Alameda County Probation Second Chance Act

Alameda County Probation Second Chance Act Adult Offender Reentry Demonstration Project Final Evaluation Report May 2012 Prepared by: Hatchuel Taber...
Author: Kenneth Gregory
3 downloads 1 Views 1MB Size
Alameda County Probation Second Chance Act Adult Offender Reentry Demonstration Project

Final Evaluation Report May 2012

Prepared by: Hatchuel Tabernik & Associates

Final Evaluation Report May 2012

Prepared by: Danielle Toussaint, PhD, Senior Associate Naneen Karraker, M.A., Consultant Tim Tabernik, President

Prepared for the

Alameda County Probation Department In Partnership with City of Oakland Department of Human Services Alameda County Sheriff’s Office Women on the Way Recovery Center Volunteers of America

Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Project Description ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Evaluation Design ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Key Findings .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Future Plans ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 Project Intervention Description ................................................................................................................ 6 Evaluation Design.............................................................................................................................................. 9 Research Questions ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Evaluation Design ....................................................................................................................................... 10 Description of Study Groups .................................................................................................................... 10 Methods & Data Sources ........................................................................................................................... 11 Analyses ........................................................................................................................................................ 11 Key Findings ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 Accomplishment of Program Activities as Initially Planned ................................................................ 11 Key Points over Project Period ................................................................................................................. 11 Key Obstacles .............................................................................................................................................. 15 Participants’ Characteristics & Needs upon Reentry ............................................................................. 17 Participants’ Engagement with Reentry Program Services ................................................................... 19 Effectiveness of Program on Recidivism, Public Safety, and Other Outcomes ................................ 20 Variation in Effectiveness by Sub-Groups .............................................................................................. 22 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................ 24

Prepared by Hatchuel Tabernik and Associates

Page | 1

Executive Summary Project Description The Second Chance Project, an adult re-entry demonstration project based out of the Santa Rita County Jail, was developed to serve 100 adults who were incarcerated for at least four months for a felony offense, assessed as “High Risk” on the LS/CMI assessment, and released under probation supervision to the target communities of Oakland, Hayward and specific unincorporated areas of Alameda County. The purpose of this evaluation was to determine the effectiveness and impact of services provided under this project through the use of both process and outcome evaluation strategies. The program included both individual and system level interventions including pre-release services, post-release community based case management and other supports, developing common measures applicable on a nationwide scale, leveraging funding streams and resources, and analyzing current systems of screening, assessment and performance measurement. The project was a collaboration of public and private agencies, including: • • • • • • • •

Alameda County Probation Department, Adult Services Division – Overall coordination and grant reporting. Alameda County Associated Community Action Program (ACAP) – Pre and Post release case management service provider for non-Oakland residents provided until the agency’s dissolution in February 2011. Women on the Way Recovery Center (WOWR) – Following the dissolution of ACAP in February 2011, WOWR (a former sub grantee of ACAP) assumed responsibility for day-today reentry services and created the Reentry Services Center (RSC). City of Oakland Department of Human Services –Provided day-to-day reentry services to Oakland residents through their subcontractor Volunteers of America (VOA). Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Santa Rita Jail – Coordinated reentry program provider activities and pre-release inmate-case manager contact. Youth & Family Services Bureau (YFSB) of Alameda County Sheriff’s Office – Provided mental health services for non-Oakland residents. Urban Strategies Council – convened and managed the County’s planning body for reentry services called the Reentry Network Coordinating Council (RNCC). Hatchuel Tabernik & Associates (HTA) – Project evaluator.

Evaluation Design HTA used a mixed method, quasi-experimental evaluation design to evaluate the program’s effectiveness against a comparison group and employed findings for decision-making and programmatic change. A total of 73 participants and 32 non-participants were involved in the 15month evaluation 1. 1

Although the evaluation was 15 months in length, program participants were not engaged in services for a full 15 months. The first potential participant was referred in late February 2011, and enrolled in the program in the first week of March 2011. Thus, the longest period of services was up to 10 months.

Prepared by Hatchuel Tabernik and Associates

Page | 2

Both participants and comparison individuals were serving felony probation in a target community after spending at least four months at the Santa Rita Jail, were considered “high risk” by their score on the LS/CMI, and voluntarily enrolled in the program. The comparison group was created from the group of individuals who were eligible for program services, but chose not to enroll in the program. Baseline data (e.g., demographics, area of residence, LS/CMI risk scores) and follow-up recidivism outcome data were collected for both groups. Service data and follow-up data on other outcomes (e.g., employment, education) were collected only for program participants. One significant difference between the groups was that the comparison group was statistically more likely to be engaged in the PROPs program (SB 678-funded reentry program in which deputy probation officers provided cognitive-based, post-release services and supervision). While the evaluator controlled for other significant baseline differences in the outcome analyses, this difference was too substantial to make adjustments in analyses. Thus, the comparison group should be considered to be another “treatment” program, rather than “business-as-usual” or no reentry services received. In this study, recidivism was defined as a return to jail/prison due to a violation of probation and/or conviction for a new offense committed after release in the community, which is in line with the Second Chance Act’s definition of recidivism. In calculating recidivism rates, the evaluator controlled for time spent in community, so individuals who recidivated would be compared to other individuals who had spent comparable time in the community.

Key Findings Program Obstacles. An early and major project obstacle was the dissolution of ACAP, which was slated to share programmatic lead agency status with the City of Oakland. This put additional pressure on the City of Oakland and the Probation Department. Probation contracted with a replacement agency, Women on the Way Recovery Center, to act as the service lead and the project resumed. However, this change led to a delay in the start-up because client and provider relationships had to be re-created. In addition, there were barriers to accessing participants while in the jail. These barriers challenged the program’s ability to conduct activities as planned. Finally, there was a significant differential in services available to participants between Oakland and the southern portions of Alameda County. While Oakland boasted an array of re-entry services through the Department of Human Services and Measure Y violence-prevention funds, fewer services were available in South County.

Top Four Risk and Need Areas

High Risk/Needs of Participants. Among participants, the baseline data suggested that prior to their initial physical custody at the • Education/Employment Santa Rita jail these individuals had a • Leisure/Recreation significant amount of free and idle time • Companions combined with companionships with • Criminal History delinquent peers. This supported the premise that that much of their time could and should be filled with education/employment training opportunities and other pro-social activities. On the other hand, a high proportion of participants indicated positive family/marital situations and low pro-criminal attitudes. These factors improved the potential to build a positive, pro-social support system that could help reduce the participant’s future involvement in criminal activity. Prepared by Hatchuel Tabernik and Associates

Page | 3

Recidivism Outcomes. Within the program’s first month, 3.2% of participants and 4.3% of controls had recidivated, and, within three months, these numbers grew to a cumulative recidivism rate of 25.6% of participants and 26.3% of controls. Within six months of their release, 56% of participants and 62.5% of controls had recidivated (see Figure 1). While recidivism rates for participants appear lower than for controls, the difference was not statistically significant. These findings suggest that the Second Chance program was statistically comparable to the comparison group, which consisted primarily of individuals engaged in PROPs programming.

Figure 1: One-, Three- and Six- Month Recidivism Outcomes for Probationers

VOP and/or new conviction (%)

80 60

40

20 0

0

1

3

6

Months to Recidivate Participants

Non-Participants

Differential Outcomes by Sub-groups. •

Oakland residents were significantly less likely to recidivate within six months than nonOakland (South County) residents. Within 6 months, 82% of non-Oakland residents had recidivated as compared with 36% of Oakland residents.



As expected, very high risk participants (as assessed by LS/CMI) were more likely to recidivate within six months than high risk participants. (However, this difference was not statistically significant.) Within six months, all very high risk participants had recidivated compared to half of high risk participants. The relatively small sample size for this analysis dictates that, despite an apparently large difference, it is nonetheless not statistically significant.

Prepared by Hatchuel Tabernik and Associates

Page | 4



Participants receiving in-custody case management services had lower recidivism rates than participants who received no case management. Within 3 months, 50% of participants receiving NO in-custody services had recidivated compared to 18% of participants receiving SOME in-custody services. Again due to the relatively small sample size, despite an apparently large difference, it is not statistically significant.



Participants who received some post-release case management services had significantly lower recidivism rates than participants who received no case management. Within 3 months, 60% of participants receiving NO post-release services had recidivated compared to 17% of participants receiving SOME post-release services. Within 6 months, 100% of participants receiving NO post-release services had recidivated compared to 39% of participants receiving SOME post-release services. Both of these findings were statistically significant.

Overall, the findings suggest the program was more effective for Oakland residents, and high risk participants. And as to be expected, the program was more effective for participants who received in-custody and post-release program services.

Conclusion & Future Plans It is clear that the program faced many unanticipated challenges that affected both the number of participants enrolled as well as provision of in-custody and post-release services. However, the preliminary results show that the Second Chance program, despite its startup challenges and barriers, produced similar recidivism outcomes as the PROPs reentry program which targets a similar population and provides a similar level of post-release services. Clearly the participating agencies learned much and improved their collaboration during the fifteen month project period. Ultimately, Alameda County decided to reapply for Second Chance funding with the Sheriff’s Office as the lead agency the Sheriff’s Office Youth and Family Services Bureau as the key case management entity, and the Probation Department serving as technical advisor and partner. This will ensure optimal access to the jail as well as structural reforms that improve the target population’s access to in-custody services.

Prepared by Hatchuel Tabernik and Associates

Page | 5

Introduction Project Intervention Description In target areas of Oakland, Hayward, and unincorporated Ashland/Cherryland, people return from jail to under-resourced communities that struggle to meet their multiple needs. To support these returning men and women at highest risk for recidivism, the Second Chance Act Demonstration Project, funded by the federal Bureau of Justice Administration (BJA), was launched October 1, 2010. It was designed to provide an assessment-based continuum of care to high-risk prisoners in Santa Rita Jail pre- and post-release. The Second Chance Project aimed to serve 100 adults incarcerated at Santa Rita County Jail who had been sentenced to at least 4 months in jail, were assessed as “High Risk” on the LS/CMI 2 assessment, and were released under probation supervision to the target communities. Eligibility criteria were: 1. 2. 3. 4.

On formal felony probation; Ordered to at least 4 months in Santa Rita jail; Residing in Oakland, Hayward, or specified unincorporated areas of Alameda County; and “High” LS/CMI score (probationers with LS/CMI score ≥20).

The Alameda County Probation Department Adult Services Division with their Second Chance partners introduced new elements into the county’s current re-entry processes. These included both new or enhanced individual-level reentry services as well as system-level changes. Individual-level interventions: 1. Addressing criminogenic needs that affect recidivism while prisoners are serving their sentences; 2. Adding capacity for pre-release and sustained community based case management both preand post-release; and 3. Supporting a comprehensive range of services for convicted adults, including mental health/substance abuse assessments and treatment, employment services, transitional housing, and support services. System-level interventions: 1. Using the actuarial-based LS/CMI and including results in the pre-sentencing report to the court; 2. Developing common measures and compatible data collection systems that can be used countywide; 3. Blending funding streams and pooling resources with assistance from the Reentry Network Coordinating Council; 4. Reconciling performance measurement standards currently in use across Alameda County; and 5. Analyzing current systems used to screen and assess the jailed and probation populations.

2 The Level of Service/Case Management Inventory is a well validated assessment that measures the risk and need factors, as well as strengths, of late adolescent and adult offenders, both male and female. It is also a fully functioning case management tool.

Prepared by Hatchuel Tabernik and Associates

Page | 6

Multiple partners contributed vital services to the project. As envisioned in the grant application and modified and/or expanded upon during program implementation, the partner roles were outlined as follows: Alameda County Probation Department Adult Services Division: Probation coordinated the demonstration project and handled grant reporting, fiscal management, and subcontracting, under the oversight of Ted Baraan, Director of Adult Services and Project Coordinator. Greg McLean, Deputy Probation Officer, was responsible for coordinating with Santa Rita Jail staff, Inmate Services, and project case managers to ensure that appropriate services were accessed by identified participants. Lisa Abernathy coordinated data collection and grant reporting. In the original grant application, Sara Bedford, Policy and Planning Manager at Oakland Department of Human Services and Nanette Dillard, Executive Director at ACAP were to be project co-leads on the demonstration project, with shared responsibility for overall operations of reentry services, progress towards goals and objectives, and supervision of staff and subcontractors. Meanwhile, Bonita Vinson, Deputy Chief, Adult Services was to coordinate grant reporting, fiscal management, and subcontracting. Mr. Baraan replaced Bonita Vinson, Deputy Chief of Adult Services, as the Probation Liaison in December 2011. He took over the role as Project Coordinator in February 2011, when ACAP ceased operations (this is described in greater detail below). Alameda County Associated Community Action Program (ACAP): As described above, Nanette Dillard, ACAP Executive Director, was to co-coordinate the demonstration project with Sara Bedford of Oakland Department of Human Services. In addition, ACAP reentry staff were to provide pre- and post-release case management services to “balance of county” residents, i.e., all targeted cities and unincorporated areas of Alameda County not including Oakland. At the time, ACAP staff ran the RESCUE (Reentry Services for Unemployed ExOffenders) program at the Eden Area One-Stop in Hayward for individuals leaving Santa Rita jail. In addition, the ACAP Reentry Coordinator was already working in the jail, providing employment and case management services as part of the federally-funded Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI) grant. By February 2011, most ACAP employees were laid off, and ACAP effectively ceased operations following severe financial difficulties. In February 2012, the Alameda County District Attorney filed criminal charges against the Executive Director for illegal mismanagement of public funds, among other alleged criminal conduct 3. Ted Baraan of Probation took over the role as project lead in February 2011, when ACAP ceased operations. Women on the Way Recovery Center/Reentry Services Center (WOTW/RSC): Following ACAP’s dissolution, Probation contracted with Women on the Way Recovery Center (WOTW, a sub grantee of ACAP through CSBG funding) to undertake the reentry services that ACAP was to provide to “balance of county” residents. WOTW hired several of the ACAP reentry staff and created the Reentry Services Center (RSC) to provide these services. WOTW/RSC became responsible for the day-to-day provision of pre- and post-release services and supervision of program staff providing services to Hayward and (unincorporated) Ashland and Cherryland residents. Barbara Quintero, the Director of Operations at WOTW, oversaw the service provision; Retrieved on 5/1/2012: http://www.alcoda.org/news/archives/2012/feb/criminal_charged_filed_dillard_daniels _acap

3

Prepared by Hatchuel Tabernik and Associates

Page | 7

Felicia Moore-Jordan was responsible for coordinating the adult reentry program staff and other sub-contracted service providers; and two case managers provided pre- and post-release services. Post-release services were provided from the Reentry Services Center (RSC) on Amador Street in Hayward. City of Oakland Department of Human Services: Subcontracting to Volunteers of America (VOA), Oakland DHS was responsible for the day-to-day provision of reentry services and supervision of program staff providing services to Oakland residents. Dan Simmons, Oakland DHS Reentry Services Manager, helped to leverage and coordinate Measure Y young adult reentry program providers who serve this target population. He managed contracts and invoices; conducted site visits; determined capacity-building needs of assigned grantees; arranged for technical assistance; and made public presentations to stakeholders across the violence-prevention community. Gary Flores, VOA Case Manager, led pre- and postrelease program services and case management. Youth & Family Services Bureau (YFSB) of Alameda County Sheriff’s Office: YFSB provided mental health services for residents of Hayward and unincorporated Ashland and Cherryland. Andrea Starn, Supervisor at the YFSB, served as the contact person. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Santa Rita Jail: Lieutenant Mark Flores, Inmate Services Manager at the Sheriff’s Office, was responsible for coordinating reentry program provider activities and facilitating inmate-case manager contacts within Santa Rita Jail. Urban Strategies Council: Urban Strategies Council, a policy intermediary, convened and staffed the Reentry Network, the County’s coordinated strategic planning body for reentry. The Network continued the strategic planning process. The Urban Strategies Council provided GIS mapping activities to make data more accessible regarding issues relating to reentry as they facilitated the Reentry Network planning process. The Reentry Network is composed of decision makers from Alameda County agencies, the City of Oakland, and key nonprofits in the reentry community. Hatchuel Tabernik & Associates (HTA): HTA, as the lead evaluator on the project, was responsible for evaluation planning, data collection, analysis, and reporting on progress and success aligned with performance measures and program goals and objectives.

Prepared by Hatchuel Tabernik and Associates

Page | 8

Evaluation Design The overall purpose of this evaluation was to determine the effectiveness and impact of the Second Chance Project on targeted communities. Hence, the evaluation strategy focused on two goals: 1) to understand how the Project was implemented and how activities lead to outcomes (process evaluation); and 2) to assess the impact of the program on short-term and longer-term objectives and outcomes (outcome evaluation).

Research Questions

The following research questions (RQ) guided the overall evaluation. Process Evaluation RQ1. Were program activities accomplished as initially planned? RQ2. How were referrals, and transitions for probationers handled between the partners? How were cases requiring multiple services handled? RQ3. What were the lessons learned during program implementation? Outcome Evaluation RQ4. What are probationers’ re-entry needs? Who engages with re-entry services? RQ5. What is the effect of the program on recidivism and public safety compared to treatment as usual? RQ6. Is there variation in program success by re-entry needs, and by level of engagement in re-entry services? The following objectives, specified in the grant application, guided the definitions of program effectiveness for these research questions: 1. By year 5, recidivism rates in target population (TP) will be reduced by 50% over the 200910 baseline rates. 2. The crime rate will be reduced by 10% annually in target areas compared to the 2009-10 baseline rates. 3. The percent of TP who are employed will increase by 15% annually compared to the previous year. 4. The percent of unemployed TP who are enrolled in educational programs will increase by 20% annually. 5. The percent of TP violating conditions of probation will decrease by 40% over the 2009-10 baseline rates. 6. Each year, the percent of TP paying their child support (of those required to pay) will increase by 20%. 7. Each year, the percent of TP who have found housing will increase by 15% over the 2009-10 baseline rates. 8. Each year, the percent of TP enrolled in a substance abuse treatment program (of those assessed as needing these services) will increase by 15% over the prior year. 9. Each year, the percent of TP enrolled in a mental health (MH) treatment program (of those needing treatment) will increase by 15% over the previous year. 10. Each year, 50% of TP will report reduced substance abuse compared to their rate prior to intake. Prepared by Hatchuel Tabernik and Associates

Page | 9

Evaluation Design For the process evaluation, HTA used a mixed methods evaluation design to evaluate the program and employ findings for decision-making and programmatic change. For the outcome evaluation, HTA utilized a quasi-experimental study design that compare the recidivism rate and progress on other outcomes for the participants engaged in program services with a comparison group receiving treatment as usual. The analyses considered baseline differences between the study groups and its effect on expected outcomes. This study design also employed mixed methods to understand differences between the groups on expected outcomes, if any.

Description of Study Groups

The eligibility requirements for participant enrollment were: • • • • •

Serving felony probation; At least 4 months in custody at Santa Rita Jail, during the project period; Physically in custody at Santa Rita Jail and able to receive pre-release services; Resident of the targeted areas; and LS/CMI score of 20 or higher.

The proposed eligibility requirements for the comparison group were: • • • •

Serving felony probation; At least 4 months in custody at Santa Rita Jail, during the project period; Resident of the targeted areas; and LS/CMI score of 20 or higher.

Since the program was voluntary, there was a larger pool of eligible probationers than actual enrolled probationers. The comparison group was created from the list of people on probation who were eligible for services, but chose not to enroll in the program. As such, there may be inherent attributes of the non-participants that could selectively bias the recidivism, educational, and employment outcomes. To the extent possible, the evaluator statistically compared the two groups on demographic and other baseline variables, but there may be other unmeasured factors that could result in a selection bias. While the data show that this comparison group matches the participant group well enough, the comparison group’s average age was significantly younger and a significantly higher percent of them were identified as enrolled in PROPs (Probation Rehabilitative Opportunity Program). 4 In addition, there may be other unmeasured aspects of the comparison group (e.g., personal motivation, criminal history, etc.) that could lead to (or prevent) recidivism and other negative outcomes.

In October 2009, Alameda County was awarded $1.49 million as part of SB 678 to continue an evidence-based reentry program serving 18-25 year old offenders. PROPs’ primary goal was to reduce the number of 18-25 year olds committed to State Prison and to help reduce the recidivism rate. The program focused on the importance of the connection between the client and Probation Officer. PROPs clients were assessed at baseline and then reassessed in 6 and 9 month follow-ups to see if required benchmarks were met. Clients were then moved to the lowest level of supervision allowed based on these results.

4

Prepared by Hatchuel Tabernik and Associates

Page | 10

Methods & Data Sources

The mixed method data sources to be used for both the process and outcome evaluation are listed below. These are described in greater detail in Table B.1 in the Appendix. • • • • •

Baseline and outcome participant and comparison group quantitative data Pre- and post- release service delivery data on participants Key stakeholder interviews Partner meeting notes Alameda County annual crime rate data 5

Analyses Consistent with the use of mixed methods, a variety of analyses (both statistical and non-statistical) were employed to answer the research questions. The choice of analyses depends on whether quantitative or qualitative data is examined, as well as the specific question being addressed. Table B.2 in the Appendix outlines each research question with the data sources used, indicators/variables of interest, and the analyses conducted. The statistical analyses for this report included the p-value. Calculating the p-value is used to ensure, as much as possible, that the difference in outcomes is not due to chance, but in fact represents a significant or meaningful difference. For example, when we compare the characteristics of the program participants with the non-participants or “comparison group” as shown in Table A.1, we find that the p-value for the difference between the ages, enrollment in PROPS, and two domains of the LS/CMI assessment is less than 0.05. This means the difference can quite confidently be attributed to a real difference as opposed to chance. We call that a “significant” difference or “statistically significant” difference.

Key Findings Accomplishment of Program Activities as Initially Planned Though the program was implemented essentially as initially planned, a major change in partners at the beginning and the emergence of several unanticipated barriers thwarted efforts to serve as many people as planned with the range of services planned.

Key Points over Project Period Oct/10

5

10/1

Grant award period starts

10/5

First project launch meeting held between Probation, ACAP, DHS, and HTA staff. (Sheriff’s Office representative not in attendance.) Probation assigns project lead to Adult Services Director, Ted Baraan, who is on paid leave until November. However, his role is expected to be primarily fiscal and reporting to DOJ. Greg McLean is assigned as DPO on project; he is on paid leave until December. ACAP & DHS are expected to collaborate together, start services, and run day-to-day operations of the program. ACAP intends to continue their “RESCUE” program services, already established in Santa Rita

2011 crime rate data from Uniform Crime Reports was not available at the time of this report

Prepared by Hatchuel Tabernik and Associates

Page | 11

jail, for this project. Probation initiates contracting/MOU process for partners/contractors. 10/28

ACAP hosts first partner meeting with ACAP, Probation, HTA, and Sheriff’s Office staff to discuss program implementation. DHS staff and high-level Probation staff are not at the meeting (not invited).

Nov/10 11/9

Grant award accepted by Alameda County Board of Supervisors

Dec/10 12/2

Partner meeting held between Probation, ACAP, DHS, Sheriff’s Office and HTA staff. Ted Baraan leads meeting, and partners began discussing details of program services, eligibility requirements, LS/CMI training issues, and other logistics. DHS will subcontract services to Volunteers of America, who are in attendance at meeting. Probation is still processing contracts/MOUs with all partners. DHS states they cannot allow VOA to start services until an MOU between DHS & Probation is in place.

Jan/11 1/6

Partner meeting held between Probation, ACAP, DHS, Sheriff’s Office and HTA staff. Since the LS/CMI assessment is only available for the PROPs population which is limited to 18-25 year olds, Probation agrees to train VOA/ACAP personnel in LS/CMI instrument so that they can assess individuals over the age of 25 for eligibility. Partners agree to share results with DPO Greg McLean, who will enroll clients into program. Final budget from DOJ has also not yet been approved; hence, money has not yet been released. Probation is still processing contracts/MOUs with all partners.

1/26

ACAP/VOA staff trained in LS/CMI

Feb/11 2/10

Partner meeting held between Probation, ACAP, DHS, VOA, Sheriff’s Office and HTA staff. Final budget has been approved by DOJ. Eligibility criteria and client flow is clarified and finalized. Two non-Probation staff have been trained in LS/CMI and they will begin assessing older individuals (over 25 years). Probation is still processing contracts/MOUs with all partners. VOA states they cannot begin services until they have contract with DHS; DHS will not contract with VOA until they have MOU with Probation. DPO identifies 7 potential cases (4 w/LS/CMI score, 3 w/o LS/CMI score; 5 Oakland, 1 Hayward, 1 San Leandro).

2/14

Chief David Muhammad begins work as the new Chief of Probation. Later in the month, due to gross mismanagement of funds, all ACAP staff (except a few key administrators) are laid off. ACAP is no longer able to provide services for the Second Chance project.

Mar/11 3/3

Partner meeting held between Probation, DHS, VOA, Sheriff’s Office and HTA staff. Main discussion is impact of ACAP’s dissolution on the project, and assignment of their

Prepared by Hatchuel Tabernik and Associates

Page | 12

funds and tasks to another service provider. Some former ACAP staff are in attendance. VOA reports taking over ACAP’s re-entry classes at Santa Rita Jail, and has started administering LS/CMIs for those over age 25. Sheriff’s Office states concern that they are unpaid for providing a significantly greater level of services than originally expected. Relevant Sheriff’s Office and DSAL staff will be invited to another meeting for following week. 3/16

Follow-up partner meeting held between Probation, DHS, VOA, Sheriff’s Office, DSAL and HTA staff to discuss distribution of ACAP funds and tasks to another service provider. Some former ACAP staff are in attendance. It is announced that ACAP will be completely dissolved within 90 days; the former reentry program staff are trying to create a new organization to continue their reentry work. No agreement is made at this meeting on who will continue ACAP’s role. At this point, a total of 6 clients (all Oakland) have been “officially” enrolled in the program and counted towards the grant goal. Probation is still processing contracts/MOUs with all partners.

Apr/11 4/7

Partner meeting held between Probation, DHS, VOA, WOTW, Sheriff’s Office and HTA staff. It has been decided that WOTW will take over ACAP’s role. They have hired the former ACAP staff and created Reentry Service Center (RSC) to conduct the work. Tri-Valley ROP has taken over the cognitive group classes that ACAP had been conducting. However, it has been difficult getting participants into the class due to classification issues at jail. Some of ACAP’s funds were assigned to Sheriff’s Office, due to their increased role in support of programming at Santa Rita jail. At this point, 60 individuals have been referred to the program, an unknown number have been “officially enrolled.”

May/11 5/5

Partner meeting held between Probation, DHS, VOA, Sheriff’s Office, and WOTW/RSC. Probation is still processing contracts/MOUs with all partners.

Jun/11 6/16

Ted Baraan updated the RNCC on project activities.

6/23

Partner meeting held between Probation, DHS, VOA, Sheriff’s Office, WOTW/RSC and HTA staff. Probation has finalized contracts/MOUs with all partners, except the Sheriff’s Office. Probation has received approval for a “No Cost Extension” from DOJ to continue services through January 31, 2012. At this point, 90 referrals have been made to the program, an unknown number have been “officially enrolled.”

6/30

At this point, 46 individuals have been assessed with the LS/CMI; 31 identified as eligible for program; 11 enrolled participants have been released from SRJ and into community.

Jul/11 7/14

Partner meeting held between Probation, DHS, VOA, Sheriff’s Office, and WOTW/RSC.

Prepared by Hatchuel Tabernik and Associates

Page | 13

Aug/11 8/11

Partner meeting held between Probation, DHS, VOA, Sheriff’s Office, and WOTW/RSC.

8/22

At this point, 45 individuals have been enrolled in the program; 20 in SRJ and 20 have been released into community; 61% returning to Oakland, and 39% returning to Hayward and unincorporated regions. Few women enrolled because of low referrals and their relatively low scores on LS/CMI.

Sep/11 9/15

Probation, VOA, and RSC present project progress to RNCC. Of 158 individuals referred, only 45 were eligible and enrolled in program services.

Oct/11 10/1

Sheriff’s Office has been awarded the Second Chance Act Adult Reentry grant, i.e., “Operation My Home Town.” This is seen as “continuation” of the current program, but with the Sheriff’s Office as fiscal/programmatic lead. However, the program focus will be on the South County (i.e., unincorporated areas of Eden area), so Oakland and Hayward residents will not be served by this program going forward.

10/20

Partner meeting held between Probation, DHS, VOA, Sheriff’s Office, WOTW, RSC, and HTA. To date, 68 clients enrolled in program and 53 are actively participating. There is concern that the program will be unable to “hit their numbers” by January 2012. It is agreed that last day of services will be 12/31/11.

Nov/11 1/17

Partner meeting held between Probation, DHS, VOA, Sheriff’s Office, WOTW, and RSC.

Dec/11 12/8

Last partner meeting held between Probation, DHS, VOA, Sheriff’s Office, WOTW, RSC, and HTA. Of 140 individuals assessed for eligibility, 68 participants enrolled in program, 57 are actively receiving services. VOA is serving 48 clients, and RSC is serving 20.

12/31

Program services “end” under Probation’s oversight, but Sheriff’s Office will continue the program with their own staff. VOA/DHS are not contracted to provide program services with the Sheriff’s Office. WOTW/RSC will receive small contract to provide post-release substance abuse treatment services to South County residents, as needed.

Jan/12 1/30

Grant program officially ends under Probation’s oversight.

As one key stakeholder observed, this “first phase” of the Second Chance Act Reentry Program enabled participating agencies to work out some of the kinks and to develop a stronger relationship Prepared by Hatchuel Tabernik and Associates

Page | 14

with each other by the end of the project period. Specifically, community-based service providers were able to develop more trust and understanding with the Sheriff’s Office staff and vice versa. Figure A.1 (Appendix) illustrates the flow of participants through the program, from assessment to case manager assignment and to pre- and post-release services. One key stakeholder reported the program “worked” insofar as staff members were able to use the designated pathways to identify, assess, and enroll participants in the program, and then assign case managers to participants by the geographical area to which they are returning.

Key Obstacles Initially, it was expected not only that 100 participants would be easily enrolled in the program, but that the program would be over-subscribed, permitting the use of random selection to test the program’s effectiveness. Ultimately, 73 participants were enrolled in the program. Several key obstacles slowed and constrained selection of participants and provision of services, especially incustody services. These are outlined as follows: 1. Delay in community-based provider start-up: In February 2011, the Alameda County Associated Community Action Program (ACAP), which was to serve 40 participants returning to Hayward and a nearby unincorporated area of the county, collapsed. The Program oversight group quickly arranged with Women on the Way Recovery Center (WOTW) to assume their project responsibilities and to employ the ACAP direct service staff members who had already begun working on the program. This new group was called the Reentry Services Center (RSC). The Director of Adult Services of the Probation Department, which administered the grant, reported that when he “first told the National Reentry Resource Center coach [about the collapse of ACAP], they told me that’s never happened to anyone ever!” The collapse of ACAP also resulted in the loss of the cognitive curriculum that the program design assumed would engage participants during the pre-release phase and better prepare them for reentry. ACAP had jail clearance and was expected to deliver the curriculum. Volunteers of America (VOA), the community-based provider that had not planned to provide pre-release workshops and the ACAP replacement, RSC/WOTW, had to develop these pre-release services from scratch. In addition, neither VOA nor RSC/WOTW staff had jail clearances, slowing the start up further. Another delay was related to the lag in receiving budget approval from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) until February 2011, and then the Probation Department processing all final MOUs/contracts with project partners was delayed until the end of June 2011. Volunteers of America (VOA) was unable to hire program staff until they had received funds. According to one stakeholder interview, they did not start the hiring process until January of 2011. They did not officially start working until March 2011. 2. Significant changes in responsibilities resulting from provider issues: The demise of ACAP changed the lead agency arrangement. The grant applicants envisioned that ACAP and City of Oakland would be co-leads programmatically. The Probation Department was to be primarily the fiscal and administrative agent. A second issue was caused by the inability of community-based providers to select and enroll participants because they were not trained to conduct the LS/CMI and did not have access to the Prepared by Hatchuel Tabernik and Associates

Page | 15

Probation Department’s information management system (PRISM) where the LS/CMI, was housed. Since Probation was only assessing individuals between the ages of 18 to 25 years (PROPs clients), it was necessary for the community providers to be trained to complete the LS/CMI on paper and share the results with the DPO who made the final decision on enrollment. This process slowed the rate of recruitment and enrollment. A third issue grew out of confusion about who would provide the in-custody services. Both VOA and WOTW/RSC were responsible for serving participants from different geographic areas of Alameda County and somewhat different age groups (WOTW/RSC served inmates over 35 years of age, while VOA only served inmates under 35), and they both needed to establish relationships with the participant before he/she was released from SRJ. According to one key stakeholder, at one point two sets of participants were receiving the same pre-release curriculum separately, when they could have received it together, thus saving resources and time. 3. Restrictive participant selection criteria limited participant pool: Most key stakeholders reported that the program only served 73 of the planned 100 participants in part because the participant selection criteria were too restrictive, especially the required LS/CMI scoring and four months in custody. One stakeholder noted that the program design assumed that an LS/CMI would have been automatically completed for every potential participant; however, the Probation Department only routinely completed assessments for 18-25 year olds, leaving the community-based providers or Probation to complete assessments for the 26-35 year olds. This slowed the intake process significantly. Another key stakeholder confirmed that of 150 court dispositions only 5-10 individuals qualified for placement in the program, in part due to the high threshold for LS/CMI scores and the required four months in custody. As a result he felt that he was doing a significant amount of information gathering and producing few results. Also in the opinion of the service providers, the requirement that LS/CMI scores be greater than or equal to 20 severely limited the number of eligible women, since the service provider’s experience was that women tended to score lower than males on the assessment. Finally, there was a concurrently run program, PROPs (Probation Rehabilitative Opportunity Program) that targeted an overlapping population to the Second Chance reentry program (i.e., people on probation with LS/CMI scores between 20 – 29 6 and serving time at SRJ). PROPs was a mandatory program, meaning that eligible individuals were automatically enrolled in the program; they were not given a choice. While the PROPs program did not provide pre-release services, it did require that participants receive increased supervision and some post-release services from the program DPO. Although PROPs participants were not excluded from eligibility for the Second Chance Act program, most individuals did not want to be enrolled in both programs. The service providers noted a high rate of refusal from PROPs clients, which was verified by the evaluator. 4. Jail conditions limited programming: In addition to the initial problems of jail access for the community-based providers, the realities of the system undercut the program’s ability to conduct activities as planned. One key stakeholder reported that better implementation of this program design as planned would require that all 6

The Second Chance program was able to serve participants with LS/CMI scores above 29.

Prepared by Hatchuel Tabernik and Associates

Page | 16

partners already be collaborating with each other and that the partners already be familiar with each other’s programs and rules. While ACAP had prior experience working with SRJ staff, VOA and WOTW/RSC had less experience working in the jail, forcing both their staff and jail staff to develop relationships from scratch. This slowed the implementation process. For example, the stakeholder noted that the community-based providers involved would need to know how the jail operates, e.g. the jail is shut down between 2-6 pm, which initially confounded providers. Similarly, jail staff would need to know the limitations that community-based providers experience, e.g. jail staff initially were frustrated when one provider could not take up their offer to conduct treatment groups on Saturdays because no agency staff worked on Saturdays. Three key stakeholders articulated problems that would probably have been quite challenging even if the partners had already developed strong working relationships. One stakeholder from a community-based agency reported that their staff members often had to crouch down in open common areas to conduct interviews with potential program applicants while applicants were between assignments or work; there was no privacy, no continuity, making it much harder to build trust with applicants. A stakeholder from the Probation Department echoed this assessment. He also pointed out that, when community-based providers were able to conduct the planned cognitive treatment groups in the jail, no space was available because other jail activities filled available space and not enough participants were available to participate because they were involved in other activities or were in administrative segregation or maximum security. Another stakeholder described this barrier as never having a “critical mass of participants to work with” which resulted in a failure to fully implement the planned pre-release cognitive education groups. Two key stakeholders attributed this access problem in part to the fact that the Sheriff’s Department were not funded to designate staff to work specifically on this program. For this reason, among others, the next Second Chance grant features the Sheriff’s Department as the applicant. 5. Limited south county services led to imbalance in available service array: One key stakeholder reported that, though a wealth of in-kind services were available to Oakland participants through the City of Oakland’s Department of Human Services and Measure Y funds, very few similar services were available to clients in the South County. This observation suggests that a disparity in available community-based services might impact recidivism. The program data about variation in effectiveness by sub-groups indicate that this disparity may have had an impact.

Participants’ Characteristics & Needs upon Reentry

Of those who participated in Second Chance reentry program services and were released from Santa Rita Jail during the project period (see Tables A.1 & A.2): • • • • • • • • • •

97.3% were male; 69.9% were African-American; 16.4% were Hispanic/Latino; 50.7% were under age 25; 64.4% were returning to Oakland; 17.8% were returning to Hayward, or unincorporated regions; 63% had a known alcohol/drug problem; 27.4% had a known mental health problem; 77.1% were assessed as at high risk of recidivism based on the LS/CMI; 22.9% were assessed as at very high risk of recidivism based on the LS/CMI.

Prepared by Hatchuel Tabernik and Associates

Page | 17

Not surprisingly, the majority of program participants were assessed as high or very high risk/need in the following LS/CMI domains or subcategories 7: • • • •

81.4% -- Education/Employment domain, indicating low levels of participation, involvement, achievement and commitment to the social institutions of education and employment; 70.0% -- Leisure/Recreation domain, indicating significant free and idle time outside of education/employment, family/marital and pro-social activities combined with personality characteristics conducive to filling up this free time in “exciting ways”; 70.0% -- Companions domain, indicating a high number of friends and acquaintances involved in crime who serve as models for behavior and interpersonal sources of rewards and costs; and 50.0% -- Criminal History domain, indicating a high past history of criminal behavior in terms of frequency, variety of settings, early onset and seriousness.

On the other hand, the majority of participants were low or medium risk/need on the following LS/CMI domains: • • • •

81.4% -- Pro-Criminal Attitudes domain, indicating that they highly comprehend the negative consequences of criminal activity on self, victims and community, and that they have positive attitudes towards conventional or noncriminal others; 77.1% -- Family/Marital domain, indicating highly rewarding/caring relationships with spouse or equivalent, parent/guardians, or other close relatives, and these close relatives do not serve as models or supports for unlawful behavior; 57.1% -- Alcohol/Drug Problems domain, indicating low history and/or current levels of alcohol or drug abuse, and little impact of alcohol or drug use on school, work, family, marriage, legal status, and physical health; 55.7% -- Anti-Social Patterns domain, indicating few symptoms consistent with Antisocial Personality Disorder, e.g., extreme egocentrism, patterns of violations of trust and responsibility, overt hostility and anger, and disregard for rules and feelings of others.

Taken together, this suggests that outside of jail, the participants had a significant amount of free and idle time that could be filled with pro-social activities, and education/employment training opportunities, as well as a need for increased exposure to pro-social and productive peers. In addition, the high proportion of participants with positive family/marital situations and low procriminal attitudes indicates the potential for the building of a positive, pro-social support system that can help reduce the participant’s future involvement in criminal activity. For the most part, program participants were statistically equivalent to the non-participants (i.e., those who were eligible for the Second Chance reentry program and chose not to participate). There were a few significant differences: participants were significantly older, less likely to be enrolled in PROPs, and had lower risk/need scores on family/marital and leisure/recreation domains.

Based on definitions provided in: Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J.L., Wormith, J.S. 2004. Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMITM): An Offender Assessment System. User’s Manual. Multi-Health Systems, Inc.: North Tonawanda, NY) 7

Prepared by Hatchuel Tabernik and Associates

Page | 18

Participants’ Engagement with Reentry Program Services As described earlier, program participants were assigned to one of two service providers depending on the geographical area to which they were returning. Oakland residents were directed to Volunteers of America (VOA); Hayward and unincorporated area residents and transients were directed to Reentry Services Center (RSC/WOTW). Given the larger number of Oakland residents enrolled in the program, VOA served 68.5% of the program participants, while RSC served 31.5% (Table A.3). Consistent with an intensive case management model, the majority of in-custody and post-release services provided to program participants were in the form of individual case management counseling/guidance, with referrals to other more specialized services as needed (see Table A.3). (Individual case management sessions typically lasted from 30 minutes to 1 hour. Participants engaged in the program for an average of 3 months while at Santa Rita Jail, and an average of 6 months post-release.) Eighty-seven percent of program participants received in-custody case management services, while 74% received post-release case management services. The average incustody individual case management dose was 5.2 hours, and the average post-release individual case management dose was 6.5 hours. Though 100% of program participants should have received case management counseling/guidance and more hours of case management sessions 8, the lower percentages and average dosage hours may reflect the obstacles to community-based agencies providing full services in the jail setting as well as the challenges these agencies faced sustaining contact with people after their release from jail. Not all participants received both pre- and post-release case management services. Of those participants who received in-custody case management, 83.1% (49 of 59) also received post-release case management. Overall, this indicates a fairly successful transition from jail to post-release services for the majority of participants. (The percent of participants receiving both in-custody and post-release case management services was slightly higher for Oakland residents (88.9% of 47) than non-Oakland residents (64.3% of 14). This suggests that the transition was more successful for Oakland residents than non-Oakland residents.) The data suggest that the two service providers have different criteria for successful program completion: VOA reported that only 10% of participants had successfully completed their program compared with RSC’s completion rate of 53%. This probably reflects a difference in reporting, rather than a difference in reality. Outside of case management, the service providers indicated that relatively few participants engaged in in-custody employment services (18%), in-custody alcohol-drug treatment (13%), post-release alcohol-drug treatment (5.6%), post-release housing services (6.9%), or post-release mental health services (27.8%) (See Table A.3). Less than half of participants reportedly engaged in post-release education/GED services (40%). It is unclear as to whether the low engagement in non-case management services is due to actual low participation in these activities, or if the service providers were not fully aware of the non-case management services in which the participants engaged.

8 “Active involvement entails 4-8 hours per month of face-to-face positive interactions with participants.” From Ready4Reentry: A Prisoner Reentry Toolkit for Faith-Based and Community Organizations, published by the U.S. Department of Labor as part of their Reintegration of Ex-Offenders-Adult (RExO) Program (formerly the Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI). Retrieved 5/7/2012: www.doleta.gov/PRI/PDF/Pritoolkit.pdf

Prepared by Hatchuel Tabernik and Associates

Page | 19

In addition, the service providers reported that no participants received in-custody cognitive-based group services. However, since 43.8% of participants were reported as also enrolled in PROPs and all PROPs participants were required to engage in in-custody cognitive-based group services, we assume that at least that many participants did receive those services. ACAP had been reportedly using a modified, cognitive-based curriculum as part of their RESCUE work in the Santa Rita jail through January 2011 and VOA reported in March 2011 that they were continuing the ACAP trainings. However, the reported participant data indicate otherwise. In follow-up conversations with the VOA lead case manager, it was clarified that some participants did engage in in-custody cognitive-based groups, including the former ACAP class, but this was not recorded on the participant services forms. Moreover, the VOA lead case manager reported that VOA attempted to continue ACAP’s classes, but had difficulty securing space in the jail for the classes, and finding jail staff to move participants in and out of the class. In all likelihood, only a few of these program classes were held. In addition, the case managers did not know in how much nonprogram cognitive-based group services the participant had engaged in. There was no evidence of a difference in the amount of services received for those participants who were assessed as higher risk/need upon reentry (Tables A.4 & A.5). That is, participants received the same level of services, especially case management services, regardless of their difference in risk or need. The one exception is participants who were assessed as high or very high need in anti-social patterns, received significantly more hours of in-custody case management services than those who were assessed as low or medium need in that subcomponent. It is unclear why the level of need did not correspond with number of service hours received. Possible explanations include that participants were referred to needed services but chose not to engage in these services; specialized services did not exist or were inaccessible in the jail or in the participants’ community; LS/CMI domain scores were not used as principal criteria for post-release referrals; or service hours were not carefully tracked for “other” services.

Effectiveness of Program on Recidivism, Public Safety, and Other Outcomes This study uses two measures of recidivism: 1) return to jail for any court/criminal involvement; and 2) a return to jail/prison due to a violation of probation and/or conviction for a new offense committed after release in the community. These are in line with the Second Chance Act’s grant program’s definitions of recidivism. Both measures refer to the time period following the participants release from Santa Rita Jail up through December 31, 2011. As of this report, the longest period of time that recidivism rates could be calculated was six months. Both recidivism measures are based exclusively on official criminal records tracked in CRIMS, which the lead deputy probation officer retrieved for this study. Given the varying complexity of the participants’ legal issues, it was not always easy to determine whether an arrest, charge, conviction, or violation of probation was due to a crime or violation committed before the initial confinement at Santa Rita Jail or after release into the community. For this reason, it is possible that recidivism rates here could be slightly overstated, if the time period of the activity was wrongly attributed. Since participants and non-participants were released from jail at different times throughout the program year, it is most useful to take into account the length of time an individual spent in the community. For example, an individual who was released in May 2011 cannot be compared equally with an individual who was released in December 2011 in regard to recidivism committed before December 31, 2011. The first individual would have spent eight months in the community, whereas the second individual would have spent less than one month in the community. Prepared by Hatchuel Tabernik and Associates

Page | 20

Consequently, recidivism rates are most accurately calculated based on the potential time spent in the community. To this end, one-month recidivism rates were calculated for those who were in the community at least 30 days or had recidivated within 30 days, three-month rates for those in the community at least 90 days or had recidivated within 90 days, and six-month rates for those in the community at least 180 days or had recidivated within 180 days. Participants who were transferred or not yet released from SRJ were not included in this measure of recidivism. Figure 1 presents the recidivism rates adjusted for time spent in community for participants and non-participants.

Figure 1 Figure 1: One-, Three- and Six- Month Recidivism Outcomes for Probationers

VOP and/or new conviction (%)

80 60

40

20 0

0

1

3

6

Months to Recidivate Participants

Non-Participants

Within the first month, 3.2% of participants had recidivated, and, within three months, the cumulative total grew to 25.6%. Within six months of their release, 56% of participants had been reconvicted or violated their probation at least once. Within the first month, 4.3% of nonparticipants had recidivated; within three months, 26.3% of non-participants had recidivated; and within six months, 62.5% of non-participants had recidivated. While these more refined recidivism rates for participants were lower than for non-participants, this difference was not significantly different (Table A.6). This suggests that the Second Chance program did not have a significantly greater impact on recidivism than business-as-usual and/or other reentry programming.

Prepared by Hatchuel Tabernik and Associates

Page | 21

During the program, 23.3% of program participants were returned to jail for any arrest, violation of probation, conviction, or other legal action (Table A.6). In addition, 6.8% of participants were transferred directly from Santa Rita Jail (SJR) to another law enforcement facility (e.g., Immigration & Customs Enforcement, California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation) and 3.1% had not been released from SRJ before the end of the grant program. If recidivism data are analyzed without controlling for length of time in the community, significantly fewer program participants (21.5%) than non-participants (44.4%) recidivated during the program period (Table A.6). However, this picture is distorted. We provide it, as is, only to illustrate the importance of controlling for length of time in the community. It is useful, however, to know that much of the recidivism (for both groups) was attributed to new criminal or court offenses (Table A.7). Among individuals who recidivated, 86% of participants and 83% of non-participants were returned to jail by the court for a new criminal or court offense 9; whereas 14% of participants and 17% of non-participants were returned to jail by the probation officer for a technical violation of probation. During the program period, individuals sent back to jail had new charges mostly for nonviolent offenses 10 (28% of participants and 25% of non-participants sent back to jail). Very few individuals sent back to jail had new charges for violent offenses 11 (14% of participants and 8% of non-participants sent back to jail). In addition to recidivism rates after release from SRJ, other outcomes were tracked, including the percent of participants employed, and enrolled in educational programs (Table A.8). By the end of the program, 21.9% of participants had secured employment, although it is unknown how long participants held those positions. The majority of jobs were part-time positions. In addition, 35.6% had completed their GED or high school diploma. Smaller numbers acquired vocational certificates (8.2%), completed a college or continuing education course (9.6%), or other educational program (9.6%).

Variation in Effectiveness by Sub-Groups One of the guiding evaluation questions was whether the program had a differential impact on particular sub-groups of participants reentering the community. Analyzing by predetermined subgroups of participants (black/non-black, Oakland/non-Oakland, and younger/older), recidivism rates significantly differed between Oakland and non-Oakland participants, but there were no significant differences between younger (