Running head: EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM 1. An Evaluation of Programs Designed to Reduce Recidivism.

Transcription

1 Running head: EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM 1 An Evaluation of Programs Designed to Reduce Recidivism Victoria Schuler Lewis-Clark State College JS Spring 2017

2 EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM 2 Abstract The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of drug court in reducing recidivism. The population studied was participants in an adult drug court program. Data was collected from court files of the population being studied and interviews with individuals who were responsible for the oversight of the adult drug court program.

3 EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM 3 Evaluation of Programs Designed to Reduce Recidivism People committing crime seems to be an unbroken cycle that keeps on repeating itself. Countless times, many people are arrested for a crime, get released and are rearrested soon after release. A Bureau of Justice study reviewing records of inmates released between 2005 and 2010 found that 76.6 percent of 404,638 prisons were rearrested within 5 years of release (Durose, Cooper & Snyder, 2014, p.1). Over half of the prisoners rearrested, were rearrested in the first year after release (Durose, Cooper & Snyder, 2014, p. 1). Bales et al., (2016) examined recidivism by reviewing 27,463 inmates released from Florida s Prisons between 2004 and 2011 who completed a work release program. The researchers found that inmates who completed work release in prison were over six times more likely to be employed than comparable non-work release inmates (Bales et al., 2016, p. 31). Work release completion reduced the chances of a post-prison arrest by 10% within one year, by 7.5% within two years and by 8.9% within three years (Bales et al., 2016, p. 30). The research also found that there was a vastly different impact of work release on recidivism between the several groups studied. The findings clearly demonstrated that males, blacks, and Hispanics benefit more from the work release experience than their female and white counterparts (Bales et al., 2016, p. 36). The effectiveness also varied between different age groups. When comparing the effectiveness of work release in terms of employment after release from prison, the age group benefited the least, whereas the age group 50+ benefited the most (Bales et al., 2016, p ). The results were slightly different when looking at lower recidivism rates. The ages that benefited most from work release programs in terms of lower recidivism rates were and years of age (Bales et al., 2016, p. 34). Work release

4 EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM 4 programs also have varying impacts on different types of crimes committed. The crime that had the greatest reduction of recidivism was burglary, which generally has higher than average recidivism rates (Bales et al., 2016, p. 34). Lockwood, Nally & Ho (2016) examined whether post-release employment is the most influential factor in determining the rate of recidivism (Lockwood, Nally, & Ho, 2016, p. 58). The researchers focused on a 5-year follow-up of 3,869 offenders who were released from prison during 2005 and returned to urban neighborhoods in the Indianapolis metropolitan area in the State of Indiana (Lockwood, Nally, & Ho, 2016, p. 60). The overall conclusion of the study was that post-release employment was the most influential factor impacting recidivism among those offenders who returned to the Indianapolis metropolitan area after release from prison (Lockwood, Nally, & Ho, 2016, p. 68). Employment is crucial to the success of any individual in society. A job is necessary to maintain a living. With a criminal record, a job is even more difficult to obtain. The results of the study showed the recidivism rate to be 73.6 percent among African American offenders and 67.9 percent among Caucasian offenders who were under the age of 30, had an education level below high school and were unemployed (Lockwood, Nally, & Ho, 2016, p. 68). The rate of recidivism seemed to decrease with the higher level of education each offender had. With a high school diploma or GED, the recidivism rate was 49.3 percent among African Americans and 50.0 percent among Caucasians under the age of 30 who obtained employment after release. Nally, Lockwood, Knutson & Ho (2012) examined 1,077 offenders in the study group and 1,078 offenders in the comparison group all from Indiana Department of Correction s correctional facilities. The overall findings of the research were that correctional education

5 EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM 5 programs had a positive effect on decreasing recidivism as well as improving inmates ability to gain employment after release. Individuals who had not attended correctional education programs were 3.7 times more likely to recidivate after release (Nally, Lockwood, Knutson & Ho, 2012, p. 79). The study showed that the rate of employment among released offenders who had participated in correctional education programs had significantly improved from 7.2 percent in Quarter 1 of 2008 to 17.4 percent in Quarter 2 of 2009 (Nally, Lockwood, Knutson & Ho, 2012, p. 80). During that same time, the rate of employment for non-attendees decreased from 17.3 percent to 13.3 percent (Nally, Lockwood, Knutson & Ho, 2012, p. 80). Bales & Piquero (2011) compared inmates to offenders sentenced to community control in Florida, sentenced between 1994 and The overall conclusion was that incarceration did not have a preventative impact on recidivism; rather, it had a criminogenic impact on recidivism. This finding could be dependent on factors other than incarceration, including offender characteristics, the severity and type of convicted offense, and prior criminal history (Bales & Piquero, 2011, p. 86). After being released from prison for one year, offenders had 93.9% increased odds of reoffending than those who were given a community based sanction (Bales & Piquero, 2011, p. 87). Released inmates had an 11.7% higher recidivism rate after one year, 15.2% after two years, and 15.4% after three years of being released when compared to community control (Bales & Piquero, 2011, p. 91). Grommon, Davidson II, & Bynum (2013) examined whether an unidentified prisoner reentry program reduced relapse as well as reduced recidivism for offenders with substance dependencies. The units of analysis were 511 eligible male offenders paroled during 24 months of community correctional supervision (Grommon, Davidson II, & Bynum, 2013, p ).

6 EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM 6 To be determined eligible for the reentry program, an offender had to have a high level of substance dependency. Offenders were ineligible if they had high assaultive-risk classifications, sex offenses, pending felony charges, arson offenses, physical or mental conditions that would impact participation, offenders who were under interstate compacts, and low-risk offenders (Grommon, Davidson II, & Bynum, 2013, p. 290). The sources management information systems of the Department of Corrections and the State Police management information systems were used to collect background information and demographics. The databases from drug treatment and service providers were used to collect the number of program participation and compliance. There were two groups that were studied, the treatment group and the control group. The treatment program consisted of a two-phase graduated transitioning program in a time span of one year after release (Grommon, Davidson II, & Bynum, 2013, p. 292). The first phase required the participants to live in transitional housing that had several types of resources and educational programs such as obtaining employment, housing placement, life skills and employability training, as well as the substance abuse treatment (Grommon, Davidson II, & Bynum, 2013, p. 292). The second phase allowed the treatment group to live in approved housing, and continued to receive substance dependency treatment (Grommon, Davidson II, & Bynum, 2013, p. 293). Overall, the findings concluded that the reentry program and treatment did not reduce relapse, when in fact the participants who did not receive treatment had similar results to the group who received treatment. The group that received treatment had a 75% relapse whereas the group that did not receive treatment had a 71% percent relapse (Grommon, Davidson II, & Bynum, 2013, p. 298). The rates for recidivism were also similar, but could have been inaccurate

7 EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM 7 due to voluntary non-participation of the treatment group. The treatment group had 30% of participants rearrested and 36% of those were sent to prison (Grommon, Davidson II, & Bynum, 2013, p. 298). The group that did not receive treatment had 27% of the participants rearrested and 31% percent of those were sent to prison (Grommon, Davidson II, & Bynum, 2013, p. 298). One significant difference between group outcomes was related to participation levels in treatment. When participation numbers were measured for family group sessions and AA/NA sessions the participation levels were much less in phase 2 compared to phase 1 with 91% decreasing to 11% participating in family group sessions and 98% decreasing to 39% participating in AA/NA sessions (Grommon, Davidson II, & Bynum, 2013, p. 296). Recidivism rates were impacted by the level of dosages received within the treatment group, but relapse rates were not relevant to levels of program dosage (Grommon, Davidson II, & Bynum, 2013, p. 301). The study by Neller et al. (2014) consisted of 753 federal inmates housed across three levels of security, who were likely to have a vast background of criminal history as well as at least one arrest as a juvenile and multiple arrests as an adult. Data was collected by surveys that were completed by the participants that were distributed by corrections staff (Neller et al., 2014, p. 426). The survey was distributed to determine what type of programs designed to reduce recidivism interested the inmates. Neller et al. (2014) found that 90.7 percent of participants had at least one program they were interested in. Inmates expressed a higher interest in programs that focused on self-improvement (87.4%) over programs that focused on relationship (76.9%) or community improvement such as trade skills, communication skills, and post-secondary education (61.6%) (Neller et al., 2014, p. 426).

8 EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM 8 Interests of specific programs varied between different levels of security among inmates. Minimum security inmates expressed more interest in volunteering, whereas medium security expressed a higher interest in programs that focused on communication skills, anger management, and substance abuse (Neller et al., 2014, p ). In general, among different classification levels, there was a greater desire for programs that offer self-improvement and much less interest in programs that cover substance abuse, marital dissatisfaction, impulsecontrol, and aggression (Neller et al., 2014, p. 426). The article by Russo (2012), is a descriptive article that covers four different studies that discussed the effectiveness of electronic monitoring systems (EMS). The first study population consisted of 5,034 medium and high-risk offenders from Florida Department of Corrections and were compared to 266,991 offenders who were not participants of the electronic monitoring system (Russo, 2012, p. 26). The second study involved 516 offenders from California Department of Corrections, and the fourth study population consisted of 3,656 defendants located across the United States. The third study involved 616 practitioners representing 43 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico (Russo, 2012, p. 28). The study established that agencies were in fact using GPS technology supervision more often, especially in domestic violence cases to help protect the victim and ensure defendant supervision (Russo, 2012, p. 27). The data was retrieved in multiple ways. The first and the second study both received their data from the specific departments of corrections (Russo, 2012, p. 26). The third study retrieved their data from practitioner surveys, whereas the fourth study examined the impact that electronic or GPS technology had on program violations and rearrests (Russo, 2012, p ).

9 EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM 9 Overall, much of the studies found that EMS had a positive impact on rearrests and they were being used more frequently. The first study found that electronic monitoring had a 31 percent reduction in offenders risk of failure (Russo, 2012, p. 26). The second study found that offenders in traditional supervision and not in EMS were twice as likely to get arrested (Russo, 2012, p. 26). The results for the fourth study varied based on the specific area either Midwest, west or south. The Midwest participants were less likely to get arrested for another domestic violence charge, the west had reduced chances of getting arrested for any type of crime, yet the south had no difference between the GPS monitoring and no GPS monitoring (Russo, 2012, p. 30). The article by Cavanaugh & Franklin (2012) studies the effectiveness of a driving while influenced (DWI) court on recidivism. The study population was 133 DWI offenders who had graduated the DWI court program between February 2006 and October 2010 and 954 DWI offenders who only received probation (Cavanaugh & Franklin, 2012, p. 263). The data was collected from the DWI courts including information about the offenders and new arrests if any. There were four different types of recidivism that was examined in the study: 1) new DWI arrest, 2) new arrest for any crime, 3) the time until a new DWI arrest, and 4) the time it takes for a new arrest for any crime (Cavanaugh & Franklin, 2012, p. 265). After 6 months, only 3.6 percent of DWI court participants were arrested for new DWI and 9 percent were arrested for any new crimes (Cavanaugh & Franklin, 2012, p ). Compared to probationers, 1.8 percent were rearrested for new DWIs and 3.6 percent for any new arrest (Cavanaugh & Franklin, 2012, p ). The 12 month follow up had results near the 6 month follow up. DWI court participants had 6 percent new DWI arrests and 13.1 percent had completely new arrests (Cavanaugh &

10 EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM 10 Franklin, 2012, p. 267). The probation group had 4.8 percent arrested for new DWIs and only 4.8 percent were arrested for new crimes (Cavanaugh & Franklin, 2012, p. 267). Brown (2011) examined the effectiveness of drug treatment courts (DTCs) on recidivism. The units of analysis were 137 drug court participants and 274 offenders who had drug related charges between 2004 and 2006 but never participated in DTCs (Brown, 2011, p. 194). The data was retrieved from the Consolidated Court Automations Program of the Wisconsin Circuit Court as well as medical data obtained from medical professionals from Dane County s mental health center (Brown, 2011, p. 193). When comparing the DTC group and the non-dtc group, the DTC group had a 30 percent rate of new crimes committed whereas the non-dtc group had 46 percent (Brown, 2011, p. 196). Sentence lengths were averaged out to be approximately 44 days for DTC participants and 126 days for non-dtc participants (Brown, 2011, p. 196). The average length of time a DTC participant went before recidivating was 614 days in comparison to non-dtc participants who went approximately 463 days before recidivating (Brown, 2011, p. 196). The study by Olver, Nicholaichuk & Wong (2014) consisted of 267 male federal sex offenders who were participants of a high-intensity sex offender treatment program which was sited within a maximum-security psychiatric facility. The participants were tested with the same psychometric measures before and after treatment was provided, to evaluate their psychological function, treatment needs, and progress in treatment (Olver, Nicholaichuk & Wong, 2014, p. 224). The participants were followed up with 18 years after treatment by the researchers. Overall, the findings showed that there was a change among most offenders after treatment. The post-treatment scores of the psychometric evaluations were less pathological or close to the same level with non-offender levels (Olver, Nicholaichuk & Wong, 2014, p. 226).

11 EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM 11 The article stated that there could be an inflation of numbers pretreatment because the participants would not want to reflect on themselves negatively (Olver, Nicholaichuk & Wong, 2014, p. 230). Per the results of the study, recidivism rates were reduced to a point. Within a 20 year follow up period, 27.3% of the participants were convicted for a sexual offense not related to the original one and 50.6% were convicted for any type of violent offense also including sexual offenses (Olver, Nicholaichuk & Wong, 2014, p. 229). These studies indicate that programs designed to reduce recidivism such as specialized courts, educational programs or treatment programs do reduce recidivism. The studies also indicate incarceration alone without any type of treatment, specialized courts or educational programs increase recidivism. Based on previous research programs designed to reduce recidivism do work. This research will evaluate the number of successes and failures in drug court and mental health court. Successes and failures relate to completion of the program and not getting rearrested, and failing the program and getting rearrested. Method Purpose The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of an adult drug court designed to reduce recidivism. Participants & Sampling Procedures The population that will be studied is a random sample of program participants from the Kootenai County Adult Drug Court. I will also interview the director of the Kootenai County Adult Drug Court.

12 EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM 12 Research Design I will be conducting quantitative research by obtaining rates of recidivism. The type of research I will be conducting is application research as I will be evaluating the programs that are meant to reduce recidivism. I plan to use interviews and court files for data collection. For the interview, I will use open ended questions. To find out the effectiveness of the programs, open ended questions are necessary. The variables that will be included are: client characteristics and client outcome. Data Collections I will program providers asking them to meet with them to conduct an interview. My court file analysis will be conducted as soon as possible. Ethical Consideration (Human Subject Protections) Refer to attached IRB application. (IRB removed to protect client identities.) Bias Assumptions There will be a bias to those not selected for specific treatment or court programs. Honest responses from participants will be essential for an accurate evaluation of programs designed to reduce recidivism as well as possible policy implications to further improve the programs.

13 EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM 13 Limitations A limitation of the research project is the limited amount of time allotted for research. Another limitation is that North Idaho s population is not very diverse. The study population will be predominately White. Findings Table 1: General Demographics Drug Court ( ) N=169 (2 Gender Unknown) Male n=116 Female n=54 Graduated Terminated Gender 68% 32% 60% 40% Race (% White) 97% 94% 60% 40% Average Time in Program 10.9 Months 12.5 Months 15 months (Range 10 41) Graduated 56% 69% 100% 0% Employed 54% 54% 66% 34% 6 months (Range 0 20) As seen in Table 1, the program had twice as many male as female clients. Women were in the program a couple months longer than men which correlates with the higher graduation rate for females. Typically participants are supposed to spend a minimum of 12 months in the program. The average time in the program for terminated clients was about 6 months. Their stay lasted anywhere from 0 to 20 months. Graduates typically spent more than a year in the program, ranging from 10 to 41 months. One of the reasons participants were in the program longer than 12 months, was because of the program s requirement of obtaining a GED. Longer time spent in the program and being employed both correlated with higher rates for graduation.

14 EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM 14 Table 2: Education Education Level Male n=116 Female n=54 Graduated Terminated < High School 24% 17% 18% 29% High School/GED 56% 67% 66% 49% Some College 20% 17% 16% 22% The highest success rate was for participants with a high school education or GED. Having a college background did not really appear to be correlated with improved graduation rates. Table 3: Age Age Category Graduated Terminated % 59% % 46% % 22% % 7% % 25% Age also played a big role in graduation rates of the program. The youngest age group (18 22) had the lowest graduation rate. The average age for participants was 29.

15 EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM 15 Table 4: Level of Service Inventory Categories Criminal History Education/Employment Financial Family/Marital Accommodations Leisure/Recreation Companions Alcohol/Drug Problems Emotional/Personal Attitude/Orientation The Level of Service Inventory is a risk assessment that helps with treatment planning and the supervisory needs of the participant. The LSI looks at several categories such as accommodations (being where clients live) as well as attitude/orientation, meaning whether or not they believe in the rule of law. Table 5: LSI Scores LSI Score (Level of Service Inventory) Male n=116 Female n=54 Graduated Terminated 0-15 Low 0 0 n/a n/a Moderate 72% 70% 61% 39% 31+ High 28% 30% 56% 44% Drug court uses the LSI to determine whether or not the program is the right fit for potential clients. If the LSI score is too low, the program may do more harm by exposing people to more at-risk people. This is why there are no 0-15 LSI score participants in court. Too high of an LSI score may indicate they need more help such as inpatient treatment.

16 EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM 16 Table 6: Graduates Change in LSI Scores Change (Improvement in LSI Scores) (Graduates Only) # of Participants % % % % Graduates are only included in this table because LSI scores were evaluated every 6 months. Terminated participants were not in the program long enough to be evaluated again. Nearly half of the participants were reclassified at a lower risk level after completing the treatment program. Men had an average LSI improvement of 15 points. Women had an average LSI improvement of 17 points. Table 7: Offenses Committed Charge Male Female n=116 n=54 Property (Arson, Theft, Burglary) 30% 30% Drug (Possession, Intent to Deliver) 53% 53% Violent (Assault, Domestic Violence) 4% 2% Other (DUI, Fleeing Officer, Fraud) 13% 15% As expected, the majority of offenses committed by drug court participants were drug crimes. Property crimes were also common because stolen goods can be sold for money which

17 EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM 17 can be used to purchase drugs. Violent crimes are so low because the screening process tends to weed out those offenders from the program. Table 8: Pre- and Post-Program Offenses Pre-Program Post-Program Guilty Charges Guilty Charges Property (Arson, Theft, Burglary) 14% 10% Drug (Possession, Intent to Deliver) 19% 18% Violent (Assault, Domestic Violence) 4% 7% Traffic (Speeding, Insurance, Seatbelt, DWP) 43% 53% DUI/ Alcohol Possession (Under 21) 5% 3% Probation Violations/ No Contact Order Violations Other (False info to LE, Fraud, Trespassing) 8% 2% 7% 7% Clients were found guilty of 771 charges before entering the program, and 322 guilty charges after leaving the program, resulting in 449 less crimes committed after participation in the program. The differences in the number of crimes committed may be in part, attributed to some participants having longer time to measure criminal activity pre-program versus postprogram. The percentage of drug crimes committed basically stayed the same after participating in drug court and traffic offenses actually increased 10 percent post program. Conversely, participation in the program may have attributed to decreasing the occurrences of property crime, probation violations and No Contact Order violations. Dismissed charges were not included in this analysis because they were not counted toward recidivism rates.

18 EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM 18 Interview It was determined in the interview that the biggest strength of the program was the treatment combined with the accountability of the courts. The courts mandating the treatment give the people actually wanting the treatment the extra push they needed to start treatment and the structure they needed to stick with it. One the biggest program components missing were housing and funds for inpatient treatment. Housing is extremely important to people s recovery because if they are stuck in an environment where people are using they are more likely to relapse and fail treatment. The funds for inpatient treatment are also important because sometimes the program is not enough for highrisk participants and they need more intensive treatment. Adult drug court cannot provide that treatment without funds. One of the biggest successes of the program that was relayed was participants graduating. Another success of the program was being able to see the participants finding their turning points where they realize what they need to do to be successful in the program as well as in life. Conclusion The greater length in program, having a high school education, being employed, being over the age of 30, and starting the program with a moderate LSI score were all associated with higher graduation rates. The overall graduation rate during the research period was 60%. Drug court helped reduce recidivism by reducing the number of crimes committed but the percentage for the different types of crimes committed (with the exception of property, probation violations, and No Contact Order violations) showed only slight decreases.

19 EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM 19 The hypothesis was partially supported in that the prevalence of drug crimes remained the same from pre- to post-program participation. However, the hypothesis was partially invalidated due to the decrease in the total number of crimes committed from pre- to postprogram. Recommendations For further success in the program and reduction of recidivism housing for participants needs to be available in order for them to live in a clean environment and stay away from possible temptations that would contribute to relapse. Funding for inpatient treatment needs to be provided for the higher risk participants that have a greater need for treatment that is beyond what drug court can provide. According to the data, the prevalence of traffic offenses increased post-program. If traffic education was mandated as part of drug treatment court, traffic offenses may be reduced which would also help in the reduction of recidivism. Life skills training such as problem-solving skills, regaining driver s licenses, securing auto insurance, how to fill out job applications, resumes, and bill paying will help participants better understand how to make a living using legitimate means, which may help in reducing recidivism because they will not resort to criminal behavior, and also reduce the penalties associated with inadequate life skills, such as monetary fines and loss of driving privileges.

20 EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM 20 References Bales, W. D., Clark, C., Scaggs, S., Ensley, D., Coltharp, P., Singer, A., & Blomberg, T. G. (2015). U.S. National Institute of Justice. An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Prison Work Release Programs on Post-Release Recidivism and Employment Bales, W.D., Piquero, A. R. (2011). Assessing the impact of imprisonment on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology Brown, R. (2011). Drug Court Effectiveness: A Matched Cohort Study in the Dane County Drug Treatment Court. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50(4), doi: / Cavanaugh, M. R., & Franklin, T. W. (2012). Do DWI Courts Work? an Empirical Evaluation of a Texas DWI Court. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 51(4), doi: / Durose, M. R., Cooper, A. D. Cooper & Snyder, H. N. (2014). Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. 31. Grommon, E., Davidson II, W.S., & Bynum, T. S. (2013). A randomized trial of a multimodal community-based prisoner reentry program emphasizing substance abuse treatment. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation Lockwood, S. K., Nally, J. M., & Ho, T. (2016). Race, Education, Employment, and Recidivism among Offenders in the United States: An Exploration of Complex Issues in the Indianapolis Metropolitan Area. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences,11(1),

21 EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM 21 Nally, J., Lockwood, S., Knutson, K., & Ho, T. (2012). An Evaluation of the Effect of Correctional Education Programs on Post-Release Recidivism and Employment: An Empirical Study in Indiana. The Journal of Correctional Education. 63(1) Neller, D.J., Vitacco, M.J., Magaletta, P.R., & Phillips-Boyles, A. B. (2014). Eliciting Responsivity: Exploring Programming Interests of Federal Inmates as a Function of Security Classification. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 60(4) Olver, M. E., Nicholaichuk, T. P., & Wong, S. P. (2014). The predictive and convergent validity of a psychometric battery used to assess sexual offenders in a treatment programme: an 18-year follow-up. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 20(2), doi: / Russo, J. (2012). Electronic Monitoring Research. Perspectives ( ), 36(4),

22 EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM 22 Appendix A - Approach Script Hi, My name is Tori Schuler. I work for the Kootenai County Sheriff s Office. Currently I am attending Lewis-Clark State College and finishing my last semester. I am doing a research project examining the effectiveness of programs designed to reduce recidivism. I was wondering if you d be willing to participate in an interview or know someone involved in the administration of the program who would be willing to participate, so I could obtain a perspective from a nonparticipant? If so, let me know when it would be possible to meet with you. Thank you so much for your time. Sincerely, Tori

23 EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM 23 Appendix B - Consent Form Appendix B An Evaluation of Programs Designed to Reduce Recidivism Consent Form Victoria Schuler Project # My name is Victoria Schuler, and I am a senior at Lewis-Clark State College. You are being asked to complete an interview about drug court. The interview will take about 30 minutes. Any risks are considered to be minimal or non-existent. Participating in this study is voluntary. If you are bothered by any questions, you may skip them. You may stop participating at any time. No names or identifying information will be collected. All responses will be confidential. You may ask me questions at any time. Any information identifying specific people will be left out of the study findings. If you have other questions, you can contact Professor McMillin at (208) or hemcmillin@lcsc.edu. If you have other questions about your rights in this study, you may contact the LCSC Institutional Review Board at (208) If you complete the interview, that means you agree to participate in this study. Thank you for your time in providing this important information.

24 EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM 24 Appendix C Interview Questions How long are they in the program? What are the strengths of the program? What s missing in the program that should be present that would help the participants? How do you measure success of the program?

25 EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM 25 Checklist for application submission: IRB application (include grant proposal if funded project) Informed consent/assent forms Outline or script to be provided prior to participants agreement to participate Instrument(s) [questionnaire, survey, testing] Submit one complete hard copy with signatures to the Social Sciences SPH 101A application as an attachment to IRB Chair Any changes in the project after approval by the IRB must be resubmitted as a Modification for review by the IRB before changes can be made. Modifications do not change the period of initial approval. APPROVAL IS GRANTED FOR ONE-YEAR MAXIMUM AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AT ANY TIME THROUGHOUT THIS PERIOD. ANNUAL REQUESTS MUST BE MADE TO THE IRB FOR CONTINUATION, AS LONG AS THE RESEARCH CONTINUES, OR IDENTIFIERS ARE MAINTAINED. Federal guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects, 45CFR46 (Code of Federal Regulations), may be found at: