Governor s Community Corrections Advisory Council Meeting Minutes

Governor s Community Corrections Advisory Council Meeting Minutes DATE: July 19, 2013 CHAIRPERSON: Judge Christopher Cross CO: CHAIRPERSON Shannon Carst ATTENDEES: Jeanne Davis, Doug Erler, Joe Ferrando, Charles Garcia, Thomas Giacinti, Harriet Hall, Steve Hager, Greg Mauro, Dianne Tramutola-Lawson, Jeanne Smith, Kathy Otten, Eric Philp, Kailash Jaitly, Eric Philp, John Riley, Dr. Anthony Young. Tamar Wilson, EXCUSED: Mesach Rhoades, GUESTS: Dave Cutler, Brad Kamby, Gina Shimeal, Michelle Monzingo, Jeaneene Miller, Linda Angell, Angie Riffel, Heather Salazar, Scott Gallagher, DCJ STAFF: DCJ Staff: Laura Altobelli, Valarie Schamper, Alex Walker, Glenn Tapia, Kim English, Mindy Miklos, Jim Pyle, Barry Pardus The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. Tom Giacinti made a motion to approve the minutes. There were no revisions to the minutes this time. Agenda Topics: 1. Condition of Probation Placements in Community Corrections (Eric Philp) Eric Philp: The discussion between DCJ and Probation about placing probationers in community corrections treatment beds began about two years ago. Senate Bill 250 allows for probationers, both misdemeanants and felons, to be placed in community corrections to receive treatment. All of the IRT beds potentially available to probationers for IRT are in the Denver metro area, without an adequate supply of beds available for other probationers throughout Colorado. There are no other resources for treatment beds in other parts of the state, without Senate Bill 250. The statewide Correctional Treatment Fund is authorized by statute to be used to pay the differential for those beds. With the passage of SB 250, the courts are able to refer people on probation for treatment to the boards, which have the duty to reject or accept. The Correctional Treatment Funds allocated to probation will pay for those treatment beds. It is suggested that the need be assessed and those funds be placed in the DCJ budget from Probation, before any placements are made, so that there is not a process of billing and rebilling to Probation from DCJ after the fact. Meetings with chief probations officers to review SB 250 will begin, and the discussion will begin with the judges, who can make referrals to these treatment beds. Glenn Tapia remarked that the Council has that three judicial districts have already begun planning probation placements in IRT using local-level probation funds. The issue for the Council is the question of waiving the contractual rules to allow a longer timeframe for probationers to spend in a community corrections facility. The current contracts allow for a 30 day window for probationers, but IRT treatment requires a longer stay. Some would argue this is net widening, but there are other populations served by community corrections now, such as parolees via HB 1360. Charlie Garcia asked if the judge has to approve these placements. Eric Philp said that the judge could directly sentence to community corrections or make a secondary placement. Escape charges do not apply, and they are considered a walk away, with the probation officer being responsible

for the resolution of the escape. Shannon Carst said that in Denver the Board does not have to approve those probationers going to IRT, since it is a lockdown program. Eric Philp said these probationers would be placed on assessed risks and needs and not solely on whether they were a felon or misdemeanant. Doug Erler said it was important for the process to stay true to the risk and needs assessment. Joe Ferrando said his program was willing to provide IRT to probationers as well. Jeanne Smith said that community corrections are being looked at state wide, as a place to provide residential treatment for people who need treatment in their community. Eric Philp said that counselors in the mental health world are often not graduating with any experience or training with the correctional population. John Riley remarked that drug treatment and some mental health issues have become part of the criminal justice system rather than the public health system. Glenn Tapia said that treatment providers often do not understand the risk needs assessments and the necessity for collecting and sharing that information. Doug Erler said that there is a concern we ask community corrections to do too much. Eric Philp said that until we decide that mental illness is a societal problem and not a criminal justice problem, we will have this population in our criminal justice institutions. Jeanne Smith said that the question is now that people with mental health issues are in the criminal justice system, what do we do with them? John Riley said that his concern is that we lose direction in which people we are protecting and how we are protecting them. Eric Philp said that the clinicians that work in IRT are using evidence based practices with a focus on treatment, not containment or public safety, to address the problems that cause the problem to be in the criminal justice system. Programs that can address substance abuse and criminal thinking can get to the root of the crime problem. Glenn Tapia remarked that Kim English will be discussing recidivism rates and how they relate to the level of treatment received. 2. Update: Metrics and Measures for Community Corrections Boards (Doug Erler) Doug Erler: Presented two surveys that the boards are using to study acceptance rates, and jurisdictional acceptance outcomes, and include all parts of the process with the boards and programs, and other entities. Kathy Otten says that they are tracking outcomes in Jefferson County, and the process, so that there is a baseline of evidence. There will be some educational events for board members to further their understanding of the process. Glenn Tapia said this study will enable us to do a side by side comparison of what factors boards look at in approving offenders and what factors affect recidivism rates. There are two CACCB conference trainings scheduled, one on November 1, 2013, discussing structured decision making, evidence based decision making, in regards to parole boards and other criminal justice decision makers, and another in February of 2014 will discuss local level planning and recidivism reduction through structured decision making.

Tom Giacinti asked if the questionnaires were divided by diversion and transition offenders, and it is divided that way. Boards are working on the surveys now. Treatment is addressed on the surveys, as well as the sentencing criteria and other factors that may affect the board s decisions in regards to approving a client for community corrections. 3. CCJJ Community Corrections Task Force Update (Greg Mauro, Glenn Tapia, Shannon Carst, Kathy Otten, Eric Philp, Harriet Hall) Glenn Tapia: The task force has focused on board functions and metrics and measures related to community corrections boards. There has also been a sub group formed to map out the community corrections process, from beginning to end, and take a look at all the decisions made throughout the process of a client being referred to and going through community corrections. The analysis of that flow was to look at problems, areas for improvement, or gaps in the process. Each population was mapped out separately, including each key decision point, such as placement, sentencing and the key players. This included the diversion process as well as the transition process for being placed in community corrections. The levels of screening are different based on the diversion or transition. The program process was also mapped out, including the level systems and different programs. Progressive and regressive parole were also mapped out, as well as the condition of probation client process. Different service types and how those decisions are made were also mapped out. This analysis is intended to produce a list of areas where system improvement can occur. Tom Giacinti said it was valuable to break down the complex systems. Doug Erler said a timeline would be important to analyze, in regards to how long different parts of the process take. 4. Evidence Based Practices and Community Corrections Outcomes (Kim English) Kim English: Some early findings of the recidivism study, focusing on community corrections evidence based practices, and specific data. Community corrections has existed in Colorado for over thirty years, and is transitioning from a system of traditions, customs and imitation, to a system of scientific based, evidence based practices. The engine of evidence based practices is assessment of the community corrections client s risk to reoffend, and their criminogenic needs. Anti-social attitudes are the top criminogenic need and most related to criminogenic needs. The lower level set includes dysfunctional family relationships and substance abuse, and the lowest two levels of need include work and leisure and recreation issues. In community corrections, we tend to focus on the client s ability to work and having a job immediately upon their arrival at the program. We also focus on substance abuse. Therapeutic communities have excellent outcomes, and have a practice of focusing on the upper level needs immediately. The LSI is administered for these criminogenic needs and is used throughout Colorado as part of the programming. Targeting criminogenic needs reduces recidivism, but targeting areas that are not a criminogenic can increase recidivism. The more criminogenic needs that can be addressed the better the outcomes. An example of a non criminogenic need is mental health issues such as anxiety.

EPIC is the unit in the Division of Criminal Justice that offers the training to help community corrections staff and practitioners in facilities to increase motivation in the clients, and implement evidence based practices. Cognitive behavioral strategies and encouraging pro-social behavior are strategies to address anti-social behavior. Targeting programming to address criminogenic needs, increasing staff skills, deliver treatment programs using cognitive based strategies, increasing positive reinforcement of clients, supporting community and family support of clients, and measuring progress are the factors relating to community corrections success. The staff in community corrections programs must be well trained and be able to recognize and understand anti-social attitudes of clients. Staff must be able to train offender s skills. Staff must be able to model pro-social behavior. A four to one ratio of rewarding pro social behavior is effective. Well trained staff is an issue in community corrections because of the high turnover rates of staff. Necessary staff skills are an effective use of authority, modeling pro social attitudes, teaching concrete problem solving skills, advocacy and brokerage of community resources, and relationship factors. A new body of literature in criminology and psychology discusses how the relationship between the client and the service provider is highly predictive of outcomes. The relationship in order to be positive has very specific factors. Treatment must be prioritized for higher risk offenders. Responsivity factors include assessing offenders on many factors before assigning them to programs and then to individual case managers. Dosage is important in reducing recidivism. Treatment should not be viewed as a sanction, but as a positive intervention. Static risk and dynamic needs assessment, and then treatment matching is the basis for reducing recidivism. Three responsivity factors are offender characteristics, the programming and treatment characteristics, and the staff characteristics. Mental health issues, intelligence, and other demographic components are considered as part of the responsivity matching. Effective programs have certain characteristics, which include evidence based practices, strong leadership, scientific assessment of clientele, target crime producing behaviors, and marries treatment based on risk assessment factors. Criminal networks are disrupted in effective programs. Staff is stable and supported. Aftercare is provided to offenders. Effective programs are constantly evaluating what they are doing. Colorado programs are all using the LSI assessment tool to evaluate offenders. We are lowering recidivism risks, based on LSI score data. Our definition of recidivism is a new misdemeanor or felony filing within one year of a successful discharge from community corrections. Clients with the lowest education levels are more likely to recidivate. Full time employees and people on disability have a higher success rate. People with a mental health diagnosis have the same outcome of other clients, if they can successfully discharge from the program. High risk offenders have a lower success rate. Presenting program recidivism rates should include the risk level of the offender.

When LSI scores change for the better, the recidivism rate goes down and the success rate is higher. Addressing criminogenic needs in the programming is what changes the LSI score. Community corrections offenders that score high on the LSI, receive sufficient and adequate treatment, their program success rate was 59%, and their recidivism rate was 18%. Community corrections offenders with a high risk rate are able to be managed well. Employment and vocational training did not show an impact on program success rates or recidivism. Education did not affect the program success rate, and increased recidivism by a small part. Life skills training increases program success by 8% and lowers recidivism by 3%. Mental health services and substance abuse treatment programs both increased program success rates and lowered recidivism rates. Cognitive restructuring also has a similar impact. Matching treatment to treatment needs increases program success rates and lowering recidivism rates. Information about people where are released to also affects recidivism rates. People who are released to non-residential treatment have a lower recidivism rate, and for the most part, are lower risk offenders. A client moving from non-residential status to residential status increases their successful completion and lowers their recidivism. People who succeed in community corrections have a higher age at entry and lower LSI scores. Lower criminal history scores and higher education levels improve success rates. The 45-day IRT model and the 90-day IRT model were compared. 80% of IRT clients are referred by DOC. IRT 90 participants had higher LSI and ASUS scores, but ended with the same success rates and recidivism rates as 45 day IRT clients. In contrast to recidivism data for regular (non-specialized) programs, the recidivism rates for IRT include a walk away from residential community corrections. This should be taken into consideration when comparing IRT recidivism rates to regular (non-specialized) recidivism rates which only evaluate clients who successfully completed residential supervision. Length of stay or dosage for diversion with the most optimal results is in the 210-day range. Transition clients have an issue with being pulled from community corrections at the two to four month range for ISP, which increases recidivism for those offenders. The practice of pulling people from community corrections lowers their recidivism rate but artificially increases their success rate. Recidivism for clients released to ISP supervision is higher than recidivism for clients released to non-residential supervision. Low risk offenders have a recidivism rate of about 8%. Recidivism for medium risk offenders is lowest if their length of stay is about 6 months. Similar results are shown with the high risk offenders. Doug Erler mentioned that the subsistence forgiveness study will be coming soon. John Riley mentioned the lower success rates of African Americans not being understood are problematic. 5. Update on Evaluation Subcommittee (Glenn Tapia)

Glenn Tapia: Greg Mauro, Kathy Otten, Tom Giacinti and Glenn Tapia made up the sub-committee to discuss the Community Corrections evaluation. The evaluation s audience or primary benefactor was decided by looking at eight research questions about community corrections. Assumptions were made that an analysis of success and recidivism rates would be completed by the Office of Research and Statistics. Cost benefit analysis must encompass the full scope of the purpose of community corrections, with the discussion of evidence based practices. These basic questions are what the subcommittee believes should be addressed by the study: To what degree is each program consistent with evidence-based principles? To what degree does each program implement evidence-based practices? To what degree is each specialized program consistent with evidence-based principles? To what degree does each specialized program implement evidence-based practices? To what degree are programs successful as measured by risk-informed recidivism reduction, offender risk reduction, risk-informed successful completion, and other criminological measures? To what degree do programs adequately address the Big 4 criminogenic needs? To what degree do programs adequately address the Lower/Other 4 criminogenic needs? What is the relationship between program fidelity to evidence-based practices and their outcomes or measures of success? There are some practices that are best practices that have not been researched. There are evidence based practices that are criminological based or corrections based, but there are others that are used in other areas of expertise. The question to the Council is this the direction to go in regards to a study? The second question is how to fund the study. Dr. Young said these are great questions that need to be answered. Jeanne Smith said that it is important for this group to focus on whether or not to support these questions for a study. Funding can be found in various places, and offered in a number of places statewide. Dr. Young moved to go in this direction for the study. There was a unanimous vote. Dr. Harriet Hall asked if there was a way to use some of the research already done by ORS, to write a proposal for the study. Kim English affirmed that was possible. Glenn Tapia said it would be beneficial if we could create a structured tool from this study to continually evaluate programs on their status with implementation of evidence-based practices and principles. Council members agreed with this proposal. 6. Update on Status of B-SMART and the Evidence Based Progression Matrix (Valarie Schamper) Valarie Schamper: There is a B.SMART steering committee that helped initiate the B.SMART project and helped to develop the tools for the program. This group has evolved into the Evidence Based Steering Committee. This committee is aiding the OCC in implementing and maintaining all Evidence Based Practices. The Progression Matrix and its case planning tool have been rolled out to all the five pilot sites. Both clients and case managers have shown creativity and investment. Implementation science has been used in all the programs. Several programs came together at various times to discuss challenges

and successes. The feedback statewide has been very positive. The Statewide Steering Committee agreed to roll out Progression Matrix first and then the B.SMART project to programs. A JAG grant was awarded, which will enable DCJ to hire a full time employee to train in the field. The sanctions part of the program will be piloted first in Arapahoe County and the incentives portion in Adams County. 7. Preparation for Evidence Based Community Corrections Standards (Glenn Tapia and Council Members) Glenn Tapia: One of the results of the 2012 DOC LEAN project was the recommendation that the community corrections Standards be based on evidence based principles and practices. This issue has also arisen in the CCJJ Community Corrections Task Force. The current Standards, as a body, are not evidence based. The implementation science we are using to implement B.SMART and the Progression Matrix should be integrated into any structure for evidence based Standards. Glenn Tapia suggested that the OCC and the Council put forth a letter to boards and providers that declares an intention to develop and implement evidence based Standards in the future. The letter would also give providers some early idea on areas to focus on until evidence-based Standards are codified by the Council. A preview to programs of how the evidence based standard may look and how they might be implemented will give them the foundation for beginning the process to changing the standards. The Council will need to approve and advise this work. Tom Giacinti commented that the more the programs know in advance, the more they will be able to be part of the process. Eric Philp said that everyone needs a common level of understanding, in order to make recommendations and suggestions. Evidence based standards are difficult to understand and to write. A readiness survey is suggested to know how to map the process and know where to concentrate and to focus efforts. Eric Philp has a readiness survey probation completed in the interest of preparation for implementation of evidence-based practices. He will share this information with Glenn. The Council asserted their appreciation of a readiness survey for community corrections. 8. Council Award Discussion (Council Members) Glenn Tapia: There was a discussion at the last Council meeting in regards to giving an award in the memory of Tom Clements. There has been no formal response from the Governor s office with respect to this idea. The plan now is to go ahead with our regular O. John Kuenhold Award and postpone the Clements award idea until guidance and approval can be provided from the Governor s Office. The Council will vote at the next meeting on the recipient. The award will be given at the Statewide Community Corrections Training Conference on November 1, 2013, in Denver. 9. Next Meeting The next meeting is October 4, 2013 with the following meeting on January 10, 2014