What Works in Reentry: Findings from the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

1. Christy A. Visher, Ph.D. University of Delaware and The Urban Institute John Jay College of Criminal Justice Prisoner Reentry Institute October 23, 2009 What Works in Reentry: Findings from theSVORI Multi-site Evaluation Funded by NIJ Grant No. 2004-RE-CX-0002

2. The Serious & Violent Offender Reentry Initiative The evaluation design and data collection Findings: Did “it” work? Challenges finding what works—for programs, for evaluators Lessons: Takeaways for reentry strategies & evaluations Overview

3. So What Was the SVOR Initiative? • In 2002, the US DOJ, DOL, ED, DHUD, and DHHS funded one round of three-year grants for state and local agencies to develop programs to improve criminal justice, employment, education, health, and housing outcomes for released prisoners • 69 agencies received Federal funds ($500,000 - $2,000,000) to develop 89 programs that • Targeted adult and juvenile populations • Incorporated partnerships among state and local agencies to provide comprehensive services to prisoners returning home • Were locally designed to meet local needs and organizational capabilities

4. SVORI Logic Model

5. SVORI Funding Came with Few Requirements • Unlike many Federal programs, SVORI grants imposed only a few requirements • Focus on “seriousandviolent offenders” 35 years of age or younger • Address different stages of reentry through services delivered (1) prior to release, (2) post release during supervision, and (3) post supervision • Base services on needs and risk assessments • Include partnerships among state and local agencies and community and faith-based organizations

6. So…What was a “SVORI Program”? • SVORI programs were locally designed to meet local needs & organizational capabilities • Most programs used assessments to tailor services & programs for program participants • SVORI was not a program in the sense of traditional programs (e.g., cognitive behavior therapy or residential drug treatment) • SVORI was a funding stream that agencies used to enhance & expand existing programs or to develop new reentry programs

7. Evaluation Challenge “…determine whether the selected programs have accomplished the overall goal of the Reentry Initiative – increasing public safety by reducing recidivism among the populations served by the program – and determine the relative costs and benefits of the program.”

8. Did SVORI Work? • What does that mean? • Were agencies able to develop & implement SVORI programs? • What did those programs look like? • Did program participants receive more services than others? • Did program participants have better outcomes?

9. SVORI Multi-site Evaluation • Implementation assessment collected multiple waves of survey data from all 89 SVORI program directors, as well as data from program participants & comparison subjects • Impact evaluation focused on SVORI participants and non-SVORI comparison subjects in 12 adult programs (11 for adult females) and 4 programs for juvenile males in 14 states • Interviews with individuals who entered SVORI programs and were released from prison between July 2004 and November 2005 • 30 days prior to release • 3, 9 and 15 months post release

10. SVORI Impact Evaluation Subjects12 Adult Programs; 4 Juvenile Programs • Wave 1 response rate: 86% • Wave 2: 58% (Men), 68% (Women), 71% (Boys) • Wave 3: 61% (Men), 71% (Women), 72% (Boys) • Wave 4: 66% (Men), 77% (Women), 74% (Boys)

11. Population Characteristics30 Days Prior to Release

12. Implementation • SVORI funds resulted in the development of local programs that provided an increase in programs and services for participants…

13. Characterizing & ComparingSVORI Programs • Coordination & Supervision: risk assessment, needs assessment, treatment/release plan, and (post-release only) supervision • Employment/Education/Skills Building: education/GED/ tutoring/literacy, vocational training, employment referral/job placement, resume/interviewing skills, work release, cognitive skills development, life skills • Health Services: AA/NA, counseling, comprehensive AOD treatment, mental health, medical, dental, anger mgmt/violence counseling • Transition Services: legal, id assistance, benefits assistance, financial support/ emergency assistance, peer support, mentoring, housing, and (post-release only) transportation • Family Services: parenting skills, family counseling, family reunification, domestic violence services Service Bundles

14. Coordination Services Receipt: Men Note: Average bundle scores weighted to compensate for differences between groups. * p < 0.05.

15. Service Receipt: Men Coordination Services Bundle • Needs assessment • Case manager • Treatment/release plan or help reintegrating • P/P supervision (post-release only) Note: Average bundle scores weighted to compensate for differences between groups. * p < 0.05.

16. Selected Transition Services Receipt: Men Note: Average bundle scores weighted to compensate for differences between groups. * p < 0.05.

17. Service Needs & Receipt: Men Transitional Services Bundle • Legal • Financial • Health care • Mentoring • Employment documents • Housing • Transportation • Driver’s license • Clothes/food banks • Program/class to prepare for release (prerelease only) Note: Average bundle scores weighted to compensate for differences between groups. * p < 0.05.

18. Employment/Education/SkillsBuilding Services: Men Note: Average bundle scores weighted to compensate for differences between groups. * p < 0.05.

19. Service Needs & Receipt: Men Employment/Education/Skills Bundle • Education/ vocational training • Employment services • Life skills • Personal relationships • Change criminal behavior attitudes • Money management Note: Average bundle scores weighted to compensate for differences between groups. * p < 0.05.

20. Implementation • SVORI funds resulted in the development of local programs that provided an increase in programs and services for participants…according to the SVORI Program Directors. • Our impact site respondents confirmed more services for those participating in programs. • Self-reported need was similar across sites…self-reported service receipt varied.

21. Little Site Variation in NeedsEmployment/Education/Skills Bundle Source: Wave 1 interviews with adult males

22. Much Variation in Service ReceiptEmployment/Education/Skills Bundle Source: Wave 1 interviews with adult males

23. Impact: Did the SVORI Programs Make A Difference?

24. Remember the Logic Model

25. Did SVORI Work?Approach • Overall, our SVORI and non-SVORI groups are similar although there are a few differences • Propensity score models were estimated to address observable differences in SVORI & Non-SVORI with respect to assignment to SVORI • Propensity score weighted models were estimated to determine effect of SVORI participation on outcomes

26. Housing Independence

27. Currently Support Self with Job

28. Job Has Benefits* *Benefits = paid leave or health insurance

29. Job Has Formal Pay

30. No Self-reported Drug Use Past 30 Days

31. No Self-reported Drug Use Past 30 Days Except Marijuana

32. No Self-reported Drug Use Past 30 Days or Positive Test

33. No Self-reported Criminal Behavior Since Last Interview

34. Recidivism: Men

35. Recidivism: Women

36. Issues & Challenges: For Reentry Programs • Participant needs are multi-faceted • Implementation means identifying, developing, and providing a range of services often in collaboration and cooperation with multiple agencies and organizations—which is difficult • Services should be customized to individual participants based on needs and risks—there is no one “program” to be implemented

37. Issues and Challenges: For Evaluators • Services are customized to individual participants based on needs and risks—there is no one “program” to be evaluated • Programs vary from location to location in response to available resources and service providers • Characteristics of participants across programs may vary, either because of targeting by administrators or underlying demographic differences in populations

38. Conclusions • SVORI: Ambitious effort to improve integrated, individually targeted services through coordination of state & community agencies & organizations • SVORI participants were more likely to report receiving services pre and post release—although at levels far below 100% • From release through 15 months post release, SVORI participants are doing better—if only moderately so—across a wide range of outcomes • Official measures of recidivism show little difference in arrest & reincarceration rates, although we see • slightly lower rearrest rates • slightly higher reincarceration rates

39. Lessons for the Field • Modest funding focused on improving coordination and developing reentry strategy can result in substantial increases in services. • Improvement in services leads to modest gains in outcomes. • Incomplete implementation of service components may explain modest outcomes. • Critical component: careful, systematic assessment of needs and matching of services • Continuity of service delivery! • SVORI was first major attempt to develop and deliver systematic reentry strategy.

40. A Cautionary Note “Services can assist the individual in sustaining recovery, but only if the client has the capacity and readiness to constructively utilize those services.” George De Leon

41. Post Script • There are no “silver bullets”! • Federal funding has been a series of one-time efforts with different foci and population targets since 2001: • SVORI (2002) -- DOJ • Prisoner Reentry Initiative (2005) -- DOL • Responsible Fatherhood, Marriage and Family Strengthening (2006) -- HHS • Second Chance (2009) -- DOJ • State funding for corrections has always been small & is now buffeted by budget shortfalls that threaten to eliminate gains in those states that have invested in reentry • SVORI was a good start – a place to build

42. www.svori-evaluation.org

43. For Women and Juvenile Males • Levels of self-reported need were similar for the SVORI and non-SVORI groups for both the adult females and the juvenile male subjects • Women participating in SVORI programs were much more likely to report receipt of services and substantial differences persisted for many services through the 15-month follow-up interview • Juvenile males, overall, reported much higher levels of service receipt than the adults—particularly, pre-release—and there were many fewer differences in the likelihood of service receipt between the SVORI and non-SVORI groups