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) Huskey & Associates & University of Cincinnati
Santa Clara County Reentry Network Inmate Recidivism & Program Evaluation Findings & Recommendations 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% Charged with “any” drug offense Drug offense 71% Prior arrests 1 or more 57% 6 or more 77% Prior probation 1-2 71% violations 3 or more 85% Not involved in Re-arrests (6-24 mo.) 34%-64% treatment Re-convictions (6-24 mo.) 24%-42% Re-incarcerations (6-24 mo.) 24%-59% Huskey & Associates & University of Cincinnati
Santa Clara County Reentry Network Inmate Recidivism & Program Evaluation Findings & Recommendations March 14, 2012 SCC DOC Re-arrest, Re-conviction and Re-incarceration Rates for Treatment vs. Matched Comparison Samples Matched-Comparison Treatment Sample Treatment Effect Sample % % % Re-arrest 14.8 6 month* 19.2 34.0 14.0 12 month* 32.6 46.6 5.5 24 month* 58.2 63.7 Re-conviction 14.4 6 month* 9.7 24.1 16.4 12 month* 16.4 32.8 15.7 24 month* 25.9 41.6 Re-incarceration 6.0 6 month* 18.1 24.1 6.7 12 month* 32.1 38.8 24 month 60.8 58.9 -- *p<.01; Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data and differences in time in the community after release. Huskey & Associates & University of Cincinnati
Santa Clara County Reentry Network Inmate Recidivism & Program Evaluation Findings & Recommendations 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. Huskey & Associates & University of Cincinnati
Santa Clara County Reentry Network Inmate Recidivism & Program Evaluation Findings & Recommendations 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. Huskey & Associates & University of Cincinnati
Santa Clara County Reentry Network Inmate Recidivism & Program Evaluation Findings & Recommendations March 14, 2012 SCC DOC Re-arrest, Re-conviction and Re-incarceration Rates Compared to California Inmates 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<.01; 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. Huskey & Associates & University of Cincinnati
Santa Clara County Reentry Network Inmate Recidivism & Program Evaluation Findings & Recommendations 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) Huskey & Associates & University of Cincinnati
Santa Clara County Reentry Network Inmate Recidivism & Program Evaluation Findings & Recommendations 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 % Medium Medium Medium Low Risk Risk High Risk Low Risk Risk High Risk Low Risk 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<.05; **p<.01; Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data and differences in time in the community post release. Percent difference is the effect of treatment between the treatment and the comparison sample and was calculated by subtracting the treatment sample from the matched comparison sample. Huskey & Associates & University of Cincinnati
Santa Clara County Reentry Network Inmate Recidivism & Program Evaluation Findings & Recommendations 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 Huskey & Associates & University of Cincinnati
Santa Clara County Reentry Network Inmate Recidivism & Program Evaluation Findings & Recommendations 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 Huskey & Associates & University of Cincinnati
Santa Clara County Reentry Network Inmate Recidivism & Program Evaluation Findings & Recommendations March 14, 2012 PART II Evidence-Based Program Evaluation Huskey & Associates & University of Cincinnati
Santa Clara County Reentry Network Inmate Recidivism & Program Evaluation Findings & Recommendations 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 & University of Cincinnati
Santa Clara County Reentry Network Inmate Recidivism & Program Evaluation Findings & Recommendations March 14, 2012 Scores of SCC DOC Programs CPC Content Area Mean Median Minimum- Maximum Range 60 – 100 Program Staff & Support 66.0 60.0 0.0 – 0.0* Offender Assessment 0.0 0.0 25.7 – 66.7 Treatment 34.2 31.4 0.0 – 60.0 Quality Assurance 14.0 0.0 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. Huskey & Associates & University of Cincinnati
Santa Clara County Reentry Network Inmate Recidivism & Program Evaluation Findings & Recommendations 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 Huskey & Associates & University of Cincinnati
Recommend
More recommend
