The Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant (MIOCRG) Program

1
The Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant
(MIOCRG) Program

• The Projects and Statewide Evaluation Findings

2
Introduction

• Impetus Jails have become primary treatment
  facilities for persons with mental illness
• Goal Enhance understanding of what works in
  reducing recidivism among these offenders
• Vehicle Grants supporting implementation and
  evaluation of locally developed projects (30 in
  26 counties over 80 million)

3
The Projects

• Most projects focused on post-custody
  interventions
• Nearly two-thirds drew upon ACT model
  (multidisciplinary staffing, team approach, low
  client-staff ratios, individually tailored
  services, 24-hour access, etc.)
• Nine mental health courts/calendars

4
The Projects (continued)

• Multidisciplinary teams typically included mental
  health case manager and probation officer. Some
  included a psychiatrist, nurse, substance abuse
  counselor and/or benefits specialist.
• Populations served varied in terms of eligible
  diagnoses and criminal justice history half of
  counties specifically targeted dually diagnosed
  offenders.

5
Our Analyses

• CSA (formerly BOC) staff conducted three analyses
  for statewide evaluation
• 1) Determine differences in outcomes between
  individuals who received enhanced treatment vs.
  treatment as usual
• 2) Examine extent to which magnitude of
  treatment effect was related to subgroups of
  participants
• 3) Assess relationship between outcomes and
  extent of projects fidelity to ACT

6
Our Data and Sample Size

• Common data elements provided information on
  participants, nature and frequency of services
  provided, and criminal justice quality of life
  outcomes
• ACT Fidelity analysis included project staffs
  ratings on DACTS
• N 4,741 (20 projects with appropriate research
  design adequate comparison group)

7
Our Hypothesis

• Data showed that persons receiving enhanced
  treatment (ET), when compared to those receiving
  treatment as usual (TAU), were
• 1) More comprehensively evaluated re mental
  functioning treatment needs
• 2) Provided more comprehensive post-custody
  services and more quickly
• 3) Monitored more closely in community
• Testing examined effect of this ET on 14 criminal
  justice and quality of life variables

8
What We Learned Analysis 1

• Better criminal justice (CJ) outcomes for
  individuals receiving ET booked less often,
  convicted less often, and convicted of less
  serious offenses than TAU group (all
  statistically significant results)
• Fewer individuals receiving ET served time in
  jail (approaching significance) and, when they
  did, they were in jail for fewer days than TAU
  group (statistically significant)

9
Table A CJ Outcomes
10
What We Learned continued

• Better quality of life (QL) outcomes ET offered
  through projects helped improve ability of
  offenders with a mental illness to function
  productively independently in the community
  evidenced by a statistically significant,
  positive effect on five of six QL outcome
  variables drug problem, alcohol problem, GAF
  score, homelessness, and economic
  self-sufficiency

11
Table B QL Outcomes
12
What We Learned Analysis 2

• Focused on 4 factors that appeared to have
  strongest interaction with treatment effects
  age, criminal intensity (CI), substance abuse,
  and employment.
• CI Based on frequency and severity of bookings
  during the three 12-month periods prior to
  program participation as well as severity of
  qualifying booking leading to entry into MIOCRG
  program.
• Analysis investigated relationship between these
  factors and two outcome measures Any Booking and
  GAF Change.
• ET clearly more effective with certain subgroups

13
What We Learned continued

• Any Booking Better results (all statistically
  significant) for participants 30 years and older
  than those lt30. Positive treatment effect size
  increased with CI score and largest effect found
  with older participants with high CI scores.
• GAF Score Larger treatment effects occurred with
  older participants with medium high CI
  scores interaction between age GAF score not
  as dramatic as with Any Booking outcome.

14
What We Learned Analysis 3

• Ratings on three subscales of DACTS obtained from
  project staff then assigned into low, medium and
  high categories based on total score
  considerable variation in degree of ACTness
  among 20 projects.
• Examined effect of adherence to ACT on outcomes
  for ET TAU groups. Also examined program-level
  correlations.
• Analyses found that degree of ACTness was
  associated with desired program effects.

15
What We Learned continued

• Eight of nine statistically significant
  differences between ET TAU groups on CJ
  outcomes were found for medium or high ACT
  programs.
• Similar patterns of results for outcomes of drug
  and alcohol use GAF score changes.
• For housing, only significant difference in
  desired direction was for medium ACT programs no
  evidence that degree of ACTness was associated
  with ET/TAU differences on employment economic
  self-sufficiency outcomes.

16
Successful Strategies

• Interagency collaboration
• Multi-disciplinary teams
• Intensive case management
• Involvement of, and with, the court
• Mental health courts
• Benefits and housing assistance
• Medication management
• Clinic or center based services
• Transportation
• Peer support

17
Possible Funding Opportunities

• SAMHSA grants (adults juveniles)
• http//www.samhsa.gov/grants06/
• US DOJ grants (adults and juveniles)
• http//www.ojp.usdoj.gov/fundopps.htm
• MHSA (adults juveniles) DMH
• Title II grants (juveniles only) CSA
• JJCPA (juveniles only) CSA
• JPCF (juveniles only) CSA

18
For More Information. . .

• Statewide Evaluation Report
• Project Evaluations by Counties (Directory)
• http//www.bdcorr.ca.gov/cppd/miocrg/miocrg.htm
• Lynda Frost, Field Representative
• Corrections Standards Authority
• 916/445-4099
• Lynda.frost_at_cdcr.ca.gov