1. Examining the Effectiveness of a Blended Intelligence Network: Incorporating Privatized Services into Corrections Intelligence Units
Rick Dierenfeldt, PhD

2. Corrections Costs One of the top 3 budget expenditures in most states
Increased incarceration rates
Mandatory minimum sentences (violent offenses, persistent offenders)
Doing more with less
Increased comprehensive privatization
Questions concerning:
Employee training
Offender services
Institutional drug use
Offender recidivism
Escape

3. Intelligence and Phone Monitoring
Area of limited research
Previous evaluation of BOP by DOJ limited to 10 day observation period
Intelligence models
Professional or private
Can a blended intelligence (professional and private) model be effective?

4. Offender Phone Use Pro Con
Assists in maintaining community integration and reduces risk of recidivism (DOJ, 1999)
Enhances offender’s sense of personal control and inhibits desire to engage in illicit activity (Blevins et al., 2010)
Used to conspire with friends and family to engage in criminal activity (DOJ, 1999; Hughes, 2003)
Fraud
Escape
Drug Transactions

5. Institutional Offending
Drug Offenses
Substantial increase in drug offenders
30-60 percent of offenders reporting using controlled substances during incarceration
Price inflation leads to debt and victimization
Expressive Offenses
Simple assault, aggravated assault, sexual assault, etc.
Underreported to corrections officials
Instrumental Offenses
Administrative Violations

6. Present Study
Evaluate the effects of incorporating privatized services into the intelligence unit operations within a Midwestern Department of Corrections
18 adult male institutions
Intelligence Unit (IU) comprised of 17 full-time, on-site intelligence investigators
Observation Period: 12/21/2009 to 10/15/2013
Implementation of contract staff: 11/15/2011

7. Contract Monitors Full-time investigative analysts
Wave 1: 11 analysts
Wave 2: 30 analysts
Behavioral analysis software
Historical data from offender phone records used to search for deviations in individual phone use patterns
Contractual obligation to monitor 5% of all offender phone calls
Reporting
Escalation
Oversight

8. Methodology Descriptive Statistics
On-site/Off-site reports sorted by offense category:
Drug Crime
possession, distribution/attempted distribution
N= 1366
Expressive Crime
attempted/completed assault, homicide, violent offenses against the family, sexual offenses, weapons offenses
N= 389
Instrumental Crime
attempted/completed fraud, prostitution, illegal gambling, robbery, burglary, theft/stealing
N= 350
Administrative Violation
N= 821

9. Analytical Approach Percent Change Models
Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) models
Weekly Aggregates (200 total observations)
Observation Period: 12/21/2009 to 10/15/2013
100 weeks pre-CM, 100 weeks post-CM
Intervention 1: Wave 1 of CM analysts
Intervention 2: Wave 2 of CM analysts
Intervention 3: Implementation of behavior analysis software

10. Univariate Statistics

11. ARIMA Permanent Effects

12. Discussion/Conclusions
Introduction of contract services associated with substantial increases in intelligence reports
Gradual vs. permanent effects
Bolstering IU efforts by freeing up resources
Consistent drug crime reports
Increased reporting of expressive, instrumental, administrative violations
Increased intelligence on underreported victimization
Disruption of prison drug markets

13. Discussion/Conclusions
Accuracy of reporting
9 of 975 (< 1 %) CM reports unfounded
Call volume
5.22% of all calls monitored (approximately 2 million calls)
Costs
Contract services paid for by offender use of the phone system
Ethics
Multi-tiered report review (internal and external)
Offender rights
Safety and security

14. Contact Information
Rick Dierenfeldt
Shane Ziebarth

15. Descriptive Statistics
Frequency of Specific Controlled Substances:
Cocaine (Powder)= 28
Crack Cocaine= 21
Heroin= 76
Methamphetamine= 60
PCP/LSD= 2
Prescription Medications (ex: oxycontin)= 57
Marijuana= 238
Synthetic Cannabinoids= 48

16. Legal Precedent
Title III Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (1968)
Procunier v. Martinez (1974)
Turner v. Safley (1987)
United States v. Horr (1992)
United States v. Workman (1996)

17. Introducing Drugs into the Facility
Cavity concealment by newly incarcerated offenders
Introduction by staff
Introduction by work-release offenders who gather drugs deposited at work-release sites by civilians
Physical transfer by friends and family during visitation
With the exception of the first strategy, these methods will likely require the use of the offender phone system at some point in the process. This has prompted offenders to develop a coded language to conceal their activities.

18. Coded Language
“You in traffic? Stop by the Nike store. Pick up some of them 24/7’s and put ‘em on the highway.”
O: Where’s the river at?
C: It was at 40 feet in [City A] and 60 feet in [City B]. I don’t know about [City C].
O: You seen Keisha?
C: Yeah, I talked to her the other night. She puttin’ (expletive) to sleep, boy.
O: Bring her with you when you come visit on Saturday.