irector Perspectives OnImplementing Reentry Programming

A. Vlasier, Christine Undquist tm6 Susan Brnmbatigh

Authors' Note: This project i.s supported by grant numbers 2003-RE-CX-KlOl and 2004-RE-CX-OII02. awarded by the NationalInstitute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of theauthors anddo not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S, Department of Justice.

More than 600,000 inmates are released from U.S.prisons each year, according to ttie Bureau ofJustice Statistics. The majority of these menand women have low levels of education and

employment skills, as well as substance abuse and mentalhealth problems. These challenges, coupled with theircriminal records, often preclude successful reentry intotheir communities upon release. In fact, within three yearsof release more than two-thirds of former inmates are rear-rested, nearly half are convicted of a new crime and morethan half are reincarcerated either on new charges or forviolations of parole conditions, BJS reports. With thelargest number of men and wt)men in American history cur-rently behind bars, the United States faces an even largerincrease of former inmates returning to its communities. Ifthe "revolving door" to prison is to be closed, efforts areneeded to help inmates successfully transition from prisonto the community.

Violent Offender

in an effort to reduce recidivism rates and to improveother outcomes for released inmates, the federal govern-ment funded the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Ini-tiative (SVORI), which is a collaborative federal effortestabiished in 2003 to improve outcomes for adult andjuvenile inmates returning to their communities. The initia-tive seeks to help states better use their correctionalresources to address outcomes along criminal justice,employment, education, health and housing dimensions.Funded by the U.S. departments of Justice, Labor. Educa-tion, Housing and Urban Development, and Health andHuman Services, SVORI is an unprecedented nationalresponse to the challenges of inmate reentry.

In 2003, SVORI grants were awarded to 69 grantees inthe 50 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. VirginIslands. These sites developed 89 programs targeting adult

and juvenile correctional populations, SVORI funding sup-ported the creation of a three-phase continuum of servicesthat begins in prison, focuses on reentry preparation justprior to release and in the early months out of prison, andcontinues for a year or more as people take on more pro-ductive and independent roles in the community. A fullyimplemented SVORI program incorporates assessment, ser-vices and programming for individuals while they are incar-cerated, under supervision in the community and oncereleased from supervision. While SVORI programs sharethe common goals of improving outcomes across variousdimensions and improving service coordination and sys-tems collaboration, the programs differ in their approachand implementation.

The National Institute of Justice funded RTI internationaland the Urban Institute to conduct a five-year evaluation ofthe SVORI programs. The goal of the evaluation is to deter-mine whether the programs have accomplished the overallpurpose of increasing public safety by reducing recidivismamong the populations served by the programs and deter-mining the relative costs and benefits of the programs. Theevaluation includes an impact evaluation, a cost-benefitcomponent, and an implementation assessment.

The overall objective of the impact evaluation is toassess the effectiveness of SVORI by comparing key out-comes (employment, housing, family and communityinvolvement, mental and physical health, substance use,and criminality) between those who participate in SVORIprograms and comparable individuals not participating inSVORI. This evaluation component is based on a longitudi-nal study of more than 2,500 adult males, adult females andjuvenile males scheduled to be released from prison in 16states.' The cost component of the evaluation is being con-ducted in a subset of the evaluation sites and is describedin detail in a 2006 report.'

The objectives of the implementation assessment are tocharacterize all 89 SVORI programs and address the extentto which these programs increase access to services and

92 — April 2007 Corrections Today

I. lOpBiirriers to impleriienlatiim

Poor atlocation of funding

Inadequate staff training

Inadequate funding

Insufficient staff

Poor intra-agencY communication

Poor interagency coordination

Inadequate service avaitabiiity

Turf battles

Other

Staff turnover

existing agency policies/regulations

promote system change. The primary sources of data forthe implementation assessment are three surveys mailedto the SVORI program directors. Data from these surveyscliaracterize the individual programs, providinf̂ informa-tion on the target population(s), program elements, timingof programs and services, agencies participating in SVORi,and the degree of coordination among agencies.

The following sections describe preliminary findingsfrom the implementation assessment and is based primarilyon the final program director survey, which focused onlessons learned and sustainability.

ecomingThe SVORI programs were generally successful at pro-

gram implementation, although they experienced severalbarriers to implementation. Most SVORI grantees receivedlull federal funding in 2003, although the specific fundingschedule varied across sites. As of spring 2005, 74 percentof the program directors classified their programs as fullyoperational. By spring 2006, this number had reached 93percent. Although not all programs considered themselvesfully operational, they all reported having enrolled at leastone participant by spring 2006.

Implementation of SVORIprogramming appears to havebeen a priority for the granteeagencies. The majority of pro-grams (82 percent) indicatedthat the top administrators atthe SVORi grantee agency (typi-cally the department of correc-tions or department of juvenilejustice) set implementationgoals for their program. In allbut one of these programs, thegrantee agency reportedlymonitored progress towardthese goals.

Most SVORI programs deliv-ered services both prior to andafter release from incarcera-

tion, although more than half ofthe program directors (59 per-cent) indicated that the post-rdease phase was more difficultto implement than the prere-lease phase. The program

ectors identified a numberf specific challenges to pro-

'gram implementation, with themost significant of these shownin Figure 1. Clearly, the biggestchallenge identified by pro-gram directors was existingagency regulations or policiesthat made reentry program-

ing difficult to deliver.' Staffjturnover, which was the sec-

most cited implementationharrier, appeared to be perva-sive even at the program lead-

ership level; about half of the SVORl programs (48 percent)reported having experienced program director turnover,interestingly, the implementation barriers experienced byadult and juvenile programs were similar.

Most SVORI prograffl^SHBBShed enrollment targets forthe number of participants fo be served by their programs.Three-quarters of the program directors indicated that theSVORI grantee agency established an enrollment target forthe program and all but two of the.se programs indicatedthat the grantee agency monitored progress toward thisgoal. However, enrolling a sufficient number of programparticipants was a challenge for SVORI grantees. As ofspring 2006. more than one-third of SVORI programs (41percent) had enrolled 100 or fewer participants throughoutthe entire duration of their program (the median totalenrollment was 137 among adult programs and 102 amongjuvenile programs). When asked how their enrollmentnumbers compared with their original projections, 44percent of program directors (50 percent for adult pro-

2. lop Barriers to Enroilnient

Post-release plans for offenders unavailable

Inadequate referrals by facility staff

Management information system difficutt to use

Inadequate resources to serve the number eligible

MIS insufficient for determining eligibility

Not enough offenders screened for eligibility

Offenders being identified too late

Offenders declining participation

Facility/agency policies make programming difficult

Release date information unavailable

Restrictive funding agency eligibility criteria

Restrictive program eligibilrty criteria

10 15

Programs (Number)

April 2007 Corrections Today — 93

Table L Agencies/Community-based Oi^anizations Involved in SVORI

' Involved inSVORI

(nnmber ofAgency/CBOPost-release supervision agencyPrerelease supervision agencyMental healthSubstance abuseEmploymentFaith-basedFamily/social servicesVocational trainingHousingLaw enforcementEducational institutionsLocal school systems

programs)8481838078

Made majorcontributions to SVORI

programming*

46%

Provided strongsupport for

SVORI*

19%

75756864605839

32%12%19%24%19%12%18%22%

42%37%26%31%39%21%21%30%20%18%21%30%

*Percentages reflect the proportion of program directors who "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that tbe agency/CBOhad made major contributions to SVORI programming or provided strong support for SVORI.

grams and 35 percent for juvenile programs) indicated tbattheir total cumulative enrollment was lower than originallyprojected.

The primary barriers to program enrollment experi-enced by SVORI program directors are sbovm in Figure 2.Tbe most frequently reported enrollment barrier was strin-gent eligibility criteria established by tbe program itself,followed by stringent eligibility criteria established by thefederai funding agency.' It is clear that agencies encoun-tered structural problems once they attempted to identifyand enroll potential SVORI participants. Foremost amongthese problems were obtaining accurate information aboutrelease dates for potential participants (a problem for pro-grams designed to deliver services in advance of release)and facility or agency policies that made it difficult to deliverSVORI programming (such as institution transfer policies).The voluntary nature of many programs (two-thirds arevoluntary) may also be at least partially responsible forlower-than-expected enrollment.

Serving Participants EffectivelyThe SVORI program funds were intended to be used at

the state and local levels to: develop a reentry system thatincludes the key components (assessment, a reentry planand a transition team), creates linkages to extant services,and provides services to fill identified gaps. Althoughconceptually straightforward, this model was far from"business as usual" and required state and local agenciesto collaborate in ways that have been rare in the past.Program directors responded to a series of open-endedquestions about the extent to which components of theirreentry programs worked (or did not).

Several themes are evident in the responses to ques-tions related to the program components perceived to

have made the most difference. Most common was cross-agency collaboration, coordination and use of teams — forproject planning and establishing service networks andalso for working directly with offenders. Many programdirectors reported involving community staff or partnersprior to an offender's release to more effectively bridge tbetransition from institution to community. Intensive casemanagement, which includes assessment, treatment/release planning and supervision or contacts with individ-ual offenders, was also frequently reported to be an essen-tial component; many program directors mentioned theimportance of beginning this process early during incarcera-tion and providing continuity after release. Several programdirectors from juvenile programs said that SVORI providedpost-release case management and service provision wherenone had previously been available. Program directorsoften cited the importance of specific programming or ser-vices provided before and after release, particularlyemployment-related assistance, altbough educational ser-vices also played a key role in severai juvenile programs. Inaddition to agencies, processes and services, programdirectors also mentioned the importance of individuals,including specialized or dedicated staff, family members,and offenders themselves.

Program directors were more reluctant to admit toproblems, as 20 program directors either left blank tbequestion asking about components that did not appear towork or explicitly stated that ali components worked asplanned (several of these, however, were willing todescribe "challenges"). Among program directors whodescribed problems with specific program components,most mentioned mentoring, generally because of recruit-ment challenges. Program directors also described chal-lenges in providing housing and employment assistance.Locating housing was problematic because of availability

94 — April 2007 Corrections Today

and policy barriers, whereas stumbling blocks withemployment were generally attributed to problemswith subcontractors or work force agencies.

Several program directors mentioned difficultiesestablishing restorative justice or victim-relatedcomponents, and several described disappoint-ments with the reentry court model. Programdirectors frequently mentioned the challenges ofworking with multiple organizations; several men-tioned disagreements among partner agencies, or '.lack of involvement of certain agencies. Many pro-gram directors described problems either recruit-ing or working with service providers, most oftenin the community. They described subcontract problemswith community-based organizations, and several specifi-cally mentioned challenges working with faith-based orga-nizations. However, most did not explain what specificaspects of working with faith-based organizations werechallenging.

Collaborating Among AgenciesSVORI was intended to develop partnerships and

improve collaboration among the agencies serving return-ing offenders. Therefore, the contributions of relevantagencies or community-based organizations (CBOs) toSVORI programming are important to evaluate. Programdirector perceptions of the role of agencies/CBOs areshown in Table 1. The agencies nearly universally involved

SVORI is a path-breaking effort toengage state and local agencies inconceptualizing and implementing

innovative reentry programs forreleased inmates.

in SVORI are pre- and post-release supervision agenciesand mental health agencies. Not surprising, the localschool system was much more likely to be involved in juve-nile SVOR] programs (91 percent) than adult programs (14percent). No other major differences between adult andjuvenile programs were evident.

Program directors rated pre- and post-release supervi-sion agencies, employment agencies/CBOs, and vocationaltraining agencies/CBOs as the orgtinizations that had mademajor contributions to SVORl programming. Perceptions ofsupport for SVORI were highest for the post-release super-vision agency, followed by employment agencies/CBOs andprerelease supervision agencies. When asked about sup-port for SVORI by individual stakeholder groups from with-in key agencies, program directors reported strong supportfrom top administrators, supervisors and line staff at the

Go Secure Your FutureWith an M.S. in Justice Studies Online• Advance your career - bolster your credentials and move up in management.

• Focus on leadership, operations and policymaking.

• Take your courses online according to your schedule.

• Join an academically challenging program for professionals.

• Be a part of a university that shares your vision and values.

Demand for justice professionals - police and corrections supervisors, investigators,operations managers and more - is soaring at a rate of up to 29 percent every year.'*U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

SNHU OnUne I Phone: 866.860.0449Info: online@snhii.edu I www.snhu.edii/online

Southern,^NewHampsnire

University

April 2007 Corrections Today — 95

Table 2. Suslainability Strategies Undertaken by SVORI Programs

Sustainability strategies

Assessed resource needsAssessed progress achieved with original goals ...Sought out other partnering agenciesHeld sustainability planning meetingsExtended memoranda of agreement with partnering agenciesDeveloped a sustainability planCross-trained staffPursued additional state fundingReallocated resources in grantee agency to continue^VORIPursued additional federal funding . -Pursued additional local fundingReallocated resources across partners to continue SVORIPursued additional private fundingOther

Number ofprograms

79787168

__ 5957

_ 5653464627261910

post-release supervision agency and top administratorsand supervisors at the prerelease supervision agency. Per-ceptions of support for SVORI were lowest for line staff atprerelease facilities and members of the communities towhich SVORI participants were returning.

Lessons about interagency collaboration can also begleaned from SVORI program director reports. Almost allprogram directors rated interagency collaborationextremely high and felt that it had improved as a result ofSVORI. In addition, almost all program directors felt thatthe organizational ciimate within their grantee agency andcommunity was favorable toward reentry programming ingeneral. However, perceptions of support for SVORI fromstate legislatures and executive branches were lower.

Developing Sustainability StrategiesAlthough the original end date for SVORI funding was

June 2006, many programs have engaged in sustainabiiityefforts to extend SVORI programming. Seventy percent ofSVORI programs were still enrolling new participants inspring 2006, and 92 percent planned to continue at leastsome elements of the program once SVORI funds were nolonger available. Several programs were successful inreceiving additional funding from a variety of sources,including federai funding (62 programs received supple-mentary SVORI funds and nine programs received otherfunds from the federal government), state funding (n = 16),local funding (n = 9) and private agencies (n - 2). Specificsustainability strategies in which SVORI program directorshave engaged, including the pursuit of additional funding,are shown in Table 2. The most frequently used sustainabil-ity strategies include assessing needs, assessing progress,seeking out partnering agencies and holding sustainabilityplanning meetings.

Because SVORI program directors are in a unique posi-tion to understand the factors necessary to expand reentryprogramming in general (not just continue SVORI-specificefforts), they were asked what they considered to be theprimary factor necessary to take reentry programming "toscale" in their states. The most commonly reportedresponse was the development of policies that would makereentry programming part of the agency's standard operat-ing procedure (cited by 22 program directors), closely fol-lowed by support from the top administration at DOC/DJJ(cited by 19 program directors) and support from electedstate officials (cited by 17 program directors).

Achieving Systems CbangeOne goal of SVORI was "to achieve systems change

through multi-agency collaboration and case managementstrategies." When asked to describe the most significantorganizational or systems-level changes as a result ofSVORI, program directors reported successes in four mainareas: collaboration and coordination, philosophy, prac-tice, and sustainability. The majority of program directorsmentioned system-level changes related to collaborationand coordination, primarily surrounding the developmentand continuation of the mandated reentry partnerships.They also described cross-agency cooperation and lastingrelationships developed as a result of SVOR! activities. Sev-eral described the creation of a unified system withimproved coordination of service delivery, and somespecifically mentioned efficiencies created throughresource sharing.

Many program directors described changes in how par-ticipating organizations "do business," using terms such as"culture," "focus" and "awareness." Several specificallymentioned the establishment of cross-agency goals, proto-

96 — April 2007 Corrections Today

cols, missions and terminology — all related to reentry.Program directors mentioned lasting changes to practices,policies and procedures. Some described specific changesto policies that had served as barriers (e.g., allowing com-munity service providers to work with incarcerated partici-pants), while others described more generic institutionalchanges that facilitated reentry, with the most commonbeing planning for release at intake. Program directors alsodescribed the sustainability of their programs as evidenceof systems change. Several mentioned statewide expansionof their SVORI programs; in some cases, legislative supportfrom the state was cited. They also listed new reentry part-nerships or initiatives that were built on SVORI efforts.

ConclusionsSVORI is a path-breaking effort to engage state and local

agencies in conceptualizing and implementing innovativereentry programs for released inmates. Overall, states andloca! communities appear to have been successful in imple-menting SVORI, although they encountered some barriersand challenges. The "systems change" that SVORI programdirectors mentioned in terms of changes in overall philoso-phy about reentry and in practice may lead to sustainedefforts to reduce recidivism rates and improve other out-comes for the thousands of released inmates that arereturning to communities. Results of the outcome evalua-tion will determine the extent to which these efforts havebeen successful.

ENDNOTES

' The data collection for the impact evaluation consists of four in-person interviews (one month prerelease and three, nine and 15months post-release) and two oral-swab drug tests conducted inconjunction with the three- and 15-month interviews. In addition,the impact evaluation will use administrative data from state cor-rectional and law enforcement agencies to examine rearrest andreincarceration outcomes.

^ Cowell, A. 2006. Reentry research in action: Approach for conduct-ing cost, cost-effectiveness, and benefit<ost analyses of SVORI pro-grams. Available at http://www.svori-evaluation.org/documents/reports/RRIA-Economic_Analysis.pdf.

^ Most of the "other" responses selected by program directors(shown as the third most frequently reported implementation bar-rier in Figure 1) also pertained to policies (e.g.. case law, city regu-lations, and Housing and Urban Development policies).

•̂ The Federal eligibility requirements were that offenders must beage 35 or younger, he subject to post-release supervision and beconsidered "serious" or "violent."

Christy A. Visher. Ph.D.. is principal research a.ssociate at theUrban Institute. Christine Lindqui.st, PIW.. and Susan Brumbaugh.Ph.D., are research sociologists at RTl International.

tlQ seal- switch to the

Oliver Speedsea^" Fresh-Pack System,

the cost saving benefits will amaze you!

800-253-3893 www.oliverspeedseal.com

//fc.When the class was debriefed,

they commented on howoverwhelmed they felt by

your story... you left themspeechless. You have made a

difference in lives."A. Gilbert, Case Manager,

FCI Schuylkill

Remembering the True Victims (RTTV)speaks in local, state and federalinstitutions, directly to the offenders,about the impact of crime. Themessage Is always the same - "if thereis no victim, there is no crime."®

For more information on bringing aspeaker into your facility call RTTV at310-388-2217.

www.rttv.orgrmbrng@aol.com

April 2007 Corrections Today — 97