Report on the Activities of the Institutional Corrections Research Network 2007 ; 2009

Transcription

1 Report on the Activities of the Institutional Corrections Research Network 2007 ; 2009 Submitted to: National Institute of Corrections Prepared by: Association of State Correctional Administrators Middletown, Connecticut (860) March 2010

2 Acknowledgements: We want to express our appreciation to the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) for the funding they provided to establish the Institutional Corrections Research Network (ICRN) and for generously supporting its activities with the time and effort of its staff. NIC s interest and support in working to improve the performance of departments and individuals is reflected not only in their financial support of these initiatives, but also by their presence and the active role NIC staff played in the ICRN planning sessions, networking calls and the ICRN meetings that took place throughout the course of the project. We wish to acknowledge those who were instrumental in the planning and conduct of the Institutional Corrections Research Network. They include, first and foremost, National Institute of Corrections Research and Evaluation Director Chris Innes, who conceived of the ICRN and played an active role in its development, including developing the agenda for the meetings and serving as the kick-off moderator for the first meeting. We wish to thank the ICRN participants themselves, who contributed their time and effort to taking the initial design for the ICRN and making it work. Thirty-one corrections directors, corrections planning and research directors, independent criminologists and researchers, federal officials and ASCA staff participated in one or more of the three ICRN meetings. They included: Mike Antonio, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; Kristin Bechtel, Kansas Department of Corrections; Theodis Beck, North Carolina Department of Corrections; Steven Belenko, Treatment Research Institute at the University of Pennsylvania; Erin Boyar, Rhode Island Department of Corrections; John Britton, Virginia Department of Corrections; Ed Buss, Indiana Department of Corrections; George Camp, Association of State Correctional Administrators; Leo Carroll, University of Rhode Island; Sherry Carroll, National Institute of Corrections; Amanda Copeland, Indiana Department of Corrections; Debbi Craig, Delaware Department of Correction; Patrick Foley, North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; Brian Grant, Correctional Service Canada; Dee Halley, National Institute of Corrections; Paul Heroux, Massachusetts Department of Correction; Chris Innes, National Institute of Corrections; Steve King, Nebraska Department of Correctional Services; Rhiana Kohl, Massachusetts Department of Correction; Paul Korotkin, New York State Department of Correctional Services; Nancy Merritt, National Institute of Justice; Sharon Neumann, Oklahoma Department of Corrections; Lettie Prell, Iowa Department of Corrections; John Rees, Kentucky Department of Corrections; Nicole Sullivan, North Carolina Department of Corrections; Ruth Thompson, Kentucky Department of Corrections; Steve VanDine, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction; Shaina Vanek, Association of State Correctional Administrators; Wayne Welsch, Temple University; Roger Werholtz, Kansas Department of Corrections; and Gary Zajac, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. We wish to also recognize the members of ASCA s Research and Technology Committee, who helped identify the right people to participate in ICRN and, once convened, oversaw its activities. From 2007 through 2009, Research and Technology Committee members who participated in this project included: John Baldwin, Iowa Department of Corrections; Jeffrey Beard, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; Theodis Beck, North Carolina Department of Correction; Devon Brown, District of Columbia Department of Corrections; Terry Collins, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction; Christopher Epps, Mississippi Department of Corrections; Leon King, Page ii

3 Director Philadelphia Prison System; Robert Lampert, Wyoming Department of Corrections; Theresa Lantz, Connecticut Department of Correction; Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Gary Maynard, Maryland Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services; Brian Owens, Georgia Department of Corrections; John D. Rees, Kentucky Department of Corrections; Tim Reisch, South Dakota Department of Corrections; Roger Werholtz, Secretary Kansas Department of Correction. By dint of her hard work and attention to the details involved in organizing the ICRN, ASCA Senior Project Manager Shaina Vanek is worthy of recognition and owed our hearty thanks. Thanks also to ASCA Senior Associate John Blackmore for collecting and analyzing the materials for this report and ASCA Executive Assistant Patricia Cluney for her help in editing this report and preparing it for distribution. And, finally, ASCA Co- Executive Director Camille G. Camp contributed her vision and energy to the project. ASCA s Corrections Clearinghouse, which she oversees, is and will provide a conduit for corrections directors, ICRN members and researchers in the field to share and confer about research issues. George M. Camp ASCA Co-Executive Director Page iii

4 Table of Contents Acknowledgements... ii The Institutional Corrections Research Network: A Report on Its Work Overview of the ICRN Initiative...2 ICRN Major Activities and Outcomes...2 Resources Available to ICRN through the ASCA Clearinghouse...3 Significant Issues Raised at the ICRN Meetings...3 Content Analysis of the ICRN Meetings...5 Chart 1: Research Projects Proposed or Undertaken Reported by Department of Corrections Participants at the Three ICRN Meetings ( )...6 Research That Addresses the Needs of Corrections Practitioners...7 Examples of Practitioner Relevant Research Materials Presented at the 2009 ICRN Meeting...17 Chart 2: Practitioner Relevant Research Materials Presented at the 2009 ICRN Meeting...18 Abstracts of Practitioner Relevant Research Materials Presented at the 2009 ICRN Meeting...25 Conclusion: Results, Recommendations and Actions Undertaken...41 Appendices: 1. Spreadsheet of ICRN Member's Attendance Over the Course of the Three Meetings 2. Minutes from the April 2007 ICRN Meeting 3. Minutes from the April 2008 ICRN Meeting 4. Minutes from the April 2009 ICRN Meeting Page iv

5 The Institutional Corrections Research Network: A Report on Its Work Executive Summary: The Institutional Corrections Research Network (ICRN) was established in 2007 to promote the development of a body of evidence-based knowledge about corrections and the application of that knowledge to corrections practice. With the guidance and support of the National Institute of Corrections, and with the oversight of the Association of State Correctional Administrators Research and Technology Committee, a group of correctional administrators and corrections researchers met annually to discuss research in the field of corrections; to identify both promising research directions as well as gaps that need to be filled in the research record; and to discuss how to make correctional research relevant to needs and concerns of corrections administrators and policymakers, and ultimately to corrections practice. This report summarizes the work of the ICRN to date, imparting the issues and concerns raised at the three annual meetings in 2007, 2008 and 2009; providing examples of research and policy analyses that have been shown to be useful for practitioners; and identifying promising methodologies and research tools that may benefit other jurisdictions. This report provides an overview of the ICRN initiative, including an account of ICRN s major activities and outcomes, recommendations that emerged during its proceedings, and actions undertaken. A content analysis of the proceedings was conducted, the results of which are reported here along with an account of the major issues and concerns raised by participants. The research reports and materials provided as examples of promising approaches are abstracted in this report. Ways to access these reports and materials are also provided. Page 1

6 Overview of the ICRN Initiative: During the August 2006 Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) Correctional Research Committee meeting, National Institute of Corrections Research and Evaluation Director Chris Innes shared with the Committee NIC s commitment to evidence-based practices, and how it is evolving into an evidence-based organization. To work towards these goals, NIC has incorporated outcome measures and performance standards into the work that they do across the country to determine if those activities were having an impact and benefiting the field. NIC ultimately wanted to: (1) create a cumulative body of knowledge about corrections, (2) determine how to contextualize that knowledge, and (3) create the structures and approaches that will push that knowledge out and into the field as a whole. One of the primary means by which NIC approached this work was through the development of the Institutional Corrections Research Network (ICRN). Modeled after the Community Corrections Research Network, a similar effort sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, ICRN is a group of correctional administrators and corrections researchers that meets annually to discuss research in the field of corrections. More specifically, the group keeps abreast of the research record in corrections; discusses research that is either currently being done or should be done; thus helping NIC to ensure that the projects that they fund are meeting the needs of corrections practitioners and policymakers. During the initial ICRN cooperative agreement with NIC ( Institutional Corrections Research Network I (9/15/06-6/14/2008), ASCA identified appropriate ICRN members, surveyed the ASCA members to ascertain the nature of state correctional research efforts, conducted the initial ICRN meeting (in April 2007), and reported to NIC the outcomes of these efforts. In Institutional Corrections Research Network II (2/1/08 12/31/09), a subsequent cooperative agreement with NIC, ASCA conducted two additional annual ICRN meetings, held monthly conference calls among available members, conducted periodic surveys of the members and state DOCs, developed electronic means for members to communicate over the Internet, and laid the groundwork for future meetings and activities by identifying themes and issues of common interest to ICRN members. ASCA s Co-Executive Directors, George and Camille Camp were guided in this effort by the members of the Correctional Research and Technology Committee, who oversaw the planning and implementation of ICRN activities. ICRN Major Activities and Outcomes: Six meetings were held with support from the ICRN cooperative agreement, including: (1) three 1.5 daylong meetings of the ICRN workgroup held in April 2007, April 2008, April 2009 and (2) three annual 1-day long meetings of the ASCA Research and Technology Committee. Informal polls of the ICRN members were conducted, generally in response to member questions to the group. Page 2

7 Research articles of national interest and relevance were shared with the ICRN group (sent by) to obtain their input and critique. These were usually initiated by either NIC or ASCA, particularly when an article seemed to be biased or based on inaccurate data. Other research articles were shared informally within the ICRN group, particularly research reports conducted by DOC research staff or else by DOC-affiliated universities. Resources Available to ICRN through the ASCA Clearinghouse: ASCA has received funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) to develop a clearinghouse that will provide corrections directors a privileged conduit for receiving the federal information most critical to their operations and their mission. The clearinghouse will also give the federal partners an opportunity to engage the state directors in open discussions of how best to assist them. The research portion of the ASCA website ( has been incorporated into the work being done by corrections.com for the ASCA Clearinghouse project. The ICRN discussion board and other new Clearinghouse functionalities are due to be online and available to ICRN members by October Significant Issues Raised at the ICRN Meetings: Since 2007, at each of the annual ICRN meetings, the state department of corrections (DOC) participants most of them the research directors for those departments reported on their current research agendas and progress accomplished since the last time the ICRN had met the previous year. During discussion periods following each presentation, staff from NIC, ASCA and other members of the ICRN asked questions, made observations and, in some cases, gave suggestions to the presenting state research director about their current initiatives and resources they might consider in furthering their work. At the initial ICRN meeting in April 2007, the participants were asked to identify specific topical areas of interest to researchers and correctional practitioners. Their responses included: Determining what directors need to hear from their research directors The need for a common web location for research related to corrections Persuading corrections directors that investing in research is a great value to the department Standardization of terms so research findings can be communicated and have relevance across jurisdictions Developing research partnerships with universities, think tanks and funding sources Page 3

8 Developing a consortium of university people who hear and know what corrections operators need Need for more and better medical research in order to manage the medical system in prison more effectively A catalog of evidence-based ideas and practices that correctional administrators can put into practice Development of dynamic instruments to measure the needs and risks of offenders before and after interventions Sharing information on hot topics and feeding that information back to some of the national groups where funding seems most appropriate Better ways to process requests of external researcher to conduct studies Ways to address challenges of data quality/access/availability and communicating that to external stakeholders Assistance for corrections administrators in evaluating new technologies they can use in their operations Chris Innes, Director of Research & Evaluation, National Institute of Corrections, who moderated the meeting, summarized the group s thoughts: I see three very broad topics emerging: (1) general issue of the research function in corrections to internal and external audiences, (2) how to effectively manage partnerships with external researchers, and (3) technology (data quality, IT issues, assessment, performance measures). At Innes s suggestion, the group also discussed the challenges associated with presenting correctional research to practitioners and policymakers. Following is a sampling of the ideas they presented: There should be training for directors on how to use research in a political environment. It would be good for us to have a session on cost-effectiveness and how to present research/data to legislators and external stakeholders. The Rand Institute offers a session on how to present research to non-research entities. I think that concept was good and it provided a network forum to reach out to others. The biggest bang for the buck is to use the information that you gather to plan the direction of your agency. Research should validate the work that we do showing that it works; or moving away from what doesn t work. [Corrections Directors] have to be able to sell our agenda to the legislature or the governor; we have to back it up. We re operating in an environment where Page 4

9 everyone s an expert but us. The practical use of real research to use in a day-today environment is critical. [Corrections Directors] need to know both the good and the bad without any sugarcoating. DOCs should not treat the public as the adversary, concluded Innes. Insofar as an agency adopts that attitude towards their public affairs, they can t go far wrong by exploiting their own research capacities or the research in the field. Content Analysis of the ICRN Meetings: ASCA staff conducted a content analysis of the proceedings of all three annual ICRN meetings in order to identify research interests and projects of the state departments of corrections as well as issues of significant concern to the participants and having the greatest relevance to corrections practitioners and policymakers. Page 5

10 The first analysis of the ICRN proceedings was designed to determine what research projects were proposed, undertaken or completed by the participants representing departments of corrections. For an overview of the findings, see Chart 1. Chart 1: Research Projects Proposed or Undertaken Reported by Department of Corrections Participants at the Three ICRN Meetings ( ) Assessments Proposed or Undertaken Programs Evaluated by State DOCs Process Evaluations Outcome Studies Policy Analyses Population Projections Reentry Alternatives to Incarceration Substance Abuse Treatment Education & Vocational Programs Cognitive- Behavioral Programs Programs for Mentally-Ill Offenders Sexoffender Programs & Supervision Faith Based Programs Delaware Iowa Indiana Kansas Kentucky Massachusetts North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New York Ohio Oklahoma Pennsylvania Rhode Island Virginia Corrections Service Canada TOTALS Prison Culture Studies Page 6

11 The results of this analysis, presented in Chart 1, show that nearly all of the representatives of the 15 state departments of corrections and the Correctional Service Canada represented at the ICRN meetings raised issues about research methodologies, assessment instruments & protocols in use for correctional research (12). Most expressed interest in expanding their expert and financial resources for correctional research by developing research collaborations with universities, think tanks and external funding sources (9). A majority (8) reported that their departments were already employing correctional performance measures to guide practice and policy. Concerning the types of work in which they are currently engaged, all 16 of the state participants reported conducting numbers-driven policy analyses. A majority reported producing population projections and other population management reports (10). Relatively few reported conducting either controlled outcome studies (6) or process evaluations (3). The paucity of outcome and process evaluations underway, they reported, was not due to insufficient interest, but rather the lack of time and resources to conduct them. What they most evaluated, the research directors reported, were programs designed to change offender behavior. Nearly all were either in the process of conducting or had conducted evaluations of reentry programs (13). The majority of them had or were in the process of evaluating substance abuse treatment programs for offenders (9). Many departments reported evaluating cognitive-behavioral counseling programs (6), sex offender treatment and supervision programs (6), education and/or vocational education programs (4) and treatment programs for mentally ill offenders. Prison culture studies (3) and alternative to incarceration/re-incarceration programs (6) were also reported. It should be noted that research interests and projects enumerated were not identified by a systematic survey, but rather by those that came up in discussions during the proceedings. More (though not fewer) departments may have these interests or be engaged in these research areas than reported at the three meetings. Research That Addresses the Needs of Corrections Practitioners: Following is a list of the issues and concerns identified during the April 2009 meeting, noting the states whose representatives raised the issues and/or reported being affected by them, along with illustrative examples and discussion points. Discussion points relating to these issues from the earlier two meetings are also noted, and identified by date. For a fuller account of the proceedings, please refer to the meeting minutes appended to this report. Assessment of Policy Changes on Prison Operations: Issue: How departments can measure the impact of newly enacted policy initiatives on offenders and prison operations, such as changes in sentencing law, dispensing good time credits and other policies undertaken to control growth in prison populations. (OK, RI, IN, IA, ND) Page 7

12 Discussion Point: Pat Foley, Director of Research and Program Evaluation, North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: We should encourage policy analysis on the impact of legislation [on operations] about both intended and unintended consequences. (2008) Examples: Amanda Copeland, Director, Planning & Research, Indiana Department of Correction: We created a timeline to outline the new crimes and sentencing enhancements that have been enacted. The legislature did not really realize how much they had done over time, nor the impact of the new laws. In light of seeing it all at once, they totally revamped the sentencing commission in Indiana. (2009) Roger Werholtz, Secretary, Kansas Department of Corrections: We re using a final report on the reentry initiative to modify our reentry program. We re using this evaluation as well as a number of other things to persuade staff to understand and work with offenders because it s what works with respect to protecting the public (lowering violating activity). It has influenced how we write job descriptions, training programs, strategic action plans, policy decisions, building decisions, etc. I can t convey how important research is to what we re doing in Kansas. (2007) Use of Performance Measures to Guide Policy and Practice: Issue: How to employ performance measures information to guide correctional practice and policy. (RI, KS, IN, OH, OK) Discussion Points: Steve Van Dine, Chief, Bureau of Research, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction: How do you use the kinds of research you do to steer the legislature towards keeping good programs and give DOC s more money to get more programs? (2009) John Britton, Manager, Certification, Planning, and Research Unit, Virginia Department of Corrections: ASCA should strive to educate our directors and commissioners to be focused even more on performance measures that mean something. Research is oriented that way, but the rest of the organization isn t. We have a lot of work to convince folks that we have to manage in a different way. (2007) Example: Roger Werholtz (KS): The utility that research and measurement can play is [that it can help us] find the tools that legislators or agency heads can use to formulate the arguments. (2009) Communicating the Work of Corrections to the Community: Issue: Research data and trend analysis can help build a broader constituency for the mission of corrections. (IN, NC, NE) Page 8

13 Discussion Point: John Rees, Director, Kentucky Department of Corrections: You do a lot of legwork [to present an accurate picture of corrections operations], but you have to realize that the general public and the legislature don t trust you and they never will. Historically they have been given bad or misinformation and they don t trust your numbers. (2007) Example: Steve King, Planning & Research Administrator, Nebraska Department of Correctional Services: The Nebraska Social Indicators Survey goes out to thousands of households in the state, and the DOC buys a section of that survey for questions related to public perceptions of public safety issues. We use that when we approach the legislature. We did one around treatment issues, how well corrections is doing, etc. It has been very useful in our state. (2009) Collaborating with Universities and Other Research Organizations: Issue: How to collaborate with academic institutions and think tanks to support correctional research efforts. (NIC, PA, RI, KY, NE, KS, IA, MA, NC) Discussion Point: Nicole Sullivan, Director, Office of Research and Planning, North Carolina Department of Corrections: [We need to] develop partnerships with universities; developing a consortium of university folks who hear and know what we need. (2007) Examples: Gary Zajac, Chief of Research and Evaluation, Pennsylvania Department of Correction: There are a lot of expectations that we can t meet internally, so we partner with academic universities. We often seek third party funding to help supplement our department s funds. We ve leveraged approximately $3 million for 17 grant endeavors over the years. (2008) Nicole Sullivan (NC): We had University of Cincinnati researchers come in to train agency staff in the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI ). We identified our flagship programs and areas across the agency (community corrections, substance abuse programs, and in-house prison programs), and completed a major review to evaluate those programs for quality assurance and staff training. (2009) Ruth Thompson, Internal Policy Analyst, Kentucky Department of Corrections: We do not do any in-house research on our own. I coordinate the projects that are done with the universities and other interested parties who want to come in and collect data. (2009) The Nebraska Department of Corrections contracted with the Vera Institute in October 2008 for a process evaluation of Nebraska Department of Corrections Specialized Substance Abuse Supervision. Process evaluations provide practitioners with useful information about whether and how a program design Page 9

14 has been implemented as well as laying the groundwork for a well-designed outcome evaluation. (2009) Cost-Benefit Analyses Money Talks to Policymakers: Issue: One of the best ways to get the attention of practitioners and policymakers is to present outcomes for a particular program or strategy in terms of cost savings. (MA, NY, WA) Discussion Point: Chris Innes (NIC): There s been a lot of focus on cost benefit, [but] it s hard to estimate the dollarized value of public service. (2007) Examples: The Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) examined the evidence-based practices approach and questioned if it was really legitimate with respect to conducting cost benefit analyses. Massachusetts Department of Corrections Commissioner Harold Clarke used these findings to make a numberdriven argument for selectively increasing funding of the most effective programs, demonstrating that this would be a cost beneficial approach to reducing recidivism amongst released offenders. Brian Grant, Director General, Research of the Correctional Service Canada (CSC), reviewed a cost benefit study of Canadian corrections programs. We wanted to assess the economic impact of the correctional programs, so we looked at the cost to the government for having that inmate out of work and incarcerated. We looked at the programming for sex offenders, education and employment, etc. In most of the studies, we measure outcomes in three different ways: (1) return to custody for technical violations, (2) return to custody for a new offense, and (3) return to custody for a violent offense. Most of our studies were assessed using the Level 3 criteria from WSIPP. The final result was that the net federal benefit was 2.7 to 1 i.e., for every dollar spent on correctional programs, the federal government received a return of almost $3. * Comparing Operations and Cost Effectiveness of Public vs. Private Corrections: Issue: How to assess whether it is cost beneficial to contract with private agencies to operate correctional institutions. (BOP, OH, ND, OK) Discussion Point: How to tell whether the operations of private and public corrections are comparable. Sharon Neumann, Deputy Director for Community Sentencing and Offender Information Services Division, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, noted: Private prison operators are offering alternatives, with contract rates less than our state per diem rates. I think there are a number of reasons for that, particularly in that private facilities negotiate their rates on a state-by-state basis. * The Net Federal Fiscal Benefit of CSC Programming (2009). For a full version of this report, see: Page 10

15 One of the other reasons that the state per diem rate is higher is that our facilities are older and some were not originally built as prisons. We do not contract for programs like the private prisons do. For example, medical and health care services get to be very expensive and those inmates end up in the state system as opposed to the private facilities. The public does not thoroughly understand the complexity of these comparisons and why the costs are different. (2009) Guidelines and Evaluation to Support Quality Reentry Programs: Issue: Need to monitor the performance of contracted programs, such as reentry programs, that operate in coordination with institutional programs. (OH) Examples: Ohio is developing a standardized way of assessing performance of contracted reentry programs. Steve Van Dine (OH): What we are trying to do is to come up with a system that does a large scale performance review [of contracted reentry programs]. We want to know: (1) whether the data needed for these assessments was entered; (2) there is an indication that each inmate was screened utilizing a needs assessment; (3) [the offenders served] were the ones with the greatest need and/or risk; (4) a risk assessment was conducted; or (5) there is continuity of the services to be provided in the community after the offender leaves the DOC. Roger Werholtz (KS): We re using a final report on the reentry initiative to modify our reentry program. We re building on evidence-based practices. (2007) Program Standardization and Quality Control: Issue: In order to be properly evaluated, and to have the results of the evaluation to be relevant across jurisdictions, the programs need to be standardized and consistent. (NIC, PA, OH) Discussion Points: Chris Innes (NIC): How do you get to the point where you have programs that are taking place that you have confidence in while still having some creativity at the local level to let them feel like they are not being [completely] mandated from above? (2009) John Rees (KY): [In order to fairly assess what we are doing,] we need standardization of terms. (2007) Example: Wayne Welsch, Temple University, contracted investigator for the PA DOC Therapeutic Community (TC) study: In the TC study, we found that there was a lot of variation in program duration and intensity, staffing patterns/ratios and time spent on direct treatment. We presented these results to the treatment supervisors and superintendents then discussed within the committee and brought it back to the DOC. Once they saw this variability, they started talking Page 11

16 about program standardization (eligibility, content/structure, etc). Obviously some variability is going to exist no matter what, but such huge discrepancies are a problem. (2008) Putting Evidence-based Practice into Practice: Issue: In order to work, need to determine what is the threshold for being considered an evidence-based study and also to front-load evidence-based principles in the planning and design of programs. (IA, OH, PA, ND, MA, NIJ). Discussion Point: Nancy Merritt, Chief, Justice Systems Research Division, National Institute of Justice: Need to go beyond the rhetoric of evidence-based practice and determine what is the threshold to determine what is and what is not an evidence-based study. (2009) Examples: Paul Heroux, Director, Research and Planning Division, Massachusetts Department of Correction, uses the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale to determine the appropriate threshold for what are to be considered evidencebased studies. (2009) Pat Foley, Director of Research and Program Evaluation, North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, noted, We now have a directive from the Director that says that if there is going to be a fiscal or human resources impact, there must be some documentation to support the decision. These forms of documentation include: (1) a needs analysis, (2) comprehensive literature review, (3) list the pros and cons, (4) a description of how the project fits with the DOC s strategic plan, (5) implementation of a cost-benefit analysis plan, (6) a course of action evaluation to look at what other courses of action might be viable. We have found that a couple of things are happening first people are putting a lot of thought into these, and second, the process is there in order to get the thinking done before it goes to the legislature or others outside of the system. (2009) Paul Heroux (MA) noted that Massachusetts is drawing a distinction between outputs and outcomes. It has become our personal crusade to make that distinction. I am trying to take the rhetoric and language away from evidencebased practices and bring it more towards evidence-producing practices. The discussions are saturated with all this language, and the fidelity is affected. We want to be able to evaluate every single program that we have. In taking people through evidence-producing practices, we want to be thinking on the front end about what kind of data we want to collect before we start a program. (2009) Lettie Prell, Research Director, Iowa Department of Corrections: There are evidence-based practices being implemented in our department, but it s not a given [that those EBP s are resulting in effective programs]. We need to evaluate whether those principles are actually working. I sat down to evaluate how much it would cost to do outcome assessments on all of our programs and those costs would exceed the annual budget of the entire department. (2007) Page 12

17 Federal Response: Nancy Merritt (NIJ): [NIJ] is starting the process of determining what the threshold is for evidence-based studies -- e.g., is it the presence of control groups, a quasi-experimental design, or some combination thereof? The question is, how do we take all of that and put it into practice? (2009) Distinguishing between Risk Assessments and Needs Assessments: Issue: Need to clearly distinguish between risk and needs assessment variables when conducting assessments of offenders. Discussion Points: Steve Van Dine (OH): A number of us have been concerned that mixing risk and needs variables in the same instrument has not been helpful. Van Dine reported that he chaired a panel at the American Society of Criminology in November 2009 discussing the principles for most effectively integrating risk and need variables. (2009) Chris Innes (NIC) noted that an article is coming out from the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) with a section on the policy implications of conflating risk and need and the way in which it has led to issue creep in the field of criminal justice. (2009) Numbers-Driven Policy Analysis -- Marshalling Data to Influence Policy: Issue: Not all evidence needs to be in the form of outcome studies to be useful to policymakers and practitioners. Arraying offender data over time in graphs and charts can provide forceful evidence of how policy and practice affect prison populations. (NY) Examples: Paul Korotkin, Director of Program Planning, Research & Evaluation, New York State Department of Correctional Services presented a spreadsheet displaying the number of early releases per fiscal year disaggregated by program participation from 1995 to The overall number of early releases for each program was also translated into prison bed savings, average time savings and cost savings. The total cost savings attributed to the eight programs for the period was estimated at $2.25 billion. (2009) Paul Korotkin (NY) also presented charts, graphs and spreadsheets demonstrating strong, consistent evidence of the extraordinary impact of New York State s drug sentencing laws on the nature of the NYS DOCS s prison population. As such, they are an excellent example of the power of empirical evidence to demonstrate the impact of sentencing policy on prison populations. These charts, graphs and tables are attached to this report individually as PDF files. (2009) Page 13

18 Process Evaluation Laying the Groundwork for Valid Outcome Studies: Issue: A well-designed process evaluation is the necessary first step to conducting valid outcome evaluations that will yield useful data to practitioners. (NE, ND) Discussion Point: Pat Foley (ND) noted that process evaluations help researchers move beyond statistics and provide the groundwork for understanding why a program is working, how it can be improved and what are the most relevant outcome measures. (2007) Example: Steve King (NE) presented a process evaluation of the department s Specialized Substance Abuse Supervision (SSAS), an evidence-based supervision program for prison-bound felony offenders and early-release parolees that combines treatment and services with the explicit goal of reducing growth in the state s prison population, as an example of the goals and strategies involved in conducting a process evaluation of a corrections initiative. Process evaluations are all too often not conducted due to the additional time and expense they require. They are, however, a necessary first step in conducting quality outcome evaluations. (2009) Delimiting Racial Bias in Incarceration and Return to Prison Rates: Need to closely examine classification and other risk assessment systems to ensure that racial bias is not built into them. (IA) Discussion Point: George Camp, Co-Executive Director, ASCA: Racial disparity is something that I suspect occurs very frequently in all systems. Probably most of the time we are not even aware where racial disparity is built into the instruments that we use. ASCA President Larry Norris is taking this issue very seriously and we will want to collect more data about jobs, programs, etc. to determine to what degree racial disparity might figure into these decisions. (2009) Examples: Lettie Prell, Director of Research, Iowa Department of Corrections: A 2009 IA DOC study found that African-Americans had much higher incarceration and return to prison rates than whites and other ethnic groups. The Department made changes to the pretrial point schedule so that more African-Americans would be eligible for pre-trial release. In examining pre-trial release practices, however, researchers found that a lot of other ethnicities being released were not eligible under the point scale. (2009) Another IA DOC study found that a reentry program that included a life skills curriculum while the offender was in prison followed by wrap-around employment, treatment and other services provided following the offender s release to the community significantly reduced return to prison rates for both African-Americans and Whites. (2009) Page 14

19 Using Research to Identify Factors that Reduce Recidivism: Need to look beyond gross recidivism data to identify what factors and program elements are most responsible for reducing recidivism. (IN, WA) Discussion Points: Chris Innes (NIC) asked whether it was possible to explain to general audiences about propensity scores as a way of estimating what a state s recidivism rate ought to be so that you can get away from this problem of a national recidivism rate. (2008) Examples: Amanda Copeland, Director, Planning & Research, Indiana Department of Correction, noted that studies of a variety of programs conducted by the Department showed that employment is the number one issue that promotes success at reentry and decreases recidivism. If we are not training offenders in fields that they can actually get jobs when they are released, then we are not doing our job, she said. (2009) Indiana s findings are supported by those of the Washington State Institute for Public Policy. In its 2006 review of evidence-based correctional interventions, in order of greatest cost benefits, vocational education led the list. Treatmentoriented intensive supervision, general education, cognitive-behavioral therapy and substance abuse treatment were the approaches having the next greatest measurable crime reduction and cost benefit effects. Updated in 2009, Washington researchers found that vocational education still topped the list as having the greatest overall cost benefits. (2009) Responses to the Example: Vocational training and employment placement programs hold great promise for reducing returns to prison. In difficult economic times, however, with employment opportunities shrinking, ex-offenders are finding it more difficult to find jobs and remain employed. (2009) Sharon Neumann (OK) noted: We have seen an increase in the number of offenders who have gone from full-employment to part-time employment due to the economy. We think we have problems now? I think we are headed towards even more troubling times. I think we will see different or additional crimes being committed due to the economy. (2009) Responding to High Profile Incidents and Delimiting their Effect on Policy How can corrections managers employ research and statistics to counter headlineprovoking incidents, which all too often end up guiding policy? (PA, KS, NIC) Discussion Points: Gary Zajac (PA): What you often see is policy making by anecdote using high profile cases. There are all sorts of economic and environmental variables that Page 15

20 are in play that we in corrections cannot control. To the extent that there can be some broader discussion of theses issues, it might help us in corrections, too. (2009) Chris Innes (NIC): When we look at the culture of corrections, there is a tendency for it to become kind of inward looking and drift towards isolationism from the community. What I hear people saying is that a priority of any corrections agency should be public and legislative education; things that put these high profile cases into context. The high profile cases could be from anywhere in the world, but they still have an emotional impact on people. (2009) Example: Roger Werholtz (KS): We have created a timeline that went as far back as Hickock and Smith [the In Cold Blood killers, 1959] and match up high profile cases with the revocation rates over time. It does not matter what the revocation rates are these things happen. (2009) Compiling Statistics versus Conducting Real Research: Issue: Several correctional research directors noted that a disproportionate amount of the time and effort of their research units is spent on counting and providing statistics rather than in conducting research. (ND, OK, CSC) Discussion Point: Pat Foley (ND) asked whether the efforts of the research and evaluation directors in the room were more about counting widgets than doing real research? (2009) Example: Brian Grant (CSC) reported that the Corrections Service Canada has distinct units (Statistics and Performance Measures) for providing statistics that are functionally separate from the evaluation unit, which conducts research and the analytical work, mostly evaluating programs for value for money. (2009) Need for Support for Corrections Research: How can state DOCs conduct quality practitioner research when their departments are cutting back and strapped for resources? Many state departments reported experiencing hiring freezes and cutbacks, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania among them. (PA, RI, OK, NY, NC) Discussion Point: Gary Zajac (PA): We don t need to have the treatment practices seen as something superfluous. Rather we need to pay attention to the research that proves its efficacy. The cost-benefit studies are [important in the] education of our public officials. It is always necessary to do this when budgets get tight, because programs are not luxuries, but necessities. (2009) The 2009 meeting concluded with a wide ranging discussion of the challenges facing corrections and the criminal justice system as a whole and how the research and data Page 16

21 analysis can play a role in addressing them. The researchers talked about the impact of the downturn of the economy; the fragmentation and competition among the different parts of the criminal justice system; the problem of returning offenders to toxic communities from where they are destined to return to prison; and the impact of sentencing reform. Gary Zajac (PA) called these concerns the political context of research. The participants agreed that the theme that brings these disparate concerns together is reentry. Reentry [initiatives] force the different parts of the system to work together, noted Chris Innes (NIC). One matter of frustration noted by the participants is that policymakers and public opinion are likely to be swayed not by the data, but rather by an incident involving a prisoner or ex-offender that grabs the headlines. As Sherry Carroll, Corrections Program Specialist, National Institute of Corrections, noted: One single incident can change the trajectory of what we believed was the right way to proceed. It is easier to point your finger and blame than to take credit for what we have contributed to the problems that exist. Sound data emanating from quality research and analysis is the antidote. Examples of Practitioner Relevant Research Materials Presented at the 2009 ICRN Meeting The second content analysis of the ICRN proceedings was designed to highlight the nature and type of research materials the participants representing departments of corrections provided as examples of work they thought would be useful for other departments to consider. For an overview of the findings, see Chart 2. Page 17

22 Chart 2: Practitioner Relevant Research Materials Presented at the 2009 ICRN Meeting Kind of Report or Document Type of Study Conducted Program Evaluated 1 Iowa: Evidence Based Practice Group Facilitator Accreditation Interview Form 2 Iowa: Evidence Based Practice Offender Interview Form 3 Iowa: Evidence Based Practice Program Audit Manual 4 Iowa: Evidence Based Practice Quality Improvement Plan 5 Iowa: Data Sharing Agreement between Iowa Corrections & the Iowa Workforce Development 6 Iowa: Statistical Summary of Success in Reentry by Race 7 Iowa: Violator Program Outcome Results 8 Indiana: Indiana: Return Rate of Cliff Program Participants Program Assessment/Data Collection Forms Assessment Instruments & Protocols Numbers Driven Policy Analyses Research Methodology Population Projections Offender Demographics & Characteristics Process Evaluations Outcome Studies Data Summaries Reentry Alternatives to Incarceration or Reincarceration Substance Abuse Treatment Faith- Based Programs Education & Vocational Ed Programs Cognitive- Behavioral Programs

23 9 Indiana: Return Rate of Therapeutic Community (TC) Program Participants 10 Indiana: Offender Outcomes in Faith and Characterbased Reentry Initiatives Program Assessment/Data Collection Forms Assessment Instruments & Protocols Kind of Report or Document Type of Study Conducted Program Evaluated Numbers Offender Alternatives to Substance Driven Research Population Demographics Process Outcome Data Reentry Incarceration or Abuse Policy Methodology Projections & Evaluations Studies Summaries Reincarceration Treatment Analyses Characteristics Faith- Based Programs Education Vocational Ed Programs Cognitive- Behavioral Programs 11 Indiana: Violation Rates of PLUS Program Participants 12 Indiana: Recidivism Rates of Cliff Program Participants 13 Indiana: Recidivism Rates of TC Program Participants 14 Indiana: Recidivism Rate Comparisons According to Type Program Participation 15 Indiana: Recidivism Rates Disaggregated by Offender Characteristics & Demographics Page 19

24 16 Indiana: Statistical snapshot of Indiana s adult and juvenile corrections populations Program Assessment/Data Collection Forms Assessment Instruments & Protocols Kind of Report or Document Type of Study Conducted Program Evaluated Numbers Offender Alternatives to Substance Driven Research Population Demographics Process Outcome Data Reentry Incarceration or Abuse Policy Methodology Projections & Evaluations Studies Summaries Reincarceration Treatment Analyses Characteristics Faith- Based Programs Education Vocational Ed Programs Cognitive- Behavioral Programs 17 Indiana: Impact of Education & Employment on Recidivism 18 Indiana: Indiana Sentence Enhancement Timeline 19 Indiana: US Today Article - Officials Make Plea for Prison Expansion 20 Indiana: PLUS Return Rate Handout 21 Indiana: Actual Vs. Projected Populations from 2003 to Indiana: Recidivism Rates for "Thinking 4 Change" Graduates 23 Kentucky: Corrections Today Article on KY DOC & Univ. Research Partnership Page 20

25 24 Kentucky: HB 406 Budget Bill KY DOC Provisions Program Assessment/Data Collection Forms Assessment Instruments & Protocols Kind of Report or Document Type of Study Conducted Program Evaluated Numbers Driven Policy Analyses Research Methodology Population Projections Offender Demographics & Characteristics Process Evaluations Outcome Studies Data Summaries Reentry Alternatives to Incarceration or Reincarceration Substance Abuse Treatment Faith- Based Programs Education & Vocational Ed Programs Cognitive- Behavioral Programs 25 Kentucky: HB372 Parole Credits & Minimum Sentence 26 Kentucky: Treatment Outcome Study FY2008 Follow Up Report 27 Massachusetts: Chapter 2 of Doris MacKenzie's "What Works in Corrections" 28 Massachusetts: Commissioner Clarken: "An Effective Reentry- Focused Correctional System" 29 North Carolina: 2008 Research Bulletin 30 North Carolina: OTI Risk Instrument 31 North Dakota: The Top 50 Program Page 21

26 32 North Dakota: Course of Action Evaluation 33 North Dakota: New Program Review Brief Program Assessment/Data Collection Forms Assessment Instruments & Protocols Kind of Report or Document Type of Study Conducted Program Evaluated Numbers Driven Policy Analyses Research Methodology Population Projections Offender Demographics & Characteristics Process Evaluations Outcome Studies Data Summaries Reentry Alternatives to Incarceration or Reincarceration Substance Abuse Treatment Faith- Based Programs Education & Vocational Ed Programs Cognitive- Behavioral Programs 34 Nebraska: Process Evaluation of Specialized Substance Abuse Supervision 35 New York: Releases Per Year by Program Participation 36 New York: New York State s experience with the Drug Reform Law Act of New York: Fact Sheet Budget 38 New York: NYS ICRN 2009 Presentation 39 Ohio: Ten Crimes Analysis 40 Ohio: Criteria for Reentry Program Approval 41 Ohio: ICRN 2009 Meeting Notes Page 22