1. www.spra.com Evaluation of the Second Chance Act Adult Demonstration Project: Implementation Study Findings Christian Geckeler Social Policy Research Associates Oakland, CA ACJR-CA Spring Conference 2014 Sacramento, CA

2. 2 Evaluation Team Three Organizations

3. 3 1.Study Purpose and Design 2.Key Findings from the Implementation Study Key grantee successes System Level Changes Agenda

4. 4 Study Purpose and Design

5. 5  Funded by US DOJ’s National Institute of Justice to study SCA Adult Demonstration Grantees  Impact Analysis  RCT design  Examines impacts on recidivism (arrests, convictions, incarceration), employment and earnings and other outcomes  Implementation Study –Multi-day site visits to participating study sites –Explores program administration, service design, and service delivery About the Evaluation

6. 6  SCA Adult Demonstration Grantees  $55 million awarded to more than 100 SCA Adult Demonstration grantees nationwide  Grants awarded in FY 09 (15 grantees), FY 10 (49 grantees), FY 11 (36 grantees), and FY 12 (19 grantees)  FY 09 Grantees Selected for the Study –Seven FY 09 grantees selected by DOJ to participate in the impact and implementation study –Three additional FY 09 grantees selected by DOJ to participate only in the implementation study About the Grantees

7. 7 Impact & Implementation Study 1.Kentucky Dept of Corrections 2.Oklahoma Dept of Corrections 3.South Dakota Dept of Corrections 4.Marion County (OR) Sheriff’s Office 5.Allegheny County (PA) Dept of Human Services 6.San Francisco (CA) Dept of Public Health 7.San Mateo (CA) County Health and Recovery Services Implementation Study Only 1.City of Memphis (TN) Div of Public Services 2.New Hampshire Department of Justice 3.City of Richmond (VA) Sheriff’s Office Participating SCA Grantees

8. 8 Project Timeline Finalize designSummer/Fall 2011 Random assignmentJan 2012 – March 2013 Site visitsSpring/Summer 2012 Interim reportSummer 2013 Participant surveyJuly 2013 – Sept 2014 Admin data collectionSummer 2013 - Fall 2014 Final reportSpring 2015

9. 9 Implementation Findings --Structure and Services

10. Overview of Program Design  Each SCA project was built on existing reentry efforts  Grantees worked through pre-existing networks of providers and services  Many grantees had formal authority for reentry planning in the area  Grantees had a 50% matching requirement 10

11. Case Management was the Key Service 11 Case Management Education and Training Employment Services Substance Abuse Treatment Mental Health Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Pro-Social Services Housing and Supportive Services

12. 12 Other Program Services Other Services were Either:  Directly provided  Provided through a formal partnership  Provided through referral

13. Grantees Differed in Important Ways Grantee Type 4 state Departments of Corrections 2 local Sheriff’s Offices 4 health/social services/other Different Populations Targeted Some programs targeted women or participants of different ages Point of Enrollment 3+ months pre-release (4 grantees) Just prior to release (4 grantees) Post release (2 grantees) Program Duration3 to 18 months Who Provided Case Management A specially assigned PO (5 grantees) A case manager from a CBO or social service agency (5 grantees) 13

14. Implications of Case Manager Types POsNon-POs Increases retention in services Avoids dual reporting requirements Avoids “turf” issues Mitigates lack of trust some participants have with POs More typically embrace therapeutic approach Provides another source of support for SCA participants 14 Type of Case Manager

15. Obstacles to Achieving Success  Well-known challenges of serving this population  Need for substantial ramp-up time –Develop partnerships –Train staff  Challenge in incubating a culture of change in some instances  Heavy reliance on weak partnerships for providing many services 15

16. 16 Implementation Findings --System-Level Changes

17. System Change #1 Partnerships Grew Stronger  Partnerships were crucial for service delivery – grantees lacked capacity to do it all themselves  Programs developed new partnerships to enhance services  Coordination between probation/ parole and other agencies/ departments strengthened 17

18. System Change #2 Services Became “More Whole”  Continuity of services from pre-release to post-release  Special training for staff  Using assessments for service planning  More time for case management  Availability of new additional service 18

19. System Change #3 Reentry was Rethought  Fundamental “cultural shifts” in service delivery mindsets: –Away from “enforcing regulations” –Embracing a rehabilitative philosophy –Accepting evidence-based practices  Overcame skepticism through communication, planning and training 19

20. 20 For Further Information Ronald D’Amico, Ph.D. Project Director & Principal Investigator Social Policy Research Associates 510-788-2484 ron_damico@spra.com Christian Geckeler Task Lead for Data Collection Social Policy Research Associates 510-788-2461 christian_geckeler@spra.com