Docstoc

SCC_DOC_Final_Report_1-31-12

Document Sample
SCC_DOC_Final_Report_1-31-12 Powered By Docstoc
					            Recidivism Study of the
Santa Clara County Department of Correction’s
              Inmate Programs
                 Final Report




                   Submitted by
               Huskey & Associates
                In association with
             University of Cincinnati
       Center for Criminal Justice Research
                January 31, 2012
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report


                       Santa Clara County Recidivism Steering Committee

                                           Sheriff Laurie Smith
                                          Chief John Hirokawa
                                       Assistant Sheriff Peter Rode
                                            Martha Wapenksi
                                         Captain Troy Beliveau
                                           Captain Toby Wong
                                             Kathy Sanchez
                                               Julie Chou
                                             Jordan Corpuz
                                             Fletcher Dobbs
                                              Remy Legaspi
                                            Nelson Uchimura
                                            Neelam Wadhwani


                                               Research Team

           Bobbie Huskey, MSW, Huskey & Associates, Project Coordinator
               Edward J. Latessa, Ph.D., Director, University of Cincinnati,
                          Center for Criminal Justice Research
          Andrew J. Myer, Ph.D., Research Associate, University of Cincinnati
         Paula Tomczak, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, Huskey & Associates
             Elizabeth Donovan, Executive Assistant, Huskey & Associates

 Special recognition is given to Neelam Wadhwani for her leadership and to her staff
 for their dedication to improving programs within the Department of Correction and
         to Remy Legaspi and Fletcher Dobbs for their excellent coordination
                             throughout the grant project.

   The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication,
   program/exhibition are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
Department of Justice. This project was supported, in part, by Award No. 2009-SB-B9-0976 awarded
   by the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, the
           Recovery Act - Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.
                                                          .




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 2
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

                                    Table of Contents
           Recidivism Study of the Department of Correction’s Inmate Programs

         Executive Summary                                                                                  5


PART I: RECIDIVISM STUDY

Part I: Chapter 1. Introduction and Executive Summary                                                       22


Part I: Chapter 2. Profile of the Treatment and Comparison Population                                       33


Part I: Chapter 3. Findings                                                                                 46

             1.    Artemis                                                                                  58
             2.    Breaking Barriers                                                                        59
             3.    Day Reporting                                                                            60
             4.    Get Right                                                                                61
             5.    Healing Opportunity with Positive Enforcement (HOPE)                                     62
             6.    M-8                                                                                      63
             7.    Mentoring You Substance Abuse Treatment of Recovering Individual
                                                                                                            64
                   (MY STORI)
             8.    Program about Change and Experience (PACE)                                               65
             9.    Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) Phase I—Men                                         66
             10.   Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) Phase I—Women                                       67
             11.   Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) Phase II                                            68
             12.   Veteran’s Educating to Succeed (VETS)                                                    69
             13.   Women Investigating New Gates for Sobriety (WINGS)                                       70

Part I: Chapter 4. Discussion of Findings                                                                   90


Part I: Chapter 5. Overview of Recommendations                                                              96




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 3
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report


PART II: EVIDENCE-BASED EVALUATION OF INMATE PROGRAMS

Part II: Chapter 1. Introduction                                                                            100


Part II: Chapter 2. Literature Review of Principles of Effective Intervention                               107


Part II: Chapter 3. Evidence-Based Program Analysis                                                         111

Part II: Chapter 4. Individual Program Evaluations                                                          123
            1. Artemis                                                                                      127
            2. Breaking Barriers                                                                            129
            3. Day Reporting                                                                                133
            4. Get Right                                                                                    137
            5. Healing Opportunity with Positive Enforcement (HOPE)                                         141
            6. Heart and Soul                                                                               144
            7. Literacy in Families Together (LIFT)                                                         148
            8. M-8                                                                                          151
            9. Mentoring You Substance Abuse Treatment of Recovering Individual
                                                                                                            154
                 (MY STORI)
            10. Program about Change and Experience (PACE)                                                  158
            11. Parents and Children Together (PACT)                                                        161
            12. Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) Phase I—Men                                            165
            13. Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) Phase I—Women                                          169
            14. Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) Phase II                                               173
            15. Roadmap To Recovery                                                                         177
            16. Three Principles                                                                            180
            17. Trauma Recovery                                                                             183
            18. Veteran’s Educating to Succeed (VETS)                                                       186
            19. Women Investigating New Gates for Sobriety (WINGS)                                          189
            20. Willing Individuals in Substance Education (WISE)                                           192
            21. Domestic Violence Curriculum                                                                195
Part II: Chapter 5. Summary Findings and Recommendations                                                    200

Part II: Chapter 6. Appendices                                                                              230




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research    Page 4
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

                                            Executive Summary
1.1      Introduction

Correctional practitioners across the country have found that inmate programs are an integral component in
providing a safe and secure detention facility. Standard 1070 of the California Corrections Standards
Authority Adult Title 15 Guidelines mandate jail administrators to provide “individual and/or family social
service programs to inmates”.1

Traditionally, inmate programs have been measured by documenting the number of persons involved in
programs and the amount of time they spend. The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and the
Department of Correction have higher expectations regarding measurements of program effectiveness.
Their goal is to reduce recidivism among the jail population thereby protecting public safety.

It is widely accepted today among professional organizations and increasingly among policymakers that
recidivism is one measure to evaluate the effectiveness of correctional programs.2 Today, effectiveness is
also defined as the degree to which a correctional program meets the Principles of Effective Intervention
(Risk Principle, Need Principle, Responsivity Principle and Fidelity Principle defined in detail in Part II,
Chapter 2). This research suggests that these performance metrics are important and should be used as
standards for improving program performance.

In June 2010, the Santa Clara County Department of Correction (SCCDOC) initiated a study of its inmate
programs to measure the effectiveness of current programs (20 in-custody and 2 out of custody)3, to
document recidivism of inmates who participated in these programs and to compare these outcomes with a
comparison group of inmates who did not participate in these programs.

Funding for the study of in-custody programs was provided through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Formula
Program and a one-time allocation from the County Department of Correction’s Inmate Welfare Fund
(IWF). Funding for the study of out-of-custody programs was provided through the General Fund.

After a widely advertised request for proposal process, the Department selected the team of Huskey &
Associates from Chicago, IL, in association with the University of Cincinnati’s Center for Criminal Justice
Research. Huskey & Associates is a national criminal justice consulting firm that has produced 165 master
plans in 31 states, has worked in other California counties, and has served as a consultant to the California
Corrections Standards Authority and the California Administrative Office of the Courts. Huskey &
Associates has conducted previous corrections needs assessments and improvement projects for Santa
Clara County.

1 California Corrections Standards Authority. 2005 Adult Title 15 Programs and Procedures Guidelines. “The range of
programs at the discretion of the facility administrator is: individual, group and and/or family counseling; drug and
alcohol abuse counseling; community volunteers; vocational testing and counseling; employment counseling; referral
to community resources and programs; prerelease and release assistance; legal assistance; and regional center
services for the developmentally disabled”, page 70.
2 American Correctional Association. American Probation and Parole Association.
3 The Department of Correction also offers Public Service, Weekend Work Program and other Alternative Sentencing

Programs. These were not included in the Scope of Services for this project.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research    Page 5
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

The Center for Criminal Justice Research is located at the School of Criminal Justice at the University of
Cincinnati and headed by Dr. Edward Latessa. The Center has conducted evaluations of more than 500
offender programs, and has managed over $41 million dollars in grants and contracts. Dr. Latessa has also
served as a consultant to California counties, the Corrections Standards Authority and the Administrative
Office of the Courts.

This Final Report is divided into two parts: Part 1 describes the findings of the Recidivism Study for the
Department of Correction’s inmate programs documenting rearrests, reconvictions and reincarcerations for
inmates who participated in 13 stand-alone4 inmate programs and for those in a comparison sample.
Recidivism data were available on all 13 programs from the County’s CJIC databases.

Part 2 describes the findings of a qualitative evaluation of 21 inmate programs to determine the degree to
which these programs are consistent with evidence-based practices, specifically the Principles of Evidence-
based Interventions (Risk, Need, Responsivity and Fidelity) as is described in Chapter 2, Part II. Each of
the inmate programs was evaluated using the Correctional Programs Checklist (CPC-GA), a program
evaluation tool developed by the University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research.

It is important to point out that these two parts of the report represent separate analyses of the
Department’s programs. As described above, different performance measures and assessment tools were
used to conduct both evaluations to ensure that all programs were evaluated.

1.2     Project Goals

This study was designed to answer the question “Does treatment in one of the Department’s inmate
programs result in reduced rearrests, reconvictions and reincarcerations following discharge”. This is an
important policy question since the Department and the Board of Supervisors want to invest in those
programs that protect public safety and that are effective.

The overall goals of the Department’s Recidivism Study and the Program Evaluation were to:

1.    Document the recidivism of inmates participating in the SCC Department of Correction’s (SCCDOC)
      programs and compare their outcomes to a similar sample of inmates who did not participate. In this
      study, recidivism was defined as a subsequent arrest, conviction or incarceration in the SCCDOC in 6,
      12 and 24 month intervals following discharge. Detailed definitions and research methodology are
      provided in Part 1, Chapter 1.




4SCCDOC Programs Unit Programs Overview defines these 13 inmate programs as comprehensive, stand-alone
programs since they consist of a series of classes grouped together to address specific needs of a targeted
population. The SCCDOC Recidivism Steering Committee determined the programs to be examined in the
Recidivism Study and in the Program Evaluation in December 2010 to ensure that all programs and providers were
evaluated.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 6
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

2.   Evaluate the effectiveness of Department programs so the Department and the Board of Supervisors
     can be informed about those programs that meet the nationally-accepted Principles of Effective
     Intervention (Risk, Need, Responsivity and Fidelity), and which programs should Continue as Is,
     Continue with Modifications or Discontinue. The following 21 programs were evaluated using the
     University of Cincinnati’s CPC-GA Checklist:

     1.    Artemis
     2.    Breaking Barriers
     3.    Day Reporting
     4.    Get Right
     5.    Heart and Soul
     6.    Healing Opportunity with Positive Enforcement (HOPE)
     7.    Literacy in Families Together (LIFT)
     8.    M-8 (A-H housing units) (collection of programs)
     9.    Mentoring You Substance Abuse Treatment of Recovering Individual (MY STORI)
     10.   Program about Change and Experience (PACE)
     11.   Parents and Children Together (PACT)
     12.   Regimented Corrections Program-Phase I (RCP I Men)
     13.   Regimented Corrections Program-Phase I (RCP I Women)
     14.   Regimented Corrections Program-Phase II (RCP II)
     15.   Roadmap to Recovery
     16.   Three Principles (Health Realization)
     17.   Trauma Recovery
     18.   Veteran’s Educating to Succeed (VETS)
     19.   Women Investigating New Gates for Sobriety (WINGS)
     20.   Willing Individuals in Substance Education (WISE)
     21.   Domestic Violence Curriculum (not scored)

Note: The Domestic Violence Curriculum was examined but not scored using the CPC-GA Assessment
Tool.

The Correctional Programs Checklist Assessment-GA measures the following four domains:

     1.    Program Staff and Support
     2.    Offender Assessment
     3.    Treatment
     4.    Quality Assurance




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 7
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

All of the Department’s programs were measured against these four content areas to determine how many
of these performance indicators the Department’s programs met. The CPC-GA evaluation tool includes 54
indicators (see Appendix), totaling 56 total points. Effective is defined as the degree to which the program
has the components sufficient to reduce recidivism.

Using the CPC’s rating scale, each content area and all domains were scored and rated as:

      •   Highly Effective: (65% to 100%)
      •   Effective: (55% to 64%)
      •   Needs Improvement (45% to 54%)
      •   Ineffective (< 45%)

1.3       Key Findings

A sense of urgency exists for the County to invest in inmate programs that reduce recidivism to make the
community a safer place to live and work. The following are key findings from the Recidivism Study and
the Evidence-Based Program Evaluation (EBP Evaluation).

1.3.1     The findings demonstrate that individuals who participated in treatment were significantly less likely
          to be rearrested or reconvicted at 6, 12, and 24 months compared to similar individuals who did not
          participate in treatment. For example, the 6 month rearrest rate for those persons who were in the
          treatment group was 19.2 percent compared to 34.0 percent for those persons not participating in
          treatment; the 12 month rearrest rate for the treatment sample was 32.6 percent compared to 46.6
          percent for persons not in treatment; the 24 month rearrest rate for the treatment sample was 58.2
          percent compared to 63.7 percent for persons not in treatment.

          Similar findings were documented for reconvictions following discharge from SCCDOC. At six
          months, 9.7 percent of the persons who received treatment while confined were reconvicted, 16.4
          percent were reconvicted at 12 months and 25.9 percent were reconvicted at 24 months. Each of
          these outcomes was lower for the treatment sample than the matched comparison sample of
          persons not receiving treatment (see Table 3.2 on page 48).

1.3.2     In comparison, 12 and 24 month rearrests and reconvictions for inmates released from the
          California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) were higher than subsequent
          arrests and reconvictions for inmates released from SCCDOC’s programs.5 Statewide, California
          inmates’ 12-month rearrest rate was between 57 percent and 58 percent compared to 32.6 percent
          for SCCDOC’s treatment population. At 24 months, CDCR’s subsequent arrests were between 70
          percent and 71 percent compared to 58.2 percent for SCCDOC’s programs. Similarly, 12 and 24
          month reconvictions for persons discharged from SCCDOC was also lower than CDCR. Thus,
          compared to CDCR, a smaller percentage of SCCDOC’s inmates were rearrested and reconvicted
          at 12 and 24 months than inmates released from CDCR.



5
 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 2011 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report. Office
of Research, November 23, 2011. Note: No 6 month data were available from CDCR.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research    Page 8
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

1.3.3    Regarding subsequent reincarcerations for inmates released from SCCDOC, the findings show
         that treatment significantly reduced reincarcerations at 6 and 12 months compared to the matched
         comparison sample. For example, the 6 month reincarceration rates for persons who received
         treatment were 18.1 percent and 32.1 percent at 12 months. In contrast, treatment did not
         significantly lower reincarcerations at 24 months. Even though a slightly higher percent of
         individuals in SCCDOC’s treatment sample were returned to SCCDOC custody at 24 months
         compared to the matched comparison sample, the statistical difference is not significant. While
         60.8 percent of the treatment sample was returned to the SCCDOC at 24 months, 39.2 percent
         was not. (See Table 3.2 on page 48).

         In comparison, the State of California’s 24 months return to custody rate for all inmates was 60.5
         percent in FY06-07 and 59.2 percent in FY07-08 compared to 60.8 percent return to SCCDOC at
         24 months. These findings show that SCCDOC’s return to custody rate at 24 months is
         comparable to the State of California.6

1.3.4    Detailed comparisons of inmates in treatment in CDCR found that persons in treatment at CDCR
         with no aftercare had a return to custody rate of 66.5 percent after three years compared to 60.8
         percent after two years for the SCCDOC.7 Further, SCCDOC’s reincarceration outcome for the
         matched comparison sample (non-treatment population) was 58.9 percent compared to 65.3
         percent for CDCR inmates. These findings show that SCCDOC’s treatment and non-treatment
         inmates had lower 24-month reincarcerations than CDCR inmates did.

1.3.5    Treatment led to reduced rearrests and reconvictions 6 months following discharge from the
         SCCDOC in 11 of the 13 programs examined demonstrating a short-term effect of treatment. Ten
         of the 13 programs led to reduced rearrests at 12 months following discharge, and nine programs
         led to reduced reconvictions at 12 months demonstrating that treatment was sustained one year
         following discharge from SCCDOC. Finally, four of the 13 programs led to reduced reincarcerations
         at 6 and at 12 months. However, no program led to a reduction in reincarceration at 24 months
         demonstrating that the effects of treatment were not sustained.

1.3.6    Five programs were statistically associated with reduced rearrests at 6, 12 and 24 months
         combined—Artemis, M8, MY STORI, RCP I Women and WINGS.

1.3.7    Seven programs (Artemis, HOPE, M8, MY STORI, RCP I Men, RCP I Women, and WINGS)
         significantly reduced reconvictions at 6, 12 and 24 months combined.

1.3.8    Three programs (HOPE, M8 and RCP I Women) led to reductions in reincarcerations at 6 and 12
         months combined but no program led to a reduction in reincarceration at 24 months.

1.3.9    Only a few of the programs revealed no or little effect from treatment. For example, VETS resulted
         in no significant reductions in rearrests, reconvictions or reincarcerations compared to its matched

6Ibid.
7Note: No 2 year data were available from CDCR on inmates in treatment. The comparisons are based on 2 year
data in SCCDOC and 3 year data for the State of California, thus this is not a direct one to one comparison due to
unavailability of data. It can show a comparison of trends in the findings.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research     Page 9
                                                                    Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                        Final Report

           comparison sample on any of the time intervals. Get Right showed a significant reduction in only
           one measure--reconvictions at 6 months compared to its matched comparison sample. Breaking
           Barriers produced significantly lower rearrests and reconvictions at 6 months only compared to its
           matched comparison sample suggesting that the power of the gang is more influential to formerly
           incarcerated individuals than the gains they achieved while confined at SCCDOC.8 RCP II
           produced significantly lower rearrests at 6 and 12 months compared to its matched comparison
           sample. Day Reporting participants were significantly less likely to be rearrested and reconvicted at
           6 and 12 months. Artemis, HOPE, M8, MY STORI and RCP I Women produced significant
           reductions in reincarcerations at 6 months or at 12 months but the remaining 8 programs produced
           no differences. The remaining programs had some significant effect at one or more time intervals.

           Increasing the effectiveness of the Day Reporting and RCP II programs would greatly support the
           County’s Reentry initiative and reduce future reoffending. These two programs should provide
           structured reentry program elements needed for persons released from the Department and for
           those returning to Santa Clara County from state prison. (See Core Programs #5 and 6 in Chapter
           2, Part II).

1.3.10 SCCDOC’s programs achieved the greatest effect on reducing rearrests when medium and high
       risk individuals were placed into treatment. This finding is consistent with national research on the
       Risk Principle. Lowenkamp, C. & E.J. Latessa (2005) found greater reductions in recidivism when
       medium and high risk offenders participated in effective treatment. For high risk inmates in
       SCCDOC treatment programs, 27.2 percent fewer high risk inmates were rearrested at 6 months,
       24.3 percent fewer high risk inmates were rearrested at 12 months, and 13.2 percent fewer high
       risk inmates were rearrested at 24 months than their comparison samples.

           For medium risk inmates who participated in treatment, 13.8 percent fewer inmates were
           rearrested at 6 months. Treatment resulted in 18.2 percent fewer medium risk inmates who were
           rearrested at 12 months. At 24 months, 5.4 percent fewer medium risk inmates were rearrested.
           Importantly, treatment is still shown to have a positive effect on medium and high risk inmates at 24
           months, even if the effect is smaller than at 12 months. In contrast, only 2.6 percent fewer low risk
           inmates were rearrested and only 1.6 percent fewer low risk inmates were reconvicted at 6 months.

1.3.11 Reconvictions were found to result in the same overall pattern. Treatment had the greatest effect
       on medium and high risk inmates who participated in treatment compared to low risk inmates. For
       medium risk inmates who participated in treatment, treatment led to 12.7 percent fewer medium
       risk inmates reconvicted at 6 months, 15.6 percent fewer inmates were reconvicted at 12 months
       and 17.6 percent fewer inmates were reconvicted at 24 months. For high risk inmates who
       participated in treatment, 34.8 percent fewer high risk inmates were reconvicted at 6 months, 30.1
       percent fewer inmates were reconvicted at 12 months and 22.7 percent fewer high risk inmates
       were reconvicted at 24 months. In comparison, only 1.6 percent fewer low risk inmates who
       participated in treatment were reconvicted at 6 months and 3.0 percent fewer were reconvicted at
       12 months showing that the treatment effect was smaller for low risk inmates. Further, there was
       no statistical effect from treatment at 24 months for low risk inmates. When programs were


8
    Note: Case Managers were assigned to Get Right and to Breaking Barriers to increase their effectiveness.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research      Page 10
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

         individually compared to a matched comparison sample, the majority of programs did not have any
         effect on low risk inmates.

1.3.12 Low, medium and high risk inmates who participated in treatment were also significantly less likely
       to be reincarcerated at 6 and 12 months compared to their matched comparison samples.
       Treatment led to 2.5 percent fewer low risk inmates rearrested at 6 months and 5.8 percent fewer
       rearrests at 12 months. However, medium risk inmates in treatment had greater effects from
       treatment than low and high risk inmates at 6 and 12 months. There were no statistical differences
       between the treatment and matched comparison samples at 24 months for any risk level. This
       may suggest that not enough of the criminogenic needs of the medium and high risk inmate are
       being met thus leading to smaller effect sizes.

1.3.13 SCCDOC would produce a greater benefit to inmates and to society if it matched medium and high
       risk inmates with intensive treatment aimed at reducing criminogenic needs. Eleven SCCDOC
       programs target some of the criminogenic needs (e.g. criminal values, attitudes and thinking
       patterns)9 but others do not. Extensive research documents that these needs should be targeted
       for medium and high risk inmates to produce reductions in recidivism.

1.3.14 Not only does targeting medium and high risk inmates for treatment demonstrate the best
       allocation of resources for the County, it is also critical to protect public safety once the individual is
       released to the community. This highlights the responsibility of the Department and its community-
       based treatment providers to provide the greatest amount (duration and dosage) and the most
       effective type of treatment (cognitive behavioral treatment) to those inmates who have the highest
       risk of reoffending in the community after discharge. It is important to note that the housing
       classification of inmates must be taken into account because as is customary in the jail field, the
       SCCDOC does not mix maximum security classifications, protective custody, “keep aways,” and
       “gang drop outs” with medium and minimum classifications thus jeopardizing the staff and inmates’
       safety. Assessment of risk to reoffend should be a separate process from housing classification, as
       an inmate assessed as medium security level may actually be high risk to reoffend based on an
       actuarial assessment instrument.

1.3.15 Five risk factors were found to be statistically significant with future recidivism among all SCCDOC
       inmates:

           1.   Age at time of incarceration
           2.   Whether or not a person was flagged as being in a gang
           3.   Whether or not the person had a previous charge of a drug offense
           4.   The number of prior arrests
           5.   The number of prior probation violations




9
  Artemis, PACT, PACE, Roadmap to Recovery, MY STORI, WINGS, WISE, HOPE, Day Reporting, Breaking
Barriers and ARTEMIS.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 11
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

1.3.16 The Rehabilitation Officers are doing a reasonably good job using a subjective psychosocial
       assessment instrument in matching medium risk inmates with programs, since 59.6 percent of the
       inmates involved in treatment were assessed by this study as medium risk to reoffend. The
       Department’s “Case Notes” addresses the majority of the criminogenic factors such as current and
       past criminal history, drug and alcohol use/abuse, family history with substance use, gang
       affiliation, education, employment and residence. This finding shows the value of the ROs in
       conducting offender assessments and in matching inmates to treatment. Roughly 20 percent of
       individuals placed in treatment were scored as low risk to recidivate but were involved in treatment
       while another 20 percent of those in the treatment sample were scored high risk. Adopting an
       objective assessment procedure will improve the matching process. For Santa Clara County to
       reach its goal of lowering the recidivism of high risk inmates, more high risk inmates will need to be
       included in treatment; therefore, SCCDOC should assess inmates to determine who is high risk to
       reoffend, and to match them with appropriate treatment within their security level.

1.3.17 According to the findings of the program evaluations described in Part II, the Department’s
       programs scored higher in the Program Staff and Support domain compared to the other three
       domains. All of the programs scored “Effective” in this domain; within the range of 60 to 100
       percent (PACT scored 100 percent). This finding shows that the SCCDOC’s Programs Unit staff
       and its community-based providers are well-qualified, experienced and capable to deliver a higher
       level of evidence-based treatment programs. This is extremely important for correctional programs
       as these staff characteristics have been demonstrated to be influential in reducing future recidivism
       (Lowenkamp and Latessa, 2002).

1.3.18 The lowest score in the program evaluations was for Offender Assessment with a score of 0 for this
       domain. This score is a result of the Department not utilizing an empirically validated, objective tool
       to assess a person’s risk (to reoffend). Risk is defined as the probability of recidivating upon
       release, and inmates are scored as low, medium or high risk to reoffend after discharge using an
       objective assessment instrument. While the Department’s “Case Notes” addresses the majority of
       the criminogenic factors, it does not produce the data needed to score inmates as low, medium or
       high risk to reoffend, nor does it match inmates into treatment according to these risk levels. The
       adoption of such a tool would provide an effective assessment of risk to reoffend, and it will
       improve the matching of inmates to programs that relate to their needs.

1.3.19 In the Treatment domain of the program evaluations, one program scored as “Highly Effective”
       (PACT), and the remaining programs scored in the “Ineffective” range. The primary reason why this
       occurred is because the program curricula focus on education. Education is one aspect of
       changing behavior but it falls short in transforming offenders who exhibit anti-social values,
       attitudes and distorted thinking patterns, which are characteristic of most medium and high risk
       offenders. Unless program staff address the individual’s underlying anti-social values and attitudes,
       teach them prosocial values and skills, give them opportunities to practice these skills, and alter
       their distorted thinking patterns, the offender’s behavior will not be changed (Landenberger and
       Lipsey, 2005; Lipsey, Chapman, and Landenberger, 2001).




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 12
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report


1.3.20 In the Quality Assurance domain of the program evaluations, PACT scored as “Effective” and the
       remaining programs scored in the “Ineffective” range. The PACT program contains more of the
       elements of the cognitive behavioral model of treatment than any of the other programs. Only two
       programs (PACT and Three Principles) evaluate their effectiveness using a pre and posttest
       measurement to demonstrate behavior change.

1.3.21 The average length of stay for inmates indicate that there is sufficient time for unsentenced and
       sentenced felons to complete programs as their average length of stay ranges from 104.1-184.6
       days for unsentenced felons and 86.9-120.3 days for sentenced felons. Based on the number of
       hours inmates are involved in programs (240-308 hours for an 8-10 week cycle), it appears that
       there is sufficient time to complete programs.

In summary, the Recidivism Study (Part I) found: (1) participation in treatment led to reductions in rearrests
and reconvictions at 6, 12, and 24 months and in reincarcerations at 6 and 12 months; (2) No programs
significantly lowered reincarcerations at 24 months; (3) Only a few of the programs revealed no or little
effect from treatment; (4) The greatest effect from treatment occurred with medium and high risk inmates
while the least effect occurred with low risk inmates. These findings suggest that intensive treatment
resources should be dedicated to lowering the risk of medium and high risk inmates since they pose the
greatest risk to society upon discharge.

There are limitations to the study that the reader should take into account when interpreting the results. The
only data available to assess the risk of inmates were offense, gangs, age, sex, and race. These criteria
have traditionally been used throughout the nation to assess risk to reoffend. However, contemporary risk
assessment tools take into account criminogenic needs such as substance abuse history, education level,
employment status, and marital status, all of which mitigate risk. If data on criminogenic needs were
available, the results may have been different.

Data were not consistently available to indicate the reason a person was discharged from the program.
That is, the current study was not able to empirically evaluate the relationship between reasons for
termination with the recidivism results.

The database could not differentiate those inmates who participated in more than one program because
individuals who left their initial program and were transferred to another program were not tracked by the
Department. Based on this limitation, recidivism outcomes had to be examined for inmates who participated
in the initial program they entered rather than the subsequent programs they participated in during their
stay at the SCCDOC. This method affected RCP II the most since individuals are transferred to RCP II from
RCP I. Due to the limitation in the database, the researchers were not able to isolate RCP II participants
from participants in other programs so the sample sizes for RCP II are small. Even with this limitation, 70
percent of the individuals overall in the study were found to be participating in one program while 30
percent of the individuals were found to be participating in more than one treatment program.

Finally, the report makes comparisons between the recidivism of SCCDOC inmates with the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) inmates because the CDCR inmate database
includes individuals from Santa Clara County. However, one must recognize that a direct comparison
between SCCDOC and CDCR is not possible due to the unavailability of CDCR data and variances in time


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 13
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

frames, in the seriousness of CDCR inmates compared to SCCDOC inmates and variances in risk to
reoffend between both populations.

Part II of this Report contains a separate analysis of inmate programs using the Correctional Programs
Checklist (CPC-GA). This assessment found actions that could be taken to improve the programs so that
an even greater effect on recidivism could be realized in the future. SCCDOC and its providers can take
numerous steps (outlined in Part II) to upgrade these programs to achieve greater reductions in recidivism.

The Department has made the following modifications in its programs since January 2011:

      •   A Rehabilitation Officer has been assigned to the Main Jail facility to address the needs of the high
          risk population housed at the Main Jail.
      •   The boot camp aspect of the Regimented Corrections Program has been omitted.
      •   Library services will be offered by the Milpitas Unified School District.
      •   A parenting class for Elmwood Men will be taught by Family and Children’s Services.
      •   L.I.F.T. (Literacy in Families Together) class was discontinued.
      •   All the classes offered in the M8 building have been relocated to the M4 and M5 buildings (the only
          change is the location).
      •   One Rehabilitation Officer Position was deleted.
      •   The Artemis, MY STORI and Regimented Corrections Program for women have been combined
          into a new Reentry Corrections Program for women without the boot camp aspect.
      •   The HOPE and the Regimented Corrections Program for men have been combined in new Reentry
          Corrections Program for men without the boot camp aspect.
      •   The RCP Phase I-Men has been modified. The marching and physical component was removed
          from the program.
      •   The RCP Phase I-Women has been modified. The marching and physical component was
          removed from the program.
      •   Breaking Barriers has been assigned a Case Manager.
      •   Get Right has been assigned a Case Manager.

Additionally, two more initiatives were created related to recidivism: A Center for Leadership and Training
(CLT) group was created to look at re-entry strategies, and their findings were presented in December
2011. A countywide committee called Community Corrections Partnership was formed to address the AB
109 Public Safety Realignment Implementation Plan.

1.4       Summary of Recommendations

The report proposes a number of recommendations to enhance the inmate programs so they will fully meet
the Principles of Effective Intervention and produce even greater reductions in recidivism. It is important to
note that the SCCDOC is responsible for providing effective programming while the person is in custody
and not after the person is discharged from custody. For those individuals who will continue in treatment
after discharge, it is the community providers’ role to provide programming that meets the national
Principles of Effective Intervention.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 14
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

The following is a summary of these recommendations:

1.4.1    SCCDOC is recommended to adopt an objective and empirically validated risk and needs
         assessment instrument that scores inmates as low, medium and high risk to reoffend, and to use
         this information to match persons into the appropriate type, duration and dosage of treatment.
         Implementing this tool will ensure that more high risk and medium risk inmates are targeted for
         programming and fewer low risk inmates are admitted. To implement this recommendation, it is
         recommended that the Department obtain additional Rehabilitation Officers to conduct these
         assessments so that an accurate diagnosis of risk and needs can be established, and further, that
         staff can accurately match inmates with programs within their security level that meet their
         criminogenic needs. The classification of inmates must be taken into account because the DOC
         does not mix maximum security classifications, protective custody, “keep aways”, and “gang drop
         outs” with medium and minimum classifications thus jeopardizing the staff and inmates’ safety.

1.4.2    All treatment programs should clearly outline inclusion and exclusion criteria. For example, if an
         individual is not assessed as having a substance abuse problem, he should not be placed in a
         substance abuse treatment program.

1.4.3    Expand the number of Core Programs from one (substance abuse education) to include six major
         core program areas:

             1.   Substance Abuse Treatment with Cognitive Behavioral Elements
             2.   Cognitive Behavioral Skills Training
             3.   Conflict Resolution/Anger Management
             4.   Academic and Post-Graduate Education/Job Readiness Training
             5.   Reentry Preparation
             6.   Aftercare.

1.4.4    Ensure that individuals are matched with these core programs based on their assessed risk to
         reoffend upon release and criminogenic needs. Inmates should be placed in one or more of these
         core programs based on the assessment. Select curricula that are designed to address all
         criminogenic needs and match inmates to one or more of the Core Programs that address these
         criminogenic needs.

1.4.5    Low risk inmates should be considered for work assignments, self-guided educational activities
         (e.g. Roadmap to Recovery) and for other behavior management activities that reduce idleness
         such as creative arts, recreation, library, etc.

1.4.6    SCCDOC should continue to work with its providers toward developing and delivering the Core
         Programs recommended in the EBP Evaluation Report (Part II) and to reduce the number of areas
         of improvement found in each of their individual evaluations.

1.4.7    Treatment programs should follow the Principles of Effective Intervention (Risk, Need, Responsivity
         and Fidelity) and with the core correctional practices (e.g., effective approval, effective disapproval,
         relationship skills, modeling, skill building, and problem solving).



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 15
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

1.4.8    Develop a policy and practice to ensure fidelity to treatment and quality assurance for all SCCDOC
         treatment programs such as tracking the progress of people participating in treatment based on pre
         and posttest examinations, monthly or quarterly observation of classes and formal feedback by
         supervisors to all instructors, and routine and formal feedback invited by staff and inmates on the
         value of the classes.

1.4.9    Develop an initial and ongoing in-service training program for treatment staff.

1.4.10 Three quarters (75 percent) of the programs is recommended to be continued with modifications
       and 25 percent are recommended to be discontinued and replaced with more effective
       programming (see Table 1.1 and 1.2 on following pages). Even when the program produced some
       reductions in recidivism, the analysis found many areas that could be improved so that greater
       reductions in recidivism will be realized.

Table 1.1 on the following page displays the 13 programs that were examined in the Recidivism Study, the
key findings for each of the programs and the consultant’s recommendations to Continue with Modifications
or to Discontinue.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 16
                                                                                                                      Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                                                                     Final Report

                                                                            Table 1.1
                                          Programs with Significantly Lower Recidivism and Action Recommendations
      PROGRAM                  Reduced            Reduced            Reduced          Reduced       Reduced     Reduced   CONSULTANT’S
                              Rearrests,         Rearrests,        Rearrests &       Rearrests &   Rearrests & Rearrests RECOMMENDATION
                           Reconvictions &    Reconvictions & Reconvictions Reconvictions Reconvictions          6 & 12
                          Reincarcerations Reincarcerations         6, 12 & 24     6 & 12 Months   at 6 Months  Months
                          6, 12 & 24 Months    6 & 12 Months         Months
                                                                                                                            Continue with
 ARTEMIS                          -0-               -0-
                                                                                                                            Modifications
 BREAKING                                                                                                                   Continue with
                                  -0-               -0-                 -0-              -0-                       -0-
 BARRIERS                                                                                                                   Modifications
                                                                                                                            Continue with
 DAY REPORTING                    -0-               -0-                 -0-
                                                                                                                            Modifications
 GET RIGHT                        -0-               -0-                 -0-              -0-            -0-        -0-       Discontinue
                                                                                                                            Continue with
 HOPE                             -0-                                   -0-
                                                                                                                            Modifications
                                                                                                                            Continue with
 M8                               -0-
                                                                                                                            Modifications
                                                                                                                            Continue with
 MY STORI                         -0-               -0-
                                                                                                                            Modifications
                                                                                                                            Continue with
 PACE                             -0-               -0-                 -0-
                                                                                                                            Modifications
                                                                                                                            Continue with
 RCP I MEN                        -0-               -0-                 -0-
                                                                                                                            Modifications
                                                                                                                            Continue with
 RCP I WOMEN                      -0-
                                                                                                                            Modifications
                                                                                                                            Continue with
 RCP II                           -0-               -0-                 -0-              -0-            -0-
                                                                                                                            Modifications
 VETS                             -0-               -0-                 -0-              -0-            -0-        -0-       Discontinue
                                                                                                                            Continue with
 WINGS                            -0-               -0-
                                                                                                                            Modifications
Note: checks note significance and -0- notes no significance

          Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research                                     Page 17
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

Table 1.2 includes all programs examined in the recidivism study and in the program evaluation, and it
provides the consultant’s program recommendations.

                                               Table 1.2
                      SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
                             All Individual Evaluation Recommendations

Program                                Continue as Is            Continue with               Discontinue and
                                                                 Modifications                   Replace
1.   Artemis
2.   Breaking Barriers
3.   Day Reporting
4.   Get Right
5.   Healing Opportunities in a
     Program Environment
     (HOPE)
6. Heart and Soul
7. Literacy in Families Together
   (LIFT)
8. M8 Program
9. Mentoring You-Successful
   Transition of Recovering
   Individuals (MYSTORI)
10. Program About Change and
    Experience (PACE)
11. Parents and Children
    Together (PACT)
12. Regimented Corrections
    Program Phase I-Men (This
    program has been modified
    and the boot camp aspect
    has been removed)
13. Regimented Corrections
    Program Phase I-Women
    (This program has been
    modified and the boot camp
    aspect has been removed)
14. Regimented Corrections
    Program Phase II
15. Roadmap to Recovery
16. Three Principles


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 18
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

Program                                Continue as Is            Continue with               Discontinue and
                                                                 Modifications                   Replace
17. Trauma Recovery
18. Veterans Educating to
    Succeed (VETS)
19. Women Investigating New
    Gates for Sobriety (WINGS)
20. Willing Individuals in
    Substance Education (WISE)
Overall Recommendation                        -0-                   15 (75%)                       5 (25%)
Note: The Domestic Violence Curriculum was examined but not scored.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research    Page 19
PART I: RECIDIVISM STUDY
          Part I: Chapter 1
Introduction and Executive Summary
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

                                                 Part I. Chapter 1
1.1       Introduction

In this study, recidivism was defined as rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration to the SCC Department
of Correction (SCCDOC). These three recidivism measures were examined for three time intervals-6
months, 12 months and 24 months after discharge from the SCCDOC for a total of 9 outcome measures for
each of the programs.

The following provides a brief definition of each measure of recidivism:

Rearrest

      •   Excluded holds, informal contact by police, cite and release
      •   Included all other persons who were discharged from the SCCDOC that had a subsequent arrest
      •   Persons with multiple arrests were counted once as having been rearrested

Reconviction

      •   Same exclusions as in rearrest but also excluded remands into custody since this category did not
          result in a disposition of a conviction
      •   Included all other individuals who were discharged from the SCCDOC that were later rearrested
          and had a disposition of a conviction
      •   Persons with multiple convictions were counted once as having been reconvicted

Reincarceration

      •   Included all persons returned to the SCCDOC (remanded into custody by the court, pre-trial
          defendants held for trial, persons placed into custody as a result of a probation violation for a rule
          violation or for a new offense, or as the result of a new court commitment to jail)
      •   Persons with multiple reincarcerations for these reasons were counted once as having been
          reincarcerated

1.2       Description of Methodology

For all recidivism measures, the length of time after discharge from the SCCDOC was measured. An
inmate needed a minimum time of discharge of 6 months to be included in the 6 month time interval, a
minimum of 12 months from discharge to be included in the 12 month time interval, and a minimum of 24
months to be included in the 24 month time interval. For example, a person who was discharged for 14
months would be included in the 6 and 12 month sample but not in the 24 month sample.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 22
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

All recidivism data were obtained from the County’s Criminal Justice Information Control (CJIC) in the
following two databases:

Booking File: CJIC’s “Booking” file provided information on the date of booking, reason for booking, current
offense and the date of discharge. The discharge date was used as the starting point for examining
discharge from SCCDOC and recidivism following release from SCCDOC.

Court File: This file provided information on the disposition of the case. The CJIC database does not
identify changes because of subsequent sentence modifications, and jail time does not take into account
any concurrent/consecutive sentencing, suspended sentencing, stayed sentencing, or credit for time served
that was ordered by the judge.

Rearrest data were obtained from CJIC’s “Booking” file. This file indicated whether or not contact with the
police resulted in an arrest. Thus, the Booking file identified if a person had an arrest after they were
discharged. No informal contacts, holds, or cite and releases were counted as a rearrest. The remaining
inmates who had a new arrest that was not the result of a hold, informal contact or cite and release were
coded as having a new arrest. An inmate who may have had multiple arrests was only counted once as
having been rearrested.

Reconviction data was obtained from CJIC’s “Booking” and “Court” files. The Court file indicated whether or
not a charge resulted in a new conviction. If an individual was identified as a hold, informal contact by the
police, cite and release or a remand into custody, these incidents were not coded as a new conviction. If an
individual was rearrested and their CEN number indicated a disposition of a conviction, an individual was
considered to be reconvicted of a new crime. The remaining inmates who were discharged from the
SCCDOC that were later rearrested and had a disposition of a conviction were counted as having a
reconviction. An inmate who may have had multiple reconvictions was only counted once as being
reconvicted.

Finally, reincarceration data was also obtained from the CJIC “Booking” and “Court” files. The Court file
determined whether or not a person returned to the custody of the SCCDOC. The reincarceration totals
include all persons returned to the SCCDOC regardless of reason (e.g. remanded into custody, pre-trial
defendants held for trial, persons placed into custody as a result of a probation violation for a rule violation
or for a new offense, or as the result of a new court commitment to jail). An inmate was only counted once
as being reincarcerated, regardless of multiple reincarcerations or for more than one reason for return to
custody. This method was selected because it represents all persons returned to custody to the
Department of Correction regardless of reason, and it is the same method used by the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

The study used a quasi-experimental design drawing upon archival data from 2008, 2009 and through June
2010. The use of existing data permitted quicker results, and it enabled the researchers to compare past to
current recidivism outcomes.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 23
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

The study design involved the sampling of three groups confined in the SCCDOC during March 2008-June
2010:
1. All participants in the Department of Correction’s in-custody programs (placed in the Treatment
   Sample).
2. All participants in the Department of Correction’s out-of-custody programs (placed in the Treatment
   Sample) and
3. A matched comparison sample that did not participate in either in-custody or out-of-custody treatment
   (placed in the Matched Comparison Sample).

Admission and discharge data for participants in the in-custody and out-of-custody programs were provided
by the SCCDOC Programs Unit. The admission database consisted of 662 Excel files and the discharge
database included 461 Excel files. Inmates were identified by the Department in one of 13 programs. The
database could not differentiate those inmates who participated in more than one program because the
database does not track individuals transferred to other programs. Based on this limitation, recidivism
outcomes were examined for inmates who participated in the program they initially entered and not in
multiple programs that they participated in during their stay at SCCDOC. This method effected RCP II the
most since individuals are only eligible for this program after successfully completing RCP I. Due to the
limitation in the database, the researchers were not able to isolate RCP II as the initial program so the
sample sizes for RCP II are small.

Even with this limitation, 70 percent of the individuals in all treatment programs were found to be
participating in one program while 30 percent of the individuals receiving treatment were found to be
participating in more than one treatment program. This methodology was approved by the SCCDOC
Recidivism Steering Committee as it was determined not to have an impact on the overall findings.

Data for the matched comparison sample (individuals who were confined in the SCCDOC but did not
participate in programs) were provided by the County’s Criminal Justice Information Control (CJIC). These
data were provided in the following four databases:

1.   Persons database (demographic characteristics-Date of Birth, Race, Gender, etc.)
2.   Booking database (date of arrest, booking date, release date, CEN Status, Security Level, etc.)
3.   Court database (previous jail/prison incarcerations, current and prior offenses, etc.)
4.   Supervision database (whether the person was on formal probation in the County and whether or not
     they successfully completed supervision)

These four files were used to determine the characteristics of those inmates who participated in programs
and the characteristics of inmates who did not participate in programs, to determine their potential risk to
recidivate by low, medium, and high risk, and to measure inmates’ recidivism at 6, 12 and 24 months on
rearrests, reconvictions and reincarcerations. CJIC provided updates on recidivism outcomes throughout
the project, with the final update occurring on August 18, 2011.

Recidivism outcomes for each program were compared with a matched comparison sample. Inmates in
the treatment and in the matched comparison sample were matched on the following characteristics: sex,
race, age, security level, and risk to recidivate. This matching process minimized substantive differences
between the treatment and the matched comparison samples. Recidivism outcomes for rearrest,



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 24
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

reconviction and reincarceration measures were reported at a 6-month, 12-month, and 24-month time
interval following discharge.

The following data were provided by CJIC and analyzed by the researchers for each individual participating
in every program during the study period and for those inmates not participating.

                                                 Table 1.1
                            Individual Case Data Provided on the Study Sample

         Construct                                           Data Collected
         General                 Case number, committing court, name of offender, as well as other
         Information             control numbers, date of booking, date of release and security level
         Demographic             Date of birth, race, sex, ethnicity, residence
         Information
         Current case            Date of arrest, California crime code/description, type of offense
         information             (felony, misdemeanor, ordinance), legal status (pre-trial/sentenced),
                                 probation violator, sentence disposition date, length of sentence,
                                 any special conditions
         Criminal history        Date of first arrest (back to 2003), number of prior
         information             felony/misdemeanor arrests, number of prior convictions, number
                                 of prior jail incarcerations, number of times on probation, number of
                                 unsuccessful terminations from probation supervision, gang
                                 membership by type
         Risk and need           Number/type of jail programs participated in while incarcerated
         Information
         Closure                 All service referrals, program discharges, rearrests, reconvictions
                                 and reincarcerations 6, 12 and 24 months following discharge from
                                 the program, number and percent of inmates in a program, length of
                                 time before discharge

The following methodology was used to analyze the data:

    •    Databases were merged together in order to create a specific database that would allow an
         analysis of inmates who participated in SCCDOC programs and inmates who did not participate in
         programs.

    •    Descriptive analyses were conducted on treatment and comparison populations. The analyses
         allowed for a determination of the comparability of samples and highlighted important differences
         and necessary statistical controls. These analyses also provided a profile of the offenders housed
         in the Department of Correction.

    •    Risk (to recidivate) criteria were developed in order to match individuals on their likelihood of
         recidivating, and it enabled the researchers to score inmates into one of three groups – low,
         medium or high risk to recidivate. Risk was defined as “probability of reoffending after discharge”
         and not their risk to themselves or others within the correctional facility. The development of risk


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 25
                                                                     Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                           Final Report

         variables for the Santa Clara County Department of Correction’s Recidivism Study served one
         main purpose: to develop a statistical measure of “risk to reoffend” that can be controlled across
         the treatment group (i.e., defined as those inmates who participated in programs while in the
         SCCDOC) and a matched comparison sample (i.e., those who did not participate in programs while
         in the SCCDOC). It should be emphasized that these variables were used only for this study, and
         should not be applied to future inmates as a means of risk assessment. While the risk variables
         were found to be predictive of one’s risk to reoffend, the criteria describe partial risk factors for
         future reoffending. Information on other criminogenic needs such as substance use/abuse, marital
         status, employment, and education were not available in the CJIC database, thus resulting in a
         limitation in the risk assessment procedure that was used.

     •   Two databases were created for the purpose of selecting samples. One database contained
         information on all individuals who participated in treatment programs during the overall study’s time
         frame (March 2008-June 2010). The second database contained information on all inmates that
         did not participate in programs during the study’s time frame.

     •   After matched comparison samples were drawn, chi square analyses were conducted to determine
         if there were any differences in recidivism outcomes between those who participated in a program
         and a matched comparison sample of those inmates who did not participate. Multivariate statistical
         techniques were not used to assess differences in recidivism because the matched sample
         controlled for any outside influence of variables (i.e., there was no difference between samples on
         any of the matched variables). This made the chi square statistic the most appropriate statistical
         test to be conducted.10

This methodology produced a meaningful and timely report on the effectiveness of the Department’s
programs to reduce recidivism.




10
    Chi square is one of the most frequently used statistical tests. Chi square compares the scores of cases on two
different variables at the same time to determine if the is a significant relationship between the two variables. [χ2 = ∑
((ƒ0 - ƒe) / ƒe); where ƒe = (Row Marginal x column marginal)/N]. The different outcomes of the two variables are
placed in a table which then compares the expected frequencies to the observed frequencies. If there is a large
difference between the expected and observed frequencies for each cell, the less likely the variables are independent
from one another.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research       Page 26
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

1.3        Programs Included in the Recidivism Study

The focus of the recidivism study was to determine the recidivism outcomes for in-custody and out-of-
custody programs offered by the Department and on which data were available. The following programs
were included in the recidivism study11:

1.     Artemis
2.     Breaking Barriers
3.     Day Reporting (out of custody program)
4.     Get Right
5.     Healing Opportunities in a Program Environment (HOPE)
6.     M8 (Collection of programs)
7.     Mentoring Youth-Successful Transition of Recovering Individuals (MY STORI)
8.     Program About Change and Experience (PACE)
9.     Regimented Corrections Program 1 (RCP I) Men
10.    Regimented Corrections Program 1 (RCP I) Women
11.    Regimented Corrections Program II (RCP II) (out of custody program)
12.    Veterans Educating to Succeed (VETS)
13.    Women Investigation New Gates for Sobriety (WINGS)

These 13 programs were selected by the SCCDOC Steering Committee because these programs
consisted of a variety of curricula and because recidivism data were available for these programs in
existing databases. It should be noted that not all “programs” the Department offers are included on this list.
This is because some of these are curricula that are delivered while an individual is enrolled in one of the
above programs. For example, individuals enrolled in MY STORI are involved in: three hours of substance
abuse programming a day; two hours of codependency/parenting each week; three hours of Three
Principles each week; three hours of computer class each week; three hours of domestic violence each
week; three hours of trauma recovery each week; three hours of LIFT each week; two hours of meditation
each week; three hours of PACT parenting each week; and an optional three-hour PACT visit each.




11   These programs were approved by the Recidivism Steering Committee at its December 10, 2010 meeting.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 27
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                        Final Report

1.4     Summary of Key Findings

The following are key findings from this analysis:

1.4.1    The findings demonstrate that individuals who participated in treatment were significantly less likely
         to be rearrested or reconvicted at 6, 12, and 24 months compared to similar individuals who did not
         participate in treatment.

1.4.2    In comparison, 12 and 24 month rearrests and reconvictions for inmates released from the
         California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) were higher than subsequent
         arrests and reconvictions for inmates released from SCCDOC’s programs.12 Statewide, California
         inmates’ 12-month rearrest rate was between 57 percent and 58 percent compared to 32.6 percent
         for SCCDOC’s treatment population at 12 months. At 24 months, CDCR’s subsequent arrests were
         between 70 percent and 71 percent compared to 58.2 percent for SCCDOC’s programs. Similarly,
         12 and 24 month reconvictions for persons discharged from SCCDOC was also lower than CDCR.
         Thus, compared to CDCR, a smaller percentage of SCCDOC’s inmates were rearrested and
         reconvicted at 12 and 24 months than inmates released from CDCR.

1.4.3    Regarding subsequent reincarcerations for inmates released from SCCDOC, the findings show
         that treatment significantly reduced reincarcerations at 6 and 12 months compared to the matched
         comparison sample. In contrast, treatment did not significantly lower reincarcerations at 24 months.
         Even though a slightly higher percent of individuals in SCCDOC’s treatment sample were returned
         to SCCDOC custody at 24 months compared to the matched-comparison sample, the statistical
         difference is not significant. While 60.8 percent of the treatment sample was returned to the
         SCCDOC at 24 months, 39.2 percent was not. (See Table 3.2 in Chapter 3). In comparison,
         CDCR found that after two years following discharge from CDCR, 60.5 percent of CDCR’s former
         inmates returned to CDCR custody in FY06-07 and 59.2 percent in FY07-08.

1.4.4    Detailed comparisons of inmates in treatment in CDCR found that persons in treatment at CDCR
         with no aftercare had a return to custody rate of 66.5 percent after three years. This compares to
         60.8 percent of the SCCDOC inmates return to custody after two years.13 Further, SCCDOC’s
         reincarceration outcome for the matched comparison sample (non-treatment population) was 58.9
         percent compared to 65.3 percent for CDCR inmates. These findings show that SCCDOC’s
         treatment and non-treatment inmates had lower 24 month reincarcerations than CDCR inmates
         did.

1.4.5    Treatment led to reduced rearrests and reconvictions 6 months following discharge from the
         SCCDOC in 11 of the 13 programs examined demonstrating a short-term effect of treatment. Ten
         of the 13 programs led to reduced rearrest at 12 months following discharge, and nine programs
         led to reduced reconvictions at 12 months demonstrating that treatment was sustained one year

12 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 2011 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report. Office
of Research, November 23, 2011.
13 Note: The comparisons are based on 2 year data in SCCDOC and 3 year data for the State of California due to

unavailability of data. This is not a direct one to one comparison, but it can show a comparison of trends in the
findings.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research    Page 28
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

         following discharge from the SCCDOC. Finally, four of the 13 programs led to reduced
         reincarcerations at 6 and at 12 months. However, no program led to a reduction in reincarceration
         at 24 months demonstrating that the effects of treatment were not sustained.

1.4.6    Five programs were statistically associated with reduced rearrests at 6, 12 and 24 months—
         Artemis, M8, MY STORI, RCP I Women and WINGS.

1.4.7    Seven programs (Artemis, HOPE, M8, MY STORI, RCP I Men, RCP I Women, and WINGS)
         significantly reduced reconvictions at 6, 12 and 24 months.

1.4.8    Three programs (HOPE, M8 and RCP I Women) led to reductions in reincarcerations at 6 and 12
         combined but no program led to a reduction in reincarceration at 24 months suggesting that the
         effects of treatment were not sustained.

1.4.10 Only a few of the programs revealed no or little effect from treatment. For example, VETS resulted
       in no significant reductions in rearrests, reconvictions or reincarcerations compared to its matched
       comparison sample on any of the time intervals. Get Right showed a significant reduction in only
       one measure--reconvictions at 6 months compared to its matched comparison sample. Breaking
       Barriers produced significantly lower rearrests and reconvictions only at 6 months compared to its
       matched comparison sample suggesting that the power of the gang is more influential to formerly
       incarcerated individuals than the gains they achieved while confined at SCCDOC. Artemis, HOPE,
       M8, MY STORI and RCP I Women produced significant reductions in reincarcerations at 6 and 12
       months but the remaining 8 programs produced no differences. RCP II produced significantly lower
       rearrests at 6 and 12 months compared to its matched comparison sample. Day Reporting
       participants were significantly less likely to be rearrested and reconvicted at 6 and 12 months.
       The remaining programs had some significant effect at one or more time intervals.

         Increasing the effectiveness of Day Reporting and RCP II would greatly support the County’s
         Reentry initiative. Day Reporting and RCP II should provide structured reentry program elements
         needed for persons released from the SCCDOC and for those returning to Santa Clara County
         from state prison (see Core Programs #5 and 6 in Part II, Chapter 5).

1.4.11 SCCDOC’s programs achieved the greatest effect on reducing rearrests when medium and high
       risk individuals were placed into treatment. This finding is consistent with national research on the
       Risk Principle. Lowenkamp, C. & E.J. Latessa (2005) found greater reductions in recidivism when
       medium and high risk offenders participated in effective treatment. For high risk inmates in
       SCCDOC treatment programs, 27.2 percent fewer high risk inmates were rearrested at 6 months,
       24.3 percent fewer high risk inmates were rearrested at 12 months and 13.2 percent fewer high
       risk inmates were rearrested at 24 months than their comparison samples. For medium risk
       inmates in treatment, 13.8 percent fewer inmates were rearrested at 6 months, 18.2 percent fewer
       medium risk inmates were rearrested at 12 months and 5.4 percent fewer medium risk inmates
       were rearrested at 24 months. Even at 24 months, treatment is shown to have an effect on medium
       and high risk inmates, even if the effect is smaller than at 12 months. In contrast, only 2.6 percent
       fewer low risk inmates in treatment were rearrested at 6 months but there was no significant
       difference in their arrests for 12 and 24 months.



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 29
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

1.4.12 Reconvictions were found to result in the same overall pattern. Treatment had the greatest effect
       on medium and high risk inmates who participated in treatment compared to low risk inmates. For
       medium risk inmates who participated in treatment, treatment led to 12.7 percent fewer medium
       risk inmates reconvicted at 6 months, 15.6 percent fewer inmates were reconvicted at 12 months
       and 17.6 percent fewer inmates were reconvicted at 24 months. For high risk inmates who
       participated in treatment, 34.8 percent fewer high risk inmates were reconvicted at 6 months, 30.1
       percent fewer inmates were reconvicted at 12 months and 22.7 percent fewer high risk inmates
       were reconvicted at 24 months. In comparison, only 1.6 percent fewer low risk inmates who
       participated in treatment were reconvicted at 6 months and 3.0 percent fewer were reconvicted at
       12 months showing that the treatment effect was smaller for low risk inmates. Further, there was
       no statistical effect from treatment at 24 months for low risk inmates. When programs were
       individually compared to a matched comparison sample, the majority of programs did not have any
       effect on low risk inmates.

1.4.13 Low, medium and high risk inmates who participated in treatment were significantly less likely to be
       reincarcerated at 6 and 12 months compared to their matched comparison samples. Treatment led
       to 2.5 percent fewer low risk inmates rearrested at 6 months and 5.8 percent fewer rearrests at 12
       months. However, medium risk inmates in treatment had greater effects from treatment than low
       and high risk inmates at 6 and 12 months. There were no statistical differences between the
       treatment and matched comparison samples at 24 months for any risk level. This may suggest
       that not enough of the criminogenic needs of the medium and high risk inmate are being met thus
       leading to smaller effect sizes.

1.4.14 SCCDOC would produce a greater benefit to inmates and to society if it matched medium and high
       risk inmates with intensive treatment aimed at reducing criminogenic needs. Eleven SCCDOC
       programs target some of the criminogenic needs (e.g. criminal values, attitudes and thinking
       patterns)14 but others do not. Extensive research documents that these needs should be targeted
       for medium and high risk inmates to produce reductions in recidivism

1.4.15 Not only does targeting medium and high risk for treatment demonstrate the best allocation of
       resources for the County, it is also critical to protect public safety once the individual is released to
       the community. This highlights the responsibility of the Department and its community based
       treatment providers to provide the greatest amount (duration and dosage) and the most effective
       type of treatment (cognitive behavioral treatment) to those inmates who have the highest risk of
       reoffending in the community after discharge. It is important to note that the housing classification
       of inmates must be taken into account because as is customary in the jail field, the SCCDOC does
       not mix maximum security classifications, protective custody, “keep aways,” and “gang drop outs”
       with medium and minimum classifications thus jeopardizing the staff and inmates’ safety.
       Assessment of risk to reoffend should be a separate process from housing classification, as an
       inmate assessed as medium security level may actually be high risk to reoffend based on an
       actuarial assessment instrument.



14Artemis, PACT, PACE, Roadmap to Recovery, MY STORI, WINGS, WISE, HOPE, Day Reporting, Breaking
Barriers and ARTEMIS.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 30
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

1.4.16 These findings are important for the Department and the County as they demonstrate that
       treatment lowers risk to the community after discharge. Since treatment reduces future recidivism,
       it is in everyone’s best interest to provide necessary resources to ensure that effective treatment is
       continued in the correctional system.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 31
          Part I: Chapter 2
Profiles of the Treatment Population
  and the Comparison Population
                                                                    Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

                                                  Part 1: Chapter 2

2.1        Introduction

This chapter provides a profile of the characteristics of inmates housed in the Santa Clara County
Department of Correction and participating in its programs.

2.2        Findings

Table 2.1 provides a breakdown of the average daily population of the Santa Clara County jail population
by legal status. The average daily population in November 2011 was 3,459. Nearly 72 percent of the
confined population was unsentenced and more than one-quarter was sentenced. In comparison, the Jail
Profile Survey from the Corrections Standards Authority reports for the first quarter of 2011 (latest data),
70.9 percent of the state’s jail inmates were unsentenced demonstrating that the percentage of
unsentenced inmates housed in the Santa Clara County Department of Correction is comparable to
California jails.15
                                               Table 2.1
                          Average Daily Inmate Population by Legal Status
                                            November 2011

         November                 Unsentenced                             Sentenced
            2011                             % of Total                          % of Total        Total Ave.
         Population        Ave. Popn.        Ave. Popn.          Ave. Popn.      Ave. Popn.          Popn.
          by Legal
           Status              2,483             71.8%              976             28.2%             3,459

       Source: Santa Clara County JailPop.xls

Table 2.2 shows the average length of stay for unsentenced and sentenced males and females. There is a
perception that inmates do not stay long enough to complete a program. This table documents that this
perception is accurate for unsentenced and sentenced misdemeanants because their length of stay ranges
from 22.6-34.6 days for unsentenced defendants and 41.3-53.6 days for sentenced misdemeanants.

                                                Table 2.2
                            Average Length of Stay - In Custody Inmates by Sex
                                                  FY11
                              Sentenced Inmates                     Unsentenced Inmates
                          Felony          Misdemeanor             Felony        Misdemeanor
                       Male    Female    Male     Female     Male     Female   Male     Female
         FY11*         120.3       86.9         53.6      41.3      184.6      104.1        34.6       22.6
        *through November 22, 2010
        Source: F.Dobbs - 11/24/10 z: /FDobb/Temp/Average in Custody Length of Stay.xlsx


15   Note: Unsentenced and sentenced inmates are eligible for programs.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research     Page 33
                                                                     Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                          Final Report

However, the data show that there is sufficient time for unsentenced and sentenced felons to complete
programs. Their average length of stay ranges from 104.1-184.6 days for unsentenced felons and 86.9-
120.3 days for sentenced felons. Based on the number of hours SCCDOC inmates are involved in
programs (240-308 hours for an 8-10 week cycle), it appears that there is sufficient time to complete
programs. Bourgon and Armstrong (2005) found that between 200-300 hours of treatment is required to
produce a reduction in recidivism for a high risk offender while 100 hours of treatment is necessary for a
medium risk offender.

A further analysis was conducted of the average length of stay for FY10 of inmates by security level to
examine the extent to which inmates stay long enough to complete programs. This information is found in
Table 2.3. Inmate Security Level 1 (lowest risk16 in custody) and Level 2 are housed at the Elmwood
Facility and Security Levels 3 and 4 (highest risk in custody) are housed at the Main Jail. Individuals cited
and released and released on bail were not included in this analysis. Those inmates who were held in
custody and received a Security Level of 1 had an average length of stay in custody of nearly 35 days,
while inmates who received a Security Level 2 rating had an average length of stay of approximately 39
days. Those inmates who received a Security Level of 3 or 4 had average stays of 53 days and 57 days,
respectively.

                                                 Table 2.3
                                   Average Length of Stay by Security Level
                                                    FY10

                                                   Avg. Length of Stay in Days
                              SL 1                               34.68
                              SL 2                               39.29
                              SL 3                               52.74
                              SL4                                56.77
                             Source: Santa Clara County, CA. CJIC booking.txt.

These findings suggest that some inmates would not have sufficient time to complete programs based on
security level alone. However, the study examined (controlled) the effect that security level had on the
overall analyses, and it found that regardless of security level, treatment still had a significant effect on
some inmates and not on others.




16 Note: Risk is defined here as risk of harm to oneself and to others while in custody and not risk to recidivate which
is the focus of this study.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research       Page 34
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

Table 2.4 on the following page describes the characteristics of inmates placed in the treatment population
(persons who received treatment), in the comparison population (persons who did not receive treatment)
and on all inmates housed in the SCCDOC during March 2008 and June 2010. The purpose of this table is
purely descriptive of the characteristics of all inmates in the SCCDOC during the timeframe of the study.
Further analyses, beginning in Chapter 3, extracted samples from the treatment and the comparison
populations. The total inmate population represents all inmates housed in the SCCDOC during the study
period regardless of whether they participated in treatment or not.

As is customary with many research studies, some of the totals across variables are inconsistent due to
coding of the data by the SCCDOC. For example, the staff entering an inmate’s sex may not have coded
race or age, thus resulting in inconsistent totals across variables. Although the analysis found some
missing data across variables, there is sufficient data for a reliable analysis and an interpretation of the
findings to be conducted. Also, the size of the overall sample provides enough cases to provide an
accurate picture of inmate characteristics.

The data used to develop Table 2.4 was obtained from the CJIC databases. An inmate’s sex, date of birth,
and race was provided in CJIC’s Persons database. Sex was coded as a person being male (gender=0) or
female (gender=1). The person’s date of birth was then used in conjunction with their first date of arrest
between March 2008 and June 2010 to determine the inmates’ age. Inspection of the distribution of race
led to the recoding of this variable into the following categories: Hispanic (race=0), White (race=1), Asian
(race=2), Black (race=3), and other (race=4). CJIC’s Booking database was used to determine the Security
Level for each inmate from 1-low risk to 4-high risk.

Inmates were assigned by the research team to a risk level (low, medium or high risk) based on the
analysis of 75,396 cases. Risk was defined as risk to recidivate following discharge, not risk to harm
oneself or others while in custody. Each inmate was examined and then scored based on whether they
possessed the following characteristics that were found to be statistically significant for recidivism upon
release among SCCDOC inmates:

    1.   Age at time of incarceration
    2.   Whether or not a person was flagged as being in a gang
    3.   Whether or not the person was charged with a prior drug offense
    4.   The number of prior arrests
    5.   The number of prior probation violations

If an inmate in the database could not be matched these five variables, they were not given a score and
thus were not placed in one of three risk levels (low, medium or high risk).




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 35
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

                                                  Table 2.4
                         Characteristics of Inmates in the Department of Correction
                                        March 1, 2008-June 30, 2010

                          Treatment Population        Comparison Population         Total Inmate Population
                              n         %                n           %                  n           %
     Gender
                Male          7,150          78.0         61,733             79.2       68,883              79.1
              Female          2,012          22.0         16,166             20.8       18,178              20.9
     Race
             Hispanic         4,726          51.6         38,171             49.0       42,897              49.3
                White         2,441          26.6         21,481             27.6       23,922              27.5
                Asian           336           3.7          4,604              5.9        4,940               5.7
                Black         1,170          12.8          7,582              9.7        8,752              10.1
                Other           489           5.3          6,062              7.8        6,551               7.5
     Age
      24 and Under            2,002        21.9           20,567             26.4       22,569          25.9
           25 to 29           1,730        18.9           15,264             19.6       16,994          19.5
           30 to 34           1,516        16.5           10,878             14.0       12,394          14.2
           35 to 39           1,177        12.8            8,537             11.0        9,714          11.2
           40 to 44             988        10.8            7,603              9.8        8,591           9.9
       45 and Over            1,748        19.1           15,048             19.3       16,796          19.3
                             Mean = 34.0                   Mean = 33.6                   Mean = 33.6
                             Median = 32.0                 Median = 31.0                 Median = 31.0
                            Std. Dev. = 10.5              Std. Dev. = 11.4              Std. Dev. = 11.3
     Security Level
                     1        2,752          30.0         26,861             38.3       29,613              37.4
                     2        5,332          58.1         37,931             54.2       43,263              54.6
                     3          848           9.2          2,909              4.2        3,757               4.7
                     4          246           2.7          2,344              3.3        2,590               3.3
     Risk level
            Low, 0-1          1,737          19.5          2,535              3.8        4,272               5.7
        Medium, 2-4           5,309          59.6         26,877             40.4       32,186              42.7
            High, 5-7         1,864          20.3         37,074             55.8       38,938              51.6
    Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research    Page 36
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

As is illustrated in Table 2.4, the majority of individuals in both the treatment and comparison population
were male (78 percent and 79 percent, respectively). The treatment and comparison populations also had
very similar breakdowns in racial composition. The largest racial category was Hispanic. Nearly 52 percent
of the inmates who participated in treatment were Hispanic while 49 percent of the inmates that did not
receive treatment were also Hispanic. The second largest racial category for both samples was White,
followed by Black, Other, and Asian. The most frequent age category for both the treatment and
comparison populations was 24 and younger. The mean age of the treatment population was 34, while the
mean age of the comparison population was 33.6.

Inmates were examined according to their Security Level (1–lowest risk to 4-highest risk). Risk is defined
here based on their potential harm to themselves or others while confined, not by their probability of
recidivating upon release which is the focus of this recidivism report. The most frequent security level for
both populations was Security Level 2, with 58 percent of inmates within the treatment population and 54
percent of inmates in the comparison population classified in this level. The next most frequent security
level for both populations was Security Level 1, followed by Security Level 3 and Security Level 4.

These findings show that there are little differences between the inmates in the treatment population and
those in the comparison population.

As Table 2.4 illustrates, the largest percent of the inmates in the treatment population was medium risk to
recidivate and the next most frequent was high risk to recidivate. This is consistent with evidence-based
principles that recommend targeting medium and high risk offenders for treatment programs. Nearly 60
percent of the treatment population was assessed as medium risk compared to 40 percent of the
comparison population. The second most frequent risk level for the treatment population was high risk (20.3
percent) while nearly 56 percent of the comparison sample was high risk to recidivate.

In contrast, only 20 percent of the treatment population was low risk compared to 4 percent of the
comparison population. Again, this finding is consistent with evidence-based principles that recommend
providing minimal to no treatment to low risk offenders.

Finally, nearly 52 percent of the total inmate population confined during this study period was assessed as
high risk to recidivate, followed by almost 43 percent medium risk and nearly 6 percent were low risk to
recidivate. These findings show that 9 out of 10 inmates confined in the Department pose a medium to high
risk to recidivate upon release thus demonstrating the importance of providing effective programs for these
inmates to lower their risk to the community.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 37
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

Table 2.5 provides the number of individuals that participated in each of the programs and what percent
they represent of all programs analyzed. This and subsequent tables in Part I: Chapter 3 represents a
subset of the database illustrated in Table 2.4.

The M8 program (A-H) represented nearly 52 percent of all inmates in programs during this study period.
The second largest program was the WINGS program, with nearly 9 percent of inmates identified as
participating in WINGS. Chapter 3 will present the analyses conducted by the researchers on these
programs to assess their impact on the overall findings.

RCP II had the least number of participants because RCP II was not the first program that an inmate
entered. To be eligible for RCP II, an inmate must graduate from RCP I.

                                                Table 2.5
                                Number of Inmates Participating in Programs
                                          March 2008-June 2010

                                                               N           %
                                   Artemis                    396         4.2
                                   Breaking Barriers          472         5.0
                                   Day Reporting              327         3.5
                                   Get Right                  331         3.5
                                   HOPE                       592         6.3
                                   M8 (A-H)                  4,879        51.7
                                   MY STORI                   355         3.8
                                   PACE                       167         1.8
                                   RCP I Men                  463         4.9
                                   RCP I Women                370         3.9
                                   RCP II                      28         0.3
                                   VETS                       246         2.6
                                   WINGS                      818         8.7
                                   Total                     9,444       100.0
                                 Note: Includes the initial program that inmates
                                 entered and not into the subsequent programs that
                                 they were transferred.

As presented later in the report, each program was analyzed individually to ensure that the results of one
program did not influence the results of another program.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 38
                                                                      Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                            Final Report

2.3      Variables Associated with Recidivism after Discharge from SCCDOC

Each variable within the CJIC database during March 2008-December 2009 was examined to determine
which variables were statistically significant with recidivism outcomes after discharge from the SCCDOC.
This time period was selected to allow the research team to develop a risk assessment procedure to
examine all inmates throughout the study period (March 2008-June 2010), and to examine recidivism
outcomes for inmates released from the Department.

Accordingly, inmates were included in the sample if they were confined in the SCCDOC during March
2008-June 2010 and possessed characteristics leading to recidivism. This procedure resulted in an initial
sample of 31,046 individuals. Later, 75,396 inmates were assessed using the same risk assessment
procedure, and these inmates were given a score that assigned them into three risk groups (low, medium
or high risk). After examining all risk variables, the following five variables were predictive of recidivating
among SCCDOC offenders:

              1.   Age at time of incarceration
              2.   Whether or not a person was flagged as being in a gang
              3.   Whether or not the person was charged with a prior drug offense
              4.   The number of prior arrests
              5.   The number of prior probation violations17

These five variables were used to rate each inmate according to risk to reoffend once they were discharged
from the Department. Inmates had to have all of the five characteristics to be scored. If an individual could
not be matched to all of the five variables, they were not scored. Even after excluding some inmates from
the sample, a total of 75,396 inmates could be scored. This means that there was sufficient number of
cases remaining upon which to match the treatment with a matched comparison sample and to draw
conclusions from the analyses.

Each inmate was given a score ranging from 0 to 7 and then placed into one of three risk levels:

              •    Low risk: Score 0-1
              •    Medium risk: Score 2-4
              •    High risk: Score 5-7

Inmates in the treatment database were then matched to inmates in the comparison database on the
following variables: sex, race, age, security level, and risk to recidivate. The matching of individuals who
received treatment to individuals who did not receive treatment on these characteristics minimized the
probability that differences between the two groups were due to factors other than treatment.

The following graphs illustrate the number and percent of inmates within the sample of 31,046 individuals.
All of these individuals possessed all five characteristics leading to recidivism.


17Logistic Regression results on the final risk tool model are as follows: Model significant at p<.001; -2 log likelihood
= 39,222.96; Cox and Snell R Square = .034; Nagelkerke R Square = .047. ROC Analysis produced an Area under
the Curve of .595.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research        Page 39
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

The first variable that was significantly associated with recidivism was age at time of arrest. The findings
indicated that nearly 58 percent of the inmates 24 years and younger had higher recidivism rates following
discharge than other age groups. These individuals were given a score of 1 and persons 25 years or older
received a score of zero. As demonstrated in Figure 2.1, individuals 24 years of age and younger was 5.1
percent more likely to recidivate than those 25 years of age and older.


                                                    Figure 2.1
                                               Age at Time of Arrest

              59
                                                                                     57.8
              58
              57
              56
    Percent




              55
              54
              53                     52.7

              52
              51
              50
                                 25 or Older                                   24 or Younger




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 40
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

The next variable that was significantly associated with recidivating after discharge was whether they were
identified as being in a gang. Individuals that were flagged as being in a gang received a score of 1 while
those inmates who were not identified as being in a gang received a score of 0. Figure 2.2 shows that
almost three-quarters of the SCCDOC inmates identified as being in a gang recidivated following
discharge. These findings demonstrate the strong influence that gangs have on individuals once they are
discharged.


                                                   Figure 2.2
                                         Identified as Being in a Gang

                         80
                                                                               74.6
                         75
                         70
               Percent




                         65
                         60
                         55                52.8
                         50
                         45
                         40
                                 Not Flagged in Gang                     Flagged in Gang




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 41
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

Figure 2.3 shows that 7 out of 10 individuals charged with a drug offense recidivated. Individuals ever
charged with a drug offense (including current offense) were more likely to recidivate than individuals who
were not charged with a drug offense. When a person was currently or previously charged with a drug
offense, they received a score of 1. If a person was not charged with a drug offense, they received a score
of 0. These findings demonstrate that being charged with a drug offense is significantly associated with
reoffending. These findings do not document individuals with addictions because this category includes
individuals who were charged with selling or manufacturing drugs as well as drug possession.

                                                 Figure 2.3
                                      Ever Charged with a Drug Offense


                          79
                          77
                          75
                          73                                                   71.3
                          71
                Percemt




                          69
                          67
                          65
                          63
                                          60.4
                          61
                          59
                          57
                          55
                                          No                                    Yes




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 42
                                                                    Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

The number of prior arrests (excluding the current arrest) was significantly associated with recidivating.
When data were inspected for this variable, it was found that there were three statistically relevant
categories. Individuals who had zero prior arrests received a score of 0. Individuals who had one to five
prior arrests received a score of 1. Finally, individuals who had 6 or more prior arrests received a score of
2. As displayed in Figure 2.4, individuals with no prior arrests recidivated roughly 46 percent of the time
and the percent of individuals who recidivated increased as the number of prior arrests increased.
Individuals who had one to five arrests recidivated almost 57 percent of the time. Lastly, nearly 77 percent
of the individuals who had six or more prior arrests recidivated following discharge. These findings
demonstrate that a chronic history of offending is significantly associated with future reoffending. This is
consistent with national research on criminogenic risk factors (Lowenkamp, C. and Latessa, E.J. 2003).

                                                     Figure 2.4
                                                Number of Prior Arrests
                                    85
                                    80                                               76.7
                                    75
                                    70
               Percent Rearrested




                                    65
                                    60                       56.5
                                    55
                                    50
                                         45.8
                                    45
                                    40
                                    35
                                    30
                                         Zero             One to Five             Six or More




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 43
                                                                               Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                              Final Report

The last variable that was found to be significant to future recidivism was the number of prior probation
violations for those in custody. Similar to the findings regarding the number of prior arrests, statistical
inspection revealed that there were three predictive categories for this variable. Individuals who had no
prior probation violations (not counting this current violation) received a score of 0. Individuals who had
one or two prior probation violations received a score of 1. Finally, individuals who had three or more prior
probation violations received a score of 2. Nearly 52 percent of the individuals with no prior probation
violations were rearrested. This risk to recidivate increased to 71 percent for those who had one to two
prior probation violations. Finally, almost 85 percent of the inmates who had three or more prior probation
violations recidivated. These findings demonstrate that previous failures on probation were significantly
related to future reoffending as this finding document a chronic history of non-compliance with society’s
laws.

                                                           Figure 2.5
                                               Number of Prior Probation Violations

                                    90
                                                                                                   84.7
                                    85
                                    80
               Percent Rearrested




                                    75
                                                                        71.0
                                    70
                                    65
                                    60
                                    55
                                               51.7
                                    50
                                    45
                                    40
                                              Zero                  One to Two              Three or More
                            Note: These individuals were in custody at the time of the analysis.

In summary, the five risk factors statistically significant with future recidivism among all SCCDOC inmates
were:

1.    Age at time of incarceration
2.    Whether or not a person was flagged as being in a gang
3.    Whether or not the person had a previous charge of a drug offense
4.    The number of prior arrests
5.    The number of prior probation violations




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research         Page 44
  Part 1: Chapter 3
Recidivism by Program
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report


                                                Part 1: Chapter 3
3.1      Introduction

To determine if the Department’s programs led to reduced rearrests, reconvictions and reincarcerations
following discharge, a quasi-experimental design was used to compare the recidivism of individuals who
received treatment to a group of matched individuals who did not receive treatment. Because there are
multiple factors that could influence whether or not a person recidivates, each sample was matched on five
characteristics (sex, race, age, security level, and risk to recidivate). The Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS), a nationally-accepted predictive analysis computer software program, was used to match
each individual in each of the 13 programs18 with an individual who did not receive treatment on each of the
five characteristics to ensure that they did not differ on any of these characteristics. After controlling for
these five characteristics, the only difference was that an individual participating in a program received
treatment while an individual in the matched comparison sample did not receive treatment.

The initial program that the inmate was admitted to was examined rather than the subsequent programs
they participated in during their entire stay at the SCCDOC due to limitations in the database.19 The
researchers were unable to isolate RCP II as a single program so the sample sizes for RCP II are small.
As the research team was charged with identifying recidivism outcomes for each of the programs
individually, this process was necessary to calculate the recidivism outcomes for each program.

Also, the reason why inmates left their initial program and were transferred to another program was not
tracked consistently by SCCDOC thus creating limitations in the database. That is, an individual could
have been discharged from the program due to behavior, they could have left before completion or they
could have successfully completed the entire cycle of the program. Knowing the reason for their departure
and when they left the program may or may not have had an impact on the recidivism findings; however,
data were not consistently available to investigate the relationship between reason for departure and
recidivism.

Even with these limitations, the findings indicated 70 percent of all individuals identified as receiving
treatment were found to be participating in one program while 30 percent of the individuals receiving
treatment were found to be participating in more than one treatment program. This finding indicates that the
study found sufficient number of cases upon which to draw conclusions.

The study time period was March 2008-June 2010 indicating that there was sufficient time to examine 2
year recidivism rates for inmates in the study. For example, 17,358 inmates (total of both the treatment
sample and matched comparison sample) were discharged a minimum of 6 months and were included in
the 6 month sample, the number of inmates was reduced slightly to 17,257 (total of both samples) inmates
in the 12 month sample because fewer individuals had a minimum of 12 months after discharge; and
14,916 inmates (total of both samples) were discharged long enough to be in the 24 month sample.




 List of stand-alone programs was provided by the Department of Correction.
18

 The exception to this was the Day Reporting program. Since no individuals were identified in the database as Day
19

Reporting as their first program entry, any individual identified in the Day Reporting program was included.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 46
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

All of the tables in this chapter are taken from the database shown in Table 2.4 Characteristics of Inmates
in the Department of Correction found in Chapter 2.

Table 3.1 displays the number of inmates who were matched and the number who could not be matched.
The column labeled “Treatment Total” indicates the number of individuals that were identified as
participating in one of the 13 programs. The second column labeled (Number Comp. Matched) shows the
number of treatment participants that were successfully matched to a comparison inmate on sex, race, age,
security level, and risk to recidivate (low, medium and high risk). The third column labeled (Number
Unmatched) represents the number of inmates identified as receiving treatment that were not able to be
directly matched to a treatment group participant. That is, there was not a person in the database who
could be matched on sex, race, age, security level, and risk to recidivate. Inmates could not be matched if
(1) there was no identical match available or (2) the inmate who participated in the program had one or
more match variables that were missing.20 Inmates who were not matched were not included in any further
analyses.

                                                   Table 3.1
                                       Information on Matching Process

                                                                Number
                                               Treatment         Comp.           Number
                                                 Total          Matched         Unmatched
                      Artemis                          396            360              36
                      Breaking Barriers                472            432              40
                      Day Reporting                    327            306              21
                      Get Right                        331            291              40
                      HOPE                             591            575              16
                      M8                            4,879           4,690             189
                      MY STORI                         355            322              33
                      PACE                             167            162               5
                      RCP I Men                        463            452              11
                      RCP I Women                      370            329              41
                      RCP II                            28             24               4
                      VETS                             244            229              15
                      WINGS                            818            679             139
                      Total                         9,441           8,851             590


As noted in Table 3.1, the overwhelming majority (94.0 percent) of inmates were successfully matched thus
leading to confidence with the findings.


20  Note: As previously noted the number of inmates in RCP II is low because these individuals had to complete RCP
I first.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 47
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

3.1.2    Findings

Table 3.2 presents the number and percent of individuals in the treatment sample and not in treatment that
were rearrested, reconvicted and reincarcerated following discharge from the SCCDOC at 6, 12 and 24
months. As the intent of this report was to document the recidivism of individuals in treatment, two samples
were drawn for comparisons. Table 3.2 includes those individuals in treatment that were matched with a
comparison sample of individuals not in treatment during March 2008-June 2010 by sex, race, age, security
level and risk to recidivate (low, medium or high risk).

The first column indicates those individuals who were identified as participating in treatment between March
2008 and June 2010. The percent represents the proportion of the total sample who recidivated for each
time interval. The second column represents a matched comparison sample of inmates who did not receive
treatment for the same time period. This matched comparison sample was also drawn from all inmates
confined in the SCCDOC between March 2008 and June 2010 that did not receive treatment. Inmates
were selected for this sample on a case-by-case basis so that each inmate who did not receive treatment
was matched to an inmate who did receive treatment on sex, race, age, security level, and risk to
recidivate. This was done to ensure that there were no differences between samples on sex, race, age,
security level, or risk to recidivate. The third column is the difference between the treatment and matched
comparison sample, and it represents the effect treatment had on reducing the recidivism of inmates. For
example, 19.2 percent of the inmates in treatment were rearrested at 6 months compared to 34.0 percent
of the persons not in treatment; therefore, treatment reduced the number of inmates who were rearrested at
6 months by 14.8 percentage points. This difference represents the effect treatment had on inmates
participating in treatment.
                                                    Table 3.2
                                          Recidivism by Populations

                                                                 Matched-Comparison            Treatment
                                   Treatment Sample                    Sample                    Effect
                                    n           %                  N          %                    %
        Rearrest
               6 month*           1,689            19.2           2,913           34.0            -14.8
              12 month*           2,854            32.6           3,962           46.6            -14.0
              24 month*           4,549            58.2           4,525           63.7            - 5.5
        Reconviction
               6 month*             782             9.7           1,892           24.1            -14.4
              12 month*           1,315            16.4           2,553           32.8            -16.4
              24 month*           1,871            25.9           2,709           41.6            -15.7
        Reincarceration
               6 month*           1,353            18.1           1,694           24.1            - 6.0
              12 month*           2,389            32.1           2,703           38.8            - 6.7
              24 month            4,094            60.8           3,422           58.9              --
        *p<.01;
        Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data and differences in time in the
        community after release.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research    Page 48
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

The findings demonstrate that individuals who participated in treatment were significantly less likely to be
rearrested or reconvicted at 6, 12, and 24 months compared to similar individuals that did not participate in
treatment.21

In comparison, 12 and 24 month rearrests and reconvictions for inmates released from the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) were higher than the subsequent arrests and
reconvictions for inmates released from SCCDOC’s programs.22 Statewide, California inmates’ 12-month
rearrest rate was between 57 percent and 58 percent compared to 32.6 percent for SCCDOC’s treatment
population. At 24 months, CDCR’s subsequent arrests were between 70 percent and 71 percent compared
to 58.2 percent for SCCDOC. Similarly, 12 and 24 month reconvictions for persons discharged from
SCCDOC was also lower than CDCR. Thus, compared to CDCR, a smaller percentage of SCCDOC’s
inmates were rearrested and reconvicted at 12 and 24 months than inmates released from CDCR.

                                              Table 3.3
                             One, Two and Three-Year Recidivism Rates for
                                  Arrests and Convictions for Felons
                 Released from California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
                                  Between FY 2006-07 and FY 2007-08

                                                                  Arrests^
                                     One Year         Two Years         Three Years
          Fiscal      Number Number Recidivism Number Recidivism Number Recidivism
          Year        Released Arrested     Rate Arrested     Rate Arrested     Rate
          FY06-07     112,665   65,369     58.0%  79,893     70.9%  86,330     76.6%
          FY07-08     113,765   64,838     57.0%  79,756     70.1%   N/A         N/A
                                                     Convictions^
                                         One Year                Two Years                Three Years
           Fiscal       Number Number Recidivism Number Recidivism Number Recidivism
           Year        Released Arrested         Rate     Arrested        Rate      Arrested        Rate
           FY06-07      112,665     26,657      23.7%      46,106        40.9%       57,980        51.5%
           FY07-08      113,756     23,593      20.7%      41,312        36.3%         N/A          N/A
         Source: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 2011 Adult Institutions Outcome
         Evaluation Report. Office of Research, November 23, 2011. ^ Rates for “Arrests” and “Convictions” only
         include those felons where an automated criminal history record was available from the Department of
         Justice. These records are necessary to measure recidivism by arrest and conviction.


One must recognize that a direct comparison between SCCDOC and CDCR is not possible due to the
unavailability of CDCR data, variances in time frames, in the seriousness of CDCR inmates and variances
in risk to reoffend between both populations.



21Note: results are based on persons who were discharged from treatment not still participating in treatment.
22California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 2011 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report. Office
of Research, November 23, 2011.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 49
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                        Final Report

Regarding subsequent reincarcerations for inmates released from SCCDOC, the findings in Table 3.2 show
that treatment significantly reduced reincarcerations at 6 and 12 months compared to the matched
comparison population. In contrast, treatment did not significantly lower reincarcerations at 24 months.
Even though a slightly higher percent of individuals in SCCDOC’s treatment sample were returned to
SCCDOC custody at 24 months compared to the matched-comparison sample, the statistical difference is
not significant. While 60.8 percent of the treatment sample was returned to custody after 24 months, 39.2
percent was not.

In comparison, the State of California’s 24 months return to custody rate for all inmates was 60.5 percent in
FY06-07 and 59.2 percent in FY07-08 compared to 60.8 percent return to SCCDOC at 24 months showing
that SCCDOC’s return to custody rate at 24 months is comparable to the State of California.23

Figure 3.1 shows the State of California’s (CDCR) return to custody rate for persons involved in in-prison
treatment with or without aftercare three years following discharge. CDCR found that persons in treatment
with no aftercare had a return to custody rate of 66.5 percent compared to 60.8 percent for the SCCDOC.24

                                             Figure 3.1
         Three-Year Recidivism Rates for Substance Abuse Treatment Completers in California

     70.0%          66.5%                                                                   65.3%
                                            62.3%
     60.0%
     50.0%
     40.0%
                                                                     29.3%
     30.0%
     20.0%
     10.0%
     0.0%
             Recidivism with No Recidivism with some     Recidivism of     Recidivism of No
                 Aftercare            Aftercare      Treatment + Aftercare  Treatment/No
                                                          Completers          Aftercare
Source: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 2011 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report.
Office of Research, November 23, 2011.




23 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 2011 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report. Office
of Research, November 23, 2011.
24 Note: The comparisons are based on 2 year data in SCCDOC and 3 year data for the State of California thus this

is not a direct one to one comparison, but it can show a comparison of trends in the findings.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research    Page 50
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

Further, SCCDOC’s reincarceration outcome at 24 months for the matched comparison sample was 58.9
percent compared to 65.3 percent for CDCR inmates. These findings show that SCCDOC’s treatment and
non-treatment inmates had lower 24 month reincarcerations than CDCR inmates did. Figure 3.1 also
documents the importance of substance abuse treatment combined with aftercare in the community as
CDCR’s return to custody rate dropped to 29.3 percent at three years.

3.1.2.1 Evaluation of M8 and WINGS Programs on Overall Recidivism Findings

Separate analyses were performed to determine the impact of the M8 and WINGS treatment population on
the overall findings because these two programs involved the highest number of individuals.

The table below excluded M8 from the analysis. The overall findings are the same as shown in Table 3.2.
Treatment led to significantly lower rearrests and reconvictions 6, 12 and 24 months and future
reincarcerations 6 and 12 months compared to the matched comparison sample. In contrast, treatment did
not significantly lower reincarcerations at 24 months. These findings indicate that the overall findings when
M8 is excluded are the same as when M8 is included.

                                               Table 3.4
                         Recidivism by Populations, M8 Removed from Analyses

                                                                  Matched-Comparison           Treatment
                                    Treatment Sample                    Sample                   Effect
                                     n           %                  N          %                   %
         Rearrest
                6 month*             800            19.4           1,390           34.7           - 15.3
               12 month*           1,369            33.2           1,882           47.2           - 14.0
               24 month*           2,241            59.6           2,163           65.1           - 5.5
         Reconviction
                6 month*             453            11.3             932           24.9           - 13.6
               12 month*             747            18.6           1,263           33.9           - 15.3
               24 month*           1,061            29.0           1,350           43.5           - 14.5
         Reincarceration
                6 month*             716            19.5             829           24.8           - 5.3
               12 month*           1,248            34.1           1,296           38.9           - 4.8
               24 month            2,079            61.9           1,624           58.9             --
         *p<.01;
         Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data and differences in time in the
         community after release.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research     Page 51
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                        Final Report

Table 3.5 excluded M8 and WINGS from the analyses. The findings are the same as shown in Table 3.2.
Treatment led to significantly lower rearrests and reconvictions 6, 12 and 24 months and future
reincarcerations 6 and 12 months compared to the matched comparison sample. In contrast, treatment did
not significantly lower reincarcerations at 24 months. These findings indicate that the overall findings when
M8 and WINGS are excluded are the same as when M8 and WINGS are included.

                                               Table 3.5
                   Recidivism by Populations, M8 and WINGS Removed from Analyses

                                                                  Matched-Comparison            Treatment
                                   Treatment Sample                     Sample                    Effect
                                    n           %                   N          %                    %
         Rearrest
                6 month*            629             18.2           1,117           33.3            -15.1
               12 month*          1,109             32.2           1,526           45.7            -13.5
               24 month*          1,862             59.2           1,795           64.2            - 5.0
         Reconviction
                6 month*            359             10.6             743           23.6           -13.0
               12 month*            609             18.0           1,013           32.4           -14.4
               24 month*            873             28.2           1,103           42.1           - 13.9
         Reincarceration
                6 month*            584             18.9             680           24.3            - 5.4
               12 month*          1,038             33.6           1,078           38.7            - 5.1
               24 month           1,755             61.8           1,369           59.0              --
         *p<.01;
         Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data and differences in time in the
         community after release.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research     Page 52
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

3.1.3    Overall Recidivism Outcomes by Program

The following analyses compared the difference between the treatment sample and the matched-
comparison sample for each program across all three time intervals. The question being examined was,
“Does participating in treatment in one of the Department of Correction’s programs lead to reduced
rearrests, reconvictions or reincarcerations?”

To reiterate, the “Treatment Sample” is individuals who were identified as being in a program and matched
to an inmate that did not receive treatment. The “Matched-Comparison Sample” is individuals who did not
participate in treatment. Inmates in both samples were matched on five variables (i.e., age, sex, race,
security level, and risk to recidivate) to equalize the samples so that the only difference was whether or not
the person received treatment. The programs that are statistically significant are noted by an asterisk.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 53
                                                                             Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                                 Final Report

          Table 3.6 illustrates the percent of inmates rearrested who participated in each program for each time
          interval and identifies if the treatment sample differed significantly from a matched comparison sample.
          Eleven (11) treatment samples were identified by an asterisk as having significantly lower 6 month
          rearrests than their matched comparison sample; 10 treatment samples had significantly lower 12 month
          rearrests, and 5 treatment samples had significantly lower 24 month rearrests than their matched
          comparison sample.

                                                           Table 3.6
                                    Percent of Rearrests for Each Program by Time Interval
                                                                          Rearrests

                                 6-month                                  12-month                                    24-month
                                         Matched-                                  Matched-                                 Matched-
                      Treatment         Comparison             Treatment          Comparison            Treatment          Comparison
                      Sample (%)        Sample (%)             Sample (%)         Sample (%)            Sample (%)         Sample (%)
Artemis                 17.8*             38.9*                  32.2*              51.0*                  58.5*             70.4*
Breaking Barriers       14.8*             20.9*                  26.1               29.3                   52.6              51.9
Day Reporting           19.3*             38.0*                  35.0*              50.8*                  63.4              65.9
Get Right               20.7              25.0                   34.2               36.9                   58.8              59.2
HOPE                    15.1*             31.3*                  30.3*              45.0*                  58.8              61.1
M8                      19.0*             33.5*                  32.0*              46.1*                  56.9*             62.5*
MY STORI                16.8*             37.3*                  31.4*              50.5*                  62.5*             72.0*
PACE                    13.3*             29.3*                  27.4*              44.6*                  65.2              59.0
RCP I Men               18.6*             35.1*                  33.4*              47.0*                  58.8              65.2
RCP I Women             15.5*             38.3*                  27.7*              52.3*                  54.8*             73.0*
RCP II                   8.3*             45.8*                  20.8*              50.0*                  29.2              52.6
VETS                    38.0              42.3                   51.5               56.1                   70.5              72.9
WINGS                   25.3*             41.7*                  38.5*              54.5*                  62.0*             69.7*
*p<.05


          Overall, five programs led to reduced rearrests at 6, 12 and 24 months combined (Artemis, M8, MY STORI,
          RCP I Women and WINGS).




          Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research    Page 54
                                                                                    Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                                     Final Report

              Table 3.7 shows the percent of individuals in both sample populations in each program who were
              reconvicted across each of the three time intervals. Similar to the rearrests presented in Table 3.6, fewer
              individuals in the treatment population were reconvicted compared to the matched comparison population.
              Eleven programs led to significantly lower 6 month reconvictions compared to a matched comparison
              sample, and nine programs led to significantly lower 12 month reconvictions compared to a matched
              comparison sample. Finally, seven programs had significantly lower 24 month reconvictions compared to a
              matched comparison sample.

              Overall, seven programs (Artemis, HOPE, M8, MY STORI, RCP I Men, RCP I Women, and WINGS) led to
              significantly lower reconvictions at 6, 12, and 24 months combined compared to the matched comparison
              sample.

                                                                Table 3.7
                                       Percent of Reconvictions for Each Program by Time Interval

                                                                          Reconviction Rate

                                      6-month                                     12-month                                24-month
                                              Matched-                                   Matched-                                Matched-
                         Treatment           Comparison               Treatment         Comparison           Treatment          Comparison
                         Sample (%)          Sample (%)               Sample (%)        Sample (%)           Sample (%)         Sample (%)
Artemis                      9.8**              30.0**                   14.9**           38.8**               21.9**             48.8**
Breaking
Barriers                      6.7*                11.0*                  10.4                14.7                21.6                22.9
Day Reporting                14.7**               29.4**                 26.5**              40.1**              42.8                51.1
Get Right                     8.4*                15.6*                  13.8                20.1                19.9                25.0
HOPE                          9.0**               22.7**                 16.5**              33.3**              26.2**              43.2**
M8                            8.2**               23.5**                 14.2**              31.8**              22.8**              39.8**
MY STORI                     10.3**               26.6**                 17.2**              36.1**              29.0**              46.5**
PACE                          8.2*                17.2*                  16.4*               26.1*               29.2                30.4
RCP I Men                     9.6**               24.8**                 19.3**              34.3**              29.7**              47.2**
RCP I Women                   5.0**               27.4**                 12.4**              39.1**              21.2**              54.0**
RCP II                        4.2^                28.6^                  12.5^               33.3^               16.7^               31.5^
VETS                         32.2                 34.8                   42.3                44.7                51.4                55.5
WINGS                        15.1**               31.2**                 22.2**              41.5**              33.5**              50.7**
*p<.05; **p<.01; ^ cell values too small for statistical comparison




              Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research    Page 55
                                                                              Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                              Final Report

       Table 3.8 shows the percent of inmates who were reincarcerated in the SCCDOC for the treatment and the
       matched comparison sample for all programs across the three time intervals. Compared to rearrests and
       reconvictions, fewer programs demonstrated significant effects on reincarceration. Four programs
       demonstrated significantly lower 6 month reincarcerations compared to a matched comparison sample; four
       other treatment programs had significantly lower 12 month reincarcerations compared to the matched
       comparison sample; and no treatment program had significantly lower 24 month reincarcerations compared
       to a matched comparison sample.

                                                        Table 3.8
                              Percent of Reincarceration for Each Program by Time Interval


                                6-month                                12-month                             24-month
                                     Matched-                                Matched-                             Matched-
                        Treatment                             Treatment                             Treatment
                                    Comparison                              Comparison                           Comparison
                        Sample (%)                            Sample (%)                            Sample (%)
                                    Sample (%)                              Sample (%)                           Sample (%)
Artemis                   17.8*         24.8*                    32.8          39.9                    60.3          59.7
Breaking Barriers         13.3          14.3                     26.4          27.4                    55.0          50.3
Day Reporting             23.2          27.8                     39.3          43.5                    69.6          63.9
Get Right                 14.4          17.2                     27.0          28.8                    58.0          52.3
HOPE                      16.5*         24.8*                    32.6*         38.9*                   64.8          60.1
M8                        16.7*         23.5*                    30.2*         38.6*                   59.7          58.8
MY STORI                  20.0          26.3                     32.5*         41.6*                   62.5          57.7
PACE                      17.6          20.0                     27.0          34.2                    64.8          58.7
RCP I Men                 23.0          28.7                     39.1          43.2                    60.4          63.9
RCP I Women               16.3*         25.0*                    33.7*         42.1*                   59.4          60.2
RCP II                     5.3^         38.9^                    31.6          50.0                    47.4          42.9
VETS                      33.5          33.7                     47.1          46.9                    67.2          65.9
WINGS                     23.0          27.4                     36.6          40.3                    62.4          58.9
*p<.05; **p<.01; ^Cell Values Too Small to Allow for Statistical Comparison

 In summary, the following findings provide helpful information to SCCDOC:

       •    Overall, five programs (Artemis, M8, MY STORI, RCP I Women and WINGS) led to significantly
            reduced rearrests at 6, 12 and 24 months combined following discharge from the SCCDOC than the
            matched comparison sample.
       •    Overall, seven programs (Artemis, HOPE, M8, MY STORI, RCP I Men, RCP I Women, and WINGS)
            led to significantly lower reconvictions at 6, 12, and 24 months combined compared to the matched
            comparison sample.
       •    Four programs produced significantly lower reincarceration at 6 months (Artemis, HOPE, M8, and RCP
            I Women), and another four programs (HOPE, M8, MY STORI, and RCP I Women) led to significantly
            lower reincarcerations at 12 months. No program led to a reduction in reincarceration at 24 months
            suggesting that the effects of treatment were not sustained.


       Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 56
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

•   Three programs had significantly lower reincarcerations at 6 and 12 months combined (HOPE, M8 and
    RCP I Women).
•   Not all programs within the Department resulted in reduced recidivism. Overall, VETS did not lead to
    lower rearrests, reconvictions, or reincarcerations compared with their matched comparison sample at
    any of the time intervals. Get Right produced lower 6 months reconvictions only among the nine
    outcomes that were measured. Breaking Barriers produced only lower 6 months rearrests and
    reconvictions.

3.1.4    Detailed Analysis by Programs

Tables 3.9 through 3.21 displays the number and percent of inmates who recidivated in each of the
programs for each recidivism measure and time interval. The number in each column represents the
number of inmates that recidivated and the percent is the calculation of the percentage of that group that
recidivated. All tables indicate whether or not chi square statistical results indicated significant differences
in recidivism at p<.05 or p<.01. Significance is indicated by an asterisk by each measure and time interval.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 57
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

Table 3.9 displays the recidivism outcomes for the Artemis program for women compared to the matched
comparison sample. As observed, women participating in the Artemis program were significantly less likely
to be rearrested and reconvicted at 6, 12, and 24 months compared to the matched comparison sample.
Artemis participants were also significantly less likely to be reincarcerated at 6 months compared to the
matched comparison sample. However, there was no statistical difference between Artemis participants
and the matched comparison sample on reincarceration at 12 and 24 months. While the percentage of
Artemis participants that were reincarcerated at 24 months was slightly larger than the matched
comparison sample, this difference was not statistically significant.

                                            Table 3.9
           Recidivism Outcomes for Artemis Participants vs. Matched-Comparison Sample

                                                                       Matched-Comparison
                                            Treatment Sample                 Sample
                                             n          %                 n         %
                     Rearrest
                          6 month**              64            17.8         135           38.9
                         12 month**             116            32.2         176           51.0
                         24 month**             197            58.5         193           70.4
                     Reconviction
                          6 month**              35             9.8          98           30.0
                         12 month**              53            14.9         126           38.8
                         24 month**              73            21.9         125           48.8
                     Reincarceration
                          6 month*               57            17.8          74           24.8
                         12 month               105            32.8         118           39.9
                         24 month               181            60.3         139           59.7
                     *p<.05; **p<.01
                     Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data and
                     differences in time in the community post release




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 58
                                                                    Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

Table 3.10 provides recidivism outcomes for the Breaking Barriers program. Participants in Breaking
Barriers were significantly less likely to be rearrested and reconvicted at 6 months compared to a matched-
comparison sample. However, there were no significant differences in the percent of individuals rearrested
and reconvicted at 12 or 24. Likewise, there were no significant differences in reincarcerations across any
of the time intervals compared to the matched-comparison sample.

These findings demonstrate that there is a short-term benefit from participating in Breaking Barriers for
rearrests and reconvictions at 6 months following discharge, but this benefit is not sustained in the long
term. Since this program deals with gang members who drop their gang affiliation to become eligible for the
program, it suggests that the power of the gang when someone is released is greater than the program
gains that the individual achieved while confined.

                                          Table 3.10
     Recidivism Outcomes for Breaking Barriers Participants vs. Matched-Comparison Sample


                                                                     Matched-Comparison
                                         Treatment Sample            Sample
                                             n         %                n          %
                     Rearrest
                            6 month*             62          14.8           88             20.9
                           12 month             109          26.1          122             29.3
                           24 month             194          52.6          188             51.9
                     Reconviction
                            6 month*              28          6.7           44             11.0
                           12 month               43         10.4           58             14.7
                           24 month               79         21.6           79             22.9
                     Reincarceration
                            6 month              50          13.3           49             14.3
                           12 month              99          26.4           93             27.4
                           24 month             183          55.0          151             50.3
                     *p<.05; **p<.01
                     Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data and
                     differences in time in the community post release




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 59
                                                                     Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

Table 3.11 reports the findings from the Day Reporting program, a program for inmates released from the
SCCDOC. Day Reporting participants were significantly less likely to be rearrested and reconvicted at 6
and 12 months compared to the matched comparison sample. However, there were no significant
differences in the percent of individuals rearrested and reconvicted at 24 months, and neither were there
any significant differences in reincarcerations across any of the time intervals compared to the matched-
comparison sample.

These findings suggest that the Day Reporting program helped reduce rearrests and reconvictions in the
short and medium term but the long term effect was not sustained. Later in this chapter, it is shown that the
majority of inmates placed in this program are assessed as medium and high risk (see Tables 3.25-3.33),
which suggests that these individuals require intensive reentry programming and aftercare services to be
successful once they are released. Day Reporting could be an important element of the reentry continuum
for persons released from jail and for individuals returning to Santa Clara County from the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation provided that it includes the elements of the Principles of
Effective Intervention.

                                          Table 3.11
       Recidivism Outcomes for Day Reporting Participants vs. Matched-Comparison Sample

                                                                        Matched-Comparison
                                           Treatment Sample                   Sample
                                            n           %                 n          %
                   Rearrest
                        6 month**              59             19.3           112             38.0
                       12 month**             107             35.0           150             50.8
                       24 month               175             63.4           162             65.9
                   Reconviction
                        6 month**              45             14.7            82             29.4
                       12 month**              81             26.5           112             40.1
                       24 month               118             42.8           119             51.1
                   Reincarceration
                         6 month               66             23.2            66             27.8
                       12 month               112             39.3           103             43.5
                       24 month               179             69.6           124             63.9
                   *p<.05; **p<.01;
                   Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data and
                   differences in time in the community post release




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 60
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

A comparison of the recidivism outcomes for Get Right participants compared with a matched comparison
sample is described in Table 3.12.

The only measure in which participants in the Get Right program was significant was for reconvictions at 6
months. Participants in the Get Right program did not demonstrate any significant differences across any of
the time intervals for rearrests or for reincarcerations. Moreover, participants in the Get Right program were
not significantly less likely to be reconvicted at 12 or 24 months. The finding that 6 month rearrests were
not significant but reconvictions at 6 months were could not be explained from the database. However, this
effect is short term, as reconvictions at 12 and 24 months were not significantly different.

                                            Table 3.12
          Recidivism Outcomes for Get Right Participants vs. Matched-Comparison Sample

                                                                      Matched-Comparison
                                           Treatment Sample                 Sample
                                             n         %                n          %
                     Rearrest
                            6 month             58          20.7             69            25.0
                           12 month             94          34.2            100            36.9
                           24 month            144          58.8            135            59.2
                     Reconviction
                            6 month*             23          8.4              42           15.6
                           12 month              37         13.8              53           20.1
                           24 month              48         19.9              56           25.0
                     Reincarceration
                            6 month             38          14.4             41            17.2
                           12 month             70          27.0             67            28.8
                           24 month            134          58.0            103            52.3
                     *p<.05; **p<.01
                     Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data and
                     differences in time in the community post release




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 61
                                                                     Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

Table 3.13 provides information on the recidivism outcomes of HOPE participants compared to the
matched comparison sample. Participants in the HOPE program demonstrated significantly lower rearrests,
reconvictions and reincarcerations at 6 and 12 months compared to the matched comparison sample.
HOPE participants were also significantly less likely to be reconvicted at 24 months. In contrast, HOPE
participants were not significantly less likely to be rearrested or reincarcerated at 24 months compared to
the matched comparison sample.

These findings indicate that the treatment effect that occurred at 6 and 12 months for rearrests and
reincarcerations was not sustained at 24 months. The longer someone is not in treatment, the higher
chances that they may be rearrested and later reincarcerated.

                                          Table 3.13
            Recidivism Outcomes for HOPE Participants vs. Matched-Comparison Sample

                                                                       Matched-Comparison
                                            Treatment Sample                 Sample
                                              n         %                 n         %
                      Rearrest
                           6 month**              87          15.1           173         31.3
                          12 month**             174          30.3           247         45.0
                          24 month               316          58.8           294         61.1
                      Reconviction
                           6 month**              50           9.0           118         22.7
                          12 month**              91          16.5           172         33.3
                          24 month**             136          26.2           195         43.2
                      Reincarceration
                           6 month**              86          16.5           117         24.8
                          12 month*              170          32.6           183         38.9
                          24 month               320          64.8           246         60.1
                      *p<.05; **p<.01;
                      Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data and
                      differences in time in the community post release




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 62
                                                                     Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

Table 3.14 provides information on the M8 program. M8 participants were significantly less likely to be
rearrested and reconvicted at 6, 12, and 24 months compared to the matched comparison sample.
Moreover, M8 participants were significantly less likely to be reincarcerated at 6 and 12 months compared
to their matched comparison sample. However, there was no sustained effect of participating in the M8
program on reincarcerations at 24 months. Since the majority of inmates participate in this program, it will
be in the Department’s best interest to ensure that this program addresses all of the criminogenic needs for
these inmates, and to provide reentry programming to reduce future reincarceration.


                                            Table 3.14
           Recidivism Outcomes for M8 (A-H) Participants vs. Matched-Comparison Sample

                                                                         Matched-Comparison
                                           Treatment Sample                    Sample
                                             n          %                   n          %
                   Rearrest
                        6 month**               889           19.0            1523           33.5
                       12 month**              1485           32.0            2080           46.1
                       24 month**              2308           56.9            2362           62.5
                   Reconviction
                        6 month**               329            8.2             960           23.5
                       12 month**               568           14.2           1,290           31.8
                       24 month**               810           22.8           1,359           39.8
                   Reincarceration
                        6 month**               637           16.7             865           23.5
                       12 month**             1,141           30.2           1,407           38.6
                       24 month               2,015           59.7           1,798           58.8
                   *p<.05; **p<.01;
                   Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data and
                   differences in time in the community post release




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 63
                                                                     Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

Table 3.15 displays the findings for participants in the MY STORI program for women. MY STORI
participants were significantly less likely to be rearrested and reconvicted at 6, 12, and 24 months
compared to their matched comparison sample. Also, MY STORI participants were significantly less likely
to be reincarcerated at 12 months compared to the matched comparison sample, but not significantly
different at 6 or 24 months. While not significant, the 6 month reincarceration outcome was approaching
significance [p=.08].

                                          Table 3.15
          Recidivism Outcomes for MY STORI Participants vs. Matched-Comparison Sample

                                                                         Matched-Comparison
                                          Treatment Sample                     Sample
                                           n           %                   n          %
                  Rearrest
                       6 month**               54             16.8           112             37.3
                      12 month**              101             31.4           151             50.5
                       24 month*              187             62.5           177             72.0
                  Reconviction
                       6 month**               33             10.3            74             26.6
                      12 month**               55             17.2           100             36.1
                      24 month**               86             29.0           105             46.5
                  Reincarceration
                        6 month                56             20.0            66             26.3
                      12 month*                91             32.5           104             41.6
                      24 month                163             62.5           116             57.7
                  *p<.05; **p<.01;
                  Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data and
                  differences in time in the community post release




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 64
                                                                     Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

Recidivism outcomes for the PACE program and the comparison sample are displayed in Table 3.16
PACE participants were significantly less likely to be rearrested and reconvicted at 6 and 12 months
compared to their matched comparison sample. In contrast, there was no significant difference on the
percent of individuals rearrested or reconvicted at 24 months, and neither was there any significant
difference on the percent of individuals reincarcerated at 6, 12 or 24 months. While the percent of
individuals reincarcerated at 24 months is higher for the treatment sample than the comparison sample, it is
not significant.

                                          Table 3.16
            Recidivism Outcomes for PACE Participants vs. Matched-Comparison Sample

                                                                        Matched-Comparison
                                           Treatment Sample                   Sample
                                             n          %                 n          %
                    Rearrest
                          6 month**              21           13.3             46             29.3
                        12 month**               43           27.4             70             44.6
                         24 month                75           65.2             79             59.0
                    Reconviction
                          6 month*               12            8.2             23             17.2
                        12 month*                24           16.4             35             26.1
                        24 month                 33           29.2             35             30.4
                    Reincarceration
                           6 month               25           17.6             24             20.0
                         12 month                38           27.0             41             34.2
                         24 month                70           64.8             61             58.7
                    *p<.05; **p<.01; Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to
                    missing data and differences in time in the community post release




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 65
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                        Final Report

Table 3.17 displays the recidivism results for the RCP I program for men. A smaller percentage of the men
in the RCP I program were rearrested at 6 and 12 months and reconvicted at 6, 12 and 24 months
compared to their matched comparison samples. There was no significant difference at 24 months for
rearrest; however, the difference between the treatment and the matched comparison sample was
approaching significance [p=.06].). Neither were participants in RCP I Men less likely to be reincarcerated
at 6, 12 or 24 months.

                                           Table 3.17
         Recidivism Outcomes for RCP I Male Participants vs. Matched-Comparison Sample

                                                                          Matched-Comparison
                                          Treatment Sample                      Sample
                                           N           %                   N            %
              Rearrest
                     6 month**                 84              18.6             154              35.1
                    12 month**                151              33.4             206              47.0
                    24 month                  248              58.8             247              65.2
              Reconviction
                     6 month**                 43               9.6             100              24.8
                    12 month**                 86              19.3             138              34.3
                    24 month**                124              29.7             166              47.2
              Reincarceration
                     6 month                   93              23.0             106              28.7
                    12 month                  158              39.1             159              43.2
                    24 month                  232              60.4             205              63.9
              *p<.05; **p<.01;
              Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data and differences in
              time in the community post release




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 66
                                                                     Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

Table 3.18 displays the results for the RCP I program for women. Unlike the RCP I Men program, more of
the women in RCP I were significantly less likely to be rearrested or reconvicted at 6, 12, and 24 months
and significantly less reincarcerated at 6 and 12 months compared to their matched comparison sample.
However, there was no significant effect of the RCP I Women Program on 24 month reincarcerations
compared to the matched comparison sample.

These findings show that the RCP I Program for women produced greater reductions in rearrests,
reconvictions and reincarcerations compared to the RCP I program for men. It is unclear why the RCP I
Program for women is more effective for women since eight program topics are the same for both the men
and the women participating in the RCP I Program. The primary difference in the RCP I Women is the
gender focus.

                                          Table 3.18
        Recidivism Outcomes for RCP I Female Participants vs. Matched-Comparison Sample

                                                                           Matched-
                                              Treatment Sample         Comparison Sample
                                                 n        %              n         %
                        Rearrest
                               6 month**           51         15.5         123           38.3
                             12 month**            91         27.7         168           52.3
                             24 month**           171         54.8         181           73.0
                        Reconviction
                               6 month**           16          5.0          84           27.4
                             12 month**            40         12.4         120           39.1
                             24 month**            65         21.2         127           54.0
                        Reincarceration
                               6 month*            48         16.3          70           25.0
                              12 month*            99         33.7         118           42.1
                              24 month            165         59.4         127           60.2
                        *p<.05; **p<.01;
                        Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing
                        data and differences in time in the community post release




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 67
                                                                      Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                          Final Report

Table 3.19 shows the recidivism outcomes for persons participating in the RCP II program, the community
phase for RCP I graduates who are released from the SCCDOC. Participants in RCP II demonstrated
significantly lower rearrests at 6 and 12 months compared to their matched comparison sample but it was
not sustained at 24 months.25 There was no statistical effect of participating in RCP II on reconvictions or
for reincarcerations at any of the time intervals. However, it should be noted that cell values were too small
to allow for statistical comparison at 6, 12, and 24 months for reconvictions and at 6 months for
reincarcerations due to the fact that few individuals were identified in the database as having RCP II as the
first program to which they were assigned. Moreover, results from chi square tests should be viewed with
caution as there are small sample sizes and unstable estimates. Like Day Reporting, RCP II could be an
important part of the Reentry Continuum for persons released from the SCCDOC or for persons returning
to Santa Clara County from state prison.


                                            Table 3.19
            Recidivism Outcomes for RCP II Participants vs. Matched-Comparison Sample

                                                    Treatment              Matched-
                                                     Sample            Comparison Sample
                                                   n        %            n         %
                          Rearrest
                                6 month**             7         8.3         11           45.8
                               12 month*              5        20.8         12           50.0
                               24 month               7        29.2         10           52.6
                          Reconviction
                                6 month^              1         4.2           6          28.6
                              12 month^               3        12.5           7          33.3
                              24 month^               4        16.7           5          31.5
                          Reincarceration
                                6 month^              1         5.3           7          38.9
                              12 month                6        31.6           9          50.0
                              24 month                9        47.4           6          42.9
                          *p<.05; **p<.01; ^Cell Values Too Small to Allow for Statistical
                          Comparison;
                          Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing
                          data and differences in time in the community post release




25It should be noted that all results regarding RCP II should be interpreted with caution, as there were relatively few
individuals identified and matched as having RCP II as the first entry in the database. As noted previously, individuals
need to complete RCP I to be eligible for admittance into RCP II.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research      Page 68
                                                                    Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

As shown in Table 3.20, there were no statistical differences between participants in VETS and their
matched comparison sample on rearrest, reconviction, or reincarceration outcomes for any of the three
time intervals. It is important to note that VETS is the only program that did not produce any significant
differences on any of the time intervals for the three recidivism measures.

                                           Table 3.20
             Recidivism Outcomes for VETS Participants vs. Matched-Comparison Sample

                                                                     Matched-Comparison
                                             Treatment Sample              Sample
                                                n        %              n         %
                       Rearrest
                               6 month              87       38.0           94          42.3
                              12 month             118       51.5          124          56.1
                              24 month             148       70.5          129          72.9
                       Reconviction
                               6 month              73       32.2           72          34.8
                              12 month              96       42.3           92          44.7
                              24 month             107       51.4           91          55.5
                       Reincarceration
                               6 month              64       33.5           60          33.7
                              12 month              90       47.1           83          46.9
                              24 month             119       67.2           91          65.9
                       *p<.05; **p<.01;
                       Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data
                       and differences in time in the community post release




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 69
                                                                    Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

Table 3.21 presents the recidivism outcomes for the WINGS program. Participants in WINGS were less
likely than their matched comparison sample to be rearrested and reconvicted at 6, 12, and 24 months.
However, there was no difference in reincarceration at any of the three time intervals. It is unclear why
there were significant differences in rearrests and reconvictions but not in reincarcerations.

                                           Table 3.21
            Recidivism Outcomes for WINGS Participants vs. Matched-Comparison Sample

                                                   Treatment              Matched-
                                                    Sample            Comparison Sample
                                                  n        %            n         %
                        Rearrest
                               6 month**           171       25.3        273           41.7
                              12 month**           260       38.5        356           54.5
                              24 month**           379       62.0        368           69.7
                        Reconviction
                               6 month**            94       15.1        189           31.2
                              12 month**           138       22.2        250           41.5
                              24 month**           188       33.5        247           50.7
                        Reincarceration
                               6 month             132       23.0        149           27.4
                              12 month             210       36.6        218           40.3
                              24 month             324       62.4        255           58.9
                        *p<.05; **p<.01;
                        Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data
                        and differences in time in the community post release




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 70
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

3.1.5    Recidivism Analysis by Risk to Recidivate

Supplemental analyses were performed to determine if there was a significant relationship between
recidivism measures and one’s risk to recidivate (low, medium or high). Risk is defined as “risk to
recidivate” following discharge from the SCCDOC. Each inmate was assessed as low, medium or high risk
to recidivate using the risk variables that were predictive of recidivism as defined in Part I: Chapter 2. This
analysis enabled the researchers to examine if the observed statistical effects could be accounted for
across different risk levels, or if the effects were a function of one or two specific risk levels. Specifically,
recidivism analyses were conducted for both the treatment sample and the matched comparison sample by
risk level and for each program by risk level.

Tables 3.22 through 3.24 provide the results for each recidivism measure by risk level for each time
interval. These tables represent the proportion of inmates in each sample who recidivated. The number in
each column represents the number of inmates that recidivated and the percent is the calculation of the
percentage of that group that recidivated. The percent difference is the difference between the treatment
and the matched-comparison sample. The percentage reduction between the two samples represents the
effect that treatment had on the inmates who participated in treatment. Chi square tests for significance
was conducted at p<.05 and at p<.01, and these significance values are indicated in the tables by
asterisks. The risk levels that were found not to be significant are indicated in the tables as NS.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 71
                                                                        Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                             Final Report

     Table 3.22 presents the number and percent of inmates in both samples that recidivated by risk level and
     the percent difference represents the reduction of individuals who recidivated in each risk level in the
     treatment sample compared to the matched-comparison sample; thus, showing the effect that treatment
     had on inmates.

                                                    Table 3.22
                       Percent of Rearrests by Risk Level and Time Interval for All Programs


                              6 Month Rearrest                  12 Month Rearrest                    24 Month Rearrest
                      Low         Medium       High        Low      Medium       High           Low      Medium        High
                     Risk           Risk       Risk        Risk        Risk       Risk          Risk        Risk       Risk
Treatment             133            913       643         293        1,661       900           722        2,762      1,065
Sample               (8.7)*       (17.1)**   (33.5)**     (19.2)     (31.2)**   (47.2)**       (49.8)     (57.8)**   (67.1)**
Matched-
Comparison             170          1,602       1,141        327       2,298       1,337          646      2,673        1,206
Sample               (11.3)*      (30.9)**     (60.7)**     (22.0)    (49.4)**    (71.5)**       (47.3)   (63.2)**     (80.3)**
Percent
Difference             -2.6         -13.8       -27.2        NS        -18.2       -24.3          NS        -5.4        -13.2
*p<.05; **p<.01;
Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data and differences in time in the community post release.
Percent difference is the effect of treatment between the treatment and the comparison sample and was calculated by
subtracting the treatment sample from the matched comparison sample. NS=not significant

     Nearly 9 percent of low risk individuals in the treatment population were rearrested at 6 months compared
     to 11.3 percent of low risk inmates in the matched comparison sample, for a 2.6 percentage difference
     (treatment effect). This difference was statistically significant, which means that low risk inmates who
     received treatment were less likely to be rearrested at 6 months compared to the matched comparison
     sample. This can be interpreted as 2.6 percent fewer low risk inmates who received treatment were
     rearrested at 6 months. However, treatment had no long-term effect on low risk individuals in treatment at
     12 and 24 months, as the difference between the treatment sample and the matched comparison samples
     at 12 and 24 months were not significant. Treatment had the least effect on low risk inmates compared to
     medium and high risk inmates as evidenced by the smallest percentage difference between the treatment
     and the matched comparison sample at 6 months and no significance at 12 or 24 months.

     Medium and high risk inmates who participated in treatment were significantly less likely to be rearrested at
     6, 12 and 24 months, and both groups had larger differences between the treatment and the comparison
     sample than low risk individuals did. Roughly 17 percent of medium risk inmates were rearrested at 6
     months compared to 31 percent of inmates in the matched-comparison sample. Thus, treatment resulted
     in 13.8 percent fewer medium risk inmates rearrested at 6 months. At 12 months, slightly over 31 percent
     of medium risk inmates in treatment were rearrested compared to almost 50 percent of inmates in the
     matched-comparison sample. Thus, treatment resulted in 18.2 percent fewer medium risk inmates
     rearrested at 12 months. Finally, at 24 months, almost 58 percent of medium risk inmates in the treatment
     sample were rearrested compared to just over 63 percent of inmates in the matched-comparison sample.
     Thus, treatment resulted in 5.4 percent fewer medium risk inmates being rearrested at 24 months.




     Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research    Page 72
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report


The same pattern is found with high risk inmates. High risk inmates that were in treatment were
significantly less likely to be rearrested at 6, 12, and 24 months. Specifically, at 6 months, 33.5 percent of
high risk inmates in treatment were rearrested compared to nearly 61 percent of high risk inmates not in
treatment. Thus, treatment resulted in 27.2 percent fewer high risk inmates being rearrested at 6 months.
More than 47 percent of high risk inmates in treatment were rearrested at 12 months compared to almost
72 percent of high risk inmates in the matched comparison sample. Thus, treatment resulted in 24.3
percent fewer high risk inmates being rearrested at 12 months. Finally, at 24 months, 67.1 percent of high
risk inmates in treatment were rearrested compared to slightly over 80 percent of inmates in the matched-
comparison sample. Thus, treatment resulted in 13.2 percent fewer high risk inmates being rearrested in 24
months.

While the percentage of medium and high risk inmates who were rearrested increased at 12 months,
treatment still had an effect on these individuals. Even at 24 months, treatment was shown to have an
effect on medium and high risk inmates, even if the effect was smaller than at 12 months.

Overall, the least effect from treatment was with low risk inmates while the largest effect was found with
medium and high risk inmates at 6, 12 and 24 months consistent with the risk principle (i.e. there is higher
treatment effects with high risk individuals). These findings suggest that SCCDOC should ensure that
medium and high risk inmates are involved in effective treatment.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 73
                                                                       Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                            Final Report

    Table 3.23 provides information on the percent of individuals reconvicted by risk level for all time intervals
    for the treatment sample compared to a matched comparison sample. Low risk inmates in treatment were
    significantly less likely to be reconvicted at 6 and 12 months compared to low risk inmates in the matched
    comparison sample. However, this effect was not significant at 24 months. Thus, placing low risk inmates
    in treatment had a short term benefit at 6 and 12 months, but there was no significant benefit at 24 months.
    Moreover, the treatment effect for low risk inmates was relatively small compared to the impact on medium
    and high risk inmates. That is, treatment resulted in only 1.6 percent fewer low risk inmates being
    reconvicted at 6 months. At 12 months, treatment resulted in a reduction of only 3 percent fewer low risk
    inmates reconvicted.

    While the percent of reconvictions for medium and high risk inmates in treatment increased over the three
    time intervals (which is consistent with findings from Lowenkamp, C. & Latessa, E.J., 2002, 2003, 2005),
    these individuals were still less likely to be reconvicted than the comparison sample. That is, medium and
    high risk inmates that received treatment were significantly less likely to be reconvicted at 6, 12, and 24
    months. This is evidenced by the higher percent differences between the treatment and comparison
    samples for both medium and high risk inmates. Even more important is the treatment effect. For medium
    risk inmates, treatment resulted in 12.7 percent, 15.6 percent, and 17.6 percent fewer inmates reconvicted
    at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. For high risk inmates, treatment resulted in 34.8 percent, 30.1
    percent, and 22.7 percent fewer high risk inmates reconvicted at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively.

    These findings are also consistent with the risk principle; that is, low risk inmates receive little benefit when
    exposed to intensive treatment while medium and high risk inmates receive a greater benefit from
    treatment. These findings suggest that low risk individuals should not be placed into intensive treatment
    that they do not need. On the other hand, treatment should be intensive for medium and high risk inmates.

                                                  Table 3.23
                   Percent of Reconvictions by Risk Level and Time Interval for All Programs


                      6 Month Reconviction                  12 Month Reconviction               24 Month Reconviction
                   Low      Medium       High            Low      Medium       High           Low     Medium       High
                   Risk       Risk       Risk            Risk        Risk       Risk          Risk       Risk       Risk
Treatment           30        402        350              64         726        525           156       1,085       630
Sample            (2.0)**    (8.0)**   (23.1)**         (4.2)**    (14.6)**   (34.9)**       (10.8)    (24.1)**   (49.6)**
Matched-
Comparison            53          990            849       106         1,432       1,015        174      1,629           906
Sample             (3.6)**      (20.7)**      (57.9)**    (7.2)**     (30.2)**    (65.0)**     (12.8)   (41.7)**       (72.3)**
Percent
Difference           -1.6        -12.7          -34.8      -3.0        -15.6       -30.1         NS       -17.6         -22.7
*p<.05; **p<.01;
Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data and differences in time in the community post
release. Percent difference is the effect of treatment between the treatment and the comparison sample and was
calculated by subtracting the treatment sample from the matched comparison sample.




    Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research       Page 74
                                                                       Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                           Final Report

    Table 3.24 provides information on the percent of inmates in the treatment sample and in the matched
    comparison sample who were reincarcerated in the SCCDOC by risk level and for all three time intervals.
    Low risk inmates in treatment were significantly less likely to be reincarcerated at 6 and 12 months
    compared to low risk inmates in the matched comparison sample. Treatment resulted in 2.5 percent fewer
    low risk inmates rearrested at 6 months and 5.8 percent fewer low risk inmates rearrested at 12 months.
    However, there was no significant difference on reincarcerations at 24 months between low risk inmates in
    the treatment and in the matched comparison sample.

    Medium risk inmates in treatment were also significantly less likely to be reincarcerated at 6 and 12 months
    compared to medium risk inmates in the matched comparison sample. The effect from treatment on
    medium risk inmates was 6.8 percent at 6 months and 7.5 percent at 12 months. However, there was no
    significant difference between the two samples in reincarceration at 24 months.

    Finally, high risk inmates in treatment were significantly less likely to be reincarcerated at 6 and 12 months.
    Treatment resulted in 6 percent fewer high risk inmates reincarcerated at 6 months and nearly 4 percent
    fewer high risk inmates reincarcerated at 12 months. As found in Table 3.24, there was no significant
    difference between samples at 24 months.

                                                 Table 3.24
                 Percent of Reincarcerations by Risk Level and Time Interval for All Programs


                     6 Month Reincarceration              12 Month Reincarceration            24 Month Reincarceration
                    Low     Medium       High            Low      Medium      High           Low      Medium       High
                   Risk        Risk       Risk           Risk       Risk      Risk           Risk       Risk       Risk
Treatment           137        808        408            310       1,495       584           851       2,541       702
Sample             (9.3)*    (17.3)**   (30.6)**       (21.0)**   (32.2)**   (44.1)*        (60.3)     (60.4)     (62.9)
Matched
Comparison           164         1,027          503         368        1,679        656         722     2,055        645
Sample             (11.8)*      (24.1)**      (36.6)**    (26.8)**    (39.7)**    (48.0)*     (57.0)    (59.5)      (59.3)
Percent
Differences          -2.5         -6.8          -6.0        -5.8        -7.5        -3.9        NS        NS         NS
*p<.05; **p<.01;
Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data and differences in time in the community post
release. Percent difference is the effect of treatment between the treatment and the comparison sample and was
calculated by subtracting the treatment sample from the matched comparison sample.




    Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 75
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

Overall, this supplemental analysis found the following key findings:

    •    Treatment lowered risk in the community after discharge as evidenced by the reductions in the
         percent of individuals that participated in treatment who were later rearrested, reconvicted or
         reincarcerated.
    •    Treatment had the greatest effect on reducing rearrests and reconvictions with high risk inmates
         at 6, 12 and 24 months consistent with the risk principle (i.e. target the high risk offender for
         effective treatment).
    •    There was no significant effect from treatment with low, medium or high risk inmates for
         reincarceration at 24 months suggesting that the short-term effects of treatment were not sustained
         in the long term.
    •    Treatment had the least effect with low risk inmates in rearrests and reconvictions at 6, 12 and 24
         months as compared to medium and high risk inmates consistent with the risk principle.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 76
                                                                             Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                                 Final Report

          3.1.5.2 Recidivism by Risk to Recidivate in Each Program

          Tables 3.25 through 3.33 display the percent of individuals who recidivated at 6, 12, and 24 months by risk
          level (low, medium or high risk) in each of the programs compared to their matched comparison sample.
          The low, medium, and high risk columns were calculated for both the treatment sample and the matched
          comparison sample for all programs. The number in each column represents the number of inmates that
          recidivated and the percent is the calculation of the percentage of that group that recidivated. All analyses
          were performed using the chi square statistical test at p<.05 and p<.01. This test is based on the
          distribution of cases across categories. Thus, if categories have a small number of cases in a cell, then the
          results can be unstable. Small values are noted by a ^ symbol in Tables 3.25 through 3.33.

          Table 3.25 reveals the percent of low, medium and high risk inmates rearrested at 6 months following
          discharge by each risk level in each program. The reader should compare the risk level columns for the
          treatment sample to the same risk level column for the matched comparison sample. An asterisk by each
          risk level notes statistical significance.

                                                          Table 3.25
                             Percent of Individuals Rearrested within 6 Months by Risk Level and
                                                Time Interval for Each Program

                                                                      6-month Rearrests
                                    Treatment Sample (%)                               Matched-Comparison Sample (%)
                          Low Risk      Medium Risk      High Risk                 Low Risk    Medium Risk     High Risk
Artemis                    2 (10.0)^     38 (15.0)**     24 (27.9)**                1 (5.3)^     76 (31.0)**  58 (69.9)**
Breaking Barriers         23 (10.7)      37 (19.1)        2 (18.2)^                27 (12.6)     54 (27.4)     7 (63.6)^
Day Reporting              0 (0.0)^      31 (17.5)**     28 (23.9)**                0 (0.0)^     40 (23.5)**  72 (63.2)**
Get Right                 11 (11.2)      38 (25.2)        9 (29.0)**                9 (9.5)      39 (25.8)    21 (70.0)**
HOPE                       6 (5.2)       60 (16.8)**     21 (20.4)**               14 (12.6)     97 (28.5)**  62 (61.4)**
M8                        76 (8.6)*     463 (16.6)** 350 (35.3)**                 101 (11.6)*   843 (31.1)** 579 (59.5)**
MY STORI                   3 (12.0)^     24 (11.5)**     27 (30.7)**                0 (0.0)^     58 (30.5)**  54 (62.8)**
PACE                       0 (0.0)^      12 (15.8)        9 (23.1)**                3 (7.3)^     20 (26.7)    23 (56.1)**
RCP I Men                 85 (11.4)      68 (19.7)**     11 (17.7)**                6 (14.0)    113 (33.6)**  35 (58.3)**
RCP I Women                3 (13.6)^     40 (15.9)**      8 (14.5)**                5 (22.7)^    89 (36.0)**  29 (55.8)**
RCP II                     0 (0.0)^       2 (9.5)*        0 (0.0)^                  0 (0.0)^      9 (42.9)*    2 (100.0)^
VETS                       0 (0.0)^      25 (24.8)       62 (50.0)                  1 (25.0)^    27 (27.6)    66 (55.0)
WINGS                      4 (8.7)^      75 (17.7)**     92 (44.4)**                3 (6.8)^    137 (34.0)** 133 (63.9)**
*p<.05; **p<.01; ^Cell Values Too Small to Allow for Statistical Comparison
Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data and differences in time in the community post release




          Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 77
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

The findings demonstrate that low risk inmates were significantly less likely to be rearrested at 6 months in
only one program (M8). That is, no other program led to significantly reduced rearrests at 6 months with low
risk inmates. (Note: However, many of the programs did not have cell values large enough to allow for
statistical comparison).

In contrast, nine programs significantly reduced rearrests at 6 months with medium risk individuals. Eight
programs led to significantly reduced rearrests at 6 months for medium and high risk inmates combined
(Artemis, Day Reporting, HOPE, M8, MY STORI, RCP I Men, RCP I Women, and WINGS).

Ten programs led to significantly reduced rearrests at 6 months with high risk inmates (Artemis, Day
Reporting, Get Right, HOPE, M8, MY STORI, PACE, RCP I Men, RCP I Women, and WINGS). Thus, more
programs demonstrated reductions in 6 month arrests when they targeted high risk inmates.

The findings indicate that SCCDOC’s programs received the largest reductions in recidivism among high
risk individuals in treatment. For example, there was a 42 percent reduction in the number of high risk
inmates rearrested (69.9 – 27.9) in the Artemis program for women compared to the matched comparison
sample. This program showed the greatest percentage reduction between the treatment and the
comparison sample.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 78
                                                                              Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                                  Final Report

           Table 3.26 displays the percent of individuals who were rearrested at 12 months by each risk level in each
           program compared to the matched comparison sample. Similar to 6 month rearrests, SCCDOC programs
           received the largest reductions in recidivism among high risk individuals who participated in treatment. Ten
           programs significantly reduced 12 month rearrests for high risk individuals (Artemis, Day Reporting, Get
           Right, HOPE, M8, MY STORI, PACE, RCP I Men, RCP I Women, and WINGS). For example, 43.4 percent
           (71.2 – 27.8) fewer high risk inmates in the RCP I Women program were rearrested at 12 months
           compared to the matched comparison.

           Eight programs significantly reduced rearrests at 12 months for medium risk individuals. Seven programs
           led to reduced rearrests at 12 months with medium and high risk inmates combined. In contrast, only
           PACE significantly reduced rearrests for low risk inmates. These findings replicate the national research on
           the risk principle by demonstrating that more programs produce statistical reductions in recidivism when
           they target high risk inmates.

                                                          Table 3.26
                             Percent of Individuals Rearrested within 12 Months by Risk Level and
                                                Time Interval for Each Program

                                                                      12-month Rearrests
                                    Treatment Sample (%)                                Matched-Comparison Sample (%)
                           Low Risk      Medium Risk     High Risk                  Low Risk     Medium Risk     High Risk
Artemis                     3 (15.0)^     79 (31.1)**    34 (39.5)**                 3 (15.8)^    106 (43.4)**  67 (81.7)**
Breaking Barriers          46 (21.4)      58 (30.2)       5 (50.0)^                 42 (19.9)      73 (37.4)     7 (63.6)^
Day Reporting               2 (16.7)^     58 (32.8)      47 (40.2)**                 1 (9.1)^      64 (37.6)    85 (74.6)**
Get Right                  21 (21.6)      60 (40.5)      13 (43.3)**                21 (22.3)      56 (38.1)    23 (76.7)**
HOPE                       23 (20.0)     117 (32.8)**    34 (33.0)**                24 (21.8)     149 (44.1)**  74 (73.3)**
M8                        169 (19.2)     845 (30.5)** 471 (47.9)**                 198 (22.9)   1,204 (44.9)** 678 (70.4)**
MY STORI                    6 (24.0)^     54 (25.8)**    41 (46.6)**                 3 (12.5)^     85 (45.0)**  63 (73.3)**
PACE                        3 (7.0)**     26 (34.2)      14 (36.8)**                12 (29.3)**    30 (40.0)    28 (68.3)**
RCP I Men                   8 (18.2)     119 (34.4)**    24 (38.7)**                12 (27.9)     155 (46.3)**  39 (65.0)**
RCP I Women                 3 (13.6)^     73 (29.0)**    15 (27.8)**                 5 (22.7)^    126 (51.0)**  37 (71.2)**
RCP II                      0 (0.0)^       5 (23.8)*      0 (0.0)^                   0 (0.0)^      10 (47.6)*    2 (100.0)^
VETS                        0 (0.0)^      36 (35.6)      82 (66.1)                   1 (25.0)^     44 (44.9)    79 (66.4)
WINGS                       9 (19.6)     131 (31.0)** 120 (58.0)**                   5 (11.4)     196 (48.9)** 155 (74.5)**
*p<.05; **p<.01; ^Cell Values Too Small to Allow for Statistical Comparison
Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data and differences in time in the community post release




           Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 79
                                                                               Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                                   Final Report


            Table 3.27 displays the percent of individuals rearrested at 24 months after discharge by each risk level for
            each program compared to the matched comparison sample. Again, the findings are similar with the
            results found in the previous tables. Seven programs significantly reduced rearrests at 24 months with high
            risk inmates and five programs significantly reduced rearrests at 24 months with medium risk inmates.
            Unlike 6 and 12 month rearrests, none of the programs significantly reduced rearrests at 24 months with
            low risk inmates.

            Two programs (M8 and RCP I Women) significantly reduced rearrests at 24 months with medium and high
            risk inmates combined.

                                                           Table 3.27
                              Percent of Individuals Rearrested within 24 Months by Risk Level and
                                                 Time Interval for Each Program

                                                                       24-month Rearrests
                                     Treatment Sample (%)                                  Matched-Comparison Sample (%)
                           Low Risk      Medium Risk      High Risk                    Low Risk    Medium Risk     High Risk
Artemis                    9 (45.0)       140 (58.8)      48 (60.8)**                  10 (55.6)    129 (66.8)    54 (85.7)**
Breaking Barriers         91 (46.0)        98 (60.1)       5 (62.5)^                   85 (45.0)     99 (59.6)     4 (57.1)^
Day Reporting              6 (50.0)^      107 (64.1)      62 (63.9)**                   4 (36.4)^    85 (58.6)    73 (81.1)**
Get Right                 49 (54.4)        83 (62.9)      12 (52.2)*                   40 (47.6)     77 (63.1)    18 (81.8)*
HOPE                      57 (50.4)       204 (60.5)      55 (63.2)**                  43 (42.2)    181 (61.8)    70 (81.4)**
M8                       426 (50.6)     1,352 (55.9)** 530 (66.5)**                   383 (48.2) 1,367 (61.7)** 612 (79.6)**
MY STORI                  13 (52.0)       118 (61.1)      56 (69.1)**                  12 (54.5)    102 (67.5)    63 (86.3)**
PACE                      15 (38.5)        49 (76.6)**    11 (91.7)                    21 (53.8)     32 (53.3)**  26 (74.3)
RCP I Men                 23 (54.8)       190 (59.0)*     35 (60.3)                    14 (35.9)    193 (67.2)*   40 (75.5)
RCP I Women               10 (50.0)       132 (55.0)**    29 (55.8)**                  12 (57.1)    134 (72.4)**  35 (83.3)**
RCP II                     0    (0.0)^      7 (33.3)       0 (0.0)^                     0 (0.0)^      8 (50.0)     2 (100.0)^
VETS                       0    (0.0)^     62 (64.6)      86 (78.2)                     1 (25.0)^    54 (68.4)    74 (78.7)
WINGS                     23 (53.5)       220 (56.8)*   136 (75.1)                     21 (51.2)    212 (66.0)*  135 (81.3)
*p<.05; **p<.01; ^Cell Values Too Small to Allow for Statistical Comparison
Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data and differences in time in the community post release




            Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 80
                                                                              Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                                  Final Report

           Table 3.28 presents the percent of low, medium and high risk inmates who were reconvicted at 6 months
           by each risk level and for each program compared to the matched comparison sample. Similar to previous
           tables, 10 programs significantly reduced reconvictions at 6 months for high risk individuals demonstrating
           that when programs targeted high risk inmates, there were larger treatment effects and more programs
           reduced reconvictions.

           Nine programs significantly reduced reconvictions 6 months following discharge among medium risk
           inmates, and nine programs led to reduced reconvictions at 6 months for medium and high risk inmates
           combined.

           In contrast, treatment did not lead to a reduction in reconvictions with low risk inmates. However, it should
           be noted that many of the programs did not have cell values large enough for statistical analysis.

                                                         Table 3.28
                            Percent of Individuals Reconvicted within 6 Months by Risk Level and
                                               Time Interval for Each Program

                                                                   6-month Reconvictions
                                      Treatment Sample (%)                               Matched-Comparison Sample (%)
                         Low Risk         Medium Risk      High Risk                 Low Risk    Medium Risk     High Risk
Artemis                   1 (5.0)^          18 (7.1)**     16 (19.5)**                0 (0.0)^     48 (20.9)**  50 (63.3)**
Breaking Barriers         7 (3.3)           19 (9.9)        2 (20.0)^                13 (6.2)      25 (13.9)     6 (66.7)^
Day Reporting             0 (0.0)^          19 (10.7)**    26 (22.2)**                0 (0.0)^     28 (17.0)**  54 (52.4)**
Get Right                 1 (1.0)^          16 (10.8)       6 (21.4)**                5 (5.3)^     20 (13.5)    17 (63.0)**
HOPE                      3 (2.6)           32 (9.2)**     15 (16.1)**                7 (6.3)      63 (19.6)**  48 (55.2)**
M8                       16 (1.8)          180 (7.2)** 133 (20.4)**                  27 (3.1)     527 (21.4)** 406 (53.4)**
MY STORI                  2 (8.0)^          11 (5.3)**     20 (23.0)**                0 (0.0)^     32 (18.0)**  42 (55.3)**
PACE                      0 (0.0)^           7 (9.5)*       5 (16.1)*                 0 (0.0)^     11 (17.2)*   12 (40.0)*
RCP I Men                 0 (0.0)^          36 (10.5)**     7 (11.7)**                0 (0.0)^     75 (24.4)**  25 (46.3)**
RCP I Women               0 (0.0)^          11 (4.5)**      5 (9.3)**                 1 (4.5)^     55 (23.5)**  28 (54.9)**
RCP II                    0 (0.0)^           1 (4.8)^       0 (0.0)^                  0 (0.0)^      6 (31.6)^    0 (0.0)^
VETS                      0 (0.0)^          16 (15.8)      57 (46.7)                  0 (0.0)^     19 (20.0)    53 (49.1)
WINGS                     0 (0.0)^          36 (9.0)**     58 (33.0)**                0 (0.0)^     81 (21.6)** 108 (58.1)**
*p<.05; **p<.01; ^Cell Values Too Small to Allow for Statistical Comparison
Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data and differences in time in the community post release




           Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 81
                                                                              Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                                  Final Report

           Table 3.29 and 3.30 displays the percent of individuals reconvicted at 12 and 24 months by each risk level
           in each program compared to the matched comparison sample. Findings are very similar to reconvictions at
           6 months. Nine programs significantly reduced reconvictions for high risk inmates at 12 months, and seven
           programs significantly reduced reconvictions with high risk inmates at 24 months.

           Seven programs significantly reduced reconvictions at 12 and 24 months for medium risk inmates (Tables
           3.29-3.30). Seven programs significantly reduced reconvictions at 12 months with medium and high risk
           inmates combined (Table 3.29) while six programs reduced reconvictions at 24 months for medium and
           high risk inmates combined (Table 3.30).

           In contrast, only one program (M8) reduced the reconvictions of low risk inmates at 12 months (Table 3.29).

           No program reduced reconvictions at 24 months for low risk inmates demonstrating that there was no long
           term effect from treatment on these inmates (Table 3.30).

                                                          Table 3.29
                            Percent of Individuals Reconvicted within 12 Months by Risk Level and
                                                Time Interval for Each Program

                                                                   12-month Reconvictions
                                    Treatment Sample (%)                                 Matched-Comparison Sample (%)
                         Low Risk       Medium Risk      High Risk                   Low Risk    Medium Risk     High Risk
Artemis                   2 (10.0)^       30 (11.8)*     21 (25.6)**                  2 (11.1)^    68 (29.7)*   56 (71.8)**
Breaking Barriers        11 (5.1)         28 (14.7)       4 (44.4)^                  19 (9.2)      33 (18.4)     6 (66.7)^
Day Reporting             1 (8.3)^        38 (21.5)      42 (35.9)**                  0 (0.0)^     46 (27.9)    66 (64.1)**
Get Right                 4 (4.1)         25 (17.2)       8 (29.6)**                  8 (8.6)      27 (18.8)    18 (66.7)**
HOPE                      7 (6.1)         59 (17.1)**    25 (26.9)**                 10 (9.1)     102 (31.9)**  60 (69.0)**
M8                       33 (3.8)**      330 (13.3)** 205 (31.7)**                   60 (7.0)**   744 (30.5)** 486 (64.6)**
MY STORI                  2 (8.0)^        23 (11.1)**    30 (34.5)**                  0 (0.0)^     52 (29.4)**  48 (63.2)**
PACE                      1 (2.4)^        14 (18.9)       9 (30.0)                    2 (5.0)^     17 (26.6)    16 (53.3)
RCP I Men                 1 (2.3)^        68 (19.9)**    17 (28.3)**                  3 (7.1)^    106 (34.6)**  29 (53.7)**
RCP I Women               0 (0.0)^        28 (11.3)**    12 (22.6)**                  1 (4.5)^     83 (35.5)**  36 (70.6)**
RCP II                    0 (0.0)^         3 (14.3)^      0 (0.0)^                    0 (0.0)^      7 (36.8)^    0 (0.0)^
VETS                      0 (0.0)^        23 (22.8)      73 (59.8)                    0 (0.0)^     26 (27.4)    66 (61.7)
WINGS                     2 (4.3)^        57 (14.2)**    79 (44.9)**                  1 (2.3)^    121 (32.4)** 128 (68.8)**
*p<.05; **p<.01; ^Cell Values Too Small to Allow for Statistical Comparison
Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data and differences in time in the community post release




           Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 82
                                                                              Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                                  Final Report


                                                        Table 3.30
                  Percent of Individuals Reconvicted within 24 Months by Risk Level and Time Interval for
                                                      Each Program

                                                                   24-month Reconvictions
                                    Treatment Sample (%)                                 Matched-Comparison Sample (%)
                         Low Risk       Medium Risk      High Risk                   Low Risk    Medium Risk     High Risk
Artemis                   4 (20.0)        46 (19.3)**    23 (30.7)**                  2 (11.8)     78 (43.6)**  45 (75.0)**
Breaking Barriers        30 (15.2)        46 (28.6)       3 (42.9)^                  30 (16.0)     45 (29.8)     4 (66.7)^
Day Reporting             2 (16.7)^       62 (37.1)      54 (55.7)*                   2 (18.2)^    59 (41.8)    58 (71.6)*
Get Right                10 (11.1)        30 (23.1)       8 (38.1)                   11 (13.3)     33 (27.3)    12 (60.0)
HOPE                     10 (8.9)         86 (26.3)**    40 (50.0)**                 17 (16.7)    122 (44.4)**  56 (75.7)**
M8                       78 (9.3)        490 (22.5)** 242 (45.7)**                   93 (11.7)    826 (41.0)** 440 (73.1)**
MY STORI                  4 (16.0)^       40 (20.8)**    42 (52.5)**                  4 (18.2)^    54 (38.3)**  47 (74.6)**
PACE                      5 (12.8)^       21 (33.3)       7 (63.6)^                   3 (7.9)^     17 (33.3)    15 (57.7)^
RCP I Men                 3 (7.1)^        94 (29.5)**    27 (48.2)                    4 (10.5)^   131 (49.2)**  31 (64.6)
RCP I Women               1 (5.0)^        47 (20.0)**    17 (33.3)**                  3 (14.3)^    93 (53.8)**  31 (75.6)**
RCP II                    0 (0.0)^         4 (19.0)^      0 (0.0)^                    0 (0.0)^      5 (35.7)^    0 (0.0)^
VETS                      0 (0.0)^        31 (32.3)      76 (70.4)                    0 (0.0)^     32 (42.1)    59 (70.2)
WINGS                     9 (20.9)        88 (24.0)**    91 (59.9)*                   5 (12.2)    134 (44.8)** 108 (73.5)*
*p<.05; **p<.01; ^Cell Values Too Small to Allow for Statistical Comparison
Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data and differences in time in the community post release




           Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 83
                                                                            Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                                 Final Report

         Table 3.31 displays the percent of low, medium and high risk inmates who were reincarcerated at 6 months
         for each program compared to the matched comparison sample. Similar to the other tables, only one
         program (M8) demonstrated reduction in reincarcerations at 6 months for low risk inmates.

         In contrast, five programs demonstrated a reduction in 6 month reincarcerations for medium risk inmates
         compared to a matched comparison sample. Only two programs led to reduced reincarceration with high
         risk inmates at 6 months (M8 and RCP I Men). It should be noted that many programs had too few
         individuals in each risk category to allow for statistical comparison (e.g., low risk inmates in Artemis, RCP II
         and VETS).

         More programs led to reduced reincarceration with medium risk inmates than with high risk inmates. It is
         not surprising that medium risk inmates would be less likely to be reincarcerated than high risk inmates
         since they are assessed to have fewer criminogenic needs and risk factors. In contrast, high risk
         individuals have a higher degree of criminogenic needs and risk factors and are more likely to be
         reincarcerated.

                                                        Table 3.31
                         Percent of Individuals Reincarcerated within 6 Months by Risk Level and
                                              Time Interval for Each Program

                                                                 6-month Reincarceration
                                   Treatment Sample (%)                               Matched-Comparison Sample (%)
                         Low Risk      Medium Risk      High Risk                  Low Risk    Medium Risk    High Risk
Artemis                   1 (5.6)^       34 (14.7)*     22 (31.4)                   1 (5.6)^    47 (22.6)*   26 (35.6)
Breaking Barriers        25 (12.5)       23 (13.7)       2 (22.2)^                 18 (9.7)     28 (18.7)     3 (42.9)^
Day Reporting             0 (0.0)^       32 (19.2)      34 (32.1)                   3 (27.3)^   28 (19.7)    35 (41.7)
Get Right                 8 (8.3)        25 (17.5)       5 (20.8)                   7 (8.0)     25 (19.8)     9 (37.5)
HOPE                      8 (7.1)        53 (16.3)*     25 (29.8)                  13 (12.4)    70 (24.1)*   34 (44.2)
M8                       77 (8.9)**     392 (16.6)** 168 (28.7)*                  105 (13.0)** 530 (24.2)** 230 (34.3)*
MY STORI                  4 (16.0)^      32 (17.5)      20 (27.8)                   2 (8.7)^    39 (24.1)    25 (37.9)
PACE                      2 (4.8)^       13 (18.8)      10 (32.3)                   2 (5.6)^    14 (25.0)     8 (28.6)
RCP I Men                 2 (4.7)^       80 (25.6)      11 (22.9)*                  4 (10.0)^   80 (28.2)    22 (48.9)*
RCP I Women               2 (9.1)^       36 (15.9)*     10 (21.3)                   2 (9.1)^    54 (25.2)*   14 (31.8)
RCP II                    0 (0.0)^        1 (6.3)^       0 (0.0)^                   0 (0.0)^     6 (37.5)^    1 (100.0)^
VETS                      1 (33.3)^      18 (20.2)      45 (45.5)                   0 (0.0)^    19 (23.8)    41 (42.7)
WINGS                     7 (15.6)       69 (18.6)*     56 (35.4)                   7 (16.3)    87 (25.6)*   55 (34.4)
*p<.05; **p<.01; ^Cell Values Too Small to Allow for Statistical Comparison
Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data and differences in time in the community post release




         Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research    Page 84
                                                                             Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                                  Final Report

          Table 3.32 displays the percent of inmates who were reincarcerated at 12 months by each risk level for
          each program compared to the matched comparison sample. Similar to Table 3.30, only one treatment
          program (M8) produced statistically lower reincarceration with low risk inmates in treatment compared to
          the matched comparison sample at 12 months. Five programs significantly reduced reincarcerations for
          medium risk inmates at 12 months. In contrast, two programs (HOPE and M8) led to significant reductions
          in reincarcerations 12 months following discharge among high risk inmates.

                                                         Table 3.32
                          Percent of Individuals Reincarcerated within 12 Months by Risk Level and
                                               Time Interval for Each Program

                                                                 12-month Reincarceration
                                   Treatment Sample (%)                                 Matched-Comparison Sample (%)
                         Low Risk      Medium Risk      High Risk                   Low Risk    Medium Risk     High Risk
Artemis                  7 (38.9)        66 (28.4)*     32 (45.7)                    4 (23.5)     80 (38.6)*   34 (47.2)
Breaking Barriers       50 (25.0)        45 (26.9)*      4 (50.0)^                  41 (22.4)     47 (31.5)*     5 (71.4)^
Day Reporting            2 (16.7)^       62 (37.1)      48 (45.3)                    4 (36.4)^    51 (35.9)    48 (57.1)
Get Right               20 (20.8)        44 (31.4)       6 (26.1)                   17 (19.5)     39 (32.0)    11 (45.8)
HOPE                    23 (20.4)       109 (33.5)      38 (45.2)*                  28 (26.9)    112 (38.8)    43 (55.8)*
M8                     171 (19.9)**     731 (31.2)** 239 (41.3)*                   231 (28.7)** 869 (40.0)** 307 (46.2)*
MY STORI                 4 (16.0)^       57 (31.1)*     30 (41.7)                    4 (17.4)^    69 (42.9)*   31 (47.0)
PACE                     4   (9.5)       22 (31.9)      12 (40.0)                    8 (22.2)     21 (37.5)    12 (42.9)
RCP I Men               10 (23.3)       128 (40.9)      20 (41.7)                   12 (30.0)    124 (43.8)    23 (51.1)
RCP I Women              4 (18.2)        76 (33.6)*     19 (41.3)                    7 (31.8)     92 (43.0)*   19 (43.2)
RCP II                   1 (100.0)^       5 (31.3)       0 (0.0)^                    0 (0.0)^      8 (50.0)      1 (100.0)^
VETS                     1 (33.3)^       30 (33.7)      59 (59.6)                    0 (0.0)^     34 (42.5)    49 (51.6)
WINGS                   13 (28.9)       120 (32.4)      77 (48.7)                   12 (27.9)    133 (39.3)    73 (45.6)
*p<.05; **p<.01; ^Cell Values Too Small to Allow for Statistical Comparison
Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data and differences in time in the community post release




          Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 85
                                                                             Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                                 Final Report

          Finally, Table 3.33 shows the percent of low, medium and high risk inmates who were reincarcerated at 24
          months for each program compared to the matched comparison sample. Treatment produced no statistical
          effects for low or for high risk inmates in treatment 24 months following discharge. That is, low and high risk
          inmates were no less likely to be reincarcerated at 24 months compared to a matched comparison sample
          of inmates. One possible explanation for these findings is that the effects of treatment on these inmates
          could not be sustained the longer someone is away from structured treatment.

          While five programs significantly reduced reincarceration outcomes for medium risk inmates at 12 months,
          only two programs (Breaking Barriers and Get Right) reduced reincarceration for medium risk at 24 months.
          There were significant reductions among medium risk inmates in reincarcerations at 12 and 24 months
          within the Breaking Barriers program, but not for reconvictions or for rearrests.

          As noted in previous tables, low risk inmates did not demonstrate any significant reductions in
          reincarcerations. This suggests that SCCDOC should not target these individuals for treatment but channel
          them into behavior management activities.

                                                        Table 3.33
                         Percent of Individuals Reincarcerated within 24 Months by Risk Level and
                                              Time Interval for Each Program

                                                                 24-month Reincarceration
                                   Treatment Sample (%)                                 Matched-Comparison Sample (%)
                          Low Risk     Medium Risk      High Risk                    Low Risk    Medium Risk    High Risk
Artemis                  12 (66.7)      129 (59.2)      40 (62.5)                   11 (68.8)      97 (60.6)   31 (54.4)
Breaking Barriers       100 (53.8)       79 (56.0)*      4 (66.7)^                  87 (51.2)      61 (48.8)*   3 (60.0)^
Day Reporting            12 (100.0)^    108 (68.8)      59 (67.0)                    8 (72.7)^     72 (61.0)   44 (67.7)
Get Right                49 (55.1)       77 (61.6)*      8 (47.1)                   44 (56.4)      49 (48.0)* 10 (58.8)
HOPE                     73 (65.8)      195 (63.1)      52 (70.3)                   58 (60.4)     146 (58.5)   42 (65.6)
M8                      500 (60.7) 1,217 (58.7)       298 (62.6)                   424 (57.2) 1,067 (59.8) 307 (57.8)
MY STORI                 14 (56.0)      110 (64.3)      39 (60.0)                    9 (42.9)      77 (60.6)   30 (56.6)
PACE                     24 (61.5)       39 (67.2)       7 (63.3)                   19 (55.9)      29 (63.0)   13 (54.2)
RCP I Men                24 (58.5)      185 (62.1)      23 (51.1)                   21 (58.3)     158 (64.2)   26 (66.7)
RCP I Women              11 (55.0)      126 (58.9)      28 (63.6)                   14 (66.7)      96 (61.5)   17 (50.0)
RCP II                    1 (100.0)^      8 (50.0)       0 (0.0)^                    0    (0.0)^    5 (41.7)    1 (100.0)^
VETS                      1 (33.3)^      58 (66.7)      60 (69.0)                    2 (100.0)^    40 (63.5)   49 (67.1)
WINGS                    30 (71.4)      210 (61.8)      84 (61.3)                   25 (62.5)     158 (59.0)   72 (57.6)
*p<.05; **p<.01; ^Cell Values Too Small to Allow for Statistical Comparison
Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data and differences in time in the community post release




          Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 86
                                                                    Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                         Final Report

3.1.5.3 Treatment Effect on Programs

In summary, the following tables display the treatment programs that significantly led to reductions in
rearrests, reconvictions and reincarcerations at 6, 12 and 24 months compared to the comparison samples.

Table 3.34 presents the 11 programs that were statistically associated with reduced rearrests at 6 months
showing that treatment resulted in a short-term effect on inmates participating in treatment. Ten programs
led to reduced rearrests at 12 months showing that the effects of treatment were sustained one year after
discharge. Five programs led to lower rearrests at 24 months showing a long term effect from treatment.

                                             Table 3.34
           Programs Statistically Associated with Reduced Rearrests by Each Time Interval

Program Title                          6-month                       12-month                        24-month
Artemis
Breaking Barriers
Day Reporting
HOPE
M8
MY STORI
PACE
RCP I Men
RCP I Women
RCP II
WINGS
Note: the checks indicate those programs and time intervals that were statistically significant between the treatment
and the comparison group.

Five programs (Artemis, M8, MYSTORI, RCP I Women and WINGS) led to reduced rearrests across all
three time intervals at 6, 12 and 24 months.

In contrast, inmates participating in Breaking Barriers had significantly lower rearrests at 6 months but not
at 12 or 24 months. Day Reporting, HOPE, PACE, RCP I Men and RCP II led to significantly reduced
rearrests at 6 and 12 months but not at 24 months.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research     Page 87
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

Similarly, 11 programs were statistically associated with reduced reconvictions at 6 months. Nine programs
led to reduced reconvictions at 12 months and seven programs reduced reconvictions at 24 months.

Seven programs (Artemis, HOPE, M8, MY STORI, RCP I Men, RCP I Women, and WINGS) significantly
reduced reconvictions across all three time intervals.

                                             Table 3.35
        Programs Statistically Associated with Reduced Reconvictions by Each Time Interval

Program Title                           6-month                      12-month                     24-month
Artemis
Breaking Barriers
Day Reporting
Get Right
HOPE
M8
MY STORI
PACE
RCP I Men
RCP I Women
WINGS


Table 3.36 presents the four programs that were statistically associated with reductions in reincarceration
at 6 months and the four programs that led to reduced reincarcerations at 12 months. Three programs
(HOPE, M8 and RCP I Women) led to reductions in reincarcerations at 6 and 12 months combined.

However, no program led to a reduction in reincarceration at 24 months suggesting that the effects from
treatment were not sustained.

                                             Table 3.36
       Programs Statistically Associated with Reduced Reincarceration by Each Time Interval

Program Title                           6-month                      12-month                     24-month
Artemis
HOPE
M8
MY STORI
RCP I Women




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 88
   Part 1: Chapter 4
Discussion of Findings
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                        Final Report

                                                 Part I. Chapter 4

4.1      Introduction

Part I of this Final Report was intended to answer the question “Does participating in one of the
Department’s inmate programs result in reduced rearrests, reconvictions and reincarcerations following
discharge”. This is an important policy question since the Department and the Board of Supervisors want to
invest in those programs that protect public safety and that are effective.

The answer to this question is yes, treatment led to reduced rearrests and reconvictions 6 months following
discharge from the SCCDOC in 11 of the 13 programs demonstrating a short-term effect from treatment.
Ten of the 13 programs led to reduced rearrests at 12 months following discharge and nine programs led to
reduced reconvictions at 12 months demonstrating that the effect from participating in treatment was
sustained one year following discharge from confinement. Finally, four of the 13 programs led to reduced
reincarcerations at 6 and at 12 months. In contrast, no program led to a reduction in reincarceration at 24
months suggesting that effects from treatment were not sustained.

In comparison, 12 and 24 month rearrests and reconvictions for inmates released from the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) were higher than subsequent rearrests and
reconvictions for inmates released from SCCDOC’s programs.26 Statewide, California inmates’ 12-month
rearrest rate was between 57 percent and 58 percent compared to 32.6 percent for SCCDOC’s treated
population. At 24 months, CDCR’s subsequent arrests were between 70 percent and 71 percent compared
to 58.2 percent for SCCDOC. Similarly, 12 and 24 month reconvictions for persons discharged from
SCCDOC was also lower than CDCR. Thus, compared to CDCR, fewer of SCCDOC’s inmates were
rearrested and reconvicted at 12 and 24 months than inmates released from CDCR.

Regarding reincarcerations, the State of California’s 24 months return to custody rate for all inmates was
60.5 percent in FY06-07 and 59.2 percent in FY07-08 compared to 60.8 percent return to SCCDOC at 24
months; thus, showing that SCCDOC’s return to custody outcome at 24 months is comparable to the State
of California.27




26 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 2011 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report. Office
of Research, November 23, 2011.
27 Ibid.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research    Page 90
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

4.2       Discussion of Findings

Examining each program’s recidivism outcomes individually revealed a number of patterns among
programs and also variances on recidivism measures and across the three time periods (6, 12 and 24
months). For example:

      •   Five programs were statistically associated with reduced rearrests across all three time periods—
          Artemis, M8, MY STORI, RCP I Women and WINGS.

      •   Seven programs (Artemis, HOPE, M8, MY STORI, RCP I Men, RCP I Women, and WINGS)
          significantly reduced reconvictions across all three time intervals.

      •   Three programs (HOPE, M8 and RCP I Women) led to reductions in reincarcerations at 6 and 12
          months combined but no program led to a reduction in reincarceration at 24 months suggesting
          that the effects of treatment were not sustained.

Only a few of the programs revealed no or little effect from treatment. For example, VETS resulted in no
significant reductions in rearrests, reconvictions or reincarcerations compared to its matched comparison
sample at any of the time intervals. Get Right showed a significant reduction in only one measure--
reconvictions at 6 months compared to its matched comparison sample. Breaking Barriers produced
significantly lower rearrests and reconvictions only at 6 months compared to its matched comparison
sample. Artemis, HOPE, M8, MY STORI and RCP I Women produced significant reductions in
reincarcerations at 6 and 12 months but the remaining 8 programs produced no differences. Day Reporting
produced significantly lower rearrests and reconvictions at 6 and 12 months compared to its matched
comparison sample. RCP II produced significantly lower rearrests at 6 and 12 months compared to its
matched comparison sample. The remaining programs had some significant effect at one or more time
intervals.

Increasing the effectiveness of the Day Reporting and RCP II programs would greatly support the County’s
Reentry initiative and reduce future reoffending. These two programs need to provide structured reentry
program elements needed for persons released from the Department and for those returning to Santa Clara
County from state prison. (See Core Programs #5 and # 6 in Part II, Chapter 5).

None of the programs statistically increased recidivism. While there was no specific program that was
statistically more likely to increase recidivism; examination of all individuals in treatment compared to all
individuals not in treatment demonstrated that treatment produced the least effect on low risk inmates and
the highest impact on medium and high risk inmates. For example, roughly 9 percent of low risk individuals
in the treatment population were rearrested at 6 months compared to 11.3 percent of the low risk inmates in
the matched comparison sample, for a 2.6 percentage difference (treatment effect). In contrast, 13.8
percent fewer medium risk inmates were rearrested at 6 months compared to their comparison sample,
18.2 percent fewer medium risk inmates were rearrested at 12 months and 5.4 percent fewer medium risk
inmates were rearrested at 24 months.

For high risk inmates in treatment, 27.2 percent fewer high risk inmates were rearrested at 6 months, 24.3
percent fewer high risk inmates were rearrested at 12 months and 13.2 percent fewer high risk inmates
were rearrested at 24 months than their comparison samples.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 91
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

Even at 24 months, treatment is shown to have an effect on medium and high risk inmates, even if the
effect is smaller than at 12 months. These findings show that SCCDOC’s programs achieved the greatest
effect on reducing rearrests when medium and high risk individuals were placed into treatment. This finding
is consistent with national research on the Risk Principle. Lowenkamp, C. & E.J. Latessa (2005) found
greater reductions in recidivism when medium and high risk offenders participated in effective treatment.

Reconvictions were found to result in the same overall pattern. Treatment had the greatest effect on
medium and high risk inmates who participated in treatment compared to low risk inmates. For medium risk
inmates who participated in treatment, treatment led to 12.7 percent fewer medium risk inmates reconvicted
at 6 months, 15.6 percent fewer inmates reconvicted at 12 months and 17.6 percent fewer inmates
reconvicted at 24 months. For high risk inmates who participated in treatment, 34.8 percent fewer high risk
inmates were reconvicted at 6 months, 30.1 percent fewer high risk inmates were reconvicted at 12 months
and 22.7 percent fewer high risk inmates were reconvicted at 24 months. In comparison, only 1.6 percent
fewer low risk inmates who participated in treatment were reconvicted at 6 months and 3.0 percent fewer
low risk inmates were reconvicted at 12 months showing that the treatment effect was smaller for low risk
inmates. Further, there was no statistical effect from treatment at 24 months for low risk inmates. When
programs were individually compared to a matched comparison sample, the majority of programs did not
have any effect on low risk inmates.

Low, medium and high risk inmates who participated in treatment were significantly less likely to be
reincarcerated at 6 and 12 months compared to their matched comparison samples. Treatment led to 2.5
percent fewer low risk inmates rearrested at 6 months and 5.8 percent fewer rearrests at 12 months.
However, medium risk inmates in treatment had greater effects from treatment than low and high risk
inmates at 6 and 12 months. There were no statistical differences between the treatment and matched
comparison samples at 24 months for any risk level. This may suggest that not enough of the criminogenic
needs of the medium and high risk inmates are being met thus leading to smaller effect sizes.

While a slightly higher percentage of low, medium, and high risk inmates in treatment were reincarcerated
at 24 months, these differences were not statistically different than those of the matched comparison
sample.

Eleven SCCDOC programs target some of the criminogenic needs (e.g. criminal values, attitudes and
thinking patterns)28 but others do not. Extensive research documents that these needs should be targeted
for medium and high risk inmates to produce reductions in recidivism.

Based on these findings, it will be important for the Department to determine the risk level of individuals so
that inmates can be matched with the appropriate level of treatment to reduce risk of reoffending. SCCDOC
would produce a greater benefit to inmates and to society if it matched medium and high risk inmates with
intensive treatment aimed at reducing all criminogenic needs. Further, those inmates with high criminogenic
needs should be matched with cognitive behavioral treatment programs combined with structured prosocial
skills development. Unless medium and high risk individuals change their antisocial attitudes, thinking
patterns and behaviors, they will continue to reoffend.

28Artemis, PACT, PACE, Roadmap to Recovery, MY STORI, WINGS, WISE, HOPE, Day Reporting, Breaking
Barriers and ARTEMIS.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 92
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report


Not only does targeting high risk inmates for treatment demonstrate the best allocation of resources, it is
also critical to protect public safety once the individual is released to the community. This highlights the
responsibility of the Department and its community-based treatment providers to provide the greatest
amount (duration and dosage) and the most effective type of treatment (cognitive behavioral treatment) to
those inmates who have the highest risk of reoffending in the community after discharge.

It is important to note that the classification of inmates must be taken into account because as is customary
in the jail field, the SCCDOC does not mix maximum security classifications, protective custody, “keep
aways,” and “gang drop outs” with medium and minimum classifications thus jeopardizing the staff and
inmates’ safety. However, the assessment of risk to reoffend should be a separate process, as an inmate
assessed as medium security level may actually be high risk to reoffend based on an actuarial assessment
instrument.

While the Department should concentrate its treatment resources on medium and high risk inmates it
should not neglect low risk inmates. In a jail setting, it is important to keep all inmates constructively
occupied.

The Rehabilitation Officers are doing a reasonably good job using a subjective psychosocial assessment
instrument in matching medium risk inmates with programs, since 59.6 percent of the inmates involved in
treatment were assessed by this study as medium risk to reoffend. The Department’s current assessment
instrument addresses the majority of the criminogenic factors such as current and past criminal history,
drug and alcohol use/abuse, family history with substance use, gang affiliation, education, employment and
residence. This finding shows the value of the ROs in conducting offender assessments and in matching
inmates to treatment. Roughly 20 percent of individuals placed in treatment were scored as low risk to
recidivate but were involved in treatment while another 20 percent of those in the treatment sample were
scored as high risk. Adopting an objective assessment procedure will improve the matching process. For
Santa Clara County to reach its goal of lower recidivism for high risk inmates, more high risk inmates will
need to be included in treatment.

4.3      Limitations of the Research

Since the risk criteria used in this study was based on demographic and criminal history variables (factors
that cannot change), it has likely limited the analysis. This method was effective in categorizing the inmate
population into different recidivism outcomes; however, it did not produce data on criminogenic needs to
allow an assessment of these needs on recidivism outcomes.

As previously noted, the only data available were offense, gangs, age, sex, and race. These criteria have
traditionally been used throughout the nation to assess risk to reoffend. In contrast, contemporary risk
assessment tools take into account criminogenic needs such as substance abuse history, education level,
employment status, and marital status, all of which mitigate risk. As such, it could be possible that the
inclusion of these criminogenic needs would reveal that some of the low risk people are actually medium
risk individuals, or possibly even high risk. However, without data on criminogenic needs, it was not
possible to examine the impact of criminogenic needs on risk. This reemphasizes the importance for
SCCDOC to obtain the staff resources needed during the intake process to begin gathering information on
substance abuse history, education level, vocational level, and marital status.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 93
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report


It should also be noted that data were not consistently available to indicate the reason a person was
discharged from the program. That is, the current study was not able to empirically evaluate the
relationship between reasons for termination with the recidivism results.

The database could not differentiate those inmates who participated in more than one program. Individuals
who exited their initial program and were transferred to another program were not tracked. Based on this
limitation, recidivism outcomes had to be examined for inmates who participated in the initial program they
entered rather than the subsequent programs they participated in during their stay at the SCCDOC. This
method affected RCP II the most since individuals are transferred to RCP II from RCP I. Due to the
limitation in the database; the researchers were not able to isolate RCP II participants from participants in
other programs so the sample sizes for RCP II are small. Even with this limitation, 70 percent of the
individuals overall in the study were found to be participating in one program while 30 percent of the
individuals were found to be participating in more than one treatment program.

One must recognize that a direct comparison between SCCDOC and CDCR is not possible due to the
unavailability of CDCR data, variances in time frames, in the seriousness of CDCR inmates and in the
variances in risk to reoffend between both populations.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 94
 Part 1: Chapter 5
Recommendations
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

                                                Part 1: Chapter 5
5.1     Recommendations

5.1.1    SCCDOC is recommended to adopt an objective and empirically validated risk and needs
         assessment instrument that scores inmates as low, medium or high risk to reoffend and to use this
         information to match persons into the appropriate type, duration and dosage of treatment (see
         pages 207-215). Implementing this tool will ensure that more high risk and medium risk inmates
         are targeted for programs and fewer low risk inmates are admitted. To implement this
         recommendation, it is recommended that the Department obtain additional Rehabilitation Officers
         to conduct these assessments so that an accurate diagnosis of risk and needs can be established
         and further, that staff can accurately match inmates with programs within their security level that
         meet their criminogenic needs.

5.1.2    SCCDOC should work to ensure that low risk individuals are kept separate from high risk offenders
         whenever possible, and included in treatment only if they score (on an objective instrument) as
         high need in a criminogenic domain. The classification of inmates must be taken into account
         because the DOC does not mix maximum security classifications, protective custody, “keep
         aways”, and “gang drop outs” with medium and minimum classifications thus jeopardizing the staff
         and inmates’ safety.

5.1.3    All treatment programs should clearly outline inclusion and exclusion criteria. For example, if an
         individual is not assessed as having a substance abuse problem, he should not be placed in a
         substance abuse treatment program.

5.1.4    Expand the number of Core Programs from one (substance abuse education) to include six major
         core program areas: (see Core Programs in Part II: Chapter 5)

         1.   Substance Abuse Treatment with Cognitive Behavioral Elements
         2.   Cognitive Behavioral Skills Training
         3.   Conflict Resolution/Anger Management
         4.   Academic and Post-Graduate Education/Job Readiness Training
         5.   Reentry Preparation
         6.   Aftercare.

         Select curricula that are designed to address all criminogenic needs and match inmates to one or
         more of the Core Programs that address these criminogenic needs.

5.1.5    Ensure that individuals are matched with these core programs based on their assessed risk to
         reoffend upon release and criminogenic needs. Inmates should be placed in one or more of these
         core programs based on the assessment.

5.1.6    Low risk inmates should be channeled into work, self-guided educational activities (e.g. Roadmap
         to Recovery) and to other behavior management activities that reduce idleness such as creative
         arts, recreation, library, etc.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 96
                                                                   Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

5.1.7    SCCDOC should continue to work with its providers toward developing and delivering the Core
         Programs recommended in the EBP Evaluation Report (Part II) and to reduce the number of areas
         of improvement found in each of their individual evaluations.

5.1.8    Treatment programs should follow the Principles of Effective Intervention (Risk, Need, Responsivity
         and Fidelity) and with the core correctional practices (e.g., effective approval, effective disapproval,
         relationship skills, modeling, skill building, and problem solving).

5.1.9    Develop a policy and practice to ensure fidelity to treatment and quality assurance for all SCCDOC
         treatment programs such as tracking the progress of people participating in treatment based on pre
         and posttest examinations, monthly or quarterly observation of classes and formal feedback by
         supervisors to all instructors, and routine and formal feedback invited by staff and inmates on the
         value of the classes.

5.1.10 Develop an initial and ongoing in-service training program for treatment staff.

5.1.11 Three quarters (75 percent) of the programs is recommended to be continued only if they are
       modified and 25 percent are recommended to be discontinued and replaced with more effective
       programming (see Table 1.2 in Executive Summary). Even when the program produced some
       reductions in recidivism, the analysis found many areas that still needed to be improved so that
       greater reductions in recidivism could be realized.

5.1.12 An upgrade to CJIC is recommended to support the Department in collecting the information
       needed to develop a valid, objective risk and needs assessment instrument and to track program
       admissions and program terminations by reason.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research   Page 97
              PART II.
EVIDENCE BASED PROGRAM EVALUATIONS
Part II. Chapter 1
  Introduction
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                               Part II. Chapter 1
1.1     Introduction

Evidence-based programs and practices are increasingly becoming integrated into the organizational
culture of jails and other segments of the criminal justice system. Many jail administrators recognize that
the time an individual spends waiting for trial or serving a sentence should be constructive. It is consistent
with the Department of Correction’s long-range goals of protecting society to provide the individual the
opportunity to advance their education and to learn prosocial values, attitudes and thinking patterns that will
reduce their rate of return.

This is Part II of the Final Report for the Department of Correction. It provides a qualitative assessment of
21 inmate programs to determine the degree to which they are consistent with evidence-based practices,
specifically the Principles of Evidence-based Interventions (Risk, Need, Responsivity and Fidelity) as is
described in Chapter 2, Part II.

Each of the programs was evaluated using the Correctional Programs Checklist (CPC-GA), a program
evaluation tool developed by the University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research. The
following 21 programs were evaluated using the CPC-GA:

        1.    Artemis
        2.    Breaking Barriers
        3.    Day Reporting
        4.    Get Right
        5.    Heart and Soul
        6.    Healing Opportunity with Positive Enforcement (HOPE)
        7.    Literacy in Families Together (LIFT)
        8.    M-8 (A-H housing units) (collection of programs)
        9.    Mentoring You Substance Abuse Treatment of Recovering Individual (MY STORI)
        10.   Program about Change and Experience (PACE)
        11.   Parents and Children Together (PACT)
        12.   Regimented Corrections Program-Phase I (Men)
        13.   Regimented Corrections Program-Phase I (Women)
        14.   Regimented Corrections Program-Phase II (RCP II)
        15.   Roadmap to Recovery
        16.   Three Principles (Health Realization)
        17.   Trauma Recovery
        18.   Veteran’s Educating to Succeed (VETS)
        19.   Women Investigating New Gates for Sobriety (WINGS)
        20.   Willing Individuals in Substance Education (WISE)
        21.   Domestic Violence Curriculum (not scored)

The Domestic Violence Curriculum was examined but not scored using the CPC-GA Assessment Tool.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 100
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

The Correctional Programs Checklist Assessment-GA measures the following four domains:

1.   Program Staff and Support
2.   Offender Assessment
3.   Treatment
4.   Quality Assurance

All of the Department’s programs were measured against these four content areas to determine how many
of these performance indicators the Department’s programs met. Each content area and all domains were
scored and rated accordingly:

•    Highly Effective: (65% to 100%)
•    Effective: (55% to 64%)
•    Needs Improvement: (45% to 54%)
•    Ineffective: (< 45%)

The Department has made the following modifications in the programs.

•    A Rehabilitation Officer has been assigned to the Main Jail to address the needs of the high risk
     population housed at the Main Jail.
•    The boot camp aspect of the Regimented Corrections Program has been omitted.
•    Library services will be offered by the Milpitas Unified School District.
•    A parenting class for Elmwood Men will be taught by Family and Children’s Services.
•    L.I.F.T. (Literacy in Families Together) class was discontinued.
•    All the classes offered in the M8 building have been relocated to the M4 and M5 buildings (the only
     change is the location).
•    One Rehabilitation Officer Position was deleted.
•    The Artemis, MY STORI and Regimented Corrections Program for women have been combined into a
     new Reentry Corrections Program for women without the boot camp aspect.
•    The HOPE and the Regimented Corrections Program for men have been combined into a new Reentry
     Corrections Program for men without the boot camp aspect.
•    The RCP Phase I-Men has been modified. The marching and physical component was removed from
     the program.
•    The RCP Phase I-Women has been modified. The marching and physical component was removed
     from the program.
•    Breaking Barriers has been assigned a Case Manager.
•    Get Right has been assigned a Case Manager.

Additionally, two more initiatives were created related to recidivism: A Center for Leadership and Training
(CLT) group was created to look at re-entry strategies, and their findings were presented in December
2011. A countywide committee called Community Corrections Partnership was formed to address the AB
109 Public Safety Realignment Implementation Plan.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 101
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

1.2      Overall Key Findings

As noted in Table 1.1, the domain in which the Department’s programs scored in the “Effective” category is
Program Staff and Support within the range of 60 to 100 percent (PACT scored 100 percent). According to
the findings of the program evaluations described in Part II, the Department’s programs scored higher in
the Program Staff and Support domain compared to the other three domains. All of the programs scored
“Effective” in this domain; within the range of 60 to 100 percent (PACT scored 100 percent). This finding
shows that the SCCDOC’s Programs Unit staff and its community-based providers are well-qualified,
experienced and capable to deliver a higher level of evidence-based treatment programs. This is extremely
important for correctional programs as these staff characteristics have been demonstrated to be influential
in reducing future recidivism (Lowenkamp and Latessa, 2002).

                                               Table 1.1
                         Santa Clara County Department of Correction Program
                                 Descriptive Statistics by CPC Domain

      Content Area                      Mean                 Median             Minimum and Maximum
      Program Staff & Support           66.0                  60.0                    60 – 100
      Offender Assessment                0.0                   0.0                    0.0 – 0.0
      Treatment                         34.2                  31.4                   25.7 – 66.7
      Quality Assurance                 14.0                   0.0                    0.0 – 60.0
   Source: Correctional Programs Checklist.

The lowest score in the program evaluations was for Offender Assessment with a score of 0 for this
domain. This score is a result of the Department not utilizing an empirically validated, objective tool to
assess a person’s risk (to reoffend). Risk is defined as the probability of recidivating upon release. Inmates
are scored as low, medium or high risk to reoffend after discharge. While the Department’s “Case Notes”
addresses the majority of the criminogenic factors, it does not produce the data needed to score inmates as
low, medium or high risk to reoffend, nor does it match inmates into treatment according to these risk levels
and their security level. The adoption of such a tool would provide an effective assessment of risk to
reoffend, and it will improve the matching of inmates to programs that relate to their needs.

In the Treatment domain of the program evaluations, one program scored as “Highly Effective” (PACT), and
the remaining programs scored in the “Ineffective” range. The primary reason why this occurred is because
the program curricula focus on education. Education is one aspect of changing behavior but it falls short in
transforming offenders who exhibit anti-social values, attitudes and distorted thinking patterns, which are
characteristic of most medium and high risk offenders. Unless program staff address the individual’s
underlying anti-social values and attitudes, teach them prosocial values and skills, give inmates
opportunities to practice these skills, and alter distorted thinking patterns, the offender’s behavior will not be
changed (Landenberger and Lipsey, 2005; Lipsey, Chapman, and Landenberger, 2001).

In the Quality Assurance domain of the program evaluations, PACT scored as “Effective” and the remaining
programs scored in the “Ineffective” range. The PACT program contains more of the elements of the
cognitive behavioral model of treatment than any of the other programs. Only two programs (PACT and




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 102
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

Three Principles) evaluate their effectiveness using a pre and posttest measurement to demonstrate
behavior change.

A separate analysis of the average length of stay for inmates indicated that there is sufficient time for
unsentenced and sentenced felons to complete programs as their average length of stay ranges from
104.1-184.6 days for unsentenced felons and 86.9-120.3 days for sentenced felons. Based on the number
of hours inmates are involved in programs (240-308 hours for an 8-10 week cycle), it appears that there is
sufficient time to complete programs.

1.2.1   Overall Key Recommendations

As a result of the program evaluation, none of the programs are recommended to be Continued as Is, 75
percent of the programs are recommended to be continued with modifications and 25 percent are
recommended to be discontinued and replaced with more effective programming (See Part II, Chapter 4 for
recommendations for each program). The consultants attempted to balance the Department’s need for
programming for every security level and housing unit while also making recommendations for
improvement.

The consultant team offers 12 general recommendations to reduce recidivism for the SCCDOC’s
consideration:

1. Select objective risk, needs and responsivity assessment tools. (See pages 207-215) (See Holsinger,
   Lurigio, and Latessa, 2001.)

    a. We recommend that each newly admitted inmate be screened by trained intake staff to eliminate
       those individuals who are low risk to reoffend and therefore do not require intensive programming.
       Constructive activities for the low risk individual will still need to be available to reduce idleness and
       promote safety within the facility. However, intensive programming should not be wasted on the
       low risk inmate because it is unnecessary, harmful and costly (see Andrews and Bonta, 2010;
       Lowenkamp and Latessa, 2004).

        Screening will take between 5 and 15 minutes to complete. The consultants recommend that
        SCCDOC utilize the screening tool as soon as possible after admission. Some risk assessment
        tools come with a screener version of their tool (e.g., LS/CMI, ORAS). The screening tool identifies
        low risk individuals early in the process so they can be omitted from the comprehensive
        assessment process; thus leaving staff the time and resources to conduct the full assessment on
        medium and high risk individuals.

    b. After the inmate is placed in their housing unit, the Programs Unit staff is recommended to conduct
        an in-depth risk and needs assessment of medium and high risk inmates. Trained Rehabilitation
        Officers should be charged with the responsibility of conducting these assessments. This
        assessment determines those inmates who are medium and high risk to reoffend and assesses
        their criminogenic needs so these can be addressed in their Treatment Plan.

    c. After the risk/needs assessment is conducted and specific need areas are identified, the SCCDOC
       staff should make a referral to one or more treatment providers delivering a specific Core Program.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 103
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

        The provider should conduct a responsivity assessment prior to delivering the program so that the
        provider can tailor the group’s goals to address the specific needs of the participants.

2. Treatment programs should follow the Principles of Effective Intervention (Risk, Need, Responsivity
   and Fidelity) and with the core correctional practices (e.g., effective approval, effective disapproval,
   relationship skills, modeling, skill building, and problem solving). Research shows that cognitive
   behavioral interventions combined with role-play, practice and rehearsals consistently achieve larger
   reductions in recidivism compared to interventions solely based on education (Landenberger and
   Lipsey, 2005; Lipsey, Chapman, and Landenberger, 2001). The curricula that is selected should
   provide a manual that contains clearly articulated lesson plans, homework, and guidelines for
   facilitators on how to model and role play prosocial skills. Each facilitator should follow the manual and
   not deviate from it to ensure fidelity of the training.

3. Expand the number of Core Programs from one (substance abuse education) to include six major core
   program areas:

        1.   Substance Abuse Treatment with Cognitive Behavioral Elements
        2.   Cognitive Behavioral Skills Training
        3.   Conflict Resolution/Anger Management
        4.   Academic and Post-Graduate Education/Job Readiness Training
        5.   Reentry Preparation
        6.   Aftercare.

4. Ensure that individuals are matched with these core programs based on their assessed risk to reoffend
   upon release and criminogenic needs. Select curricula that are designed to address all criminogenic
   needs and match inmates to one or more of the Core Programs that address these criminogenic
   needs.

5. Low risk inmates should be channeled into work, self-guided educational activities (e.g. Roadmap to
   Recovery) and to other behavior management activities that reduce idleness such as creative arts,
   recreation, library, etc.

6. SCCDOC should continue to work with the providers toward developing and delivering the Core
   Programs recommended in this EBP Evaluation Report (Part II), and to reduce the number of areas of
   improvement found in each of their individual evaluations.

7. Develop a policy and practice to ensure fidelity to treatment and quality assurance for all SCCDOC
   treatment programs such as tracking the progress of people participating in treatment based on pre
   and posttest examinations, monthly or quarterly observation of classes and formal feedback by
   supervisors to all instructors, and routine and formal feedback invited by staff and inmates on the value
   of the classes.

8. Develop an initial and ongoing in-service training program for treatment staff.

9. Three quarters (75 percent) of the programs are recommended to be continued with modifications and
   25 percent are recommended to be discontinued and replaced with more effective programming (see


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 104
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

    Table, pages 197-198). Even when the program produced some reductions in recidivism, the analysis
    found many areas that could be improved so that greater reductions in recidivism could be realized.

10. An upgrade to CJIC is recommended to support the Department in collecting the information needed to
    develop a valid, objective risk and needs assessment instrument and to track program admissions and
    program terminations by reason.

11. Based on the science of implementation, the consultants recommend the formation of an EBP
    Implementation Team (EBP IT) consisting of DOC program, security and administrative staff and its
    treatment providers to meet monthly to lead change. Seven Implementation Workgroups are
    recommended to address the following areas:

        A.   Risk, Needs and Responsivity Assessment Tools and referral and assessment protocols
        B.   Core Programs
        C.   Case Management
        D.   Quality Assurance/Data Collection
        E.   Training and Staff Development
        F.   Reentry
        G.   Aftercare

12. To effectively implement these innovations, it is recommended that the Department follow the stages of
    implementation as defined in the research on successful implementation (National Implementation
    Research Network):

        1. Exploration: Review research and recommendations in this report and other research to
           support these seven workgroups.
        2. Installation: Select assessment tools, curricula, treatment providers, develop protocols to
           implement these seven areas; create a monitoring system to ensure that these innovations are
           regularly examined for fidelity.
        3. Initial Implementation: Select a sample population or housing unit to pilot, train staff in the use
           of the assessment tool, the curricula and protocol, pilot the use of the tool, curricula and
           protocol, evaluate its use in the pilot phase to establish fidelity and make modifications before
           going to next stage.
        4. Full Implementation: When 50 percent of the staff is proficient at implementing the
           assessment tool, curricula and protocol according to fidelity measures, ramp up to other
           populations and housing units, continue to evaluate.
        5. Innovation: Refine/fine tune the tools, curricula and protocols and bring in coaches to help
           examine the degree to which the new innovations are being implemented according to fidelity.
        6. Sustainability: Establish stable and adequate funding; maintain stakeholder support.

The EBP IT and the Workgroups should provide quarterly reports to the Chief of Correction. The EBP IT
should develop a timeline for implementation. A suggested timeline is recommended on page 225. We
recommend the Department name an EBP Coordinator (preferably an independent party) to guide the
change effort because of the complexity and size of this change effort, and to coach staff through the
change process (see Petrosino, A & Soydan, H. 2005).



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 105
        Part II. Chapter 2
Literature Review of Principles
    of Effective Intervention
                                                                  Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                     Final Report

                                                 Part II. Chapter 2

2.1        Introduction

For the purposes of this program evaluation, effectiveness was measured in accordance with the
“Principles of Effective Intervention” (PEI). The four principles of effective correctional intervention are:

      •    Risk Principle – target higher risk offenders (WHO)

      •    Need Principle – target criminogenic risk/need factors (WHAT)

      •    Responsivity Principle – adapt treatment to individual factors (HOW)

      •    Fidelity Principle – implement program as designed (HOW WELL)

The principles of effective intervention are based on extensive research findings spanning many decades
(Palmer, 1975; Gendreau and Ross, 1987; Cullen and Gendreau, 2000). This body of research has
demonstrated utility and importance for the evaluation of correctional programs (Latessa and Holsinger,
1998), and it has spawned a number of principles that are beneficial to correctional programming (Andrews
and Bonta, 2010; Andrews, Bonta, and Hoge, 1990).

The risk principle has utility in both matching and prediction. This principle guides administrators as to who
they should target for programs. The first part of the risk principle states that offender’s risk of recidivating
should be measured by an actuarial risk assessment tool. This tool will be able to alert the program to an
individual’s likelihood of reoffending based on an objective assessment of a set of characteristics or
occurrences in his/her life that are correlated with the likelihood of future recidivism. The following eight risk
factors have been found to be highly correlated with reoffending (Andrews and Bonta, 2010):

      1.   Antisocial/procriminal attitudes, values, beliefs and cognitive-emotional states
      2.   Procriminal associates and isolation from prosocial others
      3.   Temperamental and antisocial personality patterns conducive to criminal activity
      4.   A history of antisocial behavior
      5.   Family factors that include criminality and a variety of psychological problems in the family of origin
      6.   Low levels of personal, educational, vocational or financial achievement
      7.   Low levels of involvement in prosocial leisure activities
      8.   Abuse of alcohol and/or drugs

The risk principle also states that high risk offenders are more likely to benefit from the most intensive
treatment (Andrews and Bonta, 2010; Bonta, 2002; Bourgon and Armstrong, 2005; Dowden and Andrews,
2000; Lowenkamp and Latessa, 2002, 2004, 2005). This is an important component of the risk principle,
as research has demonstrated that the intervention must have sufficient duration and dosage to reduce
recidivism (Bourgon and Armstrong, 2005). In addition, the risk principle states that low risk offenders
should receive low intensity to no treatment, so as not to produce negative effects (Lowenkamp and
Latessa, 2004). That is, when low risk offenders are mixed with high risk offenders in high intensity
programs, national research has shown that low risk offenders are more likely to recidivate due to antisocial
influences from high risk offenders and by removing them from pro-social protective factors.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 107
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report


The second principle of effective intervention is the need principle. This principle directs programs on what
components to target; specifically, programs should focus on criminogenic needs. Criminogenic needs are
a subset of risk factors that are correlated with future recidivism. The need principle states that effective
programming should target known criminogenic needs to reduce future offending (Andrews, Bonta, and
Hoge, 1990; Zamble, 1993). The top criminogenic needs are:

    1.       Antisocial attitudes, values and beliefs
    2.       Antisocial friends
    3.       Impulsive behavior (e.g., risk taking, self-control issues)
    4.       Education/employment
    5.       Substance abuse

When targeted, programs that address known criminogenic needs have been demonstrated to reduce
future offending (Andrews and Bonta, 2010; Lowenkamp and Latessa, 2002). Gendreau, French, and
Taylor (2002) found that programs that focus on three or more criminogenic needs produce the highest
reduction in future recidivism.

The following needs have “not” been highly correlated with a reduction in recidivism: (Andrews, Bonta and
Wormith 2006):

    1.       Anxiety
    2.       Low self esteem
    3.       Creative abilities
    4.       Medical needs
    5.       Physical conditioning

The third principle is the responsivity principle. This principle states that offenders should be matched to
various modes of treatment to better facilitate change in the offender’s behavior (Andrews and Bonta,
2010). There are two aspects of responsivity: general responsivity and specific responsivity. General
responsivity states that the delivery of treatment to offenders should be a modality to which all types of
offenders can respond. To adhere to general responsivity, programs should follow a cognitive-behavioral
modality and be sufficient in duration and dosage to change behavior (Andrews et al. 1990; Dowden and
Andrews, 2000; Lipsey, Chapman, and Landenberger, 2001). Cognitive-behavioral approaches have
demonstrated the highest reductions in recidivism, especially programs that teach prosocial behaviors and
develop new skills (Andrews, 1990; Andrews and Bonta, 2010; Andrews et al. 1990; Lipsey, Landenberger,
and Chapman, 2001; Petersilia and Turner, 1995). Landenberger and Lipsey (2005) found that offenders
involved in cognitive behavioral treatment had a one and one half times greater likelihood of not recidivating
after discharge from correctional supervision than those who were not involved in treatment.

According to specific responsivity, the unique characteristics of the offender (e.g., reading ability, language
abilities, and motivation) should be taken into account when being matched with a program to produce
higher reductions in recidivism (Andrews and Bonta, 2010; Andrews, Bonta, and Hoge, 1990).

The fourth principle is the fidelity principle. This principle states that effective programs are based on a
standardized curriculum that is delivered consistently and as the curriculum design is intended to be


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 108
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

delivered (Andrews and Bonta, 2002). Deviations from standard curricula are not recommended because
these do not produce the intended results.

Andrews (1990) document that the following are “ineffective interventions” with offenders based on
extensive research:

    •   Boot camps, scared straight, etc.
    •   Drug education programs teaching the pharmacology of drugs and alcohol
    •   Drug prevention classes focused on fear and other emotional appeals
    •   Insight/awareness therapy models
    •   Programs that cannot maintain fidelity
    •   Shaming offenders
    •   Non-directive, client centered approaches
    •   Bibliotherapy
    •   Freudian approaches
    •   Talking cures
    •   Self-Help programs
    •   Vague unstructured rehabilitation programs
    •   Medical model
    •   Fostering self-regard (self-esteem)




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 109
        Part II. Chapter 3
Evidence-Based Program Analysis
                                                                  Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                     Final Report

                                                 Part II. Chapter 3

3.1.1      Overview of Programs

The Department of Correction offers 22 inmate programs/classes (20 are offered to in-custody inmates and
2 are offered to out-of-custody inmates). Substance abuse education, two academic education and three
vocational educational programs are offered as core components in all programs. Two of the in-custody
programs (Get Right and Breaking Barriers) are offered to high medium security level inmates at the Main
Jail. The remainder of the programs is offered to inmates housed at the Elmwood Facility.

The Department of Correction gives a high priority to programs for inmates to facilitate their successful
reentry to the community. The following statement within the DOC Mission Statement affirms the
Department’s commitment to inmate programs:

“The Department will maximize opportunities for offenders to participate in programs that reduce criminal
behavior and enhance the offender’s reintegration into the community”.

These programs are coordinated by the Inmate Programs Unit of the Department of Correction. The
mission of the Program Unit is to:

“Enhance the successful reintegration of the program participants into the community by providing them
counseling, course study, personal skills training and after custody care components in a structured
environment”.

The overall purpose of programs as stated by the Inmate Programs Unit is:

       1. Help inmates keep busy in a constructive manner.
       2. Educate inmates that may have never had access to schools or formal education.
       3. Allow inmates to earn certificates in GED or other job training skills to assist them in obtaining a job
          upon release.
       4. Give inmates a sense of accomplishment.
       5. Help them rebuild their relationships with their families.
       6. Help inmates with their court cases thus helping the jail population and the costs incurred by the
          Department.29

The Inmate Programs Unit Directory of Classes and Programs states: “this is an attempt to return the
inmate to his or her home with improved skills (emphasis added), to help them in their transition to the
outside world”. This statement commits the Department to provide programming that increases skills,
which goes beyond the traditional role of providing constructive activities just to keep inmates busy and of
providing basic education on a variety of subjects to which a portion of the inmate population can relate.




29   Santa Clara County Department of Correction. Programs Overview. 2010.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 111
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

The overall goals of the Programs Unit are to:

1.    Establish a foundation for long-term recovery.
2.    Expand participant’s concept of their opportunities for positive, independent life styles.
3.    Enhance participant’s employability.
4.    Foster healthy relationships.
5.    Promote successful re-entry into society as evidence of adherence to individual contracts.
6.    Increase participant’s probationary success.

All programs are offered equally to unsentenced inmates, sentenced inmates and to all security levels
based on the (IWF) Settlement Agreement and on the nationally accepted operational principle that
programs help reduce the level of violence within the correctional environment. Gibbons and de B.
Katzenbach (2006), in the Report by the Commission on Safety and Abuse in American Prisons, concluded
that “highly structured programs are proven to reduce misconduct in correctional facilities and also to lower
recidivism rates after release.” Ward and Eccleston (2004) found that programs that address the underlying
motivations of their actions and the consequences of their behavior can reduce misconduct in correctional
facilities and lower recidivism rates by at least 10 percent.

The Department provides the following 13 stand-alone programs:

1.    Artemis
2.    Breaking Barriers
3.    Get Right
4.    Healing Opportunities in a Program Environment (HOPE)
5.    Program About Change and Experience (PACE)
6.    Parents and Children Together (PACT Parenting)
7.    Mentoring You-Successful Transition of Recovering Individuals (MYSTORI)
8.    M8 Program Units (Units A-H)
9.    Regimented Corrections Program Phase I Men
10.   Regimented Corrections Program Phase I Women
11.   Regimented Corrections Program Phase II
12.   Veterans Educating to Succeed (VETS)
13.   Women Investigation New Gates for Sobriety (WINGS)

Note: These programs target specific inmate populations and their needs and they include a variety of
educational curricula focused on these needs. These were approved by the DOC Recidivism Steering
Committee to be the focus of the Recidivism Study described in Part I.

Inmates participating in these 13 stand-alone programs attend classes 6 hours each day for 5 days a week
or for 30 hours each week. In addition, groups are also delivered in the evening such as Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA), although these classes are not required. When all
classes are combined, inmates receive 240-300 hours of programming during an 8-10 week cycle. Inmates
participating in the Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) receive 308 hours of programming for an 8-
week cycle as they are in class 7.7 hours each day for 5 days a week, or for 38 hours each week.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 112
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

The Department makes available classes on a variety of topics that have been determined by the Inmate
Programs Unit to meet the needs of inmates that is in accordance with their security level, housing unit
designation and based on available resources. All other programs and curricula are offered as “electives.”
Each of the classes has a target population to be served, educational goals, and a prescribed curriculum.

Inmates can take a single class or a group of classes offered in accordance with their security level and in
their housing unit. The practice of matching programs to an inmate’s classification and housing unit is a
common practice in correctional institutions and will likely continue because the safety and security of the
facility is the number one priority. However, matching inmates with programs that target criminogenic needs
and risk to reoffend is a core element of effective programs that decreases the inmate’s rate of return.
Other core elements of effective programs as defined by Andrews and Bonta (2010) and Lowenkamp and
Latessa (2002) are:

1. Evidence-based research guides the type of treatment modalities used with offenders.
2. Use of a validated, standardized and objective instrument that measures their future risk to reoffend
    and their criminogenic needs.
3. Group targets higher risk offenders for intensive programming while minimal programming is provided
    to low-risk offenders.
4. The program adapts to the aptitude, learning style, personality, mental health disorders and gender of
    the offender.
5. The major focus of the group is on criminogenic needs.
6. Sufficient dosage and duration is provided to reduce criminality.
7. The instructor and the group consistently follow a prescribed curriculum.
8. Treatment groups are small to maximize interaction.
9. The curriculum addresses the underlying values, attitudes and beliefs to identify antisocial thinking
    patterns.
10. Teaching, modeling and reinforcing pro-social values, attitudes and behaviors through direct positive
    and negative reinforcement are provided consistently.
11. Practice sessions with role play and corrective feedback are key components of the skills training.
12. More rewards than punishers are given, and they are immediate with explanations of why they are
    given.
13. Punishers address non-compliance and they are progressive with the least intrusive punisher given
    first, and the punisher is immediate with explanations of why they are given.
14. Concrete problem-solving skills are taught and modeled.
15. Performance metrics are used to measure performance.
16. Performance measures track the progress from one phase to the next.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 113
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

As these components illustrate, effective inmate programs have specific performance measures that go
beyond just keeping inmates busy and providing them basic education. Effective offender programs focus
on teaching and developing prosocial values, attitudes, and behaviors which research demonstrates leads
to reduced recidivism upon release (Smith, Gendreau, and Goggin, 2009).

3.1.2   Program Administration

The Programs Unit Manager oversees the programs and guides the coordinators from each of the agencies
delivering services to the Department. This Unit is under the direction of the Support Services Division
Commander. The Unit Manager supervises a staff of six Rehabilitation Officers (RO) that provide case
management to nine programs.30 The RO conducts the following functions to determine the inmates’
eligibility and suitability for the programs:

1. Screens the inmate’s criminal record to determine suitability for in-custody programs.
2. Interviews the inmate to assess needs and program suitability.
3. Submits the names of suitable inmates to the Classification Unit so they can be housed in housing
   units that meet their classification level and that offer the programs that meet their needs.
4. Screens and facilitates approval with the court for inmates to be considered for a sentence modification
   thus making them eligible for out-of-custody programs. For example, in June 2011, sentence
   modifications were approved for 16 inmates and in May 2011, a total of 11 inmates’ sentence was
   modified. This is evidence of the confidence the Court has in the DOC Programs Unit.

On-going functions of the ROs are:

1. Conduct orientation sessions with new inmates to acquaint them with the rules and regulations of the
    program.
2. Conduct house meetings with inmates to resolve minor house rule issues.
3. Recruit, enroll and monitor inmates’ attendance and participation in programs.
4. Mentor and redirect inmate behavior when needed.
5. Refer inmates to positions within the program such as “cadence caller” and “inmate worker” to develop
    leadership skills.
6. Facilitate groups when instructors are absent.
7. Assist instructors with inmate and classroom issues.
8. Invite outside speakers to speak to inmates on special topics.
9. Provide inmates with information on schedule release dates, court appearances, the early release
    program and eligibility for out-of-custody status.
10. Coordinate specialized functions for inmates with special needs such as providing materials to veterans
    and coordinating treatment programs for veterans; assist pregnant women to enter the Artemis
    program designed for pregnant women and women with young children; coordinate clearances with the
    Social Services Agency of Santa Clara County for children to participate in the Parenting Program.
11. Upon request of the inmate, communicate with family members to assist the inmate with family issues.
12. Upon request, facilitate phone calls for inmates with family members, court, their attorneys and with
    treatment agencies.

30The Programs Unit also consists of Program Sergeants, Correctional Officers, Custody Support Assistants, Law
Enforcement Records Technician, Law Enforcement Clerks, and Management Aide.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 114
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

13. Prepare progress reports for the court and other requesting agencies.
14. Upon program completion, coordinate graduation ceremonies.
15. Prepare an Exit/Discharge Plan for inmates eligible for the out-of-custody phase.

The ROs are assigned to the following 11 programs to serve as their case manager:

1.    Artemis
2.    Breaking Barriers
3.    Get Right
4.    Healing Opportunities in a Program Environment (HOPE)
5.    Parents and Children Together (PACT Parenting)
6.    Mentoring You-Successful Transition of Recovering Individuals (MYSTORI)
7.    Regimented Corrections Program Phase I Men and Women (RCP I)
8.    Regimented Corrections Program Phase II Men and Women (RCP II)
9.    Veterans Educating to Succeed (VETS)
10.   M8 Program Units (Units A-H)
11.   Women Investigation New Gates for Sobriety (WINGS)

Inmates participating in these programs are eligible to be stepped down to an out-of-custody phase. Initial
eligibility for programs is determined by the court in consultation with the inmate’s attorney and the District
Attorney. Inmates can be admitted to programs by either being court ordered to participate, by submitting a
request to the RO within the Inmate Programs Unit or by staff. The RO will screen the inmate’s criminal
history background, past program performance, classification criteria and in-custody behavior. They will
interview the inmate to determine the inmate’s interest. If determined to be suitable for the program, the RO
will submit a request to the Classification Unit for their approval to be classified into a housing unit that
offers them a specific program and a series of classes.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 115
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

The Classification Unit makes the decision to assign an inmate to a Security Level 1, 2, 3, or 4 and to a
specific housing unit.

                                                Figure 3.1
                                         From Booking to a Program




Source: Santa Clara County Department of Correction Programs Unit.


After the inmate has been admitted to the housing unit, the Rehabilitation Officer will complete an in-depth
psychosocial needs assessment to assess their specific needs for the programs. A case plan is developed
based on this in-depth assessment. At midway into the program, the Rehabilitation Officer assigned to a
specific program consults with the teacher to verify attendance and participation. The RO will provide
progress reports and an exit/discharge plan to the court. After the exit/discharge plan is finalized, the
inmate begins their transition to the community.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 116
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                                Figure 3.2
                                 During the In-Custody Phase of Program




Source: Department of Correction Inmate Programs Unit.

Programs are delivered by nine community-based organizations. Four agencies offer inmate programs at
no cost to the Department of Correction (Milpitas Unified School District, Santa Clara County Department of
Alcohol and Drug Services, Veteran’s Administration and Next Door Solutions). While some programs are
at no cost to the Department, mandated programs are funded through the General Fund and non-
mandated programs are funded through the Inmate Welfare Fund (IWF) as is illustrated in Table 3.1 on the
following page.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 117
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                              Table 3.1
                     Inmate Programs Offered by Community Based Organizations
                                             FY10-FY12

     Community Based Organization           Program Delivered by CBO              Contract Amount
                                                                                     FY10-FY12
     1. Santa Clara County Health           Trauma Recovery                   $76,000 (IWF)
        and Hospital System Adult
        Custody Mental Health

     2. Santa Clara County Library          Learner-Centered Literacy $288,000 ($142,000 FY10;
        for the Administration of           Instruction and Literacy in $146,000 FY11) (IWF)
        Inmate Library and Literacy         Families Together (LIFT)    $50,000 is dedicated to
                                                                        LIFT $0 for FY2012
        Services

     3. Milpitas Unified School District High School/GED                      No cost for instructors
                                         preparation and testing;             $20,000 for GED testing
                                         Vocational Education;                (IWF)
                                         Substance Abuse Education;
                                         Relapse Prevention;
                                         Computer Software
                                         Applications; English as
                                         Second Language; Artistic
                                         Expression; Exit Planning;
                                         Violence Prevention
                                         Library Services in FY2012-
                                         FY2013

     4. Adele Pat Cibart, LCSW              Positive Parenting Classes $30,000 (IWF)
                                            and Parent/Child Visitation Contract amount for FY2012
                                            Program                     is $27,300

     5. Correctional Institutions           Heart and Soul                    $123,750 (General Fund)
        Chaplaincy                                                            $41,250 (IWF)
                                                                              Contract amount for
                                                                              FY2012: $140,000*
                                                                              $105,000 (General Fund)
                                                                              $35,000 (IWF)
     6. Veteran’s Administration            Veterans’ Services                No cost

     7. Santa Clara County Health           Three Principles                  No cost
        and Hospital System
        Department of Alcohol and
        Drug Services (DADS)



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 118
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

     Community Based Organization           Program Delivered by CBO              Contract Amount
                                                                                      FY10-FY12
     8. Next Door Solutions                 Domestic Violence                 No cost

     9. Families & Children Services        Parenting Services for Male       $60,000 in FY2012.
                                            and Female Inmates at the
                                            Elmwood Complex (Similar
                                            to the LIFT Program)
    Source: Department of Correction Inmate Programs Unit. IWF is Inmate Welfare Fund. *Heart and Soul is
    one component of the overall contract for chaplaincy services.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 119
                                                                    Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                         Final Report

3.1.3    Methodology of the Evidence-Based Program Evaluation-Correctional Programs Checklist
         Assessment

3.1.3.1 Assessment Process

The assessment process consisted of surveys of program coordinators, group facilitators, correctional
officers and SCCDOC staff, a total of 29 standardized and structured interviews with program providers and
SCCDOC staff, an extensive review of curricula used in each of the 21 programs, the examination of 25
representative files (open and closed) and observation of four classes. Four survey questionnaires were
developed to collect data from:
     1. Program Coordinators (defined as the person responsible for oversight of their agency’s curriculum,
        hiring, firing and supervising their individual group facilitators or teachers
     2. Group Facilitators (defined as persons responsible for delivering the program/classroom)
     3. Correctional Officers (defined as custody employees of the Department of Correction assigned to
        programs and housing units in which programs are delivered)
     4. DOC Administrative Staff.

Each of the programs was evaluated using the Correctional Programs Checklist (CPC), a tool designed by
the University of Cincinnati to assess correctional programs.31 The CPC is used to ascertain how closely
correctional programs meet known principles of effective intervention. Several recent studies conducted by
the University of Cincinnati on both adult and juvenile programs were used to develop and validate the
indicators on the CPC.32 These studies yielded strong correlations with outcomes between overall scores,
domain areas, and individual items, (Holsinger, 1999; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2003, Lowenkamp, 2003;
Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005a; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005).

The CPC-GA is a program evaluation tool that closely examines the extent to which correctional group
interventions meet the principles of effective intervention. Because all but one of Santa Clara County’s
programs is delivered in a group, this tool was considered to be the best fit for the evaluation of the
Department’s programs.

The CPC-GA is divided into two basic areas: 1) Capacity and 2) Content. The Capacity area is designed
to measure whether or not a correctional program has the capability to deliver evidence-based
interventions and services for offenders. There are two sub-components in this area: 1) Program Staff and
Support and 2) Quality Assurance. The Content area focuses on the substantive aspect of the group and
also includes two domains: 1) Offender Assessment, and 2) Treatment.




31 The CPC is modeled after the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory developed by Gendreau and Andrews;
however, the CPC includes a number of items not contained in the CPAI. In addition, items that were not found to be
positively correlated with recidivism were deleted.
32 These studies involved over 40,000 offenders (both adult and juvenile), and over 500 correctional programs,

ranging from institutional to community based. All of the studies are available on the UC website
(www.uc.edu/criminaljustice). A large part of this research involved the identification of program characteristics that
were correlated with recidivism.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 120
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

The treatment area is designed to measure core correctional practices and is divided into seven
components; 1) Group Target and Process, 2) Effective Reinforcement, 3) Effective Disapproval, 4)
Structured Skill Building, 5) Relationship Skills, 6) Cognitive Restructuring, and 7) Relapse Prevention.

The CPC-GA tool includes 54 indicators totaling 56 total points (see Appendix for the list of Performance
Indicators). Each area and all domains are scored and rated as either "Highly Effective” (65% to 100%);
"Effective" (55% to 64%); "Needs Improvement" (45% to 54%); or "Ineffective" (less than 45%).
Effective is defined as the degree to which the program has the components sufficient to reduce recidivism.
The scores in all domains are then totaled and the same scale is used for the overall assessment score.
The score represents the percent of evidence-based program indicators that are present in each program.
It should be noted that not all of the domains are given equal weight, and some items may be considered
“Not Applicable” in which case they are not included in the scoring.

There are several limitations to the CPC-GA that should be discussed. First, the instruments are based on
an ideal program. The criteria have been developed from a large body of research and knowledge that
combines the best practices from the empirical literature on “what works” in reducing recidivism. Hence,
achievement of meeting all indicators on the assessment is unlikely due to operational considerations
within the correctional institutional setting. Second, as with all applied research, objectivity and reliability
are important considerations. Although steps are taken to ensure that the information that is gathered is
accurate and reliable, decisions about the information and data gathered are invariably made by the
assessor given the nature of the process. Third, the process is time-specific; that is, the results describe
the program at the time of the assessment. Changes or modifications may be under development, but only
those activities and processes that are present at the time of the review were scored. Our experience
demonstrates that effective programs are a “work in progress” as they are continually assessing their
effectiveness and making modifications to increase their effectiveness. Fourth, the process does not take
into account all system issues that can affect the integrity of the program. Lastly, the process does not
address why a problem exists within a program.

Despite these limitations, there are a number of advantages to this process. First, the criteria are based on
empirically-derived principles of effective intervention. Second, the process provides a measure of program
integrity and quality; in other words, it provides insight into the “black box” of the program, and this is
something that an outcome study alone (e.g. Recidivism Study) does not provide. Third, the results can be
ascertained relatively quickly. Fourth, it identifies both the strengths and weaknesses of the intervention. It
provides the program with feedback regarding what it is doing that is consistent with the research on
effective interventions, as well as those areas that need improvement. Finally, it generates some useful
recommendations for program improvement. Since program integrity and quality can change over time, it
allows a program to reassess its progress at a later date.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 121
       Part II. Chapter 4
Individual Program Evaluations
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                               Part II. Chapter 4

4.1     Introduction

This chapter provides detailed summaries of the findings of the evaluation of each of the 21 programs. It
describes the strengths in each program and the areas of improvement recommended by the consultant
team. Recommendations are identified as “Continue as Is,” “Continue with Modifications,” or “Discontinue
and Replace” (see pages 197-198).

To reconfirm, the following 21 programs were evaluated using the University of Cincinnati’s Correctional
Programs Checklist (CPC-GA):

        1.    Artemis
        2.    Breaking Barriers
        3.    Day Reporting
        4.    Get Right
        5.    Heart and Soul
        6.    Healing Opportunities in a Program Environment (HOPE)
        7.    Literacy in Families Together (LIFT)
        8.    M-8 (A-H housing units) (collection of programs)
        9.    Mentoring You-Successful Transition of Recovering Individuals (MYSTORI)
        10.   Program about Change and Experience (PACE)
        11.   Parents and Children Together (PACT)
        12.   Regimented Corrections Program-Phase I (Men)
        13.   Regimented Corrections Program-Phase I (Women)
        14.   Regimented Corrections Program-Phase II (RCP II)
        15.   Roadmap to Recovery
        16.   Three Principles (Health Realization)
        17.   Trauma Recovery
        18.   Veteran’s Educating to Succeed (VETS)
        19.   Women Investigating New Gates for Sobriety (WINGS)
        20.   Willing Individuals in Substance Education (WISE)
        21.   Domestic Violence Curriculum (not scored)

The Domestic Violence Curriculum was examined but not scored using the CPC-GA Assessment Tool.

To reiterate, each of the programs was evaluated using the 54 performance indicators listed under the
following domains:

        1.    Program Staff and Support
        2.    Offender Assessment
        3.    Treatment
        4.    Quality Assurance




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 123
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

These four domains and the number of performance indicators the programs met are described in the
following program profiles, and each program is rated as:

    •   Highly Effective: (65% to 100%)
    •   Effective: (55% to 64%)
    •   Needs Improvement (45% to 54%)
    •   Ineffective (< 45%)

Effective is defined as the degree to which the program has the components sufficient to reduce recidivism.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 124
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                Department of Correction Program Profiles
                                              NAME OF PROGRAM
                                                    ARTEMIS
  Target Population              Minimum Security Pregnant Women and Women with Small Children
                                 (<5 years old)
  Written Program Goals          To reduce substance use and abuse in women with small children.
                                 Women are educated on the effects of substance abuse on the fetus and
                                 on small children.
  Program Description            A gender-specific program offered to minimum security women with
                                 substance abuse histories that emphasize education on the effects of
                                 substance use/abuse on them, their unborn fetuses and families.
                                 Women are placed on case management with a Rehabilitation Officer
                                 where their interventions are coordinated and monitored, and they are
                                 assessed for sentence modifications making them eligible for an out of
                                 custody program. Women who successfully complete program
                                 requirements can be discharged to an out-of-custody program with court
                                 approval where they will continue in programming for another 8-10
                                 weeks.
  Classes Offered                3 hours Substance Abuse Education daily (including Relapse
                                 Prevention), 3 hours Co-Dependency Education, Meditation, 2 hours
                                 Health Realization, 3 hours Computer Class, 3 hours Trauma Recovery,
                                 3 hours LIFT, 3 hours Domestic Violence, 3 hours Art Education, 3 hours
                                 PACT Parenting, 3 hours PACT visit each week.
  Duration of Program            8-10 weeks

                                 Program Score by Each CPC-GA Domain:
                  CPC-GA DOMAINS                      SCORE                   RATING
                  Program Staff and
                                                       70.0%                  Effective
                  Support
                  Offender Assessment                   0.0%                Ineffective
                  Treatment                            37.1%                Ineffective
                  Quality Assurance                     0.0%                Ineffective
                  Overall Capacity                     46.7%           Needs Improvement
                  Overall Content                      31.7%               Ineffective
                  Overall Score                        35.7%               Ineffective

                                                 STRENGTHS
  Program Staff and Support
  1. The program has adequate oversight and management by the DOC Program Manager who serves
     as the program coordinator.
  2. The program coordinator has a master’s degree in education and has extensive experience in jail
     programs.
  3. Program staff is hired according to their skills and values to support the woman’s treatment plan,


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 125
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                              NAME OF PROGRAM
                                                    ARTEMIS
     and they are supervised by the program coordinator. The program coordinator is involved in
     selecting the provider and is consulted on the selection and retention of teachers.
  4. Program staff is qualified to deliver the classes and adhere to ethical guidelines.
  5. The program has the support of the Sheriff, the Office of Women’s Policy, the Commission on the
     Status of Women, Judges and the Board of Supervisors. The program won the Thomas Warner
     Award in 2000.
  Treatment
  1. The program addresses substance abuse and relapse prevention for women, one of the
     criminogenic needs contributing to recidivism.
  2. One of the elements of the program focuses on family-based skills to train women how to deliver
     behavioral interventions effectively, which is an evidence-based model.
  3. Groups consist of women only thus encouraging them to be open.
  4. Facilitators appear to be knowledgeable, encourage participation, establish rapport and set
     appropriate group norms and boundaries to guide the group.
  5. The length is 8-10 weeks and involves 29 hours of programming which is an adequate dosage for
     initiating behavioral change but not sufficient for long-lasting change.
  6. Non-English speaking women are coached by other women to help them better understand the
     materials.
  7. The number of rewards is varied and encourages participation and compliance.
  8. Positive reinforcement through rewards appears to be given.
  9. Groups are conducted by trained facilitators and not inmates.
                                    AREAS THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT
  Program Staff and Support
  1. Only some of the teaching staff meets the CPC-GA requirements for education (a minimum of an
     Associates’ Degree/Bachelor’s Degree in the helping profession) and experience in the helping
     profession, specifically correctional treatment programs.
  2. Staff meetings are not routinely held at least bi-monthly with all facilitators.
  3. There are no formal, on-going training requirements that all facilitators shall meet.
  Offender Assessment
  1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out women who are not substance
      abusers or mothers; therefore, some women participate even if they are not addicted, pregnant or
      mothers. Nationally, it is recommended that the percentage of inappropriate matches should not
      exceed 20%. The women who do not meet criteria can be channeled into other inmate programs
      to ensure that they are involved in constructive activities and to avoid idleness.
  2. There is no objective, validated or standardized risk assessment given to determine if the women
      are low, medium or high risk for reoffending once released from the DOC. Without this type of
      assessment, it is difficult to determine if at least 70% of the women are assessed as medium to
      high risk.
  3. The women’s criminogenic needs and responsivity characteristics are not yet assessed using a
      validated, standardized and objective assessment instrument that clearly documents which
      women require this program, thus some women may be required to participate in the program that


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 126
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                               NAME OF PROGRAM
                                                   ARTEMIS
      does not meet their needs
  4. ARTEMIS does not assess to determine which of the women require intensive interventions so
      some of the women may be receiving services that they do not need. Medium risk women are
      recommended to receive 100 hours of intervention and high risk women are recommended to
      receive between 200-300 hours of intensive intervention. Low risk women are recommended to
      receive little to no interventions.
  Treatment
  1. ARTEMIS is not a treatment program but an education program which research has shown is not
      sufficient to lead to long-lasting behavior change.
  2. The substance abuse program is not one of the evidence-based models thus the existing program
      may not demonstrate behavioral change. Examples of evidence-based models are cognitive
      behavioral, structured social learning, radical behavioral.
  3. Groups can be interrupted due to crisis issues thus reducing the continuity of treatment.
  4. Homework is not routinely given by all facilitators so the gains achieved in class are not
      reinforced.
  5. Not all facilitators admit to following the prescribed program manuals consistently. Not all manuals
      contained goals, content of groups, recommended teaching methods, exercises, activities and
      homework assignments.
  6. Group size can be as large as 40 women with one facilitator, thus exceeding the optimum size for
      effective group treatment of 8-10 participants to 1 facilitator or with a co-facilitator when the group
      exceeds 10 participants.
  7. The application of rewards to punishers could be improved to meet the recommended 4 rewards
      for every 1 punisher.
  8. The range of punishers is limited warning, intervention from CO and removal.
  9. Antisocial values and attitudes are not routinely recognized by facilitators or participants who are
      recommended for reducing future recidivism.
  10. Prosocial alternatives to antisocial behaviors are not uniformly taught by facilitators nor are
      women given adequate opportunities to role play prosocial behavior in increasingly difficult
      simulated situations.
  11. Peers are not taught to be role models for prosocial behaviors for others.
  12. Women discharged from the program do not routinely have a written relapse prevention plan nor
      are the prosocial behaviors rehearsed to help them prepare for the triggers of relapse once
      discharged to the community.
  Quality Assurance
  1. Due to staff cutbacks, groups are not routinely observed. However, once they are observed,
      teachers receive feedback from the observer.
  2. There is no pre/posttest to measure the degree of knowledge gained.
  3. Client participation surveys are not routine.
  4. The criteria for successful completion is limited to attendance rather than linked to knowledge
      gains and behavioral change.
  5. Women discharged do not routinely have a written discharge summary with goals to be achieved
      once released nor is the inmate given a written reentry plan.
                                             RECOMMENDATION


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 127
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                              NAME OF PROGRAM
                                                    ARTEMIS
  •    Continue with Modifications: The Substance Abuse Program is recommended to be restructured
       as a Cognitive Behavioral Treatment model (see overall recommendations Part II Chapter 5) and
       it is recommended that a group facilitator has a minimum of an Associates’/Bachelor’s Degree and
       be CDAC-certified as a substance abuse treatment provider.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 128
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                             NAME OF PROGRAM
                                              Breaking Barriers
  Target Population              Protective Custody, High and Medium Security Males Affiliated with a
                                 Gang Housed at Main Jail Who Commit to Drop Out of a Gang.
  Written Program Goals          To reduce substance use and abuse for protective custody inmates who
                                 have demonstrated a commitment to drop out of the gang lifestyle.
  Program Description            Breaking Barriers is a substance abuse education program that targets
                                 medium and high security inmates of the main jail who have previous
                                 gang affiliations and who commit to cease participation in gang life. In
                                 addition to substance abuse education, program participants also work
                                 towards completing their GED, attend Narcotics Anonymous, and
                                 attempt to understand how their thoughts were formed and their
                                 experience was created in a health realization class.
  Classes Offered                3 hours Substance Abuse Education twice a week, 3 hours GED
                                 Preparation, 2 hours Health Realization, 2 hours Narcotics Anonymous,
                                 3 hours Trauma Recovery per week.
  Duration of Program            90 days

                                 Program Score by Each CPC-GA Domain:
                  CPC-GA DOMAINS                      SCORE                   RATING
                  Program Staff and
                                                       60.0%                  Effective
                  Support
                  Offender Assessment                   0.0%                Ineffective
                  Treatment                            37.1%                Ineffective
                  Quality Assurance                    20.0%                Ineffective
                  Overall Capacity                     46.7%           Needs Improvement
                  Overall Content                      31.8%               Ineffective
                  Overall Score                        35.7%               Ineffective

                                                 STRENGTHS
  Program Staff and Support
  1. There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the Breaking Barriers program.
  2. The program coordinator plays an active role in selecting program staff.
  3. The program coordinator plays a role in supervising program staff who delivers treatment.
  4. Treatment specialists were selected based upon skills and values consistent with offender
     rehabilitation.
  5. Ethical guidelines are in place for Breaking Barriers facilitators.
  6. The institution/stakeholders provide support for the facilitation of the Breaking Barriers
     programming.
  Treatment
  1. The primary focus of the Breaking Barriers program is on a criminogenic need area, substance
     abuse.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 129
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                             NAME OF PROGRAM
                                              Breaking Barriers
   2. Breaking Barriers is a single sex group and delivered to only men, thus encouraging them to be
      open.
   3. Facilitators associated with the Breaking Barriers program appear knowledgeable of the material
      being taught.
   4. Facilitators consistently encouraged group participation.
   5. Group norms for Breaking Barriers participants are established.
   6. The length of the Breaking Barriers program is sufficient to affect behavior change.
   7. Breaking Barriers groups are consistently conducted by the facilitator rather than inmates.
   8. Responsivity issues such as language barriers or material comprehension are consistently
      addressed by group facilitators.
   9. Group facilitators apply appropriate rewards within the context of group (e.g., verbal praise,
      acknowledgement).
   10. Breaking Barriers group facilitators appear to have established rapport and boundaries with the
       group participants.
  Quality Assurance
   1. Staff completes a discharge summary for each Breaking Barriers participant upon completion of
      the program.
                                    AREAS THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT
  Program Staff and Support
  1. Not all group facilitators meet CPC-GA requirements for education and experience in correctional
       treatment programs.
  2. Group facilitators do not consistently attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e.,
       bimonthly at minimum).
  3. Facilitators have minimal initial training related to the substance abuse curriculum, and the
       requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate.
  Offender Assessment
  1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out men who are not substance abusers;
      therefore, some men participate even if they are not addicted. Nationally, it is recommended that
      the percentage of inappropriate matches should not exceed 20%. The men who do not meet
      criteria can be channeled into other inmate programs to ensure that they are involved in
      constructive activities and to avoid idleness.
  2. There is no objective, validated or standardized risk assessment given to determine if the men are
      low, medium, or high risk for reoffending once released from the DOC. Without this type of
      assessment, it is difficult to determine if at least 70% of the men are assessed as medium to high
      risk.
  3. The men’s criminogenic needs and responsivity characteristics are not yet assessed using a
      validated, standardized, and objective assessment instrument that clearly documents which men
      require this program. Thus, some men may be required to participate in the program which does
      not meet their needs.
  4. Breaking Barriers does not target high risk (to reoffend) men; thus, low and medium risk men may
      be receiving services that they do not need.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 130
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                               NAME OF PROGRAM
                                                Breaking Barriers
  Treatment
  1. Breaking Barriers is not a treatment program but an education program which research has shown
      is not sufficient to lead to long-lasting behavior change.
  2. The substance abuse program is not one of the evidence-based models thus the existing program
      may not demonstrate behavioral change. Examples of evidence-based models are cognitive
      behavioral, structured social learning, radical behavioral.
  3. Groups can be interrupted due to crisis issues and/or pill count thus reducing the continuity of
      treatment.
  4. Homework is not routinely given by all facilitators so the gains achieved in class are not
      reinforced.
  5. Not all facilitators admit to following the prescribed program manuals consistently. Not all manuals
      contained goals, content of groups, recommended teaching methods, exercises, activities and
      homework assignments.
  6. Group size can be as large as 64 men with one facilitator, thus exceeding the optimum size for
      effective group treatment of 8-10 participants per facilitator.
  7. The application of rewards to punishers could be improved to meet the recommended 4 rewards
      for every 1 punisher.
  8. Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s
      prosocial behavior.
  9. The range of punishers is limited.
  10. Group facilitators do not always respond appropriately to noncompliance issues. (E.g. not doing
      homework, speaking out of turn, not participating, etc. Some instructors remove people from
      group for this type of behavior. One example was observed: A teacher assigned “busy” homework
      and shamed other inmates for trying to help others without permission.)
  11. Anti-social values and attitudes are not routinely recognized by facilitators or participants.
  12. Prosocial alternatives to anti-social behaviors are not uniformly taught by facilitators nor are men
      given adequate opportunities to role play prosocial behavior in increasingly difficult simulated
      situations.
  13. Facilitators did not consistently avoid argumentation and roll with resistance.
  14. The Breaking Barriers program does not directly target offenders’ underlying attitudes, values, and
      beliefs, or addresses antisocial thinking and high risk situations.
  15. Peers are not taught to be role models for prosocial behaviors for others.
  16. Men discharged from the program do not routinely have a written relapse prevention plan nor are
      the prosocial behaviors rehearsed to help them prepare for the triggers of relapse once
      discharged to the community.
  Quality Assurance
  1. Breaking Barriers groups are not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group
      delivery skills.
  2. There is no pre/posttest to measure the degree of knowledge gained.
  3. Group participants are not given a satisfaction survey upon group completion.
  4. The criteria for successful completion is limited to attendance rather than linked to knowledge
      gains and behavioral change.



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 131
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                               NAME OF PROGRAM
                                                Breaking Barriers
                                             RECOMMENDATION
   • Continue with Modifications: The Substance Abuse Program is recommended to be restructured
     as a Cognitive Behavioral Treatment model, which has been documented as an effective,
     evidenced based approach to substance abuse needs (see overall recommendations).

Notes: Item 7 was determined by reviewing survey responses, obtaining data from the interviews and
witnessing instructors. All group facilitators had to apply appropriate rewards. The goal is to ensure that all
facilitators who teach a program are consistently carrying out this principle. Some instructors do this
relatively well; however, an inmate may have that instructor for one aspect of a program, but a different
instructor who does not do well on this for another aspect of the same program. Thus, there is no
consistency between facilitators within the same program, and this is why some programs received points
and others did not.

Item 12 was determined through observation, interviews, and responses on confidential surveys. The
researcher would often ask them how they conducted roleplays, how often they role played, what types of
situations would they role play, etc. Most facilitators responded that they do not role play frequently, or
some admitted they do not role play, or that they do role play extremely poorly.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 132
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                               NAME OF PROGRAM
                                                   Day Reporting
  Target Population              Sentenced Offenders, Minimum Security and Low and Medium Security,
                                 Eligible for Alternative Sentencing Program
  Written Program Goals          Reduce substance use and abuse; Give back to the community to make
                                 amends for past crimes through community service.

  Program Description            The Day Reporting Program is an Alternative Sentencing Program that
                                 combines 4 hours of Substance Abuse education and 4 hours of
                                 community service each work day. This program is authorized by
                                 California Penal Code Section 4024.2 and administered by the Santa
                                 Clara Department of Correction. The Screening for eligible participants
                                 is completed by the Inmate Screening Unit and the participants are
                                 monitored by the Programs Unit. While working in the program the
                                 participant receives credit for one day time served for each 8-10 hours
                                 day on the program. The substance Abuse class is taught by Milpitas
                                 Adult Education. While in the program the participant is subject to all
                                 applicable rules and regulations as set forth by the department.
                                 Participants in the program may be assigned to work at various different
                                 work sites throughout the County. The person reports to the DRC
                                 Monday through Friday, from 8:00 am-4:00 pm.
  Classes Offered                15 hours Substance Abuse Education per week; Community Service
                                 Work.
  Duration of Program            45 days

                                 Program Score by Each CPC-GA Domain:
                  CPC-GA DOMAINS                      SCORE                   RATING
                  Program Staff and
                                                       70.0%              Highly Effective
                  Support
                  Offender Assessment                   0.0%                Ineffective
                  Treatment                            28.6%                Ineffective
                  Quality Assurance                    20.0%                Ineffective
                  Overall Capacity                     53.3%           Needs Improvement
                  Overall Content                      24.4%               Ineffective
                  Overall Score                        32.1%               Ineffective

                                                 STRENGTHS
  Program Staff and Support
  1. There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the Day Reporting program.
  2. The program coordinator plays an active role in selecting program staff.
  3. The program coordinator plays a role in supervising program staff who delivers treatment.
  4. Group facilitators consistently attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e., bimonthly at



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 133
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                               NAME OF PROGRAM
                                                 Day Reporting
     minimum).
  5. Treatment specialists were selected based upon skills and values consistent with offender
     rehabilitation.
  6. Ethical guidelines are in place for Day Reporting facilitators.
  7. The institution/stakeholders provide support for the facilitation of the Day Reporting programming.

  Treatment
  1. The primary focus of the Day Reporting program is on a criminogenic need area, substance
     abuse.
  2. Facilitators associated with the Day Reporting program appear knowledgeable of the material
     being taught.
  3. Facilitators consistently encouraged group participation.
  4. Group norms for Day Reporting participants are established.
  5. Day Reporting groups are consistently conducted by the facilitator.
  6. Responsivity issues such as language barriers or material comprehension are consistently
     addressed by group facilitators.
  7. Group facilitators apply appropriate rewards within the context of group (e.g., verbal praise,
     acknowledgement).
  8. Day Reporting group facilitators appear to have established rapport and boundaries with the group
     participants.
  Quality Assurance
  1. Staff completes a discharge summary for each Day Reporting participant upon completion of the
     program.
                                    AREAS THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT
  Program Staff and Support
  1. Not all group facilitators meet CPC-GA requirements for education and experience in correctional
     treatment programs (see CPC-GA Requirements in Appendix).
  2. Facilitators have minimal initial training related to the group curriculum, and the requirements for
     yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate.
  Offender Assessment
  1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out participants who are not substance
      abusers; therefore, some offenders participate even if they are not addicted. Nationally, it is
      recommended that the percentage of inappropriate matches should not exceed 20%. The
      offenders who do not meet criteria can be channeled into other inmate programs to ensure that
      they are involved in constructive activities and to avoid idleness.
  2. There is no objective, validated or standardized risk assessment given to determine if the
      offenders are low, medium, or high risk for reoffending once released from the DOC. Without this
      type of assessment, it is difficult to determine if at least 70% of offenders are assessed as medium
      to high risk.
  3. The offender’s criminogenic needs and responsivity characteristics are not yet assessed using a
      validated, standardized, and objective assessment instrument that clearly documents which


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 134
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                               NAME OF PROGRAM
                                                  Day Reporting
      offenders require this program. Thus, some offenders may be required to participate in the
      program which does not meet their needs.
  4. Day Reporting does not target high risk offenders (to reoffend); thus, low and medium risk
      offenders may be receiving services that they do not need.
  Treatment
  1. Day Reporting is not a treatment program (it is an alternative sentencing program) but an
      education program which research has shown is not sufficient to lead to long-lasting behavior
      change.
  2. The substance abuse program is not one of the evidence-based models thus the existing program
      may not demonstrate behavioral change. Examples of evidence-based models are cognitive
      behavioral, structured social learning, radical behavioral.
  3. Day Reporting groups can contain both men and women in the same group. Groups should be
      single sex groups.
  4. Groups can be interrupted due to crisis issues thus reducing the continuity of treatment.
  5. Homework is not routinely given by all facilitators so the gains achieved in class are not
      reinforced. Homework should be consistently given and then reviewed by the facilitators.
  6. The length of the Day Reporting program is sufficient to affect behavior change. Group length
      should be at least 100 hours for medium risk offenders and 200 or more hours for high risk
      offenders.
  7. Not all facilitators admit to following the prescribed program manuals consistently. Not all manuals
      contained goals, content of groups, recommended teaching methods, exercises, activities and
      homework assignments.
  8. Group size is larger than 8-10 participants with only one facilitator in the group. The optimum size
      for effective group treatment is 8-10 participants per facilitator.
  9. The application of rewards to punishers could be improved to meet the recommended 4 rewards
      for every 1 punisher.
  10. Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s
      prosocial behavior.
  11. The range of punishers is limited.
  12. Group facilitators do not always respond appropriately to noncompliance issues.
  13. Anti-social values and attitudes are not routinely recognized by facilitators or participants.
  14. Prosocial alternatives to anti-social behaviors are not uniformly taught by facilitators nor are
      participants given adequate opportunities to role play prosocial behavior in increasingly difficult
      simulated situations.
  15. Facilitators did not consistently avoid argumentation and roll with resistance.
  16. The Day Reporting program does not directly target offenders’ underlying attitudes, values, and
      beliefs, or addresses antisocial thinking and high risk situations.
  17. Peers are not taught to be role models for prosocial behaviors for others.
  18. Offenders discharged from the program do not routinely have a written Relapse Prevention Plan
      nor are the prosocial behaviors rehearsed to help them prepare for the triggers of relapse once
      discharged to the community.
  Quality Assurance
  1. Day Reporting groups are not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 135
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                               NAME OF PROGRAM
                                                 Day Reporting
      delivery skills.
   2. There is no pre/posttest to measure the degree of knowledge gained.
   3. Group participants are not given a satisfaction survey upon group completion.
   4. The criteria for successful completion is limited to attendance rather than linked to knowledge
      gains and behavioral change.
                                             RECOMMENDATION
   • Continue with Modifications: The Substance Abuse Program is recommended to be restructured
     as a Cognitive Behavioral Treatment model, which has been documented as an effective,
     evidenced based approach to substance abuse needs. Restructure as a Reentry Program with
     aftercare support services (education/employment assistance, federal benefits eligibility and
     assistance, mental health treatment referrals and case management, substance abuse treatment
     referrals and case management, medical referrals, mentoring support. (See Core Programs #5
     and 6, Chapter 5).




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 136
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                             NAME OF PROGRAM
                                                   Get Right
  Target Population              High and Medium Security Men at Main Jail Housed in General
                                 Population, With Substance Abuse History.
  Written Program Goals          To reduce substance use and abuse for high and medium security male
                                 inmates who have a history of substance abuse issues.
  Program Description            The Get Right program provides substance abuse education to men with
                                 a substance abuse history. Program participants also are taught the
                                 dynamics involving their abusive behavior in a violence prevention class,
                                 and further their education with GED preparation classes. Issues
                                 involving past trauma are addressed and skills to deal with these past
                                 issues are taught. Participants may also attend AA meetings and attend
                                 creative writing classes.
  Classes Offered                3 hours Substance Abuse Education 3 times per week, 3 hours Violence
                                 Prevention per week; 1.5 hours Alcoholics Anonymous twice a week, 3
                                 hours GED Preparation twice a week, 2 hours Health Realization per
                                 week, 3 hours Trauma Recovery per week.
  Duration of Program            90 days
                                 Program Score by Each CPC-GA Domain:
                  CPC-GA DOMAINS                      SCORE                   RATING
                  Program Staff and
                                                       60.0%                  Effective
                  Support
                  Offender Assessment                   0.0%                Ineffective
                  Treatment                            28.6%                Ineffective
                  Quality Assurance                    20.0%                Ineffective
                  Overall Capacity                     46.7%           Needs Improvement
                  Overall Content                      24.4%               Ineffective
                  Overall Score                        30.4%               Ineffective

                                                 STRENGTHS
  Program Staff and Support
  1. There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the Get Right program.
  2. The program coordinator plays an active role in selecting program staff.
  3. The program coordinator plays a role in supervising program staff who delivers treatment.
  4. Treatment specialists were selected based upon skills and values consistent with offender
     rehabilitation.
  5. Ethical guidelines are in place for Get Right facilitators.
  6. The institution/stakeholders provide support for the facilitation of the Get Right programming.
  Treatment
  1. Get Right groups are offered to men solely.
  2. Facilitators associated with the Get Right program appear knowledgeable of the material being


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 137
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                               NAME OF PROGRAM
                                                   Get Right
     taught.
  3. Facilitators consistently encouraged group participation.
  4. Group norms for Get Right participants are established.
  5. Get Right groups are consistently conducted by the facilitator.
  6. The length of the Get Right program is sufficient to affect behavioral change.
  7. Responsivity issues such as language barriers or material comprehension are consistently
     addressed by group facilitators.
  8. Group facilitators apply appropriate rewards within the context of the group (e.g., verbal praise,
     acknowledgement).
  9. Get Right group facilitators appear to have established rapport and boundaries with the group
     participants.
  Quality Assurance
  1. Staff completes a discharge summary for each Get Right participant upon completion of the
      group.
                                    AREAS THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT
  Program Staff and Support
  1. Not all group facilitators meet CPC-GA requirements for education and experience in correctional
       treatment programs.
  2. Group facilitators do not consistently attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e.,
       bimonthly at minimum).
  3. Facilitators have minimal initial training related to the substance abuse and violence prevention
       group curricula, and the requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate.
  Offender Assessment
  1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out participants who are not substance
      abusers; therefore, some offenders participate even if they are not addicted. Nationally, it is
      recommended that the percentage of inappropriate matches should not exceed 20%. The
      offenders who do not meet criteria can be channeled into other inmate programs to ensure that
      they are involved in constructive activities and to avoid idleness.
  2. There is no objective, validated or standardized risk assessment given to determine if the
      offenders are low, medium, or high risk for reoffending once released from the DOC. Without this
      type of assessment, it is difficult to determine if at least 70% of offenders are assessed as medium
      to high risk.
  3. The offender’s criminogenic needs and responsivity characteristics are not yet assessed using a
      validated, standardized, and objective assessment instrument that clearly documents which
      offenders require this program. Thus, some offenders may be required to participate in the
      program which does not meet their needs.
  4. Get Right does not target high risk offenders (to reoffend); thus, low and medium risk offenders
      may be receiving services that they do not need.
  Treatment
  1. The target of the Get Right program is on criminogenic need area, substance abuse. However,
      this is not the major focus of the group. The group receives more hours directed on non-


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 138
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                               NAME OF PROGRAM
                                                     Get Right
      criminogenic areas. Thus, the majority of the program’s time is not spent on a criminogenic need
      area.
  2. Get Right is not a treatment program but an education program which research has shown is not
      sufficient to lead to long-lasting behavior change.
  3. The substance abuse program is not one of the evidence-based models thus the existing program
      may not demonstrate behavioral change. Examples of evidence-based models are cognitive
      behavioral, structured social learning, radical behavioral.
  4. Groups can be interrupted due to crisis issues and/or pill count, thus reducing the continuity of
      treatment.
  5. Homework is not routinely given by all facilitators so the gains achieved in class are not
      reinforced. Homework should be consistently given and then reviewed by the facilitators.
  6. Not all facilitators admit to following the prescribed program manuals consistently. Not all manuals
      contained goals, content of groups, recommended teaching methods, exercises, activities and
      homework assignments.
  7. Group size is larger than 8-10 participants with only one facilitator in the group. The Get Right
      program has a capacity of 64. The optimum size for effective group treatment is 8-10 participants
      per facilitator.
  8. The application of rewards to punishers could be improved to meet the recommended 4 rewards
      for every 1 punisher.
  9. Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s
      prosocial behavior.
  10. The range of punishers is limited.
  11. Group facilitators do not always respond appropriately to noncompliance issues.
  12. Anti-social values and attitudes are not routinely recognized by facilitators or participants.
  13. Prosocial alternatives to anti-social behaviors are not uniformly taught by facilitators nor are
      participants given adequate opportunities to role play prosocial behavior in increasingly difficult
      simulated situations.
  14. Facilitators did not consistently avoid argumentation and roll with resistance.
  15. The Get Right program does not directly target offenders’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs,
      or addresses antisocial thinking and high risk situations.
  16. Peers are not taught to be role models for prosocial behaviors for others.
  17. Offenders discharged from the program do not routinely have a written relapse prevention plan
      nor are the prosocial behaviors rehearsed to help them prepare for the triggers of relapse once
      discharged to the community.
  Quality Assurance
  1. Get Right groups are not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group delivery
      skills.
  2. There is no pre/posttest to measure the degree of knowledge gained.
  3. Group participants are not given a satisfaction survey upon group completion.
  4. The criteria for successful completion is limited to attendance rather than linked to knowledge
      gains and behavioral change.
                                             RECOMMENDATION



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 139
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                          NAME OF PROGRAM
                                                Get Right
   • Continue with Modifications: The Substance Abuse Program is recommended to be restructured
     as a Cognitive Behavioral Treatment model, which has been documented as an effective,
     evidenced based approach to substance abuse needs (see overall recommendations).




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 140
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                       NAME OF PROGRAM
                     HEALING OPPORTUNITY WITH POSITIVE ENFORCEMENT
                                               HOPE
  Target Population       Minimum Security Men with Substance Abuse Histories who Deny Gang
                          Affiliation
  Written Program Goals   Reduce substance use and abuse and modify behavior. Upon
                          completion, the inmate can transition to out of custody.
  Program Description     A comprehensive substance abuse and behavior modification program
                          for minimum security men. Men in this program are not required to
                          engage in physical fitness or marching due to physical constraints. They
                          are placed on case management with a Rehabilitation Officer where their
                          interventions are coordinated and monitored, and they are assessed for
                          sentence modifications making them eligible for an out-of-custody
                          program. Men who complete successfully can be discharged to an out-
                          of-custody program with court approval where they will continue in
                          programming for another 8-10 weeks.
  Classes Offered         3 hours Substance Abuse Education daily (including Relapse
                          Prevention), 3 hours Co-Dependency Education, 3 hours
                          Communication Skills, 3 hours Job Readiness, 3 hours Parenting
                          Education, 3 hours Trauma Recovery per week.
  Duration of Program     8-10 weeks

                                 Program Score by Each CPC-GA Domain:
                  CPC-GA DOMAINS                      SCORE                   RATING
                  Program Staff and
                                                       60.0%                  Effective
                  Support
                  Offender Assessment                   0.0%                 Ineffective
                  Treatment                            31.4%                 Ineffective
                  Quality Assurance                     0.0%                 Ineffective
                  Overall Capacity                     40.7%                Ineffective
                  Overall Content                      26.8%                Ineffective
                  Overall Score                        30.4%                Ineffective

                                                 STRENGTHS
  Program Staff and Support
  1. The program has adequate oversight and management by the DOC Program Manager.
  2. The program coordinator has relevant experience in jail programs.
  3. Program staff is supervised by the program coordinator. The program coordinator is involved in
     selecting the provider and is consulted on the retention of teachers.
  4. Program staff is qualified to deliver the classes and adhere to ethical guidelines.
  5. The program has the support of the Sheriff, judges in the Drug Court and probation staff.

  Treatment


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 141
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                     Final Report

                                               NAME OF PROGRAM
                           HEALING OPPORTUNITY WITH POSITIVE ENFORCEMENT
                                                     HOPE
  1.   The program addresses substance abuse issues, relapse prevention and family relationships,
       some of the criminogenic needs contributing to recidivism.
  2.   Groups consist of men only thus encouraging them to be open.
  3.   Facilitators appear to be knowledgeable, encourage participation, establish rapport and set
       appropriate group norms and boundaries to guide the group.
  4.   The length is 8-10 weeks and involves 3 hours in the morning and 3 hours in the afternoon for a
       total of 18 hours of programming which is an adequate dosage for initiating behavioral change but
       not sufficient for long-lasting change.
  5.   Non-English speaking men are coached by other men to help them better understand the
       materials.
  6.   Positive reinforcement through rewards appears to be given.
  7.   Groups are conducted by trained facilitators and not inmates.

                                    AREAS THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT
  Program Staff and Support
  1. Only some of the staff meets the CPC-GA requirements for education and experience in
     correctional treatment programs.
  2. Not all group facilitators are selected for their skills in delivering treatment or their values as a
     treatment provider.
  3. Staff meetings are not routinely held at least bi-monthly by all facilitators.
  4. There are no formal, on-going training requirements for all facilitators.
  Offender Assessment
  1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out men who are not substance abusers;
      therefore, some men participate even if they are not addicted. Nationally, it is recommended that
      the percentage of inappropriate matches should not exceed 20%.
  2. There is no objective, validated or standardized risk assessment given to determine if the men are
      low, medium or high risk for reoffending once released from the DOC. Without this type of
      assessment, it is difficult to determine if at least 70% of the men are assessed as medium to high
      risk.
  3. The men’s criminogenic needs and responsivity characteristics are not yet assessed using a
      validated, standardized and objective assessment instrument that clearly documents which men
      require this program thus some may be required to participate in the program that does not meet
      their needs.
  4. HOPE does not assess which of the men require intensive interventions so some of the men may
      be receiving services that they do not need. Medium risk men are recommended to receive 100
      hours of intervention and high risk men are recommended to receive between 200-300 hours of
      intensive intervention. Low risk men are recommended to receive little to no interventions.
  Treatment
  1. The substance abuse program is the same for all inmates, regardless of individual need. It is not
      one of the evidence-based models thus the existing program may not demonstrate behavioral
      change. Examples of evidence-based models are cognitive behavioral, structured social learning,


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 142
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                                  NAME OF PROGRAM
                             HEALING OPPORTUNITY WITH POSITIVE ENFORCEMENT
                                                          HOPE
        radical behavioral.
  2.    This curriculum does not address trauma which is often prevalent with men housed in correctional
        facilities. (Note: The Trauma Recovery class addresses trauma related issues).
  3.    Groups can be interrupted due to crisis issues within the unit thus reducing the continuity of
        treatment.
  4.    Homework is not routinely given by all facilitators so the gains achieved in class are not
        reinforced.
  5.    Not all facilitators admit to following the prescribed program manuals consistently. Not all manuals
        contained goals, content of groups, recommended teaching methods, exercises, activities and
        homework assignments.
  6.    Group size can be as large as 64 men with one facilitator, thus exceeding the optimum size for
        effective group treatment of 8-10 participants to 1 facilitator or with a co-facilitator when the group
        exceeds 10 participants.
  7.    The application of rewards to punishers could be improved to meet the recommended 4 rewards
        for every 1 punisher.
  8.    The range of punishers is limited.
  9.    Antisocial values and attitudes are not routinely recognized by facilitators or participants.
  10.   Prosocial alternatives to antisocial behaviors are not uniformly taught by facilitators nor are men
        given adequate opportunities to role play prosocial behavior in increasingly difficult simulated
        situations.
  11.   Peers are not taught to be role models for prosocial behaviors for others.
  12.   Men discharged from the program do not routinely have a written relapse prevention plan nor are
        the prosocial behaviors rehearsed to help them prepare for the triggers of relapse once
        discharged to the community.

  Quality Assurance
  1. Groups are not routinely observed. Once they are observed, teachers receive feedback from the
     observer.
  2. There is no pre/posttest to measure the degree of knowledge gained.
  3. Client participation surveys are not routine.
  4. The criteria for successful completion is limited to attendance rather than linked to knowledge
     gains and behavioral change.
  5. Only men approved by the court for Phase II will participate in the development of an Exit Plan;
     however, they are not provided a copy to guide them upon release.
                                             RECOMMENDATION
  •     Continue with Modifications: The Substance Abuse Program is recommended to be restructured
        as a Cognitive Behavioral Treatment model (see overall recommendations Part II Chapter 5)




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 143
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                          NAME OF PROGRAM
                                           HEART AND SOUL
  Target Population              Women ages 15-24 years old in all custody levels

  Written Program Goals          Become aware of one’s identity; strengthen one’s faith; empowerment;
                                 deal with loss and grief, improve healthy relationships with family,
                                 children, community and God.
  Program Description            Heart and Soul is a ministry of restoration for women to increase the
                                 women’s self-awareness of identity, spiritual empowerment, healthy
                                 relationships with family, children, community and God and in coping
                                 skills in dealing with loss and grief.
  Classes Offered                Family relationships, loss and grief, healthy relationships, conflict
                                 resolution, domestic violence, parenting effectiveness, communication
                                 skills, goal setting, guilt and shame.

  Duration of Program            22 hours; Offered 3-4 times a year

                                 Program Score by Each CPC-GA Domain:
                  CPC-GA DOMAINS                      SCORE                   RATING
                  Program Staff and
                                                       70.0%              Highly Effective
                  Support
                  Offender Assessment                   0.0%                Ineffective
                  Treatment                            31.4%                Ineffective
                  Quality Assurance                    40.0%                Ineffective
                  Overall Capacity                     60.0%           Needs Improvement
                  Overall Content                      26.8%               Ineffective
                  Overall Score                        35.7%               Ineffective

                                                 STRENGTHS
  Program Staff and Support
  1. The program has a coordinator that oversees and manages the groups.
  2. The program coordinator selects, approves, supervises and fires the group facilitators.
  3. The program coordinator has a Master’s Degree in Divinity and has served as Chaplain for 5
     years in the jail.
  4. The program coordinator selects staff on their commitment to spiritual values, teaching
     experience, counseling background working with women and their Bachelor’s Degree.
  5. Prior to teaching alone, each facilitator observes the class of an experienced facilitator for 10
     weeks where they see how each of the 10 classes are taught.
  6. The program coordinator conducts weekly staff meetings with the facilitators/teachers.
  7. The facilitators receive 20 hours of specialized training and 4 hours of Chaplaincy Security training
     on an annual basis. (Note: 40 hours is recommended).
  8. The program is guided by the program’s written Volunteer Rules of Conduct and the DOC Ethical


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 144
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                               NAME OF PROGRAM
                                                HEART AND SOUL
      Guidelines.
  9. The program has the support of the DOC administration, judges, probation staff, and faith-based
      organizations. The program was so popular with the women that it was expanded to the men
      units.
  Treatment
  1. The program consists of women only and addresses issues specific to women.
  2. Facilitators are knowledgeable of the curriculum because they receive 25 hours of curriculum
      training, class observation by the program coordinator, and continuing feedback given by the
      program coordinator after each session.
  3. Facilitators encourage participation by calling on them to express their ideas. The participant is
      actively involved in discussing the material and applying it to their daily lives.
  4. A Manual is provided to each facilitator based on the 10 topical lessons. The Manual outlines the
      goals, provides the content to discuss, handouts, class exercises, and homework. The addiction
      content is based on Stephanie Covington’s gender-specific addiction model.
  5. Homework is assigned for some of the topics. (Note: homework is recommended for all topics).
  6. There is one group rule (to respect one another), facilitators teach and model this rule.
  7. Groups are conducted by the facilitator and not the inmate.
  8. Groups are usually 8 participants but at times will go to 14, a co-facilitator is provided for groups
      over 8.
  9. Participants who cannot keep up are permitted to be present but do not have to verbally
      participate. The facilitator connects with them after class one-on-one.
  10. Participants are given the opportunity to demonstrate communication skills through class
      exercises, scenarios and role plays.
  11. A certificate of completion is given at the end of successful completion.
  12. The facilitator establishes rapport with the individual through brief interactions during the week and
      through pastoral counseling, and the facilitator models respect to others and expects each
      participant to comply.
  13. Facilitators set boundaries in accordance with the Chaplaincy Training Manual and the DOC
      Rules.
  14. Faith and ethics are discussed frequently.

  Quality Assurance
  1. Program coordinator gives immediate feedback after each session and discusses modifications
     before the next session.
  2. Each participant completes a self-satisfaction survey at the end of the 8 weeks.
  3. Some of the sessions use a posttest.
  4. Near the end of the program, the facilitator conducts exit planning with each participant where
     they identify expectations for life outside of jail and identify resources to support the women in the
     community.


                                    AREAS THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 145
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                               NAME OF PROGRAM
                                                HEART AND SOUL
  Program Staff and Support
  1. Not all facilitators have a degree in the helping profession nor have all of them had experience
     working in a correctional setting. They are selected if they have conducted groups with women in
     a church setting.
  2. Forty hours of annual in-service training is not mandated.

  Offender Assessment
  1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out participants who need this program.
  2. There is no objective, validated or standardized risk assessment given to determine the risk level
      of each of the participants.
  3. The participant’s criminogenic needs and responsivity characteristics are not yet assessed using a
      validated, standardized and objective assessment instrument that clearly documents which
      participant requires this program thus some may be required to participate in the program that
      does not meet their needs.
  4. The program does not assess to determine which of the participants require intensive
      interventions so some of the participants may be receiving services that they do not need. Medium
      risk participants are recommended to receive 100 hours of intervention and high risk participants
      are recommended to receive between 200-300 hours of intensive intervention. Low risk
      participants are recommended to receive little to no interventions.
  Treatment
  1. The program does not focus on the criminogenic targets that research has found is correlated with
      recidivism. Topics are not scientifically associated with recidivism--family of origin, guilt and
      shame, friends, parenting, communication skills, romantic relationships, lack of goals are not
      criminogenic needs. While the program includes conflict resolution and domestic violence, which
      are criminogenic targets, the primary focus of the program is education with a spiritual focus.
      Research demonstrates that this is not sufficient to produce behavioral change.
  2. The program does not use evidence-based therapeutic models.
  3. Not all of the program lessons require homework, and when homework is given, it is not reviewed.
  4. The program has structured lesson plans but there is no formal sequence of order to the lessons.
  5. The length of the program (8 weeks) is not sufficient to produce long-lasting behavioral change.
  6. Rewards are limited to a certificate given after 4 and 8 weeks.
  7. Punishers are limited to removal from the program.
  8. Peers are not taught to coach other participants in “prosocial behaviors”.
  9. Underlying thoughts/values, antisocial values and attitudes are not a primary focus of the
      program.
  10. Prosocial alternatives to antisocial behaviors are not taught or modeled by facilitators.
  11. Participants do not practice or rehearse prosocial behavior in increasingly difficult simulated
      situations. Women participate in discussion and class exercises but it does not meet 40% of the
      total time nor is the content of the groups associated with antisocial values/attitudes and behaviors
      that are associated with recidivism.
  12. Persons discharged from the program do not have a written relapse prevention plan nor are the
      prosocial behaviors rehearsed to help them prepare for the triggers of relapse once discharged to


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 146
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                               NAME OF PROGRAM
                                                HEART AND SOUL
     the community.
  Quality Assurance
  1. Some of the sessions have a posttest but the program does not measure the gains from
     participating in the program using a pretest followed by a posttest.
  2. There are no other completion criteria for the program but attendance.
  3. There is no written discharge summary provided at the end of the program.
                                             RECOMMENDATION
  • Discontinue: Faith-based services provide valuable services to 1) expose inmates to various faiths
    2) strengthen one’s faith 3) improve one’s overall emotional well-being. However, the lack of
    spiritual values has not been scientifically associated with a reduction in recidivism. None of the
    topics have been scientifically associated with criminal behavior thus program provides minimal
    support for reducing future recidivism.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 147
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                             NAME OF PROGRAM
                                       LITERACY IN FAMILIES TOGETHER
                                                      LIFT
  Target Population              All Inmates who are Parents with Small Children.

  Written Program Goals          Break the inmate’s cycle of low literacy skills and incarceration; instruct
                                 inmates using quality children’s literature to teach their children and to
                                 make meaningful connections with them; teach inmates to become
                                 positive role models as mothers, fathers and caregivers; educate
                                 inmates to become a positive force as their child’s first teacher; empower
                                 children with literacy skills and self-esteem.

  Program Description            An adult literacy program that emphasizes how to parent and stay
                                 connected with their child while their parent is incarcerated. The
                                 program provides information about how children learn, setting goals,
                                 importance of literacy, language acquisition, role modeling,
                                 communication, discipline, advocacy in school, influence of peers and
                                 siblings, importance of knowing family history. LIFT provides inmates
                                 the opportunity to read two children’s books to their children and teach a
                                 lesson at each group session. The books are sent home with the child
                                 for them to keep.

  Classes Offered                3 hour Class in Parenting Education, Reading Children’s Books to
                                 Children

  Duration of Program            8 weeks, one day a week for 2.5-3.0 hours, total of 12 sessions

                                 Program Score by Each CPC-GA Domain:
                  CPC-GA DOMAINS                      SCORE                   RATING
                  Program Staff and
                                                       60.0%                  Effective
                  Support
                  Offender Assessment                   0.0%                Ineffective
                  Treatment                            40.0%                Ineffective
                  Quality Assurance                    20.0%                Ineffective
                  Overall Capacity                     46.7%           Needs Improvement
                  Overall Content                      34.1%               Ineffective
                  Overall Score                        37.5%               Ineffective

                                                 STRENGTHS
  Program Staff and Support
  1. The program has adequate oversight and management by the Santa Clara County Library
     coordinator.
  2. The program coordinator selects, approves, supervises and fires the teachers.
  3. The program coordinator selects staff on their literacy skills and values to work with offenders and


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 148
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                            NAME OF PROGRAM
                                      LITERACY IN FAMILIES TOGETHER
                                                   LIFT
     their children.
  4. The program has the support of the DOC administration, judges and probation staff.

  Treatment
  1. Groups are single sex which encourages the parent to participate while minimizing their
      embarrassment.
  2. Groups go the entire time without interruptions.
  3. Facilitators appear to be knowledgeable, encourage participation, establish rapport and set
      appropriate group norms and boundaries to guide the group.
  4. Group size is 12 or less which closely meets the optimum size of a group (8-10 participants).
  5. Groups are conducted by trained facilitators.
  6. The facilitator uses and follows structured manual (Father’s Program Guide for Men, Nine
      Candles for Women).
  7. Books are bilingual and non-English speaking participants are coached by other participants.
  8. Positive reinforcement through appropriate rewards appears to be given immediately and
      continually.

  Quality Assurance
  1. A participant satisfaction survey is administered in English and in Spanish to participants at the
     end of the 8th week.
                                    AREAS THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT
  Program Staff and Support
  1. Facilitators do not meet the CPC-GA requirements for education and experience in correctional
     treatment programs.
  2. Staff meetings are not routinely held at least bi-monthly with the facilitators.
  3. There are no formal, on-going training requirements for all facilitators.
  4. There are no formal ethical guidelines used by the program coordinator or facilitators.
  Offender Assessment
  1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out participants who are not parents.
  2. There is no objective, validated or standardized risk assessment given to determine the risk level
      of each of the participants.
  3. The participant’s criminogenic needs and responsivity characteristics are not yet assessed using a
      validated, standardized and objective assessment instrument that clearly documents which
      participant requires this program thus some may be required to participate in the program that
      does not meet their needs.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 149
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                           NAME OF PROGRAM
                                  LITERACY IN FAMILIES TOGETHER
                                                    LIFT
  4. LIFT does not assess to determine which of the participants require intensive interventions so
     some of the participants may be receiving services that they do not need. Medium risk participants
     are recommended to receive 100 hours of intervention and high risk participants are
     recommended to receive between 200-300 hours of intensive intervention. Low risk participants
     are recommended to receive little to no interventions.
  Treatment
  1. The program does not target the criminogenic targets that have shown to contribute to recidivism.
  2. The program does not deliver an evidence-based model.
  3. Homework is not routinely given by all facilitators so the gains achieved in class are not
      reinforced.
  4. The length of the program is not sufficient to produce behavioral change.
  5. The application of rewards to punishers could be improved to meet the recommended 4 rewards
      for every 1 punisher.
  6. Peers are not taught to coach other participants in prosocial behavior.
  7. Antisocial values and attitudes are not addressed in the program.
  8. Prosocial alternatives to antisocial behaviors are not taught by facilitators nor are participants
      given opportunities to role play prosocial behavior in increasingly difficult simulated situations.
      Rehearsals are provided for reading books and teaching a lesson to the children but they do not
      address the offender’s antisocial behavior.
  9. Persons discharged from the program do not have a written relapse prevention plan nor are the
      prosocial behaviors rehearsed to help them prepare for the triggers of relapse once discharged to
      the community.
  10. Punishers are not linked to reducing antisocial expressions or to promote behavior change.
  11. It does not appear that the facilitator has a range of punishers or responds to non-compliance.
      Facilitator indicates that no one needs punishment since they volunteer.

  Quality Assurance
  1. Groups are not routinely observed by the coordinator. DOC observes group twice a year. Once
     they are observed, teachers receive feedback from the observer.
  2. There is no pre/posttest to measure the degree of knowledge gained.
  3. The criteria for successful completion is limited to attendance rather than linked to knowledge
     gains and behavioral change.
  4. Participants do not receive a written discharge plan with goals for them to continue to achieve
     once released from the program.

                                             RECOMMENDATION
  • Discontinue: LIFT does not target criminogenic needs or behaviors nor does it address antisocial
    values or attitudes.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 150
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                           NAME OF PROGRAM
                                                    M-8
  Target Population              Medium Security Men

  Written Program Goals          Reduce substance use and abuse; reduce anger; increase life skills;
                                 increase job readiness skills; increase parenting skills; earn a GED;
                                 learn English.
  Program Description            Substance abuse education program that is supplemented by other
                                 components that address special needs. M-8 programming is offered to
                                 men housed in 8 medium security housing units. Supplemental
                                 programming components include: GED preparations, ESL,
                                 communication skills, exit planning, AA meetings, NA meetings,
                                 parenting classes, and domestic violence classes.
  Classes Offered                12-15 hours Substance Abuse Education per week, 15 hours GED per
                                 week, 15 hours Spanish/ESL per week, 3-9 hours Exit Planning, 6 hours
                                 Communication Skills, 6 hours Parenting Education, 1 hour NA per week
                                 per week, 1 hour Anger Management per week, 3 Hours Violence
                                 Prevention per week, 3 hours Co-Dependency Education per week, 1.5
                                 hours Alcoholics Anonymous per week, 15 hours GED per week.

  Duration of Program            90 days for each program unit

                                 Program Score by Each CPC-GA Domain:
                  CPC-GA DOMAINS                      SCORE                   RATING
                  Program Staff and
                                                       60.0%                  Effective
                  Support
                  Offender Assessment                   0.0%                 Ineffective
                  Treatment                            37.1%                 Ineffective
                  Quality Assurance                     0.0%                 Ineffective
                  Overall Capacity                     40.0%                Ineffective
                  Overall Content                      31.7%                Ineffective
                  Overall Score                        33.9%                Ineffective

                                                 STRENGTHS
  Program Staff and Support
  1. There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the M-8 program.
  2. The program coordinator plays an active role in selecting program staff.
  3. The program coordinator plays a role in supervising program staff who delivers treatment.
  4. Treatment specialists were selected based upon skills and values consistent with offender
     rehabilitation.
  5. Ethical guidelines are in place for M-8 facilitators.
  6. The institution/stakeholders provide support for the facilitation of the M-8 programming.



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 151
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                               NAME OF PROGRAM
                                                     M-8
  Treatment
  1. The primary focus of the M-8 program is on a criminogenic need area, substance abuse.
  2. M-8 is a single sex group and delivered to only men.
  3. Facilitators associated with the M-8 program appear knowledgeable of the material being taught.
  4. Facilitators consistently encouraged group participation.
  5. Group norms for M-8 participants are established.
  6. The length of the M-8 program is sufficient to affect behavior change.
  7. M-8 groups are consistently conducted by the facilitator.
  8. Responsivity issues such as language barriers or material comprehension are consistently
     addressed by group facilitators.
  9. Group facilitators apply appropriate rewards within the context of group (e.g., verbal praise,
     acknowledgement).
  10. M-8 group facilitators appear to have established rapport and boundaries with the group
      participants.

                                    AREAS THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT
  Program Staff and Support
  1. Not all group facilitators meet CPC-GA requirements for education and experience in correctional
       treatment programs.
  2. Group facilitators do not consistently attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e.,
       bimonthly at minimum).
  3. Facilitators have minimal initial training related to the substance abuse group curriculum, and the
       requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate.
  Offender Assessment
  1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out men who are not substance abusers;
      therefore, some men participate even if they are not addicted. Nationally, it is recommended that
      the percentage of inappropriate matches should not exceed 20%. The men who do not meet
      criteria can be channeled into other inmate programs to ensure that they are involved in
      constructive activities and to avoid idleness.
  2. There is no objective, validated or standardized risk assessment given to determine if the men are
      low, medium, or high risk for reoffending once released from the DOC. Without this type of
      assessment, it is difficult to determine if at least 70% of the men are assessed as medium to high
      risk.
  3. The men’s criminogenic needs and responsivity characteristics are not yet assessed using a
      validated, standardized, and objective assessment instrument that clearly documents which men
      require this program. Thus, some men may be required to participate in the program which does
      not meet their needs.
  4. M-8 does not target high risk men (to reoffend); thus, low and medium risk men may be receiving
      services that they do not need.
  Treatment
  1. M-8 is not a treatment program but an education program which research has shown is not
      sufficient to lead to long-lasting behavior change.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 152
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                               NAME OF PROGRAM
                                                        M-8
  2. The substance abuse program is not one of the evidence-based models thus the existing program
      may not demonstrate behavioral change. Examples of evidence-based models are cognitive
      behavioral, structured social learning, radical behavioral.
  3. Groups can be interrupted due to crisis issues and/or pill count thus reducing the continuity of
      treatment.
  4. Homework is not routinely given by all facilitators so the gains achieved in class are not
      reinforced.
  5. Not all facilitators admit to following the prescribed program manuals consistently. Not all manuals
      contained goals, content of groups, recommended teaching methods, exercises, activities and
      homework assignments.
  6. The optimum size for effective group treatment is 8-10 participants per facilitator. M-8 does not
      meet this criterion.
  7. The application of rewards to punishers could be improved to meet the recommended 4 rewards
      for every 1 punisher.
  8. Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s
      prosocial behavior.
  9. The range of punishers is limited.
  10. Group facilitators do not always respond appropriately to noncompliance issues.
  11. Anti-social values and attitudes are not routinely recognized by facilitators or participants.
  12. Prosocial alternatives to anti-social behaviors are not uniformly taught by facilitators nor are men
      given adequate opportunities to role play prosocial behavior in increasingly difficult simulated
      situations.
  13. Facilitators did not consistently avoid argumentation and roll with resistance.
  14. The M-8 program does not directly target offenders’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs, or
      addresses antisocial thinking and high risk situations.
  15. Peers are not taught to be role models for prosocial behaviors for others.
  16. Men discharged from the program do not routinely have a written relapse prevention plan nor are
      the prosocial behaviors rehearsed to help them prepare for the triggers of relapse once
      discharged to the community.
  Quality Assurance
  1. M-8 groups are not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group delivery skills.
  2. There is no pre/posttest to measure the degree of knowledge gained.
  3. Group participants are not given a satisfaction survey upon group completion.
  4. The criteria for successful completion is limited to attendance rather than linked to knowledge
      gains and behavioral change.
  5. Formal discharge summaries are not prepared for completers of the M-8 program.

                                             RECOMMENDATION
   • Continue with Modifications: The Substance Abuse Program is recommended to be restructured
     as a Cognitive Behavioral Treatment model, which has been documented as an effective,
     evidenced based approach to substance abuse needs (see overall recommendations).




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 153
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                             NAME OF PROGRAM
                                                  MY STORI
  Target Population              Minimum Security Women (not pregnant) who are unable to meet the
                                 physical requirements RCP.
  Written Program Goals          To reduce substance use and abuse for minimum security female
                                 inmates who have a history of substance abuse issues.

  Program Description            MY STORI is a gender specific substance abuse education program that
                                 is supplemented by other programmatic components. In addition to
                                 substance abuse education, women explore past traumatic issues and
                                 learn skills to cope with these issues. Women also are taught to
                                 understand how their thoughts are formed and experiences are created.
                                 Previous issues of domestic violence are addressed and how to deal
                                 with these matters are addressed. Women also take parenting classes
                                 and learn skills to be a good parent. Participants also participate in
                                 computer technology classes. Participants are encouraged to participate
                                 in a women’s support group called Women’s Circle in the community.
  Classes Offered                3 hours Substance Abuse Education per day; 2 hours
                                 Codependency/Parenting; 3 hours Health Realization; 3 hours Computer
                                 Class; 3 hours Domestic Violence Education; 3 hours Trauma Recovery;
                                 3 hours LIFT Parenting; 2 hours Meditation; 3 hours PACT Parenting; 3
                                 hours PACT Visit per week; Community Mentor
  Duration of Program            8-10 Weeks

                                 Program Score by Each CPC-GA Domain:
                  CPC-GA DOMAINS                      SCORE                   RATING
                  Program Staff and
                                                       60.0%                  Effective
                  Support
                  Offender Assessment                   0.0%                 Ineffective
                  Treatment                            28.6%                 Ineffective
                  Quality Assurance                     0.0%                 Ineffective
                  Overall Capacity                     40.0%                Ineffective
                  Overall Content                      24.4%                Ineffective
                  Overall Score                        28.6%                Ineffective

                                                 STRENGTHS
  Program Staff and Support
  1. There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the MY STORI program.
  2. The program coordinator plays an active role in selecting program staff.
  3. The program coordinator plays a role in supervising program staff who delivers treatment.
  4. Treatment specialists were selected based upon skills and values consistent with offender
     rehabilitation.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 154
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                            NAME OF PROGRAM
                                                  MY STORI
  5. Ethical guidelines are in place for MY STORI facilitators.
  6. The institution/stakeholders provide support for the facilitation of the MY STORI programming.
  Treatment
  1. The focus of the MY STORI program is on criminogenic need area, substance abuse.
  2. MY STORI groups are offered to women solely.
  3. Facilitators associated with the MY STORI program appear knowledgeable of the material being
      taught.
  4. Facilitators consistently encouraged group participation.
  5. Group norms for MY STORI participants are established.
  6. MY STORI groups are consistently conducted by the facilitator rather than the inmate.
  7. The length of the MY STORI program is sufficient to affect behavioral change.
  8. Responsivity issues such as language barriers or material comprehension are consistently
      addressed by group facilitators.
  9. Group facilitators apply appropriate rewards within the context of group (e.g., verbal praise,
      acknowledgement).
  10. MY STORI group facilitators appear to have established rapport and boundaries with the group
      participants.

                                    AREAS THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT
  Program Staff and Support
  1. Not all group facilitators meet CPC-GA requirements for education and experience in correctional
       treatment programs.
  2. Group facilitators do not consistently attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e.,
       bimonthly at minimum).
  3. Facilitators have minimal initial training related to the substance abuse curriculum, and the
       requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate.
  Offender Assessment
  1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out participants who are not substance
      abusers; therefore, some offenders participate even if they are not addicted. Nationally, it is
      recommended that the percentage of inappropriate matches should not exceed 20%. The
      offenders who do not meet criteria can be channeled into other inmate programs to ensure that
      they are involved in constructive activities and to avoid idleness.
  2. There is no objective, validated or standardized risk assessment given to determine if the
      offenders are low, medium, or high risk for reoffending once released from the DOC. Without this
      type of assessment, it is difficult to determine if at least 70% of offenders are assessed as medium
      to high risk.
  3. The offender’s criminogenic needs and responsivity characteristics are not yet assessed using a
      validated, standardized, and objective assessment instrument that clearly documents which
      offenders require this program. Thus, some offenders may be required to participate in the
      program which does not meet their needs.
  4. MY STORI does not target high risk offenders (to reoffend); thus, low and medium risk offenders


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 155
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                               NAME OF PROGRAM
                                                    MY STORI
      may be receiving services that they do not need.
  Treatment
  1. MY STORI is not a treatment program but an education program which research has shown is not
      sufficient to lead to long-lasting behavior change.
  2. The substance abuse program is not one of the evidence-based models thus the existing program
      may not demonstrate behavioral change. Examples of evidence-based models are cognitive
      behavioral, structured social learning, radical behavioral.
  3. Groups can be interrupted due to crisis issues and/or pill count, thus reducing the continuity of
      treatment.
  4. Homework is not routinely given by all facilitators so the gains achieved in class are not
      reinforced. Homework should be consistently given and then reviewed by the facilitators.
  5. Not all facilitators admit to following the prescribed program manuals consistently. Not all manuals
      contained goals, content of groups, recommended teaching methods, exercises, activities and
      homework assignments.
  6. Group size larger than 8-10 participants with only one facilitator in the group. The MY STORI
      program has a capacity of 30-40. The optimum size for effective group treatment of 8-10
      participants per facilitator.
  7. The application of rewards to punishers could be improved to meet the recommended 4 rewards
      for every 1 punisher.
  8. Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s
      prosocial behavior.
  9. The range of punishers is limited.
  10. Group facilitators do not always respond appropriately to noncompliance issues.
  11. Anti-social values and attitudes are not routinely recognized by facilitators or participants.
  12. Prosocial alternatives to anti-social behaviors are not uniformly taught by facilitators nor are
      participants given adequate opportunities to role play prosocial behavior in increasingly difficult
      simulated situations.
  13. Facilitators did not consistently avoid argumentation and roll with resistance.
  14. The MY STORI program does not directly target offenders’ underlying attitudes, values, and
      beliefs, or addresses antisocial thinking and high risk situations.
  15. Peers are not taught to be role models for prosocial behaviors for others.
  16. Offenders discharged from the program do not routinely have a written relapse prevention plan
      nor are the prosocial behaviors rehearsed to help them prepare for the triggers of relapse once
      discharged to the community.
  Quality Assurance
  1. MY STORI groups are not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group delivery
     skills.
  2. There is no pre/posttest to measure the degree of knowledge gained.
  3. Group participants are not given a satisfaction survey upon group completion.
  4. The criteria for successful completion is limited to attendance rather than linked to knowledge
     gains and behavioral change.
  5. Formal discharge summaries are not prepared for MY STORI completers.



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 156
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                               NAME OF PROGRAM
                                                   MY STORI

                                             RECOMMENDATION
   • Continue with Modifications: The Substance Abuse Program is recommended to be restructured
     as a Cognitive Behavioral Treatment model, which has been documented as an effective,
     evidenced based approach to substance abuse needs (see overall recommendations).




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 157
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                           NAME OF PROGRAM
                                Program about Change and Experience (PACE)
  Target Population              Medium Security Men in Protective Custody.
  Written Program Goals          Reduce substance use and abuse; modify anti-social behavior; reduce
                                 trauma; increase literacy; participate in group therapy. Note: these
                                 participants are not case managed.
  Program Description            Participants receive substance abuse education, and receive adult
                                 literacy training on how to stay connected with their child while
                                 incarcerated. Participants also explore past traumatic issues and
                                 discuss how to deal with these matters.
  Classes Offered                9 hours per week of Substance Abuse Education, 3 hours LIFT
                                 Parenting, 3 hours Trauma Group Therapy; 3 hours Art education per
                                 week.
  Duration of Program            90 days

                                 Program Score by Each CPC-GA Domain:
                  CPC-GA DOMAINS                      SCORE                   RATING
                  Program Staff and
                                                       60.0%                  Effective
                  Support
                  Offender Assessment                   0.0%                 Ineffective
                  Treatment                            37.1%                 Ineffective
                  Quality Assurance                     0.0%                 Ineffective
                  Overall Capacity                     40.0%                Ineffective
                  Overall Content                      31.7%                Ineffective
                  Overall Score                        33.9%                Ineffective

                                                 STRENGTHS
  Program Staff and Support
  1. There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the PACE program.
  2. The program coordinator plays an active role in selecting program staff.
  3. The program coordinator plays a role in supervising program staff who delivers treatment.
  4. Treatment specialists were selected based upon skills and values consistent with offender
     rehabilitation.
  5. Ethical guidelines are in place for PACE facilitators.
  6. The institution/stakeholders provide support for the facilitation of the PACE programming.

  Treatment
  1. The focus of the PACE program is on criminogenic need area, substance abuse.
  2. PACE groups are offered to men solely.
  3. Facilitators associated with the PACE program appear knowledgeable of the material being taught.
  4. Facilitators consistently encouraged group participation.
  5. Group norms for PACE participants are established.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 158
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                          NAME OF PROGRAM
                             Program about Change and Experience (PACE)
  6. PACE groups are consistently conducted by the facilitator.
  7. The length of the PACE program is sufficient to affect behavioral change.
  8. Responsivity issues such as language barriers or material comprehension are consistently
      addressed by group facilitators.
  9. Group facilitators apply appropriate rewards within the context of group (e.g., verbal praise,
      acknowledgement).
  10. PACE group facilitators appear to have established rapport and boundaries with the group
      participants.

                                    AREAS THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT
  Program Staff and Support
  1. Not all group facilitators meet CPC-GA requirements for education and experience in correctional
       treatment programs.
  2. Group facilitators do not consistently attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e.,
       bimonthly at minimum).
  3. Facilitators have minimal initial training related to the substance abuse curriculum, and the
       requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate.
  Offender Assessment
  1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out participants who are not substance
      abusers; therefore, some offenders participate even if they are not addicted. Nationally, it is
      recommended that the percentage of inappropriate matches should not exceed 20%. The
      offenders who do not meet criteria can be channeled into other inmate programs to ensure that
      they are involved in constructive activities and to avoid idleness.
  2. There is no objective, validated or standardized risk assessment given to determine if the
      offenders are low, medium, or high risk for reoffending once released from the DOC. Without this
      type of assessment, it is difficult to determine if at least 70% of offenders are assessed as medium
      to high risk.
  3. The offender’s criminogenic needs and responsivity characteristics are not yet assessed using a
      validated, standardized, and objective assessment instrument that clearly documents which
      offenders require this program. Thus, some offenders may be required to participate in the
      program which does not meet their needs.
  4. PACE does not target high risk offenders (to reoffend); thus, low and medium risk offenders may
      be receiving services that they do not need.
  Treatment
  1. PACE is not a treatment program but an education program which research has shown is not
      sufficient to lead to long-lasting behavior change.
  2. The substance abuse program is not one of the evidence-based models thus the existing program
      may not demonstrate behavioral change. Examples of evidence-based models are cognitive
      behavioral, structured social learning, radical behavioral.
  3. Groups can be interrupted due to crisis issues and/or pill count, thus reducing the continuity of
      treatment.
  4. Homework is not routinely given by all facilitators so the gains achieved in class are not


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 159
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                               NAME OF PROGRAM
                               Program about Change and Experience (PACE)
      reinforced. Homework should be consistently given and then reviewed by the facilitators.
  5. Not all facilitators admit to following the prescribed program manuals consistently. Not all manuals
      contained goals, content of groups, recommended teaching methods, exercises, activities and
      homework assignments.
  6. The size for PACE groups is larger than 8-10 participants with only one facilitator in the group.
      The optimum size for effective group treatment is 8-10 participants per facilitator.
  7. The application of rewards to punishers could be improved to meet the recommended 4 rewards
      for every 1 punisher.
  8. Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s
      prosocial behavior.
  9. The range of punishers is limited.
  10. Group facilitators do not always respond appropriately to noncompliance issues.
  11. Anti-social values and attitudes are not routinely recognized by facilitators or participants.
  12. Prosocial alternatives to anti-social behaviors are not uniformly taught by facilitators nor are
      participants given adequate opportunities to role play prosocial behavior in increasingly difficult
      simulated situations.
  13. Facilitators did not consistently avoid argumentation and roll with resistance.
  14. The PACE program does not directly target offenders’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs, or
      addresses antisocial thinking and high risk situations.
  15. Peers are not taught to be role models for prosocial behaviors for others.
  16. Offenders discharged from the program do not routinely have a written relapse prevention plan
      nor are the prosocial behaviors rehearsed to help them prepare for the triggers of relapse once
      discharged to the community.
  Quality Assurance
  1. PACE groups are not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group delivery
      skills.
  2. There is no pre/posttest to measure the degree of knowledge gained.
  3. Group participants are not given a satisfaction survey upon group completion.
  4. The criteria for successful completion is limited to attendance rather than linked to knowledge
      gains and behavioral change.
  5. Formal discharge summaries are not prepared for PACE completers.

                                             RECOMMENDATION
   • Continue with Modifications: The Substance Abuse Program is recommended to be restructured
     as a Cognitive Behavioral Treatment model, which has been documented as an effective,
     evidenced based approach to substance abuse needs (see overall recommendations).




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 160
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report


                                           NAME OF PROGRAM
                                   PARENTS AND CHILDREN TOGETHER
                                                  PACT
  Target Population              Minimum and Medium Security Women
  Written Program Goals          Facilitate the development of a positive parent/child relationship; rebuild
                                 positive, trusting, honest relationships between parent/child which begins
                                 to deal with the child’s pain of separation; assist parents who will reunify
                                 with their children; provide structured parent-child visitations.

  Program Description            A social skills and parenting skills training program for women with
                                 children that is a court-ordered program by the Dependency Court and
                                 the Social Services Agency. Women learn and practice conflict
                                 resolution and violence prevention techniques; women are educated on
                                 the four stages of child development; practice age-appropriate
                                 communication techniques; identify three positive discipline alternatives
                                 to corporal punishment; demonstrate an understanding of the negative
                                 effects of corporal punishment; list and practice methods for stress
                                 management and anger management; practice parenting skills, playing
                                 with children and communicating love in supervised visits; develop skills
                                 in communicating and cooperating with their social worker and/or child’s
                                 care giver; understand and acknowledge the impact on children when
                                 their parents are incarcerated. Structured contact visits with their
                                 children under the age of 12 are provided each week in a child-friendly
                                 room. DOC Rehabilitation Officers work with social workers and
                                 dependency court staff to coordinate the visits, monitor and document
                                 progress.
  Classes Offered                The classes focus on family conflict resolution skills, family relationship
                                 skills and communication, parenting/healthy disciplining skills.

  Duration of Program            30 hour program, 15 weeks. Groups are held once a week for 3 hours
                                 each; group therapy is 1 hour and child visit is 2 hours once a week.
                                 Program Score by Each CPC-GA Domain:
                  CPC-GA DOMAINS                      SCORE                   RATING
                  Program Staff and
                                                      100.0%              Highly Effective
                  Support
                  Offender Assessment                   0.0%                Ineffective
                  Treatment                            66.7%             Highly Effective
                  Quality Assurance                    60.0%                 Effective
                  Overall Capacity                     86.7%             Highly Effective
                  Overall Content                      47.6%           Needs Improvement
                  Overall Score                        57.9%                 Effective




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 161
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                           NAME OF PROGRAM
                                     PARENTS AND CHILDREN TOGETHER
                                                  PACT
                                                 STRENGTHS
  Program Staff and Support
  1. The program has a full-time coordinator that oversees and manages the groups.
  2. The program coordinator selects, approves, supervises and fires the group facilitators.
  3. The program coordinator selects staff on their skills and values to deliver the curriculum.
  4. The program coordinator is a licensed social worker and has worked for the corrections system for
     many years.
  5. Group facilitators have a bachelor’s degree in social work, have conducted women’s groups
     previously, have experience in court-ordered programs, and have knowledge with women’s
     issues.
  6. Program coordinator has staff meetings once a week dealing with issues that arise in class,
     effective delivery of the curriculum, child development issues, and management issues within the
     corrections system.
  7. Program coordinator supervises each staff member once a week, observes their classes and
     gives them immediate feedback.
  8. Group facilitators and the program coordinator receive 36 hours of formal, annual training, and are
     awarded CEUs for their training, including NASW Code of Ethics training.
  9. The program has the support of the DOC administration, judges, probation staff and the Social
     Services Agency.

  Treatment
  1. The program uses social skills training and group therapy with an emphasis on family
      relationships, which are evidence-based treatment modalities.
  2. Groups are women only thus minimizing their stress.
  3. Facilitators have the educational credentials and experience to conduct groups and are specially
      trained in the Handbook, how to teach the curriculum and how to conduct role plays.
  4. Homework is regularly assigned and reviewed to reinforce the lessons learned in groups.
  5. Facilitators encourage participation, establish rapport, and guide the groups in accordance with
      the P.A.C.T. Rules (written ground rules for participation).
  6. Group size is 15-18 participants with two group facilitators, which meets the recommended
      number of co-facilitators for the size of the group.
  7. Groups are conducted by trained facilitators rather than inmates.
  8. The facilitator follows a structured 15-week program, uses a Handbook that outlines specific topics
      that build on one another from week 1 to week 15. The Handbook provides the content to
      discuss, class exercises, the role play to use and the homework to be assigned.
  9. Women who are non-English speaking are coached by other participants.
  10. Prosocial values and behaviors are regularly reinforced through continuing praise, earning a
      certificate at 20 hours and then a second certificate at 30 hours of completion on the final exam,
      and a positive report to the Dependency Court. There is more than one reward available.
  11. The group facilitator and the program coordinator provide immediate reinforcement, explain why
      they gave the reward and describe how the behavior should be used in reality.



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 162
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                              NAME OF PROGRAM
                                     PARENTS AND CHILDREN TOGETHER
                                                      PACT
  12.   Peers are encouraged to provide feedback to each other when they display effective parenting
        techniques, they recognize and promote prosocial behavior with the children and point out
        negative behaviors that are discussed in the group.
  13.   There is evidence of a variety of appropriate punishers and response to non-compliance from
        warning, explanation of the behavior that is expected, deny the participant a visit with their child,
        suspension or termination. PACT rules are read and discussed at each weekly session.
  14.   Prosocial alternatives to inappropriate behavior are taught by the group facilitator and reinforced
        by the program coordinator since the coordinator participates in all groups. Group facilitators give
        reasons why punishers are given and what the participant needs to change.
  15.   Fifty percent of each group session is spent in practicing and rehearsing alternative prosocial
        behavior and receiving corrective feedback to improve skills. (Note: at least 40% of the total
        number of hours of group treatment should be allocated to rehearsal of skills).

  Quality Assurance
  1. The program coordinator observes all groups every Friday morning and the visits with the children
     in the afternoon.
  2. Program coordinator provides feedback to each group facilitator on their knowledge and delivery
     of the curriculum, communication skills, group facilitation and conflict resolution skills. (Note:
     supervisor observation and feedback is recommended at a minimum once every group cycle or
     quarterly if the group has no cycle).
  3. A participant satisfaction survey is administered after each visit and the survey is administered in
     English and in Spanish.
  4. A pre and post survey is administered using an objective evaluation instrument (Adolescent Adult
     Parenting Inventory (AAPI) to measure their level of learning.
  5. Successful completion is linked to class participation in compliance with their participation
     agreement; homework assignments completed satisfactorily, acquisition of new knowledge and
     skills as evidenced by the AAPI and PACT Evaluations, satisfactory visits with their children, and
     satisfactorily completion of the 15-week curriculum.
  6. Participants receive a discharge summary that reports their completion of PACT requirements and
     a copy of the report are sent to the court and to the Social Services Agency.
                                    AREAS THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT
  Offender Assessment
  1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out participants who are not parents.
  2. There is no objective, validated or standardized risk assessment given to determine the risk level
      of each of the participants.
  3. The participant’s criminogenic needs and responsivity characteristics are not yet assessed using a
      validated, standardized and objective assessment instrument that clearly documents which
      participant requires this program thus some may be required to participate in the program that
      does not meet their needs.
  4. PACT does not assess to determine which of the women require intensive interventions so some
      of the women may be receiving services that they do not need. Medium risk women are


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 163
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                            NAME OF PROGRAM
                                     PARENTS AND CHILDREN TOGETHER
                                                     PACT
     recommended to receive 100 hours of intervention and high risk women are recommended to
     receive between 200-300 hours of intensive intervention. Low risk women are recommended to
     receive little to no interventions.
  Treatment
  1. The program does not target the criminogenic needs that have shown to contribute to recidivism.
  2. The class does not always go the entire time due to interruptions for pill call or for crisis in the
     units.
  3. The length of the program is not sufficient to produce long-lasting behavioral change.
  4. The application of rewards to punishers could be improved to meet the recommended 4 rewards
     for every 1 punisher.
  5. Antisocial values and attitudes are not addressed in the program.
  6. Prosocial alternatives to antisocial behaviors are not taught by facilitators nor are participants
     given opportunities to role play prosocial behavior in increasingly difficult simulated situations.
     Rehearsals are provided for parenting skills but they do not address the offender’s antisocial
     behavior.
  7. Peers are not taught to coach other participants in “prosocial behaviors”.
  8. Persons discharged from the program do not have a written relapse prevention plan nor are the
     prosocial behaviors rehearsed to help them prepare for the triggers of relapse once discharged to
     the community.
  9. The annual in-service training is four hours short than what is recommended.

                                             RECOMMENDATION
  • Continue with Modifications: Including cognitive restructuring components in this program would
    enhance its outcomes such as addressing the underlying antisocial values, attitudes and thinking
    patterns that are the basis of antisocial behaviors, modeling by the facilitator of prosocial
    alternatives to antisocial behaviors, practice and rehearsals that consist of at a minimum of 40% of
    the time in class.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 164
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                          NAME OF PROGRAM
                            Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) Phase I—Men
  Target Population             Minimum Security Men

  Written Program Goals          A three-phase program with the goal of reducing substance use and
                                 abuse and modify criminal behavior. Participants attend classes
                                 Monday-Friday from 8:00 am - 4:00 pm. The RCP program includes a
                                 physical and marching component. Upon successful completion,
                                 participants can transition to Phase II Out of Custody/Day Reporting and
                                 to Phase III Aftercare under the supervision of the Probation
                                 Department.
  Program Description            R.C.P. – Phase 1, is an 8-10 week intensive in-custody program offered
                                 to minimum security inmates. Besides attending classes all day,
                                 participants also march and exercise daily. The R.C.P. program is a
                                 collaborative program between the Courts, the Dept. of Correction,
                                 Milpitas Adult Education and the Dept. of Probation. Most participants in
                                 the program are court referred and eligible to transition to the 2nd phase
                                 of the program upon completing the 1st phase.
  Classes Offered                Physical Fitness, Marching, 15 hours Substance Abuse Education per
                                 week; 3 hours Co-Dependency Education; 3 hours Communication
                                 Skills; 3 hours Exit Planning; 4.5 hours Parenting Education; 6 hours
                                 Violence Prevention; 1 hour GED Preparation; 2 hours Creative Writing;
                                 3 hours World Cultures Education; 3 hours Health Realization; 3 hours
                                 Personal Inventory; 6 hours Anger Management; 3 hours Trauma
                                 Recovery per week.
  Duration of Program            8-10 weeks

                                 Program Score by Each CPC-GA Domain:
                  CPC-GA DOMAINS                      SCORE                   RATING
                  Program Staff and
                                                       60.0%                  Effective
                  Support
                  Offender Assessment                   0.0%                 Ineffective
                  Treatment                            25.7%                 Ineffective
                  Quality Assurance                     0.0%                 Ineffective
                  Overall Capacity                     40.0%                Ineffective
                  Overall Content                      22.0%                Ineffective
                  Overall Score                        26.8%                Ineffective

                                                 STRENGTHS
  Program Staff and Support
  1. There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the RCP PHASE I program.
  2. The program coordinator plays an active role in selecting program staff.



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 165
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                              NAME OF PROGRAM
                            Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) Phase I—Men
  3.   The program coordinator plays a role in supervising program staff who delivers treatment.
  4.   Treatment specialists were selected based upon skills and values consistent with offender
       rehabilitation.
  5.   Ethical guidelines are in place for RCP PHASE I facilitators.
  6.   The institution/stakeholders provide support for the facilitation of the RCP PHASE I programming.

  Treatment
  1. RCP PHASE I groups are offered to men solely.
  2. Facilitators associated with the RCP PHASE I program appear knowledgeable of the material
     being taught.
  3. Facilitators consistently encouraged group participation.
  4. Group norms for RCP PHASE I participants are established.
  5. RCP PHASE I groups are consistently conducted by the facilitator.
  6. The length of the RCP PHASE I program is sufficient to affect behavioral change.
  7. Responsivity issues such as language barriers or material comprehension are consistently
     addressed by group facilitators.
  8. Group facilitators apply appropriate rewards within the context of group (e.g., verbal praise,
     acknowledgement).
  9. RCP PHASE I group facilitators appear to have established rapport with group participants.

                                    AREAS THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT
  Program Staff and Support
  1. Not all group facilitators meet CPC-GA requirements for education and experience in correctional
       treatment programs.
  2. Group facilitators do not consistently attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e.,
       bimonthly at minimum).
  3. Facilitators have minimal initial training related to the substance abuse group curriculum, and the
       requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate.
  Offender Assessment
  1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out participants who are not substance
      abusers; therefore, some offenders participate even if they are not addicted. Nationally, it is
      recommended that the percentage of inappropriate matches should not exceed 20%. The
      offenders who do not meet criteria can be channeled into other inmate programs to ensure that
      they are involved in constructive activities and to avoid idleness.
  2. There is no objective, validated or standardized risk assessment given to determine if the
      offenders are low, medium, or high risk for reoffending once released from the DOC. Without this
      type of assessment, it is difficult to determine if at least 70% of offenders are assessed as medium
      to high risk.
  3. The offender’s criminogenic needs and responsivity characteristics are not yet assessed using a
      validated, standardized, and objective assessment instrument that clearly documents which
      offenders require this program. Thus, some offenders may be required to participate in the
      program which does not meet their needs.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 166
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                               NAME OF PROGRAM
                            Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) Phase I—Men
  4. RCP PHASE I does not target high risk (to reoffend) offenders; thus, low and medium risk
      offenders may be receiving services that they do not need.
  Treatment
  1. The focus of the RCP Phase 1 program is on criminogenic need area, substance abuse.
      However, this is not the major focus of the group. The group receives more hours directed on
      non-criminogenic areas. Thus, the majority of the program’s time is not spent on a criminogenic
      need area.
  2. RCP PHASE I is not a treatment program but an education program which research has shown is
      not sufficient to lead to long-lasting behavior change.
  3. The substance abuse program is not one of the evidence-based models thus the existing program
      may not demonstrate behavioral change. Examples of evidence-based models are cognitive
      behavioral, structured social learning, radical behavioral.
  4. The range of punishers is limited. Moreover, there is a reliance on marching, shaming, and
      physical exercise (e.g., push-ups) as punishers. These types of punishers have not been
      demonstrated to serve as an effective tool for behavioral change, and should not be used as a
      means to demonstrate disapproval.
  5. Groups can be interrupted due to crisis issues and/or pill count, thus reducing the continuity of
      treatment.
  6. Homework is not routinely given by all facilitators so the gains achieved in class are not
      reinforced. Homework should be consistently given and then reviewed by the facilitators.
  7. Not all facilitators admit to following the prescribed program manuals consistently. Not all manuals
      contained goals, content of groups, recommended teaching methods, exercises, activities and
      homework assignments.
  8. The group size for RCP PHASE I groups is larger than 8-10 participants with only one facilitator in
      the group. The Men’s RCP Phase I group can be as large as 80 participants with one facilitator.
      The optimum size for effective group treatment is 8-10 participants per facilitator.
  9. The application of rewards to punishers could be improved to meet the recommended 4 rewards
      for every 1 punisher.
  10. Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s
      prosocial behavior.
  11. Group facilitators do not always respond appropriately to noncompliance issues and clear
      boundaries are not established between the facilitator and group participants.
  12. Anti-social values and attitudes are not routinely recognized by facilitators or participants.
  13. Prosocial alternatives to anti-social behaviors are not uniformly taught by facilitators nor are
      participants given adequate opportunities to role play prosocial behavior in increasingly difficult
      simulated situations.
  14. Facilitators did not consistently avoid argumentation and roll with resistance.
  15. The RCP PHASE I program does not directly target offenders’ underlying attitudes, values, and
      beliefs, or addresses antisocial thinking and high risk situations.
  16. Peers are not taught to be role models for prosocial behaviors for others.
  17. Offenders discharged from the program do not routinely have a written relapse prevention plan
      nor are the prosocial behaviors rehearsed to help them prepare for the triggers of relapse once
      discharged to the community.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 167
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                          NAME OF PROGRAM
                            Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) Phase I—Men

  Quality Assurance
  1. RCP PHASE I groups are not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group
     delivery skills.
  2. There is no pre/posttest to measure the degree of knowledge gained.
  3. Group participants are not given a satisfaction survey upon group completion.
  4. The criteria for successful completion is limited to attendance rather than linked to knowledge
     gains and behavioral change.
  5. Formal discharge summaries are not prepared for RCP PHASE I completers.
                                             RECOMMENDATION
   • Continue with modifications: Restructure the program with a cognitive behavioral and structured
     social learning model (see overall recommendations).




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 168
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                          NAME OF PROGRAM
                          Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) Phase I—Women
  Target Population            Minimum Security Women
  Written Program Goals          Also a three-phase program to reduce substance use and abuse with a
                                 gender focus; reduce trauma.
  Program Description            R.C.P. – Phase 1, is an 8-10 week intensive in-custody program offered
                                 to minimum security inmates. Besides attending classes all day,
                                 participants also march and exercise daily. The R.C.P. program is a
                                 collaborative program between the Courts, the Dept. of Correction,
                                 Milpitas Adult Education and the Dept. of Probation. Most participants in
                                 the program are court referred and eligible to transition to the 2nd phase
                                 of the program upon completing the 1st phase.
  Classes Offered                Physical Fitness, Marching, 15 hours Substance Abuse Education per
                                 week; 3 hours Co-Dependency Education; 3 hours Job Readiness; 4.5
                                 hours Parenting Education; 3 hours Violence Prevention; 1.5 hours GED
                                 Preparation; 1 hour Personal Inventory; 3 hours advanced Computer
                                 Class; 3 hours Relapse Prevention; 3 hours Trauma Recovery per week
  Duration of Program            8-10 weeks

                                 Program Score by Each CPC-GA Domain:
                  CPC-GA DOMAINS                      SCORE                   RATING
                  Program Staff and
                                                       60.0%                  Effective
                  Support
                  Offender Assessment                   0.0%                 Ineffective
                  Treatment                            25.7%                 Ineffective
                  Quality Assurance                     0.0%                 Ineffective
                  Overall Capacity                     40.0%                Ineffective
                  Overall Content                      22.0%                Ineffective
                  Overall Score                        26.8%                Ineffective

                                                 STRENGTHS
  Program Staff and Support
  1. There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the RCP PHASE I program.
  2. The program coordinator plays an active role in selecting program staff.
  3. The program coordinator plays a role in supervising program staff who delivers treatment.
  4. Treatment specialists were selected based upon skills and values consistent with offender
     rehabilitation.
  5. Ethical guidelines are in place for RCP PHASE I facilitators.
  6. The institution/stakeholders provide support for the facilitation of the RCP PHASE I programming.
  Treatment
  1. RCP PHASE I groups are offered to women solely.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 169
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                             NAME OF PROGRAM
                           Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) Phase I—Women
  2.   Facilitators associated with the RCP PHASE I program appear knowledgeable of the material
       being taught.
  3.   Facilitators consistently encouraged group participation.
  4.   Group norms for RCP PHASE I participants are established.
  5.   RCP PHASE I groups are consistently conducted by the facilitator.
  6.   The length of the RCP PHASE I program is sufficient to affect behavioral change.
  7.   Responsivity issues such as language barriers or material comprehension are consistently
       addressed by group facilitators.
  8.   Group facilitators apply appropriate rewards within the context of group (e.g., verbal praise,
       acknowledgement).
  9.   RCP PHASE I group facilitators appear to have established rapport with group participants.

                                    AREAS THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT
  Program Staff and Support
  1. Not all group facilitators meet CPC-GA requirements for education and experience in correctional
       treatment programs.
  2. Group facilitators do not consistently attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e.,
       bimonthly at minimum).
  3. Facilitators have minimal initial training related to the substance abuse curriculum, and the
       requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate.
  Offender Assessment
  1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out participants who are not substance
      abusers; therefore, some offenders participate even if they are not addicted. Nationally, it is
      recommended that the percentage of inappropriate matches should not exceed 20%. The
      offenders who do not meet criteria can be channeled into other inmate programs to ensure that
      they are involved in constructive activities and to avoid idleness.
  2. There is no objective, validated or standardized risk assessment given to determine if the
      offenders are low, medium, or high risk for reoffending once released from the DOC. Without this
      type of assessment, it is difficult to determine if at least 70% of offenders are assessed as medium
      to high risk.
  3. The offender’s criminogenic needs and responsivity characteristics are not yet assessed using a
      validated, standardized, and objective assessment instrument that clearly documents which
      offenders require this program. Thus, some offenders may be required to participate in the
      program which does not meet their needs.
  4. RCP PHASE I does not target high risk offenders (to reoffend); thus, low and medium risk
      offenders may be receiving services that they do not need.
  Treatment
  1. The focus of the RCP Phase 1 program is on criminogenic need area, substance abuse.
      However, this is not the major focus of the group. The group receives more hours directed on
      non-criminogenic areas. Thus, the majority of the program’s time is not spent on a criminogenic
      need area
  2. RCP PHASE I is not a treatment program but an education program which research has shown is


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 170
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                               NAME OF PROGRAM
                          Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) Phase I—Women
      not sufficient to lead to long-lasting behavior change.
  3. The substance abuse program is not one of the evidence-based models thus the existing program
      may not demonstrate behavioral change. Examples of evidence-based models are cognitive
      behavioral, structured social learning, radical behavioral.
  4. The range of punishers is limited. Moreover, there is a reliance on marching, shaming, and
      physical exercise (e.g., push-ups) as punishers. These types of punishers have not been
      demonstrated to serve as an effective tool for behavioral change, and should not be used as a
      means to demonstrate disapproval.
  5. Groups can be interrupted due to crisis issues and/or pill count, thus reducing the continuity of
      treatment.
  6. Homework is not routinely given by all facilitators so the gains achieved in class are not
      reinforced. Homework should be consistently given and then reviewed by the facilitators.
  7. Not all facilitators admit to following the prescribed program manuals consistently. Not all manuals
      contained goals, content of groups, recommended teaching methods, exercises, activities and
      homework assignments.
  8. The group size for RCP PHASE I groups is larger than 8-10 participants with only one facilitator in
      the group. The Women’s RCP Phase I group can be as large as 60 participants with one
      facilitator. The optimum size for effective group treatment is 8-10 participants per facilitator.
  9. The application of rewards to punishers could be improved to meet the recommended 4 rewards
      for every 1 punisher.
  10. Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s
      prosocial behavior.
  11. Group facilitators do not always respond appropriately to noncompliance issues and clear
      boundaries are not established between the facilitator and group participants.
  12. Anti-social values and attitudes are not routinely recognized by facilitators or participants.
  13. Prosocial alternatives to anti-social behaviors are not uniformly taught by facilitators nor are
      participants given adequate opportunities to role play prosocial behavior in increasingly difficult
      simulated situations.
  14. Facilitators did not consistently avoid argumentation and roll with resistance.
  15. The RCP PHASE I program does not directly target offenders’ underlying attitudes, values, and
      beliefs, or addresses antisocial thinking and high risk situations.
  16. Peers are not taught to be role models for prosocial behaviors for others.
  17. Offenders discharged from the program do not routinely have a written relapse prevention plan
      nor are the prosocial behaviors rehearsed to help them prepare for the triggers of relapse once
      discharged to the community.
  Quality Assurance
  1. RCP PHASE I groups are not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group
      delivery skills.
  2. There is no pre/posttest to measure the degree of knowledge gained.
  3. Group participants are not given a satisfaction survey upon group completion.
  4. The criteria for successful completion is limited to attendance rather than linked to knowledge
      gains and behavioral change.
  5. Formal discharge summaries are not prepared for RCP PHASE I completers.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 171
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                          NAME OF PROGRAM
                          Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) Phase I—Women

                                             RECOMMENDATION
   • Continue with modifications: Restructure the program with a cognitive behavioral and structured
     social learning model (see overall recommendations).




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 172
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                      NAME OF PROGRAM
                        Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) Phase II
  Target Population       Sentenced Minimum Security Men and Women who have completed the
                          Phase I RCP; No Holds; Clean and Sober Living Environment; Remain
                          Clean and Sober
  Written Program Goals   Continue to support the offender in reducing their relapse to substance
                          use and abuse while living in the community; connect participants with
                          community resources to aid in their sobriety and non-criminal lifestyle.
  Program Description     R.C.P. – Phase II, is an 8-10 week intensive out-of-custody program
                          offered to men and women who have completed RCP Phase I and meet
                          with all the requirements set forth by the Courts and the Dept. of
                          Correction. At the DRC, the Rehab Officers provide case management
                          and connect participants to community resources. Correctional officers
                          provide security and structure and classes are taught by Milpitas Adult
                          Education teachers. This program is located in the day reporting center.
  Classes Offered                15 hours Substance Abuse Education per week; 3 hours Job Readiness;
                                 3 hours Parenting Education; 3 hours Health Realization; 3 hours
                                 Personal Inventory; 3 hours Anger Management; 3 hours Relapse
                                 Prevention; 5 hours 12-Step; 2 hours Parenting Education for men with
                                 young children per week
  Duration of Program            8-10 weeks

                                 Program Score by Each CPC-GA Domain:
                  CPC-GA DOMAINS                      SCORE                   RATING
                  Program Staff and
                                                       60.0%                  Effective
                  Support
                  Offender Assessment                   0.0%                Ineffective
                  Treatment                            28.6%                Ineffective
                  Quality Assurance                    40.0%                Ineffective
                  Overall Capacity                     53.3%           Needs Improvement
                  Overall Content                      24.4%               Ineffective
                  Overall Score                        32.1%               Ineffective

                                                 STRENGTHS
  Program Staff and Support
  1. There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the RCP Phase II program.
  2. The program coordinator plays an active role in selecting program staff.
  3. The program coordinator plays a role in supervising program staff who delivers treatment.
  4. Treatment specialists were selected based upon skills and values consistent with offender
     rehabilitation.
  5. Ethical guidelines are in place for RCP Phase II facilitators.
  6. The institution/stakeholders provide support for the facilitation of the RCP Phase II programming.



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 173
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                           NAME OF PROGRAM
                               Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) Phase II
  Treatment
  1. Facilitators associated with the RCP Phase II program appear knowledgeable of the material being
      taught.
  2. Facilitators consistently encouraged group participation.
  3. Group norms for RCP Phase II participants are established.
  4. RCP Phase II groups are consistently conducted by the facilitator.
  5. The length of the RCP Phase II program is sufficient to affect behavioral change.
  6. Responsivity issues such as language barriers or material comprehension are consistently
      addressed by group facilitators.
  7. Group facilitators apply appropriate rewards within the context of group (e.g., verbal praise,
      acknowledgement).
  8. Group Facilitators respond appropriately to non-compliance.
  9. RCP Phase II group facilitators appear to have established rapport with group participants.
  10. Facilitators appear to avoid argumentation and roll with resistance.
  Quality Assurance
   1. Group participants are surveyed regarding their satisfaction with the program.
   2. Formal discharge summaries are prepared for RCP PHASE II completers.
                                    AREAS THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT
  Program Staff and Support
  1. Not all group facilitators meet CPC-GA requirements for education and experience in correctional
       treatment programs.
   2. Group facilitators do not consistently attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e.,
       bimonthly at minimum).
   3. Facilitators have minimal initial training related to the substance abuse curriculum, and the
       requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate.
  Offender Assessment
  1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out participants who are not substance
      abusers; therefore, some offenders participate even if they are not addicted. Nationally, it is
      recommended that the percentage of inappropriate matches should not exceed 20%. The
      offenders who do not meet criteria can be channeled into other inmate programs to ensure that
      they are involved in constructive activities and to avoid idleness.
  2. There is no objective, validated or standardized risk assessment given to determine if the
      offenders are low, medium, or high risk for reoffending once released from the DOC. Without this
      type of assessment, it is difficult to determine if at least 70% of offenders are assessed as medium
      to high risk.
  3. The offender’s criminogenic needs and responsivity characteristics are not yet assessed using a
      validated, standardized, and objective assessment instrument that clearly documents which
      offenders require this program. Thus, some offenders may be required to participate in the
      program which does not meet their needs.
  4. RCP Phase II does not target high risk (to reoffend) offenders; thus, low and medium risk
      offenders may be receiving services that they do not need.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 174
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                           NAME OF PROGRAM
                               Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) Phase II
  Treatment
  1. The focus of the RCP Phase II program is on criminogenic need area, substance abuse.
      However, this is not the major focus of the group. The group receives more hours directed on
      non-criminogenic areas. Thus, the majority of the program’s time is not spent on a criminogenic
      need area
  2. RCP Phase II is not a treatment program but an education program which research has shown is
      not sufficient to lead to long-lasting behavior change.
  3. The substance abuse program is not one of the evidence-based models thus the existing program
      may not demonstrate behavioral change. Examples of evidence-based models are cognitive
      behavioral, structured social learning, radical behavioral.
  4. RCP Phase II groups are co-ed. Groups should be delivered in a single sex format.
  5. Groups can be interrupted due to crisis issues.
  6. Homework is not routinely given by all facilitators so the gains achieved in class are not
      reinforced. Homework should be consistently given and then reviewed by the facilitators.
  7. Not all facilitators admit to following the prescribed program manuals consistently. Not all manuals
      contained goals, content of groups, recommended teaching methods, exercises, activities and
      homework assignments.
  8. The group size for RCP Phase II Groups is larger than 8-10 participants with only one facilitator in
      the group. The Men’s RCP Phase II group can be as large as 50 participants with one facilitator.
      The optimum size for effective group treatment is 8-10 participants per facilitator.
  9. The application of rewards to punishers could be improved to meet the recommended 4 rewards
      for every 1 punisher.
  10. Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s
      prosocial behavior.
  11. The range of punishers is limited.
  12. Anti-social values and attitudes are not routinely recognized by facilitators or participants.
  13. Prosocial alternatives to anti-social behaviors are not uniformly taught by facilitators nor are
      participants given adequate opportunities to role play prosocial behavior in increasingly difficult
      simulated situations.
  14. The RCP Phase II program does not directly target offenders’ underlying attitudes, values, and
      beliefs, or addresses antisocial thinking and high risk situations.
  15. Peers are not taught to be role models for prosocial behaviors for others.
  16. Offenders discharged from the program do not routinely have a written relapse prevention plan
      nor are the prosocial behaviors rehearsed to help them prepare for the triggers of relapse once
      discharged to the community.
  Quality Assurance
  1. RCP Phase II groups are not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group
      delivery skills.
  2. There is no pre/posttest to measure the degree of knowledge gained.
  3. The criteria for successful completion is limited to attendance rather than linked to knowledge
      gains and behavioral change.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 175
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                           NAME OF PROGRAM
                               Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) Phase II
                                             RECOMMENDATION
   • Continue with Modifications: Incorporate the cognitive behavioral and structured social learning
     model with emphasis on reentry. Restructure as a Reentry Program with aftercare support
     services (education/employment assistance, federal benefits eligibility and assistance, mental
     health treatment referrals and case management, substance abuse treatment referrals and case
     management, medical referrals, mentoring support (see Core Programs #5 and 6, Chapter 5)).




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 176
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                           NAME OF PROGRAM
                                        ROADMAP TO RECOVERY
  Target Population              High Medium and Maximum Security Men and Women with Addiction
                                 issues
  Written Program Goals          Learn the connection between substance abuse addiction, behavior and
                                 criminal activity; learn the Stages of Change by Prochaska and
                                 DiClemente; reduce anger; learn problem solving skills; adapt
                                 responsible thinking skills; expand occupational skills; achieve academic
                                 success. Offer programming to inmates who would otherwise not be
                                 eligible for programming due to their security and classification levels.

  Program Description            Individualized, self-taught manualized program published by The
                                 Change Company teaches the linkage between substance abuse,
                                 antisocial values and attitudes with criminal behavior. A trained facilitator
                                 coaches the participant through the 16 manuals, reviews and grades
                                 homework and discusses topics outlined in the manual on a weekly
                                 basis.
  Classes Offered                16 Individualized Journals Addressing Addictive Behavior and Criminal
                                 Activity

  Duration of Program            8 weeks, 16 journals.

                                 Program Score by Each CPC-GA Domain:
                  CPC-GA DOMAINS                      SCORE                   RATING
                  Program Staff and
                                                       70.0%              Highly Effective
                  Support
                  Offender Assessment                   0.0%                Ineffective
                  Treatment                            45.7%                Ineffective
                  Quality Assurance                    20.0%                Ineffective
                  Overall Capacity                     53.3%           Needs Improvement
                  Overall Content                      39.0%               Ineffective
                  Overall Score                        42.9%               Ineffective

                                                 STRENGTHS
  Program Staff and Support
  1. The program has a coordinator that oversees and manages the program.
  2. The program coordinator directly selects, approves, supervises and fires the facilitators.
  3. The program coordinator selects staff on their skills and values to deliver the curriculum.
  4. The facilitator is an experienced Rehabilitation Coordinator who has worked for the corrections
     system for many years, is trained in Motivational Interviewing, drug education and The Change
     Company curriculum.
  5. The facilitator has a bachelor’s degree in the helping profession, has conducted groups previously
     at the DOC and has extensive experience as a Rehabilitation Coordinator coordinating inmate


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 177
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                             NAME OF PROGRAM
                                           ROADMAP TO RECOVERY
     programs.
  6. The facilitator adheres to the ethical guidelines of the DOC.
  7. The program has the support of the DOC administration, judges and probation staff.

  Treatment
  1. The program targets medium and high risk participants.
  2. The facilitator has the educational credentials and experience to coach the participant through the
     Journaling Program and is specially trained in the Journals through a Teacher’s Guide.
  3. Homework is regularly assigned to reinforce the lessons learned in the Manuals and is reviewed
     by the facilitator at each session.
  4. The facilitator encourages participation, establishes rapport, and guides the participant through
     the Manuals.
  5. The facilitator follows a structured 8-week program and uses 16 Journals. The Participant and
     Facilitator’s Journal provides the content to discuss, exercises, and the homework to be assigned.
  6. The facilitator is required to be bi-lingual to communicate with non-English speaking participants.
  7. The program addresses underlying thoughts/values, antisocial thinking and high-risk situations.
  8. The facilitator teaches and models prosocial values, thinking patterns and behaviors.
  Quality Assurance
  1. Program coordinator/facilitator reviews the completed journal and gives immediate feedback on
     completeness of their answers, honesty, and evidence that they are learning the material.
  2. A participant satisfaction survey is administered at the end of the completion of the 16 journals.
  3. Successful completion is linked to satisfactorily completion of 16 journals.
                                    AREAS THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT
  Offender Assessment
  1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out participants who are not substance
      abusers.
  2. There is no objective, validated or standardized risk assessment given to determine the risk level
      of the participant.
  3. The participant’s criminogenic needs and responsivity characteristics are not yet assessed using a
      validated, standardized and objective assessment instrument that clearly documents which
      participant requires this program thus some may be required to participate in the program that
      does not meet their needs.
  4. Roadmap does not assess to determine which of the men require intensive interventions so some
      of the men may be receiving services that they do not need. Medium risk men are recommended
      to receive 100 hours of intervention and high risk men are recommended to receive between 200-
      300 hours of intensive intervention. Low risk men are recommended to receive little to no
      interventions.
  Treatment
  1. The program is not a group treatment program where cognitive behavioral skills are taught,
     modeled, practiced and rehearsed.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 178
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                            NAME OF PROGRAM
                                         ROADMAP TO RECOVERY
  2. The length of the program is not sufficient to produce lasting behavioral change.
  3. Rewards are appropriate to the program such as praise, a certificate and a positive report to the
     court.
  4. Punishers are limited to a warning, removal from the program and a negative report to the court.
  5. Peers are not involved in promoting prosocial behavior or providing support to one another.
  6. Persons discharged from the program do not have a written relapse prevention plan nor are the
     prosocial behaviors rehearsed to help them prepare for the triggers of relapse once discharged to
     the community.
  Quality Assurance
  1. Participants are not given a pre/posttest to measure the gains in their knowledge of the material.
  2. There is no completion criterion that is related to acquiring prosocial behaviors, attitudes and
     beliefs.
  3. Participants do not receive a written discharge plan with goals for them to achieve once released
     from the program.
                                             RECOMMENDATION
  • Continue for low-risk and low-need inmates and Discontinue for medium and high risk and need
    inmates. A self-guided program such as this is more appropriate for low-risk and low-need
    individuals. Inmates who are assessed as medium risk/high risk are recommended to be treated
    in separate groups within their security classification where participants can role play, practice and
    rehearse new skills in increasingly difficult situations and peers can support one another through
    recovery. It is recommended that the program be restructured for medium and high risk persons
    and be piloted in two groups within their security classification.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 179
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report



                                           NAME OF PROGRAM
                                           THREE PRINCIPLES
  Target Population              Men and Women in All Classification Levels
  Written Program Goals          Help participants learn how their thoughts were formed, how their
                                 experience was created and how they use or misuse their ability to think;
                                 learn how behaviors such as addictions occur as a result of a learned
                                 habitual way of trying to find relief from cluttered, confused thinking. With
                                 this understanding, participants are expected to change their criminal
                                 behavior.
  Program Description            An insight-oriented education program that increases one’s
                                 understanding of how addiction is driven by unhealthy thinking patterns.
                                 Focuses on health rather than dysfunction or disease.
  Classes Offered                Teaches the Three Principles of Mind, Thought and Consciousness.

  Duration of Program            8 weeks, 12 hours to complete, 20 topics are covered 3 hours per week.

                                 Program Score by Each CPC-GA Domain:
                  CPC-GA DOMAINS                      SCORE                   RATING
                  Program Staff and
                                                       80.0%              Highly Effective
                  Support
                  Offender Assessment                   0.0%                Ineffective
                  Treatment                            25.7%                Ineffective
                  Quality Assurance                    40.0%                Ineffective
                  Overall Capacity                     66.7%             Highly Effective
                  Overall Content                      22.0%               Ineffective
                  Overall Score                        33.9%               Ineffective

                                                 STRENGTHS
  Program Staff and Support
  1. The program has a coordinator that oversees and manages the groups.
  2. The program coordinator selects, approves, supervises and fires the group facilitators.
  3. The program coordinator selects staff on their skills and values to deliver the curriculum.
  4. The program coordinator is specially trained in the Three Principles curriculum and has worked in
     the drug addiction treatment field for more than 5 years.
  5. The group facilitator has a master’s degree in psychology, has conducted addiction groups
     previously, and has experience in court-ordered programs.
  6. Group facilitators satisfactorily complete an 8-month Academy training on the Three Principles
     and complete 12-18 months internship as a therapist under the supervision of a trained
     supervisor.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 180
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                             NAME OF PROGRAM
                                              THREE PRINCIPLES
  7. Group facilitators are required to participate in 2-day in-service training on the Three Principles
     once a year.
  8. The program is guided by the Code of Conduct by the Board of the Department of Drug and
     Addiction Services Board and the Board of Behavioral Sciences.
  9. The program has the support of the DOC administration, judges, and the probation staff.
  Treatment
  1. Groups are single-sex which encourages participation.
  2. Groups go the entire time.
  3. Facilitators have the educational credentials and experience to conduct groups and are specially
     trained in the Three Principles.
  4. Facilitators encourage rapport before teaching the material.
  5. Groups are conducted by trained facilitators rather than inmates.
  6. The facilitator follows a structured 8-week program, teaches a total of 20 sessions. The staff
     Training Manual provides the content to discuss, class exercises, and the role play to use.
  Quality Assurance
  1. Each participant completes the Friedman “Well-Being Survey” (a pre/posttest) administered at the
     end of program completion which evaluates their degree of anger, anxiety, stress, sadness, and
     level of calm before and after program completion.
  2. Successful completion is linked to class attendance and completion of the Well-Being Survey.

                                    AREAS THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT
  Program Staff and Support
  1. Staff meetings are held quarterly rather than twice a month.
  2. Facilitators do not receive 40 hours of in-service training per year.
  Offender Assessment
  1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out participants who do not have
      addiction issues and who do not have distorted thoughts.
  2. There is no objective, validated or standardized risk assessment given to determine the risk level
      of each of the participants.
  3. The participant’s criminogenic needs and responsivity characteristics are not yet assessed using a
      validated, standardized and objective assessment instrument that clearly documents which
      participant requires this program thus some may be required to participate in the program that
      does not meet their needs.
  4. The program does not assess to determine which of the participants require intensive
      interventions so some of the participants may be receiving services that they do not need. Medium
      risk participants are recommended to receive 100 hours of intervention and high risk participants
      are recommended to receive between 200-300 hours of intensive intervention. Low risk
      participants are recommended to receive little to no interventions.

  Treatment
  1. The program is an insight-based, mind-consciousness therapeutic model whereby the focus is on


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 181
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                                 NAME OF PROGRAM
                                                 THREE PRINCIPLES
        achieving health through self-realization. These approaches have not been scientifically proven to
        reduce recidivism among offenders.
  2.    The program is not cognitive behavioral therapy program (CBT) where inmates are taught
        prosocial alternatives to antisocial values, attitudes and behaviors. CBT has scientifically proven
        to be effective in producing long-lasting behavior change in offenders.
  3.    The length of the program is not sufficient to produce long-lasting behavioral change.
  4.    No homework is assigned; therefore, participants do not receive on-going positive reinforcement.
  5.    There are no group rules established as the coordinator indicates that they do not need it.
  6.    Group size is typically 1 facilitator to 20 participants, but the group has gotten as high as 1:100,
        which greatly exceeds the recommended size of groups.
  7.    Facilitator calls on other inmates to translate if there is a participant who is non-English speaking.
  8.    The program does not apply rewards as the philosophy is not to reward good behavior. The
        program expects evidence that the person is demonstrating insight about their thoughts and does
        not acknowledge prosocial behavior.
  9.    Participants are not reinforced when they exhibit prosocial behavior as this is not the focus of the
        program. The focus is for the participant to recognize when and why their thoughts and feelings
        were formed.
  10.   Antisocial values and attitudes are not addressed in the program.
  11.   Peers are not taught to coach other participants in “prosocial behaviors”.
  12.   Prosocial alternatives to antisocial behaviors are not taught or modeled by facilitators as this is not
        the focus of the program.
  13.   Participants do not practice or rehearse prosocial behavior in increasingly difficult simulated
        situations.
  14.   Persons near discharge do not rehearse the potential triggers for relapse so they are prepared for
        discharge to the community.
  Quality Assurance
  1. Program coordinator observes group and gives feedback once a year which is too infrequent.
  2. There is no separate participant satisfaction survey given, the Well-Being Survey serves as the
     participant satisfaction and the pre/post-test.
  3. There are no other completion criteria for the program but attendance.

                                             RECOMMENDATION
  • Discontinue: Because the Three Principles program is not a cognitive behavioral therapeutic
    model, it is recommended to be discontinued. For the recommendation to be “continue with
    modifications”, it would need to include cognitive restructuring components such as exposing the
    inmate’s underlying antisocial values, attitudes and thinking patterns that are the basis of their
    antisocial behaviors, teach prosocial attitudes, values, thinking patterns and behaviors, modeling
    by the facilitator of prosocial alternatives to antisocial behaviors, practice and rehearsals of
    prosocial behaviors that consist of at a minimum of 40% of the time in class.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 182
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                           NAME OF PROGRAM
                                           TRAUMA RECOVERY
  Target Population              Minimum, Medium and High-Medium Security Males and Females

  Written Program Goals          Manage trauma symptoms; cope without the use of substances; prevent
                                 self-destructive acts; take good care of oneself; free oneself from
                                 abusive relationships; find safe support systems; find ways to feel good
                                 about oneself and to enjoy life.
  Program Description            A trauma-informed social skills program that identifies and develops
                                 alternative mechanisms to deal with trauma, replaces distorted thinking
                                 patterns, coping skills for dealing with posttraumatic stress, conflict
                                 resolution skills to reduce violence, increase one’s understanding of how
                                 trauma affects relationships, contributes to distorted thinking and
                                 behaviors; help inmates deal effectively with grief and loss and cope with
                                 stress and anger; help inmates learn effective communication skills to
                                 improve their relationships.
  Classes Offered                1.5 hours Didactic Education on Trauma; 1.5 hours Group Therapy per
                                 week.

  Duration of Program            8 weeks, 3 hours a week for a total of 24 hours

                                 Program Score by Each CPC-GA Domain:
                  CPC-GA DOMAINS                      SCORE                   RATING
                  Program Staff and
                                                       70.0%              Highly Effective
                  Support
                  Offender Assessment                   0.0%                Ineffective
                  Treatment                            31.4%                Ineffective
                  Quality Assurance                    20.0%                Ineffective
                  Overall Capacity                     53.3%           Needs Improvement
                  Overall Content                      26.8%               Ineffective
                  Overall Score                        33.9%               Ineffective

                                                 STRENGTHS
  Program Staff and Support
  1. The program has a coordinator that oversees and manages the groups.
  2. The program coordinator selects, approves, supervises and fires the group facilitators.
  3. The program coordinator is a registered nurse with extensive experience in custody mental health.
  4. The program coordinator selects staff on their commitment to treatment, counseling background in
     a custody setting, and licensure as a Marriage and Family Therapist.
  5. Group facilitators are required to receive 40 hours annually to maintain their licensure as a MFT.
  6. The program is guided by the Code of Conduct by the Board of Behavioral Sciences and the DOC
     Ethical Guidelines.
  7. The program has the support of the DOC administration and judges. The program was requested
     to expand to the men units as it was well received by the women and the staff.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 183
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                              NAME OF PROGRAM
                                              TRAUMA RECOVERY
  Treatment
  1. The program for women is based on the widely recognized trauma program entitled Seeking
     Safety by Shelton, a gender-based trauma-focused skills-based therapeutic model.
  2. Facilitators also use David Burns’ The Feeling Good Handbook, a book that describes the
     cognitive behavioral therapeutic approach at developing positive attitudes, identifying and
     replacing distorted thinking patterns with prosocial thinking patterns that lead to healthier
     relationships and learning prosocial behaviors through a series of self-assessment exercises.
  3. Groups consist of 1.5 hours of didactic education about the topics and 1.5 hours of group therapy
     discussing the lesson and how to apply the techniques.
  4. Groups are single-sex as they are delivered in male or female units.
  5. Groups go the entire three hours.
  6. Facilitators have the educational credentials and experience to conduct therapy groups and are
     specially trained in the Trauma Recovery program.
  7. Facilitators encourage participation in the program by building rapport with them and the group
     and through exercises.
  8. Groups are conducted by trained facilitators rather than inmates.
  9. The facilitator is guided by a structured 8-week program, 3 hours each week. The staff Training
     Manual provides the content to discuss and class exercises.
  Quality Assurance
  1. Each participant completes a self-satisfaction survey at the end of the 8 weeks.
                                    AREAS THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT
  Program Staff and Support
  1. Not all facilitators are licensed or have credentials and experience in a helping profession in a
      correctional setting.
  2. Staff meetings are held monthly rather than twice a month.
  3. Non-MFT licensed facilitators do not receive 40 hours of in-service training annually.
  Offender Assessment
  1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out participants who do not have trauma
      or addiction issues so participants may receive services they do not need.
  2. There is no objective, validated or standardized risk assessment given to determine the risk level
      of each of the participants.
  3. The participant’s criminogenic needs and responsivity characteristics are not yet assessed using a
      validated, standardized and objective assessment instrument that clearly documents which
      participant requires this program thus some may be required to participate in the program that
      does not meet their needs.
  4. The program does not assess to determine which of the participants require intensive
      interventions so some of the participants may be receiving services that they do not need. Medium
      risk participants are recommended to receive 100 hours of intervention and high risk participants
      are recommended to receive between 200-300 hours of intensive intervention. Low risk
      participants are recommended to receive little to no interventions.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 184
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                              NAME OF PROGRAM
                                              TRAUMA RECOVERY
  Treatment
  1. The program does not focus on a criminogenic target that research has found contributes to
      recidivism. Depression, anxiety and trauma are not scientifically associated with recidivism.
  2. While the program includes a cognitive behavioral component, the primary focus of the program is
      education and talk-therapy without practice and rehearsal. Research demonstrates that this is not
      sufficient to produce behavioral change.
  3. While the materials allow for homework, none is given.
  4. The length of the program is not sufficient to produce long-lasting behavioral change.
  5. Peers are not taught to coach other participants in “prosocial behaviors”.
  6. Facilitator teaches and facilitates group discussion but does not model new skills. Prosocial
      alternatives to antisocial behaviors are not taught or modeled by facilitators.
  7. Participants do not practice or rehearse prosocial behavior in increasingly difficult simulated
      situations.
  8. Underlying thoughts/values, antisocial values and attitudes are a secondary focus of the program.
  9. Facilitators are not required to use the standard curriculum specifically as designed, the facilitators
      are permitted to add additional material or use other curriculum if they choose. This does not
      comply with the “fidelity principle” thus the intended results of the program will not be the same
      across all facilitators.
  10. Persons discharged from the program do not have a written relapse prevention plan nor are the
      prosocial behaviors rehearsed to help them prepare for the triggers of relapse once discharged to
      the community.
  11. Not all staff is bi-lingual.
  Quality Assurance
  1. Program coordinator observes group and gives feedback once a year which is too infrequent.
  2. There is no pre/posttest given to measure knowledge gains or increase in skills as a result of the
      program.
  3. There are no other completion criteria for the program but attendance.
  4. There is no discharge summary provided at the end of the program.
                                             RECOMMENDATION
  • Continue with Modifications : Increasing the cognitive restructuring components of this program
    would enhance its outcomes such as addressing the underlying antisocial values, attitudes and
    thinking patterns that are the basis of antisocial behaviors, modeling by the facilitator of prosocial
    alternatives to antisocial behaviors, practice and rehearsals of prosocial behaviors that consist of
    at a minimum of 40% of the time in class and teaching peers to recognize and model prosocial
    behaviors.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 185
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                             NAME OF PROGRAM
                                    Veteran’s Educating to Succeed (VETS)
  Target Population              Incarcerated Veterans Classified as Minimum Security
  Written Program Goals          Reduce substance use and abuse; connect veterans to Veterans’
                                 Services and benefits; enable eligible veterans to obtain substance
                                 abuse treatment.
  Program Description            V.E.T.S. substance abuse education program for veterans. In addition
                                 to substance abuse education, participants also address past traumatic
                                 experiences and how to cope with these issues. Participants also
                                 attempt how to understand how their thoughts were formed and
                                 experiences created, as well as explore the dynamics of healthy
                                 relationships.
  Classes Offered                6 hours Substance Abuse Education per week; 3 hours Trauma
                                 Recovery; 3 hours Healthy Relationships Education; 3 hours Healthy
                                 Relationships Group Therapy per week
  Duration of Program            8-10 weeks

                                 Program Score by Each CPC-GA Domain:
                  CPC-GA DOMAINS                      SCORE                   RATING
                  Program Staff and
                                                       60.0%                  Effective
                  Support
                  Offender Assessment                   0.0%                 Ineffective
                  Treatment                            25.7%                 Ineffective
                  Quality Assurance                     0.0%                 Ineffective
                  Overall Capacity                     40.0%                Ineffective
                  Overall Content                      22.0%                Ineffective
                  Overall Score                        26.8%                Ineffective

                                                 STRENGTHS
  Program Staff and Support
  1. There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the VETS program.
  2. The program coordinator plays an active role in selecting program staff.
  3. The program coordinator plays a role in supervising program staff who delivers treatment.
  4. Treatment specialists were selected based upon skills and values consistent with offender
     rehabilitation.
  5. Ethical guidelines are in place for VETS facilitators.
  6. The institution/stakeholders provide support for the facilitation of the VETS programming.
  Treatment
  1. VETS groups are offered to men solely.
  2. Facilitators associated with the VETS program appear knowledgeable of the material being taught.
  3. Facilitators consistently encouraged group participation.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 186
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                             NAME OF PROGRAM
                                    Veteran’s Educating to Succeed (VETS)
  4.   VETS groups are consistently conducted by the facilitator rather than the inmate.
  5.   The length of the VETS program is sufficient to affect behavioral change.
  6.   Responsivity issues such as language barriers or material comprehension are consistently
       addressed by group facilitators.
  7.   Group facilitators apply appropriate rewards within the context of group (e.g., verbal praise,
       acknowledgement).
  8.   VETS group facilitators appear to have established rapport and boundaries with the group
       participants.
                                    AREAS THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT
  Program Staff and Support
  1. Not all group facilitators meet CPC-GA requirements for education and experience in correctional
       treatment programs.
  2. Group facilitators do not consistently attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e.,
       bimonthly at minimum).
  3. Facilitators have minimal initial training related to the substance abuse curriculum, and the
       requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate.
  Offender Assessment
  1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out participants who are not substance
      abusers; therefore, some offenders participate even if they are not addicted. Nationally, it is
      recommended that the percentage of inappropriate matches should not exceed 20%. The
      offenders who do not meet criteria can be channeled into other inmate programs to ensure that
      they are involved in constructive activities and to avoid idleness.
  2. There is no objective, validated or standardized risk assessment given to determine if the
      offenders are low, medium, or high risk for reoffending once released from the DOC. Without this
      type of assessment, it is difficult to determine if at least 70% of offenders are assessed as medium
      to high risk.
  3. The offender’s criminogenic needs and responsivity characteristics are not yet assessed using a
      validated, standardized, and objective assessment instrument that clearly documents which
      offenders require this program. Thus, some offenders may be required to participate in the
      program which does not meet their needs.
  4. VETS do not target high risk (offender) offenders; thus, low and medium risk offenders may be
      receiving services that they do not need.
  Treatment
  1. The stated target of the VETS program is on criminogenic need area, substance abuse. However,
      this is not the major focus of the group. The group receives more hours directed on non-
      criminogenic areas. Thus, the majority of the program’s time is not spent on a criminogenic need
      area.
  2. VETS is not a treatment program but an education program which research has shown is not
      sufficient to lead to long-lasting behavior change.
  3. The substance abuse program is not one of the evidence-based models thus the existing program
      may not demonstrate behavioral change. Examples of evidence-based models are cognitive
      behavioral, structured social learning, radical behavioral.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 187
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                               NAME OF PROGRAM
                                    Veteran’s Educating to Succeed (VETS)
  4. Groups can be interrupted due to crisis issues and/or pill count, thus reducing the continuity of
      treatment.
  5. Group norms for VETS participants are not established.
  6. Homework is not routinely given by all facilitators so the gains achieved in class are not
      reinforced. Homework should be consistently given and then reviewed by the facilitators.
  7. Not all facilitators admit to following the prescribed program manuals consistently. Not all manuals
      contained goals, content of groups, recommended teaching methods, exercises, activities and
      homework assignments.
  8. The group size for VETS can be larger than 8-10 participants with only one facilitator in the group.
      The optimum size for effective group treatment of 8-10 participants per facilitator.
  9. The application of rewards to punishers could be improved to meet the recommended 4 rewards
      for every 1 punisher.
  10. Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s
      prosocial behavior.
  11. The range of punishers is limited.
  12. Group facilitators do not always respond appropriately to noncompliance issues.
  13. Anti-social values and attitudes are not routinely recognized by facilitators or participants.
  14. Prosocial alternatives to anti-social behaviors are not uniformly taught by facilitators nor are
      participants given adequate opportunities to role play prosocial behavior in increasingly difficult
      simulated situations.
  15. Facilitators did not consistently avoid argumentation and roll with resistance.
  16. The VETS program does not directly target offenders’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs, or
      addresses antisocial thinking and high risk situations.
  17. Peers are not taught to be role models for prosocial behaviors for others.
  18. Offenders discharged from the program do not routinely have a written relapse prevention plan
      nor are the prosocial behaviors rehearsed to help them prepare for the triggers of relapse once
      discharged to the community.
  Quality Assurance
  1. VETS groups are not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group delivery skills.
  2. There is no pre/posttest to measure the degree of knowledge gained.
  3. Group participants are not given a satisfaction survey upon group completion.
  4. The criteria for successful completion is limited to attendance rather than linked to knowledge
      gains and behavioral change.
  5. Formal discharge summaries are not prepared for participants who complete the VETS program.
                                             RECOMMENDATION
   • Discontinue: Replace with core programming that matches Veterans’ needs with a core
     program(s) (see overall recommendations).




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 188
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                          NAME OF PROGRAM
                            Women Investigating New Gates for Sobriety (WINGS)
  Target Population            Medium Security Females

  Written Program Goals          A gender-relevant program to reduce substance use and abuse and
                                 modify anti-social behavior. Graduates can transition to out of custody
                                 programs or community based programs.
  Program Description            The WINGS program is a collaborative effort between the Courts, the
                                 Dept. of Correction, and Milpitas Adult Education. In addition to
                                 substance abuse education, women work on communication skills,
                                 enhance their education with GED preparation, and attended classes on
                                 the skills needed to be a good parent. Participants may also attend NA
                                 meetings.
  Classes Offered                3 hours Substance Abuse Education daily, 3 hours Communication
                                 Skills; 6 hours GED Preparation; 1.5 hours Narcotics Anonymous; 3
                                 hours Trauma Recovery; 3 hours PACT Parenting; 3 hours PACT Visit
                                 per week
  Duration of Program            90 days

                                 Program Score by Each CPC-GA Domain:
                  CPC-GA DOMAINS                      SCORE                   RATING
                  Program Staff and
                                                       60.0%                  Effective
                  Support
                  Offender Assessment                   0.0%                 Ineffective
                  Treatment                            37.1%                 Ineffective
                  Quality Assurance                     0.0%                 Ineffective
                  Overall Capacity                     40.0%                Ineffective
                  Overall Content                      31.7%                Ineffective
                  Overall Score                        33.9%                Ineffective

                                                 STRENGTHS
  Program Staff and Support
  1. There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the WINGS program.
  2. The program coordinator plays an active role in selecting program staff.
  3. The program coordinator plays a role in supervising program staff who delivers treatment.
  4. Treatment specialists were selected based upon skills and values consistent with offender
     rehabilitation.
  5. Ethical guidelines are in place for WINGS facilitators.
  6. The institution/stakeholders provide support for the facilitation of the WINGS programming.

  Treatment
  1. The primary focus of the WINGS program is on a criminogenic need area, substance abuse.



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 189
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                              NAME OF PROGRAM
                              Women Investigating New Gates for Sobriety (WINGS)
   2.    WINGS is a single sex group and delivered to only women, thus encouraging them to be open.
   3.    Facilitators associated with the WINGS program appear knowledgeable of the material being
         taught.
   4.    Facilitators consistently encouraged group participation.
   5.    Group norms for WINGS participants are established.
   6.    The length of the WINGS program is sufficient to affect behavior change.
   7.    WINGS groups are consistently conducted by the facilitator.
   8.    Responsivity issues such as language barriers or material comprehension are consistently
         addressed by group facilitators.
   9.    Group facilitators apply appropriate rewards within the context of the group (e.g., verbal praise,
         acknowledgement).
   10.   WINGS group facilitators appear to have established rapport and boundaries with the group
         participants.
                                    AREAS THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT
  Program Staff and Support
  1. Not all group facilitators meet CPC-GA requirements for education and experience in correctional
       treatment programs.
  2. Group facilitators do not consistently attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e.,
       bimonthly at minimum).
  3. Facilitators have minimal initial training related to the substance abuse curriculum, and the
       requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate.
  Offender Assessment
  1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out women who are not substance
      abusers; therefore, some women participate even if they are not addicted. Nationally, it is
      recommended that the percentage of inappropriate matches should not exceed 20%. The women
      who do not meet criteria can be channeled into other inmate programs to ensure that they are
      involved in constructive activities and to avoid idleness.
  2. There is no objective, validated or standardized risk assessment given to determine if the women
      are low, medium, or high risk for reoffending once released from the DOC. Without this type of
      assessment, it is difficult to determine if at least 70% of the women are assessed as medium to
      high risk.
  3. The women’s criminogenic needs and responsivity characteristics are not yet assessed using a
      validated, standardized, and objective assessment instrument that clearly documents which
      women require this program. Thus, some women may be required to participate in the program
      which does not meet their needs.
  4. WINGS does not target high risk (to reoffend) women; thus, low and medium risk women may be
      receiving services that they do not need.
  Treatment
  1. WINGS is not a treatment program but an education program which research has shown is not
      sufficient to lead to long-lasting behavior change.
  2. The substance abuse program is not one of the evidence-based models thus the existing program



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 190
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                               NAME OF PROGRAM
                            Women Investigating New Gates for Sobriety (WINGS)
      may not demonstrate behavioral change. Examples of evidence-based models are cognitive
      behavioral, structured social learning, radical behavioral.
  3. Groups can be interrupted due to crisis issues and/or pill count thus reducing the continuity of
      treatment.
  4. Homework is not routinely given by all facilitators so the gains achieved in class are not
      reinforced.
  5. Not all facilitators admit to following the prescribed program manuals consistently. Not all manuals
      contained goals, content of groups, recommended teaching methods, exercises, activities and
      homework assignments.
  6. Group size can be as large as 70-80 women with one facilitator, thus exceeding the optimum size
      for effective group treatment of 8-10 participants per facilitator.
  7. The application of rewards to punishers could be improved to meet the recommended 4 rewards
      for every 1 punisher.
  8. Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s
      prosocial behavior.
  9. The range of punishers is limited.
  10. Group facilitators do not always respond appropriately to noncompliance issues.
  11. Anti-social values and attitudes are not routinely recognized by facilitators or participants.
  12. Prosocial alternatives to anti-social behaviors are not uniformly taught by facilitators nor are
      women given adequate opportunities to role play prosocial behavior in increasingly difficult
      simulated situations.
  13. Facilitators did not consistently avoid argumentation and roll with resistance.
  14. The WINGS program does not directly target offenders’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs,
      or addresses antisocial thinking and high risk situations.
  15. Peers are not taught to be role models for prosocial behaviors for others.
  16. Women discharged from the program do not routinely have a written relapse prevention plan nor
      are the prosocial behaviors rehearsed to help them prepare for the triggers of relapse once
      discharged to the community.
  Quality Assurance
  1. WINGS groups are not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group delivery
      skills.
  2. There is no pre/posttest to measure the degree of knowledge gained.
  3. Group participants are not given a satisfaction survey upon group completion.
  4. The criteria for successful completion is limited to attendance rather than linked to knowledge
      gains and behavioral change.
  5. A formal discharge summary is not prepared for women who complete the WINGS program.
                                             RECOMMENDATION
   • Continue with Modifications: The Substance Abuse Program is recommended to be restructured
     as a Cognitive Behavioral Treatment model, which has been documented as an effective,
     evidenced based approach to substance abuse needs (see overall recommendations).




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 191
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                             NAME OF PROGRAM
                              Willing Individuals in Substance Education (WISE)
  Target Population              Minimum Security Male Inmate Workers with Substance Abuse issues

  Written Program Goals          Reduce substance use and abuse for inmate workers who are unable to
                                 attend classes during the day due to their work assignments.

  Program Description            W.I.S.E is a 16-class Substance Abuse Program offered to Minimum
                                 Security inmates. The W.I.S.E. program was created mainly for inmates
                                 who work as Inmate Workers and are unable to attend classes during
                                 the day. The W.I.S.E. class meets 3 times a week in the evening from
                                 1900 hours to 2100 hours. W.I.S.E. participants are self-referred.

  Classes Offered                6 hours Substance Abuse Education per week

  Duration of Program            16 weeks

                                 Program Score by Each CPC-GA Domain:
                  CPC-GA DOMAINS                      SCORE                   RATING
                  Program Staff and
                                                       70.0%                  Effective
                  Support
                  Offender Assessment                   0.0%                 Ineffective
                  Treatment                            34.3%                 Ineffective
                  Quality Assurance                     0.0%                 Ineffective
                  Overall Capacity                     40.0%                Ineffective
                  Overall Content                      31.7%                Ineffective
                  Overall Score                        33.9%                Ineffective

                                                 STRENGTHS
  Program Staff and Support
  1. There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the WISE program.
  2. The program coordinator plays and active role in selecting program staff.
  3. The program coordinator plays role in supervising program staff who deliver treatment.
  4. Treatment specialists were selected based upon skills and values consistent with offender
     rehabilitation.
  5. Group facilitators attend staff meetings to review client progress at least bimonthly.
  6. Ethical guidelines are in place for WISE facilitators.
  7. The institution/stakeholders provide support for the facilitation of the WISE programming.

  Treatment
  1. The focus of the WISE program is on criminogenic need area, substance abuse.
  2. WISE groups are offered only to men.
  3. Facilitators associated with the WISE program appear knowledgeable of the material being taught.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 192
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                              NAME OF PROGRAM
                               Willing Individuals in Substance Education (WISE)
  4.   Facilitators consistently encouraged group participation.
  5.   Group norms for WISE participants are established.
  6.   WISE groups are consistently conducted by the facilitator.
  7.   Responsivity issues such as language barriers or material comprehension are consistently
       addressed by group facilitators.
  8.   Group facilitators apply appropriate rewards within the context of group (e.g., verbal praise,
       acknowledgement).
  9.   WISE group facilitators appear to have established rapport and boundaries with the group
       participants.
                                    AREAS THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT
  Program Staff and Support
  1. Not all group facilitators meet CPC-GA requirements for education and experience in correctional
       treatment programs.
  2. Facilitators have minimal initial training related to the group curriculum, and the requirements for
       yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate.
  Offender Assessment
  1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out participants who are not substance
      abusers; therefore, some offenders participate even if they are not addicted. Nationally, it is
      recommended that the percentage of inappropriate matches should not exceed 20%. The
      offenders who do not meet criteria can be channeled into other inmate programs to ensure that
      they are involved in constructive activities and to avoid idleness.
  2. There is no objective, validated or standardized risk assessment given to determine if the
      offenders are low, medium, or high risk for reoffending once released from the DOC. Without this
      type of assessment, it is difficult to determine if at least 70% of offenders are assessed as medium
      to high risk.
  3. The offender’s criminogenic needs and responsivity characteristics are not yet assessed using a
      validated, standardized, and objective assessment instrument that clearly documents which
      offenders require this program. Thus, some offenders may be required to participate in the
      program which does not meet their needs.
  4. WISE does not target high risk offenders; thus, low and medium risk offenders may be receiving
      services that they do not need.
  Treatment
  1. WISE is not a treatment program but an education program which research has shown is not
      sufficient to lead to long-lasting behavior change.
  2. The substance abuse program is not one of the evidence-based models thus the existing program
      may not demonstrate behavioral change. Examples of evidence-based models are cognitive
      behavioral, structured social learning, radical behavioral.
  3. Groups can be interrupted due to crisis issues and/or pill count, thus reducing the continuity of
      treatment.
  4. Homework is not routinely given by all facilitators so the gains achieved in class are not
      reinforced. Homework should be consistently given and then reviewed by the facilitators.
  5. Not all facilitators admit to following the prescribed program manuals consistently. Not all manuals


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 193
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                              NAME OF PROGRAM
                              Willing Individuals in Substance Education (WISE)
      contained goals, content of groups, recommended teaching methods, exercises, activities and
      homework assignments.
  6. The length of the WISE program is not sufficient to affect behavioral change. Research has
      demonstrated that high risk inmates should receive a minimum of 300 hours of programming, and
      medium risk offenders should receive a minimum of 200 hours of programming to impart
      behavioral change.
  7. The group size for WISE Groups is larger than 8-10 participants with only one facilitator in the
      group. The optimum size for effective group treatment is 8-10 participants per facilitator.
  8. The application of rewards to punishers could be improved to meet the recommended 4 rewards
      for every 1 punisher.
  9. Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s
      prosocial behavior.
  10. The range of punishers is limited.
  11. Group facilitators do not always respond appropriately to noncompliance issues.
  12. Anti-social values and attitudes are not routinely recognized by facilitators or participants.
  13. Prosocial alternatives to anti-social behaviors are not uniformly taught by facilitators nor are
      participants given adequate opportunities to role play prosocial behavior in increasingly difficult
      simulated situations.
  14. Facilitators did not consistently avoid argumentation and roll with resistance.
  15. The WISE program does not directly target offenders’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs, or
      addresses antisocial thinking and high risk situations.
  16. Peers are not taught to be role models for prosocial behaviors for others.
  17. Offenders discharged from the program do not routinely have a written relapse prevention plan
      nor are the prosocial behaviors rehearsed to help them prepare for the triggers of relapse once
      discharged to the community.
  Quality Assurance
  1. WISE groups are not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group delivery skills.
  2. There is no pre/posttest to measure the degree of knowledge gained.
  3. Group participants are not given a satisfaction survey upon group completion.
  4. The criteria for successful completion is limited to attendance rather than linked to knowledge
      gains and behavioral change.
  5. Formal discharge summaries are not prepared for WISE completers.
                                             RECOMMENDATION
   • Continue with Modifications: The Substance Abuse Program is recommended to be restructured
     as a Cognitive Behavioral Treatment model. Offer other core programs to working inmates based
     on assessed risk and need (see overall recommendations).




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 194
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                           NAME OF PROGRAM
                                   DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CURRICULUM
  Target Population              Women with Histories of Abuse

  Written Program Goals          To create a safe environment whereby individuals can share their
                                 feelings and thoughts about being a victim of abuse and how to avoid it
                                 in the future by developing a safety plan.
  Program Description            A gender-specific program offered to women who have been physically,
                                 verbally and sexually abused that provides education on the
                                 characteristics of abusers, rationale why the woman stays in abusive
                                 relationships, create a safety plan to avoid abusive relationships and
                                 situations in the future. The curriculum is based on the Duluth, MN
                                 Power and Control model and was refined by Next Door Solutions.
  Classes Offered                Curricula includes education on domestic violence, characteristics of the
                                 batterer, setting boundaries, communication skills, characteristics of
                                 healthy relationships, creating a safety plan for the woman and their
                                 children. The class is offered in the Artemis and MYSTORI programs
                                 once a week.
  Duration of Program            8 weeks, once a week for 1.5 hours each session.


                                                 STRENGTHS
  Program Staff and Support
  1. The curriculum is supervised by a coordinator who is responsible for keeping the curriculum
     current with the needs of the women and DOC officials.
  2. The coordinator hires, trains, supervises and fires the group facilitators.
  3. The staff has either a Bachelors or Master’s Degree, experience working with women.
  4. Program staff receives 40 hours of state certified domestic violence training and they shadow
     groups conducted by experienced trainers before conducting a group on their own.
  5. Program staff is qualified to deliver the classes and adhere to ethical guidelines.
  6. The program has the support of the Office of Women’s Policy, Sheriff, judges in the Family Court
     and in Criminal Court.
  Treatment
  1. Groups consist of women only thus encouraging them to be open.
  2. The curriculum is based on a well-established educational model.
  3. All women who complete the program leave with a safety plan.
  4. Non-English speaking women are coached by other women to help them better understand the
     materials.
  5. Each group session has 2 trained facilitators and is not conducted by inmates.
  6. A report is presented to the court once the woman completes the 8-week program confirming that
     the woman has completed the program.
  7. The woman is presented a certificate of completion at 8 weeks.
  8. Peers role play how to handle abusive relationships and how to protect oneself against the


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 195
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                          NAME OF PROGRAM
                                     DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CURRICULUM
     batterer.
  9. Group rules are discussed at the beginning of each group session.


  Quality Assurance
  1. Groups are monitored by the supervisor every month and feedback is provided to the group
     facilitators.
  2. Women are given a self-satisfaction survey at the end of the program.
                                    AREAS THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT
  Program Staff and Support
  1. Staff meetings are held once a month with all facilitators rather than twice a month which is
      recommended.
  Offender Assessment
  1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out women who have not been abused.
      Women who are not abused are also admitted. Nationally, it is recommended that the percentage
      of inappropriate matches should not exceed 20%.
  2. The women’s criminogenic needs and responsivity characteristics are not yet assessed using a
      validated, standardized and objective assessment instrument that clearly documents which
      women require this program thus some women may be required to participate in the program that
      does not meet their needs.

  Treatment
  1. The Duluth Model is an educational model designed for the batterer rather than the victim.
  2. The program is not sufficient in length to learn, practice and rehearse new behavior skills.
  3. The curriculum is not designed to reduce recidivism.
  4. Group size can be as large as 60 women with two facilitators, thus exceeding the optimum size for
     effective group treatment of 8-10 participants to 1 facilitator or with a co-facilitator when the group
     exceeds 10 participants.
  5. The women’s antisocial values and attitudes are not routinely recognized by facilitators or
     participants.
  6. Prosocial alternatives to antisocial behaviors are not uniformly taught by facilitators nor are
     women given adequate opportunities to role play prosocial behavior in increasingly difficult
     simulated situations.
  Quality Assurance
  1. There is no pre/posttest to measure the degree of knowledge gained.
  2. The criteria for successful completion is limited to attendance rather than linked to knowledge
     gains and behavioral change.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 196
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

This table presents all of the inmate programs evaluated and the consultant’s recommendations.

                     SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
                             Individual Evaluation Recommendations

Program                               Continue as Is           Continue with               Discontinue and
                                                               Modifications                   Replace
1.   Artemis
2.   Breaking Barriers
3.   Day Reporting
4.   Get Right
5.   Healing Opportunities in a
     Program Environment
     (HOPE)
6. Heart and Soul
7. Literacy in Families Together
   (LIFT)
8. M8 Program
9. Mentoring You-Successful
   Transition of Recovering
   Individuals (MYSTORI)
10. Program About Change and
    Experience (PACE)
11. Parents and Children
    Together (PACT)
12. Regimented Corrections
    Program Phase I-Men (This
    program has been modified
    and the boot camp aspect
    has been removed)
13. Regimented Corrections
    Program Phase I-Women
    (This program has been
    modified and the boot camp
    aspect has been removed)
14. Regimented Corrections
    Program Phase II
15. Roadmap to Recovery
16. Three Principles
17. Trauma Recovery



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 197
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

Program                               Continue as Is           Continue with               Discontinue and
                                                               Modifications                   Replace
18. Veterans Educating to
    Succeed (VETS)
19. Women Investigating New
    Gates for Sobriety (WINGS)
20. Willing Individuals in
    Substance Education (WISE)
Overall Recommendation                       -0-                  15 (75%)                      5 (25%)




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 198
           Part II. Chapter 5
Summary Findings and Recommendations
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                               Part II. Chapter 5

5.1      Introduction

This chapter discusses the overarching findings from all of the individual evaluations combined. It will
summarize the general strengths and areas for improvement observed across all 21 programs, and it will
present the consultant team’s general recommendations for improvement.

Final results from the evidence-based program analysis are presented in Table 5.1, which provides
descriptive statistics by CPC-GA domain for all inmate programs/curricula.

                                               Table 5.1
                         Santa Clara County Department of Correction Program
                                 Descriptive Statistics by CPC Domain

      Content Area                      Mean                 Median             Minimum and Maximum
      Program Staff & Support           66.0                  60.0                    60 – 100
      Offender Assessment                0.0                   0.0                    0.0 – 0.0
      Treatment                         34.2                  31.4                   25.7 – 66.7
      Quality Assurance                 14.0                   0.0                    0.0 – 60.0
   Source: Correctional Programs Checklist.

The Program Staff and Support domain evaluates the experience and duties of the program coordinator,
experience and education of individuals who facilitate groups and organizational processes as they relate
to the staff. As noted in Table 5.1, the average score on this domain was 66 percent, with a range between
60 and 100 percent falling in the “Effective” rating. This shows that all programs scored well in this domain.

Santa Clara County programs excel in terms of staff and support. It is clear from the findings on the CPC
that the DOC and service provider staff is well-qualified, experienced, and dedicated to offender change.
This is extremely important for correctional programs, as these staff characteristics have been
demonstrated to be influential in reducing future recidivism (Lowenkamp and Latessa, 2002). This is also a
very important component to have in place when programs pursue changes. Santa Clara County should
use and rely on this strength to make adaptations to the existing programs.

The second domain of the CPC-GA is Offender Assessment. This domain of the CPC-GA evaluates
whether the Department of Correction has an available validated assessment instrument that assesses risk
to reoffend and criminogenic need factors, and matches the inmate with the program based on risk to
reoffend and criminogenic need. As Table 5.1 demonstrates, all programs scored a 0 in this domain. This
score is a result of the Department not utilizing an empirically validated, objective tool to assess a person’s
risk (to reoffend). Risk is defined as the probability of recidivating upon release and is scored inmates as
low, medium or high risk to reoffend after discharge. While the Department’s “Case Notes” addresses the
majority of the criminogenic factors, it does not produce the data needed to score inmates as low, medium
or high risk to reoffend, nor does it match inmates into treatment according to these risk levels and their
security level. The adoption of such a tool would provide an effective assessment of risk to reoffend, and it
will improve the matching of inmates to programs that relate to their needs.



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 200
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report


The third domain of the CPC-GA is Treatment. This domain assesses whether the program spends a
substantial amount of time targeting criminogenic areas, if evidence-based treatment modalities are used
(e.g. cognitive behavioral, classical conditioning, structured social learning, family-based skills
development, etc.), numerous measures that assess how the program delivers the program content and
whether the program has sufficient duration and dosage to change criminal behavior. As demonstrated in
Table 5.1, the average program score on this domain was roughly 34 percent, with a median score of 31
percent. While this suggests that most programs scored in the ineffective category, it is important to note
that the range of scores was 26 percent to 67 percent.

In the Treatment domain of the program evaluations, one program scored as “Highly Effective” (PACT), and
the remaining programs scored in the “Ineffective” range. The primary reason why this occurred is because
the program curricula focus on education. Education is one aspect of changing behavior but it falls short in
transforming offenders who exhibit anti-social values, attitudes and distorted thinking patterns, which are
characteristic of most medium and high risk offenders. Unless program staff address the individual’s
underlying anti-social values and attitudes, teach them prosocial values and skills, give inmates
opportunities to practice these skills, and alter distorted thinking patterns, the offender’s behavior will not be
changed (Landenberger and Lipsey, 2005; Lipsey, Chapman, and Landenberger, 2001).

The final domain of the CPC-GA is Quality Assurance. This domain measures the various mechanisms in
place for the program to monitor and evaluate itself to ensure program fidelity. The average score on
quality assessment was 14 percent, with a median score of 0. Just as with the treatment domain, it should
be noted that the range of scores was from 0 percent (Ineffective) to 60 percent (Effective). Examples of
quality assurance protocols include 1) an information system to track program success such as pre and
posttest. 2) obtaining assessment tools that lend itself to pre and posttest 3) document quarterly reviews by
supervisors 3) routine inmate satisfaction surveys (the Department is achieving this now) 4) specific criteria
that defines who is eligible for the program and who is to be excluded 5) discharge summary for all inmates
prior to release to assist them in successful reentry to the community.

In the Quality Assurance domain of the program evaluations, PACT scored as “Effective” and the remaining
programs scored in the “Ineffective” range. The PACT program contains more of the elements of the
cognitive behavioral model of treatment than any of the other programs. Only two programs (PACT and
Three Principles) evaluate their effectiveness using a pre and posttest measurement to demonstrate
behavior change.

5.2     General Recommendations

This section will discuss general recommendations based on the patterns in all programs. The consultant
team offers 12 general recommendations to reduce recidivism for the SCCDOC’s consideration:

1. Select objective risk, needs and responsivity assessment tools. (See pages 207-215) (See Holsinger,
   Lurigio, and Latessa, 2001.)

2. Treatment programs should follow the Principles of Effective Intervention (Risk, Need, Responsivity
   and Fidelity) and with the core correctional practices (e.g., effective approval, effective disapproval,
   relationship skills, modeling, skill building, and problem solving). Research shows that cognitive


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 201
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

    behavioral interventions combined with role play, practice and rehearsals consistently achieve larger
    reductions in recidivism compared to interventions solely based on education (Landenberger and
    Lipsey, 2005; Lipsey, Chapman, and Landenberger, 2001). The curricula that is selected should
    provide a manual that contains clearly articulated lesson plans, homework, and guidelines for
    facilitators on how to model and role play prosocial skills. Each facilitator should follow the manual and
    not deviate from it to ensure fidelity of the training.

3. Expand the number of Core Programs from one (substance abuse education) to include six major core
   program areas:

             1.   Substance Abuse Treatment with Cognitive Behavioral Elements
             2.   Cognitive Behavioral Skills Training
             3.   Conflict Resolution/Anger Management
             4.   Academic and Post-Graduate Education/Job Readiness Training
             5.   Reentry Preparation
             6.   Aftercare.

4. Ensure that individuals are matched with these core programs based on their assessed risk to reoffend
   upon release and criminogenic needs. Select curricula that are designed to address all criminogenic
   needs and match inmates to one or more of the Core Programs that addresses these criminogenic
   needs.

    Research shows that cognitive behavioral interventions combined with role play, practice and
    rehearsals consistently achieve larger reductions in recidivism compared to interventions solely based
    on education (Landenberger and Lipsey, 2005; Lipsey, Chapman, and Landenberger, 2001). The
    selection of core programming should select from curricula that have a manual that contains clearly
    articulated lesson plans, homework, cognitive restructuring, and structured skill building that provide
    guidelines for facilitators on how to model and role play prosocial skills. Each facilitator should follow
    the manual and not deviate from it to ensure fidelity of the training throughout the Department.

5. Low risk inmates risk inmates should be channeled into work, self-guided educational activities (e.g.
   Roadmap to Recovery) and to other behavior management activities that reduce idleness such as
   creative arts, recreation, library, etc.

6. SCCDOC should continue to work with the providers toward developing and delivering the Core
   Programs recommended in this EBP Evaluation Report (Part II), and to reduce the number of areas of
   improvement found in each of their individual evaluations.

7. Develop a policy and practice to ensure fidelity to treatment and quality assurance for all SCCDOC
   treatment programs such as tracking the progress of people participating in treatment based on pre
   and posttest examinations, monthly or quarterly observation of classes and formal feedback by
   supervisors to all instructors, and routine and formal feedback invited by staff and inmates on the value
   of the classes.

8. Develop an initial and ongoing in-service training program for treatment staff.



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 202
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

9. Three quarters (75 percent) of the programs is recommended to be continued with modifications and
   25 percent are recommended to be discontinued and replaced with more effective programming (see
   pages 197-198). Even when the program produced some reductions in recidivism, the analysis found
   many areas that could be improved so that greater reductions in recidivism could be realized.

10. An upgrade to CJIC is recommended to support the Department in collecting the information needed to
    develop a valid, objective risk and needs assessment instrument and to track program admissions and
    program terminations by reason.

11. Based on the science of implementation, the consultants recommend the formation of an EBP
    Implementation Team (EBP IT) consisting of DOC program, security and administrative staff and its
    treatment providers to meet monthly to lead change. Seven Implementation Workgroups are
    recommended to address the following areas:

        A.   Risk, Needs and Responsivity Assessment Tools and referral and assessment protocols
        B.   Core Programs
        C.   Case Management
        D.   Quality Assurance/Data Collection
        E.   Training and Staff Development
        F.   Reentry
        G.   Aftercare

12. To effectively implement these innovations, it is recommended that the Department follow the stages of
    implementation as defined in the research on successful implementation (National Implementation
    Research Network):

        1. Exploration: Review research and recommendations in this report and other research to
           support these seven workgroups.
        2. Installation: Select assessment tools, curricula, treatment providers, develop protocols to
           implement these seven areas; create a monitoring system to ensure that these innovations are
           regularly examined for fidelity.
        3. Initial Implementation: Select a sample population or housing unit to pilot, train staff in the use
           of the assessment tool, the curricula and protocol, pilot the use of the tool, curricula and
           protocol, evaluate its use in the pilot phase to establish fidelity and make modifications before
           going to next stage.
        4. Full Implementation: When 50 percent of the staff is proficient at implementing the
           assessment tool, curricula and protocol according to fidelity measures, ramp up to other
           populations and housing units, continue to evaluate.
        5. Innovation: Refine/fine tune the tools, curricula and protocols and bring in coaches to help
           examine the degree to which the new innovations are being implemented according to fidelity.
        6. Sustainability: Establish stable and adequate funding; maintain stakeholder support.

The discussions below elaborate on these recommendations.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 203
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

5.2.1   Program Staff and Support

SCCDOC and its community-based organizations are capable and experienced to deliver a higher level of
evidence-based treatment programs. This is a strength that should be utilized when undergoing
programmatic changes. To ensure that the SCCDOC fully implements evidence-based practices, it is
recommended that all newly hired group facilitators hold a degree in a helping profession (e.g., psychology,
counseling, social work, criminal justice, etc.) and have at least two years’ experience in correctional
programming. It is also preferred that staff has knowledge and work experience in core correctional
practices and evidence-based treatment.

Training of staff is an area that SCCDOC can improve upon. It is recommended that SCCDOC develop
training protocols for all staff involved in treatment. While most of the facilitators evaluated are trained on
the curriculum, some are not. All group facilitators should be formally trained on the curriculum(s) they are
delivering. This is similar to recommendations in the education field which says that teachers should be
credentialed in the area in which they teach.

In addition to curriculum-specific training, SCCDOC should institute a policy and practice that teaches new
facilitators evidence-based treatment practices (i.e., cognitive behavioral techniques, skills training) and
core correctional practices (e.g., effective approval, effective disapproval, relationship skills, modeling, skill
building, problem solving, etc.). Finally, SCCDOC should require a minimum of 40 hours of annual in-
service training (delivered both in-house and through professional conferences) related to program delivery.
This specific training should be in addition to other DOC mandated training (e.g., security training, restraint
training, weapons training, fire and safety training, new policies and procedures, etc.).

5.2.2   Offender Assessment

It is strongly recommended that one of the first steps taken by SCCDOC is to select an empirically-
validated, objective assessment tool. A list of potential tools is provided at the end of this discussion. This
is a necessary step in implementing evidence-based practices (Holsinger, Lurigio, and Latessa, 2001). The
adoption of a risk/needs tool will allow SCCDOC to address the risk principle and the needs principle (see
discussion below).

This assessment process has three recommended steps for implementation:

        1. Initial Screening: Each newly admitted inmate should be screened by trained intake staff to
           eliminate those individuals who are low risk to reoffend and therefore do not require intensive
           services from the Department or its providers. Constructive activities for the low risk individual
           will still need to be available to reduce idleness and promote safety within the facility.
           However, intensive programming should not be wasted on the low risk inmate because it is
           unnecessary, harmful, and costly (Lowenkamp and Latessa, 2004).

             Screening will take between 5 and 15 minutes to complete. We recommend that SCCDOC
             incorporate the tool into its intake process to make sure this takes place as soon as possible
             after admission. Some risk assessment tools come with a screener version of their tool (e.g.,
             LS/CMI, ORAS). The screener weeds out the low risk individuals from the medium and high
             risk individuals. Thus, it is not necessary to give a full assessment to these low risk inmates.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 204
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report


        2. Risk/Needs Assessment: After the inmate is placed in their housing unit, the Programs Unit
           staff should conduct an in-depth risk and needs assessment of the medium and high risk
           inmates. Trained Rehabilitation Officers should be charged with the responsibility of conducting
           this assessment. This assessment determines those inmates who are medium and high risk to
           reoffend and assesses their criminogenic needs. The information should be used by the ROs
           to develop their Treatment Plan.

             Landenberger and Lipsey (2005) found that offenders assessed as high risk are highly likely to
             reoffend and thus require more hours of structured treatment (between 200-300 hours) that
             targets known criminogenic needs; inmates assessed as medium risk need at least 100 hours
             of treatment to effect change; and those assessed as low risk should receive little to no
             structured treatment. In summary, the adoption of a risk and needs assessment is vital to move
             the SCCDOC toward fully implementing evidence-based practices.

             Following the risk principle, the referral process should flag those individuals scoring medium
             and high risk for treatment, and those scoring low risk for little to no treatment. Following the
             needs principle, the results of the risk/needs tool should inform what core programming the
             inmate should receive. (See Core Programs recommended below). For example, if inmate A
             scores as high risk, and scores high in the substance abuse domain, criminal thinking domain,
             and education/employment domain, inmate A should receive a referral to a cognitive
             behavioral group that addresses criminal thinking and replaces it with prosocial thinking, an
             evidence-based substance abuse program, and an employment skills and/or education
             program. If Inmate B scores medium risk and the only domain that he scores high risk in is
             criminal thinking, the only group Inmate B should be referred to would be a cognitive
             behavioral group that addresses criminal thinking so that he replaces his distorted thinking
             patterns with prosocial thinking. In short, the administration and scoring of the Risk/Needs tool
             should automatically trigger a referral to treatment for the offender if the offender scores
             medium and high risk to reoffend and if they present criminogenic needs. This will ensure that
             treatment decisions are objective and based on best practices (see Andrews and Bonta, 2010;
             Holsinger, Lurigio, and Latessa, 2001). The decision of what criteria are needed to trigger a
             referral should be made in conjunction with SCCDOC’s decision to match inmates with
             targeted programs. The practice of matching into programs is based on their assessed
             criminogenic needs; however, inmates are still maintained in their security level.

             The Risk/Need tool will also evaluate all of the major criminogenic need areas. The top
             criminogenic needs are: antisocial attitudes, values, and beliefs, antisocial associates,
             antisocial personality (e.g., risk taking, impulsivity, lack of empathy, etc.), leisure times,
             negative family environments/relationships, education/employment, and substance abuse. A
             specific criminogenic need instrument will provide the group facilitator and the Rehabilitation
             Officer (RO) more specific details about an individual’s criminogenic needs. The criminal
             thinking needs assessment (e.g., How I Think Questionnaire, Criminal Sentiments Scale) can
             reveal the extent to which inmates subscribe to criminal thinking patterns. For example, it will
             show if Inmate A believes that most laws are acceptable, but breaking the law is okay when he
             sees it as necessary for his survival. The tool will also identify if Inmate B believes that no laws
             are acceptable, and everyone breaks the law, he just got caught. In both of these examples,


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 205
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

             this assessment reveals that they need to be matched with a cognitive skills group that focuses
             on reducing their criminal thinking patterns.

             This information would provide the treatment provider valuable information to address in their
             cognitive skills group. To maintain safety, the provider would need to provide CBT in all
             housing units rather than in one location.

             These instruments can also be used to determine how well programming is addressing certain
             needs. In this manner, these tools can be incorporated as a pre/posttest for certain programs.
             For example, SCCDOC could determine how well an inmate is doing in replacing criminal
             thinking with prosocial thinking by comparing the results of the criminal thinking needs
             assessment that was administered at the beginning of treatment to the scores on the same
             instrument administered at the end of treatment. As one of the main benefits of criminogenic
             needs assessments are to help inform treatment duration and dosage (Andrews and Bonta,
             2010), we recommend that the SCCDOC refer participants to one or more of the Core
             Programs, but that the treatment providers administer the criminogenic needs/responsivity
             assessment once the individual has been referred to their group. (See list of risk, need and
             responsivity assessment tools on following pages).

        3. Referral to Treatment Provider: After the risk/needs assessment is conducted and specific
           need areas are identified, the SCCDOC staff should make a referral to one or more treatment
           providers delivering a specific Core Program. The provider should conduct a responsivity
           assessment prior to delivering the group so that the provider can tailor the group’s goals to
           address the specific needs of the participants. Responsivity factors are issues or
           characteristics that are not related to future crime, but can be a barrier to an individual’s
           receptivity for change. Examples include inability to speak English, low intelligence, lack of
           education, no sensitivity to gender, to name a few. To make sure that programming leads to
           behavioral change; pertinent responsivity characteristics should be assessed. (A list of
           responsivity tools are identified below under criminal thinking, substance abuse and mental
           health). We recommend that SCCDOC and its providers administer responsivity assessments
           prior to or at referral to treatment. This may be contingent upon the programming offered by
           SCCDOC, as well as the type of assessment. For example, some cognitive behavioral
           programs require that participants meet minimum cognitive capacity (e.g., read at least a fifth
           grade level). If SCCDOC implements such a program, then a responsivity tool that measures
           cognition should be administered prior to admittance to the cognitive group. However, other
           responsivity tools (e.g., tools that assess motivation to change) could be administered by the
           treatment provider after a referral has been made and the inmate is placed in the group.

    Finally, it is important to note that training is essential for the administration of all assessment
    instruments. Many of the risk/need instruments have specific training requirements (and recertification
    requirements), so SCCDOC should take this into account when selecting an instrument. Moreover, the
    DOC should train “master trainers” such as the Programs Unit Manager and a backup on the
    instruments to develop the capacity in-house. Regardless, SCCDOC should make sure that all involved
    in the assessment process are trained specifically on the tool. We also recommend that SCCDOC
    train any staff involved in treatment on the interpretation of the tool, so that they fully understand the
    results of the tool (i.e., what it means to be high risk, and what each of the domain scores refers to).


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 206
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

Here are examples of Risk/Needs Assessments, Criminogenic Needs and Responsivity Assessments for
SCCDOC to consider:

Assessment Tools to Consider

A. General Risk and Needs (Note: in alphabetical order, not in order of recommendation)

Note: The following assessment tools screen and assess for general criminality (risk to reoffend)
and criminogenic needs. It is recommended that Screening be conducted by the intake staff and
the Assessment be conducted by the DOC Rehabilitation Officers and after transfer to the housing
unit but before placement in a treatment group. Some of the assessment instruments have both a
screening capacity and an assessment capacity in one package. Most assessment companies will
work with the agency on developing the shorter, screening version.

Correctional Assessment and Intervention System TM (CAIS).
The National Council on Crime and Delinquency
http://www.nccd-crc.org/nccd/initiatives/cais-jais.html
(608) 831-8882
caisinfo@mw.nccd-crc.org

COMPAS
Northpointe Institute for Public Management
http://www.northpointeinc.com/home.aspx
Contact Page: http://www.northpointeinc.com/contact.aspx

Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GAIN)
Chestnut Health Systems
http://www.chestnut.org/li/gain/
$100.00 per project Available through Chestnut
GAINInfo@chestnut.org

Level of Service Inventory-Revised
Multi-Health Systems Inc.
https://ecom.mhs.com/(S(gomqio55frmsku45i3fxx5vi))/product.aspx?gr=saf&prod=lsi-rs&id=overview
LSI-R: SV Complete Kit (Manual, 25 Interview Guides, and 25 QuikScore Forms) $143.00

Level of Service Inventory-Case Management
Multi-Health Systems Inc.
https://ecom.mhs.com/(S(lse04wnpiy223fyzxdephx55))/product.aspx?gr=saf&prod=ls-cmi&id=overview
LS/CMI Complete Kit
(User's Manual, Scoring Guide, 25 Interview Guides, 25 Offender History Forms, 25 QuikScore Forms, 25
ColorPlot Profile Forms, and 25 Case Management Protocols) $308.00




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 207
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

Offender Screening Tool (OST)
Kenneth Wanberg, Ph.D.
Center for Addiction Research
and Evaluation, Inc.
5460 Ward Road, Suite 140
Arvada, CO 80002
(303) 421-1261

Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS) Prison Intake Screening and Reentry Tools (No cost)
University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute
http://www.uc.edu/corrections/training.html

“The ORAS is a dynamic risk/needs assessment system to be used with adult offenders. It offers criminal
justice stakeholders the ability to assess individuals at various decision points throughout the criminal
justice system. In order to use the ORAS, agencies must be trained. There is no cost to use the
ORAS after training takes place. The training provides an overview of the assessment tools and
techniques for administering and scoring the individual assessments and how to use the assessment
information to develop case plans for reducing offender risk. This involves two days of training. A “train-the-
trainers” is also available to equip agencies to conduct their own staff trainings. ORAS Validation Report”

Intake Screening Tool (4 questions)

    1.   Employed at time of arrest
    2.   Longest time of employment past 2 years
    3.   Living situation prior to incarceration
    4.   Stability of residence prior to incarceration

Full Assessment Instrument

    1.   Criminal History
    2.   Education, Employment and Finances
    3.   Family and Social Support
    4.   Substance Use and Mental Health
    5.   Criminal Attitudes and Behaviors

Reentry Domains

    1. Criminal History
    2. Education, Employment, Finances
    3. Criminal Attitudes and Behaviors




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 208
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

B. Criminal Values, Attitudes and Thinking Errors Assessment Instruments

Note: The following assessments measure responsivity to treatment, prepare persons for being
motivated for change and assess special needs identified on the general Risk and Needs
Assessment tool. This Responsivity Assessment tool is recommended to be conducted by the
providers prior to beginning their treatment group.

Criminal Attribution Inventory (CRAI)
Kroner Daryl (ONT) [KronerDG@csc-scc.gc.ca]
www.dakroner@kos.net

Criminal Sentiments Scale
Algonquin Correctional Evaluation Services
http://www.acesink.com
dave@acesink.com

How I Think Questionnaire
Research Press Publishers
http://www.researchpress.com/product/item/5136/
Cost for questionnaires and manual ($25.95)
TCU Criminal Thinking Scales (CTS) (No Cost)
Texas Institute for Behavioral Research
www.ibr.tcu.edu
Contact Dr. Kevin Knight at k.knight@tcu.edu with any questions.
Other free tools are found on: http://www.ibr.tcu.edu/pubs/datacoll/cjtrt.html
The following table provides greater detail of assessment instruments for criminal thinking errors.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 209
                                                                          Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                              Final Report

                                       Detailed Information on Assessment Tools for
                                                  Criminal Thinking Errors

Instrument                Criminal Attribution                   Criminal Sentiments                 How I Think
                          Inventory                              Scale-Modified                      Questionnaire
                          (CRAI)                                 (CSS-M)                             (HITQ)
Population                adult males, male sex                  adult male/female offenders         adult male/female offenders
                          offenders, violent male
                          offenders, male substance
                          abusers
                          (can be validated on females
                          with Dr. Kroner’s assistance)
Area of Assessment        offender’s perception of the           anti-social attitudes, values,      social skill level
                          causation of crime                     beliefs
Outcome Measure           Extent of blaming others for           anti-social attitudes, values,      Degree of self-serving
                          one’s condition                        beliefs                             cognitive distortion
Time to Administer        20 minutes                             Unknown                             10-15 minutes
Qualifications/Administra self-administered                      can be self-administered            No special qualifications
tor                       Training required                      no special qualifications
# of items on assessment 60                                      41                                  54
Reading Level Required    5th grade                              Unknown                             4th grade
Categories of Questions Blames oneself                           3 subscales                         self-centeredness
                          Blames mental illness                                                      blaming others
                          Blames substance use                                                       mislabeling
                          Blames the victim or society                                               assuming the worst

Scoring Method                Computer or paper/pencil           paper/pencil                        paper/pencil
Validated Score               Yes                                Yes                                 unknown
Interpreting Results          Predict major offenses             predictor of recidivism             program placement for
                              Measures treatment gains           program placement                   correction of thinking
                              resulting from cognitive                                               errors
                              restructuring
How to Use                    Screening                          Screening                           Screening
                              Pre/post treatment outcomes        pre/post treatment outcomes         pre/post treatment outcomes
                              Assessment                         assessment
Cost                          Kroner Daryl (ONT)                 http://www.acesink.com              http://www.researchpress.com
                              [KronerDG@csc-scc.gc.ca]                                               /product/item/5136/
                              www.dakroner@kos.net               dave@acesink.com                    cost for questionnaires and
                              No charge                                                              manual ($25.95)




         Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 210
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

C. Substance Abuse Screening and Assessment Instruments

Addiction Severity Index
A. Thomas McLellan, Ph.D.
Building 7, PVAMC
University Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Phone: 215-399-0980
Fax: 215-399-0987
E-Mail: tmclellan@tresearch.org

Adult Substance Use Survey (ASUS)
Kenneth Wanberg, Ph.D.
Center for Addiction Research
and Evaluation, Inc.
5460 Ward Road, Suite 140
Arvada, CO 80002
(303) 421-1261

Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GAINS)
Chestnut Health Systems: http://www.chestnut.org/li/gain/
Contact Chestnut at GAINInfo@chestnut.org
$100.00 per project available through Chestnut.

Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI) 6
The SASSI Institute
201 Camelot Lane
Springville, IN 47462
(800) 726-0526
http://www.sassi.com

TCU Drug Screening II (No cost)
Institute of Behavioral Research, Texas Christian University
http://www.ibr.tcu.edu/projects/crimjust/tcuds.html#downloadTCUDS
Assessment Tools: The Texas Christian University Drug Screening instrument is available through the
Institute of Behavioral Research at Texas Christian University, Contact Dr. Kevin Knight at
k.knight@tcu.edu with any questions.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 211
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

D. Mental Health Assessments

Beck’s Depression Inventory
The Beck Depression Inventory is available through the Pearson Assessments.
http://www.pearsonassessments.com/HAIWEB/Cultures/en-us/Productdetail.htm?Pid=015-8018-370
A complete kit, which includes a manual and 25 Record Forms costs $115.00.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PSDS)
Western Psychological Services
http://portal.wpspublish.com/portal/page?_pageid=53,70508&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
Screening Kit for TLEQ and PSDS $115.00
(Manual, booklets and 25 sets of forms)
Sets of 25 PSDS forms are $42.00

State Trait Anger Expression Inventory
Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

http://www4.parinc.com/Products/Product.aspx?ProductID=STAXI-2
STAXI-2 Introductory Kit: includes STAXI-2 Professional Manual, 25 Reusable Item Booklets, 50 Rating
Sheets, and 50 Profile Forms. $262.00

Traumatic Life Events Questionnaire (TLEQ)
Western Psychological Services
http://portal.wpspublish.com/portal/page?_pageid=53,70508&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
Screening Kit for TLEQ and PSDS $115.00
(Manual, booklets and 25 sets of forms)
Sets of 25 TLEQ forms are $32.00.

The following table provides greater detail of the types of assessment instruments recommended to
diagnose psychiatric and trauma problems.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 212
                                                                    Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

                                    Detailed Information on Assessment Tools
                                      for Trauma and Post Traumatic Stress

                      Traumatic Assessment Inventories
                      (TAI)
                      Traumatic Life Post-Traumatic    Personality                               Global Appraisal
                      Events         Stress Disorder   Assessment                                of Individual Needs
Instrument            Questionnaire  Screening and     Inventories (PAI)                         (GAIN)
                      (TLEQ)         Diagnostic Scale
                                     (PSDS)
                                                                                                 adolescent and adult
                                                                                                 males/females
                                                                                                 wide variety of
                      males/females         males/females age 17        adult males and
Population                                                                                       settings including
                      age 17 to 65          to 65                       females
                                                                                                 correctional and
                                                                                                 treatment
                                                                                                 environments
Area of               trauma history        post traumatic stress                                biopsychosocial
                                                                        Mental health
Assessment            (TLEQ)                disorder (PSDS)                                      assessment
                                            diagnosis of post-
                                                                        Presence of mental       biopsychosocial
Outcome Measure trauma history              traumatic stress
                                                                        health disorders         diagnostic measures
                                            disorder
                                                                                                 120 minutes for initial
                                                                                                 full version
Time to               10-15 minutes         1\0-15 minutes                                       60 minutes for 90 day
                                                                        50-60 Minutes
Administer            (TLEQ)                (PSDS)                                               follow up
                                                                                                 20-30 minutes for
                                                                                                 quick assessment
                                                                                                 some versions can be
                                                                                                 self-administered
Qualifications of     licensed                                          licensed
                                            licensed professional                                no special
Administrator         professional                                      Professional
                                                                                                 qualifications; training
                                                                                                 available
                                                                                                 100 scales and
                                                                                                 subscales
# of items on         21 types of
                                            38 items                    344                      short versions and
assessment            events
                                                                                                 follow-up versions
                                                                                                 available
Reading Level         9th grade reading
                                            8th grade reading level     4th grade                8th grade
Required              level
                                                                                                 Spanish language
Languages other
                      Unknown               Unknown                     Unknown                  version in
than English
                                                                                                 development
Categories of         range of              17 key features and 6       22 discrete full         full range of
Questions             potentially           DSM-IV criteria of          scales                   biopsychosocial


   Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 213
                                                                     Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

                      Traumatic Assessment Inventories
                      (TAI)
                      Traumatic Life   Post-Traumatic   Personality                              Global Appraisal
                      Events           Stress Disorder  Assessment                               of Individual Needs
Instrument            Questionnaire    Screening and    Inventories (PAI)                        (GAIN)
                      (TLEQ)           Diagnostic Scale
                                       (PSDS)
                      traumatic events PSTD diagnosis                                            indices
                      from natural
                      disasters to
                      sexual abuse
                      descriptions are
                      in behavioral
                      terms
                                                                                                 paper/pencil
                      paper/pencil          paper/pencil                                         computer-assisted
Scoring Method        computer              computer                    paper/pencil             version available
                      optical scanning      optical scanning                                     computer generated
                                                                                                 reports available
                                                                                                 yes per publisher
Validated Score       yes                   Yes                         Yes
                                                                        high correlation with
                                                                        PCL-SV; best as
                                                                        dimensional
                                                                        measure of               diagnostics
                                                                        psychopathy.             program placement
                      results                                           PAI not necessarily      and planning
                      demonstrate                                       generalizable to         monitoring change in
Interpreting                                corresponds to DSM-
                      presence                                          females; one study       clinical status
Results                                     IV diagnostic criteria
                      of exposure to                                    also showed few          meets criteria for
                      trauma                                            misidentifications of    DSM-IV, ASAM
                                                                        psychopathy but          JHACO, DOMS and
                                                                        significant % of         NHDSA
                                                                        psychopathic
                                                                        offenders not
                                                                        classified correctly.
                                                                                                 Assessment
                                            screening
How to Use            Screening                                         Assessment               pre/post treatment
                                            assessment
                                                                                                 outcomes




   Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 214
                                                                    Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                       Final Report

                      Traumatic Assessment Inventories
                      (TAI)
                      Traumatic Life     Post-Traumatic                 Personality              Global Appraisal
                      Events             Stress Disorder                Assessment               of Individual Needs
Instrument            Questionnaire      Screening and                  Inventories (PAI)        (GAIN)
                      (TLEQ)             Diagnostic Scale
                                         (PSDS)
                      http://portal.wpsp
                      ublish.com/portal/
                                         http://portal.wpspublish
                      page?_pageid=53                                   http://portal.wpspubli
                                         .com/portal/page?_pag
                      ,70508&_dad=por                                   sh.com/portal/page?
                                         eid=53,70508&_dad=p                                     http://www.chestnut.o
                      tal&_schema=PO                                    _pageid=53,69230&
                                         ortal&_schema=PORT                                      rg/li/gain/
                      RTAL                                              _dad=portal&_sche
                                         AL
                                                                        ma=PORTAL
                                                                                                 $100.00 per project
                      Screening Kit for
Cost                                        Screening Kit for                                    Available through
                      TLEQ and PSDS                                     Exam Kit $349.00
                                            TLEQ and PSDS                                        Chestnut
                      $115.00                                           (manual, booklets
                                            $115.00
                      (manual, booklets                                 and 25 sets of forms)
                                            (manual, booklets and                             GAINInfo@chestnut.o
                      and 25 sets of                                    Sets of 25 forms
                                            25 sets of forms)                                 rg
                      forms)                                            range from $42.00-
                                            Sets of 25 PSDS
                      Sets of 25 TLEQ                                   59.50 per set.
                                            forms are $42.00
                      forms are $32.00


   5.2.3     Treatment

   It is recommended that the SCCDOC and its providers adopt the Principles of Effective Intervention
   framework for all inmate programming. We recommend that programs focus on criminogenic needs, be
   delivered to individuals who have been assessed as being medium to high risk to reoffend and have an
   assessed criminogenic need. In this sense, only individuals who have been assessed by a validated risk
   and needs tool to have a substance abuse problem should receive substance abuse treatment. This
   approach will conserve SCCDOC’s scarce resources, since only medium and high risk inmates will be
   matched with intensive treatment programs.

   We recommend that SCCDOC expand its core programs from substance abuse education to a total of six
   program areas (see following pages).




   Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 215
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                             RECOMMENDED CORE PROGRAMS FOR
                       SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

The evidence-based literature documents the following eight risk/need factors as highly correlated with
future recidivism. These factors are dynamic and can be changed with effective interventions.

    1.   Antisocial/procriminal attitudes, values, beliefs and cognitive-emotional states
    2.   Procriminal associates and isolation from prosocial others
    3.   Temperamental and antisocial personality patterns conducive to criminal activity
    4.   A history of antisocial behavior
    5.   Family factors that include criminality and a variety of psychological problems in the family of origin
    6.   Low levels of personal, educational, vocational or financial achievement
    7.   Low levels of involvement in prosocial leisure activities
    8.   Abuse of alcohol and/or drugs

Extensive research has documented that cognitive behavioral interventions and social skills training are the
two most effective interventions with offenders. At the February 2011 Community Forum, Dr. Edward
Latessa explained why cognitive interventions and social skills training lead to reduced recidivism among
offenders:

    1.   Based on scientific evidence (cognitive & behavioral theories)
    2.   Based on active learning (not talk therapy)
    3.   Focus on the present (how offenders currently think and behave)
    4.   Based on learning (most crime is learned)
    5.   Target major criminogenic needs (e.g. attitudes, values, beliefs)
    6.   Provide structure to groups and programs (manualized treatment)
    7.   Provide opportunities for offenders to practice and rehearse the skills learned and role play real life
         situations to prepare them for discharge from custody to the community

Based on these characteristics, it is in the Department’s best interest to develop Core Programs that have
the highest chance of reducing recidivism among inmates. The consultant team recommends the following
Core Programs: (Note: these are not in rank order but provide the Department a menu of core programs
that inmates should be matched with based on their assessed risk to reoffend and criminogenic needs).
Medium and high risk inmates may be assigned to one or more of these Core Programs based on their risk
to reoffend and criminogenic needs.

Core Program 1: Substance Abuse Treatment Program with Cognitive Behavioral Elements

Examples of evidence-based curricula that the consultants recommend are:

             a. Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment for Substance Misuse, Corrections Institute, School of
                Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati. Combines motivational enhancement, cognitive-
                behavioral, social learning skills training and relapse prevention treatment modalities.
                Based on the extensive research on applying the Principles of Effective Intervention. The
                program consists of six modules delivered in 40 sessions covering motivation to change,
                prosocial attitudes, values and thinking patterns; emotional regulation skills; managing high


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 216
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                risk situations and resisting peer pressure; problem solving skills training; relapse
                prevention plan and preparation skills to resist relapse. (Note: There is no cost to obtain
                the curriculum. Training of staff and master trainers has a cost based on number in group
                and number of training sessions).
             b. Group Treatment for Substance Abuse: A Stages-of-Change Therapy Manual, Mary
                Velasquez, Gaylyn Maurer, Cathy Crouch, Carlo DiClemente. Combines cognitive
                behavioral skills in the Stages of Change model that is widely recognized in the addiction
                treatment field. The program is based on the research-driven transtheoretical model of
                behavior change. The structured skills-building activities guide individuals through the
                stages of recovery (precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action and
                maintenance). The manual provides step-by-step training and exercises completed in 29
                sessions or two 14-15 session cycles.
             c. Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment: Strategies for Self-Improvement and
                Change, Kenneth Wanburg and Harvey Milkman. The book is based on two years of
                research by the authors. It presents cognitive behavioral therapy, Stages of Change
                treatment model and relapse prevention skills training. The manual provides structured 12
                modules completed in 50 sessions.

                 Note: The substance abuse treatment program is recommended to be delivered by a
                 CDAC-certified substance abuse treatment provider who has a degree in the helping field.

Core Program 2: Cognitive Behavioral Skills Training

Examples of evidence-based curricula that the consultants recommend are:
           a. Thinking for a Change, Integrated Cognitive Behavior Change Program, Version 3.0, Barry
               Glick, Ph.D., Jack Bush, Ph.D., and Juliana Taymans, Ph.D., in cooperation with the
               National Institute of Corrections. Version 3.0 is a new edition of the original Thinking for a
               Change (T4C). The program is an integrated, cognitive behavior change program for
               offenders that include cognitive restructuring, social skills development, and development
               of problem solving skills. Research conducted by the University of Cincinnati and others
               have shown that, when implemented with integrity, it can reduce recidivism among
               offenders (Lowenkamp, Hubbard, Makarios, and Latessa, 2009). T4C is designed for
               delivery to small groups in 25 lessons. NIC makes available the T4C offender program
               materials plus a curriculum for training program facilitators.

             b. Truthought: Corrective Thinking, Rogie Spon. The curriculum teaches offenders how to
                identify barriers in thinking and to substitute them with the appropriate behaviors. The
                curriculum consists of 110 hours of exercises that instruct offenders on the nine barriers in
                thinking and nine correctives (prosocial behaviors). Participants participate in exercises
                designed to alter their pattern of blaming others for their problems to taking greater
                accountability for their behavior. The University of Cincinnati conducted an evaluation on
                these curricula and found it to be valuable as a cognitive restructuring curriculum but that it
                needed to be supplemented with skills training (positive reinforcement, role play, rehearsal,
                and practice). Latessa’s evaluation concluded that since the curriculum focused more on
                cognitive restructuring rather than skill building, it may not be as effective.



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 217
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

             c. Reasoning & Rehabilitation and R&R2 Short Version for Adults, Richard Ross, Elizabeth
                Fabiano. The Reasoning & Rehabilitation (R&R) program is a multi-faceted, 35 session, 70
                hour, cognitive-behavioral program for teaching cognitive skills, social skills and values to
                high-risk adults that is required for prosocial competence. R&R is based on more than forty
                years of research studies that demonstrated that antisocial behavior is associated with
                inadequacy in specific social cognitive skills and values, and that teaching such skills is
                critical to the success of programs designed to promote prosocial behavior. The program
                requires 12 weeks (3 sessions a week) to complete. R&R2: Short Version for Adults is
                designed for medium-risk adults in a brief 15 session (24 to 30 hour) program. Both R&R
                and R&R2 Short Version teach prosocial skills and values including:
                      • emotional regulation and control
                      • conflict management
                      • problem-solving
                      • critical reasoning
                      • alternative thinking
                      • negotiation
                      • prosocial values
                      • social perspective-taking
                      • desistence

                 Medium-risk participants could benefit from their involvement in the short program and will
                 not require the additional training that is provided in the more extended Reasoning
                 & Rehabilitation Program for high risk individuals.

             d. MOVING ON, Orbis Partners. This structured gender-specific program teaches women
                prosocial alternatives to criminal activity by helping them to identify and mobilize both
                personal and community resources. The program is trauma-informed and based on
                gender-specific models such as Relational Theory, Motivational Interviewing, and
                Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention. It is delivered over 9 – to –13 weeks in small groups or
                on an individual basis by trained correctional practitioners. MOVING ON consists of seven
                distinct modules. Module 1 and 7 are provided on a 1:1 basis while Modules 2-6 are
                delivered in a group format. Each of the group modules consist of 5 sessions with
                approximately 2 hours of program content. There are a total of 25 group sessions which
                can be delivered in 5 weeks for women who are incarcerated or spread out over a 13 to 25
                week period for women in the community.

Core Program 3: Conflict Resolution/Anger Management

Examples of effective curricula are:

             a. Aggression Replacement Training, Arnold P. Goldstein and Barry Glick. ART®. Aggression
                Replacement Training®. Recommended by the California Institute for Mental Health and
                CIMH offers training on ART through its agreement with Educational & Treatment
                Alternatives, Inc., a recognized provider of Aggression Replacement Training®. ART is a
                multi-component cognitive-behavioral treatment that promotes prosocial behavior by
                addressing factors that contribute to aggression including limited interpersonal social and


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 218
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                 coping skills, impulsiveness, over-reliance on aggression to meet daily needs, and
                 egocentric and concrete values. Aggression Replacement Training® consists of three
                 components each of which is conducted with a group of 6-8 participants including
                 Skillstreaming, Anger Control Training, and Moral Reasoning Training:
                      • Skillstreaming teaches prosocial skills and consists of a series of social learning
                          instructional procedures that are used to teach a set of 50 skills. The instructional
                          procedures include: a. Modeling of prosocial skills. b. Role-playing—guided
                          practice of the skills. c. Performance feedback—praise and reinstruction. d.
                          Transfer training—homework involving applying the new skill in real life situations.
                      • Anger Control Training teaches participants how to manage angry feelings. It
                          consists of a series of social learning procedures taught across 10 weekly
                          sessions including: a. Recognizing triggers—external events and internal
                          appraisals that result in angry feelings. b. Recognizing cues—kinesthetic or other
                          physiological sensations signifying anger. c. Learning and using reducers—
                          arousal lowering techniques like backward counting, deep breathing, peaceful
                          imagery, and reflection on long-term consequences. d. Use of reminders—self-
                          instructional statements designed to reinterpret and defuse internal triggers. e.
                          Self-evaluation of the use and results from the anger control sequence.
                      • Moral Reasoning teaches participants higher levels of moral reasoning. The
                          approach consists of facilitated discussion in regard to understanding and
                          responding to a series of moral dilemma vignettes. The group activities include: a.
                          introducing the problem situation. b. Cultivating mature morality. c. Remediating
                          moral developmental delays. d. Consolidating mature morality.
                 b. Controlling Anger and Learning to Manage It (CALM): William Winogron, Ph.D.
                      Marilyn      Van       Dieten,      Ph.D.,    Laurence      Gauzas,       Ph.D.      and
                      Vicki Grisim, M.Ed. The Controlling Anger and Learning to Manage It Program (CALM)
                      teaches adult male participants who have exhibited violent behavior to monitor and
                      understand their emotions in order to prevent and control problematic behaviors.
                      Personal assignments, modeling, role-play, teamwork, and self- and peer-evaluation
                      are used to teach and promote lasting change of inappropriate and unproductive
                      thought and behavior patterns. The 24 sessions that the CALM consists of teaches
                      participants the skills necessary to reduce the frequency, intensity, and duration of
                      anger in order to lessen the likelihood of aggression.

                     The complete CALM Program includes 6 comprehensive group leader guides with
                     instructions on how to deliver the 24 group sessions; an individual workbook of
                     exercises and personal assignments for each group member; a master package for
                     group leaders containing participant handouts and overheads; and an audiotape that
                     features relaxation exercises and educational game scripts.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 219
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

Core Program #4: Academic and Post-Graduate Education/Job Readiness Training.

Inmates who have a 6th grade reading level are recommended to enroll in academic education while
confined in the Department of Correction. Others who have completed 12 grades of secondary education
but have not earned a degree are recommended to work toward their high school degree or GED
certificate. Other inmates who have earned their degree are recommended to enroll in vocational
educational or post graduate studies while confined.

All inmates are recommended to be given a career assessment. Recommended career assessment
inventories are:

Career Focus 2000 Interest Inventory

The Career Focus is an online, interactive career interest inventory designed to your personal interests and
identifies matching occupations. The CF2II is not a test. There is no right or wrong answers. The CF2II
contains 180 inventory items -- statements about work-related tasks that have been drawn from 18 major
occupational fields found in the American work scene. These 18 occupational fields together comprise
more than 90% of all work performed in the United States. (http://www.iccweb.com/careerfocus/About.asp).
The test takes about 20 minutes to complete.

Career Assessment Inventory: Vocational Version

The CAI-V is useful for advising individuals who are re-entering the workforce or considering a career
change, screening job applicants, and providing career development assistance to displaced workers. The
Vocational Version of the Career Assessment Inventory instrument is an interest inventory that helps
identify occupational interests for individuals who plan to enter careers immediately after high school or
community college. This version focuses on careers requiring less than two years of post-secondary
training. The test is designed for those with at least a 6th grade reading level. It is available either as a
pencil and paper or online test, and takes approximately 30 minutes to complete. The CAI-V was tested for
both men and women. www.pearsonassessments.com

Job Readiness Training

Training is recommended on seeking employment techniques, completing job applications, writing resumes
and cover letters, answering questions about convictions, employer tax credits, successful interviewing
techniques, mock interview sessions, workplace expectations, getting along in the workplace, anger
management, career advancement, and transportation issues. (See Appendix section). This training
consists of 8-10 weeks.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 220
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

Core Program #5: Reentry Preparation (In-Custody Phase)

Best practices reentry programming begins at intake to help the inmate and staff recognizes that the
interventions provided within the custody environment will prepare them for successful discharge to the
community 30-60 days prior to discharge (see Transition from Jail to Community (TJC) and Prison to
Community, National Institute of Corrections). Reentry programming within the in-custody environment
involves topics such as transportation, clothing, housing, child care arrangements, legal services,
medication supply, medical and mental health referrals and appointments, referrals and appointments to
substance abuse treatment, education planning, employment planning, Workforce Development agency
support, reinstatement of federal benefits, assistance in obtaining identification cards, assistance in
obtaining medical and dental insurance cards, financial planning, family reunification and parenting skills
training. These topics can be taught by Rehabilitation Officers and by agency representatives at no cost to
the Department (see appendix section). The Department qualifies for no cost training on reentry
programming by the National Institute of Corrections, Jails Division.

Core Program #6: Aftercare (Community Phase of Reentry)

Aftercare is an important component of the continuum as it provides continuing support toward recovery
after discharge from confinement. Every inmate requires a written Discharge Plan prior to their release that
identifies goals to be achieved during the first six months following release. Referrals to social and
treatment services need to accompany the Plan. Aftercare support services include education/employment
assistance, federal benefits eligibility and assistance, mental health treatment referrals and case
management, substance abuse treatment referrals and case management, medical referrals and mentoring
support. Aftercare is recommended for a minimum of six months following discharge. The Day Reporting
Program and the RCP II Program could be restructured as the community phase of Reentry as they provide
the inmate with opportunities to practice the skills they learned while they were confined.

Implementation Steps

Once SCCDOC selects its core curricula, policies should be adopted to align with delivery practices known
to be associated with reductions in recidivism. First, and foremost, all staff that will deliver a curriculum
should be trained on that specific curriculum.

Secondly, groups should not be co-ed. Groups should not be larger than 10 individuals per facilitator.
Third, homework should be a common occurrence after nearly every group meeting, and staff should go
over the last week’s homework at the beginning of the meeting.

Because of this, we recommend that all staff who interacts with inmates should receive training in the
Principles of Effective Intervention and core correctional practices. One aspect of this training is the
effective use of approval and disapproval. Because of this, special attention is given to the aspects of
rewards and punishment. In order to change behavior, rewards should outnumber punishers by a ratio of
at least 4:1. To this end, it is important to have a range of rewards available to encourage and reinforce
positive behavioral outcomes. For example, verbal praise should be continued by SCCDOC facilitators.
However, the use of praise and issuing a certificate for attendance were the primary rewards observed in
many of the programs.



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 221
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

We recommend that SCCDOC develop a range of rewards that can be used to reinforce positive behavioral
outcomes. The first step taken by SCCDOC should be a survey of inmates to see what rewards they would
motivate them to participate. While some of the rewards recommended by the inmates may not be possible
for SCCDOC to utilize, there may be some suggestions that are easy to implement. A list of possible
reinforcers would include: specific praise/feedback on performance (which could also be posted on a
bulletin board for all to see), indirect praise (e.g., verbal reports on how inmates are doing in front of staff
and inmates), group recognition, field trip, extra visit/telephone call, private room/choosing desk or bed,
items from commissary, badges, ribbons, additional certificates, game room privileges, extra food/snacks,
free time, lunch with a staff member, television/radio privileges, more time outside of the housing unit (e.g.,
recreation), extra shower, playing host for visitors, job in a special setting, or a weekend pass. When
developing a list of reinforcers, SCCDOC should make sure to consider the demographic characteristics,
interests, and appetites of the inmates, because what is a reinforcer to one individual or group may not act
as a reinforcer to another individual and group.

The importance of reinforcing positive behavioral change cannot be stressed enough. However,
consequences (punishments) are also a necessary part of behavioral change. If negative behavior is
demonstrated, it should be punished to discourage the inmate from repeating that behavior. Results from
the CPCs suggest that SCCDOC staff and providers do provide verbal warnings to inmates when unwanted
behaviors are exhibited, but facilitators rely too heavily on terminating inmates who further act out.

Just as it is important to develop a range of reinforcers, it is also important to develop policy and behavioral
practices to enact effective disapproval. We recommend that SCCDOC develop a behavioral management
system that all staff is trained on. Thus, staff (and inmates) is aware of what the consequences are of initial
and repeated violations. To accomplish effective disapproval that promotes behavioral changes, we
recommend that SCCDOC staff and its providers be trained on the use of punishers and rewards in
correctional settings. One such tool that can be implemented as a means of effective disapproval is the
Behavioral Contract. This is a tool that produces an agreement between two or more persons that lists
specific behaviors that the parties will perform and the consequences that will result if these behaviors are
not demonstrated.

Finally, SCCDOC are recommended to develop specific criteria for completion of each program more than
attendance, and each individual completing a program should have a discharge plan that covers relapse
prevention. Group completion should be based on the acquisition of knowledge of the material and on skills
as evidenced by a posttest rather than from attendance, length of time in program, or completion of
assignments. Therefore, a person in the cognitive-based substance abuse program will not simply
complete because he/she attended all the classes and turned in their homework; rather, that the individual
will be considered a successful completer once they can demonstrate knowledge and skills.

Scheduled activities such as pill count or individual counseling should not conflict when treatment groups
are conducted to ensure that inmates receive their targeted number of program hours.

Discharge plans should be developed for all inmates discharged from a program. These plans should
clearly articulate the progress that has been met in meeting the inmates’ targeted behaviors and goals.
These discharge plans should be specific to the program being taught.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 222
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

5.2.4   Effective Practices for Correctional Supervision (EPICS)

Since the Rehabilitation Officers serve as case managers for the programs, the team recommends a model
for interacting with inmates that is consistent with the research. The research on the principles of effective
intervention, coupled with the most recent research on correctional supervision, provided the impetus for
the development of a new model by the University of Cincinnati (UC). It represents a combination of the
content included in both the Canadian and Australian studies. The purpose of the EPICS model is to teach
case managers how to apply the principles of effective intervention (and core correctional practices
specifically, including relationship skills) to their interaction with offenders.

The EPICS model is currently being piloted in sites across the country, and analysis of the audio tapes
indicates that the trained staff is using the skills at a higher rate than untrained staff. The core correctional
practices (or competencies) are organized into an overall framework to assist with the application of
specific skills within the context of correctional supervision. This overall framework, or “Action Plan,”
assists with the development and implementation of case management plans to target the criminogenic
needs of higher risk offenders. With the EPICs model, case managers follow a structured approach to
their interactions with their offenders. Specifically, each session includes four components:

1.      Check-In, in which the case manager determines if the offender has any crises or acute needs,
        builds rapport and discusses compliance issues.
2.      Review, which focuses on the skills discussed in the prior session, the application of those skills,
        and troubleshooting continued problems in the use of those skills.
3.      Intervention, where the CM identifies continued areas of need, trends in problems the offender
        experiences, teaches relevant skills, and targets problematic thinking.
4.      Homework and Rehearsal is when the offender is given an opportunity to see the model the CM is
        talking about, provides opportunities to role play, assignment of homework, and gives instructions
        that the offender should follow before the next visit.

The EPICS model is designed to use a combination of monitoring, referrals, and face-to-face interactions to
provide the offender with a sufficient “dosage” of treatment interventions, and make the best possible use of
time to develop a collaborative working relationship. Furthermore, the model helps translate the risk,
needs, and responsivity principles into practice. Case managers are taught to increase dosage to higher
risk offenders, stay focused on criminogenic needs, especially the thought-behavior link, and to use a social
learning, cognitive-behavioral approach to their interactions. The EPICS model is not intended to replace
other programming and services, but rather it is an attempt to more fully utilize case managers (and
Rehabilitation Officers) as agents of change.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 223
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

5.2.5 Quality Assurance

SCCDOC is committed to implementing evidence-based programs and has staff that is supportive of
treatment. To enable SCCDOC to achieve its desired results, there must be mechanisms in place to
ensure that programs are maintaining fidelity to evidence-based programs and to the policies developed by
SCCDOC. We recommend that SCCDOC institute a policy and plan to require each program coordinator
and Rehabilitation Officer to observe a group at least quarterly. After the observation, the program
coordinator should provide the facilitator with formal feedback and the RO should ensure that feedback is
given quarterly. We also recommend that each provider institute pre and posttests for their entire
curriculum. This will provide SCCDOC with empirical data as to how well inmates are acquiring the
knowledge being delivered in treatment programs. Finally, we also recommend that SCCDOC develop a
mechanism for staff and inmates to provide feedback on the programming. Staff should be allowed to
express concerns, praises, or suggestions for improving the delivery of programs. Inmates should routinely
be surveyed at the completion of all programs to determine what they liked most, least, and what they feel
can be done to deliver better treatment. We also want to stress that any changes that are recommended
by staff or inmate should be piloted at least for three months before the provider fully adopts the
suggestions. The RO and the provider should ensure review the results of the pilot and make modifications
before fully implementing the change.

5.2.6 Time Line for Implementation

The consultant team has developed a Timeline for implementing the recommendations for the Programs
Unit to consider. See Table 5.2.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 224
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                                              Table 5.2
                                  Implementation Recommendations
                      Santa Clara County Department of Correction Programs Unit

Recommendation                                 Within One Year                       Within Two Years

Program Staff and Support
1. Conduct training of all
   program staff and providers in
   the Principles of Effective
   Intervention and how to
   translate them into day-to-day
   practice. Include in the
   training the strategies to
   prepare staff for change and
   the required conditions
   needed in the Department to
   implement change.
2. Form an EBP Implementation
   Team to lead implementation.
   Form Workgroups of staff to
   develop Action Plans.
   Examples of workgroups
   include: 1. Risk, Needs and
   Responsivity Assessment
   Tools 2. Core Programs 3.
   Case Management 4. Quality
   Assurance/Data Collection 5.
   Training and Staff
   Development 6. Reentry 7.
   Aftercare. Create a monthly
   schedule of tasks and
   quarterly reporting of
   progress.
3. Conduct training of all
   providers in the new Core
   Program curricula.
4. Recruit new hires with
   education and experience
   from the helping profession.
5. Designate the Programs Unit
   Manager as the Master
   Trainer and cross train this
   person on all assessment
   instruments and new Core


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 225
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

Recommendation                                 Within One Year                       Within Two Years
    Program Curricula to ensure
    continuity.
6. Train all Rehabilitation
    Officers in the new Core
    Program Curricula.
7. Develop an additional cadre
    of trainers for the new Core
    Program Curricula to ensure
    on-going capability when
    people retire or resign.
8. Ensure that all program staff
    document 40 hours of in-
    service training related to the
    curriculum and delivery of
    treatment.
9. Assign Rehabilitation Officers
    to case manage “high-risk”
    inmates and provide
    Motivational Interviewing and
    EPICS training to ROs.
10. Recruit from existing staff
    persons with positive
    attributes, persons committed
    to rehabilitation, education
    and experience to be
    designated as trainers.
11. Train Correctional Officers
    assigned to programs in the
    Principles of Effective
    Intervention and Motivational
    Interviewing techniques.
Offender Assessment
1. Examine the list of screening
    tools to be used at intake and
    assessment tools to be used
    once the inmate is placed in
    their housing unit. Work with
    the provider to create a
    screener version if their
    assessment tool does not
    come with a screener version.
    Choose an assessment tool
    that addresses the risk



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 226
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

Recommendation                                 Within One Year                       Within Two Years
    factors associated with future
    reoffending and criminogenic
    needs.
2. Collect new data to validate
    the tool on DOC inmates.
3. Develop and incorporate the
    new screening process into
    Intake. Eliminate low risk
    inmates from being referred
    to programs. Train intake staff
    on the use of the tool.
    Replace the existing
    Psychosocial Assessment
    with the new Risk/Needs
    Assessment tool to determine
    who should be targeted for
    programs. Train
    Rehabilitation Officers on
    conducting the assessment.
4. Hire or designate DOC staff
    to serve as an Assessment
    Specialist.
5. Conduct training of providers
    on responsivity assessments
    to identify the issues that
    should be addressed in
    groups/individual case
    management. SCCDOC
    should include responsivity
    assessments as a part of the
    providers’ contract.
6. Identify which tools that will
    be used as a pre/posttest
    measure.
Offender Treatment
1. Develop a Department policy
    adopting the Principles for
    Effective Intervention
    Framework and the new Core
    Programs.
2. Finalize the new Core
    Curricula.
3. Refer medium and high risk



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 227
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

Recommendation                                 Within One Year                       Within Two Years
   inmates to one or more Core
   Programs based on their
   assessed risk and need
   within their Security Level.
4. Develop constructive
   behavioral management
   activities and self-guided
   treatment programs for low
   risk inmates.
5. Develop a formal reward
   system and train program and
   correctional officers on this
   system.
6. Develop a formal graduated
   sanctions system and train
   program and correctional
   officer staff on this system.
7. Develop a written Discharge
   Summary template and
   guidelines for completion.
8. Examine the schedule and
   ensure that there is a
   designated time for programs
   to ensure that inmates
   receive their targeted hours.
Quality Assurance
1. Document the program
   supervisor’s observation of
   groups at least every quarter.
2. Implement a pre/posttest
   measure.
3. Implement a uniform Client
   Satisfaction Survey
4. Implement new successful
   completion criteria based on
   demonstrated knowledge and
   achievement.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 228
Part II. Chapter 6
  Appendices
                                                                                                              Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                                                             Final Report

                                                                    Part II. Chapter 6
                                                                        Table 6.1
                                                      Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                            Description of Inmate Programs

           Program                Target Population               Written Program Goals                      Classes Offered               Duration
 1. Educational: These are
 included as an element in
 all programs.
 • Adult Education (GED         All Inmates
      Prep)
 • Cabinet Making/Wood          Minimum Security
      Shop Program              Males
 • Career Technology            Minimum Security
      Class                     Females
 • Combination Welding          Minimum Security
      Vocational Program        Males
 • Learner-Centered             All Inmates
      Literacy Instruction
 • Upholstery Vocational        Minimum Security
      Program                   Males
 • Substance Abuse              All Inmates                Gain greater knowledge of the basic        Process of Addiction;            15 hours per
      Education                                            pharmacology of drugs and the              Pharmacology; Recovery           week x 8 weeks
                                                           stages of addiction; Introduce             Process; Family System; Co-
                                                           population concepts of recovery            Dependency; Parenting;
                                                           from addiction, including the 12-step      Communication Skills; Domestic
                                                           program; Understand the                    Violence; Anger Management;
                                                           relationship of family issues in, on       Framework for Recovery;
                                                           and because of addiction; Develop          Relapse Prevention; Community
                                                           the skills necessary to make more          Resources; Reentry; HIV/AIDS
                                                           positive life choices and to master        Awareness
                                                           relapse prevention strategies and


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research                                      Page 230
                                                                                                            Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                                                           Final Report

          Program                 Target Population              Written Program Goals                      Classes Offered              Duration
                                                           techniques; Identify the six
                                                           developmental stages of the
                                                           recovery process; Discuss each of
                                                           the 12 steps in the 12-step
                                                           Recovery Program; Explain four
                                                           characteristics and patterns of
                                                           dysfunction within the family;
                                                           Discuss the role of co-dependency
                                                           in addiction; Identify all seven
                                                           stages of domestic violence; Explain
                                                           the four barriers to change; Identify
                                                           HIV as a cause of AIDS; Identify
                                                           three risky behaviors, four
                                                           symptoms of AIDS infection.
 2. Artemis Women’s             Minimum Security                                   3 hours Substance Abuse
                                                           A gender-based program with the                          8-10 weeks
 Program (Comprehensive         Pregnant Women and                                 Education daily, 3 hours Co-
                                                           overall goal to reduce substance
 Program)                       Women with Small                                   Dependency Education,
                                                           use and abuse with women and with
                                Children                                           Meditation, 2 hours Health
                                                           women who have children. Women
                                                                                   Realization, 3 hours Computer
                                                           are educated on the effects of
                                                                                   Class, 3 hours Trauma Recovery,
                                                           substance abuse on the fetus and
                                                                                   3 hours LIFT, 3 hours Domestic
                                                           on small children. Upon successful
                                                                                   Violence, 3 hours Art Education,
                                                           completion, women can transition to
                                                                                   3 hours PACT Parenting, 3 hours
                                                           the out of custody program.
                                                                                   PACT visit each week
 3. Breaking Barriers    Protective Custody      To reduce substance use and abuse 3 hours Substance Abuse          90 days
 (Comprehensive Program) High Medium Security for protective custody inmates who   Education twice a week, 3 hours
                         Males Affiliated with a have demonstrated a commitment to GED Preparation, 2 hours Health
                         Gang Housed at Main drop out of the gang lifestyle.       Realization, 2 hours Narcotics
                         Jail Who Commit to                                        Anonymous, 3 hours Trauma
                         Drop Out of a Gang                                        Recovery per week




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research                                    Page 231
                                                                                                            Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                                                           Final Report

         Program          Target Population                       Written Program Goals                     Classes Offered               Duration
 4. Get Right            High Medium Security              To reduce substance use and abuse       3 hours Substance Abuse            90 days
 (Comprehensive Program) Men at Main Jail With             for high-medium security male           Education per week, 3 hours
                         Substance Abuse                   inmates who have a history of           Domestic Violence per week; 1.5
                         History                           substance abuse issues.                 hours Alcoholics Anonymous
                                                                                                   twice a week, 3 hours GED
                                                                                                   Preparation twice a week, 2
                                                                                                   hours Creating Writing per week,
                                                                                                   3 hours Trauma Recovery per
                                                                                                   week; 3 hours World Cultures per
                                                                                                   week
 5. Healing Opportunities       Minimum Security           Reduce substance use and abuse          3 hours Substance Abuse            8 to 10 weeks
 in a Program Environment       Men with Substance         and modify behavior. Inmates are        Education daily, 3 hours Co-
 (HOPE) (Comprehensive          Abuse History, Court       not required to march. Upon             Dependency Education, 3 hours
 Program)                       or Self-Referred           completion, the inmate can              Communication Skills, 3 hours
                                                           transition to out of custody.           Job Readiness, 3 hours
                                                                                                   Parenting Education, 3 hours
                                                                                                   Trauma Recovery per week
 6.Health Realization-          All Security Levels        Develop a depth of understanding        Principles of Mind, Thought and    10 sessions that
 (Three Principles)             and Genders in 10          rather than information;                Consciousness, 3 hours per         cover 20 topics
                                units                      Understanding through insight rather week - Offered to various
                                                           than through gaining intellectual       programs
                                                           knowledge; Focus on health rather
                                                           than dysfunction or disease; Help
                                                           participants realize their health
                                                           within; Help participants learn how
                                                           minds work, how their experience of
                                                           life is created and how they use or
                                                           misuse their ability to think; Learn
                                                           how behaviors such as addictions
                                                           occur as a result of a learned
                                                           habitual way of trying to find a relief



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research                                     Page 232
                                                                                                              Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                                                                Final Report

          Program                 Target Population               Written Program Goals                       Classes Offered                 Duration
                                                           from cluttered, confused thinking.
                                                           With this understanding, participants
                                                           change naturally.
 7. Heart and Soul              Women ages 15-24           Become aware of one’s identify;            Family relationships, loss and       25 hours;
                                years old in all           strengthen one’s faith;                    grief, healthy relationships,        Offered 3-4
                                custody levels             empowerment; improve healthy               conflict resolution, domestic        times a year
                                                           relationships with family, children,       violence, parenting effectiveness,
                                                           community and God.                         communication skills, goal
                                                                                                      setting, guilt and shame.
 8. Literacy in Families  Minimum and Medium Break the inmate’s cycle of low                          3 hour Class in Parenting            12 sessions
 Together (LIFT)          Security Men and    literacy skills and incarceration;                      education, reading children’s
                          Women with Children Instruct inmates using quality                          books to children
                                              children’s literature to teach their
                                              children and to make person
                                              connections with them; Promote
                                              positive role modeling as mothers,
                                              fathers and caregivers; Educate
                                              inmates to become a positive force
                                              as their child’s first teacher;
                                              Empower children with literacy skills
                                              and self-esteem.
 9. Mentoring You-        Minimum Security    A gender-relevant program to                            3 hours Substance Abuse           8-10 weeks
 Successful Transition of Women (not          reduce substance use and abuse,                         Education per day; 2 hours
 Recovering Individuals   pregnant)           modify behavior and encourage                           Codependency/Parenting; 3
 (Comprehensive Program)                      engagement in a women’s support                         hours Health Realization; 3 hours
                                              group. A mentor is located by the                       Computer Class; 3 hours
                                              participant to assist them upon                         Domestic Violence Education; 3
                                              release. Upon discharge, the                            hours Trauma Recovery; 3 hours
                                              woman becomes a member of the                           LIFT Parenting; 2 hours
                                              Women’s Circle which meets every                        Meditation; 3 hours PACT
                                              two weeks.                                              Parenting; 3 hours PACT Visit



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research                                          Page 233
                                                                                                               Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                                                                  Final Report

          Program                 Target Population               Written Program Goals                      Classes Offered                    Duration
                                                                                                      per week; Community Mentor

 10. M8 Program Units    Medium Security Men               Reduce substance use and abuse;            12-15 hours Substance Abuse            90 days for each
 (Units A-H as 1 Entity)                                   reduce anger; increase life skills;        Education per week, 15 hours           program unit
 (Comprehensive Program)                                   increase job readiness skills;             GED per week, 15 hours
                                                           increase parenting skills; earn a          Spanish/ESL per week, 3-9 hours
                                                           GED; learn English.                        Exit Planning, 6 hours
                                                                                                      Communication Skills, 6 hours
                                                                                                      Parenting Education, 1 hour NA
                                                                                                      per week per week, 1 hour Anger
                                                                                                      Management per week, 3 hours
                                                                                                      Parenting Education per week, 3
                                                                                                      Hours Violence Prevention per
                                                                                                      week, 3 hours Communication
                                                                                                      Skills, 3 hours Co-Dependency
                                                                                                      Education per week, 1.5 hours
                                                                                                      Alcoholics Anonymous per week,
                                                                                                      15 hours GED per week
 11. Parents and Children Minimum and Medium Identify the four stages of                              Classes are once a week for 3          2-hour contact
 Together (PACT)          Security Women     development; List ways to build self-                    hours each; preparation for visit      visit
 (Comprehensive Program)                     esteem for themselves and their                          is 1 hour and child visit is 2 hours
                                             children; Practice age-appropriate                       once a week. Parenting classes,
                                             communication techniques; Identify                       Family Conflict Resolution Skills,
                                             three positive discipline alternatives                   Family Relationship Skills and
                                             to corporal punishment;                                  Supervised Visits with Children
                                             Demonstrate an understanding of
                                             the negative effects of corporal
                                             punishment; List and practice
                                             methods for stress management
                                             and anger management;
                                             Demonstrate age-appropriate
                                             games and activities for their


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research                                            Page 234
                                                                                                              Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                                                             Final Report

          Program                 Target Population                Written Program Goals                     Classes Offered               Duration
                                                           children; Learn and practice conflict
                                                           resolution and violence prevention
                                                           techniques; practice parenting skills,
                                                           playing with children and
                                                           communicating love in supervised
                                                           visits; Develop skills in
                                                           communicating and cooperating with
                                                           their social worker and/or child’s
                                                           care giver; Understand and
                                                           acknowledge the impact on children
                                                           when their parents are incarcerated.

                                                           Facilitate the development of a
                                                           positive parent/child relationship;
                                                           Rebuild positive, trusting, honest
                                                           relationships between parent/child
                                                           which begins to deal with the child’s
                                                           pain of separation; Assist parents
                                                           who will reunify with their children;
                                                           Provide structured parent-child
                                                           visitations.

 12. Program about       Low Medium Security               Reduce substance use and abuse;            9 hours per week of Substance    90 days
 Change and              Men in Protective                 modify anti-social behavior; reduce        Abuse Education, 3 hours LIFT
 Encouragement (PACE)    Custody                           trauma; increase literacy; participate     Parenting, 3 hours Trauma
 (Comprehensive Program)                                   in group therapy. Note: these              Group Therapy; 3 hours Art
                                                           participants are not case managed.         education per week




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research                                        Page 235
                                                                                                              Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                                                              Final Report

          Program         Target Population                       Written Program Goals                        Classes Offered               Duration
 13. Regimented          Minimum Security                  A three-phase program with the goal        Physical Fitness, Marching, 15     8-10 weeks
 Corrections Program     Males                             of reducing substance use and              hours Substance Abuse
 Phase I (RCP)-Men                                         abuse and modify criminal behavior.        Education per week; 3 hours Co-
 (Comprehensive Program)                                   Participants attend classes Monday-        Dependency Education; 3 hours
                                                           Friday from 8:00 am-4:00 pm. The           Communication Skills; 3 hours
                                                           RCP program includes a physical            Exit Planning; 4.5 hours
                                                           and marching component. Upon               Parenting Education; 6 hours
                                                           successful completion, participants        Violence Prevention; 1 hour GED
                                                           can transition to Phase II Out of          Preparation; 2 hours Creative
                                                           Custody/Day Reporting and to               Writing; 3 hours World Cultures
                                                           Phase III Aftercare under the              Education; 3 hours Health
                                                           supervision of the Probation               Realization; 3 hours Personal
                                                           Department.                                Inventory; 6 hours Anger
                                                                                                      Management; 3 hours Trauma
                                                                                                      Recovery per week
 14. Regimented          Minimum Security                  Also a three-phase program to              Physical Fitness, Marching, 15     8-10 weeks
 Corrections Program     Women                             reduce substance use and abuse             hours Substance Abuse
 Phase I (RCP)-Women                                       with a gender focus; Reduce                Education per week; 3 hours Co-
 (Comprehensive Program)                                   trauma.                                    Dependency Education; 3 hours
                                                                                                      Job Readiness; 4.5 hours
                                                                                                      Parenting Education; 3 hours
                                                                                                      Violence Prevention; 1.5 hours
                                                                                                      GED Preparation; 1 hour
                                                                                                      Personal Inventory; 3 hours
                                                                                                      advanced Computer Class; 3
                                                                                                      hours Relapse Prevention; 3
                                                                                                      hours Trauma Recovery per
                                                                                                      week; 3 hours Health Realization
 15. Roadmap to Recovery        High Medium and            Provide inmates the opportunity for        16 Individualized Journals         8 to 10 weeks
 Individualized Journaling      Maximum Security           programs who are unable to access          Reflecting on Addictive Behavior
 Program                        Men and Women with         programs due to their security and         and Criminal Activity



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research                                       Page 236
                                                                                                              Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                                                              Final Report

          Program                Target Population       Written Program Goals                               Classes Offered                Duration
                                addiction issues  classification levels. Learn the
                                                  connection between substance
                                                  abuse addiction, behavior and
                                                  criminal activity; Learn the Stages of
                                                  Change by Prochaska and
                                                  DeClemente; Reduce anger; Learn
                                                  problem solving skills; Empower
                                                  adult students to strengthen self-
                                                  esteem; Grow in social
                                                  responsibilities; Expand
                                                  occupational skills; Achieve
                                                  academic success.
 16. Trauma Recovery        Minimum, Medium       Manage trauma symptoms; Cope                        1.5 hours Education on Trauma;     8 weeks
 Program                    and High-Medium       without the use of substances;                      1.5 hours Group Therapy -
                            Security Males and    prevent self-destructive acts; Take                 Offered to various programs
                            Females               good care of yourself; Free yourself
                                                  from abusive relationships; Find
                                                  safe support systems; Find ways to
                                                  feel good about yourself and to
                                                  enjoy life.
 17. Veteran’s Educating to Incarcerated Veterans Reduce substance use and abuse;                     6 hours Substance Abuse            8 -10 weeks
 Succeed (VETS)             Classified as         Connect veterans to Veterans’                       Education per week; 3 hours
 (Comprehensive Program) Minimum Security         Services and benefits; Enable                       Trauma Recovery; 3 hours
                                                  eligible veterans to obtain substance               Healthy Relationships Education;
                                                  abuse treatment.                                    3 hours Healthy Relationships
                                                                                                      Group Therapy per week
 18. Women Investigating Medium Security                   A gender-relevant program to               3 hours Substance Abuse            90 days
 New Gates for Sobriety  Females                           reduce substance use and abuse             Education daily, 3 hours
 (WINGS) (Comprehensive                                    and modify anti-social behavior.           Communication Skills; 6 hours
 Program)                                                  Graduates can transition to out of         GED Preparation; 1.5 hours
                                                           custody programs or community              Narcotics Anonymous; 3 hours



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research                                          Page 237
                                                                                                              Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                                                             Final Report

          Program                 Target Population             Written Program Goals                         Classes Offered           Duration
                                                           based programs.                            Trauma Recovery; 3 hours PACT
                                                                                                      Parenting; 3 hours PACT Visit
                                                                                                      per week
 19. Willing Individuals in     Minimum Security           Reduce substance use and abuse             6 hours Substance Abuse       16 weeks
 Substance Education            Male Inmate Workers        for inmate workers who are unable          Education per week
 (WISE)                         with Substance             to attend classes during the day due
                                Abuse issues               to their work assignments.




 Out of Custody Programs
 20. Regimented                 Sentenced Minimum          Continue to support the offender in        15 hours Substance Abuse          8-10 weeks
 Corrections Program            Security Men and           reducing their relapse to substance        Education per week; 3 hours Job
 Phase II (RCP)                 Women who have             use and abuse while living in the          Readiness; 3 hours Parenting
 (Comprehensive Program)        completed the Phase        community; Connect participants            Education; 3 hours Health
                                I RCP; They have no        with community resources to aid in         Realization; 3 hours Trauma
                                holds; they live in a      their sobriety and non-criminal            Recovery; 3 hours Personal
                                clean and sober living     lifestyle.                                 Inventory; 3 hours Anger
                                environment and they                                                  Management; 3 hours Relapse
                                remain clean and                                                      Prevention; 5 hours 12-Step; 2
                                sober                                                                 hours Parenting Education for
                                                                                                      men with young children per
                                                                                                      week




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research                                      Page 238
                                                                                                              Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                                                                Final Report

          Program                Target Population               Written Program Goals                        Classes Offered                  Duration
 21. Day Reporting (An          Sentenced Offenders,       Reduce substance use and abuse;            15 hours Substance Abuse             45 days
 Alternative Sentencing         Minimum Security           Give back to the community to make         Education per week; Community
 Program)                       and Low Medium             amends for past crimes through             Service Work: Participant is a
                                Security, Eligible for     community service.                         graduate from RCP II. The
                                Alternative                                                           person reports to the DRC
                                Sentencing Program                                                    Monday through Friday, from
                                                                                                      8:00 am-4:00 pm.
Note: The descriptions of these programs were as of January 2011; thus do not reflect any modifications made to them since January 2011.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research                                         Page 239
                                                                  Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report



An additional analysis was conducted to determine how many SCCDOC inmates were returned to CDCR
during the study period.


                                               Table 6.2
                    Reincarceration Outcomes of Santa Clara County Inmates in the
                        California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation



                                                                        Matched-Comparison
                                          Treatment Sample                    Sample
                                           N            %                   n          %
                Reincarceration
                to State Prison
                         6 month           773             10.3            483            6.9
                        12 month           923             12.4            532             7.6
                        24 month          1,646            24.4            941            16.2
                Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data and
                differences in time in the community post release



The researchers believe that these data are underreported; thus, caution should be exercised in using
these data.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 240
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report


                                                  References

       Andrews, D.A. & J. Bonta (2010). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (Fifth Edition). Cincinnati,
OH: Anderson.

         Andrews, D.A., I. Zinger, R.D. Hoge, J. Bonta, P. Gendreau, & F.T. Cullen (1990). Does
correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis.
Criminology, 28 (3), 369-404.

       Andrews, D.A., J. Bonta, & J.S. Wormith (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or
need assessment. Crime & Delinquency. Vol. 52 No.1.

       Andrews, D.A, J. Bonta, & R.D. Hoge (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation:
Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17 (1), 19-52.

       Bonta, J. (2002). Offender risk assessment: Guidelines for selection and use. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 29 (4), 355-379.

        Bourgon, G. & Armstrong, B. Transferring the Principles of Effective Treatment into a “Real World”
Prison Setting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 32 No.1, February 2005.

        Corrections Standards Authority. 2005 Adult Title 15 Programs and Procedures Guidelines.

         Cullen F.T. & P. Gendreau (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and
prospects. Pp. 109-175 in Horney (ed.), Criminal Justice 2000, volume 3: Policies, processes, and
decisions of the criminal justice system. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, US Department of
Justice.

       Dowden, C. & D.A. Andrews (2000). Effective correctional treatment and violent reoffending: A
meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology, October, 449-467.

        Dowden, C. & D.A. Andrews. (2004). The Importance of Staff Practice in Delivering Effective
Correctional Treatment: A Meta-Analytic Review of Core Correctional Practice. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48(2), 203-213.

       Fixen, Dean. L., Sandra F. Naoom, Karen A. Blasé, Robert M. Friedman, Frances Wallace.
Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature. University of South Florida. 2005.

        Gendreau, P. & R.R. Ross (1987). Revivification of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s.
Justice Quarterly, 4 (3), 349-407.

         Gendreau, P., French, S.A., and A. Taylor (2002). What Works (What Doesn’t Work) Revised 202.
Invited Submission to the International Community Corrections Association Monograph Series Project0

        Gibbons, J. & de B. Katzenbach, N. Confronting Confinement. 2006.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 241
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report


          Holsinger, A. M. (1999). Opening the 'black box': Assessing the relationship between program
integrity and recidivism. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Cincinnati.

         Holsinger, A.M., A. J. Lurigio, & E. J. Latessa (2001). Practitioners’ guide to understanding the
basis of assessing offender risk. Federal Probation, 65 (1), 46-50.

        Landenberger, N.A. & M.W. Lipsey (2005). The positive effects of cognitive-behavioral programs
for offenders: a meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. Journal of Experimental
Criminology, 1 (4), 451-476.

       Latessa, E.J., & A. Holsinger (1998). The importance of evaluating correctional programs:
Assessing outcome and quality. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2 (4), 22-29.

        Latessa, E.J. Evidence-Based Correctional Program Checklist: Group Assessment. Center for
Criminal Justice Research. Division of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati. 2009. Dowden,

        Lipsey, M.W., G. Chapman & N.A. Landenberger (2001). Cognitive-behavioral programs for
offenders. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 578, 144-157.

       Lowenkamp, C. T. (2003). A Program Level Analysis of the Relationship between Correctional
Program Integrity and Treatment Effectiveness. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Cincinnati.

          Lowenkamp, C. & E.J. Latessa (2002). Evaluation of Ohio’s Community Based Correctional
Facilities and Halfway House Programs. University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute.

        Lowenkamp, C. & E.J. Latessa (2003). Evaluation of Ohio’s Halfway Houses and Community
Based Correctional Facilities. Center for Criminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati,
OH.
        Lowenkamp, C. & E.J. Latessa (2004). Understanding the risk principle: How and why correctional
interventions can harm low-risk offenders. Topics in Community Corrections, 3-8.

         Lowenkamp, C. & E.J. Latessa (2005). Increasing the effectiveness of correctional programming
through the risk principle: Identifying offenders for residential placement. Criminology and Public Policy, 4
(2), 263-290.

         Lowenkamp, C. & E.J. Latessa (2005a). Evaluation of Ohio’s CCA Programs. Center for Criminal
Justice Research, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.

        Lowenkamp, C. & E.J. Latessa (2005b). Evaluation of Ohio’s Reclaim Funded Programs,
Community Correctional Facilities, and DYS Facilities. Center for Criminal Justice Research, University of
Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.

        Lowenkamp, C. T., D. Hubbard, M. D. Makarios, & E. J. Latessa (2009), a quasi-experimental
evaluation of Thinking for a Change: A “real-world” application. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 36 (2), 137-
146.


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 242
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

        Martin, Mark D. Richard J. Kaledas. Programs and Activities. Tools for Managing Inmate Behavior.
National Institute of Corrections. June 2010. NIC Accession Number 024368

     National Institute of Corrections. Transition from Jail to Community (TJC) and Prison to
Community. http://nicic.gov/JailTransition

        National Implementation Research Network. www.fpg.unc.edu/~nirn/

       Palmer, T. (1975). Martinson Revisited. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 12,
133-152.

         Petrosino, A. & Soydan, H. (2005). the impact of program developers as evaluators on criminal
recidivism: Results from meta-analyses of experimental and quasi-experimental research. Journal of
Experimental Criminology, 1(4), 435-450.

        Santa Clara County Department of Correction. Programs Overview. 2010.

          Smith, P. P. Gendreau, & C. Goggin (2009). Correctional treatment: Accomplishments and
realities. In P. Van Voorhis, M. C. Braswell, and D. Lester (Eds.), Correctional Counseling and
Rehabilitation, 7th Ed. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Press.

        Texas Christian University. http://www.ibr.tcu.edu/pubs/datacoll/cjtrt.html

        Ward, T. and L. Eccleston. “Risk, Responsivity, and the Treatment of Offenders: Introduction to the
Special Issue.” Psychology, Crime & Law 10, no. 3 (2004).

        Zamble, E. (1993). Expanding the Recidivism Inquiry: A Look at Dynamic Factors. Forum on
Correctional Research, 5:27-30.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 243
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




                                        Materials for Review
                                         and Consideration




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 244
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

                CORRECTIONS PROGRAM CHECKLIST PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
                      FOR EFFECTIVE CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMMING

    CAPACITY: PROGRAM STAFF AND SUPPORT

    1) Program Coordinator in Place (Coordinator has overall responsibility for the oversight and
       management of the groups).

    2) Program Coordinator Selects or Approves Group Facilitators (If the Department contracts with
       a private provider, the Coordinator should have some involvement in the selection process of the
       provider such as in the interview and decision-making process).

    3) Program Coordinator Supervises Group Facilitators (Regular staff meetings, observation and
       review of staff, clinical supervision).

    4) Group Facilitators Have an Associate’s Degree or Higher in the Helping Field (e.g.
       counseling, addiction, social work, psychology, and criminal justice).

    5) Group Facilitators Have Hands-on Experience in Treatment Programs for At a Minimum of 2
       Years (Experience in currently position qualifies).

    6) Group Facilitators are Selected for Skills and Values (Strong support for offender treatment and
       change, empathy, fairness, life experience, non-confrontational but firm, problem solving and prior
       training or licensure).

    7) Regular Staff Meetings (At least bi-monthly staff meetings to discuss new intakes, case reviews,
       problems, progress reports, terminations).

    8) Initial and On-Going Training to Enhance Skills (Formal training on the curriculum and at least
       40 hours per year of ongoing workshops, courses, in-service or conferences related to groups and
       service delivery. Topics include booster sessions on the curriculum, training in assessment
       instruments, training in Principles of Effective Intervention, clinically relevant issues and training on
       group processes and facilitation skills).

    9) Ethical Guidelines for Group Facilitators (Professional standards, Code of Ethics).

    10) Support by Stakeholders (Regular referrals, support indicated by stakeholders, high ratings by
        staff on questionnaire or survey, no evidence of dissatisfaction with program or services).

    CONTENT: OFFENDER ASSESSMENT

    11) Exclusionary Criteria Followed and Appropriate Participants (Written criteria is policy and
        followed that determines who is suitable for the program and the offender is matched with the
        service that addresses their risk to reoffend and presenting problems. Percent of inappropriate
        participants does not exceed 20%).


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 245
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report


    12) Risk Assessed Using Validated Instrument (Risk to reoffend is measured using a validated,
        standardized and objective risk assessment instrument that scores the Department’s offender
        population in low, medium and high risk).

    13) Domain Specific Need Assessed with Validated Instrument (Criminogenic needs are measured
        using a standardized and objective risk assessment instrument that scores the offender’s level of
        need).

    14) Responsivity Factors (The offender’s aptitude, reading level, gender, age, motivation level and
        psychiatric and substance abuse disorders are taken into account so that the group addresses the
        specific needs of the participants).

    15) Group Targets Higher Risk Offenders (Groups should target the higher risk offenders, at least
        70% of the program participants should be medium to high risk; low risk offenders should not be
        mixed with high risk offenders).

    16) Group Targets Relevant Higher Need Offenders (Groups should target high need offenders so
        that offenders assigned to treatment groups should have medium and high level of dependency).

    CONTENT: TREATMENT

    GROUP PROCESS

    17) Criminogenic Target (Groups should address the needs that are associated with reductions in
        recidivism such as antisocial attitudes, values and beliefs, antisocial peers, substance abuse, sex
        offender behavior, impulsive behavior, violence, aggression, and anger).

    18) Evidence-Based Treatment (Treatment should use modalities that have been proven to change
        offending behavior such as cognitive behavior therapy, social skills training, family-based
        approaches).

    19) Gender of Groups (Treatment groups should serve single sex).

    20) Group was Held Entire Time Scheduled (Groups should last the entire time that they are
        scheduled so they should begin on time and last the entire time scheduled).

    21) Group Facilitator Knowledgeable About Material Being Presented (Group facilitators should be
        able to answer questions, explain material clearly, provide clear examples and illustrations).

    22) Group Facilitator Encourages Participation (Group facilitators should engage participants so
        that all participants actively participate such as calling on participants; ensure that every participant
        is allowed to practice).

    23) Group Facilitator Regularly Assigns and Reviews Homework Assignments (Group facilitators
        should assign homework; they should review it and provide feedback).


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 246
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                     Final Report


    24) Group Norms are Established and Followed (Group rules should be formally established,
        discussed with participants, followed and documented).

    25) If Co-Facilitator, both are Active (If a co-facilitator is used, they should be active in facilitating).

    26) Length of Treatment is Sufficient (Duration of the group should be sufficient to change behavior).

    27) Manual Developed and is Followed (The facilitator follows a curriculum/manual that outlines
        goals, content, recommended teaching methods, exercises and homework assignments. Facilitator
        follows the manual).

    28) Groups are Conducted by Staff (Treatment groups are taught by trained staff, not offenders.
        Offenders could assist but they are not assigned as the instructor).

    29) Group Size (Treatment groups do not exceed 8-10 participants per facilitator, unless there is a co-
        facilitator).

    30) Facilitator Addresses Responsivity Factors (Facilitator addresses the special learning barriers
        of the participant such as a ESL tutor, participant with a lower reading level is not placed in a group
        that requires a higher reading level, women are not placed in treatment programs validated on men
        and vice versa).

    EFFECTIVE REINFORCEMENT

    31) Appropriate Rewards (Group facilitators identify and apply appropriate rewards, such as social
        rewards, earning privileges, certificates of completion, praise, acknowledgement, points/tokens, gift
        certificates, reduction in time, etc.).

    32) Ratio Favors Rewards (The application of rewards should outnumber punishers by at least 4:1).

    33) Appropriate Application of Rewards (Procedures for administering rewards include: immediate
        reinforcement, explanation of why the rewards are being administered, and reward is clearly tied to
        the behavior).

    34) Uses Peers to Promote Prosocial Behavior (The facilitator encourages participants to recognize
        and promote pro-social behavior, e.g. time may be allocated to recognize good performance, or
        facilitator asks group members to congratulate others).

    EFFECTIVE DISAPPPROVAL

    35) Appropriate Punishers (Appropriate punishers are used to extinguish antisocial expressions and
        to promote behavioral change in the future by showing the offenders that behavior has
        consequences, e.g., verbal disapproval, response cost – loss of privileges, points, levels, or extra
        homework).



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 247
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

    36) Facilitator Responds Appropriately to Non-Compliance (Group facilitators respond to non-
        compliance in an appropriate manner, (e.g. explaining to violator why behavior is unacceptable and
        holding offender accountable).

    37) Appropriate Application of Punisher (Procedures for administering punishers include:
        recognition of anti-social expression, consistency, explanation of why the punisher is being
        administered, maximum intensity, and termination after punisher is administered).

    38) Prosocial Alternative is Offered (After the punisher has been administered, the participant is
        taught an alternative to the inappropriate behavior).

    39) Recognizes and Deals Appropriately with Negative Effects (Evidence that the facilitator
        consistently recognizes whether the punishment produces emotional reactions that interfere with
        new learning or disrupts social relationships, produces avoidance/aggression toward punisher or
        program, leads to increased future use of unwanted behavior by the offender, or produces
        response substitution).

    STRUCTURED SKILL BUILDING

    40) Facilitator Models Prosocial Skills and Explains the Benefits of Learning New Prosocial
        Skills and Behavior (Participants are consistently taught to observe and anticipate problem
        situations through modeling and demonstrations by the facilitator. The facilitator also “sells” the
        new skill being taught to offenders by explaining to participants the advantages of learning the new
        skill or behavior and the benefits that will be derived).

    41) Prosocial Skill Training with Corrective Feedback (There is evidence that the participants
        consistently practice and rehearse alternative prosocial responses throughout the group and
        corrective feedback is provided to improve skills. Practice should be limited to prosocial responses
        to problematic situations. As a rule of thumb, during the cycle of a group approximately 40% of the
        total number of hours of group treatment should be allocated to practice. As such, practice should
        be a routine part of group in order for criteria to be met).

    42) Graduated Practice with Corrective Feedback (Participants practice new prosocial behaviors in
        increasingly difficult situations or more difficult role-playing scenarios are created and participants
        are given constructive feedback. There should be evidence that sufficient time is allocated to allow
        all participants time to practice new skills in increasingly difficult situations and that it is a routine
        part of group, or that offenders participate in an advanced practice group in order for the criteria to
        be met).

    RELATIONSHIP SKILLS

    43) Rapport Established (There is clearly established rapport between facilitator and group
        participants).

    44) Boundaries Established (There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and
        participants. The facilitator should maintain a professional relationship with participants and should


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 248
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

        refrain from using antisocial expressions as a means of bonding with participants. If self-disclosure
        is used, it should be brief and clearly used as a coping model for the participants).

    45) Facilitator Avoids Arguments and Rolls with Resistance (Facilitators do not get into arguments
        with the participants but rather they use appropriate techniques to roll with resistance, such as
        redirection or extinction).

    COGNITIVE RESTRUCTURING

    46) Underlying Thoughts and Values are Identified (There is evidence that some sessions include a
        focus on helping the participants identify underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. Techniques
        include use of thinking reports, functional analysis, cost benefit analysis or other appropriate
        techniques to help participants recognize distorted/antisocial thinking).

    47) Antisocial Thinking and High Risk Situations are Addressed (Participants are taught how to
        address antisocial thinking and to identify high risk situations, triggers and cues, and work on
        strategies to avoid or appropriately handle risky people, places, and things. Techniques include
        thought stopping or use of thinking reports).

    48) Antisocial Thinking is Replaced with Prosocial Thoughts (Participants are taught how to
        replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. Techniques include Cost Benefit
        Analysis, Functional Analysis, Rule Tools, and Thinking Reports. Facilitators should also discuss
        more prosocial interpretations of participants’ antisocial thinking).

    RELAPSE PREVENTION

    49) Risk Plans are Developed and Rehearsed (Some of the group sessions should be devoted to
        developing risk or relapse prevention plans and there should be evidence that participants are
        given an opportunity to plan and rehearse risk plans and relapse prevention techniques. Plans
        should be individualized and should include strategies and scripts for responding to risky situations,
        people, and places).

    CAPACITY: QUALITY ASSURANCE

    50) Observation of Groups with Feedback (There should be evidence that the program coordinator
        or clinical supervisor observes group and provides constructive feedback at minimum once every
        group cycle (or quarterly if group has no defined cycle). Service delivery skills should be
        examined, e.g., communication skills, modeling of new behaviors, use of redirection techniques
        and behavioral reinforcements, group facilitation, and knowledge of curriculum).

    51) Participant Satisfaction (Participants should be surveyed/interviewed as to their satisfaction with
        groups. This can include exit surveys/interviews, post release surveys, phone calls, etc.).

    52) Pre-post Testing (There should be some form of pre/post testing of participants on target
        behaviors).



Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 249
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

    53) Completion Criteria (Criteria should be clearly outlined as to when the program terminates for
        each offender. Termination should be defined by progress in acquiring pro-social behaviors,
        attitudes, and beliefs while in the program. Ideally, this would include performance measures that
        include change in attitudes, acquisition of new knowledge and insight, and demonstration of new
        skills and behaviors).

    54) Discharge Summary (A formal discharge summary should be developed for each offender upon
        completion of the group. These should include progress in meeting target behaviors and goals,
        recommendations regarding areas that need continued work, testing results, etc. Discharge
        summaries should be written by the facilitator and should be specific to the group being taught).


Note: These criteria are proprietary to the University of Cincinnati and thus the public use of these
criteria must be by permission from the University of Cincinnati. (www.uc.edu/criminal justice)




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 250
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 251
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 252
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 253
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 254
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 255
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 256
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 257
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 258
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 259
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 260
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 261
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 262
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 263
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 264
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 265
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 266
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 267
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 268
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 269
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 270
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 271
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 272
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 273
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 274
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 275
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 276
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 277
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 278
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 279
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 280
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 281
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 282
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 283
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 284
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 285
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 286
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 287
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 288
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 289
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 290
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 291
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 292
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 293
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 294
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 295
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 296
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 297
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 298
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 299
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 300
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 301
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 302
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 303
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 304
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 305
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 306
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 307
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 308
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 309
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 310
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 311
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 312
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 313
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 314
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 315
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 316
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 317
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 318
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 319
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 320
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 321
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 322
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 323
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 324
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 325
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 326
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 327
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 328
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 329
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 330
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Note: Source for this and other program profiles is: Martin, Mark D. Richard J. Kaledas. Programs
and Activities. Tools for Managing Inmate Behavior. National Institute of Corrections. June 2010.
NIC Accession Number 024368


Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 331
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 332
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 333
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 334
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 335
                                                                     Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                        Final Report

    CrimeSolutions.gov
    The Office of Justice Programs’ CrimeSolutions.gov uses rigorous research to determine what works in
    criminal justice, juvenile justice, and crime victim services. Santa Clara County Department of Correction
    can obtain individual profiles of effective and promising programs by examining this website.




    On CrimeSolutions.gov you will find:

        •   Research on program effectiveness reviewed and rated by Expert Reviewers
       • Easily understandable ratings based on the evidence that indicates whether a program achieves its
            goals: (Program Review and Rating from Start to Finish)
o     Effective
o     Promising
o     No Effects
       • Key program information and research findings: Read more About CrimeSolutions.gov

    CrimeSolutions.gov is not an exhaustive list of all justice-related programs, and a program’s inclusion on
    this site does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Justice. Read more.




    Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 336
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report

Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature (2005). Fixen, Dean. L., Sandra F. Naoom, Karen
A. Blasé, Robert M. Friedman, Frances Wallace

Resource Type: National Implementation Research Network, University of North Carolina. Chapel Hill,
North Carolina. Description: Over the past decade, the science related to developing and identifying
"evidence-based practices and programs" has improved- however the science related to implementing
these programs with fidelity and good outcomes for consumers lag far behind. To this end, our intent is to
describe the current state of the science of implementation, and identify what it will take to transmit
innovative programs and practices to mental health, social services, juvenile justice, education, early
childhood education, employment services, and substance abuse prevention and treatment. This
monograph summarizes findings from the review of the research literature on implementation and proposes
frameworks for understanding effective implementation processes. The results of this literature review and
synthesis confirm that systematic implementation practices are essential to any national attempt to use the
products of science - such as evidence-based programs - to improve the lives of its citizens.

View Table of Contents of this Report




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 337
                                                                 Santa Clara County Department of Correction
                                                                                                    Final Report


                      EXAMPLE OF AN EFFECTIVE DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAM

The KEY-CREST program provides a three-phase treatment program beginning in custody for 6-12 months
in jail (KEY Program), followed by 6-months semi-secure phase (CREST) followed by 6-months out-of-
custody outpatient treatment phase while on probation supervision. This program has been nationally
                                                             Substance
recognized by the National Institute of Justice and the U.S. Substance Abuse Mental Health Services
Administration as an evidence-based program. The outcomes of this program are significant:

    •   Offenders who successfully complete the full 18 month continuum (KEY-CREST): 75 percent are
        drug free and 72 percent are arrest-free of any charge 18 months following discharge from
        treatment.
    •   Persons who successfully complete treatment in custody (KEY) and complete only 6 months of the
        CREST program in residential treatment: 46 percent are drug free and 60 percent are arrest free
        18 months following discharge from treatment.
    •   Persons who successfully complete treatment in custody only (KEY): 34 percent are drug free and
        46 percent are arrest free 18 months following discharge from treatment.

                                     Key-Crest Participants Remain
                       Drug-Free and Arrest-Free Longer Than other Participants




Source: http://www.state.de.us/correct/Programs/treatmentprograms.shtml Lipton, Douglas S. The Effectiveness of
Treatment for Drug Abusers Under Criminal Justice Supervision. National Institute of Justice. Office of Justice
Programs.




Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 338

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:10/27/2012
language:English
pages:338