How Data Can Support Implementation of Good Practices for Reentry

Introduction: The state of reentry today

Every week, an average of 10,000 prisoners are released from state and federal prisons. That’s an annual average of 520,000 prisoners per year. Of these prisoners, the recidivism rate is staggering. An estimated 67% of prisoners will be rearrested within three years of release. That percentage continues to grow as the years increase; within five years of release, the rearrest estimate increases to 76.6%. As prison populations swell beyond capacity, the problem of recidivism becomes even more critical. In November of 2014, the California prison population was 3,900 prisoners over the federally mandated population cap. Even with a new cap in place, the state will only reduce its population to 137.5% of its designed capacity. The U.S. currently spends $80 billion annually on incarceration. In California alone, the annual cost to imprison an offender of a nonviolent crime is $62,396. This is $2,000 more per year than California’s median state income. The size of the prison population and the costs associated with providing for this population are no longer sustainable.

Many other states are in a similar situation. As federal court orders begin to directly address the issues of overpopulation, states have begun using recidivism rates as a performance measure. The unsustainability of mass incarceration and the activism of those most impacted is pressuring reform and change at all levels. As a result, there has been a significant cultural shift away from the “tough-on-crime” approach of the past in favor of rehabilitation to decrease prison populations.

Lawmakers are enacting new legislation, courts are granted greater flexibility, law enforcement agencies are

• Average of 10,000 prisoners are released each week

• Average of 520,000 prisoners per year

• Within 3 years, of release 67% of prisoners will be rearrested

• Within 5 years of release, 77% of prisoners will be rearrested

• U.S. currently spends $80 billion annually on incarceration

“In California alone, the annual cost to imprison an offender of a

nonviolent crime is $62,396.”

• California prison population was 3,900 prisoners over the population cap

• Annual cost to imprison a nonviolent offender is $62,396

• Annual cost to imprison a nonviolent offender is $2,000 more than the median state income

California Prison Statistics

U.S. Prison Statistics

identifying the dangerous versus the vulnerable, science and research are supporting practice change, the socially powerful are exposing unfairness, and most importantly, friends and neighbors are talking about reform. More and more states are implementing programs to reduce the prison population and the significant costs associated with it. In 2011, North Carolina enacted legislation that focused on strengthening community supervision to reduce recidivism. Through individualized case planning, ensuring fidelity to evidence-based practices, the creation of regional reentry councils, and implementing graduated sanctions, North Carolina has since been able to close nine correctional facilities.

In recent years, a lot of policy and research work has been devoted to the positive effects of performance measurement and performance management on the recidivism rate. The reentry sphere is well-suited for in-depth data analysis considering its clear desired outcomes: reduced recidivism, increased public safety, and community reintegration. Legislation such as the Second Chance Act of 2008 and the Transition from Jail to Community (TJC) Initiative have set the framework for reentry programs to go beyond output data collection towards managing program performance. The next step must be to take those frameworks and put them into practice.

Reentry programs and the need for data

At the national level, few federal funding streams from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) have set performance measurement frameworks tied to specific federal funds. Unlike other

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) use Efforts to Outcomes software to power their statewide case management system ARMS (Automated Reentry Management System).

“More and more states are implementing programs to reduce

the prison population...”

federal programs in the fields of homeless services or maternal infant health, reentry programs are often seen as a local issue where program frameworks should be shaped by local communities. National standards often lack the framework needed to guide programs towards success. At the local level, individual states, counties, and even prisons have had to take the lead on using data to make informed program decisions.

The first step towards using data in the reentry sphere is identifying performance measures or indicators. The Justice Research and Statistics Association (JRSA) defines performance measurement as, “Ongoing monitoring and reporting of program accomplishments, particularly progress towards pre-established goals.” Performance measurement represents a movement from process to outputs to outcomes. It is not enough to simply monitor program successes, however; an organization must interpret those successes to determine the true outcomes of the program. Outcomes are measurable, relatively enduring changes in program participants’ attitudes, emotions, knowledge, skills, behavior, or social condition, which the program works intentionally to achieve and holds itself accountable for. Outcomes must be relevant to the needs of the target population. Traditional performance measurement cannot tell us whether or not a program caused a particular result or outcome. The goal is to manage to those outcomes, making changes to programs based on intended or unintended results.

The federal measurements that do exist are primarily outputs related to a prescribed set of common issues that prisoners often face such as substance abuse, mental health, employment, housing, family support,

“The first step towards using data in the reentry sphere is

identifying performance measures or indicators.”

“[ETO software] will play an integral role in establishing evidence-based research to determine and improve the impact of offender programs that will adapt and grow with our agency and better support programs and processes to promote shared responsibility for community safety.”

— Millicent Tidwell,Director of Division of Rehabilitative Programs, California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation

and education. The guidelines associated with these measurements are vague at best, from counting the number of people in a program to the number of people gaining employment post-release. To date, there is no federal framework established to measure the quality or outcomes of the programs, such as participant satisfaction within the program or employment retention and satisfaction.

Beyond performance measures, system-change measures must be considered in order to make better use of data for a reentry program. These measures help determine whether the changes made to policies, procedures, and program elements have been implemented properly and are directly correlated with participant success. These measures include case management activities, targeted interventions, and the use of risk/need assessments.

“The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model is perhaps the most influential model for the assessment and treatment of offenders” (Blanchette & Brown, 2006; Ward, Mesler & Yates, 2007). The RNR model is based on the notion that different offenders require different types and levels of service to reduce their risk of re-offending. While high-risk offenders should receive a large number of intensive services, offenders with a low-risk of recidivism may actually be negatively impacted by receiving that many services, and in turn more likely to re-offend.

Within the RNR model and other system-change measures, program success depends on data availability and accessibility. It is not enough to have a data system in place; the system must be implemented with fidelity and monitored over time. Performance indicators and outcomes must be specified at the time of

“The RNR model is perhaps the most influential model for the assessment and treatment of

offenders.”

• Risk Principle: Match the level of service to the offender’s risk to re-offend.

• Need Principle: Assess criminogenic needs and target them in treatment.

• Responsivity Principle: Maximize the offender’s ability to learn from a rehabilitative intervention by providing cognitive behavioral treatment and tailoring the intervention to the learning style, motivation, abilities, and strengths of the offender.

Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model

implementation with a process in place for interpreting results. The use of data requires user buy-in at the staff and managerial level to insure data accuracy and useful data interpretation. The following two sections explain how data can be made useful, supporting good implementation at the manager and staff levels.

MANAGERS

Managers need to make sure services are delivered effectively. For example:

Match risk/need level with service level. High-risk/need offenders can benefit the most from intensive services (Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005, p. 7). However, those who are low-risk typically do not benefit from intensive services and may actually be harmed by them. Many programs serve everyone the same, regardless of risk level. Programs need several service tracks to adequately match service level to risk/need level. Reports on clients, their risk/need levels, and the amount of services they have received in a date range helps managers develop an overview to assess whether the program is on track and where adjustments may be required. Adjustments need to be made immediately to prevent the adverse effects of mismatched risk/need and service levels.

Take a team approach to reentry services. Higher involvement by client, family, and professionals who provide different types of services means better coordination, better support, and higher likelihood of success. An individual report shows the extent to which all treatment team members have been present at meetings, so attendance can be improved if necessary.

MANAGERS

• Match risk/need level with service level

• Take a team approach to reentry services

• Assess progress toward reintegration and self-sufficiency

FRONTLINE STAFF

• Support for intentional work

• Access to real-time data

“The use of data requires user buy-in at the staff and managerial level to insure data accuracy and useful

data interpretation.”

Making Data Useful For:

“Performance management helps ensure we provide consistent, high quality services to our youth. ETO software is easy to navigate and efficient and helps us easily identify service gaps. I don’t think we’d be able to course correct as quickly as we need to without ETO.”

— Kimberly Vollmer,Social Services Manager,

Marion County PACE Center

Assess progress toward reintegration and self-sufficiency. By measuring reintegration with the transtheoretical model’s stages of change and self-sufficiency with the Arizona Self-sufficiency Matrix, these key outcomes and more are tracked uniformly across clients. Aggregate reports on the extent to which clients are making progress are available in real-time.

FRONTLINE STAFF

Frontline staff need support for intentional work toward outcomes.

Access to real-time reports to determine if individuals are receiving the right level of services given their risk/need levels, and which ones are making progress toward individual goals and outcomes so that adjustments can be made if anything is off.

Support for intentional work. Performance management software can be designed to support intentional work toward outcomes. At every interaction, the case manager can indicate on Likert scales:

• How the relationship is between case worker and client

• What stage of change the client is at in terms of reintegrating into the community

• Status of progress toward key, shared outcomes (housing, employment, etc.)

At every interaction, the case worker can quickly see the status of each of these areas in the past few meetings. This provides a quick overview, helping organizations target criminogenic behavior and other urgent needs.

“Frontline staff need support for intentional work toward

outcomes.”

• 91% of PACE participants improve academically

• 73% of PACE participants advanced by one full grade level

• 91% of girls had no involvement with the criminal justice system one year after leaving PACE

• 81% of girls were employed, enrolled in college or in another appropriate educational setting six months after completing PACE

PACE Center For Girls Outcomes Data Using ETO

The case/treatment plan is always front and center in a client’s electronic file, with the current status of each goal clearly visible. At each interaction, the case manager records progress toward each individual goal being worked on. This is done through both notes and the transtheoretical model’s “stages of change” scale. Addressing each one, rather than writing about all of them in one big case note, guarantees that no information gets lost in the process.

It is also easy to go back and look at the notes and stages of change, and assess retrospectively whether interventions were tailored appropriately. This is an excellent way for managers to support quality improvement with individual staff members.

Access to real-time data. Access to real-time reporting at the client level can help case workers by demonstrating the following:

• A summary of risk and need levels, the type of treatment, and the number of hours of treatment all allow staff to be confident in the services they are providing. Is the client receiving the right kind and amount of services for their risk/need level?

• Progress in terms of relationship between case worker and client. The ability to see a relationship over time on a graph helps staff determine if they are on the right track or not. A sound, trusting relationship is fundamental to achieving outcomes.

• Progress toward individual goals and common/shared outcomes. Communicate when things are going well to encourage both client and staff. If not enough progress has been made, staff are able to identify

“The ability to see a relationship over time on a graph helps staff

determine if they are on the right track or not.”

• Budgeting management

• Cognitive and life skills

• Domestic violence prevention

• Education

• Employment

• Job readiness and skills search

• Literacy

• Parenting/Family integration

• Residential services

• Sexual offense management

• Substance abuse

• Transitional housing

Key Coordinated Service Areas

the reasons why and take the appropriate actions to improve it.

At both the manager and staff levels, data should drive a prescribed set of outcomes. Some common reentry outcomes include increased family support, reductions in health risks, substance abuse, mental illness, attainment of housing, higher education, and improved employment. The key outcomes associated with reentry include reintegration into the community, reduced recidivism, and improved public safety.

The software systems typically used within correctional facilities focus on tracking inputs and indicators, such as the number of people that enter the facility each day or the number of meals served each week. What correctional facilities often lack is case management or outcome reporting capabilities. As the culture shifts from outputs to outcomes, states are now beginning to look for new ways to use data to measure the effectiveness of reentry programs. ETO for Reentry focuses on individualized case management to ensure recidivism reduction, providing the most comprehensive solution to achieve better outcomes and reentry successes at the state, county, and local nonprofit level.

Taking reentry programs from outputs to outcomes

Corrections and rehabilitation centers, as well as their surrounding communities are spending time and resources implementing reentry programming to help individuals avoid returning to criminal activity once their incarceration and supervision ends. Although

“What correctional facilities often lack is case management or outcome reporting capabilities.”

• California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)

• Catholic Charities: MD Reentry Partnership (REP)

• City of New Orleans Mayor’s Office of Reentry

• Friends of Island Academy (Riker’s Island NYC)

• Operation New Hope

• PACE Center for Girls

• Roca

• San Mateo County Probation Reentry Partnership

• And many more!

*Public sector agencies are in bold

Reentry Organizations Using ETO Software

there is an ongoing shift in corrections to focus more on rehabilitative services and less on punishment, systems typically are not in place to ensure their efforts are making a difference.

Now more than ever, there is a need for reentry service providers and their partners to track and evaluate client progress and program performance. At both the state and county levels, many institutions are implementing these programs in different ways with varying levels of priority and logistics. Due to a lack of oversight and system support, it is difficult to determine if programming is being implemented correctly and whether or not services are making a difference.

ETO for Reentry offers an out-of-the-box solution, enabling reentry service providers to track the work they do with participants during incarceration and in the community after reintegration. This pre-configured system allows service providers to have access to the data they need in one secure place, helping work get done efficiently and effectively. The system encourages evidence-based practices based on the RNR model, tracking risk assessment, treatment planning, and coordination of services. Reports are available to show if the expected progress is being made at the individual, group, and program-wide level.

Social Solutions created ETO for Reentry to help organizations keep track of all reentry services in one place, and to ensure programs are being implemented as designed by helping participants reach their goals. Best practices are pre-configured to give organizations a starting framework, but the system can also be easily configured as programs change over time. Real-time

“Due to a lack of oversight and system support, it is difficult to

determine if programming is being implemented correctly...”

The Urban Institute ROI Evaluation Report for ETO software user Maryland Reentry Partnership Initiative (REP) evaluated crime in Baltimore between 2001 and 2005. It compared 229 REP clients to a similar set of 370 ex-offenders released in Baltimore City.

REP clients committed fewer new crimes, returning $3 in benefits per $1 in new costs. The total net benefit to the citizens of Baltimore was $7.2 million, or $21,500 per REP participant.

reports ensure program fidelity and provide insight into what is and isn’t working at the program and staff level.

The collaborative framework of the system allows data to be collected across multiple institutions and community service providers. Funders and stakeholders can gain insight on all reentry efforts provided by staff inside the institution, as well as out in the community. Data collection on the most important indicators is standardized to guarantee programs are specific and goal-driven. The participant dashboard shows real-time data on participant progress. This helps inform decision-making on the types of services, support, and referrals needed to make sure participants are on track to job-readiness and overall self-sufficiency.

ETO for Reentry includes an employer dashboard with access to all information about employers, including their history of hiring individuals with criminal backgrounds and staff interaction for more efficient employer engagement and job referrals. Referrals can be made in the system, and serve as a resource for participants to see what is available to them. The system tracks and reports on participant well-being, as well as recidivism rates after program completion.

This is a great tool at the state, local, or nonprofit level, helping organizations do more with their data and be confident in their program’s efforts. Backed by research, knowledge, and experience, it’s the perfect framework to jumpstart program success. From program enrollment to post-release employment and housing retention, ETO for Reentry supports organizations as they work to reduce recidivism and improve participant reintegration into the community.

“Funders and stakeholders can gain insight on all reentry efforts

provided by staff inside the institution...”

• Program improvement and outcomes reports

• Cross-provider of aggregate reporting

• Uniform data collection

• Case management decision support

• Employer engagement dashboard

• Automated Refferals

• Follow-up Module

The Value of ETO For Reentry

To learn more, please contact Social Solutions.

www.socialsolutons.com

moreinfo@socialsolutions.com

(866)-732-3560

More Information

ReferencesJaime Michel, Shawn M. Flower. Building Capacity for Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Performance Measurement in Prisoner Reentry, Delinquency Prevention and Intervention, and Victim Assistance Services. Justice Research and Statistics Association. January 2015. Web. http://jrsa.org/pubs/reports/bcpme_lit_review_final.pdf.

The Urban Institute, The Center for What Works. Candidate Outcome Indicators: Prisoner Re-entry Program. The Urban Institute. Web. http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/prisonerre-entry.pdf.

Solomon, A., Waul, M., Van Ness, A., Travis, J., Outside the Walls: A National Snapshot of Community-Based Prisoner Reentry Programs (2004).

Visher, C., LaVigne, N., Travis, J., Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry (2004).

Social Solutions Global. Reentry Initiator Overview. Social Solutions Global.

Bureau of Justice Assistance (2011). Second chance act adult offender reentry demonstration grant program performance measures. https://www.bjaperformancetools.org.

Bureau of Justice Assistance (2012). Second chance act adult offender reentry program for planning and demonstration Grants: FY 2012 competitive grand announcement frequently asked questions (FAQs). https://www.bja.gov/Funding/12SCAdultReentryFAQ.pdf.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (n.d). Recidivism. www.bjs.gov/indexcfm?ty=tp&tid=17.

Case Management Society of America (2010). Standards of Practice for Case Management. http://www.cmsa.org/portals/0/pdf/memberonly/StandardsOfPractice.pdf.

Fixsen, D. L. & Blase, K. A. (2012). The EBP Movement is Dead: Long Live the EBP Movement [PowerPoint Slides]. National Implementation Research Network website.

Fixsen, D. L. & Blase, K. A. & Duda, M. (2011). Implementation Science: Building the Bridge between Science and Practice [PowerPoint Slides]. Institute of Education Science website.

Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M. & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231).

Guevara, M., Taymans, J., & Prince, R. (2013). How cognitive behavioral interventions such as NIC’s thinking for a change can equip offenders to keep moving in the right direction. In Thinking Controls Behavior.

Harkness, D. & Hensley, H. (1991). Changing the focus of social work supervision: effects on client satisfaction and generalized contentment. Social Work, 36(6), 506-512.

Hunter, D. E. K. (2013). Working Hard and Working Well: A Practical Guide to Performance Management for Leaders of Organizations Serving Children, Adults and Families. Hamden, CT: Hunter Consulting.

Latessa, E.J. (2006). What Works in Reducing Recidivism? 3 U. St. Thomas L.J. 521

Latessa, E.J. (2013). Improving reentry efforts: What works and what doesn’t in reducing recidivism. National Institute of Corrections Cuff Key to Door Key.

Lowenkamp, C.T. & Latessa, E.J. (2005, April). Developing successful reentry programs: Lessons learned from the “what works” research. Corrections Today 67 (2), 72-77.

Lowis, Mark M. (2012a). Evidence-based practices for effective case management. Joyfields Institute training, December 6, 2012.

Lowis, Mark M. (2012b). Motivational Interviewing Skills: An Introduction to Fundamentals. Joyfields Institute training, November 28, 2012.

Marlowe, D.B. (2012a). Alternative tracks in adult drug courts: Matching your program to the needs of your clients. Drug Court Practitioner (7, 2). Retrieved from http://www.ndci.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/AlternativeTracksInAdultDrugCourts.pdf.

Monchick, R., Scheyett, A., and Pfeifer, J. (2006). Drug court case management: Role, function, and utility. Alexandria: National Drug Court Institute. http://www.ndci.org/sites/default/files/ndci/Mono7.CaseManagement.pdf.

Moore, K. A., Walker, K. E. & Murphy, D. (2011). Performance Management: The Neglected Step Toward Becoming an Evidence-based Program. Leap of Reason. Washington, DC: Venture Philanthropy Partners.

National Association of Social Workers. (1992). NASW Standards for Social Work Case Management. http://www.socialworkers.org/practice/standards/sw_case_mgmt.asp.

Nursing Theories. (2012, January 26). Stages of Change/Transtheoretical Model (TTM). http://currentnursing.com/nursing_theory/transtheoretical_model.html.

Petersilia, J. (2002). When prisoners come home: parole and prisoner re-entry. Oxford: Oxford Press.

Pro-Change Behavior Systems (2013). The Transtheoretical Model: Evidence-based Behavior Change.

SISEP (State Implementation and Scaling-up of Evidence-based Practices Center) NIRN (National Implementation Research Network). (n.d.). The Active Implementation Hub: An Overview of Active Implementation Frameworks.

Taxman, F.S. (2008). No illusions: Offender and organizational change in Maryland’s proactive community supervision efforts. Criminology and Public Policy 7(2), 275-302.

Taxman, F.S., Young, D., & Byrne, J.M. (2002). Offender’s views of reentry: Implications for processes, programs, and services. University of Maryland. (NCJ No. 196490). https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/196490.pdf.

Van der Knaap, L.M., Alberda, D.L., Oosterveld, P., and Born, M.P. (2012). The Predictive Validity of Criminogenic Needs for Male and Female Offenders: Comparing the Relative Impact of Needs in Predicting Recidivism. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 413-422.

Walker, K. E. & Moore, K. A. (2011). Performance Management and Evaluation: What’s the Difference. Washington, DC: Child Trends.