What works in reentry findings from the svori multi site evaluation
Sponsored Links
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
1 / 43

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


  • 87 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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 the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation. Funded by NIJ Grant No. 2004-RE-CX-0002.

Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


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


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


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


SVORI Logic Model


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


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


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.”


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?


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


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)


Population Characteristics30 Days Prior to Release


Implementation

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


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


Coordination Services Receipt: Men

Note: Average bundle scores weighted to compensate for differences between groups.

* p < 0.05.


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.


Selected Transition Services Receipt: Men

Note: Average bundle scores weighted to compensate for differences between groups.

* p < 0.05.


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.


Employment/Education/SkillsBuilding Services: Men

Note: Average bundle scores weighted to compensate for differences between groups.

* p < 0.05.


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.


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.


Little Site Variation in NeedsEmployment/Education/Skills Bundle

Source: Wave 1 interviews with adult males


Much Variation in Service ReceiptEmployment/Education/Skills Bundle

Source: Wave 1 interviews with adult males


Impact: Did the SVORI Programs Make A Difference?


Remember the Logic Model


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


Housing Independence


Currently Support Self with Job


Job Has Benefits*

*Benefits = paid leave or health insurance


Job Has Formal Pay


No Self-reported Drug Use Past 30 Days


No Self-reported Drug Use Past 30 Days Except Marijuana


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


No Self-reported Criminal Behavior Since Last Interview


Recidivism: Men


Recidivism: Women


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


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


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


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.


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


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


www.svori-evaluation.org


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


  • Login