Treatment and Related Funding Issues Treatment and Related Funding Issues in Community-Based CorrectionsGlenn A. TapiaColorado Division of Criminal JusticeOffi f C it C tiOffice of Community Corrections

Presentation Outline

• Treatment Needs Data for Community CorrectionsCorrections

• General Limitations of Treatment Needs Data • Interagency Funding Streams for Correctional • Interagency Funding Streams for Correctional

Treatment• Treatment Funding Expectationsg p• Structural Issues• Policy Considerations for Treatment Fundingy g

Treatment Needs in Community CorrectionsCorrections• Data from FY10 Residential Community

Corrections Corrections • 53% Transition and 47% Diversion• Substance Abuse• Substance Abuse• Mental Health

Mental Health Screening(CCJMHS A)(CCJMHS-A)

Recidivism Risk Data

Substance Abuse Treatment Needs Data(Standardized Offender Assessment Revised)(Standardized Offender Assessment – Revised)

Treatment Matching?g

Treatment Needs Summaryy

• Mental Health Evaluations (n>1530)Mental Health Treatment (n>1019)• Mental Health Treatment (n>1019)

• Enhanced Outpatient Therapy (n>454)• Intensive Outpatient Therapy (n>279)• Intensive Outpatient Therapy (n>279)• Intensive Residential Therapy (n>186)

Limitations of Treatment Gaps Limitations of Treatment Gaps and Needs DataGeneral Issues

Data Limitations• State law requires treatment matching for substance

abuse (Good thing!)• Supply of treatment distorts the assessed (and

documented) needs of treatment (Bad thing!)• Mental health screening is discretionary, not g y,

mandatory• Fiduciary duty to evaluate and treat mental illness =

disincentive to screen?• Results in UNDERESTIMATE of treatment needs

data.• Low Demand = Low Supply for Treatment Capacity Low Demand Low Supply for Treatment Capacity

(Licenses for Intensive Services) – Catch 22?

Interagency Funding StreamsDrug Offender Surcharge – IACAJCTSB318 Funds – ITFTD Off d S h HB1352Drug Offender Surcharge – HB1352

Interagency Advisory Committee on Adult and Juvenile Correctional Treatment (IACAJCT)Juvenile Correctional Treatment (IACAJCT)

• Established in early 1990s• Originally for adult substance abuse treatment• Originally for adult substance abuse treatment• Established the Drug Offender Surcharge• Funding Prioritiesg▫ Assessment▫ Treatment

Research ▫ Research ▫ Training

• Modified in late 1990s to add Mental Health and 99Juvenile Justice representation

IACAJCT Membershipp

Agency IACAJCT Representativeg y p

Dept of Corrections Jeaneene Miller

Division of Criminal Justice Jeanne Smith

Division of Behavioral Health – Substance Abuse Charles Smith

Division of Behavioral Health – Mental Health Marc Condojani

Division of Probation Services Tom Quinn

Division of Youth Corrections Caren Leaf

IACAJCT Funding Structureg(Drug Offender Surcharge) $3.9m in FY10

Judicial Branch

IACAJCT

DOC DCJ DPS DBHDOC DCJ

C it

DPS DBH

T t t Parole and Institutions

Community Corrections Programs

Probation Districts

Treatment Providers and MSOs

SB318/ITFT Funding Prioritiesg

• Established by Local Plan (Local Control)Preference for Drug Courts• Preference for Drug Courts

• Up to 20% for cross-district innovative and collaborative initiativescollaborative initiatives

Senate Bill 318 Interagency Task Force on Treatment

Agency IACAJCT ITFTg y

Dept of Corrections Jeaneene Miller Jeaneene Miller/Barry Pardus

Division of Criminal Justice Jeanne Smith Jeanne Smith

Di ision of Beha ioral Health S bstance Ab se Charles Smith Charles SmithDivision of Behavioral Health – Substance Abuse Charles Smith Charles Smith

Division of Behavioral Health – Mental Health Marc Condojani Marc Condojani

Division of Probation Services Tom Quinn Tom Quinn

Division of Youth Corrections Caren Leaf Caren Leaf

District Attorney 1 NA Elizabeth Oldham 

District Attorney 2 NA Don Quick

District Attorney 3 NA Rod Fouracre

Public Defender NA Kathleen McGuire

ITFT Funding Structureg(Cash Fund) $2.2m in FY10

Judicial Branch

ITFT

1st JD

SB318 Board

2nd JD

SB318 Board

3rd JD

SB318 Board

4th JD

SB318 Board

17th JD

SB318 Board

22nd JD

SB318 BoardSB318 Board

(DA, PD, PO)

Local C it

SB318 Board

(DA, PD, PO)

Local C it

SB318 Board

(DA, PD,PO)

Local C it

SB318 Board

(DA, PD, PO)

Local C it

SB318 Board

(DA, PD, PO)

Local C it

SB318 Board

(DA, PD, PO)

Local C it Community

Based on NeedCommunity

Based on NeedCommunity

Based on NeedCommunity

Based on NeedCommunity

Based on NeedCommunity

Based on Need

HB1352 Funding Prioritiesg

• Treatment for Substance Abuse Treatment for Co Occurring Disorders (Mental • Treatment for Co-Occurring Disorders (Mental Illness/Substance Abuse)

• Adult Diversion• Adult Diversion• Adult Probation• Adult ParoleAdult Parole• Community Corrections• County Jailsy

HB1352 Advisory CommitteeDrug Offender Surcharge

IACAJCT ITFT HB1352 Advisory Committee

Dept of Corrections Jeaneene Miller Jeaneene Miller/Barry d

Jeaneene Miller/Barry dPardus Pardus

Division of Criminal Justice Jeanne Smith Jeanne Smith Jeanne Smith

Division of Behavioral Health – Substance Abuse

Charles Smith Charles Smith Charles Smith

Division of Behavioral Health – Mental Health Marc Condojani Marc Condojani Marc Condojani

Division of Probation Services Tom Quinn Tom Quinn Tom Quinn

Division of Youth Corrections Caren Leaf Caren Leaf Caren Leaf

District Attorney 1 NA Elizabeth Oldham  Elizabeth Oldham

District Attorney 2 NA Don Quick NA

District Attorney 3 NA Rod Fouracre NA

Public Defender NA Kathleen McGuire Kathleen McGuirePublic Defender NA Kathleen McGuire Kathleen McGuire

County Representative NA NA Nancy Stuart

Sheriffs Representative NA NA Doug Darr

HB 1352 Funding Structureg(Drug Offender Surcharge) $6m in FY12

Judicial BranchBranch

HB1352 Advisory

Board

TBD

Treatment Funding Expectations

General Societal Demands of a Product or Serviceor Service

Good

(Eff i )(Effective)

FastCheap

(Efficient)

C p

(Affordable)

General Societal Demands of a Product or Serviceor Service

Good

(Eff i )(Effective)

FastCheap

(Efficient)

C p

(Affordable)

General Societal Demands of a Product or Serviceor Service

Good

(Eff i )(Effective)

FastCheap

(Efficient)

C p

(Affordable)

General Societal Demands of a Product or Serviceor Service

Good

(Eff i )(Effective)

FastCheap

(Efficient)

C p

(Affordable)

Treatment Funding ExpectationsTreatment Funding Expectations• Administered/Allocated Fairly• Measurable (How did it do?)• Accountable (Where did it go?)• Accountable (Where did it go?)• Consistent with statutory or political intent• Narrowed to specific populations• Contracts! (Did we get what we asked for?)

A dit bl• Auditable• Driven by data/evidence• Locally Controlled – acknowledging community differences• Based on individualized needs

i d ’ fi ll• One size doesn’t fit all• Adaptable to changing conditions in field• Agility • Spent in fullp• Spent quickly• Little to no administrative costs • Minimal administrative burden• Easily accessible at the field/street levelEasily accessible at the field/street level• Less red tape/bureaucracy• Simple

Treatment Funding ExpectationsTreatment Funding Expectations• Administered/Allocated Fairly• Measurable (How did it do?)• Accountable (Where did it go?)• Accountable (Where did it go?)• Consistent with statutory or political intent• Narrowed to specific populations• Contracts! (Did we get what we asked for?)

A dit bl

Accountability

• Auditable• Driven by data/evidence• Locally Controlled – acknowledging community differences• Based on individualized needs

i d ’ fi ll Flexibility• One size doesn’t fit all• Adaptable to changing conditions in field• Agility • Spent in full

Flexibility

p• Spent quickly• Little to no administrative costs • Minimal administrative burden• Easily accessible at the field/street level

EfficiencyEasily accessible at the field/street level

• Less red tape/bureaucracy• Simple

Treatment Funding Expectations(Can we have just 2?)(Can we have just 2?)

Accountabilityy

ffl b l EfficiencyFlexibility

Structural Issues

Structural Issues• “Braided” Funding• Difficult to follow a dollar• Contract rigidity and structure• Horizontal and vertical information flow • Business as usual doesn’t change overnight• Spending authority timeframes• Variant statutory structures for treatment funding• New stakeholders at the decision table• Leadership and funding structure of new initiatives are

undefined• Diversion and Jails do not share the same system (level

) f b i l d or type) of governance as probation, parole, and community corrections

Policy Consideration for Policy Consideration for Treatment Funding

Policy Considerations• Congruency between statutory/political expectations and the

t t b d t state budget process• Consider first-year start up issues (HB1360)• Explicit provisions for spending authority• Consider the triad of accountability flexibility and efficiency • Consider the triad of accountability, flexibility, and efficiency

and structure funding accordingly• Consider short term planning timeframe (FY12) and long-term

implementation issues (FY13 and beyond)p ( 3 y )• Plan for the time related to recruitment and orientation of new

stakeholder groups that make funding decisions• Build in staffing and evaluation (administrative) provisions

St t t d t t d t t t l i• Statutory amendments to respond to structural issues• Unspent funds carrying over to next FY rather than being

absorbed into general state funds• Acknowledge the need (and limitations) of data-driven • Acknowledge the need (and limitations) of data-driven

treatment needs

Glenn A. TapiaDirector Office of Community CorrectionsDirector, Office of Community CorrectionsDivision of Criminal Justice

Phone: 303.239.4448Mobile: 303.704.9277

l t i @ d t tglenn.tapia@cdps.state.co.us