Where did we leave off in November?
… Summary of November
CACCB Meeting
… Some questions and
things to think about for
today
Glenn A. Tapia, Director
Office of Community Corrections
Colorado Division of Criminal Justice
Age in Years
120
100
1903
Years
80
60
1952
40
1974
20
0
Age in Years
Probation
Parole
110
61
Community
Corrections
39
1960s &1970s
1990s & 2000s
1970s &1980s
2000s & 2010s
1980s &1990s
2020s
1970s
1990s (mid)
1980s
2000s
1990s
2010s
Residential Supervision of Diversion and Transition
Felons
Non-Residential
Residential Supervision of Diversion and Transition
Felons
Therapeutic Community
Residential Supervision of Diversion and
Transition
Felons
Non-Residential
Therapeutic Community
Residential Supervision of Diversion and Transition
Felons
Non-Residential
Modified TC for Dually
Diagnosed
Therapeutic Community
Non-Residential
Residential Supervision of Diversion and
Transition
Felons
Intensive Residential
Treatment
Modified TC for Dually
Diagnosed
Therapeutic Community
Modified TC for Dually
Diagnosed
Non-Residential
Residential Supervision of Diversion and
Transition
Felons
Intensive Residential
Treatment
Dual Diagnosis
Therapeutic Community
Modified TC for Dually
Diagnosed
Non-Residential
Residential Supervision of Diversion and
Transition
Felons
Intensive Residential
Treatment
Dual Diagnosis
Higher Risk Offenders
Therapeutic Community
Modified TC for Dually
Diagnosed
Non-Residential
Residential Supervision of Diversion and
Transition
Felons
Intensive Residential
Treatment
Dual Diagnosis
Higher Risk Offenders
Sex Offenders
Therapeutic
Community
Modified TC for
Dually Diagnosed
Non-Residential
Condition of Parole
Residential Supervision of Diversion and
Transition
Dual Diagnosis
Felons
Intensive Residential
Treatment
Sex Offenders
Higher Risk
Offenders
Therapeutic
Community
Modified TC for
Dually Diagnosed
Non-Residential
Condition of Parole
Outpatient TC
Residential Supervision of Diversion and
Transition
Felons
Intensive
Residential
Treatment
Dual Diagnosis
Higher Risk
Offenders
Sex Offenders
Therapeutic
Community
Modified TC for
Dually Diagnosed
Non-Residential
Condition of
Parole
Outpatient TC
Residential Supervision of Diversion
and Transition
Felons
Intensive
Residential
Treatment
Dual Diagnosis
Condition of
Probation
Sex Offenders
Higher Risk
Offenders
Therapeutic
Community
Modified TC for
Dually
Diagnosed
Non-Residential
Condition of
Parole
Outpatient TC
Residential Supervision of Diversion and
Transition
Felons
Intensive
Residential
Treatment
Dual Diagnosis
Condition of
Probation
Sex Offenders
Housing for
Homeless Parole
Higher Risk
Offenders
Therapeutic
Community
Modified TC for
Dually
Diagnosed
NonResidential
Condition of
Parole
Intensive
Residential
Treatment
Outpatient TC
Residential Supervision of Diversion
and Transition
Dual Diagnosis
Felons
Condition of
Probation
Sex Offenders
Emergency
Housing for
Dually
Diagnosed
Higher Risk
Offenders
Housing for
Homeless
Parole
Therapeutic
Community
Modified TC
for Dually
Diagnosed
NonResidential
Condition of
Parole
Intensive
Residential
Treatment
Outpatient TC
Residential
Supervision of
Diversion and
Transition
Dual Diagnosis
Felons
Condition of
Probation
Sex Offenders
Misdemeanor
Drug
Offenders
Higher Risk
Offenders
Emergency
Housing for
Dually
Diagnosed
Housing for
Homeless
Parole
Overall Average Daily Population
(All Types – Regular and Specialized)
FY09 thru FY13
4500.0
4400.0
4300.0
4200.0
ADP
4100.0
4000.0
3900.0
3800.0
3700.0
3600.0
3500.0
TOTAL PLACEMENTS
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
4311.6
4274.5
4382.2
4242.9
4097.4
Proportion of Placements
(Regular vs Specialized)
FY09
10%
THEN
1 in 10 placements were Specialized
Regular Placements
90%
Specialized
Placements
Proportion of Placements
(Regular vs Specialized)
FY13
17%
NOW
Regular Placements
1 in 6 placements are Specialized
Specialized Placements
83%
Colorado Community Based Populations
Average LSI Score
GROWTH AREAS
HIGH
RISK/NEED
40
35
30
AVG LSI Score
MEDIUM
RISK/NEED
25
20
15
LOW
RISK/NEED
10
5
0
Average LSI Score
Probation
(Regular)
Parole (Regular
plus ISP-P)
Regular
Community
Corrections
IRT
RDDT
JERP
TC
18
24
29
31
33
33
36
Termination Reasons - Community Corrections
FY01 to FY13
(FY13 Data is Draft)
70.0
Percentage of Terminations
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Successful Completion
Technical Violation
Escape
FY01
58.0
20.0
13.0
FY02
58.0
20.0
12.0
FY03
60.3
16.8
13.4
FY04
54.0
22.0
15.8
FY05
51.9
24.0
16.0
FY06
55.4
21.3
14.8
FY07
58.9
20.9
11.9
FY09
56.6
22.1
9.4
FY10
53.5
25.8
11.4
FY11
52.3
26.1
12.0
FY12
54.1
24
11
FY13
51.6
24.8
12.5
Recidivism Data in Community Corrections
Terminations from FY00 Through FY09-FY11
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
Recidivism Rate
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
FY00
FY01
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09-FY11
16.5%
12 Month
14.4%
13.4%
14.6%
15.2%
15.4%
16.4%
18.3%
16.7%
14.6%
24 Month
23.9%
26.5%
25.7%
23.9%
23.9%
27.8%
29.3%
28.1%
26.8%
1970s
& 1980s
STARTUP
1990s
ORGANIZATION &
GROWTH
2000s
2010s
COMPLIANCE,
ACCOUNTABILITY
& GROWTH
QUALITY?
SCIENCE?
DIVERSIFICATION?
2020s
Cultural Eras of Colorado Community Corrections
•More offenders
•More facilities
•Incentives to local
jurisdictions to site
a facility
•Funding shift to
DCJ
•Advisory Council
•Contracts
•Standards
•Auditing
•Data Collection
LOCAL CONTROL
•Audits
•Revised
Standards
•Ranked Standards
•Risk Factor
Analysis
•Technology and
Data Systems
•Evidence Based
Practice
•Fidelity and
Adherence
•Specialization
•Cost-Benefit vs
Just Cost Savings
LOCAL SUPPORT
?

What was it like then?
 30 years ago?
 20 years ago?
 10 years ago?
 5 years ago?


What is it like now and is it noticeably
different?
Has board decision making changed to fit
present realities?
About Human Decision Making?
Hundreds of Studies Over 50 Years
Human beings take mental short cuts when making
decisions
 Short cuts often a function of core belief systems and
attitudes at the individual level
 Often distorted or biased against or for a certain subject
 Crime, and therefore criminal justice decisions are
complex and involve many competing factors
 Humans have difficulty in reliably balancing all the factors
and variations across offenders
 We make snap judgments due to our inherent inabilities
to consider, weigh, and balance all the factors
 These mental short cuts, become habits (cognitive habits)


Nagy, Geraldine. 2013. Moving Implementation of Evidence-Based Practice Forward: A Practitioners View.
Justice Research and Policy. Volume 15. No 1.)
General label for errors, biases and cognitive habits
They are automatic
They are sub-conscious
They are invisible to self-analysis
Allow us to act quickly and easily in complex decision
making situations
 Judgments of risk are especially prone to heuristic
bias
 We often INFER risk rather than objectively measure risk
 Intuition is comfortable and familiar (but often
inaccurate)





Nagy, Geraldine. 2013. Moving Implementation of Evidence-Based Practice Forward:
A Practitioners View. Justice Research and Policy. Volume 15. No 1.)




Cognitive Guiding (Structured Decision Making)
Actuarial tools are necessary, but insufficient to
complete the job of decision making
Structured Decision Making uses risk
information but allows us to avoid bias from reentering the decision making process
Risk Assessment and Structured Decision
Making are not independent, but rather
interdependent processes than make up the
EBDM framework
Nagy, Geraldine. 2013. Moving Implementation of Evidence-Based Practice
Forward: A Practitioners View. Justice Research and Policy. Volume 15. No 1.)
Center for Effective Public Policy
A National Perspective



Use good, empirically-based, actuarial tools
to assess risks and needs of offenders
Develop and use clear, evidence-based
decision making practices and tools that
reflect the full range of an offender’s
characteristics
Get out of the way of low risk offenders





Law Enforcement – to guide arrest decision
Pre-Trial Release decisions
Jails, Corrections, Community Corrections
making program or institutional placement
decisions
Parole Board – release decisions
Supervising agencies – supervision levels,
treatment levels, and violation decisions


Using sound, valid, reliable risk assessment
tools can substantially increase our accuracy
at predicting certain risks when compared to
using our clinical judgment alone.
Given the nature of our business, and the
important consequences of your decisions, it
makes sense to use tools that can assist you
in evaluating certain relevant elements – such
as risk.
Greg Mauro (City and County of Denver)
Joel Bishop (Mesa County)
Denver Board Decision Making Tool
Mesa County EBDM Project
Criminal Justice Planners
17th Judicial District (Adams)
th
18 Judicial District (Arapahoe)
th
20 Judicial District (Boulder)
SURVEY OF BOARD MEMBERS
RECIDIVISM/DATA ANALYSIS
History of Violence
 Criminal History
 Type of Current Offense
 Escape History
 Previous Revocations
 Mandatory Release Date


Strong relationship with outcomes
 Risk/Need Assessment Scores
 Employment Status
 Education Level
 Age
 Modest or NO relationship with
outcomes
 Criminal History (Modest)
 Mental Health (Modest)
 Violence (No)
 Type of Offense (Modest)







Community Corrections has changed substantially in its 39
year existence
Offenders are higher risk/need than before and becoming
more specialized
Success rates are declining while recidivism rates are holding
relatively constant
Correctional programs are compelled to implement evidence
based practices to change offender behavior
The body of research provides opportunities to improve
human decision making which is inherently limited in
criminal justice settings
Social science technology (EBDM) is available to aid decision
making and is trending nationally
Local jurisdictions like Denver and Mesa and the Parole
Board are taking affirmative action into EBDM
1.
On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the highest) how IMPORTANT is it
for your community corrections PROGRAM to apply evidencebased practices, programs and principles with offenders?
2.
On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the highest) how IMPORTANT is it
for your community corrections board to apply evidence-based
decision making in your screening process?
3.
On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the highest), how WILLING is your
board to apply evidence-based decision making in its screening
processes?
4.
On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the highest), how CONFIDENT are
you in your local jurisdictions ability to apply evidence-based
decision making in its screening processes?