Marion County Reentry Initiative: Second Chance Act Evaluation Year 1 Report

DRAFT Shannon M. Carey, Ph.D. NPC Research [email protected] Katherine Kissick, B.A. NPC Research [email protected]

December 2010

Visit www.npcresearch.com to learn more about NPC Research

Marion County MCRI Second Chance Act Evaluation Year 1 Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS Background ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Process Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Process Evaluation Methodology and Results ................................................................................................... 3 Participant Population ................................................................................................................................................. 4 Program Implementation ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Program Description .................................................................................................................................................... 6 Successes and Challenges ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Outcome Evaluation Design for Years 2 and 3 ..................................................................................................... 10 Evaluation Questions.................................................................................................................................................. 10 Sample Selection Approach and Study Design ................................................................................................ 12 Data Sources for Outcome Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 14 Summary and Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................. 15

2

December 2010

Marion County MCRI Second Chance Act Evaluation Year 1 Report

MCRI SECOND CHANCE ACT EVALUATION: PROCESS RESULTS FOR YEAR 1 AND OUTCOME EVALUATION DESIGN FOR YEARS 2 AND 3 Background The Second Chance Act of 2007 was implemented to assist local communities with the high number of individuals being released from prison and jail and returning to society. In response to a 2009 grant application, Marion County Oregon was awarded Second Chance Act funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance to assist in the implementation of the Marion County Reentry Initiative. “The Marion County Reentry Initiative (MCRI) is a collaborative effort involving community corrections, education, law enforcement and non-profit agencies working together to rebuild lives, promote community safety and save taxpayer money by breaking the cycle of criminal activity.”1 Specifically, the grant funds have been used to 1) align state and local prerelease assessment administration; 2) expand state and local pre-release services; 3) increase offender participation in „case planning‟ prior to release and post-release; and 4) integrate service delivery by multiple agency partners. The Marion County Reentry Initiative has been developed to be a continuum of services across county and community agencies, designed to help populations returning from incarceration reintegrate into the community and prevent future offenses and actions that would lead them back to prison. Originally, the grant was to be implemented equally through the Sheriff‟s Department and St. Vincent de Paul. However, shortly after being awarded the funding, Community Corrections (Parole and Probation, part of the sheriff‟s department) took over responsibility for implementing and overseeing the project due to outside factors preventing St. Vincent de Paul from being able to execute its original responsibilities. In addition to the program activities funded above, the Second Chance Act grant provided funding for an outside evaluator to perform a process and outcome evaluation of the program. NPC Research, a private research and evaluation firm based in Portland, Oregon, was selected to perform this evaluation and was hired in November of 2009. This report contains the results of the Year 1 process evaluation and a description of the research design planned for the outcome evaluation in Years 2 and 3.

Process Evaluation PROCESS EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS NPC staff conducted the following activities with the Marion County Reentry Initiative (referred to as MCRI in the remainder of the report): 1. An initial site visit by NPC staff to program facilities including Chemeketa Community College (SOAR program), Quest for Change, and Community Corrections. 1

Quote from the MCRI website http://marioncountyreentry.com/.

3

December 2010

Marion County MCRI Second Chance Act Evaluation Year 1 Report

2. Attendance at Design Team (formerly Grant Group) Meetings 3. Attendance at Data Reporting Team Meetings 4. Regular reviews of CDL (the MCRI database) with Walter Reed (database programmer) and the Data Reporting Team to ensure that the appropriate data for the performance review measures and for evaluation were being collected and appropriately coded. 5. Phone interviews to key stakeholders to: a. Determine the MCRI program and process b. Learn about MCRI‟s successes and challenges 6. Development of this report summarizing the process of the Second Chance Act Grant‟s implementation, MCRI‟s development and current structure as well as successes and challenges encountered during the first year. In the second and third years of the Second Chance Act grant, an outcome evaluation will be performed in addition to the process evaluation to determine the effectiveness and impact of the program on several outcomes of interest including two types of recidivism (re-arrests and reincarceration). The detailed design for the outcome evaluation is also included in this report.

PARTICIPANT POPULATION MCRI seeks to serve all populations returning from incarceration. However, while 600-700 offenders are released to Marion County each year from state prisons, the current program capacity through the Second Chance Act funding stream, based on the eligibility requirements, is 350 male adults per year coming out of prison who have been assessed as medium or high risk to re-offend. All offenders being released from prison are considered medium or high risk for 6 months post-release. Females and offenders not returning to Marion County are not eligible for MCRI. Sex offenders and arsonists are also ineligible. However, all offenders being released from prison are managed through Community Corrections and often are referred to and receive the same services as MCRI participants. The current population being served through MCRI is primarily Caucasian males, similar to the general population in Oregon‟s prisons.

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION Upon receipt of the Second Chance Act grant, St. Vincent de Paul determined that it would not be able to perform as planned. Community Corrections then took over the main oversight and implementation of the grant and three main committees were created – the MCRI Governance Team, the Design Team (originally called the Grant Group) and the Data Reporting Team. Each group was tasked with specific goals to assist in quick and efficient implementation of the services funded through Second Chance Act and MCRI as a whole. Because St. Vincent de Paul had planned to provide the majority of services including the initial reach-ins as well as housing, it was necessary for Community Corrections and the other partners to quickly determine who would now be providing these services. Through hard work and collaboration, they were able to find new partner agencies and build a program that successfully incorporated all the planned services for the Second Chance Act grant. These partner agencies were included on the following teams.

4

December 2010

Marion County MCRI Second Chance Act Evaluation Year 1 Report

MCRI Governance Team. This overarching committee was designed to oversee agreed upon systems and determine sustainable funding, originally for the SOAR program. This group includes decision-making representatives from Chemeketa Community College, Community Action Agency, and the Sheriff‟s office. Since the primary responsibility of this committee is to make executive decisions, two sub committees, the Design Team and the Data Reporting Team, report back to the this team for decisions that need higher-up approval. This team has supported several community fund raising events including a breakfast event, attended by approximately 350 people, called “Giving People a Second Chance” which focused on helping people make a successful transition from prison or jail back into the community. Speakers included Marion County Commissioner Janet Carlson, Oregon State Senator Jackie Winters, Oregon Department of Corrections Director Max Williams, Supreme Court Justice W. Michael Gillette, and Salem/Keizer Business Leader Dick Withnell. The Design Team. The Design Team began meeting at the end of 2009. Their first goal was to define the roles of the various agencies included under the MCRI umbrella and identify timelines, program process and implementation and continuing alignment and accountability of participation for the agencies. This team consists of the Marion County Commissioner and senior policy analyst, a facilitator, multiple representatives from the Marion County Sheriff‟s Office, Chemeketa Community College representatives, Community Action Agency representatives, Mid Valley Mentors representatives and evaluation staff from NPC Research. Initially, this team had the task of putting together all of the various agencies to determine which agency was responsible for which services. Once St. Vincent de Paul dropped out, the committee worked hard to gather other agencies together to fulfill the needs left by St. Vincent de Paul‟s absence. This led to the involvement of Community Action Agency as operator of Quest for Change and the Center for Family Success (later named Community Action Transition Services). After effectively defining the roles across agencies and determining timelines and responsibilities, the Design Team continues to meet to be an avenue for communication across agencies as well as program modification and improvement. This team is in constant contact, even between designated meeting times. While NPC Research does not play an active role on this committee, NPC has been present at meetings to observe agency interaction and note the implementation process for the evaluation. The team has graciously included NPC Research since the beginning of the process. The Data Reporting Team. At the end of 2009, this team started meeting to define what data needed to be collected, both for program management and for performance measure reporting to various funding agencies including the Second Chance Act grant, as well as the data responsibilities for each agency. This team met monthly through the first year (2010) to update and refine their data collection protocols and processes. Once these protocols were in place, the team decided that monthly meetings were no longer necessary and is now planning to meet quarterly to check in on process and address any issues that arise. Representatives from the following agencies are included; Marion County Board of Commissioner‟s office, Sheriff‟s Office, Chemeketa Community College, Community Action Agency, Mid Valley Mentors, NPC Research and Oregon Resources (programmer for Community Data Link database). One of the primary roles of this team has been to determine how to collect the data necessary for the performance measures and report the measures back to the Second Chance Act funders (the

5

December 2010

Marion County MCRI Second Chance Act Evaluation Year 1 Report

Bureau of Justice Assistance) as well as what data elements are essential for additional program monitoring and evaluation. The team decided upon an online system called Community Data Link (CDL) because some team members were already familiar with it and because the ability to use it online would allow all service providers to input their own data. With assistance from the CDL contractor and NPC Research, methods for obtaining, inputting and reporting MCRI related data were developed. In addition, NPC Research played an active role in assisting the Data Reporting team with recommendations regarding best practices, ease of data entry and ease of reporting. The use of CDL for MCRI began in February 2010. CDL is accessible by staff from each of the agencies that provide services to MCRI clients. The system is used to track MCRI client referrals and services received, as well as client status at exit from each of the services (e.g., successfully completed or exited before completion). CDL also contains MCRI client demographic information and scores on assessments performed by the Department of Corrections. In addition, all of the performance measures for the Second Chance Act grant are compiled through the CDL reporting features.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION After initial implementation of the three committees and further definition of the program, the current program operates as a continuum of services designed to help populations returning from incarceration reintegrate into the community and prevent future offenses and actions that would lead them back to prison. Services include, but are not limited to, reach-ins, transitional housing, employment, education, alcohol and drug treatment, and cognitive behavioral classes. The Sheriff‟s Office (Community Corrections) coordinates the program and Parole/Probation Officers refer to the participating agencies. Other MCRI partners involved in direct services through referrals from Community Corrections include Chemeketa Community College, Community Action Agency, and Mid Valley Mentors. Agency Roles. The current agencies involved in MCRI and the Second Chance Act grant and their roles are described below. 1. Marion County Sheriff’s Office (Parole and Probation/Community Corrections): This agency is fiscally and administratively responsible for the Second Chance Act grant. All participants involved in MCRI are coordinated through Community Corrections. The Employment Coordinator, SOAR Program Coordinator and specially trained Transition Parole Officers (Transition PO‟s) perform reach-ins prior to offender release. The Transition PO‟s also provide supervision and referrals to MCRI programs after release. Community Corrections provides participants with any number of referrals to needed wrap-around services including, but not limited to, services provided by the other agencies involved in the program implementation and process (below). This agency also provides program coordination for SOAR (see next section). 2. Chemeketa Community College: Chemeketa is a key partner in the Student Opportunity for Achieving Results (SOAR) program. SOAR is a 12 week intensive course that provides, in conjunction with the college, vocational/job training, self-esteem/motivation curriculum, employment/job placement services, on-the-job training, GED completion

6

December 2010

Marion County MCRI Second Chance Act Evaluation Year 1 Report

assistance and other referral services. Chemeketa is involved in providing these services to non-SOAR individuals as well through their Career Training Center. 3. Mid Valley Mentors (MVM): Mentoring services are provided to MCRI participants through Mid Valley Mentors‟ Reentry Solutions Program. MVM staff conduct reach-ins to share program information with potential clients prior to their release from prison. Mentors are adult volunteers who have been screened and matched with MCRI participants. Mentors and participants meet weekly for an hour. Mentors can aid and assist participants in a variety of ways, primarily as an additional emotional support system as they work toward successful reentry into the community. Mentors help clients make critical links to the community, such as employment or job training resources, and help to make the transition back into society easier. 4. Mid Willamette Valley Community Action Agency: This agency oversees the Community Action Reentry Services (CARS) which is comprised of two programs that provide direct services. CARS staff conduct reach-ins to share program information with potential clients prior to their release from prison. Programs are: a. Quest for Change: A twelve bed transitional housing program for male exoffenders. Housing is made available for up to 90 days. Quest for Change also makes available cognitive behavioral classes and other treatment-oriented services to those utilizing the housing services. b. Community Action Transition Services (CATS): Counseling, substance abuse and mental health aftercare services, as well as housing and employment assistance provided through a case management model. MCRI Process Description. MCRI is a coordinated effort beginning six months prior to prisoner release. The process begins with “reach-ins.” During a reach-in, parole officers in conjunction with other agency representatives (as appropriate) go into the prisons to talk to offenders up for release about services available after release (such as substance abuse treatment, housing and mentoring) and to provide education regarding six different topics (one topic at each reach-in) including pro-social attitude and orientation, community-based treatment, healthy relationships, housing, employment/education, and healthy leisure/recreation. All offenders up for release are able to attend reach-ins, even if they are later determined to be ineligible for specific MCRI programs. Potential MCRI participants are assessed and screened to determine criminogenic factors, risk to reoffend and needs in order to determine appropriate referrals to needed services. Offenders receive an intake packet which includes the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment Scale (URICA) which is later used to assess motivation to change and eligibility for some programs such as SOAR and Quest for Change. Prisoners are able to and encouraged to attend all six reach-ins prior to their release, although only one is needed for screening. Upon release, each individual who is eligible for MCRI is assigned to a specially trained Transition Parole Officer and the two meet to develop an MCRI service package and appropriate 7

December 2010

Marion County MCRI Second Chance Act Evaluation Year 1 Report

case plan. Upon release, individuals are scored via the Oregon Case Management System (OCMS) to determine risk and the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) to determine level of care. Depending on the scores of these two assessments and the specific needs of the individual, referrals are made to various agencies (see above) for recommended services. Completion of MCRI is individualized and based on specific referrals made to each parolee. While most offenders are put on 24-36 months of post-prison parole, the goal of MCRI is that each individual‟s unique needs would be met prior to release from parole. Ideally, once services have been successfully completed, the parolee would be at a lower risk to reoffend. Offenders are reassessed using the OCMS to determine level of risk every six months. The following diagram (Figure 1) is a visual description of how the MCRI program works, how agencies relate and the lines of responsibility for the various tasks and services.

Figure 1. Marion County Reentry Initiative Flowchart2

2

This diagram was provided by Ms. Erin Williamson M.P.A., M.S.W. as a part of an evaluability assessment performed by ICF International.

8

December 2010

Marion County MCRI Second Chance Act Evaluation Year 1 Report

SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES Successes. Through key stakeholder interviews and observations, a number of successes have been identified. All of the following were identified by program agencies and key stakeholders. Successes fall into one of two main areas, participant success and program success. All agencies involved agree that one of the biggest participant successes has been SOAR. SOAR graduation rates have been high and participants completing the program have been seen to be doing well. Other major successes include perceived recidivism decline, reunification of families or increased family contact, and increased community support. Personal stories of participant success were also shared. For example, one SOAR participant had not seen his daughter for 22 years. At the time of SOAR completion, he was meeting with her once a week for dinner. Other participants voiced that involvement in MCRI resulted in the first time ever being clean and sober. Program successes include that MCRI has done an excellent job meeting grant requirements and deadlines, providing promised services (housing, mentoring, employment, and alcohol and drug treatment) and helping to pass legislative bills supporting MCRI. There have also been multiple fund raisers that have resulted in additional community involvement and funds donated to the program. Finally, multiple agency staff have noted the team as one of the program‟s greatest strengths. Though MCRI incorporates many agencies, the work put forth by each partner agency has led to a dedicated and collaborative team. Challenges. The main challenge voiced by all agencies was obtaining consistent and stable funding for the program. While the Second Chance Act funding allowed the county to implement an overarching, continuum of services to participants, the scope of MCRI is both time and labor intensive. Local and federal funding is needed to keep it going. One challenge that was identified that may also be a source of funding is the work required to grow and maintain continued community support. Agencies see support from the community as both vital to continued, stable funding and as a way to ensure greater program success. Lastly, although most team members mentioned the strength of the collaboration, it was also widely acknowledged that communication across so many agencies can be difficult. Coming together from a variety of perspectives and backgrounds to develop a working relationship and maintaining open and consistent communication has been difficult at times and is something all agencies continue to work on.

9

December 2010

Marion County MCRI Second Chance Act Evaluation Year 1 Report

Outcome Evaluation Design for Years 2 and 3 The purpose of an outcome evaluation is to determine whether the program has improved client outcomes. In other words, did the program achieve its intended goals for its participants? An outcome evaluation can examine short-term outcomes that occur while a participant is still in the program. This includes whether the program is delivering the intended amount of services, whether participants receive services more quickly and complete services more often than those who don‟t participate, whether participants are successfully completing the program in the intended amount of time, and what factors lead to participants successfully completing the program. An outcome evaluation can also measure longer term outcomes (sometimes called an “impact evaluation”) including participant outcomes after program completion. In the case of reentry programs, one of the largest impacts of interest is recidivism. Are program participants avoiding the criminal justice system “revolving door?” How often are participants being rearrested? And how often are participants being re-incarcerated? For this evaluation both short- and long-term outcomes will be assessed. Based on the availability of data, outcomes will be examined in several focus areas: 1) services received, 2) service/program completion, 3) successful completion of supervision, 4) criminal justice recidivism, 5) employment/ education.

EVALUATION QUESTIONS The specific research/evaluation questions are as follows. Within-program outcomes: 1. How many re-entry individuals received services in addition to reach-ins out of the total number who received reach-ins? How many received multiple services? What are the characteristics (age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, education, housing, etc.) of those who received additional services compared to those who just had reach-ins? 2. What percentage of participants who were referred actually attended each type of program within MCRI? What percentages of those who start each program/service successfully complete the service they started? (What is the definition of “successful completion” for each program/service?) 3. What are the characteristics of MCRI participants that received different types of services (e.g., Quest for Change compared to SOAR compared to mentoring compared to no services, etc.)? 4. What are the characteristics of MCRI participants that successfully completed a service/program or set of services compared to those who did not complete? 5. How do the stages-of-change and risk factors for MCRI participants change from the time of reach-in to after receiving services (or to the end of MCRI services)? Do some services result in more change than others?

10

December 2010

Marion County MCRI Second Chance Act Evaluation Year 1 Report

After-program outcomes Note: Recidivism rates can be measured as re-arrests, re-convictions and return to jail/prison. Recidivism will be measured from the time they are released from prison to at least one year from the time of release. By the end of Year 3 of this evaluation, recidivism can be measured for at least two years from the time of release. 6. What are the recidivism and employment rates of those who received different levels and amounts of services within MCRI? (Also, note which reach-in agenda they received). 7. What are the recidivism and employment rates of those who received any MCRI services compared to a matched group of those who re-entered from prison before MCRI services existed? (Note: Question #7 uses a retrospective comparison group – described in more detail later in this document.) 8. What are the recidivism and employment rates of those who received SOAR or Quest for Change compared to other MCRI programs or services without the full wrap-around program services? (Note: Question #8 would be accomplished using random assignment to SOAR/Quest or no-SOAR/Quest to create a control group. However, this is not practical at this time as the programs are not full. This option will be reexamined in Year 2 to determine if random assignment to these programs is feasible.) 9. What are the rates of attendance (rate of show) at the first Parole Officer meeting after

reentry compared to before MCRI services began? Other outcome questions of interest that will be incorporated in the evaluation depending on the availability of data include: 10. In the two years after the first reach-in, how many MCRI participants who did not finish high school completed their GED? Did this occur inside or outside prison? What other education are they receiving and completing? 11. In the two years after release, are MCRI participants, particularly those who participate in Quest for Change, more likely to have gained housing than the comparison group of individuals released from prison before MCRI was implemented? 12. Are people more likely to succeed at completing services (and have better outcomes) if they have a mentor? And, are people more likely to use their mentor and succeed at services if they have a mentor before release vs. after? 13. For those who drop out of SOAR, when does that happen and during what part of the curriculum are they more likely to drop out? What is different about (what are the characteristics of) those who do well after SOAR compared to those who aren‟t doing well? (Including risk factors, stages of change, demographics, etc.).

11

December 2010

Marion County MCRI Second Chance Act Evaluation Year 1 Report

14. Does where MCRI participants are in the stages of change at release influence their recidivism outcomes?

SAMPLE SELECTION APPROACH AND STUDY DESIGN MCRI Participant Samples For this study, using CDL, we will identify all MCRI participants who received reach-ins from January 2010 through December 2010. All participants will be followed using administrative data from the sources described below from the time of release through August 2012 (midway into the 3rd year of the Second Chance Act grant period). This will allow up to 2 years of outcome data after release. It is anticipated that there will be at least 300 MCRI participants in the study sample. Comparison Group Samples Ideally, the comparison group for the MCRI Second Chance evaluation is made up of offenders who are similar in all respects to those who have participated in MCRI (e.g., similar demographics, risk levels and criminal history), but have not participated in MCRI. The NPC Research approach to the identification of comparison groups for this evaluation does not require that comparison groups operate under no-treatment conditions. Social services and substance abuse treatment can be a condition of standard parole and probation. This study will not focus on the outcomes associated with having services or not having services. Rather, this study will focus on the outcomes associated with participating in MCRI services as opposed to the “business-asusual” criminal justice model such as standard probation and parole, which frequently includes substance abuse treatment and other services. Although the gold standard for research design is to have a random assignment study where participants are randomly selected to conditions (either MCRI or no MCRI), this is not practical in this context. The MCRI program has involved a change that encompasses the entire Marion County Community Corrections reentry system. Most MCRI services are available to all reentry individuals that are referred to the services by their parole officers, even if the individuals are not officially participating in the MCRI program. Therefore, it is not possible to assign individuals to a non-MCRI service condition without denying the individuals most services, which would be unethical. For the above reason, this study of the Second Chance Act and MCRI will use a retrospective quasi-experimental design with a historical comparison sample. The comparison group will be selected from Oregon Department of Corrections data and will include incarcerated offenders who were eligible for the program but were released prior to MCRI implementation. In addition, if circumstances allow (e.g., if program services such as SOAR reach capacity and are obliged to start a waiting list), we will randomly assign individuals to receive a service or not receive the service to determine if specific services within MCRI are particularly effective. The two groups, MCRI and comparison, will be matched on all available variables including demographics, designated risk level, assessment scores, and criminal history. One possible technique for matching the two groups is called propensity score matching. We anticipate between 300 and 500 comparison group members.

12

December 2010

Marion County MCRI Second Chance Act Evaluation Year 1 Report

Propensity Score Matching. The method described above of selecting a comparison group should ensure that all possible comparison group members are technically eligible for MCRI. However, this does not guarantee that these individuals are like those who actually participated in MCRI. To offer the highest possible level of confidence (outside of true random assignment) that any differences found in outcomes between the MCRI participants and comparison groups are due to MCRI and not due to some other confounding influence, the comparison group needs to be further refined to be as much like the MCRI participant samples as possible.3 It is important to match samples on characteristics that might influence both the likelihood of participating in MCRI and outcomes that occur post program (e.g., Bryson, Dorsett and Purdon, 2002). There are a large number of characteristics that might have this influence, although some of them (such as motivation) are not measurable in this kind of study design. However, propensity score matching allows researchers to match the comparison group to the MCRI group on the overall effect of a substantial number of available measurable characteristics that predict the probability of participation in the program (e.g., Rosenbaum and Rubin, 1983; Hill, BrooksGunn and Waldfogel, 2003). More specifically, NPC Research will perform a logistic regression using demographics such as age, race, and gender, as well as criminal history, risk scores and measures of readiness to change to estimate each group member‟s probability of “belonging” in the MCRI participant group. This resultant probability is the propensity score. The comparison individuals will then be sorted on propensity score and divided into ten groups from the lowest 10% of propensity scores to the highest 10%. The proportion of those in the comparison group with propensity scores in each range will be matched to the same proportion of those in the MCRI group with the same score range (Bryson, Dorsett and Purdon, 2002; Dehejia and Wahba, 1998). This will be accomplished by removing comparison group members until the proportion of scores match those of the MCRI participants. At the end of the matching process, t-tests are performed on each variable to confirm that there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups. As reported in research using a similar methodology (Rempel et al., 2003), once participants and comparison group members are matched in this manner, they …may still diverge on certain characteristics, but participants and comparison group members will be “balanced” on all background characteristics taken in totality. This balancing outcome is the critical quality that enables the net effect of the technique to be an artificial re-creation, or at least approximation, of the experimental situation present in a random assignment study. (p. 129)

3

In a quasi-experimental design, it is not possible to be absolutely confident that the differences seen are due only to the treatment effect and not due to selection bias. This is a limitation of this design and of this study. However, matching on all available appropriate variables using the propensity score process will help minimize selection bias to a large extent.

13

December 2010

Marion County MCRI Second Chance Act Evaluation Year 1 Report

DATA SOURCES FOR OUTCOME EVALUATION Table 1. MCRI Second Chance Evaluation Data Sources Database

Source

Example of Variables

Community Corrections

For MCRI participants only: Demographics, referrals received, services received, exit status for each type of services and MCRI overall, some assessment scores

Department of Corrections (DOC 400)

Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC)

Start and end dates for parole, probation; Start and end dates for prison time; Assessment scores; Successful completion of supervision

Oregon Judicial Information Network (OJIN)

Oregon Judicial Department

Incident dates (arrests), dates of case filings, charges, sentences

Community Data Link (CDL)

Community Data Link (CDL)

MCRI began using CDL in February 2010. CDL is accessible by staff from each of the agencies that provide services to MCRI clients. The system is used to track MCRI client referrals and services received, as well as client status at exit from each of the services (e.g., successfully completed or exited before completion). CDL also contains MCRI client demographic information and scores on assessments performed by the Department of Corrections. In addition, all of the performance measures for the Second Chance Act grant are compiled through the CDL reporting features. Department of Corrections (DOC)

The DOC 400 database contains information on demographics and service data including the start and end dates and level of supervision for probation, parole, and post-prison supervision. These data were used to examine participant and comparison group criminal justice recidivism and to determine criminal justice recidivism-related costs. Oregon Judicial Information Network (OJIN)

OJIN is a case tracking system that stores Oregon State Court case information from multiple sources and counties in a single database. It lists all events related to a case, including all hearings scheduled. It is valuable for demographics, key case dates, and case findings as well as criminal justice recidivism information that includes misdemeanor arrests. These data were used for criminal justice recidivism analyses and related costs.

14

December 2010

Marion County MCRI Second Chance Act Evaluation Year 1 Report

Summary and Conclusion The Marion County Reentry Initiative is a collaborative effort involving multiple criminal justice and social service agencies that work together to assist individuals reentering society from prison to rebuild their lives, providing these individuals a second chance at a crime-free life as a contributing citizen. In 2009, MCRI received a Second Chance Act grant to help support some of the services provided by MCRI and to perform an evaluation of these services in order to obtain feedback on the effectiveness of MCRI and how these services can be improved. NPC Research was contracted to perform the evaluation and began work in December 2009. Overall, the process evaluation, including observations of MCRI meetings (e.g., the design team and the data reporting team) and interviews with staff, showed that the agencies involved with this effort are committed to the success of MCRI. There is consistent attendance at these meeting by agency representatives and the representatives communicate effectively and reach decisions collaboratively. The MCRI teams are open to feedback and are consistently collecting and monitoring their data in order to determine if there are any adjustments to the services necessary to make the program more effective for MCRI participants. Although the challenges reported by the program included both the difficulties with obtaining sustainable funding and the difficulties in collaborating with such a large number and wide variety of organizations, the successes observed through the evaluation included the creative ways MCRI has worked to enlist community support and local funding, and the high quality collaboration between the agencies and team members. An outcome evaluation will be conducted in Years 2 and 3 of the Second Chance Act grant period to provide further feedback on MCRI effectiveness. The outcome evaluation will use a quasi-experimental design with an historical comparison group of offenders released from prison during a time period before the implementation of MCRI. The two groups will be followed through administrative data for up to two years post release. Outcomes measured will include successful completion of supervision, recidivism (i.e., re-arrests and re-incarceration), and, depending on available data, employment, education and housing status. In addition, differences between those who successfully complete the services offered within MCRI and those who do not complete will be examined to help determine the characteristics of those who are not able to complete so that MCRI can continue to refine their program to achieve success for the most participants possible. Finally, if circumstances allow, a smaller random assignment study will be performed within MCRI with participants eligible for specific services (such as SOAR). The eligible clients will be randomly assigned to receive or not receive that service. This will help determine if specific services are more effective than what the participants would receive through MCRI without those services. In sum, the MCRI and Second Chance Act program has been successfully implemented through the hard work and collaboration between multiple criminal justice and social service organizations. The MCRI teams have perceived the benefits of including evaluation and feedback in the process of implementation and worked to incorporate appropriate data collection to allow them to determine the effectiveness of their program and its individual services. At the end of the 3rd year of the Second Chance Act grant, MCRI will be able to report on the overall effectiveness of their program and will have the information needed to continue to improve their services.

15

December 2010