Researched and Written By Steven Kim, Asma Men & Mary Vu
October 2014
Project Kinship

We would like to thank the numerous and supportive individuals who made this landscape report possible. The Orange County reentry landscape analysis was funded through the generous support of The California Endowment, particularly
Virginia Mosqueda.
The support we received from all contributors to this study made for an invaluable experience. We would like to give additional thanks to Conrad Fuentes, Robert
Hernandez, Joey Nuñez Estrada Jr. for their participation and tremendous insight as part of Project Kinship’s tri-county efforts. Furthermore, we could not have accomplished some of our work without the help of our patient and dedicated
Advisory Committee.
We especially thank the organizations and individuals who willingly gave their valuable time to meet with us and share their experience with reentry work in the
OC area to help us fulfill this report. Without their participation, there would be no content.
Most importantly, we are thankful to Anne Olin and team for offering their support through The Olin Group and incubator Charitable Ventures and allowing us to take on this project. We are grateful for your commitment to serving the marginalized and disenfranchised in our communities.
In Kinship...
The Project Kinship Team
For more information on this report, contact:
Steven Kim steven@projectkinship.org
714-315-6435
Project Kinship

Executive Summary ............................................................................................2
Mental Health Movement in Response to Mass Incarceration .........................3
Mass Incarceration of Youth and Young Adults .........................................................3
Prison Realignment ........................................................................................................4
Proposition 47: The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act of 2014 .........................4
Incarceration Cost ..........................................................................................................4
Mental Health – Transitional Aged Youth ..................................................................5
Orange County Incarcerated Population ....................................................................6
Mental Health Programming ........................................................................................7
Project Kinship ...............................................................................................................7
Methodology for Data Collection ......................................................................8
Results of Stakeholder Interviews and Community Surveys ............................8
Deeper Analysis of Results and Discussion .......................................................9
Reentry Knowledge ........................................................................................................9
Services ..........................................................................................................................10
Geography .....................................................................................................................11
Training..........................................................................................................................12
Recommendations ............................................................................................13
Training..........................................................................................................................13
Collaboration ................................................................................................................14
Linkages .........................................................................................................................15
Conclusion: .......................................................................................................16
Appendix A: Methodology ...............................................................................17
Appendix B: Oral Interview Consent Form and Questions ............................18
Appendix C: Demographic Survey ..................................................................20
Appendix D: Semi-structured Interview Questions ........................................24
Appendix E: Reentry Conference Survey ........................................................27
The Project Kinship Team ................................................................................29
Bibliography .....................................................................................................30
1
Project Kinship

In 2013, The California Endowment provided a grant to
Project Kinship to assess the larger scheme of reentry services provided in Orange County, particularly in regards to youth and young adults. The analysis was conducted by Steve Kim,
Asma Men, and Mary Vu and included key community and government system stakeholders. Ultimately the analysis was used to identify strengths, limitations and gaps in services that address community health, safety, and restoration.
The fascinating outcomes of our analysis provided a deeper understanding on how to better serve high-risk and disenfranchised populations who are often lost in their own respective communities. One of the major findings indicated that while partnering agencies were providing exceptional services to clients at their facilities, there is a gap in services in regards to inter-agency follow through once the resource is provided to an individual.
Stronger linkages that follow and support the client from one agency to another is necessary in narrowing systemic gaps while increasing the likelihood of successful reentry into workforce, schools, family, and communities.
We make the following three recommendations to improve the success of the formerly incarcerated population as they reenter society:
1) Train staff of agencies and systems 1 to have a clear, defined, and consistent common language, message and shared objectives to promote reentry work.
2) Encourage agencies to commit to mutual, collaborative relationships with developed and shared responsibilities and resources.
3) Provide appropriate linkage , also known as a “ warm hand off, ” and follow through from services and government agencies to help prevent members of the reentry population from slipping through gaps in the system, thus decreasing the risk of recidivism.
In response to the modest recommendations and need for additional services to bolster collective partnering efforts in serving the community, Project Kinship was initiated with the mission to collaborate with partnering agencies and serve individuals, with a holistic approach to prevention and intervention services in order to reduce recidivism in the community. Project Kinship provides hope, training and support services to formerly incarcerated and gang involved lives, so that they can successfully re-enter the community in Orange County. Project Kinship is currently a fiscally sponsored project of the 501(c)3 nonprofit incubator Charitable Ventures of
Orange County. While still in its early stages of growth, Project Kinship has already impacted countless lives.
1
We will eventually refer to government systems as “systems.”
Project Kinship
2

The detrimental rise of incarceration of youth and young adults in the juvenile justice system requires much needed attention and an emphasis on effective rehabilitation for individuals being released into the community. As the controversy of the school-to-prison pipeline attracts much deserved consideration, criminal justice policies are occurring simultaneously by which society will be impacted. As the formerly incarcerated are released and reenter the community, they are challenged with mental health issues that require supportive services from various entities to achieve successful rehabilitation.
The disturbing incarceration rate in the United States is alarming. The policies in place are not rehabilitative for those currently in prison or those post release. It is even more troublesome knowing that the incarcerated population is comprised of many youth. One of many issues identified that perpetuate the rise of youth incarceration is the school-to-prison pipeline. The school-to-prison pipeline refers to the policies and practices that exert students, especially at-risk children, out of classrooms and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems.
2 This concern is understandably detrimental to students, their families, and communities as a whole.
Even more distressing, is that America incarcerated youth at higher rates than any other country in the world.
3 According to a national study conducted by the Advancement
Project and Power U Center for Social Change, at least 68% of incarcerated males do not have a high school diploma, nationally.
4 Furthermore, the system is comprised of an overwhelming majority of people of color. Although, race is not the primary reason why people are incarcerated, several other factors attribute to the incarceration rate such as environmental exposures to gangs, broken family systems, poverty, and unfortunately, schools.
Evidence demonstrates that the school-to-prison pipeline further perpetuates the racial disparities in prisons. Nationwide, the current juvenile justice system is neither used appropriately or moderately, nor is it equitable. Roughly 75% of more than 61,000 youth were incarcerated for non-violent offenses in 2011, with a majority (65%) who were youth of color.
5 Moreover, California is among the top 12 states for youth incarceration.
6 This depicts a picture of the direction our nation is taking and that investments are being made in incarceration, but no equivalent investment is being made in rehabilitation, education, family, and so forth.
2
American Civil Liberties Union. “What Is The School-to-Prison Pipeline?” School to Prison Pipeline: Fact Sheet (2006). Web. 20 Aug 2014
3
Unbalanced Juvenile Justice. “Unbalanced Juvenile Justice.” Burns Institute for Juvenile Justice Fairness & Equity. (2013). Web. 20 Aug 2014.
4
Amurao, Carla. “ Fact Sheet: How Bad Is the School-to-Prison Pipeline?” Tavis Smiley Reports (2013). Web. 23 Aug 2014
5
Unbalanced Juvenile Justice. “Unbalanced Juvenile Justice.” Burns Institute for Juvenile Justice Fairness & Equity. (2013). Web. 20 Aug 2014.
6
Burks, Megan. Youth Incarceration Rates Still High in California. KPBS. 2013. Web. 21 Aug 2014.
3
Project Kinship

Moreover, policies are creating a social impact upon the incarcerated population and the community. Prison realignment, California Assembly Bill 109, is already affecting the reentry population. Some time referred to as “prison realignment,” this bill has shifted the responsibility for monitoring, tracking, and incarcerating lower-level offenders previously bound for state prison to county jails.” 7 Since realignment began in October 2011, the Los Angeles County jail population grew more than 23% by August 2013. Los Angeles runs the largest county jail in the United States. This translates into local law-enforcement agencies being rendered with a new challenge: overseeing a massive passage of the incarcerated population with histories of mental health issues.
8
As prison realignment impacts reentry, an additional policy can potentially contribute to the rise in the reentry population as well. Proposition 47, 9 currently on the November 2014 California ballot, could end felony sentencing for drug possession and petty theft crimes to misdemeanors. If it passes, this initiative could enable roughly
10,000 eligible incarcerated individuals for resentencing, 10 and possibly early release. In addition to numerous other details of the act, it would reallocate hundreds of millions of dollars from prisons to school programs, essentially affecting the schoolto-prison pipeline. Equally as important, 65% of the reallocation will be transferred to mental health and substance abuse treatment. As a result, service agencies must be ready and prepared for the potential shift in funding, resources, and reentrance to society of formerly incarcerated individuals.
11
Proposition 47 is not guaranteed unless it passes on the November 4th, the fiscal impact of mass incarceration will continue to be used ineffectively. From an economic standpoint, the cost of incarceration is extraordinarily high and California currently leads the world in incarceration rates with an estimated over 175,000 individuals in our state and local jails and prisons.
12 This mass incarceration costs California tax payers over $10 billion per year, 13 with the cost of incarcerating one adult approximating $46,000 14 a year. According to data from the Juvenile Justice Crime
Prevention Bill, intervention and prevention services estimate costs up to only $1300 for the one individual.
15 These costs should be allocated toward rehabilitation not incarceration.
7
8
Shafer, Scott. “In L.A. Prison Realignment, a New Focus on Mental Health.” A California Report (2012) Web. Jun 2014.
Ibid.
9
10
Proposition 47 is also formally known as Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative (2014)
11
Ballotpedia. “California Proposition 47, Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative.” (2014) Web. Aug. 2014
Californians for Safe Neighborhoods and Schools. “Yes on 47:Californians for Safe Neighborhoods & Safe Schools” (2014). Office of the
Attorney General. Web. Aug 2014.
12
Greene, Judith A., and Kevin Pranis. Gang wars: The failure of enforcement tactics and the need for effective public safety strategies. Justice
Policy Institute, 2007. Web. Jun 2014.
13
Cardenas, Tony. “A Guide of understanding Effective Community-Based Gang Intervention. Volume II.” Office of Los Angeles City
Councilmember Tony Cardenas. (2008). Web Aug 2014.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
Project Kinship
4

An additional cost to society is the issue of mental health among our youth and young adults.
Transitional age youth (TAY), who fall between 16 and 25 years of age, face abominable trauma while they are incarcerated and post release. Sadly, the US Surgeon General declared a mental health crisis among youth entering the juvenile justice system.
16 In addition, they are faced with the challenges of reuniting within unstable family structures, educational barriers, substance abuse issues, in addition to other risk factors that further impact them and their families in the community.
There is a possibility that some of the released offenders will simply get by, surviving as best they can through some combination of legitimate or illegitimate means.
17 They may continue criminal activity without getting caught— becoming the relatively rare but much admired criminal success story. Additionally, they may be sent temporarily back to the juvenile system for violating parole, in which case they will face the challenges of reentering the community again in a relatively short time. Further, up to one third of the population will be arrested for new crimes and be sent to adult prisons or jails.
18 Lastly, violent death at a young age is a distinct possibility for members of this population.
19
Many youth are experiencing emerging adulthood, 20 an individual’s life of transitioning into adulthood often identified between the ages of 18 and 30. There is strong evidence that demonstrates the brain is not yet fully developed during adolescence and the transition to adulthood.
21 Consequently, the TAY population shows deficits in areas of central functioning, 22 including decision-making compared to adults.
23 Transitional age youth with mental health problems are at increased risk for involvement in the justice system compared with their peers.
24,25 They experience multiple problems that can complicate both rehabilitation and the successful transition to adulthood.
This population holds unique challenges as they often are too old for child services and are not ready or eligible for adult services.
26 This is a critical stage in a person’s life where exploration and planning for opportunities to obtain future economic stability and establishing healthy families are prevalent. Yet, their progression to adulthood is stunted once they are incarcerated.
Acquiring livable wage employment and education advancement often require significant family assistance, support, including resources of basic needs such as emotional support, positive role
16
General, Surgeon. “Mental health: a report of the surgeon general. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services.” Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health (1999).
17
Merton, Robert K. “Social theory and social structure (rev.” (1957).
18
Mears, Daniel P., and Jeremy Travis. “Youth development and reentry.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 2.1 (2004): 3-20.
19
Bortner, Margaret A., and Linda Williams. Youth in prison: We the people of unit four. Routledge, 2012;455.
20
Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen. “Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties.” American psychologist 55.5
(2000): 469. Web. Jul 2014.
Albert, Dustin, and Laurence Steinberg. “Judgment and decision making in adolescence.” Journal of Research on Adolescence 21.1 (2011): 211-224.
22
Eshel, Neir, et al. “Neural substrates of choice selection in adults and adolescents: development of the ventrolateral prefrontal and anterior
cingulate cortices.” Neuropsychologia 45.6 (2007): 1270-1279. Web May 2014.
Somerville, Leah H., and B. J. Casey. “Developmental neurobiology of cognitive control and motivational systems.” Current opinion in
neurobiology 20.2 (2010): 236-241.
Davis, Maryann, et al. “Arrests of adolescent clients of a public mental health system during adolescence and young adulthood.” Psychiatric
Services 58.11 (2007): 1454-1460.
Grisso, Thomas. Double jeopardy: Adolescent offenders with mental disorders. University of Chicago Press, 2004.
26
Interview, 2014
5
Project Kinship

modeling and mentoring.
27 At-risk youth and young adults particularly face challenges during this life stage; most individuals age out of the juvenile justice, public education, and/or foster care systems that were initially designed to prepare them for independent living but have resulted with a particular lack of structure and support.
28 The lack of preparation and support have left emerging adulthood populations without traditional family structures and institutional gaps in services that have resulted in unemployment, poverty, homelessness and other challenges to independent living, 29 thus furthering the spiral of recidivism.
In 2013, Orange County’s average daily adult inmate population was approximately 6,953. These recent statistics graciously provided by the OC Sheriff’s Department share that 58,874 individuals were released from OC Jails from the months of January through December.
30 The top five offenses for youth admitted into detention are probation violations and warrants. For 2012, the youth incarceration rate 31 was 4% for Caucasians, 37% for Blacks, 13.8% for Latinos, 1.7% for Asians,
12.1% for Pacific Islanders, and 1.6% for Native Americans.
32 These statistics further demonstrate racial disparities that exists within the juvenile justice system while illuminating the need for increased services among adult and youth being released back into the community.
In 2011, the Council of State Governments Justice Center with the support of the Orange County
Probation Department conducted a three-year validation study comprised of approximately 4,700 adult individuals placed on community supervision for the year of 2007. Within this sample cohort, approximately 79% of individuals placed in community supervision were male and 50% were under the age of 30.
33 As a result, Orange County contributed only a fraction of California’s incarcerated population. California currently leads the world in incarceration rates with an estimated over 175,000 individuals estimated to be in our state and local jails and prisons.
34
Nearly two-thirds of youth formerly incarcerated and housed at a residential facility have some form of psychological need.
35 Individuals with childhood histories of trauma, abuse and neglect make up almost the entire criminal justice population in the U.S.
36 The homeless population, former foster youth, and individuals who have struggled with substance abuse have indicated that traumas have impacted their lives negatively and created barriers towards reentering into the workforce, community and healthy family relationships. With the loss of a parent or child to incarceration, family dynamics and stability become strained, thus furthering challenges to maintaining healthy family systems and economic stability.
The inevitability of over-crowdedness in jails and prisons and mental illness are unavoidable issues that must be addressed. As a result, community and society overall must be prepared for this
27
Arnett 2000, 2007
28
Mares, Alvin S., and Michelle Jordan. “Federal aftercare programs for transition-aged youth.” Children and Youth Services Review 34.8 (2012):
1509-1518.
Ibid.
30
Personal Communication, OC Sheriff Department, October 9, 2014
31
For every 1000 persons.
32
Disproportionate Minority Contact Fact Sheet.” The Sentencing Project Research and Advocacy for Reform , 2013. Web Jul 2014.
33
Eisenberg, Mike et al. “Validation of the Orange County California Probation Department Risk Assessment Instrument: Final Report.” Council
of State Governments Justice Center Department . Web July 2014.
Greene, Judith A., and Kevin Pranis. Gang wars: The failure of enforcement tactics and the need for effective public safety strategies . Justice Policy
Institute, 2007. Web. Jun 2014.
35
Sedlak, Andrea, and Karla S. McPherson. Survey of youth in residential placement: Youth’s needs and services . Washington, DC: Westat, 2010.
Web Aug 2014.
Teplin, Linda A., et al. “Psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile detention. “Archives of general psychiatry 59.12 (2002): 1133-1143.
Project Kinship
6

consequential policy change. As the formerly incarcerated reenter their community, they must quickly adapt and navigate through complex systems that are conducive to their rehabilitation.
To address the growth of youth and adults reentering society, there are various community programs and services to assist with the transition. For example, Homeboy Industries located in
Los Angeles, is most commonly known as a reentry organization serving the formerly incarcerated, particularly former gang members. They provide trauma-informed clinical services to their trainees. In addition to individual psychotherapy, their Mental Health Program offers substance abuse counseling; court-approved domestic violence classes, therapeutic dance; parenting classes, as well as psychiatric evaluation and support.
37
We determined the need to design Project Kinship after engaging service providers, faith-based organizations, local government institutions, and community-based organizations to better understand the network of services available to youth and their families in the Central and North
Orange County areas. Our objective is to serve high-risk, formerly gang-involved individuals impacted by incarceration and violence. These families have experienced the devastating impacts of trauma, abuse, and disruptions to early childhood development that often result in gang membership and incarceration. These men and women have high recidivism rates with one-third becoming re-incarcerated within a few years post release. Such challenges create multiple barriers and further propel cycles of intergenerational gang membership, incarceration, violence and abuse resulting in a lethal absence of hope.
37
Homeboy Industries. “What we do.” Homeboy Industries. Web. Jul 2014. http://www.homeboyindustries.org/what-we-do/mental-health/
7
Project Kinship

Our analyses allowed us to get a glimpse into the reentry work being conducted in Orange County.
There were three general methods used to collect data after selecting our convenient sample: surveys from a reentry conference, focus group interviews, and semi-structured interviews with key reentry service agency representatives (e.g., spiritual leaders, administrative staff of government and nonprofit entities, and other experts).
See Appendix (A) for further methodological details.
Several gaps and services have existed that prevented youth and young adults reentering society and receiving the appropriate services that best fits their needs upon release. Through our interviews and surveys, it was an uplifting discovery to know that agency staff and volunteers involved in the juvenile justice system and reentry field were sincerely passionate and care for the TAY population. In contrast, we also determined predominant barriers to reentry in OC by government entities and community based organizations. We explored the capacity and extent of reentry services that youth and young adults were receiving in regards to effective implementation and follow through.
First, a very surprising finding was that there was no uniform understanding and/or usage of terminologies within the reentry system. The term “reentry” was used differently among the agencies, therefore numerous types of services and resources provided varied tremendously as well. A positive response from our surveys indicated that the majority of conference attendees had included “reentering society/community” as part of their definition. Roughly 64% of our interviewees included formerly incarcerated individuals reentering society as part of their definition, while 36% also included those who have suffered from substance abuse as well.
Second, a predictable discovery was the lack of collaboration that exists within and between nonprofit, faith-based, and government agencies. An unanticipated finding that indicated lack of communication as a reason why limited collaboration exists. In addition, geography was perceived to be a reason why “warm handoffs” did not occur as often they should have. Several reasons included that the clients being served by the organizations were transient youth, making it frustratingly difficult to track and complete follow through. As a result, the types of services administered were not fluid nor were the connections. Our focus group further supported this finding, which alluded to the incremental lack of mental health services within the prison system and post release.
Third, there was a considerable desire to enhance staff’s knowledge and skills through reentry trainings. Intersecting reentry knowledge with appropriate service models is essential in delivering effective programs to and for the reentry population. Although, as expressed by interviewees and survey respondents, the need for training and building base knowledge was not emphasized in their respective agencies. More opportunities to attend and share insightful reentry information were highly enticing to staff.
Project Kinship
8

In this section, we analyze leader and staff’s knowledge, services provided, and collaboration of reentry to understand the context of reentry work and assess whether or not agencies are servicing youth and young adults according to their needs post release. We compare staffs’ perceptions of reentry, discuss agencies services and its geographic areas, identified barriers to getting better service collaboration and linkages for youth and young adults. Our findings informed how we established recommendations for agencies to implement and support quality services.
Interestingly, multiple responses by interviewees and survey respondents of reentry definition ranged from formerly incarcerated individuals to those requiring mental health and substance abuse treatment. This is indicative of the need for a common language and understanding of reentry, mental health, and the services provided in relation to both.
There are several definitions of reentry, and the Federal Bureau of Justice Assistance defines reentry as a “transition of offenders from prisons to jails back into the community.” 38 From a service perspective, according to the Congressional Research Service, the definition of reentry is two-folds:
1) correctional programs that focus on incarcerated individual’s transition into the community and 2) programs that begin the treatment linked to community programs towards continuance post-incarceration.
39
Organizational Leader’s and
Staff’s Definition of Reentry
{
36%
27%
64%
73% Reentering Society
Mental Health Need
Substance Abuse Need
Non-incarcerated Population
18%
Correction System (currently or formerly in the system)*
Source: Interviews
*The “correction system” refers to currently or formerly incarcerated individuals from jail, prison, and or on probation or parole.
38
“Reentry Policy Study Commission.” Federal Bureau of Justice Assistance . (2013). Web. Jul 2014.
39
James, Nathan. “Offender reentry: Correctional statistics, reintegration into the community, and Recidivism.” Congressional Research Service . 2011.
9
Project Kinship

It was evident that agency staff and leaders perception of reentry varied, indicative of a knowledge barrier in reentry work. In fact, an interviewee mentioned the issue directly in that his knowledge was based off of his experience, and not everyone else would understand reentry the way he does.
He specifically said, “I have been exposed to gang intervention and prevention, I just know what is. Not a lot of people know what that means...”
Furthermore, survey respondents from the reentry conference also had several different interpretations to reentry. Nearly 50% included “entering society/community” as part of their definition.
Other answers included providing services to the population without indicating whether they were incarcerated or not. This demonstrates the necessity for Orange County leaders, staff, and community to be equipped with a foundational understanding of reentry, thus receiving and providing effective services to youth and young adults transitioning out of the correction system.
Agencies interviewed provided various types of reentry services, yet lacked uniformity in their collaboration and linkages. Some agencies were faith-rooted while others were influenced by
Assembly Bill 109 policy. The top two types of services provided were classes/workshops and collaborative services – linking clients to other agencies and service providers (each at 64%).
Multiple types of classes such as family/parenting, jobs skills, leadership, and domestic violence were offered to the clients and some of their families. (See chart below) However, classes alone and informational resources to other agencies may not necessarily lead to direct linkages. For example, at least 73% of the agencies collaborate with external mental health agencies to provide services to their clients. However, it was unknown as to whether clients were followed up consistently by the agencies to ensure that the individual actually utilized the mental health services directly.
Types of Services Agencies Provide to Reentry Population (%)
Intervention/prevention Service
Faith Based Service
Intervention Service
Correction Systems Service
Collaborative Service
Classes/Workshop
Mental Health Service
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
% of Services Provided
Source: Interviews
With the majority of agencies providing classes and “collaborating” there was still the lack of follow through. Simply referring the multiple, existing resources to clients did not indicate an actual link from one service provider to another service provider nor did it prove successful. When asked if agencies could provide the completion rate of their client’s linkage, one interviewee had mentioned, “Very little because the youth end up coming to us. That’s how we know the services are not working.” The client may not be utilizing the resources provided to them, nor were collaborators following up with the clients to ensure proper linkages. Nearly all of the agencies did not have an
Project Kinship
10

evaluation system in place to identify if there was a successful linkage. Furthermore, at least 50% of our interviewees indicated there was lack of communication between and among the agencies.
The Perception of Lack of Communication that Exists Between and Within Faith-based,
Government, and Nonprofit Agencies
(%) by Individuals Affiliated with Faith-based, Government, and Nonprofit Agencies
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
90%
80%
70%
60%
60%
58%
62%
40%
69%
42%
58%
84%
53%
0%
Individual’s affilitated with
Faith-Based Agency
Faith-Based Agency
Individual’s affilitated with
Government Agency
Government Agency
Individual’s affilitated with
Nonprofit Agency
Nonprofit Agency
Respondent’s Affiliation with Specific Agencies: Faith Based, Government, Nonprofit
Source: Reentry Conference Surveys
Similarly, survey respondents from our Reentry conference had expressed “lack of communication” as a reason for the lack of collaboration between and among agencies. Respondents affiliated with a government, faith-based, and nonprofit agency provided their perception as to why there was limited collaboration between the different entities. An immense amount (more than 50%) of respondents had selected lack of communication among other reasons. Government agencies appeared to lack the most communication with nonprofit agencies (84%) as well as with each other
(69%). Our focus group revealed that participants were grateful for the services they were provided, however, the follow through and linkage was not as successful as they would have hoped. The model the organization used, from their perspective, was uncompromising and not conducive towards reentry due to the limited hours of external contact beyond the facility. One of the most prominent challenges to successful reentry is the lack of systematic aftercare services across multiple agencies and institutions, which can be critical to improving youth outcomes.
40
Geography was another stated factor impacting the lack of follow through by agencies. A concern expressed by some of the agencies was that some of the youth and young adults were transient, which proved challenging in terms of communication and service linkages. Although more than half of the agencies were countywide, the majority of them serviced the Central OC area,
40
Mears, Daniel P., and Jeremy Travis. “Youth development and reentry.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 2.1 2004: 3-20.
11
Project Kinship

particularly Anaheim and Santa Ana. The majority of youth and young adults formerly incarcerated included Hispanic/Latinos with some Pacific Islanders, and Vietnamese.
41 Seventy-eight percent of youth detained for a violation were Latino with almost 48% of youth detained residing in Santa Ana, Anaheim, and Orange. Eighty-six percent of youth detained for warrants were Latino who primarily resided in Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Tustin.
42 As a result, the service delivery had been primarily served within those regions (see chart below).
Re-entry Services Provided in Cities within North and Central OC (%)
Re-entry Services Provided in Regional
Parts of Orange County (&)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
56%
67%
56%
10%
11%
0%
North OC Central OC South OC Countywide
Geographic Regions of Orange County
Source: Interviews
Tustin 11%
Westminster 11%
Santa Ana
Garden Grove 11%
La Palma 11%
Anaheim
44%
67%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Central OC North OC
% of Services Provided
In addition to the services provided, a positive outcome was the desire, by agencies, to receive more training in the field of reentry. Knowledge and training is fundamental in staff development as well as the need for using a service model within the agencies.
Only three of the eleven agencies had a model they had directly utilized for their services: prevention/ intervention (2) and the 12-step model (1). Interestingly, a couple of agencies had considered attending conferences as a type of training. Others mentioned the lack of opportunity to attend trainings as a result of unawareness, cost, and or staff capacity. While 45% of staff had barely any or no training at all, roughly 36% percent had in-house training for their direct services; additionally, none directly indicated an integration of cultural competency in their trainings. The mixed responses to the definition of reentry, the non-existent models off which the agencies based their services, and the gaps in service linkages demonstrate the need and benefit for training. “I’ve attended a lot of those trainings that have educated me, trained me, and equipped me,” as expressed by one of the community leaders who benefited from educational staff training and implementation.
41
Peralta, G., Wong, A., & Benson, T. “Disproportionate Minority Contact-Technical Assistance Project: Summary Report and Recommendations
Orange County, CA.” W. Heywood Burns Institute , 2013. Web Jul 2014.
“Disproportionate Minority Contact Fact Sheet.” The Sentencing Project Research and Advocacy for Reform , 2013. Web Jul 2014.
Project Kinship
12

Many of the findings are encouraging, in that the service providers sincerely care about the reentry population and desire to help as much as their capacity and resources permits them to do so. Moreover, the results are motivating in that they are solvable. There is still much that can be improved, especially in regards to strengthening the effort of collaboration, successful linkages, and improving the reentry knowledge of staff and the community. Hence, the fruition of Project
Kinship developed.
Project Kinship fosters community-based treatment and intervention services grounded in trauma-informed services. Services consist of outreach and engagement, training, educational and support groups, including counseling, case management and the coordination of linkages to appropriate community resources. Project Kinship embraces a “meet you where you are at” approach that encourages individuals and families to link and utilize the services that they require.
We are strong believers in collaboration, and work with many network partners to strengthen the continuum of effective prevention and intervention service delivery in Orange County. We aim to ensure that appropriate services are rendered and follow through of existing reentry programs are helpful with their transition.
To bolster existing regional efforts to support youth in Orange County, we recommend best practices in reentry for youth and young adults. These best practices encompass a holistic framework, which includes mental health, to contribute to the success of the youth, young adult, families and the community.
Training for agencies and systems to have consistency of common language, messaging and objectives.
Multiple agencies who participated in the landscape analyses had identified their services as working with disenfranchised and marginalized populations. Although there were multiple services offered such as workforce preparation, education, and various prevention programming, sustained intervention services among these populations lack capacity in sustaining continuum of care .
43 Training is needed to build capacity for staff with purposes of understanding root causes of gang membership, challenges faced by high-risk and the formerly incarcerated. In addition, there is a need for technical assistance in creating therapeutic environments to address barriers associated with mental health and the impact of trauma. The essential establishment of a common language and knowledge base among a network of providers will create successful linkages among and between systems and service providers, further maximizing multiple resources for youth, young adult and their families in reentry.
Additionally, utilizing services under a trauma-informed approach 44 factors in the necessary support for individuals who have encountered traumas on the streets, homes, in their communities, and jails. Such practices and theoretical framework will influence the delivery of services among agencies, thus preparing clients for the various stages of rehabilitation necessary for successful community reentry. Furthermore, there is a need for mental health staff that are trained with an understanding the impact of trauma and the need for service delivery.
43
According to the National Association of Social Workers. “Standards for Social Work Practice in Health Care Settings” (2005), continuum of
care “includes the specialized health, social work services, rehabilitative, and home-based services that a seriously or chronically ill or injured
person might need. This continuum addresses both the medical care and the other services that promote the patients’ well-being.”
44
A According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration trauma-informed approach refers to how “a program, agency,
organization, or community thinks about and responds to those who have experienced or may be at risk for experiencing trauma.”
13
Project Kinship

Moreover, restorative justice may possibly provide a greater, effective approach to conceptualizing how best to plan justice-related services and efforts. This view of justice, which emphasizes the notion that responses to crimes should focus on repairing the harm done to victims, communities, and offenders has garnered increasing interest among practitioners and policy makers. Research suggests that restorative justice can be effective in helping youth and young adults understand the consequences of their actions and reduce their high-risk behaviors.
45
Reorient the systems and community agencies to focus on reintegration of youth into society through collaboration.
46
Crucial collaboration must exist between multiple agencies to potentially improve the overall effectiveness of services. As our findings indicate, communication is key to collaboration. Communities make up a central resource for assisting youth in order to successfully reenter society.
Without collaboration, success may be unattainable.
The reason is two-fold:
1) Communities are most directly affected by the success or failure of released youth. The importance in providing reliable resources for youth to leverage is influential to their success.
2) Communities are best situated to collaborate with law enforcement, justice, educational, mental health, and social service systems to coordinate their efforts of public safety and improving youth outcomes.
Intra- and inter-agency collaboration is needed to address the gaps and redundancies in-services that emerge from inadequate cooperation among these different systems. A collaborative relationship includes a commitment to mutual goals, a jointly developed structure and shared resources, responsibility, and accountability.
47
Through adequate collaborative efforts between agencies and the community, outcomes for reentry would include multiple components:
• Faster access to services
• Reduced anxiety for workers due to not having enough resources
• Increased quality of monitoring and relapse support
• Ensure agency demands on a family are not competing or overwhelming
• Consistency of messaging from all involved and common language
• Better decision making
• Improved ability to provide needed and timely resources
• More effective use of limited resources
• Development of new policy and practice
• Reduction in duplication of service
45
Basemore, G., & Umbreit, M. “Rethinking the sanctioning function in juvenile court: Retributive or restorative responses to youth crime.” Crime
and Delinquency 41: (1995). 295-316.
47
Mears, Daniel P., and Jeremy Travis. “Youth development and reentry.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 2.1 (2004): 3-20.
NSW Government: Human Services Community Services “Interagency collaboration: Making it work.” NSW Government: Human Services
Community Services (2010). Web. Jul 2014.
48
According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the Health Resources and Services
Administration (HRSA) Glossary, warm hand-off is “an approach in which the primary care provider does a face-to-face introduction of a
patient to the behavioral health specialist to which he or she is being referred.”
Project Kinship
14

Linking or having a “warm-handoff” 48 (i.e. continuity of care) from system to agency, system to system or agency to agency will decrease the risk of recidivism.
One of the most consistent findings in the literature is the importance of communication particularly in the context of relationship building.
49 Linkages extend beyond collaboration, for it creates relational bonds and trust over time among agencies and systems whose visions are aligned to serve specific populations. A network of providers align with a common language can maximize services in addressing multiple risk factors and needs among reentry youth, young adult and their families. To achieve this, it’s important for systems to establish a continuity of care .
50 That is, it’s utterly crucial to appropriately link clients as they reenter society through the system and agencies.
It is critical to include community members as part of this network of care. Not all agencies are linked to the justice system, therefore coordination of care is required for youth released from confinement with a supportive network in place. This network preferably would engage youth and young adult long before release. In addition, families are a critical component of this community response and should be given additional resources as they are called on to support the returning young person. Success depends on building a supportive community and family network through all entities involved with the youth and their family.
Just as the systems must embrace the mission of successful reentry for the youth, community agencies must be created to promote their reintegration. Multiple stakeholder groups must be involved, including schools, health, mental health providers, housing and employment services, law enforcement and other justice agencies, faith-based organizations, and the business community.
This effort should produce clear definitions of functions, resources, and responsibilities to promote successful reintegration of youth and young adult following their release. A strong community commitment to success should be paralleled by the system and participating community agencies.
51
49
Darlington, Yvonne & Judith A. Feeney. “Interagency collaboration: Making it work. Lessons from the literature.” 2008
50
According to NASW’s Standards for Social Work Practice in Health Care Settings (2005), continuity of care, “ensures the coordination of care
within an organization or across different agencies or settings to reduce duplicate services, to address gaps in existing services, and to ensure
consistent and continuous services for the client as they transition in care or are discharged.”
51
Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series, No. 25. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Rockville (MD): Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration (US); 1997.
15
Project Kinship

As we have discussed and shared the multiple layers of reentry, both nationally and statewide,
Orange County clearly experiences the ripple effect of the criminal and juvenile justice policies.
Although, we did not primarily focus our efforts in a policy-oriented context, we are fully aware that policies must be augmented to support a suffering reentry population. We are hopeful that Project Kinship can help facilitate positive collaboration between systems and community agencies to effectively and efficiently bridge relationships in overcoming barriers to successful reentry among the formerly incarcerated and gang youth. Hence the forged relationships we build are essential to improved and equitable treatment of the reentry population.
We value the need to practice our recommendations for those affected by mass incarceration, schools-to-prison pipeline, criminal justice policies, and mental health trauma. In moving forward we aspire to create a holistic, trauma informed approach to overcome barriers to reentry and make it successful, while taking in to account the policies that are impacting those that we care about. We are fortunate to serve among great leaders in Orange County in efforts to create positive change and restore lives among those in our communities who are plagued with limited resources and guidance.
We cease the transmission of pain and transform it towards building safer communities while offering a beacon of hope to gangs and the formerly incarcerated populations.
Project Kinship
16

To identify the elements of reentry services that exists in Orange County, we gathered field data using three methods described below and literature review. This section describes first how we selected interviewees and our data collection approach in order to understand the current landscape of reentry in OC.
We reviewed literature on formerly incarcerated youth and young adults reentering society as well as reports and articles written by policy groups, national experts, commissions, and researchers in the field of reentry. We also researched the context of mental health service integration and the elements required for successful linkages of services to youth and young adults.
There were two different kinds of surveys collected to measure perceptions of reentry services.
The first was a demographic survey distributed to interviewees with the objective to supplement their verbal responses (Appendix C). For example, one question asked, “What services do you provide that referral agencies do not?” The objective was to supplement the interviews to determine who is receiving what services and with whom are the agencies collaborating with.
52 The second set of surveys (Appendix E) was different from the previous in that is was much simpler and was specifically for the reentry conference. The survey captured an audience, familiar with reentry work to provide their own definition of reentry, whether they believe inter and intra-agency collaboration is occurring, and why or why not collaboration is occurring. A total of 60 surveys were collected from conference participants.
In addition to the survey collection, we conducted eleven in-person interviews with lead staff, administrators, and directors of key agencies in both the public and nonprofit sectors. The semi-structured interviews contained an array of questions and follow-up probes (Appendix D) that helped us assess attitudes towards reentry, perceived reentry challenges, and service referrals and implementation.
Finally, we conducted a focus group from one of the agencies to obtain each participant’s insight about services provided. The focus group consisted of 23 participants for roughly 45 minutes. The format of the focus group was merely conversational with basic questions such as, “What parts about this service program do you like and don’t like?”
52
None of the demographic surveys were returned.
17
Project Kinship

Thank you for time. Your participation in this project of the landscape analysis of re-entry programming is voluntary. The purpose of our project is to determine how service providers and community members can better support the needs to meet standards of care in re-entry services.
As a ______________________ (counselor, advisor, administrator, community member) your experiences and thoughts on re-entry services are essential to us.
If you agree to participate we will ask you to participate in an interview approximately one hour long. We will ask for your opinion on the importance of re-entry services and possible obstacles to implementing them.
In order to protect your privacy, all of your comments will remain confidential. Your name will be de-identified and comments will be reported in collective form to prevent linkages to any individual. Notes and interviews will be stored in password-protected documents. We would like to ask for your permission to record your interview with a digital recorder. However, you may opt out of being recorded. If you do agree to be recorded, you may request that we stop the recording at any time during the interview. You may also review, edit, and erase any part of your recording. All information gathered will be in a password-protected file accessible only to the researchers.
Please feel free to stop at any time if you have questions or comments. Do you agree to give consent participate? To be recorded?
If you have any questions after the study, you can contact Steven Kim at the email of skim.usc@att.net or Mary Vu at maryvulcsw@gmail.com or Asma Men at asmamen@g.ucla.edu
What are my rights if I take part in this study?
• You can choose whether or not you want to be in this study, and you may withdraw your consent and discontinue participation at any time.
• Whatever decision you make, there will be no penalty to you, and no loss of benefits to which you were otherwise entitled.
• You may refuse to answer any questions that you do not want to answer and still remain in the study.
Who can I contact if I have questions about this study?
• Landscape Analysis Team: If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the research, you can talk to the one of the researchers.
Please contact:
Steven Kim, skim.usc@att,net
Mary Vu, mvulcsw@gmail.com
Asma Men, asmamen@g.ucla.edu
Project Kinship
18

SIGNATURE OF STUDY PARTICIPANT
Name of Participant
Signature of Participant Date
SIGNATURE OF PERSON OBTAINING CONSENT
Name of Person Obtaining Consent Contact #
Signature of Person Obtaining Consent
Thank you for your Participation
Date
19
Project Kinship

Re-­‐entry  Service  Survey
Participant  Name
Title:
Email:
Thank  you  for  taking  the  time  to  complete  this  survey.  Our  goal  is  to  collect  demographic  information  regarding  re-­‐entry  and   gang  prevention/intervention  services.  Your  participation  is  very  much  appreciated.  Your  feedback  will  be  de-­‐identified  for
anonymity  and  kept  confidential.
1.    Agency/Organization
2.    Where  is  the  location(s)  of
your  organization?
3.    Reentry  Program  Hours:
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday   to     to     to
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday     to     to     to     to
4.    What  are  your  agency’s  eligibility  requirements  for  the  re-­‐entry  program  (Check  all  that  apply):
Juvenile  record
Foster  youth
Serves  Homeless
Adult  criminal  record
Sobriety  required
High  school  incompletion
5.    Population  Served:
a)  Age  group  or  range:  (Check  all  that  apply)
Less  than  17  years  old      18-­‐24  years  old
Minimum  Income  requirement:
Gender  Eligibility:
25-­‐34  years  old
M     F
LGBTQ
35-­‐44  years  old
20
Project  Kinship   23
Project Kinship

45-­‐54  years  old
Please  fill  in  the  information:
Minimum  Age  served
55-­‐  64  years  old
65+  years  old
Maximum  Age  served   b)  Race/Ethnicity:  (Check  all  that  apply)
White      Black      Pacific  Islander    Native  American  Indian
Hispanic      Mexican    Puerto  Rican    Cuban    El  Salvadorian      Chicano
Asian:              Cambodian    Vietnamese    Chinese         Korean     Pakistani
Prefer  not  to  say
c)  Language(s)  of  service:
English
Other  Language:
Spanish
Other:
Korean
Vietnamese
d)  Average  Household  income  level  of  clients:
<  $15,000          $15,001  –  25,000    $25,001  –  35,000
Khmer      Mandarin
$35,001  –  45,000
$45,001  –  55,000      $55,001  –  65,000        +  $65,001
6.    What  type  of  re-­‐entry  services  do  you  provide:  (check  all  that  apply)
Mental  Health  Counseling    Workforce  Development    Parenting  classes
Substance  Abuse
Other  Services:
Anger  Management
Drug  Testing    Literacy/GED    Family  Preservation
Healthcare/HIV  Education
Housing  Assistance
21

b.    What  services  do  you  provide  that  the  referral  agencies  do  not:
Mental  Health  Counseling    Workforce  Development    Parenting  classes
Substance  Abuse    Anger  Management    Healthcare/HIV  Education    Drug  Testing
Literacy/GED   Family  Preservation   Housing  Assistance
Other:
Government  agency:  (Please  check  all  that  apply)
OC  Probation      OC  Parole      OC  Department  of  Education
Project Kinship
22
Project  Kinship   25

b.    What  services  do  you  provide  that  the  referral  agencies  do  not:
Mental  Health  Counseling    Workforce  Development    Parenting  classes
Substance  Abuse    Anger  Management    Healthcare/HIV  Education    Drug  Testing
Literacy/GED   Family  Preservation   Housing  Assistance
Other:
We  Sincerely  Thank  You  for  Your  Participation
23
Project  Kinship   26
Project Kinship

Thank you for time. The purpose of our landscape analysis is to identify and assess re-entry services in Orange County. Your participation is greatly appreciated.
In order to protect your privacy, all of your comments will remain confidential. Notes and interviews will be stored in password-protected documents. We would like to ask for your permission to record your interview with a digital recorder. However, you may opt out of being recorded. If you do agree to be recorded, you may request that we stop the recording at any time during the interview. You may also review, edit, and erase any part of your recording. All information gathered will be in a password-protected file accessible only to the researchers.
Please feel free to stop at anytime if you have questions or comments. Do you agree to give consent to be recorded?
The interview will include open and close answered questions. The interview will be limited to an hour long. Can I verify that you are available for an hour?
The following set of questions will help us understand strengths and barriers to re-entry services in Orange County.
Definition
1) How do you define re-entry? I.e. what is your definition of re-entry?
Probes
• What qualifies a person to be identified as a candidate for re-entry services?
• Do you consider re-entry to include those who have not been incarcerated? If so, please elaborate.
Services
2) What is the breadth and depth of re-entry services you provide?
Probe:
• How are your services selected as a need for the re-entry population?
• What geographic areas do you provide re-entry services to? i.e. which neighborhoods?
• Which geographic area does your re-entry clientele come from?
• Can you approximate the percentage of clients who completed your re-entry program?
• What agencies do you refer your clientele to? What agencies do you receive referrals from?
(in survey also)
• What are some of the barriers your clients face to completing the program?
• How do you address mental health issues among your re-entry clients?
Project Kinship
24

• What is the average education level of your staff? I.e., are there more high school, college, or master’s level staff?
3) Does your program have a model for the re-entry services provided? If so, what is the
model that you use for your program?
Probe:
• I.e. what factors or variables does the model take into account? What is included in this model that you use to provide the services?
• Do not mention this in the questioning, but interviewee should explore this sort of information: resiliency, youth empowerment, skills building, confidence building
4) Are there any programs or organizations that you would consider a best practice or model?
Probe:
• What is it about the program that makes it a best practice or model?
5) What are the gaps and limitations that you see in re-entry services?
Probe:
• Why are these gaps present?
• What has been done to address these gaps?
• Do you have any suggestions or ideas to address these gaps? If so, what are they? Examples?
Stakeholders
5) Who do you feel are the key stakeholders in this work?
Probe:
• Are these leaders/individuals at the table?
• Who do you think should be present?
• How often do they meet?
• Are there challenges?
• What is the means of communication between service providers?
6) Do you think the re-entry sector works collaboratively?
Probe:
• If so, how?
• If not, why not?
• Do you think there are opportunities to work more collaboratively, to leverage strengths of the various organizations?
Training
7) What kind of trainings do you offer for your re-entry programming?
Probe:
• Does the agency include culturally competent training? If so, how does the agency include it?
• Who attends the trainings? Where are they held?
25
Project Kinship

Funding
8) What are the sources of your re-entry funding?
Probe:
• Are there limitations/challenges to the funding in regards to adequately address re-entry work? What are they?
Evaluation
9) How do you evaluate the success of your agencies re-entry program?
Probe:
• How do you measure the effectiveness of re-entry services?
• If you don’t measure it, why not?
Project Kinship
26

1) What is your definition of reentry?
2) What type of agency are you affiliated with?
a. Faith- based organization b. Government system such as Probation, Parole, Sheriff, HCA, etc.
c. Nonprofit organization d. Foundation e. Other:
3) If applicable, why do you think there is limited collaboration with other government agencies and your agency? Circle all that apply a. Lack of communication b. Lack of agencies c. Lack of services d. Lack capacity e. Beyond scope of work f. Mistrust g. Not applicable
4) If applicable, why do you think there is limited collaboration with families and your agency? Circle all that apply a. Lack of communication b. Lack of agencies c. Lack of services d. Lack capacity e. Beyond scope of work f. Mistrust g. Not applicable
27
Project Kinship

5) If applicable, why do you think there is limited collaboration with nonprofit agencies and your agency? Circle all that apply a. Lack of communication b. Lack of agencies c. Lack of services d. Lack capacity e. Beyond scope of work f. Mistrust g. Not applicable
6) If applicable, why do you think there is limited collaboration with faith-based organizations and your organization? Circle all that apply a. Lack of communication b. Lack of agencies c. Lack of services d. Lack capacity e. Beyond scope of work f. Mistrust g. Not applicable
Project Kinship
28

Steven co-founded Project Kinship in 2014 to serve individuals impacted by gangs and incarceration, with the aim to successfully re-integrate them back into our communities. His dedication to breaking cycles of incarceration, gang membership and community violence stems from over 15 years of working with traumatized and abandoned youth throughout Orange
County. Steven is highly regarded for his human rights work in the field of forensic social work where he led multi-disciplinary teams to identify early childhood traumas on high-profile-death penalty cases. He is sought out for his expertise on understanding root causes of violence and has facilitated trainings on the state and federal levels of the criminal justice system. He has held teaching appointments with the University of Southern California lecturing on best practices that focus on adolescent gang prevention and intervention strategies. Steven holds a Master degree in Social
Work from USC.
Asma’s passion is serving low-income populations and communities of color, to promote fairness and equity, particularly related to at-risk youth. Having been born in Long Beach and raised in Orange County, Asma understands the disparities affecting underserved communities. Her organizing work in the civic engagement arena has motivated her to empower underrepresented groups to impact their own lives through social justice and make policy changes towards a better, inclusive and diverse community. Asma’s interest in juvenile justice began when she had served as a case manager for at-risk youth and former gang members in Santa Ana, CA. Additionally, Asma worked in the City of Los
Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s office in the Neighborhood Community Services and Gang
Reduction and Youth Development units as a Michael Dukakis Fellow. Asma received her Bachelor of Arts in Asian American Studies from UC Irvine and Masters in Public Policy from UCLA.
Born to first-generation Vietnamese refugee parents, Mary Vu is proud to count Orange County Native as one of her numerous identities. Having earned a BA in Criminology, Law & Society from UCI, Mary is the first woman in her family to graduate from university. In addition, she holds a MSW from USC and is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker dedicated to program development at the national, regional, and local levels. She is no stranger to serving Orange County’s most underserved communities helping her clients tackle such issues as domestic violence, trauma, juvenile justice and reform, and addiction. As co-founder of Project Kinship and an advocate for reform, Mary believes in systemically improving the chances of those individuals reentering communities, the workforce, and schools by fostering individual empowerment, hope and healing.
29
Project Kinship

Albert, Dustin, and Laurence Steinberg. “Judgment and decision making in adolescence.” Journal of
Research on Adolescence 21.1 (2011): 211-224.
American Civil Liberties Union. “What Is The School-to-Prison Pipeline?” School to Prison Pipeline:
Fact Sheet (2006). Web. 20 Aug 2014
Amurao, Carla. “ Fact Sheet: How Bad Is the School-to-Prison Pipeline?” Tavis Smiley Reports
(2013). Web. 23 Aug 2014
Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen. “Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties.” American psychologist 55.5 (2000): 469. Web. Jul 2014
Ballotpedia. “California Proposition 47, Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative.” (2014) Web.
Aug. 2014
Burks, Megan. Youth Incarceration Rates Still High in California . KPBS. 2013. Web. 21 Aug 2014.
Bortner, Margaret A., and Linda Williams. Youth in prison: We the people of unit four . Routledge, 2012;455.
Cardenas, Tony. “A Guide of understanding Effective Community-Based Gang Intervention. Volume II.” Office of Los Angeles City Councilmember Tony Cardenas . (2008). Web Aug 2014.
Darlington,Yvonne & Judith A. Feeney. “Interagency collaboration: Making it work. Lessons from the literature.” 2008
Davis, Maryann, et al. “Arrests of adolescent clients of a public mental health system during adolescence and young adulthood.” Psychiatric Services 58.11 (2007): 1454-1460.
Eisenberg, Mike et al. “Validation of the Orange County California Probation Department Risk Assessment Instrument: Final Report.” Council of State Governments Justice Center Department . Web July 2014
Eshel, Neir, et al. “Neural substrates of choice selection in adults and adolescents: development of the ventrolateral prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices.” Neuropsychologia 45.6 (2007): 1270-
1279. Web May 2014
General, Surgeon. “Mental health: a report of the surgeon general. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services.” Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health (1999).
Greene, Judith A., and Kevin Pranis. Gang wars: The failure of enforcement tactics and the need for effective public safety strategies . Justice Policy Institute, 2007. Web. Jun 2014.
Grisso, Thomas. Double jeopardy: Adolescent offenders with mental disorders . University of Chicago
Press, 2004.
Homeboy Industries. “What we do.” Homeboy Industries. Web. Jul 2014. http://www.homeboyindustries.org/what-we-do/mental-health/
James, Nathan. “Offender reentry: Correctional statistics, reintegration into the community, and
Recidivism.” Congressional Research Service . 2011.
Project Kinship
30

Mares, Alvin S., and Michelle Jordan. “Federal aftercare programs for transition-aged youth.” Children and Youth Services Review 34.8 (2012): 1509-1518.
Mears, Daniel P., and Jeremy Travis. “Youth development and reentry.” Youth Violence and Juvenile
Justice 2.1 2004: 3-20.
Merton, Robert K. “Social theory and social structure (rev.” (1957).
National Association of Social Workers. “NASW standards for social work practice in health care settings.” National Association of Social Workers . (2005). Web. Aug 2014
Peralta, G., Wong, A., & Benson, T. “Disproportionate Minority Contact-Technical Assistance
Project: Summary Report and Recommendations Orange County, CA.” W. Heywood Burns Institute , 2013. Web Jul 2014.
Unbalanced Juvenile Justice. “Unbalanced Juvenile Justice.” Burns Institute for Juvenile Justice Fairness & Equity . (2013). Web. 20 Aug 2014.
Sedlak, Andrea, and Karla S. McPherson. Survey of youth in residential placement: Youth’s needs and services . Washington, DC: Westat, 2010. Web Aug 2014.
Shafer, Scott. “In L.A. Prison Realignment, a New Focus on Mental Health.” A California Report
(2012) Web. Jun 2014.
Somerville, Leah H., and B. J. Casey. “Developmental neurobiology of cognitive control and motivational systems.” Current opinion in neurobiology 20.2 (2010): 236-241.
Spiropoulos, George V., and Christine Gardiner. “Blueprint for the Reentry of Young Offenders in
Orange County, California.” Center for Public Policy, California State University of Fullerton . 2010
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. “Trauma-Informed Approach And
Trauma-Specific Interventions.” Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration .
(2014). Web. Aug 2014.
SAMHSA-HRSA Center for Integrated Health Solutions. “Glossary.” SAMHSA-HRSA Center for
Integrated Health Solutions. Web. 2014.
Teplin, Linda A., et al. “Psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile detention. “Archives of general psychiatry 59.12 (2002): 1133-1143.
Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series, No. 25. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.
Rockville (MD): Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (US); 1997.
“Disproportionate Minority Contact Fact Sheet.” The Sentencing Project Research and Advocacy for
Reform , 2013. Web Jul 2014.
“Reentry Policy Study Commission.” Federal Bureau of Justice Assistance . (2013). Web. Jul 2014.
“Yes on 47:Californians for Safe Neighborhoods & Safe Schools” (2014). Office of the Attorney
General . Web. Aug 2014.
31
Project Kinship