisions that affect them. However, only one in three agreed that participant feedback leads to changes in the program or that the program is responsive and flexible.

CHAPTER 3



Table 3.2 KEY STAFF SHARE POSITIVE VIEWS ABOUT MANY ASPECTS OF SB 618

Program has long-term purpose and direction 100% Agreement exists regarding how things are done 93% Shared vision for the program 87% Cooperation and collaboration encouraged across roles 73% Consistent approach to how business is done 60% Most staff have input in decisions that affect them 60% Participant feedback leads to change in program delivery 33% Program is responsive and flexible 33%

TOTAL 21 - 22

NOTES: Cases with missing information not included. Percent shown represents respondents who gave rating of “strongly agree” or “agree” on a five-point scale.


In another section of the survey, key staff members were asked if they had ever given their input to program management and, if they had, how their input was received. In both years, more than four out of five respondents said they had given feedback (83% in 2007 and 87% in 2008) (not shown), and as Figure 3.10 shows, a greater percentage of these individuals reported their input had been “very well” or “somewhat well” received in 2008 (91%), compared to 2007 (80%). In addition, 67 percent rated the communication between SB 618 leadership and key staff positively, and around half (55%) said it was better than it was one year ago. However, some staff members still felt communication between partners and key staff was not as strong as it could be and that the decision-making process could be enhanced by expanding opportunities for key staff to give input. For example, one survey respondent noted, “The key staff are often left out of the loop in leadership decisions. We could offer many valuable opinions/comments in that we are actually the ones working within the program and hands on with the participants” (not shown).

The majority of key staff members feel they can give input and communicate well with program

management.

CHAPTER 3



Figure 3.10 MAJORITY OF KEY STAFF WHO GAVE INPUT TO MANAGEMENT FELT IT WAS WELL RECEIVED

50%

33%

30%58%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2007 (n=10) 2008 (n=12)

Well Very Well

80% 91%

NOTES: Cases with missing information not included. In 2007, respondents were given the rating choice of

“well” and in 2008 this was changed to “somewhat well.”

SOURCE: Key Staff 2007 and 2008 Surveys, SANDAG SB 618 Second Annual Evaluation Report

In terms of their satisfaction with program resources and practices, the quality of their work conditions, and how well job-related training had prepared them to fulfill their responsibilities, four out of every five (or more) staff felt they had the resources and information to do their jobs effectively and that the program had effectively implemented best practices for reentry services (Table 3.3). In addition, almost three-quarters (73%) reported being satisfied with decisions that had been made by program management.

Table 3.3 MOST KEY STAFF SATISFIED WITH RESOURCES AND PRACTICES

Available community resources 93%

Participant information/data 87%

Best practices for reentry services 80%

Program management decisions 73% TOTAL 15

NOTE: Percent shown represents respondents who gave a rating of “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied,” the two highest ratings on the five-point scale.


CHAPTER 3



In another set of questions, key staff members were asked to rate their level of agreement (on a five-point scale) with positive or negative statements about their day-to-day work conditions (Table 3.4). Again, around three-quarters or more felt that: communication between staff is effective to facilitate service coordination for participants; they are appreciated by management; the physical work environment is comfortable and safe; they have adequate access to technology; and they are confident in the supervision they receive. However, less than half (47%) felt that their caseload/workload was appropriate and allowed them to work with participants effectively, and only two in five (40%) felt that graduated sanctions are used effectively to support treatment goals. The topic of graduated sanction has been discussed at Operational Procedures Committee meetings, as well as incorporating incentives to facilitate program compliance. Key staff members also were asked specifically if they felt there were adequate staff and resources for the SB 618 program. In response, more than two-thirds (71%) said they were not. When further probed as to what additional resources were needed, a variety of responses were provided, including more PCMs (3), additional vocational/educational services (2), more information technology resources (2), more resources in general for a better work environment (1), additional services to address substance abuse (1) and mental health needs (1), and more supervision in the community (1) (not shown).

Table 3.4 KEY STAFF GENERALLY SATISFIED WITH WORK CONDITIONS, BUT SOME FEEL ROOM FOR CHANGE

Effective staff communication 87%

Feel appreciated by management 87%

Physical environment is comfortable and safe 73%

Adequate access to office technology 73%

Confident in supervision provided 71%

Caseload size is appropriate 47%

Graduated sanctions used effectively 40% TOTAL 14 - 15



While key staff members rate their work

environment positively, there are some concerns regarding workload and

resources.

KEY STAFF RESPONDING TO 2008 SURVEY

“With the program changing and growing, we need to reevaluate the number of staff needed to effectively work with participants. I personally often feel overwhelmed,

which can lead to me rushing through things when working with participants and this can be detrimental to the overarching goal of the program.”

CHAPTER 3



Finally, most (73%) of the key staff had worked with this population before (as previously noted) and all felt that this experience had prepared them “very well” (73%) or “somewhat well” (27%)

for their responsibilities with SB 618. In addition, all but two of the 15 key staff (87%) reported that they had received training through SB 618. Of those who had received training, the most well received appeared to be UCSD’s Working in Concert training, which was rated by 69 percent of attendees as “very helpful.” Other trainings and sessions rated highly by

staff included the retreat (62%), case management (56%), assessments (50%), using the SB 618 database (50%), motivational interviewing (40%), and the Life Plan (36%). Only around one-third (36%) of the staff felt they needed additional training, which included such topics as information about SB 618 partner agencies (3 of 5 respondents), motivational interviewing (2), conducting needs assessments (2), case management (1), the SB 618 database (1), the Life Plan (1), providing gender-responsive training (1), and providing culturally-sensitive services (1) (not shown). Client Eligibility Key staff members also were asked if they were familiar with the program’s eligibility criteria and if they thought the criteria were appropriate. Thirteen of the 15 respondents in 2008 said they were familiar with the criteria and 8 of these 13 thought the criteria were appropriate (a higher percentage than in 2007 when the same question was asked, 62% versus 45%), 4 thought they were appropriate for now but should be changed in the future, and 1 said they were not appropriate. Three of the four who believed they should be changed (either now or in the future) felt they should be narrowed to take into consideration an individual’s motivation to change, one that they should be narrowed to exclude anyone with any prior history of violence, one that they should be narrowed to include clients with fewer mental health issues, and one that they should be broadened to include clients with a greater number of mental health issues (not shown). Program Components Key staff members also were asked to rate the effectiveness of the program components in 2008. As Figure 3.11 shows, almost all of the key staff gave high ratings to both the Life Plan (93%) and MDT (100%), similar to feedback provided by program partners. The one person who expressed a negative view of the Life Plan noted a perception that staff had limited access to it and that more emphasis should be placed on the family and trauma history.

About one in three key staff would like additional training.

Program partners were more likely to

report client eligibility should be expanded;

key staff that it should be narrowed.

CHAPTER 3



Figure 3.11 KEY STAFF GIVE HIGH RATINGS TO LIFE PLAN AND MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAMS

47%40%

47% 60%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Life Plan Multidisciplinary Team


93% 100%

TOTAL = 15


Key staff members also were asked to rate in-custody program components at RJD and CIW separately in 2008, using the same five-point scale provided to program partners. As Figures 3.12 and 3.13 show, key staff gave higher ratings to each of the program components at CIW, compared to RJD, with the greatest difference in the ratings provided for drug treatment (90% versus 23%) and PCM (100% versus 76%). Compared to the feedback provided by program partners for RJD (Figure 3.5), key staff gave higher ratings to prison case management, but lower ratings for all other in-custody components. For CIW, key staff gave similar ratings to

the program partners for four of the six components (Figure 3.6), but key staff members were less likely to rate medical and mental health treatment positively. When further probed for why they thought a program component was not as effective as it could be, a variety of responses were offered by the five respondents, including that there needed to be smaller caseloads (3), the referral process needed to be improved and individuals who could benefit from the service were not receiving it (3), the intervention itself was missing key components (1), the culture of the service providers was not focused on rehabilitation (1), and staff were not given enough flexibility to use their own judgment/clinical skills (1) (not shown).

Key staff and program partners generally share

similar views about the most effective

program components.

CHAPTER 3



Figure 3.12 KEY STAFF RATINGS OF IN-CUSTODY COMPONENTS AT RJD: SOME MORE EFFECTIVE THAN OTHERS

8%

15%30%27%54%62%38%

20%18%

15%

15%

38%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%





76% 77%

69%

45%50%

23%

TOTAL = 10 - 13



Figure 3.13 KEY STAFF RATINGS OF IN-CUSTODY COMPONENTS AT CIW: HIGHER COMPARED TO THOSE AT RJD

27% 50% 64% 25% 50% 70%

73%

50%

36%

25%

13%

20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%





100% 100% 100%

50%

63%

90%

TOTAL = 8 - 11



CHAPTER 3



Also related to in-custody components, one of the impact evaluation questions for this project relates to whether participant needs are identified in a more timely fashion through SB 618,

facilitating the delivery of appropriate services. In advance of the analysis of these data for the impact evaluation, key staff were asked if they thought that SB 618 participants were receiving priority placement in available prison programs and what the wait time, if any, was for these programs. Most of the staff surveyed did feel that SB 618 participants were receiving priority placement, either at both facilities (79%) or at RJD (14%). However, despite this priority status, most (90%) also thought that participants did encounter wait times. When asked to indicate how long this waiting period was on average by program type, the greatest

percentage of respondents said it was longer than one month for drug treatment (5 of 6 respondents) and medical/dental care (4 of 5), followed by vocational programs (3 of 7), educational programs (2 of 6), and mental health (1 of 5) (not shown). In terms of how they perceived the effectiveness of SB 618 community program components, key staff again shared similar views to the project partners. As Figure 3.14 (and Figure 3.7 for program partner data) shows, the CCM piece received the highest effectiveness ratings from key staff, with all of the respondents describing it as “very effective” or “somewhat effective.” This component was followed by drug treatment (which was rated higher overall by key staff (94%) compared to program partners (77%)), assistance obtaining documents, and the Community Roundtable.

Key staff members feel SB 618

participants receive priority for

programming but still encounter wait

times.

CHAPTER 3



Figure 3.14 KEY STAFF GIVE HIGHEST RATING TO COMMUNITY CASE MANAGEMENT

38%36%20%40%47% 38% 67%

31%57%

40%

23%

27%

53%40%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Community CaseManagement

Roundtable VocationalPrograms

Drug Treatment HousingAssistance

DocumentAssistance

Child SupportService


100%

80%

61%

94%

60%

93%

69%

TOTAL = 13 - 15



CHAPTER 3



Community Members As Figure 3.15 shows, almost three-quarters (71%) of the community members surveyed reported that they thought SB 618 had been managed “very well” or “somewhat well,” a lower percentage than provided by program partners (Figure 3.2) and key staff (Figure 3.9). When asked to explain their rating, 48 percent of the respondents (10 of 21) indicated that they felt there had not been enough communication and feedback provided to the community about the SB 618 program. Other responses, provided by less than one-fifth of respondents, included both positive feedback (i.e., good effort had been made to change the focus to rehabilitation, there had been active participation by partners, the accomplishments were worthwhile given limited resources, adequate resources had been provided, there was a lot of interest in the program, and good decisions had been made) and negative feedback (i.e., issues regarding coordination, problems with in-custody program components, and not enough resources) (not shown).

Figure 3.15 THREE-QUARTERS OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS FEEL SB 618 HAS BEEN MANAGED WELL

50%

21%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Management

Somewhat Well Very Well

71%

TOTAL = 28


SOURCE: Community Member 2008 Survey, SANDAG SB 618 Second Annual Evaluation Report

While most community members surveyed gave positive

ratings for program management, many would

appreciate additional communication and feedback.

CHAPTER 3



Community members also were asked what they perceived the three greatest needs of returning ex-offenders to be, and then, how well they thought the SB 618 program had addressed these issues. As Table 3.5 shows, more than four out of every five respondents (82%) felt that employment and housing were the greatest needs for returning ex-offenders, followed by drug treatment (48%). In addition, almost one in five (18%) felt that mental health treatment, healthcare, and transportation were important needs facing this population. As Figure 3.16 shows, two-thirds (65%) of these respondents felt that SB 618 had met these needs “very well” or “somewhat well.” The seven individuals who explained why they thought needs had gone unmet through this program felt that there were not enough resources available (4), the faith community had not been included enough (2), the services were not culturally-competent (1), a holistic approach had not been used (1), and that the appropriate population had not been reached (1) (not shown).

Table 3.5 COMMUNITY MEMBERS REPORT EMPLOYMENT AND

HOUSING AS TOP NEEDS FOR RETURNING EX-OFFENDERS Employment 82%

Housing 82%

Drug treatment 48%

Mental health treatment 18%

Healthcare 18%

Transportation 18%

Connection to faith community 9%

Food/clothing 6%

Reunification with spouse 6% TOTAL 33

NOTE: Percentages based on multiple responses.

SOURCE: Community Member 2008 Survey, SB 618 Second Annual Evaluation Report

CHAPTER 3



Figure 3.16 TWO-THIRDS OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS FEEL SB 618 HAS ADDRESSED

IMPORTANT EX-OFFENDER NEEDS AT LEAST SOMEWHAT WELL

9%

56%

31%

3%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Very Well Somewhat Well Not Very Well Not Well at All

Total = 32



WAS THE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTED AS DESIGNED? WHAT MODIFICATIONS WERE MADE AND WHY? Program Partners As described elsewhere in the report, SB 618 is based on the concept that providing tangible reentry support services will increase parolees’ chances of successful reintegration into the community. In a new question added to the survey in 2008, program partners were asked to describe what they perceived to be the top three correctional priorities for SB 618. The purpose of this question was to determine whether these perceptions continued to be in line with the original intent of the program. Overall, while there was some variability in what the top three priorities were, there was consensus that a primary goal was rehabilitation while maintaining public safety. As Table 3.6 shows, 86 percent agreed that one of the priorities of SB 618 was rehabilitation through addressing underlying issues (e.g., addiction, educational needs, mental health issues, and employment barriers) and just over two-thirds (68%) said ensuring public safety. In addition, around half to one-third cited matching treatment to participant need, effectively using resources to reduce cost, and assessing risk and need. Fewer than ten percent of respondents felt that offender accountabilitly, deterring future criminal activity through punishment, and supervision and control were top priorities.

CHAPTER 3



Table 3.6 REHABILITATION THROUGH ADDRESSING UNDERLYING NEEDS

SEEN AS TOP CORRECTIONAL PRIORITY BY PROGRAM PARTNERS Rehabilitation through addressing needs 86%

Public safety protection 68%

Matching treatment to need 55%

Effective use of resources 41%

Risk assessment 32%

Offender accountability 9%

Deterrence through punishment 5%

Supervision and control 5% TOTAL 22



In terms of modifications during and after program implementation, in 2007 all but one of the program partners surveyed reported that program implementation adhered to the original model either “very well” (19%) or “somewhat well” (78%). When further probed in that original survey, 88 percent (all but 4 respondents) also noted that modifications to the program design had been made along the way – 29 percent said only positive modifications had been made, 39 percent noted only negative modifications, and 32 percent noted both positive and negative modifications. Some of the positive modifications described at the time included expanding the program beyond one court, adding a housing specialist, improving the screening and assessment process, providing local control of specific program elements, increasing the frequency with which PCMs meet with clients, creating a local database to track clients, adding a child support component, and increasing the funding for the vocational component. At the other end of the continuum, modifications which were perceived as negative included the decision by the Medical Receiver to have prison staff do the medical screening, eliminating the Behavioral Health contract, stricter rules by CDCR regarding classification and housing which have been perceived as impeding flexibility, eligibility criteria that is too exclusive, the PCM meeting with the participant less often than originally planned, delays in implementing vocational programs, and the inclusion of mentally-ill offenders (5%) (not shown). Solutions to these issues are discussed at the weekly Operational Procedures Committee meetings. Conversations continue with the Medical Receiver to recognize medical screening at the county level to reduce time in the reception center. Ideas for filling the gap related to behavioral health services continue, including ways to leverage funds through existing contracts. Changes to PCM staffing were made to improve the frequency of contacts with participants. At the time of this report, the match between vocational programming and the local job market were being discussed to ensure that vocational program implementation leads to increased employment.

CHAPTER 3



In 2008, just over three-quarters (78%) of the program partners reported that additional modifications had been made in the last year that had improved the program, and interestingly, none reported that any modifications had been made which had a negative effect. When asked to describe these modifications that had improved the program, six (of 11) respondents noted the refinement in the scheduling of the Community Roundtables and MDT meetings (which increased the ability to meet Life Plan goals and share information among partners), and five mentioned changing the professional background of PCMs at RJD from education to social work. Other positive changes included the automation of the Life Plan in the DA’s database (3), increasing the funding and number of vocational programs (3), improvements to the screening/classification process (2), more resources being allocated to the educational component (2), and an increase in community involvement (1) (not shown). However, despite this perception regarding program improvements, almost half (47%) of the partners felt that changes in funding for SB 618 jeopardized the smooth functioning of the program, and one in five (20%) thought other pending changes also were potentially an issue. In terms of how changes in funding could have a negative effect, two individuals each felt it was harmful to partnership and communication, that it hampered programming, and that it hurt the population served. In terms of other negative changes, two individuals noted the need for a PCM Coordinator (not shown). Key Staff While key staff members were not asked specifically about program modifications, the 2008 survey did include the question regarding SB 618 priorities and asked respondents for their opinion regarding staff roles in fulfilling these goals. As Table 3.7 shows, similar to program partners (Table 3.6), respondents were most likely to agree that rehabilitation through addressing underlying needs was the top priority, followed by public safety protection; however, compared to program partners, key staff put greater emphasis on risk assessment and less emphasis on matching treatment to need and effectively using resources.

Program partners feel recent program

modifications have been positive in nature but also

express concern about potential funding issues.

CHAPTER 3



Table 3.7 ALL KEY STAFF AGREE ADDRESSING PARTICIPANTS’ UNDERLYING NEEDS IS A PRIORITY FOR SB 618

Rehabilitation through addressing needs 100%

Public safety protection 73%

Risk assessment 53%

Matching treatment to need 33%

Effective use of resources 13%

Offender accountability 20%

Supervision and control 13%

Deterrence through punishment 0% TOTAL 15



Key staff members also were solicited for their opinions regarding the roles of personnel involved in SB 618. As Table 3.8 shows, there was general consensus regarding each of the PCM roles, with

around two-thirds or more agreeing that the PCM should match the need of participants to available resources, monitor participants to ensure compliance with the Life Plan, have the goal of changing behavior through a helping relationship, act as brokers to ensure efficient service delivery, and stress the counseling relationship with the participant. For the CCMs, there also was consensus that these staff should link participants to resources and also (to a slightly lesser degree)

provide referrals. The CCM was seen as being assisted by a Vocational Specialist who also links participants to resources. While those surveyed agreed that monitoring participant behavior to ensure public safety was a key role of the Parole Agent (but not of other staff), almost two-thirds thought this individual also should provide links to resources to facilitate reentry and rehabilitation.

Key staff members believe each staff

person fulfills multiple roles in addressing participant need.

KEY STAFF RESPONDING TO 2008 SURVEY

“Considering this is a very new program and that processes are continually being assessed and developed, I believe all the program partners are passionate and genuine

regarding maintaining the integrity of the [program’s] objectives and mission.”

CHAPTER 3



Table 3.8 KEY STAFF REPORT EACH SB 618 ROLE HAS MULTIPLE MISSIONS

Prison Case Managers should . . . Match the needs of participants to available resources 93% Monitor participants to ensure Life Plan compliance 79% Have goal of changing behavior through a helping relationship 71% Act as brokers for service to most efficiently use time 64% Stress their counseling relationship with the participant 64% Community Case Managers should . . . Link participants to community resources 100% Identify participant problems and provide referrals 86% Closely monitor participants to ensure public safety 36% Vocational Specialists should . . . Match the needs of participants to available resources 71% Closely monitor participants to ensure public safety 29% Parole Agents should . . . Closely monitor participants to ensure public safety 100% Link participants to community resources 64% Match the needs of participants to available resources 64% TOTAL 14



WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THE PARTNERSHIPS THAT DEVELOPED AND WHAT SYSTEMIC CHANGES RESULTED, IF ANY? Program Partners Communication and Collaboration To maintain effective partnerships, it is essential that key stakeholders are able to communicate effectively. Consistent with other feedback that has been presented when asked to rate the level of communication between program partners on a four-point scale, more than nine out of ten respondents in both 2007 and 2008 said it was “very good” or “good” (Figure 3.17). In addition, when asked in 2008 if they thought communication had improved over the past year, 40 percent said it had, and 60 percent said it had stayed the same. When asked in 2008 to rate the level of data-sharing (about participants) among program partners, all of the respondents said it was “very good” (41%) or “good” (59%), with 65 percent also saying it had improved over the past year (not shown).

CHAPTER 3



Figure 3.17 ALMOST ALL PROGRAM PARTNERS FAVORABLY RATE LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES

41%48%

50%48%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2007 (n=32) 2008 (n=21)

Good Very Good

91% 96%



In another set of questions added in 2008, program partners were asked to rate their level of agreement with a number of statements (on a five-point scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”) that related to the involvement of the community and faith-based organizations in the program, decision-making and information-sharing, as well as level of trust. As Table 3.9 shows, three-quarters or more of the respondents agreed that information was effectively shared, partners treated one another with respect, decision-making was shared, and that agency turf issues were minimized. In addition, just under three-quarters felt that community-based organizations had been included in the program design and were supportive, but fewer felt that the faith community had been included to the same degree. When asked in a separate question if they felt there had been adequate community participation, including by faith-based and other organizations in the SB 618 program, the group of respondents was almost equally divided, with 55 percent saying there had been and 45 percent there had not. When asked what factors had prevented community participation, eight respondents noted that there was a need to conduct more outreach (5), there was a need for more resources (2), that the request for proposals (process had reduced input (1), and that there were insufficient linkages with the Reentry Roundtable (1) (not shown).

While program partners describe strong working

relationships, they also feel there are opportunities for

greater community involvement.

CHAPTER 3



Table 3.9 PROGRAM PARTNERS REPORT GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIPS WITH ONE ANOTHER

Information efficiently and effectively shared 96%

Partners are generally respectful toward each other 86%

Decision-making shared among partners 82%

Agency turf issues effectively minimized 77%

Community-based organizations cooperate and support partners 73%

Community-based organizations included in design and delivery of services 73%

Partners see each other as dependable 73%

Partners share priority of serving participants 64%

Partners have access to key local and state decisionmakers 59%

Partners are not suspicious of one another 59%

Faith community included in design and delivery of services 57% TOTAL 21 - 22


SOURCE: Program Partners 2008 Survey, SANDAG SB 618 Second Annual Evaluation Report

Operational Procedures Committee A key method of ensuring ongoing communication has been regular meetings between the program partners. Since February 2006, the Operational Procedures Committee has met on a weekly basis to discuss key issues in a timely fashion regarding program design, implementation, and how issues that arise should be addressed. To determine how program partners perceive these meetings, including how useful they are and how they could be improved, a series of questions was included on the program partner surveys in both 2007 and 2008.

In 2007, as the project was gearing up, most of the respondents felt that the Operational Procedures Committee met frequently enough (88%), with only four individuals (13%) feeling it met “too frequently” (none of the respondents said it did not meet frequently enough). In 2008, these percentages had changed slightly, with

slightly fewer (76%) saying the group met frequently enough and slightly more (24%) saying it met too frequently (not shown). As Figure 3.18 shows, in both years, almost all of the respondents reported that the meetings were both efficient and effective, describing an open atmosphere in which to discuss issues, where key stakeholders were represented, and minutes and agendas were provided that were helpful.

Program partners feel weekly meetings have

enhanced collaboration.

CHAPTER 3



Figure 3.18 MOST PROGRAM PARTNERS GIVE FAVORABLE RATINGS TO OPERATIONAL MEETINGS

88%

100%97% 97%

91%95%

86%

95%100% 100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Open Atmosphere Key Partners Represented Materials Useful Effective Time Use Issues Resolved

2007 (n=30-32) 2008 (n=21)

NOTES: Cases with missing information not included. Percentages shown represent participants who gave one of two highest ratings (“very well” or “well”) on a four-point scale.


Other feedback compiled from program partners regarding attendance and participation at the Operational Procedures Committee included:

When asked to describe how many representatives from their agency attend these meetings on a regular basis, the median was 3.70 (range 1.00 to 11.00) in 2007, which decreased to 2.50 (range 0.00 to 7.00) in 2008, suggesting that roles had been better defined or internal processes at partner agencies may have been improved in terms of information-sharing.

In terms of their own attendance at these meetings, 72 percent of survey respondents in 2007 said they attend “very frequently” or “somewhat frequently,” which increased to 86 percent in 2008.

All but three of the partners (9% in 2007 and 14% in 2008) in each of the survey years reported that their agency was adequately represented at these meetings. In 2007, the three individuals who felt that their agency was not adequately represented were from CDCR (2) and the Public Defender’s Office (1). In 2008, individuals who felt this way included two representing CDCR administrative staff and one representing prison staff. In both years, when probed for possible issues that could be related to this lack of representation, respondents noted that an individual from a higher level would be more appropriate to attend, that the distance to travel to the meeting was a challenge, and that a limited budget made more regular attendance difficult (not shown).


“The weekly Operational Committee meetings are invaluable to the overall operation of the SB 618 program. The face-to-face interactions and problem solving help tremendously.”

CHAPTER 3



Long-Term Systemic Change When asked if they thought that any of the progress made to date would result in long-term systemic change, all (100%) of the program partners in 2008 said it would, almost double from 53 percent who responded affirmatively in 2007 (with 47% saying it was too early to tell). In addition, when asked in 2008 if any systemic changes had already resulted, the majority (80%) said that it had. Specific changes noted by respondents included a shift to a more rehabilitative focus (6), an increase in a willingness to collaborate (5), the institutionalization of assessments (3) and prison case management (2), and more transparency than had existed in the past (1) (not shown). Key Staff Collaboration and Communication As part of the 2008 key staff survey, respondents also were asked how they would rate the level of communication between SB 618 partner agencies. While they rated the communication slightly lower than program partners (Figure 3.17), the majority (86%) still described it as “very good” or “good” (Figure 3.19), and just two-thirds (67%) said it had improved over the last year (not shown). When further asked if they thought there had been adequate community participation in SB 618, the responses of key staff were more positive, compared to program partners, with three-quarters (75%) responding affirmatively, compared to 55 percent of program partners (not shown).

Program partners feel SB 618 has resulted or will result in long-term

change.


“The criminal justice community has begun to change their attitude about reentry and the need for a full array of wrap-around service.”

CHAPTER 3



Figure 3.19 MOST KEY STAFF SURVEYED IN 2008 POSITIVELY DESCRIBE LEVEL OF PARTNER COMMUNICATION

50%

36%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Communication Between Partners

86%

Good Very Good

TOTAL = 14



Long-Term Systemic Change Key staff members also were also optimistic that the progress made to date on SB 618 will result in long-term systemic change, with all or almost all of the respondents in both years (90% in 2007 and 100% in 2008) agreeing with this statement. When the 2008 sample was asked if systemic change had already been made, 80 percent said it had, with six individuals noting the shift to a rehabilitative focus and five mentioning an increased emphasis on collaboration (not shown). Community Members Community and Collaboration In 2008, the community member survey included a number of questions regarding how well information had been shared and the community had been engaged. As the data compiled from these questions reveal, most of those surveyed thought there had been efforts to include the community, but that there were still opportunities for more outreach and engagement. Specifically, as Figure 3.20 shows, more than four in every five respondents felt that Reentry Roundtable members and Interfaith Advisory Board members had been kept up to date on the progress of SB 618 at least “somewhat well,” and in another series of questions, around two-thirds (65%) of those surveyed felt that both community and faith-based organizations supported (and cooperated with) SB 618 (Table 3.10). However, while almost three-quarters (71%) felt that the Reentry Roundtable had been included in the design and delivery of services to participants, only half (50%)

CHAPTER 3



agreed to the same degree as the question related to the Interfaith Advisory Board. In addition, when asked if they felt faith-based and other organizations were currently participating in program delivery to an adequate degree, around half (52%) said they were, and the other half (48%) said it was not adequate. When 12 individuals who felt community participation was inadequate described what barriers existed, a variety of perceptions were provided, including that there were not enough links and resources provided to engage the community (5), a lack of commitment from leadership (3), not enough communication (3), the belief that engaging the community would not make a difference (2), no follow-through (1), and a limit of contact only to those at higher levels (1) (not shown).

Figure 3.20 MOST SURVEYED COMMUNITY MEMBERS FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE BEEN KEPT UP TO DATE ON SB 618

37%43%

52% 43%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Reentry Roundtable (n=27) Interfaith Advisory Board (n=7)


89% 86%


Table 3.10 MAJORITY OF SURVEYED COMMUNITY MEMBERS EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR SB 618

Roundtable included in design and delivery of services 71%

Faith-based organizations support SB 618 70%

Community-based organizations support SB 618 65%

Interfaith Advisory Board included in design and delivery of services 50% TOTAL 30 - 31



CHAPTER 3



Long-Term Systemic Change When asked if long-term systemic change would occur or had already happened, the community members were more skeptical than both program partners and key staff. Specifically, while all of the partners and staff felt that change would occur in the future, 71 percent of the community members expressed the same optimism. In addition, while 80 percent of program partners and 93 percent of key staff thought change had already resulted, only 48 percent of community members did (not shown).

WHAT WERE STAFF VIEWS ON REHABILITATION AND WERE CULTURALLY-COMPETENT AND GENDER-RESPONSIVE SERVICES PROVIDED? Program Partners There appeared to be the general perception among program partners that services provided to date were both culturally competent and gender responsive.11 As Figure 3.21 shows, half (50%) of those surveyed thought that gender-specific issues had been addressed “very well,” and another 45 percent thought they had been addressed “somewhat well.” In terms of cultural competency, these percentages were 29 and 67, respectively.

Figure 3.21 PROGRAM PARTNERS FEEL GENDER AND CULTURAL ISSUES

ARE BEING MET BY PROGRAM SERVICES

67%

50%

29%

45%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Gender Issues (n=22) Cultural Issues (n=21)


95% 96%



11 In terms of how well the program partners reflected the characteristics of program participants, just over two-thirds (68%)

of the program partners were female and 32 percent were male (compared to 17% and 83% of participants). In addition, 71 percent of the partners were White, 14 percent Hispanic, 10 percent other, and 5 percent Black (compared to 43%, 19%, 5%, and 33% of participants).

CHAPTER 3



While gender and cultural issues appear to be addressed at least

somewhat well, there may be room for

continued improvement as services are tailored to meet participant need.

Key Staff Key staff were asked what their views on rehabilitation were, as well as to describe how gender responsive and culturally competent they perceived current services to be.12 As Table 3.11 shows, all of the respondents agreed that treatment and support is needed and that rehabilitation is possible. In addition, the majority (around three-quarters or more) also thought the investment of time addressing personal issues was not useless and that participants are willing to change.

Table 3.11 KEY STAFF SHARE THE VIEW THAT REHABILITATION WORKS

Participants need intervention and treatment 100%

Trying to rehabilitate participants is not a hopeless task 100%

Participants need someone to believe in them 100%

Spending a lot of time addressing personal issues is not useless 80%

Participants are willing to change 73% TOTAL 15

NOTE: Percent shown represents respondents who gave rating of “strongly agree” or “agree” on a five-point scale.

SOURCE: Key Staff Survey, SANDAG SB 618 Second Annual Evaluation Report

In terms of gender-responsiveness and cultural-competence, while almost all of the staff felt that SB 618 appropriately addressed gender (93%) and cultural issues (87%) (Figure 3.22), there was slightly less agreement that cultural issues were adequately addressed, compared to program partners (Figure 3.21). One of the key staff suggested that one way to increase this competency was to have racial/ethnic support groups and mentors. Community Members Finally, community members also were asked for their opinion regarding how well SB 618 took gender and cultural issues into consideration. As Figure 3.23 shows, while over two-thirds of the community members felt that issues were addressed “very well” or “somewhat well,” these percentages were the lowest of the three groups.

12 In terms of how well the key staff reflected the characteristics of program participants, two-thirds (67%) of the key staff

were female, and 33 percent were male (compared to 17% and 83% of participants). In addition, 64 percent of the staff members were White, 21 percent Hispanic, and 14 percent Black (compared to 43%, 19%, and 33% of participants).

CHAPTER 3



Figure 3.22 KEY STAFF FEEL SB 618 PROVIDES GENDER-RESPONSIVE AND CULTURALLY-COMPETENT SERVICES

33%40%

60% 47%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



93% 87%


Figure 3.23 COMMUNITY MEMBERS LEAST LIKELY TO FEEL GENDER AND CULTURAL NEEDS ARE BEING MET

35%47%

29%

26%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



65% 74%



CHAPTER 3



WAS THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS CONSIDERED USEFUL BY KEY STAFF? A key component of SB 618 is better identifying client needs prior to the delivery of service and tailoring service provision to best meet those needs. As such, a series of questions were added to the 2008 program partner and key staff survey asking them to rate the effectiveness of the different assessment and screening tools and processes on a five-point scale.13 As Table 3.12 shows, the program partners and key staff agreed on the effectiveness of a number of assessments, but there were some divergent views regarding the effectiveness of other aspects of the process. Specifically, while 100 percent of the program partners rated the ASI and COMPAS as “very effective” or “somewhat effective,” these percentages were lower for the key staff (75% and 58%). In comparison, key staff members were much more likely to describe the medical and dental screenings as “very effective.”

Table 3.12 PROGRAM PARTNERS AND KEY STAFF HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS

REGARDING THE VALUE OF VARIOUS ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS

Program Partners Key Staff

Very Effective

SomewhatEffective

Very Effective

Somewhat Effective

ASI 71% 29% 33% 42%

COMPAS 60% 40% 25% 33%

TABE 38% 63% 33% 67%

Myers Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI)

38% 46% 38% 46%

O*NET Interests 36% 36% 36% 45%

O*Net Abilities 36% 36% 40% 40%

O*Net Values 33% 50% 36% 45%

CASAS 33% 60% 25% 58%

Mental Health Assessment 29% 53% 25% 50%

Medical Screening 24% 53% 60% 10%

Dental Screening 17% 72% 50% 25%

TOTAL 11 - 18 10 – 15


SOURCE: Program Partner and Key Staff 2008 Surveys, SANDAG SB 618 Second Annual Evaluation Report

13 A thorough description of these assessments is provided in Chapter 1.

CHAPTER 3



LESSONS LEARNED Across the country, jurisdictions are taking a closer look at the issue of prisoner reentry and assessing what they can do to ensure safer communities by improving the process of how ex-offenders return home. As such, an emphasis of this project is documenting practical lessons learned that could be useful as efforts continue in San Diego County, as well as in other sites. Program partners and key staff surveyed in 2008 were asked to describe the three greatest accomplishments and challenges the program faced to date, as well as valuable lessons they thought would be useful to other jurisdictions. Program Partners As Table 3.13 shows, the two most frequently mentioned program accomplishments by program partners included the high level of communication and collaboration that had been created and maintained locally (67%) and the implementation of the case management component (either in prison, the community, or both) (43%). Around one-quarter of respondents or more also agreed that the utilization of a MDT and Life Plan, the implementation of programs in prison, and realizing positive outcomes for clients were accomplishments worth noting. In terms of greatest challenges, partners noted difficulty coordinating with CDCR, as well as the frustration of not having enough resources available in the community, as well as for the program in general. Others also noted: the challenges in implementing in-custody programs; high exclusion rates that were arising after participants were in prison; and difficulties sometimes experienced in maintaining good communication and collaboration locally. In the final question regarding any valuable lessons to be shared with other jurisdictions, feedback was provided by eight of the partners and that included:

ensure there is good communication among partners (2);

work together to enhance collaboration (2);

plan for start-up time (2);

obtain the buy-in of staff, including management and line (1);

make sure the goals of the program are clear to all involved (1);

meet and engage key stakeholders (1);

learn and use the language of other partners (1);

have persistence and celebrate all victories (1);

include the evaluator from the beginning of the program (1); and

address the practical needs of participants before they leave prison (1).

CHAPTER 3



Table 3.13 PROGRAM PARTNERS PERCEIVE VARIETY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS

AND CHALLENGES IN IMPLEMENTING AND MANAGING SB 618

Greatest Program Accomplishments High level of communication and collaboration 67% Implementation of case management (prison and community) 43% Utilization of a MDT and Life Plan 33% Implementation of programs in prison 29% Realizing positive outcomes for clients 24% Program implementation in general 19% Effective staff changes 19% Implementation and improvements to DA’s database 14% Program has been consistently operational since implementation 10% Inclusion of females in programming 5% TOTAL 21

Greatest Program Challenges Coordinating with CDCR 50% Lack of available services in the community 39% Providing programs in prison 28% Having enough resources/funding 28% High exclusion rates 17% Local collaboration and coordination 17% Changing the culture to be more rehabilitative in focus 11% Conducting duplicate medical assessments 11% Issues related to prison case management 11% Accurate reporting 11% Issues related to State unions 6% Inability to expand the program 6% Providing individualized treatment 6% Other competing legislation/reforms 6% Staying focused on goal of reducing recidivism 6% Maintaining contact with parolees upon release 6% TOTAL 18




“The willingness to work together and crawl out of our silos to solve problems has allowed SB 618 to create a program from scratch that will be a model for other counties in the future.”

CHAPTER 3



Key Staff As Table 3.14 shows, the top program accomplishments most frequently mentioned by program partners also were those noted by key staff: interagency collaboration. However, a greater percentage of staff felt that realizing positive change for clients was a noteworthy accomplishment, as was implementing programs in the prisons. In terms of challenges, achieving the level of collaboration and communication locally was noted most frequently as a challenge, followed by coordinating with CDCR, implementing a strong vocational component, resolving issues related to prison case management, and a lack of knowledge/support for the program.

Table 3.14 KEY STAFF NOTE THAT LOCAL COLLABORATION AND COMMUNICATION ARE GREATEST ACCOMPLISHMENTS, BUT ALSO GREATEST CHALLENGES

Greatest Program Accomplishments High level of communication and collaboration 64% Realizing positive outcomes for clients 57% Implementation of programs in prison 36% Implementation of case management (prison and community) 29% Effective staff changes 14% Less time spent by participants in the reception center 7% Program has been consistently operational since implementation 7% Support of diverse group of individuals 7% TOTAL 14

Greatest Program Challenges Local collaboration and coordination 42% Coordinating with CDCR 33% Implementing a strong vocational component 33% Issues related to prison case management 25% Lack of knowledge/support for the program 25% Lack of available services in the community 17% Getting through to challenging participants 17% Providing individualized treatment 17% Having enough resources/funding 8% Providing programs in prison 8% High exclusion rates 8% Conducting assessments 8% Accurate reporting 8% Housing/classification issues 8% TOTAL 12



CHAPTER 3



In terms of lessons learned, key staff, like the program partners, noted the importance of getting the buy-in of partners, working for good communication and collaboration, and allowing start-up time. In addition, one individual each also noted the importance of having a strong program manager, expecting challenges when collaborating with CDCR, providing training to staff, and ensuring a good work environment for staff.

SUMMARY As part of the process evaluation, surveys are being conducted on an annual basis with program partners, individuals represented on the SB 618 Operational Procedures Committee and involved in program implementation/management, as well as with key staff who have direct contact with participants either in or out of custody; and community members. In 2008, input was received from 22 program partners, 15 key staff, and 33 community members. According to the feedback from these individuals, it appears that while program implementation and management were not without challenges, both have gone well overall, which reflects the close level of collaboration and communication among local team members, as well as good staffing and leadership. Since the program was implemented, modifications have been made, but recent ones were seen as solely positive in nature. Staff members were clear in noting that some components, such as the MDT, prison case management at CIW, and community case management, were working better than others. However, most of the partners and staff at different levels were similarly optimistic that the program would result in long-term system changes, including a stronger focus on rehabilitation. Some issues identified from this effort included the potential for increasing community outreach, exploring new ways to ensure gender-responsiveness and cultural-competency, and ensuring key staff members feel that their input matters.

CHAPTER 4 PROCESS EVALUATION RESULTS: PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS


CHAPTER 4 PROCESS EVALUATION RESULTS: PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS

INTRODUCTION Another key component of the process evaluation involves documenting program accomplishments related to service delivery. As part of this effort, data were compiled from program documentation to address three of the research questions posed in Chapter 2. Preliminary findings of program accomplishments related to service delivery are presented. Specifically, information about: the flow of eligible offenders into either the treatment or comparison study groups; characteristics of the study groups, as well as their needs; prior involvement in criminal activity; and services received are provided. Information about services received in prison and in the community, as well as treatment study group status at program exit, will be provided in future reports after treatment study group members complete the program.

HOW MANY OFFENDERS WERE SCREENED FOR ELIGIBILITY AND HOW MANY WERE FOUND TO BE ELIGIBLE? As part of the evaluation design for this project, program staff is assigning a total of 320 eligible individuals to each study group (i.e., treatment and comparison study groups). Between February 2007 (program inception) and August 2008, individuals were screened by the San Diego County District Attorney’s DA’s Office and eligible offenders, as defined in Appendix B, were given either an opportunity to receive program services or not offered services and assigned to the comparison study group.1 Though the program officially accepted the first participants in February 2007, sampling for the treatment study group began on July 1, 2007, to enable the program to refine the enrollment process and allow program start-up, in general, prior to implementation of formal evaluation activities. Therefore, the 70 individuals who were assigned to the program between February and June 2007 are not being tracked as part of this evaluation. Between July 2007 and August 2008, a total of 284 individuals were eligible for SB 618, accepted the offer of SB 618 services, and agreed to participate in the program evaluation.2 There were 226 people who declined services since February 2007. An average of 6.3 participants entered the program each week (range 1 to 10).

1 As described in Chapter 1, the first six eligible individuals who are processed through the DA’s office are offered the

program. Individuals processed after the slots are filled are assigned to the comparison study group. 2 Seven individuals are scheduled to be approached by research staff to consent to participating in the program evaluation,

and two individuals refused to consent to participate in the research portion of the program. These program participants make up the nine individuals in Figure 4.1 categorized as “have not agreed to be in treatment study group.”

CHAPTER 4

PROCESS EVALUATION RESULTS: PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS


The comparison study group is comprised of 289 individuals who were eligible since the inception of the program in February 2007, but could not enter the program because all available slots were filled. Individuals refusing services also are tracked as part of the evaluation to determine if volunteerism is related to an individual’s level of success in the program.

Figure 4.1 OFFENDER SCREENING AND STUDY GROUP ASSIGNMENT

FEBRUARY 2007 TO AUGUST 2008

* The research team is working with program staff to finalize this information.

SOURCE: SB 618 Database, SANDAG SB 618 Second Annual Evaluation Report

WHAT WAS THE PROGRAM PARTICIPATION REFUSAL RATE? Because participation in SB 618 is voluntary, it is of interest to consider how many individuals eligible for services decline them. As shown in Figure 4.1, since program inception, 226 individuals (38 prior to July 2007 and 88 after) were offered program services and refused,3 and 284 individuals agreed to participate in the treatment study group (between July 2007 and August 2008). Thus, to date, around three in every five individuals (60%) who have been offered the program accepted and two out of five declined (40%). Reason(s) for declining participation are not available because

3 No information is available about factors that may have later deemed individuals who refused to participate as ineligible

for program services such as housing issues at the prison or prior prison gang membership.

284

Agreed to be in TreatmentStudy Group

9

Have NotAgreed to bein TreatmentStudy Group

284

Agreed to be in TreatmentStudy Group

9

Have NotAgreed to bein TreatmentStudy Group

289

Assigned toComparisonStudy Group

2/1/07 to8/28/08

226

RefusedProgramServices2/1/07 to8/28/08

289

Assigned toComparisonStudy Group

2/1/07 to8/28/08

226

RefusedProgramServices2/1/07 to8/28/08

961

IndividualsScreened

70

Assigned toProgram2/1/07 to6/30/07

48

EnteredProgram

14

DeemedIneligible

8

statustbd

70

Assigned toProgram2/1/07 to6/30/07

48

EnteredProgram

14

DeemedIneligible

8

statustbd

376

Assigned toProgram7/1/07 to 8/28/08

293

EnteredProgram

59

DeemedIneligible

24

status tbd

376

Assigned toProgram7/1/07 to 8/28/08

293

EnteredProgram

59

DeemedIneligible

24

status tbd

CHAPTER 4



individuals who refuse are not asked to provide reasons for doing so.4 However, researchers will be conducting a survey with members of the criminal defense bar to get their perspective on possible reasons their clients refuse program services. Analyses were conducted to compare the characteristics of the treatment study group and the individuals who refused services to ensure comparability of the groups. Preliminary results show that the two groups are balanced in terms of age, gender, race/ethnicity, and measures of prior criminal justice system contact. Therefore, it does not appear that any demographic characteristic or prior criminal involvement is significantly associated with declining participation. The remaining information presented in this chapter focuses on data available for the 284 treatment study group participants who have consented to participate in the program evaluation and the 289 individuals not offered the program and assigned to the comparison study group.

WHAT WERE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ELIGIBLE PARTICIPANTS? Because random assignment to conditions was not possible, preliminary analyses were conducted to determine if the treatment and comparison study groups differed in any systematic way. As Table 4.1 illustrates, the two study groups are comparable to each other with respect to age, gender, and highest charge for the instant offense. On average, individuals in the SB 618 program evaluation (treatment and comparison study groups) were about 35 years of age, the majority (84%) were male (which reflects the criminal justice population overall), and most were arrested for a property or drug offense. However, there was a significant difference in terms of race/ethnicity, with a larger proportion of Whites (43%) and fewer Hispanics (19%) in the treatment study group compared to the comparison study group (34% and 26%, respectively).5 One possible explanation for this difference is that some of the treatment study group were later deemed ineligible because of information not initially available (e.g., prison gang membership and housing issues), and this may have changed the composition of that group. After the initial eligibility screening, no additional information about comparison study group cases is available to determine if they have unknown issues that would later lead to ineligibility. Researchers will work with program staff to try to determine other possible reasons for the racial/ethnic difference between the two study groups.

4 Because eligible individuals are offered the program by their defense attorneys, it was not possible for program staff to

coordinate with the large number of defense attorneys to get these data. 5 As mentioned in Chapter 2, a significance level of .05 is used unless otherwise noted.

CHAPTER 4



Table 4.1 SB 618 STUDY GROUPS ARE COMPARABLE ON MOST DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Treatment Comparison Age Mean 35.69 35.64 Range 19 - 65 19 - 71 Standard Deviation 10.02 9.92

Gender Male 83% 84% Female 17% 16%

Race/Ethnicity* White 43% 34% Black 33% 31% Hispanic 19% 26% Other 5% 8%

Highest Charge Type Property 54% 47% Drug 37% 41% Other 9% 12%

TOTAL 284 289

* Significant at p<.05.

NOTES: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding. The other highest charge type category includes disorderly conduct, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and other offenses.


WHAT ARE THE STUDY GROUPS’ LEVEL OF PAST CRIMINAL INVOLVEMENT? Based on information available from the DA’s case management system, the SB 618 treatment study group and the comparison study group both have extensive criminal histories. Offenders in each group had an average of about six prior criminal charges, almost evenly split between felonies and misdemeanors (Table 4.2). The extent of their past criminal involvement suggests that the study groups are at risk for having difficulty successfully reentering the community upon release and avoiding future criminal involvement. Therefore, these individuals are a good fit with the program’s intended target group. More information regarding criminogenic risk will be examined in future reports as data from the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) are available to evaluation staff.

CHAPTER 4



Table 4.2 SB 618 STUDY GROUPS HAVE EXTENSIVE PAST CRIMINAL INVOLVEMENT

Treatment Comparison Felony Mean (Median) 3.20 (3.00) 3.27 (3.00)

Range 0 - 11 0 – 11

Standard Deviation 2.15 2.17 Misdemeanor Mean (Median) 2.34 (2.00) 2.29 (2.00)

Range 0 – 15 0 – 14

Standard Deviation 2.70 2.46 Total Charges Mean (Median) 6.40 (6.00) 6.49 (6.00)

Range 0 - 21 0 - 24

Standard Deviation 4.29 4.44 TOTAL 283 287

NOTES: Prior criminal history is unknown for one treatment and two comparison study group cases. There are seven cases with no prior offenses (three in the treatment study group and four in the comparison study group). “Total Charges” category includes infractions and charges at an unknown level, in addition to felony and misdemeanor charges.


Additionally, preliminary analyses of data collected from official DA records show that there are no statistically significant differences (at the .05 significance level) on a variety of criminal history data measures, as shown in Appendix F, with one exception. The two groups had a significantly different number of jail days in the pre-period, with the mean number of days being 82.22 (SD=94.41, range 0 to 428) for the treatment study group and 49.00 days (SD=67.81 range 0 to 276) for the comparison study group (not shown). As more data are collected and the evaluation progresses, researchers will investigate reasons for this difference.

CHAPTER 4



Treatment study group participants have educational

and life skills sufficient for

success in vocational

programming.

WHAT WAS THE TREATMENT STUDY GROUP’S LEVEL OF NEED AT PROGRAM ENTRY?

As mentioned in Chapter 1, several assessments are administered to treatment study group participants to determine their level of need at program intake. Program staff utilizes this information to match participant needs with appropriate program services.6 Assessment results that were available and help describe program participants are included in this chapter.7 Education and Life Skill Level To gauge the treatment study group’s level of skill and need relating to education, the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) is administered by staff from Grossmont Union High School District Adult School, who was contracted by the Sheriff’s Department to conduct vocational and educational assessments with jail inmates. To evaluate TABE scores, raw scores are translated using a norm table to determine grade equivalency of the individual’s reading score, as well as the percentile (Table 4.3). For this program’s purposes, a level of 6.08 on the reading comprehension portion of this test has been identified as a critical point for determining placement into educational and vocational services in prison. Less than one in five (15%) treatment study group participants scored at or below that level. Nearly one-third (31%) of participants received the highest possible score of 12.9 on the test indicating that their reading comprehension scores were at or above high-school level (not shown).

Table 4.3 MORE THAN HALF OF SB 618 PARTICIPANTS READ AT OR ABOVE HIGH-SCHOOL LEVEL AT INTAKE

Percentile Rank Grade

Equivalency Range

Percent Scoring

In Range Above 75th to 99th 9.4 - 12.9 58%

Above 50th to 75th 6.2 - 9.0 27%

Above 25th to 50th 4.0 - 6.0 11%

At or Below 25th 0.7 - 3.8 4% TOTAL 253


6 Information about dosage and intensity of services that treatment study group participants receive are not yet available,

but will be included in future reports. When those data are available, analyses will be conducted to determine how individual needs matched services received.

7 Data for COMPAS and the medical, dental, and in-prison mental health screening are not yet available to research staff, but will be included in future reports. Results from the Myers Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI) and the O*NET are available. However, these assessments measure vocational preferences and job compatibility rather than need; therefore, they’re not discussed here.

8 A reading score at this level indicates that the individual’s reading comprehension is at a sixth-grade level. A score of 6.0 falls into the 50th percentile; namely, half of the general adult population scores are below and half of scores are above that level.

CHAPTER 4



The Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS) is a second tool used to evaluate program participants’ level of reading and life skills. As Table 4.4 shows, the largest percent of the treatment study group scored in the range of Advanced Basic Skills (39%), and over half scored above that level at the Adult Secondary (28%) and Advanced Adult Secondary (26%) levels.9

Table 4.4 SB 618 PARTICIPANTS’ LIFE SKILLS LEVEL AT INTAKE APPROPRIATE FOR VOCATIONAL TRAINING

Category (Score Range) Percent Advanced Adult Secondary (245 and Higher) 26%

Adult Secondary (235-244) 28%

Advanced Basic Skills (220-234) 39%

Intermediate Basic Skills (210-219) 6%

Beginning Basic Skills (200-209) 2%

Beginning Literacy/Pre-Beginning (150-199) 0% TOTAL 280


Based on this information, the majority (92%) of the treatment study group’s CASAS score suggests that most possess the skills needed to participate in SB 618 vocational programming. Specifically, the description of an individual scoring at the level equivalent to Advanced Basic Skills is as follows:

Can handle most routine reading, writing, and computational tasks related to their life roles. Can interpret routine charts, graphs, and labels; read and interpret a simple handbook for employees; interpret a payroll stub; …Can handle jobs and job training situations that involve following oral and simple written instructions and diagrams. Persons at the upper end of this score range are able to begin GED preparation (CASAS, no date).

Additionally, since over half scored above the Advanced Basic Skill level on the CASAS, their skills exceed the above description.

9 CASAS scores increase from the Advanced Basic Skills level to the Adult Secondary and Advanced Adult Secondary levels as

the individual’s ability to interpret more complex information increases.

CHAPTER 4



Substance Use and Treatment To identify program participant need in the area of alcohol and other drug use, program staff administers the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Inventory (ASI). Although this assessment includes questions on lifetime substance use history, analyses were restricted to past 30-day substance use to measure the level of need immediately preceding SB 618 Program entry. As the evaluation progresses, this information will be compared over time to measure the impact of SB 618 participation on recent substance use. Analyses suggest that treatment study group participants have a significant level of need related to alcohol and other drug use. Specifically, when participants were asked about alcohol use, around one in three (35%) reported drinking alcohol to the point of intoxication10 at some point in the past 30 days. Those who reported drinking to the point of intoxication had done so an average of 13.77 days (SD=10.82, range 1 to 30) during that same period. Additional questions regarding other drug use revealed more than four out of five (84%) treatment study group participants had used alcohol or some other drug 30 days prior to assessment, and slightly over half (52%) of the treatment study group had used multiple drugs (not including alcohol) 30 days prior to program intake. As Table 4.5 shows, more than half of the treatment study group reported using methamphetamine11 (meth) or marijuana (53% and 51%, respectively). Those who reported meth use in the past 30 days used an average of 20.87 days (SD=10.68, range 1 to 30), and marijuana users reported using an average of 15.62 days (SD=11.63, range 1 to 30). Powder cocaine (27%) was the next drug most commonly reported, followed by heroin (17%). Analysis showed significant differences related to drug use. Specifically, males were more likely to report using at least one of several drugs, as well as cocaine, in the past 30 days compared to their female counterparts (29% versus 15%, and 84% versus 68%, respectively). Females were significantly more likely than males to report using sedatives during that same time frame (15% versus 4%, respectively).

10 Drinking alcohol to the point of intoxication is defined as having five or more drinks of alcohol at one time. 11 Although the term “amphetamines” includes several substances, including amphetamine sulphate, dexamphetamine and

methamphetamine, in this report methamphetamine (meth) is used as a generic term to include all amphetamine-like substances because it is the most widely used within San Diego County.

Substance use is an issue for most participants, with over

four in five reporting drug use in the past 30 days.

CHAPTER 4



Table 4.5 MAJORITY OF SB 618 PARTICIPANTS REPORTED DRUG USE IN THE 30 DAYS PRIOR TO INTAKE

Substance Used Percent Any alcohol or drug use 84%

Methamphetamine 53%

Multiple Drugs 52%

Marijuana 51%

Alcohol to intoxication 35%

Powder Cocaine 27%

Heroin/Opiates 17%

Other Drug 16% TOTAL 253

NOTES: Percentages based on multiple responses. The other drug category includes barbiturates, hallucinogens, inhalants, methadone, and sedatives.


Information about involvement in previous drug and alcohol treatment also is collected as part of the ASI. As Figure 4.2 shows, almost half (49%) of the treatment study group had previously received drug treatment services, with an average of 2.75 prior treatment episodes (SD=2.88, ranging from 1 to 25 times) (not shown). A much smaller proportion (10%) had received alcohol treatment, with an average of 3.19 prior treatment episodes (SD=5.93, range 1 to 25 times).12 Additionally, 19 percent had been in a detoxification program for drug abuse and 7 percent for alcohol. As discussed in Chapter 1, the literature is clear that individuals struggling with substance abuse are likely to relapse, and therefore recidivate, unless they receive appropriate aftercare. Further analysis showed that 60 percent of the treatment study group who reported using drugs and/or alcohol (to the point of intoxication) in the past 30 days had previously received some type of drug and/or alcohol treatment (not shown).

12 Specificity of treatment type (e.g., inpatient, outpatient) is not provided by the ASI.

CHAPTER 4



Figure 4.2 ALMOST HALF OF SB 618 PARTICIPANTS HAVE PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED DRUG TREATMENT

19%

7%10%

49%57%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Any Treatment/Detox

Drug Treatment Alcohol Treatment Drug Detox Alcohol Detox

TOTAL = 252-253

NOTES: Cases with missing information are not included. Percentages based on multiple responses.


Family and Community Ties Based on results of the ASI, in addition to alcohol and drug addiction at the time of intake, participants lacked positive family and social support. Part of the SB 618 goal of recovery and successful reintegration back into the community after being released is having strong support systems in place. To ensure participants have positive social support after being released from prison, the Community Case Manager (CCM) and Prison Case Manager (PCM) work with participants and their family and peers on building positive, strong relationships and encourage participants to affiliate with people who are supportive of their recovery. To explore family and social relationships, treatment study group participants were asked if they had close, long-lasting relationships with immediate family members, their partner or spouse, as well as with any of their friends. The scale for rating relationship closeness ranged from zero (“not at all”) to four (“extremely”).13 Although no participants reported not having a close relationship at all, only one to five individuals rated their relationship with anyone other than their own children (i.e., friends, spouse, or other family member) as considerably/extremely close (Table 4.6), suggesting that participants would benefit from assistance with strengthening their support systems in the community.

13 For the purpose of this analysis, the categories of “considerably” and “extremely” close were combined.

CHAPTER 4



Table 4.6 SB 618 PARTICIPANTS MOST LIKELY TO REPORT CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEIR CHILDREN

Rated Level of Closeness

Slightly Moderately Considerably/

Extremely

Mother 25% 74% 1%

Father 51% 46% 3%

Siblings 23% 73% 5%

Partner/Spouse 24% 73% 3%

Children 13% 50% 37%

Friends 25% 74% 2% TOTAL 251


When looking at family relations by gender, males were significantly more likely to perceive being considerably/extremely close to their children compared to their female counterparts (41% and 20%, respectively). Emotional, Physical, and Sexual Abuse History Although only information on past 30-day drug use is included in this report, lifetime information on physical, emotional, and sexual abuse reported by program participants is included due to the lifetime impact these experiences can have on an individual. Females were significantly more likely to report being a victim of abuse in all three areas. Specifically, more than half of females reported being victims of emotional (61%) and physical abuse (54%) at some point in their life. Although males also reported emotional and physical abuse, it was less prevalent than for females (32% and 20%, respectively). In addition, slightly over one-quarter (26%) of females reported being victims of sexual abuse compared to only three percent of their male counterparts (Figure 4.3). This disparity between female and male self-reporting of abuse may be due to a tendency by males to underreport abuse, fearing that they would be regarded as not masculine or because they don’t identify instances of abuse as such (Sorsoli, L. & Kia-Keating, M. & Grossman, F., 2008). SB 618 was designed to include gender-responsive services, especially as they relate to issues of abuse among female participants. To that end, the PCM and her supervisor at the California Institute for Women (CIW) have received special training by experts in the field of gender-responsive treatment to learn how to appropriately address the sensitive nature of sexual abuse. CIW also maintains a library of therapeutic material available as both professional references for staff, as well as a source of self-help reference for participants who have survived various types of trauma and abuse.

CHAPTER 4



Figure 4.3 FEMALE SB 618 PARTICIPANTS MORE LIKELY TO REPORT PRIOR ABUSE

3%

20%

32%26%

54%61%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Emotional Abuse Physical Abuse Sexual Abuse

Male (n=205) Female (n=46)



Severity of Need for Intervention and Services The severity index is another measure of behavior and service needs (i.e., medical, vocational, drug, alcohol, legal, family and social, and psychiatric services) based on self-report information collected through the ASI. This standardized scoring system is conducted to assess the severity of need in each area. The ASI generates scores of zero to nine (“0” indicating no need for treatment and “9” indicating treatment is needed to intervene in a life-threatening situation). Participants with a score between five and six would benefit from treatment. A score greater than six suggests considerable problems, and treatment is necessary. The ratings are based upon the participant’s history and present condition in each area of interest. Analyses were conducted to measure what type of treatment or service was of greatest need at the time of program intake. As Table 4.7 shows, drug treatment was the area of greatest need with four in five (81%) having a score of five or higher, followed by legal services (71%) (which is expected in an offender population such as this one), and vocational (62%). Around one-quarter had scores in the family/social services (29%) and alcohol treatment (24%) areas that suggest the treatment study group participants are in need of services in these areas as well.

CHAPTER 4



Table 4.7 DRUG TREATMENT IS THE GREATEST NEED FOR SB 618 PARTICIPANTS AT PROGRAM INTAKE

Service Provided Percent in Need of Treatment*

ASI Average Severity Score

Drug Treatment 80% 6.2

Legal Services 70% 5.6

Vocational Services 61% 4.6

Family/Social Services 29% 3.3

Alcohol Treatment 24% 2.5

Psychiatric Treatment 12% 1.5

Medical Services 8% 1.4 TOTAL 249 – 250

* Severity score of 50 or higher.

NOTE: Cases with missing information are not included. SOURCE: SB 618 Database, SANDAG SB 618 Second Annual Evaluation

Report

DID TIMING DECREASE IN TERMS OF IDENTIFYING PARTICIPANT NEEDS AND PROVIDING NEEDED SERVICES (I.E., TIME NORMALLY SPENT AT RECEPTION CENTERS)? The goal of SB 618 is to efficiently utilize time in prison to address needs related to community reentry upon release. To most effectively identify individual needs, assessments are completed while participants are in local custody (prior to prison entry) to ensure expedited admission into needed services upon prison entry. As a result of these goals, program partners are particularly interested in the number of days from the time a participant can be assessed to the time the assessments are completed. Table 4.8 shows the percent who were assessed within the expected timeframe, as well as the average number of days that elapsed until the different assessments were completed. For those that are conducted while the participants are in local jail custody,14 the time that elapsed from the date participants were offered and accepted SB 618 services to assessment was within the expected 14-day period for about three-quarters or more of the treatment study group (ranging from 74% to 93%). On average, it took between 6.68 and 11.18 days to complete the jail assessments. Similarly, about three in four or more (ranging from 77% to 81%) completed assessments in prison within the 90-day target period. The number of days elapsing between the time participants were available to

14 By August 2008, 284 treatment study group participants could have been assessed in local custody. At the time of this

report, 253 completed ASIs, 280 CASAs, 126 jail mental health screenings, and 269 TABEs were entered into the program database and available for analyses.

Treatment study group needs were assessed within the

expected window so that prison time could be utilized efficiently.

CHAPTER 4



be assessed in prison and completion of assessments15 ranged from 56.65 to 59.68 days on average (based on the date participants entered general population until their assessments were completed). Program staff provided information about common reasons for delays in assessment completion both in jail and in prison. The main obstacle in completing assessments on time in the local jail facilities is housing. Specifically, when treatment study group individuals are housed in certain areas (e.g., medical, administrative segregation), staff who administer assessments may not be permitted to meet with them for security purposes. One reason for delays in completion of vocational assessments in prison was that Comprehensive Training Systems, Inc. (CTS) staff members were contracted in September 2007 to begin providing services and some participants already were waiting to be assessed at that time. In fact, there was a significant difference in the average days until assessment between participants who were available for assessment before January 2008 (range 90.82 to 96.60 days) when CTS was initiating services and those available after that time (range 33.12 to 33.89 days) (Table 4.8). An additional obstacle CTS staff face, which delayed assessment completion, was participants’ not showing up to meet vocational staff during scheduled times, especially at the male prison facility. PCMs have assisted CTS staff by ensuring that participants get information about scheduled assessment times and encouraging participants to show up on time, and this system seems to be helping.

Table 4.8 SB 618 PARTICIPANTS’ LEVEL OF NEED ASSESSED WITHIN THE EXPECTED TIMEFRAME

Assessed Within 14-Day Target

Period

Mean Days to Assessment

(Median) Range

Standard Deviation

In-Jail Assessments ASI 74% 1.18 (9.00) 1 - 43 8.40 CASAS 78% 0.57 (10.00) 0 - 41 6.00 Mental Health Screening 93% 6.68 (5.00) 1 - 36 5.77 TABE 77% 10.61 (10.00) 0 - 41 6.08

Assessed Within 90-Day Target

Period

Mean Days to Assessment

(Median) Range

Standard Deviation

In-Prison Vocational Assessments Myers Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI) 81% 56.65 (43.50) 1 - 268 43.54 O*NET Abilities 77% 59.22 (48.00) 5 - 260 43.77 O*NET Careers 78% 57.69 (43.00) 5 - 268 43.99 O*NET Values 77% 59.68 (49.00) 5 - 204 41.81

NOTE: Cases with missing information are not included.


15 By August 2008, 205 treatment study group participants could have been assessed for vocational needs in general

population in prison. At the time of this report, 176 completed Myers Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI), 175 O*NET Abilities, 173 O*NET Careers, and 164 O*NET Values assessments were entered into the program database and available for analyses.

CHAPTER 4



Further analyses were conducted to determine if there were any differences in the amount of time that elapsed before assessments were completed based on gender or race/ethnicity. There were significant differences by gender, with the MBTI assessment being completed within a shorter timeframe for female participants compared to males (39.17 days (SD=32.81) versus 59.28 (SD=44.23) days, respectively). This difference is likely related to the male treatment study group participants’ not consistently showing up at scheduled assessment times as described previously. Conversely, the mental health assessment conducted in jail was completed within a shorter timeframe for males (5.50 days, SD=3.55) than their female counterparts (11.71 days, SD=9.65), which was probably related to reduction in hours allotted to staff who administer the assessment at the female facility because of budgetary constraints. Part of the assessment process in jail includes the convening of the multidisciplinary team (MDT) to discuss the participants’ individualized Life Plan that details which services are needed. As explained in Chapter 1, these meetings are held after risks and needs assessments are administered in local custody. The results of these assessments influence the Life Plan discussed during the MDT meeting. The length of time required to complete these assessments is reflected in the length of time from enrollment to MDT as well. On average, the MDT meetings were held 19.94 (SD=5.19) days from the time treatment study group participants are offered and agree to participate in the program. This average also differs significantly by gender, with the time to MDT meetings being shorter for males (19.19 days (SD=.27) on average, ranging from 10 to 36) in the treatment study group than females (23.5 days (SD=1.13), ranging from 14 to 51) (t(276) = -5.51). This difference is most likely because MDT meetings are held less frequently at the local female facility since there is less need as fewer females than males are entering the program. MDT meetings are scheduled regularly every Thursday at the local male facility. MDT meetings for females are held as needed on Fridays at the female jail. Based on information provided by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) staff at the male and female prison facilities, the average time prisoners spend in the reception center before being placed in the general population is 58 days for males (M. Stout, e-mail to author, February 2, 2009) and 54 days for females (P. Clark, e-mail to author, October 27, 2008). Program efforts have focused on reducing the time treatment study group participants spend in the reception center compared to the average time prisoners spend there as a cost-saving measure. Program staff have made positive progress toward this goal, as the average time treatment study group participants spent in reception was 36.83 days (SD=17.33, range 9 to 163). (There were no significant differences by gender or race/ethnicity.) Efforts to reduce the time females spend in the reception center involved having CDCR staff travel from the male facility to the female facility regularly to endorse16 participants. Though the ability to do this consistently was impacted by the State budget crisis, those females who were endorsed through this process spent significantly fewer days in the reception center compared to other females in the treatment study group (30.75 days compared to 41.61 days).

16 Through the endorsement process, prisoners' security risks are evaluated and appropriate prison housing is identified.

CHAPTER 4



WHAT TYPES OF SERVICES WERE PROVIDED TO PARTICIPANTS IN PRISON? The 39 individuals (36 males and 3 females) in the treatment study group who have been released from prison and are now on parole spent an average of 192.3 days (ranging from 106 to 311 days) in general population at the prison. There have not been enough participants who have exited prison at this time to determine if this time varies by gender and if program staff at the different facilities needs to make service accommodations accordingly. Six treatment study group individuals (2 males and 4 females or 2% overall) participated in the Drug Treatment Furlough (DTF) program that was incorporated as part of the in-custody services. Four of those individuals successfully completed the program, and the remaining two are still receiving treatment as of August 2008.

SUMMARY For this second annual report, three of the seven process evaluation research questions related to the SB 618 program evaluation have been addressed with available data. Based on information for 284 treatment study group individuals and 289 comparison study group individuals, it appears the two study groups are comparable with respect to age and gender. The treatment study group does consist of a smaller percent of Hispanics, and this difference will be controlled for through statistical methods when outcomes are analyzed in future reports. Individuals in both study groups have extensive past criminal involvement and are comparable on all measures of past criminal history, including number and type of previous charges with one exception, that treatment study group participants spent more days in local custody during the two years prior to program participation. Analyses of assessments administered with the treatment study group at program entry were conducted to determine level of need. Results suggest that treatment study group participants have a functional level of education and the life skills to successfully participate in vocational programming; however, these data also revealed that SB 618 participants have a high level of needs in many areas including substance use, rebuilding family and social relationships, as well as dealing with past abuse.

CHAPTER 5 IMPACT EVALUATION


CHAPTER 5 IMPACT EVALUATION

INTRODUCTION In order to determine if the Senate Bill (SB) 618 program has the intended result in reducing recidivism and producing other positive outcomes in a cost-effective manner, the evaluation research design also includes an impact assessment. Based on the data available at the time this report was prepared, this chapter presents data from client satisfaction questionnaires to answer the following impact evaluation question: What was the participants’ level of satisfaction with services received? Specifically, the answer focuses on the intake, screening, and assessment process, as well as on program participation in prison. The methodology involved in this portion of the evaluation is described in the sidebar.

TIMING OF RECIDIVISM ANALYSIS The timing of the impact evaluation is affected by the length of the prison sentence for participants. That is, because program participation begins pre sentence and prison sentences vary from 8 to 72 months, the opportunity for recidivism does not occur for at least four months after program entry (assuming half time served). To expedite analysis related to recidivism, criminal activity data are collected at six-month intervals. In January 2008, the first participant in the treatment study group was released from prison, enabling the research team to collect recidivism information in July 2008. For this annual report, there are too few cases to provide meaningful recidivism analysis; however, there is information available to examine other results of the SB 618 program, which begins pre sentence. As described in Chapter 2, data are being collected from the treatment study group through Client Satisfaction Questionnaires (CSQs) at two points in time: after three months in prison and at prison exit. The main purpose of these surveys is to gather feedback about services received. Specifically, since these surveys are administered in prison and at prison exit, the questions focus on satisfaction with the intake, screening, and assessment process, as well as on services received while in prison. Participant input regarding the portion of SB 618 services delivered in the community are being collected through follow-up interviews conducted at six-month intervals following prison release. As previously explained, there are too few cases reaching this milestone (i.e., at least six months in the community post-prison release). Therefore, the discussion presented regarding participant satisfaction focuses on the period prior to prison release. Analysis of CSQ data is impacted by the fact that SB 618 participants are housed at two different prisons: one for males and one for females. Each prison is operated separately, creating differences in service delivery which could impact participant satisfaction. To highlight any differences, the data are analyzed by prison. The information is presented in the aggregate unless the analysis produced a statistically significant difference. (See Chapter 2 for a discussion of specific statistical tests employed and significance level use.)

CHAPTER 5

IMPACT EVALUATION


SAMPLE DESCRIPTION The CSQs are mailed directly to all program participants who have signed an Informed Consent to participate in the research study. A letter is included to explain the purpose of the CSQ and assure the respondents that their information will remain confidential. A self-addressed, stamped envelope also is provided to help facilitate the prompt return of the completed questionnaire.1 If there is no response to the first mailing within two weeks, a second packet is sent. The in-custody CSQ is mailed to treatment study group participants who have been in prison at least three months, and the prison exit CSQ is sent as they are paroled.2 As of August 31, 2008, 188 in-prison CSQs had been mailed with 146 returned, a 78 percent response rate. For the prison exit CSQs, 50 were mailed and 33 returned for a 66 percent response rate. Table 5.1 presents the characteristics of these CSQ respondents to those not completing and returning the survey to determine the comparability of the groups related to these characteristics. The CSQ respondents were similar to non-respondents on each dimension, except with respect to gender, such that female participants were more likely to return surveys than males (Table 5.1). The average age was 35.91 for the in-prison CSQ group (SD=10.25, range 19 to 61), compared to 33.17 for non-respondents (SD=9.47, range 19 to 54). Similarly, at prison exit, the average age of CSQ respondents was 35.03 (SD=9.46, range 19 to 61), compared to 31.65 (SD=11.57, range 19 to 58). Respondents also were similar to the overall treatment study group with respect to race/ethnicity and highest conviction charge. Specifically, about two-fifths were White, about one-fourth Black, and one-fifth Hispanic. With respect to highest conviction charge, about half entered SB 618 due to property crime and two-fifths for drug-related offenses.

1 Though incentives are provided for follow-up interviews (as described in Chapter 2), no incentives are offered for

completing CSQs. 2 Prison exit CSQs are initially mailed to respondents in prison one month prior to release to ensure contact rather than

trying to locate these individuals in the community.

CHAPTER 5

IMPACT EVALUATION


Table 5.1 RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS SIMILAR TO NON-RESPONDENTS

In Prison CSQ Prison Exit CSQ

Respondents

Non-Respondents Respondents

Non-Respondents

Age 35.91 33.17 35.03 31.65 Gender*

Male 82% 98% 76% 94% Female 18% 2% 24% 6%

Race/Ethnicity

White 43% 40% 48% 35%

Black 29% 40% 24% 29%

Hispanic 22% 19% 21% 35%

Other 5% 0% 6% 0% Highest Conviction Charge

Property 50% 55% 61% 65%

Drug 40% 33% 30% 18%

Other 10% 12% 9% 18% TOTAL 146 42 33 17

* Differences significant at .05 level for in-prison CSQ.

NOTE: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.


PARTICIPANT SATISFACTION Since the in-prison CSQ is administered three months following prison entry, the questions on this survey focus on the intake process (e.g., interactions with their defense attorney, probation, and multidisciplinary team (MDT)). The results from these surveys are presented in the order of the SB 618 intake process. The prison exit CSQ also includes questions about services received in prison and interactions with Prison Case Managers (PCMs). Defense Attorney As mentioned in Chapter 1, defense attorneys often encourage their clients to volunteer to participate in the program. As Table 5.2 shows, nearly two-thirds (61%) of respondents to the in-prison CSQ felt their defense attorney clearly explained the program. To provide details about areas for improvement, a follow-up question was asked of those who did not feel this way. Most of these individuals desired more information regarding what to expect from the program (66%) and thought that their attorney could have spent more time explaining SB 618 (64%). The Deputy District Attorney (DDA) in charge of case screening provides periodic training to criminal defense attorneys (i.e., the defense bar) regarding program eligibility and program design to enable these

CHAPTER 5

IMPACT EVALUATION


attorneys to provide accurate information to participants and help alleviate any misunderstanding regarding program components.

Table 5.2

RESPONDENTS INDICATE THAT DEFENSE ATTORNEYS CLEARLY EXPLAIN SB 618

Do you feel the defense attorney explained the SB 618 program clearly to you?

Yes 61% No 39%

TOTAL 143 If no, what could the defense attorney have done better?*

Told me what to expect 66% Spent more time explaining the program 64% Told me what would be required 38% Been more clear about how long it is 28% Been clearer it wouldn’t change my sentence 21% Other** 45%

TOTAL 53

* Percentages based on multiple responses.

** The other category includes not knowing about SB 618 at all, providing more accurate information about prison programs specifically, providing more information in general, and having a better understanding of available programs.

NOTE: Cases with missing data not included.

SOURCE: Client In-Prison Satisfaction Questionnaire, SANDAG SB 618 Second Annual Evaluation Report

Probation Officer The SB 618 intake process involves a meeting between the participant and a Probation Officer (PO) in jail prior to sentencing. As described in Chapter 1, during this meeting, the PO conducts a pre-sentence interview using motivational interviewing techniques to examine the risk factors for re-offending. Participants were asked on the in-prison CSQ to rate the usefulness of this meeting on a four-point scale. As Figure 5.1 shows, four-fifths (80%) of respondents felt meeting with the PO was at least somewhat useful (47% said very useful and 33% said somewhat useful).

CHAPTER 5

IMPACT EVALUATION


Majority of participants felt respected and were motivated by the PO and MDT members.

Figure 5.1 RESPONDENTS REPORT INITIAL MEETING WITH PROBATION OFFICER AS USEFUL

11%8%

33%

47%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Very Useful Somewhat Useful Not Very Useful Not Useful at All

80%

TOTAL = 135

NOTES: Percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding. Cases with missing data not included.


To further explore the interaction between the PO and SB 618 participants, in-prison respondents were asked to rate the PO regarding the statements shown in Table 5.3 using the following response categories: strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, or no opinion. Overall, respondents viewed the interactions with the PO positively. Nearly all (93%) agreed that the PO treated them fairly and with respect; and about four-fifths were more motivated due to the help received from the PO (83%), felt that the PO was supportive (83%), and noted that the PO seemed to care about the participant’s future (80%). Two-thirds (67%) believed that the PO was knowledgeable.

CHAPTER 5

IMPACT EVALUATION


Table 5.3 RESPONDENTS VIEW INTERACTIONS WITH THE PROBATION OFFICER AS POSITIVE

The probation officer…

treated me fairly and with respect 93% helped me feel more motivated 83% was supportive 83% seemed to care about my future 80% was knowledgeable about SB 618 67%

TOTAL 126-139



Multidisciplinary Team As described in Chapter 1, a MDT (comprised of the PO, PCM, Prison Classification Counselor, Community Case Manager (CCM), and Vocational Specialist) meets with participants while they are in local custody to discuss results from assessments and begin to design the Life Plan, as well as clarify SB 618 program elements. Respondents to the in-prison survey were asked to rate the usefulness of this meeting. About three-quarters (79%) said the MDT was very or somewhat useful (Figure 5.2).

Figure 5.2 RESPONDENTS PERCEIVE MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEETINGS AS USEFUL

35%44%

13%8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Very Useful Somewhat Useful Not Very Useful Not Useful at All

79%

TOTAL = 130



CHAPTER 5

IMPACT EVALUATION


The same follow-up questions asked about interactions with the PO also were included regarding the MDT with similar results (Table 5.4). Nearly all (96%) felt they were treated fairly and with respect by the MDT members, 83 percent viewed the MDT as supportive, 82 percent believed that the MDT cared about their future, 80 percent were motivated by the MDT, and about three-quarters (74%) perceived the MDT as knowledgeable about the program.

Table 5.4 RESPONDENTS VIEW INTERACTIONS WITH MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAM AS POSITIVE

The MDT…

treated me fairly and with respect 96% was supportive 83% seemed to care about my future 82% helped me feel more motivated 80% was knowledgeable about SB 618 74%

TOTAL 127-135

NOTES: Cases with missing data not included. Percent shown represents respondents who gave rating of “strongly agree” or “agree” on a five-point scale.


Comparison to Prior Prison Experiences Two-thirds (67%) of the respondents to the in-prison CSQ had served a prior prison term (not shown). Those with prior prison experience were asked to specify the differences between their current stay in prison and previous prison terms. The survey was pre-printed with response choices, including four positive differences and three negative differences, as shown in Table 5.5. Overall, the majority felt this prison experience was more positive than previous ones, with almost everyone (91%) sharing positive differences and one-third (34%) indicating negative differences. As Figure 5.3 shows, almost all of the respondents shared either all positive experiences or both positive and negative.

CHAPTER 5

IMPACT EVALUATION


Figure 5.3 RESPONDENTS INDICATE SB 618 PRISON EXPERIENCE MORE POSITIVE COMPARED TO PAST

64%

32%

4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Only Positive Both Only Negative

TOTAL = 91 NOTE: Cases with missing data not included.


With respect to positive differences, 82 percent felt more motivated to change, 61 percent were more likely to attend in-prison services, 57 percent felt like they were not wasting their time during this prison experience, and 53 percent noticed that more people were providing support. “Other” positive differences included hope, helpful staff, additional resources, educational and vocational opportunities, in-prison employment, and substance abuse treatment. Negative differences include reduced optimism (21%), wasting time (11%), and no differences at all (8%). Other negative comments focused on delays in implementation of prison services.

SB 618 PARTICIPANT IN PRISON

“I have more professional persons that are about me making a positive future for myself, which in turn motivates me to do well.”

CHAPTER 5

IMPACT EVALUATION


Table 5.5 RESPONDENTS VIEW THE SB 618 PRISON EXPERIENCE BETTER THAN PRIOR PRISON TERMS

Positive differences 91%

More motivated to change 82% More motivated to attend programs/classes 61% Not wasting time 57% Have more people supporting me 53% Other positive difference* 23%

Negative differences 34%

Less optimistic about future 21% Wasting more time now 11% Nothing is different 8% Other negative difference** 7%

TOTAL 92

* Other positive differences include hope, helpful staff, additional

resources, education, vocational training, employment, and substance abuse treatment.

** Other negative differences include delayed or interrupted in-prison programs and need for more interaction and vocational services.

NOTES: Cases with missing data not included. Percentages based on multiple responses.


Prison Case Management Both the in-prison and prison exit CSQs included questions regarding prison case management. Initially, based on the in-prison CSQ administered three months after prison entry, almost all respondents had met with their PCM (91%), and these meetings occurred at least three times per month for about two-thirds (63%) of the respondents (Table 5.6).3

3 Though females were slightly more likely to have met with their PCM and met more frequently than males, the small

sample size prohibits the ability to determine if these differences are real or the result of chance.

CHAPTER 5

IMPACT EVALUATION


Table 5.6 RESPONDENTS REPORT FREQUENT INTERACTION

WITH PRISON CASE MANAGER EARLY IN PRISON TERM

Have you met with your PCM?

Yes 91% No 9%

TOTAL 145 If yes, how many times?

Once 17% Twice 20% Three or more 63%

TOTAL 131



When responses from the in-prison CSQ are compared to the information collected at prison exit (for participants who returned both surveys), the proportion of respondents indicating interaction with the PCM at least once a month increased to 81 percent (Table 5.7). A follow-up question on the prison exit CSQ asked for opinions regarding the frequency of PCM contact throughout the prison term: two-thirds (67%) felt it was often enough, and one-third (30%) preferred more frequent meetings (not shown). Based on the program design, the frequency of meetings between participants and PCMs varies throughout the prison term similar to an hour glass, with weekly meetings in the beginning, less in the middle, and weekly again six months prior to release.

Table 5.7 RESPONDENTS REPORT INCREASED INTERACTION WITH PRISON CASE MANAGER OVER TIME

Frequency of PCM Meetings In-Prison CSQ Prison Exit CSQ Never 6% 0% Less than once per month 29% 19% One or more times per month 65% 81% TOTAL 31

NOTES: Based on respondents completing both the in-prison and prison exit CSQs. Cases with missing data not included.

SOURCE: Client In-Prison and Prison Exit Satisfaction Questionnaires, SANDAG SB 618 Second Annual Evaluation Report

On the prison exit CSQ, SB 618 participants were asked to rate their interactions with the PCM using the statements listed in Table 5.8 on a five-point scale. The percentages presented in the table reflect the proportion of respondents indicating that these statements were true “always” or “often.” In general, participants had favorable views of the PCMs. Almost nine out of ten (86%)

CHAPTER 5

IMPACT EVALUATION


agreed that the PCM took their needs and interests into account when placing the participant in programs; about two-thirds (63%) of the respondents believed that the PCM cared about them as individuals; and over half (58%) discussed the Life Plan with the PCM. However, the ability of the PCM to advocate for participants is less clear. About one-third felt that their PCM made the prison system less complicated (38%) and that they

entered prison programs more quickly than non-SB 618 participants (35%). These results reflect delays in the start-up and/or re-establishment of rehabilitative programs in the prisons (discussed in previous chapters). As the evaluation progresses and a larger number of participants exit prison, the analysis will assess if these results vary based on when programs were established/reinstated.

Table 5.8 RESPONDENTS VIEW INTERACTIONS WITH PRISON CASE MANAGER AS POSITIVE

My PCM did take my needs and interests into account when placing me in programs 86%

My PCM cared about me as a person 63%

My PCM talked to me about my Life Plan 58%

My PCM made the prison system less complicated 38%

I got into prison programs more quickly because of my PCM 35% TOTAL 29-33

NOTES: Cases with missing data not included. Percent shown represents respondents who gave rating of “always” or “often” on a five-point scale.

SOURCE: Client Prison Exit Satisfaction Questionnaire, SANDAG SB 618 Second Annual Evaluation Report

Life Plan Both the in-prison and prison exit CSQs included questions about the Life Plan. Almost two in three (63%) of the respondents had received a copy of their Life Plan within the first three months of their prison stay (Table 5.9). When this question is compared for respondents completing both the in-prison and prison exit CSQs, the proportion increased from 81 percent at the beginning of the prison stay to 94 percent at exit. Additional analysis revealed that receiving a copy of the Life Plan within three months following prison entry was more likely if the defense attorney explained the program clearly (71% versus 50%), if the participants were more motivated to change (71% compared to 35%), and if the individuals believe that SB 618 is appropriate to their needs or might be (67% compared to those who felt SB 618 was inappropriate (27%)) (not shown). The relationship between defense attorney explanations and Life Plan receipt suggests that clear understanding of the program early in the process enables participants to know about the Life Plan and ask for a copy of it if one is not received. Findings related to motivation and appropriateness of

While participants report positive feelings toward PCM,

many feel that prison case management is not as effective as it could be.

Most participants have given input in their

Life Plan.

CHAPTER 5

IMPACT EVALUATION


the program illustrate the importance of incorporating participants into the process of developing the Life Plan. Knowledge of Life Plan elements (signified by having a copy of it) may increase motivation to change and the belief that SB 618 is appropriate to meeting a participant’s needs. Overall, experiences related to the Life Plan were consistent with the SB 618 program design. Of those who had a copy of their Life Plan within the first three months following prison entry, almost three-quarters felt it described their needs and goals at least somewhat well (72%). The majority of respondents to the in-prison CSQ provided input on their Life Plan (80%) and indicated that this input was used in the development of the plan (79%). These questions also were asked on the prison exit CSQ, but the number of respondents answering the questions at both points in time is small. As the evaluation progresses and more surveys are returned, changes over time with respect to Life Plan receipt and input will be examined.

Table 5.9 RESPONDENTS PROVIDE INPUT IN LIFE PLAN DESIGN

Have you received a copy of your Life Plan?

Yes 63% No 37%

TOTAL 145 If yes, how well do you think it describes your needs and goals?

Very well 26% Somewhat well 46% Not very well 17% Not well at all 10%

TOTAL 87 Did you give input on your Life Plan?

Yes 80% No 20%

TOTAL 55 If yes, was your input included in the Life Plan?

Yes 79% No 21%

TOTAL 29

NOTES: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding. Cases with missing data not included.

SOURCE: Client In-Prison Satisfaction Questionnaires, SANDAG SB 618 Second Annual Evaluation Report

At prison exit, respondents also were asked if the Life Plan had been modified at all during their prison stay (Table 5.10). Four of the 19 respondents (21%) indicated that this was the case. When the Life Plan was modified, three of these four respondents (75%) reported that their input was used in making the changes, consistent with the SB 618 program design. The fact that relatively few

CHAPTER 5

IMPACT EVALUATION


respondents indicated that any changes had been made to their Life Plan could be related to multiple factors. Since the program is relatively new, the only participants available to complete the prison exit CSQ are those serving shorter prison terms, resulting in fewer days available for in-prison programs. In addition, the issues outlined in the Life Plan (e.g., substance abuse, educational needs) may require transitional services in the community before any changes are needed to the plan.

Table 5.10 RESPONDENTS INDICATE LITTLE CHANGE IN LIFE PLAN DURING PRISON STAY

Did your Life Plan change while you were in prison?

Yes 21% No 79%

TOTAL 19 If yes, was your input used in making the changes?

Once 75% Twice 25%

TOTAL 4


SOURCE: Client Prison Exit Satisfaction Questionnaires, SANDAG SB 618 Second Annual Evaluation Report

Prison Programs At the time of prison release, SB 618 participants were asked about services received while serving their prison sentence. As Table 5.11 shows, over three-quarters (76%) of those responding to the prison exit CSQ participated in substance abuse programs, and about two-thirds (64%) received medical and dental services. The high proportion of participation in substance abuse treatment reported by CSQ respondents is consistent with the level of need for this type of service revealed through results of assessments discussed in Chapter 4. Participation in education and vocational programming was less common; less than half (45%) received educational services, and about two-fifths (39%) participated in vocational programs. As the evaluation progresses, this self-report information will be augmented with data from official records regarding program participation. In addition, as a larger number of cases are available, the analysis will control for assessed need and examine differences across facilities.4

4 Though there are differences between males and females for the data presented here (with females more likely than

males to receive every service in CIW (the women’s prison), except vocational programming), the number of cases is too small to determine if this difference is statistically significant.

Three-quarters of participants received

substance abuse program (SAP) in prison.

CHAPTER 5

IMPACT EVALUATION


Table 5.11 SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROGRAM PARTICIPATION HIGHEST OF ALL IN-PRISON SERVICES

Substance Abuse Program (SAP) 76% Medical/Dental 64% Education 45% Vocational 39% Drug Treatment Furlough (DTF)* 15% Mental Health 12% TOTAL 33

* Though this program is provided through

organizations outside the prison, days participating in DTF are considered custody days.


SOURCE: Client Prison Exit Satisfaction Question-naire, SANDAG SB 618 Second Annual Evaluation Report

Reasons for lack of program participation vary across the types of services provided (Table 5.12). The number of cases available for analysis is small, so these results should be interpreted accordingly. The view that the service was not needed was the prominent reason respondents gave for not participating in Substance Abuse Programs (SAP), Drug Treatment Furlough (DTF), and mental health services. Future analysis will examine if this finding is consistent with assessed needs or if additional motivational interviewing is needed to facilitate awareness of issues needing to be addressed. For educational programs, the most common reason for not participating was due to a short prison stay (44%), highlighting the need to expedite entry into the general prison population where services are available and by-passing the reception center to increase the length of time available for program participation, as well as the need for services in the community following release to follow-up on work begun in custody. Limited availability was the most frequent reason cited for no vocational programming (35%). As discussed in previous chapters, one challenge in SB 618 implementation has been re-establishing rehabilitative services in prison, especially vocational programs. The most frequent reasons for no medical and/or dental treatment included not needing it (42%) and a short prison stay (42%), again, suggesting the need for additional motivational interviewing and community services.

CHAPTER 5

IMPACT EVALUATION


Table 5.12 REASONS FOR NO SERVICE VARY BY TYPE OF PROGRAM

Service No Need No Time No Program TOTAL Education 33% 44% 17% 18

Vocational 15% 25% 35% 20

Substance Abuse Program (SAP) 75% 0% 0% 8

Drug Treatment Furlough (DTF)* 35% 8% 0% 26

Mental Health 93% 0% 4% 28

Medical/Dental** 42% 42% 8% 13

* Though this program is provided through organizations outside the prison, days participating in DTF are considered custody days.

** These services include treatment for medical/dental conditions, including chronic issues.

NOTES: Cases with missing data not included. Percentages based on multiple responses.


Helpfulness of Prison Programs Those respondents indicating in-prison service participation on the prison exit CSQ were asked to rate the helpfulness of each program on a scale from one to four, with one indicating “very helpful” and four signifying “not helpful at all.” In general, SB 618 participants felt that the in-custody services were helpful. DTF participation was viewed as helpful by all five participants (100%), vocational programming by 92 percent, SAP by 84 percent, educational programs by 80 percent, mental health services by 75 percent, and medical and/or dental services by 66 percent. Again, as additional SB 618 treatment study group participants are released from prison and complete the prison exit CSQ, further analyses will examine differences across facilities and other factors related to the helpfulness of services (e.g., the match between needs and services received).

SB 618 PARTICIPANT PRISON EXIT CSQ

“I feel [DTF] is definitely more personal in dealing with my issues.”

CHAPTER 5

IMPACT EVALUATION


Table 5.13 MAJORITY OF RESPONDENTS RATE PROGRAM AS HELPFUL

Very/Helpful Not Helpful/

Not Helpful at All Total

DTF* 100% 0% 5

Vocational 92% 8% 13

SAP 84% 16% 25

Education 80% 20% 15

Mental Health 75% 25% 4

Medical/Dental 67% 33% 21

* Though this program is provided through organizations outside the prison, days participating in DTF are considered custody days.



Opinions of Prison Programs Respondents participating in vocational programs, SAP, and/or DTF were asked to rate a series of statements regarding their experiences with each program on a scale from one to five (with one indicating “never” experiencing it and five “always”). The percentages presented in Table 5.14 are based on respondents indicating that the statement is true often or always, except as noted. For vocational programs, SB 618 participants felt that the equipment was up to date (85%), the program will help in getting a job upon release (82%), and the instructors were knowledgeable (69%). Views for DTF were more positive than for SAP. Though the sample size and the data should be interpreted with caution, the differences are worth consideration. While all five of the respondents participating in DTF (100%) were able to be open and honest about their addiction, only 60 percent of those in SAP shared this view. Further, a higher proportion of DTF participants (80%) than SAP participants (32%) indicated that the model fit them. These differences may be due to the match between the learning styles of each SB 618 participant and the DTF and SAP program designs. These differences will continue to be monitored as the evaluation progresses.

CHAPTER 5

IMPACT EVALUATION


Table 5.14 OPINIONS OF IN-PRISON PROGRAMS GENERALLY POSITIVE

Vocational

The vocational equipment was up to date 85% The vocational program will help me get a job on the outside* 82% The vocational instructor was knowledgeable in the subject 69% The vocational programs matched my interests and abilities 69%

TOTAL 11-13

SAP

I had enough time in SAP to help me in my recovery 95% I felt safe enough with SAP staff to be open and honest about my addiction 60% The treatment model used in SAP was a good fit for me 32%

TOTAL 19-25

DTF**

I had enough time in DTF to help me in my recovery 100% I felt safe enough with DTF staff to be open and honest about my addiction 100% The treatment model used in DTF was a good fit for me 80%

TOTAL 4-5

* Percentage based on those agreeing or strongly agreeing.

** Though this program is provided through organizations outside the prison, days participating in DTF are considered custody days.

NOTES: Cases with missing data not included. Percent shown represents respondents who gave rating of “always” or “often” on a five-point scale (unless otherwise noted). These questions were not included for educational, medical/dental, and mental health services because they are not applicable.


Overall Opinions of SB 618 Respondents were asked a series of questions regarding their feedback about SB 618 with respect to how the program meets their needs, if it will make a difference in their life, and if they would recommend it to others. Some questions were included on both the in-prison and prison exit CSQs, while others were only asked at one point in time.

SB 618 PARTICIPANT PRISON EXIT CSQ

“It's actually a very good program. I think it has a lot of benefits to help inmates and parolees successfully do their time, and successfully re-enter and become completely successful in society.

With the help of SB 618 I look forward to taking advantage of all their programs to help better myself.”

CHAPTER 5

IMPACT EVALUATION


Meeting Needs While in Prison Three months following prison entry, SB 618 participants were asked if the program was appropriate for them (Table 5.15). Only one in ten indicated that the program did not meet their needs. One-third (33%) felt SB 618 was appropriate to their needs so far and for about one-third, (36%) three months into prison may be too early to determine. Delays in service delivery for about one-fifth (21%) limited the formation of their opinions for the in-prison CSQ completed.

Table 5.15 ABILITY TO MEET NEEDS UNCLEAR THREE MONTHS AFTER PRISON ENTRY

Has SB 618 been appropriate to your needs so far?

Yes 33% No 11% Maybe/Not Sure Yet 36% Haven’t Received Services 21%

TOTAL 140

NOTES: Percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding. Cases with missing data not included.


Additional analysis of in-prison survey results revealed that a number of other survey responses were significantly related to a feeling that the program was appropriate to their needs, including:

believing that SB 618 will make a difference (63% versus 0% of those who did not recognize the benefit of the program);

receiving clear explanations about SB 618 from their defense attorney (43% compared to 15%);

feeling that MDT meetings were useful (42% compared to 4%);

viewing meetings with the PO as useful (41% versus 4%); and

being motivated by the MDT (38% versus 13%) (not shown). These findings illustrate the importance of informing participants about how SB 618 works and building rapport from the beginning of the program. SB 618 participants with clear information from defense attorneys and useful interactions with the PO and MDT are more likely to understand the benefit of the program, suggesting the importance of staff training to ensure consistency in the way participants are treated and in the information provided to participants.

CHAPTER 5

IMPACT EVALUATION


At prison exit, this question was changed to include a rating of how well the program met their needs while in prison on a scale from one to four (with one indicating “very well“ and four “not well at all”) (Figure 5.4). Over three-quarters (79%) of the respondents indicated that the program met their needs at least somewhat well in prison (50% specifying very well and 29% somewhat well).

Figure 5.4 SB 618 MEETS NEEDS BY THE TIME OF PRISON RELEASE

0%

21%30%

48%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Very Well Somewhat Well Not very Well Not Well at All

78%

TOTAL = 33


Making a Difference One goal of SB 618 is to change the lives of participants, and a question on the in-prison survey asked if respondents thought the program would make a difference. Nearly half (48%) responded affirmatively, and 46 percent said they weren’t sure yet (Table 5.16). To follow up, respondents were asked to specify how they thought SB 618 would make a difference. The most frequent reply related to having an appreciation for the aftercare component (i.e., services provided following prison release) (30%). In addition, respondents were optimistic and hopeful that lasting change would occur (29%) (not shown) as the following quotes illustrate.

“It will offer me the chance at a fresh start with advantages instead of having nowhere to go or turn once out, except back to drugs or crime.”

“My outlook on my future is not so vague. It's helping me to have at least a positive outlook towards my future.”

“Just because I really want to change my life, but I need help.”

Most participants felt that SB 618 met their needs.

CHAPTER 5

IMPACT EVALUATION


Table 5.16 ABILITY TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE UNCLEAR THREE MONTHS AFTER PRISON ENTRY

Do you think the program will make a difference in your life?

Yes 48% No 6% Not Sure Yet 46%

TOTAL 143



Other ways shared that SB 618 would make a difference included additional resources (23%), helpful staff (20%), vocational services (17%), and educational opportunities (12%) (not shown). With respect to the influence of staff, one respondent noted: “The multi-disciplinary team presents itself as a resourceful and caring group. I’ve been doing time and paroling for a few years now. I hope the SB 618 team can and will help me get past the plateaus and bumps in the road I haven’t been able to get past.”

For the seven participants indicating that SB 618 would not make a difference, the primary reason cited involved being misled regarding program elements (71% or 5 respondents) and delays in entering in-prison programs (43% or 3 individuals). As mentioned in previous chapters, one challenge to SB 618 implementation has been the fact that budget constraints and prison over-crowding have led to in-prison services being dismantled. The process of re-establishing needed programs has been a challenge to SB 618 implementation, and program partners continue to work toward filling these gaps.

Additional analysis was conducted to identify the predictors of a participant feeling that the program would make a difference. This preliminary analysis of data from the in-prison CSQ found that the following factors were significantly related to the view that SB 618 would make a difference:

recognizing that SB 618 is appropriate to personal needs (93% compared to 27%);

receiving clear explanations from their defense attorney (61% versus 28% of those not getting this information from their defense attorney);

believing MDT meetings were useful (60% as opposed to 14% of those who thought the meetings were not useful);

feeling that meetings with the PO were useful (59% compared to 15% of those with the opposite view);

Similar to the findings related to SB 618 being appropriate to

participants’ needs, this analysis highlights the importance of

providing clear information and a supportive environment to

individuals regarding program elements so they understand how it can make a difference in their lives.

CHAPTER 5

IMPACT EVALUATION


feeling more motivated than previous prison stays (57% compared to 24%);

being motivated by the MDT (55% versus 24%); and

viewing the MDT as supportive (52% compared to 23%) (not shown). Recommending the SB 618 Program to Someone Else Both the in-prison and prison exit CSQ asked if respondents would recommend SB 618 to someone else (Figure 5.5). After three months in prison, almost three-quarters of participants (71%) reported they would recommend the program to others. This proportion rose to 87 percent at prison exit. For the 21 respondents indicating that they would not recommend the program, a follow-up question was asked on the in-prison CSQ regarding reasons why. The most common reasons were that no help was provided through SB 618 (57%) and that participants were misled regarding program components (43%). As the program is modified to address service gaps, these results may change. Future reports will break out data by individuals exiting prison prior to significant changes in prison programming (e.g., shift from educators to social workers for prison case management) versus those serving prison sentences after these modifications.

Figure 5.5 RESPONDENTS RECOMMEND SB 618

71%87%

6%

13%

6%16%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

In-Prison CSQ Prison Exit CSQ

Yes Maybe No

TOTAL = 31

NOTES: Based on respondents completing both the in-prison and prison exit CSQs. Cases with missing data not included.

SOURCE: Client In-Prison and Prison Exit Satisfaction Questionnaires, SANDAG SB 618 Second Annual Evaluation Report

CHAPTER 5

IMPACT EVALUATION


Overall Views at Prison Exit Toward the end of the prison exit CSQ, respondents were asked to share their opinions through open-ended questions regarding the best and worst parts of SB 618. Regarding the best parts of SB 618, answers echoed some of the responses to why SB 618 would make a difference. For example, about half (48%) appreciated the staff, about one-quarter (24%) liked the vocational services, and 21 percent were thankful for aftercare (i.e., support following prison release). In addition, 17 percent appreciated the expedited entry into prison programs (not shown). The following quotes summarize these opinions.

“I think the genuine concern from the case manager has helped me. The assurance that if I need help when I get released, there will be a Community Case Manager to work with and vocational training. The more career success I am able to obtain, the more likely I am to stay free the rest of my life.”

“Having my counselor available whenever I needed her. Being put first on waiting lists for jobs and schooling. Being able to come to CIW instead of Chowchilla.”

“That I had priority to get in vocational training by participating and that I have somebody talking to me about what I'm doing on a regular basis. It kept me close to home and made the whole transition from jail to prison more expedient than any other time I've gone through it.”

“College classes, DTF… being able to talk to DA and education professionals interested in helping me achieve success in school.”

“Case Managers, Community Case Manager. When I am in crisis, I was able to talk in my case manager's office anytime. Case managers really care, bond with my Community Case Manager and Prison Case Manager.”

Comments regarding the worst things about SB 618 focused primarily on the lack of in-prison services, as the following quote illustrates: “Waiting to see if [you are] classified for things. It seems like every time you are up for a new program, you have to go through class all over again. [The] availability of books and classes…” Prospects for the Future To examine long-term plans of SB 618 participants, the prison exit CSQ included an open-ended question asking them to specify what they will be doing one year following release from prison. Three-quarters (76%) believed that they would be employed; about one-third (34%) indicated that they would be furthering their education and be financially self-sufficient; 31 percent planned to be clean and sober and off parole; and 14 percent hoped to have their own place to live and to rebuild family relationships. The following quotes highlight these views.

“I see myself in a good-paying job using the skills I have learned in vocational training and on my way to discharging parole.”

SB 618 participants express hope in their

future prospects.

CHAPTER 5

IMPACT EVALUATION


“Working, off parole, clean and sober, rebuilding family ties.”

“In a year from now, I hope to have my own place, bank account, steady job, and working on a career by going to college. It’s not going to be easy, but by almost a year of success and the assistance of [the] SB 618 program, I should adapt quickly.”

SUMMARY This chapter summarizes preliminary findings from the impact evaluation. Though recidivism data are not available, results from in-prison and prison exit client satisfaction surveys provide preliminary results regarding satisfaction with SB 618 services received. Overall, SB 618 participants have a favorable opinion of the program. Starting with the beginning of the process, pre-sentence, defense attorneys and probation officers provide useful information to participants. The MDT (the first step in the development of the Life Plan) was rated favorably by participants. The prison experience related to the SB 618 program was viewed as more positive than prior prison terms particularly due to the increased motivation to change. Participants acknowledge that PCMs care about them, but the ability to make the prison system less complicated and facilitate entry to prison programs was not noticed as frequently by survey respondents. This research finding is probably related to the challenges in re-establishing in-prison programs following years of budgetary constraints and overcrowding. Opinions regarding the Life Plan and in-prison services were favorable, resulting in a generally positive outlook of the future. As the evaluation continues, analysis will be expanded to include the match between needs and services received and input from family/friends regarding SB 618 elements, as well as outcomes related to criminal activity and community reintegration (e.g., employment), and the cost-effectiveness of the program.

CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS


CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INTRODUCTION Senate Bill (SB), authored by the San Diego County District Attorney’s (DA) Office, became effective in January 2006, with the goal of reducing recidivism and increasing the probability of successful reentry for individuals leaving prison and returning to California communities. SB 618 is based on best practices and the concept that providing tangible reentry support services will increase parolees’ chances of successful reintegration into the community. Information is provided in this second annual evaluation report regarding the program components, as well as details regarding the process and impact evaluation research design. Preliminary research findings also are described as related to the process of program implementation and accomplishments, as well as the impact of the program on participant satisfaction. In this last chapter, these findings are summarized and preliminary “lessons learned” during the first two years of implementation are outlined.

MAJOR EVALUATION FINDINGS

Program Implementation and Management

The implementation of SB 618 reflects a growing trend across the country to focus on prisoner rehabilitation and how reentry into the community can be facilitated. As such, the program partners for SB 618 built upon national knowledge of best practices to design and implement a program that varies dramatically from current reentry practices in California. Program partners, key staff, and community members surveyed as part of the process evaluation shared positive views regarding program implementation and management. Key staff members indicate that they are well prepared (i.e., with respect to training and experience) for the work required in facilitating reentry into the community for program participants. The majority of the three groups surveyed (i.e., program partners, key staff, and the community) indicated that the efforts of SB 618 have led to systemic change, specifically, the shift in focus from punishment to rehabilitation and the increase in collaboration between County and State agencies, as well as community-based organizations.

Favorable opinions by program partners and key staff regarding program management have increased since the first annual evaluation report. Specifically, it seems that difficulties in coordinating with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) revealed in the first evaluation report improved based on responses to surveys completed in 2008. Similarly, views regarding unclear leadership expressed during 2007 were absent in 2008 surveys. Collaboration and regular communication (particularly through weekly Operational Procedures Committee meetings) continue to be strengths cited by program partners regarding program management. Program elements noted as particularly effective by program partners and key staff members surveyed include:

CHAPTER 6

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS


the multidisciplinary team (MDT), comprised of staff from Probation, the prison classification counselor, the Prison Case Manager (PCM), the Community Case Manager (CCM), and the Vocational Specialist, who meet with the participant to develop the Life Plan (described below);

the Life Plan, which is based on assessed needs, includes input from participants and outlines the strategy for community reintegration; and

community case management, which involves preparing the participant, family and community for reentry through advocacy and brokerage of services.

While the program has achieved a number of successes, real-world challenges to managing a program this large in scope requires ongoing communication and coordination. Some outstanding issues at the time of this report, which program partners are currently addressing, include the following:

Ratings of in-custody services by program partners and key staff indicate that there is variability in programming at the California Institute for Women (CIW) and Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (RJD), particularly with respect to prison case management and drug treatment. These differences may impact overall program effectiveness. To address these issues, the model at CIW of utilizing social workers for the prison case management role has been implemented at RJD, which had used educators. In addition, issues related to the drug treatment program at RJD are being remedied.

Results from surveys with key staff suggest that resource allocation may be insufficient to meet program needs, and workload/caseload is too large. In addition, a relatively low percentage of key staff agreed that incentives and graduated sanctions are used as effectively as they could be to support treatment goals, reflecting the fact that this process has yet to be finalized.

Though the majority of program partners, key staff, and community members surveyed indicated that SB 618 has been managed well, many community members noted that there has not been enough communication and feedback with the Reentry Roundtable and/or the Interfaith Advisory Board, suggesting that further opportunities for outreach remain.

While program partner survey responses indicate that SB 618 has adhered to the program design well, including modifications to improve program delivery, one change is considered detrimental: the lack of behavioral health services. Bureaucratic obstacles have prevented the implementation of a contract for these services.

Participant Characteristics and Needs

Based on data entered into the SB 618 database through August 2008, SB 618 participants are about 35 years old, more likely to be male, and predominately White or Black. They have extensive past criminal involvement and have a functional level of education and significant life skills according to results from the Test for Adult Basic Education (TABE) (using CDCR’s threshold for placement in educational programs) and Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS) at program entry.

CHAPTER 6



Assessment of alcohol and drug use within 30 days prior to program entry indicates that the majority of SB 618 participants are in need of treatment, particularly for methamphetamine and marijuana use. Drug use, in particular, was the area of need with the highest severity index score compared to medical, vocational, legal, family, and social needs. Consistent with this assessment, most of the treatment study group surveyed at the end of their prison term reported they had attended in-prison substance abuse programming. Assessment data also revealed weak family and community ties, with one exception: relationships with children. CCMs begin working with participants prior to prison release to help rebuild family relationships and cultivate positive community associations. The results of these efforts will be explored as the evaluation progresses.

Facilitation of In-Custody Programming

One goal of SB 618 is to efficiently utilize custody time for participation in rehabilitative services. Despite these efforts, the period of time between agreeing to participate in SB 618 and actually beginning programming in prison can take several weeks. For example, the length of time to assessment completion while in local custody was between seven and eleven days. The results of these assessments are used to design the Life Plan, which is discussed at the MDT meeting held about three weeks after the participants agreed to participate in the program. Upon prison entry, participants are held in the reception center for additional assessments (i.e., medical at both prisons and mental health at RJD). This process takes approximately five weeks, after which time, programming can begin. Program partners continue to monitor the length of time spent in the reception center by participants and work toward reducing this time. The goal as of the completion of this report is 21 days.

Participant Satisfaction

With respect to program impact, client satisfaction is the only information available because there are too few cases in the treatment and comparison study groups who have been released from prison long enough to recidivate. Overall, according to client satisfaction questionnaires (CSQs), SB 618 participants were satisfied with the screening, assessment, and in-prison portions of the program. Meetings with the Probation Officer (PO) and the MDT were rated as useful, and interactions with the PO and MDT members were considered positive. Life Plans were viewed as accurately describing needs and inclusive of participant input. The prison experience associated with SB 618 participation was listed as more positive than previous prison stays because of higher motivation to change, increased likelihood of in-prison program participation, efficient use of time, and receiving greater support. Survey respondents also indicated that defense attorneys clearly explained the program, though more details were desired, particularly with respect to program expectations. Interaction with PCMs seemed frequent enough, according to data obtained through CSQs, with this interaction increasing throughout the prison stay. Opinions regarding this interaction were positive; however, the ability of PCMs to facilitate program entry while in prison was less clear and probably negatively impacted by delays in the start-up and/or re-establishment of rehabilitative programs. Despite these constraints, about three-quarters of the treatment study group completing

CHAPTER 6



CSQs upon release from prison indicated that they had participated in substance abuse programs. Reasons for lack of in-prison program participation varied across programs. A short prison term precluded individuals from participating in educational programs, while lack of program availability inhibited vocational programming. Lack of need was the most common reason for not participating in substance abuse and mental health treatment. There were diverging opinions regarding the helpfulness of specific in-custody programs, with Drug Treatment Furlough (DTF) viewed more favorably than Substance Abuse Programs (SAP), according to opinions shared by participants as they exited prison. This difference of opinion may be related to the uneven match between SB 618 participants’ learning styles and the design of the DTF and SAP programs. The ability of SB 618 to meet needs and make a difference in the lives of participants is not clear based on views shared at the end of the prison stay, with many CSQ respondents indicating that it was too early to determine. Delays in reinstating rehabilitative programs in prison could be impacting these research findings, as suggested by the proportion of respondents stating the lack of prison programs as the worst thing about the program. Still, the proportion indicating that they would recommend the program to others rose from the first three months of the prison sentence to prison exit. Specifically, the best parts of SB 618 shared on CSQs include the staff, vocational services, and support following prison release. The treatment study group is optimistic about what they will be doing one year after release from prison, including being employed, furthering their education, achieving financial self-sufficiency, staying clean and sober, finishing parole, living independently, and rebuilding family relationships.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOCAL CONSIDERATION These preliminary findings from the process and impact evaluation described above highlight the many successes of the SB 618 program. In addition, areas for program improvement also have been identified through the research findings, many of which are under consideration by SB 618 program partners based on information provided throughout the year by the research team.

Clear communication of program expectations with participants: Data gleaned from the treatment study group through CSQs indicated an overall positive view of SB 618; however, the importance of informing participants of how SB 618 works and building rapport from the beginning cannot be overemphasized. Program partners have held forums with participants in prison and the community to obtain feedback (both positive and negative) about how the program is going. In addition, starting in 2008, MDT meetings have focused on reducing participants’ confusion regarding potential services available. These forums provide an opportunity to clear up any misunderstandings regarding program delivery. As the evaluation progresses, the impact of these efforts on client satisfaction will be examined.

Consistency in prison case management and drug treatment: The differences between the services provided at RJD and CIW may impact program effectiveness, particularly with respect to prison case management and drug treatment services. In May 2008, changes were made to increase the consistency in prison case management between the two prisons. Though gender-responsive needs dictate differences between the two prisons (because males are housed in one and females in the other), variations related to drug treatment may be due to other issues, which are worth investigating.

CHAPTER 6



Appropriate caseload size: While key staff surveys indicated effective communication with and appreciation by SB 618 management, there was less agreement regarding caseload size. Though the California State budget crisis negatively impacted the ability of program partners to address this issue for prison case management, steps are underway to ensure caseloads are appropriate and allow staff to work with participants effectively.

Implementation of incentives and graduated sanctions: The use of graduated sanctions to support treatment goals was another potential area for improvement based on the results of the key staff surveys. Discussions at Operational Procedures Committee meetings have included not just the use of graduated sanctions, but also incentives to facilitate program compliance. As the evaluation continues, the implementation of this system will be explored.

Enhance outreach to community groups: Though community survey respondents indicated favorable views of SB 618 management, some respondents felt there was room for improvement. One suggestion for improving information sharing among these groups is giving regular updates on the SB 618 program at the Reentry Roundtable and Interfaith Advisory Board meetings (i.e., including this update as a regular agenda item). In addition, respondents suggested receiving regular updates of the current research data on SB 618 participants’ characteristics and outcomes as they become available.

Provide behavioral health services: Program partners surveyed indicated that one program modification negatively impacting SB 618 was the elimination of the behavioral health contract. The Operational Procedures Committee hopes to fill this gap in 2009 by leveraging funds through existing contracts in order to meet the needs of participants with co-occurring disorders.

Include a cognitive behavioral component: Operational Procedures Committee meeting discussions revealed cognitive behavioral therapy as a gap in the SB 618 program. Though one-on-one meetings with female prisoners at CIW include cognitive-behavioral treatment, there is no assessment related to criminal thinking and there are no specific cognitive behavioral programs at either prison. As of November 2008, program partners are working toward implementing cognitive behavioral programming through PCMs and CCMs.

Reduce prison reception center time: Initially, when the SB 618 program was designed, the plan was for participants to move directly from local custody to the general prison population, eliminating time in the reception center. When a federal court appointed a Medical Receiver to oversee all medical services for the California prison system, this plan changed because medical and mental health assessments were required at the prison reception center, and local assessments were not considered sufficient. Discussions during Operational Procedures Committee meetings resulted in an initial goal of limiting time in the reception center for these assessments to two weeks. As the program progressed, it became clear that this goal was unrealistic, and it was modified to one month. Based on data available through August 2008, the treatment study group spent an average of 37 days in the reception center, compared to 45 days in the male facility (M. Stout, e-mail to author, February 2, 2009) and 54 days in the female facility (P. Clark, e-mail to author, October 27, 2008) according to information provided by CDCR. Based on these preliminary findings, it seems that additional work needs to be done in order to further reduce reception time.

CHAPTER 6



Emphasize vocational programming over educational services: Since assessment data suggest that SB 618 participants have a functional level of education and possess significant life skills, their time in prison may be best used for vocational programming rather than educational services.

Enhance outreach to employers: Community members surveyed shared a desire for more communication related to the SB 618 program. These groups, the Reentry Roundtable and Interfaith Advisory Board, are potential sources for outreach related to employment opportunities for participants that could enhance the work already underway by Comprehensive Training Systems, Inc.

LESSONS LEARNED FOR OTHER POTENTIAL SITES The following lessons are provided as guides for others considering implementation of similar prisoner reentry programs.

What Has Worked Well? Conducting more thorough substance use and vocational assessments: As part of SB 618, assessments are conducted locally, beginning before a participant is transferred to the prison reception center. During program development, partners thoroughly discussed which assessments should be conducted and agreed that additional information would be useful regarding participants’ substance use and vocational needs. The information gained from these assessments is used in the creation of each participant’s Life Plan. Because this is a dynamic document administered and modified over the course of the participant’s enrollment in the program, it allows program staff to measure improvement. Key staff and program partners surveyed as part of the process evaluation indicated that these assessments are effective. Utilizing an interdisciplinary team approach: Attention was paid to best practices in developing the SB 618 program by incorporating interdisciplinary team approaches at two key points in a participant’s progress. The first of these is the MDT meeting held prior to participants’ sentencing to review eligibility and discuss screening and assessment results. These meetings are staffed by a Probation Officer, CCM, PCM, a prison classification counselor, and a Vocational Specialist (as needed). The second of these interdisciplinary forums, the Community Roundtable, is convened on an ongoing basis from the participant’s release to their exit from the program. The Parole Agent, CCM, Vocational Specialist, participant, and any other individuals significantly involved in the participant’s reentry effort attend these meetings. The MDT meetings were noted as particularly effective by key staff and program partners surveyed as part of the process evaluation. As the study progresses, similar information will be available related to the Community Roundtable. Ensuring ongoing communication between program partners: A culture of open communication has been fostered among program partners and key staff across agencies through weekly Operational Procedures Committee meetings. These meetings were first convened in November 2005 and have been regularly attended by key individuals to discuss issues, brainstorm possible solutions, and come to agreement on the best course of action.

CHAPTER 6



There have been numerous examples of problem solving through open communication during these meetings. For example, in response to discussions about prison funding constraints related to obtaining college textbooks in FY 2007-08, University of California, San Diego purchased books through their own contract savings. Creating a project-specific database: One of the more behind-the-scenes successes of the program is the development of a Web-based data management system designed specifically for the local SB 618 program. With frequent input from program partners and key staff, the DA’s Office Information Systems staff created a user-friendly database that captures data on each participant from screening/assessment through program exit. Hands-on training was provided to all users, and the DA’s staff members have been flexible in revising the system as needs for additional data elements arise. The database includes automation of the Life Plan to allow it to be updated online and shared among program staff. The database also has proven crucial to program partners, key staff, and the evaluators in monitoring program implementation.

What Could Have Been Done Differently?

Acknowledging that certain positions require certain skill sets: Originally, the role of PCM at CIW was filled by social workers and by educators at RJD. This staffing difference was debated early in the design stages of the program, with CIW staff emphasizing a history of using social workers for any type of case management. RJD staff felt their educational personnel were qualified to provide appropriate case management services, and the program partners agreed to implement the program with this staffing difference in place. However, over the course of program implementation, qualitative differences between the case management provided at CIW and RJD became more apparent, and program partners concluded that the PCM role (which includes advocating for the participant during their incarceration) could be better suited to social work staff. Anticipate, to the greatest degree possible, the logistical needs and possible pitfalls for service delivery: The implementation of vocational services at RJD was delayed due in large part to drastic funding cuts that occurred in 2002, which essentially dismantled all vocational programming. These cuts resulted in a loss of the infrastructure needed by RJD to provide vocational training for participants. As a result, RJD faced considerable bureaucratic hurdles to remodel classrooms, purchase up-to-date equipment, and hire instructors. Prison overcrowding in RJD limited programming because prisoners were housed in areas traditionally used for rehabilitative services. CDCR implemented welding in August 2007, machine shop in February 2008, and cable technology in April 2008, and is in the process of finalizing the cabinet making program. Based on feedback obtained from the treatment study group at RJD through CSQs, it was clear that they felt misled by what they were told the program would offer and the dearth of programs available to them in prison. It would be beneficial for other jurisdictions to take stock of their existing programming resources and fully develop their capabilities prior to implementation. Being proactive in this regard could help avoid time-consuming, bureaucratic hurdles delaying full implementation.

CHAPTER 6



What Else Should Other Potential Sites Know About The San Diego Experience? Factors beyond a program’s control can significantly impact program implementation: A key component of the original SB 618 design was to conduct assessments locally, rather than waiting until a participant arrived at the prison reception center. However, as previously mentioned, a federal court decision was made for a Medical Receiver to have complete oversight of all CDCR medical services as SB 618 was being implemented. The first individual appointed to this Receivership position made the decision that medical screenings conducted by San Diego County could not be honored. Similarly, RJD decided in early 2007 not to honor local mental health assessments. As a result, duplicate screenings occurred, and decreases in the time spent at the reception center have been smaller than originally anticipated. The Medical Receiver and SB 618 program partners continue to be in communication and plan to revisit these issues in the hope of allowing the local screenings, as well as develop other strategies to reduce the length of time in the reception center. For example, as of January 2009, a program used in the San Quentin prison to complete all diagnostics on the first day in the reception center is being tried at RJD. Future reports will examine the length of time in the reception center for both the treatment and comparison study groups to examine the impact of these policies and any changes that may arise from ongoing negotiations. Remain committed to instituting best practices, despite delays that may occur along the way: As previously mentioned, a key component of the initial program design and a best practice was the provision of behavioral health services (i.e., for substance use and mental health issues). While it was not feasible for this to be put into place as early as planned, program partners remain committed to it and are continuing to investigate ways for its implementation. In the interim, residential drug treatment is available through Substance Abuse Services Coordinating Agencies (SASCA), though mental health services are still lacking.

SUMMARY Based on the preliminary research findings in this second annual evaluation report, the SB 618 Prisoner Reentry Program in San Diego has had many successes, though there are areas for improvement. The recommendations shared in this chapter are provided to assist local program partners as they continue to refine the program, as well as guide others interested in implementing similar reentry programs in other jurisdictions. Over the next year, the evaluation will continue to document the process of program implementation and further assess program impact as the treatment and comparison study groups have longer periods in the community following release from prison allowing for meaningful recidivism and cost analysis.

APPENDIX A SB 618 LEGISLATION

APPENDIX B SB 618 PARTICIPANT ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

B-1

SB 618 PARTICIPANT ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Individuals must meet the following criteria to participate:

1) Sentence length of 8 to 72 months months;

2) Individuals must be in local custody; and

3) Individual’s County of last legal residence (CLLR) must be San Diego.

The following will result in program ineligibility:1

1) Parole Violators Returned to Custody (PVRTC) based solely on the actions of the Board of Prison Terms;

2) Individuals who qualify for participation in Proposition 36;

3) Individuals with a current violent felony pursuant to PC 667.5 (c);

4) Individuals with registration requirements pursuant to PC 290 (Sex Offender);

5) Individuals with registration pursuant to PC 457.1 (Arson); and/or

6) Individuals who committed any crime wherein the victim suffered death or permanent disability or Great Bodily Injury.

7) Individuals with a Security Housing Unit (SHU) placement for violent acts in the last year (SHU is a more secure housing within the prison);

8) Individuals with Protective Housing Unit (PHU) placement for safety concerns within the last year;

9) Individuals with documented Prison Gang affiliation pursuant to CDCR regulations;

10) Individuals with felony holds in another jurisdiction (may take the inmate after serving sentence in CDCR; thus interfering with attendance in San Diego County aftercare);

11) Individuals with United States Immigration and Naturalization Service holds; and/or

12) Individuals assigned, by CDCR regulations, a Classification Score of Level IV (52 points or more), which precludes them from placement at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility.

1 Reasons 7 through 12 which result in an individual being deemed ineligible for SB 618 program participation are pursuant

to California Code of Regulations, Title 15: Section 3040.1.

B-2

The following may result in program ineligibility:

1) Individuals with a prior conviction for PC 667.5(c) will be screened for participation on a case-by-case review.

2) Individuals with special program needs pursuant to CDCR regulations; these special program needs may include, but are not limited to, permanent wheelchair use, deafness, blindness, HIV/AIDS, Sensitive Needs Yard (i.e., enemy concerns) (pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 15: Section 3040.1);

The following factors do not impact eligibility:

1) Individuals who have been out of custody for a violent offense at least five years without committing another violent crime before committing the current offense;

2) Individuals who are repeat offenders;

3) Individuals who are Probation Violators; and/or

4) Parole Violators with a New Term (PVWNT).

APPENDIX C SB 618 PARTICIPANT FLOW CHART

C-1

SB 618 Participant Flow Chart

Is the defendant eligible?

Yes No

Does the defendant agree to plead guilty to a stipulated prison term?

Yes No

Defendant is advised of eligibility for SB 618; decides to enroll and signs Letter of Intent?

NoYes

Enter acceptance into CMS & begin assessment process

VOCATIONAL/ EDUCATIONAL

MENTAL HEALTH MEDICAL/DENTAL

Pre‐sentence Investigation

MDT makes modification to Life Plan or approves as is

SHERIFF TRANSPORTS TO RJD/CIW

Participant enters reception; PCM begins engagement

Participant enters general population interim housing

Classification Committee (UCC)Institutional Classification Committee (ICC) Unit

Participant transferred to permanent housing; begins programming

SB 618 Participant Flow Chart Key

District Attorney’s Office

SHERIFF

Probation

RJD & CIW

Community Case Manager

RJD‐ RJ Donovan State Prison

CIW‐ California Institute for Woman

CMS‐ Case Management System

MDT‐ Multi‐Disciplinary Team

PCM‐ Prison Case Manager

CCM‐ Community Case Manager

Develop Life Plan & MDT

6 months pre‐release PCM &

Release

Post‐Release services begin

Parole discharges; aftercare services begin

L I F E P L A N M O D I F I C A T I O N

Classification

Is participant accepted?

Yes No

Sentenced to prison and signs contract

CCM coordinate (further post‐release planning)

Parole

APPENDIX D PARTICIPANT PROGRAM FORMS

D-1

San Diego County (SB 618) Reentry Program LETTER OF INTENT

Name: Case No: I have been informed that I am eligible to be screened for possible acceptance into the San Diego County (SB 618) Reentry program. I understand that I am receiving a stipulated prison sentence. I am aware of the following benefits of participating in the program at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility or the California Institute for Women: - Priority for prison resources - Education services - Employment opportunities - Other potential pre-release services Additionally, I am aware of the following potential post-release resources: - Job readiness - Family reunification - Counseling - Educational services - Case manager support - Child support guidance - Legal Aid - Financial planning - Tattoo removal - Health services - Housing - Transportation Assistance I understand that I need to be screened for participation in this program. I may or may not be selected to participate. I will cooperate with the screening. If I am accepted into the Reentry Program, I will sign a contract which outlines the specific requirements of the program. Violation of any of the rules and regulations of the Reentry Program, prison or parole may result in termination from the Reentry Program. Violations committed after my release from prison on parole could result in a return to prison. Some of the general requirements I must follow include: - Random drug testing. - Take all prescribed medications. - Not violate any law or possess any weapons. - Follow the course of conduct prescribed by the reentry team and parole agent relating to

my ability to work, obtain treatment, housing, and education. Having all this in mind, I would like to be screened for acceptance into the Reentry Program. Signature of Defendant Date Signature of Defendant’s Attorney Date

D-2

I authorize (releasing party): To disclose to (receiving party): Name San Diego County Sheriff’s Dept. Name SANDAG, Authorized CDCR Staff,

Authorized CDCR Staff, RJD or CIW Prison Case Manager,

RJD or CIW Prison Case Manager, San Diego County Probation Department,

San Diego County Probation Department, San Diego County Sheriff’s Department,

UCSD Community Case Manager UCSD Community Case Manager,

Address P.O. Box 939062 CDCR Parole Agent

City/State San Diego, CA 92193-9062

By paper, oral, and electronic means any and all of my medical records, assessments, test results, statements and criminal case history, listed below, including but not limited to:

MEDICAL injuries, illnesses, conditions HIV test results MENTAL illnesses, conditions ALCOHOL/DRUG abuse Vocational, COMPAS, Literacy Assessments

PURPOSE for release: Continuity of care Other: SB618 Compliance

SPECIFIC records to release: HIV test results Other: Any other test(s), examinations

NOTICE: I understand that the medical information used or disclosed pursuant to this authorization may be subject to re-disclosure by the recipient and no longer protected by federal privacy regulations (HIPAA). I further understand that the Sheriff’s Department may not condition treatment on whether I sign this authorization. California law prohibits the person receiving my health information from making further disclosure of it unless another authorization for such disclosure is obtained or unless such disclosure is specifically required or permitted by law. REVOCATION: I may revoke this authorization at any time by notifying the issuing party in writing. COPY: I authorize the use of a facsimile or photocopy of this form. I may receive a copy of this authorization. (Initial here for copy): _________ Copy given: Yes No _____________________ _________________________ _______________ Social Security Number AKA CDC Number

___________________________________ ____________ ____________ Patient’s Signature Date of Birth Date ___________________________________ Patient’s Name (Please Print) Send via FAX to: (858) 974-5992 Attn: Chief, Medical Records, San Diego County Sheriff Department. For additional forms, call (858) 974-5968. SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT MEDICAL SERVICES DIVISION AUTHORIZATION TO RELEASE PATIENT MEDICAL RECORD Form SB618J Revised 07/07

D-3

Benefits of Joining the SB 618 Re-Entry Programs

By agreeing to the attached contract and becoming an SB 618 Program participant you will gain some of the following:

• While in prison, you may receive the following resources: • Designated housing • Priority for prison programs/services [e.g. vocational training, SAP (Substance

Abuse Program), life skills, PIA (Prison Industries Authority) placement, work] • Educational services (e.g. high school diploma, A.A. degree, college credit) • Placement at RJD or CIW • SB 618 Certificate Programs • Other pre-release services such as help obtaining an ID, driver’s license, birth

certificate, social security, etc.

After release, you may receive the following resources to help you reenter into a community:

• Job readiness and placement assistance (e.g. soft skills training, occupational support, etc.)

• Family reunification services • Counseling (e.g. substance abuse, mental health, faith-based support, mentoring, 12-

step) • Educational services • Case manager support • Child support guidance • Legal aid • Budget planning • Clothing • Tattoo Removal • Health Services • Appropriate housing • Transportation assistance • Eligibility processing for public peer-support services

D-5

San Diego SB 618 Reentry Program

PARTICIPANT CONTRACT Name: _________________________________________ Case No.:_____________________ In addition to the rules and regulations governing your incarceration and parole, the following describe the obligations and benefits of participating in the San Diego Reentry program. I understand that… . . . the validity of this contract is conditioned upon my eligibility for the SB 618 Reentry Program. If at any time after the execution of this agreement and in any phase of the SB 618 Reentry Program, it is discovered that I am, in fact, ineligible to participate in the program, I may be immediately terminated from the program. _____

. . . I am entitled to participate in SB 618 for up to eighteen months (or otherwise determined by my SB 618 team) post-release, which includes a Continuing Care component consisting of six months. _____

. . . during the entire course of the SB 618 Reentry Program, I will be required to attend roundtable sessions, treatment sessions, have regular and frequent contact with my case manager, submit to random drug testing, remain clean and sober, and law-abiding. I agree to abide by the rules and regulations imposed by the SB 618 Reentry Team and/or parole agent. I understand that if I do not abide by these rules and regulations, I may be sanctioned or terminated from the program. _____

. . . sanctions during incarceration may include assignment to another institution, may affect credit earning status, increased drug testing, loss of privileges and resources, removal from program and such other sanctions deemed appropriate by the SB 618 Reentry team. _____

. . . post-release sanctions may include more frequent drug testing, more frequent supervision, loss of privileges and resources, community service and such other sanctions deemed appropriate by the SB 618 Reentry team. _____

. . . I will be tested for the presence of drugs and alcohol in my system on a random basis according to procedures established by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the SB 618 Reentry team, and/or treatment provider or case manager. I understand that I will be given a location and time to report for my drug test. I understand that it is my responsibility to report to the assigned location at the time given for the test. I understand that if I am late for a test, or miss a test, it will be considered positive and I may be sanctioned. _____

. . . substituting, altering or trying in any way to change my body fluids for purposes of testing will be grounds for immediate termination from the SB 618 Reentry Program. _____

I will not possess drugs (including marijuana), or drug paraphernalia. I will not associate with people who use or possess drugs, nor will I be present while drugs are being used by others. I may also be asked to abstain from the use of alcohol and association with alcohol. _____ . . . I may not possess any weapons while I am participating in the SB 618 Reentry Program. I will dispose of any and all weapons in my possession, and disclose the presence of any weapons possessed by anyone else in my household. Failure to dispose and/or disclose may result in termination from the SB 618 Reentry Program and possible prosecution for illegal possession of any weapon. _____

I agree to inform any law enforcement officer who contacts me that I am an SB 618 Reentry Program participant and to report any law-enforcement contact to my parole agent and case manager. _____

. . . I may not work as a confidential informant with any law enforcement agency while I am an SB 618 Reentry Program participant, nor may I be made or encouraged to work as a confidential informant as a condition of my full participation in the SB 618 Reentry Program. _____

D-6

If I am a recovering addict and/or alcoholic, I will inform all treating physicians and may not take narcotic or addictive medications or drugs. If a treating physician deems necessary to treat me with narcotic or addictive medications or drugs, I must disclose this to my treatment provider, parole agent and case manager. _____

. . . SB 618 case managers will work to place me in programs best suited for my success and subject to availability and agree that I will not leave any SB 618 referred program without prior approval from my treatment provider, parole agent or case manager and the SB 618 Reentry team. _____

. . . my full participation in my reentry plan may include residential placement, vocational training, education, and/or anger management, parenting or relationship counseling. I understand that I may be asked to sign a contract for each reentry program. I will abide by the rules and regulations of my assigned programs. _____

. . . successfully completing the SB 618 Reentry Program makes me eligible to participate in a graduation ceremony. _____ . . . during the early phases of reentry, I may be precluded from working or from gaining employment. I further understand that within the time directed by the SB 618 Reentry team, I will seek employment, job training and/or further education as approved by the SB 618 Reentry team, and that failure to do so may result in sanctions or termination. _____ . . . I have the right to submit grievances, and that I will be given a full and fair hearing in this regard. _____ I agree to keep the SB 618 Reentry team, treatment provider or case manager and parole agent advised of my current address and phone number at all times and whenever changed. My place of residence is subject to SB 618 Reentry team approval. _____

I agree to disclose all SB 618 program-related assessments and all associated records, including Confidential Substance Abuse Information during my participation in the SB 618 program. I understand that any information obtained from this release will be kept apart from the Court file. _____

. . . termination from or failure to complete the SB 618 Reentry Program cannot be a basis for withdrawing my previously entered guilty plea. _____

. . . that the successful completion of the SB 618 Reentry Program may be independent of my parole term. _____ . . . participation in the SB 618 Reentry Program is a privilege, not a right, and that it is a unique opportunity to obtain information, skills, services, and associations to help me change my life and fulfill my potential. I promise to give SB 618 my honest and best efforts. _____ I reviewed this contract with the participant. ______________________________________________ _____________________ SB 618 Probation Officer Date I have read the above contract and I understand what I have read. I am willing to enter into this agreement with the Senate Bill 618 Reentry Program. ______________________________________________ _____________________ Participant’s Signature Date ______________________________________________ _____________________ Attorney for Participant Date

D-7

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SB 618 REENTRY TEAM

In consideration of the promises made by the above-referenced participant, the SB 618 Reentry team (by and through its individual members) does herein promise:

• To closely monitor Participant’s progress and sobriety in order to provide structure and

incentives to remain motivated, drug and alcohol free; • To assess, evaluate, and guide Participant into and through appropriate programs for

successful reentry; • To coordinate and provide services which will assist participant in meeting needs, obtaining

guidance, and fulfilling one’s potential; • To consider each case on individual merits and circumstances, while remaining consistent

within guidelines; • To hold all Participants accountable for their own behavior, and to respond in a

therapeutically appropriate manner; • To treat Participants with due dignity and respect, and to listen with an open mind; • To keep team members current and trained in all facets of maintaining the highest caliber and

most enduringly successful SB 618 Reentry Program; • To encourage graduates to return to the SB 618 Reentry Program (after completion) to

mentor new participants and demonstrate what can be accomplished by honestly working this program.

• To participate in SB 618 Reentry team meetings: weekly for the first month, bi-weekly the next 3 months, and monthly for the last 8 to 12 months.

_________________________________________ _____________________ Parole Agent’s Signature Date

_________________________________________ _____________________ SB 618 Community Case Manager Date

SB618 REENTRY LIFE PLAN

D-9

Section 1: Personal Information 1. Full Name Last:

First:

Middle:

Suffix:

2. Aliases/Other Names: 3. Date of Birth:

4. Place of Birth: (City/County/State/Country)

5. Probation ID:

6. Untied States Citizen if Born Outside the United States Yes No If No, Resident Alien with Proper Documentation? Yes No If Yes, Resident Alien Card # 7. Sex

8. Height

9. Weight

10. Hair

11. Eyes

12. Primary Language:

13. Other Languages Spoken with Fluency:

14. Address at Time of Arrest Number/Street:

Apt/Unit:

City:

State:

Zip:

Phone:

15. Address Where you Expect to Reside Upon Release: Unknown Same as Above Number/Street:

Apt/Unit:

City:

State:

Zip:

Phone:

16. Mailing Address, if Different from Above Number/Street: City: State:

Zip:

Phone:

17. Emergency Contact Information Name Relationship:

Number/Street:

Apt/Unit:

City:

State:

Zip:

Phone:

18. With Whom do you Expect to Live? Name:

Relationship:

Name:

Relationship:

Name:

Relationship:

Section 2: Court Case Information 19. Court Case No.:

20. Court (Dept. & Judge):

21. SB618 Probation Officer:

22. Sentencing Date:

23. CDCR # (current only)

24. CII #:

25. Conviction (Status and Description): 26. Stipulated Sentence:

27. Victim Restitution Amount Ordered:

28. Earliest Projected Release Date

D-10

Section 3: Employment History From: (mm/yy)

To: (mm/yy)

Salary:

Employer’s Name

Position

Section 4: Educational/Vocational Training From: (mm/yy)

To: (mm/yy)

Institution Highest Level Attained Degree/Certification


D-11

Section 5: Relatives and Significant Others 1. Relationship Status:

Single Married, Year?: Divorced, Year? Separated, How Long? Domestic Partner, How Long? Widowed, Year?

2. Spouse Significant Other Domestic Partner N/A Name:

Relationship:

Number/Street:

Apt/Unit:

City:

State:

Zip:

Phone:

3. Closet Relative/Friend Not Living in Residence (but living in San Diego County) Name:

Relationship:

Number/Street:

Apt/Unit:

City:

State:

Zip:

Phone:

Children:

Child Support Name: Sex DOB Lives With (Name/Location) Paid Rec’d Ordered

Siblings Name:

Sex DOB Address Occupation

Notes:

D-12

Section 6: Community Support/Resources (i.e. Churches, Prof. Orgs, AA/NA Sponsors) Resource Type

Name

Notes:

Section 7: Government Support/Resources Resource Type Name SSI

Welfare

Medical

Notes:


D-13

Section 8: Needs, Risks and Strengths Risk Level Area of Concern

(COMPAS) Strength Assessment

Tool Score

Criminal Involvement CASAS

History of Non-Compliance ASI – Alcohol Severity

History of Violence ASI – Drug Severity

Current Violence IDEAS

Criminal Associates/Peers Myers-Briggs

Financial Problems/Poverty TABE Reading Level

Vocational/Educational Problems

Criminal Thinking Needs High Med Low

Family Criminality Substance Abuse

Social Environment Education

Leisure and Recreation Vocational

Residential Instability

Social Adjustment Problems

Socialization Failure

Criminal Opportunity

Criminal Personality

Social Isolation

Other Needs Areas: Gender Responsive Areas Area of Concern Area of Concern

Transportation

Medical

Family

Trauma

Reunification

Vocational/Financial

Spirituality

Parenting/Child Care

Mental Illness

Legal Protection

Housing

Financial

D-14

Section 9: Recommended Steps to Address Risks Substance Abuse: Risk Score Goal: Issue: In Prison/Community Corrections Program: Goal: Issue: Task: Program: Referral Date: Completion Date: Code: Reentry: Reassessment Score: Goal: Issue: Task: Program: Referral Date: Completion Date: Code: Reassessment Results: Goal: Issue: Task: Program: Referral Date: Completion Date: Code: Notes: Date

Name


D-15

Section 9: Recommended Steps to Address Risks (cont.) Vocational: Risk Score Goal: Issue: In Prison/Community Corrections Program: Goal: Issue: Task: Program: Referral Date: Completion Date: Code: Reentry: Reassessment Score: Goal: Issue: Task: Program: Referral Date: Completion Date: Code: Reassessment Results: Goal: Issue: Task: Program: Referral Date: Completion Date: Code: Notes: Date

Name

D-16

Section 9: Recommended Steps to Address Risks (cont.) Educational: Risk Score Goal: Issue: In Prison/FRCCC/Community Corrections Program: Goal: Issue: Task: Program: Referral Date: Completion Date: Code: Reentry: Reassessment Score: Goal: Issue: Task: Program: Referral Date: Completion Date: Code: Reassessment Results: Goal: Issue: Task: Program: Referral Date: Completion Date: Code: Notes: Date

Name


D-17

Section 10: Case Notes Mental Health Specialist Date Name Educational/Vocational Specialist Date Name Medical Comments Date Name Dental Comments Date Name Probation Officer Date Name Classification Agent Comments Date Name

D-18

Section 10: Case Notes (Cont.) PC Manager Comments Date Name Parole Agent Comments Date Name CC Manager Comments Date Name Participant Comments Date Name

APPENDIX E FAITH ASSESSMENT

E-1

SB 618 Faith Assessment Form RJ Donovan

RELEASE DATE: __________

Date: ________ Location: _____________ NAME: _______________________ CDCR#: ____________ When and where did you learn about SB618? _ _______________________________ Where were you living before being incarcerated? _____________________________ Do you identify with any faith group? YES / NO If yes which: ________________ Do you have a home church? YES / NO If yes, where: _________________________ Are you interested in attending faith services while in RJ Donovan? _________________ Are you interested in having a faith mentor or someone from your church write to you while in RJ Donovan? _____________________________________________________ Is there anything else you would like for us to know? ________________________________________________________________________

Notes:

_______________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX F LIST OF DATA ELEMENTS

F-1

DATA ELEMENTS/VARIABLES

SOURCE BY SAMPLE TYPE Treatment Comparison Refusals Drop Outs Ineligible Demographics

Gender DA Database DA Database DA Database DA Database DA Database Ethnicity DA Database DA Database DA Database DA Database DA Database Age/Date of Birth DA Database DA Database DA Database DA Database DA Database Employment Status DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Level of Education DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Relationship Status DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Parenthood Status DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Number of Children DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a

Financial Child Support

Ordered (yes/no) DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Paid (yes/no) DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Received (yes/no) DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a

Food Stamps DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a General Relief DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Housing (Section 8, HUD) DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Medical DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Social Services Disability DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Supplemental Security Income (SSI) DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a

Veterans Administration DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Vocational Services (Employment Development Department (EDD), vocational rehabilitation)


Welfare DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Other DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a

F-2

SOURCE BY SAMPLE TYPE Treatment Comparison Refusals Drop Outs Ineligible Prior Criminal History

Number of Arrests (based on arrest data in ARJIS and Sheriff’s bookings)

Felony CDCR, Sheriff’s, DA

CDCR, Sheriff’s, DA

CDCR, Sheriff’s, DA CDCR, Sheriff’s, DA

n/a

Misdemeanor CDCR, Sheriff’s, DA



n/a

Type of highest felony arrest charge (violent/prop/drug/other) and hierarchy




n/a

Type of highest misdemeanor arrest charge (violent/prop/drug/other) and hierarchy




n/a

Number of Convictions Felony CDCR,

Sheriff’s, DA CDCR, Sheriff’s,

DA CDCR, Sheriff’s, DA CDCR, Sheriff’s,

DA n/a

Misdemeanor CDCR, Sheriff’s, DA



n/a

Type of highest felony conviction charge (violent/prop/drug/other) and hierarchy




n/a

Total days in local custody CDCR, Sheriff’s, DA



n/a

Total days in prison CDCR, Sheriff’s, DA



n/a

Instant Offense DA Database DA Database DA Database DA Database CDCR, Sheriff’s, DA

Timing of Drop Out n/a n/a n/a DA Database n/a Drop Out Reason n/a n/a n/a DA Database n/a SB618 Program Entry Date DA Database n/a n/a DA Database n/a

F-3

SOURCE BY SAMPLE TYPE Treatment Comparison Refusals Drop Outs Ineligible Restitution

Ordered (yes/no) DA Database Sheriff’s, DA Sheriff’s, DA DA Database Sheriff’s, DA Amount DA Database Sheriff’s, DA Sheriff’s, DA DA Database Sheriff’s, DA

Reception Center Entry Date DA Database CDCR CDCR CDCR CDCR Custody Days (entry & exit dates)

George Bailey Sheriff’s Data Sheriff’s Data Sheriff’s Data Sheriff’s Data Sheriff’s Data Las Colinas Sheriff’s Data Sheriff’s Data Sheriff’s Data Sheriff’s Data Sheriff’s Data RJD DA Database CDCR CDCR CDCR CDCR CIW DA Database CDCR CDCR CDCR CDCR

Parole Days (start and end dates)

DA Database CDCR CDCR CDCR CDCR

Length of Program Participation (start and end dates)


Status Upon Program Completion/Removal


Initial Assessments COMPAS

Violence DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Recidivism DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Criminal Involvement DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe History of Non-Compliance DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe History of Violence DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Current Violence DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Criminal Associations/Peers DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Substance Abuse DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Financial Problems/Poverty DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Vocational/Educational Problems DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Criminal Thinking DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Family Criminality DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Social Environment DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe

F-4

SOURCE BY SAMPLE TYPE Treatment Comparison Refusals Drop Outs Ineligible

Leisure & Recreation DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Residential Instability DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Social Adjustment Problems DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Socialization Failure DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Criminal Opportunity DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Criminal Personality DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Social Isolation DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe

Dental Assessment DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Education

Life Skills (CASAS) DA Database CDCR CDCR CDCR CDCR Reading & math level (TABE) DA Database CDCR CDCR CDCR CDCR

Medical Assessment DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Mental Health Assessment (Coleman) DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Substance Abuse (ASI)

Alcohol severity DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Drug severity DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a

Vocational (O*NET & Myers-Briggs) DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Exit Assessments

COMPAS Violence DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Recidivism DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Criminal Involvement DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe History of Non-Compliance DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe History of Violence DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Current Violence DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Criminal Associations/Peers DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Substance Abuse DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Financial Problems/Poverty DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Vocational/Educational Problems DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Criminal Thinking DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Family Criminality DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe

F-5


Social Environment DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Leisure & Recreation DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Residential Instability DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Social Adjustment Problems DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Socialization Failure DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Criminal Opportunity DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Criminal Personality DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Social Isolation DA Database Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe Northpointe

Dental Assessment DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Education

Life Skills (CASAS) DA Database CDCR CDCR CDCR CDCR Reading & math level (TABE) DA Database CDCR CDCR CDCR CDCR

Medical Assessment DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Mental Health Assessment (Coleman) DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Substance Abuse (ASI)

Alcohol severity DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Drug severity DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a

Vocational (O*NET & Myers-Briggs) DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Services in Custody Planned

Education Literacy DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a GED DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a College DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a

Medical Treatment DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Mental Health Treatment DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Substance Abuse Program (SAP) DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Vocational Education DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a

Services in Custody Completed Prison Case Manager Contacts DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a

F-6


Education Literacy DA Database CDCR CDCR CDCR CDCR GED DA Database CDCR CDCR CDCR CDCR College DA Database CDCR CDCR CDCR CDCR

Life Skills DA Database CDCR CDCR CDCR CDCR Medical Treatment DA Database CDCR CDCR CDCR CDCR Mental Health Treatment DA Database CDCR CDCR CDCR CDCR Substance Abuse Program (SAP) DA Database CDCR CDCR CDCR CDCR Vocational Education DA Database CDCR CDCR CDCR CDCR Community Case Manager Contacts DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a

Behavior in Custody (total during prison stay)

n/a n/a

Disciplinary action DA Database CDCR CDCR CDCR CDCR Services in Community Planned

Education Literacy DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a GED DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a College DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a

Financial DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Housing Placement within 72 hours DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Medical Treatment DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Mental Health Treatment DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Parenting/Child Care DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Substance Abuse Treatment

Detoxification DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Outpatient DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Residential DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Recreation DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Sober Living DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Self-help (AA/NA) DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a

Tattoo Removal DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a

F-7


Transportation DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Employment

Full-time DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Part-time DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a

Vocational Education DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Services Completed in Community

Community Case Manager In-Person Contacts


Community Case Manager Telephone Contacts


Community Roundtable Participation DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Education

Literacy DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a GED DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a College DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a

Financial DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Housing DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Medical Treatment DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Mental Health Treatment DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Parenting/Child Care DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Substance Abuse Treatment

Detoxification DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Outpatient DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Residential DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Recreation DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Sober Living DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Self-help (AA/NA) DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a

Tattoo Removal DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Transportation DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a

F-8


Employment Full-time DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Part-time DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a

Vocational Education DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Social Supports

Faith-based DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a AA/NA sponsor DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Substance Abuse Treatment DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Recreation DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a Counseling/Support Group DA Database n/a n/a n/a n/a

Behavior in Community (total during parole)

Absconding DA Database, CDCR,

Sheriff’s, DA




Date of first felony arrest following release





Date of first misdemeanor arrest following release





Number of Arrests Felony CDCR,



DA CDCR, Sheriff’s,

DA Misdemeanor CDCR,




DA Type of highest felony arrest charge (violent/prop/drug/other) and hierarchy





Type of highest misdemeanor arrest charge (violent/prop/drug/other) and hierarchy





F-9


Number of Convictions Felony CDCR,




DA Misdemeanor CDCR,




DA Type of highest felony conviction charge (violent/prop/drug/other) and hierarchy





Sentence (yes/no) Local custody (jail) CDCR,




DA Prison CDCR,




DA Length of sentence (days) CDCR,




DA Total days in local custody CDCR,




DA Total days in prison CDCR,




DA Parole Violations

Date of first following release CDCR, Sheriff’s, DA




Number CDCR, Sheriff’s, DA




Type CDCR, Sheriff’s, DA




Restitution paid (total amount) CDCR, Sheriff’s, DA




F-10

SOURCE BY SAMPLE TYPE Treatment Comparison Refusals Drop Outs Ineligible Follow-up Interview

Six months following release Participant n/a n/a n/a n/a 12 months following release Participant n/a n/a n/a n/a 18 months following release Participant n/a n/a n/a n/a

Client Locator Participant n/a n/a n/a n/a Program assignment Participant n/a n/a n/a n/a Regular intervals post release Community

Case Manager n/a n/a n/a n/a

Satisfaction Questionnaire Three months Participant n/a n/a n/a n/a

Prison exit Participant, Family/Friend

n/a n/a n/a n/a

Program exit Participant, Family/Friend

n/a n/a n/a n/a

APPENDIX G REFERENCES

G-1

REFERENCES

Alterman, A. I., Brown, L. S., Zaballero, A., & McKay, J. R. (1994). Interviewer severity ratings and composite scores of the ASI: A further look. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 34 (3), 201-209.

Amoureus, M. P. S. R., van den Hurk, A. A., Schippers, G. M., & Breteler, M. H. M (1994). The addiction severity index in penitentiaries. International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology, 38 (4), 309-318.

Andrews, D. A. (2006). The principles of effective correctional programs. In E. J. Latessa & A.M. Holsinger (Eds.), Correctional Contexts: Contemporary and Classical Readings (pp. 250-259). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.

Andrews, D.A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28 (3), 369 - 404

Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based adult corrections programs: What works and what does not. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Austin, J., Clear, T., Duster, T., Greenberg, D. F., Irwin, J., McCoy, C., Mobley, A., Owen, B., & Page, J. (2007). Unlocking America: Why and how to reduce America’s prison population. Washington, D.C.: The JFA Institute.

Austin, J. & McGinnis, K. (2004). Classification of high-risk and special management prisoners: A national assessment of current practices. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections.

Backer, T. E., Guerra, N., Hesselbein, F., Lasker, R. D., & Petersilia, J. (2005). Blueprint for building evidence-based community partnerships in corrections. Unpublished manuscript.

Binswanger, I.A., Stern, M.F., Deyo, R.A., Heagerty, P.J., Cheadle, A., Elmore, J.G. & Koepsell, T.D. (2007). Release from Prison- A High Risk of Death for Former Inmates. The New England Journal of Medicine, 356(2), 157-166.

Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S. (2003). Gender responsive strategies: Research practice, and guiding principles for women offenders. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections.

Bloom, D. (2006). Employment-focused programs for ex-prisoners: What have we learned, what are we learning, and where should we go from here? New York, NY: MDRC.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2008). Prison Statistics. Retrieved October 14, 2008, from:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm

G-2

Burke, P. & Tonry, M. (2006). Successful transition and reentry for safer communities: A call to action for parole. Silver Spring, MD: Center for Effective Public Policy.

Butzin, C.A., O’Connell, D.J., Martin, S.S., & Inciardi, J.A. (2006). Effect of drug treatment during work release on new arrests and incarcerations. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 557-565.

Byrne, J. M., Taxman, F. S., & Young, D. (2002). Emerging roles and responsibilities in the reentry partnership initiative: New ways of doing business. (Doc. No. 196441). Final research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (2008). CDCR Launches First-of-its-Kind Substance Abuse Treatment Program for Female Offenders. Retrieved November 13, 2008, from:

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/News/2008_Press_Releases/Sept_30.html

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (2008). First Quarter 2008 Facts and Figures. Retrieved August 13, 2008, from:

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Division_Boards/Adult_Operations/Facts_and_Figures.html

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (2008). Prison Reforms: Achieving Results. [On-line] Available:

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/News/docs/AP900_Achievements_040908.pdf

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (2007). Meeting the Challenges of Rehabilitation in California’s Prison and Parole System. A Report of Governor Schwarzenegger’s Rehabilitation Strike Team. Sacramento, CA: Petersilia, J.

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (2007). Reform and Inform: Moving Forward with Prison Reform in California. [On-line] Available:

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/News/docs/Reform_and_InformNewsletter.pdf

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2007, June). Expert Panel on Adult Offender Reentry and Recidivism Reduction Programs. Retrieved October 14, 2008, from:

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/News/docs/Expert_Rpt/ExpertPanelRpt_PartII.pdf

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (no date-a). Fall 2007 adult population projections, 2008-2013. [On-line]. Available:

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/Offender_Information_Services_Branch/Projections/F07pub.pdf

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (no date-b). Weekly institution/camp population detail midnight December 5, 2007. [On-line]. Available:

www.cdcr.ca.gov

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (no date-c). AB 900 Benchmark. Retrieved November 13, 2008, from:

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/News/AB_900_Achievements/AB900_Benchmarks_Overview.pdf

G-3

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (no date-d). Spring 2008 Adult Population Projections, 2008-2013. Retrieved November 13, 2008, from:

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/Offender_Information_Services_Branch/Projections/S08Pub_Internet.pdf

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Expert Panel on Adult Offender Reentry and Recidivism Reduction Programs. (2007). A roadmap for effective offender programming in California. [On-line]. Available:

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/News/docs/Expert_Rpt/ExpertPanelRpt_.pdf.

Campbell, R. (2005). Can perceptions of fairness affect outcomes for justice? Vera Institute of Justice Just ‘Cause, 12 (2), 3.

Department of Justice. (no date). Retrieved September 28, 2008, from:

http://www.reentry.gov/

Department of Justice. (no date). Retrieved September 28, 2008, from:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/mentalhealth.html

Elias, D. (2001). A working definition of cultural competency. Presentation at the Seventh Annual Nonprofit Executive Series, Seattle, WA. [On-line]. Available:

Evansforum.org/nonprofit/seventh_annual/pdf/medc.pdf

Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective interventions with offenders. In A.T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing Correctional Options that Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating the Supply (pp. 117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Glaze, L.E. & Maruschak, L.M. (2008). Parents in Prison and Their Minor Children. (NCJ Publication No. 222984). Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Hammet, T.D., Roberts, C., & Kennedy, S. (2001). Health-related Issues in Prisoner Reentry. Crime Delinquency, 47, 390-409.

Harlow, C. W. (2003). Education and correctional populations. (NCJ Publication No. 195670). Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Hendricks, V. M., Kaplan, C. D., Van Limbeek, J., & Geerlings, P. (1989). The addiction severity index: Reliability and validity in a Dutch addict population. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 6 (2), 133-141.

Hodgins, D. C. & El-Guebaly, N. (1992). More data on the addiction severity index: Reliability and validity. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 180 (3), 197-201.

James, D., & Glaze, L. (2006). Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics

Johnson, B.R. (2007). Thinking about the Role of Religion in Crime Prevention, Prisoner Reentry, and Aftercare. Baylor, Texas: Institute for Studies of Religion.

G-4

Johnson, L.E., Fletcher, R.C., & Farley, C. (no date). From options to action: A roadmap for city leaders to connect formerly incarcerated individuals to work. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. [On-line] Available at:

http://www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/235_publication.pdf

Joyner, L. M., Wright, J. D., & Devine, J. A. (1996). Reliability and validity of the addiction severity index among homeless substance misusers. Substance Use and Misuse, 31(6), 729-751.

Kelso, J.C. (2008, October). The Receiver’s Corner: Steady Progress is Evident. The Turnaround Lifeline: California Prison Health Care Services, 3, 2.

Kosten, T. R., Rounsaville, B. J., & Kleber, H. D. (1983). Concurrent validity of the addiction severity index. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, 171 (10), 606-610.

LaVigne, N. (2008, April). Aid reintegration of ex-prisoners. Urban Institute Justice Policy Center. [On-line] Available at:

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/901161_aid_reintegration.pdf

Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. (NCJ 193427). Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Latessa, E. J. (no date). From theory to practice: What works in reducing recidivism? State of crime and justice in Ohio 2003. Columbus, OH: Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services.

Leonhard, C., Mulvey, K., Gastfriend, D. R., & Shwartz, M. (2000). The addiction severity index: A field study of internal consistency and validity. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 18 (2), 129-135.

Levingston, K.D., & Turetsky, V. (2007). Clearinghouse Review: What’s a Civil Lawyer to do? Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, 41(3), 187-197.

Little Hoover Commission. (2007). Solving California’s corrections crisis: Time is running out. [On-line]. Available:

http://www.lhc.ca.gov/lhcdir/report185.html

Little Hoover Commission. (2003). Back to the community: Safe and sound parole policies. [On-line]. Available:

http://www.lhc.ca.gov/lhcdir/report172.html

Lowenkamp, C. T. & Latessa, E. J. (2005). Developing successful reentry programs: Lessons learned from the “What works” research. Corrections Today, April, 72-77.

Lowenkamp, C. T. & Latessa, E. J. (2004). Understanding the risk principle: How and why correctional interventions can harm low-risk offenders. Topics in Community Corrections 2004. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections.

Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. M. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs? Crime & Delinquency, 52 (1), 77-93.

G-5

Maruschak, L. (2008). Medical Problems of Prisoners. Retrieved October 13, 2008, from Bureau of Justice Statistics, from:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/mpp/mpp.htm

Matthews, B., Hubbard, D. J., & Latessa, E. J. (2001). Making the next step: Using evaluability assessment to improve correctional programming. The Prison Journal, 81 (4), 454-472.

McRoberts, O.M. (2002). Religion, Reform, Community: Examining the Idea of Church-based Prisoner Reentry. Chicago, IL: The Urban Institute.

Mumola, C.J. & Karberg, J.C. (2006). Special Report: Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners, 2004. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Natarajan, N., Petteruti, A., Walsh, N., & Ziedenberg, J. (2008). Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety. Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy Institute.

National Criminal Justice Reference Service (no date). The National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study: NTIES Highlights. Retrieved October 13, 2008, from:

http://www.ncjrs.gov/nties97/intro.htm

National Institute of Corrections. (no date). Transition from prison to community initiative. [On-line] Available:

http://nicic.org/TPCIMODEL

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (no date). Drug Abuse & Addiction: One of America’s Most Challenging Public Health Problems- Magnitude. Retrieved October 13, 2008, from:

http://www.drugabuse.gov/about/welcome/aboutdrugabuse/magnitude

National Wraparound Initiative (no date). How, and Why, Does Wraparound Work: A Theory of Change. [On-line] Available at:

http://www.rtc.pdx.edu/PDF/pbNWI-HowAndWhyDoesWraparoundWork.pdf

New Incarceration Figures: Thirty-three Consecutive Years of Growth. Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Project. [On-line]. Available at:

http://www.sentencingproject.org/Admin/Documents/publications/inc_newfigures.pdf

Newman, A. P., Lewis, W., & Beverstock, C. (1993). Prison literacy: Implications for program and assessment policy. [On-line]. Available at:

http://library.nald.ca/research/item/294

Osher, F., Steadman, H.J., & Barr, H. (2003). A best practice approach to community reentry from jails for inmates with co-occurring disorders: The APIC model. Crime & Delinquency, 49, 1, 79-96.

Petersilia, J. (2007). What works in community corrections. Interview with Pew Public Safety Performance Project. Washington, D.C.: Pew Center on the States. [On-Line]. Available at:

http://www.pewpublicsafety.org/pdfs/Petersilia%20Community%20Corrections%20Q&A.PDF

G-6

Petersilia, J. (2006). Understanding California corrections. Berkeley, CA: California Policy Research Center, University of California.

Reentry Policy Council (2005). Report of the re-entry policy council: Charting the safe and successful return of prisoners to the community. New York, NY: Council of State Governments.

Rosenfeld, R., Petersilia, J., & Visher, C. (2008). The first days after release can make a difference. Corrections Today. NIJ Update.

Rotter, M., McQuistion, H., Broner, H., & Steinbacher, M. (2005). The impact of the “Incarceration Culture” on Reentry for Adults With Mental Illness: A Training and Group Treatment Model. Psychiatric Services, 56(3), 265-267.

Sabol, W., Couture, H., & Harrison, P. M. (2007). Prisoners in 2006. (NCJ 2219416). Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D. C., MacKenzie, D. L., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. D. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising. A report to the United States Congress. (NCJ 171676). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

Solomon, A.L., Johnson, K.D., Travis, J., & McBride, E.C. (2004). From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.

Solomon, A. L., Kachnowski, V., & Bhati, A. (2005). Does parole work? Analyzing the impact of postprison supervision on rearrest options. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.

Sorsoli, L., Kia-Keating, M., & Grossman, F.K. (2008). “I keep that hush-hush”: Male survivors of sexual abuse and the challenges of disclosure. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(3), 333-345.

Speier, J. (2006, February). Senate Bill 1453: An act to add and repeal Section 2933.4 of the Penal Code, relating to prisoners. Presented to the California Legislature, Sacramento, CA.

Stöffelmayr, B. E., Mavis, B. E., & Kasim, R. M. (1994). The longitudinal stability of the addiction severity index. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 11 (4), 373-378.

Sydney, L. (2005). Supervision of women defendants and offenders in the community: Gender responsive strategies for women offenders. (NIC 020419). Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections.

Taxman, F.S., Young, D., & Fletcher, B. (2007). The National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices Survey: Multi-Level Survey Methods and Procedures. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32, 225-238.

The Pew Center on the States. (2008). One in 100: Behind bars in America 2008. Washington, D.C.: Pew Charitable Trusts. [On-line] Available at:

http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/8015PCTS_Prison08_FINAL_2-1-1_FORWEB.pdf

The Pew Center on the States (2007). When offenders break the rules: Smart responses to parole and probation violations. Washington, D.C.: Pew Charitable Trusts. [On-line]. Available at:

http://www.pewpublicsafety.org/pdfs/Condition%20Violators%20Briefing.pdf

G-7

Travis, J., Solomon, A.L., & Waul, M. (2001). From prison to home: The dimensions and consequences of prisoner reentry. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.

Walker, J. S. (2008). How, and Why, Does Wraparound Work: A Theory of Change. Portland, OR: National Wraparound Initiative, Portland State University.

Zanis, D. A., McLellan, A. T., Cnaan, R. A., & Randall, M. (1994). Reliability and validity of the addiction severity index with a homeless sample. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 11(6), 541-548.