Services Work Group Meeting February 26, 2014

Transcription

1 Meeting February 26, 2014 Session Notes I. PARTICIPANTS Lisa Brueggeman, Rhiannon Edwards, Robin Eutz, Jill Fuqua, Dr. Willie Jenkins CSI Staff: Lena Hackett, April Schmid II. RELATED DOCUMENTS - Re-Entry Policy Study Commission Report - Re-Entry Policy Study Commission Services Recommendations III. NEW INDIVIDUAL ACTION COMMITMENTS Name Action(s) With Whom By When Lisa Brueggeman Robin Eutz Jill Fuqua Convene meeting to discuss what happens when ATR is gone Update status of ATR application with state Recovery supports gaps identified, send to Lena/April Send April bill information on mental health pilot Directors of agencies utilizing ATR Lena Community Solutions As soon as can be scheduled Upon receipt of info 1 week 1 week Contribution to Result IV. DISCUSSION History of MCRC - MCRC started as the Leadership in Action (LAP) in The LAP model was mostly used in early childhood development, but Annie E Casey Foundation saw an opportunity to apply the framework to re-entry and funded the project for 3 years - With the LAP model, mid-level managers (those who have a sphere of influence and can commit the time and effort) are convened around a specific result the goal is to align the work of members to make system-level change - Recidivism and re-arrest rates were identified as indicators - When funding went away, the LAP became MCRC members were trained in project management and facilitation, and were planning to keep the work moving - Though the work continued, it moved at a slower pace

2 - One year ago, the City County Council convened the Re-Entry Study Commission - MCRC served as a resource to that group, providing information on everything that had been done through the LAP/MCRC and many MCRC members became Study Commission members - The Study Commission outlined 26 recommendations in their report, and identified MCRC as the group to carry those recommendations forward - United Way of Indiana stepped up and asked CICF for funding to offer staff support to MCRC in implementing the recommendations - Community Solutions was chosen to fill that role based on their history with the group - In January, MCRC reviewed the Study Commission recommendations and decided to reorganize the group around the 26 recommendations, narrowing it down to 5 work groups (employment, housing, policy, sentencing, and support services) - MCRC meets every other month, work group schedules will vary all are invited to join the full MCRC, just ask that members sign a membership commitment form - MCRC is all about action commitments and moving talk to action, so members should be willing to commit to that Indianapolis Rapid Response Team (IRRT) - Jill asked how the IRRT fits into the picture - IRRT is more focused on direct service delivery, while MCRC is more about systems change - Don Hawkins is coordinating IRRT meetings - Dr. Jenkins thought it might be a good idea to explore merging the work of the two groups - Group agreed that the crossover between MCRC and IRRT should be discussed at the next MCRC meeting Review of Structure of Recommendations Matrix - Each workgroup has a specific result they are working toward. For the services work group, the focus on evidence-based programming is key - Far left column (Opportunity): Letter corresponds to the letter of the recommendation in study commission report, were ranked based on what is most desired or effective and what is easiest to achieve - Initial Action Steps: suggestions on first steps in moving the recommendation forward - Implementation Contact Person/Org: Identified by Council as the individual/agency to help move the recommendation forward, all have been notified about the work groups and some are engaged - Commission Final Report Topics: Columns coincide with the titles of Study Commission sessions, each recommendation may hit multiple areas

3 Review of Each Service Recommendation Recommendation F: Re-entry Packets - Idea is that all personal information (driver s license and other personal documents) follows the offender through the system, so it s readily available when they are released - Right now, they rely on families to hold the information not always ideal - The packet could go to RDC and then to Central office, since they have a file on each individual already - Initially, there was movement on recommendation, but stopped with DOC (likely thought there would be too much of a fiscal impact) - This has been done elsewhere, so there s a precedent for it Recommendation L: Corrections Agencies Should Provide a Continuum of Services for Re-entrants - When offenders are released, they typically receive 30 days of meds and a 30 day prescription while many community mental health centers have a 90 day waiting list - There has been resistance to providing a 60 scripts based on concerns that individuals will sell the meds or lose the prescription - The seriously mentally ill (SMI) population is generally the only one to receive a warm hand off - Discussed the idea of using mentors to follow the individual for 6-8 months post release and assist with connecting them to services o ATR is a model could be used possibly use mentors as care coordinators, but would need to determine how to get the referral from DOC prior to release, since most are referred from probation/parole - Group agreed that they should convene SA/MH providers (Cummins, Adult and Child, Gallahue, Midtown) to get the full picture on wait lists, barriers Recommendation U: Access to Recovery - Status of the ATR4 application: DOC and DMHA collaborating on application, have applied for approval from Governor s office to apply, DMHA intends to apply if they receive approval - Half as many awards will be available for ATR4 very competitive - The ATR team has been working with DOC on CJ outcomes: DOC decided to use returns rather than recidivism (since 3 years are necessary to meet recidivism definition) preliminary data looks favorable - If DMHA gets approval to apply, there will be no major changes to proposal (same geographic service areas and target populations)

4 - There have been some issues with provider compliance that the ATR team is working to resolve - What are we going to do with the downtime from ATR (or if it goes away)? Should we look at other avenues to sustain ATR? Costs approximately $1,200-$1,400/client, possible that funders will have some reservation about supporting since DOC is not committing money to a model that should be decreasing their costs Recommendation O: Comprehensive Resource Application to Provide to Returning Offenders - Group should consider modifying this recommendation since changes happen so often and the resources available are different depending on population (e.g. sex offenders) - Might be better to build the capacity at 211 or build a helpline at an agency like PACE - Need a real-time tool rather than a publication P: Establish Evidence-based Best Practices for Social Service Providers, Better Coordination of Standards - Should develop a framework and train funders to ask the right questions and evaluate programs to ensure that they are following up on the identified outcomes - Policy Work Group obtained a resource used in Ohio that might be helpful to this group (April will send) - it s a required application for all agencies that work with the criminal justice system - Can DMHA have a set of standards for recovery support providers similar to what is used for treatment providers? - Is there an agency that would be a more fitting certifying body for support providers? Possibly United Way - May want to engage UWCI funders group to discuss T: Provisional Driver s License - Lots of barriers to this and would be difficult to monitor - Alternative: look at better/cheaper transportation options - May want to find a research student that can determine whether there is a precedent for this Y: Establish Treatment Options for Low-Cost Walk-in Addiction Assistance, Lockdown Detoxification, and MH Assistance - Capacity issues not enough detox providers

5 - Jill said that DMHA has a mental health and addiction advisory council with a recovery support committee and agreed to provide information on recovery support gaps in funding - Lisa expressed a desire for a one-stop shop where someone could go to get various services (or be connected to them) o Recovery Engagement Center Bloomington, IN (Centerstone) is a good model to consider o Ohio Cleveland/Akron - Oriental House ( part of ATR) pre-release facility o Community Centers don t have the expertise to work with exoffenders currently, could either train individuals or station re-entry staff at each location on certain days - Should engage the IRRT treatment work group on this recommendation Review of Individual Action Commitment Form - Purpose of action commitment form is to document the individual actions each member commits to at each meeting. The group will review the status of individual action commitment at the next meeting. Who else should be engaged in the work of the group? - Dean Babcock (Lisa to contact) V. NEXT STEPS 1. Invite stakeholders to next services work group meeting (All) 2. Engage the IRRT in recommendation Y and discuss potential overlap of MCRC and IRRT at next MCRC meeting (Jill) 3. Design mental health/substance abuse conversation and convene providers (Jill to engage Mick Scheonradt with Corizon, April to engage Eric Davis with Life Recovery Center) 4. Monitor ATR application progress (Robin) 5. Convene treatment providers working with probation to come up with a contingency plan for ATR (Lisa) 6. Reach out to UWCI about certification process for recovery support providers (Lena) 7. Determine gaps in funding based on work of the MH and Addiction Advisory Council s Recovery Support Work Group (Jill) 8. Review Ohio s re-entry provider application in relationship to recommendation P (All) Next Meeting March 26 th from 10-11:30am