Nintendo Video Game

Post-Incarceration Supervision Task Force Charter Efficient use of programming resour Introduction &#x/MCI; 8 ;&#x/MCI; 8 ;In Colorado over 90,000 adult offenders were under some form of supervision as of December were admitted to prison. Another 2600 were placed in transition community corrections. Approximately 95% of incarcerated offenders will at some point be released from facilities and clothes, housing and other immediate needs) al ong with longer term cognitive-behavioral treatment approaches. full incarceration in jail or prison, but few (1.5%) are arrested for committing a new crime while in the program. As Population Report for December 2007 available at http://www.doc.state.co.us/Stat istics/MonthReport/Dec2007.pdf. Including probation, community corrections, incarceration, or juvenile placement. See the Division of Criminal Justice Quarterly Po pulation Report for the period ending on 12/31/07 available at http://dcj.state.co.us/ors/ pdf/correctional%20populations/CORCOP%20123107%20re Corrections Monthly Population report for December 2007 available at http://www.cdhs.state.co.us/dyc/PDFs/MPR120 7.pdf; Department of Corrections Monthly terminated from community corrections for technical violations in FY 2007 and another 634 absconded/escaped, resulting in a warrant for their arrest. Many will be charged with felony es cape and sent to jail or prison. For additional recidivism rates, please see Appendi x A at the end of this document. &#x/MCI; 4 ;&#x/MCI; 4 ;Table 1. Community Corrections Termination Rates and Reasons: FY 2007 Source: Special analysis of community corrections client term ination forms conducted by Ch ristine Schmidt, January 2008. Office of Community Corrections, Divisi on of Criminal Justice, Denver, CO. New warrant n % n % n % n % n % 1491 341 12.6 48 1.8 32 1.2 607 22.5 .09 1618 62.1 293 11.2 26 1.0 45 1.7 503 36 1.38 3109 634 11.9 74 1.4 77 1.5 1110 1.18 cuses on the long-term success of listss programs that were found in a comprehe nsive study by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy to reduce recidivism. Table 2. Examples of Adult R Recidivism* Reduced By offender treatment treatment 12.6% Community-based drug treatment Prison-based cognitive-behavioral programs (general and specific) industries programs programs community aftercare treatment Work release programs programs 5.1% Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based adult corrections programs: What works and what does not. Washington State Institut e for Public Policy. Community-based employment training and job assistance Educational/Cognitive-behavioral domestic violence programs *Recidivism is defined in various ways, depending on the study. Table 2 reflects findings from a meta-analysis of hundreds of program evaluations of offenders on probation, jail and prison. Typically, recidivism is defined as new arrest or conviction in a specific period of time. &#x/MCI; 6 ;&#x/MCI; 6 ; &#x/MCI; 7 ;&#x/MCI; 7 ;Success-oriented offender management strategies require a context where the following priorities The needs and risk assessment process(es), Case management, and The work of the Post-Incarceration Supervis ion Task Force will be conducted in three In each phase, barriers to implementing ev idence-based correctional practice will be Phase 1: Review and compare best practices with existing legislation, agency policies make recommendations to maximize offender success. Phase 2: Implement recommendations from comprehensive review of practices and make recommendations to maximize offender success. Phase 3: Implement and monitor new policie The Post-Incarceration Supervision Task Force will make recommendations to the Oversight Committee on Re-Entry, which will in turn make recommendations to the CCJJ. The Commission has identified a number of key areas that are related to successful offender outcomes. Focused, evidence-based strategies must be developed around each of the key areas to related to disproportionate minority representatio oral health problems, The following eight evidence-based principles will guide the work of the Post-Incarceration &#x/MCI; 5 ;&#x/MCI; 5 ;1.&#x/MCI; 6 ;&#x/MCI; 6 ; Assess offender risk and need levels usin parole and community corrections. What tools are being used? Who is trained to conduct the assessment int erview? Is this training adequate? How often What quality control measures are in place to ensure that assessments are conducted appropriately? How is the assessment information captured and used in the supervision of offenders? Are case managers trained in motivational What quality assurance is in place? l interviewing techniques in their day-to-day What is the rate of treatment compliance? How do work requirements for releasee s interfere with necessary treatment? Furthermore, how do releasees manage the often-times conflicting requirements of Adapted from: Crime and Justice Institute. (2004). Implementing evidence-based practice in community corrections: The principles of effective intervention. Department of Justice: National Institute of Corrections; Office of Research and Statistics (2007). Evidence based correctional practices. Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, O ffice of Research and Statistics. Are programs responsive to each offender’s temp erament, learning style, motivation, gender and culture? Are adequate program dose and duration provided? Is treatment integrated into sentence and sanction requirements? How are offenders managed who are assessed as low risk to re-offend? Do assessment tools asses How is criminogenic risk and need information incorporated into offender case plans? &#x/MCI; 12;&#x/MCI; 12;•&#x/MCI; 13;&#x/MCI; 13; How are offenders matched to treatment resources? How structured are case plans for offenders, especially during period in the community after leaving an institution? held accountable for using assessment information to develop a case plan and then s ubsequently using that case plan to manage an monitor their delivery of services. How are social learning techniques incorporated into the programs delivered by supervising officers and case managers? How does DOC and community corrections ensure that contracted service providers are delivering community services in alignment with social learning theory? Are the programs delivered and contracted for based on scientific evidence of recidivism How are these programs evaluated? How often is staff trained, and how often do they receive booster training? Is staff evaluated on their use of information received from training? Increase positive reinforcement. Are positive reinforcement techniques modeled by supervising officers and case managers in their day-to-day interactions with co-workers? Do policies and procedures support the use of positive reinforcements for offenders? Are supervising officers and case managers trained in providing positive reinforcement for Do supervising officers and case managers record and document positive and negative reinforcements to provide feedback to themselves and supervisors about the ratio of negative to positive? Does staff understand and use the four-to-one theory in their interactions with offenders (four positive for every one negative reinforcement)? Engage ongoing support in natural communities. How is community support for offenders used as a regular part of case planning? Is the current practice sufficient? How is community network contact measured as it relates to offenders? How is it ensured that this support is meaningful and valuable to the offender? What data are collected regarding o Is the information reliable? Is the information easily retrievable so that managing staff can review their efforts? nder changes measured while they are under supervision? How is staff performance measured? What data are used? How are these data collected? How are data used to provide feedback to the supervising officer or case manager? How is information regarding offender change a nd outcomes shared with supervision staff? Who receives the information regarding outcome measures? How is staff performance data used in the performance evaluation process? &#x/Typ; /P;&#xrint;&#xing ;&#x/Typ; /P;&#xrint;&#xing ; he mission of the On-Going Supervision Task Force is to identify for the Commission the barriers and issues surrounding the long-term succe ssful reintegration of the offender into th community after the first six months of supervis make recommendations aimed at increasing su recidivism. approximately $40,000 per bed for minimum- a 948 beds facility, will exceed $100 Million As of December 2007, the number of offende Research shows that community supervision that is service-oriented rather than Educational, vocational, substance-abuse treatment, mental health, and cognitive- The data show that the majority of indivi Harrison, L. (December, 2007). Population projections for adult prison and parole, community vism reduction and risk-focused prevention ehavior. n, K., Barr, B., & Mersman, K. (2006). immediately following release from prison is &#x/MCI; 5 ;&#x/MCI; 5 ; &#x/MCI; 6 ;&#x/MCI; 6 ;•&#x/MCI; 7 ;&#x/MCI; 7 ; Offenders who participate in family services, education programs, and/or mental health programs had greater success rate s in comparison to those who programs. Research shows that recidivism rates are de education, and substance abuse programs. The Level of Service Inventory (LSI) is one of the most co , including in Colorado. This instrument not only predicts recidivism but also provides critical info rmation pertaining to offender LSI sub-scores for all domains (e.g., education, cr iminal history, financia 147 25.89 55 31.45 38 26.35 43 31.00 9 community corrections 28.00 11 Rosten, K., Barr, B., & Mersman, K. (2006). Technical violation to DOC 320 663 Source: O &#x/Typ; /P;&#xrint;&#xing ;&#x/Typ; /P;&#xrint;&#xing ;ffice of Research and Statistics, Division of Criminal Ju stisis of a samf 2,626 criminal cases ce, analy ple o from ten judicial districts sentenced in calendar year 2006. The total of 663 cases reflects missing data on the majority of cases in this analysis. See glossary for definitions of terms. he increased rate of recidivism is the l TRUCTURE The Task Force will make recommendations to the Re-Entry Oversight Committee, takeholders and the ce chair will be a Commission member. 5) formal members identified anning of the Task Force. community and chair the Task Force when the chair is Pryzybylski, R. (2008). recidivism reduction and risk-focused prevention programs. A compendium of evidence-based options for preventing new and persistent criminal behavior. Denver, CO: Office of Research and Stat istics, Division of Criminal Justice. Analyze local data sources &#x/Typ; /P;&#xrint;&#xing ;&#x/Typ; /P;&#xrint;&#xing ;when feasible s to obtain relevant information. DATA staff will respond to requests for information and data. Because gathering ng? will Work with researchers from other agen nformation and analyzing data is a additional information and data analysis wi What specific question are you trying to answer? How will having this information affect the discuss How will having the information improve decision-maki dures, services and staff training ed to Re-Entry Committee on August 20, NDESIRED OUTCOME: A successful project will not A short- and long-term stra A focus on significant recidivism reduction Missed deadlines e cost savings of community supervision report by Roger Przybylski Evidence Based Practices, National Research Council recomme &#x/MCI; 8 ;&#x/MCI; 8 ;•&#x/MCI; 9 ;&#x/MCI; 9 ; "Employ Behavioral Contracting for 'Earne ation, the court may sentence an offender to serve time in jail. &#x/MCI; 6 ;&#x/MCI; 6 ;Community corrections e community while providing Probation and community corrections: The court can sentence an offender to hat is specified in statute corresponding to jail work release: he sentence was revoked and he/she was Technical violation/to community corrections h the terms and conditions Charged with escape: Summary of Recidivism Findings Study Population Follow-up period Measure of Recidivism Rate (%) Juvenile Technical Violation &#x/Typ; /P;&#xrint;&#xing ;&#x/Typ; /P;&#xrint;&#xing ;During Supervision 6.2 1 16.6 Technical Violation During Supervision 12.2 1 10 1 Adult Probation Technical Violation 32.6 During Supervision elony conviction New misd/felony filing 8 2 Technical Violation 34.4 During Supervision elony conviction New misd/felony filing 1.4 2,4 Technical Violation 31.6 During Supervision elony conviction Female Offender Program New misd/felony filing 0 2,5 1 year post-sentencing New felony filing 2 years post-sentencing New felony filing Women on Probation 3 years post-sentencing New felony filing 1 year post-sentencing New felony filing 2 years post-sentencing New felony filing Drug Offend ers on 3 years post-sentencing New felony filing 21.2 6 tatistics, Division of Criminal Schlessinger, K. (January 15, 2007). Pre-releas e termination and post-release recidivism rates of Colorado’s Probationers: FY2005 Releasees. Colorado Division of Probation Services, Research and Evaluation Unit, Denver, Colorado. Division of Criminal Justice, Office of Research and Statistics. Special analysis conducted for this publication on specific populations sentenced to 14&#x/MCI; 0 ;&#x/MCI; 0 ; &#x/MCI; 1 ;&#x/MCI; 1 ;Division of Youth Corrections During commitment New misd/felony filing Commitments New misd/felony filing Department of Corrections All Releases 3 years post-release Technical Violation Mandatory Parole 3 years post- release New felony conviction Technical Violation Sentence Discharges 3 years post-release New felony conviction Community Corrections Technical Violation New misd/felony filing Diversion 2 years post-discharge New misd/felony filing Technical Violation New misd/felony filing Transition 2 years post-discharge New misd/felony filing Division of Youth Corrections (2007). Recidivism Evaluation of Committed Youth Discharged in Fiscal Year 2004-05. Colorado Department of Human Services, Office of Children, Youth and Family Services. Denver, Colorado. Rosten, K., Barr, B., and Mersman, K. (2006). Reci