OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO A Report of Findings February 2002 By Suzanne Gonzalez Woodburn Kim English Data Analysts Linda Harrison Suzanne Gonzalez Woodburn Data Collectors Linda Harrison Kerry Lowden Laurie Mistr Diane Patrick Diane Pasini-Hill John Patzman Linda Swolfs Suzanne Gonzalez Woodburn Colorado Department of Public Safety Division of Criminal Justice Office of Research and Statistics 700 Kipling Street, Suite 1000 Denver, CO 80215 Tel 303-239-4442 Fax 303-239-4491 www.cdpsweb.state.co.us/dcj Funded by the Drug Control and System Improvement Program, grant number D20DB19471 1 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Acknowledgements We would like to thank those who assisted us in this research effort. We are especially grateful for the assistance of the administrators and staff at the halfway house facilities who spent so much time talking with us about each program. Thanks to DCJ’s Office of Community Corrections for educating us, providing access to contract files, and reviewing the draft report. Thanks to Ed Camp and Jeaneene Miller for their support of our work and for reviewing the draft report. Finally, thanks to Lance Clem, Donna Hackley, the Drug Control and System Improvement Program Office, and the DCSIP Advisory Board, for financially supporting this evaluation and for helping us with a myriad of grant management activities. Finally, we are extremely grateful to the convicted men and women who participated in our focus groups and interviews at several facilities. Their input was an extremely valuable part of our study. Despite this important assistance, the responsibility for any errors belongs to us alone. Suzanne Woodburn Kim English 3 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Table of Contents 9 13 19 25 Executive Summary Section One: Introduction 13 Background 14 The Purpose of Community Corrections 15 Prior Studies 16 Current Study 18 Organization of the Report Section Two: Methodology 19 Data 22 Study Limitations Section Three: Findings 29 Program Completion 45 Recidivism 51 Special Populations 52 Women Offenders in Community Corrections 59 Staff 62 Management Information Systems (MIS) 65 Section Four: Recommendations 69 Appendix A: Data Collection Instruments and Interview Guides 89 Appendix B: Description of Sample (Tables) 109 References 5 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 FIGURES 31 33 37 39 41 43 45 49 89 Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Program Completion and Recidivism Rates by Program Program Completion by the Average Number of Services Received Educational/ Vocational Service Needs Versus Services Received Budgeting Service Needs Versus Services Received Employment Service Needs Versus Services Received Substance Abuse Service Needs Versus Services Received Total Offenders who Committed Crimes Within 24 Months of Program Completion Time to Fail for Transition Offenders Last Grade in School Completed Upon Entry to Community Corrections TABLES 16 29 46 46 52 89 89 89 90 90 91 92 93 94 95 97 98 98 98 99 100 102 103 104 105 106 107 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 Table 25 Table 26 Table 27 Comparison of ORS Studies of Community Corrections Program Completion Rates and Failure Reasons for 1989, 1993, and 1998 Recidivism Rates at 24 Months After Successful Program Completion by Crime Severity Crime Types for 24 Month Recidivating Event Program Completion Rates for Single-Gendered Versus Coed Facilities Marital Status of All Offenders in Community Corrections Gender of All Offenders in Community Corrections Ethnicity of All Offenders in Community Corrections Employment Status Upon Entry and at Program Termination Average Age of Offenders in Each Program Marital Status of Offenders in Each Program Gender of Offenders in Each Program Ethnicity of Offenders in Each Program Status of Offenders in Each Program Education of Offenders in Each Program Programs Accepting Special Populations Legal Status of All Offenders in Community Corrections Felony Class of Current Offense of All Offenders in Community Corrections DCJ Criminal History Scores of All Offenders in Community Corrections Felony Class of Current Offense of Offenders in Each Program Current Offense Crime Type of Offenders in Each Program DCJ Criminal History Score of Offenders in Each Program Juvenile Record of Offenders in Each Program Average Age at First Arrest, Number of Adult Convictions, and Number of Jail Sentences Legal Status of Offenders in Each Program Termination Reasons for Offenders in Each Program Types of Releases from Community Corrections 6 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Executive Summary The Office of Research and Statistics (ORS) analyzed information on all offenders (n=3,054) who terminated from 25 community corrections facilities during FY98 and explored why some clients fail community corrections and others succeed. The ORS then tracked nearly 2,000 cases that successfully terminated the programs for 24 months to obtain recidivism information about cases that were arrested and filed on in district court. Researchers conducted site visits to each facility and interviewed 206 staff and offenders. FINDINGS Ø Community corrections offenders earned $16.2 million and paid $344,942 in state taxes, $841,712 in federal taxes, and $4,517,212 in room and board in FY98. Many offenders generated first and last months’ rent in savings accounts, and paid child support while they were in community corrections. Ø Across community corrections facilities, there was significant variation in the following: ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Offender’s criminal history severity; The proportion of diversion versus transition offenders in each program; Services available to offenders; Free-of-charge services available within each facility; Quality of services provided; Staff qualifications; Program philosophy, size and location; Program completion rates; The extent to which individual assessment information is linked to program participation; ♦ The extent to which the programs manage and accept special populations. 9 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 Ø Services. ♦ Participation. Participation in services, especially substance abuse treatment, mental health and budget planning services, was statistically linked to program success. In addition, both diversion and transition offenders participating in multiple services were more likely to successfully complete community corrections. ♦ Quality Control of Services. Services provided were not monitored for quality by community corrections staff. In addition, the selection of service providers varied considerably across facilities. Ø Special Populations. Offenders with mental health or substance abuse treatment needs were more likely to recidivate after successfully completing community corrections than those without these special needs. However, approximately 85 percent of community corrections clients had an identified substance abuse problem. Ø Women. Women who successfully completed community corrections recidivated less often than men (24.8% and 32.4%, respectively). ♦ Coed Facilities. Women housed in eleven community corrections facilities were far outnumbered by men, usually ten to one. Interview data revealed that coed facilities can lead to relationships between male and female offenders and these relationships can distract from the goal of successful program completion. ♦ Female-Specific Services. Women and many staff in coed facilities consistently reported that services were tailored to men. Many coed facilities lacked female-specific services because of the small number of women housed in these facilities. ♦ Female-Specific Needs Assessments. Assessment tools are typically designed and tested on male offenders and do not address the needs specific to women. Consequently, women may not receive the services they need. ♦ Financial Opportunities. According to interview data, women lacked adequate job skills and opportunities to make salaries comparable to men. Consequently, it was more difficult for women to pay for rent, restitution, and treatment while in the facility. ♦ Safety. Interview data revealed that some women participating in community corrections felt unsafe because of the location of the facility. In one location, the route from the bus stop to the facility was long and at night, lacked adequate streetlights. 10 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Ø Post-Release Supervision. Offenders were nearly twice as likely to recidivate 24 months post-release when they did not receive post-release supervision compared to those who received supervision: 45.0% versus 26.2% for diversion clients, and 59.5% versus 33.4% for transition clients. Further, among transition offenders who recidivated, those who did not receive post-release supervision failed more quickly: failure occurred at six months versus ten months. Ø Community Corrections Staff. This study revealed several staffing problems within community corrections facilities. ♦ High Staff Turnover. The average employment period of security line staff across the 25 facilities was approximately six months. ♦ Significant Variation in Skill Level. Administrators and staff attributed high staff turnover to low staff salaries. It is not surprising, then, that some facilities have difficulty finding qualified staff. Lack of Training. Community corrections staff persons did not receive a core curriculum of training, especially regarding special populations. Ø Program Completion. Most offenders completed community corrections in FY98. Nearly two-thirds (62.0%) of offenders successfully completed the community corrections program. Less than three percent (2.4%) of community corrections clients committed a new crime while in the facility. Ø Recidivism. ♦ Within 24 months of leaving the program successfully, 31.0% of those who completed community corrections had a new felony or misdemeanor crime filed in court. Nearly 38 percent of all recidivating offenses were for alcohol and drug offenses (23.6% for new felony drug filings and 14.1% for driving under the influence). Moreover, nearly sixty percent (59.6%) of new drug crimes were committed by offenders not originally convicted of drug offenses. ♦ Offenders with high scores on Colorado’s battery of substance abuse assessment tools were more likely to recidivate with a substance abuse crime. ♦ Prior criminal history, young age, high Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI) score, and a lack of post-release supervision statistically predicted recidivism. Ø Recommendations. ♦ This report contains ten recommendations. Please see pages 65-68 for a list of recommendations derived from the study findings. 11 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 12 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Section One: Introduction Background Community Corrections in Colorado refers to a system of specific halfway house facilities that provide residential and non-residential services to convicted offenders. These facilities, or programs as we sometimes call them, receive state funds but are based and operated in local communities. These programs provide an intermediate residential sanction at the front end of the system between probation and prison, or reintegration services at the tail end of the system between prison and parole. In 1998 in Colorado, the time period of the current study, this system of 25 halfway houses provided a correctional placement for eligible male and female offenders who were “halfway in” prison and also those who are “halfway out.”1 Community corrections placements allow offenders access to community resources, including treatment and employment opportunities, while living in a non-secure correctional setting.2 Offenders can be referred to community corrections by the sentencing judge or by officials at the Department of Corrections (DOC). The judicial placement is considered a diversion from prison, and these cases are called “diversion clients.” The DOC placement of offenders in halfway houses serves as a method of transitioning prisoners back into the community and these cases are referred to as “transition clients.” Diversion clients are responsible to the probation department while transition clients are under the jurisdiction of the DOC’s Division of Adult Parole and Community Corrections. Both diversion and transition clients are housed together and participate in programming together. While the two types of clients are subject to a few differences in policies from their “host agency,” they are required to abide by the same sets of house rules and are subject to similar consequences when rules are broken. Per statute, each jurisdiction has a community corrections board, appointed by the county commissions, to screen offender referrals and to oversee the operation of the facilities. Board members typically consist of both criminal justice professionals and citizens. In some locales, county governments operate their own community corrections facilities; in others, the local boards contract with private corporations that own and operate the programs. Regardless of the source of the referral (from the courts or from the Department of Corrections), each case is reviewed by members of the board and must be approved for placement in the local halfway house. Cases not approved by the board return 1 Since FY98, four additional facilities were added to DCJ’s database. The facilities are non-secure, however, each provides 24-hour staffing. Each offender must sign out and in as they leave and return to the facility, and staff monitor the location of off-site offenders by field visits, and telephone calls. Several facilities use electronic monitoring and a few programs use geographic satellite surveillance to track offenders when they are away from the halfway house. 2 13 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 to the judge or DOC for an alternative placement. Programs can also reject clients that have been referred for placement. The state community corrections system also provides services to nonresidential clients. These are diversion clients who have successfully completed the residential components of the program. Transition programming does not include non-residential status. Offenders are expected to pay for much of their treatment in the community. In addition, offenders are required to pay approximately $13/day for room and board, plus make efforts to pay court costs, restitution, child support, and other fines and fees. The state reimburses the local boards, which in turn reimburse the facility, on a per offender/per day basis. The state rate is identified in statute, and legislation is required to modify the “per diem.” At this writing, the state rate is $37.72.3 Currently, a subcommittee of the Governor’s Community Corrections Advisory Council is studying the need to increase the per diem rate for special, higher-cost populations, such as offenders with mental illness, sex offenders, and women. The Purpose of Community Corrections The community corrections system is an intermediate sanction designed to provide supervision to convicted offenders in lieu of incarceration. In Colorado, the community corrections system provides various services to offenders, monitors offender behaviors related to progress toward supervision goals and noncompliance with supervision conditions, and emphasizes offender responsibility regarding payment of fines, victim compensation, and restitution. The restriction of freedom imposed by living in a residential setting allows more controlled supervision by facility staff and more accountability by offenders. Community-based programs allow offenders to integrate into the local community by participating in alcohol, drug, educational and vocational programming where they will eventually live unsupervised. Working, paying restitution, and learning the local transportation system while having the structure of a controlled living environment, curfew requirements, electronic monitoring, random urinalysis testing, and treatment intervention provides offenders with an experience that may increase opportunities for success. Close supervision and structure means that uncooperative behaviors are more likely to be identified and to receive a response. Problem behaviors range from an unwillingness to comply with program rules to committing a new crime or escaping from the facility (i.e., not returning). Indeed, revocation rates and 3 During the time period of the current study, FY98, the state per diem rate was $34.34 and clients were required to pay $10.00 per day. 14 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS program failure rates often increase with intense supervision, but new crimes committed by offenders who live in halfway houses are rare, as discussed below. Generally, multiple instances of problem behaviors must occur before an offender is revoked from supervision. This is discussed in greater detail in the following section. Prior Studies Since 1985, the Office of Research and Statistics in the Division of Criminal Justice has conducted four studies of the community corrections halfway house system in Colorado. The first study, published in 1986,4 was primarily a qualitative study and focused on the administration of community corrections. The next two studies, published in 1991 and 1996, analyzed offender characteristics and program outcomes for offenders who participated in the residential portion of the community corrections system.5 In 1991, the population of offenders released in Fiscal Year 1989 (n=1796) was studied to determine the proportion of clients that successfully completed halfway house programming. Forty four percent (44%) of those offenders completed the program, and the 18 facilities housing clients in 1989 had program success rates ranging from 37-70%.6 Younger offenders who had employment problems, low education, and more extensive prior criminal involvement were most likely to fail the program. In the 1991 study, recidivism after release from the halfway house was not measured. In 1996, the Office of Research and Statistics studied a sample of offenders (n=1,348) who terminated from Community Corrections in 1993. For this study we also analyzed recidivism rates for the 12 months following release from the facility. We found 55% successfully completed the program, 3% committed a new crime, 22% had a technical violation that terminated their stay in the halfway house, and 20% escaped or walked away. Of those who terminated successfully from the halfway house, 18.2% were rearrested for a nonviolent felony within 12 months, and another 4.3% were arrested for a violent felony.7 4 English, K., and S. Kraus. (1986). Community Corrections in Colorado: 1986. Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, Denver, Colorado. 5 English, K. and M. J. Mande (1991). Community Corrections in Colorado: Why Do Some Clients Succeed and Others Fail? Funded by Grant 89CO1CHF4 from the National Institute of Corrections. Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, Denver, Colorado; English, K., S. Pullen, and S. Colling-Chadwick (1996). Comparison of Intensive Supervision Probation and Community Corrections Clientele. Funded by the Drug Control and Systems Improvement Program. Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, Denver, Colorado. 6 As previously mentioned, of those who failed the program, fewer than 3% were arrested for a new crime while in the halfway house, but 28% failed due to technical violations, and 20% escaped or walked away in 1989. 7 Note that the outcome measure was new arrest and not new court filing. The short follow-up period (12 months) means the arrest rate would be lower than if the group had a longer time “at risk” to fail. Arrest rates will always be higher than filing rates because some cases that meet the criteria for arrest may not meet the district attorney’s criteria for filing the case for prosecution. 15 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 Table 1: Comparison of ORS Studies of Community Corrections % Publication N % Abscond/ % % Crime Program Escape Year/Study Revocation/ while in Success Year TVs program 1991/1989** 1796 44.4% 17.1% 27.8% 2.7% 1996/1991*** 1348 55.1% 19.6% 22.4% 3.0% 2001/FY98**** 3054 62.0% 15.8% 19.8% 2.4% % recidivism Mean after program ORS CH release: 12 Mo. Score* Not measured Not measured 22.5% 19.0% 1.80 2.35 * The ORS Criminal History Score is an index of an offender’s past adjudications, convictions, placements and revocations. Collapsed scores range from 0 to 4, with 0 representing virtually no prior involvement in crime and 4 reflecting very serious offending histories. ** In 1991, recidivism was not measured. Also program termination reasons do not total 100% in this chart because additional termination categories were included in this study’s analysis. Additional categories included death (0.1%), warrant—pending case (0.7%), lateral transfer (1.4%), unknown (3.2%), and missing data (2.6%). *** In 1996, recidivism was measured as rearrest 12 months after release. **** In the current study, recidivism was measured as a new felony or misdemeanor court filing at 12 and 24-month increments. The 12-month recidivism rate appears in the chart. At 24 months after program release, offenders had an overall recidivism rate of 31.0%. The Current Study The General Assembly allocated $39,762,794 in FY02 to the community corrections system in Colorado.8 It becomes increasingly important to study programs receiving state resources as our knowledge grows about the value of matching offender needs and subsequent programming, and the research literature about “what works” in correctional programming expands.9 To this end, the research questions for the current study included the following: 1 1 1 1 1 Who succeeds and who fails halfway house programs? Who succeeds and who fails after a successful release from the halfway house? After 12 months? After 24 months? Are special offender populations, such as drug offenders and women, receiving programming appropriate to their needs? Are programs providing or referring cases to services regardless of information obtained about each offender’s needs? In other words, are offenders in community corrections receiving services that are not necessary based on their assessment scores? Is there variation across the halfway house system in Colorado? What kinds of variation exist? The current study represents the first time the ORS accessed data pertaining to each offender’s programming needs at entry into community corrections. We also, for the first time, had information on services subsequently received while in the halfway house. 10 Although the data available were limited in scope and 8 The FY02 allocations for prison and probation were $508,572,467 and $56,977,279, respectively. Note, the prison figures do not include dollars allocated to parole supervision or the Youthful Offender System. Budget information was obtained from Senate Bill 01-212. 9 See Gendreau, Little, and Goggin (1996), Harland (1996), and Hollin (2001) for excellent reviews of the “What Works” literature. 10 In 1994, DCJ’s Office of Community Corrections modified the DCJ Termination Forms to include this information. 16 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS detail, the study allowed us to link offender characteristics (frequently studied in the past) with general types of services received. This additional information represents a significant improvement in the case-level data available for analysis.11 The availability of assessment and service data reflects the efforts of many professionals working to improve the system’s response to drug offenders. In the 1990’s, Colorado officials throughout the criminal justice system worked to institute a systematic method of assessing substance abuse problems in the offender population.12 This effort begins to operationalize a correctional philosophy called the risk principle.13 This philosophy underscores the importance of matching each offender’s needs and risks (to the extent that these are specifically associated with committing crimes) with interventions shown to be useful with this population. To this end, assessment tools—and related programming—have become an important component in criminal justice system case management efforts. The Colorado Standardized Offender Assessment (SOA), developed pursuant to CRS 16-11.5-103, included the Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI), a 54-item assessment instrument that generates information about areas in the offender’s life that need management and treatment. The Alcohol Dependency Scale (ADS), Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST), the Adult Substance Use Survey(ASUS) and the Substance Use History Matrix (SUHM) were administered in Fiscal Year 1998 according to the standardized protocol, and the scores to these assessment tools were available for analysis. The assessment process focuses on identifying the extent to which an offender experiences substance abuse problems. All of these instruments are used together to systematically assess substance abuse needs and to determine the appropriate levels of intervention and treatment. For all of these assessment instruments, the higher the score, the more severe the problem.14 This information was available on a majority of cases, but unfortunately missing data occurred in approximately seven percent of cases15 (we will return to this issue later in the report). Nevertheless, access to these additional data elements allowed us to address, at a very general level, questions pertaining to offender needs compared to services received. This was a significant advantage since one 11 The Methodology Section describes the data items and addresses the limitations of these data. CRS 16-11.5-103, entitled “Substance Abuse in the Criminal Justice System,” passed in 1991, required the collaboration among key justice agencies to develop and implement a standardized procedure for assessing the use of controlled substances by offenders. It also required the development and implementation of a system of programs for education and treatment of substance abuse to be used by offenders placed on probation, community corrections, prison and parole. 13 Andrews, D.A., and Bonta, J. (1994). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Anderson Publishing Company, Cincinnati, OH; Bonta, J. (1996). Risk-needs assessment and treatment. In Harland, A. (ed.), Choosing Correctional Options that Work, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. 14 Note that the SOA instruments were not developed for use on women. 15 The LSI, however, yielded 20 percent (20.4%) missing data. 12 17 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 of the research questions posed by policy makers concerned matching services to offender needs. Other special correctional populations may be subject to other types of assessment. For example, the sex offender assessment is defined by the Sex Offender Management Board in its Standards and Guidelines for the Evaluation, Assessment, Treatment and Monitoring of Adult Sex Offenders.16 Unfortunately, sex offender assessment data are not gathered on the Termination Form and were not available for quantitative analysis. Further, systematic assessment data for other groups of offenders with specific problems or service needs, such as the disabled, women, the mentally ill, and the elderly, were not available for analysis in the current study. The most complete assessment data pertained to substance abuse. However, each termination form has a place for case managers to indicate the three most important areas where the offender needs intervention, and this information was captured in the current study. Organization of this Report. The next section describes the method we undertook to address the research questions outlined above. The Methodology section includes a discussion of the study’s limitations. The research findings are presented in Section Three. Offenders who did and did not successfully complete their residential term are described first. The recidivism findings, offender characteristics and programming components that may contribute to offenders who remain crime-free for two years post release from community corrections are then presented. The final section includes recommendations, based on the findings presented in Section Three. 16 Most recently updated and revised in 1999, the SOMB Standards and Guidelines are available from the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, 700 Kipling, Suite 3000, Denver, Colorado 80215. 18 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Section Two: Methodology Data Client Information. Data were obtained from three sources. First, as in previous studies, client data were obtained from DCJ’s Office of Community Corrections (OCC). For nearly 15 years, the OCC has required programs to complete a Termination Form for all offenders who leave the program. This three-page form, attached as Appendix A, includes demographic information, referral source, juvenile and criminal history, current crime and weapon data, drug use information, drug assessment scores, the three most important supervision plan objectives, a list of services received,17 and the reason for termination. Upon residential placement termination, halfway house personnel are required to complete this form and forward it to the OCC for data entry and analysis. The OCC database is instrumental in describing the population of offenders who occupy community corrections beds. As such, it is a key source of information for all policy research and program evaluation studies. These data, available on 2,574 men and 480 women, for a total of 3,054 cases in fiscal year 1998, provided the quantitative information for the current study. Site Visits and Observations. Since the focus of the research questions pertained to assessments and services, the quantitative data needed to be augmented with additional information obtained from field research. For that reason, ORS researchers conducted site visits to each of the 25 facilities housing clients in fiscal year 1998. During these visits, researchers observed the activities of staff and offenders, including eleven cognitive/educational offender groups and approximately three staff meetings and client reviews.18 Interviews and Focus Groups. Researchers interviewed 206 staff and offenders. Interview subjects were selected using a convenience sample during the afternoons and evenings researchers spent at the facility. Researchers attempted to select staff based on their length of time in the facility. That is, those staff persons who worked in the facility during FY98 were preferred interview subjects. Interviews included “then” versus “now” questions since case file data on offenders included those who terminated from the program two years prior (in FY98) to the field research (conducted in the fall of 2000). Staff who worked at 17 Services listed on the form include employment, alcohol, drug, mental health, money management, and academic or vocational training. 18 Client reviews are staff meetings where case managers discuss each client’s progress and any concerns (i.e., write ups, negative behavior, etc.) with the group. In the sessions we observed, staff had extensive discussions about the clients and shared information with everyone from security/ line staff to facility directors. 19 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 the facility in FY98 were asked to reflect back on certain questions to describe, to the best of their memories, how they would respond to the same questions for the time period of FY98 and two years later at the time of the interview.19 This time differential allowed researchers to explore some of the philosophical, political and programmatic changes over time. 20 Understandably, this method contains some limitations that are discussed in further detail later in the report. Many facilities unfortunately experienced high rates of staff turnover and did not have staff who began working during or before FY98. In these cases, researchers interviewed any available staff. Focus group participants were selected by asking any offender in the facility if they were willing to participate in the focus group. In some cases, the time of day limited the number of focus group participants since many offenders were working when daytime groups were conducted. Questions posed during offender focus groups and interviews primarily addressed services received, barriers to successful program completion, and issues pertaining to reintegration in the community following release from the halfway house. Interviews with administrators and staff focused on the goals of the facility, program philosophy, services provided, special populations, the assessment process, staffing concerns, barriers to successful client outcomes, and coordination across criminal justice system agencies. Document Analysis: Contract Exhibit A. Annually, each program submits a program description, referred to as Exhibit A, to the OCC. This document provides information about anticipated expenses and describes services to be delivered to a certain number of offenders over the course of the funding cycle. Researchers reviewed archived facility documents and contract files for FY98 to gather service and cost information. Exhibit A also includes information on staffing patterns and salaries. Since the site visits focused on gathering information about the present, the Exhibit A documents were important to provide program information for FY98, the time period represented from the client termination database. Prior to the site visits, ORS staff reviewed all Exhibit A attachments for each halfway house program. Although these data were useful for the site visits, they were generally not useful for the overall analysis because of the extreme variation across programs in the amount of information available in the Exhibit A attachments. 19 Field research, interviews and focus groups were conducted in the fall of 2000, two to 3 years following the time period of the case file analysis. The FY98 case file cohort was necessary to allow offenders time to fail, or not, in the community following release from the facility. 20 We recognize the problems associated with memory recall in this approach. However, time and funding constraints significantly limited our methodological options for linking these two time periods. 20 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Recidivism: Successful Program Termination. The first measure of success or failure for participants in community corrections is whether or not they complete the residential placement without a major incident leading to revocation. Offenders are terminated from the residential program for many negative reasons, including escape (being tardy by more than 2-4 hours), drug use, repeated house rule violations, or committing a new crime. Presumably, these offenders received consequences that resulted in greater custody restrictions since they were terminated from the program. Thus, only offenders who successfully completed the residential component of community corrections were included in the recidivism analysis. New Filing After 1- and 2-Years. Recidivism was measured as a new felony or misdemeanor court filing within 24 months of successful program completion. To compare these results to our 1996 study, we also measured recidivism at 12 months after program completion. These data were obtained from the Colorado District Attorney’s Council’s (CDAC) “Blackstone” database. For each recidivating event, crime type, date of new offense, and severity of the offense committed were collected.21 21 Until recently, CDAC’s Blackstone database was not used by the Boulder District Attorney’s Office, so we obtained a data match directly from Boulder’s Computer Analysts. 21 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 Limitations of this Study Data Available For Analysis. More descriptive and reliable assessment information would improve the ability to describe the programming needs of this offender population. Interviews identified important sub-populations that require special assessments and services if corrections administrators hope to maximize the effectiveness of the community corrections system. In particular, offenders with serious mental illness, women, the elderly, offenders who are physically disabled, and non-English speaking offenders require special assessments and services. Many of these special populations overlap, but there are insufficient data to describe this phenomenon. Only very general data elements were available to describe and analyze information pertaining to the needs and risks of women, sex offenders, substance abusers and offenders with mental health problems. Information on literacy, reading level, and overall functioning would also be valuable to better understand service needs and offender outcomes. Additionally, information about services provided, while available for the first time for quantitative analysis, remains incomplete. Information is unavailable regarding number of days in treatment, level of participation in treatment, and measures of the type of treatment delivered (UA testing, cognitive behavioral treatment, Alcohol Anonymous, etc.). The data available for this study did not allow for any description of services delivered. Thus, substance abuse treatment may refer to a wide continuum of services ranging from AA programming to intensive, long-term residential treatment. Policy makers and corrections administrators are particularly interested in the impact of programming on offender behaviors. Questions regarding what works, for whom, and under what conditions, are pressing issues for decision-makers. The development of data systems that collect this information is necessary to answer policy- and fundingrelated questions. Unmeasured Factors in Success and Failure. Offender needs and services delivered only indicates opportunities for service delivery within the halfway house. Once offenders are released into the community, many unmeasured and unknown variables come into play that may or may not have anything to do with service delivery in the halfway house. One of the major risk factors for offending noted in the criminology literature is associating with delinquent or criminal peers.22 The community corrections system is predicated on returning offenders to the jurisdiction from which they came, and this may undermine offenders’ abilities to get a fresh start by returning them to an all-too-familiar environment. The re-entry environment is an important component of success or failure. We 22 Howell et al, 1995. 22 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS were without time and resources to address this issue, and this is a study limitation.23 Data Quality. Since halfway house case managers complete the DCJ Termination Forms, the results of this study are only as good as the data entered on that form by community corrections staff. Staff turnover may affect the quality of the data recorded. Missing data were not uncommon, thereby making it difficult to get a complete picture of community corrections is FY98. Further, some information may be coded in error systematically, such as the “restitution paid” item on the form. Although each facility monitors spending by offenders, occasionally staff record the figure from the mittimus rather than tracking payments to the court for restitution. In this way, the figure reflects what was court-ordered rather than what was paid. Given that one of the values espoused by community corrections administrators is that offenders pay taxes and restitution, more care should be taken in accurately completing this item on the Termination Form. Finally, using termination data assumes that all staff in each of the 25 facilities codes the forms in the same way and that all case managers complete the forms accurately. We did not have the time or resources to evaluate the quality of these data. We have no reason to assume that errors in the data are problematic or systematic. 24 Time Frame (FY98). To conduct a recidivism study, adequate time “at risk” must be built into the research design. That is, offenders must have adequate time in the community to either succeed or fail. Shorter time-at-risk means that only those offenders who fail early will be identified as recidivists. Longer followup periods are perhaps more accurate. However, the farther in time the programming occurred from the recidivating event, the less confident we are in the link between correctional programming and the offender’s behavior. We obtained follow-up information for the 24 months following the date of each offender’s release from the halfway house. There are two alternatives to a study of this nature, and both are methodologically sound: 1) collect “real time” data (i.e., record events as they occur), tracking the group for the designated time period (this approach usually takes 12 months longer than the follow-up time period), or 2) collect historical data and recidivism data concurrently on a group of offenders (a “cohort”) who were terminated from the program a few years prior. Then attempt to describe what services were available then, or describe services now but understand that 23 In fact, including the environment as a risk component in recidivism studies requires a significantly different research design than the one employed here. Addressing this issue requires a longitudinal study that identifies offenders while they are in the halfway house facility and then follows them to assess their peer group, neighborhood and lifestyle post release. 24 This issue about data quality was identified in the 2001 State Auditor’s Office report on the Division of Criminal Justice. To obtain a copy of this report, visit www.state.co.us/gov_dir/audit_dir/2002/2002.htm. 23 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 no empirical link can be made between case outcome and services since the two occurred independently. State officials who requested this study were particularly interested in the correspondence between offender needs and services obtained. The first approach is the preferred research method for a study of this nature. But policymakers wanted the study findings sooner than later, so the second approach was used. Facility administrators and staff were interviewed about occurrences in FY98, and services were described as observed during the site visits. Another limitation of the study was the difficulty ensuring the accuracy of the qualitative data, especially the interview data. Forgetfulness and other memory problems impact the quality of the data. It is not surprising that much of the richness and detail about the inner-workings of each facility during FY98 was missing from the interviews with staff and administrators. Still, if only on a general level, an attempt was made to understand the philosophical approach and goals of each program in FY98. A final limitation, touched upon earlier, is the lack of specific information about the services and programming provided to community corrections clients. Although some brief and important descriptions are provided here, programming is an integral part of the community corrections system. Thoroughly evaluating the assessment and programming processes, including the service delivery systems and the quality of the services, is vital to learning if the system is working as intended. A lack of time and resources precluded the ability to address this issue, and it represents a significant limitation to the study.25 25 The ORS is collaborating with Department of Corrections researcher Maureen O’Keefe who is directing a study of 4 drug programs operating within the state community corrections system. This study is funded by DCJ’s Drug Control and System Improvement Program. To obtain more information, contact the Department of Corrections Office of Research and Analysis or visit www.doc.state.co.us. 24 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Section Three Research Findings As described in detail in the previous section, this study presents data on 3,054 offenders who terminated from community corrections in FY98. Those who successfully completed the residential portion of the halfway house system were included in the recidivism analysis. Recidivism was defined as receiving a new court filing for misdemeanor and felony offenses. In the fall of 2000, to better understand the extent to which the program characteristics might influence client outcomes, researchers visited each of the 25 facilities. We interviewed 156 administrators, staff, and offenders and held 8 offender focus groups. Researchers spent one day at each site observing groups, case management staff meetings, and the daily functioning of the staff and clients. The findings from this study are presented below.26 Important Preface to the Research Findings It is important to preface the remainder of this section with one of the most important findings. We spent time in each of the 25 facilities that operated in FY98 and found that significant program variation exists across the halfway house system. The findings should be interpreted with this in mind, for any information based on the system “average” will likely not represent the majority of facilities. At a minimum, the 25 programs varied by the following: 26 • Offender Seriousness. The seriousness of the criminal history of offenders accepted into the halfway house varied significantly. Criminal history severity was measured using the ORS Criminal History Score, which is an index of an offender’s past adjudications, convictions, placements and revocations. Collapsed scores range from 0 to 4, with 0 representing virtually no prior involvement in crime and 4 reflecting very serious offending histories, according to official record data. In FY98, the mean criminal history score across programs was 2.35, and programspecific mean scores ranged from 1.5 to 3.2. This wide range in criminal history scores indicates that some programs accepted violent and higher risk offenders, while others only accepted very low risk offenders with virtually no criminal histories. This variation in offender seriousness will impact the proportion of offenders who complete the program and remain arrest-free: serious offenders are less likely to reach positive outcomes. • Diversion/Transition. The proportion of diversion versus transition offenders housed by each program also differed. This ranged from programs accepting only diversion or transition offenders to those who A description of the sample is available in Appendix B. 25 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 accepted a generous mix of the two.27 Also a few facilities accepted boot camp and jail diversion offenders. Program outcome varied by the proportion of diversion and transition clients a program housed. 27 • Service Availability. Programs varied considerably regarding the services available to offenders in the community. Each facility varied in the process of selecting service providers. For example, in one facility, offenders were given a list with nearby treatment providers, and referrals were based on location of the services rather than the type of service or program. Also, the types of services available varied considerably across programs. Although most facilities had a list of providers and services for the offenders, some had more options than others. In some programs, staff indicated that they took a one-on-one approach with offenders and located services specific to their needs, especially when the needed service was not included on the predetermined list. This entailed additional effort on their part but, according to interview data, these staff felt it was an important component to making needed services available. • Free-of-charge services. Some services were offered free-of-charge, but the number of services offered free to offenders in each facility varied significantly. One facility offered all in-house services to offenders free-ofcharge. This facility also required that these in-house service providers have substantial educational and practical experience. At the other end of the continuum, many facilities offered very few free services to offenders, both in FY98 and at the time of our site visits. • Quality of Services. The quality of services provided in each facility differed. Cognitive groups observed by researchers ranged considerably in quality, and also in expected comprehension level. For instance, in some facilities, cognitive groups required offenders to have high level reading abilities to understand the material. In one group, participants had difficulty with discussion material and the facilitator did not respond to reading and language barriers that were obvious to the researchers. For example, in this group, two offenders declined to read aloud and when the group facilitator required an explanation to the group as to why they were not participating, the offenders used very broken English to justify their inability to participate. The facilitator continued to attempt to compel these offenders to read from the handout that, according to the researchers, was written at a college level. Interview data also revealed that some facility staff played video documentaries that were seemingly unrelated in content to the required group topic. Staff facilitators in other houses embraced a more interactive style with relevant content. According See Table 10 in Appendix B for the proportion of diversion versus transition offenders for each program. 26 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS to interviews and observations, services were not monitored for quality by community corrections administrative or supervisory staff. 28 • Program Staff. Staff qualifications varied across facilities. This variation includes facility requirements for training, education and experience of all staff. Interview data revealed that low salaries attracted personnel with little or no experience and skills. It is not surprising, then, that most facilities experienced a high rate of staff turnover. This topic is discussed in more detail later in the report. • Program Ideology. Philosophical beliefs about corrections and community reintegration, upon which each program is based, differed significantly. Interview data reflected philosophies that ranged from the importance of offenders serving their time as if they were in a prison-like setting, to more therapeutic models that embraced treatment and rehabilitation. The philosophical basis for each facility appeared to impact everything from service availability and delivery to day-to-day functioning of the program. Comments like, “[the Director] is the king and expects the regime to perform” 29 and “this is just like jail” 30 illustrate the prison-like modality utilized in one facility. In some facilities, research staff observed halfway house staff yelling at offenders. Conversely, comments like, “we could hammer clients everyday if we wanted to, but we put ourselves in their position and treat them as individuals” 31 and “we don’t just warehouse them”32 depicted staff attitudes at houses adopting therapeutic models. Sometimes, the ideology varied within each facility. In these cases the administrators, case managers and line staff differed in their perceptions about the purpose of the program. The philosophical ideology adopted by staff is likely to impact a client’s overall experience in community corrections. • Program Size and Location. Some facilities housed a large number of offenders, while others accommodated very few. In 1997, the number of beds in each facility ranged from 30 to 183. Additionally, the location of each facility within a community differed substantially. One program was located near a college campus and others resided in industrial areas. Some were in the middle of a large urban area and others were in very rural locales. Many program staff and administrators in rural areas 28 The Colorado Sex Offender Management Board has issued Standards for the Evaluation, Treatment, Behavioral Monitoring and Supervision of Convicted Sex Offenders (1999, rev.). Six facilities have Alcohol & Drug Abuse Division (ADAD) licensure for offender specific substance abuse treatment. DCJ’s Community Corrections Unit does, however, have Standards that facilities are to follow. To obtain a copy of these Standards, contact DCJ’s Office of Community Corrections at 700 Kipling St., #1000; Denver, CO 80215 or visit www.cdpsweb.state.co.us. 29 Interview with a female client. 30 Interview with a male client. 31 Interview with a Program Coordinator. 32 Interview with a Case Manager. 27 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 reported difficulty recruiting qualified staff and accessing service providers in their area. This means that some services were unavailable to clients, and some program staff may be under-qualified for their positions. • Special Populations. The extent to which the programs accept and manage special populations also differed.33 Special populations identified in this study include the seriously mentally ill, female offenders, sex offenders, substance abusers, elderly, physically disabled and non-English speakers. According to interviews, many programs accepted very few special needs offenders. A few programs accepted large numbers of very high-risk offenders, including sex offenders. A small number of programs accepted seriously mentally ill offenders. Some facilities accepted small numbers of special population offenders but they were often housed with general population offenders. Including coed facilities, twenty programs accepted females. Nearly all facilities indicated that a large proportion of their residents were substance abusers. Many facility staff expressed the difficulties inherent in housing special needs clients with general population offenders, since this can distract from properly addressing their individual needs.34 See table 16 in Appendix B for a description of special populations accepted by each program. In sum, it is important to interpret the findings presented below within the context of this sizeable variation across programs. Program completion rates are greatly impacted by the characteristics of offenders accepted in the program. Program characteristics such as services available, administrator/staff philosophies, staff qualifications, and risk and need may also affect offender performance. 33 The local boards must first accept offenders, so this variation reflects both the board’s and the facility’s decision to accept or reject special populations. 34 This was repeatedly mentioned as a problem by offenders and staff in facilities housing both men and women together. Also, housing high risk offenders such as sex offenders with general population offenders can hinder treatment progress and these offenders can become targets within the facility. 28 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Program Completion In FY98, nearly two-thirds (62.0%) of over 3,000 offenders completed community corrections, illustrating a considerable improvement over findings from previous studies. Less than 3 percent (2.4%) of Community Corrections clients committed a new crime while in the halfway house. Approximately 16 percent (15.8%) escaped, which is a decrease in escapes from the 1994 study that found roughly 19.6% escaped. Nearly one in five offenders (19.8%) failed due to technical violations. However, many staff indicated that failure to complete the community corrections program is not always considered a “program failure” since they successfully intervened before a new crime was committed. In 1989, less than half (44.4%) of the 1,796 offenders who entered community corrections successfully terminated from the program. Of the 66 percent who failed the program, 17 percent walked away (escaped), nearly 28 percent were revoked for technical violations, and fewer than 3 percent committed a new crime35 while housed in community corrections. This information is presented in table 2 below. Table 2. Program Completion Rates and Failure Reasons for 1989, 1993 and 1998. FY Program Completion Rate (statewide average) 1998 1993 1989 62.0% 55.1% 44.4% Program Failure New Crime 2.4% 3.0% 2.7% Escape 15.8% 19.6% 17.0% TV 19.8% 22.4% 27.8% In FY 98, program completion rates ranged from 34.5 percent to 74.7 percent across the 25 halfway houses. Figure 1 details program completion and recidivism rates for each facility. NOTE: When reviewing these rates by facility, it is important to remember the high level of variation across programs, particularly in the acceptance rate of higher risk offenders (as indicated by the criminal history score). Criminal history is but one offender variable; other offender characteristics, along with program characteristics, affect client outcomes. These are a few reasons that the client outcome rates cannot be directly compared from program to program since each facility functioned quite differently. 35 In this group, two offenders died and 12 were transferred to jail on a warrant. For nearly 60 cases, outcome could not be determined (English and Mande, March, 1991, Table 2.3). 29 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 30 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Figure 1. Outcomes by Criminal History Scores 90.0 3.5 80.0 3.0 70.0 2.5 60.0 50.0 2.0 40.0 1.5 30.0 1.0 20.0 0.5 10.0 0.0 STAT EWID ACRC ACTC BCTC CAPS E Succ Term 56.9 40.9 49.7 34.9 No Recid 62.5 74.6 74.7 75.0 2.3 2.6 3.0 3.0 Crim Hx 47.9 2.1 CC INC DIV CC TRAN CCSI 52.9 62.9 66.2 59.5 63.9 59.7 65.3 46.8 55.6 39.0 57.6 62.9 63.1 82.5 2.3 2.2 2.0 2.4 2.6 1.8 2.6 CLAR COLU KSON MB CRC IND IND HAVE HILLT FEDE PECO LCCC LCTC N OP RAL S 60.3 2.0 0.0 LOFT MCC C MINN PEER PHOE SLVC TOOL EQUA I NIX C EY 62.7 59.7 65.3 50.4 56.9 64.1 44.7 51.5 55.3 63.4 61.1 59.0 70.2 65.5 63.6 50.9 67.7 73.9 2.2 2.9 3.0 2.6 2.0 1.8 2.1 3.0 1.9 52.6 1.5 TRC WILLI AMS 74.8 63.7 59.1 62.2 59.5 61.3 2.4 1.7 2.4 Program Succ Term No Recid Crim Hx 31 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 32 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Participation in Programs is linked to Success. Participation in services was statistically linked to program success. Offenders who participated in the following services were significantly more likely to complete the program successfully:36 • • • substance abuse treatment, mental health services, and budget planning.37 Similarly, offenders who participated in multiple services were more likely to successfully complete the halfway house program. That is, the more services offenders obtained during their time in residential community corrections, the more likely they were to successfully complete the residential program. This was found for both transition and diversion clients. Figure 2. Program Completion by Average Number of Services Received in FY98.* Average Number of Services Received 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3 2.8 Successful Program Termination Unsuccessful Program Termination *p<.001, F=126.01, df=1. Participation in multiple services may mean that these offenders were kept busy and their lives were more structured compared to those who participated in fewer services. Interview data revealed the importance of structure in offenders’ lives. Some offenders discussed how helpful a gradual decrease in structure was to their success in the community.38 Similarly, offenders and staff said that staying busy allowed them to focus on pro-social activities. One director believes 36 Unfortunately, we have no information about the nature or quality of these services; evaluating the services provided was beyond the scope of this study. 37 Significant at p<.001 for all services. 38 This topic is discussed in more detail later in the report. 33 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 that people “know what they learn as children,” and this director sees the halfway house as an opportunity to show offenders “another world and another way to live.” Sometimes offender needs39 and services provided were not well matched. The following statewide averages reflect disparity in needs and services in certain facilities: • Education/Vocational Training. Less than half (46 percent)40 of offenders who needed these services received them. One client reported that his vocational training gave him the opportunity to prepare for a job by learning the skills involved, rather than “being dropped off with $100 in your pocket.”41 See figure 3. • Budgeting Assistance. Over one-fourth (27 percent) of offenders who needed these services did not receive them. One client said that he watched many young people come into the program with no budgeting skills, but when they get help with this issue, they end up knowing how to pay bills and manage their finances. See figure 4. • Employment. Nearly half (40 percent) of offenders who needed employment related services did not receive them. In one program that provides a construction job training program, a client said that he would not have obtained such a “good job” without this training. See figure 5. • Substance Abuse. Of the 85 percent of community corrections clients with an identified substance abuse problem, 87 percent received alcohol or drug services and/or treatment. This finding does not mean that the offenders received specific substance abuse treatment, rather it could refer to educational groups or 12 step programs. We have no indication of quality of services or level of participation by clients. See figure 6. Nearly every offender was assessed by the Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI), a 54-item scale that determines risk and need levels.42 According to interview data, the intervention plan reflected the needs identified in the LSI assessment.43 Some facilities used additional assessments to evaluate offender needs. Still, since such a gap in services exists, the extent to which these assessment tools are used to determine service delivery is likely low. These assessment tools are 39 These needs were defined using documentation from the DCJ Termination Form. One item on the form requires case managers to prioritize the top three treatment needs of each offender. We recognize that some offenders may have had additional needs for services that were not assessed or documented. 40 Percentages in this section are rounded to the nearest whole number. 41 Offenders are released from prison with a bus ticket to their parole destination and a check for $100. 42 Peer I did not use the LSI. 43 LSI data was missing for 20.4% of the cases. 34 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS administered at intake, and as we shall discuss later, high and low scores are correlated with case outcome (see recidivism section below). Nevertheless, the LSI score may not be used consistently by some programs to determine appropriate services for clients. 35 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 36 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Figure 3. Educational/ Vocational Services Needed vs. Services Received 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 In Need Received STATE W I D E ACRC A C T C B C T C CAPS C C DIVER C C T R A N S C C S I CLAR K S O N COLU MBIN C R C H A V E N HILLT O P IND FED IND PECO LCCC L C T C L O F T M C C C 17.0 19.9 15.3 16.0 15.1 28.0 15.1 27.7 25.9 14.3 26.2 0.0 37.9 9.3 16.5 11.3 3.8 3.9 16.0 32.6 7.9 4.5 5.5 5.7 6.8 10.7 5.0 6.2 10.8 4.5 15.7 0.0 8.6 6.8 5.8 6.5 0.8 2.0 10.3 20.6 MINNE PEER I Q U A P H O E NIX SLVC C T O O L E Y T R C WILLI A M S 0.0 3.2 11.8 28.8 14.2 23.9 0.0 1.8 5.3 22.5 10.3 10.5 37 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 38 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Figure 4. Money Management Services Needed vs. Services Received 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 STATE WIDE ACRC ACTC BCTC CAPS CC DIVER CC TRANS CCSI CLARK COLUM SON BIN In Need 20.5 10.8 33.9 19.8 17.8 28.9 16.4 4.6 3.8 6.0 10.5 Received 14.4 8.0 13.7 10.4 2.7 25.3 14.5 1.5 3.8 5.3 6.8 CRC HAVEN 0.0 HILLTO P IND FED IND PECO LCCC LCTC LOFT MCCC MINNE PHOEN PEER I SLVCC QUA IX 32.8 22.4 34.5 23.4 20.3 11.8 14.7 24.1 0.0 9.7 3.4 16.8 25.2 18.5 3.0 11.8 13.5 9.9 0.0 8.3 TOOLE Y TRC WILLIA MS 73.7 3.6 37.3 33.0 69.7 3.6 30.9 26.4 39 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 40 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Figure 5. Employment Services Needed vs. Services Received 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 STATE WIDE ACRC ACTC BCTC CAPS CC CC DIVER T R A N S In Need 52.4 34.1 43.7 30.2 20.5 44.0 48.4 13.8 34.8 Received 31.2 5.7 13.7 25.5 8.2 19.1 22.6 6.2 27.2 CCSI CLARK COLUM SON BIN CRC HAVEN HILLTO P IND FED IND PECO LCCC LCTC LOFT MCCC MINNE QUA PEER I PHOEN TOOLE SLVCC IX Y 54.9 48.2 100.0 72.4 60.9 52.4 58.1 42.1 33.3 17.9 80.1 100.0 31.3 76.3 45.9 27.2 70.7 10.3 50.3 25.7 16.1 17.3 27.5 14.7 56.7 63.2 19.8 68.4 TRC WILLIA MS 65.8 74.0 71.4 34.2 36.3 60.5 41 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 42 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Figure 6. Substance Abuse Treatment Services Needed vs. Services Received 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 STATE WIDE ACRC ACTC BCTC CAPS CC DIVER CC TRANS CCSI CLARK COLUM SON BIN In Need 86.5 81.8 80.9 70.8 79.5 78.2 82.4 98.5 92.4 Received 79.5 75.0 71.0 51.9 60.3 65.3 79.9 90.8 88.6 CRC HAVEN HILLTO P IND FED IND PECO LCCC LCTC LOFT MCCC MINNE QUA PEER I PHOEN IX SLVCC TOOLE Y TRC WILLIA MS 92.5 88.0 100.0 74.1 88.8 90.3 73.4 75.2 96.1 89.7 95.7 100.0 90.8 88.2 91.9 84.8 86.2 84.2 83.8 98.7 69.0 87.6 83.5 64.5 54.9 96.1 83.3 95.7 97.8 85.3 85.5 87.4 84.3 75.0 43 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Recidivism Following Release from the Program As previously discussed, recidivism was defined as a new felony or misdemeanor court filing within 24 months of successful program completion. Of all offenders who successfully completed community corrections, nearly 81 percent remained crime-free after 12 months and 69 percent remained crime-free after 24 months. Nearly two-thirds of the new filings were for nonviolent felony offenses (65 percent). The second most common filing was for a misdemeanor or petty offense (24 percent). Eleven percent of these new filings were for violent felonies over 24 months. Figure 7. Total FY98 Community Corrections Offenders who Committed Crimes Within 24 Months of Completing the Program 24 Month Outcome Successful Program Completion 62.0% TV 19.8% Escape 15.8% Success 69% Program Outcome New Crime 2.4% Recidivism 31% Misdemeanor/ Petty 24% Nonviolent Felony 65% 24 Month Outcome Violent Felony 11% 45 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 Table 3. Recidivism Rates at 24 Months After Successful Program Completion by Crime Severity (n=546). Offense Type 24 Month Recidivism Nonviolent Felony* 64.8% (354) Misd/ Petty* 24.0% (131) Violent Felony* 11.2% (61) OVERALL RECIDIVISM 31.0% (546) *Percentage of offenders who recidivated was calculated only on offenders who successfully completed the community corrections program. At 24 months after program completion, drug offenses constituted the largest recidivating offense category, with one out of four offenders (25.2%) failing due to new court filings. The large proportion of failures due to drug offense filings were followed by property crimes44 (20.0%). Sixteen percent (16.2%) of offenders committed violent offenses.45 Driving under the influence (DUI) filings also accounted for a substantial proportion of recidivating events (14.1%%). New filings for escapes/absconds from supervision represented nearly fourteen percent (13.5%). The remainder of new offenses fell into the “other” category (11.0%).46 Table 4. Crime Types for 24 Month Recidivating Events. Drugs/ Alcohol* Property Violent Escape/Abscond 39.3% 20.0% 16.2% 13.5% Other** 11.0% *Felony sale, distribution, possession and DUI/DWAI. ** “Other” includes weapons and petty offenses, violation of a restraining order, and other felony or misdemeanor crimes that do not fit into the other four categories. Across programs, offender success rates ranged from 18 percent to nearly 61 percent. Again, program-specific rates must be considered with program variation in mind, particularly the seriousness of the offenders accepted into the program, including the extent to which they have drug or alcohol problems. See figure 1. 44 Burglary, felony and misdemeanor theft and larceny, auto theft, forgery and trespassing constitute property crimes for this analysis. 45 Violent offenses were defined as murder, kidnapping, assault (1st, 2 nd or 3rd degree), aggravated robbery, and robbery. 46 “Other” was defined as weapons offenses, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, restraining order violations, petty offenses and failure to appear. 46 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Drugs and Crime.47 A wide range of psychological, social and economic incentives can combine to produce serious drug use and crime patterns that become firmly established in some individuals. Some drugs, due to their ability to induce compulsive use, are more likely than others to precipitate criminal activity. Cocaine and heroin are especially notable for their addictive characteristics.48 In fact, a recent study conducted by the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) indicated that cravings for cocaine increase in the days and weeks after drug use is stopped. The report states, This phenomenon helps explain why addiction is a chronic, relapsing disease…. Craving is a powerful force for cocaine addicts to resist and the finding that it persists long after drug use must be considered in tailoring treatment programs.49 It is not surprising, then, that 25.2 percent of the new felony filings were for drug crimes. This was the most frequently occurring re-filing offense. DUI/DWAI offenses accounted for an additional 14.1 percent. Nearly 40 percent (39.3%), then, of all recidivating events occurring during the 24-month follow-up were for alcohol and drug offenses. Further, of those who were filed on for felony drug charges, the majority (59.6%) of these offenders were not originally convicted of drug offenses. Unfortunately, we had no information concerning the level of intensity of each offender’s substance problems. In treatment, it is important to distinguish between drug use and abuse, and whether a person is dependent on substances versus addicted to them.50 However, the data available did not allow us to make these distinctions, nor do we know the extent to which drug activity was for “income” versus abuse. Still, these findings reflect the important interplay between criminal behavior and drug activity. 47 The following journals focus on substance abuse issues and offer free subscriptions: NIDA Notes, Subscriptions Department, MasiMax Resources, Inc., 1375 Piccard Dr., Suite 175, Rockville, MD 20850, email: nidanotes@masimax.com; ATTC Networker, call Angie Olson at (816) 482-1165 or e-mail: aolson@nattc.org; Addiction Messenger, Northwest Frontier, Addiction Technology Transfer Center, 3414 Cherry Ave NE, Salem, Oregon 97303, e-mail: nfatc@open.org. 48 Drugs, Crime and the Justice System, Bureau of Justice Statistics, December 1992. 49 Criminal Justice Drug Letter: An Independent Monthly Report on Drug Detection and Treatment in the Criminal Justice System. June, 2001. Washington, DC: Pace Publications. 50 As defined by the DSM-IV, American Psychiatric Association. 47 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 Who Recidivates? Younger offenders with a higher criminal history score, higher Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI) score, and who left the halfway house without postrelease supervision were more likely to recidivate. 51 Each of these characteristics is discussed below. Criminal History Score. Higher results on the Criminal History Score predicted recidivism within 24 months of release from the halfway house. See table 22 in Appendix B for a breakdown of Criminal History Scores by Program. High Assessment Scores. The introduction of LSI assessments into the criminal justice intake process provides officials with important information about each offender’s criminogenic needs.52 This assessment, over time, may serve to refine intervention strategies for high-LSI scoring offenders. Offenders with high scores on Colorado’s battery of substance abuse assessment tools were more likely to recidivate with a substance abuse crime. These assessment tools include Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI), the Alcohol and Drug Survey, and DAST.53 The standardized assessment for substance abuse, mandated under Article 16-11.5, appears to appropriately identify individuals at high risk for severe and lasting substance abuse problems. Post-release Supervision. Offenders released from the halfway house and placed on probation, parole, or non-residential community corrections status were significantly more likely to stay crime free during the 24 months following release from the halfway house than those who did not receive post release supervision. In fact, offenders were nearly twice as likely to fail when they did not receive post-halfway house supervision compared to those who received it: for diversion clients, 45.0 percent without supervision failed compared to 26.2 with supervision percent; for transition clients, 59.5 percent without supervision failed compared to 33.4 with supervision. Further, among transition offenders who recidivated, those who did not receive post-release supervision tended to fail more quickly (failure occurred at six months versus ten months). 51 These results were obtained using a discriminant function analysis. Wilk’s λ=.954, df=4, p<.001. Function coefficients were as follows: LSI=.344, age=-.514, CH Score=.599, post-release supervision=.548. 52 Criminogenic need factors are areas in an offender’s life and psychology that are linked to criminal behavior. When these needs are targeted for treatment intervention, the chances of criminal involvement may also decrease. See The Psychology of Criminal Conduct by Andrews and Bonta (1993) for more information on this topic. 53 The ADS and DAST scores were related to substance abuse recidivism and not recidivism generally. Higher scores on the LSI predicted general recidivism. 48 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Figure 8. Time to Fail (in months) for Transition Offenders Post-Release Supervision No PostRelease Supervision 0 2 4 6 8 10 Post-release supervision for clients allows the offender to experience a gradual reduction in the amount of program structure over time. The need for a gradual decrease in structure was, in fact, reported to researchers during interviews and focus groups.54 During interviews, several transition offenders discussed the difficulties of moving from prison, where all decisions are made for the inmates, to the community, where stress and choices can become overwhelming. Interview data from program staff revealed that many offenders do very well in the halfway house but then “sabotage themselves” by escaping or violating the rules when they near program completion. This purposeful disruption in success was attributed to a fear of living in the community outside the facility. When offenders are not provided a gradual decrease in structure, their new found freedom can prove to be a barrier in their success. According to both quantitative and qualitative data, gradual reintegration seemed to enhance the likelihood that both diversion and transition offenders successfully acclimated to life in the free community. Gradual reintegration may mean that offenders continued to participate in programming and services that addressed their individual needs and risk factors. Interview data suggest that this continuum of care helped to stabilize offenders as they moved to a less structured environment and faced the challenges of life in the community. Returning Home. During interviews and focus groups, many offenders commented that staying away from their neighborhoods would increase their success in the community. Also, staff at nearly every facility stressed this factor during interviews: when offenders return to their original environment and social structure, they are at higher risk to re-offend. 54 Interview and focus group data were collected before researchers conducted the analysis that resulted in the supervision finding. 49 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 Facilities varied in the type and degree to which preparation for release and post-release programming was available to offenders. Programming at some facilities stressed the importance of offenders creating social connections in the community while still in the program and staff encouraged offenders to create pro-social community ties. Other facility staff emphasized isolation of offenders from the community to reduce external negative influences. These facilities also provided extensive postrelease supervision and programming. In general, the philosophy of staff in these facilities was to allow offenders to focus on their issues while in the program and then gradually integrate back into the community with strong programmatic support. Whatever the philosophy, these program staff had a clear understanding of the impact of the environment on an offender’s successful community reintegration. Some halfway house programming, however, appeared to offer little or no release preparation and/or supervision for offenders. These findings indicate that post-prison and post-community corrections services are vital to the successful reintegration of community corrections offenders. This issue should be pursued by community corrections administrators. 50 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Special Populations. Special correctional populations reflect the need for specialized services. Special populations identified by researchers include the seriously mentally ill, female offenders, sex offenders, substance abusers, the elderly, offenders who are physically disabled, and non-English speaking offenders. Many of these special populations overlap. Data were available to analyze women, sex offenders, substance abusers and offenders with mental health problems. There were not enough data to analyze the other special populations. • Sex Offenders. Sex offenders completed community corrections programs at a lower rate than non-sex offenders (50.0% compared to 38.0%, respectively). This finding may reflect management approaches for sex offenders in which precursor-to-assault behaviors are treated as serious, dangerous acts that should be the subject of revocation actions. Lack of active participation in specialized treatment, mandated by the Colorado Sex Offender Management Board, is also frequently grounds for program termination. When these approaches are employed, lower program completion rates would be expected. The Sex Offender Management Board’s Standards and Guidelines 55 require a highly collaborative process where supervising officers representing the criminal justice system, treatment providers and polygraph examiners work closely to supervise sex offenders in the community. Within this model, practitioners confront offenders and hold them accountable for their offending patterns and behaviors. The containment team holds a “magnifying glass” over offenders and responds quickly when high-risk behaviors occur. Under this approach, it is not surprising that sex offenders in this study completed community corrections less frequently than non-sex offenders.56 • Substance Abusing Offenders. One-third (32.0%) of offenders with substance abuse treatment needs failed after release from community corrections facilities, compared to 23.4 percent of offenders without documented substance abuse treatment needs. • Mental Health Treatment Needs. Nearly one-third (30.7%) of community corrections offenders who had some level of mental health problems recidivated after 24 months. No statistical difference was found between the recidivism rates of those with mental health needs and those without. Note that this classification does not identify offenders with serious mental illness (SMI), a high-need population that often requires medication monitoring and special life skills 55 To obtain a copy of the SOMB Standards, contact the DCJ’s SOMB staff at 700 Kipling St., #1000; Denver, CO 80215 or visit our web site at www.cdpsweb.state.co.us. 56 There were not enough cases to separately report recidivism rates for sex offenders after 24 months. 51 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 assistance. This type of diagnosis information is not recorded on the DCJ Termination Form and was unavailable for analysis. Women Offenders in Community Corrections. Program Completion. Women in community corrections did considerably better in FY98 compared to a previous study conducted in 1994 by the ORS.57 Women who terminated from community corrections in 1993 succeeded significantly less often than men in community corrections (47.9% and 56.4%, respectively). Also, women were significantly more likely than men to abscond from halfway houses in 1993 (29.8% and 17.6%, respectively). Interestingly, in the current study, women in female-only facilities were significantly more likely to successfully complete the halfway house program than women housed in coed facilities. Table 5. Program Completion Rates for Single-Gendered Versus Coed Facilities in FY98. Coed Facility Male Only Program Completion Female Only OVERALL Facility Facility Unsuccessful Program 44.3% (n=1085) 42.9% (n=411) 29.0% (n=54) 32.0% Completion Men: 83.8%, Women: 16.2% Successful Program Completion 55.7% TOTAL 100% (n=1366) Men: 84.1%, Women: 15.9% 57.1% (n=546) 71.0% (n=132) 68.0% 100% 100% 100% In FY 98, two halfway houses served women only.58 Women housed in the sixteen coed facilities were far outnumbered by men, usually ten to one. Nearly every person interviewed in a coed facility discussed the difficulties associated with housing both men and women. For example, according to interview data, coed halfway houses can lead to relationships between male and female offenders and these relationships can distract offenders from the goal of successful program completion. Phrases like “the love connection” and “the dating game” were used to describe this common dynamic within coed facilities. 57 Report of Findings: Comparison of Intensive Supervision Probation and Community Corrections Clientele, May 1996. Presented to The Colorado General Assembly, Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice, Office of Research and Statistics. 58 The Haven and Tooley Hall were the two female-only facilities in FY98. At this writing, there are four female only facilities, including ACRC, The Haven, Loft House and Tooley Hall. 52 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Both staff and offenders expressed the desire to have single-gender facilities to focus on the distinct needs of the residents. Some staff expressed significant concern when questioned about coed facilities, suggesting the complexities inherent in these halfway houses. Many women we interviewed indicated that they disliked coed facilities because the men belittled what they said during the groups and they felt intimidated by the men. “I miss being around other women who support and understand me. It’s hard to be a woman in this place…The other women are always focused on impressing the men and looking good instead of the real reason they’re here.” --A female resident in a halfway house that houses about 50 males and 4 females. “Right now I’m in a group that we have to go to and I’m the only woman with all these men…Most the time I don’t say nothing (sic).” --A female resident in a disproportionately male coed facility. “The women now have more time to work on their therapeutic concerns and they have less personality conflicts since the men left.” --A director of a facility that recently converted from a coed to a female-only facility. “Women living together creates a supportive environment [emotionally].” --A case manager at a female facility. “We have sparse female-specific programming because there are not enough women in the facility to warrant it.” --A director of a coed facility housing only 3 females. Safety. In addition, women in coed houses reported personal safety concerns, and these concerns coincided with the location of the bedrooms allocated for women. Some facilities located women’s bedrooms near the security desk to enhance safety. However, most of the women we interviewed in coed facilities felt a lack of safety and some women mentioned harassment by male offenders. “My room is right here and I gotta go all the way over there to take a shower…I just take my clothes with me and get dressed in there so I don’t have to walk by them [the men]. They always say things when they’re [security staff] not around.” --A woman in a coed facility whose bedroom is located on a different wing of the facility from the bathroom designated for females. 53 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 Interview data also revealed that some women participating in community corrections felt unsafe because of the location of the facility. At one site, the route from the bus stop to the facility was long and lacked adequate streetlights at night. Construction and warehouse workers employed in the neighborhood intimidated several women in one halfway house because they yelled and heckled them from the nearby job site: “I have to walk all the way around the block to get around the railroad tracks—since we’re not supposed to walk across them-to get to the bus stop. It’s scary at night.” “...yeah, and those perverted men and truck drivers are always trying to pick up on us when we’re outside.” --Two women housed in a female-only facility during a focus group. Female-Specific Services. Many women and staff who were interviewed in coed facilities consistently reported that services were tailored to men. Most staff and offenders indicated that sparse female-specific programming exists in coed facilities. During an interview, one woman stated that she paid for outside services rather than participating in free in-house services where she would have been the only woman in an all-male group. Some staff in coed facilities reported that they lacked female-specific programming because the number of women served was too small to warrant special programs. Some of the programs that do exist are apparently less than adequate. For example, many women interviewed said they thought that parenting classes focused on raising babies and young children and did not adequately address topics concerning older children and teenagers. According to interview data, women also lacked adequate job skills and opportunities to make salaries comparable to men. As a result, it was more difficult for women to pay for rent, restitution, and treatment while in the halfway house. Low wages make it financially difficult for women to move back into the community. The lack of adequate compensation for work undermines women’s efforts for long-term success in any criminal justice placement. During interviews, some women indicated that obtaining a job positively impacted their mood, self-esteem and progress in treatment. Most facility staff interviewed, however, recognized that women need vocational and job skills training in order to succeed in the community. 54 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS During interviews, staff and offenders reported a lack of female-oriented services in the following areas: • Medical care. Interview and focus group data revealed that many programs lacked access to medical care for women. Medical services mentioned included prenatal care, contraceptive and pregnancy assistance, and annual gynecological examinations. • Parenting classes. Some facilities offered parenting classes aimed primarily at caring for babies. • Vocational training and job skills. While some facilities offered job placement assistance and job skills training, others failed to provide these services. • Life skills (i.e., completing annual tax forms, accessing community resources, completing job applications, developing a résumé, and managing a budget). According to interviews, many women need basic life skills training and education in order to complete these day-to-day tasks. Some staff reported that they do not assume that the women they supervised knew basic life skills, especially women who previously relied on others to complete these duties. These staff focused on life skills for all offenders. • Victimization (sexual, emotional, and physical abuse) classes. Most women and staff discussed victimization treatment as a lacking but needed service in community corrections. • Relationship building. Many women told us they had a history of violent or antisocial partners and unhealthy relationships. Some women reported the link between these relationships and their criminal activity but many told us they were unsure of how to stay away from unhealthy relationships. Research indicates that women are more oriented to interpersonal relationships than men, and women’s lives are experienced in large part through their relationships with others. The corrections literature shows that female inmates rely on one another for social support.59 Relationship building was a fundamental program component of one female-only facility with high program completion rates and low recidivism rates. • Health and wellness. Some women, particularly those with drug and alcohol problems, wanted to learn more about women’s health in order to take better care of themselves. These women lacked access to health awareness and education services while in the community corrections program. 59 For a review of recent research on this topic see Maher (2001), McMahon (2001), Shaw & Hannah-Moffat (2001), Office of Justice Programs National Symposium on Women Offenders (1999), and Belknap (1996). 55 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 • Self-esteem. Staff in nearly every facility that housed females indicated that low self-esteem was a critical problem among the female offender population. However, staff and administrators in most facilities recognized that their program lacked adequate services to address low self-esteem. This was especially the case in coed facilities, where females were treated with male oriented modalities and staff found it difficult to incorporate femalespecific interventions. • Eating disorders. Staff in many sites reported eating disorders as one of the many psychological disturbances suffered by female offenders. Eating disorders are thought to be symptoms of other underlying issues, most commonly self-esteem, control, and perfectionism (Costin, 1999), so it is not surprising that these disorders pervade the female offender population. Some staff thought eating disorders were more prevalent in coed facilities where the presence of men increased the pressure to be thin. Despite its common occurrence, most facilities lacked access to specialized treatment for eating disorders and instead attempted to combine this issue with other accessible treatments. The research literature is clear that women offenders require distinct programming because they have different risks and needs. The International Community Corrections Association’s Journal published an excellent discussion of female-specific programming in its December 1998 issue. Reed and Leavitt (p. 20) note that programming must address “sexual and physical abuse, substance use/abuse, mental illness and mental health issues; poor physical health, insufficient job skills, lack of safe/affordable housing, many relationship issues and complex family and caregiving responsibilities.” Women’s mental and physical health care is often more complicated and severe than men’s, and services should be “welcoming, accessible, supportive and sensitive to traumarelated issues.” Stephanie Covington, in the same issue (p. 27-28), cites research regarding effective substance abuse programming for women focused on both treatment content and the environment in which service was delivered. Content topics include self (sources of self-esteem, effects of sexism, racism and stigma on a sense of self); relationships (family of origin, myths of motherhood, relationship histories including violent relationships, and building health support systems); sexuality (body image, connections between addiction and sexuality); and spirituality (introduction to the concepts of spirituality, prayer and meditation). Covington describes a supportive environment as one characterized by 56 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS q q q Safety: Free from physical, emotional and sexual harassment; rules of conduct provide appropriate boundaries; group therapy is guaranteed to be a safe place to discuss and work personal issues. Connection: Exchanges among the facilitator and group members feel mutual rather than authoritarian; facilitator wants to understand their experiences and is not overwhelmed by their stories. Empowerment: The facilitator models how a woman can use power with and for others, and encourages group members to believe and exercise their abilities. Covington, who has developed an intervention program called Helping Women Recover based on research and clinical experience, notes that it is important that a group intended to help women be composed solely of women and that the facilitator be a woman. Additionally, cultural awareness and sensitivity, resources and strengths, are key ingredients in correctional programs for women. Lack of Female-Specific Needs Assessments. Assessment tools are typically designed for and tested on male offenders and do not necessarily address needs specific to women.60 The fact that female-specific assessments are not used in the Colorado halfway house system both reflects and perpetuates the lack of program emphasis for female offenders. Consequently, many women may not receive services they need. One facility that provides comprehensive, female-specific programming to serious offenders had a 69.0% program completion rate, and 85.0% of these women remained crime free after 24 months. These success rates are significantly higher than the statewide averages for program completion and 24-month success rates for women (60.4% and 69.5%, respectively).61 These data suggest that women benefit from femalespecific programming. However, without appropriate needs assessment tools, matching pertinent services to needs is a difficult task. Recidivism. Despite the problems mentioned here, women recidivated at a lower rate (24.8%) than men (32.4%) 24 months after successful program completion. These findings may be deceiving though since women—even women with a criminal past—are less likely than men to engage in crime. 60 Some researchers recommend the use of asset assessments to help women see the strengths and skills that they already have, whereas needs assessments focus on what is wrong with the client and these women are typically struggling with problems of poor self-esteem. 61 Chi Square significant at p<.001. 57 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 Both the program completion findings and the recidivism data reflect that, overall, women were doing markedly better in community corrections in FY98 than they did in the past. This could be the result of an increase in femalespecific programming dealing with needs specific to women since, in earlier studies, the female-only programs were not yet available. Despite this generally positive finding, many women in Colorado’s community correction system still lack access to appropriate services and some feel unsafe in the environment inside and outside the facility. These factors can severely limit a woman’s opportunity to succeed, both during and after the community corrections program. The dramatic change in outcomes for female community corrections clients over the years is promising. Facility staff have moved towards providing women the tools they need to succeed. Continued movement in this direction can only provide more opportunity for success for female offenders. 58 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Staffing Problems. Interview data revealed significant staffing problems that affect the stability and quality of programming within many halfway houses. These problems are described below. • High staff turnover. The average employment period of security/line staff across the 25 halfway houses was approximately six months, according to interview data. In most facilities, this created inconsistency and inefficiency in programming and supervision for both staff and offenders. A case manager in one facility discussed the impact of staff turnover on the facility and indicated that clients “pick up” on this instability. This case manager revealed that the facility had 17 escapes in the previous three weeks and attributed that to staff instability. Stable staff can positively impact client motivation and morale, according to interview data. Staff can encourage offenders to continue working within the program instead of escaping and giving up. During interviews, nearly all administrators and staff attributed high staff turnover to low salaries. One security supervisor said that his staff could go work at McDonald’s and receive the same benefits, while making only fifty cents less per hour. He saw this as an alluring option, given that McDonalds employees do not work graveyard shifts or manage and control an offender population. Many administrators said that they lost staff to Probation Services and the Department of Corrections because they could not compete with starting salaries at state-operated programs. Many program staff also indicated that upward mobility is unlikely and staff cannot attain career goals by continuing to work in the facility. On the other end of the continuum, administrators and staff in one facility that had low turnover rates indicated that all staff had the opportunity for creativity and, consequently, were invested in their jobs and in the program itself. In this facility, we spoke with four line staff whose steady employment at the facility ranged from 3-18 years, which was remarkably higher than most other houses. This facility also offered higher than average pay and a comprehensive benefits package. • Significant variation in skill level. Given the generally low salaries, it is not surprising that some facilities have difficulty finding qualified staff. According to interview data, rural areas may experience more hiring challenges since the applicant pool is small, but Metro-area programs also struggled with recruitment and retention of staff. Often, few qualifications are required for line staff positions. Yet these individuals have the most contact with offenders and are responsible for managing house incidents. 59 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 When asked what kinds of qualifications are required when hiring a new front line employee, many administrators prefaced their answers to this question by saying that they wanted higher qualifications and experience as job requirements. But nearly all administrators noted that they required only a GED or high school education.62 Most programs had no requirements for prior experience. According to interview data, case managers were often promoted from line staff positions without additional training or education. Many administrators told us that they preferred, but did not require, a college degree for case manager positions.63 In some facilities, case managers also served as counselors and facilitated treatment groups. Some of these case managers told us that they felt unqualified to be performing these duties, especially those with no formal training or education. One facility had high qualifications for treatment staff, many of whom had graduate degrees. However, this level of education was extremely rare in the halfway house system. Given the generally low salaries, it is not surprising that facilities have difficulty hiring qualified and educated staff. This variation in skill level across facilities means that offenders have very different experiences in community corrections depending on the facility in which they are housed. • Lack of Training. Halfway house staff persons did not receive a core curriculum of training, although in criminal justice supervision positions in state agencies, core training is a requirement and is provided by the administration. Also, staff received no training on the topic of special populations such as anti-social personalities, offender manipulations, and the special needs of the mentally ill, elderly and women.64 This lack of training may place staff at significant risk of being manipulated by the residents, making the facility environment less safe for staff and offenders. Staff who lack an understanding of the needs of special populations are unlikely to have the knowledge and sensitivity required to address these needs. In some facilities, initial staff orientation, plus the 40 hours of annual training required by the state standards, consisted of on-the-job training. Like most of the findings presented here, training issues varied across facilities. While some facilities considered weekly staff meetings to be training, others provided extensive out-of-house training opportunities for staff. Administrators in 62 This standard is much lower than is required for most criminal justice jobs, which require a college degree. However, residential staff across disciplines are typically compensated with a minimum wage salary. 63 DCJ’s Standards, however, require a BA or BS in Social or Behavioral Science or a year-for-year comparable experience. 64 Most administrators and staff recognized and openly discussed the problems associated with an overall lack of training. Funds for training are not included in the General Assembly’s funding allocation to DCJ, the administrating agency. 60 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS rural areas told us they found it difficult to obtain useful training due to the location of their facilities. Additionally, according to interview data, new, inexperienced and untrained staff were sometimes unaware of proper relationship boundaries and tried to become friends with clients. For example, a common reply to interview questions about high staff turnover was “They don’t know what they are getting into.” Further discussion revealed these comments to mean that new staff were not prepared to work with the dynamics of an offender population, including issues related to security and contraband. In fact, some administrators and staff described the benefits of having staff who were “recovering” substance abusers and fully understood offender issues. According to interview data, these staff also had lower turnover rates and seemed to view the job as a commitment rather than a learning experience to serve future career goals. 61 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 Community Corrections Offenders Generated $16.2 Million in FY98. Offenders in halfway houses across the state earned $16.2 million and paid $344,942 in state taxes, $841,712 in federal taxes, and paid $4,517,212 in room and board. Interview data revealed that many offenders accumulated first and last months’ rent in savings accounts, and paid child support while they were in Community Corrections. Many offenders reported during focus groups that earning money and learning to budget improved their self-esteem and gave them confidence to succeed in the community. Internal Management Information Systems (MIS). Most halfway house facilities have no or minimal database systems that would allow for describing and tracking the offenders in the programs. Our exposure to databases at some community corrections facilities reflected the potential for enhancing communication sharing, monitoring of offenders, and adequately answering research questions about special populations.65 The staff in facilities with these databases can access descriptions of offender needs and services received or not, and determine, at any given time, where clients were located (i.e., where they were signed out to, if they were on site, working, on a pass, and so on). These data systems instantly provided information on which offenders were on program waiting lists, the length of the waiting lists, what services offenders were receiving and progress updates, chores scheduled and completed, sentence information (i.e., scheduled parole board hearings, etc.), and much more. In most facilities, some of this information is recorded in case files, and location information is often noted on large sign-out boards, but having more information available on computers made the information easier to share and more immediately accessible to case managers and supervisors. Information obtained from offenders (i.e., “I have permission to xxx”) could be verified with a few keyboard strokes rather than finding and pursuing a client paper file. It seemed clear to us that these systems allowed staff to better supervise and monitor offenders. These systems seemed to considerably enhance communication about offenders among staff, thereby potentially improving the overall security and safety of the facility. Additionally, these types of databases offer considerable detail about the residents and the services assigned to them, and this level of information would allow facility staff (and researchers) to more easily answer questions about community corrections. 65 Comcor, Inc. is an example of a program with an exemplary automated database. 62 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Summary Overall, community corrections clients in FY98 yielded better outcomes than in previous studies. Improvements noted included higher program completion rates, lower recidivism rates, increased use of the LSI in directing services, and an improved response to women offenders. Providing appropriate services based on offender needs has likely improved outcomes for community corrections clients. In addition, several areas for improvement were identified with these findings. First, the extensive variation across programs means that offenders sentenced to community corrections receive different programming based on the facility in which they are housed. Moreover, each halfway house accepts different types of offenders (gender, severity, special populations, etc.), making it difficult to compare outcomes across facilities. This variation includes the quality of data available for each client. The second area for improvement involves the availability of post-release supervision. These findings show an improvement in success rates for those receiving post-release supervision. However, not all halfway houses made this service available to offenders, thereby potentially decreasing their opportunity to succeed in the community. Finally, staff training was lacking at many halfway houses, thus threatening the proficiency of staff. Moreover, with increased staff training staff may feel more invested in their jobs, resulting in increased retention rates. Policy makers should focus on increasing the amount and quality of staff training. 63 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS SECTION FOUR: Recommendations Based on 206 interviews with administrators, staff and offenders, 8 focus groups with offenders, and our analysis of the DCJ Termination Forms for 3,054 community corrections clients who left one of the 25 halfway houses in FY98, we make the following recommendations: 1. Service Delivery Should Be Improved and Standardized. Local program variation and local discretion in decision making is a valued component of the Colorado Community Corrections system. However, the lack of standardized programming and operations results in extremely disparate service delivery. The level of intervention and quality appears to vary widely across programs even though each offender pays the same rate for services and each facility receives the same per diem allowance from the General Assembly. Programs that actively use assessment information to direct resources to clients offer client-centered services and maximize each offender’s ability to succeed in the community are not the target of this recommendation. In fact, such programs should serve as the standard for operations and services provided by the statewide system. Excellent programming exists in the community corrections system but it may be the exception rather than the rule among the 25 halfway houses we studied. Efforts should be made to develop and enforce performance measures that address the issue of consistency and quality for facility operations, programming, and overall service delivery. This recommendation should be made a priority by the Division of Criminal Justice, the Governor’s Advisory Council, the Colorado Community Corrections Coalition, and each local community corrections board. Local boards have oversight responsibility for the facilities in each jurisdiction, and this entity should be held accountable for the quality of services delivered by the facilities. Local boards have an oversight responsibility for enforcing these standards since, in nearly all cases, the boards contract with the programs to serve this offender population. If necessary, Board members should receive basic training in special populations, “what works” in corrections, and performance measures. Funding allocations should somehow be linked to compliance with performance measures. One finding presented in this report suggests that some offenders may not be getting services they need. This issue should be addressed immediately to assure fairness and maximize each offender’s opportunity to successfully reintegrate into the community. Program content should be carefully reviewed by programming experts to ensure that they adequately address offender needs. 65 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 Since this study found that participation in a greater number of services increased offenders’ probability of program success, improvements in the types and availability of services may lead to higher program success rates. Accessibility by offenders to a range of services varies across facilities, both by what is offered and whether the service is available free of charge. Some programs offer an array of services free-of-charge while others offer no free services. This disparity in service availability and client pricing requires further investigation. Finally, community corrections programs should be designed to address deficits in basic living skills, including parenting and budgeting skills, and incorporate research-based components that can promote improvement in these areas. 2. Special populations require specialized programming and additional funding should support these services. In some cases, facility access must be modified to assure community corrections is available to physically disabled persons. Special services are required for women and offenders who are addicted to alcohol or drugs. Over time, improving outcomes with these populations is likely to generate significant cost savings to the criminal justice and other social systems. 3. Drug and alcohol problems among the offender population are chronic and require new approaches to intervention. Intensive treatment and therapeutic community models should be replicated in jurisdictions across the state. Programs with these models accept serious offenders and yielded high success rates, both for program completion and after 24 months in the community. The criminal justice system alone cannot manage the problem of addictions, and multidisciplinary approaches are required for this population. 4. Every halfway house program should implement specific aftercare services and post-release supervision to enhance offenders’ likelihood of success. All community corrections clients should receive post-release supervision to maximize public safety, reduce recidivism, and improve success rates. Aftercare services should be coordinated with services received during the residential component of the program. Aftercare programming should be defined and delivered similarly across facilities to minimize the variation found in other aspects of the statewide system. 5. To further professionalize community corrections, and to reduce staff turnover, future increases in per diem rates from the General Assembly should be directed in part to increases in line staff salaries. Substantiating documentation should be provided to DCJ’s Office of Community Corrections to ensure that the increases are, in fact, used appropriately. Resources should be allocated to ensure appropriate funding to complete this task. 66 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS 6. Staff training should be a priority for the community corrections facility administrations. Training increases the likelihood that staff understand the larger mission of their work and, in turn, they may feel a stronger investment in their jobs, and stay employed in the facility for longer periods of time. Training guards against abuse of power by staff by increasing competency and it fosters an understanding of the larger impact of their work. Administrators who emphasize training communicate that they value and respect the important work of line staff. Administrative support for training reinforces the need for consistency in programming within each facility and across the statewide halfway house system. Lack of training, relatively low staff qualification requirements and inconsistency in service delivery threatens the professionalism of the staff in these facilities and likely contributes to considerable inefficiencies in daily operations and service delivery. Staff training should emphasize a curriculum specific to working in community corrections facilities and/or special population offenders. Administrators should work with probation and parole officials to send community corrections staff to state-sponsored training. 7. Efforts should be made to expand gender-specific facilities and programming. Facilities should minimize the use of coed facilities for female offenders. Women need very specific program content and they must feel safe to maximize the effect of interventions. All facilities serving women need to expand the available programming. These services must be tailored to meet the special needs of women. Equality of service delivery is not simply allowing women access to services traditionally reserved for men. Equality must be defined in terms of providing opportunities that are relevant to each gender. Women housed in coed facilities should receive separate services specific to their needs. Treatment services, then, may appear very different depending on who receives the service. Vocational training must focus on moving women from their economic disadvantage so that they can support themselves and their children in the community. And since women are at a higher risk to become crime victims than men and many have a history of violent partners, victimization classes and treatment would be beneficial. Women with co-dependency issues could benefit from relationship building and empowerment classes teaching them how to be self-sufficient and independent, and how to form and maintain healthy and supportive relationships. This programming should be available in all facilities that house women. Female-only facilities are better able to serve the needs of this population. 67 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 8. Community Corrections should focus on basic interventions including education, vocation, and employment training and services for all offenders. The analyses presented here indicated that services in these topic areas were not well matched to offender needs. 9. Local boards need to commit to a process by which all facilities value and uphold the DCJ standards for community corrections. As soon as possible, local boards must address the staff skills, training, availability of services, and lack of consistency in programming, including the variation in the content of the material, availability, and skill of the facilitator. 10. Each facility should develop and maintain an automated database that details assessment information and services provided. Additional necessary information required for evaluating programs includes personal and criminal histories, infractions and sanctions, case manager logs and chronological records on offenders, pass location and times, chores assigned and completed, and special needs and risks of each offender. Public safety is enhanced when this information is available for supervision and monitoring of offenders serving sentences in the community. Also, without such data, research questions regarding special populations, needs assessment, and services delivered cannot be adequately addressed. A presentence report and, if applicable, DOC diagnostic and treatment documents should be available on every offender. Summary Significant improvements in community corrections were noted during the current study, including higher program completion rates, lower recidivism rates, the use of the LSI in directing services, and an improved response to women. These improvements have occurred in the past six or 7 years. With an emphasis on quality control and a targeted use of funding, Colorado may be moving into a new generation of community corrections programming. Raising the bar regarding expectations of service delivery by addressing the issues raised in this report ensures continued improvement in this important component of the state’s criminal justice system. 68 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS APPENDIX A: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS DCJ TERMINATION FORM EXHIBIT A DATA COLLECTION FORM INTERVIEW GUIDES 69 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 APPENDIX B: SAMPLE DESCRIPTION66 DEMOGRAPHICS FOR ALL COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS OFFENDERS Table 6. Marital Status of All Offenders in Community Corrections in FY98. 1844 (51.3%) Single Married 573 (15.9%) Common Law 297 (8.3%) Divorced/Separated 871 (24.2) Table 7. Gender of All Offenders in Community Corrections in FY98. 3013 (83.8%) Male Female 581 (16.2%) Table 8. Ethnicity of All Offenders in Community Corrections in FY98. 1822 (50.7%) Anglo Black 869 (24.2%) Hispanic 818 (22.8%) Asian 13 (0.4%) American Indian 45 (1.3%) Other 26 (0.7%) Figure 9. Last Grade in School Completed by All Offenders in Community Corrections in FY98 Upon Entry of the Program. 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 7 8 9 10 11 HS Grad GED Vocational College Some Masters or PhD College GradSome Grad School 66 Tables in this section do not all contain cases for every offender. In instances where the totals do not equal the population or sample numbers, missing data account for the difference. 70 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Table 9. Employment of All Offenders in Community Corrections in FY98 Upon Entry and at Termination From the Program. Entry Termination Full Time 718 (20.0%) 2909 (80.9%) Part Time 21 (0.6%) 73 (2.0%) Unemployed 2838 (79.0%) 583 (16.2%) Sporadic 17 (0.5%) 23 (0.6%) Student 0 (0.0%) 6 (0.2%) DEMOGRAPHICS FOR EACH FACILITY PROGRAM ACRC ACTC BCTC CAPS CC Div CC Trans CCSI Columbine CRC Fox Haven Hilltop Ind Federal Ind Pecos LCCC LCTC Loft House MCCC Minnequa Peer I Phoenix SLVCC Tooley Hall TRC Williams Table 10. Average Age of Offenders in Each Program in FY98.* DIVERSION 33 33 31 28 30 27 27 32 32 29 33 26 35 33 27 31 31 29 30 33 31 28 34 30 32 *Numbers rounded to the nearest whole number. TRANSITION 35 33 32 32 23 33 31 34 34 34 32 34 35 35 33 33 36 31 32 34 32 36 35 32 37 71 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 Table 11. Marital Status of Offenders in Each Program in FY98. Program Single Married Common Law n= 1844 n= 573 n= 297 ACRC 51.1% 15.9% 5.1% ACTC 53.0% 15.3% 4.9% BCTC 61.3% 17.0% 0.9% CAPS 54.8% 12.3% 6.8% CC Div 50.7% 19.7% 12.1% CC Trans 39.9% 18.4% 3.8% CCSI 50.8% 12.3% 10.8% Columbine 47.4% 15.8% 13.5% CRC 54.5% 12.0% 10.5% Fox 53.2% 15.2% 12.7% Haven 50.0% 12.2% 5.4% Hilltop 46.6% 15.5% 3.4% Ind Federal 63.5% 10.7% 3.8% Ind Pecos 50.0% 15.7% 13.7% LCCC 65.9% 14.6% 6.5% LCTC 47.4% 23.3% 9.8% Loft House 43.1% 19.6% 2.0% MCCC 51.3% 17.3% 11.5% Minnequa 44.7% 22.0% 12.1% Peer I 59.6% 16.9% 5.1% Phoenix 56.7% 14.3% 6.0% SLVCC 44.7% 25.0% 7.9% Tooley Hall 58.6% 17.1% 4.5% TRC 44.6% 14.2% 5.4% Williams 44.2% 13.0% 13.0% Divorced/Widow n= 871 27.8% 26.8% 20.8% 26.0% 17.5% 38.0% 26.2% 23.3% 23.0% 19.0% 32.4% 34.5% 22.0% 20.6% 13.0% 19.5% 35.3% 19.9% 21.3% 18.4% 23.0% 22.4% 19.8% 35.8% 29.7% 72 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Table 12. Gender of Offenders in Each Program in FY98.* Program Male n= 3013 ACRC 81 (46.0%) ACTC 183 (100%) BCTC 82 (77.4%) CAPS 68 (93.2%) CC Div 205 (91.1%) CC Trans 146 (91.8%) CCSI 65 (100%) Columbine 133 (100%) CRC 159 (83.2%) Fox 158 (100%) Haven 0 (0.0%) Hilltop 51 (87.9%) Ind Federal 69 (42.9%) Ind Pecos 206 (100%) LCCC 118 (95.2%) LCTC 128 (96.2%) Loft House 39 (76.5%) MCCC 137 (87.8%) Minnequa 116 (82.3%) Peer I 133 (97.8%) Phoenix 213 (98.2%) SLVCC 76 (100%) Tooley Hall 0 (0.0%) TRC 172 (84.3%) Williams 276 (100%) Female n= 581 95 (54.0%) 0 (0.0%) 24 (22.6%) 5 (6.8%) 20 (8.9%) 13 (8.2%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 32 (16.8%) 0 (0.0%) 75 (100%) 7 (12.1%) 92 (57.1%) 0 (0.0%) 6 (4.8%) 5 (3.8%) 12 (23.5%) 19 (12.2%) 25 (17.7%) 3 (2.2%) 4 (1.8%) 0 (0.0%) 111 (100%) 32 (15.7%) 0 (0.0%) 73 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 Table 13. Ethnicity of Offenders in Each Program in FY98. Program Anglo Black Hispanic Asian ACRC ACTC BCTC CAPS CC Div CC Trans CCSI Columbine CRC Fox Haven Hilltop Ind Federal Ind Pecos LCCC LCTC Loft House MCCC Minnequa Peer I Phoenix SLVCC Tooley Hall TRC Williams n= 1822 59.1% 51.9% 72.6% 80.8% 57.8% 59.7% 29.2% 15.0% 75.9% 32.9% 36.0% 62.1% 33.5% 33.0% 74.2% 68.4% 37.3% 77.6% 36.9% 47.8% 55.3% 63.2% 20.7% 59.3% 32.4% n= 869 35.2% 38.8% 6.6% 2.7% 18.2% 27.0% 4.6% 45.1% 10.5% 32.9% 54.7% 6.9% 42.2% 36.4% 5.6% 3.8% 19.6% 2.6% 3.5% 30.9% 20.3% 2.6% 57.7% 3.4% 43.6% n= 818 5.1% 6.6% 15.1% 13.7% 19.6% 11.3% 66.2% 37.6% 11.5% 25.3% 8.0% 24.1% 21.1% 28.6% 15.5% 26.3% 39.2% 17.9% 58.2% 20.6% 23.5% 28.9% 19.8% 35.8% 22.5% n= 13 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 1.0% 1.6% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% American Indian n= 45 0.6% 1.1% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 1.9% 0.0% 1.5% 0.5% 2.5% 0.0% 5.2% 1.2% 0.5% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 5.3% 0.9% 1.0% 0.0% Other n= 26 0.0% 1.6% 1.9% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 1.6% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 1.9% 0.5% 1.6% 0.8% 3.9% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.5% 0.7% 74 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Table 14. Status of Offenders in Each Program in FY98. Program Diversion n= 1938 ACRC 52.8% ACTC 62.8% BCTC 73.6% CAPS 52.1% CC Div 98.2% CC Trans 1.9% CCSI 58.5% Columbine 61.7% CRC 69.1% Fox 0.6% Haven 84.0% Hilltop 55.2% Ind Federal 42.2% Ind Pecos 39.3% LCCC 66.1% LCTC 66.2% Loft House 68.6% MCCC 51.9% Minnequa 80.1% Peer I 66.9% Phoenix 58.5% SLVCC 52.6% Tooley Hall 43.2% TRC 63.2% Williams 38.8% Transition n= 1391 47.7% 37.2% 26.4% 47.9% 1.8% 98.1% 41.5% 38.3% 30.9% 99.4% 16.0% 44.8% 57.8% 60.7% 33.9% 33.8% 31.4% 48.1% 19.9% 33.1% 41.5% 47.4% 56.8% 36.8% 61.2% 75 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 Table 15. Education of Offenders in Each Program in FY98. Program Grade Junior High Some HS HS Grad School ACRC ACTC BCTC CAPS CC Div CC Trans CCSI Columbine CRC Fox Haven Hilltop Ind Federal Ind Pecos LCCC LCTC Loft House MCCC Minnequa Peer I Phoenix SLVCC Tooley Hall TRC Williams n= 27 1.1% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.8% 3.0% 2.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.7% 0.9% 1.3% 0.0% 2.5% 1.5% n= 127 2.3% 3.3% 3.8% 2.8% 3.1% 1.9% 3.1% 4.5% 4.2% 1.9% 2.7% 8.8% 5.2% 1.9% 4.8% 5.3% 3.9% 3.9% 5.7% 3.7% 2.8% 7.9% 0.9% 4.5% 2.6% n= 1069 29.5% 20.8% 33.0% 34.7% 29.8% 14.5% 32.3% 31.8% 32.5% 19.6% 37.3% 22.8% 30.3% 30.1% 25.0% 42.1% 41.2% 27.7% 33.3% 44.9% 30.9% 19.7% 44.1% 30.3% 26.4% n= 786 25.0% 19.1% 21.7% 22.2% 24.4% 19.5% 16.9% 15.9% 20.9% 16.5% 24.0% 24.6% 16.8% 12.6% 18.5% 18.8% 25.5% 29.0% 26.2% 27.2% 28.1% 26.3% 16.2% 24.4% 26.4% GED Vocational n= 953 20.5% 30.1% 23.6% 22.2% 19.6% 40.3% 27.7% 40.2% 26.2% 46.8% 22.7% 26.3% 27.1% 34.0% 32.3% 15.0% 17.6% 24.5% 18.4% 10.3% 29.0% 22.4% 19.8% 28.9% 24.5% n= 123 0.0% 1.1% 2.8% 2.8% 4.4% 7.5% 3.1% 0.8% 3.1% 3.2% 5.3% 1.8% 5.2% 3.9% 2.4% 3.0% 3.9% 4.5% 1.4% 9.6% 2.8% 6.6% 5.4% 1.5% 2.9% Some Coll/ College Grad n= 479 21.0% 25.7% 14.2% 15.3% 18.7% 15.7% 16.9% 6.8% 12.6% 11.4% 8.0% 15.8% 15.5% 16.0% 15.3% 12.8% 5.9% 9.7% 13.5% 2.9% 5.5% 15.8% 13.5% 7.5% 13.6% PostCollege n= 14 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 2.2% 76 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Table 16. Programs Accepting Special Populations by Population Type.* D&A Program LCCC TRC SLVCC X (70% pop) X (80-90% pop) X (90% IRT) Loft House Phoenix X Female X X (20) Sex Offender X X (Only if sentenced by 12th JD) X CRC Hilltop BCTC Alpha Fox Alpha Columbine Alpha Clarkson CCSI LCTC X (D&A, AA) X X X X (5) X X X X X (2-8; currently have 4) X (8) X (15-20 bed) X (24 beds) X (currently have 4) Mentally Ill CMI X Non-English Speaking Elderly Disabled X X X X X X (who can be managed) X X X X X X X (currently 1) X (currently 2) X (95%) X X X CAPS Ind Federal MCCC Tooley Hall Williams Street Haven Peer 1 Minnequa X (DART) X (DART) X (TC) X (TC) Ind Pecos X ACRC ACTC X (AA) ComCor Inc X (recently started an IRT) X (currently have 8) X (take sometimes) X X (60 bed) X (TC here) X X X X (25% of pop) X X X X X X 1 or 2 in 97-98; 3 now (Only factual basis sex offenders) X X X X (modified TC) X X X X ( if medically stable) X X (Need to be able to work) X X (1 in the past 5 yrs) X X (Learning Disabled) X X * Table depicts results as reported during interviews. “Now” and “current” illustrate results at the time of the interview. 77 CRIMINAL HISTORIES FOR ALL COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS OFFENDERS Table 17. Legal Status of All Offenders in Community Corrections in FY98. Conditional Probation 48 (1.3%) Direct Sentence 1938 (53.9%) Transition 1391 (38.7%) Parole 179 (5.0%) Other 38 (1.1%) TOTAL 3594 (100.0%) Table 18. Felony Class of Current Offense of All Offenders in Community Corrections in FY98. 1 0 (0.0%) 2 6 (0.2%) 3 754 (21.0%) 4 1638 (45.6%) 5 913 (25.4%) 6 283 (7.9%) TOTAL 3594 (100.0%) Table 19. DCJ Criminal History Scores of All Offenders in Community Corrections in FY98. 0 534 (14.9%) 1 501 (13.9%) 2 507 (14.1%) 3 478 (13.3%) 4 1084 (30.2%) TOTAL 3104 (86.4%) OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS CRIMINAL HISTORIES OF OFFENDERS IN EACH PROGRAM Table 20. Felony Class of Current Offense of Offenders in Each Program in FY98.* PROGRAM ACRC ACTC BCTC CAPS CC Div CC Trans CCSI Columbine CRC Fox Haven Ind Federal Ind Pecos LCCC LCTC Loft House MCCC Minnequa Peer I Phoenix SLVCC Tooley Hall TRC Williams Div 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2 n= 6 Tran 50.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Div 39.0% 45.7% 76.0% 56.3% 96.5% 0.0% 28.6% 63.9% 75.8% 0.0% 100.0% 33.3% 19.4% 53.3% 70.6% 82.4% 33.3% 65.4% 58.1% 44.4% 50.0% 33.3% 54.8% 54.2% 3 n= 754 Tran 61.0% 54.3% 24.0% 43.8% 3.5% 100.0% 71.4% 36.1% 24.2% 100.0% 0.0% 66.7% 80.6% 46.7% 29.4% 17.6% 66.7% 34.6% 41.9% 55.6% 50.0% 66.7% 45.2% 45.8% Div 52.2% 62.5% 78.6% 48.0% 99.1% 1.6% 51.5% 68.1% 57.7% 0.0% 92.7% 50.7% 39.3% 68.6% 74.1% 60.0% 57.8% 69.8% 84.4% 52.4% 32.1% 57.1% 66.7% 43.9% 4 n= 1638 Tran 47.8% 37.5% 21.4% 52.0% 0.9% 98.4% 48.5% 31.9% 42.3% 100.0% 7.3% 49.3% 60.7% 31.4% 25.9% 40.0% 42.2% 30.2% 15.6% 47.6% 67.9% 42.9% 33.3% 56.1% Div 65.2% 83.3% 65.6% 55.2% 97.4% 0.0% 81.8% 54.5% 75.9% 3.7% 92.9% 55.6% 45.7% 84.2% 48.5% 66.7% 63.4% 95.1% 70.0% 71.6% 58.3% 23.8% 73.3% 48.9% 5 n= 913 Tran Div 34.8% 55.6% 16.7% 87.5% 34.4% 71.4% 44.8% 100.0% 2.6% 100.0% 100.0% 0.7% 18.2% 50.0% 45.5% 0.0% 24.1% 88.5% 96.3% 0.0% 7.1% 100.0% 44.4%27.3%27.3% 54.3% 58.3% 15.8% 53.8% 51.5% 100.0% 33.3% 71.4% 36.6% 59.6% 4.9% 95.0% 30.0% 100.0% 28.4% 64.9% 41.7% 86.7% 76.2% 0.0% 26.7% 75.0% 51.1% 14.3% 6 n= 283 Tran 44.4% 12.5% 28.6% 0.0% 0.0% 99.3% 50.0% 100.0% 11.5% 100.0% 0.0% 72.7% 41.7% 46.2% 0.0% 28.6% 43.1% 5.0% 0.0% 35.1% 13.3% 100.0% 25.0% 85.7% *There were no offenders with felony 1 offenses in community corrections in FY98. 79 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 Table 21. Current Offense Crime Type of Offenders in Each Program in FY98. PROGRAM VIOLENT NONVIOLENT n= 502 n= 3092 Diversion Transition Diversion Transition ACRC 86.4% 13.6% 48.1% 51.9% ACTC 56.5% 43.5% 66.4% 33.6% BCTC 73.3% 26.7% 73.6% 26.4% CAPS 50.0% 50.0% 54.2% 45.8% CC Div 98.1% 1.9% 98.2% 1.8% CC Trans 0.0% 100.0% 0.8% 99.2% CCSI 60.0% 40.0% 59.1% 40.9% Columbine 25.0% 75.0% 66.7% 33.3% CRC 38.5% 61.5% 73.1% 26.9% Fox 0.0% 100.0% 0.8% 99.2% Haven 0.0% 100.0% 95.4% 4.6% Hilltop 66.7% 33.3% 51.3% 48.7% Ind Federal 30.8% 69.2% 49.6% 50.4% Ind Pecos 11.1% 88.9% 40.0% 60.0% LCCC 58.8% 41.2% 72.0% 28.0% LCTC 78.9% 21.1% 65.5% 34.5% Loft House 85.7% 14.3% 67.4% 32.6% MCCC 52.9% 47.1% 57.5% 42.5% Minnequa 100.0% 0.0% 77.6% 22.4% Peer I 46.2% 53.8% 79.4% 20.6% Phoenix 71.1% 28.9% 56.5% 43.5% SLVCC 0.0% 100.0% 55.6% 44.4% Tooley Hall 33.3% 66.7% 46.3% 53.7% TRC 84.4% 15.6% 64.6% 35.4% Williams 28.6% 71.4% 47.5% 52.5% 80 PROGRAM ACRC ACTC BCTC CAPS CC Div CC Trans CCSI Columbine CRC Fox Haven Hilltop Ind Federal Ind Pecos LCCC LCTC Loft House MCCC Minnequa Peer I Phoenix SLVCC Tooley Hall TRC Williams Table 22. DCJ Criminal History Score of Offenders in Each Program in FY98. 0 1 2 3 4 n= 534 n= 501 n= 507 n= 478 n= 1084 Male Div 66.7% 40.0% 85.7% 44.4% 94.6% 0.0% 66.7% 50.0% 74.3% 0.0% 0.0% 62.5% 62.5% 54.5% 0.0% 85.7% 100.0% 53.1% 89.5% 93.8% 68.6% 66.7% 0.0% 77.3% 75.0% Tran 33.3% 60.0% 14.3% 55.6% 5.4% 100.0% 33.3% 50.0% 25.7% 100.0% 0.0% 37.5% 37.5% 45.5% 100.0% 14.3% 0.0% 46.9% 10.5% 6.3% 31.4% 33.3% 100.0% 22.7% 25.0% Female Div 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 77.8% 0.0% 100.0% 66.7% 71.45 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 90.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 69.2% 81.3% 0.0% T ran 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 22.2% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 28.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.8% 18.8% 0.0% Male Div 54.5% 47.1% 100.0% 75.0% 100.0% 0.0% 76.9% 100.0% 52.0% 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 75.0% 58.8% 83.3% 68.8% 85.7% 70.6% 88.9% 100.0% 66.7% 72.2% 0.0% 76.3% 56.1% Tran 45.5% 52.9% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 100.0% 23.1% 0.0% 48.0% 100.0% 0.0% 33.3% 25.0% 41.2% 16.7% 31.3% 14.3% 29.4% 11.1% 0.0% 33.3% 27.8% 0.0% 23.7% 43.9% Female Div 46.7% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0% 66.7% 47.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 60.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 72.7% 33.3% 0.0% Tran 53.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 52.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 27.3% 66.7% 0.0% Male Div 80.0% 92.6% 75.0% 50.0% 100.0% 0.0% 66.7% 78.6% 56.5% 0.0% 100.0% 50.0% 50.0% 55.0% 80.0% 80.0% 100.0% 68.4% 94.4% 90.9% 80.0% 57.1% 0.0% 50.0% 43.5% Tran 20.0% 7.4% 25.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0% 33.3% 21.4% 43.5% 100.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 45.0% 20.0% 20.0% 0.0% 31.6% 5.6% 9.1% 20.0% 42.9% 0.0% 50.0% 56.5% Female Div 35.3% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 42.9% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 46.2% 100.0% 0.0% Tran 64.7% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 57.1% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 53.8% 0.0% 0.0% Male Div 61.5% 67.7% 68.8% 50.0% 100.0% 0.0% 58.3% 62.5% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 40.0% 48.0% 69.4% 68.2% 50.0% 45.0% 75.0% 78.9% 75.0% 75.0% 0.0% 53.3% 30.0% Tran 38.5% 32.3% 31.3% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0% 41.7% 37.5% 33.3% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 52.0% 30.6% 31.8% 50.0% 55.0% 25.0% 21.1% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 46.7% 70.0% Female Div 56.3% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 85.7% 100.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21.4% 50.0% 0.0% Tran 43.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 78.6% 50.0% 0.0% Male Div 58.3% 59.3% 65.6% 28.6% 96.8% 2.9% 27.3% 57.1% 68.8% 2.9% 0.0% 33.3% 25.0% 26.0% 65.0% 57.1% 27.3% 18.2% 71.4% 65.6% 36.4% 11.8% 0.0% 60.0% 26.0% MEAN Tran 41.7% 40.7% 34.4% 71.4% 3.2% 97.1% 72.7% 42.9% 31.3% 97.1% 0.0% 66.7% 75.0% 74.0% 35.0% 42.9% 72.7% 81.8% 28.6% 34.4% 63.6% 88.2% 0.0% 40.0% 74.0% Female Div 32.3% 0.0% 77.8% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 87.0% 0.0% 35.7% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 50.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.0% 50.0% 100.0% Tran 67.7% 0.0% 22.2% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.0% 0.0% 64.3% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 70.0% 50.0% 0.0% Male Div Tran 2.5 2.6 3.0 3.0 2.8 3.3 1.9 2.5 2.3 2.0 4.0 2.1 1.7 2.4 2.5 3.0 1.8 1.9 4.0 2.4 2.0 0.0 1.8 2.6 2.0 3.0 2.5 3.2 2.9 3.0 2.4 3.0 1.3 3.6 1.5 2.2 2.0 2.8 2.7 3.6 1.7 2.3 1.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.1 1.7 2.9 Female Div Tran 2.4 2.8 0.0 0.0 2.9 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.8 3.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.4 3.8 1.0 0.5 1.5 2.2 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.7 4.0 1.3 1.0 1.2 0.0 1.4 2.8 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 2.9 1.0 1.9 4.0 0.0 Table 23. Juvenile Record of Offenders in Each Program in FY98. No Juvenile Record n= 2102 Female Male Male Div Tran Div Tran Div ACRC 69.8% 30.2% 47.1% 52.9% 58.8% ACTC 68.6% 31.4% 0.0% 0.0% 58.4% BCTC 76.9% 23.1% 93.3% 6.7% 67.7% CAPS 51.4% 48.6% 0.0% 100.0% 56.7% CC Div 98.1% 1.9% 100.0% 0.0% 97.9% CC Trans 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 2.0% CCSI 51.7% 48.3% 0.0% 0.0% 67.6% Columbine 64.9% 35.1% 0.0% 0.0% 63.8% CRC 61.3% 38.7% 83.3% 16.7% 78.3% Fox 0.9% 99.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Haven 0.0% 0.0% 94.3% 5.7% 100.0% Hilltop 40.9% 59.1% 60.0% 40.0% 63.6% Ind Federal 47.1% 52.9% 53.3% 46.7% 41.7% Ind Pecos 47.6% 52.4% 0.0% 0.0% 30.8% LCCC 71.2% 28.8% 50.0% 50.0% 69.2% LCTC 69.7% 30.3% 100.0% 0.0% 64.2% Loft House 52.9% 47.1% 100.0% 0.0% 71.4% MCCC 55.0% 45.0% 92.3% 7.7% 46.6% Minnequa 83.9% 16.1% 66.7% 33.3% 84.7% Peer I 76.5% 23.5% 100.0% 0.0% 74.2% Phoenix 58.0% 42.0% 100.0% 0.0% 62.3% SLVCC 56.1% 43.9% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% Tooley Hall 0.0% 100.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% TRC 64.1% 35.9% 68.0% 32.0% 73.7% Williams 45.7% 54.3% 100.)% 0.0% 45.7% PROGRAM Juvenile Record n= 1410 Female Tran Div Tran 41.2% 34.8% 65.2% 41.6% 0.0% 0.0% 32.3% 85.7% 14.3% 43.3% 100.0% 0.0% 2.1% 100.0% 0.0% 98.0% 100.0% 0.0% 32.4% 0.0% 100.0% 36.2% 0.0% 0.0% 21.7% 85.7% 14.3% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 91.7% 8.3% 36.4% 100.0% 0.0% 58.3% 35.3% 64.7% 69.2% 0.0% 0.0% 30.8% 100.0% 0.0% 35.8% 100.0% 0.0% 28.6% 66.7% 33.3% 53.4% 100.0% 0.0% 15.3% 42.9% 57.1% 25.8% 100.0% 0.00% 37.7% 100.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 75.0% 26.3% 75.0% 25.0% 54.3% 0.0% 0.0% COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 Table 24. Average Age at First Arrest, Number of Adult Convictions, and Number of Jail Sentences of Offenders in Each Program in FY98. Average Number of Adult Average Number of Jail PROGRAM Average Age at First Arrest Convictions Sentences Male Female Male Female Male Female Div Tran Div Tran Div Tran Div Tran Div Tran Div Tran ACRC ACTC BCTC CAPS CC Div CC Trans CCSI Columbine CRC Fox Haven Hilltop Ind Federal Ind Pecos LCCC LCTC Loft House MCCC Minnequa Peer I Phoenix SLVCC Tooley Hall TRC Williams 20 20 19 19 20 14 18 18 20 24 16 18 21 20 19 19 18 19 19 18 21 18 0 20 21 17 20 20 20 16 20 20 21 23 21 0 21 18 17 19 18 21 19 17 17 19 20 24 21 20 25 0 23 17 23 0 0 0 22 0 22 20 24 0 21 20 22 23 22 27 23 0 24 22 27 23 0 20 29 0 22 16 0 20 0 18 31 24 0 34 22 15 31 22 0 0 0 21 23 20 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 5 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 0 2 3 3 2 3 3 1 2 3 2 1 0 1 3 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 4 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 4 2 2 2 2 6 3 1 1 3 8 1 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 5 2 1 0 2 4 4 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 0 3 0 2 6 5 4 3 2 2 4 6 3 1 2 3 4 3 0 2 4 4 0 0 0 1 0 4 2 4 0 4 1 3 1 2 7 1 0 4 3 7 5 0 4 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 8 0 6 0 3 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 1 0 84 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS STATUS OF OFFENDERS AT EACH FACILITY Table 25. Legal Status of Offenders in Each Program in FY98. Program Conditional Direct Transition Probation Sentence n= 48 n= 1938 n= 1391 ACRC 0.0% 52.8% 47.2% ACTC 0.0% 62.8% 35.5% BCTC 0.0% 73.6% 26.4% CAPS 0.0% 52.1% 45.2% CC Div 1.8% 96.4% 1.8% CC Trans 1.3% 0.6% 85.5% CCSI 0.0% 58.5% 48.0% Columbine 0.0% 61.7% 34.6% CRC 1.0% 68.1% 28.3% Fox 0.0% 0.6% 97.5% Haven 1.3% 82.7% 5.3% Hilltop 6.9% 48.3% 39.7% Ind Federal 1.2% 41.0% 44.7% Ind Pecos 6.8% 32.5% 51.9% LCCC 0.0% 66.1% 28.2% LCTC 0.8% 65.4% 31.6% Loft House 0.0% 68.6% 29.4% MCCC 1.9% 50.0% 37.8% Minnequa 0.7% 79.4% 19.9% Peer I 0.0% 66.9% 21.3% Phoenix 0.0% 58.5% 39.6% SLVCC 0.0% 52.6% 46.1% Tooley Hall 6.3% 36.9% 45.0% TRC 0.0% 63.2% 29.9% Williams 2.5% 36.2% 42.0% Parole Other n= 179 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 12.6% 1.5% 3.8% 2.6% 1.3% 10.7% 5.2% 11.2% 8.7% 4.0% 2.3% 0.0% 9.6% 0.0% 11.8% 1.4% 1.3% 9.0% 6.4% 10.1% n= 38 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 2.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 2.7% 0.5% 9.1% 85 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN COLORADO JANUARY 2002 Table 26. Termination Reasons for Offenders at Each Program in FY98. PROGRAM ACRC ACTC BCTC CAPS CC Div CC Trans CCSI Columbine CRC Fox Haven Hilltop Ind Federal Ind Pecos LCCC LCTC Loft House MCCC Minnequa Peer I Phoenix SLVCC Tooley Hall TRC Williams Successful Completion Transfer to Other CC Transfer to CIRT Escape n= 2044 n= 64 n= 78 n= 491 New Crime Warrant/ Pending Case House/ Technical Violation Reject After Acceptance Other n= 77 n= 36 n= 661 n= 93 n= 50 Div Tran Div Tran Div Tran Div Tran Div Tran Div Tran Div Tran Div Tran Div Tran 54.2% 57.3% 73.0% 44.1% 97.4% 0.0% 50.0% 70.4% 63.1% 0.0% 95.2% 46.7% 48.3% 43.7% 64.0% 55.6% 71.4% 66.7% 71.0% 78.0% 63.6% 45.0% 50.7% 69.5% 48.8% 45.8% 42.7% 27.0% 55.9% 2.6% 100.0% 50.0% 29.6% 36.9% 100.0% 4.8% 53.3% 51.7% 63.3% 36.0% 44.4% 28.6% 33.3% 29.0% 22.0% 36.4% 55.0% 49.3% 30.% 51.2% 31.3% 0.0% 72.7% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 37.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0.% 68.8% 0.0% 27.3% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 62.5% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 50.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 80.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 50.0% 33.3% 28.6% 80.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 66.7% 71.4% 20.0% 100.0% 50.0% 75.0% 82.4% 75.0% 97.2% 0.0% 77.8% 46.7% 85.3% 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 62.5% 20.0% 88.9% 93.3% 88.9% 45.5% 89.7% 84.4% 60.0% 63.6% 0.0% 68.8% 52.4% 50.0% 25.0% 17.6% 25.0% 2.8% 100.0% 22.2% 53.3% 14.7% 100.0% 100.0% 25.0% 37.5% 80.0% 11.1% 6.7% 11.1% 54.5% 10.3% 15.6% 40.0% 36.4% 0.0% 31.3% 47.6% 0.0% 25.0% 75.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 80.0% 71.4% 100.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 83.3% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0% 20.0% 100.0% 75.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 20.0% 28.6% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 16.7% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 80.0% 100.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 75.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 66.7% 33.3% 65.9% 88.2% 57.9% 100.0% 3.4% 76.9% 69.2% 77.1% 4.8% 75.0% 67.7% 48.1% 43.8% 78.6% 76.5% 54.5% 32.4% 80.8% 50.0% 50.0% 62.5% 25.0% 63.6% 50.0% 66.7% 34.1% 11.8% 42.1% 0.0% 96.6% 23.1% 30.8% 22.9% 95.2% 25.0% 33.3% 51.9% 56.3% 21.4% 23.5% 45.5% 67.6% 19.2% 50.0% 50.0% 37.5% 75.0% 36.4% 50.0%$ 86.4% 33.3% 33.3% 50.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 85.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 80.0% 16.7% 100.0% 25.0% 60.0% 0.0% 13.6% 66.7% 66.7% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 14.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 83.3% 0.0% 75.0% 40.0% 100.0% 30.8% 100.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 80.0% 0.0% 100.0% 50.0% 100.0% 10..0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 66.7% 69.2% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 50.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 86 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Table 27. Types of Releases from Community Corrections in FY98. PROGRAM Probation/ISP DOC ISP Parole n= 35 n= 451 n= 485 Transfer to Other CC DOC/Jail or CIRT Incarceration Non-Residential Status n= 133 Div 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% ACRC ACTC BCTC CAPS CC Div CC Trans CCSI Columbine CRC Fox Haven Hilltop Ind Federal Ind Pecos LCCC LCTC Loft House MCCC Minnequa Peer I Phoenix SLVCC Tooley Hall TRC Williams 67 Tran 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Div 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Tran 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Div 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n= 556 n= 922 Tran 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Div 100.0% 100.0% 64.7% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 53.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 76.5% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 80.0% 0.0% Other67 Off Supervision/ Escape/ Sentence Expired Tran 0.0% 0.0% 35.3% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 46.2% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 75.0% 0.0% 23.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 20.0% 100.0% Div 60.0% 58.8% 74.3% 60.0% 0.0% 2.9% 71.4% 57.7% 78.9% 2.7% 81.8% 61.1% 40.5% 37.2% 78.8% 70.4% 53.8% 34.1% 80.0% 63.6% 51.7% 63.2% 33.3% 61.5% 44.1% n= 979 Tran 40.0% 41.2% 25.7% 40.0% 100.0% 97.1% 28.6% 42.3% 21.1% 97.3% 18.2% 38.9% 59.5% 62.8% 21.2% 29.6% 46.2% 65.9% 20.0% 36.4% 48.3% 36.8% 66.7% 38.5% 55.9% Div 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n= 30 Tran 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 97.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Div 60.0% 78.8% 76.5% 100.0% 2.1% 0.0% 86.7% 37.5% 85.4% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 62.5% 21.4% 90.9% 90.9% 81.8% 50.0% 91.2% 82.4% 57.9% 73.3% 16.7% 70.8% 50.0% Tran 40.0% 21.2% 23.5% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 13.3% 62.5% 14.6% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 37.5% 78.6% 9.1% 9.1% 18.2% 50.0% 8.8% 17.6% 42.1% 26.7% 83.3% 29.2% 50.0% Div 100.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% The Other column includes those with ¾ House or Electronic Home Monitoring. 87 Tran 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS REFERENCES Andrews, D.A., and Bonta, J. 1994. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Company. Bonta, J. 1996. “Risk-needs assessment and treatment.” In Choosing Correctional Options that Work, edited by Harland, A. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Belknap, Joanne. 1996. The Invisible Woman: Gender, Crime and Justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Colorado Sex Offender Management Board has issued Standards for the Evaluation, Treatment, Behavioral Monitoring and Supervision of Convicted Sex Offenders (1999, rev.). Costin, C. 1999. The Eating Disorder Sourcebook: A Comprehensive Guide to the Causes, Treatments, and Prevention of Eating Disorders. Los Angeles, CA: Lowell House. Criminal Justice Drug Letter: An Independent Monthly Report on Drug Detection and Treatment in the Criminal Justice System. June, 2001. Washington, DC: Pace Publications. Drugs, Crime and the Justice System. December, 1992. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. English, Kim and Mande, Mary J. 1991. Community Corrections in Colorado: Why Do Some Clients Succeed and Others Fail? Funded by Grant 89CO1CHF4 from the National Institute of Corrections. Denver, Colorado: Colorado Division of Criminal Justice. English, Kim, and Kraus, Suzanne. 1986. Community Corrections in Colorado: 1986. Denver, Colorado: Colorado Division of Criminal Justice. English, Kim, Pullen, Suzanne, and Colling-Chadwick, Susan. 1996. Comparison of Intensive Supervision Probation and Community Corrections Clientele. Funded by the Drug Control and Systems Improvement Program. Denver, Colorado: Colorado Division of Criminal Justice. Howell, James C., Krisberg, Barry, Hawkins, J. David, and Wilson, John J. (Eds). 1995. A Sourcebook: Serious, Violent & Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Maher, Jane. 2001. “The Bridge to Success Lies in Remedial Education: A Teacher’s View from Prison.” Women, Girls & Criminal Justice 2,1: 1, 7-11. McMahon, Maeve. 2001. “Is Assisting Female Offenders an Art or Science? Reflections on the 1998 ICCA Conference on Women and Juvenile Females in Community Corrections.” Women, Girls & Criminal Justice 2,2:1-2,29-32. National Symposium on Women Offenders. 1999. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs. Report of the State Auditor: Division of Criminal Justice Performance Audit. July, 2001. State of Colorado, Department of State Auditors. Shaw, Margaret and Hannah-Moffat, Kelly. 2001. “Risk Assessment in Canadian Corrections: Some Diverse and Gendered Issues.” Women, Girls & Criminal Justice 2,1: 1-2, 12-16. 89