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 2018
EGISLATIVE EPORT
This page intentionally left blank
STATE OF CALIFORNIA – EDMUND G. BROWN, GOVERNOR
BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
Board Members*
Chair, Board of State and Community Corrections ............................................................. Linda Penner
The Chair of the Board is a full-time paid position appointed by the Governor
and subject to Senate Confirmation
Secretary, California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (CDCR) ........................ Ralph Diaz (A)
Director, Adult Parole Operations, CDCR ............................................................................ Jerry Powers
County Sheriff .................................................................................................................. Dean Growden
A sheriff in charge of local detention facility with a BSCC rated capacity of 200 Lassen County
inmates or less appointed by the Governor and subject to Senate confirmation
County Sheriff ..................................................................................................................... William Gore
A sheriff in charge of local detention facility with a BSCC rated capacity of more San Diego County
than 200 inmates appointed by the Governor and subject to Senate
confirmation
County Supervisor ............................................................................................................... Leticia Perez
A county supervisor or county administrative officer appointed by the Governor Kern County
subject and to Senate confirmation
County Chief Probation Officer .............................................................................................. Mark Varela
A chief probation officer from a county with a population over 200,000 appointed Ventura County
by the Governor and subject to Senate confirmation
County Chief Probation Officer .......................................................................................... Michael Ertola
A chief probation officer from a county with a population under 200,000 Nevada County
appointed by the Governor and subject to Senate confirmation
Retired Judge ............................................................................................................ Gordon S. Baranco
A judge appointed by the Judicial Council of California Alameda County
Chief of Police ..................................................................................................................... Andrew Mills
A chief of police appointed by the Governor and subject to Senate confirmation City of Santa Cruz
Community Provider .......................................................................................................... Scott Budnick
Founder of the
A community provider of rehabilitative treatment or services for adult offenders
Anti-Recidivism
appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly
Coalition
Community Provider ........................................................................................................ David Steinhart
Director,
A community provider or advocate with expertise in effective programs, policies
Commonweal
and treatment of at-risk youth and juvenile offenders appointed by the Senate
Juvenile Justice
Committee on Rules
Program
Public Member .......................................................................................................... Francine Tournour
Office of Public
A public member appointed by the Governor and subject to Senate confirmation
Safety Accountability
* Board member composition is pursuant to Penal Code 3025
BSCC Staff
Executive Director ........................................................................................ Kathleen T. Howard
Communications Director ......................................................................................... Tracie Cone
Deputy Director, Corrections Planning & Grant Programs ........................................... Mary Jolls
Deputy Director, Facilities Standards & Operations and Research ....................... Allison Ganter
Field Representative, Corrections Planning & Grant Programs ........................... Helene Zentner
Chief of Research, Research ............................................................................. Kasey Warmuth
Research Data Specialist I, Research .................................................................... Aniela Leung
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 3
PROJECTS SERVING THE MENTALLY ILL IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM ........................... 5
The Sequential Intercept Model ................................................................................... 5
Evidence-Based Strategies .......................................................................................... 6
PROGRAM EVALUATION APPROACH .......................................................................................... 8
Quarterly Progress Reports ......................................................................................... 8
Final Local Evaluation Reports .................................................................................... 8
Limitations .................................................................................................................... 9
PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS .............................................................................................. 9
Adult MIOCR Projects .................................................................................................. 9
Participant Information .............................................................................................. 9
Interventions and Implementation Rates ................................................................ 12
Enrollment of New Participants Over Time ............................................................. 14
Trends in Participants Served Quarterly and Number of Days to Initial Service ..... 15
Participant Outcomes During Program Participation ............................................... 16
Participant Outcomes Six Months Post Completion ................................................ 17
Project Implementation Challenges ........................................................................ 18
Juvenile MIOCR Projects ........................................................................................... 19
Participant Information ............................................................................................ 19
Interventions and Implementation Rates ................................................................ 21
Enrollment of New Participants Over Time ............................................................. 23
Trends in Participants Served Quarterly and Number of Days to Initial Service ..... 24
Participant Outcomes During Program Participation ............................................... 25
Participant Outcomes Six Months Post Completion ................................................ 26
Project Implementation Challenges ........................................................................ 26
CASE STUDIES.................................................................................................................................... 28
CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................... 31
APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................................... 33
Appendix A: Penal Code Section 6045: MIOCR Grants ........................................... 35
Appendix B: BSCC MIOCR Executive Steering Committee Members ....................... 39
Appendix C: Adult MIOCR Project Interventions ........................................................ 40
Juvenile MIOCR Project Interventions ................................................... 41
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
Appendix D: Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Project Summaries .......... 42
Adult County Project Summaries ............................................................................ 42
Juvenile County Project Summaries ....................................................................... 44
Appendix E: Adult MIOCR Projects Quarterly Progress Report Template ................ 48
Appendix F: Juvenile MIOCR Projects Quarterly Progress Report Template ............ 53
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To support the decriminalization of mentally ill persons, the California Legislature
established the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction (MIOCR) Grant Program. This
program supported prevention, diversion, intervention, supervision, and incarceration-
based services and strategies to reduce recidivism and to improve outcomes for juvenile
and adult offenders living with mental illness. Grant funds helped facilitate the
development of local strategies, collaboration, and implementation of evidence-based
practices/strategies and multifaceted approaches unique to each county’s offender
populations.
Priorities for all 21 MIOCR-funded projects included, but were not limited to:
• Individualized treatment plans.
• Behavioral/mental health assessments/evaluations.
• Intensive case management.
• Substance use treatment.
• Referrals and linkages to community services.
• Holistic approaches/wraparound services.
• Combination of interventions.
• Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.
• Trauma-informed services.
• Assistance with housing, benefits, life skills, education, transportation.
• Medication management and psychiatric services.
Using the Sequential Intercept Model as a framework for determining county strategies,
gaps in services, and priorities for models of intervention for those service gaps, key
responses were identified for project participants along each point of the justice
continuum.
All projects assessed participants for criminogenic risk and need factors. Focusing
resources on higher-risk offenders improves the cost-effectiveness of corrections
because it means targeting those individuals who are most likely to reoffend.1 Seventy-
five percent of adult participants assessed scored in the medium/high to high risk range
and 57 percent of juvenile participants assessed scored in these ranges.
Grant projects began July 1, 2015. However, all projects needed an average of three to
four quarters to implement their grant project as designed and to gain a steady trend in
participant enrollment.
Both the adult and juvenile projects had common challenges including, but not limited to:
• Chronic staffing issues (hiring, recruitment, retention).
• Data collection and management.
• Coordination between multiple disciplines, agencies, and systems.
For the 10 adult projects, lack of treatment beds (or long wait-lists for available beds) and
scarcity of permanent or transitional housing were considerable on-going challenges.
1 Latessa, PhD, Edward J., Designing More Effective Correctional Programs Using Evidence-Based Practices, 2012
1 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
In addition, most adult participants had a co-occurring diagnosis while a smaller
subsection of participants had a tri-morbid diagnosis (mental health, substance use and
a chronic medical condition). Treating individuals with multiple diagnoses require more
resources and costly care. Therefore, projects attempted to increase the number of
personnel who would be readily available to support participants experiencing a mental
health, substance use, and/or medical crisis.
The 11 juvenile projects provided family-centric service models to participants but also
allocated grant funds for staff training, across all disciplines, on juvenile justice evidence-
based practices and interventions as well as current training and education concerning
adolescent brain development.
Lastly, MIOCR grant staff, both adult and juvenile projects, provided outreach in their
communities to reduce the stigma of individuals connected to the justice system and living
with mental health issues.
Data contained in the following report were collected from the grant projects’ Quarterly
Progress Reports and Final Local Evaluation Reports (FLERs), available on the BSCC’s
website at: (http://www.bscc.ca.gov/s_miocrgranteval.php). FLERs include for each
project descriptions of the specific interventions used, detailed project outcomes, and
recidivism rates, when available.
2 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
MENTALLY ILL OFFENDER CRIME REDUCTION GRANT PROGRAM
LEGISLATIVE REPORT 2018
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. This iteration of the MIOCR Grant2 was developed
to support appropriate prevention, intervention, and supervision services through
promising and evidence-based strategies aimed at reducing recidivism in a segment of
California’s offender population - individuals living with a mental health disorder(s) - and
improving outcomes for these individuals while continuing to protect public safety.
Penal Code section (Pen. Code §) 6045 (Appendix A) required the Board of State and
Community Corrections (BSCC) to award grants to counties on a competitive basis to
implement locally developed, collaborative, and multi-disciplinary adult and juvenile
projects. The statute further required that half of the funding was to be awarded to projects
designed for adult offenders with a mental illness and half to projects aimed at juvenile
offenders with mental health issues.
In November 2014, the BSCC convened an Executive Steering Committee (ESC),
composed of statewide subject matter experts (Appendix B), to develop the MIOCR
Request for Proposals (RFPs) for applicant counties (one for adult projects and one for
juvenile projects). The ESC also established the rating factors and criteria from which the
most meritorious proposals were selected for funding recommendations.
Counties applying for MIOCR funding were required to submit an application developed
by a local Strategy Committee. (Pen. Code, § 6045.2, subds. (b) & (c).) The application
required 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 also required counties to 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 services included mental health treatment; substance abuse treatment;
diversion, prerelease, reentry, continuing, and community-based services; family-based
therapies; collaborative interagency service agreements; specialized court-based
services; and services to support a stable source of income, and a safe and decent
residence, where appropriate.
The RFPs were released in February 2015, county applications were submitted to the
BSCC on April 3, 2015 and by June 2015, the ESC had completed its charge of reading
and rating the proposals and making funding recommendations to the BSCC Board.
On June 10, 2015, the Board awarded funding to 21 projects in 17 counties: 11 projects
were awarded grants for juvenile services and 10 projects were awarded grants for adult
services. In addition, projects awarded MIOCR funding were required to provide, at a
2 From 1999-2004, the Board of Corrections administered the original MIOCR Grant Program. The intent was to reduce
the number of adult mentally ill persons moving through the “revolving door” between the local criminal justice system
and the community.
3 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
minimum, a 25 percent (25%) match (either cash match or in-kind resources) of the total
grant amount received.
Counties awarded MIOCR grant funding were:
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
As part of its grant administering duties, the BSCC was required to, in part, “create an
evaluation design . . . [to] assess the effectiveness of the program in reducing crime, and
adult and juvenile offender incarceration and placement levels.” (Pen. Code, § 6045.8.)
In this report, the BSCC provides an overview of the MIOCR Grant Program, the diverse
intervention components of the projects, the overall evaluation approach used by the
BSCC, and evaluation results for both the adult and juvenile projects.
It is important to note that county outcomes are project specific. Projects were required
to provide mental health treatment programs, practices and strategies demonstrated
through an evidence-based foundation and treatments/services appropriate for the target
population. Given there could be multiple initiatives aimed at serving the same population,
additional local leveraging opportunities, and possible benefits of multidisciplinary
collaboration, it is difficult to determine what local outcomes are due solely to the MIOCR
Grant Program. As part of the grant requirements, counties were directed to formulate a
plan to evaluate the effectiveness of their specific interventions.3 This report does not
provide an evaluation of the specific interventions implemented by the grant projects.
3 More detail regarding the outcomes of these plans are discussed later in this report under the Program Evaluation
Approach section and grant evaluation reports are available on the BSCC website.
4 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
PROJECTS SERVING THE MENTALLY ILL IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM
The MIOCR Grant was established as a three-year program aimed at establishing locally
developed, collaborative projects to serve individuals who have had contact with the
criminal and/or juvenile justice systems and who were/are living with mental illness (i.e.,
project participants). This grant provided funding to counties to develop alternatives to
incarceration and detention, implement projects that would reduce facility population,
reduce correctional/custodial costs for this segment of the jail/juvenile hall population,
establish a continuum of services from prevention through aftercare, and promote public
safety.
For those living with severe mental illness(es), access to treatment may be the difference
between whether an individual is able to survive/thrive within their community or face
challenges including homelessness, time spent in jail, or psychiatric hospitalization. Left
untreated, individuals with mental health issues often get worse, end up in crisis
situations, and then are more likely to become involved with law enforcement and/or the
justice system.
MIOCR projects addressed a wide array of service needs for participants – from diversion
and disposition options, to in-custody services (such as counseling, education, and
individualized discharge/after-care planning), to post-custody interventions (including
residential treatment, housing, securing benefits/entitlements). MIOCR project
summaries are provide in Appendix C. Although varied in their approaches, all projects
used multiple interventions along the justice continuum to intercept individuals who have
had contact with the justice system and who were/are living with mental illness. A list of
the common interventions used by the adult and juvenile projects are provided under the
Program Evaluation Results section.
The Sequential Intercept Model
The MIOCR Grant projects used the Sequential Intercept Model (SIM), a collaborative
process between the justice and behavioral health systems to improve integrated service
delivery for people living with mental health disorders who encounter the criminal justice
system. Because justice-involved individuals move through the system in a predictable
way, it is also a process to look for diversion points and gaps in services along the justice
continuum. The SIM illustrates key points to “intercept” justice-involved individuals and
promote prompt access to treatment, opportunities to divert away from the justice system,
timely movement through the justice system, and linkage to community resources.
Example of a SIM:
5 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
The SIM provided a conceptual framework for counties to use when considering the
essential links between the criminal/juvenile justice and mental health systems
developing their local strategies. Ideally, most individuals would be intercepted at early
points, with decreasing numbers at each sub-sequential point. Each intercept describes
a stage at which a jurisdiction might divert offenders from further penetration into the
justice system
By using this type of model, a county can continually develop fluid, targeted strategies
that evolve over time to increase the diversion of individuals living with mental illness from
the criminal/juvenile justice systems and to link them directly and expeditiously to
community services and treatment.
Points of the SIM intervention model are:
• Front-end Diversion (Intercept 1): Law enforcement and school authorities are
provided alternatives to arresting and criminally prosecuting people whose behavior
reflects mental disturbance.
• 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.
• Treatment in Custody or Under Supervision (Intercept 3): 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.
• 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.
• 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.
Appendix D provides a list of the MIOCR projects (adult and juvenile, respectively), the
general points of intercepts used by each project, the type of intervention implemented,
and population(s) served.
Evidence-Based Strategies
The use of evidence-based practices and strategies for service interventions and
reducing recidivism were a required component of the RFP. By using a demonstrated
research–based mental health treatment model, it could be expected these projects
would produce similar outcomes to that model’s proven results, if implemented with
fidelity.
Within the justice systems, the term “evidence-based” marks a significant shift by
emphasizing measurable outcomes and ensuring services and resources are 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
6 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
• Evidence allowing an evaluation of whether the intervention worked.
Evidence-based practices and strategies are those that scientific studies have identified
as interventions that reliably produce significant reductions in recidivism, when correctly
applied to offender populations using 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.
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.
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.
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.
7 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
PROGRAM EVALUATION APPROACH
The BSCC’s evaluation of the MIOCR Grant Program summarizes information available
across the 10 Adult MIOCR Projects and the 11 Juvenile MIOCR Projects, respectively.
Descriptions of the two sources of information available for this evaluation follow.
Quarterly Progress Reports
Each grantee submitted Quarterly Progress Reports (QPRs) to the BSCC. The QPRs
provided data pertaining to the demographic characteristics of the participants, measures
of their risk to reoffend, their criminal or juvenile histories, quality of life measures, project
implementation measures (e.g., enrollment, number served), and project outcomes (e.g.,
successful completions, terminations, recidivism during project involvement).
Additionally, some mental health and recidivism measures for a follow-up group were
collected. This follow-up group was made up of participants tracked by projects for six
months after they exited the project. In all, 12 QPRs were submitted for each project. The
first QPRs provided data for July 2015 through September 2015 and were received in
October 2015. The final QPRs provided data for April 2018 through June 2018.
The QPRs provided aggregate-level data, representing the aggregate outcomes for the
specified participant subset for a given quarter. The QPR template for the 10 Adult MIOCR
Projects is provided in Appendix E and the QPR template for the 11 Juvenile MIOCR
Projects is provided in Appendix F. There are some differences between the QPR
templates for the Adult Projects and Juvenile Projects. These differences included
technical differences in the measures of recidivism, the quality of life characteristics, and
the time period for which prior justice system involvement was collected.
Select variables from the QPRs were aggregated across the Adult and Juvenile Projects
to provide program-level information about participants, assessment outcomes, and
participant outcomes. Because of this aggregation, the averages reported are over time
and projects. Due to variable differences in the QPR templates and the different target
populations, information for the Adult and Juvenile Projects are reported separately.
Final Local Evaluation Reports
As part of the MIOCR Grant RFPs, each grantee was required to submit a Final Local
Evaluation Report (FLER) for their project to the BSCC. These FLERs are available on
the BSCC’s website (http://www.bscc.ca.gov/s_miocrgranteval.php) and provide for each
project:
• Descriptions of the specific interventions used.
• Detailed project outcomes.
• Recidivism rates, when available.
Across the Adult and Juvenile Projects, respectively, the FLERs were used to:
• Identify the interventions used and where in the intercept model those interventions
occurred.
• Assess the relative rate of implementation of the major intervention elements.
Rates of implementation were classified as either “fully implemented” or “partially
to mostly implemented”.
8 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
• Identify reported implementation challenges and the rate with which they were
resolved. The rate with which implementation challenges were resolved were
classified as either “resolved”, “partially to mostly resolved”, and “not resolved”.
The classification of implementation rates and the resolution of implementation
challenges were developed to provide general implementation indicators and to provide
stakeholders with a sense of interventions which were implemented with few challenges
and implementation challenges which may be addressed in future programs. They are
not intended to assess the quality or fidelity with which interventions were implemented.
Limitations
Each project endeavored to provide accurate quarterly data and quality FLERs. However,
data collection processes and evaluation expertise varied across projects. Due to project-
specific limitations, some projects were limited in terms of the data they could collect, or
the quality with which they could report data. BSCC does not evaluate or audit data
collection or reporting processes. When data quality issues were apparent, the data were
not included in analyses; these instances are noted in footnotes. Additionally, the data
collected do not support causal inferences as to the effectiveness in changing participant
outcomes.
PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS
Over the course of the MIOCR Program:
• 2,592 adults and juveniles participated in 21 projects.
• On average, over all participants and projects, an individual participant received
services for around 2.3 quarters, nearly seven months.
• Slightly more than 26 percent of all participants successfully completed treatment
or services as defined by their project’s parameters.
Adult MIOCR Projects
Participant Information
Over the course of the Adult MIOCR Projects:
• 1,669 adults participated in the 10 projects.
• The average number of participants across each project was 167 (SD4 = 146) and
the total number of participants across the projects ranged from a low of 26 to a
high of 518. Each project targeted a slightly different population according to the
needs of the county and varied in the intensity of the services and interventions
rendered. Some projects targeted individuals with serious mental illness who
require more resource intensive services. For these projects, fewer participants
were enrolled.
4 Standard deviations reported in this evaluation represent variation over time and between projects. They reflect
variance in project quarterly averages. Standard deviation is a statistical measure of the dispersion of the data around
the mean. Its statistical properties sometimes result in intervals around the mean that are outside the range of
observations that occur. This is an artifact of the statistical calculation of the standard deviation.
9 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
• On average, participants received services for almost 2.3 quarters, nearly seven
months.5
Over the course of the projects,17 percent of all participants successfully completed
treatment or services as defined by their project’s parameters. Projects independently
defined success to reflect their project components and goals. Conditions for successful
completion varied across all projects. Oftentimes, successful completion required not only
completion of treatment, but also completion of a follow-up period in which the participant
did not reoffend. Therefore, successful completion does not reflect the number who
received full treatment, but more generally represents fulfillment of project-specific terms.
Also, 35 percent of participants were reported terminated or discontinued as defined by
their project’s parameters.
Table 1 provides demographic characteristics for the Adult MIOCR Project participants
broken down by gender, age, race or ethnicity, and veteran status
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Adult MIOCR Project Participants
Percent of
Category Demographic Characteristic Participants
Gender Female 28%
Male 70%
Other 1%
Total: 100%
Age 18 to 25 18%
26 to 44 54%
45 to 65 26%
65 and older 2%
Total: 100%
Race or Ethnicity African-American 17%
Hispanic 23%
Caucasian 50%
Asian/Pacific Islander 3%
Native American 1%
Multi-Racial 4%
Other 2%
Total: 100%
Veteran 3%
Note: Percentages reported may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
5 This average reflects all adult project participants. There were more participants who terminated the program or
remained in the program than participants who completed the full-length program, biasing the average downward.
There were also substantial differences in the intervention types and lengths used by projects, which is reflected in this
average, as well.
10 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
Projects collected a variety of information related to the holistic welfare and prior justice
system involvement of program participants for the 12 months prior to enrollment. Over
the course of the Adult MIOCR Projects, in the 12 months prior to enrollment:
• 64 percent of participants were receiving Medi-Cal or another type of insurance
plan at the time of enrollment.
• 86 percent of participants reported being unemployed in the previous three
months.
• 66 percent of participants self-reported as homeless for some period in the
previous three months.
• 33 percent of participants were receiving Social Security Income or another income
entitlement.
• 20 percent of participants reported being taken to an emergency room by a
member of law enforcement or first responder due to a mental health issue. For
these participants, the average number of emergency room visits was 2.18 (SD =
1.69).
• 25 percent of participants reported being admitted to an acute inpatient treatment
facility for severe mental health treatment services.
• A total of 2,603 previous convictions for an offense were reported, an average of
1.58 prior convictions per participant.6 For these previous convictions:
o 27.2 percent were felony convictions. The average number of felonies per
participant was .48 (SD = .46).
o 72.8 percent were misdemeanor convictions. The average number of
misdemeanors per participant was 1.15 (SD = 1.64).
o The average length of stay in jail for convictions was 67.46 days (SD = 58.61)
per participant.
o The average length of stay in jail for pre-sentence holds was 44.01 days (SD
= 59.31) per participant.
To evaluate participants’ criminogenic risk and mental health needs, projects assessed
participants using standardized assessments.7 Over the course of the projects,
participants were assessed at least once on average, potentially with multiple
instruments. Projects reported the results of a total of 2,005 standardized assessments,
including the results of any retests. Of those assessments:8
• 52 percent were scored in the high criminogenic risk range.
• 23 percent were scored in the medium/high criminogenic risk range.
• 13 percent were scored in the low/medium criminogenic risk range.
• 13 percent were scored in the low criminogenic risk range.
6Sum of misdemeanors and felonies reported. Participant averages were calculated by finding the average number of
prior convictions for new enrollments for each project quarter with nonzero new participants, then averaging over all
project quarters. One project did not report criminal history, so averages do not reflect participation in the project.
7Standardized risk assessments included the LS/CMI, ANSA, CAIS, COMPAS, and LS/RNR. Mental health
assessments included LOCUS, BSI, MHI-5, DAST-10, ASAM, and HRQOL. These assessments were used to develop
individualized treatment approaches, a core component of nearly all project interventions. Refer to the FLERs for
project-specific details as to when assessments were used and how they informed treatment.
8 One project did not report risk ranges.
11 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
Adult MIOCR Projects also conducted 1,029 formal psychological or psychiatric
evaluations in total.9 Up to 62 percent of all project participants received psychological or
psychiatric evaluations.10 Most participants were diagnosed with both a psychiatric
disorder and a substance use disorder (co-occurring diagnosis). Many, though a smaller
share, were diagnosed as having a psychiatric disorder, substance use disorder, and a
chronic medical condition (tri-morbid diagnosis).
Interventions and Implementation Rates
The Adult MIOCR Projects implemented interventions at various points in the criminal
justice system. Within the SIM11:
• 6 projects implemented interventions at the Front-end Diversion point.
• 8 projects implemented interventions at the Disposition Options point.
• 7 projects implemented interventions at the In-custody Treatment point.
• 8 projects implemented interventions at the Transition Planning point.
• 6 projects implemented intervention at the Aftercare point.
Each project implemented interventions across at least three interception points. Many
interventions existed fluidly at several of the points of interception. A large share of adult
participants had access to disposition options, in-custody treatment, and transition
planning. A participant’s entry point from the criminal justice and mental health systems
generally impacted the services he or she received. Because of these different entry
points, not all participants were necessarily treated with the same or all project
components. Often, projects served different sets of participants at different intercepts
with different treatments.
Table 2 lists the most common interventions12 occurring across the adult projects and for
each provides the number of projects that employed them, the implementation rate (● =
fully, ◒ = partially or mostly), and the maximum percent of participants who may have
had access. Each project incorporated a combination of interventions with an average of
10 distinct interventions for each project. Most projects incorporated intensive case
management and individualized treatment plans, evidence-based therapeutic
approaches, assistance in accessing social benefits and housing, and referrals and
linkages to services in the community for post-project support. Up to 97 percent of
participants participated in programs implementing intensive case management and up
to 89 percent participated in projects implementing referrals and linkages to community
services. Almost all projects used funding to hire more staff dedicated to serving
individuals with mental illness, and many used funding to train existing and new staff on
approaches to serve individuals with mental illness.
9 These evaluations were used to inform individualized treatment plans and, in some cases, to prescribe and administer
medication. Refer to the FLERs for project-specific details as to when assessments were used and how they informed
treatment.
10 Some projects potentially administered evaluations multiple times to the same participant, thus this percentage
reflects the upper bound of the number of participants who could have been evaluated.
11 See page 4 for more information on the Sequential Intercept Model (SIM)
12 The interventions were obtained from the FLERs. The list of common interventions is not a comprehensive list of all
interventions employed.
12 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
Table 2. Adult MIOCR Projects: Common Interventions, Implementation Rate, and
Participant Access
Number of Implementation Participant
Common Intervention Projects Rate a Access
Homeless outreach/diversion team 3 ● 31%
Behavioral/Mental Health Court 6 ◒ 76%
Pre-trial supervision or release 4 ● 28%
Intensive Case Management 9 ◒ 97%
Crisis Intervention Treatment 4 ● 23%
Wraparound services/therapy b 7 ◒ 81%
Substance use/residential treatment 5 ◒ 21%
Assistance accessing social benefits
5 ● 70%
and housing
Referrals and linkages to community
9 ● 89%
services
Individualized reentry plans 6 ◒ 52%
Supportive housing, transitional
5 ● 40%
housing
Warm-handoff or transportation 3 ● 34%
Continuation of services at
4 ● 47%
outpatient clinic/program
Medication assistance post-release 3 ● 57%
Follow-up contact 4 ● 39%
Additional staff hired 8 ◒ 88%
Training for staff on EBP 5 ◒ 58%
● ◒
Notes. a Implementation Rate: = fully implemented and = partially or mostly implemented. b Examples of
wraparound services and therapy include: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Dialectical Behavioral Therapy, Assertive
Community Treatment, trauma-informed treatment (e.g., Seeking Safety), Moral Reconation Therapy, and psychiatric
services or medication.
Overall, projects fully implemented most interventions. For interventions classified as
partially or mostly implemented, common challenges to their implementation included:
• Staffing issues impacting service provision (e.g. recruiting, retaining, turnover
impacts).
• Need for substance abuse treatment and scarcity of beds in residential treatment
or sober-living housing.
• Lack of available permanent or transitional housing.
• Lack of voluntary take-up of services on the part of participants, or difficulty
retaining or maintaining contact with clients.
• Cross-disciplinary divergences.
Common challenges are discussed further in the Project Implementation Challenges
section.
13 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
Enrollment of New Participants Over Time
Combined across all adult projects, an average of 139.1 participants (SD = 43.9) were
enrolled each quarter. Figure 1 shows the average number of new enrollments in Adult
MIOCR Projects each quarter. The vertical bars, or whiskers, provide a visual
representation of the range in the number of new enrollments each quarter (minimum,
maximum). Averaging over all 12 quarters, 13.9 new participants (SD = 17.1) enrolled in
each project quarterly. However, almost all projects did not enroll participants in the first
quarter. Not including the quarters before enrollments first began, an average of 16.5 new
participants (SD = 17.4) enrolled quarterly. Average new enrollments were generally
stable within 10 to 20 enrollments after the brief ramp-up period evident in Figure 1.
Though there is wide variation in the number enrolled between projects, the trends over
time in enrollments across projects are similar. Figure 1 shows that projects were active
in recruiting and enrolling participants throughout the duration of the grant.
Figure 1. Average Number of New Enrollments each Quarter in Adult MIOCR Projects
Note. Quarter 1 (Q1) = July 2015 through September 2015. Quarter 12 (Q12) = April 2018 through June 2018.
14 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
Trends in Participants Served Quarterly and Number of Days to Initial Service
Combined across all adult projects, an average of 314.8 participants (SD = 135.3)
received services each quarter, with 54 adults served in the first quarter and 452 served
in the last quarter. Figure 2 shows the average number of participants receiving services
in adult projects each quarter. Individual projects served on average 31.5 participants (SD
= 30.0) each quarter. Including only the quarters after initial enrollments began, each
project served on average 37.9 participants (SD = 27.8) each quarter. Over time, the
average number of participants served each quarterly steadily rises, plateauing in the last
year. Despite the wide variation between projects in the number served, trends over time
were similar across projects. This shows that, collectively, the projects were active in
serving both new and prior enrollments over the lifetime of the grant program.
Figure 2. Average Number of Participants Receiving Services each Quarter for in Adult
MIOCR Projects.
Note. Quarter 1 (Q1) = July 2015 through September 2015. Quarter 12 (Q12) = April 2018 through June 2018.
For new participants, Figure 3 shows the average number of days from project enrollment
to the day first direct services were received in adult projects each quarter. Over time, the
number of days to receive initial service(s) remained steady until a peak midway through
the grant cycle, possibly the combined effect of staffing issues and steady new
15 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
enrollments.13 Overall, the average number of days to initial service each quarter for new
enrollments was 3.67 (SD = 7.60) days, well under a week.
Figure 3. Average Number of Days to Initial Service for Adult MIOCR Projects.
Note. Quarter 1 (Q1) = July 2015 through September 2015. Quarter 12 (Q12) = April 2018 through June 2018. Several
projects reported high wait times for Q8, Q9, and Q10.
Participant Outcomes During Program Participation
For any current participants, each quarter projects reported mental health outcomes,
convictions for new offenses, and jail stays. Over the course of the projects:
• Approximately 10 percent of participants (n = 165) were taken to an emergency
room by a member of law enforcement or first responder due to a mental health
issue. For these participants, the average number of emergency room visits was
1.47 (SD = .65).
• Approximately 12 percent of participants (n = 208) reported being admitted to an
acute inpatient treatment facility for severe mental health treatment services.
13 See FLERs for detailed impacts of staffing issues that arose. On average, 45.8 percent of quarters were reported in
QPRs as being impacted by staffing to some extent, with only one project not flagging any quarters as impacted by
staffing.
16 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
• A total of 696 convictions for a new offense were reported.14 On average,
participants had .42 new convictions during project involvement. Of these new
convictions:
o 39.9 percent were new felony convictions. The average number of new
felony convictions was .17 per participant.
o 60.1 percent were new misdemeanor convictions. The average number of
new misdemeanor convictions was .25 per participant.
o The average length of stay in jail for new convictions was 18.09 days (SD =
19.65) per participant.
o The average length of stay in jail for pre-sentence holds was 15.24 days
(SD = 20.77) per participant.15
It is not recommended to compare the participant outcomes during program participation
to those of participants in the 12 months prior to enrollment due to differences in the length
of time for which data were collected. Individuals did not participate for uniform lengths of
time. On average participants received services for 2.3 quarters, around seven months.
However, how closely the service period correlates to the participation period cannot be
determined from the data. Participation may not entail currently receiving direct services,
or receiving services in sequential quarters. Each project had different participation and
treatment parameters. For this reason, the period when a participant was receiving direct
services could be different from the period when they were considered to be participating
in the project. Measures recorded (e.g., emergency room visits) reflect outcomes
occurring during the participation period. Additionally, comparison is not recommended
due to the lack of a comparison group.
Participant Outcomes Six Months Post Completion
Each quarter projects reported convictions for new offenses in the six months following
MIOCR project exit for a follow-up group. Projects individually determined the makeup of
this follow-up group for their projects. Over the course of the projects, this group totaled
347 participants. For this follow-up group, 49 participants (14 percent) were convicted of
a new offense with a total of 66 convictions for new offenses. Of the 66 new convictions,
approximately 29 percent (n = 19) were felony convictions and approximately 71 percent
(n = 47) were misdemeanor convictions.
It is not recommended to compare new convictions for the follow-up group to the average
convictions sustained in the 12 months prior to enrollment due to the difference in the
length of time for which data were collected (six months versus 12 months) and the size
and makeup of the groups (all participants versus an unknown subset of tracked
participants). Inferences are also not recommended due to the lack of a comparison
group.
14 Sum of reported misdemeanors and felonies.
15 Data were excluded for one project due to quality concerns.
17 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
Project Implementation Challenges
Adult MIOCR Projects’ FLERs were reviewed to identify reported implementation
challenges and the rate at which they were resolved. Table 3 provides the common
implementation challenges, the number of projects reporting each challenge, and the
resolution rate across the projects (◒ = partially or mostly resolved, and ○ = not
resolved).16 Implementation challenges reported by most projects included staffing, data
collection and management, housing, and client retention and follow-up challenges.
Staffing challenges occurred across the grant period. On average, projects were affected
by staffing issues to some extent nearly half of the time (45 percent of quarters) as noted
in QPRs. These staffing challenges included difficulty recruiting, difficulty retaining staff,
disruptions of services due to turnover and the training of new hires, and a general need
for mental health and justice training amongst practitioners across the two systems. Most
grantees reported that their staffing issues were partially resolved, sometimes after
altering some of their project’s framework.
Table 3. Adult MIOCR Projects: Common Implementation Challenges and Resolution
Rates
Number of
Common Challenges Projects Resolution Ratea
Substance abuse interfering with client
3 ◒
success/need for SU treatment
Impact of differences in practices between
○
criminal justice and mental health 4
professionals
Coordination and collaboration amongst
4 ◒
criminal justice and mental health systems
Administration, data collection and
6 ◒
management, and lack of centralization
Staffing consistency/turnover, resourcing,
recruitment, and retention (mental health 6 ◒
staff, courts, project management)
Housing scarcity and wait listings 6 ◒
In-custody treatment logistical constraints;
incompatibility of certain MH treatments in 3 ◒
detention facilities
Client retention and follow-up issues 6 ◒
Note. a Resolution Rate:
◒
= partially or mostly resolved,
○
= not resolved.
16 Does not include all reported implementation challenges that projects faced as many were specific to the project
and/or the county’s criminal justice and health systems.
18 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
Juvenile MIOCR Projects
Participant Information
Over the course of the Juvenile MIOCR projects:
• 923 youth and young adults participated in the 11 projects.
• The average number of participants across each project was 84 (SD = 97.3) and
the total number of participants across the projects ranged from 28 to 308. Each
project targeted slightly different populations of youth according to the needs of the
county and varied in the intensity of the services and interventions rendered. Some
projects targeted individuals with serious mental illness who require more resource
intensive services. For these projects, fewer participants were enrolled.
• On average, participants received services for 2.3 quarters,or seven months.17
Over the course of the projects, 42 percent of all participants (n = 393) successfully
completed treatment or services as defined by their project’s parameters. Juvenile
projects also independently defined success to reflect their project components and
goals. Conditions for successful completion varied across all projects. Oftentimes,
successful completion required not only completion of treatment, but also completion of
a follow-up period in which the participant did not reoffend. Therefore, successful
completion does not reflect the number who received full treatment, but more generally
represents fulfillment of project-specific terms. Also, 38 percent of participants (n = 350)
were reported terminated or discontinued as defined by their project’s parameters.
Table 4 breaks down the demographic characteristics of the Juvenile MIOCR Project
participants by gender, age, and race or ethnicity.
Table 4. Demographic Characteristics of the Juvenile MIOCR Project Participants
Percent of
Category Demographic Characteristic Participants
Gender Female 29%
Male 71%
Total: 100%
Age Under 12 1%
12 to 14 14%
15 to 17 66%
18 and older 19%
Total: 100%
17 This average reflects all juvenile project participants. There were more participants who terminated the program or
remained in the program than participants who completed the full-length program, biasing the average downward.
There were also substantial differences in the intervention types and lengths used by projects, which is reflected in this
average, as well.
19 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
Race or Ethnicity African-American 23%
Hispanic 39%
Caucasian 31%
Asian/Pacific Islander 3%
Native American 1%
Multi-Racial 1%
Other 2%
Total: 100%
Projects collected a variety of information related to the holistic welfare and prior justice
system involvement of program participants for the six months prior to enrollment. Across
all Juvenile MIOCR projects, in the six months prior to enrollment:
• At least 53 percent of all participants (n = 490) were enrolled in and attending
school in the community.18 They attended school for an average of 7.8 days (SD
= 8.27) in the four-week period prior to enrollment, or 39 percent of the time.
• At least 65 percent of participants (n= 602) were receiving Medi-Cal or other
insurance at time of enrollment.19
• 2.1 percent of participants (n =19) reported being admitted to an acute inpatient
treatment facility for severe mental health treatment services.
• 15 percent of participants (n = 138) were placed on home supervision for some
period.
• 7.5 percent of participants (n = 69) had received an out-of-home placement.
• A total of 79 status offenses were formally handled across all participants.
• A total of 427 petitions were sustained, an average of 0.86 (SD = 1.40) prior
petitions per participant.20 For these previous petitions:
o 38.4 percent were felony petitions. The average number of felonies per
participant was 0.29 (SD = 0.35).
o 61.6 percent were misdemeanor petitions. The average number of
misdemeanors per participant was 0.59 (SD = 1.20).
To evaluate participants’ criminogenic risk and mental health needs, juvenile projects also
assessed participants with standardized assessments.21 Over the course of the projects,
participants were assessed at least once on average, potentially with multiple
instruments. Projects reported the results of a total 1,073 standardized assessments,
including the results of any retests. Of those assessments:22
• 32 percent were scored in the high criminogenic risk range.
• 25 percent were scored in the medium-high criminogenic risk range.
• 22 percent were scored in the medium-low criminogenic range.
• 21 percent were scored in the low criminogenic risk range.
18 One project targeted youth in custody, and thus reported no participants enrolled in school in the community. One
project reported they could not obtain certain school records, so they reported no school-related data. Data for school
enrollment and attendance days reflect 97 percent and 87 percent of all project-quarters.
19 Insurance data reflects 96.7 percent of grantee project-quarters.
20 Sum of felony and misdemeanor petitions reported.
21 Standardized risk assessments included the JAIS, OYAS, and PACT. Mental health and needs assessments
included the YOQ, GAIN-SS, MAYSI-II, CALOCUS, CANS, and county-specific behavioral health assessments.
22 Data from one project was impacted due to the sealing of records.
20 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
Juvenile MIOCR Projects also conducted 288 formal psychological or psychiatric
evaluations in total.23 Up to 31.2 percent of all project participants received psychological
or psychiatric evaluations.24
Interventions and Implementation Rates
The Juvenile MIOCR Projects implemented interventions at various points in the criminal
justice system. Within the SIM:25
• 5 projects implemented interventions at the Front-end Diversion point.
• 10 projects implemented interventions at the Disposition Options point.
• 8 projects implemented interventions at the In-custody Treatment point.
• 9 projects implemented interventions at the Transition Planning point.
• 7 projects implemented intervention at the Aftercare point.
Each project implemented interventions across at least three interception points, and
many interventions existed fluidly at several of the points of interception. Almost all youth
participants had access to disposition options, and a large share had access to in-custody
treatment, transition planning, and aftercare, as well. For youth also, a participant’s point
of entry from the juvenile justice system impacted the services he or she received. That,
along with individual risk and needs, determined which interventions participants were
engaged in. Because of these differences, not all participants were necessarily treated
with the same or all project components.
Table 5 lists the most common interventions26 occurring across juvenile projects and for
each provides the number of projects that employed them, the implementation rate (● =
fully, ◒ = partially or mostly), and the maximum percent of participants who may have had
access. All projects incorporated a combination of interventions. Most projects
incorporated intensive case management and individualized treatment plans, the use of
evidence-based therapeutic approaches, assistance in accessing social benefits and
housing, and referrals and linkages to services in the community for post-program
support. Up to 53 percent of participants received intensive case management services,
and up to 57 percent received intensive evidence-based therapy treatments, often trauma
or family based. Almost all projects used funding to hire more staff dedicated to serving
youth in the justice system who are mentally ill, and many used funding to train existing
and new staff on best practices.
23 These evaluations were used to inform individualized treatment plans and, in some cases, to provide linkages to
medication. Refer to the FLERs for project-specific details as to when assessments were used and how they informed
treatment.
24 Some projects potentially administered evaluations multiple times to the same participant, thus this percentage
reflects the upper bound of the number of participants who could have received evaluation.
25 See page 4 for information on the Sequential Intercept Model (SIM).
26 Based on reporting in the FLERs. The list of common interventions is not a comprehensive list of all interventions
employed.
21 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
Table 5. Juvenile MIOCR Projects: Common Interventions, Implementation Rate, and
Participant Access
Number of Implementation Participant
Common Intervention Projects Rate a Access
Diversion program or after school
2 ● 10%
program
Intensive case management 5 ● 53%
Individualized treatment plans 7 ● 57%
Wraparound services/therapyb 7 ● 52%
General individual or group therapy 2 ● 12%
Intensive Probation Supervision or
2 ● 10%
Services
Substance use treatment/counseling
3 ◒ 13%
or residential treatment
Referrals, linkages to community
services, or transportation to 5 ● 73%
services
Assistance accessing social benefits
2 ● 32%
or housing
Individualized reentry plans 2 ● 32%
Continuation of services at
2 ◒ 32%
outpatient clinic/program
Additional, dedicated staff hired 10 ◒ 96%
Training for staff on EBP 8 ◒ 60%
● ◒
Notes. a Implementation Rate: = fully implemented and = partially or mostly implemented. b Examples of wraparound
services and therapy include: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, trauma-informed treatment (e.g., Seeking Safety, TARGET),
Moral Reconation Therapy, family-based therapy (e.g. Functional Family Therapy, Multisystemic Therapy), Motivational
Interviewing, and psychiatric services or medication.
Overall, Juvenile MIOCR Projects implemented most interventions as planned without
significant service impediments. For interventions classified as partially or mostly
implemented, common challenges to their implementation included:
• Chronic staffing issues impacting service provision (e.g. difficulty in hiring the
appropriate staff quickly).
• Delays in scheduling training.
• Lack of youth deemed eligible for services.
• Lack of transportation as a barrier to service engagement.
Common challenges are discussed further in the Project Implementation Challenges
section.
22 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
Enrollment of New Participants Over Time
Combined across all juvenile projects, an average of 77 participants (SD = 41.7) were
enrolled each quarter. Figure 4 shows the average number of new enrollments in juvenile
projects each quarter. The vertical bars, or whiskers, provide a visual representation of
the range in the number of new enrollments each quarter (minimum, maximum).
Averaging over all 12 quarters, 7.0 participants (SD = 13.9) enrolled in each project
quarterly. Almost all projects did not enroll participants in the first quarter. Not including
the quarters before enrollments first began, projects enrolled an average of 8.5 new
participants (SD = 14.9) quarterly. Figure 4 shows that average project enrollments are
generally stable over time, within five to 10 enrollments each quarter, though wide
variation in enrollments toward the end of the program resulted in an increase in average
enrollments in Quarters 10 through 12. Altogether, the trends seen in Figure 4 show that
projects were active in recruiting and enrolling participants through the end of the grant
period.
Figure 4. Average Number of New Enrollments each Quarter for Juvenile MIOCR Projects
Note. Quarter 1 (Q1) = July 2015 through September 2015. Quarter 12 (Q12) = April 2018 through June 2018.
23 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
Trends in Participants Served Quarterly and Number of Days to Initial Service
Combined across all juvenile projects, an average of 180 youth (SD = 112.1) received
services each quarter, with five youth served in the first quarter and 408 youth served in
the last quarter. Figure 5 shows the average number of participants who received services
in juvenile projects each quarter. Averaging over all 12 quarters, 16.6 participants (SD
=25.6) were served each quarter. Including only the quarters after initial enrollments
began, each project served on average 20.2 participants (SD = 26.9) each quarter. Over
time, the average number of participants served each quarter slowly rose, increasing at
the end of the program, a result of a single project’s spike in the number served. This
shows that, collectively, the projects were active in serving new and prior enrollments
throughout the lifetime of the grant program.
Figure 5. Average Number of Participants Receiving Services each Quarter for Juvenile
MIOCR Projects.
Note. Quarter 1 (Q1) = July 2015 through September 2015. Quarter 12 (Q12) = April 2018 through June 2018.
Figure 6 shows the average number of days from project enrollment to the day first direct
services were received by new participants each quarter. Over time, the average number
of days to receive initial service(s) remained between five and 10 days most quarters,
though there was substantial variation in wait times between projects and over quarters.
This shows that, on average, project participants received services in a timely manner
across the grant period. Overall, the average number of days to initial service each quarter
after enrollment was 6.76 days (SD = 10.3), averaged across all projects and quarters.
24 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
Figure 6. Average Number of Days to Initial Service for Juvenile MIOCR Projects.
Note. Quarter 1 (Q1) = July 2015 through September 2015. Quarter 12 (Q12) = April 2018 through June 2018.
Participant Outcomes During Program Participation
For any current participants, each quarter projects reported mental health outcomes,
petitions sustained for new offenses, and juvenile hall or camp stays. Over the course of
the projects:
• Approximately four percent of participants (n = 38) reported being admitted to an
acute inpatient treatment facility for severe mental health treatment services.
• A total of 167 sustained petitions for a new delinquent offense were reported. On
average, 18 new petitions were sustained per participant during project
involvement.27 Of these new petitions:
o 50.3 percent were felony petitions. The average number of new felony
petitions was .09 per participant.
o 49.7 percent were misdemeanor petitions. The average number of
misdemeanor petitions was .09 per participant.
• Approximately 26 percent of participants (n 242) received an in-custody
=
commitment after juvenile court adjudication during project involvement. The
average number of commitments was 1.21 (SD = .75) for those individuals.
27 Sum of felony and misdemeanor petitions reported. Data from one project was dropped due to quality concerns.
25 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
• A total of 59 new status offenses were formally handled during project involvement,
averaging 0.06 per participant.
Juvenile MIOCR Projects also re-collected certain measures upon project exit. For the
743 participants reported as exiting projects28, 36 participants (5 percent) were reported
to be in an out-of-home placement and 110 participants (15 percent) were reported to be
on home supervision at the time of exit.
It is not recommended to compare the participant outcomes during program participation
to those of the participants in the six months prior to enrollment due in part to differences
in the length of time for which data were collected. Individuals did not participate for
uniform lengths of time. On average participants received services for 2.3 quarters, or
seven months. However, how closely the service period correlates to the participation
period cannot be determined from the data. Participation may not entail currently
receiving direct services, or receiving services in sequential quarters. Each project has
different participation and treatment parameters. For this reason, the period when a
participant was receiving direct services could be different from the period when they were
considered to be participating in the project. Measures recorded (e.g., new commitments)
reflect outcomes occurring during the participation period. Additionally, comparison is not
recommended due to the lack of a comparison group.
Participant Outcomes Six Months Post Completion
Each quarter projects reported petitions sustained for new offenses in the six months
following MIOCR project exit for a follow-up group. Projects individually determined the
makeup of this follow-up group for their projects. Of this follow-up group, 25 participants
sustained a total of 48 new petitions in the six months after project exit, averaging 1.33
new petitions (SD = .89) per participant.29 Of the 48 new petitions, approximately 63
percent (n = 30) were felony petitions and approximately 27 percent (n = 18) were
misdemeanor petitions.
It is not recommended to compare new petitions for the follow-up group to the average
petitions sustained in the six months prior to enrollment due to the difference in the size
and makeup of the groups (all participants versus an unknown subset of tracked
participants). Inferences are also not recommended due to the lack of a comparison
group.
Project Implementation Challenges
The Juvenile MIOCR Projects’ FLERs were reviewed to identify reported implementation
challenges and the rate at which they were resolved. Table 6 provides the common
implementation challenges, the number of projects reporting each challenge, and the
resolution rate across the projects (◒ = partially or mostly resolved, and ○ = not
28 Sum of reported successful exits and reported terminated or discontinued.
29 Sum of felony and misdemeanor petitions reported.
26 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
resolved).30 Implementation challenges reported by many projects included staffing, and
low youth eligibility rates and smaller than expected candidate pools resulting in lower
than expected participation rates. Staffing challenges occurred across the grant period
for Juvenile MIOCR Projects, as well. These staffing challenges included difficulty
recruiting and retaining staff, and disruptions of services due to turnover and the training
of new hires. Most grantees reported that their staffing issues were partially resolved,
sometimes after altering some of their project’s framework.
Table 6. Juvenile MIOCR Projects: Common Implementation Challenges and Resolution
Rates
Number of Resolution
Common Challenges Projects Ratea
Smaller than expected number of eligible and/or low
5 ◒
take-up by youth
Impact of individuality and consistency amongst
members of the criminal justice and mental health 2 ◒
systems
Coordination and collaboration amongst criminal justice
4 ◒
and mental health system practitioners
Administration, data collection and management, and
2 ○
lack of centralization
Staffing consistency/turnover, resourcing, recruitment,
9 ◒
and retention (mental health staff, project management)
Logistics of or delays in training impacting service 2 ◒
In-custody treatment logistical constraints;
incompatibility of certain MH treatments in detention 1 ◒
facilities
Lack of client transportation impacting service
2 ◒
engagement
Client engagement, retention and follow-up issues 3 ○
◒ ○
Note. a Resolution Rate: = partially or mostly resolved, = not resolved.
30 Does not include all reported implementation challenges that projects faced as many were specific to the project
and/or the county’s criminal justice and health systems.
27 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
CASE STUDIES
In addition to quantitative data, the QPRs also requested projects provide information on
their participants (i.e., case studies), briefly describing their background (e.g., age,
gender, criminal history, and diagnosis), challenges engaging and/or treating the
individual, and how the project is impacting them and/or their family. Below are some of
those participant stories, providing real-life context to the data presented above.
• “Keith” is a 32-year-old male, who was facing multiple misdemeanor cases when he
enrolled in the MIOCR Program in July of 2016. Keith also had a history of 5150 holds
and had been diagnosed with Schizophrenia (paranoid type) and polysubstance use.
Keith had been homeless for eight years following his first psychotic break (in college).
He was not connected to any community treatment providers and was hesitant to
engage in a structured treatment plan that involved addressing mental health and
substance use.
Keith was placed in housing and given a treatment plan that included community
groups around substance use and mental health, regular check-ins with his case
manager, weekly therapy sessions, and ongoing medication compliance. He struggled
for about a year to engage in a meaningful way and, as typical of this population, was
returned to custody on multiple occasions for non-compliance with his treatment plan.
During his sporadic program engagement, the case manager was able to link Keith to
both Medi-Cal and disability benefits. Following a bench warrant arrest in August of
2017, Keith agreed to access a MIOCR grant-funded treatment bed which had just
become available. With the support of his case manager, he stayed in the program
and after several weeks in the stabilization unit was accepted into a 6-month
residential program.
Keith successfully completed the program at the end of April 2018 and transitioned to
a sober living program. He has actively engaged in groups, attended his therapy
appointments, maintained medication compliance, and is working with the treatment
team on a long-term housing plan and a vocational plan.
• “Sarah” came to the MIOCR Grant Program and the Behavioral Health Court through
a court referral indicating possible mental health treatment needs. When staff initially
met her in jail to interview and inform her of the services available to her, she was not
taking psychotropic medication or receiving mental health treatment of any kind. She
was receptive to hearing about the MIOCR Program and began engaging in mental
health treatment while in custody, including taking psychotropic medication to treat
symptoms of schizophrenia and engaged in discharge planning to attempt inpatient
treatment in a local co-occurring disorder treatment program. At that time, she was
also assigned a case manager and a Probation officer from the MIOCR team.
Soon after, she was released from custody into a 90-day program where she
participated in services that addressed symptom management, relapse prevention,
and identifying behaviors to avoid recidivism. After that program, she transitioned into
a transitional housing program to continue skill-building in preparation for her next
step, supported housing. Sarah is active in all components of her recovery- attending
28 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
psychiatric appointments, therapy, meetings, groups, and prosocial activities. She has
taken two classes at Cabrillo College, she volunteers for her church, and is currently
attending Thinking for a Change two days per week. She also attends Behavioral
Health Court where she receives positive reviews from the team and encouragement
to continue on her path of recovery.
• “Marco” is a 41-year-old male who has had a long history of severe mental illness,
gang-related activity, substance use, and numerous incarcerations. The environment
he lived in before incarceration (on "the streets”) had many triggers causing him to be
non-compliant with taking his medication. Marco was homeless, living wherever he
could, and did not understand the need to take his prescribed medications. He was
diagnosed with Schizophrenia since his late teens and has a substance use disorder.
He completed high school, was employed sporadically throughout his adult life, prior
to and after several incarcerations. He has a 17-year-old son but unfortunately, does
not have contact with him. Marco has an extensive history with severe mental illness
which affected his frustration tolerance, reality testing, trust, and interpersonal skills
when relating to others. Due to his long history of defiant, disruptive, and periodic
violent behaviors, Marco’s family distanced themselves from him. Through repeated
efforts of the MIOCR clinical case manager, he agreed to enroll in a co-occurring
outpatient treatment program upon release from jail.
Since enrolling in the MIOCR Program and being provided intensive case
management and evidence-based interventions, Marco is attending a local community
college (under the supervision of a reentry educational program operated by formerly
incarcerated adults) and is currently medication compliant (as required by the sober
living environment he lives in and the treatment program he is enrolled in).
Additionally, Marco is beginning to build family communications as his mother is now
very supportive of him and has a desire to repair their relationship.
• The MIOCR Grant Program has been working with “Brian” since he was 16. He is
now an 18-year-old young adult with a history of vehicle theft, aggression, depression,
and the following diagnoses: Adjustment Disorder with Disturbance of Conduct, Other
Conduct Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and Cannabis
dependence.
When Brian arrived at the facility, he struggled with the program due to welfare
concerns for the mother of his children, his sisters, and separation issues from his two
young children. Yet, he was committed to working hard in the program. He was able
to set goals and engage regularly in individual mental health treatment. He also
successfully completed Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT), Aggression Replacement
Therapy (ART), substance use group, and participated in Trauma Focused–Cognitive
Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT). When Brian completed the institutional portion of the
MIOCR Program, he was only six credits shy of receiving his high school diploma.
From the beginning, his living situation was a concern due to being a foster youth prior
to turning 18. As part of his direct services team, his aftercare probation officer
coached him and set him up with interviews for a residential program for transitional
aged youth. Brian was accepted into the program.
Since leaving the facility, Brian has moved into a transitional living center, successfully
completed his high school diploma requirements, obtained employment in
29 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
construction, and recently signed a letter of intent to join the military. Brian stated that
his priority was to become financially independent in order to gain custody of his two
small children.
• “Emma” was originally detained for assaulting her mother. At the beginning of
Functional Family Therapy (FFT) treatment, Emma initially presented with anger, and
displayed physically and verbally aggressive behaviors towards her parents. Although
her parents displayed concern, Emma’s mother was very controlling and her father
did not display much hope in his family nor in the therapeutic process. The family
members were all on different pages of listening and understanding one another. As
the treatment progressed, the clinician was able to pull Emma and her mother closer
together- first, implementing de-escalation skills, then learning improved
communication methods. Once they learned deep breathing exercises, learned to
responsibly remove oneself from a volatile situation, and Emma’s mother learned how
to appropriately discipline a 17-year-old strong-willed young lady, things began to shift.
Also, as Emma’s symptoms of serious anxiety and depression were discussed in more
detail, she became more stable, better able to engage and displayed more appropriate
behaviors, like practicing de-escalation methods and communication skills, as she
became more medication compliant. However, her mother continued to display very
overwhelming and controlling behaviors as she was now dealing with a cancer
diagnosis.
Before FFT, there was no acknowledgement of how this impacted the family. Emma’s
father engaged in sessions with more openness and honesty once he learned the
difference between “loving his daughter” and “liking his daughter.” This concept and
how it affects the family shifted their mood and their behavior. Emma’s mother was
willing to take more responsibility for her actions, behaviors, and how her actions
impacted the family. As a result, Emma became more open to taking responsibility for
her actions and behaviors.
By the end of their involvement in the MIOCR Program, the family’s general
interactions were less volatile, more respectful, and more understanding. Emma’s
mother was able to approach her daughter with more empathy and affection versus
discipline and consequences. Emma’s father was able to learn how to like his
daughter again, not just love her unconditionally. Emma was able to take more
responsibility for her own actions and behaviors, enabling her to set long-term goals
and begin to work towards them. Due to the family-centric treatment, the behavior
patterns of the entire family shifted because all family members chose to make an
effort to be more aware, respectful of each other, and determine when to implement
the skills taught by the MIOCR clinician. With this family’s success, Emma
successfully terminated her probation.
30 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
CONCLUSION
The impact of individuals within the criminal and/or juvenile justice systems living with
severe mental health disorders have been challenging the correctional system for
decades, and resource issues for serving and treating these individuals will continue to
take time to resolve. The MIOCR Grant Program was a catalyst for change in counties,
with funding assisting local agencies in collaborating, exploring, and implementing
evidence-based strategies and multifaceted approaches unique to their offender
populations.
Individuals with mental illness have numerous needs, use multiple systems, and tend to
require more costly care. Emergency rooms/hospitals and detention facilities can be
isolating experiences and cause additional trauma and crisis situations for this population.
Counties often do not have sufficient resources to meet the needs of someone who is
struggling with managing mental illness and involved with the criminal and/or juvenile
justice system. The MIOCR Grant Program helped provide new resources both in the
justice system and within California communities.
As noted throughout this report, participants in the MIOCR Grant Program possessed a
wide-range of needs which required a full spectrum of interventions and services provided
by multiple disciplines and organizations in the community. Although this report
represented 21 projects in only 17 of the 58 counties in California, it isn’t a far stretch to
consider this sample of MIOCR participants as representative of justice-involved
individuals with mental illnesses in other communities across the state.
The intent of this report is that data presented herein would provide county decision-
makers and stakeholders general information on using an intercept model for
collaborative planning, evidence-based project foundations and treatments/services
appropriate for similar populations, and provide limits/challenges associated with projects
treating this population of justice-involve individuals with mental health disorders.
31 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
This page intentionally left blank
32 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Penal Code Section 6045: Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grants
Appendix B: BSCC Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program 2014
Executive Steering Committee Members
Appendix C: MIOCR Project Interventions Tables
Appendix D: MIOCR Project Summaries
Appendix E: MIOCR Grant Adult Projects Quarterly Progress Report Template
Appendix F: MIOCR Grant Juvenile Projects Quarterly Progress Report Template
33 | P age
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: 2018 Legislative Report
This page intentionally left blank
34 | P age
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
35 | P age
Appendix A
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 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.
36 | P age
Appendix A
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.
(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.
37 | P age
Appendix A
(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.
38 | P age
Appendix B
BSCC 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
39 | P age
Appendix C
Adult MIOCR Project Interventions
County Front-end Disposition Treatment Transition Aftercare Population Intervention Outcome
Diversion Options In Custody Planning Measures
Mentally ill (MI) Case management R
Alameda X X X X inmates
Seriously MI in South Crisis Intervention, BH R, H, C
El Dorado X X X X Lake Tahoe Court, Transitional housing
SMI & substance use Prerelease discharge
Los Angeles X X X disorder, chronic planning, Transitional R, H
medical issues housing
Madera Mentally ill offenders BH Court, Transitional R, H, C
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 H, B
San Francisco X X X offenses housing
MIOs Patient screening,
X X X X X
diversion, in-custody R, C, B
San Luis Obispo treatment, release
planning, clinic capacity
Homeless Seriously Custody case
X X X
MI inmates w/5+ management R, C
Santa Clara bookings in preceding
3 years
MIOs Continuum of care, FACT,
Santa Cruz X X X X pre-booking diversion, in- R, C
custody treatment
MIOs Pre-booking diversion,
X X X X
custody treatment, re-entry R
Solano planning, Team
management post-release
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)
40 | P age
Appendix C
Juvenile MIOCR Project Interventions
Front-end Disposition Treatment Transition Outcome
County Aftercare Population Intervention
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
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 X ill juvenile offenders Re-arrest
MIOs Specialized treatment
X X X
teams, custody/community R, C
San Joaquin ART, substance use
disorder
Justice-involved or Provider training, advisory
Santa Clara X X X X dependent, CSE focus council, targeted & R, H, C
supportive treatment
Youth & families with In-home family-based
X X X X
mental health needs svcs, aggression R, H, C
Santa Cruz treatment, substance use
disorder services
High risk youth with Intensive, strength-based
X X X X
mental health family-focused wraparound R, H, C, F
Shasta diagnosis and program
substance abuse
Mentally ill youth in Training school
X X X Fairfield counselors, Clinic w R, H, C
Solano licensed treatment focused Re-arrest
on trauma
MH disorders on EBT, COG, after school B, 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)
41 | P age
Appendix D
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Project Summaries
(as Submitted by Counties)
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 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
42 | P age
Appendix D
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 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.
43 | P age
Appendix D
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.
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
44 | P age
Appendix D
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.
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 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.
45 | P age
Appendix D
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 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 providing youth some of their
basic needs, tutoring/mentoring, transportation, group therapy, and, as needed, facilitate
medication compliance.
46 | P age
Appendix D
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.
47 | P age
Appendix E
Board of State and Community Corrections
Corrections Planning and Programs Division
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant
Year 3: Adult Project Progress Report- Part A
County: BSCC Grant Award Number:
Project Title: Date:
Prepared by: Phone: ( ) -
Title: Email:
Year 3 Reporting Quarters
Quarter 9 Quarter 10 Quarter 11 Quarter 12
July-September 2017 October-December 2017 January-March 2018 April-June 2018
Please provide an update on your efforts with respect to administering the project as
outlined in the grant proposal and the county’s 4-Year Strategic Plan by addressing the
following questions.
A. Expenditure Status:
MIOCR Award Amount - $
Amount Invoiced-to-Date (Sum of Quarterly Invoices) $
Percent of Award Invoiced to Date (Amount above ÷ Award Amount) %
MIOCR Match Amount - $
Match Amount Recorded-To-Date (Sum of Quarterly Invoices) $
Percent of Match Recorded-To Date (Match Amount Above ÷
%
Obligated Match Amount)
1. In relation to the overall grant budget, are state MIOCR funds being expended as
planned and on schedule? Yes No
If not, please explain why, and describe what expenditure plan(s) exist for the grant
period.
2. In relation to the overall grant match requirement, are local match dollars being used as
planned and on schedule? Yes No
If not, please explain why, and describe what plan(s) exist for the making sure
contractually obligated matching funds are provided for within the grant period.
B. Activities Implemented: Describe project activities this reporting period (e.g.,
institutionalizing processes, policies, & procedures for your MIOCR project, service delivery
work, collaboration efforts, evaluation planning) and progress toward the project’s goals and
objectives.
MIOCR Adult Quarterly Progress Report, Part A- Year 3 | September 2017 48 | Pa ge
Appendix E
Board of State and Community Corrections
Corrections Planning and Programs Division
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant
Year 3: Adult Project Progress Report- Part A
C. Project Challenges: Identification and Resolution: Describe any challenges/issues the
project has encountered during the reporting period. Consider what may be affecting project
effectiveness or may have the potential of impacting program outcomes and stated goals.
Examples of areas where problems may exist are program administration, service delivery,
rate of referrals, and participant enrollment or participation, county processes, among
others. Describe the plan to resolve identified challenges.
D. Accomplishments and Highlights: What successes (other than participant-specific) has
the project achieved (e.g., reaching participant enrollment for the period, reaching other
stated project goals, recognition from public officials and/or other jurisdictions/agencies,
receiving media coverage)? Please include any training project staff and/or local partnering
agencies have received this reporting period.
E. Project Sustainability Plan: Describe steps taken in this reporting period to work toward
sustainability as identified in your county’s 4-Year Plan. Include any newly identified
resources for leveraging and/or funding streams.
F. Local Evaluation Plan: Have there been any significant changes or updates to your
project’s local evaluation plan submitted to the BSCC? Yes No
If yes, please describe the changes and/or updates and provide explanation of why the
changes/updates were necessary for the evaluation of the project.
G. Other Comments, Observations, and/or Project Notables:
H. Case Study/Anecdotal Information: Case studies are often the most compelling evidence
of the value of a program. With this in mind, please provide a brief description of a client
enrolled in your project (e.g., age, gender, race, criminal history, and diagnosis), challenges
with engaging and/or treating the client, and how the project is positively impacting him/her.
Do not identify participant by name.
I. If you would like technical assistance, please identify the nature of the request and a contact
name, email address, and phone number for BSCC staff response:
Quarterly Progress Reports, Parts A & B are due 45 days
from the end of the reporting period.
Please email completed forms to: Helene Zentner | helene.zentner@bscc.ca.gov
For questions, please email or call Helene Zentner at 916-323-8631
MIOCR Adult Quarterly Progress Report, Part A- Year 3 | September 2017 49 | Pa ge
Appendix E
MENTALLY ILL OFFENDER CRIME REDUCTION GRANT
ADULT QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT- PART B
DATA REPORTING - PARTICIPANT
REPORTING PERIOD / QUARTER
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION DATA
1. Distinct Count of New Participants This Reporting Period 0
2.a-d Distinct Count of New Participants, This Reporting Period, by Age
2.a Age 18 to 25 0
2.b Age 26-44 0
2.c Age 45-64 0
2.d Age 65 and Older 0
3.a-c Distinct Count of New Participants, This Reporting Period, by Gender
3.a Female 0
3.b Male 0
3.c Other 0
4.a-h Distinct Count of New Participants, This Reporting Period, by Race
4.a African-American 0
4.b Hispanic 0
4.c Caucasian 0
4.d Asian/Island Pacificer 0
4.e Native American 0
4.f Multi-Racial 0
4.g Other 0
4.h Decline-to-State 0
5. Distinct Count of New Participants, This Reporting Period, Who are American Veterans 0
6. Average Number of Days from MIOCR Project Enrollment to New Participant's First Direct Service
0
7.a Distinct Count of Participants Receiving a Standardized Assessment This Reporting Period 0
7.b List Assessment(s) Used to Determine Treatment and Intervention
7.c-f Distinct Count of Participants Identified Through a Standardized Assessment for Risk to Reoffend
7.c Low Criminogenic Risk Level 0
7.d Low / Medium Criminogenic Risk Level 0
7.e Medium / High Criminogenic Risk Level 0
7.f High Criminogenic Risk Level 0
8. Number of Participants Determined to have a Dual Diagnosis This Reporting Period 0
9. Number of Participants Determined to have a Tri-Morbid Diagnosis This Reporting Period 0
10. Distinct Count of Project Participants with a Formal Psychological/Psychiatric Evaluation(s)
Completed This Reporting Period 0
11. Total Number of Participants Receiving Services This Reporting Period 0
12.a Number of Participants Who Successfully Completed the Project This Reporting Period 0
12.b Define "Successfully Completed" for the MIOCR Project
13. Number of Participants Who Discontinued/Terminated the Project This Reporting Period 0
MIOCR Adult Quarterly Progress Report- Part B | September 2017
Appendix E
MENTALLY ILL OFFENDER CRIME REDUCTION GRANT
ADULT QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT- PART B
DATA REPORTING - PARTICIPANT
HISTORICAL DATA - NEW PARTICIPANT INFORMATION ONLY
DATA
(12 MONTHS PRIOR TO MIOCR PROJECT ENROLLMENT)
14.a Number of Previous Convictions for an Offense 0
14.b Number of Felony Convictions 0
14.c Number of Misdemeanor Convictions 0
15.a Average Number of Days in Jail for Convictions Identified in Question #14.a (Average Length of
Stay-ALS) 0.0
15.b Average Number of Days in a Jail for Pre-Sentenced Holds (Average Length of Stay-ALS) 0.0
16.a Number of Participants Who, With the Assistance of Law Enforcement, Had Emergency Room
Visits 0
16.b Number of Emergency Room Visits for the Participants Identified in Question #16.a 0
17. Number of Participants Who were Admitted to an Acute Inpatient Treatment Facility 0
18. Number of Participants Receiving Medi-Cal or Other Type of Insurance Plan at MIOCR Project
Enrollment 0
19. Number of Participants Receiving Social Security Income or Other Income Entitlement(s) at MIOCR
Project Enrollment 0
20. Number of Participants Who Were Unemployed 0
21. Number of Participants Who Were Homeless 0
OUTCOME DATA -THIS REPORTING PERIOD ONLY DATA
22.a Number of Convictions for a New Offense 0
22.b Number of Felony Convictions for a New Offense 0
22.c Number of Misdemeanor Convictions for a New Offense 0
23.a Average Number of Days in Jail for New Convictions Identified in Question #22.a (Average Length
of Stay-ALS) 0.0
23.b Average Number of Days in a Jail for Pre-Sentenced Holds (Average Length of Stay-ALS) 0.0
24.a Number of Participants Who, With the Assistance of Law Enforcement, Had Emergency Room
Visits 0
24.b Number of Emergency Room Visits for the Participants Identified in Question #24.a 0
25. Number of Participants Who Were Admitted to an Acute Inpatient Treatment Facility 0
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION UPON PROJECT COMPLETION / EXIT ONLY DATA
26. Number of Participants Enrolled In and Receiving Medi-Cal or Other Type of Insurance Plan 0
27. Number of Participants Receiving Social Security Income or Other Income Entitlement(s) 0
28. Number of Participants Employed or Receiving Stipends 0
29.a Number of Participants Who Have Transitional or Stable Housing 0
29.b Number of Participants Who Remain Homeless 0
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION POST PROJECT COMPLETION / EXIT ONLY
DATA
(6 MONTHS FOLLOWING SUCCESSFUL MIOCR PROJECT COMPLETION)
30. Number of Participants Being Tracked During the 6-Month Period Following Project Completion 0
31.a Number of Participants With a Conviction for a New Offense 0
31.b Number of Convictions for a New Offense 0
31.c Number of Felony Convictions for a New Offense 0
31.d Number of Misdemeanor Convictions for a New Offense 0
MIOCR Adult Quarterly Progress Report- Part B | September 2017
Appendix E
MENTALLY ILL OFFENDER CRIME REDUCTION GRANT
ADULT QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT- PART B
DATA REPORTING - PARTICIPANT
32. Additional Information Concerning the Above Measures:
Provide any additional information you believe will be helpful in describing any of the data above, including reasons
for participants who discontinued or were terminated from the project this reporting period (question #13). To assist
staff, please identify the data measure number within the narrative as reference.
33. Additional Measure(s) Collected:
Provide any additional data collected (outputs or outcomes) for your project that may demonstrate project
effectiveness but were not included in the above measures. Attach additional sheets, as necessary.
Quarterly Progress Reports- Parts A & B are due 45 days from the end of the reporting period.
Please email completed forms to: Helene Zentner | helene.zentner@bscc.ca.gov
For questions, please email or call Helene Zentner | helene.zentner@bscc.ca.gov | 916-323-8631
MIOCR Adult Quarterly Progress Report- Part B | September 2017
Attachment F
Board of State and Community Corrections
Corrections Planning and Programs Division
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant
Year 3: Juvenile Project Progress Report- Part A
County: BSCC Grant Award Number:
Project Title: Date:
Prepared by: Phone: ( ) -
Title: Email:
Year 3 Reporting Quarters
Quarter 9 Quarter 10 Quarter 11 Quarter 12
July-September 2017 October-December 2017 January-March 2018 April-June 2018
Please provide an update on your efforts with respect to administering the project as
outlined in the grant proposal and the county’s 4-Year Strategic Plan by addressing the
following questions.
A. Expenditure Status:
MIOCR Award Amount - $
Amount Invoiced-to-Date (Sum of Quarterly Invoices) $
Percent of Award Invoiced to Date (Amount above ÷ Award Amount) %
MIOCR Match Amount - $
Match Amount Recorded-To-Date (Sum of Quarterly Invoices) $
Percent of Match Recorded-To Date (Match Amount Above ÷
%
Obligated Match Amount)
1. In relation to the overall grant budget, are state MIOCR funds being expended as planned
and on schedule? Yes No
If not, please explain why, and describe what expenditure plan(s) exist for the grant period.
2. In relation to the overall grant match requirement, are local match dollars being used as
planned and on schedule? Yes No
If not, please explain why, and describe what plan(s) exist for the making sure
contractually obligated matching funds are provided for within the grant period.
B. Activities Implemented: Describe project activities this reporting period (e.g.,
institutionalizing processes, policies, & procedures for your MIOCR project, service delivery
work, collaboration efforts, evaluation planning) and progress toward the project’s goals and
objectives.
MIOCR Juvenile Quarterly Progress Report- Part A, Year 3 | September 2017 53 | Pa ge
Attachment F
Board of State and Community Corrections
Corrections Planning and Programs Division
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant
Year 3: Juvenile Project Progress Report- Part A
C. Project Challenges: Identification and Resolution: Describe any challenges/issues the
project has encountered during the reporting period. Consider what may be affecting project
effectiveness or may have the potential of impacting program outcomes and stated goals.
Examples of areas where problems may exist are program administration, service delivery,
rate of referrals, and participant enrollment or participation, county processes, among others.
Describe the plan to resolve identified challenges.
D. Accomplishments and Highlights: What successes (other than participant-specific) has
the project achieved (e.g., reaching participant enrollment for the period, reaching other stated
project goals, recognition from public officials and/or other jurisdictions/agencies, receiving
media coverage)? Please include any training project staff and/or local partnering agencies
have received this reporting period.
E. Project Sustainability Plan: Describe steps taken in this reporting period to work toward
sustainability as identified in your county’s 4-Year Plan. Include any newly identified
resources for leveraging and/or funding streams.
F. Other Comments, Observations, and/or Project Notables:
G. Case Study/Anecdotal Information: Case studies are often the most compelling evidence
of the value of a program. With this in mind, please provide a brief description of a client
enrolled in your project (e.g., age, gender, race, criminal history, and diagnosis), challenges
with engaging and/or treating the client, and how the project is positively impacting him/her.
Do not identify participant by name.
H. If you would like technical assistance, please identify the nature of the request and a contact
name, email address, and phone number for BSCC staff response:
Quarterly Progress Reports, Parts A & B are due 45 days
from the end of the reporting period.
Please email completed forms to: Helene Zentner | helene.zentner@bscc.ca.gov
For questions, please email or call Helene Zentner at 916-323-8631
MIOCR Juvenile Quarterly Progress Report- Part A, Year 3 | September 2017 54 | Pa ge
Appendix F
MENTALLY ILL OFFENDER CRIME REDUCTION GRANT
JUVENILE QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT- PART B
DATA REPORTING - PARTICIPANT
REPORTING PERIOD / QUARTER
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION DATA
1. Distinct Count of New Participants This Reporting Period
2.a-d Distinct Count of New Participants, This Reporting Period, by Age :
2.a Under 12 Years of Age
2.b Age 12 -14
2.c Age 15 - 17
2.d Age 18 and Older
3.a-c Distinct Count of New Participants, This Reporting Period, by Gender:
3.a Female
3.b Male
3.c Other
4.a-h Distinct Count of New Participants, This Reporting Period, by Race:
4.a African-American
4.b Hispanic
4.c Caucasian
4.d Asian/Island Pacificer
4.e Native American
4.f Multi-Racial
4.g Other
4.h Decline-to-State
5.a Number of New Participants Who Attended School in the Community
5.b Average Number of School Days Attended by New Participants in the 4 Weeks Prior to Project
Enrollment
6. Average Number of Days From MIOCR Project Enrollment to New Participant's First Direct Service
7.a Distinct Count of Participants Receiving a Standardized Assessment This Reporting Period
7.b List Assessment(s) Used to Determine Treatment and Interventions:
7.c-f Distinct Count of Participants Identified Through a Standardized Assessment for Risk to Reoffend:
7.c Low Criminogenic Risk Level
7.d Low / Medium Criminogenic Risk Level
7.e Medium / High Criminogenic Risk Level
7.f High Criminogenic Risk Level
8. Distinct Count of Project Participants with a Formal Psychological/Psychiatric Evaluation(s)
Completed This Reporting Period
9. Number of Participants Receiving Services This Reporting Period
10.a Number of Participants Who Successfully Completed the Project This Reporting Period
10.b Define "Successfully Completed" for the MIOCR Project
11. Number of Participants Who Discontinued/Terminated the Project This Reporting Period
MIOCR Juvenile Quarterly Progress Report- Part B | October 2015 Page 1
Appendix F
MENTALLY ILL OFFENDER CRIME REDUCTION GRANT
JUVENILE QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT- PART B
DATA REPORTING - PARTICIPANT
HISTORICAL DATA - NEW PARTICIPANT INFORMATION ONLY
DATA
(6 MONTHS PRIOR TO MIOCR PROJECT ENROLLMENT)
12.a Number of Previous Petitions Sustained for a Delinquent (WIC 602) Offense
12.b Number of Previous Felony Petitions Sustained (WIC 602)
12.c Number of Previous Misdemeanor Petitions Sustained (WIC 602)
12.d Number of Previous Status Offenses (WIC 601)
13.a Number of New Participants with Post-Disposition Commitments
13.b Number of Post-Disposition Commitments for New Participants Identified in Question #13.a
13.c Average Number of Days in a Juvenile Hall and/or Camp for Dispositions Identified in Question
#13.b (Average Length of Stay-ALS)
14. Number of New Participants Who Received an Out-of-Home Placement
15. Number of New Participants on Home Supervision
16. Number of New Participants Who Were Admitted to an Acute Inpatient Treatment Facility
17. Number of New Participants Receiving Medi-Cal or Other Type of Insurance Plan Entitlements (At
Time of MIOCR Project Enrollment)
OUTCOME DATA -THIS REPORTING PERIOD ONLY DATA
18.a Number of Petitions Sustained for a New Delinquent Offense (WIC 602)
18.b Number of Felony Petitions Sustained for a New Offense (WIC 602)
18.c Number of Misdemeanor Petitions Sustained for a New Offense (WIC 602)
18.d Number of New Status Offenses (WIC 601)
19.a Number of Participants with Post-Disposition Commitments
19.b Number of Post-Disposition Commitments for Participants Identified in Question #19.a.
19.c Average Number of Days in a Juvenile Hall and/or Camp for Dispositions Identified in Question
#19.b (Average Length of Stay-ALS)
20. Number of Participants Who Were Admitted to an Acute Inpatient Treatment Facility
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION UPON PROJECT COMPLETION / EXIT ONLY DATA
21. Number of Participants Enrolled In and Receiving Medi-Cal or Other Type of Insurance Plan
Entitlements
22. Number of Participants in an Out-Of-Home Placement
23. Number of Participants on Home Supervision
24.a Number of Participants Who Attended School in the Community
24.b Average Number of School Days Attended by Participants in the 4 Weeks Prior to Project
Completion/Exit Date
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION POST PROJECT COMPLETION / EXIT ONLY
DATA
(6 MONTHS FOLLOWING SUCCESSFUL MIOCR PROJECT COMPLETION)
25.a Number of Participants With a Petitions Sustained for a New Delinquent Offense (WIC 602)
25.b Number of Petitions Sustained for a New Delinquent Offense (WIC 602)
25.c Number of Felony Petitions Sustained for a New Offense (WIC 602)
25.d Number of Misdemeanor Petitions Sustained for a New Offense (WIC 602)
MIOCR Juvenile Quarterly Progress Report- Part B | October 2015 Page 2
Appendix F
MENTALLY ILL OFFENDER CRIME REDUCTION GRANT
JUVENILE QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT- PART B
DATA REPORTING - PARTICIPANT
26. Additional Information Concerning the Above Measures:
Provide any additional information you believe will be helpful in describing any of the data above, including reasons
for participants who discontinued or were terminated from the project this reporting period (question #10). To assist
staff in understanding this information, please identify the data measure number within the narrative as reference.
27. Additional Measure(s) Collected:
Provide any additional data collected (outputs or outcomes) for your project that may demonstrate project
effectiveness but were not included in the above measures. Attach additional sheets, as necessary.
Quarterly Progress Reports, Parts A & B are due 45 days from the end of the reporting period.
Please email completed forms to: Helene Zentner | helene.zentner@bscc.ca.gov
For questions, please email or call Helene Zentner | helene.zentner@bscc.ca.gov | 916-323-8631
MIOCR Juvenile Quarterly Progress Report- Part B | October 2015 Page 3