HomeMy WebLinkAbout20040659.tiff Weld County Community Corrections:
Study of Recidivism Rates, 2002
Prepared by
Dana Willis, M.A.
u'; car)
2004-0659
03-o l-o Y
INTRODUCTION
The Weld County Community Corrections Board (WCCCB) oversees community
corrections programs in the Greeley area. Because their responsibilities include the safety of
community members, the Board is interested in examining the recidivism rates. It is believed
that recidivism rates can be effected by several factors. Consequently, the Board strives to
improve services, as well as screenings, to enhance the possibilities of reduced recidivism in the
Weld County community.
In the early 1990's,the WCCCB approved a study to explore the recidivism rates of those
clients terminating from the community corrections programs at the Villa. The Villa is the only
residential community corrections facility in Weld County, and it houses two separate programs:
The Restitution Center (TRC) and The Residential Treatment Center (RTC). An initial study
was completed on a cohort from 1992. No follow-up was completed for this cohort; however,
the data presented lead to further examination of recidivism. Subsequently, WCCCB approved
annual studies of offenders terminated from residential placement for each fiscal year between
94/95 to 99/00. In January 2003, the study was again funded to examine the recidivism rates of
samples five years previously, as well as the sample from fiscal year 00/01.
This report is based on the findings from ten different samples. These samples include
offenders from TRC and RTC, who were terminated from residential placement during fiscal
year 96/97, for whom recidivism rates are examined five years after termination; offenders from
TRC and RTC, who were terminated from residential placement during fiscal year 97/98, for
whom recidivism rates are examined four years after termination; offenders from TRC and RTC,
who were terminated from residential placement during fiscal year 98/99, for whom recidivism
rates are examined three years after termination; offenders from TRC and RTC, who were
2
terminated from residential placement during fiscal year 99/00, for whom recidivism rates are
examined two years after termination; and offenders from TRC and RTC, who were terminated
from residential placement during fiscal year 00/01, for whom recidivism rates are examined one
years after termination.
In the following pages, a brief review of other recidivism studies is discussed, a
description of the methods employed is presented, followed by the results of the current findings.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In the past, recidivism has been studied in many different forms. Unfortunately, the
recidivism rates of offenders placed in community corrections programs have not been
thoroughly examined. Therefore, most of the results of this study and those previously
conducted for WCCCB, are compared to a few community corrections programs, similar
offender populations, and rates from incarcerated offenders. However, in an article published in
early 2002, Dowdy, Lacy, and Unnithan reported results gleaned from a study of 127 offenders
admitted to the Larimer County Community Corrections program between the years 1990 to
1994. This study holds significant results, as it is directly comparable to the population of TRC.
Additionally, recidivism was measured in the same way as the current analysis. Although the
purpose of the Dowdy et al. (2002) study was to investigate the accuracy of the Level of
Supervision Inventory (LSI) assessment, it also reported the recidivism rate of the offenders two
years following residential discharge. The study found 34.6 percent of those released were
rearrested within 2 years. Of those, 19.5 percent were arrested on felony matters.
The literature commonly defines recidivism as an arrest for a misdemeanor or felony
matter following release from supervision (Butzen, Martin, and Inciardi, 2002; Dowdy et al.,
2002; Stanz and Tewksberry, 2000; Applegate, Surette, and McCarthy, 1999; Griffith, Hiller,
3
Simpson, and Dwayne, 1999; DeJong, 1997; Jones and Sims, 1997; Colorado Judicial
Department, 1996 and 1997; VanStelle, Mauser, and Moberg, 1994; Hartmann, Friday, and
Minor, 1994). This is accomplished by reviewing arrest records provided by local, state, and/or
federal agencies. The Transition population, for TRC and RTC, can be compared with the
studies, which have used prison populations. It is also helpful to use Intensive Supervised
Probation(ISP) programs as a comparison population when examining Diversion clients, as both
community corrections and ISP are prison diversion programs with similar types of offenders.
Results of many studies indicate the highest rate of recidivism occurs within the first 12
months following release from supervision (Spohn, Piper, Martin, and Frenzel, 2001; Lanza-
Kaduce, Parker, and Thomas, 1999; Wexler, Deleon, Thomas, Kressel, and Peters, 1999; Bryan,
Arrigona, Reed, and Riechers, 1996; Steiger and Guthmann, 1986). Longevity studies find the
rate continues to increase each year, but the number of rearrests is not as dramatic as in the first
12 months.
Overall recidivism rates vary in the literature. Regarding prison releases, which would be
comparable to Transition clients, rates range from a low of 10 percent after one year following
release to a high of 80 percent after five years (Lanza-Kaduce et al., 1999; Smith and Akers,
1993). For offenders placed in community-based programs, such as community corrections or
ISP, the rate is comparative. Rates range from a low of 37 percent three years later to 58 percent
18 months after release (Bryan, et al., 1996; VanStelle, et al., 1994). Studies conducted in
Colorado reflect similar varying rates. The study in Larimer County (2002) resulted in a 34.6
percent recidivism rate after two years. A San Luis Valley Community Corrections Program
(1998) study observed a rate of 40 percent four years following release. The Colorado Judicial
Department (1996 and 1997) has conducted yearly recidivism studies. The studies from 1996
4
and 1997, both used the recidivism definition as this study. Researchers found 41.3 percent of
adult ISP clients were rearrested one year after release. The rate increased to 50.9 for the cohort
in their second year following release. During the same time periods, the researchers also
calculated rates for clients in the Specialized Drug Offender Programs (SDOP), who might be
compared to the RTC population of Diversion clients. In their first year, 22.2 percent of the
SDOP clients terminated were rearrested. In the second year following arrest,the rate doubled to
45.5 percent (Colorado Judicial Department, 1996 and 1997).
Whatever the recidivism rates, studies are finding commonalties among recidivists. The
first common trait is age. It appears younger offenders are more likely to be rearrested than older
offenders (Benda, 2001; Stanz and Tewksberry, 2000; Applegate, et al., 1999; Wexler, et al.,
1999; Murphy, Musser, and Muton, 1998;Bryan, et al., 1996; DeJong, 1997; Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, 1992; Clayton and Can, 1987; Steiger and Guthmann, 1986). Secondly, the
defendant's criminal history appears to be significant. Studies have found clients with juvenile
criminal histories are more likely to recidivate than those without juvenile records (Benda, 2001;
Steiger and Guthmann, 1986; Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 1986).
Additionally, prior adult arrests and/or convictions appear to increase the probability of rearrest
(Stanz and Tewksberry, 2000; Applegate, et al., 1999; Farrall, 1999; DeJong, 1997; US
Department of Justice, 1989; Steiger and Guthmann, 1986; Illinois Criminal Justice Information
Authority, 1986). Those with a longer criminal history also appear to recidivate sooner after
release than those who have a limited history (DeJong, 1997; Illinois Criminal Justice
Information Authority, 1986). Another contributing factor appears to be the type of crime for
which the defendant has been convicted. Several studies have observed recidivism rates which
5
are higher in offenders who have been convicted of property or drug-related crimes (Bryan et al.,
1996; Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council, 1992; Steiger and Guthmann, 1986).
Other studies have examined the offender's discharge status and placement length.
Friday and Wertkin (1995) studied several non-violent offenders who had been placed at a
residential probation center. They found those who failed the program were two times more
likely to recidivate than those who completed successfully. In a 1999 study, Applegate, et al.
found the length of placement also had a relationship to recidivism. Specifically, they found
those who recidivated spent fewer days in placement.
The aforementioned traits, which are appearing frequently in recidivists, cannot be
changed. An offender's age, criminal history, or type of crime are static; however, researchers
are discovering factors, produced by System intervention, which may result in lower recidivism.
For those addicted to substances, results are beginning to concur that treatment reduces the
likelihood of rearrest. In a study of Florida prisoners, it was discovered that those offenders
completing substance abuse treatment were 6.2 percent less likely to reoffend within the first
year of release (Florida Department of Corrections, 2001). In several studies, rates of those who
successfully completed substance abuse treatment were lower (Butzin, et al., 2002; Peters, 2000;
Hiller, 1999; Wexler, et al., 1999; VanStelle, et al., 1994; Field, 1989). It was noted, however,
that the "appropriate" level of treatment maximizes its effectiveness. Bonta, Wallace-Capretta,
and Rooney (2000) noted the defendant's needs must be matched with the right treatment type
and level. If offenders with low needs are given too many services, it can actually increase their
rate of recidivism. However, properly matching treatment and need can significantly reduce the
rate of recidivism. Their study associated a 53 percent reduction in recidivism for those who
received appropriate types and levels of treatment. Bagley (1996), in a separate study, found that
6
even partial completion of treatment results in a lower recidivism rate than no treatment at all.
Other studies have echoed the findings with other programs. One of the Community Correction
pilot programs, in New Zealand, found that their recidivism rate was 16 percent lower than other
populations and contributed their success to addressing the criminogenic needs of their
population.
Similarly, education, vocational, and cognitive skills training appear to have the same
positive impact as substance abuse treatment. Studies indicated offenders who attended and/or
completed educational programs had a lower rate of recidivism (Gallitano, 2002; Jancic, 1998;
Anderson, 1995). In the aforementioned Florida study, those who earned their GED were 8.7
percent less likely to reoffend within one year; and for those who received a vocational
certification, researchers found them to be 14.6 percent less likely to recidivate (Florida
Department of Corrections, 2001). Employment and employment assistance are apparently
related to reducing risk of recidivism as well. Researchers found that those who had assistance
in finding and maintaining employment were less likely to reoffend (Demleitner, 2002; Mahone,
2002). Other studies have shown cognitive skill building classes to lower the rate of recidivism
(Allen, MacKenzie, and Hickman, 2001; Chavaria, 1997; Miller and Hobler, 1996).
Interestingly, the offenders seem to recognize these issues, too. In the study by Gallitano
(2002), offenders were interviewed and described why they reoffended. They identified issues
with employment, substance abuse, and education as contributing to their repeated criminal
behavior.
DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAMS
The Restitution Center is a 135 bed community corrections facility for non-violent
offenders. Although it provides residential and non-residential supervision, this study focuses
7
solely on residential terminations. TRC provides diversified services to adult offenders, while
ensuring the safety of the community. It is a work release facility that requires offenders to
secure employment and to enroll in educational, vocational, and/or therapeutic programs. TRC
offers the following in-house services: GED classes, substance abuse education, and financial
budgeting. TRC accepts placement for Transition and Diversion clients from a variety of
counties in Colorado. The length of placement for offenders is dependent on a number of factors
such as program performance, employment, stability, and legal obligations.
The Residential Treatment Center Men's Program is a 60 bed certified, intensive
residential treatment center, serving substance abusing felons from various referring agencies.
RTC accepts primarily non-violent offenders, who have been sentenced to the Department of
Corrections, Parole, Probation, or Community Corrections. The length of stay is approximately
45 days. During that time, the offenders are provided individual and group therapy, as well as
educational lectures and experiential sessions.
METHODOLOGY
In most studies of recidivism (Colorado Judicial Department, 1996 and 1997; Jones and
Sims, 1997; Belenko, Fagan, and Dumanovsky, 1994; Hartmann, et al., 1994; VanStelle et al.,
1994), arrest records are used to determine the rate. In this study, recidivism will be defined as
any felony or misdemeanor arrest occurring during the established time period after release from
residential placement. Misdemeanor arrests also included any arrests for misdemeanor driving
offenses such as: Driving Under the Influence and Driving Under Revocation. Arrest
information was gathered through records received from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation
(CBI). Ten samples were utilized in the present study. This study was conducted on male
offenders only. The samples were selected by assigning a number to all offenders who
8
terminated from the designated facility for the time period studied. A random number table was
employed to select the offenders included in the study. Each sample from TRC was initially
comprised of 60 offenders, while the samples drawn from each RTC sample included 140. As
noted in other studies (Colorado Judicial Department, 1996, 1997, 1998; Coombs and
McNeilsmith, 1998), some sample sizes have been slightly reduced due to problems such as
missing records and inaccurate information. A detailed description of each sample follows.
SAMPLE I
This sample was composed of a random selection of 60 clients from all male residential
terminations from TRC between 7/01/00 and 6/30/01. No offenders were omitted from the study;
therefore, the sample size was 60. Rearrest for this sample was examined for the first year
following release.
The sample was composed of 56.7 percent Diversion (34 clients) and 43.3 percent
Transition (26 clients). The average age was 33.5 years, with the following ethnic composition:
60 percent (36 clients) Caucasian (non-Hispanic), 35 percent (21 clients) Hispanic, and 5 percent
(three clients) Other (African American, Native American, or Asian American). The average
length of residential placement was 211.1 days. In all, 80 percent (48 clients) had a criminal
history including a juvenile record or a previous felony conviction. Of the offenders in the
sample, 60 percent (36 clients) completed residential placement successfully and 40 percent (24
clients) terminated unsuccessfully. The presenting offenses, the offenses for which the offender
was serving time at the facility, were as follows: 45 percent (27 clients) for property crimes, 23.3
percent (14 clients) for drug related offenses, 28.3 percent (17 clients) for driving related
offenses, and 3.3 percent (two clients) for crimes against person. The average level of education
was less than 12 years, and 26.7 percent (16 clients) of this sample successfully completed
9
inpatient substance abuse treatment, at RTC, prior to admission. The remaining 73.3 percent (44
clients)did not attend treatment at RTC prior to admission at TRC.
SAMPLE 2
This sample was comprised of a random sample of 140 offenders selected from all male
discharges from the Residential Treatment Center between 7/01/00 and 6/30/01. The final
analysis was conducted with all 140 offenders. Rearrest was examined for the first year
immediately following release.
The sample was composed of 34.3 percent Diversion (48 clients) and 65.7 percent
Transition (92 clients). The average age was 32.08 years, with the following ethnic makeup:
60.7 percent (85 clients) Caucasian (non-Hispanic), 27.9 percent (39 clients) Hispanic, and 11.4
percent (16 clients) Other (African American, Native American, or Asian decent). Of this
sample, 95 percent of all offenders completed treatment successfully. The presenting offenses
for this sample were: 45.7 percent (64 clients) property crimes, 35 percent (49 clients) drug
related offenses, 15.7 percent (22 clients) driving related crimes, and 3.6 percent (5 clients)
crimes against person.
SAMPLE 3
This sample was composed of a random selection of 60 clients from all male residential
terminations from TRC between 7/01/99 and 6/30/00. No offenders were omitted from the study;
therefore, the sample size was 60. Rearrest for this sample was examined two years following
release.
The sample was composed of 35 percent Diversion (21 clients) and 65 percent Transition
(39 clients). [Note: Although random, this sample of approximately 35 percent Diversion to 65
percent Transition does not reflect the overall population served by TRC. The entire population
10
served at TRC, in FY99/00, was approximately composed of 57 percent Diversion and 43
percent Transition; however, most all other characteristics were representative of the total
population.] The average age was 32.8 years, with the following ethnic composition: 48.3
percent (29 clients) Caucasian (non-Hispanic), 48.3 percent (29 clients) Hispanic, and 3.4
percent (two clients) Other (African American and Native American). The average length of
residential placement was 181.8 days. The criminal history of the sample offenders included
26.7 percent (16 clients), who had a juvenile record, while 66.7 percent (40 clients) had a
previous felony conviction. Of the offenders in the sample, 63.3 percent (38 clients) completed
residential placement successfully and 36.7 percent (22 clients) terminated unsuccessfully. The
presenting offenses, the offenses for which the offender was serving time at the facility, were as
follows: 50 percent (30 clients) for property crimes, 13.3 percent (eight clients) for drug related
offenses, 28.3 percent (17 clients) for driving related offenses, and 8.3 percent (five clients) for
crimes against person. The average level of education was a less than 12 years, and 50 percent
(30 clients) of this sample successfully completed inpatient substance abuse treatment, at RTC,
prior to admission.
SAMPLE 4
This sample was comprised of a random sample of 140 offenders selected from all male
discharges from the Residential Treatment Center between 7/01/99 and 6/30/00. The final
analysis was conducted with all 140 offenders. Rearrest was examined for two years
immediately following release.
The sample was composed of 28.6 percent Diversion (40 clients) and 71.4 percent
Transition (100 clients). The average age was 33.4 years, with the following ethnic makeup:
52.1 percent (73 clients) Caucasian (non-Hispanic), 31.4 percent (44 clients) Hispanic, and 16.4
11
percent (23 clients) Other (African American and Native American). Of this sample, all
offenders completed treatment successfully. The presenting offenses for this sample were: 25.7
percent (36 clients) property crimes, 46.4 percent (65 clients) drug related offenses, 16.4 percent
(23 clients) driving related crimes, and 11.4 percent(16 clients) crimes against person.
SAMPLE 5
This sample was composed of a random selection of 60 clients from all male residential
discharges from The Restitution Center between 7/1/98 and 6/30/99. All but two offenders
selected were included in the final analysis. These two offenders were omitted from the study, as
complete information regarding their post-release status could not be obtained. Therefore, the
sample size was 58 offenders. Rearrest for this sample was examined for three years following
release.
The sample was composed of 58.6 percent Diversion (34 clients) and 41.4 percent
Transition (24 clients). The average age was 32.4 years, with the following ethnic composition:
65.5 percent (38 clients) Caucasian (non-Hispanic), 31.0 percent (18 clients) Hispanic, and 3.4
percent (two clients) Other (African American and Native American). The average length of
residential placement was 163.0 days. The criminal history of the sample offenders included 19
percent (11 clients), who had a juvenile record, while 54.5 percent (32 clients) had a previous
felony conviction. Of the offenders in the sample, 60.3 percent (65 clients) completed residential
placement successfully and 39.7 percent (23 clients) terminated unsuccessfully. The presenting
offenses, the offenses for which the offender was serving time at the facility, were as follows:
50.0 percent (29 clients) for property crimes, 12.1 percent (seven clients) for drug related
offenses, 22.4 percent (13 clients) for driving related offenses, and 15.5 percent (nine clients) for
crimes against person. The average level of education was a GED, and 63.8 percent (37 clients)
12
of this sample successfully completed inpatient substance abuse treatment, at RTC, prior to
admission.
SAMPLE 6
This sample was comprised of a random sample of 140 offenders selected from all male
discharges from the Residential Treatment Center between 7/01/98 and 6/30/99. The final
analysis was conducted with a sample of 138 offenders, as information was not available for two
offenders initially selected for the sample. Rearrest was examined for three years immediately
following release.
The sample was composed of 29 percent Diversion (40 clients) and 71 percent Transition
(98 clients). The average age was 31.7 years, with the following ethnic makeup: 55.1 percent
(76 clients) Caucasian (non-Hispanic), 32.6 percent (45 clients) Hispanic, and 12.3 percent (17
clients) Other(African American and Native American). Of this sample, all offenders completed
treatment successfully. The presenting offenses for this sample were: 38.4 percent (53 clients)
property crimes, 38.4 percent (53 clients) drug related offenses, 13.8 percent (19 clients) driving
related crimes, and 9.4 percent (13 clients) crimes against person.
SAMPLE 7
This sample was composed of a random selection of 60 clients from all male residential
discharges from The Restitution Center between 7/1/97 and 6/30/98. All but one offender
selected was included in the final analysis. One offender was omitted from the study, as
complete information regarding his post-release status could not be obtained. Therefore, the
sample size was 59 offenders. Rearrest for this sample was examined for four years following
release.
13
The sample was composed of 62.7 percent Diversion (37 clients) and 37.3 percent
Transition (22 clients). The average age was 29.8 years, with the following ethnic composition:
64.4 percent (38 clients) Caucasian (non-Hispanic), 30.5 percent (18 clients) Hispanic, and 5.1
percent (three clients) Other (African American and Native American). The average length of
residential placement was 165.2 days. The criminal history of the sample offenders included
25.4 percent (15 clients), who had a juvenile record, while 44.1 percent (26 clients) had a
previous felony conviction. Of the offenders in the sample, 50.9 percent (30 clients) completed
residential placement successfully and 49.1 percent (29 clients) terminated unsuccessfully. The
presenting offenses, the offenses for which the offender was serving time at the facility, were as
follows: 44.1 percent (26 clients) for property crimes, 23.7 percent (14 clients) for drug related
offenses, 15.3 percent (nine clients) for driving related offenses, and 16.9 percent (10 clients) for
crimes against person. The average level of education was 10 years, and 71.2 percent of this
sample successfully completed inpatient substance abuse treatment, at RTC, prior to admission.
SAMPLE 8
This sample was comprised of a random sample of 140 offenders selected from all male
discharges from the Residential Treatment Center between 7/01/97 and 6/30/98. The final
analysis was conducted with a sample of 138 offenders, as information was not available for two
offenders initially selected for the sample. Rearrest was examined for the first four years
following release.
The sample was composed of 29.7 percent Diversion (41 clients) and 70.3 percent
Transition (97 clients). The average age was 32.3 years, with the following ethnic makeup: 57.3
percent (79 clients) Caucasian (non-Hispanic), 24.6 percent (34 clients) Hispanic, and 18.1
percent (25 clients) Other (African American and Native American). Of this sample, all
14
offenders completed treatment successfully. The presenting offenses for this sample were: 39.9
percent (55 clients) property crimes, 30.4 percent (42 clients) drug related offenses, 15.2 percent
(21 clients) DARP, and 14.5 percent(20 clients) crimes against person.
SAMPLE 9
This sample was composed of a random selection from all male residential discharges
from The Restitution Center between 7/1/96 and 6/30/97. All but one offender selected was
included in the final analysis. One offender was omitted from the study, as complete information
regarding his post-release status could not be obtained. Therefore, the sample size was 59
offenders. Rearrest for this sample was examined five years following release.
The sample was composed of 62.7 percent Diversion (37 clients) and 37.3 percent
Transition (22 clients). The average age was 31.1 years, with the following ethnic composition:
52.5 percent (31 clients) Caucasian (non-Hispanic), 44.1 percent (26 clients) Hispanic, and 3.4
percent (two clients) Other (African American and Native American). The average length of
residential placement was 138.4 days. The criminal history of the sample offenders included
13.6 percent (eight clients), who had a juvenile record, while 45.8 percent (27 clients) had a
previous felony conviction. Of the offenders in the sample, 69.5 percent (41 clients) completed
residential placement successfully and 30.5 percent (18 clients) terminated unsuccessfully. The
presenting offenses, the offenses for which the offender was serving time at the facility, were as
follows: 50.9 percent (30 clients) for property crimes, 20.3 percent (12 clients) for drug related
offenses, 13.6 percent (eight clients) for DARP, and 15.3 percent (nine clients) for crimes against
person.
15
SAMPLE 10
This sample was comprised of a random sample of 140 offenders selected from all male
discharges from the Residential Treatment Center between 7/01/96 and 6/30/97. The final
analysis was conducted with a sample of 136 offenders, as information was not available for four
offenders initially selected for the sample. Rearrest was examined five years following release.
The sample was composed of 23.5 percent Diversion (32 clients) and 76.5 percent
Transition (104 clients). The average age was 31.2 years, with the following ethnic makeup:
49.3 percent (67 clients) Caucasian (non-Hispanic), 32.4 percent (44 clients) Hispanic, and 18.4
percent (25 clients) Other (African American and Native American). Of this sample, 95.6
percent (130 clients) completed successfully and 4.4 percent (six clients) were terminated
unsuccessfully. The presenting offenses for this sample were: 52.2 percent (71 clients) property
crimes, 23.5 percent (32 clients) drug related offenses, 13.2 percent (18 clients) DARP, and 11
percent(15 clients) crimes against person.
DATA ANALYSIS
SAMPLE 1
The overall recidivism rate for this cohort was 23.3 percent (14 offenders). Of the 14
arrests, nine were felonies and five were misdemeanors. A total of 76.7 percent (46 offenders)
had no record of post-release arrest.
Regarding other variables, 50 percent of recidivists were Diversion clients and 50 percent
were Transition; whereas, 56.7 percent of the total sample was Diversion. The average age of
the recidivist was 32.6, which is just 10.8 months less than the sample population. Those
rearrested spent an average of 251.6 days in residential community corrections, which is 40.5
days longer than the sample as a whole. Ethnically, the recidivists were 28.6 percent Caucasian
16
(although the sample was 60 percent Caucasian), 57.1 percent Hispanic, and 7.1 percent Other.
I Hispanics were rearrested out of proportion with their overall sample size of 35 percent. The
recidivists were less likely than the sample population to have a prior criminal history.
Approximately 71.4 percent of the recidivists had a juvenile record or prior adult felony
conviction, which compares to 80 percent in the sample population. 57.1 percent of recidivists
were negatively terminated from TRC, whereas 40 percent were negatively discharged in the
sample. Clients who were in community corrections as the result of a property crime accounted
for 42.9 percent of all recidivists, drug offenders accounted for 14.3 percent, offenders serving
time for driving-related matters made up 35.7 percent, and 7.1 percent of those rearrested were
initially serving time for crimes against a person.
SAMPLE 2
The overall rate of recidivism was 21.4 percent (30 offenders). Of the 30 arrests, 18
were felonies and 12 were misdemeanors. A total of 78.6 percent (110 offenders) had no record
of rearrest.
Of those who had a record of rearrest, 33.3 percent (10 offenders) were Diversion clients
and 66.7 percent (20 offenders) were Transition, which is not much different than the sample
population. The average age of those rearrested was 32.3 years, which is again quite similar to
the sample population of 32.08 years of age. Those rearrested represented the following ethnic
categories: 66.7 percent Caucasian (non-Hispanic), 20 percent Hispanic, and 13.3 percent Other
(African American and Native American). Clients who were in community corrections as the
result of a property crime accounted for 50 percent of all recidivists, drug offenders accounted
for 43.3 percent, offenders serving time for driving-related matters made up 3.3 percent, and 3.3
percent of those rearrested were initially serving time for crimes against a person.
17
SAMPLE 3
This sample initially comprised 60 male offenders discharged from TRC in fiscal year
99/00. This sample had a 20 percent (12 offenders) recidivism rate the first year following
release. In reviewing the records for two years following release, the sample had an overall
recidivism rate of 56.7 percent (34 of offenders). This is an increase of 36.7 percent (22
offenders). The increase is the result of 22 new arrests: nine felonies and 13 misdemeanor.
SAMPLE 4
This sample was composed of 140 male offenders discharged from RTC in fiscal year
99/00. This sample had a 26.4 percent (37 offenders) recidivism rate the first year following
release. In reviewing arrest records for two years following release, the sample had a total
recidivism rate of 42.1 percent (59 offenders). This is an increase of 15.7 percent (22
offenders). This increase represents 22 new arrests: 12 felonies and 10 misdemeanors.
SAMPLE 5
This sample initially comprised 60 male offenders discharged from TRC in fiscal year
98/99. Due to missing data, the sample used for analysis was reduced to 58 offenders. This
sample had a 20.7 percent (12 offenders) recidivism rate the first year following release. In
reviewing the records for two years following release, the sample had an overall recidivism rate
of 28.3 percent (17 offenders). In the third year from release, the overall recidivism rate is 36.6
percent (22 offenders), which is an increase of 8.3 percent (five offenders) from the prior year.
The increase was the result of five new arrests: one felony and four misdemeanors.
SAMPLE 6
This sample was composed of 140 male offenders discharged from RTC in fiscal year
98/99. Due to missing data, this sample was decreased to 138 offenders. This sample had a
18
29.7 percent (41 offenders) recidivism rate the first year following release. In reviewing arrest
records for two years following release, the sample had a total recidivism rate of 50 percent (69
offenders). In the third year from release, the overall recidivism rate is 61.6 percent (85
offenders), which is an increase of 11.6 percent (16 offenders) from the prior year. The increase
was the result of 16 new arrests: 10 felonies and six misdemeanors.
SAMPLE 7
This sample initially comprised 60 male offenders discharged from TRC in fiscal year
97/98. Due to missing data, the sample used for analysis was reduced to 59 offenders. This
sample had a 32.2 percent (19 offenders) recidivism rate the first year following release. In
reviewing the records for two years following release, the sample had an overall recidivism rate
of 49.2 percent (29 offenders). In the third year from release, the overall recidivism rate was
57.6 percent (34 offenders). In the fourth year from release, the overall recidivism rate is 59.3
percent (35 offenders), which is an increase of 1.7 percent (one offender) from the prior year.
This increase represents one new arrest: one misdemeanor.
SAMPLE 8
This sample was composed of 140 male offenders discharged from RTC in fiscal year
97/98. Due to missing data, this sample was decreased to 138 offenders. This sample had a
24.6 percent (34 offenders) recidivism rate the first year following release. In reviewing arrest
records for two years following release,the sample had a total recidivism rate of 47.8 percent(66
offenders). In the third year from release, the overall recidivism rate was 60.9 percent (84
offenders). In the fourth year from release, the overall recidivism rate is 68.1 percent (94
offenders), which is an increase of 7.2 percent (10 offenders) from the prior year. This increase
represents 10 new arrests: five felonies and five misdemeanors.
19
SAMPLE 9
This sample was originally composed of 60 male offenders discharged from TRC in
fiscal year 96/97. Due to missing data, the sample used for analysis was reduced to 59 offenders.
This sample had a 23.7 percent (14 offenders) recidivism rate the first year following release.
Two years following release, the rate had increased to 49.2 percent(29 offenders), and after three
years the overall recidivism rate was 62.7 percent (37 offenders). In the fourth year from release,
the overall recidivism rate was 67.8 percent (40 offenders). In the fifth year from release, the
overall recidivism rate is 72.9 percent (43 offenders), which is an increase of 5.1 percent (three
offenders) from the prior year. This increase represents three new arrests: three misdemeanors.
SAMPLE 10
This sample was composed of 140 male offenders discharged from RTC in fiscal year
96/97. Due to missing data, this sample was decreased to 136 offenders. This sample had a
33.8 percent (46 offenders) recidivism rate the first year following release. In the second year
following release, the sample had a total recidivism rate of 50.7 percent (69 offenders), and the
overall rate, three years following discharge, was 63.2 percent (86 offenders). In the fourth year
from release, the overall recidivism rate was 65.4 percent (89 offenders). In the fifth year from
release, the overall recidivism rate is 70.6 percent (96 offenders), which is an increase of 5.1
percent (seven offenders) from the prior year. This increase represents seven new arrests: three
felonies and four misdemeanors.
CONCLUSIONS
The overall recidivism rates, for each of the ten samples, fall within the rates found in the
literature. The rates of recidivism for the first year following release, for each sample, show that
the highest rate of rearrest most often happens within the first year. This concurs with all the
20
available literature, which also reflects that the offender will be rearrested sooner than later and
the highest rate is in the first year. Sample 1, discharges from the most recent TRC sample, did
not bear out as in the past. Most obvious is the recidivists' longer residential stay. Compared to
the sample population, those reoffending stayed in residential placement significant longer than
their non-reoffending cohort: just over 40 days. At first this would appear noteworthy, but
investigation revealed that three of the recidivists were in residential placement well over 18
months. These exceptionally long stays skewed the average higher. Without considering these
three stays, it again reflects that the recidivist remains in residential placement for a shorter
period of time than the non-recidivist.
Surprisingly, the recidivists from Samples 1 and 2 both looked very similar to their
sample population. There were few outstanding characteristics this year, with the exception of
race. For both samples, the Hispanic offender records more new arrests than the Caucasian or
Other categories. There are a multitude of theories describing social, economic, and political
reasons, none of which will be explored here. It is just noteworthy that Hispanics are arrested
disproportionately to their representation in the sample population.
As the Table insert reflects, the recidivism rate is consistent in all samples measuring
more than one year of recidivism. The rate typically begins between 20 and 34 percent, then
climbs. In no sample does the recidivism rate remain constant over any period of time. As noted
in many studies, usually the largest number of rearrests will occur in the first year. However, in
Sample 3 this year, measuring the difference between the first and second years, the rate
skyrocketed to 56.7 percent. That is 36.7 percent over the initial, first year rate of 20 percent and
unusual. There are no apparent explanations, other than it is atypical. Although the first year
rates are the highest, they tend to increase at a much slower rate in the following years. In the
21
years of conducting recidivism research with TRC and RTC, five year rates have peaked at 78.8
} percent (RTC 94/95), with a low reflected in last year's study of 67.6 (RTC 95/96).
Unfortunately, this is not unusual for criminal offenders. Studies have shown that 76 to 80
percent of offenders will recidivate within five years (Andrew and Bonta, 1994; Smith and
Akers, 1993). The numbers from the Villa programs bear this out.
Of note, is the Dowdy, et al. study (2002) which found a 34.6 percent recidivism rate, in
Larimer County Community Corrections, two years after residential discharge. This number
should be compared to the second year rates in Samples 3, 5, 7, and 9. Although Sample 3
shows a lower rate in Weld County, the rest of the Samples reflect a higher rate after two years.
It is difficult to draw noteworthy conclusions, as Larimer County was only measured for one
rate, and no longevity studies have been conducted. As has been found with the present samples,
some years are anomalous and without explanation. It is possible that the 34.6 percent rate
reflects Larimer's lowest rate, as Sample 3 does in Weld County. The rate is noteworthy, only in
the samples and methodology of the studies were quite similar.
In researching the project this year, question arose as to the prevention of recidivism. In
the past, the recommendations were a forum to address those characteristics, which are common
in recidivates, as reflected in the literature and usually in this research: younger age, longer
criminal history, substance abuse problems, lower education, and unstable employment history
or poor vocational skills. While reviewing CBI reports, it appeared that the vast majority of
misdemeanor arrests were related to two things: driving under the influence and aggressive
behavior. The driving issue appeared as DUI's, DWAI's, and HTO's; and the aggression
appeared as Third Degree Assaults, Harassment, Domestic Violence, or Restraining Order
22
Violations. It seemed logical to address the resultant behavior, as opposed to static
characteristics, which the offender cannot change, such as age and criminal history.
Because this study does not typically look at the rearrest charge but only the class,
misdemeanor or felony, there is no empirical evidence for these observations. Furthermore,
there does not appear to be extensive (if any) literature that indicates the exact types of crimes,
which recidivists commit. It will be recommended that future recidivism studies begin to include
the types of charges, in addition to the class. It is hypothesized that the majority of new
misdemeanor charges will fall into on of the two aforementioned categories. If this is the case, it
would make sense to address these issues specifically, prior to discharge, even if the offender
does not have a criminal history or behaviors to indicate these problems as areas of need. It may
be prudent to begin exploring the possibilities of incorporating ways of addressing drunk driving
and aggressive behavior, so as to make implementation quicker; as each rearrest creates another
victim in our community.
RECOMMENDATIONS
These recommendations are in addition to previous suggestions. They are the result of
ongoing results of this study, as well as observations of CBI records. The Villa is encouraged to
begin exploring the use of different models to address driving under the influence and aggressive
behavior. While reviewing CBI records, it appeared as though these two issues are very
common with recidivists. It is important to continue to address education, substance abuse, and
employment issues, but it may be prudent to also begin looking at the charges for which
offenders are being rearrested.
THE RESTITUTION CENTER
I. Offer quarterly MADD Impact Panels, with mandated attendance.
23
2. Require completion of conflict resolution group or series of classes.
} 3. Continue to address criminogenic needs through the availability of onsite groups/classes.
4. Educate staff about the higher risk of recidivism for the younger offender with a criminal
history, educational deficits, and poor work history or unstable employment.
5. Conduct frequent audits to ensure criminogenic needs are identified through valid
instruments and addressed in caseplans.
6. Continue with recidivism study, but focus on offender behavior, rather than offender
characteristics.
7. Continue with longevity studies to determine effectiveness of changes.
RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT CENTER
1. Review educational piece of DUI treatment to determine adaptability to program and to
address drinking and driving.
2. Review program to enhance anger management skills, problem solving, and/or conflict
resolution.
3. Ensure aftercare recommendations address unmet criminogenic needs, identified through
assessment, history, and observation.
4. Educate staff regarding the characteristics of offenders at higher risk for recidivism.
5. Continue with recidivism study, but focus on offender behavior, rather than offender
characteristics.
6. Continue with longevity studies to determine effectiveness of changes.
LIMITATIONS
Recidivism rates are difficult to measure and its definition can change with different
researchers. It is common, but not standard, to use arrest reports in measuring such rates. This
24
may be misleading, as all arrests do not lead to convictions and all convictions do not start with
an arrest. Additionally, any inaccurate information inherent in CBI reports will be duplicated in
the statistics of this report.
In this study, arrest reports were procured from the CBI; hence, the arrest reports are
limited to the state of Colorado. It is possible a client has reoffended in another state but does
not appear as a recidivate in this report. Also, it is known that local law enforcement does not
always report the correct information on the arrest. Moreover, the researcher on this project may
not interpret the CBI reports with complete accuracy, which will again cause the duplicate error
in the current report.
This study examines rearrest records from one to five years after discharge. This can
skew the results, because offenders may continue to recidivate long after this time period. In one
long term study, Hanson, Sott, and Steffy (1995) found that 83.2 percent of offenders in their 137
male offender sample had been reconvicted within 15 to 30 years after release. Although the
current study is limited by the length of examination, its consistency lends itself for annual
review and ongoing study.
One other limitation is found within the judiciary. Over the course of this study, what
was once a felony, may now be considered a misdemeanor, or vice versa. For example, at the
onset of this research, in the mid-90's, Driving under Revocation Prohibited was a class six
felony in the state of Colorado. Today, the same offense is considered a misdemeanor. Even
though the rearrest will still be registered, it does effect the comparative value in a limited way.
The reader should consider the above and evaluate the results under these limitations.
However, every effort has been made to maintain consistent methods, definitions, and standards
in order to ensure consistency for the population exclusive to this particular study.
25
LIST OF WORKS CITED
Allen, Leanna C., Doris L. MacKenzie, and Laura J. Hickman. 2001. "The Effectiveness of
Cognitive Behavioral Treatment for Adult Offenders: A Methodological, Quality-Based
Review." International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 45:498-514.
Anderson, S. V. 1995. "Evaluation of the Impact of Correctional Education Programs on
Recidivism." Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, p 28.
Applegate, Brandon, Ray Surette, and Bernard McCarthy. 1999. "Detention and Distance from
Crime: Evaluating the Influence of a New Generation Jail on Recidivism." Journal of Criminal
Justice 27: 539-548.
Bagley, Cynthia. 1996. "A Grassroots Approach to Reducing Recidivism." Corrections Today
58:96.
Belenko, Steven, Jeffrey A Fagan, and Tamara Dumanovsky. 1994. "The Effects of the Legal
Sanction on Recidivism in Special Drug Courts." The Justice System Journal 17:53.
Benda, Brent B. 2001. "Factors that Discriminate Between Recidivists, Parole Violators, and
Non-recidivists in a Three Year Follow-up of Boot Camp Graduates." International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 45:711-729.
Benedict, W.R., L. Huff-Corzine, and J. Corzine. 1998. "Clean Up and Go Straight: Effects of
Drug Treatment on Recidivism Among Felony Probationers." American Journal of Criminal
Justice 22:169-187.
Bonta, James, Suzanne Wallace-Capretta, and Jennifer Rooney. 2000. "A Quasi Experimental
Evaluation on an Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program" Criminal Justice and Behavior
27:312-329.
Butzin, Clifford A., Steven S. Martin, and James A. Inciardi. 2002. "Evaluating Component
Effects of a Prison-based Treatment Continuum." Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 22:63-
69.
Bryan, B., N. Arrigona, T. Reed, and L. Riechers. 1996. "Recidivism of Offenders in
Community Corrections: The Record So Far."NIJ/NCJRS Paper p19.
Chavaria, Frederick. 1997. "Probation and Cognitive Skills."Federal Probation 61:57-60.
Clayton, O. and T. Can. 1987. "An Empirical Assessment of the Effects of Prison Crowding
Upon Recidivism Utilizing Aggregate Level Data."Journal of Criminal Justice 15:201.
26
DeJong, Christina. 1997. "Survival Analysis and Specific Deterrence: Integrating Theoretical
and Empirical Models of Recidivism."Criminology 35:561.
Demleitner, Nora. 2002. "Collateral Damage: No Re-entry for Drug Offenders. Villanova Law
Review 47:1027-1054.
Dowdy, Eric, Michael Lacy, and N. Prabha Unnithan. 2002. "Correctional Prediction and the
Level of Supervision Inventory."Journal of Criminal Justice 30:29-39.
Farrall, Stephen. 1999. "The Criminal Recidivism Process." British Journal of Criminology
39:462.
Field, Gary. 1989. "The Effects of Intensive Treatment on Reducing the Criminal Recidivism of
Addicted Offenders." Federal Probation 53:51.
Florida Department of Corrections. 2001. "Analysis of the Impact of Inmate Program upon
Recidivism." State of Florida Publication.
Friday, P.C. and R.A. Wertkin. 1995. "Residential Probation Centers: The Impact of
Programming and Race on Recidivism." Intermediate Sanctions: Sentencing in the 1990's, NCJ
167581:16.
Gallitano, George. 2002. "Identifying Predictive Correlational Variables in Male Recidivistic
Criminal Offenders." The Humanities and Social Sciences 63:1569-1570.
Griffith, James, Matthew Hiller, Kevin Simpson, and D. Dwayne. 1999. "A Cost-Effective
Analysis of In-Prison Therapeutic Community Treatment and Risk Classification." Prison
Journal 79:352-368.
Hartmann, David J., Paul C. Friday, and Kevin I Minor. 1994. "Residential Probation A Seven
Year Follow-up Study of Halfway House Discharges."Journal of Criminal Justice 22:503.
Hiller, Matthew. 1999. "Prison-Based Substance Abuse Treatment, Residential Aftercare, and
Recidivism."Addiction 94:833-842.
Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. 1986. "Impact of Prior Criminal History on
Recidivism in Illinois."NCJRS Document B0787:12.
Jancic, M. 1998. "Does Correctional Education Have an Effect on Recidivism?" Journal of
Correctional Education 49:152-161.
Jones, M. and B. Sims. 1997. "Recidivism of Offenders Released from Prison in North Carolina:
A Gender Comparison." Prison Journal 77:335.
27
Lanza-Kaduce, Lonn, Karen Parker, and Charles Thomas. 1999. "A Comparative Recidivism
Analysis of Releases from Private and Public Prisons in Florida." Crime and Delinquency 45:
28-47.
Mahone, Melvin. 2002. "What are the Economic Feasibility and Social Impact of Privatized
Prisons in America?"The Humanities and Social Sciences 63:1139.
Miller, M.L. and B. Hobler. 1996. "Delaware's Life Skills Program Reduces Inmate
Recidivism."Corrections Today 58:114, 116-117,143.
Murphy, Cristopher, Peter Musser, and Kenneth Muton. 1998. "Coordinated Community
Intervention for Domestic Abusers: Intervention System Involvement and Criminal Recidivism."
Journal of Family Violence 13:263.
Peters, R. H. 2000. "Effectiveness of Treatment-Based Drug Courts in Reducing Criminal
Recidivism."Criminal Justice and Behavior 27:72-96.
Pendergast, Michael, Douglas Anglin, and Jean Wellisch. 1995. "Treatment for Drug Abusing
Offenders under Community Supervision."Federal Probation 59:66.
Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council. 1992. "Recidivism in the Texas Criminal Justice
System."NCJRS Document B2320:17.
Smith, Linda and Ronald Akers. 1993. "A Comparison of Recidivism of Florida's Community
Control and Prison: A Five Year Survival Analysis." Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency 30:267.
Spohn, Cassia, R.K. Piper, Tom Martin and Erika Davis Frenzel. 2001. "Drug Courts and
Recidivism: The Results of an Evaluation Using Two Comparison Groups and Multiple
Indicators of Recidivism." Journal of Drug Issues 31:149-176.
Stanz, Robert and Richard Tewksbury. 2000. "Predictors of Success and Recidivism in a Home
Incarceration Program." Prison Journal 80:326-344.
Steiger, J.C. and D. Guthmann. 1986. "Recidivism Among Criminal Offenders: A Review Of the
Literature." Washington State Department of Social and Health Services,p 45.
United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
1989. "Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983." (Special Report Series) Washington, DC.
United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
1992. "Recidivism of Felons on Probation." (Special Report Series) Washington, DC.
Van Stelle, Kit R., Elizabeth Mauser, and D. Paul Moberg. 1994. "Recidivism to the Criminal
Justice System of Substance Abusing Offenders Diverted into Treatment." Crime and
Delinquency 40:175
28
Wexler, Harry, George Deleon, George Thomas, David Kressel, and Jean Peters. 1999. "The
Amity Prison Therapeutic Community Evaluation: Reincarceration Outcomes." Criminal Justice
and Behavior 26:147.
Yeboah, David. 2000. "The Evaluation of New Zealand's Habilitation Centre Pilot Programme."
Journal of Criminal Justice 28:227-235.
29
Hello