santa clara county inmate recidivism & program … › sites › reentry › governance ›...

SANTA CLARA COUNTY

INMATE RECIDIVISM & PROGRAM

EVALUATION FINDINGS &

RECOMMENDATIONS

Presentation to the Santa Clara County Reentry Network March 14, 2012

Huskey & Associates &

University of Cincinnati

Santa Clara County Reentry Network

Inmate Recidivism & Program Evaluation

Findings & Recommendations

March 14, 2012

Project Goals

1. Document the recidivism rate of inmates participating

in programs vs. not participating.

2. Evaluate programs so the Department of Correction

and the Board of Supervisors know which programs

are effective in reducing recidivism and where to

allocate resources.

3. Make recommendations on programs to a) continue

as is b) continue with program modifications c)

discontinue.

(Funding provided by ARRA, Byrne, IWF and General Fund)






March 14, 2012

Factors Leading to Recidivism in SCC DOC Inmates

Factors Variable Percent

Recidivated

Age at arrest 24 or younger 58%

Gang involvement Reported being in a gang at arrest 75%

Drug offense Charged with “any” drug offense 71%

Prior arrests 1 or more

6 or more

57%

77%

Prior probation

violations

1-2

3 or more

71%

85%

Not involved in

treatment

Re-arrests (6-24 mo.)

Re-convictions (6-24 mo.)

Re-incarcerations (6-24 mo.)

34%-64%

24%-42%

24%-59%






March 14, 2012

SCC DOC Re-arrest, Re-conviction and Re-incarceration Rates for

Treatment vs. Matched Comparison Samples

Treatment Sample

Matched-Comparison

Sample Treatment Effect

% % %

Re-arrest

6 month* 19.2 34.0 14.8

12 month* 32.6 46.6 14.0

24 month* 58.2 63.7 5.5

Re-conviction

6 month* 9.7 24.1 14.4

12 month* 16.4 32.8 16.4

24 month* 25.9 41.6 15.7

Re-incarceration

6 month* 18.1 24.1 6.0

12 month* 32.1 38.8 6.7

24 month 60.8 58.9 --

*p




March 14, 2012

Findings demonstrate that persons involved in treatment

were “significantly” less likely to be re-arrested and re-

convicted at 6, 12 and 24 months and less likely to be

re-incarcerated at 6 and 12 months compared to similar

individuals who were not involved in treatment.






March 14, 2012

Fewer SCC DOC inmates were re-arrested and re-

convicted at 12 and 24 months compared to

California inmates discharged from the CDCR.






March 14, 2012

SCC DOC Re-arrest, Re-conviction and Re-incarceration

Rates Compared to California Inmates



Source: SCC DOC Recidivism Study, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 2011 Adult

Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report. Office of Research, November 23, 2011. ^ Rates for “Arrests” and

“Convictions” only include those felons where an automated criminal history record was available from the

Department of Justice. Re-incarceration data for CDCR is for FY08. Note: Column totals may differ across

variables due to missing data and differences in time in the community after release.

CDCR Inmates SCC DOC Inmates

% % Re-arrests

12 month 57.0 32.6

24 month 70.1 58.2

Re-convictions

12 month 20.7 16.4

24 month 36.3 25.9

Re-incarcerations

24 month 59.2 60.8 *p




March 14, 2012

Other SCC DOC Recidivism Findings

Treatment had the greatest effect on reducing re-arrests and re-convictions with high risk SCC DOC inmates at 6, 12 and

24 months. In contrast, treatment had the least effect lowering the recidivism of low risk inmates.

(consistent with national research on risk)






March 14, 2012

Percent of SCC DOC Inmate Re-convictions by

Risk Level and Time Interval

6 Month Re-conviction % 12 Month Re-conviction % 24 Month Re-conviction %

Low Risk

Medium

Risk High Risk Low Risk

Medium

Risk High Risk Low Risk

Medium

Risk High Risk

Treatment

Sample (2.0)** (8.0)** (23.1)** (4.2)** (14.6)** (34.9)** (10.8) (24.1)** (49.6)**

Matched-

Comparison

Sample (3.6)** (20.7)** (57.9)** (7.2)** (30.2)** (65.0)** (12.8) (41.7)** (72.3)**

Percent

Difference -1.6 -12.7 -34.8 -3.0 -15.6 -30.1 NS -17.6 -22.7

*p




March 14, 2012

Some Programs Produced Greater Reductions in Re-convictions than Others



Program Title 6-month 12-month 24-month

Artemis

Breaking Barriers

Day Reporting

Get Right

HOPE

M8

MY STORI

PACE

RCP I Men

RCP I Women

WINGS




March 14, 2012

Summary Recidivism Study Conclusions

• Treatment led to reduced re-arrests and re-convictions at 6, 12 and 24

months and in re-incarcerations at 6 and 12 months. No programs

significantly lowered re-incarcerations at 24 months

• Only a few programs produced no or little effect from treatment

• Greatest effect occurred with medium and high risk inmates

• Least effect occurred with low risk inmates

• Assess inmates’ risk to reoffend in addition to security level

• Match medium and high risk inmates with cognitive behavioral treatment:

• 200-300 hours for high risk inmates

• 100 hours for medium risk inmates

• Education and activities for low risk inmates






March 14, 2012

PART II

Evidence-Based Program Evaluation






March 14, 2012

What Is Meant by Effective Programs?

Programs adhere to the Principles of Effective Intervention (PEI):

• Risk Principle: Target high risk offenders for intense

programming

• Need Principle: Target criminogenic risk/need factors

that increase risk to reoffend

• Responsivity Principle: Adapt treatment to individual

needs/sufficient duration and dosage

• Fidelity: Deliver programs consistently according to

prescribed manual/track person’s gains Huskey & Associates &





March 14, 2012

Scores of SCC DOC Programs

CPC Content Area Mean Median Minimum-

Maximum Range

Program Staff & Support 66.0 60.0 60 – 100

Offender Assessment 0.0 0.0 0.0 – 0.0*

Treatment 34.2 31.4 25.7 – 66.7

Quality Assurance 14.0 0.0 0.0 – 60.0

Source: Correctional Programs Checklist. 65%-100%=Highly Effective; 55%-64%=Effective;

45%-54%=Needs Improvement; Less than 45%=Ineffective. SCCDOC has the CAIS, a validated

offender assessment instrument that scores inmates as low, medium and high risk to reoffend.






March 14, 2012

Summary Findings from EBP Evaluation

Santa Clara County DOC Programs:

• Are Delivered by Well-Qualified & Dedicated Staff

• Do Not Yet Use an Objective Assessment to Score Inmates According to

Risk to Reoffend (Low, Medium and High Risk)

• Are Not Yet Matched with Person’s Level of Risk to Reoffend – Some

Offenders Receiving Less or More Intervention Than They Require

• Low Scores in Treatment Effectiveness Due To:

• Curricula Does Not Target Criminogenic Needs)

• No Cognitive Behavioral Treatment

• 2 Programs Measure Program Gains

• All Programs Can Be Modified to Follow PEI






March 14, 2012

Recommended Program Modifications

• Expand Core Programs:

• CBT Substance Abuse Treatment with Skills Rehearsals

• Cognitive Behavioral Skills Training

• Conflict Resolution/Anger Management

• Academic/Post-Graduate Education/Job Readiness Training

• Reentry Preparation

• Aftercare

• Adopt an Objective/Validated Risk and Needs Assessment: Scores Low,

Medium and High Risk to Reoffend (R.O. needed to assess inmates and

manage their cases)

• Allocate Resources to Medium and High Risk Inmates/Assign Low Risk

Inmates to Work, Self-Guided Education (Roadmap to Recovery), Library, etc.)

• Work with Providers to Strengthen their Programs to Meet the Principles of

Effective Intervention

• Form Implementation Team and Workgroups Huskey & Associates &





March 14, 2012

Focus on 3 or more criminogenic needs in the

Case Plan because these will produce the

highest reduction in future recidivism.

Gendreau, P., French, S.A., and A. Taylor (2002). What Works (What Doesn’t

Work) Revised 2002. Invited Submission to the International Community

Corrections Association Monograph Series Project.






March 14, 2012

Examined 58 studies:

CBT Resulted in Average 25%-52% Reduction in Recidivism

“Odds Ratio: Offenders involved in CBT had a one and one half greater

likelihood of not recidivating after discharge from correctional supervision

than those who were not involved in treatment”.

Source: Landenberger, Nana A., Lipsey, Mark W. The Positive Effects of Cognitive-Behavioral Programs for Offenders: A Meta-Analysis of Factors Associated with Effective Treatment. In press, Journal of Experimental Criminology,, 2005.

Effects of Cognitive Behavioral Treatment

for Offenders Landenberger & Lipsey (2005)*






March 14, 2012

When treated inmates are transitioned to aftercare support services following discharge, level of

reoffending drops by more than one third.






March 14, 2012

These reforms would not be possible without

the collaboration of system partners and

treatment providers.






March 14, 2012

In-Custody

• Transition Planning Starts

at Intake

• Final Discharge Plan 2

Weeks Prior to Release

• Federal Benefit

Reinstatement

Applications

Elements of Transition Plan

• Corporation of Supportive

Housing San Jose, San Francisco,

Oakland, Contra Costa, Cook

County, Ohio (Tenant Screening,

Rental Subsidies, On-Site

Services)

• Partnership for Prescription

Assistance: Reentry Illinois

• Case Management: Returning

Home Ohio to Access Local

Services/Appointments

• Workforce Investment Act

•






March 14, 2012

Essential Elements of Aftercare Programming

Community Phase of Reentry (Six Months)

• MOA with CBOs to Continue Programming After Discharge

• Every Person Released Assigned a Mentor (Faith-Based

Organizations, University Interns,

Parent Advocates, Peer Mentors)

• Reentry Resource Tool Kit






March 14, 2012

6 Core Programs

1. Substance Abuse Treatment with Cognitive

Behavioral Elements

2. Cognitive Behavioral Skills Training

3. Conflict Resolution/Anger Management

4. Academic and Post-Graduate Education/Job

Readiness Training

5. Re-Entry Preparation

6. Aftercare

Key Recommendations




March 14, 2012

Recommendation Timeline

Adopt a Risk and Needs

Assessment Tool

In process, implementation planned for Spring 2012

Expand number of Core

Programs to six

• In process

• 5 of the 6 Core Programs will be offered each day of

the week

• Begin Core Programs at Elmwood, expand to Main

Jail

• Core classes will be taught in all in-custody programs

• 6th Core Program will be taught out-of-custody at new

Re-Entry Center

Allocate resources to Medium

and High Risk inmates

Completed. Rehabilitation Officer has been assigned to

Main Jail for high risk population. DOC will continue to

assess the need.

Recommendations, Steps Taken, and Timeline

for Core Programs




March 14, 2012

Recommendation Timeline

Work with providers to deliver

Core Programs based on

Principles of Effective Intervention

• 15 of the programs were recommended to “continue with

modifications”. Department will work with these programs

to meet Principles of Effective Intervention (PEI).

• 5 of the programs were recommended to be discontinued.

DOC will continue to work with these programs to meet

PEI, and report back to Public Safety and Justice

Committee in 6 months on progress.

Adherence to treatment and

quality assurance for all programs

• DOC is developing Pre and Post tests, and statistical

tracking mechanisms. Planned implementation is April

2012.

• DOC is developing anonymous surveys for participants.

Under development, and planned implementation is July

2012.

Form implementation teams and

workgroups

Completed and in use.

Recommendations, Steps Taken, and Timeline

for Core Programs (cont.)




March 14, 2012

Thank You!

Contact:

Bobbie Huskey,

[email protected]

Martha Wapenski,

[email protected]


mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

santa clara county inmate recidivism & program … › sites › reentry › governance ›...

Documents