1. Marion County Re-Entry Coalition Presentation to CWF coaches
June 2014

2. Targeted result of the MCRC Overall
“All Adult Offenders in Marion County are Successfully Reintegrated into their Community.”
MCRC uses Results Based Accountability (RBA) (i.e. Collective Impact) framework and is focused on moving TALK to ACTION
Indicators of Success:
6-month and 12-month return to incarceration
6-month and 12-month re-arrest

3. Other Indicators of Success
Decreased one year return to incarceration rate in Marion County
Decreased one year re-arrest rate in Marion County
Increase in housing placement and retention
Increase in employment placement and retention
Increase access/usage of health, mental health and addiction services

4. Membership
Membership is open to any person who is engaged in the issue of Re-Entry and who commits to the Framework, Targeted Result, and Indicators of Success. Currently, MCRC includes members from:
City County Council
Nonprofit, Community-based Agencies
Indiana Department of Correction
MC Superior Court
PACE
MC Prosecutor’s Office
Bethlehem House
MC Public Defender’s Agency
Volunteers of America
MC Community Corrections
Recycle Force
Problem Solving Courts
Craine House
MC Sheriff’s Department
Homeless and Re-entry Helpers
MC Public Health Department
Division of Mental Health and Addiction
Use What You’ve Got Ministries
United Way of Central Indiana
For Profit Agencies
American Institutes for Research
Mays Chemical
City of Indianapolis
Shiel Sexton

5. City County Council’s Re-entry Study Commission
In 2013 the City County Council convened the Re-Entry Study Commission
The MCRC provided staff support and many MCRC members served on the Commission
The Commission developed 26 recommendations related to a wide spectrum of re-entry issues
Named the MCRC as the “coordinating entity” to move the recommendations to action

6. Recommendations from the Re-Entry Study Commission
Recommendations are related to:
Housing
Employment
Public Policy
Wraparound Services
Sentencing Alternatives

7. MCRC’s Re-entry approach
Through implementing the City County Council’s recommendations, and rooted in national research and best practice, the MCRC developed a Re-Entry Approach that improves the likelihood of success for the returning offender, streamlines resources, and encourages agency/provider collaboration.

8. MCRC’s Re-entry approach
Provide person-centered care
Begin with a comprehensive assessment that:
Assesses Risk and Needs
Is Strengths Based and Builds on Clients Resiliencies
Is Client Driven
Offer comprehensive services and supports to meet needs identified in the assessment:
Care coordination (wraparound approach with team-based case planning)
Community-based
Client-driven (includes choice in services and providers)
Culturally responsive (gender, faith, etc.)
Focuses on evidence-based services that address cognitive risks/needs (e.g. cognitive behavioral therapy)
Uses peer supports and mentoring

9. MCRC’s Re-entry approach
Provide integrated services and support collaboration between systems and providers
Involve families and other allies
Support continuity of care
Focus on the transition from incarceration (Connect re-entrants to services pre-release and provide ongoing support post-release)
Include ongoing monitoring and support
Outcome and research-driven (Evaluation)
Include system-wide education and training (Provide capacity-building opportunities to agencies that serve re- entrants)
Remove system and individual level barriers

10. Recent accomplishments
Modification of housing requirements by two affordable housing providers to admit people with a criminal history
Passage of the Ban the Box legislation
Development of a pilot project to address specific needs of returning offenders with traumatic brain injuries
Development of a renewal application for the Access to Recovery program to continue funding for substance abuse and mental health treatment and recovery support services

11. HEA 1006
The purpose is to have more low level offenders stay at the local level and not go to the Department of Correction.
Likely will increase probation and community corrections caseloads significantly -- but no one knows exactly what the impact will be.

12. Fines and fees – review of handout
Statute directs the fees – not under local control
Parole, Probation, and Community Corrections have different/separate fees

13. Fines and fees – continued
Collection rates are poor
No one can be locked up for not paying fees

14. How can we collaborate?
Are you currently seeing people with criminal histories who have to manage their fines/fees?
What would be the best way for us to refer people to you?
What criteria are there for people to be enrolled in the Center for Working Families?