1. Community Corrections Statewide Training Conference October 31, 2013 Kim English Linda Harrison Christine Adams Peg Flick Office of Research and Statistics, Division of Criminal Justice EBP and Community Corrections Outcomes

2. Is Colorado Community Corrections Evidence-Based? Programs are evidence-based when they apply the PRINCIPLES of EBP.

3. Many correctional intervention programs are based on tradition, custom, & imitation rather than scientific evidence of effectiveness. The engine of EBP starts with ASSESSMENT of an individual’s risks and criminogenic needs. Ed Latessa, May 2013 Colorado Collaborative Justice Conference Are intermediate sanctions evidence-based?

4. 4 Red Orange Yellow =.20 > =.10 > =.05 > Average Coefficients Antisocial Attitudes HX Antisocial Behavior /Low Self-control Antisocial Peers Criminal Personality Makeup Dysfunctional Family Relations Substance Abuse Work School/Work Leisure/Recreation Criminogenic Needs

5. Residential community corrections (n=9443)  50% have antisocial attitudes  40% have problems with antisocial peers  78% need substance abuse treatment (50% received substance abuse treatment)  75% have emotional problems  35% have problems with leisure time

6. Targeting Criminogenic Need: Results from Meta-Analyses Reduction in Recidivism Increase in Recidivism Source: 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

7. Recidivism Reductions as a Function of Targeting Multiple Criminogenic vs. Non-Criminogenic Needs Andrews, Dowden, & Gendreau, 1999; Dowden, 1998 Better outcomes Poorer outcomes More criminogenic than non-criminogenic needs More non-criminogenic than criminogenic needs

8. Evidence-based PRINCIPLES to reduce recidivism 1.Assess each defendant’s actuarial risk and criminogenic needs 2.Enhance intrinsic motivation 3.Target programming to criminogenic needs and the highest risk offenders 4.Build staff skills to implement EBP 5.Deliver treatment programs using cognitive-based strategies 6.Increase positive reinforcements 6.Increase positive reinforcements to influence pro- social behavior 7.Engage ongoing support: involve family members and community programs 8.Identify outcomes and measure progress

9. EBP: Staff Skills To provide EBP that emphasizes cognitive- behavioral strategies…. Staff must be well trained to understand antisocial thinking, social learning, and appropriate communication techniques. Skills must be taught to train offenders, and then ROLE PLAYING and PRACTICING between staff/clients is key. Staff must role model pro-social behavior. Staff should reward pro-social behavior—positive reinforcement—at a 4:1 ratio.

10. EBP: More about staff skills Mark Carey and Madeline Carter (2010). Coaching Packet: Shaping Offender Behavior. The Carey Group/Center for Effective Public Policy/Bureau of Justice Assistance.

11. EBP: Necessary staff skills… Mark Carey and Madeline Carter (2010). Coaching Packet: Shaping Offender Behavior. The Carey Group/Center for Effective Public Policy/Bureau of Justice Assistance.

12. EBP: More about the RNR Principles Target Interventions – Risk Principle – Risk Principle - Prioritize supervision and treatment resources for higher risk offenders. – Need Principle – Need Principle - Target interventions to criminogenic needs. – Responsivity Principle – Responsivity Principle - Be responsive to temperament, learning style, motivation, gender, age, and culture when assigning to programs. – Dosage – Dosage - Structure 40% to 70% of high-risk offenders' time for 3 to 9 months. NEED 200+ HOURS of clinical services related to criminogenic needs for high risk offenders!! High risk/High need = 300+ hours NEED about 100 hours for medium risk offenders (Latessa, May 2013) – Treatment Principle – Treatment Principle - Integrate treatment into full sentence/sanctions requirements.

13. Three Kinds of Responsivity Offender character traits Staff character traits Program components Matching is the key

14. Matching Staff and Client Traits  Match the characteristics of the individual offender to the intervention (treatment, program, supervision)AND  Match the personnel delivering the service to the offender

15. Responsivity Factors Offender Characteristics: – Motivation – Learning Style – Gender – Age – Culture Other Considerations: – Anxiety – Depression – Mental Illness – Intelligence Source: Mark Carey, The Carey Group

16. Are based on research & sound theory Have leadership Assess offenders using risk & need assessment instruments Target crime producing behaviors Use effective treatment models Vary treatment & services based on risk, needs, & responsivity factors Disrupt criminal networks Have qualified, experienced, dedicated & educated staff Provide aftercare Evaluate what they do Are stable & have sufficient resources & support Ed Latessa, May 2013 Colorado Collaborative Justice Conference EBP: Effective programs have certain characteristics

17. We are assessing needs in EBP: We are assessing needs in Community Corrections

18. Average LSI scores increasing…slightly over 10 years

19. Average Criminal History Scores Increasing

20. DCJ Criminal History Score # of juvenile adjudications (.5) + # juvenile placements in secure institutions (.75) + # of prior adult felony convictions (1.0) + # of prior adult parole revocations (.75) + # of adult probation revocations (.75) = CH Raw Score 0 = 1.001 - 1.25 = 1 1.26 - 2.25 = 2 2.26 - 3.25 = 3 3.36 – high = 4

21. What are the outcomes of clients in community corrections?

22. 2013 Community Corrections Outcome Study Clients terminated in FY 11 and FY 12 – May have terminated multiple times 5 placements analyzed – Residential (9443) – Residential Dual Diagnosis Treatment (RDDT)(429) – Residential Therapeutic Community (TC) (576) – IRT (431) (only successes in 90 day programs) – Non Residential (NonRes) (1517)

23. Definition of Recidivism New misdemeanor or felony FILING SUCCESSFUL Within one year of SUCCESSFUL discharge from community corrections Includes district and county court data EXCEPT it excludes Denver county court data Same definition used at least since 1998

24. Residential--Program Outcomes FY11-12 % of population SuccessEscapeNew Crime TV1 year recidivism Diversion 41% 51% 15% 4% 30% 16% Transition59631132318 Male 83% 57% 13% 3% 27% 18% Female17631332211 Age 18-20 3% 22% 29% 7% 42% 29% 21-2520391843925 26-3021501443218 31-3516551342816 36-4013661431819 41+27661022211

25. Residential--Program Outcomes FY11-12 % of population SuccessEscapeNew Crime TV1 year recidivism Less than HS 23% 48% 17% 4% 31% 23% HS/GED65601232516 Some college/ vocational 1165832414 College degree 27081213 Education and outcome

26. Residential--Program Outcomes FY11-12 % of population SuccessEscapeNew Crime TV1 year recidivism Full time 63% 73% 7% 2% 17% 16% Part time9461443618 Unemployed26342654525 Unemployable /disability 27082206 Employment at termination and outcome

27. Residential--Program Outcomes FY11-12 % of population SuccessEscapeNew Crime TV1 year recidivism Mental Health Diagnosis No 82% 62% 11% 3% 24% 17% Yes18491533316 Intake LSI Low 8% 74% 6% 3% 18% 7% Med41651032215 High51501633121 6 Mo. LSI Low 20% 88% 2% 8% 10% Med4776521817 High33441533924

28. Residential--Program Outcomes FY11-12 % of population SuccessEscapeNew Crime TV1 year recidivism CH Score 0 6% 67% 9% 2% 23% 10% 1864832522 211601232615 311601142616 464561442719 Crime Property 40% 53% 16% 4% 28% 17% Violent18571132916 Drug28641032314 Other nv10621342126 Other561932718

29. Client Outcomes and LSI Score Change FY11-FY12 LSI Change, intake to 6 months Average LSI score at INTAKE % of population % Program Success 1 Year Recidivism FY11 9+ point improvement 31.6 16% 81% 15% 1-8 points28.4537615 No change28.3135217 1-3 point decline 28.2114617 4+ decline25.083516

30. Number of Treatment Types and Client Outcomes (FY11-FY12) # Treatment types % Program Success (n=11,786) % 1year Recidivism (n=3386) None (19%) 41% 19% 1-2 (43%)5917 3+ (38%)6614 # Treatment types % Program Success (n=5855) % 1year Recidivism (3386) None (18%) 34% 24% 1-2 (40%)5320 3+ (42%)5918 Among those who scored HIGH on LSI (54%) # Treatment types % Program Success (n=931) % 1year Recidivism (344) None (18%) 60% 10% 1-2 (55%)73 6 3+ (27%)80 5 Among those who scored LOW on LSI (8%)

31. Residential: Services, program outcome and recidivism, FY 11-FY12 Service received*% of population receiving service Program success1 year recidivism Education110+2 Life Skills24+8-3 Mental Health17+3-2 Substance Abuse53+19-2 SO treatment3+18+1 Domestic Violence4+11+2 Anger Management7+12 Cog Restructuring27+16-4 *Comparison between those who received this service and those who did not.

32. Residential Program Outcomes FY11-12 % of population SuccessEscapeNew Crime TV1 year recidivism Diversion Not matched 19% 56% 11% 4% 30% 20% Matched81541432915 Transition Not matched 20% 67% 9% 2% 22% 19% Matched8066932217 TOTAL Not matched 20% 62% 10% 3% 25% 20% Matched80611132516 Recommended Substance Abuse Treatment Level

33. Residential Program Outcomes % of population 1 year recidivism RELEASED TO Probation 2% 17% DOC ISP/Parole3517 Non residential 1311 Other49n/a

34. What do we know about the specialty programs?

35. FY11 and FY12 Residential (9443) RDDT (429) TC (576) IRT* (431) Non Residential (1517) Daily COST $37.74$70.76$52.08$55.50$5.12 DIVERSION Success Success 51% 51% 32%** 32%** 59% 59%-- 60% 60% Escape151917-- 3 New crime 4 1 1-- 5 TV/Revo304823--31 TRANSITION Success Success 63% 63% 58%* 58%* 60% 60%----- Escape111016----- New crime 3 1 1----- TV/Revo233224----- **Mesa County had a success rate of 63% for Diversion and 81% for Transition*Only successful IRT cases were analyzed.

36. 1-yr Recidivism*: FY11 and FY12 Residential (2687) RDDT (96) TC (172) Non Residential (459) Diversion15.7%16.7%8.9%12.4% Transition17.6%13.6%13.3%---- CH Score <1.25 10%0% n/a *Defined as 1 year new filing rate for felony/misdemeanor/excludes Denver County Court. Note that cases must have had 365 days at risk to be included in the recidivism analysis.

37. Residential (9443) RDDT (429) TC (576) IRT (431) Non Residential (1517) Most serious offense Nonviolent 10% 8% 4% 13% 8% Property/NV4039373638 Violent182114912 Drug2827413538 Other55484 % LSI Intake Low (1-18) 11% <1% 0 11% Med (19-28)4529122047 High (29-54)4370888042 Avg LSI at intake (Avg CH Score raw) 28.4 (7.3) 33.1 (7.2) 36.5 (6.6) 31.2 (n/a) 26.8 (n/a)

38. Residential (9443) RDDT (429) TC (576) IRT (431) Non Residential (1517) % with mental health diagnosis 18%n/a41%25%13% % violent crime 18%21%14%9%12% Improvement in LSI score for successes 4 points5 points8.7 pointsn/a4 points % Low CH Score <1.25 on CH Score 14%*17%7%n/a % Low LSI Score 11%**<1%0%<1%11% *65% successfully completed community corrections; of those who complete, 10% recidivated in 1 year. **72% successfully completed community corrections; of those who complete, 6% recidivated in 1 year.

39. Who Succeeds in Community Corrections? Residential Community Corrections (in order of importance) Older age at entry Lower LSI total score Not African American Transition status Crime is a drug crime Lower Criminal History Score Having a HS diploma Residential Community Corrections (in order of importance) Older age at entry Lower LSI total score Not African American Transition status Crime is a drug crime Lower Criminal History Score Having a HS diploma

40. Special analysis: IRT45 and IRT90 We compared the outcomes of clients who successfully completed IRT45 and IRT90. Sample: Clients with service start and end dates between 7/1/2008 and 12/31/2011 FINDINGS: FINDINGS: – Approximately 80% of the IRT clients were referred by DOC – Men in IRT90 had higher LSI scores; Women in IRT 90 had higher ASUS scores (compared to IRT45) – Recidivism rates were the same at 1 year at about 24% – Diversion clients recidivated at a rate of about 18% – Men recidivated at a higher rate than women

41. Special analysis: Movement within community corrections One-fifth of the population moves within community corrections 16% go to Non-Res (diversion only) 36% are regressed back to Residential Regression from Non-Res back to a Residential facility produced slightly better program outcomes Regression from Non-Res back to a Residential facility produced slightly better program outcomes – 62% who were regressed from Non Res ultimately successfully terminated – This compares to 52% who were never regressed One client went back and forth between residential and non residential 11 times! Another did so 10 times (with a stint in IRT).

42. Successful terminations FY 2011-FY2012, One-year recidivism rates for successful terminations FY 2011 Recidivism is a felony/misdemeanor in district/county court 1 year after successful program termination. Denver County Court data excluded.

43. Thank you for your attention