Social Solutions transforming human services

Centralized Data Collection is Key to the Success and Longevity of Second Chance Act and Reentry Programs Contributed by Nicole Geller, Director, Justice Initiatives April 2014

Each year, over 700,000 offenders are released from U.S. penitentiaries or jails, and back into their communities. While recidivism rates vary slightly from year to year and state to state, it is generally recognized that over half of the released offenders will return to incarceration within the first three years post-release. In addition, according to the National Reentry Resource Center: • The instance of serious mental illnesses is two to four times higher among prisoners than it is in the overall population • Three quarters of those returning from prison have a history of substance use disorders. Over 70 percent of prisoners with serious mental illnesses also have a substance use disorder • Two in five prison and jail inmates lack a high school diploma or its equivalent • A large, three-state recidivism study found that less than half of released prisoners had secured a job upon their return to the community Regardless of where one stands ideologically on the issue of corrections and incarceration in America, no one denies that the associated costs and rates of recidivism are too high to sustain, and that these types of systems are not producing the outcomes we should expect from such hefty investments. According to the Pew Center on the States, approximately 1 in every 14 dollars of any given state’s general fund is spent on corrections, and approximately 1 in 9 of those

Regardless of where one stands ideologically on the issue of corrections and incarceration in America, no one denies that the associated costs and rates of recidivism are too high to sustain, and that these types of systems are not producing the outcomes we should expect from such hefty investments.

corrections dollars is spent on community supervision. In 2011, the states spent a total of 52 billion dollars for corrections—despite the fact that 1 in every 2.3 released prisoners will return to prison. We also see that there is little to no correlation between higher incarceration rates and a decrease in crime, given instances of decreased incarceration rates along with decreases in crime rates. To complicate everything further, studies show us that the path for most to a crime-free and connected life is multi-faceted, and requires the offender and the community to address barriers to success that have developed and manifested over generations. Correctional attitudes and practices in the Unites States have traditionally been subject to pendulum swings, each swing with their after effects that are studied, analyzed, and debated, often resulting in pursuant and reactive policy and legislative changes that impact the way we deal with our offending population (at least for the following 10 or so years). A prime example is the “tough on crime” approach adopted in the 80s and early 90s in reaction to the crack-cocaine epidemic. Policies were enacted that provided mandatory minimum sentences, three strikes laws, and zero tolerance programmatic approaches. All of these contributed to the result of swelling and aging prison populations. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the prison population within states had nearly doubled in 2002 from what it was in 1990. Meanwhile, most of those released were re-incarcerated. Was swift and assured incarceration working? The wake of the “tough on crime” policies of the 1980s have led to the next wave of reevaluation and investigation into what is really most effective in dealing with crime and offenders. Ultimately driven by the realities of aging prisoners, the likelihood of re-offense upon release, and the costs associated with an incarceration nation, the policy and law makers began to look at systemic changes that could reflect what had been happening at a small, local, one life at a time scale. To this point, most re-entry services for ex-offenders had not yet been institutionalized, although the pendulum shift had begun. The first major development in the nation’s trend in rethinking the way we respond to crime and offenders is reflected in the federal passage of the Second Chance Act (SCA). For years, state and local governments and non-profits have attempted to scrape together modest budgets to provide services to offenders trying to get back on their feet, while the SCA represented a national commitment to support those efforts within funding and policy. Along with legislation and funding set aside specifically for offender re-entry efforts, organizations that work to advance best practices, research, information sharing and cross-functional collaboration were formed. The creation of organizations like the Federal Interagency Reentry Council and the Council of State Governments’ National Reentry Resource Center reflected the

...Studies show us that the path for most to a crimefree and connected life is multi-faceted, and requires the offender and the community to address barriers to success that have developed and manifested over generations.

scientific and academic commitment to the mind-shift toward programs that supported permanency within a life free of crime. This change didn’t come easily. While the Second Chance Act was first introduced in 2005, it wasn’t ultimately passed until 2007, and signed into law until 2008. In the time it took to allocate and award the funds authorized by the Act, plan in detail how those funds will be used, shift internal agency practices, and fundamentally alter the way correctional staff approach their jobs daily, the real impact from the piece of legislation can’t—realistically—be measured by anything beyond anecdote. But already, there is a significant body of success stories and studies demonstrating that this focus and commitment makes sense, and that it works. The SCA is an example of organized and institutionalized reform and innovation. But we also know that we have plenty of examples of new and exciting initiatives that provided millions of dollars to programs that were never proven to actually work, and the tide of tolerance for that is changing. In the spirit of the Department of Justice’s mission to make program evaluation, science, and evidence integral parts of their mission, we have seen the Office of Justice Programs launch CrimeSolutions.gov (https://www.crimesolutions.gov/), and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency expand upon their Model Programs online library of promising and evolving practices (http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg), both to serve as resources for practitioners in determining what is effective and what provides the biggest return on investment. So, as we keep our eyes on the reauthorization of the Second Chance Act, we must learn the lessons of our past mistakes – that we can’t rely on our guts, feel-good stories, and so-called “common sense” operational decisions. We now understand that you have to have actual data to support the continued funding of a program, the passing down of millions of dollars into our communities, to show that the spending and social investment is working. When a program is working and producing positive outcomes, it becomes a model. When that model has initial to longer term data to support its effectiveness, it’s elevated to a best practice or evidence based model. This is important to funding as well. In the increasingly competitive environment of available funding, we increasingly see an emphasis on the use of burgeoning and evidence based practice that is proven to lead to desirable outcomes. Along with specific performance measures called out in BJA funding solicitations, grant awards are also prioritized to those that select and use an evidence based program model, which will be discussed further below.

Across the country, nearly twothirds of all inmates who crowd our county jails— at an annual cost of roughly $9 billion taxpayer dollars—are defendants awaiting trial. When they are sent home or sentenced to prison, they will cycle out, and others will cycle in—so that by the end of the year, 10 million individuals will have been involved in nearly 13 million jail admissions and releases. … Reentry provides a major opportunity to reduce recidivism, save taxpayer dollars, and make our communities safer. —U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder

How to meet performance measures? This sounds like a daunting task, especially with multiple and disparate systems with varying data sets, which may or may not be complete or accurate, and that don’t talk to each other or share information. With the data sharing evolution already happening around us, and the requirement to demonstrate outcomes becoming a consistent theme in initial and continued funding, it is more important than ever to have easy-to use systems, holding 360-degree data that is easy-to-mine and is accessible by all those involved in the effort at hand. But, this does mean that counting how many offenders you work with is no longer sufficient. The Department of Justice wants and needs to know how well you are serving them, and with what results. We know that year end statistics show us at least something, but what it doesn’t tell us is how we got there over time, what is effective and what isn’t, and why. It also doesn’t provide us with day-to-day insight into what the needs and challenges are for the individual, the provider partner, the program—the “global” effort. How does an organization substantiate their progress against performance measures, or perhaps more importantly, evaluate their performance in real time, before it’s too late to make improvements? An organization that can demonstrate how effectively it provides services and support to offenders reentering their community will have a data collections system that not only possesses all of the following capabilities, but also excels at delivering them: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Capturing data at the point of service Creating measures without programmer involvement Supporting secure data sharing Creating recommendations for referrals, and providing referral management tools 5. Directing staff to impact outcomes (and demonstrating incremental success to staff) 6. Supporting CQI (Continuous Quality Improvement) 7. Incorporating external datasets (for example, from community partners) 8. Adapting to future requirements without programmer involvement 9. Balancing implementation fidelity with local needs 10. Providing performance management and reporting tools at the individual staff level through the state and funder levels. With these supports in place within one system, your Agency is enabled and empowered to strengthen and improve programs and significantly improve the coordination of services and partner activities to improve outcomes for offenders and their families. State and local corrections and public safety agencies are not immune to constrained budgets, but are still held to the same or greater expectations when it comes to results. Everyone must do better with less.

We know that year end statistics show us at least something, but what it doesn’t tell us is how we got there over time, what is effective and what isn’t, and why. It also doesn’t provide us with day-to-day insight into what the needs and challenges are for the individual, the provider partner, the program—the “global” effort.

The national focus on reinvestment in programs that produce long-term outcomes without sacrificing public safety, and the availability of SCA and similar funding opportunities present government agencies and their community partners with a chance to receive a much needed injection of resources in support of these proven programs. Systems that do not permit collection of enterprise-wide data, longitudinal assessment, and that minimize reporting capability to counting are systems that can’t support the evolution toward performance management. All too often, these system limitations unnecessarily limit an organization’s ability to serve their communities to their fullest potential, and with the greatest impact to those at risk. Watch this archived webinar recording, focused on strategies in support of becoming a high performing agency working with ex-offenders. If you have questions about Social Solutions or how we can assist you with your reentry programs and funder requirements, please contact me: Nicole Geller, MA, PMP Director, Justice Initiatives Social Solutions Global 317-409-7069 [email protected]

425 Williams Court, Suite 100 | Baltimore, Maryland 21220 [email protected] | 866-732-3560

GS-35F-130BA