Table of Contents s186

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PROBATION AND POST- PRISON SUPERVISION PROGRAMS Multnomah County Adult Community Justice Capstone Measuring the Effectiveness of Criminal Justice Interventions Instructor: Don Trapp, MS Student List

Bustamante, Sharon L. Cairns, John A. Galle, Ryan C. Glover, James F. Gray, Matthew R. Habib, Aaron Lopez, Angel P. McDonald, Nellie P. McDonald, Susan D. Mollenhour, Keedehn M. Muck, Arinda L. Nioso, Fawn M. Palacios, Rosemarie E. Powers, Matthew J. Raoof, Razvan A. Table of Contents

Executive Summary Statement of Purpose Program Descriptions Quantitative Assessment Data Results Recidivism Demographics Offender Criminal History LS/CMI Scores Employment Housing Treatment Contacts Sanctions Discussion of Quantitative Data Results Qualitative Assessment Qualitative Data Results Service Coordination Team Byrne Grant Generic Supervision Discussion of Qualitative Data Results Cost Analysis Conclusions Recommendations for Participating Agencies Suggestions for Future Capstone Teams Appendix A Appendix B Special Thanks Executive Summary

Three specialized offender treatment programs administered by the Multnomah County Department of Community Justice were examined: Generic Supervision, comprising offenders scoring high on the LSCMI and residing in the southwest district; Byrne Grant, comprising offenders who have completed intensive alcohol and drug treatment in prison; and the Service Coordination Team, comprised of offenders with 3 or more drug related arrests in the downtown/old town area of Portland in the past year. The study provides a comparative analysis of how the programs perform relative to their specific mission, in comparison to other programs, and with regard to good criminal justice practices. The results will be used to facilitate discussion regarding the benefits of specialized programs, how resources are currently allocated within the Department of Community Justice to effectively manage offender risk, and how to increase adherence and fidelity to evidence based practices. A caseload level examination of the programs was undertaken. Offenders’ activities were tracked for the current supervision cycle or most recent three year period. The results indicated that outcomes and subjects varied significantly, with the Byrne Grant having subjects with the lowest average risk and zero recidivism, while the Service Coordination Team had subjects of the indicating that the programs are targeting specific and distinct offender groups. Service Coordination Team came out of this study as clear leader in terms of case coordination where they scored 19/20 and especially in case management where SCT scored a perfect 20/20. Byrne Grant had a score of 12/20 in Case Management and in Case Coordination they scored 13/20. Byrne Grant was lacking in case management when it came to the re-evaluation of risk/needs. The initial evaluation was good, but in order to track progress we feel that a re- evaluation was necessary. They were good in case coordination but we found that communication with treatment providers was lacking. Generic Supervision had scores that were very similar to Byrne Grant. We found that there were key disadvantages in the generic program that led to lower scores. The biggest disadvantage is large caseloads that lead to less one-on-one contact and problems with uncooperative offenders that can only be remedied by issuing a warrant.

5 Purpose

The purpose of this report is to examine three specialized offender treatment programs. The programs included: the Service Coordination Team, a multiagency collaboration administered by the Portland Police bureau; the Byrne Grant, a program targeting offenders released from prison-based treatment; and Southwest Generic Supervision, which is comprised of offenders that live in SW Portland and that are classified as high risk based on LS/CMI scores. Specifically, differences among program types, targeted offender groups, specific characteristics of participants as well as outcome data will be examined. The report utilized both quantitative and qualitative methods, and provides a comparative analysis of how the programs perform relative to their specific mission, in comparison to other programs, and with regard to good criminal justice practices. The results will be used to facilitate discussion regarding the benefits of specialized programs, how resources are currently allocated within the Department of Community Justice to effectively manage offender risk, and how to increase adherence and fidelity to evidence based practices.

6 Program Descriptions Service Coordination Team Mission and Purpose Program Description The Service Coordination Team is a multiagency collaboration administered by the Portland Police bureau. Its mission is to reduce chronic recidivism and improve livability in the Downtown-Old Town area by applying evidence-based practices. The effort targets a small population of chronic offenders for immediate access to transitional housing, as well as a wide range of services and therapeutic interventions, based on risk-needs assessments. Participants selected for the program have a history of at least three drug related arrests in the past year and have current substance addiction.

Byrne Grant Mission and Purpose Program Description The Byrne Grant program is characterized by early conditional release from prison. All participants volunteer to for the program while in prison and have a history of drug or alcohol addiction; they are medium to high risk offenders and convictions may vary. Treatment must be completed while incarcerated and is followed by a structured transitional leave supervision plan; housing and treatment is provided while offenders seek employment through a collaborative effort with South East Works. The Byrne Grant program seeks to enhance post-prison supervision by providing appropriate resources for a more successful integration back into society.

Generic Supervision Mission and Purpose Program Description Generic Supervision is comprised of offenders that live in SW Portland and that are classified as high risk based on LS/CMI scores. The offenders in Generic Supervision can be on probation, parole, post-prison supervision or a combination of the three. The defining characteristic that separate this supervision population from that of SCT and the Byrne Grant is that these offenders are not classified into special risk and/or need categories.

7 Quantitative Assessment and Data Results Methodology The focus of our research was to perform a comparative analysis of the three specialized probation/post-prison supervision programs. Using the Corrections Information System (CIS), we took a caseload level look at the programs and examined the current supervision cycle or most recent three year period (we used whichever was smaller for each offender with a minimum requirement of six months). We analyzed a number of variables including offender demographics, supervision contact, by frequency and type. The ultimate purpose of our report is to examine the elements that make up the three different programs and explain some of the differences in outcomes.

The following data elements were gathered during the defined period:

Subjects: offenders under supervision for a minimum of six months during this current cycle.

Cohort: the current supervision caseloads of one probation officer from each program. Ron Kates (Service Coordination Team – 35 offenders) Lisa Lewis (Generic Supervision – 45 offenders) Paul Adams (Byrne Grant – 37 offenders)

Outcome Data: Recidivism

Demographic Variables Age Ethnicity Gender LS/CMI Score and Subscale Scores Risk Level Offense Type

8 Supervision Number of Contacts Sanctions Participation in Treatment (by type, days, and episode) Stays in Housing (by type, days, and episode) Employment

Recidivism Recidivism is the return to criminal behavior after a period of desistance. We hope to compare the effectiveness of the three programs, and recidivism is the benchmark that is typically used to evaluate criminal justice programs. For our purposes, we defined recidivism as being convicted of any new felony within the three-year time span of our study. We also examined the type of felonies committed. The Service Coordination Team experienced high levels of recidivism in each of the three categories. One third of all SCT parolees committed a person-to-person felony, two thirds committed a property felony, and nearly half committed a statute offense. None of the SCT participants on probation committed a person-to-person offense, but two thirds committed a property felony and just over half were convicted of a statute offense. Generic Supervision fared better. Only 8.3 percent of parolees on the Generic caseload committed a new person-to-person felony, 25 percent a property felony, and 44.4 percent a statute offense. None of the probationers on the Generic caseload committed a new person-to-person or property felony, and only 14.3 percent were convicted of a statute offense. Based on recidivism, the Byrne Grant (at least the caseload we used) performed exceedingly well, with a cumulative zero percent of offenders convicted of a new felony during the 36 months of our study. When comparing these numbers, it is important to remember the differences in the nature of the groups’ populations. While SCT’s high levels of recidivism may be a cause for concern, we must keep in mind that that program deals exclusively with chronic offenders with extensive criminal histories and significantly higher LS/CMI risk scores than the offenders in the other programs. This is not to take away from the relative success of Generic Supervision and especially the Byrne Grant. The Byrne Grant notably differs from the other programs, with the intensive, residential treatment that its clients are required to undergo. This comparison indicates

9 that intensive residential treatment, while admittedly costly, more effectively reduces recidivism than simply matching clients with therapeutic interventions and treatment in the community.

Recidivism/Percent Convicted of a New Felony in 36 Months

Person to Property Statute Offense Person Offense Offense

Parole 33.3% 66.7% 48.1%

Probation 0.0% 66.7% 54.3%

Byrne Grant

Parole 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Probation N/A N/A N/A

Generic

Parole 8.3% 25.0% 44.4%

Probation 0.0% 0.0% 14.3%

Demographics Participants in the Service Coordination Team program are on average considerably older than those in the other two programs. The average age for Byrne Grant offenders is 38 years old and the average for Generic Supervision is 34 years old, while the average age for SCT offenders is 43 years old. Eleven offenders in our Generic Supervision sample are under 25 years old, while only two offenders from the Byrne Grant caseload and two from the SCT caseload are under 25 years old.

Mean Age N Mean SD Byrne Grant 37 37.8 9.1 Generic 45 34.2 11.1 SCT 35 43.3 10.7

10 Unsurprisingly, there are far more male offenders than female offenders in the three programs. With regards to gender, Generic Supervision, with 22.2 percent female offenders, is the most heterogeneous of the three. Only 8.3 percent of Byrne Grant offenders and 11.3 percent of SCT offenders are female.

The racial/ethnic composition of Generic Supervision and the SCT group are similar. Eighty percent of Generic offenders and 73 percent of Byrne Grant offenders are white. SCT, however, is drastically different - almost the reverse. Sixty percent of SCT offenders are black and only 37.1 percent white. In all three caseloads, only three offenders are of Native American or Hispanic descent.

Offender Criminal History The criminal histories of offenders in our Generic Supervision sample are, on average, roughly half as extensive as those of participants in the other two programs’ samples (Generic mean is 3.3 offenses per person compared to 6.6 for Byrne Grant offenders and 6.7 for SCT offenders). As we might expect, Byrne Grant offenders are much more likely to have property and person-to-person offenses than the other offenders, most of whom have not been recently imprisoned. SCT participants on average have on average roughly four times as many drug law violations as offenders in the other programs (mean of 4.7 compared to 1.1 for the Byrne Grant and 1.2 for Generic). SCT participants typically have significantly longer criminal histories than their Byrne Grant and Generic counterparts. They are on average in their third custody cycle (see table above), while Byrne Grant participants and Generic Supervision probationers are typically on their second. Clearly the Service Coordination Team, designed to reach chronic offenders, is doing just that.

Criminal History Taxonomy

Custody Drug Property Public Traffic Person PPSV Total

11 Cycle Law Crimes Order Crimes Crimes Crimes Crimes Byrne Grant: Mean 1.94 1.09 2.88 0.67 1.00 0.67 0.30 6.61 SD 0.86 1.53 3.25 1.16 1.79 1.34 0.68 5.26 N 33 Generic: Mean 1.97 1.21 1.16 0.26 0.18 0.34 0.20 3.29 SD 1.30 1.40 1.67 0.50 0.51 0.63 0.50 2.25 N 38 SCT: Mean 2.77 4.70 1.27 0.03 0.43 0.20 0.07 6.70 SD 1.70 3.97 1.82 0.18 0.90 0.61 0.25 4.51 N 30

LS/CMI Scores The Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) is an assessment tool designed for criminal justice professionals to measure risk and need factors of offenders. The LS/CMI has been refined to 43 items which take into consideration factors such as criminal history, education, employment, family, antisocial patterns, and companions. The higher an offender scores on the LS/CMI, the higher his risk of recidivism. The average initial LS/CMI scores for participants in the Byrne Grant were far lower than those of SCT and Generic Supervision – 23.1 (Byrne Grant) compared to 29.7 (SCT) and 28.1 (Generic).

LSCMI Total Risk Score LSCMI Criminal History Sub-Score

N Mean SD N Mean CH SD Byrne Grant 34 24.0 8.2 Byrne Grant 34 6.4 0.7 Generic 43 28.0 8.0 Generic 43 5.6 1.7 SCT 35 31.0 6.8 SCT 35 6.5 1.0

12 Offender criminal histories among the three programs are relatively similar, although there is a greater range in offenders on the Generic caseload (Standard deviation of 1.67) than in the other two. Some subscale categories where Byrne Grant offenders’ average scores are notably lower are: “Family/Marital”, “Companions,” “Alcohol/Drug Problems,” and “Pro- criminal attitude.” In the appendix of this report, there are tables with the means and standard deviations of those four subscale categories.

Not all of the offenders in our three samples have been assessed with an LS/CMI more than once, which means that we are unable to perform a true pre/post analysis of risk change based on LS/CMI scores. However, according to the available data, average LS/CMI scores increased in all three programs over the duration of the study. Scores increased somewhat less in the Byrne Grant than the other programs. On average, Byrne Grant LS/CMI scores increased by 0.6 points, Generic scores increased 1.2 points, and SCT scores increased by one point. However, the standard deviations for LS/CMI score changes were extremely high: Byrne (6.7), Generic (5.0), and SCT (5.2). The largest increase in an LS/CMI score was 19 points and the

13 largest decrease was 18 points. There is a wide range of outcomes for offenders in each of the groups - some quite successful, others decidedly unsuccessful.

Analysis of LSCMI Frequency Mean Time Since *12 NO N SD *9 Months Last LSCMI Months LSCMI SCT 35 272 203 9 6 0 GENERIC 45 278 255 11 5 3 BYRNE 37 218 199 8 7 3 GRANT * 9/12 Months on supervision without a LSCMI

Employment As evidenced by the average LS/CMI scores for each program, the Service Coordination Team clearly works with the most challenging population, the Byrne grant has the most functional population, and Generic Supervision falls in the middle (the average LS/CMI score for SCT offenders is 31, compared to 28 for Generic Supervision and 24 for the Byrne Grant. Employment is no exception. The average education/employment LS/CMI subscale scores for the SCT are higher than those of their counterparts (6.2 compared to 5.4 for Generic and 4.6 for Byrne). Over the course of our study, 54.5 percent of Byrne participants obtained employment. Those who did find employment were employed at an average rate of 90 percent. In comparison, only 13.2 percent of individuals on the Generic Supervision caseload and 6.9 percent of SCT participants were employed. The offenders under Generic Supervision who obtained employment were employed at an average rate of 55 percent. SCT offenders, when employed, were employed at an average rate of 70 percent. 13.8 percent of SCT participants and 10.5 percent of Generic participants are deemed unemployable, compared to only 6.1 percent of the Byrne Grant participants in our sample.

Employment Byrne

14 Grant N 33 Unemployable 6.1% Employed 54.5 % Average Level Of Employment 90.0 % Generic N 38 Unemployable 10.5 % Employed 13.2 % Average Level Of Employment 55.0 % SCT N 29 Unemployable 13.8 % Employed 6.9% Average Level Of Employment 70.0 %

Housing We aggregated the housing data of the three programs from January, 2009, forward. The Service Coordination Team participants, as might be expected, were the most difficult to keep housed. They spent the most time in jail and they were the most likely to be homeless. Just over 15 percent of the three-year supervision period for all SCT participants was spent incarcerated and 41.5 percent homeless (for our purposes we classified “transient” and “unknown” as “homeless” for all three groups). Chronic offenders, SCT participants were the least likely to have their own housing. A testament to the resources provided by the SCT program, SCT offenders spent the longest time in treatment as well as case managed housing, often the Golden West. Offenders under Generic Supervision and participants in the Byrne Grant, by comparison, were relatively stable, spending little time in jail and living on their own the majority of the time. Only 5.2 percent of Byrne Grant offenders’ housing entries were qualified as “homeless.”

15 Housing Type (Percent of Time While on Supervision)

Case-Managed Living on N Jail Treatment Homeless/Unknown Housing Own SCT 29 15.2% 18.1% 4.7% 41.5% 20.5% Generic 39 4.7% 11.3% 1.1% 31.3% 51.5% Byrne 33 3.3% 8.9% 4.6% 5.1% 78.1% Grant

Treatment Three types of treatment are most commonly utilized by our sampled programs: drug and alcohol, cognitive behavioral, and education. Use of support groups and mental health treatment seems to be exceedingly rare. Only one offender from any of the three caseloads underwent mental health treatment and only six were assigned to support groups. The Byrne Grant most frequently used A & D (alcohol and drug) treatment (100 percent of Byrne participants engaged in at least some A & D treatment), followed by cognitive behavioral therapy (15 percent), and education (6 percent). Interestingly, Generic Supervision most frequently assigned cognitive behavioral therapy (60 percent of participants), followed by A & D (21 percent), and education (8 percent). Offenders in the SCT program most frequently engaged in A & D treatment (70 percent), followed by cognitive behavioral therapy (60 percent), and education (13 percent). Byrne Grant offenders seem to be most frequently engaged in treatment, participating in CBT, A & D treatment, or education an average of 234 days per year per offender. SCT offenders participate in CBT, A & D, or education an average of 114 days per year per offender, and offenders under Generic Supervision engaged in CBT, A& D, or education an average of 95 days per year per offender. When comparing the treatment statistics of the three programs it should be noted that Byrne Grant offenders in our sample typically spent more time in the supervision cycle (29.2 months compared to 26.7 and 28.7 months for Generic and SCT respectively). Also noteworthy, the treatment data for the Byrne Grant includes an average of 188 days of in-prison treatment per offender (standard deviation of only 22.8 days). For this reason we included the cost of incarceration when calculating the average cost per offender in the Byrne program.

16 Contacts

Contacts Per Year

Home Office Visits Visits Byrne Grant: Mean 0.7 13.1 SD 1.5 11.2 N 33 Generic: Mean 1.0 14.9 SD 1.6 14.4 N 38 SCT: Mean 1.3 9.7 SD 1.1 5.9 N 30 Face to face contacts are the most common type of contact for all three programs, typically taking place at the residence of the offender or office of the probation officer. Home visits are rarely used it seems: on average fewer than one per year per offender in Byrne Grant and Generic Supervision, and slightly more than one per year in the Service Coordination Team. This may just be a reflection of the transient lifestyle and homelessness that is so prevalent with

17 offenders in the three programs. SCT offenders average nearly one change of address every two months!

Sanctions Probation officers have many possible sanctions at their disposal to use in response to these violations. We found that four violations of supervision conditions were most frequently sanctioned: No substance use, Change of address, Failure to obey all laws, and Failure to report. The Service Coordination Team also frequently sanctioned failure to participate in prescribed treatment. The variance in sanctions used by the three programs is interesting. Jail is the most frequently used sanction by all three programs, especially SCT and Generic (66% and 67% of all SCT and ‘Generic’ sanctions, respectively). All three programs used the day reporting center as a sanction. Increased reporting, community service, and verbal reprimands were regularly used by the Byrne Grant, but rarely or never by the Service Coordination Team or Generic Supervision. Revocation was only imposed once in our three year sample of the Byrne Grant, perhaps because revocation would result in the offender being sent back to prison. Generic Supervision and the Service Coordination Team used revocation somewhat more frequently (6 and 5 times, respectively). Based on number of sanctions per offender, the SCT appears to be drastically more punitive than the other two programs. In our sample, each SCT participant was sanctioned an average of 7.1 times, compared to only 3 times for offenders under Generic Supervision and 2.3 times for BYRNE participants.

Violations by Condition Byrne Grant SCT Generic No Substance Use 35% 17% 29% Change of Address 11% 17% 12% Obey All laws 21% 20% 25% Report To P.O. 11% 30% 20% Participate In Treatment 0% 10% 4% Other 23% 7% 10%

18 Sanctions by Type Byrne SCT Generic Jail 40% 66% 67% Day Reporting Center 9.33% 12% 17% Verbal Reprimand 13% 0% 0% Increased Reporting 13% 3% 2% Community Service 12% 2% 0% Revocation 1% 4% 1% Other 11% 13% 11%

*Average Sanctions Per Client 2.3 7.1 3

Discussion of Quantitative Data Results Based on LS/CMI sub-scores, offender criminal histories of the three groups are similar (the average is somewhat lower for Generic than the other two groups). However, overall LS/CMI scores vary considerably. The average LS/CMI score for Service Coordination Team is 31, compared to 28 for Generic Supervision and 24 for the Byrne Grant. Because we do not have access to assessment data for Byrne clients before their intensive in-prison treatment, we do not know their risk scores at the beginning of the program. From the data we do have, it appears that the Service Coordination Team is reaching more high-risk offenders than the other two programs. Offenders in the SCT cohort have the highest percentage of drug offenses by far. The

19 Byrne Grant offenders are more likely to have property offenses and person-to-person offenses, hence the prison sentences. Demographically, the three groups are considerably different. SCT and Byrne Grant participants are racially similar – primarily white. However, over half of the SCT participants in our sample are black. Generic Supervision (at least based on our sample caseload) has the youngest client base. SCT participants are typically the oldest of the three groups. Although the vast majority of offenders in all three programs are men, Generic Supervision has a much higher percentage of females than the SCT or Byrne Grant. The Byrne Grant population is on the whole significantly more stable than the others. Its clients achieve and maintain employment at higher rates, they have more positive family and marital relationships (based on LS/CMI subscale scores), and they are more likely to have their own housing. Without access to pre-treatment data for Byrne clients we cannot quantify what change is due to treatment and what pro-social characteristics were there to begin with. However, Byrne clients do seem to be the most well-equipped to succeed. Service Coordination Team participants, on the other hand, have the most difficulty obtaining employment, are extraordinarily transient, and are generally at the highest risk for recidivism. Offenders on the Generic caseload are not as high-risk as those of the SCT, but they are not as successful as Byrne Grant participants either.

20 Qualitative Assessment

Methodology In order to examine the complexities and dynamics of the supervision programs in question, qualitative methods were used. The specific elements of correctional supervision programs that should be addressed are responsivity, case management and case coordination. These elements are recognized as important dynamics of supervision (cite source that states as such) and can be broken down into distinct components for evaluation purposes. Case management is characterized by the assessment process and utilization of assessment results, the administration of the case plan and the quality of communication that guides individual interactions between offender and case manager (Probation Officer). The process of referral to specific service providers and subsequent access to resources is also a key component. Case coordination is defined as a collaborative process that involves all stakeholders in the case planning/administration process, including the offenders themselves. The degree of involvement of multiple parties within the program can be exemplified through staff meetings in which available resources can be seen in direct relation. Responsivity is the individualization of each case according to the offender’s specific criminogenic needs and should be evident in both case management and case coordination. Qualitative assessment of these dynamics is best achieved through observations of collaborative techniques and by conducting interviews with key members of the program. To facilitate objective assessments, a rubric was developed (Appendix A). This rubric was designed to compare the programs along these dimensions with the standard of good criminal justice practice (cite the Correctional Program Assessment Instrument). Program scores

21 obtained from the rubric, which has a graduated scale, will enable assessment of differences among the programs. The degree of implementation within the program could be categorized from levels 1 to 5, with 1 being the absence/near absence of the element, and 5 being the full presence and utilization of the element. Scoring of the rubric was standardized according to the 5 levels, and to allow more specific comparison of these programs, subcategories were also created to be individually scored. Each category (case management and case coordination) was subdivided into four specific subcategories that are mentioned on all levels of the rubric. (Refer to Appendix B, Scoring of Rubric, for the full description of each subcategory). Each subcategory is scored 1-5 and the average of all four areas is used as the category score. Each program would therefore have two categorical scores, and 8 sub categorical scores. The division of categories into subcategories allows comparison of the specific differences in the programs. The usage of scoring with numerical values allows us to gauge how different these programs are in the implementation and utilization of the elements in question. This scoring method provides a framework for discussion and comparison of the programs but is not meant to be all inclusive or a measurement of which program is more successful.

Subject of Inquiry To assure comparable data collected by multiple interviewers, questions were developed directly from the created rubric. The questions were worded to address each of the categories and subcategories, and to apply to each program evaluated. This was to make certain the questions were not leading and instead provided reliable information untainted by possible interview bias. A list of our questions and their applicability to the rubric can be found in Appendix C; also included in this appendix is a list of interviewees.

Sources of Information Data was gathered by conducting interviews with stakeholders in each of the programs such as parole and probation officers, treatment providers and offenders. Another source of information was from observations made during staff meetings when available. While the questions did not differ, the way in which the questions were administered varied depending on

22 the program. Also, while each interviewing team attempted to gain at least one source from each, (PO, treatment provider, and Offender) availability for interviews varied by program as well. The Service Coordination Team subjects were two clients in different phases of the program, two service providers, and one probation/parole officer active in the program. Interviews were semi-structured, with the basic questions uniform for each program interview as well as the flexibility to pursue topics brought up that were unforeseen with follow-up or clarifying questions. In addition to interviews two staff meetings were observed. No questions were asked during the staff meetings but instead were used as supplemental information for case coordination evaluation. Byrne Grant subjects consisted of all participants in the last stage of the program; offenders were in transitional housing and pursuing job placement within the community. The interview was administered in a focus group environment where there was an open discussion between the 5 male offenders; other demographic qualities of the participants varied. One probation/parole officer was interviewed during a class session and followed up with afterwards. In addition to interviews two staff meetings were observed. Interviewed in Generic Supervision were three separate probation officers tied to the Generic Branch of SW Portland, of different levels of experience in terms of years. Two offenders were also interviewed. One offender was a month away from finishing his 25 year parole, and the other was on probation. The interviews with the offenders were done after their in office meeting with their PO. These office meetings were also observed and noted as well.

23 Data Results Service Coordination Team Case Management Assessment Score – 5/5 In addition to the required state assessment instrument, assessment using the LS/CMI is always administered prior to admission to the SCT program. The LS/CMI, rather than the state’s instrument, is consistently utilized in the program, because it is more comprehensive in its measurement and it measures criminogenic needs. In order to be accepted into the program, the offender’s LS/CMI score must indicate that he or she is at high risk to reoffend. Another unofficial question brought up while the SCT decides upon acceptance into the program is what the client wants. The question, “does he want treatment” is asked and even after acceptance into the program that question persists because of the knowledge that the client may change their mind in the course of treatment. The next phase of assessment takes place at New Decisions, where the staff will then use that assessment to plan an individualized course of treatment. Additional assessments and reevaluations are administered by treatment and/or residential service providers to further inform treatment plans as the client progresses through the program. At this stage they also undergo a UA to help determine whether they are clean or not. A UA can be given at any time during the program to check up on clients and keep the stakeholders informed of relapse and possible need of 'restructuring the case plan'. After clients return to Golden West from completed treatment the counselors are consulted and they discuss who should work with the individual. This serves as a 'reevaluating assessment' due to the fact that clients are different people after treatment then when they were first accepted. The process also allows the flexible restructuring of the case plan based on reevaluated needs.

24 The SCT guarantees the accuracy of assessments by formally training its staff on assessment procedures and conducting a yearly review to make sure their skills are up to date and to assess inter-rater reliability. This program also supports timely assessment by making assessment a priority before making treatment and further case planning decisions.

Communication Score – 5/5 Offender contacts with the PO are scheduled according to individual need; homeless participants are expected to make contact weekly because they are otherwise difficult to keep track of. If they don’t get in touch for two consecutive weeks, the PO makes a tour of the area in an attempt to make contact on the street. Contacts are unstructured, giving the offender the opportunity to express any problems or needs. Honesty is encouraged by maintaining an attitude of openness and non-punitive response style. A small caseload allows him to spend more time with each client than he could otherwise. He is also able to devote more of his time to working with offenders who need the closest supervision, and the most attention. Kates says he thinks he has “the best job in law enforcement” due to the freedom he has in choosing how to work with each client. Both offenders interviewed said that Kates is easy to communicate with and deals with them fairly. One said, “If you’re honest with him, he’ll work with you.” Interactions with other SCT members are also open and encouraging during every interaction observed. At the Estate there is an open door policy for the case workers and the residents. Whenever the case workers are in their office, the door is left open to encourage clients to come in and talk whenever they need to. This is also a technique used to build rapport with the clients ensuring that there is more than just the formal meetings/interactions. One of the police officers on the SCT also makes trips down to the housing facility to eat lunch with the offenders out of police uniform. This is meant to build positive interactions between clients and the police in the city. During the interactions observed the clients initiated most of the conversations and the case worker was actively listening to the client’s needs but administered fair and firm authority when needed. One such interaction was when a client came into the office during the interview to ask for another bus ticket. The case worker asked politely why another ticket was needed and

25 was firm on saying no when the client admitted to selling it. The client left then came back showing the case worker the used bus tickets, proving they did not sell them. The case worker then looked for another bus ticket to give to the client.

Responsivity Score – 5/5 Assessment of each participant using the LS/CMI is used to identify risk level and criminogenic needs, which guides the plan for offender interactions with the PO. The SCT’s active PO has specialized training in CBT-based communication and motivation techniques. He says his role can be seen as a triangle, on one side a teacher, on one side a mentor, on one side an authority figure. He chooses his approach according to the situation and the individual, using punitive sanctions only when other options have failed. After the initial assessment, offenders are evaluated by New Directions, and their individual course of treatment is set. The variations can be seen in how many contacts should be made with the client, how frequently UA’s are administered, what the individual needs as far as counseling, and whether or not the client had tried to complete the program before classifying them as a reentry. Depending on their progress, clients can receive treatment through the Golden West residential facility, a “wet housing” provider. If they are successful there they can move to “dry housing” at the Estate. Clients who relapse more than twice while residing in the Golden West are transferred to Residential Support to receive day treatment through the VOA. The Residential Support coordinator stated in her interview that the program’s treatment providers are extremely flexible in the types and levels of support they offer, and that meeting the individual needs of each participant is important to them. Both offenders interviewed supported the coordinators comment by saying that they were pleased that the system was so willing to “work with” them.

Resources Score – 5/5 Treatment provided through the SCT is intended to result in permanent behavior change and is based in Cognitive Behavioral principles. Motivations to change are built into the program in the form of financial assistance with private housing, school tuition, and other incentives that can be earned by successfully completing the program. Positive reinforcement for pro-social behavior was observed to be available in the form of access to entertainment and other activities.

26 For example, RSP residents can go on weekly outings for golfing, working out at the gym, volunteering, or other diversions. More personal and casual reinforcement can also be seen through an interaction witnessed during an interview. A client had asked a case worker what happens to residents when they complete their probation sentence, also asking whether the offender would get kicked out of the program. The case worker replied by saying they have a little party complete with a dance when the probation is completed and they encourage them to complete the program. Afterwards, the client stated he finished his probation period of 18months and had been clean for 18months. The case workers in the office then proceeded to congratulate, high five, and dance in celebration of the offender’s accomplishment. This program is designed to provide unrestricted access to services and support for offenders who meet the criteria for inclusion. The direct involvement of service providers in the planning process makes most needed resources immediately available. Intensive screening of all participants ensures that dedicated resources are made available only to the intended population. The existence of major mental health issues disqualifies offenders from the SCT program, so that the target population is best served, and the available resources can be allocated to pursuing the program’s goals. One client interviewed was aware that the program could eventually help him pay tuition at community college. The other client seemed less aware of the resources available, maybe because he was newer to the program. It is also possible for an otherwise eligible offender to be excluded from some services, or from the SCT itself, if that person’s behavior has caused too many problems in the past for providers or for other clients, so that resources are not being used for people unlikely to benefit from them.

Service Coordination Team Case Coordination Collaboration Score - 4.5/5 The involvement of all the agencies in the SCT is meaningful and integral to the program. At staff meetings representatives of all stakeholders are present in the decision making of entry into program, course of treatment, and assessment processes. Stakeholders included Probation officers, New Decisions, Golden West, Estate, RSP, the DA, and police officers from the community. The collaboration on treatment decisions did not stop there. There was constant discussion about and application of what each client mentioned to stakeholders about what they

27 personally wanted in their treatment. Known support systems were also mentioned in the meetings although their involvement was unknown or nonexistent to the treatment decision process. The SCT clients interviewed both stated that they felt fully involved in their rehabilitation process. The only shortcoming of collaboration within the program specified by anyone involved was the fact that a small percentage of participants, whose arrests took place in other districts, are assigned to Probation Officers who are not part of the program and don’t attend meetings. The more the P.O. was involved in the program the more collaboration took place.

Communication Score – 5/5 Weekly meetings and staffings include representatives of all SCT stakeholders; weekly and daily meetings are also held within residential and service programs, and supplemental meetings take place as required. The weekly SCT coordination meeting is characterized by a high level of organization and efficiency. Each client or prospective client discussed was familiar to at least one SCT member, so individual concerns could be addressed and case planning decisions made effectively in the meeting. When someone on the team did not remember the client, others reminded them until they remembered, only then did discussion continue on to discuss client qualifications and acceptance. Communication between stakeholders, in addition to scheduled meetings, is conducted by telephone, email, in person, and any other way necessary. Multiple daily contacts between team members ensure that the team as a whole is able to maintain awareness of the status and special needs of each participant. The provider interviewed said she was comfortable talking with anyone in the program and felt confident that communication between staffers is excellent.

Responsivity Score – 5/5 The program encourages offenders to learn to take responsibility for themselves in part by giving them more responsibility than traditional supervision programs, while modeling examples of pro-social behavior. Offenders are not required to make contact with the PO regularly unless there is a reason. At the Residential Support operation, where residents stay while attending day treatment, the clients seemed to have regular opportunities to leave the premises, when accompanied by staff members. In the Golden West or the Estate residences,

28 supervisees must abide by a curfew, attend therapy, and pass UA's in order to stay, but otherwise are free to come and go. Multiple assessments by therapeutic service providers provide adequate opportunities for identifying and addressing individual issues; some team members seemed to be familiar with almost every participant's personality and behavior history while in the program. Changes in counselors may take place when an offender is missing meetings or avoiding contacts, this was specifically said to be because of personality mismatches. Using other residents in the program or graduates of the program is also used to encourage and engage clients who are having a hard time adjusting. Needs of the client and risk to the community are balanced by education to the community and education to the client. There are videos and brochures dispersed that educate the community about the SCT program, the goals, and the clients in the program. The clients are also educated about how to interact with police and other community members.

Resources Score - 4.5/5 The staff encountered during the study all seem to be knowledgeable, experienced, and well-adjusted to their functions. Their background education and skills training seemed to be appropriate to their positions. Individually, their personalities appeared to fit with the rehabilitation-oriented dynamics of the program. Appropriate resources seem to be made available to participants wishing to use them, with reasonable requirements. One of the offenders interviewed seemed unaware of the extent of the resources available, so it seemed that it might help with motivation in general if they could be made more explicitly available. The program originally paid for a dedicated police officer to walk a daily beat in the program's target area of Downtown/Oldtown, specifically to support compliance among supervisees, many of whom are homeless at any given time. The funding for this position is lacking now and it has been eliminated. It seems reasonable to assume, although difficult to measure, that some benefit was gained from that presence, which is no longer available to the program. The probation officer active with the SCT was also paid previously from SCT funding, but is now employed by the city and on loan to the program, which is another example of how funding affects the delivery of services and amount of resources available to each client.

29 The program has immediate access to a range of programs and reserved beds in housing facilities such as the Golden West and the Estate. During an interview it was stated that a P.O. officer can get whoever he wants into the Golden West while other offender’s not connected to the SCT are wait listed. This allows services and treatment to be delivered in a timely manner.

Service Coordination Team Overall Scores We found the Service Coordination Team to be a program that strongly adheres to evidence based and good criminal justice practices. They received high scores in both case management and case coordination, meaning that all elements important to the dynamic of supervision were present in our observations and interviews. The score for case management was a 5/5 because of the timely and accurate assessment process, individual criminogenic risk and needs integrated into supervision plan, consistent interactions with the stakeholders that encouraged pro social skills and motivation, active and reflective listening, the use of a cognitive behavioral approach, reevaluation of risk/needs, firm and fair authority, and immediate access to resources at the individual level. Case management had no area lacking according to the rubric developed. Case coordination scored a 4.75/5 because of their highly collaborative decision making process in case planning, the balancing of offender needs with risks to community, extensive communication between stakeholders, formalized staffing processes and meetings, specific attention to individual personality and behavior with treatment decisions, and the ability to deliver timely services to anyone within the program. The docking of points was due to the lack of support system outside of the program, the lack of consistent knowledge offenders ad of the resources available to each client, and the absence of certain interventions due to lack of funding. While the SCT score was not perfect it does seem that this program offers a multitude of specialized options for each client accepted. The decisions in case management and case coordination are highly dependent on varying levels of risk and need throughout the individuals experience in the program. Multiple perspectives from the stakeholders are taken into consideration when dealing with each client and while there is a formalized method of case coordination it does not infringe on the programs capacity for specialization.

30 Byrne Grant Case Management Assessment Score – 3/5 LS/CMI score is determined in prison and program level varies accordingly, no re- evaluation of LS/CMI apparent. The re-evaluation of LS/CMI scores is an important tool in determining program success and necessary resources; its absence points to flaws within the program. While conducting our interview one offender expressed he was not happy with the program and only used it to get out of prison. He did not appreciate the style of communication probation officers used to sort of drill things into their heads about learning new pro social skills (cognitive behavioral approach). This offender, however did not seem to need the treatment portion of the program because his offenses were largely distribution driven. Another man in the group who was recovering from heroin addiction found the methods used by probation officers to be necessary for his recovery. This pointed towards a flaw in the initial assessment process that takes place in prison. This issue should be addressed in order to get only the target population into the treatment program and to avoid misuse of the system.

Communication Score – 3/5 Offender interactions consist of weekly group correspondence with probation/parole officer(s). These interactions seem to be focused upon the supervision plan and compliance first and foremost. Positive reinforcement and cognitive behavioral approach is utilized and offenders are given a chance to speak after probation officers discuss individual goals. Offenders are able to meet on a one on one basis with probation officers if requested, however offenders may not utilize this to their advantage if meetings are not mandatory. Communication score was affected

31 by the lack of personalized meetings with probation officers as some offenders expressed a need for more personalized care and support post release.

Responsivity Score – 2/5 The degree of responsivity present in case management is difficult to assess due to individualized differences in the way probation and parole officers conduct themselves in their work. We were able to interview one probation officer for our study, but further evaluation on a broader spectrum was needed in order to really gauge the degree of responsivity that is present. Although communication style and intensity of the program may be tailored to meet individualized needs of offenders, this practice is not evident in broader program incentives/goals.

Resources Score – 4/5 The program has the funding for immediate access to a wide arrange of resources. However, access to job training skills and education appear to be lacking as offenders are sent with referrals to job placement agencies in the community to find work. Offenders are forced to take personal initiative in order to find employment, although this is a valuable skill to practice guidance in this area seemed to be lacking. Increased community support was identified as a need and offenders mentioned that the availability of mentors would be a great asset to help them integrate back into society.

Byrne Grant Case Coordination Collaboration Score – 4/5 Staffings take place every other week and display a collaborative effort between probation officers, service providers and other components of the program. Procedures at these meetings were observed as being above average in quality; staff appeared to be skilled and diverse. Collaborative efforts between service providers was not observed outside of the staffing; a formal process to guide the exchange of information between key players of the program (probation officers, treatment providers, offenders) and service providers within the community would be greatly benefited from. One point for collaboration was lost due to the fact that no treatment providers were observed at the staff meetings.

32 Communication Score – 3/5 Based on what was observed at the Byrne Grant Staff meeting, the program appeared to be very relationship based/ client based with a lot of resources to offer the clients. Service providers seem to motivate the clients as much as they can, even by using bus passes as a reward for accountability. They help clients work on their soft skills such as being on time, giving back to the community and basically being self-motivated. Employment is coordinated with a job placement agency called “South East Works”, this agency helps them create their resumes and master application as well as set up interviews with potential employers. During the staff meeting, the way each offender was progressing was discussed, as well as any issues they were facing. By informing sharing multiple parties within the program were able to come up with new plans and routes that may help make progression a little smoother. Each offender is usually assigned a probation officer who keeps track of their activities and progression in the program. The process at South East Works usually takes 4-6 weeks to complete and usually helps clients find jobs or set them up with an interview for a job. Each meeting with the offender is basically to make sure they are doing what they are supposed to be doing and keeping track of their progression. Although a high degree of quality was observed in communication between staff members at the meetings, a lack of communication between treatment providers and other key players of the program was identified as a problem by a probation officer that was interviewed.

Responsivity Score – 2/5 No formal process to determine individual differences of offenders apparent, referrals to treatment providers do not vary accordingly. Case specific issues may be determined but are not evidently reflected in case plan or the type of referrals made.

Resources Score – 4/5 Resources available to Byrne Grant offenders include drug & alcohol treatment, housing, training programs, bus passes, as long as they are on track with what they are supposed to be doing. “South East Works” was the main resource specifically dedicated to this program. The resources are shared evenly amongst the clients in the programs and immediate access to various

33 resources within the program is available. Services within the community that would be helpful resources to offenders include job training, education opportunities or mentors.

Byrne Grant Overall Scores The Byrne Grant program received an average case management score of 3/5 in accordance to evidence based practices outlined in the rubric. There is a formal assessment process but no re evaluation of risk/need of the offender is present. Offender contacts take place in a group setting with the main goal of tracking progression; offenders are given the opportunity to express themselves after weekly goals are discussed. The opportunity for the offender to address personal concerns may be affected by the group setting; that combined with the expressed need for more personalized assistance contributed to the overall case management score. Responsivity in client interactions may be present but is not in any way outlined in program goals, the case plan is primarily guided by LS/CMI scores and personal characteristics of offenders do not seem to be taken into consideration. The program also received a score of 3.25/ 5 for case coordination. There is a collaborative effort between key players of the program evident in staff meetings that take place every other week, and the communication present at these meetings is of high quality. Treatment providers for alcohol and drug addiction were not observed at the staff meetings and the lack of communication with treatment providers was identified as a problem by a probation officer in the program. Because the target population for the program has alcohol and drug addictions the lack of communication with treatment providers is identified as a major program downfall and points for case coordination were affected accordingly. The types of referrals made to service providers are not based upon responsivity and the expressed need for mentors in the program exemplifies the need for more individualized care. The program should have adequate resources for both areas of case management and case coordination but one point in each area was lost because of services that are lacking.

34 The Byrne Grant program has been successful in helping offenders with alcohol and drug addictions integrate back into society by providing a basis for their recovery. The identified downfalls in certain areas of the program should serve as an example of systematic issues that should be closely examined upon implementation of future transitional leave programs. The first issue to be addressed is the initial assessment process that takes place in prison, only offenders who display the greatest need for alcohol and drug addiction services and willingness to change should be selected. The re evaluation of LS/CMI scores should be present and outcomes should be utilized to fullest capacity; this can be used in gauging program effectiveness and to determine the appropriate resources needed for program success. The continuation of alcohol and drug treatment out of a prison setting and the quality of communication between treatment providers and program staff should be of utmost importance; a more formalized process of communication outside of the staff meeting setting should be outlined and followed. Last but not least the degree of responsivity that is present should be addressed as the individualized needs of offenders should be taken into account in all areas of case planning. For example, specific personality types of offenders should be determined and integrated into the case plan; referrals to providers who share a common ground with the individual should be made. The increased availability of mentors to assist the offenders in locating employment would greatly contribute to their success by providing a partnership within the community focused on individual needs of the offender.

Generic Supervision Case Management Assessment Score – 3/5 In assessment of the offenders, the LS/CMI is used in case management and reassessments are done but not often during supervision, although they are mandatory. Initial risk assessment seemed to be the biggest factor that would dictate the duration of supervision. However, drug and alcohol addiction issues highlighted in assessment do get addressed by trying to get offenders into treatment programs, which is a bigger problem for the SW offender population when compared to other areas.

Communication Score – 3/5

35 In speaking to POs, it was made clear that listening to what an offender has to say is crucial in case management. It was remarked often that most of the time, especially for the offender population in SW Generic that just getting the offender to come in for a meeting is the most difficult task. Offenders are given plenty of opportunities to provide input towards their supervision by POs. Unfortunately, offenders in Generic sometimes do not take these opportunities by not showing up to office meetings or calling their PO.

Responsivity Score – 2/5 As mentioned in the assessment section above, individual risk/need factors are addressed with each offender. POs are willing to provide treatment for specific offender issues as well as help with livability resources. However, incorporating such risk need factors into individual case plans remains a challenge. This is a challenge since specialized and residential treatment programs are so highly competitive, and difficult to get into if an offender is not already in a specialized supervision program.

Resources Score – 3/5 It was expressed in talking to PPOs that resources like drug and alcohol treatment as well as housing resources are highly competitive and very hard to get an offender into. Monetary resources and the high demand from the large amount of offenders with drug and alcohol addiction and homelessness are cited as the reason for difficulty. The day reporting center is often times the biggest opportunity for treatment for an offender. Like with office meetings, it is often likely that offenders will not take advantage of treatment opportunities presented to them.

Generic Supervision Case Coordination Collaboration Score – 4/5 Concerning the quality of mutual understanding between Parole Officer and Treatment Providers, it was clear that it was a great comfort to those interviewed. In spite of the large caseload afforded to each individual P.O, each staff member expressed considerable trust regarding the cycle of information between different avenues of the Generic Branch. It was

36 assumed that Treatment groups would follow the guidelines of the P.O and that of the LCMI to the letter, and that the P.O would be contacted directly if any complications ensued (absenteeism, recidivism). Overall, while the inter-connectivity between the various groups could be improved by a more moderate amount of offenders per person; each member seems to address the chaotic nature of their position as well as possible, and takes precedence in the maintenance of precise collaboration with every available occasion.

Communication Score – 3/5 As a result of the sheer quantity of offenders present in the generic branch, communication is somewhat limited and fragmented over the extended period of an individual's supervision. Interaction between separate groups is irregular outside of typical patterns, which usually consists of basic information (tests of offenders and criminal records) and referrals to certain programs (housing, drug treatment), and supplemental data is rarely conveyed. In spite of the great need to collaborate more effectively with various groups regarding effective supervision for offenders, the caseload of each P.O simply does not allow time for more than secondary communication (phone calls and e-mail). While some groups (in particular the Day Treatment Center) meets routinely with the Parole Officers(monthly) to compare and contrast effective means of collaboration, most of the organizations tasked with attending to the needs of offenders are limited to annual conferences. Furthermore, there have been numerous difficulties emerging with local law enforcement, as they are often not aware of the specific needs of each particular offender. While a P.O can plot a certain course for an offender's rehabilitation, it is obvious that the difficulty of their job is in trying to realign an offender that has deviated from the expected path, as mutual understanding between separate groups are by necessity very specific and straightforward. This unfortunately leaves treatment groups poorly equipped to sort out and effectively convey abnormalities to the P.O that are not the focus of their functionality.

Responsivity Score – 2/5 Perhaps one of the most difficult aspects of the Generic Branch is its inability to immediately respond to hazardous or criminal behavior in an effective manner. As face time with

37 one's P.O is exceedingly limited, most offenders feel overwhelmed when given a list of places to be at certain times and little else. In fact, level of success a P.O in this field seems to be dependent on their own ability to convey appropriate need and urgency in a very brief period of interaction. If/when an offender acts contrary to the standards of parole, it usually falls to the actions of the P.O to access and determine the need for further incarceration. As a result of the constraints related to the everyday activities of the Generic Branch, this is usually left to the discretion of the P.O alone with little interaction with other groups. While set guidelines exist do exist for several scenarios, most of these decisions are case by case, with mutual collaboration playing a minimized or non-existent role. Resources Score – 3/5 There are a wide variety of systems and programs available for every consideration of the rehabilitation process, that are generally nearby and easily accessible. However, some of the more fundamental considerations for offenders have proven to be very competitive, especially in the case of providing proper housing. In addition, many of the new programs tied to the EPICS system and the building of pro-social skills are not available to all offenders, despite the dramatic impact it has created in the criminal justice system. Though there is no lack of programs addressing the offender criminal record and building towards employment, the difficulty in securing basic human needs can, at times, serve to undermine the anticipated process of parole, and reduces the potential for success dramatically.

Generic Supervision Overall Scores While it is clear that there is a considerable and vested interest in the Generic Branch for the well-being and success of its offenders, there are several key disadvantages that limit its effectiveness. With resources and personal stretched to the minimum regarding individual endeavors, many interviewed expressed that a P.O is never 'caught up' in their duties, and it simply becomes a matter of ascertaining priorities for addressing certain offenders more than others. Although various forms of collaboration between a Parole Officer and Treatment provider have emerged to compensate for this difficulty, there are relatively few options available for the uncooperative offender aside from writing a warrant. Despite the increase of success through several training programs for P.O's on the whole such a system appears to be faltering, and its level of success is ultimately limited as a result. By maintaining and endorsing a

38 'fire and forget' style of supervision, mandated by both sparse resources and a high offender to P.O ration, the Coordination for individual cases through the Generic Branch is inconsistent in its application, with any meaningful results emerging through the sheer persistence of its P.O's. Until a more ideal solution is implemented in modern society, the Generic Branch will carry on fervently, aiding all that are in need, with whatever resources are allocated to them.

Discussion of Qualitative Data Results The SCT gained the highest scores in all areas of evaluation. This suggests that the SCT program adheres closest to evidence based practices that value responsivity, case management, and case coordination. This may be due to the fact that our sample was extremely small and we might have gotten a narrow view on the way the programs work. At first glance it may look as if Byrne Grant and Generic are almost identical, which might be the case, but we begin to see differences when we look at the sub-scores. For case management we see that responsivity does not seem to correlate with the resources that are available. For Byrne, they have low responsivity but an abundance of resources and with Generic it is the opposite. This suggests that resources are not a substitute for responsivity and there needs to be extra effort involved when making sure the offenders are being connected with the right treatment and resources despite what’s made available. We also see similar patterns in case coordination. The amount of stakeholders involved does not seem to matter more than how much communication is taking place between them. When communication is high, even when collaboration is lower than communication, responsivity does not suffer. When communication is low even with a high collaboration score, responsivity suffers. The amount of resources here also does not seem to be tied to any of the other scores except for possible collaboration. We must be aware that our sample size and the longevity of the study is too small to draw any generalizable conclusions about each program. With a larger sample we would be able to start seeing the normal circumstances and operations of the program that was not possible within

39 this data. Below are the graphs for each category and sub-score displaying the differences for each program.

Program Case Management Score Case Coordination Score Service Coordination Team (SCT) 5 4.75 Byrne Grant 3 3.25 Generic Supervision 3.25 3

40 41 Cost Analysis

The daily cost per client per day within the SCT program averages about $31.50 (without police). We derived this rate by dividing the total program’s cost by the number of clients served annually, then dividing that number by 365 (days in the year). SCT costs are fixed, making for a reliable estimate.

Program Cost Per day, Per Out Patient Treatment Per day In Patient Treatment Per Day Client Byrne $17.00 Included In Program Cost Included In Program Cost Grant Generic $10.00 $8.75 $95.00 SCT $31.50 Included In Program Cost Included In Program Cost

Generic Supervision’s costs are not fixed, so we took the program’s total expenses from the prior year and divided it by the number of clients (2,412 clients in one year). We arrived at a daily cost of $10 per client for the program. However, that does not include the cost of

42 treatment. The same method that was used to calculate the cost for Generic Supervision was used for the Byrne Grant program as well. The Byrne Grant’s daily cost per client averaged $17 dollars a day. When comparing the three specialized programs it would appear that SCT is the most costly at $31.50 per client per day, Byrne Grant second at $17 per client per day, and Generic the most affordable at $10 per client per day. However, it should be noted that Byrne Grant is a two-year program for transitioning inmates who have successfully completed A&D inpatient treatment in prison. The daily cost per inmate in Oregon prisons is $98.80, which is a significant difference in comparison to the other specialized programs. Along with the evaluation of program outcomes (reduction in recidivism), the cost of each program determines whether the program’s level of success exceeds the cost of the program. With this knowledge we could then go on to find out the dollar value of reduced crime which our predecessors did with the SCT program and look at a comparison between the three specialized programs. Conclusions

The programs purport to address distinct offender populations utilizing different systems to deliver services and administer supervision. In examining the programs then, there are three main sources of variation: the subjects (offenders), the structure of the program (supervision, services, and sanctions), and the delivery or administration of the program (qualitative elements).

Recommendations for Participating Agencies Because the SCT, the Byrne Grant, and Generic Supervision are unique programs with different offenders, and because we only analyzed data from three individual caseloads, the inferences we can make based on comparing the three programs to each other are limited. However, we have some recommendations that might prove useful. Keeping information systems current is a reasonable goal, as is more consistent data entry for information such as home-contacts, addresses, and treatment programs. Performing LS/CMI assessments at regular intervals would be helpful. As we saw, some offenders’ risk scores change drastically over the course of a supervision period (in these three caseloads alone we saw risk score changes ranging from an 18 point decrease to a 19 point increase. However, if the data

43 we were provided is accurate, twenty-four percent of the 117 offenders in our three samples have not been assessed in the last 9 months, and fifteen percent were not been re-assessed in the last year). If it is possible to perform LS/CMI assessments more frequently, one would think that agencies might be able to more reliably direct their resources to the highest-risk offenders.

Suggestions for Future Capstone Teams During the course of our project, we identified several limitations of our research design. By expanding the scope and complexity of future projects, students should be able to answer a broader array of questions with a higher degree of reliability. The following should be considered in future projects:  Seeking access to perform specialized queries of the state database could prove valuable.  Use of forms to input data quickly and accurately could improve data entry.  Data could be entered into a relational database program in order to inspect and report a wider assortment of associations.  Larger samples would greatly improve the meaningfulness of our study. The conclusions that can be deduced from on only one caseload per group are limited.  The use of a geographical heat map to report housing and/or work locations would be ambitious, but interesting.  In order to identify trends in offender LS/CMI scores over time, it would be helpful to obtain earlier scores with date information. This would be especially worthwhile with the Byrne Grant population, who underwent so much treatment before the LS/CMI assessments which we used.

44 Appendix A

LS/CMI Companions Sub-Score LSCMI Alcohol/Drug Problem Sub-Score

N CO Mean SD N ADP Mean SD Byrne Grant 34 2.8 1.4 Byrne Grant 34 4.3 2.4 Generic 43 3.3 0.9 Generic 43 5.5 1.7 SCT 35 3.6 0.9 SCT 35 5.7 1.5

LSCMI Family/Marital History Sub-Score LSCMI Education/Employment Sub-Score

N FM Mean SD N EE Mean SD Byrne Grant 34 1.6 1.2 Byrne Grant 34 4.6 2.4 Generic 43 2.7 1.2 Generic 43 5.4 2.2 SCT 35 2.4 1.3 SCT 35 6.2 2.2

Anova: Single Factor

45 LS/CMI CH

SUMMARY Varianc Groups Count Sum Average e Byrne CH 35 223 6.371429 0.534454 Generic CH 43 239 5.55814 2.776301 SCT CH 35 227 6.485714 0.963025

ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit Between Groups 20.41027 2 10.20513 6.701121 0.001794 4.803462 Within Groups 167.5189 110 1.522899

Total 187.9292 112

Anova: Single Factor LSCMI EE

SUMMARY Varianc Groups Count Sum Average e BYRNE EE 34 157 4.617647 5.334225 Generic EE 43 232 5.395349 4.816168 SCT EE 35 216 6.171429 4.616807

Total 576.9196 111

Anova: Single Factor LSCMI FM

SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Varianc

46 e Byrne FM 35 55 1.571429 1.310924 Generic FM 41 114 2.780488 1.17561 SCT FM 35 84 2.4 1.658824

ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit Between Groups 28.34652 2 14.17326 10.34294 7.77E-05 4.80724 Within Groups 147.9958 108 1.370332

Total 176.3423 110

Anova: Single Factor LR

SUMMARY Varianc Groups Count Sum Average e Byrne LR 35 47 1.342857 0.761345 Generic LR 43 75 1.744186 0.337763 SCT LR 35 63 1.8 0.282353

Total 54.12389 112

Anova: Single Factor LSCMI CO

47 SUMMARY Varianc Groups Count Sum Average e Byrne CO 34 94 2.764706 2.064171 Generic CO 43 141 3.27907 0.72979 SCT CO 35 126 3.6 0.776471

Total 137.4196 111

Anova: Single Factor LSCMI ADP

SUMMARY Varianc Groups Count Sum Average e Byrne ADP 34 148 4.352941 5.265597 Generic ADP 43 238 5.534884 2.921373 SCT ADP 35 201 5.742857 2.314286

Total 414.4911 111

Anova: Single Factor Procriminal Attitudes

SUMMARY Varianc Groups Count Sum Average e Byrne PA 34 46 1.352941 2.356506

48 Generic PA 44 119 2.704545 1.840909 SCT PA 35 87 2.485714 3.315966

Total 308.0177 112

Anova: Single Factor LSCMI Antisocial Patterns

SUMMARY Varianc Groups Count Sum Average e Byrne AP 34 70 2.058824 1.269162 Generic AP 43 104 2.418605 1.011074 SCT AP 35 72 2.057143 1.290756

Total 131.6786 111

Anova: Single Factor Custody

SUMMARY Su Groups Count m Average Variance Byrne Grant 33 64 1.93939393 0.74621212

49 9 1 1.97368421 1.70199146 Generic 38 75 1 5 2.76666666 2.87471264 SCT 30 83 7 4

ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit 6.91023260 3.97841746 0.02181513 Between Groups 13.8204652 2 2 8 2 3.089203013 1.73692998 Within Groups 170.2191388 98 7

Total 184.039604 100

Anova: Single Factor Drug Law

SUMMARY Su Groups Count m Average Variance 1.09090909 2.33522727 Byrne Grant 33 36 1 3 1.21052631 1.95448079 Generic 38 46 6 7 15.7344827 SCT 30 141 4.7 6

ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit 132.645300 21.5453533 Between Groups 265.2906012 2 6 3 1.75653E-08 3.089203013 6.15656185 Within Groups 603.3430622 98 9

50 Total 868.6336634 100

Anova: Single Factor # of Property

SUMMARY Su Groups Count m Average Variance 2.87878787 10.5473484 Byrne Grant 33 95 9 8 1.15789473 2.78520625 Generic 38 44 7 9 1.26666666 3.30574712 SCT 30 38 7 6

Total 598.8118812 100

51 Anova: Single Factor # of Public Order

SUMMARY Su Groups Count m Average Variance 0.66666666 1.35416666 Byrne Grant 33 22 7 7 0.26315789 0.25320056 Generic 38 10 5 9 0.03333333 0.03333333 SCT 30 1 3 3

ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit 3.27470036 5.97969214 0.00354564 Between Groups 6.54940073 2 5 4 3 3.089203013 Within Groups 53.66842105 98 0.54763695

Total 60.21782178 100

Anova: Single Factor # Of Traffic

SUMMARY Su Groups Count m Average Variance Byrne Grant 33 33 1 3.1875 0.18421052 0.26244665 Generic 38 7 6 7 0.43333333 0.80574712 SCT 30 13 3 6

52 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit 6.05546291 4.39330543 0.01488518 Between Groups 12.11092583 2 5 2 9 3.089203013 1.37833870 Within Groups 135.077193 98 4

Total 147.1881188 100

Anova: Single Factor # of Person Crimes

SUMMARY Su Groups Count m Average Variance 0.66666666 1.79166666 Byrne Grant 33 22 7 7 0.34210526 0.39331436 Generic 38 13 3 7 0.37241379 SCT 30 6 0.2 3

53 Total 86.35643564 100

Anova: Single Factor # of PPSV SANC

SUMMARY Su Groups Count m Average Variance 0.30303030 Byrne Grant 33 10 3 0.46780303 0.13157894 Generic 38 5 7 0.17140825 0.06666666 0.06436781 SCT 30 2 7 6

ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit 0.48007248 0.13685114 Between Groups 0.960144962 2 1 2.02977614 2 3.089203013 0.23651498 Within Groups 23.1784689 98 9

Total 24.13861386 100 Appendix B

Category Subcategory Question Subject Case What is the assessment process? PPO Assessment Management Is the assessment utilized in case plan? How so? PPO (Average of What is the goal of each meeting with the four scores to offender? PPO the right) Please describe a typical interaction with an Communicatio offender on your caseload. PO n Please describe a typical interaction with your PPO. Offender How do you increase motivation in the offender? PPO Responsivity How do you decide the treatment for the PPO offenders on your caseload?

54 How do you decide how much to monitor offender? Is there a supervision plan or monitoring progress? PPO Are there any traits commonly shared by offenders within this program? Treatment Do you adjust your own personal style of handling a case in accordance to the type or personality of the offender? PPO/Treatment What incentives are used to encourage participation? PPO How much access do you have to outside resources? PPO What is the most/least successful motivation increaser you use? PPO/Treatment How much competition between offenders Resources exist for access to resources? PPO Does the program facilitate the learning of pro social skills? PPO Are job training and education resources available and commonly used by offenders? PPO Case Who is involved with the offenders case and Coordination their treatment? PPO (Average of To what extent are each of the parties four scores to Collaboration involved? PPO the right) How could case coordination be improved? PPO/Treatment How collaborative is case planning for clients? Treatment How could collaboration between involved parties improve? PPO/Treatment Communicatio How often do you communcate with PPO? Treatment n What is the most common source of communication? Treatment How many staff meetings are held? PPO How is the assessment utilized in the decision making process? PPO Does program intensity vary with individual need/risk? PPO Responsivity What is the staffing process for each caseload? PPO What is the goal of this program/treatment? PPO/Treatment How are service providers matched with offenders? PPO/Treatment Resources How many resources are dedicated specifically to this program? PPO In your opinion are the caseloads understaffed? PPO What is a manageable caseload?

55 Are job training and education resources available and commonly used by offenders? PPO Other than field experience, have you received any special training or is there special training available? PPO What is your professional background/training? PPO/Treatment

General Questions were asked to Offenders to gain a better understanding of each program. Answers were analyzed according to subcategory and follow up questions were asked to clarify points made. * How has your experience been in this program? * What part of this program, if any, has been most helpful? * How could the program be improved? * Anything else you'd like us to know?

Special Thanks