HomeMy WebLinkAbout20001381.tiff ANNUAL RECIDIVISM STUDY
COMPLETED FOR WELD COUNTY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
Written by,
Dana Wilks, MA
April25, 2000
4f aye 4
����� 2000-1381
INTRODUCTION
In order to track the recidivism rates of clients discharged from the Restitution
Center (TRC) and the Residential Treatment Center (RTC), the Weld County
Community Corrections Board (WCCCB) funded an initial study in 1992. Subsequent
studies were conducted for residential discharges in fiscal years 94/95, 95/96, and
96.'97. !n the fall of 1999, WCCCB again funded the annual study of recidivism, as well
as longitudinal studies of recidivism for the previous samples.
This report is based on the results of studying several samples. Involved are
eight samples: offenders from TRC and RTC, who were released from residential
placement during fiscal year 94/95, for whom recidivism rates are examined four years
after discharge; offenders from TRC and RTC, who were released from residential
placement during fiscal year 95/96, for whom recidivism rates are examined Three years
after discharge; offenders from TRC and RTC, who were released from residential
placement during fiscal year 96/97, for whom recidivism rates are examined two years
after discharge; and offenders from TRC and RTC, who were released from residential
placement during fiscal year 97/98, for whom recidivism rates are examined one year
after discharge.
In the following report, a brief review of other recidivism studies is discussed, a
description of the methods employed will be presented, and then a description of
current findings will be described.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In the past, recidivism has been studied in many different forms. Unfortunately,
the recidivism rates of offenders placed in community corrections programs has not
been examined in detail. Therefore, 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.
The literature commonly defines recidivism as an arrest for a misdemeanor or
felony matter following release from supervision (Jones and Sims, 1997; Colorado
judicial Department, 1995 and 1997; VanSteile, Mauser, and Moberg, 1994; Hartmann,
Friday, and Minor, 1994). This is accomplished by reviewing arrest records provided by
local, state, and/or federal agencies (Jones and Sims, 1997; Van Stelle, Mauser, and
Moberg. 1994; Hartmann, Friday, and Minor, 1994). 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 1SP
are prison diversion programs with similar types of offenders.
Results indicate that the highest rate of recidivism occurs within the first 12
months following release from supervision (Wexler, Deleon, Thomas, Kressel, and
Peters, 1999; Bryan, Arrigona, Reed, and Riechers, 1996; Steiger and Guthmann,
1986). Longevity studies find that the rate continues to increase each year, but the
number of rearrests is not as dramatic as 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 from release to a high of 80 percent after five years (Lanza-Kaduce and
Parker, 1998; Smith and Akers, 1993). For offenders placed in community-based
programs, such as community corrections or ISP, the rate is comparative. Rates range
2
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. 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 recidivism studies over the past three
years. 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 erci 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 (Wexler, et al., 1999; Murphy, Musser, and Muton,
1998; Bryan, et al., 1996; DeJong, 1997; Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 1992;
Clayton and Carr, 1987; Steiger and Guthmann, 1986). Secondly, the defendant's
criminal history appears to be significant. Studies have found that clients with juvenile
criminal histories are more likely to recidivate than those without juvenile records (Texas
Criminal Justice Policy Council, 1992; Steiger and Guthmann, 1986; Illinois Criminal
Justice Information Authority, 1986). Additionally, prior adult arrests and/or convictions
appear to increase the probability of rearrest (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 Criminai 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 are higher in offenders who have been convicted of property or drug-related
o imc (Bryan et al., 1996; Texas Criminal Justice. Foiicy Council, 1992; Stcigcr end'
Guthmar i, 1986).
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 result in
lower recidivism. For those addicted to substances, results are beginning to concur that
treatment reduces the likelihood of reerrest. in three studies, rates of those who
successfully completed substance abuse treatment were lower (Wexler, et al., 1999;
VanStelle, et al., 1994; Field, 1989). The studies had the following results, respectively:
67.1 percent of prison completers reoffended two years after release versus 43.3
percent of non-completers, 43 percent of community-based completers reoffended 18
months after release versus 74 percent of non-completers, and 63 percent of parolees
recidivated in three years versus 79 percent of non-completers. Bagley (1996) found
that 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. It is
common to find lower recidivism rates in populations that have participated in
programming intended to improve their education,.employment opportunities, cognitive
• 4
skills, and behavior (Farrall, 1999; Murphy, et al., 1998; Texas Criminal Justice Policy
Council, 1992).
DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAMS
The Restitution Center is a 130-bed community corrections facility for non-violent
offenders. It 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 and/or therapeutic programs. TRC offers the
following in-house services: GED classes, substance abuse education, and financial
budgeting. TRC residential supervision services 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 61 bed certified, intensive
residential treatment center, servicing substance abusing felons from various referring
agencies. RTC accepts primarily non-violent offenders under the supervision of the
Department of Corrections, Parole, Probation, or Community Corrections. The length of
stay is approximately 45 days. During their placement, the clients 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 for the
5
established time period after release from residential placement. Arrest information was
gathered through records received from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Eight 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
discharged from the designated facility for the time period studied. A random number
table was ernployed 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), the sample size has been slightly
reduced due to problems such as missing records and inaccurate information. A
detailed description of each sample follows.
SAMPLE 1
This sample s 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 the first year following release.
The sample was composed of 37 Diversion clients and 22 Transition. The
average age was 29.78 years, with the following ethnic composition: 64.4 percent
Caucasian (non-Hispanic), 30.5 percent Hispanic, and 5.1 percent 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 who
6
had a juvenile record, while 44.1 percent had a previous felony conviction. Of the
offenders in the sample, 50.9 percent completed residential placement successfully and
49.1 percent terminated unsuccessfully. The presenting offenses, the offenses for
which the offender was serving time at the facility, were as follows: 15.3 percent for
Driving After Revocation Prohibited (DARP), 23.7 percent for drug related offenses,
44.1 percent for property crimes, and 16.9 percent for crimes against person. Th,o
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 2
This sample was comprised of a random sample of 140 offenders selected form all male
discharges from the Residential Treatment Center during fiscal year 97/98. The final
an^,�gib was conducted with a sample of 138 offenders, as information was not
availabl : for two offenders initially selected for the sample. Rearrest was examined for
the first year immediately following release.
The sample was composed of 41 Diversion clients and 97 Transition. The
average age was 32.31 years, with the following ethnic makeup: 57.3 Caucasian (non-
Hispanic), 24.6 Hispanic, and 18.1 Other (African-American and Native American. Of
this sample, ail offenders completed treatment successfully. The presenting offenses
for this sample were: 15.2 percent DARP, 30.4 percent drug related offenses, 39.9
percent property crimes, and 14.5 percent crimes against person.
SAMPLE 3
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
fox two years following release.
The sample was composed of 37 Diversion clients and 22 Transition. The
with the following ethnic composition: 52.5 percent
r;:.crage age was 3 ; .1 years, .�
Caucasian (non-Hispanic), 44.1 percent Hispanic, and 3.4 percent 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 who
had a juvenile record, while 45.8 percent had a previous felony conviction. Of the
offenders in the sample, 69.5 percent completed residential placement successfully and
30.5 percent terminated unsuccessfully. The presenting offenses, the ertenses for
which the offender was serving time at the facility, were as follows: 13.6 percent for
Driving After Revocation Prohibited (DARP), 20.3 percent for drug related offenses,
50.9 percent for property crimes, and 15.3 percent for crimes against person.
SAMPLE 4
This sample was comprised of a random sample of 140 offenders selected form all male
discharges from the Residential Treatment Center during fiscal year 96x'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 for
two years immediately following release.
The sample was composed of 32 Diversion clients and 104 Transition. The
average ace was 31 .2 years, with the following ethnic makeup: 49.3 percent Caucasian
s
(non-Hispanic), 32.4 percent Hispanic, and 18.4 percent Other (African-American and
Native American). Of this sample, 1.30 offenders completed successfully and six were
terminated unsuccessfully. The presenting offenses for this sample were: 13.2 percent
DARP, 23.5 percent drug related offenses, 52.2 percent property crimes, and 11
percent crimes against person.
SAMPLE S
This sample was selected from all residential discharges from TRC during fiscal year
95/96 and rearrest was examined for three years immediately following residential
discharge. It included 57 male offenders, composed of 46 Diversion clients and 11
Transition. The average age of this sample was 29.9. The ethnic composition was 45.6
percent Caucasian (non-Hispanic), 50.9 percent Hispanic, and 3.5 percent Other
(African-American and Native American). The average lengt`, of residential placement
was 145.6 days. The criminal history of the offenders included 30.4 percent who had a
juvenile record and 45.6 percent who had previous adult felony convictions. Of the
offenders in this sample, 71.9 percent successfully completed their residential
placement and 28.1 percent were terminated unsuccessfully. The presenting offenses,
those offenses for which the offenders were serving time in the facility, were as follows:
24.6 percent for Driving After Revocation Prohibited (DARP), 17.5 percent for drug
related offenses, 43.9 percent for property crimes and 14 percent for crimes against
person.
SAMPLE 6
This sample included 136 male offenders discharged from the Residential Treatment
Center in fiscal year 95/96, and rearrest was examined for the three years immediately
9
following release. Records could not be located for four offenders, so the sample was
reduced to 136. The sample was composed of 53 Diversion clients and 83 Transition.
The average age was 31 .6, with the following ethnic makeup: 49.3 percent Caucasian
(non-Hispanic), 23.6 percent Hispanic, and 27.1 percent Other (African-American and
Native American). Of this sample, all successfully completed the treatment program.
1.
offense , on ieCOCd for this sample, were as follows: 10.7 pCi Gam.-7it for
DAP.P, 30.7 percent for drug related offenses, 51 .4 percent for property crimes, and 7.2
percent for crimes against person.
SAMPLE 7
This sample included 57 offenders discharged from The Restitution Center in fiscal year
94/95, and rearrest was examined for four years immediately following discharge from
residential placement.
SAMPLE 8
This sample included 132 male offenders discharged from the Residential Treatment
Center in fiscal year 94/95, and rearrest rates were examined for four years immediately
following discharge from placement.
Upon gathering data, all information was coded and entered into the computer for
analysis. Computer programs used included Microsoft Excel and Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences (SPSS).
to
DATA ANALYSIS
SAMPLE 9
Recidivism — The overall recidivism rate was 32.2 percent (19 offenders). Of the 19
rearrests, seven were misdemeanors and 12 were felonies. A total of 67.8 percent (40
offenders) had no record of rearrest.
RECIDIVISIM AFTER ONE YEAR
12%.
❑Misd.
20% 0 Felonies
`❑No Rearrest Record
68%°
Other variables — Of those who had a record of rearrest, 52.6 percent, were Diversion
clients. Compared to the sample as a whole, fewer Diversion clients were rearrested
than Transition. Transition clients represented 37.3 percent of the sample, but
composed 47.4 percent of all offenders rearrested. The average age of those
rearrested was 28.5 years, slightly lower than the sample average of 29.8. Those
rearrested represented the following ethnic categories: 42.1 percent Caucasian (non-
Hispanic), 42.1 percent Hispanic, and 15.8 percent of African-American or Native
American descent. The average length of stay was shorter than the sample. Those
that were rearrested were in residential placement for an average of 137.7 days. This is
27.5 days shorter than the sample, which had an average length of stay of 165.2 days.
There was little difference between the sample and the recidivates regarding
11
juvenile criminal history. In the sample 25.4 percent had a juvenile record, compared to
26.3 percent of recidivates. To the contrary, offenders with a prior adult felony
conviction on their record composed 44.1 percent of the overall sample and made up
26.3 of those who were rearrested. Offenders with rearrest records were somewhat
more likely to have been negatively terminated from TRC. In the sample, 49.2 percent
were negatively discharged, whereas 68.4 percent of rocidivates were terminated
unsuccessfully. Lastly, offenders who had served time at TRC for property crimes and
crimes against person were rearrested more often than the offenders serving time fcr
driving or drug related crimes. Offenders serving a sentence for property crimes
composed 44.1 percent of the sample but represented 52.6 percent of all those
rearrested. Additionally, offenders serving time for crimes against a person represented
16.9 percent of the somnin slid 21 .1 percent of those rearrested.
ADN11 T TlNG CRIME SAMPLE VS RECIDIVISTS
50,
40 • •
❑Sample
30-r- I
O Recidivists
1
Property Drug-related Driving Against Persor
SAMPLE 2
Recidivism — The overall rate of recidivism was 24.6 percent (34 offenders). Of the 34
arrests, 10 were misdemeanors, 16 were felonies, and 8 were for offenses that could
12
not be dearly determined as to what class. A total of 75.3 percent (104 offenders) had
no record of rearrest.
RECIDIVISM AFTER ONE YEAR
7%
❑Misd.
r<`' 6% p Felonies
o Unclassified Arrest
O No Record of Rearrest
Other variables - Of those who had a record of rearrest, 20.6 percent (7 offenders) were
Diversion clients and 79.4 percent (27 offenders) were Transition. The average age of
those rearrested was 30.12 years, 1.08 years younger than the sample average of 31.2
years. Those rearrested represented the following ethnic categories: 52.9 percent
Caucasian (non-Hispanic), 29.4 percent Hispanic, and 18.1 percent Other (African-
American and Native American). As with Sample 1, those serving time at RTC for
property crimes were rearrested more often than in the sample. Of those rearrested,
52.9 percent were convicted of property crimes; whereas, 39.9 percent of the sample
were serving time for property crimes.
13
ADMITTING CRIME SAMPLE VS RECIDIVISTS
•
•
60
50
•
ao
Sample
2Recidivists
®
Wit} A
0
Property Drug-related Driving Against person
SAMPLE 3
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
release. In reviewing the records for two years following release, the sample
following
had an overall recidivism rate of 49.2 percent (29 offenders). This was an increase of
25.4 percent (15 offenders). The increase was the result of 15 new arrests: five felonies
and ten misdemeanors.
RECIDIVISM AFTER 2 YEARS
•
• 50 •
a
40 • ;ra o%rem arrested
i
30
•
20 I I
0 1st Year 2nd Year
if
SAMPLE 4
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
reviewing arrest records for two years following release, the sample had a total
recidivism rate of 50.7 percent (69 offenders). This is on increase of 16.9 percent (23
offenders). This increase represents 23 new arrests: 15 felonies and eight
misdemeanors.
RECIDIVISM AFTER TWO YEARS
60J f <t
507 !!! t
40
.11,j1-7-7
= �,- 1❑%rearrested r
z0%�
0
1st Year 2nd Year
SAMPLE 5
This sample was originally composed of 60 male offenders discharged from TRC in
fiscal year 95/96. Due to missing data, the sample used for analysis was reduced to 57
offenders. This sample had an overall recidivism rate of 26.3 percent (15 offenders) the
first year following release and 47.34percent (27 offenders) for two years following
release. In the third year from release, the sample had an overall recidivism rate of 61 .4
percent (35 offenders). This was an increase of 14.0 percent (8 offenders). The
increase was the result of 8 new arrests: three felonies and five misdemeanors.
c5
RECIDIVISM AFTER 3 YEARS
60A .
40-7: ry 4 ❑°,;aarrested
1st Year 2nd Year 3rd'(ear
SAMPLE 6
This sample was composed of 140 male offenders discharged from RTC in fiscal year
95/96. Due to missing data, this sample was decreased to 136 offenders. This sample
had an overall recidivism rate of 26.5 percent (36 offenders) the first year following
release and 41 .2 percent (56 offenders) two years foiiovfing release. In the third year,
the sample lad a iuLai recidivism rate of 60.3 percent
82 offenders). This is an increase
of 19.1 percent (26 offenders). This increase represents 26 new arrests: 12 felonies, 11
misdemeanors, and three unclassified.
RECIDIVISM AFTER THREE YEARS
60-'
5040
f
30 r �
O%rearrested10
0 3rd Year
1st Year 2nd Year
16
SAMPLE 7
This sample was originally composed of 60 male offenders discharged from TRC in
fiscal year 94/95. Due to missing date, the sample was reduced to 57 offenders. The
overall recidivism rate for this sample was 40.4 percent (23 offenders) for the first year,
42.1 percent (24 offenders) the second year, and 56.1 (32 offenders) in the third year.
Four years after residential discharge, the overall recidivism rate has risen to 33.2 (36
offenders). The increase represents one new felony arrest and three misdemeanors.
•
RECIDIVISM AFTER FOUR YEARS
70-1
60-1. O1st Year
mm
50'� ❑
i.+ O2nd Year
�-- •
30�-- ��; ; _ :�i® ❑3rd Year
20-1— IA la O4th Year
10-/L , l
i� • M APRIZZAM
1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year
SAMPLE 8
This sample was initially composed of 140 male offenders discharged from RTC in fiscal
year 94/95. Due to missing data, the sample was reduced to 132 offenders. The
sample had an overall recidivism rate of 37.1 percent (49 offenders) after the first year
following discharge, 50.8 percent (67 offenders) following the second year, and 61.4
percent (81 offenders) after the third year. Four years after residential discharge, the
overall recidivism rate has risen to 71.9. (95 offenders). The increase is composed of
eight new felonies, five new misdemeanors, and one unclassified arrest.
17
RECIDIVISM AFTER 4 YEARS
80
801
40 `■ .11
%rearrested
20
IY,.."NOVO fir fu:...
0
1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year
CONCLUSIONS
With the completion of another year of study, patterns are emerging, which allow
us to begin making ,enet aiizat uns from the samples of TRC and RTC, as well as the
literature. Common traits of recidivists include age, length of stay, type of crime, and
discharge status. Among the recidivists in this study and earlier studies cited, the
recidivist is somewhat younger than the average population. Secondly, the recidivists
length of stay in residential community corrections tends to be shorter, significantly
shorter in some cases. Although the type of admitting crime has not proven significant
yet, it is beginning to appear that the most dangerous, those convicted of crimes against
persons, are not reoffending as often. This is good news for the safety of our
community. Lastly, the defendant's discharge status seems to effect the possibility of
rearrest. It appears that recidivists tend to discharge negatively from residential
community corrections more often than the sample population. This applies only to
TRC, because of the insignificance of negative discharge from RTC.
18
So what can we infer from this data? Stephen Farrell (1999) stated, "recidivists
do not face problems that are unique to them — but rather it is poor coping techniques
employed by the recidivists which get them back in trouble." This statement sums the
literature regarding program involvement. Consistently, studies have found that
increased participation in programs (i.e.: education., cognitive skill building, substance
abuse) significantly reduces the probability of rearrest. The same conclusion may be
drawn from this study.. The recidivist stays in residential community corrections for a
period significantly shorter than his non-reoffending counterpart. Without ample time,
the recidivist is unable to participate in the programs necessary to learn adequate
coping skills. Secondly, the study has shown that the recidivist tends to discharge
negatively from placement. In this case, he has obviously not successfully completed
9
the recom:ni.r.:—.; programs.
These fin dingo are substantial in that they provide the System with dynamic
factors that can be addressed. Although we cannot effect the defendant's age or
criminal conviction, we can intervene with programs. Increased programming has
appeared to reduce the number of recidivists and increase their length of stay at
community corrections. Both may decrease the recidivism rate in the future.
RECOMMENDATIONS
TRC — Because program participation and length of stay appear significant,
recommendations include both. To begin, it is crucial the offender immediately begin
placement in programming. As we know shorter lengths of stay are imperative for
success, it is recommended participation begins immediately. Although substance
abuse classes are offered in-house, it is suggested that a cognitive skills or problem
19
solving class also be offered immediately. Often, this type of class is suspended until
the offender can afford it. This can take several months, as the defendant must first find
employment, make payments to Court obligations, and maintain subsistence payments
for placement. The present paradigm allows newly admitted offenders minimal time in
the community. It may be beneficial to test this theory and submerse the new offender
into numerous programs, provided at no cost, in the community. For example, job skills
training through Vocational Rehabilitation, educational improvement through Right to
Read, or Victim Empathy courses in conjunction with the County Jail or probation.
Not only is immediate participation important, the efforts should even more
concentrated on the populations that are appearing more at risk. The longevity piece of
this study is beginning to show that the younger offenders are reoffending more often
than the general community corrections population. It is recommended that theses.
ind;vidL;als are the first group to begin making changes with, regarding case planning
The assigned case manager must make additional efforts to ensure the younger client's
immediate placement in programs. Further, these younger clients should not be
considered for stays considered shorter than average. These offenders should be
considered at greater risk if they are serving time for multiple crimes, have numerous
prior adult arrests, or an extensive juvenile history.
Lastly, given the fact that the majority of rearrests occur within the first 12
months following residential placement, TRC may consider providing even more
intensive supervision to nonresidential clients immediately following discharge from
residential. Nonresidential already has levels of supervision but finding ways to
increase supervision for the first 90 to 120 days following residential may be beneficial.
20
•
It may be as simple as requesting daily call-ins or targeting the offenders who seem to
be most at risk: younger, with fairly short residential stays and extensive criminal
histories.
Therefore, the following recommendations are given:
1. Continue one-year recidivism studies to develop a better understanding of the
higher risk offender.
2. Continue longevity studies, only for a limited time (possibly five years), to map
the patterns of reoffenders.
3. Require longer residential stays for higher risk populations: young clients with
extensive histories. •
4. Require immediate participation in programming for all offenders, disregarding
financial status.
S. Provide increased in-house services such as cognitive-based classes or victim
empathy.
RTC — The Residential Treatment Center may benefit from exploring the offender's
plans for the year following treatment. Following substance abuse assessments, as
well as assessments of the offender's criminogenic needs, referrals should be made
which increase the likelihood of the offender participating. As with TRC, it may be
prudent to address the needs of younger offenders differently than the older offenders.
A case plan that includes continuing education, job skill improvement, and cognitive-
based training would be beneficial.
The following recommendations are suggested:
21
1 . Continue to conduct one-year recidivism studies to better define the higher risk
populations.
2. Continue to conduct longevity studies, but for a limited time (possibly five years),
to map the patterns of reoffenders.
3. Develop case plans, which ensure significant involvement in programs as part of
aftercare.
4. Make staff aware of the increased risk to reoffend that may be more common
with the younger offender with an extensive criminal history.
LIMITATIONS
It is important to remember that recidivism rates are difficult to measure. It is
common for researchers to use rearrest reports in measuring such rates. This may be
misleading, as all arrests do no necessary lead +o convictions. Furthermore, any
inaccurate information inherent in the CBI reports is duplicated in the statistics of this
report.
. In this study, arrest reports were procured from the CBI; hence, the rearrest
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. To the contrary,
recidivism rates are based on rearrests and not new convictions. It is a fact that arrest
does not always lead to conviction. Therefore, recidivism rates should not be
considered as new convictions.
Additionally, recidivism tends to be measured in short time periods following
release from supervision. Studies often examine rearrest records from six to 18
months. This can skew the results, because offenders may continue to recidivate long
22
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. The present study examined offenders after periods
of one, two, and three years. This may limit the scope of the study, but it lends itself for
annual review and ongoing exam.
•
23
LIST OF WORKS CITED
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.
Bryan, B., N. Arrigcna,T. Reed, and L. Riechers. 1996. "Rcoidivism of Offenders in
Community Corrections: The Record So Far." NIJ/NCJRS Paper p19.
Clayton, O. and T. Carr. 1987. "An Empirical Assessment of the Effects of Prison
Crowding Upon Recidivism Utilizing Aggregate Level Data." Journal of Criminal Justice
15:201.
DeJong, Christina. 1997. "Survival Analysis and Specific Deterrence: Integrating
Theoretical and Empirical Models of Recidivism." Criminology 35:561.
Farrail, Stephen. 1999. "The Criminal Recidivism Process." British Journal of
Criminology 39:462.
Ft-:2:ts. sf_lnLensive Treatment on Reducing the
fl + I
Recidivism of Addicted Offenders." Federal. Probation 53:51.
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.
Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. 1986. "Impact of Prior Criminal History on
Recidivism in Illinois." NCJRS Document B0787:12.
Jones, M. and B. Sims. 1997. "Recidivism of Offenders Released from Prison in North
Carolina: A Gender Comparison." Prison Journal 77:335.
Lanza-Kaduce, Lonn and Karen F. Parker. 1998. "A Comparative Recidivism Analysis
of Releases from Private and Public Prisons in Florida." Private Corrections Project,
University of Florida.
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. .
Prendergast, 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 Analysis."of RJournalsm of ofR Fr o dais
Community Control and Prison: A Five Year Survival An y
Crime and Delinquency 30:267.
Steiger, J.C., and D. Guthmann. 1986. "Recidivism Among Criminal Offenders: A
Review Of the Literature." Washington State Department of Social and Health
Ser✓ices: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
�, :.,,, �1 J rr,• rY::: ge-Daleo,;;.-George Thomas, David Kressel,,and
"The Amity Prison Therap'utic Community Evaluation: Reincarceration Outcomes."
Criminal Justice and Behavior 26:147.
Hello