Board of State and Community Corrections

M I O ENTALLY LL FFENDER C R RIME EDUCTION G P RANT ROGRAM L R 2015 EGISLATIVE EPORT STATE OF CALIFORNIA – EDMUND G. BROWN, GOVERNOR BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS Board Members* Chair, Board of State Community Corrections ................................................... Linda M. Penner The Chair of the Board is a full-time paid position appointed by the Governor and subject to Senate Confirmation Secretary, CA Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) ........................ Jeffrey A. Beard Director (A), Adult Parole Operations, CDCR ........................................................ Bobby Haase Lassen County Sheriff .........................................................................................Dean Growdon A sheriff in charge of local detention facility with a BSCC rated capacity of 200 inmates or less appointed by the Governor and subject to Senate confirmation Ventura County Sheriff ............................................................................................... Geoff Dean A sheriff in charge of local detention facility with a BSCC rated capacity of more than 200 inmates appointed by the Governor and subject to Senate confirmation Kern County Supervisor ......................................................................................... Leticia Perez A county supervisor or administrative officer appointed by the Governor subject and to Senate confirmation San Bernardino County Chief Probation Officer ...................................... Michelle Scray Brown A chief probation officer from a county with a population over 200,000 appointed by the Governor and subject to Senate confirmation Nevada County Chief Probation Officer ............................................................... Michael Ertola A chief probation officer from a county with a population under 200,000 appointed by the Governor and subject to Senate confirmation Retired Judge, Solano County ...................................................................... Ramona J. Garrett A judge appointed by the Judicial Council of California Chief of Police, City Of Chula Vista .................................................................... David Bejarano A chief of police appointed by the Governor and subject to Senate confirmation Founder of the Anti-Recidivism Coalition and Film Producer ............................... Scott Budnick A community provider of rehabilitative treatment or services for adult offenders appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly Director, Commonweal Juvenile Justice Program .............................................. David Steinhart A community provider or advocate with expertise in effective programs, policies and treatment of at-risk youth and juvenile offenders appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules Chief Executive Officer and President Delancey Street Foundation .................... Mimi H. Silbert A public member appointed by the Governor and subject to Senate confirmation BSCC Staff Executive Director ........................................................................................ Kathleen T. Howard Communications Director ......................................................................................... Tracie Cone Deputy Director, Corrections Planning & Programs ..................................................... Mary Jolls Deputy Director, Facilities Standards & Operations and Research ....................... Allison Ganter Field Representative, Corrections Planning & Programs ..................................... Helene Zentner Research Specialist V, Research ............................................................................. David Lovell Research Program Specialist I, Research ....................................................... Anthony Jackson * Board member composition is pursuant to Penal Code 6025 Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2015 Legislative Report MENTALLY ILL OFFENDER CRIME REDUCTION GRANT PROGRAM LEGISLATIVE REPORT 2015 - EVALUATION DESIGN OVERVIEW - INTRODUCTION The State Budget Acts of 2014 and 2015 appropriated $18.8 million in local assistance from the Recidivism Reduction Fund to establish the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction (MIOCR) Grant Program. MIOCR was developed to support appropriate prevention, intervention, and supervision services through promising and evidence-based strategies aimed at reducing recidivism in California’s mentally ill offender population and improving outcomes for these offenders while continuing to protect public safety. In this report, the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) provides an overview of how it will evaluate grantees’ use of evidence-based practices and strategies to reduce recidivism and improve quality-of-life for this population. It also addresses the broad interest in the effectiveness of the MIOCR Grant Program as a whole while taking into account the diverse local project intervention components, the various levels of assessed mentally ill individuals to be served, the array of project goals and objectives, and the data collection and evaluation activities of each county. Penal Code Section 6045 (Appendix A) required the BSCC to award grants to counties on a competitive basis to implement locally developed, collaborative, and multidisciplinary projects, with half of the funding to be awarded to projects designed for adult mentally ill offenders and half to be awarded to projects targeting juvenile offenders with mental health issues. From 1999-2004, the BSCC’s predecessor entity (the Board of Corrections) administered a successful MIOCR Grant Program. During that time, the program was intended to help reduce the number of mentally ill persons moving through the “revolving door” between the local criminal justice system and the community. Today this three-year grant program aims to help establish locally developed, collaborative projects to serve mentally ill individuals by providing alternatives to incarceration and detention. In turn, these projects will: reduce facility population; reduce correctional/custodial costs for this population; establish a continuum of services from prevention through aftercare; and promote public safety. In addition to managing the grant process and monitoring the progress of projects, the BSCC is required to “create an evaluation design . . . [to] assess the effectiveness of the program in reducing crime, adult and juvenile offender incarceration and placement levels, early releases due to jail overcrowding, and local criminal and juvenile justice costs.” In November 2014 an Executive Steering Committee (ESC), composed of statewide subject matter experts (Appendix B), began the development of the MIOCR Request for Proposals (RFP) for the adult and juvenile applicants. The ESC also established the rating factors and criteria under which the most meritorious proposals would be selected for funding recommendations. The RFPs were released in February 2015, county applications were submitted to the BSCC on April 3, 2015 and by the beginning of June 2015 the ESC had completed its charge of reading and rating the proposals and making funding recommendations to the BSCC Board. 1 | P age Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2015 Legislative Report At its June 10, 2015 meeting the BSCC Board awarded funding to 21projects in 17 counties. Grants were awarded to 11 counties for juvenile projects and 10 counties for adult projects. However in late October 2015, after receiving technical assistance from BSCC staff over a two and a half month period, the County of Orange determined current circumstances prohibited them from being able to accept the award for the juvenile project developed within the original application for funding. Therefore, $1,060,539 (Orange County’s grant request) became available to fully fund the partially funded Tuolumne County juvenile project as well as offer full funding to the next ranked project on the juvenile MIOCR list, Shasta County. BSCC staff will continue down the juvenile project ranked list to disburse the remaining $43,273. Counties receiving MIOCR grant funding are: Adult MIOCR Projects Juvenile MIOCR Projects County Funding County Funding Alameda $948,459 Contra Costa $950,000 El Dorado $950,000 Nevada $750,000 Los Angeles $1,834,000 Riverside $948,510 Madera $869,547 San Diego $950,000 San Francisco $950,000 San Joaquin $949,073 San Luis Obispo $950,000 Santa Clara $946,250 Santa Clara $887,529 Santa Cruz $950,000 Santa Cruz $949,995 Shasta $938,842 Solano $949,998 Solano $761,322 Nevada* $110,472 Tuolumne $262,730 Yolo $950,000 *Partial funding Summaries of MIOCR grant-funded projects are provided in Appendix C. COUNTY-LEVEL PROJECT EVALUATION BSCC developed an evaluation process for the MIOCR Grant Program that can account for differences between the local projects. Examples of differences include diversity of the services provided, the target populations being served, and the interventions that occur at multiple points along the criminal justice continuum. Tables 1 and 2 (Appendix D) show funded projects grouped by general points of intervention, type of intervention, and target populations to be served. Also indicated are broad outcome measure categories the county intends to quantify through its local evaluation plan in determining whether the program was successful. 2 | P age Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2015 Legislative Report Points of intervention are as follows: 1. Front-end Diversion. Law enforcement and school authorities are provided alternatives to arresting and criminally prosecuting people whose behavior reflects mental disturbance. 2. Disposition Options. At initial hearings and arraignments, arrangements are made for partial confinement or recognizance release in lieu of detention, referral to mental health services, and other community-based dispositions. 3. Treatment in Custody or Under Supervision. Screening, assessment, diagnosis, suicide prevention, housing classification, and cognitive-behavioral, psycho-educational, or social skills programs are provided to alter behavior and meet obligations to provide medically necessary treatment. 4. Transition Planning. Before release from jail, detention, or out-of-home placements, offenders are prepared to return home through referrals, engagement with providers, pre- application for entitlements, and inter-agency coordination. 5. Aftercare. Continuing treatment, financial support, and interdisciplinary case management are provided to minimize risks, maintain stable housing, and encourage continuing participation in treatment. It is important to note: outcomes will be project specific. As part of the Local Evaluation Plan requirement, at a minimum, counties must provide the BSCC with the following project-level information:  Project goals and objectives;  Demographics of the project participants (level of mental illness, gender, age, race/ethnicity);  Estimated number of participants receiving interventions per project component;  Process for determining which intervention(s) a participant will receive;  Plan to document the services within the intervention(s) provided to each participant;  Plan for tracking participants in terms of progress in the project;  Project oversight structure and overall decision-making process;  Overall project approach to ensuring project components are being monitored, assessed, and adjusted, as necessary;  Plan for documenting activities performed by staff who are conducting the project;  Process evaluation variables;  Outcome variables that will be tracked;  Outcome measures that will be tracked;  Logic model providing a graphic overview of the project;  Criteria for determining participant success for the intervention(s);  Criteria for determining participant success/failure in the project;  Plan for assessing the effectiveness of the local MIOCR project including all individual project components;  Method of determining if the project achieved the set project goals;  Research design that will be used to complete the evaluation; and  Plan for documenting cost of evaluation and cost per participant. MIOCR-funded projects must submit a Final Local Evaluation Report in the summer of 2018 at the conclusion of the three-year grant cycle that assess the efficacy of their own projects. Reports will document activities carried out during the project period, a description of the research design used to evaluate the effectiveness of the project, a description of the final outcomes of the project, the degree of project success per intervention, the strategy for determining whether the project goal was achieved, and lessons learned. 3 | P age Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2015 Legislative Report County projects are required to provide mental health treatment programs, practices and strategies demonstrated through an evidence-based foundation and treatments/services appropriate for the target population. It should be noted that given there could be multiple initiatives aimed at serving the same population, additional local leveraging opportunities and possible benefits of multidisciplinary collaboration, it may be difficult to conclude that certain local outcomes are due solely to the MIOCR Grant Program. BSCC EVALUATION DESIGN The MIOCR Grant Program-level Evaluation Design addresses the extent to which the objectives of the county projects were met. The use of evidence-based practices and strategies for service interventions and reducing recidivism were a required component of the RFP; therefore implementation of these modalities is critical. By using a demonstrated research–based mental health treatment model, it can be expected these projects will produce similar outcomes to that model’s proven results. As just one of the mechanisms for gauging implementation fidelity, the BSCC may evaluate the effectiveness of MIOCR programs by using the Evidence-Based Correctional Program Checklist (CPC). This tool, created by the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute (UCCI) and endorsed by the National Institute for Corrections, was developed from a meta-analysis of research directly correlated with reductions in recidivism. This tool is used to increase the quality of projects using evidence-based practices to identify areas of improvement and move toward greater fidelity, establishing benchmarks for progress, and promoting accountability. UCCI certified BSCC staff will monitor MIOCR projects using the CPC and provide feedback and technical assistance to projects with the end goal of developing internal capacity to sustain long-term program evaluation and improvement processes. In addition to CPC monitoring, BSCC staff will conduct its customary grant project site visits with MIOCR grantees. These visits are an assessment of the project regarding fiscal, programmatic, and administrative compliance. They allow staff to witness components of the project first-hand while promoting a collaborative working relationship between local grantees and the BSCC. By way of mandatory quarterly Progress Reports, BSCC will collect common data elements on each MIOCR participant throughout the grant period. This includes participant demographics such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, and co-occurring/trimorbid disorders, as well as measures related to recidivism, homelessness, and participant benefits/entitlements. Staff will aggregate data in order to describe the population being served and outcome data upon completion in the local programs. Reporting will also accommodate project-specific interventions to ensure that progress toward goals and objectives can be monitored. As previously stated, the MIOCR-funded projects must submit a Final Local Evaluation Report to the BSCC at the end of the three-year grant cycle (summer 2018). Staff will then evaluate the evaluation reports to gather information such as:  Did the project succeed in putting interventions in place?  If so, was the intervention implemented as originally planned?  To what degree?  Did the projects reach their goals and objectives based on individual project evaluations? 4 | P age Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2015 Legislative Report Local evaluation findings, coupled with the quarterly progress report information and CPC monitoring/site visits, should provide the BSCC with the data to determine the success of the MIOCR Program and the successes of each local MIOCR project in providing effective alternatives to custody, effective treatment and services, and, equally important, the contribution to the long-term welfare of the men, women, and children living with mental health issues in our communities. In its October 2016 report to the Legislature, the BSCC anticipates being able to summarize the first year information that it receives from project quarterly reports, site visits, and other contacts with grantees. 5 | P age Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2015 Legislative Report Appendices Appendix A: Penal Code Section 6045: Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grants Appendix B: Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program 201 Executive Steering Committee Members Appendix C: Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program Summaries Appendix D: MIOCR Project Interventions Tables Appendix A Penal Code Section 6045: Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grants 6045. (a) The Board of State and Community Corrections shall administer mentally ill offender crime reduction grants on a competitive basis to counties that expand or establish a continuum of timely and effective responses to reduce crime and criminal justice costs related to mentally ill offenders. The grants administered under this article by the board shall be divided equally between adult and juvenile mentally ill offender crime reduction grants in accordance with the funds appropriated for each type of grant. The grants shall support prevention, intervention, supervision, and incarceration-based services and strategies to reduce recidivism and to improve outcomes for mentally ill juvenile and adult offenders. (b) For purposes of this article, the following terms shall have the following meanings: (1) “Board” means the Board of State and Community Corrections. (2) “Mentally ill adult offenders” means persons described in subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 5600.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. (3) “Mentally ill juvenile offenders” means persons described in subdivision (a) of Section 5600.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. 6045.2. (a) A county shall be eligible to apply for either an adult mentally ill offender grant or a juvenile mentally ill offender grant or both in accordance with all other provisions of this article. The board shall provide a separate and competitive grant application and award process for each of the adult and juvenile mentally ill offender crime reduction grant categories. The board shall endeavor to assist counties that apply for grants in both categories in meeting any grant submission requirements that may overlap between the two categories of grants. (b) (1) A county that applies for an adult mentally ill offender grant shall establish a strategy committee to design the grant application that includes, at a minimum, the sheriff or director of the county department of corrections in a county where the sheriff does not administer the county jail system, who shall chair the committee, and representatives from other local law enforcement agencies, the chief probation officer, the county mental health director, a superior court judge, a former offender who is or has been a client of a mental health treatment facility, and representatives from organizations that can provide or have provided treatment or stabilization services for mentally ill offenders, including treatment, housing, income or job support, and caretaking. (2) A county that applies for a juvenile mentally ill offender grant shall establish a strategy committee that includes, at a minimum, the chief probation officer who shall chair the committee, representatives from local law enforcement agencies, the county mental health director, a superior court judge, a client or former offender who has received juvenile mental health services, and representatives from organizations that can provide or have provided treatment or support services for mentally ill juvenile offenders, including therapy, education, employment, housing, and caretaking services. (3) A county that applies for both types of grants may convene a combined strategy committee that includes the sheriff or jail administrator and the chief probation officer as co-chairs of the committee, as well as representation from the other agencies, departments, and disciplines designated in paragraphs (1) and (2) for both types of committees. Appendix A (c) The strategy committee shall develop and describe in its grant application a comprehensive county plan for providing a cost-effective continuum of responses and services for mentally ill adult offenders or mentally ill juvenile offenders, including prevention, intervention, and incarceration-based services, as appropriate. The plan shall describe how the responses and services included in the plan have been proven to be or are designed to be effective in addressing the mental health needs of the target offender population, while also reducing recidivism and custody levels for mentally ill offenders in adult or juvenile detention or correctional facilities. Strategies for prevention, intervention, and incarceration-based services in the plan shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following: (1) Mental health and substance abuse treatment for mentally ill adult offenders or mentally ill juvenile offenders who are presently placed, incarcerated, or housed in a local adult or juvenile detention or correctional facility or who are under supervision by the probation department after having been released from a state or local adult or juvenile detention or correctional facility. (2) Prerelease, reentry, continuing, and community-based services designed to provide long-term stability for juvenile or adult offenders outside of the facilities of the adult or juvenile justice systems, including services to support a stable source of income, a safe and decent residence, and a conservator or caretaker, as needed in appropriate cases. (3) For mentally ill juvenile offender applications, one or more of the following strategies that has proven to be effective or has evidence-based support for effectiveness in the remediation of mental health disorders and the reduction of offending: short-term and family-based therapies, collaborative interagency service agreements, specialized court- based assessment and disposition tracks or programs, or other specialized mental health treatment and intervention models for juvenile offenders that are proven or promising from an evidence-based perspective. (d) The plan as included in the grant application shall include the identification of specific outcome and performance measures and for annual reporting on grant performance and outcomes to the board that will allow the board to evaluate, at a minimum, the effectiveness of the strategies supported by the grant in reducing crime, incarceration, and criminal justice costs related to mentally ill offenders. The board shall, in the grant application process, provide guidance to counties on the performance measures and reporting criteria to be addressed in the application. 6045.4. (a) The application submitted by a county shall describe a four-year plan for the programs, services, or strategies to be provided under the grant. The board shall award grants that provide funding for three years. Funding shall be used to supplement, rather than supplant, funding for existing programs. Funds may be used to fund specialized alternative custody programs that offer appropriate mental health treatment and services. (b) A grant shall not be awarded unless the applicant makes available resources in accordance with the instructions of the board in an amount equal to at least 25 percent of the amount of the grant. Resources may include in-kind contributions from participating agencies. (c) In awarding grants, priority or preference shall be given to those grant applications that include documented match funding that exceeds 25 percent of the total grant amount. 6045.6. The board shall establish minimum requirements, funding criteria, and procedures for awarding grants, which shall take into consideration, but not be limited to, all of the following: (a) The probable or potential impact of the grant on reducing the number or percent of mentally ill adult offenders or mentally ill juvenile offenders who are incarcerated or detained in local adult or Appendix A juvenile correctional facilities and, as relevant for juvenile offenders, in probation out-of-home placements. (b) Demonstrated ability to administer the program, including any past experience in the administration of a prior mentally ill offender crime reduction grant. (c) Demonstrated ability to develop effective responses and to provide effective treatment and stability for mentally ill adult offenders or mentally ill juvenile offenders. (d) Demonstrated ability to provide for interagency collaboration to ensure the effective coordination and delivery of the strategies, programs, or services described in the application. (e) Likelihood that the program will continue to operate after state grant funding ends, including the applicant’s demonstrated history of maximizing federal, state, local, and private funding sources to address the needs of the grant service population. 6045.8. (a) The board shall create an evaluation design for adult and juvenile mentally ill offender crime reduction grants that assesses the effectiveness of the program in reducing crime, adult and juvenile offender incarceration and placement levels, early releases due to jail overcrowding, and local criminal and juvenile justice costs. The evaluation design may include outcome measures related to the service levels, treatment modes, and stability measures for juvenile and adult offenders participating in, or benefitting from, mentally ill offender crime reduction grant programs or services. (b) Commencing on October 1, 2015, and annually thereafter, the board shall submit a report to the Legislature based on the evaluation design, with a final report due on December 31, 2018. (c) The reports submitted pursuant to this section shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code. (d) Pursuant to Section 10231.5 of the Government Code, this section shall be repealed as of January 1, 2024. 6045.9. The board may use up to 5 percent of the funds appropriated for purposes of this article to administer this program, including technical assistance to counties and the development of the evaluation component. Appendix B MENTALLY ILL OFFENDER CRIME REDUCTION GRANT PROGRAM 2014 EXECUTIVE STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS ADULT RATERS JUVENILE RATERS Sandra Hutchens, Co-Chair Michelle Scray Brown, Co-Chair Sheriff Board Member Orange County Chief Probation Officer San Bernardino County Honorable Stephen Manley Honorable Susan Gill Santa Clara County Kern County Mark Stadler Dr. Terence Rooney Commander Behavioral Health Director Ventura County Police Department Colusa County Jackie Lacey Barrie Becker District Attorney Council for a Strong America Los Angeles County Fight Crime: Invest in Kids Dave Meyer, Amy Fierro Clinical Professor/Research Scholar Chief Program Officer Institute of Psychiatry, Law and the River Oak Center for Children Behavioral Sciences U.S.C. Keck School of Medicine Jo Robinson Esa Ehmen-Krause Director, Behavioral Services Deputy Chief Probation Officer Department of Public Health Juvenile Facilities City and County of San Francisco Alameda County Appendix C MENTALLY ILL OFFENDER CRIME REDUCTION GRANT PROGRAM ADULT GRANT PROJECT SUMMARIES Alameda County ($948,459) Operation My Home Town (OMHT) is an intensive pre- and post-release case management program that is intended to create a paradigm shift in reentry services for adult inmates. Participants in the program will receive extensive validated assessments, develop Individualized Reentry Plans with their Clinical Case Managers (CCMs), and engage in pre-release services (e.g., education, vocational training, cognitive behavioral interventions, restorative justice circles), and receive post-release case management. CCMs will assist participants’ transition to the community and provide referral and support services until reentry goals are met for up to a year post-release. CCMs will also assist participants with enrollment for public benefits. El Dorado County ($950,000) The El Dorado project is a multi-faceted service approach for the seriously mentally ill offender population in the South Lake Tahoe area. First, an effective and collaborative crisis intervention response to individuals in crisis will better assess, identify, triage, and link offenders with severe mental illness, and those with co-occurring disorders, to alternatives to incarceration. Second, those individuals in a custodial environment or Behavioral Health Court will have a realistic and focused reentry plan, including necessary treatment, support, and housing resources, prior to their transition back to the community. Third, a court-based intervention, including mental health assessment, will be established to identify offenders and connect them with transitional housing, Behavioral Health Court, and intensive case management services. Los Angeles County ($1,834,000) “Nemo Resideo” (no one left behind) will provide a comprehensive and integrated discharge plan, as well as jail in-reach, intensive community-based services and housing to tri-morbid offenders (seriously mentally ill individuals with co-occurring disorders and a chronic medical condition). The program is an enhanced discharge planning program with jail in-reach by the community- based organization providing the wraparound services, intensive case management and housing upon release, as well as identification of service locations, treatment providers, a medical home, and a dedicated pharmacy. Madera County ($869,547) The Behavioral Health Court will use multi-organizational collaboration to coordinate court- ordered integrated treatment, supervision, and community resource plans for mentally ill offenders in order to achieve the optimum results of reduced jail recidivism and criminogenic risks. Necessary resources for participants include access to housing, access to prescribed psychotropic medication, intensive supervision, and case management services. The project will also include transitional housing accommodations and securing residential treatment beds. Nevada County ($110,472 - partial project funding) The Nevada County will develop an 18 month pilot project by creating a Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) to address critical mental health needs within community settings that will reduce risk to the client and the community, reduce the use of secure custody, improve quality of life for the individuals, and in turn, reduce financial costs by providing effective screening and assessments, referrals, and evidence-based interventions and case management models. All law enforcement officers will receive CIT training; however, the ‘Team’ will consist of one officer per agency as Appendix C point person for mental health intervention training, resource referrals, case staffing, and intervention response management. San Francisco County ($950,000) The San Francisco project will create a Behavioral Health Court (BHC) specifically designed to improve outcomes among adults with mental illness who are accused of misdemeanor offenses. As part of the BHC, continuum of care services and responses include direct housing services to support temporary and transitional housing for offenders, subsidized transportation, employment skills training, and incentives for participation in cognitive behavioral therapy and evidence-based interventions such as Moral Reconation Therapy and Wellness Recovery Action Plan. A peer specialist will also be included to support BHC clients through the process. San Luis Obispo County ($950,000) The San Luis Obispo project will implement a collaborative and multidisciplinary program designed to provide for a Behavioral Health clinician at pre-trial to screen mentally ill offenders as they are being sentenced to provide an alternative to incarceration, in-custody evidence-based treatment services, increased capacity within the community clinic to provide walk-in medication and screening appointments for post-release offenders in order to provide an immediate and seamless reentry of the client into the community. In-custody treatment services include Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Psychosis, Criminogenic interventions (Moral Reconation Therapy), and trauma-focused treatment (Seeking Safety). Santa Clara County ($950,000) The In-Custody Reentry Team (ICRT) will support the successful reentry of inmates with a serious mental illness. The ICRT will employ incarceration-based, prevention-oriented case management and discharge planning to program clients, linking them to post-release services and increasing engagement in the types of treatment and support services that will improve their quality of life and reduce their chances of recidivating. The ICRT will work with serious mentally ill offenders from booking to release, establishing a reentry case plan within days of a mental health referral and following the client through incarceration to their release through service linkages. Santa Cruz County ($949,995) The Mentally Ill Offender Continuum of Care project will address the effects of mentally ill offenders in the local criminal justice system including this population’s typically longer average length of stay in the County Jail due to their distinctive needs, the impact of untreated offenders with psychiatric issues in the community, and the need to draw from the evidence-based practice and intensive treatment of the Forensic Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) model. The project will provide pre-offender interventions as prevention opportunities through law enforcement liaison personnel, provide post-arrest diversion programming through in-custody dual diagnosis treatment services, Probation pre-trial and supervision services, and expand capacity for the FACT team. Solano County ($949,998) The Solano County project will create a county-wide response to the issues of services, treatment, and recidivism reduction for the justice-involved mentally ill. The project will divert low level offenders prior to and shortly after booking, will provide Jail-based mental health programming for sentenced and certain un-sentenced offenders after assessment, and will provide comprehensive reentry planning and intensive case management aftercare services to the participants prior to and after release. The County will create Collaborative Teams to direct the work of the diversion and reentry/aftercare components of the project and will use the evidence-based practice Critical Time Intervention to guide the reentry and aftercare process. Appendix C JUVENILE GRANT PROJECT SUMMARIES Contra Costa County ($950,000) The Transitioning Out to Stay Out (TOSO) project will provide Functional Family Therapy to juvenile offenders and their families following an existing program of court-mandated therapy to improve transition from custody to the community. TOSO will be a supplemental layer of service beyond the suite of court-mandated services provided by the County to serious, persistent teenage male offenders and to sexually-exploited/repeat-offending female youth—groups who are at high-risk for re-offense. Nevada County ($750,000) The Strengths, Opportunities, and Recidivism Reduction (SOARR) project will provide an intensive wraparound model for treating mental illness, eliminating barriers to recovery, teaching and reinforcing pro-social behaviors, and reducing recidivism. Wraparound services will be provided to the county’s seriously mentally ill youth and their families and to those youth most at risk of an out-of-home placement, such as hospitalization, incarceration, or congregate care. Treatment will be designed to address the therapeutic needs, functional impairments, educational needs, and community resource deficits that frequently result in reoffending. Riverside County ($948,510) The Intensive Re-Integration Services (IRIS) project is a collaborative, three-phase approach to support mentally ill juvenile offenders with successful community reentry. The first phase uses intensive in-custody treatment programs targeted towards addressing both significant mental illness and recidivism through multi-modal, evidence-based practices and strategies. The second phase focuses on reentry planning for youth, including appropriate housing, educational services, employment opportunities, job skills training, life skills development, and community reintegration skills. The third phase focuses on community supervision of the youth using either Functional Family Probation or Wraparound. San Diego County ($950,000) The Screening, Assessment, and Services for Traumatized (SAST) Mentally Ill Juvenile Offenders project will provide short-term, cost-effective evidence-based interventions that are proven effective for traumatized youth. The SAST project will expand early identification and intervention for high-risk, high-need youth with mental illness and broaden the service continuum to reduce recidivism and improve outcomes by targeting trauma. Youth and their caregivers will receive Trauma Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Cognitive Processing Therapy, both of which reduce PTSD and depression. San Joaquin County ($949,073) The Court for Individualized Treatment for Adolescents (CITA) Juvenile Mental Health Court will provide a specialized treatment model to address the mental health needs of mentally ill juvenile offenders, address the root causes of offending, and will provide a range of supportive services to help youthful offenders and decrease recidivism. The CITA project will include expediting early intervention through the timely screening and referral of participants, using a dedicated team approach, intensive supervision of participants, and placing the judge at the center of the treatment and supervision process. Interventions include Cognitive Behavioral Interventions (CBI) within the Juvenile Justice Center and in the community, Trauma Focused CBI, Aggression Replacement Training, and CBI for substance use. Santa Clara County ($946,250) The Successful Outcomes and Active Reengagement (SOAR) project will implement culturally responsive evidence-based intervention throughout the county juvenile justice system. Appendix C Components planned that will significantly impact mental health outcomes for youth and involvement with the juvenile justice and dependency systems include training of mental health providers in “El Joven Noble” and “Cara y Corazon” curricula, the addition of a social worker to the Dually Involved Youth Unit, services for commercially sexually exploited (CSE) youth, and the formation of a youth advisory council. Project SOAR will allow for more targeted service to CSE youth, who are facing serious emotional and mental illnesses. Santa Cruz County ($950,000) The “Familias Unidas En Respecto, Tranquilidad y Esperanza” (FUERTE) project (Families United in Respect, Tranquility, and Hope) will address the individuals’ and families’ therapeutic needs and criminogenic risks in order to reduce recidivism, reduce unnecessary use of detention through community-based alternatives, improve individual functioning, and increase family capacity/skills. The core services provided will be treatment matching through screening and assessments, in-home therapy for the youth and family, intensive case management, and linkages to community-based resources. Additional services may include therapeutic groups addressing aggressive/criminal behaviors and outpatient substance use/co-occurring disorder treatments. Shasta County ($938,842) The Wraparound Interagency Network for Growth and Stability (WINGS) is an intensive strength- based family-focused program for high-risk juveniles diagnosed with mental illness. The court- based program uses an interagency family treatment team to meet the needs of the minor and family and establish individualized plans for both. These plans work toward reducing recidivism, minimizing the need for high level, out-of-county placements in group homes, and improve the family’s ability to cope with the minor’s mental health issues. A Deputy Probation Officer, a Social Worker, a Parent Partner, and a Skill Builder along with services provided by a Mental Health Clinician will coordinate treatment through the implementation of evidence-based practices and strategies. Solano County ($761,322) The Solano County project will provide early intervention and diversion from formal judicial processing for mentally ill youth in Fairfield. The county’s collaborative plan includes relocation of the Juvenile Probation Supervisor Unit to the Sullivan Center to reduce negative influences when reporting to their Probation Officer and provide for a Group Counselor to coordinate youth care and case management. In addition, funds will be used to train school resource officers and probation officers in the MAYSI-2 assessment tool and provide for a licensed clinician within the Sullivan Center to triage, conduct evaluations and therapeutic interventions, referrals. As part of the full community approach, training will be provided to probation, police, educators, community providers, and parents on youth brain development, impacts of trauma, and how all youth-serving partners can improve the health and safety of mentally ill minors while promoting alternatives to detention and improving community trust. Tuolumne County ($262,730) The Tuolumne County project will work to reduce recidivism and promote academic and behavioral success for its juvenile offender population. Being a rural county, MIOCR funds will provide new options for resource barriers that exist due to the geographic nature of the area. Mental health services for probation youth will be augmented and supported through the collaboration of numerous county entities and the coordination of services. An additional County Therapist position will assist in providing assessments, early intervention modalities such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Functional Family Therapy, and crisis intervention. MIOCR funding will also go toward contracting with a licensed foster family home to provide youth with immediate crisis intervention and stabilization instead of placement in secure detention. An after-school Appendix C program will be created during high risk crime hours and include a probation aide who will assist with providing youth some of their basic needs, tutoring/mentoring, transportation, group therapy, and, as needed, facilitate medication compliance. Yolo County ($950,000) The Yolo County project will expand the county’s current wraparound services to youth involved with the juvenile justice system who have co-occurring mental health and substance abuse diagnoses. The project will coordinate a team using multiple resources, members from various agencies such as social services, behavioral health providers, and justice partners, and most importantly, the family. The wraparound program will coordinate appropriate services to provide treatment for youth and interventions that will improve youth and their family’s functioning across multiple life domains to provide a smooth transition back into the community while reducing the likelihood of recidivism. Appendix D Table 1. Adult MIOCR Project Interventions County Front-end Disposition Treatment Transition Aftercare Population Intervention Outcome Diversion Options in Custody Planning Measures Mentally ill inmates Case management R Alameda X X X X Seriously MI in South Crisis Intervention, BH R, C, H El Dorado X X X X Lake Tahoe Court, transitional housing SMI & substance use Prerelease discharge Los Angeles X X X disorder, chronic plans, transitional housing R, H meds Madera Mentally ill offenders BH Court, transitional R, C, H X X X (MIOs) housing Homeless MIOs Crisis Intervention Team, Nevada X X X BH Court, Intensive R, H, C Community Team MIO w/misdemeanor BH Court, transitional R, H San Francisco X X X offenses housing MIOs Patient screening, San Luis Obispo X X X X X diversion, in-custody R, C, B treatment, release plans Seriously MI inmates, In-custody case R Santa Clara X X X X multiple admissions management MIOs Continuum of care, FACT, Santa Cruz X X X X pre-booking diversion, R, C custody treatment MIOs Pre-booking diversion, Solano X X X X custody treatment, re-entry R plans, post-release team Outcome Measure Categories: R - Jail or custody recidivism F – Family reunification H -Housing and welfare (employment, school) B - Behavioral (prostitution, school conduct, substance abuse) C - Clinical progress (symptoms, risk/needs assessment, level of functioning) Appendix D Table 2. Juvenile MIOCR Project Interventions County Front-end Disposition Treatment Transition Aftercare Population Intervention Outcome Diversion Options in Custody Planning Measures R, F, B, H Serious, persistent FFT added to court- Contra Costa X X X X Felony teen offenders mandated services Arrests Seriously MI youth Wraparound model R, C, F, H Nevada X X X X and their families Out-of-home MH & Substance Use Wraparound aftercare to R, H Orange X X X Disorders age 25 MIOs, Trauma Custody Treatment, FFT, Riverside X X X focused care re-entry planning, R, H, C community supervision Traumatized mentally Short-term CBT R, C, San Diego X X ill juvenile offenders Re-arrest MIOs Specialized treatment San Joaquin X X X teams, custody/community R, C ART, substance use Justice-involved or Provider training, advisory Santa Clara X X X X dependent, CSE focus council, targeted & R, C, H supportive treatment Youth & families w/MH In-home family-based X X X X needs svcs, aggression R, C, H Santa Cruz treatment, substance use svcs Mentally ill youth in Training school X X X Fairfield counselors, Clinic w R, C, H Solano licensed treatment focused Re-arrest on trauma MH disorders on EBT, COG, after school R, C Tuolumne X X X X formal probation programs, crisis placement Justice-involved co- Wraparound, team case R, C Yolo X X X occurring disorders mgt; transitional svcs Outcome Measure Categories: R - Jail or custody recidivism F – Family reunification H - Housing and welfare (employment, school) B - Behavioral (prostitution, school conduct, substance abuse) C - Clinical progress (symptoms, risk/needs assessment, level of functioning)