Allen County Community Corrections Home Detention-Day Reporting Program Report for Calendar Years 29-211 Joseph Hansel, Ph.D. and Jacqueline Wall, Ph.D. Allen County Community Corrections 21 W. Superior Street Fort Wayne, IN 4682 Telephone: 26.449.7252 http://allencountycorrections.com
Home Detention-Day Reporting Program Impact Evaluation Introduction The following report summarizes the major evaluation findings examining offenders placed in supervision via Home Detention-Day Reporting(HD-DR) programs by the Allen County Circuit Court. The report is designed with the following questions as organizing principles: 1. Who tends to enter the HD-DR? 2. What types of offenses are committed leading to referral to the HD-DR? 3. What level of risk do HD-DR offenders demonstrate? 4. How successful are offenders in completing the HD-DR? 5. What relationships exist between items 1-4 and program completion? 6. How frequent is recidivism and what form does that recidivism take? 7. What relationships exist between items 1-4 and recidivism? Allen County Community Corrections Description The mission of Allen County Community Corrections is to operate a community based program that provides services to offenders, persons charged with a crime or an act of delinquency, persons sentenced to imprisonment, or victims of crime or delinquency to meet the needs of the individual criminal offender, victims of crime and the community at large. HD-DR Purpose HD-DR serves offenders who are placed in supervision from both felony and/or misdemeanor court as a part of a sentencing agreement(s). Transfers from other felony and misdemeanor courts are also eligible for placement into the HD-DR program. All offenders placed in a HD-DR supervision component are directly referred from court as a stipulation of their sentencing and have not served time in a Department of Correction facility for the charges/convictions that place them into HD-DR. History of HD-DR Allen County Community Corrections initiated HD-DR programs on January 1, 24. Since this time, the program has served individuals with mental illness who experience recurrent arrest and incarceration for drug or alcohol related offenses. Preparation of this Evaluation Report The information presented in this report examines those who entered supervision, left supervision and completed the three year follow-up between January 1, 29 and December 31, 211. During this time, a total of 383 offenders entered supervision between January 1, 29 and December 31, 211. The number of offenders who completed supervision in HD-DR between January 1, 29 and July 14, 211 was 432. Five hundred and ninety one (531) offenders completed their 3 year post follow-up recidivism check between January 1, 29 and July 14, 211. The information used to prepare this report was extracted from the Allen County data base and provided to the evaluators on July 14, 211 and on March 22, 212. This data was used for the examination of all of the information provided in this report. It is important to know that this report, although looking at factors associated with individual offenders, is designed to assess outcomes at a programmatic level. As a consequence, information provided represents an 2
analysis of offenders under supervision at the three different time points intake, exit, and three-year recidivism and is not designed to follow an offender from entry into care until they exit and complete their post-supervision follow-up. Such an analysis will be provided in a separate document. It is also important to recognize that this report does not include information on offenders who were not accepted into supervision, and it is crucial to identify that those offenders accepted did not represent a random group of offenders being processed through the Allen County judicial system. In other words, as there is no contrast or control group available to serve as a comparison, it is challenging to claim without uncertainty that the outcomes are exclusively due to the programs implemented. This is especially true for samples seen at completion of supervision and at the three-year recidivism check, as it is not known how representative these samples are. That being said, the information has been examined in comparison to that which has been collected in the past, in an attempt to examine trends over time. 3
Summary of Evaluation Findings Home Detention-Day Reporting Offenders entering Home Detention Day Reporting (HD-DR) were on average, 31.2 years of age, with a range of just under 18 (17.3) to 83.8 years. 78.6% of offenders entering this supervision were male. 59.3% of HD-DR offenders were Caucasian, 3.8% were African American, 7.6% were Latino, 2.1 were Asian, and.3 were bi-racial. 71.8% of offenders starting HD-DR were single, 12.8% were married, 2.6% separated, 11.7% divorced and 1.% widowed. Offenders entering HD-DR were reported to have to 16 dependent children, with a median number of children of. 43.1% of those starting HD-DR had obtained a high school diploma and 25.1% completed a GED equivalency exam. Less than 1 in 2 (4.7%) had obtained degrees beyond high school and 25.8% had less than a high school diploma. Of those entering HD-DR between 29 and 211, 319% lived in quadrant 4, 25.3% in quadrant 3, 2.9% in quadrant 2, and 21.9% in quadrant 1. 35.8% of those in this offender group had a primary diagnosis on Axis I. 84.7% of those diagnoses were related to alcohol or other substance abuse/dependence. Almost 1 in 8 (12.3%) received a primary diagnosis of a mood disorder or V code. About 1 in 5 (2.2%) were diagnosed with a primary diagnosis on Axis I with an anxiety disorder. 27.4% of those in this offender group had a secondary diagnosis on Axis I. 59.3% of those diagnoses were related to alcohol or other substance abuse/dependence. 21.6% received a primary diagnosis of a mood disorder or an anxiety disorder. 2.4% of the diagnoses given were classified as other (e.g., psychotic disorders, learning disorders, or V codes). On Axis II, 17.8% of offenders were given a primary diagnosis. Four (4) of 1 (4.%) evaluated received no diagnosis or were deferred. Of those given a primary diagnosis on Axis II, just less than 2 in 5 (37.1%) received a diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder. 12.3% were given a diagnosis of Borderline Intellectual Functioning. Nearly 3 of every 4 (73.4%) offenders were charged with Class D Felonies, 1 in 6 (16.8%) with Class C Felonies, and 1 in 23 (4.3%) with Class B Felonies. No offenders were classified with Class A Felonies/Murder charges. Over 1 in 38 (2.6%) were classified with Class A Misdemeanors. 4
34.7% of the offenders were charged with major driving offenses, 22.7% with drug offenses, 22.2% with property offenses, 13.1% with public order offenses, 7.% with violent offenses and.7% with sexual offenses. Risk of re-offense was measured in various ways. According to the IRAS, of those receiving a risk level IRAS score, over 1 in 3 (37.%) was found to have High or Very High Risk level of reoffending. According to the LSI-R, of those receiving a risk level, 89.3% were found to have at least a low/moderate level of risk to reoffend. Regarding program outcomes, 13.8% of those entering HD-DR from 29 to 211 were either still under supervision or had missing data. Using the entire sample, 46.1% successfully completed the program, 4.4% received new charges, 31.7% committed technical violations, 2.1% escaped, 1.2% were administratively released, and 1.4% were classified as other. Those who successfully completed their supervision were more likely to be older. Successful completion was positively related to being a member of the majority race, as was years of education. In addition, successful completion was more frequently seem among offenders with lower levels of risk. About 3 in 1 (31.8%) of all offenders who underwent a three year recidivism check during 29-211 were rearrested. The offenders who were rearrested were noted to share a number of individual characteristics. These characteristics included receiving ratings of high on risk scales. 5
Section 1 Who tends to enter HD-DR? 29-211 6
Demographics of those entering HD-DR between 29 and 211 Latino, 7.6% Female, 21.4% African- American, 3.8% Gender Male, 78.6% Asian, Bi-racial, 2.1%.3% Caucasian, 59.3% The number of offenders entering HD-DR between 29 and 211 was 383. Offenders were on average 31.2 years of age (Standard Deviation [SD] = 11.), with a range of just under 18 years of age (17.3) to just under 84 years of age (83.8). A large majority of offenders were male (78.6%). About 3 in 5 (59.3%) were Caucasian, with about 3 in 1 being African-American (3.8%), 1 in 13 Latino (7.6%), 1 in 5 (2.1%) were Asian/Pacific Islander and less than 1 in 1 (.3%) were biracial. About 7 in 1 of the offenders were single (71.8%), about 1 in 8 were married (12.8%), 1 in 5 were separated (2.6%), 1 in 9 were divorced (11.7%), 1 in 1 were widowed (1.%). For these offenders, the median number of children reported was, with a range of -16 children. Married 12.8% Separated 2.6% Ethnicity Divorced 11.7% Widowed 1.% Single 71.8% About 7 in 1 (68.2%) of this group of offenders had obtained a high school diploma (43.1%) or a General Education Diploma (GED) equivalency exam (25.1%). A majority (82.9%) had attended school for 12 years or more. Less than 5 percent (4.7%) of those in the HD-DR program had obtained degrees beyond a high school diploma. 25.8% reported less than high school completed. Marital Status 7
Quad. 4, 31.9% Quad. 3, 25.3% Quad. 1, 21.9% Quad. 2, 2.9% Offenders were relatively evenly distributed across the quadrants of residence. Almost a third of the offenders (31.9%) came from quadrant 4. About 1 in 4 (25.3%) came from quadrant 3. About a fifth of offenders came from each of quadrant 1 (21.9%) and quadrant 2 (2.9%). Residence by Quadrants in Allen County 8
Mental Health and Substance Abuse/Use Conditions Axis I Missing Data, 64.2% Primary Diagnosis, 35.8% Offenders entering the HD-DR between 29 and 211 were evaluated for mental disorders using the DSM-IV criteria. Of the offenders in this sample using all of the data, 35.8% of offenders in the HD- DR received a primary mental health diagnosis on Axis I. The 64.2% of the group not receiving an evaluation were classified as missing data. Axis I Primary Diagnosis For offenders receiving a primary, Axis I diagnosis, the most common diagnosis (46.8%) was for alcohol use disorders. Almost 2 in 5 (37.9%) were received an Axis I primary diagnosis for substance abuse. About 1 in 25 (3.6%) were diagnosed with a mood disorder and about 1 in 5 (2.2%) were diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. V codes, adjustment disorders, and other diagnoses were given to about 1 in 11 (8.7%) of these offenders. Anxiety Disorder 1% 8% 6% 4% 2% % 2.2% 8.7% 3.6% 37.9% 46.8% Other Disorder Mood Disorder Substance Abuse & Dependence Disorder Alcohol Abuse & Dependence Disorder Valid Axis I Primary Diagnosis 9
Of the total, 27.4% of offenders in the HD-DR received a secondary mental health diagnosis on Axis I. The 72.6% of the group not receiving an evaluation for secondary disorders were classified as missing data. Missing Data, 72.6% Axis I Secondary Diagnosis Secondary Diagnosis, 27.4% Of the offenders receiving secondary mental health diagnosis on Axis I, almost 2 in 1 were diagnosed with mood disorders (17.7%), less than 1 in 25 were diagnosed with anxiety disorders (3.9%), 1 in 1 were diagnosed with alcohol abuse and dependence disorders (1.5%), almost 5 in 1 were diagnosed with substance abuse and dependence disorders (48.8%), and 1 in 5 were diagnosed with other disorders (2.4%). 12% 1% 8% 6% 4% 2% % 2.4% 48.8% 1.5% 3.9% 17.7% Other Disorder Substance Abuse & Dependence Disorder Alcohol Abuse & Dependence Disorder Anxiety Disorder Mood Disorder Valid Axis I Secondary Diagnosis 1
About 1 in 4 (28.5%) of those in this offender group had primary (14.7%) or secondary (13.8%) diagnoses of the Axis I disorders involving substance abuse or dependence. About 1 in 5 (19.5%) of those in this offender group had primary (16.7%) or secondary (2.8%) diagnoses of the Axis I disorders involving alcohol abuse or dependence. About 1 in 2 (6.5%) of offenders in this group had primary (1.4%) or secondary (5.2%) diagnosis of Mood Disorders. Just about 1 in 2 offenders were diagnosed with V-code disorders (4.9%), with 1.1% having a V-code disorder as a primary diagnosis and 3.8% having V-code disorders as a secondary diagnosis. The remaining groups of diagnoses were found in only 1-2% of the HD-DR sample and both primary and secondary totaled 5.9%. These included Anxiety Disorders (.8% primary, 1.1% secondary), Learning disorders (.6% primary), Adjustment Disorders (.3% primary, 1.1% secondary), and other (1.2% primary,.8% secondary). 3.% 25.% 2.% 15.% 32.4% 1.% 5.%.% 13.8% 2.8% 25.% 3.8% 5.1% 1.1% 1.4%.6%.3%.% 1.1% 1.1%.8% Secondary Primary.8% 1.2% Percentage of Offenders with Primary or Secondary Axis I Diagnosis 11
Axis II and Axis V Diagnoses Missing Data, 82.2% Primary Diagnosis, 17.8% Some of the offenders entering HD-DR between 29 and 211 were evaluated for Axis II mental disorders using the DSM-IV criteria. Of HD-DR offenders, 17.8% were evaluated for a primary mental health diagnosis on Axis II. For 82.2% of the group, the diagnostic data were missing. For offenders receiving a primary, Axis II Axis II Primary Diagnosis evaluation, 4 in 1 (4.%) offenders did not receive an Axis II diagnosis or the diagnosis was deferred, almost 2 in 5 (37.1%) were diagnosed with an Antisocial Personality Disorder, 1 in 8 (12.3%) received a Borderline Intellectual Functioning disorder diagnosis, and 1 in 1 (1.6%) received other personality disorder diagnoses. 1% 8% 6% 4% 2% % 1.6% 37.1% 12.3% 4.% Other Personality Disorder Antisocial Personality Disorder Borderline Intellectual Function No diagnosis or deferred Valid Axis II Primary Diagnosis 12
The Mean score on Axis V (Global Assessment of Functioning) of the DSM-IV (APA, 1999) for these offenders was 58.9 with a standard deviation of 11.. Scores in this range are typical of those who report moderate psychological symptoms and/or moderate impairment in social, educational, or occupational functioning. The GAF scores for the sample ranged from 11 to 81, suggesting a range of severely disturbed individuals to those relatively free from psychopathology. 13
Prevalence of Axis I Conditions 1.% 8.% 6.% 4.% 2.%.% 28.5% Substance Abuse Disorders 1.9% 18.6% 19.5% Alcohol Abuse Disorders 6.5% 2.8% 28.8% 1.9% 35.5% Mood Disorders Anxiety Disorders Any Disorder Prevalence of Axis I Conditions 46.4% HD-E General Population Note: In the above graphic, prevalence rates (in percentage of the population) for Axis I diagnoses within the HD-DR population are compared to lifetime prevalence rates in the general US population (Kessler et al., 25). Substance Use Disorders are 2.6 times more likely to be diagnosed in the HD-DR sample. Alcohol Use Disorders are 1.5 more likely to be diagnosed in the HD-DR sample. Mood disorders are 3.2 times less likely to be diagnosed in the HD-DR sample. Anxiety Disorders are 15.2 times less likely to be diagnosed in the HD-DR sample. These offenders are 1.3 times less likely to receive any Axis I diagnosis compared to the general population. 14
Prevalence of Axis II Conditions 36.8% Antisocial PD 3.% 1.9% Other PD 6.% 13.6% HD-E 2.1% Borderline Intellectual Functioning Prevalence of Axis II Conditions General Population Note: In the above graphic, prevalence rates (in percentage of the population) for Axis II diagnoses within the HD-DR population are compared to lifetime rates in the general US population (DSM-IV-TR, 2). Prevalence rates of Borderline Intellectual Functioning are estimated based upon normal curve equivalent. Antisocial Personality Disorder is 12.3 times more likely to be diagnosed in the HD-DR sample. Other Personality Disorders are 3.2 times less likely to be diagnosed in the HD-DR sample. Those in the HD-DR sample are 6.5 times less likely to receive a diagnosis of Borderline intellectual Functioning compared to the general population. 15
Section 2 What types of offenses are committed leading to referral to HD-DR? 16
Types of Offenses Committed The chart below shows the percent of primary offenses for offenders entering the HD-DR. The most frequent offense for this group was major driving offenses including DWI and habitual traffic violator with over 1 in 3 (34.7%) committing this type of offense. The second and third most frequent offences, drug offenses and property offenses were charged against about 1 in 5 (22.7% & 22.2%, respectively) of the offenders. About 1 in 8 (13.1%) HD-DR offenders were charged with public order offenses including resisting arrest and possession of a handgun. About 1 in 14 (7.%) of the offenders were charged with violent offenses like common assault and domestic battery. Less than 1 in 1 (.7%) were accused of sexual offenses. Primary Offense % Major driving offenses 34.7% Drug offenses 22.7% Property offenses 22.2% Public order offenses 13.1% Violent offenses 7.% Sexual offenses.7% The average number of prior Department of Correction (DoC) commitments for those entering HD-DR was.47 (SD=1.), with a range of -7. The Median number of prior commitments was. A majority (73.4%) of the offenders were charged with Class D Felonies, about 1 in 6 (16.8%) were charged with Class C Felonies and about 1 in 25 (4.3%) were charged with Class B Felonies. A little more than 1 in 5 (2.6%) of the offenders had been charged with a Class A Misdeameanor. B Felony, 4.3% A Misdmn., 2.6% C Felony, 16.8% D Felony, 73.4% Types of Offenses 17
Missing Data, 57.% Violent Crime Classifications Classified, 43.% The violence of crimes of about 4 in 1 (43.%) of the offenders entering HD-DR between 29 and 211 were classified. The remainder (57.%) was not classified and is shown as missing data. Of those classified, 2 in 5 (41.1%) committed crimes that involved violence but no victim, whereas about 1 in 2 (48.3%) involved violence against a victim. A smaller percentage of offenders (1.6%) were involved in sexual offenses. Sex Offender, 1.6% Violent No Victim, 41.1% Victim & Violent, 48.3% Valid Violent Crime Classifications 18
Section 3 What level of risk do HD-DR offenders demonstrate? 19
About 3 in 1 (3.3%) of HD-DR offenders were classified on the PCL-R risk evaluation. The rest were not and are shown on the chart below as missing data. Of the valid classifications over 9 in 1 (9.5%) of offenders were classified as low risk on the PCL-R. The remaining 9.5% were classified as high risk. Missing Data 69.7% Classified 3.3% Low risk 9.5% High risk 9.5% PCL-R Risk Classifications Client Risk Level PCL-R High risk, 33.1% Missing data, 66.8% IRAS Scores Very high risk, 3.9% Valid IRAS Scores Low risk, 2.5% Classified, 33.2% Low-mod risk, 3.1% Moderate risk, 39.4% Some offenders had IRAS scores recorded (n = 127, 33.2% of total cases). All others were classified as missing data (66.8%). Of offenders classified in HD-DR, over 1 in 3 (37.%) were considered to be at High Risk or Very High Risk of reoffending. About 4 in 1 were considered moderate risk (39.4%), about 1 in 32 (3.1%) were considered low to moderate risk, and about 1 in 5 (2.5%) were considered low risk IRAS Scores Mean SD Total at entry 2.2 7.1 Criminal History 3.3 2.1 Education, Employment, Finan. 3.3 1.8 Family and Social Support 1.5 1.3 Neighborhood Problems 1.6 1. Substance Abuse 2.7 1.5 Peer Associations 3.4 1.5 Criminal Attitudes/Behaviors 4.4 2.2 Score on components of the IRAS are shown in the table above. Criminal attitudes and behavior had the highest mean score of 4.4 and a standard deviation of 2.2. The Mean score for criminal history was 3.3 (SD = 2.1). Scores on peer associations was 3.4 (SD = 1.5). Education, employment and financial situation had a Mean score of 3.3 (SD = 1.8), substance abuse 2.7 (SD = 1.5), neighborhood problems 1.6 (SD = 1.), and family and social support had a mean score of 1.5 (SD = 1.3). 2
LSI-R Scores Mean SD Criminal History 4.9 2.3 Education, Employment 4.8 2.8 Financial.9 2.8 Family/Marital 1.7 1.2 Accommodation.3.7 Leisure Activity 1.3.8 Companions 2.3 1.4 Alcohol/Drug 4.3 2.4 Emotional/Personal 1.8 1.3 Attitudes 1.1 1.2 Total scores on the LSI-R were reported on 1 in 2 (55.9% of sample) of offenders entering HD-DR. The total Mean score was 23.5 (SD=7.4). Offenders in the HD-DR tended to have higher scores on the following scales: Criminal History, Education/Employment, Alcohol/Drugs, and Companions) suggesting these areas may be particularly problematic for those in the program. Missing data, 44.1% LSI-R Scores Classified, 55.9% About 11 in 2 (55.9%) of HD-DR offenders were classified on the LSI-R risk evaluation. The rest were not and are shown on the chart to the left as missing data. Of the HD-DR offenders classified on the LSI-R scale, 1 of 1 (1.7%) were scored as low risk, about 4 in 1 (38.8%) were at low to moderate risk, a little more than 1 in 3 (33.6%) were at moderate risk, 1 in 16 (6.1%) were considered at medium to high risk, and about 1 in 1 (.9%) were labeled high risk. Percentage of more toward red was 7.9% and more toward white was 7.9%. High,.9% Medium/High, 6.1% More Toward Red, 7.9% More Toward White, 7.9% Low, 1.7% Low/Moderate, 38.8% Moderate, 33.6% Valid LSI-R Risk Level 21
Section 4 How successful are offenders in completing the HD-DR? 22
12% 13.2% 1.4% Missing/Remain in program Other 1% 1.2% Administrative 8% 6% 4% 2% 31.7% 4.4% 46.1% 2.1% Escape Technical New Charge Completed % Release Status Of the offenders who were identified as completing supervision (N = 432), 13.2% (n=57) did not have data reported and is either missing or they remained in program at time of data collection. About half of the offenders 46.1%, (n=199) successfully completed their supervision. About 4 in 1 cases (39.6%, n=171) did not successfully finish the program. The breakdown of reasons why these did not finish the program is as follows: 4.4% received new charges 31.7% committed technical violations 2.1% were labeled as escaped 1.2% were administratively released 1.4% were classified as other. 23
Average time spent in HD-DR was calculated for the categories identified previously. Horizontal lines represent the mean length of time on program. The vertical lines represent the range encompassing +/- 1 standard deviation. Those with new charges were under supervision, on average, for 87.8 days (SD = 86.2). Offenders who were terminated from supervision for technical violations, stayed in supervision 93.9 days (SD=63.6). Those in the Other category were on 136.5 days (SD = 17.2). Offenders who escaped while under supervision were in HD-DR for an average of 48.5 days (SD = 6.6). Those administratively released were on program an average of 86.3 days (SD = 15.7). 25 2 15 1 5 24
Section 5 What relationships exist between items 1-4 and program completion? 25
Characteristics of offenders who were identified as completing the HD-DR were further examined. This investigation compared characteristics of those who successfully completed their program to those who were terminated for technical violations and those for whom new charges were filed. Characteristics of these offenders are presented below. Some caution is suggested in the interpretation of these findings, as there may be other unmeasured factors present that influence results. In addition, when compared to the larger population of offenders who are and will move though HD-DR, the representativeness of these offenders is not established. All of these offenders were referred by the Department of Correction. As length of time in supervision increased, so did the likelihood of successful completion of supervision (r s (369) =.62, p<.1). The number of prior DOC commitments was not significantly related to successful completion (r s (365) = -.5, ns). The age of an offender was related to successful completion (r s (369) =.15, p=.5). No significant differences were seen in the proportion of offenders successfully completing based upon where they lived when they entered supervision (Cramer s V =.13, ns). Majority race was not associated with successful completion (X 2 (1, 368) = 3.5, ns). Gender was not associated with successful completion (X 2 (1, 368) =.13, ns). Years of education was related to successful completion (r s (349) =.21, p<.1). Marital status was not associated with successful completion (X 2 (1, 368) = 2.7, ns). There was a difference in odds of successful completion of HD-DR supervision for persons having at least a high school education versus those who did not complete school or receive an equivalency diploma (X 2 (1, 365) = 4.43, p=.4). Categorical risk level from the PCL-was not significantly associated with successful completion (X 2 (1, 98) =.11, p=.78). Scores on the V-RAG were not significantly related to successful completion (r s (86) = -.2, ns). Scores on the Hare PCL-R were inversely related to successful completion (r s (122) = -.26, p=.3). Scores on the IRAS were inversely related to successful completion (r s (72) = -.38, p=.1). Scores on the LSI-R were inversely associated with successful completion (r s (212) = -.19, p=.5). 26
Section 6 How frequent is recidivism and what form does that recidivism take? 27
In order to evaluate recent recidivism outcomes, a sample of offenders was comprised of those individuals alive and completing the 3 year recidivism check during 29-211 (N = 591). The sample was largely male (78.3%), African American (36.9%) or Caucasian (56.3%), (Hispanic/Latino = 5.6%), averaged 31.9 years of age (SD = 1.4) at intake, and was single (66.8%). On average, this group had.5 prior commitments (SD =.9, Mdn number of priors = ) Offense types at intake included 65.1% Class D Felony, 15.4% Class C Felony, 15.4% Class B Felonies, and.5% Class A Felonies. In addition, 3.2% of these offenders were charged with Class A Misdemeanor and.3% Class B Misdemeanor. PCL-R risk classification - Of those offenders with PCL-R risk scores (39.1%, n=231), 13.4% (n=31) were identified as high risk and 86.6% (n=2) were identified as low risk. These offenders were on program an average of 176.7 days (Mdn 179.; SD = 114.7; range = 1-833). Just over 3 in 1 (31.8%) of these offenders were rearrested on at least one occasion during the specified recidivism period. Of those completing this 3 year post program recidivism check, most were rearrested once (22.7%). However, 7.3% were arrested twice, 1.4% three times, and.5% were arrested four times. No offender was arrested more than four times. 28
18 16 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 2 3 18 12 2 9 2 1st Arrest 2nd Arrest 3rd Arrest 6 month recidivism At six month recidivism check, 12 offenders were arrested for a Class D Felony, 3 for a Class C Felony, 2 for a Class B Felony, and for a Class A Felony. Of recidivism at the misdemeanor level, 2 offenders were rearrested for Class A Misdemeanor offenses, 9 for Class B Misdemeanors, and 2 for Class C Misdemeanor offenses. 16 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 1 1 1 15 11 7 1st Arrest 2nd Arrest 3rd Arrest Note: One individual was arrested a 4th time for an A Felony offense and another individual was arrested for murder. 12 month recidivism 29
At 12 month recidivism check (6-12 months post release), 15 offenders were arrested for a Class D Felony, for a Class C Felony, 3 for a Class B Felony, and for a Class A Felony. Of recidivism at the misdemeanor level, 11 were rearrested for Class A Misdemeanor offenses, 7 for Class B Misdemeanors, and for Class C Misdemeanors. 25 2 15 21 1 5 6 1 2 11 1 2 1 1 1st Arrest 2nd Arrest 3rd Arrest 18 month recidivism At 18 month recidivism check (12-18 months post release), 12 offenders were arrested for a Class D Felony offense, 6 for a Class C Felony, for a Class B Felony, and for a Class A Felony. Of recidivism at the misdemeanor level, 22 were arrested for Class A Misdemeanor offenses, 14 for Class B Misdemeanors, and 1 for Class C Misdemeanors. At 24 month recidivism check (18-24 months post release), 14 offenders were arrested for a Class D Felony offense, 1 for a Class C Felony, 1 for a Class B Felony, and for an A Felony. Of recidivism at the misdemeanor level, 22 were arrested for a Class A Misdemeanor offense, 1 for Class B Misdemeanors, and 3 for Class C Misdemeanors. 3
25 2 15 1 5 1 1 21 14 7 1 3 3 1st Arrest 2nd Arrest 3rd Arrest 24 month recidivism 2 15 18 1 5 4 1 6 1 2 2 1st Arrest 2nd Arrest 3rd Arrest 3 month recidivism At 3 month recidivism check (24-3 months post release), 1 offenders were arrested for a Class D Felony, 4 for a Class C Felony, for a Class B Felony, and for a Class A Felony. Of recidivism at the misdemeanor level, 19 were rearrested for a Class A Misdemeanor offense, 8 for Class B Misdemeanors, and 2 for Class C Misdemeanors. 31
16 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 2 2 8 1 16 1 1 3 1 1 1st Arrest 2nd Arrest 3rd Arrest 36 month recidivism At 36 month recidivism check (3-36 months post release), 9 offenders were arrested for a Class D Felony offense, 2 for a Class C Felony, 2 for a Class B Felony, and for a Class A Felony. Of recidivism at the misdemeanor level, 17 were arrested for Class A Misdemeanor offenses, 14 for Class B Misdemeanors, and 1 for C Misdemeanors. 32
Section 7 What relationships exist between items 1-4 and recidivism? 33
The following summarizes analysis of relationships between recidivism and other variables under investigation. Characteristics of these offenders are presented below. Some caution is suggested in the interpretation of these findings, as there may be other unmeasured factors present that influence results. In addition, when compared to the larger population of offenders who are and will move though the HD-DR, the representativeness of these offenders is not established. There were no statistically significant bivariate relationships between the following variables and recidivism: having an Axis I diagnosis, having an Axis II diagnosis, having a substance use diagnosis, DOC commitments, number of dependent children, education level, Hare PCL-R score, VRAG score, SORAG score, SARA score, LSI-R score, or total days on program. Age was negatively associated with re-arrest (r s (59) = -.16, p<.1), suggesting older age was associated with the reduced likelihood of being re-arrested. Minority race/ethnicity was associated with re-arrest (X 2 (1, 589) = 8.1, p=.5). The odds that an offender of minority ethnicity would be rearrested were 1.7 times higher than for offenders who were of majority ethnicity. Quadrant of residence was associated with re-arrest (Cramer s V=.127, p=.24). Offenders in quadrant 4 had the highest re-arrest rates (38.1% or 86/226), followed by those in quadrant 2 (34.5% or 39/113), quadrant 3 (26.4% or 33/125), and quadrant 1 (24.2% or 3/124). Marital status was associated with re-arrest (X 2 (1, 587) = 5.3, p=.21). Offenders who were single were 1.92 times more likely to be re-arrested than married offenders. 34