Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:21 am
Time: 12:21 am
Results for correctional programs (kansas, u.s.)
1 results foundAuthor: Kansas. Department of Corrections Title: Offender Program Evaluation: Volume VIII Summary: The programs described in this report have different curricula, different program durations, different objectives, different offender target groups, and different contractors. This set of differences makes program-to-program comparisons not “apples-to-apples.” Nonetheless, below we present a summary of some of the FY 2008 program results. Please keep in mind that these comparisons are not direct and that final interpretation and meaning must occur within the context of each individual program. Detailed data for each program is reported in subsequent sections of this report. It should be noted that during quality assurance reviews of the final draft of this report, the Department identified errors and inconsistencies with utilization data. Due to time constraints to investigate and correct the errors, utilization data is not provided in this evaluation. Total Program Participants -- The total number of program participants ranges from a low of 88 (Substance Abuse Treatment Program for females) to a high of 1,535 (Academic Education) for FY 2008. The Work Release Program had the second highest total number of participants at 828 and the Sex Offender Treatment Program had the third highest total participant number with 723. Number of Program Completions The total number of program completions (unduplicated) during FY 2008 ranged from a high of 412 (Work Release) to a low of 11 (Special Education). The Academic Education program achieved the second highest number of program completions at 390 and the Sex Offender Treatment program ranked third with a total of 251 program completions. The programs considered in this report also vary in the number of slots contracted or allocated to each program. This figure contributes heavily to the number of total participants that, in turn, influences the number of potential program completers. For FY 2008, the largest number of slots (average full-time equivalents) was for the Work Release program at 316. The next highest number of slots was for the Therapeutic Communities substance abuse treatment program at 220. Vocational Education (all types of vocational education combined) had the third-highest number of slots at 213. The smallest program in terms of contracted slots was Substance Abuse Treatment program for females (16 slots). Cost per Program Slot For the contractually operated programs, the FY 2008 actual expenditures can be divided by the number of program slots to obtain a cost per slot for the program. To ensure comparable figures, all slots are stated in terms of full-time equivalents. Actual program expenditures are not maintained for the KDOC-operated programs in a fashion that is separable from other KDOC functions (e.g., security, classification, etc.) associated with the program. Therefore, no cost per program slot is available for the KDOC-operated Chemical Dependency Recovery Program (CDRP) substance abuse treatment, Pre-Release, or Work Release programs. It should also be noted costs per slot are not reported for InnerChange, as all costs are assumed by the contract provider. Of the contracted programs considered in this report, Therapeutic Communities substance abuse treatment program demonstrates the lowest cost per program slot at $5,110 followed by Vocational Education at $5,137 and the Transitional Training Program at $6,149. The highest cost per slot was in the Academic Education Program ($10,520) followed by Special Education ($10,100) and the Sex Offender Treatment program ($9,970). Cost per Participant Using the same actual expenditure figures, the cost per participant can also be calculated for each of the contracted programs. As previously noted, costs are not reported for InnerChange, as all costs are assumed by the contract provider. Cost per participant was highest for the Special Education program ($4,720) followed by the Transitional Training program ($2,617) and the Sex Offender Treatment Program ($2,151). The lowest cost per participant was realized by Academic Education ($1,017), followed by Vocational Education ($1,460) and Therapeutic Community substance abuse treatment program ($1,976). The costs per participant for Special Education in Corrections, as it is in the public school system, are higher than other programs due in part to mandated requirements including lower class sizes, comprehensive evaluations, development and annual review of individualized education plans, provision of necessary services to qualified student(s) regardless of number of students available (can create teacher-student class ratios of 1 to 1), and that often as a result of disabilities, few students will achieve GED or complete all aspects of the IEP in the time in the program. Cost per Program Completion Although cost per participant gives a sense of how much it costs to have an offender enrolled in these programs, how much it costs for a program completion is also of interest. Special Education realized the highest cost per completion of the programs considered in this report ($45,909). This was followed by the Transitional Training program ($13,665) and the Therapeutic Community substance abuse treatment program ($8,185). The lowest cost per program completion was the Academic Education program ($4,003) followed by the Vocational Education program ($4,410). Note that important factors in this program cost calculation include the number of slots, the completion ratio, and the length of the treatment program. Costs per program completion for InnerChange are not reported, as all costs are assumed by the contract provider. The costs per program completion for Special Education in Corrections, as it is in the public school system, are higher than other programs due in part to mandated requirements including lower class sizes, comprehensive evaluations, development and annual review of individualized education plans, provision of necessary services to qualified student(s) regardless of number of students available (can create teacher-student class ratios of 1 to 1), and that often as a result of disabilities, few students will achieve GED or complete all aspects of the IEP in the time in the program. Completion Ratio The Completion Ratio is a calculation that compares the number of offenders completing a specific program within a fiscal year to the number who enrolled and had the opportunity to complete the program. The completion ratio is another measure of program efficiency. In FY 2008, the highest completion ratios were achieved by the Pre-Release program (88.9%), followed by the Work Release program (78.6%), the Substance Abuse Treatment Program for females (77.5%), and the Sex Offender Treatment program (68.0%). The lowest completion ratios were experienced by the Special Education Program (17.5%), Transitional Training (36.0%) and Academic Education (38.3%). PROGRAM OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: OVERVIEW Recidivism For most of the correctional interventions considered in this report, one of the program goals includes a reduction in recidivism, i.e., the number of returns to prison. There is no universally accepted definition of recidivism and it varies in three main areas: definition of “recidivating act”, “recidivism pool” and “length of follow-up period”. Please take caution in comparing outcome results in this report to those generated by other jurisdictions. The recidivism analysis pool consists of “new commitments” (including probation violators with or without new sentences) admitted and released during the period FY 1992 – FY 2008. For this evaluation some refinements to the outcome pool were imposed. In order to increase the homogeneity of the group on which recidivism information is reported and to ensure that all offenders in this recidivism analysis pool have “similar” opportunities for “success” or “failure,” the initial outcome pool was refined by excluding certain sub-groups (primarily “short termers” – offenders who served less than four months, which is usually insufficient time for program completion). The basic outcome measure is return to a Kansas Department of Corrections facility with or without a new sentence during the period of post-incarceration supervision or as a return via new court commitment following discharge from the initial sentence. Each offender is tracked individually for follow-up periods of one year, two years and three years. For most programs covered in this report, outcome is considered across the period FY 1992 through FY 2008. Exceptions to this include the Work Release program where outcomes are tracked from FY 1995 through FY 2008, InnerChange program where outcomes are tracked from FY 2000 through FY 2008 and the Therapeutic Communities for which the outcome tracking period varies. Further, given the fact that we do not employ experimental design (for discussion, see Section IV: Study Limitations), the difference in recidivism rates among groups does not necessarily imply a causal relationship with program experience. At best, we can only say that these events co-occur. To move toward a causal relationship would require employment of experimental or quasi-experimental research design(s). Also, in the following data presentation, treatment programs are treated as if they have remained static in modality and curriculum over the time period considered. In experience, however, this is not the case. The programs have undergone numerous changes over the course of the time frame considered. In alignment with the Department’s commitment to evidence-based practices, the KDOC has made strides toward identifying and targeting the high risk offender with the implementation of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R). Research suggests that targeting higher risk offenders for intensive treatment and reducing the mixing of risk levels will reduce recidivism (Andrews, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta, Gendreau & Cullen, 1990; Andrews & Dowden, 1999, 2006; Dowden & Andrews, 1999a, 1999b; Lipsey & Wilson, 1998; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005; Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Holsinger, 2006; Lowenkamp, Smith & Bechtel, 2007).1 In an effort to conduct more rigorous analyses with our data, the Department has conducted logistic regression models.2 While previous reports have primarily provided frequencies for re-admission to KDOC, this analysis considers the influence that sex, race, age and LSI-R total score have on recidivism and controls for these factors. These multivariate models can generate probabilities which can be interpreted as rates of failure based on the low, medium and high risk levels as determined by the LSI-R. These probabilities are presented in the bar chart below.3 Specifically, these findings suggest that over the three year follow-up period, recidivism rates do increase, regardless of the risk level. Over the three years, the rates of recidivism for the low risk group increases from 11.7% to 45.2%, resulting in an increase of 33.5%. Similarly, for the medium and high risk groups, the difference in rates of recidivism between the three year periods is 43.2% and 35.4% respectively. The key finding with this bar chart is that for each time period, the lower risk offenders are consistently re-admitted at a significantly lower rate than that of the moderate and high risk groups. Further, this provides empirical evidence that the Kansas Department of Corrections is adhering to the risk principle. It is important to note that these findings are not to be interpreted as program characteristics associated with the recidivism rates by risk level as we have not conducted such an analyses. Details: Topeka, KS: Kansas Department of Corrections, 2009. 156p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 9, 2013 at: http://www.doc.ks.gov/publications/program-evaluation-reports/offender-programs-evaluation-volume-viii-april-2009/view Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.doc.ks.gov/publications/program-evaluation-reports/offender-programs-evaluation-volume-viii-april-2009/view Shelf Number: 128329 Keywords: Correctional Programs (Kansas, U.S.)Costs of CorrectionsEvidence-Based PoliciesPrisoner RehabilitationRecidivism |