1. Challenge Incarceration Program (CIP)
Phase 1 - Incarceration
90 men at Willow River; women at Togo
Legislatively-created in 1992 (M.S ) for carefully selected, nondangerous drug & property offenders
Rigorous physical exercise, drill, CD treatment, AA/NA, restorative justice projects, education, cognitive thinking skills
Drill, education, work service

2. Face-to-face agent contacts
CIP Community Phases 2 & 3
Minimum of 6 months each of intensive community supervision
Face-to-face agent contacts, alcohol and drug testing, mandatory work/education, community service
Aftercare treatment programming
Face-to-face agent contacts
Failure to complete CIP Phases 2 or 3 will result in a return to prison, extending an offender’s period of incarceration

3. CIP Evaluation 2006
Looked at all CIP offenders since the program began in 1992
Examined three areas:
- Has the demographic composition of the CIP population changed significantly in the last 5 years? If so, why?
- Does CIP significantly reduce offender recidivism?
- Does CIP reduce costs?

4. CIP Evaluation – Offender Profile
A review of CIP offenders in the last 5 years found:
Average age increased from 29 to 32
Greater Minnesota participants grew from 37% to 48%
Meth offenders increased from 4% to 60%
White offenders increased from 47% to 76% - primarily due to the meth boom (85% of meth offenders are white)

5. CIP Evaluation – Recidivism
Does CIP significantly reduce offender recidivism?
Compared recidivism rates of 1,347 CIP offenders from FY93-02 with a control group of 1,555 inmates released during same time period
Average follow-up period was 7.2 years (second longest of any boot camp evaluation to date)
Recidivism defined as:
Felony reconviction
Reimprisonment for a new crime
Any return to prison, for a new crime or a technical violation

6. Recidivism Study Results
CIP decreased chances of reconviction for new felony by 32%
CIP decreased chances of reimprisonment for new crime by 35%
CIP offenders less likely than control group to be reimprisoned for a person offense
When defining recidivism as any return to prison, CIP did not have a statistically significant impact
CIP offenders are more likely to return to prison for technical violation (55% vs. 27% control group)
Conversely, the control group was more likely to return for a new crime (73% vs. 45% CIP)

7. CIP Evaluation – Cost Savings
Does CIP reduce costs?
From FY93 to FY02, CIP has reduced costs by $18.1 million through saved bed days and recidivism reduction
Reduced recidivism enhances public safety in the community, decreases victimization, and saves state and local criminal justice dollars
CIP female squad drill at Togo