HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 05112015 - PPC Agenda Pkt
PUBLIC PROTECTION
COMMITTEE
May 11, 2015
1:00 P.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor John Gioia, Chair
Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair
Agenda
Items:
Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference
of the Committee
1.Introductions
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
3. APPROVE Record of Action from the April 13, 2015 meeting. (Page 3)
4. CONSIDER accepting a report titled "Contra Costa County: Evaluation of AB 109
Programs" by Resource Development Associates (RDA), the County's consultant on
data and program evaluation related to AB 109 pubic safety realignment. (Lara
DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator) (Page 8)
5. CONSIDER accepting recommendations of the Review Panels with regard to contract
awards from the Requests for Proposals (RFP) issued for the Community Recidivism
Reduction Grants. and forward funding recommendations to the Board of Supervisors
for the period July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016. (Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County
Administrator) (Page 199)
6. CONSIDER accepting a status report from the District Attorney and the Employment
and Human Services Director on Public Assistance Fraud investigation and prosecution
efforts within the County. (Mark Peterson, District Attorney & Kathy Gallagher, EHS
Director) (Page 237)
7. CONSIDER accepting report on the status of the Gas Shut-Off Device ordinance in
Contra Costa County. (Jason Crapo, Conservation and Development Department)
(Page 255)
8.The next meeting is currently scheduled for June 8, 2015.
9.Adjourn
The Public Protection Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with
disabilities planning to attend Public Protection Committee meetings. Contact the staff person
listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and
distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Public Protection Committee less than
96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor,
during normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day
prior to the published meeting time.
For Additional Information Contact:
Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1036, Fax (925) 646-1353
timothy.ewell@cao.cccounty.us
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:05/11/2015
Subject:RECORD OF ACTION - April 13, 2015
Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: RECORD OF ACTION - April 13, 2015
Presenter: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff Contact: Timothy Ewell, (925) 335-1036
Referral History:
County Ordinance requires that each County body keep a record of its meetings. Though the
record need not be verbatim, it must accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the
meeting.
Referral Update:
Attached for the Committee's consideration is the Record of Action for its April 13, 2015 meeting.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
APPROVE Record of Action from the April 13, 2015 meeting.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impart. This item is informational only.
Attachments
Record of Action - April 2015
Page 3 of 256
PUBLIC PROTECTION
COMMITTEE
April 13, 2015
1:00 P.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor John Gioia, Chair
Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair
Agenda Items:Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee
Present: John Gioia, Chair
Absent: Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair
Staff Present:David J. Twa , County Administrator
Timothy M. Ewell, Committee Staff
Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator
Robert Rogers, District I Staff
Jill Ray, District II Staff
Lindy Lavendar, District IV Staff
Ed Diokno, District V Staff
Elise Warren, Assistant Sheriff
Bani Kollo, Captain
Rick Kovar, Sheriff's OES
Marcelle Indelicato, Sheriff's OES
Heather Tiernan, Community Warning System Manager
Phil Kader, County Probation Officer
Steve Bolen, Deputy District Attorney
Vana Tran , Senior Management Analyst
Donte Blue, County Reentry Coordinator
Kathy Narasaki, Central/East County Network Manager
Patty Grant, Director of Inmate Services
Chrystine Robbins, Sheriff's Office
1.Introductions
Convene - 1:00 PM
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
No public comment
Page 4 of 256
3.APPROVE Record of Action from the March 9, 2015 meeting.
Approved as presented.
AYE: Chair John Gioia
Other: Vice Chair Federal D. Glover (ABSENT)
Passed
4.APPROVE the Contra Costa County Emergency Operations Plan and forward to the
Board of Supervisors for adoption.
Approved as presented with the following direction to staff:
1. Forward to the Board of Supervisors for approval as a discussion item
2. Include in report to the Board of Supervisors additional information about annex
plans that supplement the Countywide Emergency Operations Plan.
Chair John Gioia,
AYE: Chair John Gioia
Other: Vice Chair Federal D. Glover (ABSENT)
Passed
5.ACCEPT a report on the status of the Community Warning System, including the
Telephone Electronic Notification System (TENS).
Approved as presented with the following directions to staff:
1. Return to the Committee in 3-6 months for an update specifically on outreach efforts to residents
within the County where English is not the primary language.
2. Confer with Health Services Department-Media Relations regarding outlets that can assist with
outreach efforts to residents within the County where English is not the primary
language.
Chair John Gioia,
AYE: Chair John Gioia
Other: Vice Chair Federal D. Glover (ABSENT)
Passed
6.ACCEPT a report on the status on the coordination of response to disasters and other
public emergencies between the County, other public agencies and community groups.
Approved as presented with the following direction to staff:
1. Work with the California Office of Spill Prevention Response to pre-register
interested Contra Costa County residents as volunteers in the case of future disaster
response efforts.
Page 5 of 256
Chair John Gioia,
AYE: Chair John Gioia
Other: Vice Chair Federal D. Glover (ABSENT)
Passed
7.ACCEPT recommendations from the Community Advisory Board (CAB) related to the
provision of mentoring and family reunification services to returning citizens.
Approved as presented with the following direction to staff:
1. Keep budget at $200,000 total
2. Allocate $110,000 to Men and Women of Purpose and $90,000 to Center for
Human Development
3. Forward recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for approval
Chair John Gioia,
AYE: Chair John Gioia
Other: Vice Chair Federal D. Glover (ABSENT)
Passed
8.1. ACCEPT the Report and recommendations therein;
2. DETERMINE whether the eligible population would include Parolees or not OR
phased in later;
3. DIRECT the County Administrator's Office to develop contracts that make service
expansion optional for contractors, is guided by the population prioritization outlined in
the recommendations, and the period for determining available capacity negotiated
between CAO and contractor.
Approved as recommended with the following direction to staff:
1. Continue to develop a tiered system for access to services with priority to AB 109
returning citizens
2. Amend contracts with service providers to contemplate a larger population that
can access services with no increase to contract amounts.
AYE: Chair John Gioia
Other: Vice Chair Federal D. Glover (ABSENT)
Passed
9.RECOMMEND Mr. Roosevelt Terry for appointment to the Community Based
Organization seat on the CY 2015 Community Corrections Partnership.
Approved as presented.
Chair John Gioia,
AYE: Chair John Gioia
Other: Vice Chair Federal D. Glover (ABSENT)
Page 6 of 256
Passed
10.The next meeting is currently scheduled for May 11, 2015 at 1:00 PM.
11.Adjourn
Adjourned - 2:32 PM
The Public Protection Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Public Protection
Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of
members of the Public Protection Committee less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street,
10th floor, during normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time.
For Additional Information Contact:
Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1036, Fax (925) 646-1353
timothy.ewell@cao.cccounty.us
Page 7 of 256
PUBLIC PROTECTION
COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:05/11/2015
Subject:Presentation of Report "Contra Costa County: Evaluation of AB 109
Programs"
Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: AB 109 Implementation
Presenter: Mikaela Rabinowitz,
RDA
Contact: Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County
Administrator
Referral History:
The Community Corrections Partnership has allocated funding in the County Administrators'
Office budget request to provide for comprehensive data collection and program evaluation
services. The County conducted a public request for proposals process and secured the services of
Resource Development Associates in 2013.
Since that time, RDA has been assisting the County and the CCP with critical AB 109 program
review and analysis. The focus for FY 2014/15 has been program services provided by
community based organizations and the development of data dashboards for use by certain AB
109 stakeholders. For FY 2015/16, RDA will be working on program reviews of county
departments.
On March 6, 2015, the CCP received a presentation on the draft findings from this report.
Referral Update:
Today's presentation will be on findings from a review of programs implemented by community
based organizations. RDA program staff will be making the presentation and will be available for
questions from the PPC.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
1. ACCEPT report titled "Contra Costa County: Evaluation of AB 109 Programs" by Resource
Development Associates (RDA); and
2. PROVIDE feedback as appropriate
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact.Page 8 of 256
No fiscal impact.
Attachments
PowerPoint Presentation
Executive Summary: "Contra Costa County: Evaluation of AB 109 Programs", May 2015
Final Report: "Contra Costa County: Evaluation of AB 109 Programs", May 2015
Page 9 of 256
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
EVALUATION OF AB 109 PROGRAMS
Presentation of Draft Report to the CCP
March 6, 2015
Mikaela Rabinowitz, Ph.D.
Alison Hamburg, MPH, MPA
Page 10 of 256
Agenda
2
Evaluation Overview
• Objectives
• Methods
• Context
Evaluation Findings
• Key Findings
• Program Strengths and Facilitators of Client Success
• Program Challenges and Barriers to Client Success
• Program-Level Findings
Recommendations
Questions
Page 11 of 256
Evaluation Overview
3
• RDA began working with the County in November
2013 to evaluate the implementation of AB 109 and
assess the County’s capacity for long-term evaluation
Project Background
• Evaluate the implementation and preliminary outcomes
of the County’s contracted AB 109 community-based
organizations (CBOs)
• Time period: July 1, 2013 - September 30, 2014
Current Evaluation
Page 12 of 256
Evaluation Objectives
4
Assess extent to which participants in contracted
programs achieve short- and medium-term outcomes
Such as stable housing, job placement and retention,
and family reunification
Identify factors that facilitate or inhibit providers’
abilities to achieve client outcomes
Understand strengths and challenges that are
similar across organizations, as well as for each
individual organization
Page 13 of 256
Evaluation Focus: Phase 1
5
Program
Activities
County
programs and
services
Supervision
and law
enforcement
practices
Data collection
Community-
based
programs and
services
Short-Term
Outcomes
Improvement
in coordination
of services
and referrals
Increased
access and
utilization of
services and
programs
Intermediate
Outcomes
Improvement
in outcomes
such as mental
health,
substance use,
housing,
employment,
and family
reunification
Successful
completion of
supervision
Long-Term
Outcomes
Decreased
recidivism
Increased
quality of life
for AB 109
individuals
Financial
savings for
County
Impact
Thriving
individuals,
families, and
communities
Increased
public safety
Fiscally
sustainable
government
and service
providers
Focus of Phase 1 Evaluation
Page 14 of 256
Evaluation Focus: Phase 2
6
Program
Activities
County
programs and
services
Supervision
and law
enforcement
practices
Data collection
Community-
based programs
and services
Short-Term
Outcomes
Improvement
in coordination
of services
and referrals
Increased
access and
utilization of
services and
programs
Intermediate
Outcomes
Improvement
in outcomes
such as mental
health,
substance use,
housing,
employment,
and family
reunification
Successful
completion of
supervision
Long-Term
Outcomes
Decreased
recidivism
Increased
quality of life
for AB 109
individuals
Financial
savings for
County
Impact
Thriving
individuals,
families, and
communities
Increased
public safety
Fiscally
sustainable
government
and service
providers
Focus of AB109 Program Evaluation
Page 15 of 256
Evaluation Focus: Phase 2
7
Program
Activities
County
programs and
services
Community-
based
programs and
services
Supervision
and law
enforcement
practices
Data collection
Short-Term
Outcomes
Improvement
in coordination
of services
and referrals
Increased
access and
utilization of
services and
programs
Intermediate
Outcomes
Improvement
in outcomes
such as mental
health,
substance use,
housing,
employment,
and family
reunification
Successful
completion of
supervision
Long-Term
Outcomes
Decreased
recidivism
Increased
quality of life
for AB 109
individuals
Financial
savings for
County
Impact
Thriving
individuals,
families, and
communities
Increased
public safety
Fiscally
sustainable
government
and service
providers
In progress – will be completed June 2015
Page 16 of 256
Evaluation Methods
8
Quantitative Data
Collection
•From CBOs: Client
referrals,
enrollment, ser vice
provision and short-
term outcomes
•From Probation:
Referrals to CBOs
and County
departments;
clients’ risks and
needs as assessed
by the CAIS
Focus Groups with
Program Participants
• Participants’
experience with
program referral
and enrollment,
service delivery,
successes and
barriers
Interviews and Focus
Groups with Program
Providers
• Initial overview of
service delivery
model and data
collection
• Discussion of
referrals and
enrollment,
facilitators of and
barriers to
program success,
and communication
and coordination
Page 17 of 256
Evaluation Context
9
1,103 AB 109 clients under
supervision at any point
between July 1, 2013 and
Sept. 30, 2014
612 individuals began
supervision during this time
period
455 individuals were referred
by Probation to CBOs
Of these, 347 (76%)
engaged in services
1,103
individuals
under
supervision
455
individuals
referred to
any CBO
347
individuals
engaged in
any CBO
Page 18 of 256
Program Referrals and Enrollments
10
Referral Location Individuals
Referred1
Individuals
Enrolled2
Bay Area Legal Aid3 45 61
Center for Human
Development4
n/a 35
Goodwill Industries 136 77
Men and Women of
Purpose4
n/a 75
Mentoring 126 n/a
Reach4 n/a 25
Rubicon 253 164
Shelter, Inc.238 115
Total 799 552
[1]This is according to referral records extracted from the Probation Department’s Access Database. The total number
includes clients who were referred to multiple programs.
[2]This is according to CBO reported data. The total number includes clients who enrolled in multiple programs.
[3]BayLegal data shows 71 referrals. The difference in referral numbers recorded by Probation and by BayLegal may
be the result of referrals BayLegal receives directly from Rubicon as a subcontractor.
[4]Prior to October 2014, referrals to mentoring programs went through the County Office of Education (CCCOE).
Page 19 of 256
Key Findings
11
CCC has made enormous
progress toward building an AB
109 reentry infrastructure that
combines supportive supervision
practices and essential
community-based services to
ease clients transition to the
community
Despite progress, the reentry
infrastructure is still a work in
progress with various elements
still changing and emerging
(e.g., Network, Reentry center,
data systems) and ongoing
challenges with the referral
process
Housing and employment are in
high demand; Goodwill,
Rubicon, and Shelter, Inc. each
have more service referrals than
all mentoring programs
combined, yet actual jobs and
housing are limited
Providers identified the referral
process and unmet substance use
needs as key barriers to
successful service provision
Programs appear to best
support clients when they
combine benefits such as
housing, employment, and
barrier removal with
individualized case
management and guidance
Limited pre-release access has
hampered programs’ ability to
educate individuals about
available services and promote
post-release engagement
Page 20 of 256
Program Strengths and Facilitators of
Client Success
12
Program-level factors
• Flexible program models
• Provision of material
benefits
• Combination of structured
services and individualized
assistance
• Coordination and
collaboration
• Data capacity
• Client satisfaction
AB 109 system level factors
• Supportive approach to
supervision and
availability of services
• Pre-release contact
• Coordination of services
Page 21 of 256
Program Challenges and Barriers to
Client Success
13
Program-level
factors
• Time required for
program startup
• Program capacity
• Data capacity
• Program fit to
range of client
needs
AB 109 system
level factors
• Service referrals
• Pre-release access
• Communication and
coordination
• Gaps in available
services, in
particular
transportation,
food, and housing
assistance
Broader
structural issues
• Housing and
employment for
individuals with
felony convictions
• Access to
government
assistance
• Resolution of
suspended driver’s
licenses
Page 22 of 256
1.Bay Area Legal Aid
2.Center for Human Development
3.Goodwill
4.Men and Women of Purpose
5.Reach
6.Rubicon
7.Shelter, Inc.
Program Strengths & Challenges14
Page 23 of 256
•Provide legal services for AB 109 clients and
educate them about their rights in the areas of:
•1) obtaining or retaining housing, 2) public benefits, 3) health
care, 4) family law, 5) financial and debt assistance, and 6)
suspended driver’s licenses
•Serve as a subcontractor for Rubicon
•No target numbers set
Bay Area Legal Aid15
Page 24 of 256
Bay Area Legal Aid
Accomplishments July 2013 - September 2014
16
Service Delivery Client Outcomes
74 referrals received (45 from
Probation)
61 unduplicated clients served
48% (n=29) received employment
assistance
21% (n=13) received family law
services
11% (n=7) received benefits
assistance
Housing, healthcare, assistance
with financial matters, or
miscellaneous assistance were
provided to fewer 4 people each
31 clients received advice and
counsel or brief services
26 cases were still pending at the
time of data collection
4 clients received full
representation; all had a favorable
outcome
Page 25 of 256
Bay Area Legal Aid
Strengths and Challenges
17
Strengths
• Critical legal assistance including
accompanying clients to
appointments
• Co-location of services and
coordination of referrals with other
AB 109 CBOs
• Improved capacity to engage and
follow-up with clients by leveraging
organization’s intake coordinator
• Electronic case management system
to track referrals, enrollments,
services provided, and case
outcomes
Challenges
• Timely communication with clients
due to staff schedules and client
communication patterns
• Referrals not always matched with
the specific type of legal services
the program provides
• Access to conduct pre-release
workshops to educate potential
clients about their rights and
BayLegal services
Page 26 of 256
•Provide leadership and entrepreneurialism training
services
•Phase I: In-custody leadership training curriculum
•Phase II: Post-release leadership training curriculum and one-on-one
coaching
•Phase III: Collaboration with JFKU to deliver an integrated program of
leadership
•Serve as the main administrator and coordinator for the
County’s Mentoring and Family Reunification Program
•This report focuses on the organization’s direct service contract only
Brighter Beginnings18
Page 27 of 256
Brighter Beginnings
Accomplishments July 2013 - September 2014
19
Service Delivery Client Outcomes
80 participants served*
20 pre-release workshops held
12 participants received a
certificate of completion
(attended 7 or more sessions)*
2 AB 109 pre-release participants
made post-release contact
4 AB 109 participants received a
one-on-one coaching session
5 pre-release participants made a
strategic life plan*
*This number includes participants who were served prior to sentencing; participants may not have
ultimately received an AB 109 sentence.
Page 28 of 256
Brighter Beginnings
Strengths and Challenges
20
Strengths
• Curriculum based on existing
research-based programs
• Goal-setting and individualized
support in attaining personal
goals
• Information and resources to
address barriers to reentry
• Incorporation of family and
community strengthening
elements
• Capacity to record client
information and outcomes in
electronic system
Challenges
• Ability to target AB 109
participants among pre-
sentenced population
• Alignment of leadership and
entrepreneurialism training to
AB 109 client needs
• Limited program consistency and
continuity due to timing and
frequency of pre-release access
• Delays in expanding post-
release classes
• Limited follow-up with clients
post-release
Page 29 of 256
•Maintain 12 enrolled participants from the previous
contract year and enroll 24 new participants in 5-stage
family reunification process
•Recruit a minimum of 5 new volunteers, for a total for 12
continuing and new volunteers
•Provide reunification informational workshops to 15
agencies/groups
Center for Human Development21
Page 30 of 256
Center for Human Development
Accomplishments July 2013 - September 2014
22
Service Delivery Client Outcomes
32 clients referred (others pending)
24 clients received an intake
Currently working with 9 participants
21 completed Stage 1 (one-on-one
intake meeting with returning citizen;
pre or post release)
16 completed Stage 2 (one-on-one
meeting with returning citizen to
assess strengths, accomplishments,
and goals; pre or post release)
7 completed Stage 3 (meet with
returning citizen’s family or friends to
understand goals)
1 completed Stage 4 (collective
meetings with all parties to form
agreed upon plan/solutions)
0 completed Stage 5 (setting a follow-
up plan agreed upon by all parties)
Page 31 of 256
Center for Human Development
Strengths and Challenges
23
Strengths
• Flexible program model based
on researched practices in
family reunification
• Trusting and reliable
relationships with skilled
providers
• Ability for pre-release meetings
to inform clients about available
services and begin to form a
foundation of trust
• Coordination of referrals to
other services
Challenges
• Family issues outside of clients’
control that prevent reunification
• Limited paid staff; challenges
with volunteer retention
• Referral delays
• Suitability of general referrals
to “Mentoring” in FY 2013-14
Page 32 of 256
•Contracted to serve up to 120 participants in Central
County
•Up to 90 days of transitional, paid employment at local
Goodwill stores or other partner agencies, while
attending job readiness workshops
•Individualized case management and job search
assistance for competitive employment opportunities
Goodwill24
Page 33 of 256
Goodwill
Accomplishments July 2013 - September 2014
25
Service Delivery Client Outcomes
136 clients referred (per
probation)
76 clients served
45% (n=34) were contacted
within 24 hours
95% (n=72) enrolled in
transitional employment
95% (n=72) completed a job
readiness workshop
57% (n=43) obtained documents needed for
employment
92% (n=70) created or updated a resume
84% (n=64) attained a job readiness
vocational certificate
7 clients enrolled in higher education
54% (n=41) completed transitional
employment
32% (n=24) placed in an unsubsidized job
and/or educational opportunity
75% retained employment after 30 days;
46% retained employment after 60 days;
38% retained after 90 days
Page 34 of 256
Goodwill
Strengths and Challenges
26
Strengths
• Almost immediate access to
transitional employment
• Program model that supports client
engagement and skill development
through formal workshops and on-
the-job coaching
• Case management and an open
office environment to support
clients
• Job search assistance and
relationships with local employers
• Co-location of services and
referrals to other AB 109 service
providers
Challenges
• Turnover in the program
coordinator position and delay in
hiring two key staff positions
• Limited capacity to report on client
referrals and services
• Hourly pay and limited range of
transitional employment options not
ideal for all clients
• No pre-release access to educate
clients about available services
Page 35 of 256
1) Employment and Education Liaison Services
•Facilitate four in-custody employment and education workshops per month
•Work with Mentor/Navigators to assist workshop participants to obtain
documentation required to apply for employment, education, and other post-release
activities
•Screen at least 40 participants per month to assess employment and education
preparedness
2) Pre- and Post-release Mentoring Services for West County
•Provide one-on-one mentoring, as well as weekly mentoring groups that focus on
employment and recovery (no target numbers set)
•Recruit at least 50 volunteer mentors
3) Sheriff’s Office Contract: Jail-to-Community Program
•Pre-release classes, individual counseling, the creation of treatment plan and exit plan,
and documentation assistance
Men and Women of Purpose27
Page 36 of 256
Men and Women of Purpose
Accomplishments July 2013 - September 2014
28
Service Delivery Client Outcomes
145 referrals requested by MWP
92 referrals received from
Probation (others pending)
70 clients enrolled
41 clients matched with a mentor
28 clients participated in group
mentoring
Trained 43 mentors in the first
two quarters of FY 2014-15
Focus group data indicated overall
client satisfaction with
mentorship services; because
MWP did not have a method of
electronically tracking client
outcomes, the evaluation could
not confirm client outcomes
Page 37 of 256
Men and Women of Purpose
Strengths and Challenges
29
Strengths
• Pre-release contact to provide
clients with information about
resources and develop
relationships
• Close one-on-one assistance to
address participants’
individual barriers
• Coordination of referrals to
other AB 109 organizations
and resources
• Trusting relationships with staff
with similar life experiences
Challenges
• Referral delays
• Contact information for initial
contact and follow-up with
clients
• Difficulty engaging clients with
behavioral health needs
• Limited pre-release access for
one-on-one sessions with men
• Limited capacity to consistently
track data about clients and
services; difficulty quantifying
client outcomes
Page 38 of 256
1) Employment and Education Liaison Services
•Provide four workshops a month to introduce employment and educational
opportunities to participants
•Work with Mentor/Navigators to assist 50 incarcerated and returning citizens with
obtaining the paperwork required for those opportunities
•Screen at least 10 participants each month for employment and educational
preparedness
2) Sheriff’s Office contract: Jail to Community Program
•Provide up to eight participants with temporary housing; provide a maximum of 70
clients with gender-specific mentoring, family reunification, employment and job training,
assistance in shortening sentences, and health and wellness services
3) Probation Department contract: Post-release Support
•One-on-one case management, workshops, family reunification programming, housing
placement in Reach housing, and housing assistance for temporary/transitional housing
Reach30
Page 39 of 256
Reach
Accomplishments July 2013 - September 2014
31
Service Delivery Client Outcomes
26 clients referred
(pre-release)*
23 clients served
(pre-release)
12 clients’ families were
served during client ’s
incarceration
91% (n=21) had temporary housing within
five days of release
65% (n=15) completed paperwork for
employment or education prior to release
4 clients began work or education within
two months of release
9 clients achieved reduced sentences
6 clients maintained recovery at three-
month follow up
4 clients received positive child
reunification outcomes
*This number includes participants who were served prior to sentencing and as part of Reach’s FY
2013-14 contract with the Sheriff’s Office; participants may not have ultimately received an AB 109
sentence.
Page 40 of 256
Reach
Strengths and Challenges
32
Strengths
• Gender-responsive program
model focusing on skill
building, unity, and family
stabilization
• Pre-release work to help
clients prepare emotionally
and practically for reentry
• Tailored services to meet
individual needs
• Facilitation of connections to
external resources
Challenges
• Fewer referrals than expected
• Limited capacity for consistent
follow-through with clients to
provide promised services
• Capacity to accurately and
consistently track data about
their clients and services
• In-custody workshops are over
capacity
• Limited existing resources and
services geared toward women
Page 41 of 256
•Serve up to 210 participants (120 from East County and 90
from West County) through employment support and placement
services, integrated with other supports.
•Services include:
•Pre-release engagement; job readiness workshops; educational
and vocational training; transitional employment; individualized
career coaching; legal services; financial stability services; and
domestic violence prevention and anger management
Rubicon33
Page 42 of 256
Rubicon
Accomplishments July 2013 - September 2014
34
Service Delivery Client Outcomes
362 clients referred
161 clients served
62% (n=100) engaged in career
coaching/job search assistance
75 clients enrolled in Financial
Services
2 clients enrolled in basic skills
and GED prep classes
36 clients removed barriers to employment
34 clients created or updated a resume
81% (n=63) of those who started the job
readiness curriculum completed it
41% (n=41) of clients who engaged in
career coaching subsequently engaged in
transitional employment, vocational
training, or subsidized employment
32% (n=32) of clients who engaged in
career coaching subsequently obtained
competitive employment
81% retained employment for 30 days
63% retained employment for 60 days
Page 43 of 256
Rubicon
Strengths and Challenges
35
Strengths
• Integration of income, employment,
financial, and other supports
• Enhanced employability through
access to vocational trainings and
transitional employment
• Combination of skill-building
workshops and individualized
assistance
• Coordinated service delivery
through formal subcontracts and
informal coordination
• Electronic case management system
to track referrals, enrollments,
services, and client outcomes
Challenges
• Contact information for initial
contact and follow-up with clients
• Difficulty engaging clients with
behavioral health needs
• Clients’ need for immediate income
hinders participation in job
readiness workshops
• Limited pre-release access for one-
on-one relationship building
• Program has capacity to serve a
greater number of clients than the
current number of referrals
Page 44 of 256
•Initiate contact with 175 clients referred from Probation; provide
eligibility screening for at least 70% of those
•Provide case management services for at least 85% of the
screened referrals
•Provide housing access assistance to at least 80% of the screened
referrals
•Provide housing placement assistance to at least 65% of those
who received case management
Shelter, Inc.36
Page 45 of 256
Shelter, Inc.
Accomplishments July 2013 - September 2014
37
Service Delivery Client Outcomes
230 clients referred
50% (n=115) were contacted and
screened for eligibility, under the
70% target
84% (n=98) received housing
access assistance, surpassing the
80% target
43% (n=50) received housing
placement assistance, over the
40% target
43% (n=50) clients secured
housing, meeting the 40% target
84% (n=42) retained housing at
six-month follow-up, meeting the
80% target
16% (n=8) had an unsuccessful
program exit at six-month follow-
up, meeting the target of less
than 20%
Page 46 of 256
Shelter, Inc.
Strengths and Challenges
38
Strengths
• Housing linkage and financial
support to maintain housing
• Case management to address
barriers and provide emotional
support
• Coordination of referrals with
Probation and other AB 109 CBOs
• Program modifications to enable
quicker housing placement by
removing need for
employment/income
Challenges
• Lack of client income to ensure
sustainable housing
• Landlord resistance to renting to
people with criminal histories, poor
credit, or eviction histories
• Client expectations don’t match
with reality
• Limited pre-release access to
educate clients about available
services and start the housing
process earlier
• More referrals for service than
they were contracted and have
capacity to provide
Page 47 of 256
Recommendations39
Page 48 of 256
1. Engage in a comprehensive planning process
to improve overall system coordination
40
Planning process should address the following issues:
Processes for triaging clients with multiple, overlapping
needs, including identification and triage of referrals
and behavioral health services.
Communication processes and information flow between
the Sheriff’s Office, Probation Department, and CBOs.
Pre-release case planning and service receipt.
Communication about available AB 109 services to
clients, providers, and probation officers.
Page 49 of 256
2. Address critical need and service gaps
41
Service gaps
Transportation assistance
Food assistance
Housing assistance
Access to Homeless Court and family law assistance
Laws, regulations, employment and housing
practices, and supply shortages
Availability of and access to competitive employment
opportunities
Availability of and access to housing
Page 50 of 256
3. Continue to enhance data collection
and monitoring capacity
42
Continue training and support in ServicePoint system
Review CBO data entry on a monthly basis
Validate CBO data entry against quarterly reports
to the CAO
Identify areas for CBO improvement and support
Page 51 of 256
Mikaela Rabinowitz
mrabinowitz@resourcedevelopment.net
510.488.4345 x114
Alison Hamburg
ahamburg@resourcedevelopment.net
510.488.4345 x123
Questions?
Page 52 of 256
Contra Costa County
Evaluation of AB 109 Programs
Prepared by:
Resource Development Associates
May 2015
Page 53 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 1
Executive Summary
Introduction
In implementing Assembly Bill (AB) 109, or Public Safety Realignment, Contra Costa County, along with
all California counties, ultimately hopes to see long-term impacts including improvements in recidivism
rates, quality of life, and fiscal efficiency. In November 2013, Contra Costa County contracted with
Resource Development Associates (RDA) to support the implementation and evaluation of the County’s
AB 109 efforts. This report builds on the first year’s efforts by evaluating the implementation and
preliminary outcomes of the County’s contracted AB 109 service providers.1
The current evaluation covered the period of time from July 1, 2013, when the AB 109 service contracts
began, through September 30, 2014, prior to the implementation of the Reentry Network for Returning
Citizens in East and Central County. In addition, Contra Costa
County’s AB 109 reentry programs and networks are still in
the process of being developed and implemented. These
findings are thus preliminary and are intended to help the
County make data-driven decisions moving forward.
It is important to note that while some AB 109 services, such
as housing assistance and employment, have very clear and
measureable outcomes, services such as mentorship and
family reunification often have intangible outcomes that are
harder to document and measure. Further, while the focus
of this report is primarily on the contracted community-
based organizations (CBOs) themselves, because the CBOs
operate as part of a larger County AB 109 reentry
infrastructure, evaluating the CBOs necessarily involves an
assessment of that infrastructure as well. Although we did
not focus on collecting data from County departments for
this report, we draw on the findings from the previous
evaluation to support our understanding and evaluation of
the County’s AB 109 reentry infrastructure.
This report presents findings on strengths and challenges
that were similar across programs, as well as strengths and
challenges for each individual CBO. Findings highlight factors
related to both the programs themselves, as well as to the
1 Given the time period of the evaluation, the evaluation includes the eight community-based organizations (CBOs)
that were contracted to provide services beginning in Fiscal Year 2013-14. It does not include the additional
organizations that were contracted beginning in Fiscal Year 2014-15.
The evaluation team collected a range
of qualitative and quantitative data.
Interviews and meetings with
service providers;
Focus groups with program
participants, including current
participants and individuals who
enrolled in programs and
subsequently discontinued
participation;
Quantitative data on client
enrollment and service provision
from service providers;
AB 109 clients’ risks and needs as
assessed by the Probation
Department using the CAIS
(Correctional Assessment and
Intervention System); and
Data on referrals to CBOs and
County departments from the
Probation Department’s electronic
case management system.
Page 54 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 2
1,103
individuals
under
supervision
455
individuals
referred to
any CBO
347
individuals
engaged in
any CBO
county’s broader AB 109 system of supervision and services. This approach is intended to give the
County the information necessary to help improve service delivery and client outcomes by building on
facilitators of success and helping to mitigate barriers.
There were a total of 1,103 AB 109 clients under the supervision of the
Contra Costa County Probation Department at any point between July
1, 2013 and September 30, 2014, with 612 individuals beginning AB
109 supervision during this time period. Of the 1,103 individuals
who were under AB 109 supervision at any point during this
time, the Probation Department referred 455 individuals to a
total of 799 services provided by AB 109-contracted CBOs.
Because individuals were sometimes referred to the same
service multiple times, there were a total of 922 referrals to
CBOs made. Three hundred forty-seven (347) of the 455
probation clients who were referred to CBO services—or more
than 76%—decided to engage, enrolling in a total of 561 services.
Table 1 below presents an overview of the referrals to and
enrollments in the CBOs included in this evaluation.
Table 1: Referrals and Enrollments by Provider
Referral Location Individuals
Referred2
Enrolled
Bay Area Legal Aid 45 613
Brighter Beginnings n/a 804
Center for Human Development n/a 35
Goodwill Industries 136 77
Men and Women of Purpose n/a 75
Mentoring5 126 n/a
Reach6 n/a 25
Rubicon 253 164
Shelter, Inc. 238 115
Total 7997 6328
2 This is according to referral records extracted from the Probation Department’s Access Database. Many CBOs
reported different numbers of individuals referred than the Probation Department’s database indicated.
3 The higher number of individuals enrolled than referred by Probation may be the result of referrals BayLegal
receives directly from Rubicon as a subcontractor and from its collaborations with Goodwill and Shelter, Inc.
4 This number includes participants who were served prior to sentencing; participants may not have ultimately
received an AB 109 sentence.
5 Prior to October 2014, referrals to mentoring programs, including Brighter Beginnings, Center for Human
Development, and Men and Women of Purpose went to the County Office of Education (CCCOE). The CCCOE then
referred clients to specific CBOs. We did not receive data from CCCOE for this evaluation detailing the number of
referrals received by each CBO.
6 As of September 2014, Reach had yet to begin receiving direct referrals from the Probation Department. Service
numbers include participants who were served prior to sentencing and as part of Reach’s FY 2013 -14 contract with
the Sheriff’s Office; participants may not have ultimately received an AB 109 sentence.
Page 55 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 3
Key Findings
Looking across the services delivered by the eight service providers and the preliminary outcomes of the
347 AB 109 clients who chose to engage in services, a number of important trends emerge.
Building a reentry infrastructure is still a work in progress. Various elements of this process are
still evolving, including the referral process, roles and responsibilities of County and CBO
partners, data collection systems, and CBO service delivery models.
Housing and employment services are in high demand. Goodwill Industries, Rubicon, and
Shelter, Inc. each have more service referrals than all mentoring programs combined. In
addition, those programs appear to be successfully helping clients address their immediate
housing and transitional employment needs. The extent to which that corresponds with long-
term housing and employment stability remains to be seen, given limited availability of jobs and
housing, as well as the other challenges many clients face.
Programs appear to best support clients when they combine tangible benefits, such as housing,
employment, or vocational certifications, with individualized case management and guidance.
Limited pre-release access has hampered programs’ ability to educate individuals about
available services and promote post-release engagement.
Clients expressed high-levels of satisfaction with services overall, with clients expressing varying
levels of satisfaction with the different providers. Although the evaluation can quantify some of
the tangible benefits achieved through the employment and housing programs, it is difficult to
quantify or measure the impact of those providers who offer more intangible services such as
mentoring or family reunification.
Providers identified the referral process and unmet substance use needs as key barriers to
successful service provision. While the referral process has improved, it continues to be
challenging for a number of reasons including incorrect client contact information, varying
provider capacity, a multiplicity of interrelated client needs, and more. These are elaborated on
with greater detail in this report.
Program Strengths and Facilitators of Client Success
1. Program-level factors
Contracted providers have consistently adapted and modified their programs and services to
better meet the needs of AB 109 clients.
Programs that provide material benefits such as housing and paid employment are directly
meeting the basic needs of reentering individuals.
7 This number includes clients who were referred to multiple programs.
8 This number includes clients who enrolled in multiple programs.
Page 56 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 4
Programs that are best able to target individuals’ needs operate with a combination of formal
activities—some of which use evidence-based models or curricula—and the flexibility to tailor
services to individuals’ circumstances.
Programs that combine skill building and relationship building offer optimal support to clients,
building clients’ hard and soft skills while also providing guidance and motivation. Skill building and
relationship building are both necessary program components—but alone may not be sufficient—
in supporting participants’ success.
Several organizations described formal and informal arrangements with other CBOs, which allow
them to coordinate service delivery, including formal subcontracts and co-location agreements
and informal case conferencing.
Programs that connect participants to multiple services and resources within their organization
support client success by addressing multiple client barriers and providing various opportunities
for participants to maintain engagement with the organization.
Some programs have a high level of data capacity, including electronic case management systems,
enabling them to accurately track referrals, enrollments, services provided, and client outcomes.
These programs are also well-positioned to use data to inform program modifications.
High client satisfaction levels indicate that clients find the available programs to be helpful.
2. AB 109 system level factors
Contra Costa County is building an AB 109 reentry infrastructure that combines supportive
supervision and the provision of services. Participants noted that their supportive relationships
with their probation officers, in combination with the availability of supportive services, is a
marked shift from past supervision experiences and is helping them reenter successfully.
When the County system facilitates pre-release contact with programs in alignment with the Jail to
Community model, providers are better positioned to engage participants and can address
barriers to employment and housing more quickly.
The degree to which County and CBO providers coordinate and communicate about referrals
allows the system to better prioritize and match individual needs with available services.
Most programs reported that Probation’s referrals have improved over time—including improved
consistency of referrals from different probation officers and a better fit between referrals and
Page 57 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 5
clients’ needs—indicating that probation officers are developing greater knowledge about the
available services.
Many individuals receive services from multiple contracted providers. This may indicate that the
County is making progress toward building an integrated reentry infrastructure, though at the
same time it is important to note possible duplication of services.
While the evaluation period did not officially include the time during which Reentry Network for
Returning Citizens in East and Central County was implemented, some conversations with
providers that occurred after October 1, 2014 elicited positive initial feedback in terms of the
possibility of greater coordination of services.
Program Challenges and Barriers to Client Success
1. Program-level factors
Because programs spent considerable time and effort launching and refining services during the
first contract year, many served fewer clients or for shorter durations than intended; in addition,
they may not have achieved target client outcomes.
Programs vary in their capacity to provide high quality services to the desired number of
participants. Some programs reported that had the capacity to serve a greater number of clients.
One reported receiving more referrals than they were contracted to provide. Some programs also
struggled to consistently carry out their intended program activities.
A number of programs demonstrated limited capacity to collect and report accurate data on their
referrals, clients, and/or service delivery.
While it appears that the available community-based programs are well aligned with the needs of
most individuals on AB 109 supervision, there are participants whose level of need is too high for
the programs to serve them effectively. For example, it can be difficult to engage individuals with
serious mental health issues or untreated substance abuse issues in employment, housing, or
family reunification services. By contrast, some participants with greater education, skills, or social
networks may feel less aligned with the services available.
The need for immediate income to cover basic needs and housing costs can make participation in
job training workshops difficult and can lead to gaps in time between release and obtaining stable
housing.
The majority of clients in all programs except for Reach are male; as a result, some programs may
be less responsive to the needs of female clients, and some female clients may feel less
Page 58 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 6
comfortable in some programs. Some participants also expressed a need for program support
outside of normal business hours.
In addition, program staff commented that some participants are simply not interested in
receiving any services.
2. AB 109 system level factors
While there have been improvements in the rate and timing of referrals, the number of referrals
and the referral process itself continue to be major factors impacting service delivery to clients.
It is not clear how all of the domains assessed by the Probation Department’s Correctional
Assessment and Intervention System (CAIS) tool align to specific service domains, making it
difficult to determine how many individuals could have been referred to each different type of
service.
Clients’ multiple and interdependent needs can make it challenging to know how to best prioritize
and sequence service referral and delivery.
Referrals do not always come with correct client contact information, impeding client engagement
and follow-up.
The referral process creates delays and bottlenecks. While the process allows Probation to track
referrals and manage clients’ cases, it leads to significant back and forth between programs and
Probation, often delaying receipt of services.
The Probation Department is still limited in its capacity to make pre-release referrals.
Programs report that limitations in pre-release access, including the frequency of access, time of
day, and/or length of time per visit, negatively affect their ability to engage participants in the
critical time prior to reentry. Having the ability to develop those relationships while the client is
still in custody benefits their short and long-term success.
While communication and coordination appear to have improved over time, mechanisms for
systematic and streamlined communication among CBOs and between CBOs and Probation are
still evolving.
Individuals on AB 109 supervision report receiving limited information about what it means to be
under AB 109 supervision or the opportunities available to them.
Housing assistance for AB 109 individuals remains very limited, as there is a limited availability of
housing itself and current housing providers are over capacity.
Transportation assistance came up as a frequent barrier to successfully engaging both with reentry
programs as well as with potential and future employers.
Page 59 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 7
3. Broader structural issues impacting the success of reentry programming
It is important to note that there are a number of factors beyond the County’s control which
nonetheless impact the success of AB 109 programs and the individuals served therein. Below we note
some of the most commonly mentioned issues.
For clients with felony convictions or poor credit histories, the limited availability of both stable
housing and competitive employment restricts long-term success. As a result, individuals often
end up living in places that are not conducive to their recovery or successful reentry.
Across the range of participants, unequal access to government assistance programs including
public housing resources and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)/CalFresh for
those convicted of drug sales, has served as a significant barrier for reentering individuals in being
able to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter.
Suspended driver’s licenses for reentering individuals are a significant barrier to employment.
While Homeless Court provides an opportunity to resolve a suspended driver’s license, it can be
difficult to access Homeless Court as the calendar can be backed up for many months.
Overall, program staff explained that individuals participating in pre-release programs often express
hope and good intentions for their lives post release, but when immediate linkage to housing and other
supports is not available, it can be difficult to stay afloat: “Once they get out the system is not there to
hold them, so they don’t follow through.” When the AB 109 system cannot provide an immediate safety
net upon release, individuals are more likely to fall into old habits.
Recommendations
1. Engage in a comprehensive planning process to improve overall system coordination
To date, Contra Costa County has engaged in a number of planning process related to AB 109, including
the 2011/12 Public Safety Realignment Implementation Plan; the 2012 AB 109 Operational Plan; the
2013 East and Central County Network Plan; and the 2013 West County Reentry Resource Center Plan.
While these efforts have been critical in helping the County begin to lay the groundwork necessary for
an AB 109 reentry infrastructure, the development of a coordinated AB 109 system is a work in progress
and several issues remain.
In order to develop a coordinated system, we recommend the County engage in a comprehensive
planning process involving representatives from all County departments and community-based
organizations involved in the AB 109 infrastructure. Specifically, the planning process should address the
following issues.
Page 60 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 8
A. Processes for triaging clients with multiple, overlapping needs
Last year’s evaluation pointed to the need to ensure that clients’ service referrals are adequately
prioritized and sequenced, rather than given all at once. The evaluation found several challenges with
prioritizing and sequencing referrals:
Identification and triage of referrals: Because domains assessed via the CAIS tool do not all
neatly align with service domains, there does not appear to be a clear process regarding how to
translate CAIS results into service referrals. In addition, there does not appear to be a systematic
approach to triaging services for individuals with a multiplicity of needs. It may be that the
County should adopt a second brief tool, such as the GAINS Reentry Checklist (shared in the last
report and included here as Appendix D), that can link client needs directly to service referrals,
but there needs to be agreement around what tool to use, who should use it (Probation, the
Network Field Ops and West County Data Administrator, both), and which referrals should stem
from what needs.
Behavioral Health Services: Behavioral health needs were identified as a key barrier to
engagement in services; providers stressed that it is important to address individuals’ substance
abuse and/or mental health needs before they can engage in further services. According to CAIS
results, approximately 70% of AB 109 clients have alcohol and/or drug abuse needs; in addition,
the Chief Probation Officers of California (CPOC) and CDCR estimate that 20% of AB 109 clients
have a diagnosed mental health need.9 As the referral process currently operates, Probation
makes referrals to Behavioral Health Services (BHS) and Probation makes parallel referrals to
CBOs and/or Network Field Ops, but there does not appear to be a comprehensive approach to
coordinate these referrals. Recent plans for revising the referral process focus on the
relationship between Probation and the Network and Reentry Center, without addressing the
role of BHS.
B. Communication processes and information flow between the Sheriff’s Office, Probation
Department, and CBOs
There is an opportunity for improved coordination and communication among the players in the AB 109
system, including 1) among contracted providers; 2) between providers and the Probation Department;
3) between providers, The Probation Department, and Behavioral Health Services; and 4) between
providers and the Sheriff’s Office. This includes:
Communication protocols related to referrals: One of the challenges with the current referral
process is that there is a one-way communication system, with DPOs sending referrals but
having no mechanism to follow up to find out if their clients followed through. Similarly, CBOs
do not have a clear mechanism to follow up with DPOs to review the appropriateness of the
referral, ask questions about the client, seek accurate contact information, etc. Because there is
9 http://www.cpoc.org/assets/Realignment/issuebrief4.pdf
Page 61 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 9
not a streamlined process for communication between Probation, Behavioral Health, and CBOs,
DPOs may not know whether or not their clients are following up to engage and, if not, why not.
Status change communication: CBOs are not regularly updated when their clients return to
custody. This can mean that they waste limited staff time trying to connect with clients and it
means that they cannot work with Probation and/or the Sheriff’s Office to understand why the
individual was reincarcerated and try to help address the underlying issues. Limitations with the
Sheriff’s Office’s Jail Management System, noted in the previous evaluation, may also limit the
Sheriff’s Office’s ability to notify Probation about the reincarceration of AB 109 clients if those
individuals come in on new charges.
Bottlenecks: While routing all referrals though clients’ DPOs is critical for tracking services in a
unified place and for allowing POs oversight of their clients, it leads to significant bottlenecks
and places undue burden on DPOs who may need to respond to referral requests from multiple
CBOs for dozens of clients. Improved communication protocols could help address this issue, but
it is also important to broaden the Probation Department’s capacity to respond to referrals
quickly. One possible option for alleviating the burden on DPOs and reducing this bottleneck is
to establish referral coordination as an administrative responsibility in the Probation
Department, rather than primarily as the domain of DPOs. If a person or people in
administrative positions could receive and respond to referral requests from CBOs, confirm
clients’ AB 109 status, and record confirmed referrals, this could allow referrals to flow with
fewer time delays and without requiring immediate response from DPOs, who may be out in the
field and unable to respond.
C. Pre-release case planning and service receipt
The majority of AB 109-contracted service providers do participate in some amount of in-custody service
provision; however, all report that this access in insufficient to do the amount of planning necessary to
prepare individuals for release. At the same time, providing extensive pre-release access for a
multiplicity of CBOs who provide a range of services can be burdensome for the Sheriff’s Office, which
needs to provide classroom and meeting space, ensure adequate staffing and security, conduct
background checks, etc. Again, a coordinated planning process that brings together the Sheriff’s Office,
Probation, Behavioral Health Services, and CBOs could establish a comprehensive agreement around
pre-release access and case planning. Moreover, improved communication, recommended above, could
eliminate the need for all partners to engage in separate pre-release planning meetings and processes,
instead establishing point people (or point agencies) to lead pre-release planning processes and
communicate these plans to other partners.
D. Communication about AB 109 services
Clients, providers, and probation officers alike would benefit from greater knowledge of the available
services.
Page 62 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 10
2. Address critical need and service gaps
There are a number of unmet or difficult-to-meet needs to limit the ability of CBOs to adequately
support AB 109 clients. Some of these issues are related to services, while others are more related to
laws, regulations, employment and housing practices, and supply shortages that are broader than the
AB 109 system itself.
A. Service gaps
Providing or augmenting the following services has the potential to reduce the barriers individuals face
upon reentry and thereby increase the effectiveness of the AB 109-contracted programming.
Transportation assistance. Both clients and providers noted challenges with transportation as a
barrier to service receipt and to other facilitators of success, such as to work. During the prior
evaluation period, the evaluation team observed DPOs disseminating transit cards to clients;
however, the amount of transportation assistance available may not meet the level of need.
Food assistance. A number of individuals indicated a need for food assistance, particularly
individuals who cannot access CalFresh because of certain felony drug convictions. The County
should consider sort-term food assistance for these individuals. In addition, all AB 109 system
partners should make better use of BayLegal’s assistance appealing benefit denials by referring
these clients to BayLegal services. The County should also ensure that relationships and referral
processes are in place with the County’s General Assistance administration and CalFresh.
Housing availability and funding. Locating and retaining housing are both challenges for
individuals with little to no income, poor credit histories, past evictions, and felony convictions.
Moreover, Shelter, Inc., the primary housing service provider is the only CBO to report receiving
more referrals than they can respond to. To help address this issue, the County should
reallocate unspent housing funding to existing and/or new providers and consider allocating
funds for more and/or longer transitional housing.
Access to Homeless Court and family law assistance. Providers emphasized the magnitude of
the issue of driver’s license suspensions in impacting individuals’ ability to obtain employment.
While praising the Homeless Court as an avenue for resolving suspensions, they noted that
there can be serious Ensure that partnerships and referral pathways are in place with the
Family Law Facilitator program
B. Laws, regulations, employment and housing practices, and supply shortages
While employment and housing placement assistance offer critical support to individuals reentering the
community, these programs can only go so far; the actual housing and employment options for the
reentry population are severely limited. The County should enhance partnerships with employers and
landlords/property managers to increase the availability of and access to employment and housing.
Availability of and access to competitive employment opportunities. The County should create
a formal partnership with the Workforce Development Board to help identify and link AB 109
Page 63 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 11
individuals to employment opportunities. Further, creating opportunities for CBO staff and/or
probation officers to connect directly with employers to provide character references for
individuals they are working with and/or supervising. The County should also designate or
partner with staff to train employers on
Availability of and access to housing. The County should work with developers and other
County offices to discuss options for more affordable, sober living housing options for formerly
incarcerated individuals, including both transitional and stable housing. The County should
designate or partner with staff to train landlords/property managers in fair housing practices
and discrimination.10
3. Continue to enhance data collection and monitoring capacity
While some CBOs—including Rubicon, Shelter, Inc., and Bay Area Legal Aid—have a high level of data
capacity and facility, other CBOs continue to struggle with data capacity. While this capacity will improve
as organizations are trained in the ServicePoint system, it will be important to ensure that contracted
providers are held to standards and that they receive the capacity development and technical assistance
to get there. Either the ServicePoint administrator or the Network Coordinator should review CBO data
entry on a monthly basis to ensure accurate and timely data entry. In addition, the County should
designate a staff person to validate these data entries against quarterly reports to the CAO to ensure
consistent data collection and reporting.
10 BayLegal is providing information at statewide meetings to discuss potential legislative proposals that might help
mitigate barriers to permanent housing for individuals with criminal records. While this effort is ongoing,
preliminary meetings have helped to narrow the focus to the expansion of fair housing protections and
enforcement to this class of individuals.
Page 64 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 12
Program-Level Findings
Bay Area Legal Aid
In Fiscal Year 2014-15, Contra Costa County contracted Bay Area Legal Aid (“BayLegal”) to provide legal
services for AB 109 clients and educate them about their rights and responsibilities. The legal services
BayLegal provides include: obtaining or retaining housing, public benefits, and health care, financial and
debt assistance, family law, and obtaining driver’s licenses. The program provides post-release legal
check-ups for each client to identify legal barriers that are able to be remediated, educates clients about
early termination of probation, and assists with fines, and attorneys are also able to meet individually
with clients in both jail and prison prior to their release. BayLegal has both formal and informal
arrangements with other AB 109 service providers to provide referrals and co-located services, including
as a formal subcontractor of Rubicon and in informal partnership with Goodwill.
Table 2: BayLegal Accomplishments, July 2013 - September 2014
Service Delivery Client Outcomes
74 referrals received
61 unduplicated clients served
48% (n=29) received employment assistance
21% (n=13) received family law services
11% (n=7) received benefits assistance
Less than 7% (n=4) received each of the following:
housing, healthcare, assistance with financial
matters, or miscellaneous assistance
31 clients received advice and counsel or brief
services
26 cases were still pending at the time of data
collection
4 clients received full representation; all had a
favorable outcome
Strengths
Access to legal services
Bay Area Legal Aid ("BayLegal") provides critical legal assistance along with referrals and linkages to
other services to help reentry clients address the legal barriers to their successful reintegration into
the community. Some examples of their work include appeals for housing and public benefits
denials, driver's license reinstatement, as well as family and consumer debt issues.
Coordinated services
Through co-location and coordination of services with other AB 109 CBOs, BayLegal is able to reach
and assist more clients.
The ability to educate clients about BayLegal’s services can support clients in returning for services
at a later point, even if they are not ready at the time of referral.
Page 65 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 13
Improved program capacity
BayLegal has improved their capacity to engage and follow-up with clients in a timely manner by
leveraging the organization’s intake coordinator, who schedules meetings for clients with the staff
attorneys and follows up with the Probation Department to help track clients.
Data capacity
BayLegal has a high level of data capacity, including an electronic case management system,
enabling them to accurately track referrals, enrollments, services provided, and case outcomes.
Challenges
Continuous client care
Though BayLegal’s intake coordinator has helped in the area of client communication and follow-up,
some staff noted that it can be a challenge to maintain timely communication with clients who can
be non-responsive or communicate inconsistently due to other challenges they face.
Suitability of referrals
Some of the referrals that BayLegal receives do not clearly align with the type of support the
program provides. This appears to cut both ways, with BayLegal receiving a number of referrals for
legal issues that BayLegal cannot help with, while receiving fewer referrals than expected for
services they do provide. For example, some clients referred to BayLegal think that BayLegal is a
housing provider, rather than a service that helps remove barriers to housing. Some clients come
with family law issues in distant counties, where BayLegal does not operate. BayLegal staff
expressed that the quality of referrals could be improved through a closer collaboration with
Probation.
Without regard to the quality of the referral, some clients have difficulty following through initially
with a referral to BayLegal because their legal issues are secondary to their prevailing needs,
including, for example, obtaining substance abuse treatment, mental health care, housing, and
employment.
Pre-release activities
BayLegal would like to enhance participation in a structured transition plan and have pre-release
access to releasing AB 109 status probationers in a classroom or "workshop" format in order to
educate potential clients about their rights and services BayLegal can and cannot provide (e.g.,
BayLegal attorneys work on civil legal matters, but not on criminal legal matters).
Page 66 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 14
Brighter Beginnings
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-14 the County contracted with Brighter Beginnings, a family strengthening
organization, to provide services as part of the mentoring collaborative coordinated by the Contra Costa
County Office of Education (CCCOE). With a focus on leadership development, Brighter Beginnings’
services under this contract included the development and implementation of the Re-Entry Academy for
Leaders (REAL Curriculum). In FY 2014-15, the County contracted Brighter Beginnings to provide services
in two capacities: 1) as an AB 109 direct service provider, and 2) as the main administrator and
coordinator for the County’s Mentoring and Family Reunification Program, taking over this role from the
Office of Education. This report focuses on the organization’s direct service contract only.
Table 3: Brighter Beginnings Accomplishments, July 2013 - September 2014
Service Delivery Client Outcomes
80 participants served*
20 pre-release workshops held
12 participants received a certificate of completion
(attended 7 or more sessions)*
2 AB 109 pre-release participants made post-release
contact
4 AB 109 participants received a one-on-one
coaching session
5 pre-release participants made a strategic life
plan*
*This number includes participants who were served prior to sentencing; participants may not have ultimately
received an AB 109 sentence.
Strengths
Research-based and flexible curriculum
The REAL curriculum draws on existing research-based programs, while also allowing for flexibility to
best fit participants’ needs.
Goal-setting and individualized support
By helping pre-release program participants make a concrete plan for attaining their personal goals,
Brighter Beginnings leads them toward greater stability post-release.
In addition to leadership training and support, staff provide information and assistance to help
individuals address barriers to reentry.
The REAL curriculum incorporates elements of family and community strengthening, with the goal of
broadening the program’s impact.
Data capacity
Brighter Beginnings has the capacity to record client information and outcomes through an
electronic case management system in which staff record clients’ intake, demographic, and data
from the pre- and post-program surveys.
Page 67 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 15
Challenges
Program alignment to AB 109 client needs
Many individuals who attend Brighter Beginnings’ REAL curriculum classes have not been sentenced,
thus Brighter Beginnings has faced challenges in targeting its services to AB 109 individuals.
Many AB 109 clients have a multiplicity of overlapping post-release needs, including housing,
employment, substance abuse, and more. The need to address these issues has precluded most AB
109 clients from participating in Brighter Beginnings’ leadership and entrepreneurialism training.
Timing and frequency of pre-release access
The timing and frequency of pre-release access has limited Brighter Beginnings’ ability to provide its
curriculum consistently and has inhibited the continuity of services post release.
Staff observed that because participants no longer receive time off their sentences for attending the
group—as they did when presented through CCCOE—program attendance and consistency have
decreased.
Post-release services and program continuity
Delays in the coordination of post-release services have prevented Brighter Beginnings from
expanding post-release REAL curriculum classes.
Brighter Beginnings is working to refine its coaching model to allow for longer-term follow-up with
individuals.
Because Brighter Beginnings does not follow most REAL curriculum participants over time, it is not
possible to assess the extent to which Brighter Beginnings’ services have resulted in improved
individual and family stability post release.
Page 68 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 16
Center for Human Development
The Center for Human Development (CHD) operates the Community and Family Reunification Program
(CFRP) for Contra Costa County’s AB 109 Community Programs’ Mentoring Program, providing
reunification services to returning citizens, their families, and friends, in addition to providing
community support throughout Contra Costa County. Services include large and small group pre-release
presentations and workshops at West County Detention Facility and Marsh Creek Detention Facility.
CHD also provides post-release large and small group presentations and workshops to returning citizens
at partner agencies and other locations throughout the County.
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-15, the County contracted CHD to maintain 12 enrolled participants from the
previous contract year in their reunification program, enroll 24 new participants, and provide 36
returning citizens with community and family conferencing under their five-stage reunification process.
The contract also specified that the program recruit and train a minimum of five new volunteers to
coach returning citizens, engaging a total of 12 continuing and new volunteers to provide 360 hours of
reunification services, including two refresher trainings. The County also contracted CHD to provide
reunification informational workshops to 15 agencies or groups. In FY 2013-14, CHD was part of the
consortium of three mentoring organizations, which as a whole were contracted to provide services to
100 participants.
Table 4: Snapshot of CHD Accomplishments, July 2013 - September 2014
Service Delivery Client Outcomes
32 clients referred
24 clients received an intake
Currently working with 9 participants
21 completed Stage 1
16 completed Stage 2
7 completed Stage 3
1 completed Stage 4
Strengths
Evidence-based and adaptive program model
CHD has modeled their program on an evidence-based community mediation model, while at the
same time making modifications to the model to better fit the needs of the reentry population.
Trusting relationships with skilled providers
Skilled family reunification providers support successful reunification by fostering three-way trust
between the program, returning citizens, and their families and loved ones. The trust that clients
and families build in the process of reunification can help the clients stay on the right path through
their reentry.
Page 69 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 17
Consistent and organized services
CHD’s clients expressed satisfaction with the program’s services and follow-through; with consistent
follow-through from the staff, clients begin to build optimism for achieving reunification goals with
the program.
Outreach and coordination
CHD’s outreach efforts, including their pre-release workshops, help them solicit reverse referrals
from Probation.
Due to more knowledgeable referrals from Probation and horizontal referrals from other CBOs, CHD
staff report more beneficial, frequent, and consistent meetings with clients
Challenges
Family issues outside of clients’ control
CHD’s program model is built on the expectation that clients and their families will engage in
mediation, but clients’ family members do not always have the interest or ability to participate in
relationship building.
Program capacity
While CHD has implemented a plan to recruit volunteer mediators and has been successful
recruiting volunteers from faith, civic, and other social groups in the community, CHD has struggled
to retain volunteers due to the intensive time commitment required for the services and volunteers’
school or work demands. Compounding this challenge, CHD has only one paid staff person, which
limits the program’s capacity to serve the target number of clients and to expand their programs
further into the community.
With limited staff capacity, CHD demonstrated an ability to collect and report data on its referrals,
clients, and service delivery, but would benefit from greater capacity to consistently update and
utilize service data.
Service referrals and coordination
CHD often has to wait for a formal probation referral before engaging with clients. These delays can
slow down the reunification process.
Many individuals have substance abuse and mental health needs; these issues can interfere with the
reunification process if they are not these are not addressed prior to enrollment.
Limited pre-release access
CHD currently provides pre-release informational workshops about the program’s services, but
would like to be able to provide skill-building workshops around family conflict and reunification.
Page 70 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 18
Goodwill
The Bridges to Work program of Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay (Goodwill) facilitates the
County’s Employment Support and Placement Services to provide employment support and placement
services in Central County. Participants can engage in up to 90 days of transitional, paid employment at
local Goodwill stores or other partner agencies, in addition to receiving job search assistance for
competitive employment opportunities. Goodwill also serves as a service hub for other providers. In
Fiscal Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 the program was contracted to serve up to 120 participants in Central
County.
Table 5: Snapshot of Goodwill Accomplishments, July 2013 - September 2014
Service Delivery Client Outcomes
136 clients referred (per
probation)
76 clients served
45% (n=34) were contacted
within 24 hours
95% (n=72) enrolled in
transitional employment
95% (n=72) completed a job
readiness workshop, surpassing
the target of 70%
57% (n=43) obtained documents needed for employment
92% (n=70) created or updated a resume
84% (n=64) attained a job readiness vocational certificate,
surpassing the target of 50%
7 clients enrolled in higher education
54% (n=41) completed transitional employment, under the target
of 70%
32% (n=24) were placed in an unsubsidized job and/or educational
opportunity
o Average of 150 days from referral to permanent job
placement
o 75% retained employment after 30 days (target = 70%)*
o 46% retained employment after 60 days (target = 60%)*
o 38% retained after 90 days (target = 50%)*
*Some participants may not have passed the date for measurement at the time of data collection
Strengths
Direct job creation
Goodwill’s Bridges to Work program provides almost immediate access to transitional employment
for individuals upon release, which allows them to quickly begin addressing their basic needs while
also building positive job skills and habits.
Program model that supports client engagement and skill development
Bridges to Work allows clients to ease into the responsibilities of a work environment, with low
barriers to entry, quick onboarding, flexible scheduling, and incentives for job readiness workshop
attendance.
Bridges to Work helps clients build job readiness through a combination of formal workshops and
on-the-job coaching and guidance that addresses both vocational and interpersonal skills.
Goodwill’s program model includes case management, which offers a high level of staff availability
to support clients during their times of need.
Page 71 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 19
Once participants enroll with Goodwill, they can continue to access the supports and resources the
program offers, which helps clients receive continuous support at every phase of their job
development and search.
Clients develop solid affiliations with the program and staff, and continue to reach out for support
after graduating from the program.
Connections to permanent employment
Goodwill staff actively increase the job opportunities available to AB 109 individuals by forming
relationships with local employers.
Individuals who come in with higher levels of job readiness can participate in Goodwill’s job services
with the goal of being placed outside of the Goodwill store.
Coordinated services
Through co-location of services and referrals to other AB 109 and County service providers, Goodwill
sustains a safety net of strong support for their clients, which helps participants address barriers to
employment (e.g., food, transportation) and work toward greater stability.
Challenges
Program capacity
Goodwill indicated a capacity to serve a greater number of clients than are being referred; at the
same time, the Bridges to Work program experienced turnover in the program coordinator position
and was without two of its key staff positions for most of the contract period.
The program’s capacity to accurately track and report on client referrals, enrollments, and services
has been limited.
Program fit
Though participants noted the staff’s empathy and support, the pay is low compared to the cost of
living in the Bay Area. The 90-day duration of transitional employment makes some participants
nervous about what will happen after; however, they can be re-referred to Goodwill for another
round of transitional employment.
The transitional employment opportunities available to clients are limited to working in the
Goodwill stores and a few other options, though Goodwill is making efforts to expand these options.
Clients and probation officers feel pressure for individuals to begin making an income immediately
after release; however, some individuals are not ready for enrollment because of mental health
and/or substance abuse issues.
Pre-release access
The ability to gain access to the jails to make pre-release presentations would help Goodwill inform
potential participants about the services Goodwill offers, and would enable participants to begin
securing documentation needed for employment.
Page 72 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 20
Men and Women of Purpose
Men and Women of Purpose (MWP) has two CAO contracts for AB 109 services in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-
15. The first contracts MWP to provide employment and education liaison services for the County jail
facilities, for which the program facilitates four employment and education workshops every month at
the County’s jails and works with Mentor/Navigators to assist the workshop participants with the
documentation required to apply for employment, education, and other post-release activities. MWP is
contracted to screen at least 40 participants per month to assess employment and education
preparedness.
MWP is also contracted to provide pre- and post-release mentoring services for West County using the
organization’s evidence-based program Jail to Community model. The program provides one-on-one
mentoring, as well as weekly mentoring groups that focus on employment and recovery. The contract
specifies that the program recruit at least 50 volunteer mentors using the Insight Prison Project
curriculum, but does not specify a target number of clients to be served. In FY 2013-14, MWP was part
of the consortium of three mentoring organizations, which as a whole were contracted to provide
services to 100 participants. MWP employs eight full- and part-time staff and counselors for its
contracted services.
In FY 2013-14 and 2014-15 MWP was also contracted by the Sheriff’s Office to provide a Jail to
Community (JTC) Program to both AB 109 and non-AB 109 individuals, encompassing pre-release
classes, individual counseling, the creation of a treatment plan and exit plan, and documentation
assistance.
Table 6: Snapshot of MWP Accomplishments, July 2013 - September 2014
Service Delivery Client Outcomes
145 referrals requested by MWP
92 referrals received from Probation (others pending)
70 clients enrolled
41 clients were matched with a mentor
28 clients participated in group mentoring
Trained 43 mentors in the first two quarters of the
contract year, on track to surpass the target of 50
1 client was reported to have successful
family reunification
Strengths
Jail to Community model
The ability to have contact with individuals while still in custody enables MWP to provide clients
with essential information about resources, as well as develop relationships that encourage
clients to continue their engagement post release.
Page 73 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 21
Individualized assistance and linkages
Mentors work with clients to identify resources to meet their individual needs, and will physically
transport and accompany clients to appointments to ensure they are linked to services.
MWP supports coordinated service delivery to clients by working with Probation to send referrals to
other AB 109 service providers, and by co-locating reentry specialists at Rubicon’s Antioch office.
Trusting relationships with capable staff
The development of close, trusting relationships between staff and participants provides
participants with crucial emotional support, guidance, and hope that both keeps them engaged in
services and supports them in keeping their behavior on track.
Participants particularly called out the benefit of working with staff who have similar life
experiences and personally understand what they are going through.
MWP demonstrates strong staff capacity; MWP has adequate staff numbers and time to provide
close, one-on-one assistance to clients. The program has also trained a number of new mentors.
Challenges
Service referrals and coordination
MWP often has to wait for a formal probation referral before engaging with clients. These delays
can slow down the client engagement process.
Referrals do not always come with correct client contact information, impeding client engagement
and follow-up.
Many individuals have multiple, intersecting needs, including substance abuse, mental health, and
employment, and housing. It can be difficult to engage and follow up with clients when their
behavioral health needs have not been addressed.
Some clients expressed frustration and discouragement with the pace at which their needs were
being addressed; however, it is not clear the extent to which this relates to issues with MWP’s
service provision or to broader barriers in accessing housing, employment, and other county
resources.
Pre-release access
While the time allotted for individual meetings has improved over time, pre-release workshops can
only serve a limited number of individuals, pre-release classes are over capacity. While the time
allotted for individual meetings has improved over time, pre-release workshops can only serve a
limited number of individuals and pre-release classes are over capacity.
Data capacity
MWP’s capacity to consistently track data about their clients and services has been somewhat
limited; as such, it is difficult to document the concrete outcomes that MWP clients have achieved.
MWP has received tablets and training in the ServicePoint electronic case management system
through their current contract.
Page 74 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 22
Reach
Centering their program services on women, Reach Fellowship International (Reach) provides weekly
workshops in West County Detention Facility (WCDF), in addition to pre- and post-release one-on-one
case management. The program has two core staff people and also hires several clients as staff. Reach
has three County contracts with the CAO, the Sheriff’s Office, and the Probation Department.
Reach is one of the newer providers in the AB 109 network, and in the previous year only had contracts
through the Sheriff’s Office and Probation Department. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-15 the CAO contracted
Reach to provide employment and education liaison services to female returning citizens in fulfillment of
the County’s Reentry Into The Community Program. Reach also acts as a lead information specialist for
County jail facilities for the AB 109 program. The CAO contracted Reach to provide four workshops a
month to introduce employment and educational opportunities to participants, to work with
Mentor/Navigators to assist 50 incarcerated and returning citizens with obtaining the paperwork
required for those opportunities, and to screen at least 10 participants each month for employment and
educational preparedness.
Table 7: Snapshot of Reach Accomplishments, July 2013 - September 2014
Service Delivery Client Outcomes
26 clients referred (pre-release)*
23 clients served (pre-release)
12 clients’ families were served
during client’s incarceration
91% (n=21) had temporary housing within five days of release
65% (n=15) completed paperwork for employment or education
documentation prior to release
o 4 clients began work or education within two months of
release
9 clients achieved reduced sentences
6 clients achieved and maintained recovery at three-month
follow-up
4 clients received positive child reunification outcomes
*This number includes participants who were served prior to sentencing and as part of Reach’s FY 2013 -14 contract
with the Sheriff’s Office; participants may not have ultimately received an AB 109 sentence.
Strengths
Gender-responsive program model
Reach designed its program to fill a gender-specific service gap in existing reentry programs.
Reach’s proprietary “Sistah-to-Sistah” model draws from successful practices in other sectors, such
as team building approaches used in the corporate sector.
Targeting immediate needs
In addition to efforts to link clients to housing within 72 hours of release, Reach is able to directly
house up to eight women at a time and has hired several clients as paid staff.
Staff collaborate and build relationships with other AB 109 CBOs and public sector agencies to
provide solutions that address their clients’ immediate housing and employment needs.
Page 75 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 23
Combination of structured services and individualized assistance
A combination of pre-designed workshops and the flexibility to tailor services to individuals’
circumstances allows Reach to adapt its services to the needs of each client.
Combination of skill building and relationship building
Reach combines an emphasis on skill building and developing close relationships with clients
through which they provide guidance and support
Pre-release contact
Workshops and meetings with women in jail enables the program to help the clients develop
reentry plans and identify critical pathways to success.
Challenges
Service referrals
During FY 2013-14, Reach’s only AB 109 contract was with the Sheriff’s Office; they therefore
received no official AB 109 referrals from Probation.
In FY 2014-15, Reach has received fewer referrals than anticipated from Probation, and as a result
have been able to serve fewer female clients than expected.
Program capacity
Because Reach, as a newer program, has considerable time and effort launching its services, some
clients found the program to be disorganized and not at full capacity.
Although Reach reported feeling underutilized, the program also struggled to consistently follow
through with clients and provide promised services to clients; while participants emphasized their
appreciation for the Reach program, they also noted that staff have not always been able to deliver
on promises for certain resources or services, in particular housing.
While Reach has hired several clients as staff for their Antioch and Richmond offices, some
participants noted that Reach’s supervising staff are not always available when clients show up at
one of the offices. Staff also identified the need for more program volunteers to teach the Sistah-to-
Sistah curriculum.
Reach’s capacity to accurately and consistently track data about their clients and services has been
very limited. Reach has received a computer and training in the ServicePoint electronic case
management system through their current contract.
Pre-release capacity
Clients expressed that Reach’s pre-release classes are difficult to access, as only 10 women from
each module are able to attend.
Page 76 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 24
Rubicon
Rubicon is contracted to provide employment support and placement services, integrated with other
supports, to participants in East County and West County. Rubicon’s program includes pre-release
engagement; job readiness workshops; educational and vocational training; transitional employment;
individualized career coaching; legal services; financial stability services; and domestic violence
prevention and anger management. In order to provide a continuum of services, Rubicon partners with
a number of other organizations through formal subcontracts, including vocational training partners, AB
109 providers, and other community-based organizations. The FY 2013-14 contract specified that
Rubicon would serve up to 280 participants, including 160 in East County and 120 in West County. The
FY 2014-15 contract slightly reduced these numbers, with a contract to serve up to 210 participants,
including 120 from East County and 90 from West County. This year, Rubicon is not providing subsidized
employment to participants but continues to provide transitional employment.
Table 8: Snapshot of Rubicon Accomplishments, July 2013 - September 2014
Service Delivery Client Outcomes
362 clients referred
161 clients served
62% (n=100) engaged in career
coaching/job search assistance
75 clients enrolled in Financial
Services
36 clients removed barriers to employment
34 clients created or updated a resume
81% (n=63) of those who started the job readiness curriculum
completed it, meeting the 80% target
41% (n=41) of clients who engaged in career coaching
subsequently engaged in transitional work, vocational training, or
subsidized employment, meeting the 40% target
32% (n=32) of clients who engaged in career coaching
subsequently obtained competitive employment. It took an
average of 99 days to obtain employment.
o 81% retained employment for 30 days, meeting the 80%
target
o 63% retained employment for 60 days, falling below the 70%
target
15 clients successfully enrolled in benefits
2 clients enrolled in basic skills and GED prep classes
Strengths
Enhanced employability through training and certificates
Rubicon’s service model provides training and certifications that enhances participants’
employability, while simultaneously addressing barriers to employment and providing opportunities
for transitional employment to get participants back on their feet financially.
Combination of formal activities and individualized services
Rubicon provides structured job readiness workshops, while also working individually with clients to
identify and address their barriers.
Page 77 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 25
Rubicon targets clients’ skill development through both formal workshops and informal interactions,
while the close and trusting relationship participants build with staff provides participants with
crucial emotional support and guidance that helps them stay engaged and supports them in keeping
their behavior on track. Rubicon also creates an open office atmosphere where clients can spend
their free time and engage with staff.
Coordinated services
Rubicon is able to facilitate participants’ success by connecting them with multiple Rubicon services
that address different needs. Staff from Rubicon also facilitate coordinated service delivery through
formal subcontracts and informal communication with staff from other contracted organizations.
Strong data capacity
Rubicon has a high level of data capacity, including an electronic case management system, enabling
them to accurately track referrals, enrollments, services provided, and client outcomes.
Challenges
Client referrals and engagement
Many individuals have multiple, intersecting needs, including substance abuse, mental health, and
employment, and housing, which can make it difficult to prioritize and triage referrals. It is
particularly challenging for Rubicon to engage clients who have unmet substance abuse and/or
mental health needs.
Limited pre-release access
Limited pre-release access limits the ability to connect with clients earlier and to educate potential
clients about the services Rubicon can and cannot provide.
Program capacity
As a result of the above factors, Rubicon has the capacity to serve a greater number of clients than
the current number of referrals. At the same time, Rubicon’s partner agencies that provide
vocational training programs often have waiting lists.
Program fit
Rubicon services may not be an ideal fit for clients with very high needs (e.g., with high substance
abuse and mental health needs) as their program requires a high degree of commitment and
functioning. While job readiness workshops may not be fitting for clients with a higher level of job
skills or education, Rubicon is able to accelerate these participants into the job search phase by
waiving the workshop requirement.
Female clients reported that because most Rubicon clients are male, Rubicon’s services may not feel
as accessible or tailored to female clients.
Several clients at other CBOs expressed that the need for immediate employment was a barrier to
participating in Rubicon’s job readiness workshops.
Page 78 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 26
Shelter, Inc.
Shelter, Inc. operates the County’s AB 109 Short and Long-term Housing Access Program. This program
assists incarcerated and formerly incarcerated persons who are referred to them under the AB 109
Community Programs to secure and maintain stabilized residential accommodations. Shelter, Inc.
provides a two-phased approach to clients seeking housing assistance. Before the program will refer a
client to the Housing Services section, the staff conducts social service assessment/intake procedure to
ensure the client will have success. The program places the majority of their clients into transitional
housing situations (such as room or apartment shares) to allow them time to develop the resources for
stable housing.
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-15, the County contracted Shelter, Inc. to initiate contact with 175 clients
referred from Probation and provide eligibility screening for at least 70% (125) of those (down from 144
in FY 2013-14). Shelter, Inc. was contracted to provide case management services for at least 85% of the
screened referrals; housing access assistance to at least 80% of the screened referrals; and housing
placement assistance to at least 65% of those who received case management.
Table 9: Snapshot of Shelter, Inc. Accomplishments, July 2013 - September 2014
Service Delivery Client Outcomes
230 clients referred
50% (n=115) were contacted and screened
for eligibility, under the 70% target
84% (n=98) received housing access
assistance, surpassing the 80% target
43% (n=50) received housing placement
assistance, over the 40% target
Changes across quarters in numbers
referred/served
Fidelity/evolution of program
43% (n=50) clients secured housing, meeting the 40%
target
o Average of 22 days from referral to housing
o 30 clients were placed in master leased housing,
under the target of 38
o 20 clients were placed in alternative housing (e.g.,
healthy living), under the target of 32
84% (n=42) retained housing at six-month follow-up,
meeting the 80% target**
16% (n=8) had an unsuccessful program exit at six-
month follow-up, meeting the target of less than 20%
Strengths
Housing linkage and financial support
Shelter, Inc.—the only service provider that provided housing-related services during the evaluation
time period—successfully links people with housing and supports their ability to stay housed
through its financial assistance services.
In addition to helping AB 109 clients find and obtain housing, Shelter, Inc.’s financial assistance helps
participants retain their housing while they get on their feet after being released from prison or jail.
Page 79 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 27
Case management support
Coordinated services
Program modifications to meet client needs
Shelter, Inc. has continually made efforts to adapt their program and service delivery to better meet
clients’ needs, including bringing its AB 109 program into greater alignment with the Housing First
model
Challenges
Housing clients with criminal histories and no income
Meeting client expectations with reality
Service referrals and coordination
Limited pre-release access
Limited pre-release access limits the ability to start the housing process earlier and restricts Shelter,
Inc.’s ability to educate potential clients about the services they can and cannot provide.
In addition to helping people secure housing, Shelter, Inc.’s case management model ensures
participants are removing barriers and following through on their goals—assistance that goes
beyond the realm of housing to address clients’ other reentry-related needs.
Shelter, Inc. works closely with the Probation Department and with other CBOs to coordinate
additional services for their clients.
Despite Shelter, Inc.’s adoption of a “Housing First” model, it can be challenging to find appropriate
housing for clients who cannot immediately connect with employment or income.
Many landlords do not want to rent to people with criminal histories.
There is often a mismatch between clients’ desire and the reality of what is available to them.
Referrals do not always come with correct client contact information, impeding client engagement
and follow-up.
While the referral process allows Probation to track referrals and manage clients’ cases, it leads to
significant back and forth between programs and Probation, often delaying receipt of services.
Many individuals have multiple, intersecting needs, including substance abuse, mental health, and
employment, and housing, which can make it difficult to prioritize and triage referrals.
The Probation Department is still limited in its capacity to make pre-release referrals.
Page 80 of 256
Contra Costa County
Evaluation of AB 109 Programs
Prepared by:
Resource Development Associates
May 2015
Page 81 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2
I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 29
II. Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 32
III. Program Strengths and Facilitators of Client Success ........................................................................ 37
IV. Program Challenges and Barriers to Client Success ........................................................................... 44
V. Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 54
VI. Appendices ....................................................................................................................................... A-1
Appendix A: Methods ............................................................................................................................... A-2
Appendix B: Program-Level Reports ......................................................................................................... A-4
Bay Area Legal Aid ............................................................................................................................ A-5
Brighter Beginnings ......................................................................................................................... A-11
Center for Human Development .................................................................................................... A-16
Goodwill .......................................................................................................................................... A-23
Men and Women of Purpose .......................................................................................................... A-30
Reach .............................................................................................................................................. A-34
Rubicon ........................................................................................................................................... A-39
Shelter, Inc. ..................................................................................................................................... A-46
Appendix C: Logic Model ............................................................................ A-Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix D: GAINS Reentry Checklist ..................................................................................................... A-52
Page 82 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 2
Executive Summary
Introduction
In implementing Assembly Bill (AB) 109, or Public Safety Realignment, Contra Costa County, along with
all California counties, ultimately hopes to see long-term impacts including improvements in recidivism
rates, quality of life, and fiscal efficiency. In November 2013, Contra Costa County contracted with
Resource Development Associates (RDA) to support the implementation and evaluation of the County’s
AB 109 efforts. This report builds on the first year’s efforts by evaluating the implementation and
preliminary outcomes of the County’s contracted AB 109 service providers.1
The current evaluation covered the period of time from July 1, 2013, when the AB 109 service contracts
began, through September 30, 2014, prior to the implementation of the Reentry Network for Returning
Citizens in East and Central County. In addition, Contra Costa
County’s AB 109 reentry programs and networks are still in
the process of being developed and implemented. These
findings are thus preliminary and are intended to help the
County make data-driven decisions moving forward.
It is important to note that while some AB 109 services, such
as housing assistance and employment, have very clear and
measureable outcomes, services such as mentorship and
family reunification often have intangible outcomes that are
harder to document and measure. Further, while the focus
of this report is primarily on the contracted community-
based organizations (CBOs) themselves, because the CBOs
operate as part of a larger County AB 109 reentry
infrastructure, evaluating the CBOs necessarily involves an
assessment of that infrastructure as well. Although we did
not focus on collecting data from County departments for
this report, we draw on the findings from the previous
evaluation to support our understanding and evaluation of
the County’s AB 109 reentry infrastructure.
This report presents findings on strengths and challenges
that were similar across programs, as well as strengths and
challenges for each individual CBO. Findings highlight factors
related to both the programs themselves, as well as to the
1 Given the time period of the evaluation, the evaluation includes the eight community-based organizations (CBOs)
that were contracted to provide services beginning in Fiscal Year 2013-14. It does not include the additional
organizations that were contracted beginning in Fiscal Year 2014-15.
The evaluation team collected a range
of qualitative and quantitative data.
Interviews and meetings with
service providers;
Focus groups with program
participants, including current
participants and individuals who
enrolled in programs and
subsequently discontinued
participation;
Quantitative data on client
enrollment and service provision
from service providers;
AB 109 clients’ risks and needs as
assessed by the Probation
Department using the CAIS
(Correctional Assessment and
Intervention System); and
Data on referrals to CBOs and
County departments from the
Probation Department’s electronic
case management system.
Page 83 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 3
1,103
individuals
under
supervision
455
individuals
referred to
any CBO
347
individuals
engaged in
any CBO
county’s broader AB 109 system of supervision and services. This approach is intended to give the
County the information necessary to help improve service delivery and client outcomes by building on
facilitators of success and helping to mitigate barriers.
There were a total of 1,103 AB 109 clients under the supervision of the
Contra Costa County Probation Department at any point between July
1, 2013 and September 30, 2014, with 612 individuals beginning AB
109 supervision during this time period. Of the 1,103 individuals
who were under AB 109 supervision at any point during this
time, the Probation Department referred 455 individuals to a
total of 799 services provided by AB 109-contracted CBOs.
Because individuals were sometimes referred to the same
service multiple times, there were a total of 922 referrals to
CBOs made. Three hundred forty-seven (347) of the 455
probation clients who were referred to CBO services—or more
than 76%—decided to engage, enrolling in a total of 561 services.
Table 1 below presents an overview of the referrals to and
enrollments in the CBOs included in this evaluation.
Table 1: Referrals and Enrollments by Provider
Referral Location Individuals
Referred2
Enrolled
Bay Area Legal Aid 45 613
Brighter Beginnings n/a 804
Center for Human Development n/a 35
Goodwill Industries 136 77
Men and Women of Purpose n/a 75
Mentoring5 126 n/a
Reach6 n/a 25
Rubicon 253 164
Shelter, Inc. 238 115
Total 7997 6328
2 This is according to referral records extracted from the Probation Department’s Access Database. Many CBOs
reported different numbers of individuals referred than the Probation Department’s database indicated.
3 The higher number of individuals enrolled than referred by Probation may be the result of referrals BayLegal
receives directly from Rubicon as a subcontractor and from its collaborations with Goodwill and Shelter, Inc.
4 This number includes participants who were served prior to sentencing; participants may not have ultimately
received an AB 109 sentence.
5 Prior to October 2014, referrals to mentoring programs, including Brighter Beginnings, Center for Human
Development, and Men and Women of Purpose went to the County Office of Education (CCCOE). The CCCOE then
referred clients to specific CBOs. We did not receive data from CCCOE for this evaluation detailing the number of
referrals received by each CBO.
6 As of September 2014, Reach had yet to begin receiving direct referrals from the Probation Department. Service
numbers include participants who were served prior to sentencing and as part of Reach’s FY 2013 -14 contract with
the Sheriff’s Office; participants may not have ultimately received an AB 109 sentence.
Page 84 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 4
Key Findings
Looking across the services delivered by the eight service providers and the preliminary outcomes of the
347 AB 109 clients who chose to engage in services, a number of important trends emerge.
Building a reentry infrastructure is still a work in progress. Various elements of this process are
still evolving, including the referral process, roles and responsibilities of County and CBO
partners, data collection systems, and CBO service delivery models.
Housing and employment services are in high demand. Goodwill Industries, Rubicon, and
Shelter, Inc. each have more service referrals than all mentoring programs combined. In
addition, those programs appear to be successfully helping clients address their immediate
housing and transitional employment needs. The extent to which that corresponds with long-
term housing and employment stability remains to be seen, given limited availability of jobs and
housing, as well as the other challenges many clients face.
Programs appear to best support clients when they combine tangible benefits, such as housing,
employment, or vocational certifications, with individualized case management and guidance.
Limited pre-release access has hampered programs’ ability to educate individuals about
available services and promote post-release engagement.
Clients expressed high-levels of satisfaction with services overall, with clients expressing varying
levels of satisfaction with the different providers. Although the evaluation can quantify some of
the tangible benefits achieved through the employment and housing programs, it is difficult to
quantify or measure the impact of those providers who offer more intangible services such as
mentoring or family reunification.
Providers identified the referral process and unmet substance use needs as key barriers to
successful service provision. While the referral process has improved, it continues to be
challenging for a number of reasons including incorrect client contact information, varying
provider capacity, a multiplicity of interrelated client needs, and more. These are elaborated on
with greater detail in this report.
Program Strengths and Facilitators of Client Success
1. Program-level factors
Contracted providers have consistently adapted and modified their programs and services to
better meet the needs of AB 109 clients.
Programs that provide material benefits such as housing and paid employment are directly
meeting the basic needs of reentering individuals.
7 This number includes clients who were referred to multiple programs.
8 This number includes clients who enrolled in multiple programs.
Page 85 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 5
Programs that are best able to target individuals’ needs operate with a combination of formal
activities—some of which use evidence-based models or curricula—and the flexibility to tailor
services to individuals’ circumstances.
Programs that combine skill building and relationship building offer optimal support to clients,
building clients’ hard and soft skills while also providing guidance and motivation. Skill building and
relationship building are both necessary program components—but alone may not be sufficient—
in supporting participants’ success.
Several organizations described formal and informal arrangements with other CBOs, which allow
them to coordinate service delivery, including formal subcontracts and co-location agreements
and informal case conferencing.
Programs that connect participants to multiple services and resources within their organization
support client success by addressing multiple client barriers and providing various opportunities
for participants to maintain engagement with the organization.
Some programs have a high level of data capacity, including electronic case management systems,
enabling them to accurately track referrals, enrollments, services provided, and client outcomes.
These programs are also well-positioned to use data to inform program modifications.
High client satisfaction levels indicate that clients find the available programs to be helpful.
2. AB 109 system level factors
Contra Costa County is building an AB 109 reentry infrastructure that combines supportive
supervision and the provision of services. Participants noted that their supportive relationships
with their probation officers, in combination with the availability of supportive services, is a
marked shift from past supervision experiences and is helping them reenter successfully.
When the County system facilitates pre-release contact with programs in alignment with the Jail to
Community model, providers are better positioned to engage participants and can address
barriers to employment and housing more quickly.
The degree to which County and CBO providers coordinate and communicate about referrals
allows the system to better prioritize and match individual needs with available services.
Most programs reported that Probation’s referrals have improved over time—including improved
consistency of referrals from different probation officers and a better fit between referrals and
Page 86 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 6
clients’ needs—indicating that probation officers are developing greater knowledge about the
available services.
Many individuals receive services from multiple contracted providers. This may indicate that the
County is making progress toward building an integrated reentry infrastructure, though at the
same time it is important to note possible duplication of services.
While the evaluation period did not officially include the time during which Reentry Network for
Returning Citizens in East and Central County was implemented, some conversations with
providers that occurred after October 1, 2014 elicited positive initial feedback in terms of the
possibility of greater coordination of services.
Program Challenges and Barriers to Client Success
1. Program-level factors
Because programs spent considerable time and effort launching and refining services during the
first contract year, many served fewer clients or for shorter durations than intended; in addition,
they may not have achieved target client outcomes.
Programs vary in their capacity to provide high quality services to the desired number of
participants. Some programs reported that had the capacity to serve a greater number of clients.
One reported receiving more referrals than they were contracted to provide. Some programs also
struggled to consistently carry out their intended program activities.
A number of programs demonstrated limited capacity to collect and report accurate data on their
referrals, clients, and/or service delivery.
While it appears that the available community-based programs are well aligned with the needs of
most individuals on AB 109 supervision, there are participants whose level of need is too high for
the programs to serve them effectively. For example, it can be difficult to engage individuals with
serious mental health issues or untreated substance abuse issues in employment, housing, or
family reunification services. By contrast, some participants with greater education, skills, or social
networks may feel less aligned with the services available.
The need for immediate income to cover basic needs and housing costs can make participation in
job training workshops difficult and can lead to gaps in time between release and obtaining stable
housing.
The majority of clients in all programs except for Reach are male; as a result, some programs may
be less responsive to the needs of female clients, and some female clients may feel less
Page 87 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 7
comfortable in some programs. Some participants also expressed a need for program support
outside of normal business hours.
In addition, program staff commented that some participants are simply not interested in
receiving any services.
2. AB 109 system level factors
While there have been improvements in the rate and timing of referrals, the number of referrals
and the referral process itself continue to be major factors impacting service delivery to clients.
It is not clear how all of the domains assessed by the Probation Department’s Correctional
Assessment and Intervention System (CAIS) tool align to specific service domains, making it
difficult to determine how many individuals could have been referred to each different type of
service.
Clients’ multiple and interdependent needs can make it challenging to know how to best prioritize
and sequence service referral and delivery.
Referrals do not always come with correct client contact information, impeding client engagement
and follow-up.
The referral process creates delays and bottlenecks. While the process allows Probation to track
referrals and manage clients’ cases, it leads to significant back and forth between programs and
Probation, often delaying receipt of services.
The Probation Department is still limited in its capacity to make pre-release referrals.
Programs report that limitations in pre-release access, including the frequency of access, time of
day, and/or length of time per visit, negatively affect their ability to engage participants in the
critical time prior to reentry. Having the ability to develop those relationships while the client is
still in custody benefits their short and long-term success.
While communication and coordination appear to have improved over time, mechanisms for
systematic and streamlined communication among CBOs and between CBOs and Probation are
still evolving.
Individuals on AB 109 supervision report receiving limited information about what it means to be
under AB 109 supervision or the opportunities available to them.
Housing assistance for AB 109 individuals remains very limited, as there is a limited availability of
housing itself and current housing providers are over capacity.
Transportation assistance came up as a frequent barrier to successfully engaging both with reentry
programs as well as with potential and future employers.
Page 88 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 8
3. Broader structural issues impacting the success of reentry programming
It is important to note that there are a number of factors beyond the County’s control which
nonetheless impact the success of AB 109 programs and the individuals served therein. Below we note
some of the most commonly mentioned issues.
For clients with felony convictions or poor credit histories, the limited availability of both stable
housing and competitive employment restricts long-term success. As a result, individuals often
end up living in places that are not conducive to their recovery or successful reentry.
Across the range of participants, unequal access to government assistance programs including
public housing resources and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)/CalFresh for
those convicted of drug sales, has served as a significant barrier for reentering individuals in being
able to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter.
Suspended driver’s licenses for reentering individuals are a significant barrier to employment.
While Homeless Court provides an opportunity to resolve a suspended driver’s license, it can be
difficult to access Homeless Court as the calendar can be backed up for many months.
Overall, program staff explained that individuals participating in pre-release programs often express
hope and good intentions for their lives post release, but when immediate linkage to housing and other
supports is not available, it can be difficult to stay afloat: “Once they get out the system is not there to
hold them, so they don’t follow through.” When the AB 109 system cannot provide an immediate safety
net upon release, individuals are more likely to fall into old habits.
Recommendations
1. Engage in a comprehensive planning process to improve overall system coordination
To date, Contra Costa County has engaged in a number of planning process related to AB 109, including
the 2011/12 Public Safety Realignment Implementation Plan; the 2012 AB 109 Operational Plan; the
2013 East and Central County Network Plan; and the 2013 West County Reentry Resource Center Plan.
While these efforts have been critical in helping the County begin to lay the groundwork necessary for
an AB 109 reentry infrastructure, the development of a coordinated AB 109 system is a work in progress
and several issues remain.
In order to develop a coordinated system, we recommend the County engage in a comprehensive
planning process involving representatives from all County departments and community-based
organizations involved in the AB 109 infrastructure. Specifically, the planning process should address the
following issues.
Page 89 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 9
A. Processes for triaging clients with multiple, overlapping needs
Last year’s evaluation pointed to the need to ensure that clients’ service referrals are adequately
prioritized and sequenced, rather than given all at once. The evaluation found several challenges with
prioritizing and sequencing referrals:
Identification and triage of referrals: Because domains assessed via the CAIS tool do not all
neatly align with service domains, there does not appear to be a clear process regarding how to
translate CAIS results into service referrals. In addition, there does not appear to be a systematic
approach to triaging services for individuals with a multiplicity of needs. It may be that the
County should adopt a second brief tool, such as the GAINS Reentry Checklist (shared in the last
report and included here as Appendix D), that can link client needs directly to service referrals,
but there needs to be agreement around what tool to use, who should use it (Probation, the
Network Field Ops and West County Data Administrator, both), and which referrals should stem
from what needs.
Behavioral Health Services: Behavioral health needs were identified as a key barrier to
engagement in services; providers stressed that it is important to address individuals’ substance
abuse and/or mental health needs before they can engage in further services. According to CAIS
results, approximately 70% of AB 109 clients have alcohol and/or drug abuse needs; in addition,
the Chief Probation Officers of California (CPOC) and CDCR estimate that 20% of AB 109 clients
have a diagnosed mental health need.9 As the referral process currently operates, Probation
makes referrals to Behavioral Health Services (BHS) and Probation makes parallel referrals to
CBOs and/or Network Field Ops, but there does not appear to be a comprehensive approach to
coordinate these referrals. Recent plans for revising the referral process focus on the
relationship between Probation and the Network and Reentry Center, without addressing the
role of BHS.
B. Communication processes and information flow between the Sheriff’s Office, Probation
Department, and CBOs
There is an opportunity for improved coordination and communication among the players in the AB 109
system, including 1) among contracted providers; 2) between providers and the Probation Department;
3) between providers, The Probation Department, and Behavioral Health Services; and 4) between
providers and the Sheriff’s Office. This includes:
Communication protocols related to referrals: One of the challenges with the current referral
process is that there is a one-way communication system, with DPOs sending referrals but
having no mechanism to follow up to find out if their clients followed through. Similarly, CBOs
do not have a clear mechanism to follow up with DPOs to review the appropriateness of the
referral, ask questions about the client, seek accurate contact information, etc. Because there is
9 http://www.cpoc.org/assets/Realignment/issuebrief4.pdf
Page 90 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 10
not a streamlined process for communication between Probation, Behavioral Health, and CBOs,
DPOs may not know whether or not their clients are following up to engage and, if not, why not.
Status change communication: CBOs are not regularly updated when their clients return to
custody. This can mean that they waste limited staff time trying to connect with clients and it
means that they cannot work with Probation and/or the Sheriff’s Office to understand why the
individual was reincarcerated and try to help address the underlying issues. Limitations with the
Sheriff’s Office’s Jail Management System, noted in the previous evaluation, may also limit the
Sheriff’s Office’s ability to notify Probation about the reincarceration of AB 109 clients if those
individuals come in on new charges.
Bottlenecks: While routing all referrals though clients’ DPOs is critical for tracking services in a
unified place and for allowing POs oversight of their clients, it leads to significant bottlenecks
and places undue burden on DPOs who may need to respond to referral requests from multiple
CBOs for dozens of clients. Improved communication protocols could help address this issue, but
it is also important to broaden the Probation Department’s capacity to respond to referrals
quickly. One possible option for alleviating the burden on DPOs and reducing this bottleneck is
to establish referral coordination as an administrative responsibility in the Probation
Department, rather than primarily as the domain of DPOs. If a person or people in
administrative positions could receive and respond to referral requests from CBOs, confirm
clients’ AB 109 status, and record confirmed referrals, this could allow referrals to flow with
fewer time delays and without requiring immediate response from DPOs, who may be out in the
field and unable to respond.
C. Pre-release case planning and service receipt
The majority of AB 109-contracted service providers do participate in some amount of in-custody service
provision; however, all report that this access in insufficient to do the amount of planning necessary to
prepare individuals for release. At the same time, providing extensive pre-release access for a
multiplicity of CBOs who provide a range of services can be burdensome for the Sheriff’s Office, which
needs to provide classroom and meeting space, ensure adequate staffing and security, conduct
background checks, etc. Again, a coordinated planning process that brings together the Sheriff’s Office,
Probation, Behavioral Health Services, and CBOs could establish a comprehensive agreement around
pre-release access and case planning. Moreover, improved communication, recommended above, could
eliminate the need for all partners to engage in separate pre-release planning meetings and processes,
instead establishing point people (or point agencies) to lead pre-release planning processes and
communicate these plans to other partners.
D. Communication about AB 109 services
Clients, providers, and probation officers alike would benefit from greater knowledge of the available
services.
Page 91 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 11
2. Address critical need and service gaps
There are a number of unmet or difficult-to-meet needs to limit the ability of CBOs to adequately
support AB 109 clients. Some of these issues are related to services, while others are more related to
laws, regulations, employment and housing practices, and supply shortages that are broader than the
AB 109 system itself.
A. Service gaps
Providing or augmenting the following services has the potential to reduce the barriers individuals face
upon reentry and thereby increase the effectiveness of the AB 109-contracted programming.
Transportation assistance. Both clients and providers noted challenges with transportation as a
barrier to service receipt and to other facilitators of success, such as to work. During the prior
evaluation period, the evaluation team observed DPOs disseminating transit cards to clients;
however, the amount of transportation assistance available may not meet the level of need.
Food assistance. A number of individuals indicated a need for food assistance, particularly
individuals who cannot access CalFresh because of certain felony drug convictions. The County
should consider sort-term food assistance for these individuals. In addition, all AB 109 system
partners should make better use of BayLegal’s assistance appealing benefit denials by referring
these clients to BayLegal services. The County should also ensure that relationships and referral
processes are in place with the County’s General Assistance administration and CalFresh.
Housing availability and funding. Locating and retaining housing are both challenges for
individuals with little to no income, poor credit histories, past evictions, and felony convictions.
Moreover, Shelter, Inc., the primary housing service provider is the only CBO to report receiving
more referrals than they can respond to. To help address this issue, the County should
reallocate unspent housing funding to existing and/or new providers and consider allocating
funds for more and/or longer transitional housing.
Access to Homeless Court and family law assistance. Providers emphasized the magnitude of
the issue of driver’s license suspensions in impacting individuals’ ability to obtain employment.
While praising the Homeless Court as an avenue for resolving suspensions, they noted that
there can be serious Ensure that partnerships and referral pathways are in place with the
Family Law Facilitator program
B. Laws, regulations, employment and housing practices, and supply shortages
While employment and housing placement assistance offer critical support to individuals reentering the
community, these programs can only go so far; the actual housing and employment options for the
reentry population are severely limited. The County should enhance partnerships with employers and
landlords/property managers to increase the availability of and access to employment and housing.
Availability of and access to competitive employment opportunities. The County should create
a formal partnership with the Workforce Development Board to help identify and link AB 109
Page 92 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 12
individuals to employment opportunities. Further, creating opportunities for CBO staff and/or
probation officers to connect directly with employers to provide character references for
individuals they are working with and/or supervising. The County should also designate or
partner with staff to train employers on
Availability of and access to housing. The County should work with developers and other
County offices to discuss options for more affordable, sober living housing options for formerly
incarcerated individuals, including both transitional and stable housing. The County should
designate or partner with staff to train landlords/property managers in fair housing practices
and discrimination.10
3. Continue to enhance data collection and monitoring capacity
While some CBOs—including Rubicon, Shelter, Inc., and Bay Area Legal Aid—have a high level of data
capacity and facility, other CBOs continue to struggle with data capacity. While this capacity will improve
as organizations are trained in the ServicePoint system, it will be important to ensure that contracted
providers are held to standards and that they receive the capacity development and technical assistance
to get there. Either the ServicePoint administrator or the Network Coordinator should review CBO data
entry on a monthly basis to ensure accurate and timely data entry. In addition, the County should
designate a staff person to validate these data entries against quarterly reports to the CAO to ensure
consistent data collection and reporting.
10 BayLegal is providing information at statewide meetings to discuss potential legislative proposals that might help
mitigate barriers to permanent housing for individuals with criminal records. While this effort is ongoing,
preliminary meetings have helped to narrow the focus to the expansion of fair housing protections and
enforcement to this class of individuals.
Page 93 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 13
Program-Level Findings
Bay Area Legal Aid
In Fiscal Year 2014-15, Contra Costa County contracted Bay Area Legal Aid (“BayLegal”) to provide legal
services for AB 109 clients and educate them about their rights and responsibilities. The legal services
BayLegal provides include: obtaining or retaining housing, public benefits, and health care, financial and
debt assistance, family law, and obtaining driver’s licenses. The program provides post-release legal
check-ups for each client to identify legal barriers that are able to be remediated, educates clients about
early termination of probation, and assists with fines, and attorneys are also able to meet individually
with clients in both jail and prison prior to their release. BayLegal has both formal and informal
arrangements with other AB 109 service providers to provide referrals and co-located services, including
as a formal subcontractor of Rubicon and in informal partnership with Goodwill.
Table 2: BayLegal Accomplishments, July 2013 - September 2014
Service Delivery Client Outcomes
74 referrals received
61 unduplicated clients served
48% (n=29) received employment assistance
21% (n=13) received family law services
11% (n=7) received benefits assistance
Less than 7% (n=4) received each of the following:
housing, healthcare, assistance with financial
matters, or miscellaneous assistance
31 clients received advice and counsel or brief
services
26 cases were still pending at the time of data
collection
4 clients received full representation; all had a
favorable outcome
Strengths
Access to legal services
Bay Area Legal Aid ("BayLegal") provides critical legal assistance along with referrals and linkages to
other services to help reentry clients address the legal barriers to their successful reintegration into
the community. Some examples of their work include appeals for housing and public benefits
denials, driver's license reinstatement, as well as family and consumer debt issues.
Coordinated services
Through co-location and coordination of services with other AB 109 CBOs, BayLegal is able to reach
and assist more clients.
The ability to educate clients about BayLegal’s services can support clients in returning for services
at a later point, even if they are not ready at the time of referral.
Page 94 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 14
Improved program capacity
BayLegal has improved their capacity to engage and follow-up with clients in a timely manner by
leveraging the organization’s intake coordinator, who schedules meetings for clients with the staff
attorneys and follows up with the Probation Department to help track clients.
Data capacity
BayLegal has a high level of data capacity, including an electronic case management system,
enabling them to accurately track referrals, enrollments, services provided, and case outcomes.
Challenges
Continuous client care
Though BayLegal’s intake coordinator has helped in the area of client communication and follow-up,
some staff noted that it can be a challenge to maintain timely communication with clients who can
be non-responsive or communicate inconsistently due to other challenges they face.
Suitability of referrals
Some of the referrals that BayLegal receives do not clearly align with the type of support the
program provides. This appears to cut both ways, with BayLegal receiving a number of referrals for
legal issues that BayLegal cannot help with, while receiving fewer referrals than expected for
services they do provide. For example, some clients referred to BayLegal think that BayLegal is a
housing provider, rather than a service that helps remove barriers to housing. Some clients come
with family law issues in distant counties, where BayLegal does not operate. BayLegal staff
expressed that the quality of referrals could be improved through a closer collaboration with
Probation.
Without regard to the quality of the referral, some clients have difficulty following through initially
with a referral to BayLegal because their legal issues are secondary to their prevailing needs,
including, for example, obtaining substance abuse treatment, mental health care, housing, and
employment.
Pre-release activities
BayLegal would like to enhance participation in a structured transition plan and have pre-release
access to releasing AB 109 status probationers in a classroom or "workshop" format in order to
educate potential clients about their rights and services BayLegal can and cannot provide (e.g.,
BayLegal attorneys work on civil legal matters, but not on criminal legal matters).
Page 95 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 15
Brighter Beginnings
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-14 the County contracted with Brighter Beginnings, a family strengthening
organization, to provide services as part of the mentoring collaborative coordinated by the Contra Costa
County Office of Education (CCCOE). With a focus on leadership development, Brighter Beginnings’
services under this contract included the development and implementation of the Re-Entry Academy for
Leaders (REAL Curriculum). In FY 2014-15, the County contracted Brighter Beginnings to provide services
in two capacities: 1) as an AB 109 direct service provider, and 2) as the main administrator and
coordinator for the County’s Mentoring and Family Reunification Program, taking over this role from the
Office of Education. This report focuses on the organization’s direct service contract only.
Table 3: Brighter Beginnings Accomplishments, July 2013 - September 2014
Service Delivery Client Outcomes
80 participants served*
20 pre-release workshops held
12 participants received a certificate of completion
(attended 7 or more sessions)*
2 AB 109 pre-release participants made post-release
contact
4 AB 109 participants received a one-on-one
coaching session
5 pre-release participants made a strategic life
plan*
*This number includes participants who were served prior to sentencing; participants may not have ultimately
received an AB 109 sentence.
Strengths
Research-based and flexible curriculum
The REAL curriculum draws on existing research-based programs, while also allowing for flexibility to
best fit participants’ needs.
Goal-setting and individualized support
By helping pre-release program participants make a concrete plan for attaining their personal goals,
Brighter Beginnings leads them toward greater stability post-release.
In addition to leadership training and support, staff provide information and assistance to help
individuals address barriers to reentry.
The REAL curriculum incorporates elements of family and community strengthening, with the goal of
broadening the program’s impact.
Data capacity
Brighter Beginnings has the capacity to record client information and outcomes through an
electronic case management system in which staff record clients’ intake, demographic, and data
from the pre- and post-program surveys.
Page 96 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 16
Challenges
Program alignment to AB 109 client needs
Many individuals who attend Brighter Beginnings’ REAL curriculum classes have not been sentenced,
thus Brighter Beginnings has faced challenges in targeting its services to AB 109 individuals.
Many AB 109 clients have a multiplicity of overlapping post-release needs, including housing,
employment, substance abuse, and more. The need to address these issues has precluded most AB
109 clients from participating in Brighter Beginnings’ leadership and entrepreneurialism training.
Timing and frequency of pre-release access
The timing and frequency of pre-release access has limited Brighter Beginnings’ ability to provide its
curriculum consistently and has inhibited the continuity of services post release.
Staff observed that because participants no longer receive time off their sentences for attending the
group—as they did when presented through CCCOE—program attendance and consistency have
decreased.
Post-release services and program continuity
Delays in the coordination of post-release services have prevented Brighter Beginnings from
expanding post-release REAL curriculum classes.
Brighter Beginnings is working to refine its coaching model to allow for longer-term follow-up with
individuals.
Because Brighter Beginnings does not follow most REAL curriculum participants over time, it is not
possible to assess the extent to which Brighter Beginnings’ services have resulted in improved
individual and family stability post release.
Page 97 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 17
Center for Human Development
The Center for Human Development (CHD) operates the Community and Family Reunification Program
(CFRP) for Contra Costa County’s AB 109 Community Programs’ Mentoring Program, providing
reunification services to returning citizens, their families, and friends, in addition to providing
community support throughout Contra Costa County. Services include large and small group pre-release
presentations and workshops at West County Detention Facility and Marsh Creek Detention Facility.
CHD also provides post-release large and small group presentations and workshops to returning citizens
at partner agencies and other locations throughout the County.
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-15, the County contracted CHD to maintain 12 enrolled participants from the
previous contract year in their reunification program, enroll 24 new participants, and provide 36
returning citizens with community and family conferencing under their five-stage reunification process.
The contract also specified that the program recruit and train a minimum of five new volunteers to
coach returning citizens, engaging a total of 12 continuing and new volunteers to provide 360 hours of
reunification services, including two refresher trainings. The County also contracted CHD to provide
reunification informational workshops to 15 agencies or groups. In FY 2013-14, CHD was part of the
consortium of three mentoring organizations, which as a whole were contracted to provide services to
100 participants.
Table 4: Snapshot of CHD Accomplishments, July 2013 - September 2014
Service Delivery Client Outcomes
32 clients referred
24 clients received an intake
Currently working with 9 participants
21 completed Stage 1
16 completed Stage 2
7 completed Stage 3
1 completed Stage 4
Strengths
Evidence-based and adaptive program model
CHD has modeled their program on an evidence-based community mediation model, while at the
same time making modifications to the model to better fit the needs of the reentry population.
Trusting relationships with skilled providers
Skilled family reunification providers support successful reunification by fostering three-way trust
between the program, returning citizens, and their families and loved ones. The trust that clients
and families build in the process of reunification can help the clients stay on the right path through
their reentry.
Page 98 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 18
Consistent and organized services
CHD’s clients expressed satisfaction with the program’s services and follow-through; with consistent
follow-through from the staff, clients begin to build optimism for achieving reunification goals with
the program.
Outreach and coordination
CHD’s outreach efforts, including their pre-release workshops, help them solicit reverse referrals
from Probation.
Due to more knowledgeable referrals from Probation and horizontal referrals from other CBOs, CHD
staff report more beneficial, frequent, and consistent meetings with clients
Challenges
Family issues outside of clients’ control
CHD’s program model is built on the expectation that clients and their families will engage in
mediation, but clients’ family members do not always have the interest or ability to participate in
relationship building.
Program capacity
While CHD has implemented a plan to recruit volunteer mediators and has been successful
recruiting volunteers from faith, civic, and other social groups in the community, CHD has struggled
to retain volunteers due to the intensive time commitment required for the services and volunteers’
school or work demands. Compounding this challenge, CHD has only one paid staff person, which
limits the program’s capacity to serve the target number of clients and to expand their programs
further into the community.
With limited staff capacity, CHD demonstrated an ability to collect and report data on its referrals,
clients, and service delivery, but would benefit from greater capacity to consistently update and
utilize service data.
Service referrals and coordination
CHD often has to wait for a formal probation referral before engaging with clients. These delays can
slow down the reunification process.
Many individuals have substance abuse and mental health needs; these issues can interfere with the
reunification process if they are not these are not addressed prior to enrollment.
Limited pre-release access
CHD currently provides pre-release informational workshops about the program’s services, but
would like to be able to provide skill-building workshops around family conflict and reunification.
Page 99 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 19
Goodwill
The Bridges to Work program of Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay (Goodwill) facilitates the
County’s Employment Support and Placement Services to provide employment support and placement
services in Central County. Participants can engage in up to 90 days of transitional, paid employment at
local Goodwill stores or other partner agencies, in addition to receiving job search assistance for
competitive employment opportunities. Goodwill also serves as a service hub for other providers. In
Fiscal Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 the program was contracted to serve up to 120 participants in Central
County.
Table 5: Snapshot of Goodwill Accomplishments, July 2013 - September 2014
Service Delivery Client Outcomes
136 clients referred (per
probation)
76 clients served
45% (n=34) were contacted
within 24 hours
95% (n=72) enrolled in
transitional employment
95% (n=72) completed a job
readiness workshop, surpassing
the target of 70%
57% (n=43) obtained documents needed for employment
92% (n=70) created or updated a resume
84% (n=64) attained a job readiness vocational certificate,
surpassing the target of 50%
7 clients enrolled in higher education
54% (n=41) completed transitional employment, under the target
of 70%
32% (n=24) were placed in an unsubsidized job and/or educational
opportunity
o Average of 150 days from referral to permanent job
placement
o 75% retained employment after 30 days (target = 70%)*
o 46% retained employment after 60 days (target = 60%)*
o 38% retained after 90 days (target = 50%)*
*Some participants may not have passed the date for measurement at the time of data collection
Strengths
Direct job creation
Goodwill’s Bridges to Work program provides almost immediate access to transitional employment
for individuals upon release, which allows them to quickly begin addressing their basic needs while
also building positive job skills and habits.
Program model that supports client engagement and skill development
Bridges to Work allows clients to ease into the responsibilities of a work environment, with low
barriers to entry, quick onboarding, flexible scheduling, and incentives for job readiness workshop
attendance.
Bridges to Work helps clients build job readiness through a combination of formal workshops and
on-the-job coaching and guidance that addresses both vocational and interpersonal skills.
Goodwill’s program model includes case management, which offers a high level of staff availability
to support clients during their times of need.
Page 100 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 20
Once participants enroll with Goodwill, they can continue to access the supports and resources the
program offers, which helps clients receive continuous support at every phase of their job
development and search.
Clients develop solid affiliations with the program and staff, and continue to reach out for support
after graduating from the program.
Connections to permanent employment
Goodwill staff actively increase the job opportunities available to AB 109 individuals by forming
relationships with local employers.
Individuals who come in with higher levels of job readiness can participate in Goodwill’s job services
with the goal of being placed outside of the Goodwill store.
Coordinated services
Through co-location of services and referrals to other AB 109 and County service providers, Goodwill
sustains a safety net of strong support for their clients, which helps participants address barriers to
employment (e.g., food, transportation) and work toward greater stability.
Challenges
Program capacity
Goodwill indicated a capacity to serve a greater number of clients than are being referred; at the
same time, the Bridges to Work program experienced turnover in the program coordinator position
and was without two of its key staff positions for most of the contract period.
The program’s capacity to accurately track and report on client referrals, enrollments, and services
has been limited.
Program fit
Though participants noted the staff’s empathy and support, the pay is low compared to the cost of
living in the Bay Area. The 90-day duration of transitional employment makes some participants
nervous about what will happen after; however, they can be re-referred to Goodwill for another
round of transitional employment.
The transitional employment opportunities available to clients are limited to working in the
Goodwill stores and a few other options, though Goodwill is making efforts to expand these options.
Clients and probation officers feel pressure for individuals to begin making an income immediately
after release; however, some individuals are not ready for enrollment because of mental health
and/or substance abuse issues.
Pre-release access
The ability to gain access to the jails to make pre-release presentations would help Goodwill inform
potential participants about the services Goodwill offers, and would enable participants to begin
securing documentation needed for employment.
Page 101 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 21
Men and Women of Purpose
Men and Women of Purpose (MWP) has two CAO contracts for AB 109 services in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-
15. The first contracts MWP to provide employment and education liaison services for the County jail
facilities, for which the program facilitates four employment and education workshops every month at
the County’s jails and works with Mentor/Navigators to assist the workshop participants with the
documentation required to apply for employment, education, and other post-release activities. MWP is
contracted to screen at least 40 participants per month to assess employment and education
preparedness.
MWP is also contracted to provide pre- and post-release mentoring services for West County using the
organization’s evidence-based program Jail to Community model. The program provides one-on-one
mentoring, as well as weekly mentoring groups that focus on employment and recovery. The contract
specifies that the program recruit at least 50 volunteer mentors using the Insight Prison Project
curriculum, but does not specify a target number of clients to be served. In FY 2013-14, MWP was part
of the consortium of three mentoring organizations, which as a whole were contracted to provide
services to 100 participants. MWP employs eight full- and part-time staff and counselors for its
contracted services.
In FY 2013-14 and 2014-15 MWP was also contracted by the Sheriff’s Office to provide a Jail to
Community (JTC) Program to both AB 109 and non-AB 109 individuals, encompassing pre-release
classes, individual counseling, the creation of a treatment plan and exit plan, and documentation
assistance.
Table 6: Snapshot of MWP Accomplishments, July 2013 - September 2014
Service Delivery Client Outcomes
145 referrals requested by MWP
92 referrals received from Probation (others pending)
70 clients enrolled
41 clients were matched with a mentor
28 clients participated in group mentoring
Trained 43 mentors in the first two quarters of the
contract year, on track to surpass the target of 50
1 client was reported to have successful
family reunification
Strengths
Jail to Community model
The ability to have contact with individuals while still in custody enables MWP to provide clients
with essential information about resources, as well as develop relationships that encourage
clients to continue their engagement post release.
Page 102 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 22
Individualized assistance and linkages
Mentors work with clients to identify resources to meet their individual needs, and will physically
transport and accompany clients to appointments to ensure they are linked to services.
MWP supports coordinated service delivery to clients by working with Probation to send referrals to
other AB 109 service providers, and by co-locating reentry specialists at Rubicon’s Antioch office.
Trusting relationships with capable staff
The development of close, trusting relationships between staff and participants provides
participants with crucial emotional support, guidance, and hope that both keeps them engaged in
services and supports them in keeping their behavior on track.
Participants particularly called out the benefit of working with staff who have similar life
experiences and personally understand what they are going through.
MWP demonstrates strong staff capacity; MWP has adequate staff numbers and time to provide
close, one-on-one assistance to clients. The program has also trained a number of new mentors.
Challenges
Service referrals and coordination
MWP often has to wait for a formal probation referral before engaging with clients. These delays
can slow down the client engagement process.
Referrals do not always come with correct client contact information, impeding client engagement
and follow-up.
Many individuals have multiple, intersecting needs, including substance abuse, mental health, and
employment, and housing. It can be difficult to engage and follow up with clients when their
behavioral health needs have not been addressed.
Some clients expressed frustration and discouragement with the pace at which their needs were
being addressed; however, it is not clear the extent to which this relates to issues with MWP’s
service provision or to broader barriers in accessing housing, employment, and other county
resources.
Pre-release access
While the time allotted for individual meetings has improved over time, pre-release workshops can
only serve a limited number of individuals, pre-release classes are over capacity. While the time
allotted for individual meetings has improved over time, pre-release workshops can only serve a
limited number of individuals and pre-release classes are over capacity.
Data capacity
MWP’s capacity to consistently track data about their clients and services has been somewhat
limited; as such, it is difficult to document the concrete outcomes that MWP clients have achieved.
MWP has received tablets and training in the ServicePoint electronic case management system
through their current contract.
Page 103 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 23
Reach
Centering their program services on women, Reach Fellowship International (Reach) provides weekly
workshops in West County Detention Facility (WCDF), in addition to pre- and post-release one-on-one
case management. The program has two core staff people and also hires several clients as staff. Reach
has three County contracts with the CAO, the Sheriff’s Office, and the Probation Department.
Reach is one of the newer providers in the AB 109 network, and in the previous year only had contracts
through the Sheriff’s Office and Probation Department. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-15 the CAO contracted
Reach to provide employment and education liaison services to female returning citizens in fulfillment of
the County’s Reentry Into The Community Program. Reach also acts as a lead information specialist for
County jail facilities for the AB 109 program. The CAO contracted Reach to provide four workshops a
month to introduce employment and educational opportunities to participants, to work with
Mentor/Navigators to assist 50 incarcerated and returning citizens with obtaining the paperwork
required for those opportunities, and to screen at least 10 participants each month for employment and
educational preparedness.
Table 7: Snapshot of Reach Accomplishments, July 2013 - September 2014
Service Delivery Client Outcomes
26 clients referred (pre-release)*
23 clients served (pre-release)
12 clients’ families were served
during client’s incarceration
91% (n=21) had temporary housing within five days of release
65% (n=15) completed paperwork for employment or education
documentation prior to release
o 4 clients began work or education within two months of
release
9 clients achieved reduced sentences
6 clients achieved and maintained recovery at three-month
follow-up
4 clients received positive child reunification outcomes
*This number includes participants who were served prior to sentencing and as part of Reach’s FY 2013-14 contract
with the Sheriff’s Office; participants may not have ultimately received an AB 109 sentence.
Strengths
Gender-responsive program model
Reach designed its program to fill a gender-specific service gap in existing reentry programs.
Reach’s proprietary “Sistah-to-Sistah” model draws from successful practices in other sectors, such
as team building approaches used in the corporate sector.
Targeting immediate needs
In addition to efforts to link clients to housing within 72 hours of release, Reach is able to directly
house up to eight women at a time and has hired several clients as paid staff.
Staff collaborate and build relationships with other AB 109 CBOs and public sector agencies to
provide solutions that address their clients’ immediate housing and employment needs.
Page 104 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 24
Combination of structured services and individualized assistance
A combination of pre-designed workshops and the flexibility to tailor services to individuals’
circumstances allows Reach to adapt its services to the needs of each client.
Combination of skill building and relationship building
Reach combines an emphasis on skill building and developing close relationships with clients
through which they provide guidance and support
Pre-release contact
Workshops and meetings with women in jail enables the program to help the clients develop
reentry plans and identify critical pathways to success.
Challenges
Service referrals
During FY 2013-14, Reach’s only AB 109 contract was with the Sheriff’s Office; they therefore
received no official AB 109 referrals from Probation.
In FY 2014-15, Reach has received fewer referrals than anticipated from Probation, and as a result
have been able to serve fewer female clients than expected.
Program capacity
Because Reach, as a newer program, has considerable time and effort launching its services, some
clients found the program to be disorganized and not at full capacity.
Although Reach reported feeling underutilized, the program also struggled to consistently follow
through with clients and provide promised services to clients; while participants emphasized their
appreciation for the Reach program, they also noted that staff have not always been able to deliver
on promises for certain resources or services, in particular housing.
While Reach has hired several clients as staff for their Antioch and Richmond offices, some
participants noted that Reach’s supervising staff are not always available when clients show up at
one of the offices. Staff also identified the need for more program volunteers to teach the Sistah-to-
Sistah curriculum.
Reach’s capacity to accurately and consistently track data about their clients and services has been
very limited. Reach has received a computer and training in the ServicePoint electronic case
management system through their current contract.
Pre-release capacity
Clients expressed that Reach’s pre-release classes are difficult to access, as only 10 women from
each module are able to attend.
Page 105 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 25
Rubicon
Rubicon is contracted to provide employment support and placement services, integrated with other
supports, to participants in East County and West County. Rubicon’s program includes pre-release
engagement; job readiness workshops; educational and vocational training; transitional employment;
individualized career coaching; legal services; financial stability services; and domestic violence
prevention and anger management. In order to provide a continuum of services, Rubicon partners with
a number of other organizations through formal subcontracts, including vocational training partners, AB
109 providers, and other community-based organizations. The FY 2013-14 contract specified that
Rubicon would serve up to 280 participants, including 160 in East County and 120 in West County. The
FY 2014-15 contract slightly reduced these numbers, with a contract to serve up to 210 participants,
including 120 from East County and 90 from West County. This year, Rubicon is not providing subsidized
employment to participants but continues to provide transitional employment.
Table 8: Snapshot of Rubicon Accomplishments, July 2013 - September 2014
Service Delivery Client Outcomes
362 clients referred
161 clients served
62% (n=100) engaged in career
coaching/job search assistance
75 clients enrolled in Financial
Services
36 clients removed barriers to employment
34 clients created or updated a resume
81% (n=63) of those who started the job readiness curriculum
completed it, meeting the 80% target
41% (n=41) of clients who engaged in career coaching
subsequently engaged in transitional work, vocational training, or
subsidized employment, meeting the 40% target
32% (n=32) of clients who engaged in career coaching
subsequently obtained competitive employment. It took an
average of 99 days to obtain employment.
o 81% retained employment for 30 days, meeting the 80%
target
o 63% retained employment for 60 days, falling below the 70%
target
15 clients successfully enrolled in benefits
2 clients enrolled in basic skills and GED prep classes
Strengths
Enhanced employability through training and certificates
Rubicon’s service model provides training and certifications that enhances participants’
employability, while simultaneously addressing barriers to employment and providing opportunities
for transitional employment to get participants back on their feet financially.
Combination of formal activities and individualized services
Rubicon provides structured job readiness workshops, while also working individually with clients to
identify and address their barriers.
Page 106 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 26
Rubicon targets clients’ skill development through both formal workshops and informal interactions,
while the close and trusting relationship participants build with staff provides participants with
crucial emotional support and guidance that helps them stay engaged and supports them in keeping
their behavior on track. Rubicon also creates an open office atmosphere where clients can spend
their free time and engage with staff.
Coordinated services
Rubicon is able to facilitate participants’ success by connecting them with multiple Rubicon services
that address different needs. Staff from Rubicon also facilitate coordinated service delivery through
formal subcontracts and informal communication with staff from other contracted organizations.
Strong data capacity
Rubicon has a high level of data capacity, including an electronic case management system, enabling
them to accurately track referrals, enrollments, services provided, and client outcomes.
Challenges
Client referrals and engagement
Many individuals have multiple, intersecting needs, including substance abuse, mental health, and
employment, and housing, which can make it difficult to prioritize and triage referrals. It is
particularly challenging for Rubicon to engage clients who have unmet substance abuse and/or
mental health needs.
Limited pre-release access
Limited pre-release access limits the ability to connect with clients earlier and to educate potential
clients about the services Rubicon can and cannot provide.
Program capacity
As a result of the above factors, Rubicon has the capacity to serve a greater number of clients than
the current number of referrals. At the same time, Rubicon’s partner agencies that provide
vocational training programs often have waiting lists.
Program fit
Rubicon services may not be an ideal fit for clients with very high needs (e.g., with high substance
abuse and mental health needs) as their program requires a high degree of commitment and
functioning. While job readiness workshops may not be fitting for clients with a higher level of job
skills or education, Rubicon is able to accelerate these participants into the job search phase by
waiving the workshop requirement.
Female clients reported that because most Rubicon clients are male, Rubicon’s services may not feel
as accessible or tailored to female clients.
Several clients at other CBOs expressed that the need for immediate employment was a barrier to
participating in Rubicon’s job readiness workshops.
Page 107 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 27
Shelter, Inc.
Shelter, Inc. operates the County’s AB 109 Short and Long-term Housing Access Program. This program
assists incarcerated and formerly incarcerated persons who are referred to them under the AB 109
Community Programs to secure and maintain stabilized residential accommodations. Shelter, Inc.
provides a two-phased approach to clients seeking housing assistance. Before the program will refer a
client to the Housing Services section, the staff conducts social service assessment/intake procedure to
ensure the client will have success. The program places the majority of their clients into transitional
housing situations (such as room or apartment shares) to allow them time to develop the resources for
stable housing.
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-15, the County contracted Shelter, Inc. to initiate contact with 175 clients
referred from Probation and provide eligibility screening for at least 70% (125) of those (down from 144
in FY 2013-14). Shelter, Inc. was contracted to provide case management services for at least 85% of the
screened referrals; housing access assistance to at least 80% of the screened referrals; and housing
placement assistance to at least 65% of those who received case management.
Table 9: Snapshot of Shelter, Inc. Accomplishments, July 2013 - September 2014
Service Delivery Client Outcomes
230 clients referred
50% (n=115) were contacted and screened
for eligibility, under the 70% target
84% (n=98) received housing access
assistance, surpassing the 80% target
43% (n=50) received housing placement
assistance, over the 40% target
Changes across quarters in numbers
referred/served
Fidelity/evolution of program
43% (n=50) clients secured housing, meeting the 40%
target
o Average of 22 days from referral to housing
o 30 clients were placed in master leased housing,
under the target of 38
o 20 clients were placed in alternative housing (e.g.,
healthy living), under the target of 32
84% (n=42) retained housing at six-month follow-up,
meeting the 80% target**
16% (n=8) had an unsuccessful program exit at six-
month follow-up, meeting the target of less than 20%
Strengths
Housing linkage and financial support
Shelter, Inc.—the only service provider that provided housing-related services during the evaluation
time period—successfully links people with housing and supports their ability to stay housed
through its financial assistance services.
In addition to helping AB 109 clients find and obtain housing, Shelter, Inc.’s financial assistance helps
participants retain their housing while they get on their feet after being released from prison or jail.
Page 108 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 28
Case management support
Coordinated services
Program modifications to meet client needs
Shelter, Inc. has continually made efforts to adapt their program and service delivery to better meet
clients’ needs, including bringing its AB 109 program into greater alignment with the Housing First
model
Challenges
Housing clients with criminal histories and no income
Meeting client expectations with reality
Service referrals and coordination
Limited pre-release access
Limited pre-release access limits the ability to start the housing process earlier and restricts Shelter,
Inc.’s ability to educate potential clients about the services they can and cannot provide.
In addition to helping people secure housing, Shelter, Inc.’s case management model ensures
participants are removing barriers and following through on their goals—assistance that goes
beyond the realm of housing to address clients’ other reentry-related needs.
Shelter, Inc. works closely with the Probation Department and with other CBOs to coordinate
additional services for their clients.
Despite Shelter, Inc.’s adoption of a “Housing First” model, it can be challenging to find appropriate
housing for clients who cannot immediately connect with employment or income.
Many landlords do not want to rent to people with criminal histories.
There is often a mismatch between clients’ desire and the reality of what is available to them.
Referrals do not always come with correct client contact information, impeding client engagement
and follow-up.
While the referral process allows Probation to track referrals and manage clients’ cases, it leads to
significant back and forth between programs and Probation, often delaying receipt of services.
Many individuals have multiple, intersecting needs, including substance abuse, mental health, and
employment, and housing, which can make it difficult to prioritize and triage referrals.
The Probation Department is still limited in its capacity to make pre-release referrals.
Page 109 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 29
I. Introduction
Background
In November 2013, Contra Costa County contracted with Resource Development Associates (RDA) to
support the implementation and evaluation of the County’s Assembly Bill (AB) 109, or Public Safety
Realignment, efforts. To date, this support has included the following efforts:
An assessment of the County’s capacity and infrastructure for data collection and reporting;
The development of baseline datasets to establish the number of AB 109 individuals supervised
and served in the County from the start of realignment until the beginning of this project
(October 2011-December 2013);
A memo on the data collection needs and practices of AB 109-designated Police Officers in four
local law enforcement agencies supported through County AB 109 contracts;
Development of data dashboards to facilitate data sharing across AB 109 partner departments;
An interim evaluation of the County’s implementation of its AB 109 program, with
recommendations for improvements as well as longer-term evaluation efforts.
The key recommendations that came out of those efforts were as follows.
Coordination and Administration of AB 109 Implementation
•Enhance coordination and integration of AB 109 services
•Conduct additional cross-agency and department-specific training
•Improve ability to track AB 109 clients, services, and outcomes
•Assign lead departments for implementing each CCP decision
Pre-Release
•Build capacity to expand use of pretrial assessments and pre-sentence needs assessments
•Provide judicial training to increase awareness of and knowledge about AB 109 programs and services
•Create and disseminate an AB 109 “fact sheet”and increase dissemination of the existing Reentry Resource
Guide
•Evaluate the impact of early representation and assessment on pretrial release and sentencing decisions
•Increase the number and type of in-custody programs and services
•Establish a formal pre-release planning process, including a reentry transition plan
•Consider hiring an AB 109 in-custody case manager to help navigate available programs
Post-Release
•Develop comprehensive case plans for AB 109 supervisees
•Increase capacity for case coordination meetings
•Streamline the referral process
•Consider expanding community-based programming
•Partner with the Workforce Development Board and private employers to increase job opportunities
•Clarify and support law enforcement roles and responsibilities
Page 110 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 30
Current Evaluation
In implementing AB 109, Contra Costa County, along with all California counties, ultimately hopes to see
long-term impacts including improvements in recidivism rates, quality of life, and fiscal efficiency. This
report builds on the first year’s efforts by evaluating the implementation and preliminary outcomes of
the County’s contracted AB 109 service providers.
The AB 109 program logic model, presented in Appendix C, forms the foundation of the current
evaluation. As shown in the logic model, long-term outcomes of AB 109 are achieved through a logical
sequence of short- and intermediate-term outcomes that occur on the pathway to achieving the
County’s ultimate aims under Realignment. The theory of
change underlying the logic model is that program and
service delivery, along with community supervision, lead to
improvements in behavioral, employment, and housing
outcomes for AB 109 individuals. Individual-level
improvements, along with additional County public safety
measures, in turn, lead to reduced recidivism, improved
quality of life, maximized public safety, and greater financial
efficiency for the County.
In order to begin documenting the intermediate-term
outcomes of the County’s AB 109 plan, this year’s evaluation
focuses on the initial implementation and preliminary
outcomes of the County’s AB 109-contracted services during
their first 15 months of implementation, from July 1, 2013
through September 30, 2014. The evaluation explored the
extent to which AB 109-contracted community-based
organizations (CBOs) are implementing their program
activities as intended and the extent to which those
activities are leading to positive outcomes among individuals
receiving services.
Given the time period of the evaluation, the evaluation
includes the eight community-based organizations (CBOs)
that were contracted to provide services beginning in Fiscal
Year 2013-14. It does not include the additional
organizations that were contracted beginning in Fiscal Year
2014-15. It is also important to note that, while the focus of this report is primarily on the CBOs
themselves, because the CBOs operate as part of a larger County AB 109 reentry infrastructure,
evaluating the CBOs necessarily involves an assessment of that infrastructure as well. Although we did
not focus on collecting data from County departments for this report, we do draw on the findings from
the previous evaluation to support our understanding and evaluation of the County’s AB 109 reentry
infrastructure.
The evaluation team collected a range
of qualitative and quantitative data.
For more detail on the evaluation
methods, see Appendix A.
Interviews and meetings with
service providers;
Focus groups with program
participants, including current
participants and individuals who
enrolled in programs and
subsequently discontinued
participation;
Quantitative data on client
enrollment and service provision
from service providers;
AB 109 clients’ risks and needs as
assessed by the Probation
Department using the CAIS
(Correctional Assessment and
Intervention System); and
Data on referrals to CBOs and
County departments from the
Probation Department’s electronic
case management system.
Page 111 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 31
This report presents findings on strengths and challenges that were similar across programs, as well as
strengths and challenges for each individual CBO. Findings highlight factors related to the programs
themselves, as well as to the county’s broader AB 109 system of supervision and services. This approach
is intended to give the County the information necessary to help improve service delivery and client
outcomes by building on facilitators of success and helping to mitigate barriers.
Despite the volume of data collected, it is important to note that the results presented here are
preliminary; while they can be used to support data-driven decision making, there are a number of
considerations that readers should take into account. First, the County’s reentry infrastructure is still
evolving. While the AB 109 service contracts took effect on July 1, 2013, some of the CBOs providing AB
109 services did not begin providing services until several months later. Moreover, the reentry
infrastructure has already changed since this evaluation began, with the Reentry Network for Returning
Citizens in East and Central County coming online in October 2014, and the reentry infrastructure will
continue to change as the West County Reentry Resource Center opens. As such, some of the findings
presented in this report may no longer be applicable, as processes have changed and progress has been
made.
Finally, AB 109 services are provided by eight different CBOs, which provide a range of services. Some of
these services, such as housing assistance and employment, have very clear and measureable outcomes,
namely, being housed and having a job. By contrast, services such as mentorship and family
reunification often have intangible outcomes that are harder to document and measure. To the extent
possible, this evaluation makes note of measurable outcomes, such as housing and employment
attainment. More broadly, however, this evaluation does not only address outcomes, but also focuses
on the factors at both the program and the system level that act as facilitators to or barriers of desirable
outcomes.
The report is organized as follows:
Key Findings presents context about the number of individuals on AB 109 supervision and the
numbers referred to and enrolled in the contracted CBOs, along with high-level takeaways
about the County’s progress and challenges in implementing its AB 109 infrastructure and
achieving client outcomes.
Program Strengths and Facilitators of Client Success discusses factors both at the level of CBOs
and the broader AB 109 system that appear to facilitate effective program delivery, as well as
the success of AB 109 clients.
Program Challenges and Barriers to Client Success discusses factors both at the level of CBOs
and the broader AB 109 system that pose challenges to effective program delivery, as well as
the success of AB 109 clients. This section also discusses broader structural issues impacting the
success of AB 109 implementation.
Recommendations to improve system coordination and service delivery.
Appendices: Appendix A: Evaluation Methods; Appendix B: Individual Program Reports;
Appendix C: AB 109 Logic Model; Appendix A: GAIN Reentry Checklist
Page 112 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 32
1,103
individuals
under
supervision
455
individuals
referred to
any CBO
347
individuals
engaged in
any CBO
II. Key Findings
Context
There were a total of 1,103 AB 109 clients under the supervision of the
Contra Costa County Probation Department at any point between July
1, 2013 and Sept. 30, 2014, with 612 individuals beginning AB 109
supervision during this time period. Of the 1,103 individuals who
were under AB 109 supervision at any point during this time,
the Probation Department referred 455 individuals to a total
of 799 services provided by AB 109-contracted CBOs. Because
individuals were sometimes referred to the same service
multiple times, there were a total of 922 referrals to CBOs
made. Three hundred forty-seven (347) of the 455 probation
clients who were referred to CBO services—or more 76%—
decided to engage, enrolling in a total of 561 services. Table 10
below presents an overview of the referrals to and enrollments in
the eight CBOs included in this evaluation.
Table 10: Referrals and Enrollments by Provider
Referral Location Individuals
Referred11
Enrolled
Bay Area Legal Aid 45 6112
Brighter Beginnings n/a 8013
Center for Human Development n/a 35
Goodwill Industries 136 77
Men and Women of Purpose n/a 75
Mentoring14 126 n/a
Reach15 n/a 25
Rubicon 253 164
Shelter, Inc. 238 115
Total 79916 63217
11 This is according to referral records extracted from the Probation Department’s Access Database. Many CBOs
reported different numbers of individuals referred than the Probation Department’s database indicated.
12 The higher number of individuals enrolled than referred by Probation may be the result of referrals Bay Legal
receives directly from Rubicon as a subcontractor and from collaborations with Goodwill and Shelter, Inc.
13 This number includes participants who were served prior to sentencing; participants may not have ultimately
received an AB 109 sentence.
14 Prior to October 2014, referrals to mentoring programs, including Brighter Beginnings, Center for Human
Development, and Men and Women of Purpose went to the County Office of Education (CCCOE). The CCCOE then
referred clients to specific CBOs. We did not receive data from CCCOE for this evaluation detailing the number of
referrals received by each CBO.
15 As of September 2014, Reach had yet to begin receiving direct referrals from the Probation Department. Service
numbers include participants who were served prior to sentencing and as part of Reach’s FY 2013 -14 contract with
the Sheriff’s Office; participants may not have ultimately received an AB 109 sentence.
Page 113 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 33
Evaluation Findings
Looking across the services delivered by the eight service providers and the preliminary outcomes of the
347 AB 109 clients who chose to engage in services, a number of important trends emerge.
Building a reentry infrastructure is still a work in progress. Various elements of this process are
still evolving, including the referral process, roles and responsibilities of County and CBO
partners, data collection systems, and CBO service delivery models.
Housing and employment services are in high demand. Goodwill Industries, Rubicon, and
Shelter, Inc. each have more service referrals than all mentoring programs combined. In
addition, those programs appear to be successfully helping clients address their immediate
housing and transitional employment needs. The extent to which that corresponds with long-
term housing and employment stability remains to be seen, given limited availability of jobs and
housing, as well as the other challenges many clients face.
Programs appear to best support clients when they combine tangible benefits, such as housing,
employment, or vocational certifications, with individualized case management and guidance.
Limited pre-release access has hampered programs’ ability to educate individuals about
available services and promote post-release engagement.
Clients expressed high-levels of satisfaction with services overall, with clients expressing varying
levels of satisfaction with the different providers. Although the evaluation can quantify some of
the tangible benefits achieved through the employment and housing programs, it is difficult to
quantify or measure the impact of those providers who offer more intangible services such as
mentoring or family reunification.
Providers identified the referral process and unmet substance use needs as key barriers to
successful service provision. While the referral process has improved, it continues to be
challenging for a number of reasons including incorrect client contact information, varying
provider capacity, a multiplicity of interrelated client needs, and more. These are elaborated on
with greater detail in this report.
Table 11 below presents an overview of the services that the eight contracted CBOs delivered to 347 AB
109 clients during the evaluation period, as well as initial client outcomes.
16 This number includes clients who were referred to multiple programs.
17 This number includes clients who enrolled in multiple programs.
Page 114 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 34
Table 11: Service Delivery and Initial Client Outcomes by Provider, July 2013-September 2014
CBO Service Delivery Client Outcomes
Bay Area Legal
Aid
74 referrals received18
61 unduplicated clients served
48% (n=29) received employment assistance
21% (n=13) received family law services
11% (n=7) received benefits assistance
Housing, healthcare, assistance with financial matters, or
miscellaneous assistance were provided to fewer 4 people each
31 clients received advice and counsel or brief services
26 cases were still pending at the time of data collection
4 clients received full representation; all had a favorable
outcome
Brighter
Beginnings
80 participants served19
20 pre-release workshops held
12 participants received a certificate of completion (attended 7
or more sessions)
2 AB 109 pre-release participants made post-release contact
4 AB 109 participants received a one-on-one coaching session
5 pre-release participants made a strategic life plan
Center for
Human
Development
32 clients referred
27 clients enrolled
Actively working with 9 participants at time of evaluation
21 completed Stage 1 of reunification process
16 completed Stage 2 of reunification process
7 completed Stage 3 of reunification process
1 completed Stage 4 of reunification process
Goodwill
Industries
136 clients referred (per probation)
76 clients served
45% (n=34) were contacted within 24 hours
95% (n=72) enrolled in transitional employment
95% (n=72) completed a job readiness workshop, surpassing the
target of 70%
57% (n=43) obtained documents needed for employment
92% (n=70) created or updated a resume
84% (n=64) attained a job readiness vocational certificate,
surpassing the target of 50%
7 clients enrolled in higher education
54% (n=41) completed transitional employment, under the
target of 70%
32% (n=24) were placed in an unsubsidized job and/or
educational opportunity
38% retained after 90 days (target = 50%)
18 Probation data shows 45 referrals to Bay Area Legal Aid. The difference in referral numbers recorded by Probation and by BayLegal may be the result of
referrals BayLegal receives directly from Rubicon as a subcontractor and from its collaborations with Goodwill and Shelter, Inc.
19 This number includes participants who were served prior to sentencing; participants may not have ultimately received an AB 109 sentence.
Page 115 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 35
CBO Service Delivery Client Outcomes
Men and
Women of
Purpose
145 referrals requested by MWP
92 referrals received from Probation (others pending)
70 clients enrolled
41 clients matched with a mentor
28 clients participated in group mentoring
Trained 43 mentors in the first two quarters of the contract
year, on track to surpass the target of 50
During the evaluation time period, MWP did not have a
method of electronically tracking client outcomes, thus the
evaluation could not confirm these.
Reach
Fellowship
26 clients referred (pre-release) 20
23 clients served (pre-release)
12 clients’ families were served during client’s incarceration
91% (n=21) had temporary housing within five days of
release
65% (n=15) completed paperwork for employment or
education prior to release
4 clients began work or education within two months of
release
9 clients achieved reduced sentences
6 clients maintained recovery at three-month follow up
4 clients received positive child reunification outcomes
Rubicon 362 clients referred
161 clients served
62% (n=100) engaged in career coaching/job search assistance
75 clients enrolled in Financial Services
2 clients enrolled in basic skills and GED prep classes
36 clients removed barriers to employment
34 clients created or updated a resume
81% (n=63) of those who started the job readiness
curriculum completed it, meeting the 80% target
41% (n=41) of clients who engaged in career coaching
subsequently engaged in transitional work, vocational
training, or subsidized employment, meeting the 40%
target
32% (n=32) of clients who engaged in career coaching
subsequently obtained competitive employment. It took an
average of 99 days to obtain employment.
15 clients successfully obtained benefits
20 For Fiscal Year 2013-14 Reach was contracted only by the Sheriff’s Office to provide pre -release services. The service numbers reflect participants who may
not have received an AB 109 sentence.
Page 116 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 36
CBO Service Delivery Client Outcomes
Shelter, Inc. 230 clients referred21
50% (n=115) were contacted and screened for eligibility, under
the 70% target
84% (n=98) received housing access assistance, surpassing the
80% target
43% (n=50) received housing placement assistance, over the
40% target
43% (n=50) clients secured housing, meeting the 40% target
84% (n=42) retained housing at six-month follow-up,
meeting the 80% target22
16% (n=8) had an unsuccessful program exit at six-month
follow-up, meeting the target of less than 20%
21 Probation records show 238 referrals to Shelter, Inc.
22 No individuals had been enrolled for 12 months during the evaluation period. Since then, 8 people have made it to the 12 month retention: 6 people made it
through transitional housing and 2 obtained permanent housing.
Page 117 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 37
III. Program Strengths and Facilitators of Client Success
1. Program-level factors
Contracted providers have consistently adapted and modified their programs and services to better
meet the needs of AB 109 clients.
While program fidelity is, in general, an important indicator of successful program implementation, it is
important that programs are given the time to get their programs off the ground and be responsive to
clients’ needs before being held to strict fidelity measures. For many providers, serving the reentry
population has been a new endeavor; for all providers, serving the AB 109 population has been new.
This speaks to the extent to which both County and community-based providers are “building the plane
while flying it.” To varying degrees, all programs described “learning as we go” and shared ways that
they have updated and improved programs to better serve clients.
Goodwill and Rubicon made modifications to their job readiness workshops in order to place
greater emphasis on cognitive behavioral skills.
Shelter, Inc. began providing housing to clients before they secured employment or income, in
order to see if providing housing first would support and encourage clients in securing
employment.
The Center for Human Development increased the number of meetings with clients in each
stage of family reunification, recognizing that the reentry population had distinct needs that
required an expansion of evidence-based mediation models.
Programs that provide material benefits such as housing and paid employment are directly meeting the
basic needs of reentering individuals.
Contracted organizations meet individuals’ housing and employment needs by providing direct
connections to housing and paid transitional employment.
Shelter, Inc. successfully placed 50 clients in housing. Of these, 84% retained housing at six-
month follow-up, meeting the program’s 80% target.
o “Shelter Inc. is paying for me. I got a deposit down for $1000 and they paid 3 months of
my rent at my apartment right now. I had to go through a family shelter just to get to
my own apartment. But Shelter Inc. paid for that whole transaction.”
Reach acquired a house in which they can house up to eight reentering women at a time.
Goodwill enrolled 72 clients in transitional employment.
o “Barriers come with not making any money at all—so the transitional employment helps
them with a paycheck to get on their feet.”
Page 118 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 38
Rubicon engaged 41 clients in transitional work, vocational training, or subsidized employment.
Programs that are best able to target individuals’ needs operate with a combination of formal
activities—some of which use evidence-based models or curricula—and the flexibility to tailor services
to individuals’ circumstances.
Focus group and interview data suggest that a combination of a structured approach to service delivery
and individualized case management allows programs to best identify and serve individual needs.
Rubicon and Goodwill both provide structured job readiness workshops, while also working
individually with clients to identify and address their barriers.
Reach offers workshops in West County Detention Facility, while also providing clients with a
range of individualized assistance, including support to clients’ families, attending court
hearings, and helping clients manage their health and medical needs.
o “When I was in jail, Reach threw a birthday party for my daughter. They helped me keep
in contact with my mom and my kids. And we were working on them helping to
supervise visits [with my child], and they’ve mediated between me and my mom.”
Organizations that connect participants to more than one program or service within their organization
support client success by addressing multiple client barriers and providing various opportunities for
participants to maintain engagement with the organization. Two organizations observed that individuals
with multiple barriers benefit from being connected to multiple services or programs within their
organization. These organizations have achieved positive client outcomes by leveraging other programs
and resources within their organization.
Shelter, Inc. has leveraged non-AB 109 shelters and transitional housing within their
organization.
Rubicon supports client engagement by addressing multiple barriers: “We don’t just provide
employment and career coaching; for example, one person may work with a career coach, a
housing coach, a financial coach, and a fatherhood coach.”
Programs that combine skill building and relationship building offer optimal support to clients, building
clients’ hard and soft skills while also providing guidance and motivation.
Data from focus groups and interviews suggest that skill building and relationship building are both
necessary program components—but alone may not be sufficient—in supporting participants’ success.
All contracted programs are building clients’ skills, whether through a formal workshop curriculum (e.g.,
Rubicon, Goodwill) or through informal skill-building integrated into one-on-one interactions. Programs
target a combination of hard and soft skills, including technical skills (e.g., job readiness training,
vocational certifications), cognitive behavioral coaching, and anger management. These all help
participants gain critical tools for obtaining tangible resources and benefits as well as managing their
own behavior.
Page 119 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 39
Rubicon helped 32 clients obtain competitive employment.
o “When I first got here I didn’t know nothing. If you said fill out an application, I didn’t
know nothing. Now if they ask if I’m convicted of a felony, I say, ‘Yes but I would like to
speak to you in private in an interview.’ Since I been here I’ve made progress.”
o “At Rubicon I was led in the right direction, from them, I was told what to do in
interviews, and because of that I have three jobs.”
Goodwill assisted 24 clients in obtaining an unsubsidized job and/or educational opportunity
and supported 64 clients in attaining a job readiness vocational certificate.
o “You had the staff helping you out with every step. They are really helpful. Always
posting jobs and checking on you to make sure you are doing what you should be doing.
They are helpful to me. I found a job and I’m still applying for other jobs.”
o “Learning about the disease of addiction is a big success that could help a lot of people.
A few of the classes helped us with mindful thinking.”
Along with skill-building support, the development of close, trusting relationships between staff and
participants provides participants with crucial emotional support, guidance, and hope that both keeps
them engaged in services and supports them in keeping their behavior on track. Across the board,
participants highlighted that their relationships with program staff allow them to feel like they have
someone to turn to when they feel on the edge of doing something that could land them back in jail.
Participants across programs particularly called out the benefit of working with staff who have similar
life experiences and personally understand what they are going through. Many organizations also create
an open office environment where participants can spend their free time, which keeps them from
engaging in behavior that could cause them to recidivate.
“[At Goodwill] they all have compassion. I’m not sure if their background has to do with some of
ours, but they have a compassion for us. They want to see us succeed. They had their own
personal part in my journey.”
“What I like about MWP was they were guys like me, they have been to jail been to prison, have
substance abuse problems and have gotten their lives together.”
“I come [to Rubicon] where I can’t get into havoc [in my old neighborhood]. It gave me a chance
to get around my career coach all day.”
Some programs have a high-level of data capacity, including electronic case management systems,
which allows them to accurately track referrals, enrollments, services provided, and client outcomes.
These programs are also better positioned to use data to inform program modifications.
A number of AB 109-contracted providers, including Rubicon; Shelter, Inc.; Goodwill Industries; and Bay
Area Legal Aid, have electronic case management systems which they use to collect data on service
referrals, program enrollments, service delivery, client outcomes and more.
Page 120 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 40
High client satisfaction with services indicates that clients find the available programs to be helpful.
Overall, participants expressed mostly positive feedback about the programs they are participating in,
sharing largely positive feedback about program services and staff. While client satisfaction does not
necessarily equate to positive client outcomes, it is an indicator that clients experience the available
programs as beneficial.
2. AB 109 system level factors
Contra Costa County is building an AB 109 reentry infrastructure that supports participants by adopting
a less punitive approach to supervision and increasing the availability of services and supports.
Many individuals under AB 109 supervision have prior experience being under correctional supervision.
These clients overwhelmingly noted that they are doing better under AB 109 supervision compared to
previous experiences on probation or parole, with many echoing the sentiment that “this time it’s
completely different.” Many said AB 109 supervision was the first time they’ve been offered help, and
the first time their probation officers are not “out to get them.” Providers and clients alike highlighted
the importance of the two core components of AB 109 legislation: the shifting focus of probation to a
less punitive approach to supervision and the availability of services through community-based
programs, as well as enhanced behavioral health services.
“They are starting to realize the people are not needing to be in jail. All three of us got an issue
with drugs. Why not fix that issue instead of throwing us away? That’s why I like AB 109.”
Both providers and clients noted that having a good relationship with a client’s probation officer was an
important factor in reentry success. Clients expressed vastly improved relationships with AB 109
probation officers compared to previous probation or parole officers, and felt that most AB 109
probation officers focus on providing help rather than finding ways to violate their probation. Improved
relationships. Several participants also noted that cognitive behavioral coaching provided by pre-release
programs and through Probation’s Thinking for Change (T4C) have been helpful in changing the way
they think and act after release.
“I have seen changes. My PO is awesome. When I went in, she went through this survey with me
and followed up with MWP; she referred me to Shelter Inc., she explained the law about child
custody.”
At the same time, while many participants stressed the importance of their individual readiness of
change, it may be that the very availability of services and supports has contributed to the internal
feeling that AB 109 is different. This mutually reinforcing relationship between the availability of support
and participants’ readiness to change sheds light on the promise that AB 109 shows for client success.
Page 121 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 41
When the County system facilitates pre-release contact with programs, programs are better positioned
to engage participants after release and more quickly begin to address barriers to employment and
housing.
When staff are able to begin meeting with participants prior to their release they develop rapport and
trust, which increases the chance that participants will follow through on referrals to these programs
post release. Addressing participants’ barriers to employment and/or housing prior to release (e.g.,
suspended driver’s licenses, identification of housing options) supports participants in transitioning
more quickly to a stable situation. Providers expressed that the shorter the time between release and
engagement, the more successful participants tend to be. Speedy connection to housing and
employment is crucial in terms of meeting immediate needs; having these supports in place allows
participants the chance to succeed in their transition back to the community not only by meeting basic
needs, but also by keeping them busy and providing safe environments away from the neighborhoods
and people they used to associate with.
Staff from several organizations noted that their access to WCDF has improved in FY 2014-15
and emphasized the importance of maintaining and increasing the days and times they are able
to meet with incarcerated individuals.
o “We would talk about when we planned to get out what our plans were, what our goals
were – try to set up an exit plan, and what we were looking into doing, if we were going
back to school, housing, what we needed, what kind of job we were looking for. We filled
out [mock] applications to get you ready and [practiced] how to answer questions about
your charges.
Fiscal Year 2014-15 contracts with Reach and Men and Women of Purpose for Employment and
Education liaison services are designed to address documentation barriers prior to release.
The degree to which County and CBO providers coordinate and communicate about referrals allows the
system to better prioritize and match individual needs with available services.
It is clear that many AB 109 individuals reentering the community face a multitude of barriers to
achieving stable housing, employment, and family life. We found that many individuals receive services
from multiple contracted providers. This may indicate that the County is making progress toward
building an integrated reentry infrastructure, though at the same time it is important to note possible
duplication of services, as some providers expressed some concerns about clients “double dipping” in
employment services (e.g., Rubicon, Goodwill, Prepare My Sheep, and MWP). While in some cases
multiple services may be useful, in some cases they may not.
Page 122 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 42
Table 12: Number of CBO Enrollments per Client
Number of CBOs
where clients
enrolled
Number of Clients Percentage of
Clients
Any 347 100%
1 215 62%
2 75 22%
3 36 10%
4 17 5%
5 4 1%
In terms of referrals from Probation to CBOs, most programs reported that Probation’s referrals have
improved over time—including improved consistency of referrals from different probation officers and a
better fit between referrals and clients’ needs, indicating that probation officers are developing greater
knowledge about the available services. Providers also noted that the case coordination meetings
convened by Probation have been useful in coordinating clients’ care. Some clients also shared stories of
successful coordination of referrals beginning prior to release:
“I got released and went to report a few hours after I got out and the next day people were
calling me. My probation officer told me what was available. Some guy came a few weeks before
I got out and told me where to report and asked me what I needed, and then they just started
calling me. Shelter Inc., Bay Area Legal Aid, and [CHD] all called me.”
While the evaluation period did not officially include the time during which Reentry Network for
Returning Citizens in East and Central County was implemented, some conversations with providers that
occurred after October 1, 2014 elicited positive initial feedback in terms of the possibility of greater
coordination of services. One focus group participant also spoke about meeting with one of the Field
Operations Coordinator:
“Pat Mims [Field Operations Coordinator] is my AB 109 liaison who is there and I met with him
and he is the one that told me about Rubicon, Shelter Inc., therapy, and everything.”
In terms of coordination among CBOs themselves, CBO staff explained that direct communication and
coordination among CBOs facilitates the identification of client needs and allows providers to initiate
referral processes to connect individuals to needed services. Several organizations described formal and
informal arrangements that allow them to coordinate service delivery, including formal subcontracts
and co-location agreements and informal case conferencing.
Beginning in FY 2014-15, Rubicon created a formal subcontract with MWP with the idea that
fostering pre-release client engagement with MWP would improve post-release enrollment in
Rubicon’s services.
Page 123 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 43
Part of Goodwill’s service delivery model is to offer space for staff from other CBOs to meet with
clients onsite. Bay Area Legal Aid has weekly office hours during which clients know they can
meet with BayLegal staff, and staff from Shelter, Inc. regularly meet with clients at the Goodwill
offices. Providers from all involved CBOs emphasized that this co-location is immensely useful in
engaging clients and connecting them quickly to services that can meet their evolving needs.
o When one client had to bring in documentation for BayLegal to use in his case, he was
able to meet with BayLegal’s attorney before reporting to work at the Goodwill store:
“I’d be working and here she was coming by [Goodwill], so I’d see her before going to
work.”
When staff are able to help coordinate referrals for clients, clients are more likely to experience
the system as smooth and not requiring the type of complex navigation that many spoke of.
“Rubicon has made everything easy and convenient for me.”
Table 13: Clients Enrolled in Multiple CBOs
Table 14: Client Enrollments in County Services
Referral Location Individuals
Enrolled
Alcohol and Other
Drugs (AODS)
159
Homeless Program 53
Mental Health 32
Programs or Services Number of
Individuals
Rubicon & Shelter Inc. 44
Goodwill & Shelter, Inc. 41
Bay Area Legal Aid &
Goodwill
36
Bay Area Legal Aid & Shelter,
Inc.
32
Rubicon and Men & Women
of Purpose
26
Goodwill & Rubicon 23
Page 124 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 44
IV. Program Challenges and Barriers to Client Success
1. Program-level factors
Because programs spent considerable time and effort launching and refining services during the first
contract year, many served fewer clients or for shorter durations than intended; in addition, they may
not have achieved target client outcomes.
As noted above, AB 109 and/or reentry services have been new to many of the contracted providers. As
such, some have experienced slow starts and encountered bumps along the way, and most programs
did not serve as many participants as indicated in their contracts. While this is to be expected with any
new rollout of services, because programs have refined their service model while rolling out service
delivery, some clients experienced the challenges that come along with the implementation of new
programs or organizations. They perceived that some program models were not fully formed and that
services seemed disorganized or not fully in place. For example, participants in several programs
expressed a similar sentiment that the program “[is] not fully grown yet, hasn’t all been put together.”
Programs vary in their capacity to provide high quality services to the desired number of participants.
Some programs reported that they were underutilized and had the capacity to serve a greater number
of clients. Some programs struggled to consistently carry out their intended program activities for what
appeared to be a combination of challenges related both to the program and the broader AB 109
system. One reported receiving more referrals than they were contracted for and thus struggled to meet
the need for services.
Rubicon, Goodwill, and Bay Area Legal Aid reported a capacity to serve more participants than
the number of referrals they have received.
While Reach also reported feeling underutilized, the program also appeared to have the lowest
capacity to consistently follow through with clients and provide promised services to clients.
Goodwill and Center for Human Development also encountered staffing shortages, staff
turnover, and/or difficulty recruiting or retaining staff or volunteers.
Shelter, Inc. was the only program that noted receiving more referrals than outlined in their
contract and noted it was a challenge to keep up with the number of incoming referrals.
Page 125 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 45
A number of programs demonstrated limited capacity to collect and report accurate data on their
service delivery and their clients.
A review of organizations’ client and service delivery data, as well as their quarterly reports to the CAO,
revealed that many programs have limited capacity to consistently collect and report accurate client
data. While this capacity will improve as organizations are trained in the ServicePoint system, programs’
data capacity during the period of this evaluation was concerning, as several programs did not have
complete service data with which to monitor service delivery and inform program improvement.
CBOs and the Probation Department frequently reported different numbers of client referrals.
Quarterly report data often appeared incomplete and/or did not align with Probation data.
While it appears that the available community-based programs are well aligned with the needs of most
individuals on AB 109 supervision, the services may not be an ideal fit for certain individuals.
While it appears that the available community-based programs are well aligned with the needs of most
individuals on AB 109 supervision, there are participants whose level of need is too high for the
programs to serve them effectively. For example, it can be difficult to engage individuals with serious
mental health issues or untreated substance abuse issues in employment, housing, or family
reunification services. By contrast, some participants with greater education, skills, or social networks
may feel less aligned with the services available.
Until the fourth quarter of 2014, Shelter, Inc. attempted to ensure that participants had an
income in order to be placed in housing. This often led to gaps in the time between participants’
release and obtaining housing.
Because transitional employment and transitional housing programs are short in duration, many
worried about where they will go after.
Most programs are targeted toward high-risk individuals and may not be an ideal fit for the
minority of individuals on AB 109 supervision with more work experience and/or education.
However, programs such as Rubicon and Goodwill are able to adapt their programs for these
participants by waiving their workshop requirement and routing these participants directly into
the job search phase.
The majority of clients in all programs except for Reach are male; as a result, some programs
may be less responsive to the needs of female clients, and some female clients may feel less
comfortable in some programs.
Some participants expressed a need for program support outside of normal business hours.
o “When I am having problems at 6pm, no one is around because this is an 8 to 5 gig. My
life is not 8-5.”
Page 126 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 46
In addition, program staff commented that some participants are simply not interested in
receiving any services.
2. AB 109 system level factors
While there have been improvements in the rate and timing of referrals, the number of referrals and the
referral process itself continue to be major factors impacting service delivery to clients. Below we
summarize the key issues with the referral system that emerged from our conversations with staff and
our analysis of CBO and Probation referral data. Because this year’s evaluation did not focus on County
systems, these findings are drawn from interviews and focus groups with CBO staff and clients, along
with data from the Probation Department’s electronic case management system. It is important to note
that we did not interview probation officers or County behavioral health services staff about these
issues, although we have done so in the past and do draw on our findings from past evaluation reports.
It is not clear how all of the domains assessed by the Probation Department’s Correctional Assessment
and Intervention System (CAIS) tool align to specific service domains, making it difficult to determine
how many individuals could have been referred to each different type of service.
Nearly all organizations noted that they have received fewer referrals from Probation than they
expected or that were laid out in their contracts. They explained that referrals were slow to start when
the CBOs were contracted beginning in July 2013, and have picked up since then.
Reach reported not receiving any referrals from Probation for many months of their contract.
Bay Area Legal Aid staff reported receiving fewer referrals for certain types of cases (e.g.,
housing, healthcare, and certain public benefits cases) than they expected. They are not sure
whether this is due to a lack of need or a failure to identify need.
Rubicon reported that they have the capacity to receive many more referrals than are currently
coming in.
According to the Correctional Assessment and Intervention System (CAIS) administered by the Probation
Department, almost three-quarters (73.7%) of AB 109 clients have a Criminal Orientation upon release;
almost 70% of AB 109 have Alcohol and/or Drug Abuse-related needs, and almost half (47.64%) need
Vocational Skills. Because it is not clear how many of the most commonly assessed risk and need factors
align with service needs, it is difficult to determine how many clients could have been referred to each
CBO or service type. In addition, it is important to note that the decision to enroll in either behavioral
health or CBO-services is completely voluntary, so probation officers may not both to refer clients who
openly acknowledge that they are not interested in service engagement.
Page 127 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 47
Table 15: Need Domains as Indicated by CAIS Tool: All AB 109 Supervisees
Domain All AB 109 Supervisees Individuals Assessed
7/2013-9/2014
N % N %
Abuse/Neglect and Trauma 42 3.61 17 3.96
Alcohol and/or Drug Abuse 809 69.44 311 72.49
Basic Needs 50 4.29 21 4.90
Criminal Orientation 858 73.65 331 77.16
Emotional Factors 645 55.36 263 61.31
Family History 454 38.97 169 39.39
Interpersonal Manipulation 509 43.69 208 48.48
Isolated Situational 138 11.85 39 9.09
Physical Safety 16 1.37 7 1.63
Relationships 77 6.61 33 7.69
Social Inadequacy 329 28.24 89 20.75
Vocational Skills 555 47.64 231 53.85
While providers across the board agreed that the suitability of referrals has improved over time, they
noted that some referrals they received did not seem to be the best match for the client’s needs. Staff
observed that client engagement in services could be improved if probation officers had a more
thorough understanding of services available from each provider, as well as if the county more actively
promoted or incentivized program participation.
Bay Area Legal Aid staff explained that they sometimes receive referrals for legal issues that are
not in their area of work. Staff wondered if this was a result of probation officers seeing
BayLegal as a catchall for any legal issue, rather than an organization specializing in particular
areas of law.
Reach perceived that the low number of referrals they have received might be because
probation officers do not yet view the organization as a key location to which female clients
should be referred.
Some programs also noted that the number of referrals they receive is not consistent from month to
month, which inhibits their ability to plan for their program activities.
The number of individuals referred per quarter ranged, from low to high, from 17 to 35 for
Goodwill; from 41 to 78 for Rubicon; and from 23 to 70 for Shelter, Inc.
Clients’ multiple and interdependent needs can make it challenging to know how to best prioritize and
sequence service referral and delivery.
As noted by providers and clients, and demonstrated in the CAIS results, most clients have a multiplicity
of needs.
Page 128 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 48
Table 16: Number of Assessed Need Domains
Number of Need
Domains
All AB 109 Supervisees Individuals Assessed
7/2013-9/2014
N % N %
0 27 2.32 5 1.17
1 113 9.7 29 6.76
2 211 18.11 82 19.11
3 191 16.39 67 15.62
4 178 15.28 66 15.38
5 186 15.97 84 19.58
6 151 12.96 59 13.75
7 68 5.84 22 5.13
8 21 1.8 5 1.17
9 11 0.94 7 1.63
10 5 0.43 3 0.70
11 3 0.26 0 0
Last year’s evaluation pointed to the need to ensure that clients’ service referrals are adequately
prioritized and sequenced, rather than given all at once. For example, Bay Area Legal Aid noted that for
the most part, legal needs will often develop once a client encounters barriers to housing or
employment, so while it is helpful to educate clients on their post-release legal rights early on, referrals
to legal aid may best be given later in the client’s reentry process.
Conversations with providers highlighted that upon release behavioral health, housing, and basic needs
such as food are the needs that must be met most immediately. They identified unmet substance abuse
and mental health needs as one of the biggest barriers to client engagement in programs and to their
overall success in reentry. Program staff stressed that in order for their programs to be effective, clients’
behavioral health issues must be addressed before employment or housing can be prioritized. For many
clients, staff explained, residential substance abuse treatment is the first step.
One provider shared: “We understand that 55 percent of the [reentry] population has dual
diagnosis issues, and many are not coherent to make the proper decisions [upon release]. The
lag in time is where we lose people.”
At the same time, discussions with providers and clients elucidated several challenges with prioritizing
and sequencing referrals. Many of the services designed to address clients’ needs are interdependent—
for example, in order to meet basic needs such as housing and food, clients need an income, for which
they often need employment services. Because of the need for immediate income, individuals on AB
109 supervision—and, in turn, their probation officers—feel pressured to immediately pursue
employment services before ensuring that clients’ mental health and substance use are stable. These
factors can result in inappropriately timed and/or duplication of services. Further complicating this
issue, clients may be much more eager to engage in employment service than in behavioral health
Page 129 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 49
services, even though their ability to become and remain employed may depend on their ability to
address substance use and/or mental health needs.
For example, staff noted that in some cases probation officers may refer clients to Rubicon for
job readiness and job placement assistance, and if Rubicon clients are not able to find
employment quickly, the probation officer may make a referral to Goodwill’s transitional
employment program so the participant can begin earning income immediately. Data show that
23 individuals received services from both Rubicon and Goodwill.
Shelter, Inc. has taken note of the bind that clients face themselves in. They have begun placing
clients in housing before they have confirmed employment.
Referrals do not always come with correct client contact information, which impedes client engagement
and follow-up, leading to discrepancies between the numbers of individuals referred and enrolled.
All programs noted that at the time clients are first referred to them, they often have incomplete or
incorrect contact information for those individuals. This greatly hinders their ability to engage clients
and provide them with continuous service. Some staff did note that the contact information they have
received from Field Operations Coordinators from the Reentry Network for Returning Citizens in East
and Central County tends to be more up to date, which they said has helped with client engagement.
Programs shared:
“We have participants whose file we closed because can’t find them, can’t reach them—no
matter how inspirational we’ve been. We need to be able to catch them and keep them.”
“On a simple scale, phone numbers are a big trip-up post release. That’s where the biggest
disconnect starts—particularly if they’re already released, getting a hold of them. That’s where
the falloff starts.”
Data on client referrals and enrollments in Error! Reference source not found. on page Error! Bookmark
not defined. shows the discrepancies between the number of individuals who were referred and
engaged in services. Staff noted that this discrepancy in referrals and enrollments was largely because of
difficulty establishing initial contact and/or engagement with individuals who had been referred, in
addition to the fact that not all individuals who are referred choose to engage in services.
The referral process to contracted providers creates delays and bottlenecks. While the process allows
Probation to track referrals and mange clients’ cases, it leads to significant back and forth between
programs and Probation, often delaying receipt of services and causing frustration for staff and clients.
While programs noted some improvements in the referral process, they observed that the process of
routing referrals through Probation can lead to bottlenecks and time lags, which continues to cause
delays in service delivery. Several organizations felt that the time lags were exacerbated with the
turnover in the Probation staff responsible for fielding requests for referrals from CBOs. This lag in time
between requests and referrals is particularly concerning as it cuts into the crucial time period for post-
release engagement.
Page 130 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 50
At the time of data collection, Men and Women of Purpose reported that they were waiting on
Probation to confirm at least 10 requests for referrals, and CHD was waiting for at least 11
referrals, leading to a delay in starting service delivery with the identified clients.
Clients also experienced the delay that can occur as a result of the referral process: “Everything
you do is with someone different. It is kinda confusing. It makes it harder to get things done. He
has to send a referral, that has to go through, you gotta wait for them to call you.”
The Probation Department is still limited in its capacity to make pre-release referrals.
While the designated deputy probation officer is able to assess and refer individuals prior to release,
staff from several organizations commented that having only one probation officer who can perform
this task seems insufficient to meet the need.
Programs report that limitations in the timing and frequency of pre-release access negatively affects
their ability to engage participants in the critical time prior to reentry. Having the ability to develop
those relationships while the client is still in custody benefits their short and long-term success.
The Jail to Community model is an evidence-based model developed with the knowledge that pre-
release contact is a key determinant of an individual’s likelihood to engage in services post release and
facilitates clients’ successful reentry. As one client said, “They need to plant that seed early so that even
if [reentering individuals] are walking that fence, they can get back on.”
Although many of the contracted CBOs do have agreements in place with the Sheriff’s Office to obtain
pre-release access, all of the programs stated that they their access is insufficient for the type of one-on-
one services they feel would most benefit clients, in terms of the frequency they are allowed access, the
time of day, and/or the length of time per visit. That said, there are a number of barriers to increasing
pre-release access, including limited classroom space available in the jails; security classification issues,
especially in Martinez Detention Facility; a time consuming background check and clearance process;
and fitting program visits into the jails’ operating schedules and processes. It is important to note that
the evaluation did not interview Sheriff’s Office staff for this report, although we did speak to multiple
staff from the Sheriff’s Office for the prior evaluation. Providers raised the following concerns:
All programs wish they could access the jails with more frequency and have more opportunities
for one-on-one meetings with participants.
Center for Human development is limited to informing incarcerated individuals about family
reunification services, but would like to be able to conduct workshops.
Shelter, Inc. and Goodwill have not received clearance to access participants in jail.
Some clients raised this issue as well.
“AB 109 doesn’t [care] about you until you’re released. What they need to do, the people with
weaker minds are going to go right back to the drugs. For those people they need to start this
Page 131 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 51
process while they’re in jail so that they have somewhere to go so they don’t go back to using
drugs.”
While communication and coordination appear to have improved over time, mechanisms for systematic
and streamlined communication among CBOs and between CBOs and Probation are still evolving.
CBOs have developed informal and formal ways to communicate and coordinate. They noted that these
opportunities are useful and they would benefit from greater coordination. Staff also spoke about
opportunities for communication and coordination between clients and probation. Several organizations
mentioned that the case conferences convened by Probation had a hiatus of about six months. Staff
noted that they appreciated the opportunity for networking that the case conferences provided. Staff
also noted that programs are not systematically informed when clients are re-incarcerated, which
inhibits their ability to maintain engagement with clients who may be in jail.
Some clients also shared experiences that the AB 109 system was at times challenging to
navigate. A number of participants also recalled times when they had trouble getting in touch
with their probation officer.
o “Everything you do is with someone different. It is kinda confusing. It makes it harder to
get things done.”
o “I’ve been asking for food vouchers besides EBT and clothing vouchers. The thing is
everything is contracted out. I gotta go to everyone else and AB 109 has all these
branches.”
Individuals on AB 109 supervision report receiving limited information about what it means to be under
AB 109 supervision or the opportunities available to them.
Participants identified a lack of consolidated information for clients about AB 109 services. Although the
County commissioned a resource guide with the available AB 109 programs, no clients reported having
received this guide. Based on their comments, it was clear that many participants were unclear about
the purview of AB 109 and conflated “programs” and the AB 109 system as a whole.
Housing assistance for AB 109 individuals remains very limited, as there is a limited availability of
housing itself and current housing providers are over capacity.
Providers and clients highlighted the extremely limited availability of both transitional housing and
stable housing for returning citizens. In addition, while the County has since contracted with another
housing assistance provider, during the current evaluation period Shelter, Inc. was over capacity as the
only contracted provider for housing placement assistance. Providers across the board stressed the
importance of immediate access to housing, including shelters and transitional housing, upon release.
Page 132 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 52
“If [clients] could find a way to not have to spend so much time hitting the ground running and
fending for themselves…maybe get beds or shelters that would allow them to rest for a minute
and look for something, get [their] medication in place, their mental health…. We don’t have a
pathway to directly identify them and get them a place to stay so we can get them the services
they need so they can have a chance.”
Transportation assistance came up as a frequent barrier to successfully engaging both with reentry
programs as well as with potential and future employers.
Many participants expressed frustration with the lack of assistance for transportation to get places such
as job interviews and mental health appointments. Some stated that, as a result, they felt that illegally
entering BART without paying was their only option.
“Another thing is that AB 109 wants me to go to work, meet my PO, go to mental health, to do
all these things, and I’ve been asking for transportation vouchers for 4 months.
“My problem with the transportation is, I go see my PO and he only gives me one ticket to get to
his office and one ticket to get home, nothing else. POs know that if we don’t qualify for food
stamps we’re spending all our money on food, but I’m spending too much money on
transportation.”
While some organizations currently provide transportation assistance for their particular programs, or
are pursuing ways to provide broader assistance with transportation, overall there is limited funding for
this type of assistance.
3. Broader structural issues impacting the success of reentry programming
It is important to note that there are a number of factors beyond the County’s control which
nonetheless impact the success of AB 109 programs and the individuals served therein. Below we note
some of the most commonly mentioned issues.
For clients with felony convictions or poor credit histories, the limited availability of both stable housing
and competitive employment restricts long-term success.
While employment training programs, transitional employment and housing placement assistance offer
critical assistance to individuals reentering the community, these programs can only go so far; the
availability of actual housing and employment options for the reentry population is severely limited.
Although programs like Goodwill and Rubicon are actively identifying and forming relationships with
potential employers, the fact remains that many employers will not hire someone with a felony
conviction. In focus groups, participants shared again and again about experiences where they were
almost offered a job, or they were offered a job, only to be told, “I’m sorry” when their background
check came through. A further challenge is that while individuals are expected to obtain employment
Page 133 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 53
almost immediately after release, the combination of often limited work habits and experience means
that it takes time, training, and practice for individuals to develop new habits and skills. Many clients
shared a sense of discouragement and felt that the lack of employment opportunities could lead them
to turn back to illegal activities.
“I’ve got kids, I’ve got a grandbaby. I’m doing everything in my power to keep from doing what I
used to do. But there’s no jobs available.”
Staff and clients also highlighted a shortage of transitional housing options in which individuals could be
immediately placed upon release. In terms of finding long-term stable housing, Shelter, Inc. described
the difficulty in finding landlords who are willing to rent to individuals with a criminal history. As a result,
individuals often end up living in places that are not conducive to their recovery or successful reentry.
Moreover, individuals commonly experience a mismatch between their desires for a better life and the
reality of what is available to them, which contributes to a sense of discouragement. For example, staff
at Shelter, Inc. described that one of the greatest challenges for individuals is the reality of what their
income is versus their ideal housing situation. The combination of individuals’ multiple barriers to
reentry and their extremely limited options for employment and housing leaves many individuals feeling
discouraged. Further, staff from Reach highlighted that the housing challenges faced by women are
unique. They noted that men often go back to a woman’s home when they are released, while women
may not have anywhere to go. It is therefore important to maintain an awareness of the intersection of
gender with other barriers to reentry.
Overall, program staff explained that individuals participating in pre-release programs often express
hope and good intentions for their lives post release, but when immediate linkage to housing and other
supports is not available, it can be difficult to stay afloat: “Once they get out the system is not there to
hold them, so they don’t follow through.” When the AB 109 system cannot provide an immediate safety
net upon release, individuals are more likely to fall into old habits.
Across the range of participants, unequal access to government assistance programs came up frequently
as a barrier to meeting individuals’ basic needs.
While some laws will be changing, the inability to access government assistance, including public
housing resources and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for those convicted of
drug sales, has served as a significant barrier for reentering individuals in being able to meet their most
basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter. Without these basic needs taken care of, clients are more
likely to fall into despair or turn to old habits.
One client shared: “We need clothing vouchers, food vouchers, transportation to get us started.
Otherwise we’re just going to keep drinking and using, mask our pain with stupidity. With those
vouchers, we could have better opportunity to succeed.”
Page 134 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 54
While the Education and Employment Liaison contracts with the CAO are intended to address barriers to
employment such as driver’s licenses and other paperwork, there remain broader barriers to regaining
driver’s licenses in a timely manner.
Staff from many organizations stressed the magnitude of the issue of suspended driver’s licenses for
reentering individuals, which serves as a significant barrier to employment: “People have jobs lined up
and are waiting to get that license back.” Pointing to a broader barrier within the current system for
resolving this issue, staff from Bay Area Legal Aid noted that while Homeless Court provides an
opportunity to resolve a suspended driver’s license, the Homeless Court calendar can be backed up for
many months, delaying the resolution of this issue.
V. Recommendations
1. Engage in a comprehensive planning process to improve overall system coordination
To date, Contra Costa County has engaged in a number of planning process related to AB 109, including
the 2011/12 Public Safety Realignment Implementation Plan; the 2012 AB 109 Operational Plan; the
2013 East and Central County Network Plan; and the 2013 West County Reentry Resource Center Plan.
While these efforts have been critical in helping the County begin to lay the groundwork necessary for
an AB 109 reentry infrastructure, the development of a coordinated AB 109 system is a work in progress
and several issues remain.
In order to develop a coordinated system, we recommend the County engage in a comprehensive
planning process involving representatives from all County departments and community-based
organizations involved in the AB 109 infrastructure. Specifically, the planning process should address the
following issues.
A. Processes for triaging clients’ with multiple, overlapping needs
Last year’s evaluation pointed to the need to ensure that clients’ service referrals are adequately
prioritized and sequenced, rather than given all at once. The evaluation found several challenges with
prioritizing and sequencing referrals:
Identification and triage of referrals: Because domains assessed via the CAIS tool do not all
neatly align with service domains, there does not appear to be a clear process regarding how to
translate CAIS results into service referrals. In addition, there does not appear to be a systematic
approach to triaging services for individuals with a multiplicity of needs. It may be that the
County should adopt a second brief tool, such as the GAINS Reentry Checklist (shared in the last
report and included here as Appendix D), that can link client needs directly to service referrals,
but there needs to be agreement around what tool to use, who should use it (Probation, the
Page 135 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 55
Network Field Ops and West County Data Administrator, both), and which referrals should stem
from what needs.
Behavioral Health Services: Behavioral health needs were identified as a key barrier to
engagement in services; providers stressed that it is important to address individuals’ substance
abuse and/or mental health needs before they can engage in further services. According to CAIS
results, approximately 70% of AB 109 clients have alcohol and/or drug abuse needs; in addition,
the Chief Probation Officers of California (CPOC) and CDCR estimate that 20% of AB 109 clients
have a diagnosed mental health need.23 As the referral process currently operates, Probation
makes referrals to Behavioral Health Services (BHS) and Probation makes parallel referrals to
CBOs and/or Network Field Ops, but there does not appear to be a comprehensive approach to
coordinate these referrals. Recent plans for revising the referral process focus on the
relationship between Probation and the Network and Reentry Center, without addressing the
role of BHS.
B. Communication processes and information flow between the Sheriff’s Office, Probation
Department, and CBOs
There is an opportunity for improved coordination and communication among the players in the AB 109
system, including 1) among contracted providers; 2) between providers and the Probation Department;
3) between providers, The Probation Department, and Behavioral Health Services; and 4) between
providers and the Sheriff’s Office. This includes:
Communication protocols related to referrals: One of the challenges with the current referral
process is that there is a one-way communication system, with DPOs sending referrals but
having no mechanism to follow up to find out if their clients followed through. Similarly, CBOs
do not have a clear mechanism to follow up with DPOs to review the appropriateness of the
referral, ask questions about the client, seek accurate contact information, etc. Because there is
not a streamlined process for communication between Probation, Behavioral Health, and CBOs,
DPOs may not know whether or not their clients are following up to engage and, if not, why not.
Status change communication: CBOs are not regularly updated when their clients return to
custody. This can mean that they waste limited staff time trying to connect with clients and it
means that they cannot work with Probation and/or the Sheriff’s Office to understand why the
individual was reincarcerated and try to help address the underlying issues. Limitations with the
Sheriff’s Office’s Jail Management System, noted in the previous evaluation, may also limit the
Sheriff’s Office’s ability to notify Probation about the reincarceration of AB 109 clients if those
individuals come in on new charges.
Bottlenecks: While routing all referrals though clients’ DPOs is critical for tracking services in a
unified place and for allowing POs oversight of their clients, it leads to significant bottlenecks
and places undue burden on DPOs who may need to respond to referral requests from multiple
CBOs for dozens of clients. Improved communication protocols could help address this issue, but
23 http://www.cpoc.org/assets/Realignment/issuebrief4.pdf
Page 136 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 56
it is also important to broaden the Probation Department’s capacity to respond to referrals
quickly. One possible option for alleviating the burden on DPOs and reducing this bottleneck is
to establish referral coordination as an administrative responsibility in the Probation
Department, rather than primarily as the domain of DPOs. If a person or people in
administrative positions could receive and respond to referral requests from CBOs, confirm
clients’ AB 109 status, and record confirmed referrals, this could allow referrals to flow with
fewer time delays and without requiring immediate response from DPOs, who may be out in the
field and unable to respond.
C. Pre-release case planning and service receipt
The majority of AB 109-contracted service providers do participate in some amount of in-custody service
provision; however, all report that this access in insufficient to do the amount of planning necessary to
prepare individuals for release. At the same time, providing extensive pre-release access for a
multiplicity of CBOs who provide a range of services can be burdensome for the Sheriff’s Office, which
needs to provide classroom and meeting space, ensure adequate staffing and security, conduct
background checks, etc. Again, a coordinated planning process that brings together the Sheriff’s Office,
Probation, Behavioral Health Services, and CBOs could establish a comprehensive agreement around
pre-release access and case planning. Moreover, improved communication, recommended above, could
eliminate the need for all partners to engage in separate pre-release planning meetings and processes,
instead establishing point people (or point agencies) to lead pre-release planning processes and
communicate these plans to other partners.
D. Communication about AB 109 services
Clients, providers, and probation officers alike would benefit from greater knowledge of the available
services.
2. Address critical need and service gaps
There are a number of unmet or difficult-to-meet needs to limit the ability of CBOs to adequately
support AB 109 clients. Some of these issues are related to services, while others are more related to
laws, regulations, employment and housing practices, and supply shortages that are broader than the
AB 109 system itself.
A. Service gaps
Providing or augmenting the following services has the potential to reduce the barriers individuals face
upon reentry and thereby increase the effectiveness of the AB 109-contracted programming.
Transportation assistance. Both clients and providers noted challenges with transportation as a
barrier to service receipt and to other facilitators of success, such as to work. During the prior
evaluation period, the evaluation team observed DPOs disseminating transit cards to clients;
however, the amount of transportation assistance available may not meet the level of need.
Page 137 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 57
Food assistance. A number of individuals indicated a need for food assistance, particularly
individuals who cannot access CalFresh because of certain felony drug convictions. The County
should consider sort-term food assistance for these individuals. In addition, all AB 109 system
partners should make better use of BayLegal’s assistance appealing benefit denials by referring
these clients to BayLegal services. The County should also ensure that relationships and referral
processes are in place with the County’s General Assistance administration and CalFresh.
Housing availability and funding. Locating and retaining housing are both challenges for
individuals with little to no income, poor credit histories, past evictions, and felony convictions.
Moreover, Shelter, Inc., the primary housing service provider is the only CBO to report receiving
more referrals than they can respond to. To help address this issue, the County should
reallocate unspent housing funding to existing and/or new providers and consider allocating
funds for more and/or longer transitional housing.
Access to Homeless Court and family law assistance. Providers emphasized the magnitude of
the issue of driver’s license suspensions in impacting individuals’ ability to obtain employment.
While praising the Homeless Court as an avenue for resolving suspensions, they noted that
there can be serious Ensure that partnerships and referral pathways are in place with the
Family Law Facilitator program
B. Laws, regulations, employment and housing practices, and supply shortages
While employment and housing placement assistance offer critical support to individuals reentering the
community, these programs can only go so far; the actual housing and employment options for the
reentry population are severely limited. The County should enhance partnerships with employers and
landlords/property managers to increase the availability of and access to employment and housing.
Availability of and access to competitive employment opportunities. The County should create
a formal partnership with the Workforce Development Board to help identify and link AB 109
individuals to employment opportunities. Further, creating opportunities for CBO staff and/or
probation officers to connect directly with employers to provide character references for
individuals they are working with and/or supervising. The County should also designate or
partner with staff to train employers on
Availability of and access to housing. The County should work with developers and other
County offices to discuss options for more affordable, sober living housing options for formerly
incarcerated individuals, including both transitional and stable housing. The County should
designate or partner with staff to train landlords/property managers in fair housing practices
and discrimination.24
24 BayLegal is providing information at statewide meetings to discuss potential legislative proposals that might help
mitigate barriers to permanent housing for individuals with criminal records. While this effort is ongoing,
preliminary meetings have helped to narrow the focus to the expansion of fair housing protections and
enforcement to this class of individuals.
Page 138 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | 58
3. Continue to enhance data collection and monitoring capacity
While some CBOs—including Rubicon, Shelter, Inc., and Bay Area Legal Aid—have a high level of data
capacity and facility, other CBOs continue to struggle with data capacity. While this capacity will improve
as organizations are trained in the ServicePoint system, it will be important to ensure that contracted
providers are held to standards and that they receive the capacity development and technical assistance
to get there. Either the ServicePoint administrator or the Network Coordinator should review CBO data
entry on a monthly basis to ensure accurate and timely data entry. In addition, the County should
designate a staff person to validate these data entries against quarterly reports to the CAO to ensure
consistent data collection and reporting.
Page 139 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-1
VI. Appendices
Appendix A: Methods ............................................................................................................................... A-2
Appendix B: Program-Level Reports ......................................................................................................... A-4
Bay Area Legal Aid ........................................................................................................................... A-5
Brighter Beginnings ....................................................................................................................... A-11
Center for Human Development ................................................................................................... A-16
Goodwill ........................................................................................................................................ A-23
Men and Women of Purpose ........................................................................................................ A-30
Reach ............................................................................................................................................. A-34
Rubicon.......................................................................................................................................... A-39
Shelter, Inc. ................................................................................................................................... A-46
Appendix C: Logic Model ............................................................................ A-Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix D: GAINS Reentry Checklist ..................................................................................................... A-52
Page 140 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-2
Appendix A: Methods
The RDA evaluation team used a mixed-methods approach for this evaluation, collecting and analyzing a
variety of qualitative and quantitative data, including interviews and focus groups with service
providers; focus groups with program participants, including individuals who enrolled in programs and
subsequently discontinued participation; quantitative data on client engagement and service provision
from service providers; client enrollment data; AB 109 clients’ risks and needs as assessed by the
Probation Department using the CAIS™ (Correctional Assessment and Intervention System); and data on
referrals to CBOs and County departments from the Probation Department’s electronic case
management system. The evaluation addresses the following key questions:
1. To what extent are AB 109-contract service providers delivering services with fidelity to their
program models?
2. To what extent are AB 109 clients achieving intended short-term outcomes, such as housing,
employment, family reunification, etc.?
3. What factors facilitate successful service delivery and client outcomes?
4. What barriers exist to successful service delivery and client outcomes?
The sections below describe the data collection activities and approach to data analysis in greater detail.
Evaluation Activities
Documentary Data
The evaluation team collected two different types of documentary data from the County Administrator’s
Office (CAO): AB 109 contracts to CBOs and Quarterly Reports submitted by CBOs to the CAO. We
commenced data collection by reviewing County AB 109 contracts to understand service delivery and
intended outcomes for each service provider. As part of this process the evaluation team developed a
data collection and outcome matrix that guided interviews and focus groups with CBOs and clients, as
well as quantitative data collected from providers. We also reviewed quarterly reports that CBOs
provided to the CAO as a means of assessing the consistency of the data that they reported relative to
the data that we received.
Interviews with Service Providers
The evaluation team conducted two rounds of interviews with AB 109-contract service providers. The
first of these were conducted after our review of AB 109 contracts and allowed us to understand the
program service delivery model, staff training and program capacity, intended client outcomes, and data
collection activities. The second interviews, conducted after the evaluation team had conducted client
focus groups and analyzed provider quantitative data reports, were used to explore the referral and
enrollment process and to examine gaps between intended and actual service delivery and client
outcomes.
Page 141 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-3
Focus Groups with Current and Former Program Clients
We coordinated with the service provider organizations to conduct focus groups with clients, including
current clients and those who had enrolled in program services but ultimately discontinued them.25
These open-ended conversations sought to understand how clients came to be referred to and enrolled
in each program; what activities they were or had participated in, their satisfaction with those services,
and their initial outcomes related to those services. We also sought to understand challenges in service
receipt, reasons for disengagement, and participation in other AB 109 programs and services.
The evaluation team worked in collaboration with the CAO, contracted CBOs and the Probation
Department to carry out several quantitative evaluation activities.
CBO Data
RDA worked with each of the eight service providers to collect data related to service delivery and client
outcomes, such as number of clients referred, screened, and enrolled overall and for different program
components; program completion rates; services delivered; and documented outcomes. The specific
data points collected varied by provider based on their service delivery models and intended client
outcomes. In addition to these service and outcome reports, the evaluation team also obtained client-
referral and enrollment lists from each provider to assess cross-program participation.
Probation Data
RDA worked with the Contra Costa County Probation Department to obtain two different datasets: one
on probation referrals to both CBOs and County Services, and one on AB 109 clients’ risks and needs as
determined by the Correctional Assessment and Intervention System™ (CAIS). We analyzed the client
referral dataset to determine how many AB 109 clients’ were referred to services, which services they
were referred to, what service combinations were common, and any trends in the timing of referrals.
This data was also used to validate CBO-reported referral data. The CAIS dataset was used to evaluate
the common risk and need domains of AB 109 clients in order to understand the landscape of issues
within which programs are operating.
RDA analyzed quantitative data to generate an integrated picture of service provision to date in Contra
Costa County, and to identify challenges related to service provision and client outcomes. The
evaluation team conducted a thematic analysis of qualitative data to validate and explain quantitative
findings and to assess trends both within and across AB 109 programs.
25 At the time of this report, the evaluation team was in the process of making contact with clients from Brighter
Beginnings. Findings from client conversations will be included as an addendum to this report.
Page 142 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-4
Appendix B: Program-Level Reports
Bay Area Legal Aid ..................................................................................................................................... A-5
Brighter Beginnings ................................................................................................................................. A-11
Center for Human Development ............................................................................................................ A-16
Goodwill .................................................................................................................................................. A-23
Men and Women of Purpose .................................................................................................................. A-30
Reach ....................................................................................................................................................... A-34
Rubicon ................................................................................................................................................... A-39
Shelter, Inc. ............................................................................................................................................. A-46
Page 143 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-5
Bay Area Legal Aid
Snapshot of Program Accomplishments, July 2013 -Sept. 2014
74 referrals received26
61 unduplicated clients served
48% (n=29) received employment assistance
21% (n=13) received family law services
11% (n=7) received benefits assistance
Less than 7% (n=4) received each of the following:
housing, healthcare, assistance with financial
matters, or miscellaneous assistance
31 clients received advice and counsel or brief
services
26 cases were still pending at the time of data
collection
4 clients received full representation; all had a
favorable outcome
Overview of Program
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-15, Contra Costa County contracted with Bay Area Legal Aid (“BayLegal”) to
provide legal services for AB 109 clients and educate them about their rights and responsibilities. The
legal services BayLegal provides include: obtaining or retaining housing, public benefits, and health care;
financial and debt assistance; family law, and obtaining driver’s licenses. The program provides post-
release legal check-ups for each client to identify legal barriers that can be remediated; educates clients
about early termination of probation; and assists with fines. BayLegal attorneys also meet individually
with clients in both jail and prison prior to their release. Two staff attorneys provide services to AB 109
participants.
BayLegal has both formal and informal arrangements with other AB 109 service providers to provide
referrals and co-located services. BayLegal is a formal subcontractor of Rubicon and informally provides
services at the Goodwill location. Neither the FY 2013-14 nor 2014-15 contract specified a target
number of clients to be served. Variation in the nature of their cases can lead to a wider range of
turnaround times for resolution for each client.
26 Probation data shows a slightly smaller number of referrals to BayLegal. The difference in referral numbers
recorded by Probation and by BayLegal may be the result of referrals BayLegal receives directly from Rubicon as a
subcontractor, and from its collaborations with Goodwill and Shelter, Inc.
Page 144 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-6
Strengths
Access to legal services and linkages
BayLegal provides critical legal advice, assistance, and representation, along with referrals and linkages
to other legal services, to help reentry clients address the legal barriers to their successful reintegration
into the community.
BayLegal staff’s legal expertise and their willingness to invest significant time and effort into clients’
cases are both essential to the program’s ability to find appropriate avenues for legal relief, which may
include full legal representation or advice and referral to other legal resources. For example, the staff
help clients access Homeless Court to address fines preventing them from obtaining or recovering their
driver’s license, obtain waivers for acceptable non-payment of child support, and affordable plans for
restitution payments.
Between July 1, 2013 and Sept. 30, 2014, BayLegal provided advice and counsel or brief legal services to
31 clients and full representation to four clients (with 26 cases still pending). The four completed cases
all had favorable court outcomes. Of the clients served, nearly half (48%) received assistance related to
employment, with staff noting that driver’s license issues were frequently involved in these cases. In
addition, one in five clients (21%) received family law services, and just over 10% received benefits
assistance.
Participants spoke highly about the help they received from BayLegal’s attorneys, describing assistance
with driver’s licenses and Homeless Court, lowering restitution payments, Medi-Cal enrollment and
hospital bills, and child support—including accompanying participants to appointments when necessary:
She’ll connect [you] to whatever kind of lawyer you need. Like, I couldn’t get my driver’s license
because of my child support. She cleaned my license.
They cleaned my whole driving record, $21,000 in fees and fines. [They also] helped with my child
support.
She helped me get on Medi-Cal and that cut everything off for the medical bills—I don’t owe it
anymore.
BayLegal has developed formal and informal relationships with other Contra Costa AB 109 programs to
provide opportunities for clients to learn about and connect to legal assistance.
Recognizing that legal issues are most often not clients’ primary need upon release—with the exception
of public benefits denials and driver’s license issues—BayLegal has made a concerted effort to educate
potential clients about their services in order to ensure that clients’ legal needs can be addressed when
they arise or become more pressing. In this way, even though clients may not need legal services
immediately, they are aware of the services should a need arise down the line. Staff explained:
Page 145 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-7
Often there’s someone who’s originally referred for a simple driver’s license issue, trying to figure
out how to restore their license, and down the line they come up with a housing issue, and they
know who to contact then.
BayLegal has successfully built or leveraged relationships with other AB 109 providers in order to
increase awareness and utilization of their services among AB 109 clients. By co-locating BayLegal staff
at Goodwill and Rubicon offices, BayLegal has been able to work with clients who were not initially
referred to their services. Staff noted that one of the most effective means of identifying and referring
clients with legal issues has been the weekly office hours they hold at Goodwill in Central County. The
convenience of having BayLegal on site allows Goodwill to seamlessly connect their clients with legal
consultation. Clients are also aware of the arrangement and know that there is a regular time every
week when they can access legal support. When one client had to bring in documentation for BayLegal
to use in his case, he was able to meet with BayLegal’s attorney before reporting to work at the
Goodwill store: “I’d be working and here she was coming by [Goodwill], so I’d see her before going to
work.” Another participant shared:
They had Legal Aid that comes to [Goodwill] and helps us out every Friday. With that it’s helped
me a lot. This [attorney] she has gone using all the loopholes to help me out. I found out about
that service through Goodwill.
In addition to available staff hours at Goodwill, BayLegal facilitates legal education at Rubicon through
“Know Your Rights” workshops. Participants described the integration of these workshops and the
services available at Rubicon:
[It’s about] what employers are and are not allowed to ask you. And about legal services at
Rubicon. [They] told us about our credit score, did our credit report.
In addition to educating clients about their legal rights, BayLegal attorneys noted that the opportunity to
connect with clients early on more likely to engage with BayLegal at some point in their reentry process:
It does happen quite a bit, especially with the clients I meet in Central at Goodwill. I might meet
for a basic history, consult, and later down the line they will come back with a more extensive
issue.
Service data on program enrollments demonstrate the importance of these relationships. Of the 61
individuals BayLegal served during the evaluation period, 36 were also Goodwill clients and 17 were also
Rubicon clients.
BayLegal also has relationships with County departments outside of the AB 109 system, which they can
leverage to assist clients. For example, the organization has a partnership with the Department of Child
Support, which supports BayLegal’s family law work.
Page 146 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-8
Improved program capacity
BayLegal has improved its capacity to engage and follow-up with clients in a timely manner by
leveraging the organization’s intake coordinator, who schedules meetings for clients with the staff
attorneys and follows up with the Probation Department to help track clients.
When BayLegal initially began its AB 109 contract, program staff struggled to establish and maintain
contact with a highly transient population. Recognizing that coordination-related issues were taking an
inordinate amount of staff time and inhibiting their ability to service clients effectively, the organization
hired an intake coordinator, who is responsible for gathering and assessing all intakes. This person
schedules meetings for clients with the staff attorneys and provides follow-up with the Probation
Department to help track clients. In addition, the creation of this position has enabled to BayLegal
continue to manage clients’ care and coordinate services even when a clients’ attorney is out in the field
or working with other clients.
Challenges
Suitability of referrals
Staff attorneys reflected that sometimes the referrals that BayLegal receives do not clearly align with
the type of support the program provides. This appears to cut both ways, with the agency receiving
some referrals for legal issues that it cannot help with, while receiving fewer referrals than expected for
services they do provide.
One of the challenges BayLegal noted was a mismatch between the needs of referred clients and the
services the program provides. On the one hand, the program has received a number of referrals for a
range of legal issues that are outside the programs’ scope of services.
Some of the referrals are not quite [suitable] or are very vague…Maybe they did it as a default—
some kind of legal issue was flagged and they send it over. I think there’s an opportunity for both
sides to engage each other and learn more about how the other operates.
In addition, the program has received very few referrals for a range of other issues they address. Staff
attorneys observed that they would have expected a greater number of cases for individuals facing
housing denials or evictions, Medi-Cal enrollment denials, and General Assistance or CalFresh denials.
Between July 2013 and Sept. 2014, Bay Area Legal Aid provided benefits assistance to only seven
individuals and housing or healthcare assistance to only four individuals. Staff commented that they
were unsure whether the lower number of cases was because clients were actually not facing these
issues, or because the referrals were not coming in. Staff shared regarding housing cases:
I thought we’d see more housing cases—cases of people getting denied or evicted because of
record. I’m not sure what’s happening between transitional to permanent housing, maybe
Page 147 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-9
people are figuring it out on their own, or staying with friends and family…I would be curious to
know.
Regarding public benefits cases, staff noted that they partner with County departments involved in
public benefits, who can flag individuals who have been denied and refer them for legal assistance. In
the arena of General Assistance and CalFresh benefits, BayLegal staff were unclear whether a similar
type of identification and referral was occurring:
With SSI we have our partners with the public benefits team that helps people apply for it, and
they can flag if people are denied and in some cases refer people to us. I’m not sure if anyone is
doing the flagging for the food stamps and the GA.
In addition to lower than expected referrals for particular types of cases, at least one staff member was
surprised at the low number of female referrals, observing that this may highlight a gap in referrals or
may simply be a reflection of the gender makeup of the county’s AB 109 population.
As a result of the program’s expectation of higher numbers of cases, BayLegal has capacity to service
more clients than their current number of referrals.
While the sequencing of referrals to AB 109 programs has improved over time, some referrals to legal
services may still be premature.
As noted by staff above, individuals benefit most from legal assistance when their most immediate
reentry needs are stabilized—including substance abuse, housing, and income needs. Thus the timing of
referrals to legal services is important. While staff expressed that the sequencing of referrals has greatly
improved over time, they noted that occasionally “the clients themselves aren’t ready to engage.”
However, as noted above, the opportunity to connect with clients early on, even if they are not yet
ready for legal assistance, can increase their awareness of available services and therefore the likelihood
that they will engage in services at a later point.
Pre-release outreach and education
While staff attorneys have access to meet with individual clients prior to release, BayLegal would like to
enhance participation in a structured transition plan and have pre-release access to releasing AB 109
status probationers in a classroom or "workshop" format in order to educate potential clients about
their rights and services BayLegal can and cannot provide (e.g., BayLegal attorneys work on civil legal
matters, but not on criminal legal matters).
Page 148 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-10
Service coordination
Staff capacity for timely client follow-up, coupled with challenges in tracking participants, can hinder the
program’s ability to consistently follow-up with clients in a timely manner.
Though BayLegal’s intake coordinator has helped in the area of client communication and follow-up,
some staff noted that it can be a challenge to maintain timely communication with clients who can be
nonresponsive or communicate inconsistently due to other challenges they face.
Further, BayLegal staff noted that they are not regularly informed when clients are reincarcerated for a
new offense, which inhibits their ability to follow up with clients who may be in jail.
BayLegal identified family law as an area where partnerships with County services would be of benefit to
clients.
While BayLegal can provide information, advice and referrals for clients facing family law issues, due to
limited capacity, BayLegal provides representation in family law matters only for clients who are
survivors of domestic violence. BayLegal refers other clients to the County’s Family Law Facilitator
program, which assists clients in completing their own paperwork. Staff noted that there may be an
opportunity for the County to expand or make a more direct connection to this program by designating
time for reentry clients to meet with a family law facilitator.
Page 149 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-11
Brighter Beginnings
Snapshot of Program Accomplishments, July 2013 -Sept. 2014
80 participants served*
20 pre-release workshops held
12 participants received a certificate of completion
(attended 7 or more sessions)*
2 AB 109 pre-release participants made post-release
contact
4 AB 109 participants received a one-on-one coaching
session
5 pre-release participants made a strategic
life plan*
*This number includes participants who were served prior to sentencing; participants may not have ultimately
received an AB 109 sentence.
Overview of Program
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-14 the County contracted with Brighter Beginnings, a family strengthening
organization, to provide services as part of the mentoring collaborative coordinated by the Contra Costa
County Office of Education (CCCOE). With a focus on leadership development, Brighter Beginnings’
services under this contract included the development and implementation of the Re-Entry Academy for
Leaders (REAL Curriculum). In FY 2014-15, the County contracted Brighter Beginnings to provide services
in two capacities: 1) as an AB 109 direct service provider, and 2) as the main administrator and
coordinator for the County’s Mentoring and Family Reunification Program, taking over this role from the
Office of Education. This report focuses on the organization’s direct service contract only.
In FY 2014-15, Brighter Beginnings was contracted to provide leadership and entrepreneurialism training
services to clients in conjunction with John F. Kennedy University (JFKU), utilizing a three-phased
approach with the goal of achieving leadership skill development and business creation education for
participants. The first phase of the program begins in custody and includes a 10-week leadership-
training program. Phase II, which begins post-release, involves twice-monthly REAL Curriculum group
meetings and one-on-one coaching. In the third phase of the program, which has not happened yet,
Brighter Beginnings was to collaborate with JFKU to deliver an integrated program of leadership (REAL
Curriculum groups) with JFKU’s Intra-preneurship curriculum (career readiness). In addition, as part of
Phase III, Brighter Beginnings was to identify potential candidates for JFKU’s Institute of Entrepreneurial
Leadership (IEL) certificate program. Brighter Beginnings’ staff for its AB 109-funded programs includes a
program coordinator, a program manager, and a contract administrator.
Page 150 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-12
Strengths
Research-based and flexible curriculum
The REAL curriculum draws on existing research-based programs, while also allowing for flexibility to
best fit participants’ needs.
The REAL curriculum draws on a curriculum developed as part of a program for returning citizens in
Ohio, as well as Leaders for Change: Protective Factors in Action, a 20-hour training program for family
leaders developed by the Parent Services Project (PSP) in California.
In implementing the curriculum, staff have maintained fidelity to the program’s core goal of developing
a strategic life plan, while also adapting their teaching styles to best fit participants’ needs. Based on the
feedback and questions they receive, staff discern the participants’ level of understanding to ensure the
program is accessible for participants from varied educational backgrounds. In the pre-release setting,
staff have also adapted the curriculum to focus on developing shorter-term strategic goals in addition to
longer-term life plans.
Goal-setting and individualized support
By helping pre-release program participants make a concrete plan for attaining their personal goals,
Brighter Beginnings leads them toward greater stability post-release.
The program’s goal is to teach participants self-reliance and stability through successfully achieving their
goals. Over the course of the REAL curriculum groups, participants prioritize personal goals in a strategic
life plan. Through interactions with the participants during the group sessions, program staff can discern
participants’ readiness for change. The staff then works to build participants’ critical thinking and
planning skills by guiding them through a process to discern attainable goals from unlikely goals.
The heart of the program is the development of a personal strategic life plan…. We talk
specifically about the steps for making that happen. If they remain in the program at least two to
three sessions, I’m able to get feedback from them on how they’re working towards those goals.
Brighter Beginnings staff observed that during the pre-release program, a number of participants have
set and achieved short-term goals related to their own self-control and interactions with other
incarcerated individuals. Facing these goals pre-release helps participants prepare for similar challenges
on the outside. While Brighter Beginnings has limited data on the post-release outcomes of their REAL
curriculum participants, staff shared the example of one participant who contacted staff to express
gratitude for the Brighter Beginnings program.
I got a call from a graduate. She said, ‘You told me to let you know when I finally land and feel
like I’m stable, and I want you to know I’m doing ok. I’m back with my husband. Thank you very
much.’
Page 151 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-13
In addition to leadership training and support, staff provide information and assistance to help
individuals address barriers to reentry.
Staff provide participants with concrete information and assistance to help link them to a variety of
resources, including housing, education, court services, and financial benefits. In many cases, individuals
need to meet these basic needs before they can move forward with further educational or career goals.
Staff shared the example of one individual who expressed interest in higher education, but first needed
to obtain a source of income. “One example is a man waiting for his SSI–he has a support system, but he
didn’t know how to access some of the services that are available to him in order to achieve his goals.”
Staff explained that after helping this client obtain a source of income, “Then we’ll look at the next steps,
now that he has that income: contacting the school of his choice, beginning to look at housing.”
The REAL curriculum incorporates elements of family and community strengthening, with the goal of
broadening the program’s impact.
The Brighter Beginnings program model aims to impact family and community stability, beginning by
strengthening the individual. Though many participants first focus on stabilizing themselves, staff
emphasize that as their personal lives and families begins to stabilize, participants should look toward
their communities and find broader ways to contribute.
If they don’t have immediate family, who do they have in their circle of influence? Because
everyone connects with someone. I try to make it applicable to whatever the situation the person
is in. The goal is for them to continue to expand the circle, to not be satisfied at one level, to keep
it going.
Data capacity
Brighter Beginnings has the capacity to record client information and outcomes through an electronic
case management system in which staff record clients’ intake, demographic, and data from the pre- and
post-program surveys.
Challenges
While Brighter Beginnings has had success in rolling out its REAL Curriculum groups, the program has not
achieved full implementation and has reached few AB 109-identified clients. This section discusses
several factors that have hindered the implementation of the three-phase program.
Program alignment to AB 109 client needs
Many individuals who attend Brighter Beginnings’ REAL curriculum classes have not been sentenced,
thus Brighter Beginnings has faced challenges in targeting its services to AB 109 individuals.
Page 152 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-14
Only five out of 169 individuals served by Brighter Beginnings have been AB 109 clients. Brighter
Beginnings staff noted that because the majority of individuals in custody are not sentenced identifying
those who are either sentenced under or eligible for AB 109 has been a challenge. Staff noted that if all
phases of the program were open to individuals beyond those sentenced under AB 109, it would
broaden the pool of possible program participants.
Many AB 109 clients have a multiplicity of overlapping post-release needs, including housing,
employment, substance abuse, and more. The need to address these issues has precluded most AB 109
clients from participating in Brighter Beginnings’ leadership and entrepreneurialism training.
Because of the need to address immediate reentry barriers such as housing and income, few
participants have continued from the REAL curriculum to further services. Six participants have engaged
in post-release one-on-one coaching, and no participants have enrolled in Phase III training through
JFKU (though it is possible that some individuals have been referred directly to JFKU by Field Ops
Coordinators). Staff noted that the Phase III certificate program with JFKU is a rigorous certificate
program, and observed that it may be appropriate for only a small subset of returning citizens. For
similar reasons, Brighter Beginnings has not been able to initiate the community projects component of
its service model. Brighter Beginnings’ program coordinator shared:
In terms of the readiness, what I’ve found is that the vast majority of those in the program, by
my assessment, were not ready to go to that next level, nor were they necessarily seeking after
that. The participants are looking for basic survival, their needs are around the basic things—a
place to live, to sustain themselves, reconnect with their children.
In terms of pre-release services, while real-time curricular modifications are a program strength,
Brighter Beginnings designed the program model with the assumption that some participants would
have exposure to college-level education. Staff noted that in actuality, many participants have only a
partial high school education or a GED. In addition, Brighter Beginnings has not regularly held individual
meetings with individuals at WCDF, which may be due to issues including participant readiness or
interest, staff capacity, and pre-release access. As noted above, staff do provide some individual support
following the class sessions.
Timing and frequency of pre-release access
The timing and frequency of pre-release access has limited Brighter Beginnings’ ability to provide its
curriculum consistently and has inhibited the continuity of services post release.
In FY 2013-14, Brighter Beginnings provided REAL curriculum classes to both men and women at WCDF
during allotted CCCOE class time. This allowed the program to have a regular time slot each week, with
consistent program participants. However, staff noted that in FY 2014-15, because the mentoring
agencies no longer work through the CCCOE, they have more limited access to the jails. In addition,
because Brighter Beginnings staff was not able to accommodate the Sunday evening time slot the
Sheriff’s Office offered for men’s classes, Brighter Beginnings only offered their curriculum to women.
Page 153 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-15
Additionally, Brighter Beginnings designed a weekly curriculum, but this year only had access to offer
their women’s classes twice monthly. During the longer two week period, participants may decide to
stop attending classes or may be released from jail. This inhibits the program’s ability to provide
consistent services and plan for post-release continuity of services. Furthermore, because participants
no longer receive time off their sentences for attending the group—as they did when presented through
CCCOE—staff note that this has negatively impacted program attendance. Brighter Beginnings saw an
average of six to 12 participants this year, compared to 15 participants last year, and there has been
lower consistency among participants. Most participants average about four out of the 10 curriculum
sessions, with few participants receiving a certificate of program completion. Finally, while Brighter
Beginnings is able to give informational presentations at Marsh Creek Detention Facility, Brighter
Beginnings does not currently have access to provide REAL classes at the facility.
Post-release services and program continuity
Delays in the coordination of post-release services have prevented Brighter Beginnings from expanding
post-release REAL curriculum classes.
Currently, Brighter Beginnings provides the REAL curriculum at Discovery House, a 90-day substance
abuse treatment program in Martinez. Brighter Beginnings has been in negotiations with Goodwill and
Rubicon, as well as with Field Ops Coordinators, to expand to other sites in Central and East County,
including No Wrong Door sites.
Brighter Beginnings is working to refine its coaching model to allow for longer-term follow-up with
individuals.
Brighter Beginnings’ program model does not intend to follow all clients from pre- to post-release, as
staff note that not all clients are ready for or seeking to engage in one-on-one follow-up coaching. In
these cases, Brighter Beginnings staff makes an effort to link REAL class participants to services and
resources that they need in order to achieve stability post-release. However, because Brighter
Beginnings does not follow most REAL curriculum participants over time, it is not possible to assess the
extent to which Brighter Beginnings’ services have resulted in improved individual and family stability
post release.
Page 154 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-16
Center for Human Development
Snapshot of Program Accomplishments, July 2013-Sept. 2014
35 clients referred
24 clients received an intake
Currently working with 9 participants
21 completed Stage 1
16 completed Stage 2
7 completed Stage 3
1 completed Stage 4
Overview of Program
The Center for Human Development (CHD) operates the Community and Family Reunification Program
(CFRP) for Contra Costa County’s AB 109 Community Programs’ Mentoring Program, providing
reunification services to returning citizens, their families, and friends, in addition to providing
community support throughout Contra Costa County. Services include large and small group pre-release
presentations and workshops at West County Detention Facility and Marsh Creek Detention Facility.
CHD also provides post-release large and small group presentations and workshops to returning citizens
at partner agencies and other locations throughout the County. The program designed these
presentations and workshops to enlist and engage returning citizens and all reconnecting parties in the
process of meeting together to resolve conflict, promote healthier interactions, and rebuild their
relationships. The CFRP employs one part-time staff person, and, at the time of the evaluation interview,
had three volunteer family mediators.
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-15, the County contracted CHD to maintain 12 enrolled participants from the
previous contract year in their reunification program, enroll 24 new participants, and provide 36
returning citizens with community and family conferencing under their five-stage reunification process.
1. One-on-one intake meeting with returning citizen; pre or post release
2. One-on-one meeting(s) with returning citizen to assess strengths, accomplishments, and goals;
pre or post release
3. Meeting(s) with returning citizen’s family or friends to understand goals
4. Collective meeting(s) with all parties to form agreed upon plan/solutions
5. Setting a follow-up plan agreed upon by all parties
The contract also specified that the program recruit five new volunteers to coach returning citizens and
12 new volunteers to provide 360 hours of reunification services, including two refresher trainings. The
County also contracted CHD to provide reunification informational workshops to 15 agencies or groups.
In FY 2013-14, CHD was part of the consortium of three mentoring organizations, which as a whole were
contracted to provide services to 100 participants.
Page 155 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-17
Strengths
Flexible program model based on research
CHD has modeled its program on evidence-based and researched practices in family reunification, while
at the same time making modifications to the model to better fit the needs of Contra Costa County’s AB
109 population.
CHD’s five-stage family renunciation model was developed using documented research on engaging
families in reentry, drawing from the 2007 Prisoner Reentry Initiative Grant Program sponsored by the
U.S. Department of Justice, as well as the program model used by Community Mediation Maryland, a
reunification program found to have significant effects on participants’ likelihood of rearrest. Over the
course of the contract period, CHD determined that the AB 109 population needed a more intensive
level of engagement than the Maryland community mediation model entails. As such, CHD adapted its
program to allow for more frequent and longer meetings for each stage of the reunification process.
CHD’s clients express satisfaction with the program’s consistent structure and the frequent contact they
received from program staff, with one client sharing,
This is the only program that is organized. We have a meeting once a month and they call a few
times during the month.
In addition, CHD’s program model allows their family reunification providers to tailor their approach for
each client, adjusting the time and duration of services provided to clients’ and families’ particular
circumstances in a manner that is consisted with evidence-based practices. Staff explained that the
length of time providers spend working with each client varies depending on the needs of each
individual client and family. Reunification providers may tailor the number of meetings per Stage of
reunification, and the total length of time that providers work with clients may vary as well. Staff
explained:
One of the things that some of our program directors have discovered is that the AB 109 process
is a little different from the community mediations—their meeting is maybe one three-hour
meeting that concludes whatever [the issue] is. But ours is really family by family. There’s no one
set way. Families are so different.
Strong relationships between CHD and clients
Trusting relationships with trained CHD staff have been a defining factor of clients’ positive experience
with family reunification services.
CHD staff pointed out that, first and foremost, trust between participants and providers is necessary to
beginning a successful reunification process. Participants concurred, sharing wholly positive feedback
about program staff, observing that staff have training in counseling, genuinely care about them, and
are able to work effectively with participants and their families. As one participant put it, working with
Page 156 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-18
CHD gives them “the feeling that someone is out there in the system who actually does care, and not just
throw us in jail.”
Clients spoke about the importance of reunification and shared ways in which staff had guided them
toward progress in improving their family relationships:
I have an 11 year old daughter who had been out of the house since a month after she was born.
[The word] reunification I had never heard before. The word alone made me think about healing
and fulfilling the circle of my obligations as a father.
This client went on to share the beginnings of progress:
Yesterday for the first time my ex-wife met with Paul. The family is all in.
Speaking about the help that his reunification provider had given him, another client shared:
He tries to get to our issues and why we don’t get along and stuff like that…if it wasn’t for him
talking to me before I got home, I would have flipped out….
This client’s partner, who accompanied him to the focus group, agreed that CHD’s staff has helped him.
This help goes beyond family reunification and ripples out to impact clients’ overall ability to maintain a
healthier lifestyle after release.
I can see improvement in him. He has been clean since he’s been out. He does not go back at all.
He can walk completely away. He is moving forward, he is starting to look for jobs, and care a lot
more. I’m proud of him.
Pre-release connection
The ability to meet with individuals prior to their release allows CHD to inform clients about available
services and begin to form a foundation of trust that supports participants in continuing the
reunification process after release.
In pre-release workshops, CHD staff provide currently incarcerated individuals with knowledge about
family reunification services. Through this awareness, CHD builds hope for family resolution when the
client is released, while also mitigating fears clients might have. Family reunification can seem daunting
to individuals in jail, and pre-release meetings give CHD the chance to neutralize the emotions clients
may feel when thinking about family conflict. Staff shared, “When you work with them pre-release, [you]
encourage them to work on themselves.”
In addition, staff noted that their pre-release access to clients has been expanded; they are now able to
schedule regular meetings with clients on Fridays. Staff noted that the opportunity for more regular and
frequent contact with clients is an important advantage in engaging clients and beginning the
reunification process earlier on. Clients shared how the pre-release connection helped them engage in
the reunification process:
Page 157 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-19
If you go to the DEUCE [substance abuse] program, they will tell you what programs they have.
That’s how I met Paul. He came in and did a lecture on what their program provides.
I met Paul in jail. I put in the application myself to reunify with my mom and my dad. As soon as I
got out of jail, he called me. Ever since then I’ve been coming every month.
Service referrals and coordination
CHD staff report that as a result of receiving targeted referrals for family reunification services in the
second contract year, there is a better fit between the program and clients.
CHD staff reported that in FY 2014-15, once family reunification services were separated from the
consortium of mentoring organizations, CHD began receiving a greater number of referrals for clients
who were genuinely interested in, and motivated to, pursue family reunification process. Staff observed,
“Now the referrals are more specific and because they are, we’re getting people who are really
interested in the reunification services.” Staff noted that when referrals are appropriately timed and
address clients’ needs, the clients are more likely to follow through with services.
Focus group participants expressed high hopes toward re-establishing connections, resolving conflict,
and rebuilding relationships with family. Staff noted that with more motivated clients, providers are able
to have more frequent and consistent meetings, which in turn builds stronger relationships between
program staff and the participants, thereby supporting the reunification process.
The fact that we’re able to meet early and frequently with the participants, that relationship and
trust building has set in. So that gives us an advantage for moving forward with the process.
CHD also noted that they have begun to receive referrals from the Reentry Network for Returning
Citizens in East and Central County; staff observed that thus far this process has improved the
coordination of care by facilitating access to clients. Staff explained:
The referrals we are getting through the Network, we’re able to jump on them earlier than
before. That’s because the Network is closer to Probation than we are.
In addition to supporting clients through the reunification process, CHD staff also work closely with
clients to identify additional areas for support and communicate with Probation to facilitate referrals to
other services within the AB 109 network.
In order to support clients in addressing multiple barriers to successful reentry, CHD works closely with
clients to connect them with other resources within the AB 109 system as needed. Staff described that
this process of “handholding” is essential for clients with multiple needs who may be overwhelmed
trying to navigate the AB 109 system following their release. Client service data demonstrates the high
level of cross-enrollment between CHD services and other AB 109 programs. Of the 24 clients who
received an intake between July 1, 2013 and Sept. 30, 2014, the majority were enrolled in other
Page 158 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-20
programs as well, with half enrolled in Men and Women of Purpose, Rubicon, and/or Shelter, Inc. and a
smaller number enrolled in BayLegal (5 clients) or Goodwill (7 clients) services.
Challenges
Despite improvements in referrals and service delivery over time, CHD has engaged in family
reunification with fewer clients than anticipated over the course of its contract, due to a confluence of
factors related to referrals, client engagement, program capacity, and clients’ family circumstances.
While in the first contract year CHD made initial contact with the target number of participants, as of
September 30, 2014, the vast majority of clients had only completed the initial stages of the five-stage
reunification process. According to CHD’s records, 21 clients had completed Stage 1, 16 completed Stage
2, seven completed Stage 4, and one had completed Stage 4. As of the beginning of January 2015, CHD
staff noted that two clients had recently completed Stage 5.
Service referrals and awareness
The lack of targeted referrals for family reunification in the first contract year led CHD to engage fewer
clients for family reunification than anticipated.
It is important to note that in the first contract year, clients sometimes had dual and triple referrals to
some or all of the mentoring service providers simultaneously. As a result, many of the clients referred
to CHD were not explicitly interested in engaging in the full family reunification mediation process, but
rather in more general mentoring or counseling. Staff explained:
[In] a couple of the situations…the kinds of services we provide was not clear to the participants,
and so when I explained that our services are more mediative—we’re not counseling or
therapy—they were looking for counseling and therapy work.
For staff, this underscores the importance of pre-release education for clients, as well as for better
communication with probation officers about the scope of CHD’s services.
While probation referrals have become more fitting over time, delays in receiving formal probation
referrals, along with challenges in tracking clients, can slow down the family reunification process.
At the time of data collection, CHD staff identified 11 clients who were waiting for Probation to process
a formal referral, most of which were pre-release referrals. Further, CHD staff noted that there have
been several times when they were not notified about clients’ rearrests, indicating a lack of
communication between CHD and Probation.
In addition, CHD staff noted that many individuals have substance abuse and mental health needs; these
issues can interfere with the reunification process if they are not these are not addressed prior to
enrollment.
Page 159 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-21
Program capacity
CHD has struggled to retain enough volunteer mediators to meet their contract targets due to the
intensive time commitment required for the services.
CHD’s program model was designed to utilize volunteers as family reunification specialists. However,
while CHD has implemented a plan to recruit volunteer mediators and has been successful recruiting
volunteers from faith, civic, and other social groups in the community, CHD has struggled to retain
volunteers due to the intensive time commitment required for the services and volunteers’ school or
work demands. CHD also intends to recruit returning citizens themselves as volunteer mediators, but
has faced challenges ensuring they meet all of CHD’s requirements. As a result, at the time of the
evaluation, the program had only three volunteers, and the program’s paid staff person was taking on
the majority of the reunification cases, limiting the organization’s capacity to provide intensive services
to a greater number of clients. Staff noted that the family reunification process would be more
successful with a lower ratio of staff or volunteers to clients.
Compounding this challenge, the family reunification program has only one paid staff person, which
limits the program’s capacity to serve the target number of clients.
CHD noted that it is difficult to coordinate the family reunification program with only one part-time paid
staff person. Moreover, CHD staff noted that the program would be more effective if they could provide
trainings on conflict resolution and relationship enhancement with groups such as local colleges,
formerly incarcerated adults, seniors, and faith communities, but they do not currently have the
capacity to do so.
With regard to pre-release services, though the staff are able to present informational workshops about
CHD’s services, staff observed that there would be increased benefit to clients if CHD were able to
conduct skill-building workshops around family conflict and reunification. CHD would need expanded
pre-release access as well as greater staff capacity in order to accomplish this goal.
With only one part-time paid staff and no electronic case management system, CHD demonstrated an
ability to collect and report data on its referrals, clients, and service delivery, but would benefit from
greater capacity to consistently update and utilize service data. In addition, much of the information
captured for each client, such as client history and written assessments, is stored in paper files.
Family issues outside of clients’ control
CHD’s program model is built on the expectation that clients and their families will participate in
mediation; however, clients’ family members do not always have the interest or ability to engage in
relationship building.
Staff noted that although clients may be motivated to engage in family reunification, successful
engagement in this process relies on the interest and ability of family members and loved ones to
engage in the process as well. Staff shared several examples of circumstances that impeded the
Page 160 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-22
reunification process. Some participants decided that the disconnect with the family was too great to
continue; both of these clients had partners, and they decided to move forward with their partner
rather than go through the process of repairing their family relationships. One client explained:
I wanted to get back in close with my mom because she wasn’t there when I was growing up.
[Working with CHD] helped me realize I don’t want that relationship with my mom because she
is not stable in her mind.
In cases where there may be a restraining order or past domestic violence, CHD staff may determine
that the client is unable to participate in reunification services.
Further, considering clients’ needs holistically, family reunification may not always be the idea goal for
the client. Clients shared:
I am not trying to get custody [of my child] because I gotta take care of myself first. I’m not
trying to do drugs, I’m just trying to get a job and a place to stay and be able to live around him.
If we get hung up in the family drama or the things we know will get to us, it could trigger us. If I
wouldn’t see my daughter for a complete year in order to save my own life [I would do that].
Page 161 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-23
Goodwill
Snapshot of Program Accomplishments, July 2013 -Sept. 2014
136 clients referred (per Probation)
76 clients served
45% (n=34) were contacted within 24 hours
95% (n=72) enrolled in transitional employment
95% (n=72) completed a job readiness workshop,
surpassing the target of 70%
57% (n=43) obtained documents needed for
employment
92% (n=70) created or updated a resume
84% (n=64) attained a job readiness vocational
certificate, surpassing the target of 50%
7 clients enrolled in higher education
54% (n=41) completed transitional employment,
under the target of 70%
32% (n=24) were placed in an unsubsidized job
and/or educational opportunity
o Average of 150 days from referral to
permanent job placement
o 75% retained employment after 30 days
(target = 70%)*
o 46% retained employment after 60 days
(target = 60%)*
o 38% retained after 90 days (target = 50%)*
*Some participants may not have passed the date for measurement at the time of data collection
Overview of Program
The Bridges to Work program of Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay (Goodwill) facilitates the
County’s Employment Support and Placement Services to provide reentry support to incarcerated and
formerly incarcerated persons. Goodwill provides a comprehensive and integrated approach to reduce
recidivism and achieve stability within the community through employment support and placement
services in Central County. Participants can engage in up to 90 days of transitional, paid employment at
local Goodwill stores or other partner agencies, in addition to receiving job search assistance for
competitive employment opportunities. Goodwill staffs five full time employees with expertise working
with this population; in some cases, staff may be returning citizens. Goodwill also serves as a service hub
for other providers. In both Fiscal Year 2013-14 and 2014-15, the program was contracted to serve up to
120 participants in Central County.
Page 162 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-24
Strengths
Immediate access to employment
Goodwill’s Bridges to Work program provides almost immediate access to transitional employment for
individuals upon release, which allows them to quickly begin addressing their basic needs while also
building positive job skills and habits.
Because clients are eager to begin earning an income immediately after release, clients show a great
deal of enthusiasm for Goodwill’s transitional employment opportunities, and Goodwill enrolls nearly all
clients who are referred. Of the 76 clients who participated in the program during the evaluation period,
Bridges to Work enrolled 72 clients (95%) in transitional employment. By providing the participants with
an income, Bridges to Work helps participants get on their feet. Staff shared:
The highlight is transitional employment. That’s the biggest allure of our AB 109 program. Being
able to reenter society and obtain a paycheck and focus on eliminating barriers to getting paid
permanent employment. Barriers come with not making any money at all—so the transitional
employment helps them with a paycheck to get on their feet.
Clients also shared their experience with the quick connection to transitional employment. For one
participant, receiving an income through Goodwill’s program led to greater goals and successful
outcomes for his entire family.
It was pretty much right away. You got connected, you come in here, you do an assessment on
the computer that takes 15 minutes and then the real paperwork gets started and that takes an
hour or two and then if you want to work that day you start working that day.
For me it’s stable work. I got an interview at UPS and a roof over my kids’ head. I got that. I stay
with food in the fridge. All the things that come with a house. I worked towards that since I’ve
been here. I worked for everything I have now. Everything is because of “Bridges to Work” and
AB 109.
Bridges to Work allows clients to ease into the responsibilities of a work environment, with low barriers
to entry, quick onboarding, flexible scheduling, and incentives for job readiness workshop attendance.
Upon enrolling in Bridges to Work, clients are offered choices as to when they would like to start
working, and for how many hours a week. This allows flexibility for different clients’ needs. The program
also incentivizes workshop attendance and progress through the program phases by providing
additional work hours for attendance, which in turn increases clients’ incomes. They must also complete
the benchmarks in order to receive the workshop stipend. In the first contract year, when workshop
attendance itself was paid, staff and clients reported that some clients would show up to get paid for
their attendance. Goodwill also adjusted their intake process to separate it from assessment. This allows
the program to ensure client motivation for enrolling in their transitional employment program.
Previously, Goodwill would enroll many clients who would either drop off or not show up.
Page 163 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-25
Comprehensive program model
Goodwill’s comprehensive program model helps clients build job skills and experience while also
providing supporting them with case management and other services.
Bridges to Work helps clients build job readiness through a combination of formal workshops and on-
the-job coaching and guidance that addresses both vocational and interpersonal skills. Goodwill
participants must complete job readiness workshops in order to work in the Goodwill store. In this way,
clients participate in training designed to teach both hard and soft skills related to employment.
Goodwill reported that through the workshops, 92% (n=70) of enrolled clients created or updated a
resume. Clients spoke about the job-related skills they gained through their participation:
When I first got here I didn’t know nothing. If you said fill out an application, I didn’t know
nothing. Now if they ask if I’m convicted of a felony, I say, ‘Yes but I would like to speak to you in
private in an interview.’ Since I been here I’ve made progress.
Over the course of its contract, Bridges to Work augmented its curriculum to incorporate a greater
emphasis on anger management elements and cognitive behavioral training. One participant shared
that learning about addictive behavior has been especially useful:
Most [of our criminal] cases have to do with drugs and alcohol. If we weren’t using or drinking
most likely we wouldn’t have done that…. Learning about the disease of addiction is a big
success that could help a lot of people. A few of the classes helped us with mindful thinking.
In addition to formal skill-building, participants receive on-the-job experience and training at the
Goodwill stores. By fostering a supportive work environment, clients work on self-improvement,
maintain their attendance and engagement, and build their job skills. Clients pointed to the structure of
having a job—as much if not more so than the income—as incredibly useful in helping them maintain
legal behaviors and learn important work habits:
I’ve never had a job in my life—well a legit job, legit money coming in. At this program you were
making $8 an hour and could only work 25 hours a week—so you weren’t bringing in more than
$300 for two weeks. But the money wasn’t the problem; the problem was for me to get into that
constant getting up at the right time, constantly showing up.
Employment was not something that I yearned for for money; I yearned for it to interact with
regular people and stay with the crowd. I use it like counseling so I can talk to and meet regular
people.
Goodwill sites also treat clients with a high degree of respect, which develops the confidence needed to
obtain and sustain a job after the program ends. Staff explained, “They like that they know when they
come here they’re just another employee, not a probationer.” The staff also strive to develop a positive
Page 164 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-26
and supportive work environment for participants by creating an arrangement with Probation that local
law enforcement cannot enter the property.
Goodwill’s program model includes case management and an open office environment, which offers a
high level of staff availability to support clients both emotionally and in addressing barriers to reentry.
The case manager helps clients navigate the services of AB 109’s infrastructure and provides clients with
off-hours support to prevent behavior that would cause them to recidivate. Through individualized
assistance, participants can also work on removing barriers to employment. Goodwill reported that
during the evaluation period, 57% (n=43) obtained documents needed for employment. Clients also
experienced benefit from individualized services:
Services come about according to my needs. My GED. I’ve been reimbursed for taking it. I’ve
been reimbursed for several different things. I’m repairing my credit right now. I’m going to
submit those payments to see if I can be reimbursed from that program. I see with my situation
services have been offered according to m needs at different times.
Clients develop solid affiliations with the program and staff, and the Goodwill office provides an open
environment where clients can spend their free time, use the office computers to work on their job
search, and connect with other AB 109 CBOs. Once participants enroll with Goodwill, they can continue
to access the supports and resources the program offers beyond the six-month program period—
including getting re-referred to the program—which helps clients receive continuous support at every
phase of their job development and search.
They all have compassion. I’m not sure if their background has to do with some of ours, but they
have a compassion for us. They want to see us succeed. They had their own personal part in my
journey.
This is like a safe zone. I find myself coming here when I’m not busy or even if something is
bothering me. I find myself stopping by here a lot. I talk with the staff and they know my
business. I share everything with them.
Just this place to come to kept me from doing something stupid.
Connections to competitive employment
Goodwill assists clients with their job search, while also actively increasing the job opportunities
available to AB 109 individuals by forming relationships with local employers.
Goodwill reported that during the evaluation period, 84% (n=64) of clients attained a job readiness
vocational certificate, surpassing the target of 50%. Approximately one-third (32%) of clients were
placed in an unsubsidized job and/or educational opportunity. Clients shared their experiences with
Goodwill’s job search assistance:
Page 165 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-27
They are constantly every minute of the day putting up job applications, jobs up, they get calls,
from you know like Chili’s or places like that.
You had the staff helping you out with every step. They are really helpful. Always posting jobs
and checking on you to make sure you are doing what you should be doing. They are helpful to
me. I found a job and I’m still applying for other jobs.
They set you up with everything. I’m about to have a $24 an hour job in construction.
Further, for participants who have their I-9 ready, are doing well in transitional employment, have a
resume completed, and have successful relationships with their coworkers and supervisors, Goodwill
staff will make efforts to identify and connect them to permanent employment earlier than the 90 day
transitional employment phase.
The strength of Goodwill’s partnerships and relationships within the community serves as a strength to
the broader AB 109 system because those partnerships create paying opportunities for the participants.
Staff have also linked participants with Goodwill Academy, which has hired four participants into
permanent positions. The job developer has also been meeting with private sector employers to open
up transitional work sites in broader fields than manual labor. For example, one employer, Express
Employment in Concord, is employing participants in the administrative field, so clients can learn
administrative and office skills. Staff shared:
We did six job placements last month—even with the referrals being a little bit slower, we were
able to place six people. We worked closely with UPS and another automotive company—major
companies. Through the relationships our job developer is building with them, it creates jobs.
Goodwill also recognizes that competitive employment may not be the short-term goal for all clients,
and thus assists some clients in pursuing higher education. During the evaluation period, seven clients
enrolled in higher education.
Coordinated services
Through co-location of services and referrals to other AB 109 service providers, Goodwill sustains a
safety net of resources for their clients to work toward greater stability.
A core tenet of Goodwill’s program model is the co-location of services. Bay Area Legal Aid comes to the
office every Friday to provide legal services to the clients.
[The CBOs] come onsite, because a lot of the people they’re working with they can’t get out to
their office; this is a central location where participants have to be anyways… Every other day
someone is in here meeting with someone.
Goodwill staff also proactively seek solutions and partnerships to address the array of challenges clients
encounter, including pursuing a contract with the food bank for basic food needs, providing
transportation help, and contracting with an agency that provides work-appropriate clothing. The
Page 166 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-28
program added a new worksite and maintains connections with other parts of the Goodwill network. For
example, when a client moves, or if a site is full, the staff can connect West County participants with the
Oakland office instead of turning them away.
Challenges
Program capacity
Goodwill indicated a capacity to serve a greater number of clients than are being referred; at the same
time, the Bridges to Work program experienced turnover in the program coordinator position and was
without two of its key staff positions for most of the contract period.
Goodwill noted that their program currently has the capacity to enroll a greater number of participants
in transitional employment than are being referred by Probation. Staff explained that in order to meet
their contractual obligations for participation, the program must receive at least 12 to 15 referrals every
month. Staff noted that the first contract year, they were about 75% full; are now about 50% full.
At the same time, the program only enrolled half (55%) of the clients referred by Probation; quarterly
reports show that in Q1 and Q2, Goodwill enrolled all clients who were referred, while in Q4 and Q5,
more clients were referred than enrolled. Staff noted that this discrepancy in referrals and enrollments
was largely because of difficulty establishing initial contact and/or engagement with individuals who had
been referred, and staff stated that Goodwill has the capacity to enroll all participants who are referred.
In addition, not all participants who are referred choose to utilize the transitional employment option,
and may instead choose to utilize the job search component of the program.
Regarding the suitability of referrals, staff noted that clients and probation officers alike feel pressure
for individuals to begin making an income immediately after release; however, some individuals are not
ready for enrollment because of mental health and/or substance abuse issues. Thus while Goodwill
successfully enrolled nearly all referrals in transitional employment, only about half (54%) completed
transitional employment during the evaluation period (some may not have passed their 90 day mark at
the time of data collection). One participant noted that he did not think the trade-off for working inside
the program’s parameters was worth it to him: “If I want to work I will work, but if I want to maintain a
lifestyle like I used to, I will.” Staff also noted that it can be hard for clients to maintain motivation and
encouragement when the job search process is challenging.
The program has also experienced staffing challenges over the course of the two contract years.
Changes in the program coordinator position, along with vacancies in two key program positions until
the end of 2014, have impeded the program’s ability to operate smoothly and fully provide all services.
In addition, the program’s capacity to accurately track and report on client referrals, enrollments, and
services has been limited.
Page 167 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-29
Pre-release access
The ability to gain access to the jails to make pre-release presentations would help Goodwill inform
potential participants about the services Goodwill offers, and would enable participants to begin
securing documentation needed for employment.
Goodwill staff also noted that delays in their ability to provide pre-release presentations impedes their
ability to get clients started early on obtaining the necessary documentation for employment
documentation barriers to employment. Though other AB 109 organizations under contract with the
County now perform some similar functions, Goodwill staff see that pre-release presentations would
also have the benefit of informing potential participants about the services they offer.
Program fit
While overall, participants shared very positive feedback about the Bridges to Work program, they
noted some areas in which the program did not fully meet their needs, including the hourly pay, the
range of transitional employment options, and the 90-day duration of the program.
Participants noted that while they are grateful for the opportunity to receive immediate access to
employment, the pay at Goodwill stores is low compared to the cost of living in the Bay Area. The 90-
day duration of transitional employment also makes some participants nervous about what will happen
after the end of the transitional period; however, participants noted that because they can be re-
referred to Goodwill for another round of transitional employment, this mitigates their worries.
Participants shared:
Nine dollars an hour for a single mom doesn’t cut it. Welfare says I make too much money and
it’s [frustrating]. So I got two nine dollars an hour jobs.
Goodwill [is] good but negatives are I can’t live off the nine dollars an hour…and a 3 month work
program at Goodwill is not enough.
The specific transitional employment opportunities available to clients are limited to working in the
Goodwill stores and a few other transitional employment options, though Goodwill is making efforts to
expand these options.
Page 168 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-30
Men and Women of Purpose
Snapshot of Program Accomplishments, July 2013 -Sept. 2014
145 referrals requested by MWP
92 referrals received from Probation (others
pending)
70 clients enrolled
41 clients matched with a mentor
28 clients participated in group mentoring
Trained 43 mentors in the first two quarters of the
contract year, on track to surpass the target of 50
During the evaluation time period, MWP recorded
clients’ progress in case notes, rather than
database fields, thus we were not able to access an
electronic report with client outcomes.
Overview of Program
Men and Women of Purpose (MWP) has two CAO contracts for AB 109 services in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-
15. The first contract outlines MWP’s provision of employment and education liaison services in the
County jail facilities, where the program facilitates four in-custody employment and education
workshops per month and works with Mentor/Navigators to assist workshop participants to obtain
documentation required to apply for employment, education, and other post-release activities. MWP is
contracted to screen at least 40 participants per month to assess employment and education
preparedness.
MWP is also contracted to provide pre- and post-release mentoring services for West County using the
organization’s evidence-based Jail to Community program model. The program provides one-on-one
mentoring, as well as weekly mentoring groups that focus on employment and recovery. The contract
specifies that the program recruit at least 50 volunteer mentors using the Insight Prison Project
curriculum, but does not specify a target number of clients to be served. In FY 2013-14, MWP was part
of the consortium of three mentoring organizations, which as a whole were contracted to provide
services to 100 participants. MWP employs eight full- and part-time staff and counselors for its
contracted services.
In FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15, MWP was also contracted by the Sheriff’s Office to provide a Jail to
Community (JTC) Program to both AB 109 and non-AB 109 individuals, encompassing pre-release
classes, individual counseling, the creation of treatment plan and exit plan, and documentation
assistance.
Page 169 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-31
Strengths
Jail to Community continuum of care
The ability to have contact with individuals while still in custody enables MWP to provide clients with
essential information about resources, as well as develop relationships that encourage clients to
continue their engagement post release.
MWP estimated that they had contact with slightly over half of their clients before release. One program
mentor shared,
Being able to connect with them inside the jail and helping them to change their thinking…is
what impacts them the most to get out and want to seek MWP and do well in [substance abuse]
treatment.
Clients also shared that pre-release contact had been useful:
When [MWP] came to the jailhouse, the information I got, it was really useful when I got out.
What I had to do with my child support—the paper they gave me had a direct number to call a
supervisor at child support, I bypassed other people [I would have had to deal with] when I
called.
I met MWP in West County [Detention Center], would go to their classes once a week there. I
found it helpful because it was brothers who were older and who had grown up in similar
circumstances, neighborhood to me so I could relate to them.
Intensive individual support and service linkage
MWP provides one-on-one assistance to address participants’ individual barriers and coordinates
referrals to other AB 109 organizations and resources.
Mentors work with clients to identify resources to meet their individual needs, and will physically
transport and accompany clients to appointments to ensure they are linked to services. For example,
MWP has worked closely with clients to help them resolve suspended driver’s licenses and enroll in
educational opportunities. One client shared:
I got a DUI in 2009 and didn’t have MWP to help me. Now, MWP and my mentor represented me
in Homeless Court. Frank called me and was on the phone with me every day. I went to Homeless
Court and had tickets from when I first moved to Contra Costa and they helped represent me.
They also referred me to Rubicon and Clean Slate.
MWP supports coordinated service delivery to clients by working with Probation to send referrals to
other AB 109 service providers, and by co-locating a reentry specialist at Rubicon’s Antioch office on
certain weekdays. As a formal subcontractor for Rubicon, some clients experienced that being a client of
Page 170 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-32
MWP facilitated a smooth connection with Rubicon. One client shared, “I went to Rubicon, and after
saying I was a part of [MWP], it did speed things up for me.” Other clients commented:
I got my job [at Goodwill] through my PO first, then MWP came to Goodwill and that’s how I met
them.
I met [MWP] in jail. Since I got out they referred me to Homeless Court and Shelter, Inc.
Trusting relationships with capable staff
The development of trusting and nonjudgmental relationships between staff and participants provides
participants with crucial emotional support and guidance that both keeps them engaged in services and
helps keep their lives on track.
Staff shared that with the development of trust, participants are more likely to contact MWP staff either
before or after they have done something that might be illegal. In this way, participants begin to
understand that it is ok to “mess up” and that they can come back to MWP “even in the worst scenario.”
Participants particularly called out the benefit of working with staff who have similar life experiences
and personally understand what they are going through.
What I like about MWP was they were guys like me, they have been to jail been to prison, have
substance abuse problems and have gotten their lives together.
These brothers coming to the jailhouse every Friday night, I looked forward to it because I can relate
to these guys. They’ve been through what I’ve been through.
MWP also demonstrates strong staff capacity to provide individualized services and has made progress
in training new mentors to join the program.
Despite the intensive nature of the work they do, MWP appears to have adequate staff capacity and
time to provide close, one-on-one assistance to clients. The program has also trained a number of new
mentors. One client expressed her experience that MWP had followed through, while other programs
had not.
I met Monique from MWP in jail, I had hooked up with another program which did not come
through—they didn’t pick me up. I got here and Frank drove me to Rubicon.
Challenges
Service referrals and coordination
MWP has not served as many clients as expected, as there have been delays in the referral process and
some referred clients are not ready for services.
Page 171 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-33
MWP staff noted that they often have to wait for a formal probation referral before engaging with
clients. These delays can slow down the client engagement process. In addition, referrals do not always
come with correct client contact information, impeding client engagement and follow-up.
Sometimes that process stalls right from the start, because we can’t find them or they don’t return
calls.
In addition, many individuals have multiple, intersecting needs, including substance abuse, mental
health, and employment, and housing. It can be difficult to engage and follow up with clients when their
behavioral health needs have not been addressed. Staff emphasized, “Employment comes after
recovery.”
Some clients expressed frustration and discouragement with the pace at which their needs were being
addressed; however, it is not clear the extent to which this relates to issues with MWP’s service
provision or to broader barriers in accessing housing, employment, and other county resources. Some
potential clients also refuse services. In these cases, MWP staff noted, clients have generally refused all
AB 109 services—“They didn’t want to be part of the AB 109 process, period.”
Pre-release access
MWP staff and clients indicated that the program would benefit from enhanced frequency of pre-
release workshops.
While the time allotted for individual meetings has improved over time, pre-release workshops can only
serve a limited number of individuals, and both staff and clients report that the classes are over
capacity. One client shared:
I thought the class should have been twice a week because there were so many people trying to
attend the class and they only had an hour to get the information out to all the people there. It’d
be more impactful if they could have longer class or more classes during the week.
Data collected during the prior evaluation appears to validate this, with individuals incarcerated under
AB 109 noting the difficulty of enrolling in in-custody AB 109 classes amid more interest than space.
Data capacity
MWP’s capacity to consistently track data about their clients and services has been somewhat limited;
as such, it is difficult to document the concrete outcomes that MWP clients have achieved.
MWP has received tablets and training in the ServicePoint electronic case management system through
their current contract.
Page 172 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-34
Reach
Snapshot of Program Accomplishments, July 2013-Sept. 2014
26 clients referred (pre-release)
23 clients served (pre-release)
12 clients’ families were served during client’s
incarceration
91% (n=21) had temporary housing within five days
of release
65% (n=15) completed paperwork for employment
or education documentation prior to release
o 4 clients began work or education within
two months of release
9 clients achieved reduced sentences
6 clients achieved and maintained recovery at
three-month follow up
4 clients received positive child reunification
outcomes
*This includes participants who were served prior to sentencing and as part of Reach’s FY 2013-14 contract with the
Sheriff’s Office; participants may not have ultimately received an AB 109 sentence.
Overview of Program
Centering their program services on women, Reach Fellowship International (Reach) provides weekly
workshops in West County Detention Facility (WCDF), in addition to pre- and post-release one-on-one
case management. The program has two core staff people and also hires several clients as staff. Reach
has three County contracts with the CAO, the Sheriff’s Office, and the Probation Department.
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-15, the CAO contracted Reach to provide employment and education liaison
services to female returning citizens in fulfillment of the County’s Reentry Into The Community Program.
Reach also acts as a lead information specialist for County jail facilities for the AB 109 program. The CAO
contracted Reach to provide four workshops a month to introduce employment and educational
opportunities to participants, to work with Mentor/Navigators to assist 50 incarcerated and returning
citizens with obtaining the paperwork required for those opportunities, and to screen at least ten
participants each month for employment and educational preparedness.
Reach is one of the newer providers in the AB 109 network, and in the previous year only had contracts
through the Sheriff’s Office and Probation Department. In FY 2013-14, the Sheriff’s Office contracted
Reach to provide up to eight participants (both AB 109 and non-AB 109) with temporary housing, as well
as provide a maximum of 70 clients with gender-specific mentoring, family reunification, employment
and job training, assistance in shortening sentences, and health and wellness services. Reach continues
Page 173 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-35
to provide these services in FY 2014-15. In both FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15, Reach was contracted by
the Probation Department to provide AB 109 post-release support that encompasses one-on-one case
management, workshops, family reunification programming, housing placement in Reach housing, and
housing assistance for temporary/transitional housing.
Strengths
Gender-responsive services
Reach’s women-specific programming fills a service gap in existing reentry programs.
Reach developed the “Sistah-to-Sistah” program in response to what staff saw as a lack of gender-
specific services that address the needs of the female reentry population. Staff designed the program
model drawing from research and successful practices in other sectors, such as team building
approaches used in the corporate sector. Clients appreciated the program’s focus on women, noting the
lack of other programs designed for their gender-specific needs.
I’ve been going to prison since 2006, every time there’s programs out there but it’s catered to the
male. There’s really not that many resources for females, so I was excited about this.
Skill building and individualized support
By beginning to work with women while they are in custody, Reach helps them prepare both
emotionally and practically for their return to the community.
Reach begins working with women while they are incarcerated, providing workshops and support
designed to build skills and unity among women. When working with the women in custody, Reach’s
program staff noticed that the women had not created an exit strategy and had limited plans for their
reentry. They started to design a program that worked with their clients to create an exit plan to help
them achieve necessary life tasks upon reentry. Staff and participants noted:
When we started doing the exit plan… We saw those that didn’t participate in the exit plan come
back [to jail]. – Staff
We would talk about when we planned to get out what our plans were, what our goals were –
try to set up an exit plan, and what we were looking into doing, if we were going back to school,
housing, what we needed, what kind of job we were looking for. – Participant
Noting that many clients have limited job skills and work habits, Reach staff assist women with job
readiness prior to reentry through role playing and other job readiness activities. According to Reach’s
data, 65% (n=15) completed paperwork for employment or education documentation prior to release,
and four clients began work or education within two months of release.
Page 174 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-36
We filled out [mock] applications to get you ready and [practiced] how to answer questions
about your charges. I never had been in jail before so I was nervous about having to look for a
job and having to explain.
In addition to structured workshops, the Sistah-to-Sistah program aims to build unity among women.
Staff observed that the program has helped cut down the jail violence among some of the women who
previously had conflicts.
Both pre- and post-release, Reach responds to clients’ individual needs by tailoring their services and
connecting clients with external resources.
Reach works with women to identify and provide support tailored to their immediate needs, which have
included housing, employment, family services, advocacy in court, and attending to clients’ medical
needs. Finding that housing is generally the most important need that women have upon release, Reach
reported that 21 of the 23 clients they served prior to release had temporary housing within five days of
release. Reach is able to directly house up to eight women at a time in the house they own and operate
in Richmond.
Recognizing the need for immediate income upon reentry, Reach has hired several clients to work in
their offices as program staff. In this way, Reach helps women develop skills and a positive job history
after being in custody, which can help them obtain a stable career. Some of the clients have professional
skills from before their time in custody, but still face barriers seeking employment because of their
criminal records. The program has also helped at least one of these clients more easily meet her
restitution obligations by working with Probation to match half of her pay toward restitution. In
addition, when Reach hires and trains clients in the skills and tasks they need in order to help other
recently-released women, Reach also helps women support each other and creates as sense of unity.
For the clients they are unable to hire directly, Reach has developed relationships with other public
service agencies, employment CBOs outside the County’s AB 109 service network, and reentry friendly
employers, including the Workforce Development Board and Opportunity Junction.
A unique component of the program’s gender-responsive services is family stabilization, which involves
working with the families of incarcerated women to provide support and resources. In helping to
stabilize the families themselves, women are able to transition more smoothly and successfully when
they are released.
Because women are often the center of families, Reach designed its family resolution services to focus
on family stabilization in addition to reunification. Staff described that as a result of services provided
directly to clients’ families, clients have seen increase in family support, including reignited connections
with family members. Reach reported providing services to the families of 12 of its 23 pre-release
clients. Of these, four clients have had positive child reunification outcomes. One client described:
A couple times they brought food to my mom and for my kids. During that time they dealt a lot
with my family. My mom would talk to them and tell them what she needed, they would say we
Page 175 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-37
talked to your mom this is what happened. Just the support while being incarcerated [was
helpful].
Another participant shared that when she was in jail, Reach helped her stay in contact with her mother
and kids, including throwing a birthday party for her daughter. After she was released, Reach staff
mediated between her and her mother, and Reach has begun the process of working with her attorney
to get approval to supervise her visits with her daughter.
Challenges
Service referrals
In the current fiscal year, Reach has received fewer referrals than anticipated from Probation, and as a
result have been able to serve fewer female clients than expected.
During FY 2013-14, Reach’s only service contract was with the Sheriff’s Office for pre-release services;
they therefore received no official AB 109 referrals from Probation. In the current fiscal year, Reach staff
noted that they had received very few referrals. Staff expressed concern and confusion about the lack of
referrals, noting that most referrals have come through word-of-mouth and through their pre-release
workshops, but not through the AB 109 referral process, observing that some female clients were being
routed to other organizations, rather than Reach. Staff ventured that because Reach is a newer
organization in the AB 109 service system and has not yet established solid relationships with other
CBOs and players in the County’s AB 109 infrastructure, this has resulted in lower referrals than
expected.
Program capacity
Despite receiving fewer referrals than expected, Reach is struggling to follow through on their promises
to clients and to track accurate data on clients and services.
Because Reach, as a newer program, has considerable time and effort launching its services, some
clients found the program to be disorganized and not at full capacity. Although Reach reported feeling
underutilized, the program also struggled to consistently follow through with clients and provide
promised services to clients, While participants emphasized their appreciation for the Reach program,
they also noted that staff have not always been able to deliver on promises for certain resources or
services, in particular housing. Some clients expressed that the lack of follow through may cause
potential clients to lose trust in the program.
[They] kind of get your hopes up maybe. They have high intentions but maybe fill their plate too
much. I’m not trying to bad mouth them, because I love them, they helped me a lot with my
family. And I’m obviously still coming.
Page 176 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-38
Reach has a really good goal. For them to be gender specific because most places they cater to
the men because that’s the bulk of their population… But they told me I had a place when I got
out, and that didn’t happen. I know of other people that happened to with Reach, and they’re
like ‘never mind, this is just like all the programs’…
While employment through Reach may provide essential immediate income, it may not be a viable long-
term option for participants. For example, despite gratitude for maintaining employment at Reach, one
participant noted the amount of work hours provided could not provide her with sufficient income.
In addition, while Reach has hired several clients as staff for their Antioch and Richmond offices, some
participants noted that Reach’s supervising staff are not always available when clients show up at one of
the offices. Staff also identified the need for more program volunteers to teach the Sistah-to-Sistah
curriculum.
Reach’s capacity to accurately and consistently track data about their clients and services has also been
very limited. The program was not able to provide the evaluation with a complete list of all clients’
served or all service provided, making it impossible to validate their service and outcome numbers.
Reach has received a computer and training in the ServicePoint electronic case management system
through their current contract.
Gender-specific needs
Women face different challenges and needs due to family structures, gender roles, and societal
expectations. Reach faces challenges meeting these needs because the existing resources and services
may not be adequate for their unique population.
The AB 109 system provides limited gender responsive services, which affects the quality of services that
reentering women can access. Their needs upon reentry are often different than men’s. However, the
majority of incarcerated individuals are male, so the majority of reentry programs and populations cater
to the needs of men by default. In particular, the mental health needs of the Reach clientele may be
different than the mental health needs of their male counterparts. The program staff note awareness of
sensitivities and trauma-informed approaches in their programs.
When we look at the mental health of women when we do Sistah-to-Sistah; some women have
been raped more than I can even discuss.
Many existing job opportunities for the reentry population relate to manual labor. The sector is ill suited
to the employment needs of many women. The same is true for housing, as many women carry
additional family obligations compared to men.
Page 177 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-39
Rubicon
Snapshot of Program Accomplishments, July 2013 -Sept. 2014
362 clients referred
161 clients served
62% (n=100) engaged in career coaching/job search
assistance
75 clients enrolled in Financial Services
2 clients enrolled in basic skills and GED prep
classes
36 clients removed barriers to employment
34 clients created or updated a resume
81% (n=63) of those who started the job readiness
curriculum completed it, meeting the 80% target
41% (n=41) of clients who engaged in career
coaching subsequently engaged in transitional
work, vocational training, or subsidized
employment, meeting the 40% target
32% (n=32) of clients who engaged in career
coaching subsequently obtained competitive
employment. It took an average of 99 days to
obtain employment.
o 81% retained employment for 30 days,
meeting the 80% target
o 63% retained employment for 60 days,
falling below the 70% target
15 clients successfully enrolled in benefits
Overview of Program
Rubicon is contracted to provide employment support and placement services, integrated with other
supports, to participants in East County and West County. Using a Jail to Community model, Rubicon’s
ELEVATE (Expanding Long-Term Employment and Vocational Access through re-Entry) program includes
pre-release engagement; job readiness workshops; educational and vocational training; transitional
employment; individualized career coaching; legal services; financial stability services; and domestic
violence prevention and anger management.
Rubicon follows a Financial Opportunity Center model for all of its services. Based on the Center for
Working Families model developed by The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Financial Opportunity Centers
aim to support clients through integrated employment, financial, and income services. In order to
provide a continuum of services, Rubicon partners with a number of other organizations through formal
subcontracts, including vocational training partners, AB 109 providers, and other community-based
organizations.
The FY 2013-14 contract specified that Rubicon would serve up to 280 participants, including 160 in East
County and 120 in West County. The FY 2014-15 contract slightly reduced these numbers, with a
contract to serve up to 210 participants, including 120 from East County and 90 from West County. This
Page 178 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-40
year, Rubicon is not providing subsidized employment to participants but continues to provide
transitional employment.
Strengths
Integrated employment, financial, and income assistance
By successfully implementing the Casey Foundation’s Financial Opportunity Center model, Rubicon
directly enhances clients’ financial sustainability by providing access to a combination of employment,
financial, and income services.
Rubicon’s model integrates services designed to address clients’ multiple intersecting needs. As one
staff explained: “We don’t just provide employment and career coaching; for example, one person may
work with a career coach, a housing coach, a financial coach, a fatherhood coach.” Clients also shared
their experience receiving diverse types of support from Rubicon, with one client sharing:
[Rubicon has] the resources for whatever you wanna do. Financial, criminal, if you need your
record expunged….
Staff observed that because clients face multiple barriers and may disengage in services for periods of
time, clients who are enrolled in multiple services are more likely to re-engage with Rubicon through
one of their touch points. In addition, because the Financial Opportunity Center model lays out a three-
year period of service, this providing staff an opportunity to engage with clients over a longer time
period than the AB 109-specific services. Of the 161 clients served during the evaluation period, 75 also
enrolled in Rubicon’s Financial Services.
Rubicon offers access to vocational trainings and certifications across a range of employment sectors
that provide participants with hard skills that can help them move more quickly into stable employment.
As part of its AB 109 program, Rubicon partners with organizations that provide vocational training and
certifications to program participants. Partners include sectors such as labor and construction, computer
certification, forklift training, food industry, truck driving, green jobs (e.g., solar), and occupational
safety and health (OSHA). Staff noted that the most sought after trainings were in construction,
warehouse, forklift, and OSHA. Staff also observed that participants preferred vocational training
providers that have condensed training programs—for example, a one-day forklift training or a three-
week condensed Bread Project training—which allows participants to move more quickly into obtaining
paid employment. Program staff also created a skills development series where participants can obtain
computer certifications in Internet basics and Microsoft Office; staff noted that this has been helpful in
engaging participants, as participants sense this is a highly marketable skill.
Staff related that the certifications that participants receive have helped them go on to obtain
employment immediately, citing participants who graduated from Future Build and were able to join a
local construction union. Clients spoke about the training received in Rubicon’s job readiness program:
Page 179 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-41
I went all the way to Hayward got my forklift certification, they [Rubicon] reimbursed me about a
week later. I have an actual trade underneath my belt if someone wants to open that door and
let me in. I turned around and got me a job and am doing landscaping.
I came home and AB 109 paid for my school. I’m a barber. They paid for my schooling. Actually, I
didn’t know that Rubicon had funds for people on AB 109… East Bay Works paid for a 24 month
program. East Bay Works paid $3,000 and Rubicon AB 109 paid for the remainder and bought
my barber kit so I was like, cool. At the second meeting [at Rubicon in Richmond] I was blown
away how they immediately approved me to get that money… Now I have a barbershop down
the street from here. They do good. They help people.
Rubicon enhances clients’ job readiness through workshops that emphasize both hard and soft skills and
assist them in removing barriers to employment.
Job readiness workshops emphasize the hard skills that participants need in order to apply for and
maintain a job. Rubicon reported that 34 clients created or updated a resume during the time period of
the evaluation. Clients agreed that these services have helped them obtain employment.
At Rubicon I was led in the right direction, from them, I was told what to do in interviews, and
because of that I have three jobs.
Clients also shared the benefit of the structured environment the workshop provided, which assisted
them in developing strong work habits: “First I had a two-week accountability course [which involves]
showing you can get somewhere on time.” Another client continued, “I made sure I was here every day
at 8:00am.”
Rubicon also enrolled 75 clients in Financial Services, helping clients to remove barriers to financial
sustainability by providing training and linking participants to resources.
I went through financial bootcamp and got a certificate for that. They helped you go through
Wells Fargo and empower yourself through financing. They were helping you establish credit all
over again; the resources here are good for you. – Participant
Since the beginning of their contract in July 2013, program staff have continually adapted their
workshops to fit the needs of the AB 109 population. For example, program staff noted that they
adapted the two-week job readiness workshop curriculum to include a greater focus on hard skills
development for participants without high school diplomas. Staff also developed a cognitive behavioral
therapy (CBT) curriculum designed to provide a deeper focus on the reentry mentality and helping
participants identify support systems. As part of this effort, four Rubicon staff received training from
Probation certified in the Thinking for a Change (T4C) curriculum.
Rubicon also links clients to transitional employment opportunities, which provide short-term access to
income and work experience.
Page 180 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-42
In West County Rubicon places participants in West County in transitional employment opportunities in
landscaping and commercial property maintenance. In East County, Rubicon staff successfully increased
employment opportunities for individuals with a criminal record by creating partnerships with
transitional employment providers including Loaves & Fishes, a local community food bank, the City of
Pittsburg, and in-house office support at Rubicon.
Of the 100 participants who engaged in career coaching, 41% (n=41) subsequently engaged in
transitional work, vocational training, or subsidized employment (note: in its second contract year
Rubicon no longer provides subsidized employment, but still provides transitional employment).
Individualized and coordinated services
Rubicon’s career coaches work with clients one-on-one to identify and address their barriers to
employment.
In addition to employment and financial workshops and training, Rubicon also assists clients by working
with them one-on-one to address their barriers to employment as soon as they engage in services.
During the evaluation time period, 36 clients removed barriers to employment, including reinstating
suspended driver’s licenses and obtaining documentation necessary to get a job. Rubicon clients
confirmed the importance of Rubicon’s barrier removal support, with a number of focus group
participants noting that Rubicon helped them address suspended drivers’ licenses and other issues.
Rubicon reported that they assisted fifteen clients in enrolling in financial benefits. One participant
noted that within two weeks of getting set up with a career coach at Rubicon, “I ended up with a job
making $13 an hour, got my license back, got a bank account.”
Of the 100 clients who engaged in career coaching and/or job search assistance, 32 obtained
competitive independent employment. Of these, 81% had retained employment for 30 days and 63%
had retained employment for 60 days within the timeframe covered by the evaluation.
In addition to formal workshops and career coaching, the close and trusting relationships participants
build with staff provides participants with crucial emotional support and guidance that helps them stay
engaged and supports them in keeping their behavior on track.
Several staff emphasized the primary importance of the relationship with staff in support clients’
success. They explained that when clients know they can come in and share openly about what is going
on in their lives without fear of retribution. One staff person shared:
It sounds a little corny, but if you go to the workshops, you will hear graduates talk over and over
again about the relationships with the staff. It’s really what keeps them engaged. I don’t mean
to underplay the extreme talents our staff have – but it’s the human relationship.
Clients also spoke about their feeling of comfort at Rubicon, with one client sharing that her career
coach here is like a mom to her: “I call her mom and everything.”
Page 181 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-43
Rubicon also creates an open office atmosphere where clients can spend their free time and engage
with their career coach or participating in job search, sharing that some clients come almost every day.
Clients shared that the open office space provides an opportunity to use the office computers and to
occupy their time—which keeps them from engaging in behavior that could cause them to recidivate. As
one client shared:
They sent me to Richmond because I’m from Antioch. So I come out here where I can’t get into
havoc [in my old neighborhood]. It gave me a chance to get around my career coach all day.
Staff from Rubicon facilitate coordinated service delivery through formal subcontracts and informal
communication with staff from other contracted organizations.
Rubicon also created a formal subcontract relationship with Men and Women of Purpose to strengthen
the Jail to Community model of service delivery, with the idea that MWP would identify AB 109 clients,
develop pre-release plans, coordinate their first visit to Rubicon upon release, and provide ongoing
mentoring to participants. Staff noted that in addition to Probation-sponsored case conferences,
Rubicon and other contracted organizations also informally communicate about specific participants to
discuss their needs and services.
Participants related that Rubicon’s assistance makes their service participation feel coordinated and
smooth: “Rubicon has made everything easy and convenient for me.”
Data capacity
Rubicon has a high level of data capacity, including an electronic case management system, enabling
them to accurately track referrals, enrollments, services provided, and case outcomes.
Challenges
Client referrals and engagement
Rubicon has struggled to engage clients in job readiness workshops, which staff attribute to challenges
with referrals, limited pre-release access, and clients’ behavioral health needs.
Rubicon staff emphasized that one of the greatest difficulties they face is initially engaging clients in the
job readiness workshop. They pointed to issues related to referrals and to clients’ multiple needs. For
example, staff noted that referrals from Probation do not always come with correct client contact
information, which can delay client engagement and follow-up. In addition, many clients have multiple,
intersecting needs, including substance abuse, mental health, and employment, and housing, which can
make it difficult to prioritize and triage referrals.
Page 182 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-44
As a result, while Rubicon engaged 100 of its 161 clients in job search assistance, only 78 clients began
the job readiness curriculum. Staff noted that if they are able to successfully engage clients initially, then
they are usually able to support clients in completing the workshops. Staff explained:
The biggest programmatic hurdle is getting participants to engage initially in completing the
workshop…. Overall if we can get them to show up at all we can get them through it—the
hardest part is to get them to show up at all.
Data support this observation, as 81% (n=63) of those who started the job readiness curriculum
completed it, meeting Rubicon’s target of 80%.
For individuals with substance abuse issues—which Rubicon staff note is the vast majority of their
clients—the path to stability is not linear. Clients may fall out of services and return, with the support of
their probation officer and program staff. Several clients described their experiences with gaining
employment and financial stability, and then relapsing. In the words of one client, “I threw it all away... I
started using again. I went on the run.” But he noted, “I’m coming back. My career coach called me up
last week… I fell down and got up.” Similarly, a client who went through forklift training and obtained a
job said, “I did that for 90 days and threw it all away.” But he returned to Rubicon, stating, “I’m ready.
It’s time to play ball again.”
Program capacity
As a result of the above factors, Rubicon has the capacity to serve a greater number of clients than the
current number of referrals, although some of Rubicon’s training partners are at or above capacity.
As stated in their contract, Rubicon has the capacity to serve up to 210 individuals (120 participants in
East County and 90 in West County), including up to 180 for career coaching; educational services for up
to 60; and transitional employment for up to 50 individuals.
However, some of Rubicon’s training partners face a greater demand than their current capacity;
Rubicon staff noted that forklift training and OSHA classes in particular are a “hot commodity” and there
are wait lists for those classes every month. Some focus group clients also expressed that they were not
aware that Rubicon could pay for them to participate in vocational training and certification programs.
Program fit
While Rubicon’s services appear to be aligned with the needs of many individuals on AB 109 supervision,
Rubicon services may not be an ideal fit for certain individuals.
It is particularly challenging for Rubicon to engage clients who have unmet substance abuse and/or
mental health needs, as their program requires a high degree of commitment and functioning. At the
same time, Rubicon may also not be an ideal fit for clients with a higher level of job skills or education;
however, Rubicon staff noted that they are able to accelerate these participants into the job search
phase by waiving the workshop requirement. Some women on AB 109 supervision also reported that
Page 183 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-45
because most Rubicon clients are male, Rubicon’s services may not feel as accessible or tailored to
female clients.
In addition, while vocational certifications clearly helped participants move into employment, clients
spoke less about the extent to which educational basic skills and cognitive behavioral training had been
helpful.
Several clients at other CBOs expressed that the need for immediate employment was a barrier to
participating in Rubicon’s job readiness workshops.
In contrast to Goodwill’s program, in which most participants begin work immediately, Rubicon clients
engage in career coaching and/or job readiness workshops prior to beginning transitional employment
or vocational training. Some clients at other CBOs reported that this time gap was too long for their
immediate income needs. Rubicon reported that the time between clients’ enrollment and placement in
transitional employment or vocational training was on average 97 days.
I went to Rubicon, [but] couldn’t do Rubicon because I have to work. I can’t do a two week class
and have nothing in my pockets or nothing to eat.
I went to Rubicon and went through that two weeks [class]. In dealing with Rubicon, if you are in
a rush or don’t have patience, you are in trouble. They said they would pay for me to go to truck
driving school, but I’m still waiting three months later. It’s taking longer to get into truck driving
school than I expected.
Page 184 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-46
Shelter, Inc.
Snapshot of Program Accomplishments, July 2013 -Sept. 2014
230 clients referred*
50% (n=115) were contacted and screened for
eligibility, under the 70% target
84% (n=98) received housing access assistance,
surpassing the 80% target
43% (n=50) received housing placement assistance,
over the 40% target
Changes across quarters in numbers
referred/served
Fidelity/evolution of program
43% (n=50) clients secured housing, meeting the
40% target
o Average of 22 days from referral to
housing
o 30 clients were placed in master leased
housing, under the target of 38
o 20 clients were placed in alternative
housing (e.g., healthy living), under the
target of 32
84% (n=42) retained housing at six-month follow-
up, meeting the 80% target**
16% (n=8) had an unsuccessful program exit at six -
month follow-up, meeting the target of less than
20%
*Probation records show 238 referrals to Shelter Inc.
**Number is 0 for 12 month retention because people hit 12 months in Oct., Nov., Dec. 2014 – after the reporting.
The first batch went in around Oct. 16th-18th. To date, 8 people have made it to the 12 month retention: 6 people
made it through transitional housing, and two of them got permanent housing
Overview of Program
Shelter, Inc. operates the County’s AB 109 Short and Long-term Housing Access Program. This program
assists incarcerated and formerly incarcerated persons who are referred to them under the AB 109
Community Programs to secure and maintain stabilized residential accommodations. Shelter, Inc.
provides a two-phased approach to clients seeking housing assistance. Before the program will refer a
client to the Housing Services section, the staff conducts social service assessment/intake procedure to
ensure the client will have success. The program places the majority of their clients into transitional
housing situations (such as room or apartment shares) to allow them time to develop the resources for
stable housing.
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-15, the County contracted Shelter, Inc. to initiate contact with 175 clients
referred from Probation and provide eligibility screening for at least 70% (125) of those (down from 144
in FY 2013-14). Shelter, Inc. was contracted to provide case management services for at least 85% of the
screened referrals; housing access assistance to at least 80% of the screened referrals; and housing
placement assistance to at least 65% of those who received case management.
Page 185 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-47
Strengths
Housing linkage and financial support
Shelter, Inc.—the only service provider that provided housing-related services during the evaluation
time period—successfully links people with housing and supports their ability to stay housed through its
financial assistance services.
In addition to the ability to place clients in Shelter, Inc. transitional housing programs, one of the critical
components of Shelter, Inc.’s program model is the extensive time and effort their staff makes to
identify stable housing options with landlords who are willing to accept and work with individuals with
criminal records. Because of this legwork, Shelter, Inc. is able to successfully locate housing for
individuals who may not otherwise be able to find a place to live. Several participants stressed that were
it not for Shelter, Inc., they would likely be homeless or incarcerated. Moreover, participants noted that
their ability to stay housed is critical for their ability to avoid additional involvement in criminal
activities. As one participant explained:
I don’t know what I would be doing without Shelter, Inc. I’d be stealing cars and back in prison.
Shelter, Inc.’s client housing outcomes bear out these findings. Between July 2013 and Sept. 2014,
Shelter, Inc. provided housing access assistance to 98 of the 115 clients they assessed for intake. In
addition, 50 of the 115 people they served were successfully placed in housing, with 30 clients placed in
master leased housing and 20 clients placed in alternative housing environments, such as a sober living
environment. In addition, on average, clients were placed in housing approximately three weeks (22
days) after they were initially referred to Shelter, Inc., speaking to the program’s ability to leverage their
efforts locating housing into relatively fast housing placements for clients.
In addition to helping AB 109 clients find and obtain housing, Shelter, Inc.’s financial assistance helps
participants retain their housing while they get on their feet after being released from prison or jail. In
particular, by providing financial support for housing deposits and rent, the program helps clients
maintain stability while they address a variety of other reentry-related needs. Between July 2013 and
Sept. 2014, Shelter, Inc. helped 50 clients find or maintain housing through stabilized housing placement
assistance such as 1) initial rent, security and utility deposits; 2) rent-in-arrears; and 3) landlord
outreach, unit inspections, lease negotiations.
Shelter, Inc. has continually made efforts to adapt their program and service delivery to better meet
clients’ needs. As Shelter, Inc. staff noted, when the program initially rolled out, they required clients to
obtain employment and/or documented income prior to placing them in housing. However, they soon
realized that with the multiplicity of needs reentry clients face, providing one element of stability can be
a critical precursor for others. Shelter, Inc. thus decided to bring its AB 109 program into greater
alignment with the Housing First model advocated by the National Alliance to End Homelessness
supported by the broader Shelter, Inc. organization.
Page 186 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-48
[Before] we’d been taking the approach to wait until they can at least get into a program that’s
gonna help them get a job, where we can substantiate they’re working on something. Now we’re
doing, let’s just house them and then we’ll see – maybe that will motivate them to find
something.
Clients’ feedback appears to validate this approach.
Shelter Inc. is paying for me. I got a deposit down for $1000 and they paid 3 months of my rent
at my apartment right now. I had to go through a family shelter just to get to my own
apartment. But Shelter Inc. paid for that whole transaction.
Case management support
In addition to helping people secure housing, Shelter, Inc.’s case management model ensures
participants are removing barriers and following through on their goals—assistance that goes beyond
the realm of housing to address clients’ other reentry-related needs.
In addition to helping clients locate housing, Shelter, Inc. also takes a holistic approach to working with
their AB 109 clients, linking them to other services, helping them obtain employment, and making sure
they can meet their basic needs. In addition to supporting clients’ housing stability, this approach is
critical for supporting other aspects of clients’ reentry. Shelter, Inc. staff note that they are leveraging
other programs within their agency to be able to provide the extensive support that many clients need.
In the beginning we didn’t necessarily look toward other programs within our agency, and now
we’re doing that – we’re being creative. We’ve used other [non-AB 109] Shelter Inc. resources as
well. Families have been sent to our Mountain View shelter and placed. We’ve placed people our
other programs, their transitional housing.
Clients’ also underscored the importance of Shelter, Inc.’s holistic approach.
Knowing that Shelter, Inc. is there has been wonderful. If I ran out of food, they help with food. If
I need a ride, they will help. Just need to let them know.
Coordination with Probation and CBOs
Shelter, Inc. works closely with the Probation Department and with other CBOs to coordinate additional
services for their clients.
Shelter, Inc. staff noted that they receive a high-volume of referrals from the Probation Department and
that the majority of clients who are referred not only need housing but are also appropriate for Shelter,
Inc. services in terms of their risk-levels and other compounding factors, such as mental health.
Moreover, when Shelter, Inc. staff does identify other services clients may need, Probation coordinates
referrals to those services, including County services such as mental health services, substance abuse
treatment, benefits, counseling; and contracted services, such as employment. Shelter, Inc. also
Page 187 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-49
coordinates directly with other providers, including Goodwill and Rubicon, to help connect clients to
these services. Of the 27627 referrals that Shelter, Inc. received between July 2013 and Sept. 2014, the
vast majority were coupled with a variety of other referrals, including both County agencies such as
various Behavioral Health Services and CBOs, especially Goodwill Industries and Rubicon. In addition, the
majority of clients who engaged in Shelter, Inc. Services also engaged in services with Goodwill, Rubicon,
and/or Bay Area Legal Aid, indicating that Shelter, Inc. is well-situated within a network of services.
Shelter, Inc. clients note this, pointing out, “Shelter, Inc. actually looks out for us. They work with the
probation officer.”
Shelter also noted that they are seeing more and more referrals sent to us while the person is still
incarcerated, a month or two months out from release.
Challenges
Difficulty housing clients with criminal histories and no income
Despite Shelter, Inc.’s adoption of a “Housing First” model, it can be challenging to find appropriate
housing for clients who cannot immediately connect with employment or income.
Shelter Inc.’s program model assumes that if the program can help people locate housing and help
finance it in the short-term, those individuals will be able to take over their own rent payments and
maintain the housing longer-term. Unfortunately, many individuals come out of prison or jail with few
options for immediate income or employment. Staff explained,
It’s hard to work with those coming over with zero or very little income. We can’t subsidize for
long periods of time. If we subsidize them for 3-4 months and then have to cut them off… [That’s
not going to ultimately help the client]
The idea of giving people one or two months’ rent and they’re on their own after that, it’s not
reality in the Bay Area. You have to have a much clearer correlation between housing placement
and job placement and subsidy levels.
For many clients with children or with a history of substance use, living in group housing or transitional
housing can present very real challenges:
I didn’t want to live with five other people, but I felt it was a wonderful opportunity and I had
first choice of the bedrooms and it was a brand new house, but I wanted to work with the case
manager to get my own apartment. I have two kids and I wanted my own place.
27 Because some clients are referred multiple times, the number of referrals made does not align with the number
of individuals referred. It is not clear why individuals are referred to the same services multiple times.
Page 188 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-50
I didn’t want to do transitional because I have an 8 year old daughter. I know what works for me
and those shelters, the wet shelters are bad for me. I have come too far and it wasn’t an easy
road to get where I am right now.
Many landlords do not want to rent to people with criminal histories.
Despite all the legwork that Shelter, Inc. does to locate housing for clients and to subsidize their rent,
both clients and program staff note that it can be very challenging to find landlords who are willing to
rent to individuals who are coming out of prison or jail. This is further complicated by the fact that most
clients have poor credit histories and little or no income.
Even when housing units are available, even when landlords understand we’re providing some
financial assistance for the clients, landlords run background checks…[then] they say they
promised the unit to someone else. There’s a fine line between discriminating, but you can’t
prove it….
I have a conviction so people don’t want to rent to me. Shelter, Inc. has stigma and landlords
think that they are helping troublemakers and will bring all the hoopla with them. I’ve had four
or five different apartments and the landlord will pull out at the last minute.
Meeting client expectations with reality
There is often a mismatch between clients’ desire and the reality of what is available to them.
Despite having little or no income, many clients have high aspirations for the type of housing they hope
to obtain. Staff shared,
Most people are looking for permanent, everyone wants their own place. Even if they can’t right
now, they still want it. I don’t know what it would take… A lot of them think we can provide this
great subsidy, something like Section 8 or something, or put them up somewhere. When they
come here and find out they have to do a little work, it’s discouraging for most of them.
Referrals greater than program capacity
Despite limits on the type of support that Shelter, Inc. can provide, the program is well over capacity.
Shelter, Inc. has received far more referrals for service than they were contracted to provide and the
program is struggling to meet the needs of all of these clients. Of the 230 clients who were referred to
Shelter, Inc. between July 2013 and Sept. 2014, the agency was only able to screen and enroll 115 and
house 50. Program staff noted that there is limited staff capacity to process the volume of referrals they
are receiving even before they address they challenge of trying to locate reasonable housing for a
difficult-to-house population. Delays in being able to process all of the referrals that Shelter, Inc.
receives can create a critical delays in connecting with clients and the longer it takes the program to
reach a potential client, the less likely that client is to engage.
Page 189 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-51
The longer they wait while they’re working through their housing barriers, the more reality sets
in. [Staff] chase them down saying you have to continue to work or be in the process of getting
employment to get to the goal that we set. When that doesn’t happen, we’re chasing people,
calling them, but they get discouraged, that’s what happens. People start running…you can’t
catch them….
Clients’ feedback also pointed to inconsistency in Shelter, Inc.’s response time. While some participants
described near contact with Shelter, Inc. within one or two days of release, others experienced a long
wait time to receive a call from a housing provider.
I been waiting on a call from Shelter, Inc. since 2 days after I got out. It’s a good thing that I live
with my mother [because] I been waiting on a call for 4 months.
I got a call the day after [I was released]. I don’t know if it is different because my PO is in
Antioch.
One client described that a prior housing issue prevented her from accessing Shelter, Inc.’s services right
away, but she was eventually able to get services.
I’m waiting on a phone call right now from them. I got housing a few years back and didn’t fulfill
my commitment with them…my PO referred me [to Shelter, Inc.] and I was denied services
because I lived in one of their houses. They said I owed them $8,000. So my PO keep submitting
my referrals.
Limited pre-release access
Limited pre-release access limits ability to start the process earlier and limits Shelter, Inc.’s ability to
educate potential clients about the services they can and cannot provide.
Thus far, Shelter, Inc. has been unable to obtain the necessary clearance to access participants in jail. In
addition to creating delays in the program’s ability to begin the housing location process, limited pre-
release access also means that clients do not necessarily have an accurate understanding of what the
provider does and many AB 109 clients show up at Shelter, Inc. thinking that the program is a housing
provider rather than connector.
What people hear [about Shelter Inc] is ‘we’re gonna get you housing’ – but what the message is we
can help you find housing. It’s not necessarily what they’re told, it’s what they hear. If we could go
inside, and do outreach, showing them what they’re going to face... [it would help us manage
expectations]
If we could assess them and find out their needs before, would be an additional tool… If they have an
ally before they get out and if there’s tangible benefits.
Page 190 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-52
Appendix C: Logic Model
Page 191 of 256
Appendix C: Contra Costa County AB 109 Program Logic Model
February 27, 2015 | 1
Provide programs during
incarceration
Conduct pre-release assessment
(CAIS) and case planning
Provide programs in community
Create one-stop centers and
networks
Provide early representation
services (ACER)
Provide pretrial needs assessment
Provide social worker needs
assessment
Use evidence-based sentencing
practices (e.g., split sentences;
court mandated programs)
Enhance law enforcement
practices (compliance checks;
expanded role of AB 109 police
and DPOs; new correctional
officers)
Engage in collaborative planning
Create data sharing policies and
procedures
Carry out training in AB 109 (DPOs,
police, judges, providers)
Conduct monitoring and
evaluation
Leverage resources
Use evidence-based supervision
practices
Provide Clean Slate services
Increased individual readiness
for change
Increased access and utilization
of services and programs
Improvement in timely and
appropriate service referrals
Increased coordination of
services
Reduction in pretrial population
Increase availability of beds for
high-risk inmates
Increase in service quality
Increase in service availability
Improvement in individual-
level outcomes (mental health,
substance abuse, housing,
employment, dynamic
criminogenic factors)
Successful completion of
supervision
Decreased recidivism
Increased quality of life for
AB 109 individuals
Decreased cost per client
Decreased cost per service
Thriving individuals,
families, and
communities
Increased public
safety
Fiscally sustainable
government and
service providers
Create domestic violence and
victim support positions and
programs
State Funding
Community
Corrections
Partnership
Operational Plan
Board of
Supervisors
Funding Allocations
Training
Court
District Attorney
Public Defender
Probation
Department
Sheriff’s Office
Behavioral Health
Department
CBOs
INPUTS ACTIVITIES SHORT-TERM
OUTCOMES
INTERMEDIATE
OUTCOMES
LONG-TERM
OUTCOMES
IMPACT
Page 192 of 256
Contra Costa County
AB 109 Program Evaluation
May 4, 2015 | A-53
Appendix D: GAINS Reentry Checklist
Page 193 of 256
Instructions for Completing GAINS Jail Re-Entry ChecklistInstructions for Completing GAINS Jail Re-Entry Checklist
General Information
It is recommended that the form be completed in quadruplicate for all detainees identifi ed with mental health service needs
within 48 hours of arriving at the facility. The quadruplicate forms should be distributed as follows: top copy in detainee’s
fi le to give upon discharge, second copy to medical personnel, third copy to mental health personnel, and the fourth copy for
use according to facility’s procedures.
Instructions:
Potential Needs in Community after Release
Discuss each service with detainee to determine if there is a need to plan for this service prior to discharge. Check the appro-
priate boxes that correspond to the services identifi ed as a need by the detainee. If the person completing the form identifi es
a need for which the detainee does not agree to receive planning, indicate this in the Steps Taken and Date(s) section (Ex:
Detainee is homeless but does not agree to receive assistance with housing upon discharge).
Steps Taken by Jail Staff and Date(s)
Indicate the steps taken to set-up the identifi ed services and the dates this was done. Notes in this section should refl ect a
continuous effort to plan for re-entry services throughout the detainee’s stay in the facility. If multiple people complete this
form, each person must identify the steps that she/he completes in this section with initials, as well as entering his/her name
at the top of the form.
Example:
Detainee identifi es Mental Health Services as a need:
9/1/03 L.T. Contacted Community Mental Health Services (MHS) to set-up appointment with intake coordinator upon
release. Will contact closer to projected date of release.
9/25/03 S.P. Release date is fi rm for 10/3/03. Contacted MHS and made appointment for 10/3/03 at 1:00 p.m. MHS
agreed to provide 1 bus token and jail will provide 1 token to assist with transportation.
10/2/03 L.T. Appointment confi rmed at MHS for 10/3/03 at 1:00 p.m.
Detainee’s Final Plan & Contact Information for Referrals
Identify fi nal plan in terms of appointment times, next steps, and person to contact for each identifi ed need.
Example:
1:00 p.m. appointment on 10/3/03 at MHS with intake coordinator: Julie Young. Phone: 333-1212; Address: 1234 Street,
City, USA 11120.
Final Section
Detainee’s Name:
Gender:
Date of Birth:
Today’s Date:
Jail ID#:
SSN#:
Name of Facility:
Name of Person Completing Form and Phone Number:
Current Status:
Projected Release Date:
Enter detainee’s last name, fi rst name, and middle initial
Check Male (M) or Female (F)
Enter month, day, and year
Enter month, day, and year
Enter Jail ID# associated with detainee
Enter detainee’s Social Security Number
Enter name of jail
Print name of person completing form and unit phone number.
If multiple people use this form, each person must print his/her
identifying information on this form.
Check Sentenced Inmate or Pre-Trial Detainee
Enter projected date of release (if known)
Full plan completed and discussed with detainee?
If no, why?
Attachments?
Check Yes or No
In this section, specify why the full plan was not completed
or discussed with detainee by checking: Detainee refused;
Court released before plan completed; Incomplete for
other reasons—specify (e.g., provider was unable to be
contacted)
Check Yes if attaching corresponding materials;
Check No if not.
Page 194 of 256
Detainee’s Name Gender Gender Gender Date of Birth Today’s Date Jail ID #
M
F __ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __SSN#Last , First M mm dd yy mm dd yy
Name of Facility Name of Person Completing Form Current Status Date of Admission Projected Release Date
and Phone Number and Phone Number and Phone Number Pre-Trial Detainee __ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __
Sentenced Inmate mm dd yy mm dd yy
Potential Needs in Steps Taken by Jail Staff and Date(s)Steps Taken by Jail Staff and Date(s) Detainee’s Final Plan &
Community After ReleaseCommunity After Release Contact Information for Referrals
Mental Health Services
Psychotropic Medications
Housing
Substance Abuse Services
Health Care
Health Care Benefi ts
Income Support/Benefi ts
Food/Clothing
Transportation
Other
Full plan completed and discussed with detainee? Yes No Attachments? Yes No
If no, why?
Detainee refused Detainee refused Detainee refused Court released before plan completed Court released before plan completed Court released before plan completed
Incomplete for other reasons Specify:
GAINS Re-Entry Checklist For Inmates Identifi ed with Mental Health Service Needs
__ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __
Last , First M mm dd yy mm dd yy
__ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __
Last , First M mm dd yy mm dd yy
Last , First M mm dd yy mm dd yy
Date of Admission
Detainee’s CopyPage 195 of 256
Detainee’s Name Gender Gender Gender Date of Birth Today’s Date Jail ID #
M
F __ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __SSN#Last , First M mm dd yy mm dd yy
Name of Facility Name of Person Completing Form Current Status Date of Admission Projected Release Date
and Phone Number and Phone Number and Phone Number Pre-Trial Detainee __ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __
Sentenced Inmate mm dd yy mm dd yy
Potential Needs in Steps Taken by Jail Staff and Date(s)Steps Taken by Jail Staff and Date(s) Detainee’s Final Plan &
Community After ReleaseCommunity After Release Contact Information for Referrals
Mental Health Services
Psychotropic Medications
Housing
Substance Abuse Services
Health Care
Health Care Benefi ts
Income Support/Benefi ts
Food/Clothing
Transportation
Other
Full plan completed and discussed with detainee? Yes No Attachments? Yes No
If no, why?
Detainee refused Detainee refused Detainee refused Court released before plan completed Court released before plan completed Court released before plan completed
Incomplete for other reasons Specify:
GAINS Re-Entry Checklist For Inmates Identifi ed with Mental Health Service Needs
__ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __
Last , First M mm dd yy mm dd yy
__ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __
Last , First M mm dd yy mm dd yy
Last , First M mm dd yy mm dd yy
Date of Admission
Medical RecordsPage 196 of 256
Detainee’s Name Gender Gender Gender Date of Birth Today’s Date Jail ID #
M
F __ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __SSN#Last , First M mm dd yy mm dd yy
Name of Facility Name of Person Completing Form Current Status Date of Admission Projected Release Date
and Phone Number and Phone Number and Phone Number Pre-Trial Detainee __ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __
Sentenced Inmate mm dd yy mm dd yy
Potential Needs in Steps Taken by Jail Staff and Date(s)Steps Taken by Jail Staff and Date(s) Detainee’s Final Plan &
Community After ReleaseCommunity After Release Contact Information for Referrals
Mental Health Services
Psychotropic Medications
Housing
Substance Abuse Services
Health Care
Health Care Benefi ts
Income Support/Benefi ts
Food/Clothing
Transportation
Other
Full plan completed and discussed with detainee? Yes No Attachments? Yes No
If no, why?
Detainee refused Detainee refused Detainee refused Court released before plan completed Court released before plan completed Court released before plan completed
Incomplete for other reasons Specify:
GAINS Re-Entry Checklist For Inmates Identifi ed with Mental Health Service Needs
__ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __
Last , First M mm dd yy mm dd yy
__ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __
Last , First M mm dd yy mm dd yy
Last , First M mm dd yy mm dd yy
Date of Admission
Mental Health RecordsPage 197 of 256
Detainee’s Name Gender Gender Gender Date of Birth Today’s Date Jail ID #
M
F __ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __SSN#Last , First M mm dd yy mm dd yy
Name of Facility Name of Person Completing Form Current Status Date of Admission Projected Release Date
and Phone Number and Phone Number and Phone Number Pre-Trial Detainee __ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __
Sentenced Inmate mm dd yy mm dd yy
Potential Needs in Steps Taken by Jail Staff and Date(s)Steps Taken by Jail Staff and Date(s) Detainee’s Final Plan &
Community After ReleaseCommunity After Release Contact Information for Referrals
Mental Health Services
Psychotropic Medications
Housing
Substance Abuse Services
Health Care
Health Care Benefi ts
Income Support/Benefi ts
Food/Clothing
Transportation
Other
Full plan completed and discussed with detainee? Yes No Attachments? Yes No
If no, why?
Detainee refused Detainee refused Detainee refused Court released before plan completed Court released before plan completed Court released before plan completed
Incomplete for other reasons Specify:
GAINS Re-Entry Checklist For Inmates Identifi ed with Mental Health Service Needs
__ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __
Last , First M mm dd yy mm dd yy
__ __/ __ __/ __ __ __ __/ __ __/ __ __
Last , First M mm dd yy mm dd yy
Last , First M mm dd yy mm dd yy
Date of Admission
Facility UsePage 198 of 256
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:05/11/2015
Subject:Results of RFP Process for the Community Recidivism Reduction Grants
Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: Results of RFP Process for the Community Recidivism Reduction Grants
Presenter: Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator Contact: Lara DeLaney, 925-335-1097
Referral History:
In August 2014, the CAO’s office was notified by the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) that the
Budget Act of 2014 had allocated $8 million to the BSCC for the Community Recidivism Reduction Grant, as
described in Penal Code section 1233.10.Counties are eligible to receive funds if the Board of Supervisors, in
collaboration with the CCP, agrees to develop a competitive grant program intended to fund community recidivism
and crime reduction services.On September 16, 2014, the Board of Supervisors passed item C. 51, confirming to the
BSCC the County’s interest in receiving the funding, of which $250,000 was allocated to Contra Costa County.
Referral Update:
Review Panels convened April 14, 15, and 16, 2015 to review and score all proposals and to conduct interviews.
For the Juvenile-related proposals, four of the seven proposers were invited to an interview. For the Adult-related
proposals, three of the four West proposers were invited to an interview. Each proposer for the Central/East and
East region were interviewed. Scores for all of the proposals are included on Attachment B.
For today's meeting, the PPC is being asked to consider accepting the recommendations of the review panel and
forward funding recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for approval
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
1. ACCEPT the recommendations of the Review Panels with regard to contract awards from the Requests for
Proposals (RFP) issued for the Community Recidivism Reduction Grants.
2. RECOMMEND contract authorization by the Board of Supervisors for the following contractors, in the amount
of $50,000 each, for the period July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016:
Page 199 of 256
Attachments
Staff Report
Attachment A
Attachment B
Page 200 of 256
County of Contra Costa
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 7, 2015
TO: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE
FROM: LARA DeLANEY, Senior Deputy County Administrator
SUBJECT: Results of RFP Process for the Community Recidivism Reduction Grants
______________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
1. ACCEPT the recommendations of the Review Panels with regard to contract awards from
the Requests for Proposals (RFP) issued for the Community Recidivism Reduction
Grants.
2. RECOMMEND contract authorization by the Board of Supervisors for the following
contractors, in the amount of $50,000 each, for the period July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016:
BACKGROUND:
In August 2014, the CAO’s office was notified by the Board of State and Community
Corrections (BSCC) that the Budget Act of 2014 had allocated $8 million to the BSCC for the
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant, as described in Penal Code section 1233.10. Counties
are eligible to receive funds if the Board of Supervisors, in collaboration with the CCP, agrees to
develop a competitive grant program intended to fund community recidivism and crime
reduction services. On September 16, 2014, the Board of Supervisors passed item C. 51,
confirming to the BSCC the County’s interest in receiving the funding, of which $250,000 was
allocated to Contra Costa County.
Other requirements of the statute include:
Adult Region Contractor Partners
West Reach Fellowship International
Central John F. Kennedy University School of Law
East Rubicon Programs Alma House, Destiny House
Juveniles Bay Area Community Resources (BACR)
RYSE Center
Page 201 of 256
Public Protection Committee – May 11, 2015 Meeting May 7, 2015
Agenda Item No. 5 Page 3
“The board of supervisors, in collaboration with the county's Community Corrections Partnership,
shall establish minimum requirements, funding criteria, and procedures for the counties to award
grants consistent with the criteria established in this section.
A community recidivism and crime reduction service provider that receives a grant under this section
shall report to the county board of supervisors or the Community Corrections Partnership on the
number of individuals served and the types of services provided. The board of supervisors or the
Community Corrections Partnership shall report to the Board of State and Community Corrections
any information received under this subdivision from grant recipients.”
The Public Protection Committee directed the CAO’s office to develop a competitive process for
distribution of the funding set at $50,000 per region for adult reentry services and $100,000 for
juvenile programs. The County Administrator’s Office, in collaboration with the Reentry
Coordinator, the Probation Department, the East-Central Reentry Network Manager, and the
then-director of the West County Reentry Resource Center, developed the RFP and the process
timeline.
RFP PROCESS
The RFP for the Community Recidivism Reduction Grant made available up to $250,000
($50,000 per grant) to provide Community Recidivism Reduction Grants to nongovernmental
entities or a consortium or coalition of nongovernmental entities to provide community
recidivism, crime reduction and other reentry-related services to persons who have been released
from state prison, a county jail, or a juvenile detention facility, who are under the supervision of
a parole or probation department, or any other person at risk of becoming involved in criminal
activities, in Contra Costa County, for the period July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016.
The RFP was posted on BidSync, the website the County utilizes for contracting opportunities,
and distributed directly via email to contacts developed by the County’s Reentry Coordinator and
staff of the CAO’s office. A Press Release was issued as well.
Review Panels were assembled by the CAO’s office, comprised of the following members:
Facilitator Donte Blue County Reentry Coordinator
1 Todd Billeci Assistant Chief of Probation
2 Lara DeLaney CAO, Sr. Deputy
3 Kathy Narasaki East-Central Reentry Network Manager
4 Rebecca Brown CEO, Further The Work; WCRRC Steering
Committee Chair
5 DeVonn Powers Goodwill Director of Contract Services; CAB
member; WCRRC Steering Committee;
Substitute for ADULT-WEST Michele Wells CEO, Run On Productions LLC; CAB Member;
Substitute for ADULT-WEST Angelene Musawwir Social Work Supervisor II, Public Defender; CAB
Member
Page 202 of 256
Public Protection Committee – May 11, 2015 Meeting May 7, 2015
Agenda Item No. 5 Page 4
The substitutes for the review of the Adult-West proposals were required because two of the
Panel members, Rebecca Brown and DeVonn Powers, were members of the West County
Reentry Resource Center Steering Committee. This Committee membership may have posed a
conflict of interest, given that one of the proposals was intending to provide service at the
WCRRC. In the interest of avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest, the substitutes
were recruited and provided excellent service. All Review Panel members were required to
provide an Impartiality Statement, the Reentry Coordinator acted as Facilitator (no participation
in development of scores), and a Consensus Scoring Method was utilized throughout the process.
Proposals were received from the following organizations:
Adult Region Responder
West 1 Bay Area Legal Aid
West 2 Contra Costa Crisis Center
West 3 Reach Fellowship International
West 4 San Pablo Economic Development Corporation
Central 1 John F. Kennedy University School of Law
East 1 Rubicon Programs
Central/East 1
Counseling Options and Parent Education Support Center,
Inc.
Juveniles 1 Bay Area Community Resources (BACR)
2 Contra Costa County Service Integration Team
3 Monument Crisis Center
4 Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center
5 RYSE Center
6 The Congress of Neutrals
7 The Youth Intervention Network
Review Panels’ Recommendations
Review Panels convened April 14, 15, and 16, 2015 to review and score all proposals and to
conduct interviews. For the Juvenile-related proposals, four of the seven proposers were invited
to an interview. For the Adult-related proposals, three of the four West proposers were invited to
an interview. Each proposer for the Central/East and East region were interviewed. Scores for
all of the proposals are included on Attachment B.
Page 203 of 256
Public Protection Committee – May 11, 2015 Meeting May 7, 2015
Agenda Item No. 5 Page 5
The Committee will note that there was only a 0.5 point difference in the top two proposals for
West-Adult services between Reach Fellowship and Bay Area Legal Aid. The Panel had the
most difficulty in scoring the proposals for West County, as they were all of very high quality.
Ultimately the decision reflected consideration of the need for housing resources in West
County, particularly for women with children.
The Review Panel recommendations for contract award were issued on April 17, 2015 and
included:
Adult Services
Central County, $50,000: John F. Kennedy University
College of Law—Establishment of a
Probation Assistance Clinic in
conjunction with the Contra Costa
County Homeless Court, centered on
driver’s license restoration.
West County, $50,000: Reach Fellowship International—
Residential and Job Training
Program for women of West County.
East County, $50,000: Rubicon Programs—Rental
assistance in a Sober Living
Environment (SLE) with career and
financial coaching.
Juvenile Services
Bay Area Community Resources (BACR)—$50,000: A program to engage juveniles in
east Contra Costa County in a comprehensive program utilizing employment training and
leadership development.
RYSE Center—$50,000: Pre-release transition planning, technical skills training, and the
creation of a social media application focused on youth reentry for justice-involved youth at
the RYSE Center.
The Review Panels made the following additional recommendations.
1. With respect to RYSE Center, the contractor should be encouraged to collaborate with
Bay Area Community Resources and the Youth Justice Initiative (YJI). In addition, the
institution access issues should be addressed with Probation prior to contract
authorization and development, so that pre-release services may be considered.
2. With respect to the proposal from BACR, the Review Panel recommended that services
be focused on East County juveniles. (The proposal included services in both East and
Page 204 of 256
Public Protection Committee – May 11, 2015 Meeting May 7, 2015
Agenda Item No. 5 Page 6
West County; however, the need was identified by the Panel for East County services.)
Collaboration with the YJI was also encouraged.
3. Regarding Adult services, the Panel recommended that JFKU College of Law develop an
MOU with Bay Area Legal Aid regarding the referral of cases dealing with driver’s
licenses and DMV related issues and that program design be further refined during
contract development, with input from Panel members.
Attachments
Attachment A – RFP for Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
Attachment B – CRRG Scoring Sheet
Page 205 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
The Contra Costa County Administrator’s Office is pleased to announce, on behalf of the Board
of Supervisors, the availability of up to $250,000 ($50,000 per grant) to provide Community
Recidivism Reduction Grants to nongovernmental entities or a consortium or coalition of
nongovernmental entities to provide community recidivism, crime reduction and other reentry-
related services to persons who have been released from state prison, a county jail, or a juvenile
detention facility, who are under the supervision of a parole or probation department, or any
other person at risk of becoming involved in criminal activities, in Contra Costa County, for the
period July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016.
This RFP is a process by which the County solicits proposals of qualified responders who may
be selected to enter into a contract with the County.
Please read this entire packet carefully.
Final proposals will be due at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor, Martinez, CA 94553
by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 8, 2015.
Written questions about the RFP can be submitted to lara.delaney@cao.cccounty.us
by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 26, 2015.
Thank you in advance for your efforts in preparing your proposal.
Contra
Costa
County
Page 206 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
3/13/15 Page 2 of 27 Final RFP
Table of Contents
RFP TIMELINE………………………………………………………………………….. 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION……………………………………………………………… 4
RFP REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESPONDERS……………... 9
RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS AND OUTLINE………………………………………. 12
RESPONSE REVIEW AND SELECTION…………………………………………….. 15
RATING SHEET…………………………………………………………………………. 16
FORM #1: RESPONSE COVER STATEMENT………………………………………. 17
FORM #2: RESPONDER'S STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS……………….. 18
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF COUNTY CONTRACT……………………………… 20
Page 207 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
3/13/15 Page 3 of 27 Final RFP
RFP Timeline
1. RFP announced Mon., March 16, 2015
2. Written Questions Due from Responders 5:00 p.m., Thurs., March 26, 2015
3. Addendum Issued (as needed) Mon., March 30, 2015
4. Response Submission Deadline 5:00 p.m., Wed., April 8, 2015
County Administrator’s Office
651 Pine Street, 10th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
No response will be accepted after this date and time.
Postmarked, facsimiled, or e-mailed submissions will not be accepted.
5. Review, rating, and interview process Mon.-Thurs., April 13-16, 2015
6. Notification of award recommendations Fri., April 17, 2015
7. Appeal period Mon.-Thurs., April 20-23, 2015
8. Deadline to submit appeal letters 5:00 p.m., Thurs., April 23, 2015
9. Community Corrections Partnership Review Fri., May 1, 2015
10. Public Protection Committee Review Mon., May 11, 2015
Board of Supervisors approval and authorization to award contracts
is tentatively scheduled for the May 19, 2015 Board of Supervisors’ agenda
Page 208 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
3/13/15 Page 4 of 27 Final RFP
Project Description
I. Introduction
The Contra Costa County Administrator’s Office (CAO), in collaboration with the County
Probation Department, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, is issuing this Request for
Proposals (RFP) #1503-125 to receive proposals from nongovernmental entities or a consortium
or coalition of nongovernmental entities to provide community recidivism, crime reduction and
other reentry-related services to persons residing in Contra Costa County who have been
released from the state prison, a county jail, a juvenile detention facility, who are under the
supervision of a parole or probation department, or any other person at risk of becoming
involved in criminal activities.
Community recidivism and crime reduction services include, but are not limited to, delinquency
prevention, homelessness prevention, and reentry services.
Based on the response to this solicitation for proposals, Contra Costa County (County) plans to
contract with service providers for the period July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016. The County will
retain the discretion to renew any contract issued, contingent on availability of funding and
demonstrated successful performance by funded entities during the initial contract period.
If your organization is interested in and capable of providing the requested services by contract
with the County, please carefully review the Request for Proposals and submit your proposal as
directed. This solicitation is not in any way to be construed as an agreement, obligation, or
contract between the County and any party submitting a response, nor will the County pay for
any costs associated with the preparation of any response.
II. Synonymous Terms
As used throughout this RFP and its attachments, the following terms are synonymous:
a. Supplier, Vendor, Contractor, Successful Responder
b. Contract, Agreement
c. Services, Work, Scope, and Project
d. Proposer, Responder
e. “The County” refers to the County of Contra Costa, California.
III. Background
The state Budget Act of 2014 (Chapter 25, Statutes of 2014) allocates $8 million to the Board of
State and Community Corrections for the Community Recidivism Reduction Grant described in
Penal Code section 1233.10. Counties are eligible to receive funds if the Board of Supervisors,
in collaboration with the county’s Community Corrections Partnership, agrees to develop a
Page 209 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
3/13/15 Page 5 of 27 Final RFP
competitive grant program intended to fund community recidivism and crime reduction
services.
On September 16, 2014, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved a letter of
interest agreeing to develop a competitive grant program intended to fund community
recidivism and crime reduction services. On October 3, 2014, the Community Corrections
Partnership voted unanimously to acknowledge the intent of the County to participate in the
grant program. On October 27, 2014, the Public Protection Committee voted unanimously that
the $250,000 grant from the state should be competitively bid in the following increments:
Two (2) $50,000 grants to entities that propose to provide services to juveniles;
Three (3) $50,000 grants to entities that propose to provide services to adults.
Funding for the three adult programs will be awarded to entities that propose to serve
residents in the West, Central, and East County regions distinctly--meaning one (1)
$50,000 grant directed to programming in each region of the County. The grants to
entities proposing to serve juveniles will be for countywide services (no regional
restrictions). Per State statute, the amount awarded to each service provider shall not
exceed $50,000.
IV. Funding
Up to $250,000 is allocated in Contra Costa County to fund community recidivism, crime
reduction and other reentry-related services for the period July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016.
The amount that can be awarded per successful entity is $50,000. Agencies are encouraged to
provide a minimum 20% match of the funds, with consideration given to agencies with more
leveraging.
The Contra Costa County Administrator’s Office will administer the contracts for the adult
programs, and the Probation Department will administer the contracts for the juvenile programs.
V. Purpose, Services and Outcomes
A. Purpose:
The Contra Costa Board of Supervisors has directed the County Administrator’s Office to
issue this Request for Proposals to identify nongovernmental agencies to provide
community recidivism, crime reduction and other reentry-related services to juvenile and
adult populations in the county. The client population includes persons residing in Contra
Costa County who have been released from state prison, a county jail, a juvenile detention
facility, who are under the supervision of a parole or probation department, or any other
person at risk of becoming involved in criminal activities.
Page 210 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
3/13/15 Page 6 of 27 Final RFP
For the purposes of this proposal, program services may focus on any of the following
categories: juveniles (ages 12-18) or adults (ages 18 or over).
B. Services and Desired Outcomes:
Community recidivism and crime reduction services may include any of the following:
1. Self-help groups
2. Individual or group assistance with basic life skills
3. Mentoring programs
4. Academic and educational services, including, but not limited to, services to enable
the recipient to earn his or her high school diploma
5. Job training skills and employment placement services
6. Housing placement services
7. Behavioral health services, including alcohol and drug treatment, intensive case
management services for people with serious behavioral health issues, especially for
those whose serious mental illness or cognitive disabilities preclude their successful
access to services
8. Family support services, including reunification, custody, domestic violence services
9. Healthcare enrollment services
10. Legal services
11. Financial services, including benefits enrollment, banking services, budgeting, credit
restoration
12. Post-detention services for youth after release from juvenile detention
13. Truancy prevention and school retention services
14. Literacy programs
15. Any other service that advances community recidivism reduction and crime
reduction efforts, as identified by the county Board of Supervisors in the County’s
Reentry Strategic Plan and the Community Corrections Partnership.
Through this RFP process, the County is seeking agencies to provide services that are designed
to enable persons to whom the services are provided to establish or maintain a law-abiding life,
reconnect with their family members, build self-sufficiency, and contribute to their
communities.
VI. Organizational Requirements
A. Service History: A documented history of service delivery to individuals at moderate to
high-risk of recidivism during the five years immediately prior to the application and in
the service area for which funding is sought, including successful completion of contract
deliverables and participation in outcome evaluation.
B. Staff Training: Bidder’s staff must be qualified, adequately trained to provide services,
Page 211 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
3/13/15 Page 7 of 27 Final RFP
and able to maintain confidential offender record information (CORI). Staff must
commit to full participation in trainings provided through the County, including trauma-
informed practices, among other topics.
County has the discretion to approve or disapprove the qualifications/training level of
bidder’s staff working with Probation clients.
C. Responsivity: Demonstrated understanding and capacity to deliver responsive services,
including cultural and linguistic competency, ties to the local community, community-
based service delivery, targeting multiple learning styles at varied literacy levels and
relevant client engagement and retention strategies.
Demonstrated knowledge of and commitment to implement evidence-based practices
related to successful engagement and recidivism reduction with people at moderate to
high-risk of recidivism.
D. Interagency Collaboration: Demonstrated ability and intent to collaborate with local
service providers to obtain multi-disciplinary service delivery. A history of successful
collaboration including shared case management and blended funding is preferred.
E. Data Collection and Reporting: Demonstrated capacity and commitment to collecting
and reporting all required data including service delivery statistics (number served, units
of service, dosage by client), and program-related impact and outcome measures.
F. Matching Resources: Current or potential sources of matching resources to supplement
direct funding leveraged funding or services and volunteer hours. Since the available
funding is not adequate to meet the anticipated level of need, qualified organizations that
demonstrate the capacity to access additional funding may be prioritized. Applicants are
encouraged to provide a minimum of 20% of matching resources.
G. Licensing/Certification Requirements: Successful bidders must have and maintain all
appropriate licenses, permits, and certifications as required by the laws of the United
States, State of California, Contra Costa County, and all other appropriate governmental
agencies.
VII. Contract Monitoring and Evaluation
The County Administrator’s Office and the Probation Department will actively monitor services
provided through these contracts.
At a minimum, contractors will be expected to:
a. Be able to enter into contract and begin service delivery within 3 months of award.
Page 212 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
3/13/15 Page 8 of 27 Final RFP
b. Perform all services without material deviation from an agreed-upon Service Plan.
c. Complete progress report forms supplied by County.
d. Maintain adequate records of service provision to document compliance with Service
Plan and complete forms supplied.
e. Cooperate with the collection of other fiscal/administrative/service data as requested by
the County.
The CAO (for adult service contracts) and County Probation (for juvenile service contracts)
will:
a. Monitor subcontracts written by and entered into by the contractor;
b. Provide information to contractors concerning additional State or County data
requirements not provided herein.
Page 213 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
3/13/15 Page 9 of 27 Final RFP
RFP Requirements and Instructions for Responders
The responder requirements in this section are mandatory. Contra Costa County reserves the
right to waive any nonmaterial variation.
1. All responders shall submit one (1) original response package and six (6) complete
copies of the response, under sealed cover, by mail or hand-delivery to the CAO at 651
Pine Street, 10th Floor, Martinez, CA 94553 to be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, April 8, 2015. Any response received after the deadline will be rejected.
Postmarks, faxed and e-mailed submissions are not acceptable.
2. A copy of a recent audit (within 12 months) or audited financial statement must be
attached to the original copy of the proposal.
3. The CAO will review all received responses to make sure they are technically compliant
with submission guidelines as per the RFP. Responders that are non-compliant with
technical requirements will not move forward to the Review Panel.
4. Responses and required attachments shall be submitted as specified and must be signed
by officials authorized to bind the responder to the provisions of the RFP. All costs
incurred in the preparation of a response will be the responsibility of the responder and
will not be reimbursed by the County.
5. Any questions regarding this RFP should be emailed to Lara.DeLaney@cao.cccounty.us
on or before 5:00 p.m. on March 26, 2015.
6. The CAO may amend this RFP, if needed, to make changes or corrections to
specifications or provide additional data. Amendments will be posted at
http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/2366/Services-Programs. The CAO may extend the
RFP submission date, if necessary, to allow responders adequate time to consider
additional information and submit required data.
7. The RFP process may be canceled in writing by the CAO prior to awards if the Contra
Costa County Board of Supervisors determines that cancellation is in the best interest of
the County.
8. With respect to this RFP, the County reserves the right to reject any, some, or all
responses. The County reserves the right to negotiate separately in any manner to serve
the best interests of the County. All responses become property of the County, without
obligation to any responder.
9. Responses will be judged on overall quality of content and responsiveness to the
purpose and specifications of this RFP. Responses should be without expensive artwork,
unusual printing, or other materials not essential to the utility and clarity of the response.
Page 214 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
3/13/15 Page 10 of 27 Final RFP
Evaluation criteria and weight factors are described below.
10. A Review Panel will evaluate all compliant responses received. The panel will be
comprised of CAO staff, Probation staff, a representative from West County, a
representative from East and Central County, and a subject-matter expert. (Panel
composition subject to change based on participant availability.) On the basis of panel
ratings recommendations, the Community Corrections Partnership and/or Public
Protection Committee will make recommendations to the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors. Responders will be notified of this recommendation in writing. Award of a
contract by the Board of Supervisors will constitute acceptance of a response.
11. Prior to making an award recommendation, the Review Panel may choose to conduct
interviews with responders. The purpose of the interviews would be to ask follow-up
questions that may arise from the Review Panel and to collect any additional
information necessary to determine the responder’s ability to perform on schedule or any
other relevant information to make the award recommendation.
12. Once a decision is made by the Review Panel to make award recommendations, a notice
will be mailed to all responders evaluated by the Review Panel.
13. Only responders submitting a response may appeal the RFP process. Appeals must be
submitted in writing and should be addressed to Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County
Administrator; County Administrator’s Office and received at 651 Pine Street, 10 th
Floor, Martinez, CA 94553, no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 23, 2015.
Notification of a final decision on the appeal shall be made in writing to the responder.
When submitting, an appellant must clearly state the action appealed, the harm to the
appellant, and the action sought. Appeals shall be limited to the following grounds:
Failure of the County to follow the selection procedures and adhere to requirements
specified in the RFP or any addenda or amendments.
There has been a violation of conflict of interest as provided by California
Government Code Section 87100 et seq.
A violation of State or Federal law.
Page 215 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
3/13/15 Page 11 of 27 Final RFP
14. Notification of a final decision on the appeal by the CAO shall be made in writing to the
responder within five (5) days, and the decision of the CAO shall be final and not
subject to further review.
15. Successful responders will be expected to promptly enter contract negotiation with the
CAO. This may result in mutually agreed upon changes in plans or activities identified
in the response. As a result of this negotiation, actual contract(s) may include other
agreements and clarifications of activities, consistent with the intent of this RFP.
16. Services will begin upon the signing of a contract according to a mutually agreed upon
start-up schedule. The County is not liable for any cost incurred by the contractor prior
to the effective date of any contract.
17. Selected contractor(s) will be responsible for all services offered in their response,
whether or not contractor(s) perform them directly or through subcontractors in multiple
agency collaboration.
18. The CAO will actively monitor service implementation and delivery and provide
contract monitoring. Any material breach of contract requirements will constitute
grounds for terminating the contract.
19. Contracts from this RFP will be for the period July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, with
satisfactory performance as a condition of any future contract renewal. The contract(s)
resulting from this RFP may potentially be renewable at the sole discretion the Board of
Supervisors.
20. All contracted parties must agree to implement the County's alcohol/drug abuse
prevention/treatment policy and comply with related monitoring and evaluation
procedures.
Page 216 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
3/13/15 Page 12 of 27 Final RFP
Response Instructions and Outline
RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS
1. Responses must be in the form of a package containing a complete response and all
required supporting information and documents. Each response to this RFP will be a
public record that will be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act
(Government Code, § 6250, et seq.) and the County’s Better Government Ordinance
(County Ordinance Code, Title 2, Division 25).
2. Each responder must submit one (1) original package and six (6) complete copies with
attachments included, unless otherwise noted. (If responding to both requests for
juvenile and adult services, two complete and separate responses are required. Note that
only one proposal, however, may be funded.)
3. Response materials are to be double-spaced on 8 1/2" x 11" paper (recycled preferred)
with no less than 1" margins on all sides using an easy-to-read 12-point font. Total
proposal should not exceed 10 pages excluding cover sheet and required attachments.
4. Pages must be stapled together and numbered consecutively. Sections must be identified
with an appropriate header.
5. Documents and materials are to be fully completed and attached in the order indicated in
the Response Outline below.
6. All information in the response package must be presented in the following sequence.
RESPONSE OUTLINE
I. Response Cover Statement (Form #1)
A. The Cover Statement with original signatures, in blue ink, of the responder's Authorized
Representative attached to the original of the response must precede the narrative.
Copies of the form must also serve as a cover page to the remaining six (6) response
copies submitted.
II. Proposal (not to exceed 10 pages)
A. Responder Overview (not to exceed 3 pages)
1. Your organization’s history, years in operation, and number of years providing
services described herein. Also indicate your organization’s form of business (non-
profit, other—specify).
Page 217 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
3/13/15 Page 13 of 27 Final RFP
2. Your organization’s primary areas of expertise and current core services.
3. Your organization’s qualifications (including resources and capabilities) as they
relate to the scope of services and organization requirements described herein.
Specifically detail experience with serving the target population and working in
collaboration with other stakeholders.
4. Your organization’s data management systems, including client record-keeping and
financial record-keeping.
5. Proposed staffing (FTEs) for this project, including their roles on this project, their
qualifications and their credentials. (CVs, résumés, job descriptions should be
included as an attachment and will not count against the page limit.)
B. Approach to the Scope of Work (not to exceed 5 pages)
1. Please identify your program model, including:
a. Program goals and outcomes, including how services will be designed to assist
participants in refraining from engaging in criminal activity, reconnecting with
their families and contributing to their communities. Also provide justification
for the proposed approach, including research demonstrating that this approach is
recognized as effective with the proposed population.
b. Target population (including gender, age, criminogenic factors), indicating why
and how this population was selected.
c. Specific need to be addressed, including evidence documenting this need within
Contra Costa County.
d. Activities and services to be provided, including the specific locations within the
County where services will be provided. Include duration, dosage, and frequency
of activities and services.
e. Innovative elements that are not currently funded by the County’s AB 109 Public
Safety Realignment program.
f. If applicable, describe formal collaboration or integration with other services
within the agency or provided by other agencies. If the applicant program plans
to collaborate, attach a signed MOU with the partner agency or program
identifying the specific methods of collaboration, calculation of monetary or in-
kind agreements, and shared goals and metrics.
Page 218 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
3/13/15 Page 14 of 27 Final RFP
2. Outcomes, including:
a. Estimated number of participants in each individual program component.
b. The plan for tracking participant progress as it relates to individual and collective
outcomes.
c. The plan to document the services provided to each participant.
d. The plan to document activities performed by staff funded by the program.
C. Proposed Budget (not to exceed 2 pages)
1. Provide the budget for the program. Identify both one-time and ongoing costs. If you
anticipate supporting your operations through additional funds (in-kind or hard-
dollar), identify the sources and uses of those funds within the budget.
2. Provide a budget narrative, including supporting detail to ensure clear understanding
of funding uses, including administrative staff, start-up costs, and in-kind service
providers.
III. Attachments
A. Job Descriptions and Résumés of Executive Director and key program staff
B. Timeline of major project activities for the entire project period that is reasonable given
the nature and scope of the project
C. Responder’s Statement of Qualifications (Form #2), completed and signed by
Agency Executive Director and President of Agency Board of Directors.
D. Fiscal Attachments
1. One copy of bidder's IRS 501(c)(3) determination letter and/or Articles of
Incorporation attached to original proposal copy.
2. One copy of bidder's last audit or audited financial statement attached to original
proposal.
3. One copy of current Agency Operating Budget with revenues and expenses.
E. Agency Brochure (as available)
F. City of Antioch Ordinance Compliance
Note: Contractors seeking to provide services located in the City of Antioch must
demonstrate compliance with Ordinance No. 2066-C-S amending Section 9-5.203 and
adding Section 9-5.3836 to the Antioch Municipal Code, including providing proof of a
valid use permit issued by the City of Antioch.
Page 219 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
3/13/15 Page 15 of 27 Final RFP
Response Review and Selection
All responses submitted in compliance with the RFP requirements will be eligible for review
and selection.
Response Selection Methodology:
A. CAO staff will review each response's adherence to RFP specifications, including:
1. Response Cover Statement
2. Response
3. Agency Information (including required attachments)
B. All responses deemed responsive will be referred to the RFP Review Panel.
1. The panel will be comprised of CAO staff, Probation staff, a representative from
West County, a representative from East and Central County, and a subject-matter
expert. (Panel composition subject to change based on participant availability.)
2. The Review Panel will review all qualified responses and evaluate and score all
service elements utilizing the evaluation criteria outlined.
C. The Community Corrections Partnership and/or Public Protection Committee will make
recommendations for contract awards to the Board of Supervisors after considering the
recommendations of the Review Panel.
Page 220 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
3/13/15 Page 16 of 27 Final RFP
Rating Sheet
Program elements will be rated as follows with a maximum score of 100:
Program Elements and Possible Score
I. Response Cover Statement (required but not weighted)
II. Responder Overview (0-30 points total)
A. Relevancy of responder’s overall services/history (5 pts.)
B. Responder’s qualifications as they relate to scope of work and organization requirements
(10 pts.)
C. Responder’s data management systems (5 pts.)
D. Relevant experience and expertise of proposed staff (10 pts.)
III. Approach to the Scope of Work (0-50 points total)
A. Proposal includes clear description of program goals and outcomes, justification for
proposed approach, specific need to be addressed and evidence of need. (20 pts.)
B. Target population meets program goals (5 pts.)
C. Proposal includes clear description of activities that are consistent with program goals.
Proposal includes details on duration of activities. Level of activity is appropriate to
level of funding provided. (10 pts.)
D. Proposal clearly identifies intended impacts/outcomes on target population and how
those impacts will be measured. (10 pts.)
E. Proposal includes innovative elements that are not currently funded by the County’s AB
109 Public Safety Realignment program. (5 pts.)
IV. Cost Estimate (0-20 points total)
A. Project costs are reasonable. (10 pts.)
B. Cost explanations are clear and demonstrate roles of proposed staffing. (5 pts.)
C. Leveraging of the available grant funds is provided at a min. of 20% (5 pts.)
Total: 100 pts.
Page 221 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
3/13/15 Page 17 of 27 Final RFP
Form #1: Response Cover Statement
Proposal: ____Juvenile ____Adult – Select region: West / East / Central
Responder:
Business Address:
Phone/Email: / Year Founded:
Contact Name & Title:
501(c)(3)? Yes No Exemption Expiration Date:
Other Form of Business? (explain):
Federal Employer Number:
List Collaborative Partners, if applicable:
We submit the attached response and attachments in response to Contra Costa County’s
Request for Proposals #1503-125 and declare that:
If the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County accepts this response, we will enter into a
standard contract with Contra Costa County to provide all work specified herein as proposed or in
accordance with modifications required by Contra Costa County. Funds obtained through this
contract will not be used for other programs operated by the responder/contractor unless stipulated
within the response and accepted by the County.
Authorized representatives: (two signatures required)
Name & Title:
Signature: Date:
Executive Director (or equivalent)
Name & Title:
Signature: Date:
Board President (or equivalent)
This form must accompany the response package when submitted and should be attached to each copy. Only one
copy with original signatures is required.
Page 222 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
3/13/15 Page 18 of 27 Final RFP
Form #2: Responder’s Statement of Qualifications
1. List any licenses or certifications held by the responder, with expiration dates.
2. Financials and Fiscal Management
A. Who administers your fiscal system?
Name:
Phone: Work Schedule:
Title:
B. What CPA firm maintains or reviews your financial records and annual audit, if
applicable?
Name:
Phone: Email:
Address:
3. Business Identity
A. Number of years responder operated under the present business name.
B. List related prior business names, if any, and timeframe for each.
4. Number of years providing services described in this response or related services
5. Has responder failed or refused to complete any contract? Yes No
If yes, briefly explain:
6. Is there any past, present, or pending litigation in connection with contracts for services
involving the responder or any principal officer of the agency? Yes No
If yes, briefly explain:
Page 223 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
3/13/15 Page 19 of 27 Final RFP
Responder’s Statement of Qualifications, CONTINUED
7. Does responder have a controlling interest in any other firm(s)? Yes No
If yes, please list:
8. Does responder have commitments or potential commitments that may impact assets,
lines of credit or otherwise affect agency's ability to fulfill this RFP? Yes No
If yes, please explain:
Responder attests, under penalty of perjury, that all information provided herein is complete and
accurate. Responder agrees to provide to County other information the County may request as
necessary for an accurate determination of responder's qualifications to perform proposed
services.
Name & Title:
Signature: Date:
Executive Director (or equivalent)
Name & Title:
Signature: Date:
Board President (or equivalent)
Page 224 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
3/13/15 Page 20 of 27 Final RFP
General Conditions of County Contract
1. Compliance with Law. Contractor is subject to and must comply with all applicable
federal, state, and local laws and regulations with respect to its performance under this
Contract, including but not limited to, licensing, employment, and purchasing practices; and
wages, hours, and conditions of employment, including nondiscrimination.
2. Inspection. Contractor's performance, place of business, and records pertaining to this
Contract are subject to monitoring, inspection, review and audit by authorized
representatives of the County, the State of California, and the United States Government.
3. Records. Contractor must keep and make available for inspection and copying by
authorized representatives of the County, the State of California, and the United States
Government, the Contractor's regular business records and such additional records
pertaining to this Contract as may be required by the County.
a. Retention of Records. Contractor must retain all documents pertaining to this Contract
for five years from the date of submission of Contractor's final payment demand or final
Cost Report; for any further period that is required by law; and until all federal/state
audits are complete and exceptions resolved for this Contract's funding period. Upon
request, Contractor must make these records available to authorized representatives of
the County, the State of California, and the United States Government.
b. Access to Books and Records of Contractor, Subcontractor. Pursuant to Section
1861(v)(1) of the Social Security Act, and any regulations promulgated thereunder,
Contractor must, upon written request and until the expiration of five years after the
furnishing of services pursuant to this Contract, make available to the County, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, or the Comptroller General, or any of their
duly authorized representatives, this Contract and books, documents, and records of
Contractor necessary to certify the nature and extent of all costs and charges hereunder.
Further, if Contractor carries out any of the duties of this Contract through a subcontract
with a value or cost of $10,000 or more over a twelve-month period, such subcontract
must contain a clause to the effect that upon written request and until the expiration of
five years after the furnishing of services pursuant to such subcontract, the subcontractor
must make available to the County, the Secretary, the Comptroller General, or any of
their duly authorized representatives, the subcontract and books, documents, and records
of the subcontractor necessary to verify the nature and extent of all costs and charges
thereunder.
Page 225 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
3/13/15 Page 21 of 27 Final RFP
This provision is in addition to any and all other terms regarding the maintenance or
retention of records under this Contract and is binding on the heirs, successors, assigns
and representatives of Contractor.
4. Reporting Requirements. Pursuant to Government Code Section 7550, Contractor must
include in all documents and written reports completed and submitted to County in
accordance with this Contract, a separate section listing the numbers and dollar amounts of
all contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of each such document or written
report. This section applies only if the Payment Limit of this Contract exceeds $5,000.
5. Termination and Cancellation.
a. Written Notice. This Contract may be terminated by either party, in its sole discretion,
upon thirty-day advance written notice thereof to the other, and may be cancelled
immediately by written mutual consent.
b. Failure to Perform. County, upon written notice to Contractor, may immediately
terminate this Contract should Contractor fail to perform properly any of its obligations
hereunder. In the event of such termination, County may proceed with the work in any
reasonable manner it chooses. The cost to County of completing Contractor's
performance will be deducted from any sum due Contractor under this Contract, without
prejudice to County's rights to recover damages.
c. Cessation of Funding. Notwithstanding any contrary language in Paragraphs 5 and 11,
in the event that federal, state, or other non-County funding for this Contract ceases, this
Contract is terminated without notice.
6. Entire Agreement. This Contract contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the
parties. Except as expressly provided herein, no other understanding, oral or otherwise,
regarding the subject matter of this Contract will be deemed to exist or to bind any of the
parties hereto.
7. Further Specifications for Operating Procedures. Detailed specifications of operating
procedures and budgets required by this Contract, including but not limited to, monitoring,
evaluating, auditing, billing, or regulatory changes, may be clarified in a written letter
signed by Contractor and the department head, or designee, of the county department on
whose behalf this Contract is made. No written clarification prepared pursuant to this
Section will operate as an amendment to, or be considered to be a part of, this Contract.
8. Modifications and Amendments.
a. General Amendments. In the event that the total Payment Limit of this Contract is less
than $100,000 and this Contract was executed by the County’s Purchasing Agent, this
Page 226 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
3/13/15 Page 22 of 27 Final RFP
Contract may be modified or amended by a written document executed by Contractor
and the County’s Purchasing Agent or the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors,
subject to any required state or federal approval. In the event that the total Payment
Limit of this Contract exceeds $100,000 or this Contract was initially approved by the
Board of Supervisors, this Contract may be modified or amended only by a written
document executed by Contractor and the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors or,
after Board approval, by its designee, subject to any required state or federal approval.
b. Minor Amendments. The Payment Provisions and the Service Plan may be amended
by a written administrative amendment executed by Contractor and the County Ad-
ministrator (or designee), subject to any required state or federal approval, provided that
such administrative amendment may not increase the Payment Limit of this Contract or
reduce the services Contractor is obligated to provide pursuant to this Contract.
9. Disputes. Disagreements between County and Contractor concerning the meaning,
requirements, or performance of this Contract shall be subject to final written determination
by the head of the county department for which this Contract is made, or his designee, or in
accordance with the applicable procedures (if any) required by the state or federal
government.
10. Choice of Law and Personal Jurisdiction.
a. This Contract is made in Contra Costa County and is governed by, and must be
construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of California.
b. Any action relating to this Contract must be instituted and prosecuted in the courts of
Contra Costa County, State of California.
11. Conformance with Federal and State Regulations and Laws. Should federal or state
regulations or laws touching upon the subject of this Contract be adopted or revised during
the term hereof, this Contract will be deemed amended to assure conformance with such
federal or state requirements.
12. No Waiver by County. Subject to Paragraph 9. (Disputes) of these General Conditions,
inspections or approvals, or statements by any officer, agent or employee of County
indicating Contractor's performance or any part thereof complies with the requirements of
this Contract, or acceptance of the whole or any part of said performance, or payments
therefor, or any combination of these acts, do not relieve Contractor's obligation to fulfill
this Contract as prescribed; nor is the County thereby prevented from bringing any actio n
for damages or enforcement arising from any failure to comply with any of the terms and
conditions of this Contract.
Page 227 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
3/13/15 Page 23 of 27 Final RFP
13. Subcontract and Assignment. This Contract binds the heirs, successors, assigns and
representatives of Contractor. Prior written consent of the County Administrator or his
designee, subject to any required state or federal approval, is required before the Contractor
may enter into subcontracts for any work contemplated under this Contract, or before the
Contractor may assign this Contract or monies due or to become due, by operation of law or
otherwise.
14. Independent Contractor Status. The parties intend that Contractor, in performing the
services specified herein, is acting as an independent contractor and that Contractor will
control the work and the manner in which it is performed. This Contract is not to be
construed to create the relationship between the parties of agent, servant, employee,
partnership, joint venture, or association. Contractor is not a County employee. This
Contract does not give Contractor any right to participate in any pension plan, workers’
compensation plan, insurance, bonus, or similar benefits County provides to its employees.
In the event that County exercises its right to terminate this Contract, Contractor expressly
agrees that it will have no recourse or right of appeal under any rules, regulations,
ordinances, or laws applicable to employees.
15. Conflicts of Interest. Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest and that it will
not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, that represents a financial conflict of interest
under state law or that would otherwise conflict in any manner or degree with the
performance of its services hereunder. Contractor further covenants that in the performance
of this Contract, no person having any such interests will be employed by Contractor. If
requested to do so by County, Contractor will complete a “Statement of Economic Interest”
form and file it with County and will require any other person doing work under this
Contract to complete a “Statement of Economic Interest” form and file it with County.
Contractor covenants that Contractor, its employees and officials, are not now employed by
County and have not been so employed by County within twelve months immediately
preceding this Contract; or, if so employed, did not then and do not now occupy a position
that would create a conflict of interest under Government Code section 1090. In addition to
any indemnity provided by Contractor in this Contract, Contractor will indemnify, defend,
and hold the County harmless from any and all claims, investigations, liabilities, or damages
resulting from or related to any and all alleged conflicts of interest. Contractor warrants that
it has not provided, attempted to provide, or offered to provide any money, gift, gratuity,
thing of value, or compensation of any kind to obtain this Contract.
16. Confidentiality. To the extent allowed under the California Public Records Act, Contractor
agrees to comply and to require its officers, partners, associates, agents and employees to
comply with all applicable state or federal statutes or regulations respecting confidentiality,
including but not limited to, the identity of persons served under this Contract, their records,
or services provided them, and assures that no person will publish or disclose or permit or
cause to be published or disclosed, any list of persons receiving services, except as may be
Page 228 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
3/13/15 Page 24 of 27 Final RFP
required in the administration of such service. Contractor agrees to inform all employees,
agents and partners of the above provisions, and that any person knowingly and
intentionally disclosing such information other than as authorized by law may be guilty of a
misdemeanor.
17. Nondiscriminatory Services. Contractor agrees that all goods and services under this
Contract will be available to all qualified persons regardless of age, gender, race, religion,
color, national origin, ethnic background, disability, or sexual orientation, and that none will
be used, in whole or in part, for religious worship.
18. Indemnification. Contractor will defend, indemnify, save, and hold harmless County and
its officers and employees from any and all claims, demands, losses, costs, expenses, and
liabilities for any damages, fines, sickness, death, or injury to person(s) or property,
including any and all administrative fines, penalties or costs imposed as a result of an
administrative or quasi-judicial proceeding, arising directly or indirectly from or connected
with the services provided hereunder that are caused, or claimed or alleged to be caused, in
whole or in part, by the negligence or willful misconduct of Contractor, its officers,
employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, or any persons under its direction or control.
If requested by County, Contractor will defend any such suits at its sole cost and expense. If
County elects to provide its own defense, Contractor will reimburse County for any
expenditures, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Contractor’s obligations under
this section exist regardless of concurrent negligence or willful misconduct on the part of the
County or any other person; provided, however, that Contractor is not required to indemnify
County for the proportion of liability a court determines is attributable to the sole negligence
or willful misconduct of the County, its officers and employees. This provision will survive
the expiration or termination of this Contract.
19. Insurance. During the entire term of this Contract and any extension or modification
thereof, Contractor shall keep in effect insurance policies meeting the following insurance
requirements unless otherwise expressed in the Special Conditions:
a. Commercial General Liability Insurance. For all contracts where the total payment
limit of the contract is $500,000 or less, Contractor will provide commercial general
liability insurance, including coverage for business losses and for owned and non-owned
automobiles, with a minimum combined single limit coverage of $500,000 for all
damages, including consequential damages, due to bodily injury, sickness or disease, or
death to any person or damage to or destruction of property, including the loss of use
thereof, arising from each occurrence. Such insurance must be endorsed to include
County and its officers and employees as additional insureds as to all services performed
by Contractor under this Contract. Said policies must constitute primary insurance as to
County, the state and federal governments, and their officers, agents, and employees, so
that other insurance policies held by them or their self-insurance program(s) will not be
Page 229 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
3/13/15 Page 25 of 27 Final RFP
required to contribute to any loss covered under Contractor’s insurance policy or
policies. Contractor must provide County with a copy of the endorsement making the
County an additional insured on all commercial general liability policies as required
herein no later than the effective date of this Contract. For all contracts where the total
payment limit is greater than $500,000, the aforementioned insurance coverage to be
provided by Contractor must have a minimum combined single limit coverage of
$1,000,000.
b. Workers' Compensation. Contractor must provide workers' compensation insurance
coverage for its employees.
c. Certificate of Insurance. The Contractor must provide County with (a) certificate(s) of
insurance evidencing liability and worker's compensation insurance as required herein
no later than the effective date of this Contract. If Contractor should renew the
insurance policy(ies) or acquire either a new insurance policy(ies) or amend the
coverage afforded through an endorsement to the policy at any time during the term of
this Contract, then Contractor must provide (a) current certificate(s) of insurance.
d. Additional Insurance Provisions. No later than five days after Contractor’s receipt of:
(i) a notice of cancellation, a notice of an intention to cancel, or a notice of a lapse in any
of Contractor’s insurance coverage required by this Contract; or (ii) a notice of a
material change to Contractor’s insurance coverage required by this Contract, Contractor
will provide Department a copy of such notice of cancellation, notice of intention to
cancel, notice of lapse of coverage, or notice of material change. Contractor’s failure to
provide Department the notice as required by the preceding sentence is a default under
this Contract
20. Notices. All notices provided for by this Contract must be in writing and may be delivered
by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid. Notices to County must be addressed
to the head of the county department for which this Contract is made. Notices to Contractor
must be addressed to the Contractor's address designated herein. The effective date of
notice is the date of deposit in the mails or of other delivery, except that the effective date of
notice to County is the date of receipt by the head of the county department for which this
Contract is made.
21. Primacy of General Conditions. In the event of a conflict between the General Conditions
and the Special Conditions, the General Conditions govern unless the Special Conditions or
Service Plan expressly provide otherwise.
22. Nonrenewal. Contractor understands and agrees that there is no representation, implication,
or understanding that the services provided by Contractor under this Contract will be
purchased by County under a new contract following expiration or termination of this
Page 230 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
3/13/15 Page 26 of 27 Final RFP
Contract, and Contractor waives all rights or claims to notice or hearing respecting any
failure to continue purchasing all or any such services from Contractor.
23. Possessory Interest. If this Contract results in Contractor having possession of, claim or
right to the possession of land or improvements, but does not vest ownership of the land or
improvements in the same person, or if this Contract results in the placement of taxable
improvements on tax exempt land (Revenue & Taxation Code Section 107), such interest or
improvements may represent a possessory interest subject to property tax, and Contractor
may be subject to the payment of property taxes levied on such interest. Contractor agrees
that this provision complies with the notice requirements of Revenue & Taxation Code
Section 107.6, and waives all rights to further notice or to damages under that or any
comparable statute.
24. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in this Contract may be construed to create, and
the parties do not intend to create, any rights in third parties.
25. Copyrights, Rights in Data, and Works Made for Hire. Contractor will not publish or
transfer any materials produced or resulting from activities supported by this Contract
without the express written consent of the County Administrator. All reports, original
drawings, graphics, plans, studies and other data and documents, in whatever form or
format, assembled or prepared by Contactor or Contractor’s subcontractors, consultants, and
other agents in connection with this Contract are “works made for hire” (as defined in the
Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq., as amended) for County, and Contractor
unconditionally and irrevocably transfers and assigns to Agency all right, title, and interest,
including all copyrights and other intellectual property rights, in or to the works made for
hire. Unless required by law, Contractor shall not publish, transfer, discuss, or disclose any
of the above-described works made for hire or any information gathered, discovered, or
generated in any way through this Agreement, without County’s prior express written
consent. If any of the works made for hire is subject to copyright protection, County
reserves the right to copyright such works and Contractor agrees not to copyright such
works. If any works made for hire are copyrighted, County reserves a royalty-free,
irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, and use the works made for hire, in whole or in
part, without restriction or limitation, and to authorize others to do so.
26. Endorsements. In its capacity as a contractor with Contra Costa County, Contractor will
not publicly endorse or oppose the use of any particular brand name or commercial product
without the prior written approval of the Board of Supervisors. In its County-contractor
capacity, Contractor will not publicly attribute qualities or lack of qualities to a particular
brand name or commercial product in the absence of a well-established and widely accepted
scientific basis for such claims or without the prior written approval of the Board of
Supervisors. In its County-contractor capacity, Contractor will not participate or appear in
any commercially produced advertisements designed to promote a particular brand name or
commercial product, even if Contractor is not publicly endorsing a product, as long as the
Page 231 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
3/13/15 Page 27 of 27 Final RFP
Contractor's presence in the advertisement can reasonably be interpreted as an endorsement
of the product by or on behalf of Contra Costa County. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
Contractor may express its views on products to other contractors, the Board of Supervisors,
County officers, or others who may be authorized by the Board of Supervisors or by law to
receive such views.
27. Required Audit. (A) If Contractor is funded by $500,000 or more in federal grant funds in
any fiscal year from any source, Contractor must provide to County, at Contractor's expense,
an audit conforming to the requirements set forth in the most current version of Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-133. (B) If Contractor is funded by less than $500,000
in federal grant funds in any fiscal year from any source, but such grant imposes specific
audit requirements, Contractor must provide County with an audit conforming to those
requirements. (C) If Contractor is funded by less than $500,000 in federal grant funds in
any fiscal year from any source, Contractor is exempt from federal audit requirements for
that year; however, Contractor's records must be available for and an audit may be required
by, appropriate officials of the federal awarding agency, the General Accounting Office
(GAO), the pass-through entity and/or the County. If any such audit is required, Contractor
must provide County with such audit. With respect to the audits specified in (A), (B) and
(C) above, Contractor is solely responsible for arranging for the conduct of the audit, and for
its cost. County may withhold the estimated cost of the audit or 10 percent of the contract
amount, whichever is greater, or the final payment, from Contractor until County receives
the audit from Contractor.
28. Authorization. Contractor, or the representative(s) signing this Contract on behalf of
Contractor, represents and warrants that it has full power and authority to enter into this
Contract and to perform the obligations set forth herein.
29. No Implied Waiver. The waiver by County of any breach of any term or provision of this
Contract will not be deemed to be a waiver of such term or provision or of any subsequent
breach of the same or any other term or provision contained herein.
Page 232 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
Addendum: Questions and Answers
1. We're interested in applying for the Community Recidivism Reduction Grant and
wanted to inquire whether we can provide services within Juvenile Hall under the RFP
guidelines.
We would propose to serve transitional youth within juvenile detention centers who are
about to exit the system with readiness skills as well as serve youth about to re-enter the
system. These transitional services would take part exclusively within the juvenile
justice transitions center versus the community at-large. Would we still be eligible to
apply?
Answer: In terms of providing services to individuals preparing to exit Juvenile Hall, that
would be an appropriate use of the funds. In regards to transition centers, however, such a
proposal wouldn’t work for Contra Costa because our juvenile system doesn’t include this
component. Traditionally, we would have the youth in custody, and if there was a transition
period needed between full custody and release back to the home we would use electronic
monitoring for a transition period of around 90 days or so. Thus if their proposal would
focus on use at a transitional center it wouldn’t likely be appropriate for our County.
2. If our agency's 2014 audit is not complete in time to attach it to the application, may we
include the 2013 audit and forward the 2014 as soon as it is complete (it is in process).
Answer: Yes.
3. Prospective applicants asked whether they can get a grant and also be a subcontractor for
another organization that gets a grant. Will the cap come into play for subcontractors of
orgs that get grants so they can't be awarded other grants as the primary applicant?
Answer: Cap of $50k to provider. So either as prime or sub-contractor, that is their cap.
4. I am writing to inquire whether you have the From #1 Cover Statement and Form #2
Responder’s Statement of Qualifications as Word documents. This would allow us to
type directly into the forms.
Answer: Yes. (Word documents sent.)
5. It is not clear from the grant announcement whether sex offenders who are released on
Post Release Community Supervision (a population to whom we provide services in
Contra
Costa
County
Page 233 of 256
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1503-125
Community Recidivism Reduction Grant
3/30/15 Page 2 of 2 Final RFP
other counties) would be included in the population to be served – and whether there
would be a sufficient number of such individuals – particularly in the east county area -
that they would be seen as any sort of priority population.
Answer: As you can see in the RFP, the population to be served is defined quite broadly:
“persons who have been released from state prison, a county jail, or a juvenile detention
facility, who are under the supervision of a parole or probation department, or any other
person at risk of becoming involved in criminal activities.” Based on this definition, an
organization who wishes to provide services to anyone on PRCS would be welcome to
apply. Active PRCS cases, in East County. On PRCS for a Sexual related charge : 1 Not on
PRCS for a sex charge, but is a registered sex offender : 1
6. I work for a local nonprofit with a budget of approximately $350,000 per year. Is there
any potential waiver of audited financials available for a smaller organization (with
significant experience working with juvenile populations and recidivism) to apply? We
could provide financial statements but our organizational budget is under the
requirements to submit audited financials for most foundations proposals. Please let me
know if we are ineligible or if there is any alternate fiscal documentation we might
supply with our application that might fit the guidelines.
Answer: With prior RFPs that contained the audit requirement, we have allowed that if the
organization did not have an audit, the proposer was required to submit the most recent
unaudited financial statements, a brief statement of reasons for not ever having conducted an
independent audit, and a certification from the Chair of the Board of Directors, Executive
Director, and the agency accountant that the information accurately reflects the agency’s
current financial status.
7. Is there a mandatory meeting before applying? I maybe missing it but I don't see it.
Answer: No, there is no mandatory meeting or bidders’ conference.
Page 234 of 256
JUVENILE SERVICESScoring ElementPointsRYSE BACRCongress of NeutralsRenaissance YINMonument Crisis Ctr.SIT2aRelevancy of Services/History5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.02bQualifications of Org.10.09.08.57.56.06.56.03.02cData Mgmt.5.04.04.02.53.01.04.02.02dStaff Expertise/Experience10.0 8.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 4.0Sub 30.0 26.0 22.5 20.0 18.0 18.0 19.0 12.03aProgram Goals/Outcomes, Need20.0 17.0 17.0 13.0 13.0 13.5 11.0 5.53bTarget Pop. Meets Goals5.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.03cActivities10.08.58.04.04.55.04.03.03dImpact & Outcomes10.08.57.05.54.52.03.03.03eInnovative Elements5.04.04.03.02.52.52.02.0Sub50.0 41.5 40.0 28.5 26.5 26.0 22.0 15.54aReasonable Costs10.09.08.04.05.04.53.53.54bCost explanations, staffing demonstration5.0 4.0 4.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.0 1.04cLeveraging5.05.05.02.04.02.02.01.0Sub20.0 18.0 17.0 8.5 11.5 9.0 7.5 5.5Total100.085.579.557.056.053.048.533.0Page 235 of 256
ADULT SERVICESCENTRAL EAST CENTRAL/EAST WEST WEST WEST WESTJFKU Rubicon COPE Bay LegalContra Costa Crisis CenterReachSan Pablo EDC3.0 4.0254547.08.0698874.55.02.554438 34.59 7.5 87.522.5 20.0 1528 23.5 25 21.515.5 17.5 1015 14 16.5 164 3.533.5 45278.55.587.57677.55686643.53144.5537.5 40.5 26.5 33.5 37.5 39 3598.068.57884 4.0 2.5 4.5 3.5 33552.5505518.0 17.0 1118 10.5 16 1678.077.552.579.571.58072.5Page 236 of 256
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:05/11/2015
Subject:CY2014 STATUS UPDATE ON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE FRAUD
INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION EFFORTS
Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: CY2014 STATUS UPDATE ON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE FRAUD
INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION EFFORTS
Presenter: Mark Peterson, District Attorney & Kathy
Gallagher, EHS Director
Contact: Timothy Ewell, (925)
335-1036
Referral History:
This referral began in September 2006, when the Employment and Human Services (EHS)
Department updated the Internal Operations Committee (IOC) on its efforts to improve internal
security and loss prevention activities. The IOC had requested the department to report back in
nine months on any tools and procedures that have been developed and implemented to detect
changes in income eligibility for welfare benefits.
The EHS Director made follow-up reports to IOC in May and October 2007, describing what
policies, procedures, and practices are employed by the Department to ensure that public benefits
are provided only to those who continue to meet income eligibility requirements, explaining the
complaint and follow-through process, and providing statistical data for 2005/06, 2006/07, and for
the first quarter of 2007/08.
Upon creation of the PPC in January 2008, this matter was reassigned from the IOC to the PPC.
PPC received a status report on this referral in October 2008 and, again, in June 2010. The
Committee requested staff to report back on how the County’s program compares to a statewide
fraud rate, if such a rate exists. The Committee also requested a follow-up report on the IHSS
fraud program and the transition of welfare fraud collections from the Office of Revenue
Collection (now disbanded) to the Employment and Human Services Department.
On October 18, 2010, the PPC received a status report from the District Attorney and the
Employment and Human Services Director on the Welfare Fraud Investigations and Prosecutions
Program, addressing the specific questions of the PPC from the June 21 meeting. As the PPC
wishes to monitor performance of the welfare fraud program, it is recommended that this matter
be retained on referral with a follow-up report in one year.
At the December 2013 meeting, the Committee received an update on CY 2013 Public Assistance
Page 237 of 256
At the December 2013 meeting, the Committee received an update on CY 2013 Public Assistance
fraud programs in the County and directed Committee staff to continue this referral to the
following year. Due to scheduling, the Committee has not been able to receive a report on CY
2014 programs until today's meeting.
Referral Update:
The District Attorney's Office and Employment and Human Services department have submitted
individual reports this year and will present each to the Committee separately.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT a status report from the District Attorney and the Employment and Human Services
Director on Public Assistance Fraud investigation and prosecution efforts within the County.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact. This report is informational only.
Attachments
District Attorney Report
Employment and Human Services Department Report
Page 238 of 256
Page | 1
The mission of the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office is to seek justice and enhance public safety for all our re sidents by fairly,
ethically, aggressively and efficiently prosecuting those who violate the law, and by working to prevent crime.
Mark A. Peterson
District Attorney
OFFICE OF THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
900 Ward Street
Martinez, California 94553
TO: Public Protection Committee of the Board of Supervisors
FROM: District Attorney Mark Peterson
DATE: May 11, 2015
SUBJECT: Report on Public Assistance Fraud Investigations and Prosecutions
___________________________________________________________________________
The Public Protection Committee (PPC) of the Board of Supervisors has requested a yearly status report
from the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) and the District Attorney (DA) that
demonstrates their combined efforts to reduce public assistance fraud through early investigation,
quality assurance, and prosecution. This report is the DA portion of the response to that request. This
report provides a summary on staffing, referral and investigative processes, prosecutions, and statistical
summaries for fiscal year 2013/2014 as well as insight into the barriers facing prosecution of public
assistance fraud within our county.
1. PUBLIC ASSISTANCE FRAUD
DA Staffing
Throughout the 13/14 Fiscal Year, the Public Assistance Fraud Unit was housed in the Office of the
District Attorney Special Operations Division, where insurance fraud, environmental crimes, and both
major and consumer fraud are prosecuted both criminally and civilly.
Transferring into the Public Assistance Fraud Unit in March 2014, Deputy District Attorney
Sophea Nop has been with the office for 5 years and was a Deputy District Attorney in San Joaquin
County for 2.5 years prior. She was actively involved in the evaluation and investigation of cases during
FY 13/14.
Senior Inspector Todd Almason has been in the unit since December 2012 and brings to the position
over thirty-three years of experience as a law enforcement officer and an investigator in criminal cases.
Notably, his previous experience includes eight years with the Santa Clara County Department of Social
Services, assigned to the Special Investigations Unit; and seventeen years with the Santa Clara County
District Attorney’s Office, over ten of which were in the Public Assistance Fraud Unit. He is able to
bring his experience and knowledge of Federal, State, and local public assistance laws and regulations to
bear on any case he is assigned. As the Senior Inspector, he regularly coordinates his investigations
Page 239 of 256
Page | 2
The mission of the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office is to seek justice and enhance public safety for all our re sidents by fairly,
ethically, aggressively and efficiently prosecuting those who violate the law, and by working to prevent crime.
with attorneys in the Office of the Deputy District and communicates regularly with EHSD investigative
and non-investigative staff. He meets with and assists EHSD staff, as requested, with issues related to
the prevention, detection, investigation, and prosecution of public assistance fraud. He also initially
screens all fraud referrals received from EHSD.
Fraud Referrals
In addition to public assistance fraud hotlines at the California Department of Social Services (CDSS)
and EHSD, the public is encouraged to report public assistance fraud directly to the DA. Citizens can
report suspected public assistance fraud by calling the following numbers or by emailing the Deputy
District Attorney or Senior Inspector:
Contra Costa County Public Assistance Fraud Hotline: (888) 646-2507
Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office: (925) 957-2200 or (925) 521-5080
Contra Costa County Senior Inspector: talmason@contracostada.org
In appropriate cases, the EHSD Fraud Prevention Division Manager forwards fraud complaints to the
Eligibility Workers (EW) and the Eligibility Worker Supervisors (EWS) of record for review and
potential Early Fraud Investigation referrals. Completed Early Fraud Investigations are reviewed by the
EHSD Fraud Prevention Division Manager and returned to the EW for necessary action. Completed
investigations that identify potential long term fraud are referred to the District Attorney’s Office for
further investigation.
DA Investigation and Prosecution
The cases selected for DA investigation, and cases referred from other sources, are prioritized based on a
number of factors that may include the amount of the suspected loss or fraud, the number of suspects
involved, the nature of the scheme involved, and whether the suspect has been previously suspected of
fraud or has other criminal activities on their record. In 2011, the threshold for filing potential public
assistance fraud cases was reduced from $5,000 to $3,000. While the threshold for filing potential
public assistance fraud cases generally remains at $3,000, it can be lower if the suspect has a history of
public assistance fraud or a significant criminal history. As recently as September of 2014, the DA
attempted to lower the general filing threshold to $950 but was informed by EHSD’s fraud prevention
manager that EHSD was not in agreement with the lowering of the threshold. Ms. Cox indicated that
EHSD intended to handle cases under $3000 via the Administrative Disqualification Hearing Process
because it was more a more cost-effective route for the county.
To date, the DA is unaware of any action taken by EHSD to staff and train a unit to handle the
administrative hearings and develop any protocols to put the process in place. (Per CDSS Welfare
Fraud Prevention Coordinator, Scott Nielsen at a training held at EHSD’s Pleasant Hill Office on July
24, 2014, CDSS is putting pressure on counties to begin implementing ADH unless the county’s DA can
commit to filing cases at the $950 threshold.)
If criminal charges for Public Assistance Fraud are filed, the charges generally filed by the DA include:
- Welfare & Institutions Code § 10980 – Unlawfully Obtaining Public Aid
- Welfare and Institutions Code § 14107– False Claims to a Medicare Program (for IHSS cases)
- Penal Code § 487 – Grand Theft (for IHSS cases)
Page 240 of 256
Page | 3
The mission of the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office is to seek justice and enhance public safety for all our re sidents by fairly,
ethically, aggressively and efficiently prosecuting those who violate the law, and by working to prevent crime.
- Penal Code § 118 – Perjury
- Penal Code § 72 – Fraudulent Claims
Depending upon the nature of the case, the sophistication of the alleged fraud, and the criminal history
of the individual, the DA generally requests that charged defendants be sent a Notice to Appear in Court
or requests that the Court issue a warrant for their arrest. Defendants who have been convicted have
received sentences including the following:
- Time in prison or jail, ranging from a few days to several years (not all defendants receive
custodial time as this is generally dependent on the amount of the loss and prior criminal record.)
- Probation (for jail sentences) up to five years, or parole (for State prison sentences)
- Community Service hours ranging from 20 to 360 hours
- Restitution and fines
- Work programs
In fiscal year 2013/2014 and up to the present, the DA and the Income Employment Verification System
Unit (IEVS) of EHSD have continued their positive working relationship. The DA supplies prosecution
and follow up investigation for public assistance fraud cases referred primarily by EHSD. Additionally,
the DA provides complete investigation for more complex cases of suspected fraud and then refers those
cases back to EHSD for an overpayment calculation prior to prosecution.
Public Assistance Fraud Filing and Prosecution Statistics Fiscal 2013/2014:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY WELFARE FRAUD INVESTIGATIONS
INVESTIGATIONS
CASH
FOOD STAMPS TOTAL
Referrals Received 17 20 37*
Investigations Completed 21 23 44*
PROSECUTIONS
Cases Filed for Prosecution 16 19 35*
Convictions 8 10 18*
Public Assistance
Court Ordered Restitution $93,862.00
*It should be noted that the numbers in the “total” column reflect cases being double counted. Most cases involve
both cash and food stamps so they are counted twice, once for each category.
Looking Forward: Barriers to Prosecution
Despite the Office of the District Attorney’s proactive efforts to secure case referrals from non-
traditional sources, public assistance fraud referrals for prosecution continue to be alarmingly low.
Unfortunately, the scarcity of referrals is not reflective of a lack of fraud itself within our county’s
public assistance programs. Instead, it is attributable to problems in finding and proving the fraud. The
problems with finding and proving the fraud appear to be a result of insufficient staffing of the program
integrity arm of our Employment and Human Services Department as well as process and statutory
changes on both the state and local level.
Page 241 of 256
Page | 4
The mission of the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office is to seek justice and enhance public safety for all our re sidents by fairly,
ethically, aggressively and efficiently prosecuting those who violate the law, and by working to prevent crime.
A. Dearth of Referrals from EHSD
Referrals from EHSD have been on the decline for the past several years. One obvious reason
for the decline is the fact that EHSD is no longer referring IHSS cases to us. This issue was
discussed at length in the Public Protection Committee report submitted by the District
Attorney’s Office for fiscal year 2012-2013. (For an update on the status of that issue, see
below.) Aside from the IHSS fraud issue, however, the DA is particularly troubled by the paltry
number of Income and Eligibility Verification System (“IEVS”) referrals we have received in the
past few years. Once the “bread-and-butter” of public assistance fraud prosecutions, these IEVS
referrals continued to be low in fiscal 2013/2014 and are poised to be non-existent for fiscal
2014/2015. In fiscal 2011-2012, 11 IEVS cases were referred while fiscal 2012-2013 saw 14
cases and fiscal 2013-2014 saw 13 cases.
We are now ten months into fiscal 2014-2015 and the District Attorney’s Office has not
received a single IEVS referral this fiscal year. The situation is clearly at a crisis point and
calls for immediate attention. From the DA’s perspective, there seems to be 3 main reasons
IEVS cases are not being referred.
1. Lack of sufficient personnel
The IEVS/Overpayment Unit: Every quarter, the State Social Services computer
communicates with the state EDD computer to cross-reference information about who is
working and who is on aid. When there is a match, an Integrated Fraud Detection report
(IFD 440) is generated and sent to the local EHSD. Federal rules and State regulations
require that the IFDs be acted upon within 45 days. In Contra Costa, these IFDs are received
by the IEVS unit of EHSD. Contra Costa EHSD interprets the regulations to require them,
within 45 days of receipt of the IFD 440 to review the information and determine whether: 1)
the IFD was generated in error (for example, the social security number was transposed, etc.),
2) the IFD should be referred back to the worker to resolve a discrepancy, 3) the case should
be investigated for unreported income, resulting in an overpayment of aid, or 4) the IFD was
generated as a result of an administrative error.
Many years ago, the IEVS unit was separate and apart from the “Overpayment” unit, which
investigated unreported income to calculate overpayments. At that time, there were 20 full
time people who would do this work, with 10 exclusively handling general case reviews and
10 exclusively handling the overpayment computations required to file a criminal case. At
some point, presumably due to budget cuts, etc., these units were consolidated into the
current IEVS Unit. At this point, the IEVS Unit consists of six full-time specialists and one
part-time specialist. Every quarter, the unit performs the general case reviews based on the
IFDs and only when they are finished do they begin calculating the amount of any
overpayment, the information required for a criminal prosecution. Our estimate, based on
historic caseloads, is that there are approximately 2,400 cases awaiting overpayment
calculations. The IEVS specialists cannot complete these overpayment cases because the
general case reviews take most, if not all, of the quarter. Without the overpayment
calculations, the District Attorney’s Office cannot file criminal cases based on Public
Assistance Fraud.
Page 242 of 256
Page | 5
The mission of the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office is to seek justice and enhance public safety for all our re sidents by fairly,
ethically, aggressively and efficiently prosecuting those who violate the law, and by working to prevent crime.
The last IEVS referral the District Attorney’s Office received from EHSD was at the end of
June 2014. At that time, we were told that the earliest we would see another IEVS case from
EHSD was September of 2014. When September came and went with no referrals, we were
told the next IEVS referrals would come in early January. January came and went, again with
no referrals. It is now May of 2015 and we still have not seen an IEVS case in FY 14/15.
Based upon the estimated backlog of 2,400 overpayment cases, and taking into account the
issues with administrative error, discussed below, we estimate that there are between 250 and
400 cases that are likely to be identified as involving fraud and which meet the current
referral threshold. Unfortunately, these cases continue to sit, waiting for action, while the
statute of limitations continues to run.
To put this situation in perspective, Sacramento County (with a population 34% bigger than
Contra Costa) has 9 overpayment specialists who work just on calculating overpayments and
20 specialists who do the reviews. This enables the DA in Sacramento County to file an
average of 140 cases a year despite having a relatively high filing threshold of $10,000 (these
numbers do not include IHSS cases which are separate). In Alameda County (with a
population 41% bigger than Contra Costa), the IEVS unit consists of 18 workers with 3
devoted solely to overpayment computations. The filing threshold in Alameda County is
$3000 and in 2014, they filed 59 cases, not including IHSS cases. On the other hand, in
Ventura County (with a population 23% smaller than Contra Costa), the IEVS staff consists
of just 1.5 people and not surprisingly, they are experiencing the same difficulty that we are
in terms of dearth of referrals. So far this year, Ventura’s social services department has not
referred ANY IEVS cases to the DA because the 1.5 people in the unit have been exclusively
dealing with healthcare enrollment. The Ventura DA filed about 6 welfare fraud cases in
2014. As in our county, they are not contracted to prosecute IHSS cases. Clearly, one key
indicator of a strong anti-fraud program is a commitment to sufficient EHSD staffing to
conduct timely overpayment calculations in all appropriate cases.
Investigations: District Attorney Senior Inspector Todd Almason is the lone sworn
investigator tasked with following up on referrals that we get from EHSD. In Sacramento
County, they have 16 sworn investigators and 35 unsworn investigators in total. This enables
them to investigate absent parent in the home cases as well as self-generate cases (aside from
the IEVS cases) by conducting various sting operations, particularly in the area of food stamp
trafficking. Alameda County has 6 sworn investigators plus 1 for Section 8 only cases.
These investigators are separate from the early fraud investigators housed at the social
services agency which number 11 full time positions. In Ventura County, there are 5 sworn
investigators who handle everything from early fraud to ongoing fraud. To their credit, they
were able to get 30-40 misdemeanor cases filed in 2013 (in addition to the previously
mentioned 6 felony cases) as a result of their EBT Trafficking operations.
2. Administrative Error: In researching the issue of declining referrals, we have found that the
vast majority of cases (approximately 85%) that are processed for overpayment are
ultimately deemed non-referable to the DA due to administrative error. Administrative error
generally falls into 2 categories: a situation where the client reported information that would
materially affect their grant of aid and the worker failed to take any action or a situation
where the documents necessary for prosecution cannot be located (copies of id, signed
reporting docs, etc). Our understanding is that about 1/3 of the administrative error cases fall
Page 243 of 256
Page | 6
The mission of the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office is to seek justice and enhance public safety for all our re sidents by fairly,
ethically, aggressively and efficiently prosecuting those who violate the law, and by working to prevent crime.
into the first category and when this type of error is caught, there is no concrete protocol in
place to make sure the caseworker is: 1) held accountable and 2) that it doesn’t happen again.
a. Task Based system
Public assistance cases used to be assigned to a particular case worker. Presently, EHSD
uses a task based system where any number of workers can have their hands on a case.
The lack of continuity makes it more likely for errors to occur and for no one to be held
accountable when errors do come to light. The general consensus seems to be that there
is much more worker based error since the system became task based.
b. Computer System: Compass Pilot
The county moved to the Compass Pilot computer data system which required all case
documents to be scanned and housed electronically. The system, though, is purportedly
very difficult to navigate and accordingly, it can be very labor intensive to track down the
necessary scanned documents. Additionally, when the documents were first scanned in
mass numbers, temps were doing the work and it was subsequently found that a
significant number of documents were missing and /or scanned into the wrong case files.
As mentioned previously, the inability to locate these lost/improperly scanned documents
has prevented the IEVS unit from referring a significant number of cases to the District
Attorney for prosecution. Interestingly, Ventura County and Alameda County, while on
different systems, report having a similar problem.
c. Lack of training
There also appears to be a lack of reinforcement training which contributes to high
worker error. CDSS regulations are difficult to understand and changes occur often yet
there is not adequate on-going training to ensure that workers remain abreast of the
requirements.
3. Switch from Quarterly reporting to Semi-annual reporting
Reporting requirements are statutory and are not subject to change by the counties.
Recipients of CALWORKS and CALFRESH used to be required to report income
information on a monthly basis. In June of 2004, quarterly reporting took over. Now, as of
October 2013, recipients are only required to report semi-annually. This will impact the
number of referrals we get because it will be more difficult to show their fraudulent intent.
UPDATE ON IHSS FRAUD INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION
In July of 2013, EHSD began referring IHSS cases of suspected fraud (involving more than $500 worth
of loss) to the CA Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), rather than the office of the District
Attorney, for investigations. In support of EHSD’s decision to refer cases to DHCS, EHSD noted that
“[w]ith the adoption of the protocols, the DHCS has added investigators and the effectiveness of the
State’s efforts are expected to increase.” Unfortunately, these expectations have not been met.
As we reported last year, Contra Costa County’s IHSS program is served by a single DHCS investigator,
Page 244 of 256
Page | 7
The mission of the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office is to seek justice and enhance public safety for all our re sidents by fairly,
ethically, aggressively and efficiently prosecuting those who violate the law, and by working to prevent crime.
Lottie Bloxom, who is also responsible for Medi-Cal Provider Fraud, General Benefits Fraud, including
Early Fraud Detection, Drug Diversion, Social Security Income (SSI) Fraud, fraud in the Women,
Infants, and Children program (WIC), the Alcohol Drug Program (Medi-Cal assisted drug and alcohol
treatment counseling facilities), and on occasion, Income Employment Verification System cases.
According to Investigator Bloxom, it is common for DHCS investigators to be pulled into DHCS
priority projects which go on for months, at the exclusion of all other cases, including IHSS. In fact, on
several occasions, Investigator Bloxsom has been assigned to priority projects while she has been
assigned as Contra Costa’s sole investigator. Furthermore, Investigator Bloxom indicates that there are
many DHCS investigator vacancies which have not been filled and their resources are stretched so thin
that it is simply impossible to give IHSS cases adequate attention. Aside from the paltry number of
referrals Investigator Bloxom has received from Contra Costa County IHSS, she has a queue of 19 cases
which come from the State’s “Stop Medi-Cal Fraud” hotline that she has not been able investigate.
Referring to those tips she stated they are cases “I absolutely wish I could tap into the DA’s office to
work some [of those cases].”
The gravity of the situation is reflected in the numbers. In fiscal year 2013-2014, the DHCS investigator
responsible for Contra Costa County accepted only 7 referrals for investigation from our county. Out of
those 7, none have been referred to the District Attorney for prosecution. The cases were not referred
for prosecution due to the fact that key documents (such as provider and recipient enrollment forms)
could not be located in the county’s electronic database. (This is the same issue which plagues the
traditional public assistance fraud cases as previously discussed.) For informational and comparative
purposes, the chart below shows Contra Costa’s IHSS fraud figures for the last three years in which
EHSD funded a part- time DA Inspector to handle IHSS fraud investigations.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY IHSS INVESTIGATIONS
1”Referrals Closed” refers to IHSS referrals reviewed by the DA Investigator for feasibility of prosecution. Depending on the
referral, some investigation may be done including running criminal histories, DMV records, appropriately conferring with
other agencies and departments, and even site visits, but a full investigation was not conducted.
2“Investigations Completed” refers to full investigations of referrals likely to become criminal prosecutions and include
record collection, search warrants, and interviews.
3Approximately five IHSS cases filed for prosecution in FY 2012-2013 were based on investigations completed in FY 2011-
2012.
2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
IHSS INVESTIGATIONS
Referrals Received 93 312 170 0
Referrals Closed1 83 0
Investigations
Completed2
18 28 9 0
IHSS PROSECUTIONS
Cases Filed for
Prosecution
4 6 93 0
Convictions 4 1 8 0
Court Ordered
Restitution
$88,775 $24,245.19 $115,012.88 $0
Page 245 of 256
Page | 8
The mission of the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office is to seek justice and enhance public safety for all our re sidents by fairly,
ethically, aggressively and efficiently prosecuting those who violate the law, and by working to prevent crime.
In Sacramento County where IHSS fraud is now also being investigated solely by DHCS, the situation is
similar. The assigned investigator for that county, James Sigl, echoes the same sentiments as
Investigator Bloxom regarding inadequacy of resources and indicates that IHSS fraud is, for all intents
and purposes, no longer being referred for prosecution in Sacramento County.
In stark contrast to Contra Costa and Sacramento counties is Alameda County, where IHSS fraud
investigations have not been turned over to the state. In calendar year 2013, the Alameda County
District Attorney’s Office filed 53 IHSS fraud cases and in calendar year 2014, it filed 24 IHSS fraud
cases (the disparity between 2013 and 2014 is based on the fact that many 2013 cases were filed at the
very end of 2013). Given these numbers from Alameda County, the obvious conclusion must be that
IHSS fraud is alive and well in Contra Costa County and quite simply, not enough is being done to stop
it.
Impact
As a result of the lack of cases being referred to the Public Assistance Fraud Unit of the District
Attorney’s Office, and in an effort to save public funds, in March 2015, the dedicated Deputy District
Attorney assigned to the Public Assistance Fraud Unit was transferred out of the unit. The remaining
cases and any new cases, if any are received, will be given to our Felony Trial Team for prosecution.
Those attorneys will submit Functional Timesheets for hours worked on Public Assistance Fraud Unit
cases. While it is unfortunate that these cases will no longer be handled by a Deputy District Attorney
who is intimately familiar with the Public Assistance rules, it does not make financial sense to the
taxpayer for EHSD to pay for a dedicated attorney to handle the paltry number of cases remaining in the
Public Assistance Fraud Unit. Senior Inspector Almason’s hours in the unit were also significantly
reduced. Senior Inspector Almason will continue to be available, as his first priority, to meet with and
assist EHSD staff, as requested, with issues related to the prevention, detection, investigation, and
prosecution of public assistance fraud.
The District Attorney’s Office remains committed to fighting fraud in public assistance programs. The
District Attorney’s Office pledges to re-staff the Public Assistance Fraud Unit at FY 13/14 levels if and
when EHSD begins referring cases at a level that warrants a dedicated prosecutor and investigator.
Conclusion
The Office of the District Attorney is highly concerned about the integrity of the public assistance
program in our county. The lack of actual public assistance fraud prosecutions could lead one to believe
that there is no fraud occurring in the public assistance program. The truth, however, is that criminal
fraud in our public assistance program exists and is probably increasing. Unfortunately, because of the
factors outlined in this report, our office is unable to prosecute the existing fraud.
The Office of the District Attorney remains committed to raising awareness about the barriers that our
office and the system are facing in fighting fraud. If we do not fight fraud, the very limited resources
available to our eligible, indigent citizens will not reach them. The commitment of the District
Attorney’s Office, by itself, however, is not enough. Without adequate funding and, more importantly,
buy-in from all stakeholders, we simply cannot fulfill our mission, to the detriment of the citizens of
Contra Costa County.
Page 246 of 256
Page 247 of 256
2
might take place and can result in the prosecution of those that commit fraud. This quick action,
while shortening the length of any fraudulent payments also results in the recoupment of
overpayments, either through repayment from benefits the individual or family is eligible to
receive or through EHSD’s collection actions.
WELFARE FRAUD PREVENTION, DETECTION, INVESTIGATION AND REFERRAL
PROCEDURES
Under the California Welfare and Institutions Code, Division 20, each county with more than
1,000 CalWORKs cases is required to maintain a Special Investigations Unit (SIU) with staff that
are trained and qualified to prevent, detect and investigate welfare fraud. Of the counties that
are required to have a SIU, the prevailing model is to maintain their SIUs as part of the welfare
department. This model is used in nearly 60% of counties. As outlined below, EHSD has an
effective process in place to quickly respond to concerns raised by eligibility staff, or the public,
that welfare fraud might be contemplated or taking place. Our Social Services Senior Welfare
Fraud Field Investigators are stationed in our District Offices and are immediately available to
eligibility staff. The goal is a rapid response to concerns to identify and stop any potential fraud
quickly to minimize any overpayment of benefits. Our Field Investigators are considered an
extension of the eligibility process. Any process, e.g., a referral to a DA criminal investigator ,
that extends the period to determine whether or not benefits should be issued, or to stop the
issuance benefits that have been authorized based on inaccurate or fraudulent information,
increases the amount of money that could be paid out pending the resolution of the issue.
Fraud Prevention: EHSD uses a variety of methods to prevent fraud. EHSD eligibility staff is
trained to ask questions and obtain verifications of information submitted by customers when
they apply for benefits and during the renewal process. Cases are reviewed by supervisors and
EHSD also has a Quality Assurance unit that reviews a number of CalFresh cases each month.
When there is a concern that information provided in connection with a CalWORKs, CalFresh or
General Assistance application may not be accurate or they suspect fraud, the Eligibility Worker
initiates an electronic referral through the Early Fraud Investigation (EFI) referral system.
Fraud Detection and Investigation: The EFI referral system is automated and greatly speeds
up reporting of suspected fraud. It allows the EW to provide all the needed information to open
a fraud investigation case. Once a referral is made by the EW, the EHSD Social Services Fraud
Prevention Supervisor reviews and assigns them to an EHSD Social Services Senior Welfare
Fraud Field Investigators for investigation. EHSD Social Services Senior Welfare Fraud Field
Investigators are professionals and are required by California law to have and maintain Peace
Officer Standards and Training (POST) certification. When the field investigation is complete,
the information is returned to the EW for necessary action. When potential long term fraud has
been identified, the EW is required to refer the case to the District Attorney’s Office for further
investigation. When fraud is found, depending on the status of the case, the EW of record takes
quick and appropriate case action, including:
Denying the case, or
Discontinuing the case, or
Reducing benefits, and
Referring the case for overpayment computation and collection
The above actions by EHSD Eligibility Workers result in substantial savings and cost avoidance
as applicants determined ineligible are prevented from collecting benefits and future aid benefits
are quickly terminated for recipients determined to be engaging in potentially fraudulent
activities. While there are several means used to fight fraud at all levels, there is a strong focus
Page 248 of 256
3
on prevention and early detection. The Early Fraud program is a continuum of efforts that start
with the Eligibility Workers and continues through the field work of the Social Services Welfare
Fraud Field Investigators. These combined efforts are highly beneficial and focus on prevention
and early detection of fraud. It enables the department to concentrate on ensuring that only
those that are eligible to receive public assistance benefits are receiving them.
In addition to the early fraud investigations cited above, citizens can report suspected public
assistance fraud by calling any one of the following numbers or by emailing the California
Department of Social Services, EHSD or the Deputy District Attorney. EHSD recently updated
its public website to include a button that provides the public with information on the most
common types of fraud and information on how to report possible fraud. There are multiple
ways to report possible welfare fraud and it can be done at any of the phone numbers or sites
below:
California Department of Social Services Fraud Hotline: 1-800-344-8477
California Department of Social Services: mailto:FraudHotline@dss.ca.gov
Contra Costa County Deputy District Attorney: mailto:SNop@contracostada.org
EHSD website for fraud information and reporting: ehsd.org
EHSD and DA fraud reporting line: (925) 521-5080
The avenues for reporting fraud are widely published on the CDSS, DA, and EHSD websites.
These numbers are also posted in EHSD offices and listed in various publications. During the
period covered by this report, EHSD received 414 phone calls to its Fraud Reporting line and
during this same period received 14 complaints of potential fraud from the email on its website.
When information comes in through one of the sources above, the EHSD Social Services Fraud
Prevention Supervisor reviews the information. When this review indicates that further action is
needed, the Eligibility Worker (EW) and the Eligibility Work Supervisor (EW Supervisor) of
record are notified about the information received. The EW follows up on the reported
information to assist in determining the appropriate action, which may include an Early Fraud
Investigation referral or, in some cases a direct referral to the DA. The EW then advises the
EHSD Social Services Fraud Prevention Supervisor on the disposition of the complaint. All
actions are taken very quickly to prevent unwarranted issuance of benefits or to quickly stop
benefits if the case has been granted. When called for, an EHSD Social Services Senior
Welfare Fraud Field Investigator will visit the household and take other actions to determine if
the information provided by the person making the tip can be verified.
Below are the Early Fraud Investigation referral statistics for FY 2013/2014.
EARLY FRAUD INVESTIGATIONS (EFI)
REFERRALS CASH CalFresh
Investigation Referrals Received 249 362
Investigations Completed 143 194
Fraud Found 89 114
Fraud Not Found 54 80
INVESTIGATION RESULTS
Denials 22 39
Discontinuances 33 41
Benefits Reduced 17 16
Fraud Found no financial impact 17 18
Page 249 of 256
4
Each year CDSS provides information on Fraud Cost Savings (cost avoidance) that result from
early prevention and detection of fraud activities. While the official report for fiscal year
2013/2014 has not been issued, CDSS is projecting the savings for Contra Costa County as
follows:
CalWORKs Fraud Cost Savings: $222,607
CalFresh Fraud Cost Savings: $132,420
Total: $355,027
These avoided costs document the effectiveness of the continued and combined efforts of
EHSD’s Eligibility Workers and Social Services fraud prevention and investigation processes in
preventing benefits from going to ineligible individuals and families.
Referral to the DA: When long term or intentional fraud is suspected, EHSD refers cases over
$3,000 or other cases on mutual agreement to the DA for investigation and prosecution in
accordance with the written agreement between the Departments. A summary of the number of
cases referred to the DA and the results is reported later in this report. Referral of cases to the
DA is continuous as cases are identified. In addition to the number of cases referred during the
period covered by this report, EHSD has referred ten (10) cases so far in the current year.
Administrative Disqualifications Hearings: State regulations afford additional ways to address
potential fraud. These regulations, issued by the California Department of Social Services and
the California Department of Health Care Services, state that when an intentional program
violation is suspected in the CalWORKs or CalFresh programs and the amount of the potential
fraud is below the threshold for referral to the DA, the County Welfare Department, i.e., EHSD
may elect to ask the customer to sign an Administrative Disqualification Hearing (ADH) Waiver.
An Intentional Program Violation (IPV) is defined as the customer intentionally giving the County
wrong information or intentionally not telling the truth. If the customer agrees to sign the ADH
waiver, they are giving up their right to pursue an appeal and they will be disqualified from
receiving benefits for a significant period of time, from six (6) months to a number of years to
permanent disqualification. In addition, signing the waiver still allows the County to collect any
overpayments and pursue the case in court if needed. If the person does not sign an ADH
Waiver, the County may still go ahead with appropriate action and the customer may request a
fair hearing before a state Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) where the County and the customer
can present evidence to the ALJ about the issues raised in the case. Whether the customer
signs the waiver or asks for a hearing the Administrative Disqualification process is a very cost
effective method of closing cases where an IPV is believed to have occurred. It sets up the
process for collecting any overpayments or over issuances from the customer. EHSD staff has
been trained in the ADH process. We are currently working with County Human Resources to
recruit for an Appeals Officer and other staff that will be dedicated to the ADH process.
IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FRAUD AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN
The California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) is the State agency responsible for
providing oversight to the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program. California law,
specifically the Welfare and Institutions (W&I) Code, Section 12305.82 gives DHCS the
authority to investigate IHSS fraud. This section also cites the In-Home Supportive Services
Uniform Statewide Protocols issued by CDSS in September 2013. These protocols were
established to provide a framework to enable collaborative and coordinated efforts by all
agencies involved in fraud detection and prevention activities. Fraud in the IHSS program most
often involves an intentional attempt by providers or beneficiaries to receive unauthorized
benefits or payments they are not eligible to receive. The most common forms of fraud are
Page 250 of 256
5
knowingly billing for services not performed or providers billing for care of more beneficiaries
than they can actually serve. DHCS maintains a website and an IHSS Fraud Hotline with
information to report suspected IHSS fraud.
Since the implementation of the protocols in 2013, all IHSS fraud referrals over $500 are
required by state law and regulation to be submitted to DHCS for investigation. This has not
changed. The DHCS has IHSS Fraud Investigators on its staff responsible for investigating any
fraud referred to them by counties or other means. The State maintains jurisdiction over these
IHSS fraud investigations.
EHSD is in the process of querying the State and other counties regarding the ability to work
around this limitation. We are equally interested in being able to send additional referrals to the
DA, but only if there is revenue to support the work of the DA. EHSD is not requesting nor
recommending that county general funds backfill the State’s responsibility t o conduct these
investigations.
There are ample ways for citizens that suspect IHSS fraud can report it to DHCS or EHSD as
follows:
State Hotline Number: 1-800-822-6222
State Fraud by e-mail: IBREF@dhcs.ca.gov
EHSD Quality Assurance and Fraud: (925) 363-3688, (925) 522-7682, (510) 231-8305
D.A.’S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE FRAUD INVESTIGATION/PROSECUTION UNIT
As in the past, the majority of referrals to the DA Public Assistance Fraud Unit are made directly
by EHSD. The EHSD staff and members of the DA’s Public Assistance Fraud Unit have had an
excellent working relationship. EHSD staff has worked closely with Deputy District Attorney
Sophia Nop and Todd Almason, Senior Investigator. They are both very knowledgeable and
experienced, and are committed to maintaining the integrity of public assistance programs. We
appreciate the help and support they provide to our efforts to deal with public assistance fraud.
However, we were recently informed that the DA’s Office has moved staff out of the Public
Assistance Fraud Unit. This was done without discussion with EHSD even though the two
Departments have a written agreement that covers investigations and prosecutions and
provides funding. We remain hopeful that the DA will dedicate the resources needed to
combatting public assistance fraud with trained and experienced staff.
EHSD STAFFING ISSUES
There are a number of key components to EHSD’s fraud prevention and investigation
processes. As with other Divisions in EHSD, the Social Services Fraud Division has to rebuild
its resources after experiencing a significant number of retirements and other losses. We
recently filled our Fraud Prevention Supervisor position but we are currently recruiting for three
(3) Social Services Fraud Investigators. We have vacancies and new staff in the unit that
processes and calculates overpayments. This unit is essential to both EHSD’s and the DA’s
efforts since the accurate calculation of overpayments are an integral part of investigations,
prosecutions and collection activities. The Department is also recruiting for additional staff in
the Appeals unit. Concurrent with the loss of trained staff, the Department has experienced
caseload growth in the CalFresh and General Assistance programs with a continuing high
caseload for CalWORKs, resulting for a higher demand for services. The Department relies on
the County’s Human Resources Department to assist it in filling its vacant positions. All these
positons are nearly totally funded with State allocations.
Page 251 of 256
6
COLLECTION EFFORTS
Federal and State regulations mandate that counties collect and recover welfare benefits
overpayments due to fraud, inadvertent client errors, and administrative errors. Since October
2010 when the Office of Revenue Collection was disbanded and collection activities were
transferred to EHSD, the Public Protection Committee has requested information regarding the
department’s collection activities. The EHSD collection efforts continue to be handled by the
Collections Unit and the Fiscal Division and they are highly successful. Customers currently
receiving aid are subject to grant reduction to repay debts. CalWORKs and CalFresh debts are
computed by the Eligibility Worker via the CalWIN system or by the Fraud Overpayment Unit.
Former customers are subject to collection action. When collection action is necessary, EHSD
uses the activities listed below:
Voluntary payment – Customers are sent a series of letters for demand of payment. Payment
plans can be established. Customers make payments by check, money order, or credit card.
Welfare Intercept System (WIS) – This program is administered by the California Department
of Social Services Fraud Bureau for CalWORKs and CalFresh debts. CalWORKs debts are
eligible for Franchise Tax Board (FTB) intercepts. CalFresh debts are eligible for both FTB and
U.S. Treasury/IRS offset. Repayments are collected by the state or federal IRS from tax
refunds or other payments and used to offset the debts.
Court-ordered Debt (COD) Program – Court-ordered debts are fines, fees, and restitution
orders imposed by a court. EHSD has a small number of COD accounts that the Probation
Department continues to administer.
The Collections and Recovery Summary Report for fiscal year 2013/2014 is also attached and
provides the impact to County revenue.
STATISTICAL REPORTS
The information for the statistical reports is extracted from the California Department of Public
Assistance (DPA) Form 266, Fraud Investigation Activity Reports. These monthly reports are
completed by EHSD and submitted to the State Fraud Bureau. The attached report for fiscal
year 2013/2014 covers the following:
Fraud Overpayment Unit
District Attorney Public Assistance Fraud Investigations and Prosecutions
CONCLUSION
EHSD and the DA’s office continue to work together to prevent, investigate and prosecute public
assistance fraud.
Contributors to this report include:
Laura Cox, Fraud Prevention Division Manager, EHSD
Jackie Foust, Fraud Overpayment Supervisor, EHSD
Jennifer Posedel, Administrative Services Assistant III, EHSD
Catherine Osterlund, Senior Level Clerk, DA
Page 252 of 256
7
STATISTICAL OUTCOMES
FY JULY 1, 2013 – JUNE 30, 2014
FRAUD OVERPAYMENT UNIT
CASH CalFresh
Overpayment Computation
Referrals Received
192 827
Number of Overpayments
Established
69 368
Dollar Amount of
Overpayments
$283,297 $677,942
CalWORKs/CalFresh Combo Cases
Referred for Prosecution
12/12
Public Assistance CalFresh Cases
Referred for Prosecution
1
Non Assistance CalFresh Cases Referred
for Prosecution
2
DISTRICT ATTORNEY WELFARE FRAUD INVESTIGATIONS
INVESTIGATIONS CASH CalFresh TOTAL
Referrals Received 18 22 40
Investigations Completed* 21 23 44
PROSECUTIONS
Cases Filed for Prosecution 16 19 35
Convictions 8 10 18
Public Assistance
Court Ordered Restitution $93,862
* An investigation completed can include referrals from prior fiscal years.
Page 253 of 256
8
EHSD COLLECTION & RECOVERY SUMMARY
FY July 1, 2013 – June 30, 2014
IMPACT TO COUNTY REVENUE
Most of the cost of aid issued by Contra Costa for CalWORKs, CalFresh, and IHSS is funded
with Federal and/or State revenue. All collection recoveries, with the exception of General
Assistance are returned to the funding source, with the County retaining a small percentage.
For CalWORKs, 2.5% of all collection recoveries reduce the county benefit costs. An annual
incentive is also paid to the county based on recoveries. For CalFresh, a local retention amount
that is shared equally with the State is calculated based on the recoveries (cash and non-cash)
by error type. The local retention rates are 0% for Administrative Error, 10% for Inadvertent
Household Error and 17.5% for Intentional Program Violation. Because General Assistance is
all county funds, 100% of collection recoveries are returned to the county.
CalWORKs – Collections and reductions/repayments totaling $901,697 which reduced benefit
costs by $22,542. Contra Costa also earned a Fraud Recovery Incentive of $45,569.
CalFresh -- Collections and reductions/repayments totaling $2,557,353 resulted in a $158,574
county retention amount for FY13/14.
IHSS – Collections totaled $21,358. In this program, Contra Costa is responsible for a
Maintenance of Effort. In order to return the collected funds to the State, the State invoices
Contra Costa for the amount of collections reported in the CMIPS II payroll system each year.
General Assistance -- Collections and recoupments totaling $27,175 resulted in a $27,175
reduction in county benefit costs for FY13/14.
Program Type
Cash Collection
(includes tax
intercepts)
Grant
Reduction &
EBT
Repayments Annual Totals
CalWORKs $317,099 $584,598 $901,697
CalFresh $1,135,966 $1,441,387 $2,577,353
IHSS $21,358 - $21,358
General Assistance $12,032
$15,143 $27,175
Totals $1,486,455 $2,041,128 $3,527,583
Page 254 of 256
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 7.
Meeting Date:05/11/2015
Subject:Update on the Status of the County Gas Shut-Off Device Ordinance
Submitted For: John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: Update on the Status of the County Gas Shut-Off Device Ordinance
Presenter: Jason Crapo, DCD Deputy Director Contact: Jason Crapo, 925-674-7722
Referral History:
On September 25, during a presentation on Emergency Preparedness within Contra Costa County,
the Board of Supervisors referred to the Public Protection Committee a report on the county Gas
Shut-Off valve ordinance (Ordinance Code § 718-8 et seq.). Originally, the former Building
Inspection Department was responsible for regulation related to the Ordinance, now the
Department of Conservation and Development provides oversight through its Building Inspection
Division.
The PPC received an initial report on this issue at the November 5, 2012 regular meeting and
asked for a follow up presentation from Conservation and Development staff at a future meeting
date. The department returned to the Committee on February 11, 2013 to provide that update.
Following the report, the Committee directed staff to keep the issue on referral for future
consideration by the Board.
Referral Update:
Contra Costa County has been a leader among local governments in California by requiring the
installation of gas shut-off devices in many new and existing structures. The County first
established requirements for gas shut-off devices in 2000. Since that time, thousands of these
devices have been installed throughout the County, protecting both lives and structures from harm
in the event of an earthquake or other incident resulting in ruptured gas lines.
In its current form, the County’s Gas Shut-Off Device Ordinance requires the installation of a gas
shut-off device at the main gas meter for all residential, commercial and industrial structures in
any of the following circumstances:
All newly constructed buildings with gas plumbing;1.
When a building permit is issued for construction work on an existing structure that involves
gas plumbing and the value of the construction is greater than $5,000; or if the construction
does not involve gas plumbing and the value of the construction is greater than $15,000;
2.
At the time a property is sold3.
Page 255 of 256
These three factors have resulted in a gradual and sustained increase in the proportion of the
County’s built environment that contains gas shut-off devices. Recognizing the need to balance
safety with costs imposed on property owners, the County has chosen triggers for requiring gas
shut-off devices that coincide with other circumstances that facilitate cost-effective installation of
the device and do not create a disproportionate financial burden on property owners.
By establishing three separate triggering events that require installation of the device, the County
has created a regulatory framework that results in thousands of gas shut-off devices being
installed every year. Over time, an increasing share of all structures in the County will contain
these devices, resulting in an overall improvement in community safety and resiliency to a large
seismic event.
Since the adoption of the initial gas shut-off device ordinance by the County Board of
Supervisors in 2000, staff estimates that 11,520 devices have been installed at the main gas meter
of new structures, 7,185 have been installed in connection with building remodels or additions,
and approximately 2,400 have been installed when buildings have been sold. In total, staff
estimates that over 21,000 gas shut-off devices have been installed in the County’s jurisdiction.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT report on the status of the Gas Shut-Off Device ordinance in Contra Costa County.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact.
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Page 256 of 256