Marion County Re-Entry Coalition Presentation to CWF coaches June 2014

Targeted result of the MCRC Overall “All Adult Offenders in Marion County are Successfully Reintegrated into their Community.” MCRC uses Results Based Accountability (RBA) (i.e. Collective Impact) framework and is focused on moving TALK to ACTION Indicators of Success: 6-month and 12-month return to incarceration 6-month and 12-month re-arrest

Other Indicators of Success Decreased one year return to incarceration rate in Marion County Decreased one year re-arrest rate in Marion County Increase in housing placement and retention Increase in employment placement and retention Increase access/usage of health, mental health and addiction services

Membership Membership is open to any person who is engaged in the issue of Re-Entry and who commits to the Framework, Targeted Result, and Indicators of Success. Currently, MCRC includes members from: City County Council Nonprofit, Community-based Agencies Indiana Department of Correction MC Superior Court PACE MC Prosecutor’s Office Bethlehem House MC Public Defender’s Agency Volunteers of America MC Community Corrections Recycle Force Problem Solving Courts Craine House MC Sheriff’s Department Homeless and Re-entry Helpers MC Public Health Department Division of Mental Health and Addiction Use What You’ve Got Ministries United Way of Central Indiana For Profit Agencies American Institutes for Research Mays Chemical City of Indianapolis Shiel Sexton

City County Council’s Re-entry Study Commission In 2013 the City County Council convened the Re-Entry Study Commission The MCRC provided staff support and many MCRC members served on the Commission The Commission developed 26 recommendations related to a wide spectrum of re-entry issues Named the MCRC as the “coordinating entity” to move the recommendations to action

Recommendations from the Re-Entry Study Commission Recommendations are related to: Housing Employment Public Policy Wraparound Services Sentencing Alternatives

MCRC’s Re-entry approach Through implementing the City County Council’s recommendations, and rooted in national research and best practice, the MCRC developed a Re-Entry Approach that improves the likelihood of success for the returning offender, streamlines resources, and encourages agency/provider collaboration.

MCRC’s Re-entry approach Provide person-centered care Begin with a comprehensive assessment that: Assesses Risk and Needs Is Strengths Based and Builds on Clients Resiliencies Is Client Driven Offer comprehensive services and supports to meet needs identified in the assessment: Care coordination (wraparound approach with team-based case planning) Community-based Client-driven (includes choice in services and providers) Culturally responsive (gender, faith, etc.) Focuses on evidence-based services that address cognitive risks/needs (e.g. cognitive behavioral therapy) Uses peer supports and mentoring

MCRC’s Re-entry approach Provide integrated services and support collaboration between systems and providers Involve families and other allies Support continuity of care Focus on the transition from incarceration (Connect re-entrants to services pre-release and provide ongoing support post-release) Include ongoing monitoring and support Outcome and research-driven (Evaluation) Include system-wide education and training (Provide capacity-building opportunities to agencies that serve re- entrants) Remove system and individual level barriers

Recent accomplishments Modification of housing requirements by two affordable housing providers to admit people with a criminal history Passage of the Ban the Box legislation Development of a pilot project to address specific needs of returning offenders with traumatic brain injuries Development of a renewal application for the Access to Recovery program to continue funding for substance abuse and mental health treatment and recovery support services

HEA 1006 The purpose is to have more low level offenders stay at the local level and not go to the Department of Correction. Likely will increase probation and community corrections caseloads significantly -- but no one knows exactly what the impact will be.

Fines and fees – review of handout Statute directs the fees – not under local control Parole, Probation, and Community Corrections have different/separate fees

Fines and fees – continued Collection rates are poor No one can be locked up for not paying fees

How can we collaborate? Are you currently seeing people with criminal histories who have to manage their fines/fees? What would be the best way for us to refer people to you? What criteria are there for people to be enrolled in the Center for Working Families?