Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 12
Number 12 is consider and take appropriate action regarding a reallocation of funding and restructuring of the commitment to change program administered by the counseling and education services department.
>> good morning.
>> good morning.
>> roger jeffries, county executive for justice and public safety.
I'm here with carol coburn and kimberly pierce.
we're coming to you this morning to make a recommendation to reallocate funding for an existing program.
the commitment to change programs started in 2006.
it's a drug treatment program that's currently at the travis state jail and the woodman state jail.
it's a unique investment by the county in a state jail facility.
we came to you about a year and a half ago or a little over a year ago.
we had completed an evaluation of the program and the outcomes were not very good.
so you told us to go back and take a look at it and see if there's a way we could improve it.
over the last several months, we've been looking at different models across the country and ways we could strengthen it.
one of the ways that was very obvious it lacked a strong reentry component.
during this process, we developed a great relationship with the district judges and the county department of probation who have become our partners in making this a better program.
so what we would like to do for you today is to go through those recommendations very briefly and ask you, if you would, to respectfully approve the change that would be reflected in the program.
I'm going to turn it over to carol who is going to talk about the clinical piece of the travis state jail.
>> once we realized that we needed to enhance the reentry component, we studied the pre release program and soon realized the only way to substantially enhance the reentry part was to eliminate the treatment component at woodman state jail.
that's where the women are.
and no one is happy about this.
we would love to provide full services to the women, but the reason that I think became so obvious and actually it was independent with cjp and ces coming to that conclusion at the same time is a little history about this program.
when the court provided funding for the commitment to change program, it was actually reallocating funds from an existing program at travis state jail, the focus program, which was a construction program.
and that funding was really given just to implement at travis state jail, both the pre-release substance abuse treatment because at this time in beginning of fiscal year '06, the state had taken out all types of substance abuse programming.
there was like nothing out there, so the court felt like that was the best type of program to put out there.
also, to have a reentry component and in the plan it was eventually to expand to woodman to serve the women in gatesville, but the plan was we would go back and ask for more funding.
we decided it was in June of '07 that we would go ahead and expand to the women and then come back and ask for funding.
well, it didn't really happen that way.
we expanded up there, and I think really what happened is we just ended up spreading ourself so thin by trying to provide the treatment component to the women and the men at travis and to the reentry that, you know, our numbers were not looking that good.
so, you know, we would love to be able to serve the women.
we did several different proposals and we streamlined the treatment component where we would just be doing what we needed to do for substance abuse and criminal conduct treatment, which really means not having a lot of extra groups like parenting and management, that type of thing.
it would cost an additional $94,000 to provide those services pre-release to the woodman unit.
and we just really don't have it.
so in order to make a substantial enhancement to reentry, the proposal that I recommended to roger and is being proposed here which is split the funding which I'm guessing the court's original intent for the travis unit.
so we have a good substance abuse component pre-release and also a very strong reentry component once they are released.
>> so the clinical aspect, the cognitive treatment option that we're proposing would continue at the travis state jail.
what would be enhanced would be the reentry component which we're very excited about.
we're actually asking for half of that funding.
it's $313,000, half of that is 156 and change, be transferred to criminal justice planning.
we felt the reentry component would be better managed there.
reentry, we have that strong offender workforce development program and cjp, we have a strong relationship with the travis state jail and the outreach and networks through the community justice advisory council and reentry round table and we felt like it was a stronger fit there.
and I'm going to ask kimberly to briefly tell what you that would look like.
>> just some of the highlights from the backup that was provided.
some of the
>> [inaudible] may in fact be some of the
>> [inaudible] at the state jail --
>> could you speak into the mic?
>> I'm sorry.
but some of the participants may be some of the ctc clients, the turning point client, another substance abuse program or actual general population.
what we're trying to do is identify high risk offenders returning back to our community.
there will be a curriculum provided while incarcerated to focus on their discharge plan and referring them to community resources.
one of the big differences with the reentry program is that the day the offenders are released back to the unit which, our case managers will be released making sure they have appropriate housing and assisting with any type of 'em employment referrals.
so when we have an offender coming out that has a lot of barriers, we have a group of folks that we can go to to assist us or assist the case managers.
and although the ctc program will not be offered at the womens state jail, our case managers in our community will be traveling to the woodman state jail in gatesville to assist the females returning home with the discharge plan and trying assure they are hooked up to community resources.
case managers will have office hours this the community so when offenders are released and they have problems they will have someplace to go to get some help.
that's one of the biggest differences.
I'm sorry.
the biggest differences with the reentry program.
>> are we sure that's going to be enough service for the women in order to be successful with their reentry?
>> at cjp we have mary moran and she's got a team of volunteers that help her and she's been going to the woodman state jail for some time.
cindy has been going up there providing resource fairs or resource information for the females.
right now I think if we can just focus -- we're losing a lot of these -- I think we do a really good job of providing programming.
I think the curriculum is great.
we're losing them when they come home and quickly.
I see our case management staff focusing at least 75% of their time in the community and not necessarily what's going on inside the jail.
and I think that -- I'm hoping that's going to make the difference.
>> that's where we want to then make sure we catch them before --
>> yes, ma'am.
>> we'll be collecting data on all of this that we can report on the success.
maybe some day we can come back and state that the travis state jail is such a success it would justify additional sources for woodman for that cognitive therapy piece.
I did mention earlier we are very happy that in this process we developed a great relationship with the district judges and with probation.
they are looking at various sentencing options that might include both jail time and probation that would be an additional hook for these people that we could continue to work with them and they would have that supervision and that criminal justice supervision in the community.
that's really terrific.
so is there you want to --
>> I was just going to say all of the district judges are committed to trying to send the right kind of offenders into this program.
I know that the district attorney rosemary lindburg has been present.
we have all been really working together and we want this to be successful.
we think we have the capacity to do it now.
dr. Nagy, head of our probation department, said the way we're doing this, we have everybody involved, the district judges, probation, everybody involved, that she thinks it's going to be one of the most successful cutting-edge programs that she's seen with everybody working together.
we're meeting together to come up to implement the plan and make sure we send the right kind of people.
I have a case this morning that I've spotted that needs to be at one of the first -- the first offenders in the program.
>> and I guess in this effort that we are doing this morning, I guess my concern is especially the persons that are released back into society, the ladies that are released, my concern is that if these caseworkers, case management persons that we have over them, are they also looking at the employers in the community to make sure that when these persons have met the necessary needs and have done the things necessary for employment opportunities, have some of these employment -- employers been notified what we're trying to do?
because what we do not want to see happen is that these persons get into the recidivism stage of things.
we don't want them having to go back into where -- where they return back to square one.
we don't want that.
and this is what the purpose and intent of this is is a person doesn't return.
so my concern is all the components necessary in place to make sure that the percentage of these persons not returning are there and available.
I want to make sure all those connecting points, those nexus points are there.
>> I think ms. Pierce can talk about the reentry component, but having probation involved when they get out into the community where we have a probation officer that's going to help them find work, that's been a missing piece.
a lot of people in the past are just released.
we're going to have the reentry and the probation officer trying to help them integrate.
>> but my question was also the employment end of things, those employers that are willing to participate in this program.
that's my concern because that's a nexus of a lot of things.
that's the connecting point.
>> Commissioner, I think I can answer your question.
mary moran has an employer breakfast next month and I think that would be a wonderful opportunity for us to be able to brief these employers on this new program.
obviously we needed the court's approval before we go out and do that, but we have an employer breakfast next month.
>> that's very significant in this program right there.
>> the probation department actively helps these offenders to find work.
so they will have it coming from both directions.
>> and the probation officers have actually gone through mary's program too so they are also trained.
>> okay.
thank you.
>> judge, I move approval of this reallocation.
>> second.
>> motion and second to approve.
the start date is August 1.
>> yes, sir, or sooner.
>> that was about to be my question.
three months from today.
so it will take that much time to get it up and running?
>> well, we kind of guessed conservatively.
we still are working with the judges and the probation department on a finalized operating plan.
we need to get the caseworkers on the -- to hire them.
there are empty spots right now so we kind of did a conservative August 1, but we're hoping to get it done before then.
>> so the program that we concluded was not working.
are we still spending money on it?
>> yeah, well, it's still going.
>> it's a streamlined version, but yes, sir, we are still serving the clients at both travis and woodman at this time.
>> I will say this, though.
some of the people that go into this program want to be there in the current program and they are successful.
it's voluntary, but we just think the way we're going to set it up is going to be much more effective.
in the interim, we are moving as fast as we can.
we have a meeting next week to plan.
I think it's going to be up and running sooner than August if we can make it.
>> so are we able to determine what's working and what's not working in the current program?
>> well, I would like to mention that on the statistics on that, we showed that 84% of the clients once they got out of jail, they did come to the first after-care program.
now, it was after that that it started going down.
so we feel like that the treatment program, the substance abuse treatment program is good and it's effective with the -- with the client.
it's just once they get out, they really need a lot more support on the streets.
so that's why I think at least now we're giving them treatment and hopefully, you know, as their reentry component starts building up they can get a little more than that and those numbers will start looking better as well.
>> we can send you the data.
we did both an evaluation that we presented to you last year that showed in some cases even the participants were recidivating at a worse rate.
also the thing we Monday for on a monthly basis is what carol said how they do in the community.
once they are released, they show up for the first one and they disappear.
we can't help them find employment and housing and that's why we felt the reentry component needed strengthening and resources.
again, the body of literature, the body of knowledge, the best practices show that a good treatment option pre-release, good reentry post-release you have your best opportunity for success.
that's what we think we have now.
a great partnership.
>> my only point is this.
this conversation started with you telling us the current program is not working.
if that is true, I don't know that it makes sense to spend money on it three more months.
if parts are working, though, just leave those in place, see what I'm saying?
if parts are not working, I would stop spending money on them.
that's my only point.
>> the treatment that they are currently using, I mean we have dr. Nagy look at it, the milkman treatment -- this is not my area of expertise, but they are very confidence in the cognitive thinking type program that is there.
but the component that we're trying to get up and running is this reentry, and once that's up -- so as soon as we can get that going, we don't need to stop the treatment because we're trying to just get the second part in place really is what we're doing.
>> I think your point, judge, if you all approve this, the funding will be transferred, we'll take down the cognitive piece at woodman which would free up a couple of positions, the reentry and case management positions.
we won't be spending money on them until they are hired, and once they are hired, we'll have the reentry part in place.
>> where is the advisory committee recommendation?
>> they support the idea of approving the ctc program.
we have a meeting with them -- cindy is not here.
I think at the first of may to present this to them.
we keep them in -- informed of the status of the ctc programs, and, you know, they are aware that we're looking at an alternative model and that the program evaluation was not good.
and we're supportive of the idea of changing it to make it better.
we have not had a chance to present this particular proposal to them.
that comes in may.
>> what I'm hearing though is it's not that the treatment is not good, it's not a good -- it's good, it's just that by strengthening the reentry it will be better.
better results from that treatment.
>> yes.
>> in the future I think we need to get the advisory committee before the court takes action because it's after the fact.
and we -- we put them in place to advise us.
>> okay.
>> preferably before we formally act.
but there's a motion and second to approve.
any more discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank you all very much.
>> thank you, judge.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
