Commissioned Office of National Drug Control Policy
Report White House Report, Pay for Success And The Opioid Crisis
Start Date 2016-12-29
Notes Deploying the Pay for Success Model to Help Address the Opioid Epidemic in the United States: An Opportunity for State and Local Action A Resource Guide Published December 29, 2016 Acknowledgments As part of the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s (ONDCP’s) broader work on Pay for Success and the opioid crisis, ONDCP engaged the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) North America and Urban Institute. J-PAL North America, led by Mireille Jacobson and Tiffany Cho, and the Urban Institute contributed to this effort for an extended period of time to conduct and review respectively a literature review of select interventions that stand to improve opioid outcomes and opioid-related outcomes (e.g., rate of HIV transmission). This literature review informed a presentation by Dr. Jacobson at a Convening on Pay for Success and the Opioid Crisis at the White House, hosted by ONDCP on November 3, 2016. J-PAL and the Urban Institute also reviewed and provided feedback on a draft of this resource guide. ONDCP is grateful to both organizations for their contributions. Note that the policy statements expressed in this resource guide do not necessarily reflect the views of the researchers at J-PAL North America or the Urban Institute, and none of the statements in this resource guide should be taken as an endorsement by ONDCP of any particular product, service, or enterprise. Page 2 of 37 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section I: Introduction 4 Section II: Overview of the Opioid Epidemic 5 Section III: Overview of the Pay for Success Model as a Tool to Improve Outcomes 7 Section IV: Case Studies: Tapping the Pay for Success Model for Substance Use Disorders in Connecticut and Louisville, Kentucky 17 Section V: Conclusion and Proposed Next Steps 20 Appendix I: Bibliography of Reviews and Studies on the Effectiveness of Select Interventions to Address Opioid Outcomes and Opioid-Related Outcomes 22 Page 3 of 37 SECTION I: INTRODUCTION The United States’ opioid epidemic is a public health crisis, exacting a high toll across the country and prompting leaders from all sectors to ask what they can do to help individuals with opioid use disorders get the treatment they need and help prevent others from initiating heroin use or misuse of opioid medications. State and local government leaders in particular face significant budget constraints and scrutiny over the results of their public spending. This can leave little flexibility to expand services that are likely to prove effective in helping to address the opioid epidemic in their communities – or to try innovative approaches that lack the same evidence base as that of those more proven interventions but still hold promise. The Pay for Success (PFS) model offers state and local policymakers in partnership with their communities a novel approach to finance and implement such programs while overcoming these and other challenges. This resource guide is meant to introduce PFS to those concerned with the opioid epidemic and illustrate ways that state and local governments, in partnership with other stakeholders, may tap PFS as another tool in their toolbox. This resource guide begins with an overview of the epidemiology of opioid misuse, use disorder, and overdose in the United States. It proceeds to explain the PFS model, including how it works, where it has been deployed to date, and the broad, bipartisan support for these strategies. The resource guide turns next to explore the first PFS project in the country that is working to improve (and pay on the basis of) outcomes for individuals with substance use disorders, including opioid use disorders, as well as a budding PFS project in development with a similar focus but for a different population. The resource guide concludes with a sampling of next steps for communities to consider. Page 4 of 37 SECTION II: OVERVIEW OF THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC Opioids refers to a class of drugs that target the opioid receptors in the brain and are used to reduce pain. They include prescription opioids such as hydrocodone and oxycodone as well as illicit drugs like heroin. The ongoing opioid epidemic has claimed American lives and torn families apart across the country. More than 33,000 people died in 2015 – an average of 91 per day – from drug overdoses involving opioids.1 Between 2000 and 2015, the rate of drug overdose deaths rose 163 percent, and the rate of drug overdose deaths involving opioids (including prescription opioids and heroin) rose by 247 percent and accounted for 63 percent (33,091) of all drug overdose deaths.2 These deaths are part of a more than 16 year trajectory of increasing opioid overdose deaths that began with non-medical use of prescription opioids and recently has been punctuated by a surge in deaths involving heroin, as well as illicitly manufactured fentanyl and its analogs.3 Of the 52,404 drug overdose deaths in 2015, heroin was involved in 12,990 drug overdose deaths, while opioid analgesics were involved in 24,508 drug overdose deaths. Within the opioid analgesic category, there were 9,580 drug overdose deaths involving synthetic narcotics other than methadone, which includes fentanyl. This number has more than tripled from three years earlier (2,628 in 2012).4 Data from the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) showed prescription drugs used non-medically among persons age 12 and older were the second most used illicit substance in the United States in 2015, with 2.4 percent of Americans reporting past month use.5 Survey data suggest that many people who use prescription opioids non-medically initially obtain them from friends or family.6 However, those obtaining prescription drugs through a health care provider for misuse are just as vulnerable to overdose as those obtaining prescription opioids through illegal sources.7 As people who misuse these medications become tolerant to the opioid’s effects, they need more of it over time to achieve the same effect. Research shows that people who use these drugs chronically are more likely than those who used them less frequently to purchase these drugs from dealers.8 People who use these drugs chronically and who have a need for stronger medicines and larger doses often spend large sums of money to obtain a sufficient supply of opioids to avoid and prevent painful withdrawal symptoms.9 Because of their growing dependence on prescription opioids, such individuals may be tempted for economic reasons to try these drugs via non-oral routes such as through snorting or injecting or to try cheaper illicitly produced opioids like heroin.10 The impact of opioid use is severe. Along with fatalities, other serious medical consequences of non- medical use of prescription drugs are significant. Non-fatal overdoses can require hospital treatment. Newborns showing signs of withdrawal from drugs taken by their mothers during pregnancy, a condition called neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) or neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS), can result in costly hospitalization and child welfare involvement. Substance use disorders can require specialty substance use disorder treatment. People using prescription opioids non- medically and who transition to injection drug use increase their risk of contracting a chronic major blood-borne infectious disease such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or viral hepatitis, from contaminated injection supplies and equipment. A tragic example comes from Indiana, where, as of November 1, 2015, the Indiana State Department of Health documented 181 HIV positive patients related to an outbreak in a rural county.11 Most of these cases were linked to people who injected Page 5 of 37 drugs and were using the extended-release formulation of the prescription opioid oxymorphone, which when taken orally is approximately three times as potent as morphine.12 13 Much work remains to be done on this critical issue. While preventing substance use in the first place is ideal, there are millions of people today who need treatment for a substance use disorder so they can enter recovery and live healthy and productive lives. Specific to opioid use disorders, a person who has become opioid dependent as a result of opioid misuse is unlikely to stop using opioids without medical help. This is because cessation of opioid use produces extremely painful and disruptive acute withdrawal symptoms that are extinguished by taking a dose of opioid. Even after acute withdrawal, opioids can cause longstanding craving and uncomfortable psychological symptoms akin to clinical depression and anxiety. Unfortunately, in 2015, only 11 percent of people who needed treatment for a substance use disorder obtained it.14 The problem is even worse in rural areas – facilities and providers are few and far between,15 and people often have to drive hours and wait weeks or months to see a provider.16 It is clear, then: the opioid epidemic in the United States is serious, growing, and necessitates a response that includes both proven and novel approaches, policies and programs. Since 2010, ONDCP and partners across the Federal government have supported expansion of a number of critical policy interventions. In brief, strategies focus on:  Preventing access to opioids for populations at risk to initiate non-medical use and improving prescribing of opioids as part of comprehensive pain management,  Expanding access to tools to help prevent overdose for providers, first responders and family members, and  Caring for people with a developing or existing opioid use disorder by expanding access to effective forms of treatment, including medication-assisted treatment (MAT) that combines one of three types of FDA-approved medicines with a variety of services including counseling; and preventing medical issues like blood-borne infections that result from injection; and reducing the impact of opioids on children of women with opioid use disorders. Page 6 of 37 SECTION III: OVERVIEW OF THE PAY FOR SUCCESS MODEL AS A TOOL TO IMPROVE OUTCOMES As part of its commitment to evidence-based policy and practice, the Obama Administration has embraced the exploration of a relatively new model that is increasingly gaining traction across the country: Pay for Success (PFS) contracts with PFS financing. While this model in its early years has been deployed to date primarily in service of reducing recidivism in the criminal justice system, tackling homelessness, and expanding access to early education, it also has the potential to help address the opioid epidemic. Overview of PFS Some interventions are already proven by rigorous evaluation to be effective; others hint at tremendous promise to effect change, but lack the supporting evidence base. Unfortunately, such proven and promising solutions are too often left on the shelf, under-deployed or under- investigated, despite the cost-effective impact they could generate. PFS can be a solution. It advances proven interventions or tests promising ones, while paying only for successful outcomes for individuals, families, and communities, including natural resources. Instead of funding services regardless of the results, payments are made only if interventions actually achieve the outcomes agreed upon in advance. For example, instead of paying for job training simply to be provided, a community might use PFS to pay only when individuals gain stable employment in good jobs. Where government employs PFS strategies, taxpayers no longer bear the risk of paying for services that are ineffective because resources are not expended until the services have produced a specific benefit. Because PFS projects often last multiple years, a primary challenge is lack of upfront resources to fund the intervention before outcomes are measured and outcomes payments are released if warranted. For this reason, PFS contracts often incorporate PFS financing to cover the costs of service delivery until success is achieved and payments for outcomes are triggered. Investors providing this financing take on the risk of failure. Where PFS financing is used, the government or other entity typically makes outcomes payments covering the cost of services and offers investors a modest return on their the case of successful outcomes. PFS financing is sometimes referred to as a social impact bond. PFS has enjoyed broad, bipartisan support. PFS projects have taken place in red states and blue states, and at the Federal level, President Obama has included PFS in several Budget Proposals while Speaker Paul Ryan has endorsed PFS publicly. Here’s how. Through PFS, government and/or other entities enter into a contract to pay for concrete, measurable outcomes after they are KEY TERMS Pay for Success (PFS): Strategy of procuring positive social or environmental outcomes by paying, in part or in whole, for an intervention only once it produces those outcomes. PFS Contracts: Contracts that provide payment only when an intervention achieves positive outcomes at pre- set target levels. PFS Financing: achieved for specific people or communities in need. Mission-driven capital that covers the upfront costs of service provision and potentially other project costs (e.g., cost of an evaluation). Page 7 of 37 Partners Involved in PFS Projects with PFS Financing PFS contracting and financing require partnership among multiple stakeholders. Partners typically include: • One or more “outcomes payors,” generally local, state, tribal, or Federal government entities or other organizations (such as a health insurance company or a charitable foundation) that contract to pay for outcomes when achieved; • Service provider(s), which deliver the intervention intended to achieve the outcomes; • Investor(s),whichcovertheup-frontcostofimplementingtheinterventionandattimesother associated costs (e.g., outcomes evaluation) for the PFS project; and • An independent evaluator, which determines, through a rigorous evaluation, whether the intervention achieved the outcome(s) sought. Most PFS projects to date have also included a project coordinator or intermediary, an entity that facilitates and manages the contracting process and project. See Figure 1 for an example of a how these parties can work together in PFS contract involving PFS financing. Benefits of PFS Projects with PFS Financing • Governmentorotherpayorscanresponsiblytesttheeffectivenessofinterventions–including long-standing models, promising innovations, or adaptations of existing models. They can also expand or even scale proven interventions whose reach might not otherwise be increased, due to funding restrictions or other limitations. Either goal can be achieved without putting taxpayer (or, for other entities, stakeholder) dollars at risk until the intervention actually achieves results. This benefit is particularly relevant for governments that are facing budget constraints. Government can also benefit by the cross-sector collaboration that PFS facilitates. Finally, through the potential PFS allows to develop strong evidence for certain interventions, government is also able to identify models to directly fund on a long-term basis. • Service providers can benefit from rigorous research measuring the impact of their interventions while also accessing a steady stream of funding for the life of the PFS project. They also are typically freed from the strings of most grants that prescribe what specific activities they may conduct with grant funding. Instead, service providers are empowered to develop an intervention that stands to advance their mission and achieve specific outcomes. • Investors can pursue a double bottom line, creating positive social or environmental impact and earning a reasonable return if outcomes are achieved. • Peopleandcommunitiesinneedcanbenefitfromadditionalservicesandclearresultsprovided through PFS projects, at no risk to taxpayer dollars where government employs PFS. In addition, results of rigorous evaluation of PFS projects will strengthen the field’s knowledge about effective practices in order to drive better outcomes in the future. Page 8 of 37 Further, at the systems level, PFS can catalyze data sharing across sectors and build durable collective impact strategies backed by contracts, both of which benefits reach multiple stakeholders. Page 9 of 37 Figure 1: Example of a PFS Contract with PFS Financing  Stages of Development of a PFS Project A PFS project requires several phases of development that, to date, usually occur sequentially. See Figure 2. (An outcomes payor could, for example, set outcomes targets during the feasibility study instead of transaction structuring, but this is less common.) Figure 2: Stages of Development The first stage – Exploration & Education – is dedicated to understanding PFS and the first projects, identifying one or more areas where a government or other entity would like to potentially apply PFS, and digging deeply into the entity’s data to understand what data is available (and ideally what it indicates) about the target population. The second stage – a Feasibility Study – is dedicated to answering the question, “Is PFS a feasible strategy to help this particular community help address this particular issue at this particular moment?” For a hypothetical PFS project, a target population is identified if not already and refined; possible interventions are identified and analyzed for effectiveness, any savings they could produce, and fit with existing service providers; and more. This second stage concludes with an answer to the driving question of feasibility. If the report concludes PFS is indeed a viable strategy in the context studied, then the report often recommends a path forward (e.g., articulating a specific intervention be deployed through a PFS project, issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for service providers to deliver the intervention). If the answer to the question of feasibility is “no,” typically the report will explore other strategies as viable options to improve outcomes. The third stage – Transaction Structuring – is dedicated to developing a specific PFS project once a community has identified that PFS is viable and some institutions interested in participating, desire moving forward. In this phase, an evaluator, any investors, lawyers, program staff, and others from multiple stakeholders are identified, commit to the project, and negotiate the terms of the PFS contract. Finally, the fourth stage – Implementation – is dedicated to actually executing the PFS contract. The intervention is delivered to people or communities in need. An independent evaluator measures the Page 11 of 37 impact of the intervention, and outcomes payments are released if the intervention achieved pre-set outcomes target(s) defining success. Note that stakeholders in the PFS field debate what lines distinguish Education & Exploration from a Feasibility Study as well as what specific activities fall into the Feasibility Study instead of Transaction Structuring. Generally, though, major tasks of each stage can be conceived as outlined here. Note too that the length of each stage depends on many factors, including the number of partners, commitment of the outcomes payor, resources available to fund each stage, and the complexity of the potential project. But at this early stage of the PFS field, it is typical for these projects, carefully construed, to develop over the course of one or multiple years. This long timeline may present challenges for communities seeking shorter term options. But for many communities, the benefits of PFS have outweighed any chilling factor that the longer timeline often needed at this stage to construct a project can present. Multiple Ways PFS Can Take Shape To date, conversations about PFS sometimes assume the form of the first 10 PFS projects in the United States: a government payor, a (typically) single nonprofit service provider, and investors that cover upfront costs. But this arrangement is only one type of PFS. PFS encompasses a wide range of possibilities, including those listed below. • Purpose. PFS projects may have a primary goal of responsibly testing a promising intervention that currently lacks a robust evidence base or, alternatively, expanding the reach of an intervention that has a more robust evidence base. Any investors involved may demand a higher rate of return on their investment if the PFS project involves a “riskier” intervention, but PFS is certainly still possible and valuable to help learn more about the effectiveness of less-studied interventions. In particular, foundations may be interested in testing innovative solutions and participate as an investor at low rates of return. • Financing. PFS projects may involve PFS financing or, alternatively, no PFS financing. If a service provider has sufficient resources to cover the costs of service delivery, PFS financing may be unnecessary. • Payment on Outcomes. PFS projects may base all payment on achievement of certain pre-set outcome targets or, alternatively, only partial payment on the achievement of certain pre-set outcome targets. The movement toward paying on the basis of positive impact achieved through improved outcomes follows a spectrum. It may be difficult, though is certainly possible, for service providers to be evaluated 100 percent on the basis of outcomes if it has traditionally focused on outputs, for example. (An example of an output is the number of people who enter a treatment program, whereas an outcome is abstinence rates of people who underwent a treatment program.) Transitioning more gradually to a 100 percent focus on outcomes may be more realistic. Given that PFS is the procurement of positive outcomes by paying in part or in whole on those outcomes, PFS projects can involve 60 percent of government funding provided as usual without a tie to achieving certain outcome targets and hold the remaining 40 percent for release only if the intervention achieved certain outcomes, for example. PFS can also involve a bonus payment upon the achievement of outcomes Page 12 of 37 targets, whereas the core funding would be provided upfront irrespective of outcomes. The mix of traditional and PFS financing would typically be determined by the unique needs of each project. • Savings. PFS projects may generate cashable savings for the outcomes payor that exceed the cost of the intervention or, alternatively, do not generate such savings (either because no savings accrue or because the savings do not exceed the cost of the intervention). While cashable savings can provide a ready source of funds with which the outcomes payor can pay for the outcomes achieved, outcomes payors may be willing to pay for improvements in their communities, even when not generating savings. Many government expenditures do not deliver corresponding savings but are still valuable for the positive results they produce or functions they serve. • Type of Payor. PFS projects may include a public or, alternatively, a non-public outcomes payor. Though government has served as a payor in all of the first 10 PFS projects with PFS financing in the United States, foundations, individuals, employers, and others could also enter PFS contracts to pay for outcomes. • Type of Service Provider. PFS projects may include a public or, alternatively, non-public service provider. Similarly, service providers may be government entities (e.g., the Chicago Public Schools in the Chicago PFS project launched in 2014), or they may be for-profit or non-profit organizations. PFS is primarily concerned with outcomes, not the process (or the type of legal entity involved therein) for achieving them. • Number of Payors. PFS projects may include one or, alternatively, multiple outcomes payors. Where resources are in high demand, it may be helpful to pool funds from multiple government agencies, or a government entity and a foundation, for example to develop a sufficient pool for outcomes payments for the project. This strategy of engaging multiple outcomes payors may also prove particularly helpful when PFS projects are designed on the basis of savings that an intervention produces and the savings accrue to multiple entities. Imagine an intervention that saved $0.50 in corrections costs, $0.35 in unemployment benefits costs, and $0.20, totaling $1.05 in public health care costs for every $1.00 that was spent to deliver the intervention. The government agencies to which those costs and thus savings accrue may not have economic incentive alone on their own to pay for the positive outcomes generated by the intervention. But together, the savings accrued exceed the cost of the intervention (and thus likely the cost of outcomes payments) and thus they would collectively benefit economically on net. • Number of Service Providers. PFS projects may include one or, alternatively, multiple service providers. Improving outcomes can be difficult given the complexity and number of factors that determine any given outcome. So it may be helpful, although not always necessary, to include multiple services in what constitutes “the intervention” to be held accountable for improving those outcomes. Sometimes a given service provider may be able to offer multiple services itself, but other times engaging several service providers may be more effective and efficient to achieve this goal. In addition, multiple service providers may be necessary in order to have sufficient capacity to serve a certain number of beneficiaries, even if only one type of intervention is chosen for the project. Page 13 of 37 • Evaluation. PFS projects may ascertain whether the intervention improved outcomes on the basis of different evaluation designs. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard and should be pursued wherever possible, given their level of rigor and thus level of certainty that the intervention produced the outcomes observed. But for various reasons, RCTs are not always possible. In those cases, quasi-experimental studies may provide sufficient rigor to allow outcomes to be attributed to the intervention and not due to, for example, the motivation of participants who sought out the intervention, or other external factors. • Course Corrections. Similarly, PFS projects may, or may not, allow for course corrections during service delivery. This may depend on the primary interest of the outcomes payor. If the goal is to learn about the effectiveness of the specific intervention as envisioned before implementation through the project began, then the project might not allow the service provider to adapt the intervention if it sees early indications of lackluster results. However, if the primary interest is to generate the best possible outcomes for the target population, the project might allow course corrections, even though the results will not speak to the original model of the intervention. Launched PFS Projects to Date The first project with PFS financing launched only four years ago. Since then, the field has grown tremendously: 14 other PFS projects have launched since the first in 2012, and the Federal government has funded nearly 80 awards for PFS feasibility analysis. The 15 launched projects are summarized here in the order of their launch or announcement dates. • New York, New York. The first PFS contract closed and project launched in 2012 with $9.6 million of PFS financing. The Osborne Academy and Friends of Island Academy sought to reduce recidivism among 3,400 young men of color leaving Rikers Island. Although the outcomes were not achieved at pre-set target levels, PFS served its intended purpose because taxpayers did not pay for service delivery. Also, those in the field learned this intervention had not proved effective.17 • Utah. A project launched in 2013 with $7.0 million of PFS financing. The Park City School District, Granite School District and private providers offer high-quality pre-Kindergarten to 3,500 children to reduce need for later special education and remedial services.18 Of 120 children identified in preschool as being at-risk for later special education, only one actually needed it in kindergarten, according to the evaluator.19 • New York State. A project launched in 2013 with $13.5 million of PFS financing. The Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) is working in New York City and Rochester to reduce recidivism and increase employment for 2,000 formerly incarcerated men.20 • Massachusetts. A project launched in 2014 with $21.7 million of PFS financing. Roca will provide intensive services to about 1,000 young men to reduce recidivism and increase employment. The focus has been on areas surrounding Chelsea, Springfield, and Boston and is ongoing.21 Page 14 of 37 • Chicago. A project launched in 2014 with $16.6 million of PFS financing. The Chicago Public School District will provide high-quality pre-K (half day and full day) for over 2,600 children to increase Kindergarten readiness, reduce the need for special education, and increase third grade literacy.22 Early results indicate the project is already making a difference.23 • Cuyahoga County, Ohio. A project launched in 2014 with $4.0 million of PFS financing. Frontline Services is providing services to reduce out-of-home foster care placement and the length of stay in foster care, providing services to 135 families.24 • Massachusetts. A project launched in 2014 with $3.5 million of PFS financing. Massachusetts Housing and Shelter Alliance is working with providers to secure housing, job training, and medical care for tenants to reduce chronic homelessness by providing 500 units of supportive housing to up to 800 people.25 • Santa Clara County, California. A project launched in 2015 with $6.9 million of PFS financing. Abode will serve 150-200 chronically homeless individuals who are also frequent users of the County’s emergency rooms, acute mental health facilities, and jail to reduce chronic homelessness.26 • South Carolina. A project launched in 2016 with $17 million of PFS financing (though outcomes payments are capped at $7.5M) in addition to traditional upfront Medicaid funding. Nurse Family Partnership and its implementing agencies will serve 3,200 low-income mothers and their children with home visiting to help improve their health and developmental outcomes.27 • Denver, Colorado. A project launched in 2016 with $8.7 million of PFS financing. The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless and Mental Health Center of Denver will serve 250 of the highest utilizers of services in order to help increase housing stability and decrease recidivism.28 • Connecticut. See Section IV . • Washington, D.C. A project launched in 2016 with $25 million of PFS financing. DC Water and Sewer Authority will install green infrastructure to reduce storm water runoff that pollutes water quality and can produce harmful health effects.29 • Santa Clara County, California. A project launched in 2016 that includes no PFS financing but links a portion of the $11.2 million PFS contract to outcomes. Telecare will provide additional services for 250 people experiencing mental health challenges to help them avoid incarceration and reduce reliance on psychiatric emergency and inpatient services.30, 31 • Salt Lake County, Utah. Two projects launched as part of the same PFS transaction in 2016 with $11.7 million of PFS financing.32 First Step House will provide services to at least 225 male criminal offenders to help reduce recidivism, and The Road Home will provide services and rental assistance to 315 persistently homeless individuals to increase access to housing.33 Page 15 of 37 To learn more about many of these projects, consider reading “Pay for Success: the First Generation,” a Federally-supported report on the first 10 PFS financing projects launched in the United States by Nonprofit Finance Fund, a Federal grantee. As of December 2016, the report can be found at http://www tion_0.pdf. Major PFS Initiatives among Federal Agencies to Date As part of the Obama Administration, Federal agencies have supported several of the PFS projects already launched and is increasingly supporting PFS activity. Examples include: • Since September 2014, the Corporation for National and Community Service's (CNCS') Social Innovation Fund (SIF) has awarded grants to 10 organizations to help communities conduct feasibility studies and transaction structuring. The goal of these activities is to tackle social problems ranging from childhood asthma to chronic homelessness. As of September 2016, the SIF has funded 59 feasibility studies and supported transaction structuring for 13 PFS projects, with more awards to come. Additionally, in Fall 2016, SIF issued seven grant awards to provide support to PFS projects for accessing administrative data, help state and local governments improve their use of administrative data, and provide further resources to PFS projects in development that have received SIF support in the past. • The Department of Labor awarded in 2013 almost $24 million in grants to pay for outcomes in PFS projects focused on reducing recidivism and increasing employment in New York State and Massachusetts. • The Department of Housing and Urban Development, in partnership with the Department of Justice, awarded in 2016 nearly $9 million to pay for feasibility analysis, transaction structuring, evaluation, and outcomes payments for PFS projects focused on individuals continuously cycling between homelessness and the criminal justice system who have high- cost service needs. • The Department of Education funded in October 2016 feasibility studies and transaction structuring for career/technical/adult education PFS projects and, in December 2016, announced grant awards for eight feasibility studies for early education PFS projects. The Department also issued a contract for a feasibility study to explore expanding evidence-based early childhood dual language programs through PFS. Additionally, the Department launched in 2016 a PFS capacity building initiative with early childhood Technical Assistance centers to build capacity to improve or expand special education services for children with disabilities using the PFS model. • The Department of Veterans Affairs, in partnership with CNCS, funded in Fall 2016 a grant of $3 million to pay for outcomes in a PFS project focused on improving employment for Veterans with a service-connected disability of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Page 16 of 37 SECTION IV: CASE STUDIES: TAPPING THE PAY FOR SUCCESS MODEL FOR SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS IN CONNECTICUT AND LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY Connecticut Substance use disorders are not just crippling individual lives; they are also exacting high tolls on children and families. According to the Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF), about half of all cases it investigated in 2013 involved an indication of parental substance use,34 and those cases contribute to costs for the state and others. DCF reports spending more than $600 million each year to address child abuse and neglect, and the lifetime cost of just one case of child maltreatment have been estimated to exceed $210,000 in health, child welfare, criminal justice, and special education costs and losses in productivity.35 In response, Connecticut has taken decisive action to help protect its children from the effects of substance use disorders. On February 16, 2016, the Director of National Drug Control Policy, Michael Botticelli and Director of the White House Office of Social Innovation David Wilkinson, joined Governor Dannel Malloy, DCF Commissioner Joette Katz, and other officials to announce a new PFS project promoting family stability in homes where a parent is experiencing a substance use issue and one or more children is at risk for removal from the home. Here’s how it is working. The Family-Based Recovery (FBR) program developed by the Yale Child Study Center, is providing intensive in-home services for four years to approximately 500 families in need who have children who have not yet reached their sixth birthday. Private investors recruited by Social Finance, a nonprofit that specializes in coordinating PFS projects, are providing $11.2 million to cover the costs of delivering and evaluating these services. The University of Connecticut’s Health Center and School of Social Work are serving as the evaluator, assessing the causal impact of the program through a randomized controlled trial. If child welfare outcomes and substance use outcomes improve as a result of the services, then the state will pay the investors, with maximum payments totaling $14.8 million, providing a return on their investment in recognition of the risk that investors are bearing for taxpayers. If the results sought are not achieved, the State of Connecticut will not pay. 36,37 FBR is a home-visiting intervention: FBR Clinicians visit families three times per week, 1) delivering a parenting curriculum (modeled on the Coordinated Intervention for Women and Infants intervention), 2) providing a substance use treatment (leveraging Reinforcement-Based Treatment and Motivational Interviewing techniques), and 3) administering toxicology screens (i.e., urinalysis and, in some cases, also breathalyzer tests) during each home visit. FBR teams provide case management connecting families to additional supports. These teams are managed by the Yale Child Study Center and three community-based health providers – Community Health Resources, United Community and Family Services, and Community Mental Health Affiliates.38 Page 17 of 37 A family participates in the intervention for an average of six months and no more than 12 months.39 Each family’s outcomes will be observed for 18 months.40 A quasi-experimental study conducted by the University of Connecticut Health Center in 2011 provides evidence FBR is effective in improving child welfare outcomes. The study found that families participating in FBR, compared to families instead referred to intensive outpatient community-based treatment, experienced removal of a child from the home 37.6 percent less often within 12 months of concluding FBR. The FBR participating families also experienced a 52.4 percent reduction in referrals to DCF for possible child neglect or abuse. Both outcomes were statistically significant.41 The outcomes that will trigger state repayment include these two outcomes (reduction in removals from the home and re-referrals to the state) as well as indication of abstinence from substance use. Specifically, the state will pay investors for: 1. Increased negative toxicology screens, measured by the aggregate number of negative screens of the last 12, administered by a FBR Caregiver during the intervention. 2. Reduced removal of children from the home during the 18 month observation period 3. Reducedre-referralstoDCFduringthe18monthobservation period. These re-referrals could take the form of a call to the DCF Careline, a 24/7 hotline for reporting suspected child abuse or neglect, or a reopening of a case by a DCF case worker. 42 FAST FACTS ON CONNECTICUT PROJECT Outcomes Payor: Connecticut Department of Children and Families Maximum Outcomes Payments: $14.8 million Size of Investment: $11.2 million Intervention: Family Based Recovery Program Service Provider: FBR Teams managed by Yale Child Study Center, Community Health Resources, United Community and Family Services, and Community Mental Health Affiliates Families Served: Approximately 500 The state will also pay investors on the basis of FBR enrollment as an immediate indication of behavior change, defined as the aggregate number of clients that participate in at least one FBR home visit after the intake meeting.43 Services through this PFS project began on September 28, 2016 – a milestone announced that day by both community leaders – including Governor Malloy, Commissioner Katz, and CEO of Social Finance, Tracy Palandjian – and a member of the Obama Administration, Commissioner Rafael López of the Administration of Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, who all celebrated Connecticut’s leadership and action to help promote the well-being of children and their caregivers. This project stands to not only improve outcomes in the near term for these 500 families – but also to build the evidence base to inform future policy and programming. The Office of National Drug Control Policy lifts up Connecticut for its leadership under Governor Malloy as the state trail-blazed a state’s use of PFS financing to help address substance use disorders. Page 18 of 37 Louisville, Kentucky44 Substance use disorders also intersect with the criminal justice system. The Department of Corrections of the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government (“Metro Corrections”) in Kentucky is developing a PFS project to help individuals in its jails get the treatment they need to overcome substance use disorders, including opioid use disorder. Currently, individuals who enter local jails with a substance use disorder are able to enter a detoxification program in the jail. Metro Corrections dubs itself the “largest detox facility in the region” given that up to 100 inmates on any given day are detoxing in its jails. However, some inmates are released before they finish detoxing from drugs (3,658 in 2015, for example), and even those that complete detox before reentering the community often still need long term treatment to sustain their recovery. (Metro Corrections provides inmates with the opportunity to enroll in Medicaid if eligible, but sometimes the inmate’s sentence is sufficiently short or the “Medicaid Connector’s” caseload is sufficiently large that the inmate is released without fully applying for Medicaid. The individual may then face a dangerous gap in treatment.) Recovery is a particularly important long-term goal for Metro Corrections, given data that a person is more likely to return to jail if currently experiencing a substance use disorder. Recidivism costs taxpayer dollars, as well as continued harm to the individual due to substance use. Leaders in Louisville believe that PFS can allow the Metro Government to provide treatment services to the reentry population with substance use disorders, while expending taxpayer funds only if that treatment is successful. Specifically, the project – the “Innovative Metro Project in Addiction Care and Treatment” (IMPACT) – will provide upfront dollars from investors to service providers that would provide treatment to individuals recently released from Metro jails. If an independent evaluator determines that those services lowered recidivism, the Metro Government would pay back those investors, along with a modest return. The project has its origins in a Request for Information issued by Metro Government in October 2015 to gauge interest and capacity among service providers in the community to explore a PFS approach. It then issued a Request for Proposals in March 2016 for a project coordinator/manager, selecting the following month CFO Resource Group to serve in that role. As of August 2016, CFO Resource Group is selecting service providers for the project. Modest resources are enabling this effort, suggesting that communities do not need many millions of dollars to utilize a PFS approach. The local government has set aside $1 million in outcomes payments, and the Harvard Kennedy School Government Performance Lab is providing technical assistance (valued at less than $250,000) in the development of this project with funds from the Federal Social Innovation Fund. J-PAL North America also provided the project with a $50,000 award to help design the plan for rigorously evaluating whether the treatment provided through the PFS project reduces recidivism. The Office of National Drug Control Policy lifts up Louisville for its leadership under Mayor Greg Fischer as Metro Government stands to pioneer the first local use of PFS financing to help address substance use disorders. Page 19 of 37 SECTION V: CONCLUSION AND PROPOSED NEXT STEPS The current use and misuse of opioids in our country is a public health threat, leaving no region of the United States free from devastating impacts on individual lives, families, and communities. Each year, the epidemic worsens, resulting in increased yet preventable morbidity and mortality and resultant health, social, and economic costs. The effects ripple out to children, communities, and the criminal justice system, among others. The Obama Administration, in a concerted effort with a variety of stakeholders and partners including Federal agencies, private sector, non-governmental organizations and educational institutional partners, has made great strides to address this crisis. Yet, given the depth of need, further efforts must be expended to address and mitigate this public health challenge to prevent further, devastating loss of life and impact on families and communities. As the state of Connecticut has shown and Louisville, Kentucky, may soon echo, PFS is an additional tool available in the toolbox to help address this crisis. It can bring together philanthropies, other investors, program evaluators, service providers, and policymakers to glean the skills and expertise of each and support and evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of interventions to address the opioid crisis and its related harms. The following are suggested “next steps” to pursue when exploring PFS:  Share this resource guide via social media to spur local interest in the topic.  Learn more about PFS at (a website of Nonprofit Finance Fund, a Federal grantee), (a website of the Urban Institute, also a Federal grantee), and elsewhere.  Learn more about the opioid crisis by exploring the Department of Health and Human Services’ website at  Explore the evidence for interventions to improve opioid outcomes and outcomes that can be affected by opioid use (e.g., rate of HIV transmission). Appendix I includes a list of studies and reviews that examine the effectiveness of select interventions.  Exchange ideas with the community of practice created by the Pay for Success Initiative at the Urban Institute. This community is a collection of stakeholders examining the opioid crisis through the lens of the PFS model. It will develop practitioner-informed recommendations on how PFS might align with efforts to address the crisis, consider how best to define and measure success in potential projects, and identify barriers to implementation. To learn more, contact the Pay for Success Initiative at [email protected]  For State and Local Government: o Convene a meeting of department or agency heads to share this resource guide, and help educate your colleagues about the potential of PFS. o Determine policy gaps (gaps resulting due to insufficient policy attention), whereby additional cost-effective, evidence-based strategies could effectively target gaps. Page 20 of 37  o Identify which agencies and levels of government would benefit from a reduction in opioid misuse and form a workgroup to identify relevant data sources (and gaps) and potential sources of economic benefit. o Reach out to PFS experts for guidance on how to develop the project, supporting the selected intervention. o Issue a Request for Information to gather more information about how PFS could work in a particular geography or a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a PFS project coordinator / intermediary to conduct a feasibility study in partnership with your jurisdiction. o Apply for a Federal Social Innovation Fund (SIF) award for PFS “data readiness,” which the SIF defines as “the stage when an entity has access to any necessary data, evaluation tools, and/or personnel to conduct a PFS project.”45 These awards will be issued by SIF PFS grantees, who hold open competitions to select winners. See for more information. Competitions are expected to open in 2017.  For Service Providers: o Add a presentation about PFS to the next meeting of your Board, stakeholders, or partner organizations. o Reachouttostateandlocalgovernmentofficialstoshareyourinterestandwillingness to explore a PFS project. o Prepare a fact sheet demonstrating the evidence of effectiveness or promise of your intervention. o Issue an RFP for a PFS project coordinator / intermediary to conduct a feasibility study in partnership with your organization to analyze the evidence base of your intervention(s), among other opportunities. In sum, PFS has great potential to fill gaps in addressing the opioid epidemic, and other health and social issues, providing evidence-based interventions or testing more innovative ones without risk of taxpayer or other stakeholder dollars unless people’s lives are measurably improved. Further exploration of PFS, with contributing roles available to a variety of stakeholders, is a worthy endeavor as a tool to address, mitigate and eventually overcome, the opioid epidemic in the United States. Page 21 of 37 APPENDIX I: BIBLIOGRAPHY OF REVIEWS AND STUDIES ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SELECT INTERVENTIONS TO ADDRESS OPIOID OUTCOMES AND OPIOID-RELATED OUTCOMES ONDCP identified several interventions or models that show promise or evidence of effectiveness in addressing the opioid epidemic. Below those interventions or models are listed along with reviews and studies, identified by J-PAL North America, that speak to the evidence of effectiveness for them or similar interventions or models. Note that ONDCP is not suggesting that these interventions are necessarily strong fits for PFS nor that there are no other interventions worth considering for deployment through PFS to help tackle the crisis. Rather, these interventions are listed here to introduce possible candidates for PFS and to identify where interested parties could look to understand the evidence base of the interventions for vulnerable populations. DRUG FREE MOMS & BABIES PROJECT Aklin W.M., Wong C.J., Hampton J., Svikis D.S., Stitzer M.L., Bigelow G.E., Silverman K. (2014). A therapeutic workplace for the long-term treatment of drug addiction and unemployment: eight-year outcomes of a social business intervention. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 47(5):329-38. Ashley, O.S., Marsden, M.E., & Brady, T.M. (2003). Effectiveness of substance abuse treatment programming for women: a review. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 29(1), 19-53. Brooks, J., & Kent, C.A. (2010). A Comparative Analysis of Statewide Programs and Initiatives to Improve Perinatal and Maternal Health. Marshall University Center for Business and Economic Research. Carroll, K.M., Chang, G., Behr, H.M., Clinton, B., & Kosten, T.R. (1995). Improving treatment outcome in pregnant, methadone-maintained women: results for a randomized clinical trial. The American Journal on Addictions, 4(1), 56-59. Chang, G., Carroll, K.M., Behr, H.M., & Kosten, T.R. (1992). Improving treatment outcome in pregnant opiate- dependent women. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 9(4), 327-330. Jones H.E., Kaltenbach K., Heil S.H., Stine S.M., Coyle M.G., Arria A.M., O'Grady K.E., Selby P., Martin P.R., & Fischer G. (2010). Neonatal abstinence syndrome after methadone or buprenorphine exposure. New England Journal of Medicine, 363(24):2320-31. Jones H.E., Svikis D.S., & Tran G. (2002). Patient compliance and maternal/infant outcomes in pregnant drug-using women. Substance Use & Misuse, 37(11):1411-22. Kellogg A., Rose C.H., Harms R.H., & Watson W.J. (2011). Current trends in narcotic use in pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 204(259): e1-e4. Kent, C.A., Springer, E., Brooks, J., Sowards, K. (2010). The Estimation of Potential Economization From Quality Initiatives Related to Perinatal and Antenatal Care. Marshall University Center for Business and Economic Research. Kosterman R., Hawkins J.D., Haggerty K.P., Spoth R., & Redmond C. (2001). Preparing for the drug free years: session- specific effects of a universal parent-training intervention with rural families. Journal of Drug Education, 31(1):47-68. Krans, E.E., & Patrick, S.W. (2016). Opioid use disorder in pregnancy: health policy and practice in the midst of an epidemic. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 128(1), 4-10. Kyei-Aboagye K., Acker D.B., MacBain D. (1998). The Effect of Postdetoxification Drug-Free Residential Living on Birth Outcome in the Pregnant Drug Abuser. Substance Abuse, 19(3):123-8. Page 22 of 37 Lander, L.R., Marshalek P., Yitayew M., Ford D., Sullivan C.R., & Gurka KK. (2013). Rural healthcare disparities: challenges and solutions for the pregnant opioid-dependent population. West Virginia Medical Journal, 109(4):22-7. Loudin S., Maxwell S., Mitra S., & Breyel J. (2015) West Virginia Perinatal Partnership. West Virginia Medical Journal, 111(3): 12. Silverman K., Svikis D., Wong C.J., Hampton J., Stitzer M.L., & Bigelow G.E. (2002). A reinforcement-based therapeutic workplace for the treatment of drug abuse: three-year abstinence outcomes. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 10(3):228-40. Orwin, R., Francisco, L., & Bernichon, T. (2001). Effectiveness of women's substance abuse treatment programs: A meta-analysis. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 1-9. Patrick S.W., Schumacher R.E., Benneyworth B.D., Krans E.E., McAllister J.M., & Davis M.M. (2012). Neonatal abstinence syndrome and associated health care expenditures: United States, 2000-2009. JAMA, 307(18): 1934-40. West Virginia Early Childhood Planning Task Force. (2014). West Virginia Pay for Success: Recommendations from the Pay for Success Working Group to the West Virginia Early Childhood Planning Task Force. Retrieved from Winklbaur-Hausknost B., Jagsch R., Graf-Rohrmeister K., Unger A., Baewert A., Langer M., Thau K., & Fischer G. (2013). Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, 28(1): 15-24. EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT PEER COUNSELORS Bernstein J., Bernstein E., Tassiopoulos K., Heeren T., Levenson S., & Hingson R. (2005). Brief motivational intervention at a clinic visit reduces cocaine and heroin use. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 77(1):49-59. Killeen, M. (2016, May 19). On the front lines of the overdose crisis. Retrieved from overdose-crisis. Reif, S., Braude, L., Lyman, D.R., Dougherty, R.H., Daniels, A.S., Ghose, S.S., Salim, O., & Delphin-Rittmon, M.E. (2014). Peer recovery support for individuals with substance use disorders: assessing the evidence. Psychiatric Services, 65(7), 853-61. Samuels E. (2013). Emergency department naloxone distribution: a Rhode Island department of health, recovery community, andemergency department partnership to reduce opioid overdose deaths. Rhode Island Medical Journal, 97(10):38-9. Tracy K., Burton M., Nich C., & Rounsaville B. (2011). Utilizing Peer Mentorship to Engage High Recidivism Substance-Abusing Patients in Treatment. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 37(6):525-31. LILY’S PLACE OR PROGRAMS TARGETING NEONATAL ABSTINENCE SYNDROME Abrahams, R.R., Kelly, S.A., Payne, S., Thiessen, P.N., Mackintosh, J., & Janssen, P.A. (2007). Rooming-in compared with standard care for newborns of mothers using methadone or heroin. Canadian Family Physician, 53(10), 1722-1730. Bartu A., Sharp J., Ludlow J., & Doherty D.A. (2006). Postnatal home visiting for illicit drug-using mothers and their infants: a randomised controlled trial. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 46(5):419-25. Belcher, H.M.E., Butz, A.M., Wallace, P., Hoon, A.H., Reinhardt, E., Reeves, S.A., & Pulsifer, M.B. (2005). Spectrum of early intervention services for children with intrauterine drug exposure. Infants & Young Children, 18(1), 2-15. Creanga A.A., Sabel J.C., Ko J.Y., Wasserman C.R., Shapiro-Mendoza C.K., Taylor P., Barfield W., Cawthon L., & Paulozzi L.J. (2012). Maternal Drug Use and Its Effect on Neonates A Population-Based Study in Washington State. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 119(5):924-33. Page 23 of 37 Crocetti, M.T., Amin D.D., & Jansson L.M. (2007). Variability in the evaluation and management of opiate- exposed newborns in Maryland. Clinical Pediatrics Philadelphia, 46(7):632-5. Edelstein S., Kropenske V., & Howard J. (1990). Project T.E.A.M.S. Social Work, 35(4): 313-8. Greene C.M., & Goodman M.H. (2003). Neonatal abstinence syndrome: strategies for care of the drug-exposed infant. Neonatal Network, 22(4):15-25. Gustavsson N.S. (1992). Drug exposed infants and their mothers: Facts, myths, and needs. Social Work in Health Care, 16(4):87-100. Heimdahl, K. & Karlsson, P. (2015). Psychosocial interventions for substance-abusing parents and their young children: A scoping review. Addiction Research and Theory, 24(3):236-47. Higley A.M., & Morin K.H. (2004). Behavioral responses of substance-exposed newborns: a retrospective study. Applied Nursing Research, 17(1):32-40. Hodgson Z.G., & Abrahams R.R. (2012). A rooming-in program to mitigate the need to treat for opiate withdrawal in the newborn. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, 34(5):475-81. Kilbride H., Castor C., Hoffman E., & Fuger K.L. (2000). Thirty-six-month outcome of prenatal cocaine exposure for term or near-term infants: impact of early case management. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 21(1):19-26. Lind J.N., Petersen E.E., Lederer P.A., Phillips-Bell G.S., Perrine C.G., Li R., Hudak M., Correia J.A., Creanga A.A., Sappenfield W.M., Curran J., Blackmore C., Watkins S.M., Anjohrin S., & Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2015). Infant and maternal characteristics in neonatal abstinence syndrome--selected hospitals in Florida, 2010- 2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), 64(8):213-6. Maxwell, S. R. (2015, March 26). Testimony to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Energy and Commerce Committee March 26th 2015 Hearing on "Examining the Growing Problems of Prescription Drug and Heroin Abuse: State and Local Perspectives." [Letter to Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Energy and Commerce Committee]. Retrieved from 114-IF02-Wstate-MaxwellS-20150326.pdf Miller S.M. (1992). Policy options: early intervention services for substance-exposed infants. Journal of Drug Education, 22(4):273-81. Niccols A., Milligan K., Smith A., Sword W., Thabane L., & Henderson J. (2012). Integrated programs for mothers with substance abuse issues and their children: a systematic review of studies reporting on child outcomes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(4):308-22. Patrick S.W., Schumacher, R.E., Benneyworth B.D., Krans, E.E., McAllister, J.M., & Davis, M.M. (2012). Neonatal abstinence syndrome and associated health care expenditures: United States, 2000-2009. JAMA, 307(18), 1934-40. Patrick S.W., Davis, M.M., Lehmann, C.U., & Cooper, W.O. (2015). Increasing incidence and geographic distribution of neonatal abstinence syndrome: United States 2009 to 2012. Journal of Perinatology, 35(8), 667. Savin M.K., & Paul D.A. Opioid Exposed Mothers and Infants in Delaware: Clinical and Legal Considerations. Delaware Medical Journal, 88(4):110-4. Vasquez E.P., Pitts K., & Mejia N.E. (2008). A model program: neonatal nurse practitioners providing community health care for high-risk infants. Neonatal Network, 27(3):163-9. West Virginia Early Childhood Planning Task Force. (2014). West Virginia Pay for Success: Recommendations from the Pay for Success Working Group to the West Virginia Early Childhood Planning Task Force. Retrieved from Page 24 of 37 POLICE ASSISTED ADDICTION AND RECOVERY INITIATIVE (PAARI) Compton M.T., Bahora M., Watson A.C., & Oliva J.R. (2008). A comprehensive review of extant research on Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) programs. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 36(1):47-55. Cowell, A.J., Broner, N., & Dupont, R. (2004). The cost-effectiveness of criminal justice diversion programs for people with serious mental illness co-occurring with substance abuse: four case studies. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 20(3), 292–314. Jula, M. (2016) How Staten Island’s drug problem made it a target for poaching patients, The New York Times, August 23, 2016. Retrieved from target-for-poaching-patients.html Forman, B., Jones, J., & Hiller, A. (2016). Mounting an Evidence-Based Criminal Justice Response to Substance Abuse and Drug Offending in Massachusetts. MassINC:1-20. Knopf, A. (2016). Police ‘angels’ welcome for their referrals but raise questions about training. Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly, 28(28), 1-4. Knopf, A. (2016). Police initiative increases access to care but raises questions about anti‐med bias. Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly, 28(5), 1-4. Lamb H.R., Shaner, R., Elliot, D.M., DeCuir, W.J., Jr., & Foltz, J.T. (1995). Outcome for psychiatric emergency patients seen by an outreach police-mental health team. Psychiatric Services, 46(12), 1267-71. Lamberti J.S., Weisman R.L., Schwarzkopf S.B., Price N., Ashton R.M., & Trompeter J. (2001). The mentally ill in jails and prisons: towards an integrated model of prevention. Psychiatric Quarterly, 72(1):63-77. Lattimore, P., Broner, N., Frisman, L., & Shafer, M. (2003). A comparison of prebooking and postbooking diversion programs for mentally ill substance-using individuals with justice involvement. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 19:30-64. Loveland D., & Boyle M. (2007). Intensive case management as a jail diversion program for people with a serious mental illness: a review of the literature. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51(2):130-50. Naples, M., & Steadman, H.J. (2003). Can persons with co-occurring disorders and violent charges be successfully diverted? International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 2(2):137-143. Sheridan E.P., & Teplin L.A. (1981). Police-referred psychiatric emergencies: advantages of community treatment. Journal of Community Psychology, 9(2):140-7. Sirotich, F. (2009). The criminal justice outcomes of jail diversion programs for persons with mental illness: a review of the evidence. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 37(4), 461-72. Steadman, H.J., & Naples, M. (2005). Assessing the effectiveness of jail diversion programs for persons with serious mental illness and co-occurring substance use disorders. Behavioral Science and the Law, 23(2), 163-70. Steadman, H.J., Deane, M.W., Borum, R., & Morrissey, J.P. (2000). Comparing outcomes of major models of police responses to mental health emergencies. Psychiatric Services, 51(5), 645-9. Steadman H.J., Morris S.M., & Dennis D.L. (1995). The diversion of mentally ill persons from jails to community-based services: a profile of programs. American Journal of Public Health, 85(12):1630-5. Weisman R.L., Lamberti J.S., & Price N. (2004). Integrating Criminal Justice, Community Healthcare, and Support Services for Adults with Severe Mental Disorders. Psychiatric Quarterly, 75(1):71-85. Page 25 of 37 SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR HOMELESS YOUNG PEOPLE EXPERIENCING AN OPIOID USE DISORDER Appel, P.W., Tsemberis, S., Joseph, H., Stefancic, A. & Lambert-Wacy, D. (2012). Housing First for Severely Mentally Ill Homeless Methadone Patients, Journal of Addictice Diseases. 31(3), 270-277. Buchanan, D, Kee, R, Sadowski, L.S., & Garcia, D. (2009). The health impact of supportive housing for HIV-positive homeless patients: A randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Public Health, 99(S3), S675-80. Cilfasefi, S.L. Malone, D.K. & Collins, S.E. (2013). Exposure to project-based Housing First is associated with reduced jail time and bookings. International Journal of Drug Policy, 24(4), 291-6. Cretzmeyer M., Moeckli J., Liu W.M. (2014). Barriers and facilitators to Veterans Administration collaboration with community providers: the Lodge Project for homeless veterans. Social Work in Health Care, 53(8):698-713. Culhane, D.P., Metrauz, S. & Hadley, T. (2010). Public service reductions associated with placement of homeless persons with severe mental illness in supportive housing. Housing Policy Debate, 13(1), 107-163. Edens E.L., Tsai J., & Rosenheck R.A. (2014). Does stimulant use impair housing outcomes in low- demand supportive housing for chronically homeless adults? American Journal on Addictions, 23(3):243-8. Gilmer, T.P., Manning, W.G., & Ettner, S.L. (2009).A cost analysis of San Diego County’s REACH Program for Homeless Persons, Psychiatric Services, 60(4), 445-50. Greenwood R.M., Schaefer-McDaniel N.J., Winkel G., & Tsemberis S.J. (2005). Decreasing psychiatric symptoms by increasing choice in services for adults with histories of homelessness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 36(3- 4):223-38. Gulcur, L., Stefancic, A., Shinn, M., Tsemberis & S. Fischer, S.N. (2003) Housing, hospitalization, and cost outcomes for homeless individuals with psychiatric disabilities participating in Continuum of Care and Housing First programmes. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 13(2): 171-86. Gulcur L., Tsemberis S., Stefancic A., & Greenwood R.M. (2007). Community integration of adults with psychiatric disabilities and histories of homelessness. Community Mental Health Journal, 43(3):211-28. Hanratty, M. (2011). Impacts of Heading Home Hennepin's Housing First programs for long-term homeless adults. Housing Policy Debate, 21(3): 405-19. Hwang S.W., Gogosis E., Chambers C., Dunn J.R., Hoch J.S., & Aubry T. (2011). Health status, quality of life, residential stability, substance use, and health care utilization among adults applying to a supportive housing program. Journal of Urban Health, 88(6):1076-90. Kertesz, S.G., Mullins, A.N. Schumacher, J.E., Wallace, D., & Kirk, K., Ph.D., Milby, J.B. (2007). Journal of Behavioral Health Services Research, 34(1): 17-33. Kertesz S.G., Crouch K., Milby J.B., Cusimano R.E., & Schumacher J.E. (2009). Housing first for homeless persons with active addiction: Are we overreaching? Milibank Quarterly, 87(2):495-534. Kirst, M, Zerger, S. Misir, V. Hwang, S, & Stergiopoulos, V. 2014; The impact of a Housing First randomized controlled trial on substance use problems among homeless individuals with mental illness. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 146(1), 24- 29. Larimer M.E., Malone D.K., Garner M.D., Atkins D.C., Burlingham B., Lonczak H.S., Tanzer K., Ginzler J., Clifasefi S.L., Hobson W.G., & Marlatt G.A. (2009). Health care and public service use and costs before and after provision of housing for chronically homeless persons with severe alcohol problems. JAMA, 301(13):1349-57. Lim S., Marcus S.M., Singh T.P., Harris T.G., & Levanon Seligson A. (2014). Bias due to sample selection in propensity score matching for a supportive housing program evaluation in New York City. PLoS One, 9(10):e109112. Page 26 of 37 Lipton F.R., Siegel C., Hannigan A., Samuels J., & Baker S. (2000). Tenure in supportive housing for homeless persons with severe mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 51(4):479-86. MacDonald R., Kaba F., Rosner Z., Vise A., Weiss D., Brittner M., Skerker M., Dickey N., Venters H. (2015). The Rikers Island Hot Spotters: Defining the Needs of the Most Frequently Incarcerated. American Journal of Public Health, 105(11):2262-8. Mackelprang, J. L., Collins, E.E., & Clifasefi, S.L. (2014) Housing First is associated with reduced use of emergency medical services. Prehospital Emergency Care. 18(4): 476-82. Martinez T.E., & Burt M.R. (2006). Impact of permanent supportive housing on the use of acute care health services by homeless adults. Psychiatric Services, 57(7):992-9. Milby, J.B., Schunacher, J.E., Wallace, D, Freedman, M.J. & Vuchinich, R.E. (2005). To house or not to house: The effects of providing housing to homeless substance abusers in treatment. American Journal of Public Health. 95: 1259-65. Montgomery, A.E., Hill, L.L. Kane, V. & Culhane, D.P. (2013). Housing chronically homeless veterans: Evaluating the efficacy of a Housing First approach to HUD-VASH, Journal of Community Psychology. 41(4), 505-14. O’Connell, M. J., Kasprow, W., & Rosenheck, R. Direct placement versus multistage models of supported housing in a population of veterans who are homeless. Psychological Services, 6(3):190-201. O'Connell, M. J., Kasprow, W.J., & Rosenheck, R.A. (2012). Differential impact of supported housing on selected subgroups of homeless veterans with substance abuse history. Psychiatric Services. 63(12): 1195- 1205. Padgett, D.K., Gulcur, L & Tsemberis, S. (2006) Housing First services for people who are homeless with co-occurring serious mental illness and substance abuse. Research on Social Work Practice. 16(1), 74-83. Palepu, A, Patterson M.L., Moniruzzaman, A, Frankish J., & Somers J. (2013) Housing First improves residential stability in homeless adults with concurrent substance dependence and mental disorders. American Journal of Public Health. 103(S2): e30-6. Paquette K., Pannella Winn L.A. (2016). The Role of Recovery Housing: Prioritizing Choice in Homeless Services. Journal of Dual Diagnosis, 12(2):153-62. Patterson, M.L., Moniruzzaman, A, & Somers, J.M. (2014). Community participation and belonging among formerly homeless adults with mental illness after 12 months of Housing First in Vancouver, British Columbia: A randomized controlled trial. Community Mental Health Journal. 50, 604-11. Polcin, D.L. (2016). Co-occurring Substance Abuse and Mental Health Problems among Homeless Persons: Suggestions for Research and Practice. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 25(1):1-10. Poulin S.R., Maguire M., Metraux S., & Culhane D.P. (2010). Service use and costs for persons experiencing chronic homelessness in Philadelphia: a population-based study. Psychiatric Services, 61(11):1093-8. Rog, D.J., Marshall, T., Dougherty, R.H., George, P., Daniels, A.S., Ghose, S.S., & Delphin-Rittmon, M.E. (2014). Permanent supportive housing: assessing the evidence. Psychiatric Services, 65(3), 287-94. Rosenheck, R. Kasprow, W, Frisman, L, & Liu-Mares, W. (2003). Cost-effectiveness of Supported Housing for homeless persons with mental illness. Archives of General Psychiatry. 60: 940-951. Slesnick N., Erdem G. (2013). Efficacy of ecologically-based treatment with substance- abusing homelessmothers: substance use and housing outcomes. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 45(5):416-25. Smelson D.A., Kline A., Kuhn J., Rodrigues S., O'Connor K., Fisher W., Sawh L., & Kane V. (2013). A wraparound treatment engagement intervention for homeless veterans with co-occurring disorders. Psychological Services, 10(2):161-7. Somers, J.M., Moniruzzman, A. & Palepu, A. 2015. Changes in daily substance use among people experiencing Page 27 of 37 homelessness and mental illness: 24-month outcomes following randomization to Housing First or usual care. Addiction. 110: 1605-14. Srebnik D., Connor T., Sylla L. (2013). A pilot study of the impact of the Housing First-supported housing for intensive users of medical hospitalization and sobering services. American Journal of Public Health, 103(2):316-21. Stefancic, A. & Tsemberis, S. (2007). Housing First for long-term shelter dwellers with psychiatric disabilities in a suburban county: a four-year study of housing access and retention. Journal of Primary Prevention, 28, 265-79. Tsai J., Mares A.S., & Rosenheck R.A. (2010). A multisite comparison of supported housing for chronically homeless adults: Housing First versus Residential Treatment First. Psychological Services, 7(4):219-232. Tsemberis S., Gulcur L., & Nakae M. (2004). Housing First, Consumer Choice, and Harm Reduction for Homeless Individuals with a Dual Diagnosis. American Journal of Public Health, 94(4):651-6. Tsemberis, S., & Eisenberg, R.F. (2000). Pathways to housing: supported housing for street-dwelling homeless individuals with psychiatric disabilities. Psychiatric Services, 51(4), 487-93. Watson D.P., Wagner D.E., & Rivers M. (2013). Understanding the critical ingredients for facilitating consumer change in-housing first programming: a case study approach. Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research, 40(2):169-79. Winn J.L., Shealy S.E., Kropp G.J., Felkins-Dohm D., Gonzales-Nolas C., & Francis E. (2013). Housing assistance and case management: improving access to substance use disorder treatment for homeless veterans. Psychological Services, 10(2):233-40. Woodhall-Melnik, J.R., & Dunn, J.R. (2015). A systematic review of outcomes associated with participation in Housing First programs. Housing Studies, 31(3), 287-304. SYRINGE SERVICE PROGRAMS / SYRINGE EXCHANGE PROGRAMS Abdul-Quader, A.S., Feelemyer, J., Modi, S., Stein, E.S., Briceno, A., Seamaan, S., Horvath, T., Kennedy, G.E., & Des Jarlais, D.C. (2013). Effectiveness of structural-level needle/syringe programs to reduce HCV and HIV infection among people who inject drugs: a systematic review. AIDS Behavior, 17(9), 2878–92. Bastos F.I., & Strathdee S.A. (2000). Evaluating effectiveness of syringe exchange programmes: current issues and future prospects. Social Science and Medicine, 51(12):1771-82. Bramson H., Des Jarlais D.C., Arasteh K., Nugent A., Guardino V., Feelemyer J., & Hodel D. (2015). State laws, syringe exchange, and HIV among persons who inject drugs in the United States: History and effectiveness. Journal of Public Policy, 36(2):212-30. Brener L., Spooner C., & Treloar C. (2010). Preventing transitions to injecting amongst young people: what is the role of Needle and Syringe Programmes? International Journal of Drug Policy, 21(3):160-4. Broadhead, R.S., van Hulst, Y., & Heckathorn, D.D. (1999). The impact of a needle exchange’s closure. Public Health Reports, 114(5), 439–447. Bruneau, J., Lamothe, F., Franco, E., Lachance, N., Desy, M., Soto, J., & Vincelette, J. (1997). High rates of HIV infection among injection drug users participating in needle exchange programs in Montreal: results of a cohort study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 146(12), 994–1002. Bruneau J., Daniel M., Abrahamowicz M., Zang G., Lamothe F., & Vincelette J. (2011). Trends in human immunodeficiency virus incidence and risk behavior among injection drug users in Monretal Canada: a 16-year longitudinal study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 173(9):1049-58. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). Syringe Exchange Programs – United States, 2008. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), 59(45), 1488-91. Page 28 of 37 Cooley L.A., Wejnert C., Spiller M.W., Broz D., Paz-Bailey G., & NHBS study Group. (2016). Low HIV Testing among Persons Who Inject Drugs—National HIV Behavioral Surveillance, 20 US Cities, 2012. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 65:270-4. Coutinho R.A. (2000). Needle exchange, pragmatism, and moralism. American Journal of Public Health, 90(9):1387-8. Des Jarlais, D.C. (2000). Research, politics, and needle exchange. American Journal of Public Health, 90(9):1392-4. Des Jarlais D.C., Perlis T., Arasteh K., Torian L.V., Beatrice S., Milliken J., Mildvan D., Yancovitz S., & Friedman S.R. (2005). HIV Incidence among injection drug users in New York City, 1990 to 2002. American Journal of Public Health, 95(8):1439-44. Des Jarlais, D.C., Nugentt, A., Solberg, A., Feelemyer, J., Mermin, J., & Holtzman, D. (2015). Syringe service programs for persons who inject drugs in urban, suburban, and rural areas – United States, 2013. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), 64(48), 1337-41. Des Jarlais, D.C., Perlis, T., Arasteh, K., Torian, L.V., Hagan, H., Beatrice, S., Smith, L., Wethers, L., Milliken, J., Mildvan, D., Yancovitz, S., & Friedman, S.R. (2005). Reductions in hepatitis C virus and HIV infections among injecting drug users in New York City, 1990-2001. AIDS, 19(3), S20–5. Des Jarlais, D.C., Perlis, T., Arasteh, K., Torian, L.V., Beatrice, S., Milliken, J., Mildvan, D., Yancovitz, S., & Friedman, S.R. (2005). HIV incidence among injection drug users in New York City, 1990 to 2002: use of serologic test algorithm to assess expansion of HIV prevention services. American Journal of Public Health, 95(8), 1439–1444. Des Jarlais D.C., Marmor M., Paone D., Titus S., Shi Q., Perlis T., Jose B., & Friedman S.R. (1996). HIV incidence among injecting drug users in New York City syringe-exchange programmes. Lancet, 348(9033):987-91. Fisher D.G., Fenaughty A.M., Cagle H.H., & Wells R.S. (2003). Needle exchange and injection drug use frequency: a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 33(2):199-205. Fisher, D.G., Fenaughty, A.M., Cagle, H.H., & Wells, R.S. (2003). Needle exchange and injection drug use frequency: a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, 33(2), 199-205. Fisher, D.G., Reynolds, G.L., & Harbke, C.R. (2002). Selection effect of needle exchange in Anchorage, Alaska. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 79(1), 128-135. Gibson, D.R., Brand, R., Anderson, K., Kahn, J.G., Perales, D., & Guydish, J. (2002). Two- to sixfold decreased odds of HIV risk behavior associated with use of syringe exchange. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 31(2), 237-42. Gibson D.R., Flynn N.M., & Perales D. (2001). Effectiveness of syringe exchange programs in reducind HIV risk behavior and HIV seroconversion among injecting drug users. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, 15(11):1329- 41. Guydish J., Bucardo J., Young M., Woods W., Grinstead O., & Clark W. (1993). Evaluating needle exchange: are there negative effects? Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, 7(6):871-6. Hagan, H., McGough, J.P., Thied, H., Weiss, N.S., Hopkins, S., & Alexander, E.R. (1999). Syringe exchange and risk of infection with hepatitis B and C viruses. American Journal of Epidemiology, 149(3), 203-213. Hagan H., Des Jarlais D.C., Purchase D., Friedman S.R., Reid T., Bell T.A. (1993). An interview study of participants in the Tacoma, Washington, syringe exchange. Addiction, 88(12):1691-7. Hebert M.R., Caviness C.M., Bowman S.E., Chowdhury S.P., Loberti P.G., & Stein M.D. (2008). Backpack needle exchange: background, design, and pilot testing of a program in Rhode Island. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 27(3):7-12. Heimer R., Khoshnood K., Bigg D., Guydish J., & Junge B. (1998). Syringe use and reuse: effects of syringe exchange programs in four cities. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 18 Suppl 1:S37-44. Holtgrave, D.R., Pinkerton, S.D., Jones, T.S., Lurie, P., & Vlahov, D. (1998). Cost and cost-effectiveness of increasing Page 29 of 37 access to sterile syringes and needles as an HIV prevention intervention in the United States. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes and Human Retrovirology, 18(1), S133–8. Hope V.D., Judd A., Hickman M., Sutton A., Stimson G.V., Parry J.V., & Gill O.N. (2005). HIV prevalence among injecting drug users in England and Wales 1990 to 2003: evidence for increased transmission in recent years. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, 19(11):1207-14. Huo, D., & Ouellet, L.J. (2007). Needle exchange and injection-related risk behaviors in Chicago: a longitudinal study. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 45(1), 108-114. Hyshka, E., Strathdee, S., Wood, E., & Kerr, T. (2012). Needle exchange and the HIV epidemic in Vancouver: lessons learned from 15 years of research. International Journal of Drug Policy, 23(4), 261-70. Institute of Medicine. (2006). Preventing HIV infection among injecting drug users in high risk countries: An assessment of the evidence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Islam M., Wodak A., Conigrave K.M. (2008). The effectiveness and safety of syringe vending machines as a component of needle syringe programmes in community settings. International Journal of Drug Policy, 19(6):436-41. Islam M.M., Shanahan M., Topp L., Conigrave K.M., White A., & Day C.A. (2013). The cost of providing primary health-care services from a needle and syringe program: a case study. Drug and Alcohol Review, 32(3):312-9. Jones L., Pickering L., Sumnall H., McVeigh J., & Bellis M.A. (2010). Optimal provision of needle and syringe programmes for injecting drug users: A systematic review. International Journal of Drug Policy, 21(5):335-42. Kaplan E.H., & Heimer R. (1992). HIV prevalence among intravenous drug users: model-based estimates from New Haven's legal needle exchange. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, 5(2):163-9. Kerr, T., Small, W., Buchner, C., Zhang, R., Li, K., Montaner, J., & Wood, E. (2010). Syringe sharing and HIV incidence among injection drug users and increased access to sterile syringes. American Journal of Public Health, 100(8), 1449-53. Kidorf M., Disney E., King V., Kolodner K., Beilenson P., & Brooner R.K. (2005). Challenges in motivating treatment enrollment in community syringe exchange participants. Journal of Urban Health, 82(3):456-67. Kim N.J., Jin H., McFarland W., & Raymond H.F. (2015). Trends in sources and sharing of needles among people who inject drugs, San Francisco, 2005–2012. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26(12):1238-43. Kresina T.F., Bruce R.D., & Mulvey K.P. (2013). Evidence-based prevention interventions for people who use illicit drugs. Advances in Preventive Medicine, 360957. Ksobiech K. (2003). A meta-analysis of needle sharing, lending, and borrowing behaviors of needle exchange program attenders. AIDS Education and Prevention, 15(3):257-68. Laufer F.N. (2001). Cost-effectiveness of syringe exchange as an HIV prevention strategy. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, 28(3):273-8. Lutnick A., Cooper E., Dodson C., Bluthenthal R., & Kral A.H. (2013). Pharmacy syringe purchase test of nonprescription syringe sales in San Francisco and Los Angeles in 2010. Journal of Urban Health, 90(2):276-83. MacDonald, M., Law, M., Kaldor, J., Hales, J., & Dore, G.J. (2003). Effectiveness of needle and syringe programmes for preventing HIV transmission. International Journal of Drug Policy, 14(5-6), 353-357. Marrazzo J.M., del Rio C., Holtgrave D.R., Cohen M.S., Kalichman S.C., Mayer K.H., Montaner J.S., Wheeler D.P., Grant R.M., Grinsztejn B., Kumarasamy N., Shoptaw S., Walensky R.P., Dabis F., Sugarman J., Benson C.A., & International Antiviral Society-USA Panel. (2014). HIV Prevention in Clinical Care Settings2014 Recommendations of the International Antiviral Society–USA Panel. JAMA, 312(4):390-409. Masson C.L., Sorensen J.L., Perlman D.C., Shopshire M.S., Delucchi K.L., Chen T., Sporer K., Des Jarlais D., & Hall S.M. (2007). Hospital- versus community-based syringe exchange: a randomized controlled trial. AIDS Education and Page 30 of 37 Prevention, 19(2):97-110. Mathers B.M., Degenhardt L., Ali H., Wiessing L., Hickman M., Mattick R.P., Myers B., Ambekar A., Strathdee S.A., & 2009 Reference Group to the UN on HIV and Injecting Drug Use. (2010). HIV prevention, treatment, and care services for people who inject drugs: a systematic review of global, regional, and national coverage. Lancet, 375(9719):1014-28. Maurer L.A., Bass S.B., Ye D., Benitez J., Mazzella S., & Krafty R. (2016). Trend Analyses of Users of a Syringe Exchange Program in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1999–2014. AIDS and Behavior. Newland J., Newman C., Treloar C. (2016). "We get by with a little help from our friends": Small-scale informal and large-scale formal peer distribution networks of sterile injecting equipment in Australia. International Journal of Drug Policy, 34:65-71. Nguyen T.Q., Weir B.W., Des Jarlais D.C., Pinkerton S.D., & Holtgrave D.R. (2015). Syringe exchange in the United States: a national level economic evaluation of hypothetical increases in investment. AIDS and Behavior, 18(11):2144-55. Normand J., Vlahov D., & Moses L.E. (1995). Preventing HIV Transmisson: The Role of Sterile Needles and Bleach. Oramasionwu C.U., Bailey S.C., Moore H.N., Oramasionwu C.O., Russell A.L., & Zule W.A. (2015). Dead space in over-the-counter syringes: The implications for HIV and HCV transmission. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26(12):1282-4. Oramasionwu C.U., Johnson T.L., Zule W.A., Carda-Auten J., & Golin C.E. (2015).Using pharmacies in a structural intervention to distribute low dead space syringes to reduce HIV and HCV transmission in people who inject drugs. American Journal of Public Health, 105(6):1066-71. Palmateer, N., Kimber, J., Hickman, M., Hutchinson, S., Rhodes, T., & Goldberg, D. (2010). Evidence for the effectiveness of sterile injecting equipment provision in preventing hepatitis C and human immunodeficiency virus transmission among injecting drug users: a review of reviews. Addiction, 105(5), 844-59. Peters P.J., Pontones P., Hoover K.W., Patel M.R., Galang R.R., Shields J., Blosser S.J., Spiller M.W., Combs B., Switzer W.M., Conrad C., Gentry J., Khudyakov Y., Waterhouse D., Owen S.M., Chapman E., Roseberry J.C., McCants V., Weidle P.J., Broz D., Samandari T., Mermin J., Walthall J., Brooks J.T., Duwve J.M.; Indiana HIV Outbreak Investigation Team. (2016). HIV Infection Linked to Injection Use of Oxymorphone in Indiana, 2014–2015. New England Journal of Medicine, 375(3):229-39. Ramirez-Jonville. (2006). Drug addiction: harm reduction policies in France and Spain. La Presse Medicale, 35(7-8):1151- 61. Reid R.J. (2000). A benefit cost analysis of syringe exchange programs. Journal of Health and Social Policy, 11(4):41-57. Ruiz M.S., O'Rourke, A., & Allen, S.T. (2016). Impact evaluation of a policy intervention for HIV prevention in Washington, DC. AIDS and Behavior, 20(1), 22-8. Small D., Glickman A., Rigter G., & Walter T. (2010). The Washington Needle Depot: fitting healthcare to injection drug users rather than injection drug users to healthcare: moving from a syringe exchange to syringe distribution model. Harm Reduction Journal, 7:1. Smyth B.P., Keenan E., & O'Connor J.J. (1999). Evaluation of the impact of Dublin's expanded harm reduction programme on prevalence of hepatitis C among short-term injection drug users. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 53(7):434-5. Strathdee, S.A., Ricketts, E.P., Huettner, S., Cornelius, L., Bishai, D., Havens, J.R., Beilenson, P., Rapp, C., Lloyd J.J., & Latkin, C.A. (2006). Facilitating entry into drug treatment among injection drug users referred from a needle exchange program: results from a community-based behavioral intervention trial. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 83(3), 225-32. Strathdee, S.A., Patrick, D.M., Currie, S.L., Cornelisse, P.G., Rekart, M.L., Montaner, J.S., Schechter, M.T., & Page 31 of 37 O’Shaughnessy, M.V. (1997). Needle exchange is not enough: lessons from the Vancouver injecting drug use study. AIDS, 11(8), F59–65. Strike, C., Watson, T.M, Lavigne, P., Hopkins, S., Shore, R., Young, D., Leonard, L., & Millson, P. (2011). Guidelines for harm reduction: evaluating implementation of best practice recommendations for needle and syringe programs (NSPs). International Journal of Drug Policy, 22(1), 34-40. Valente T.W., Foreman R.K., Junge B., & Vlahov D. (1998). Satellite exchange in the Baltimore Needle Exchange Program. Public Health Report, 113 Suppl 1:90-6. Van Den Berg, C., Smit, C., Van Brussel, G., Coutinho, R., Prins, M., & Amsterdam Cohort. (2007). Full participation in harm reduction programmes is associated with decreased risk for human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C virus: evidence from the Amsterdam Cohort Studies among drug users. Addiction, 102(9), 1454-62. Vickerman P., Hickman M., Rhodes T., Watts C. (2006). Model projections on the required coverage of syringe distribution to prevent HIV epidemics among injecting drug users. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, 42(3):355-61. Vlahov, D. & Junge, B. (1998). The role of needle exchange programs in HIV prevention. Public Health Reports, 113(Suppl 1): 75–80. Vlahov D., Junge B., Brookmeyer R., Cohn S., Riley E., Armenian H., & Beilenson P. (1997). Reductions in high-risk drug use behaviors among participants in the Baltimore needle exchange program. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 16(5):400-6. Vlahov, D., Robertson, A.M., & Strathdee, S.A. (2010). Prevention of HIV infection among injection drug users in resource-limited settings. Clinical Infectious Disease, 50(suppl 3), S114-21. Vlahov D., Des Jarlais D.C., Goosby E., Hollinger P.C., Lurie P.G., Shriver M.D., & Strathdee S.A. (2001). Needle exchange programs for the prevention of human immunodeficiency virus infection: epidemiology and policy. American Journal of Epidemiology, 154(12 Suppl):S70-7. Watters, J.K., Estillo, M.J., Clark, G.L., & Lovick, J. (1994). Syringe and needle exchange as HIV/AIDS prevention for injection drug users. JAMA, 271(2), 115-20. Werb D., Kerr T., Buxton J., Shoveller J., Richardson C., Montaner J., & Wood E. (2013). Patterns of injection drug use cessation during an expansion of syringe exchange services in a Canadian setting. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 132(3):535- 40. Wiessing L., Likatavicius G., Klempová D., Hedrich D., Nardone A., & Griffiths P. (2009). Associations between availability and coverage of HIV-prevention measures and subsequent incidence of diagnosed HIV infection among injection drug users. American Journal of Public Health, 99(6):1049-52. Wodak, A., & Cooney, A. (2006). Do needle syringe programs reduce HIV infection among injecting drug users: a comprehensive review of the international evidence. Substance Use and Misuse, 41(6–7): 777–813. EXTENDED-RELEASE NALTREXONE FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE POPULATIONS Baser, O., Chalk, M, Fiellin, D.A, & Gastfriend, D.R. (2011). Cost and utilization outcomes of opioid-dependence treatments. American Journal of Managed Care, 17(Suppl 8):S235–48. Bisaga A., Sullivan M.A., Glass A., Mishlen K., Carpenter K.M., Mariani J.J., Levin F.R., & Nunes E.V. (2014). A placebo-controlled trial of memantine as an adjunct to injectable extended-release naltrexone for opioid dependence. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 46(5):546-52. Bonnie, R.J. (2006). Judicially mandated naltrexone use by criminal offenders: a legal analysis. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 31(2):121-7. Page 32 of 37 Brahen, L.S., Henderson, R.K., Capone, T., & Kordal, N. (1984). Naltrexone treatment in a jail-work release program. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 45(9 Pt 2), 49-52. Chan, K.Y. (1996). The Singapore naltrexone community-based project for heroin addicts compared with drugfree community-based program: the first cohort. Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine, 3(2), 87-92 Comer, S.D., Sullivan, M.A., Yu, E., Rothenberg, J.L., Kleber, H.D., Kampman, K., Dackis, C., & O’Brien, C.P. (2006). Injectable, sustained-release naltrexone for the treatment of opioid dependence: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Archives of General Psychiatry, 63(2), 210-18. Cornish, J.W., Metzger, D., Woody, G.E., Wilson, D., McLellan, A.T., Vandergrift, B., & O’Brien, C.P. (1997). Naltrexone pharmacotherapy for opioid dependent federal probationers. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 14(6), 529- 34. Coviello, D.M., Cornish, J.W., Lynch, K.G., Alterman, A.I., & O’Brien, C.P. (2010). A randomized trial of oral naltrexone for treating opioid-dependent offenders. The American Journal on Addictions, 19(5), 422-32. Coviello, D.M., Cornish, J.W., Lynch, K.G., Boney, T.Y., Clark, C.A., Lee, J.D., Friedmann, P.D., Nunes, E.V., Kinlock, T.W., Gordon, M.S., Schwartz, R.P., Nuwayser, E.S., & O’Brien, C.P. (2012). A multi-site pilot study of extended release injectable naltrexone in previously opioid-dependent parolees and probationers. Substance Abuse, 33(1), 48-59. Di Paola A., Lincoln T., Skiest D.J., Desabrais M., Altice F.L., & Springer S.A. (2014). Design and methods of a double blind randomized placebo-controlled trial of extended-release naltrexone for HIV-infected, opioid dependent prisoners and jail detainees who are transitioning to the community. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 39(2):256-68. Dougherty, R.H., Lyman, D.R., George, P., Ghose, S.S., Daniels, A.S., & Delphin-Rittmon, M.E. (2014). Assessing the evidence base for behavioral health services: introduction to the series. Psychiatric Services, 65(1), 11-15. Dunn K., DeFulio A., Everly J.J., Donlin W.D., Aklin W.M., Nuzzo P.A., Leoutsakos J.M., Umbricht A., Fingerhood M., Bigelow G.E., & Silverman K. Employment-based reinforcement of adherence to oral naltrexone in unemployed injection drug users: 12-month outcomes. Addictive Behaviors, 29(2):270-6. Foster J., Brewer C., & Steele T. (2003). Naltexone implants can completely prevent early (1-month) relapse after opiate detoxification: a pilot study of two cohorts totalling 101 patients with a note on naltrexone blood levels. Addiction Biology, 8(2):211-7. Gastfriend, D.R. (2011). Intramuscular extended-release naltrexone: current evidence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1216, 144-66. Krupitsky, E., Nunes, E.V., Ling, W., Illepereuma, A., Gastfriend, D.R., & Silverman, B.L. (2011). Injectable extended- release naltrexone for opioid dependence: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre randomised trial. The Lancet, 377(9776), 1506-13. Larney S., Gowing L., Mattick R.P., Farrell M., Hall W., & Degenhardt L. (2014). A systematic review and meta-analysis of naltrexone implants for the treatment of opioid dependence. Drug and Alcohol Review, 33(2):115-28. Lee J.D., Friedmann P.D., Boney T.Y., Hoskinson R.A, McDonald R., Gordon M., Fishman M., Chen D.T., Bonnie R.J., Kinlock T.W., Nunes E.V., Cornish J.W., & O'Brien C.P. (2015). Extended-release naltrexone to prevent relapse among opioid dependent, criminal justice system involved adults: rationale and design of a randomized controlled effectiveness trial. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 41:110-7. Lee J.D., Friedmann P.D., Kinlock T.W., Nunes E.V., Boney T.Y., Hoskinson R.A., Wilson D., McDonald R., Rotrosen J., Gourevitch M.N., Gordon M., Fishman M., Chen D.T., Bonnie R.J., Cornish J.W., Murphy S.M., & O'Brien C.P. (2016). Extended-Release Naltrexone to Prevent Opioid Relapse in Criminal Justice Offenders. New England Journal of Medicine, 374(13):1232-42. Page 33 of 37 Leslie D.L., Milchak W., Gastfriend D.R., Herschman P.L., Bixler E.O., Velott D.L., & Meyer R.E. (2015). Effects of injectable extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) for opioid dependence on residential rehabilitation outcomes and early follow-up. American Journal on Addictions, 24(3):265-70. Lobmaier P., Kornør H., Kunøe N., & Bjørndal A. (2008). Sustained-release naltrexone for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Systematic Review, (2):CD006140. Lobmaier, P.P., Kunoe, N., Gossop, M., Katevoll, T., & Waal, H. (2010). Naltrexone implants compared to methadone: outcomes six months after prison release. European Addiction Research, 16(3), 139-45. Marlowe D.B. (2006). Depot naltrexone in lieu of incarceration: a behavioral analysis of coerced treatment for addicted offenders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 31(2):131-9. Mogali S., Khan N.A., Drill E.S., Pavlicova M., Sullivan M.A., Nunes E., & Bisaga A. (2014). Baseline characteristics of patients predicting suitability for rapid naltrexone induction. American Journal on Addictions, 10.1111/j.1521-0391. Murphy, S.M. & Polsky, D. (2016) Economic evaluations of opioid use disorder interventions. PharmacoEconomics. 34: 863-87. Patapis, N.S. & Nordstrom, B.R. (2006). Research on naltrexone in the criminal justice system. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 31(2):113-5. Presenza, L.J. (2006). Naltrexone as a "mandate" or as a choice comments on "Judicially mandated naltrexone use by criminaloffenders: a legal analysis". Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 31(2):129-30. Smith-Rohrberg, D. (2004). Research Note – Review of Corrections Based-Therapy for Opiate-Dependent Patients: Implications for Buprenorphine Treatment among Correctional Populations. Retrieved from buprenorphinetxamongcorrectionalpopulati.pdf Springer, S.A., Brown, S.E., Di Paola, A., & Altice, F.L. (2015). Correlates of retention on extended-release naltrexone among persons living with HIV infection transitioning to the community from the criminal justice system. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 157, 158-65. Stoner S.A., Arenella P.B., & Hendershot C.S. (2015). Randomized controlled trial of a mobile phone intervention for improving adherence to naltrexone for alcohol use disorders. PLoS ONE, 10(4):e0124613. Syed, Y.Y., & Keating, G.M. (2013). Extended-release intramuscular naltrexone (Vivitrol): a review of its use in the prevention of relapse to opioid dependence in detoxified patients. CNS Drugs, 27(10), 851-61. Swift, R., Oslin, D.W., Alexander, M., & Forman, R. (2011). Adherence monitoring in naltrexone pharmacotherapy trials: a systematic review. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 72(6), 1012-8. Vagenas P., Di Paola A., Herme M., Lincoln T., Skiest D.J., Altice F.L., & Springer S.A. (2014). An evaluation of hepatic enzyme elevations among HIV-infected released prisoners enrolled in two randomized placebo-controlled trials of extended release naltrexone. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 47(1):35-40. Xuyi W., Juelu W., Xiaojun X., Haiyan L., Zheyuan L., Zhehui G., Guoming D., Gang L., Jin L., Wei H. (2014). Phase I study of injectable, depot naltrexone for the relapse prevention treatment of opioid dependence. American Journal on Addictions, 23(2):162-9. Page 34 of 37 1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics, 2015. Multiple Cause of Death, 1999-2015 on CDC WONDER Online Database, released 2016. CDC. Data extracted by ONDCP from on December 28, 2016. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ), 2016. 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed Tables. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Rockville, MD. Table 7.3B, Accessed at: 2015.pdf. 6 Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ), 2016. 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed Tables. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Rockville, MD. Table 6.56B, Accessed at: 2015.pdf. 7 Jones, C.M., Paulozzi L.J., and Mack, K.A., 2014. Sources of prescription opioid pain relievers by frequency of past year nonmedical use United States, 2008-2011. JAMA Intern Med, 174(5):802-3. 8 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), 2015. Unpublished special tabulations, SAMHSA’s Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality’s National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2012-2013. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Rockville, MD. 9 Mars, S.G., Bourgois, P., Karandinos, G., Montero, F. and Ciccarone, D., 2014. Every ‘never’ I ever said came true: transitions from opioid pills to heroin injecting. Int J Drug Policy, 25(2):257-66. 10 Ibid. 11 Peters, P.J., Pontones, P., Hoover, K.W. et al. 2016. HIV Infection Linked to Injection Use of Oxymorphone in Indiana, 2014-2015. N Engl J Med. 375(3):229-39. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1515195. Accessed at: 12 Indiana State Department of Public Health, 2015. Press Release: Indiana State Department of Health Investigates Additional HIV Cases Tied to Southeastern Indiana Outbreak. Indiana State Department of Public Health, Indianapolis, Indiana. Accessed at: a_Outbreak.pdf on October 21, 2016. 13 U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2016. Opana ER-Oxymorphone Hydrochloride Tablet, Extended Release Label. Section 2.1 Conversion Factors to Opana ER. U.S. National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD. Accessed at: 14 Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ), 2016. 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed Tables. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Rockville, MD. Table 5.58A, Accessed at: 2015.pdf. 15 Sigmon, S.C., 2014. Access to treatment for opioid dependence in rural America: challenges and future directions. JAMA Psychiatry. 71(4):359-60. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.4450. PubMed PMID: 24500040. Page 35 of 37 16 Rosenblum, A., Cleland, C.M., Fong, C., Kayman D.J., Tempalski, B., Parrino, M., 2011. Distance traveled and cross- state commuting to opioid treatment programs in the United States. J Environ Public Health, 2011(948789). doi: 10.1155/2011/948789. 17 Nonprofit Finance Fund, Corporation for National & Community Service, 2016. Pay for Success: The First Generation: A Comparative Analysis of the First 10 Pay for Success Projects in the United States, Nonprofit Finance Fund, New York, New York. Accessed at: on October 24, 2016. 18 Ibid. 19 Goldman Sachs, J.B. Pritzker, State of Utah, United Way of Salt Lake, 2015, Initial Results Released for First Social Impact Bond for Early Childhood Education Show Success. Accessed at: on December 1, 2016. 20 Op. cit., Nonprofit Finance Fund, 2016. 21 Op. cit., Nonprofit Finance Fund, 2016. 22 Op. cit., Nonprofit Finance Fund, 2016. 23 SRI Education, 2016. Evaluation of Kindergarten Readiness in Five Child-Parent Centers: Report for 2014-2015, IFF Pay for Success I, LLC. Chicago, IL. Accessed at: CPC_Report_FINAL_041916.pdf on October 24, 2016. 24 Op. cit., Nonprofit Finance Fund, 2016. 25 Op. cit., Nonprofit Finance Fund, 2016. 26 Op. cit., Nonprofit Finance Fund, 2016. 27 Op. cit., Nonprofit Finance Fund, 2016. 28 Op. cit., Nonprofit Finance Fund, 2016. 29 Goldman Sachs, DC Water, Calvert Foundation, Fact Sheet: DC Water Environmental Impact Bond. Accessed at 16.pdf on December 20, 2016. 30 The County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors. Summary of Proceedings: December 13, 2016, 9:00am Regular Meeting. Accessed at on December 20, 2016. 31 2016. Email correspondence with Jacob Moy, Third Sector Capital Partners, Dec. 20, 2016. 32 2016. Email correspondence with Emily Wood, Third Sector Capital Partners, Dec. 20, 2016. 33 Michelle Schmitt, Salt Lake County launches two Pay for Success projects. 2016. Accessed at on Dec. 20, 2016. 34 2016. Unpublished administrative data (LINK), Connecticut's State Administered Child Welfare Information System, Connecticut Department of Children and Families (SACWIS), reported by Connecticut Department of Children and Families' Office for Research and Evaluation. 35 Fang, X., Brown, D.S., Florence, C.S. and Mercy, J.A., 2012. The Economic Burden of Child Maltreatment in the United States and Implications for Prevention. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(2): 156-165. Page 36 of 37 36 Social Finance, Connecticut Department of Children and Families, University of Connecticut Health Center, Yale Child Study Center, Harvard Kennedy School Government Performance Lab. 2016. Family Stability Project Summary. Received via email from Social Finance on Dec. 9, 2016. 37 2016. Email correspondence with Casey Littlefield, Social Finance, Aug. 30, 2016. 38 Op. cit., Social Finance et al, 2016. 39 Op. cit., Littlefield, 2016. 2016. 40 Op. cit., Social Finance et al., 2016. 41 Op. cit., Social Finance et al., 2016. 42 Op. cit., Social Finance et al., 2016. 43 Op. cit., Social Finance et al., 2016. 44 2016. Email correspondence with Steve Durham, Louisville Metro Department of Corrections, Sept. 15, 2016, Sept. 28, 2016, Sept. 29, 2016, and Oct. 19, 2016; and with Sarah Allin, Harvard Kennedy School Government Performance Lab, Sept. 28, 2016. 45 Notice of Federal Funding Availability, The Social Innovation Fund (SIF), Corporation for National and Community Service, 2016. Accessed at: on October 24, 2016. Page 37 of 37