BSCC
Board of State and Community Corrections
Read the report at Board of State and Community Corrections ↗
M I O
ENTALLY LL FFENDER
C R
RIME EDUCTION
G P
RANT ROGRAM
L R 2016
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) ............................ Scott Kernan
Director, Adult Parole Operations, CDCR ............................................... Guillermo Viera Rosa
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
Office of Public Safety Accountability – City of Sacramento ......................... Francine Tournour
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 Program Specialist I, Research ...................................................... Anthony Jackson
Associate Governmental Program Analyst .......................................................... Michelle Grant
* Board member composition is pursuant to Penal Code 6025
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2016 Legislative Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 2
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3
The Intercept Model ............................................................................................ 4
County-Level Project Evaluation ....................................................................... 5
BSCC Evaluation Design .................................................................................... 7
Adult County Project Summaries .................................................................... 10
Juvenile County Project Summaries ............................................................... 13
Appendix A ........................................................................................................ 17
Pa g e | 1
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2016 Legislative Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Around the country, jails and juvenile detention centers are being challenged by the
complex needs of offenders with mental health issues.
The Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction (MIOCR) Grant Program invests $18.8
million through the State Budget Acts of 2014 and 2015 to help counties find innovative
ways to serve offenders with mental illnesses.
Penal Code Section 6045 authorized the BSCC to award counties competitive grants for
locally developed, collaborative and multidisciplinary programs designed to reduce the
recidivism rates of these individuals. Half of the funds were awarded to projects
designed to help adult offenders with mental health issues, and half were awarded to
projects targeting juvenile offenders with mental health issues.
Penal Code Section 6045.8 requires the BSCC to design an evaluation that assesses
the effectiveness of these local projects and to report annually to the Legislature on
progress. This report reviews implementation of the MIOCR Grant program taken to
date, describes the methodology by which the BSCC will complete its evaluation of the
projects and includes brief descriptions of the funded projects.
Pa g e | 2
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2016 Legislative Report
MENTALLY ILL OFFENDER CRIME REDUCTION GRANT PROGRAM
LEGISLATIVE REPORT 2016
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.
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.
In June 2015, the BSCC Board approved awards to fund 21 projects in 17 counties. 11
awards are for juvenile projects and 10 awards are for adult projects.
In this report, the 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.
From 1999-2004, the BSCC’s predecessor entity,
The three-year program
the Board of Corrections, also administered a
aims to provide the mentally
MIOCR Grant Program. During that time, the
ill with alternatives to
program was intended to support the
incarceration
development, implementation, and evaluation of
projects that demonstrated locally identified
strategies for reducing recidivism among mentally ill offenders.
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 should: 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 each of the following: crime, adult and juvenile offender
incarceration and placement levels, early releases due to jail overcrowding, and local
criminal and juvenile justice costs.
Pa g e | 3
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2016 Legislative Report
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
THE INTERCEPT MODEL
The MIOCR Grant projects use the Intercept Model, a collaborative process between
the justice and behavioral health systems, to look for diversion points and gaps in
services along the justice continuum. The Model illustrates key points to “intercept”
offenders to promote prompt access to treatment, opportunities for diversion, timely
movement through the justice system, and links to community resources.
The Intercept Model provides a framework for counties to use when considering the
interface between the justice and mental health systems as they address concerns
about the criminalization of people with mental illness. Ideally, most people will be
intercepted at early points, with decreasing numbers at each subsequent point. Each
intercept describes a stage at which a jurisdiction might divert offenders from further
penetration into the justice system. The interception points are:
• Law enforcement and emergency services;
• Initial detention and initial hearings;
• Juvenile detention, jail, courts, forensic evaluations, and forensic commitments;
• Reentry from juvenile detention, jails, state prisons, and forensic hospitalization;
and
• Community corrections and community support.
Pa g e | 4
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2016 Legislative Report
The model provides an organizing tool for a discussion of diversion and linkage
alternatives and for systematically addressing criminalization. By using this type of
model, a county can develop targeted strategies that can evolve over time to increase
diversion of people with mental illness from the criminal justice system and to link them
with community services and treatment.
COUNTY-LEVEL PROJECT EVALUATION
The BSCC developed an evaluation process for the MIOCR Grant Program that can
account for differences between the local projects using the Intercept Model framework.
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.
Points of intervention are as follows:
1. Front-end Diversion (Intercept 1). Law enforcement and school authorities are
provided alternatives to arresting and criminally prosecuting people whose
behavior reflects mental disturbance.
2. Disposition Options (Intercept 2). 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 (Intercept 3). Screening,
Diversion, Disposition Options,
assessment, diagnosis, suicide
Treatment, Transition
prevention, housing classification,
Planning, and Aftercare are all
and cognitive-behavioral, psycho-
points of intervention
educational, or social skills programs
are provided to alter behavior and
meet obligations to provide medically
necessary treatment.
Pa g e | 5
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2016 Legislative Report
4. Transition Planning (Intercept 4). 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 (Intercept 5). 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
MIOCR-funded projects must
requirement, at a minimum, counties must
submit a final evaluation report
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;
Processes for determining which intervention(s) a participant will receive;
Plans to document the services within the intervention(s) provided to each
participant;
Plans 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;
Plans 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;
Plans for assessing the effectiveness of the local MIOCR project including all
individual project components;
Methods of determining if the project achieved the set project goals;
Research design that will be used to complete the evaluation; and
Plans 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 to assess the efficacy of local
projects. Reports will document activities carried out during the project period, provide a
Pa g e | 6
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2016 Legislative Report
description of the research design used to evaluate the effectiveness of the project,
provide a description of the final outcomes of the project, and include the degree of
project success per intervention, the strategy for determining whether the project goal
was achieved, and lessons learned.
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 determine what 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
county-identified objectives of the projects were met. The use of evidence-based
practices and strategies for service interventions and reducing recidivism were a
required component of the Request for Proposals (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.
The concept of evidence-based practices was developed outside of the criminal justice
arena, and is commonly used in other applied fields such as medicine, nursing, and
social work. In criminal justice, this term marks a significant shift by emphasizing
measurable outcomes and ensuring services and resources are actually effective in
promoting rehabilitation and reducing recidivism. On a basic level, evidence-based
practices include the following elements:
• Evidence the intervention is likely to work (i.e., produce a desired benefit);
• Evidence the intervention is being carried out as intended; and
• Evidence allowing an evaluation of whether the intervention worked.
Evidence-based practices involve using research-based and scientific studies to identify
interventions that reliably produce significant reductions in recidivism when correctly
applied to offender populations through the use of the following four principles of
effective intervention:
1. Risk Principle – focuses attention on the crucial question of WHO is being served
and calls for targeting higher risk offenders.
2. Need Principle – requires that priority be given to addressing criminogenic
risk/need factors with a clear focus on WHAT programs are delivered.
Pa g e | 7
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2016 Legislative Report
3. Treatment Principle – conveys the importance of using behavioral treatment
approaches to achieve the best possible outcomes and requires attention to the
question of HOW programs are delivered.
4. Fidelity Principle – draws attention to HOW WELL programs are delivered and
reiterates the necessity that programs be implemented as designed.
Successful implementation of evidence-based practices also includes, but is not limited
to:
• Organizational development to create and sustain a culture accepting of best
practices and evidence-based approaches;
• A commitment to initial and ongoing
professional development and training;
• Use of validated risk/needs/responsivity
Evidence-based practices
assessment tools;
use research and scientific
• Data collection and analysis;
studies to identify
• Use of case management strategies;
appropriate interventions
• Use of programs known to produce
positive criminal justice outcomes;
• Quality assurance activities to ensure
program fidelity;
• Performance management to improve programs, service delivery, and policies;
• A “systems change approach” to develop collaborations so tasks, functions and
sub-units work effectively together and not at cross-purposes; and
• A focus on sustainability.
In discussions of evidence-based practices in criminal/juvenile justice, it is common to
distinguish between programs, strategies, and promising practices/approaches.
Programs are designed to change the behavior of individuals in the criminal justice
system and are measured by individual level outcomes. For example, programs aiming
to reduce substance use and antisocial behavior include Cognitive Behavioral Therapy,
Behavioral Programs, and Social Skills Training.
Strategies may include programs to change individual behavior; however, this term is
often used to describe a general intervention approach that supports larger community
or organizational level policy objectives. For example, case management is applied to
improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of criminal and juvenile justice
agencies, while pretrial assessment is designed to enable informed decisions about
which arrested defendants can be released pretrial without putting public safety at risk.
Strategies can also refer to the strategic application of effective practices that are
correlated with a reduction in recidivism such as the use of assessment tools, quality
assurance protocols, and delivery of interventions by qualified and trained staff.
Pa g e | 8
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2016 Legislative Report
Promising practices/approaches, for purposes of the MIOCR grant work, can be broadly
construed to include crime-reduction and recidivism-reduction programs or strategies
that have been implemented elsewhere with evidence of success, but with evidence not
yet strong enough to conclude the success was due to the program or that it is highly
likely to work if carried out in the applicant’s circumstances. The difference between
evidence-based and promising practices/approaches is a difference in degree of the
number of situations in which a program or strategy has been tested and the rigor of the
evaluation methods used.
The 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 (mental health and substance use issues) or tri-morbid
(mental health, chronic medical, and substance use issues) 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 demonstrate 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. 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?
Local evaluation findings, coupled with the quarterly progress report information and
monitoring/site visits, should provide the BSCC with the data to determine the effects of
the MIOCR Program and the status of each local MIOCR project in providing effective
alternatives to incarceration, 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.
Pa g e | 9
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2016 Legislative Report
ADULT COUNTY PROJECT SUMMARIES
Alameda County ($948,459)
Operation My Home Town (OMHT) is an intensive pre- and post-release clinical case
management model that is intended to create a shift in reentry services for adult
inmates and provide a systems approach to assist the inmates as they transition back
into the community. Participants in the program will receive a validated risk and needs
assessment, develop Individualized Reentry Plans with their Clinical Case Managers
(CCMs), engage in pre-release services (e.g., education, vocational training, cognitive
behavioral interventions), and receive post-release clinical case management. CCMs
will assist the participants in their transition back into the community by providing clinical
interventions, support services, and linkage to resources that address the participant’s
risks and needs until reentry goals are met for up to a year post-release. CCMs will also
assist participants with enrollment for public benefits, obtaining housing, enrolling in
educational institutions and obtaining sheltered or long-term employment. CCMs will
monitor the participants’ progress and continuously assess the participants’ risks and
needs to determine the level of case management, clinical intervention, and referrals
needed.
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 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
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.
Pa g e | 10
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2016 Legislative Report
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)
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 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 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).
Pa g e | 11
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2016 Legislative Report
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 potential low level offenders in the community, prior to being arrested, will create
a “post filing diversion project” for the mentally ill, 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, in-custody and reentry/aftercare
components of the project and will use the evidence-based practice Critical Time
Intervention to guide the reentry and aftercare process.
Pa g e | 12
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2016 Legislative Report
JUVENILE COUNTY 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, Cognitive Processing Therapy, and Seeking Safety, all of which reduces
PTSD and depression.
Pa g e | 13
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2016 Legislative Report
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. 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
Pa g e | 14
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2016 Legislative Report
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 the city of Fairfield, who are enrolled in the
Fairfield Suisun Unified School District. The county’s collaborative plan includes
relocation of the Probation Department’s Juvenile Supervision Unit to the Sullivan Youth
Services Interagency Center (http://www.fsusd.org/Page/12065). The goal of
Probation’s move to the center is to reduce youth contact with higher risk adult
offenders and other negative influences when reporting to their Probation Officer, as
well as connecting youth with resources and services to reduce their risk of recidivism.
MIOCR funding will be utilized to provide for a Deputy Probation Officer to coordinate
youth care and case management services. In addition, funds will be used to train the
Fairfield Police Department Diversion Officer and the Deputy Probation Officer in the
use of a standardized short screener assessment tool to determine appropriate referrals
to the MIOCR diversion program. An in-kind match by Solano County Health & Social
Services will provide for a licensed Mental Health Clinician to be on site at the Sullivan
Center to conduct mental health assessments, determine appropriate therapeutic
interventions, make referrals and provide direct treatment services. As part of the full
service community approach, training will be provided to probation, police, educators,
and community providers on the Policing the Teen Brain curriculum, which discusses
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 program will be
created during high risk crime hours and include a probation aide who will assist with
Pa g e | 15
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2016 Legislative Report
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.
As additional information from grantees about local programs and progress is received,
the BSCC will update its website.
Pa g e | 16
Appendix A
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,
Pa g e | 17
Appendix A
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.
(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
Pa g e | 18
Appendix 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 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.
Pa g e | 19
Appendix A
(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.
Pa g e | 20