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 2014Sacramento, CA

2

Evaluation Team

Three Organizations

3

1. Study Purpose and Design

2. Key Findings from the Implementation Study• Key grantee successes• System Level Changes

Agenda

4

Study Purpose and Design

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

· 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

Impact & Implementation Study1. Kentucky Dept of Corrections2. Oklahoma Dept of Corrections3. South Dakota Dept of Corrections4. Marion County (OR) Sheriff’s Office5. Allegheny County (PA) Dept of Human Services6. San Francisco (CA) Dept of Public Health7. San Mateo (CA) County Health and Recovery Services

Implementation Study Only8. City of Memphis (TN) Div of Public Services9. New Hampshire Department of Justice10.City of Richmond (VA) Sheriff’s Office

Participating SCA Grantees

8

Project Timeline

Finalize design Summer/Fall 2011

Random assignment Jan 2012 – March 2013

Site visits Spring/Summer 2012

Interim report Summer 2013

Participant survey July 2013 – Sept 2014

Admin data collection Summer 2013 - Fall 2014

Final report Spring 2015

9

Implementation Findings--Structure and Services

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

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

Other Program Services

Other Services were Either:

· Directly provided

· Provided through a formal partnership

· Provided through referral

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 Duration 3 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

Implications of Case Manager Types

POs Non-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

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

Implementation Findings--System-Level Changes

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

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

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

For Further Information

Ronald D’Amico, Ph.D. Project Director & Principal InvestigatorSocial Policy Research Associates510-788-2484ron_damico@spra.com

Christian Geckeler Task Lead for Data CollectionSocial Policy Research Associates510-788-2461christian_geckeler@spra.com

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/243294.pdf