Transcript Stillwater stuff - Minnesota Department of Corrections

Challenge Incarceration Program (CIP)
Phase 1 - Incarceration
• 90 men at Willow River;
24 women at Togo
• Legislatively-created in 1992
(M.S. 244.17) for carefully
selected, nondangerous
drug & property offenders
• Rigorous physical exercise,
drill, CD treatment, AA/NA,
restorative justice projects,
education, cognitive
thinking skills
Drill, education,
work service
CIP Community Phases 2 & 3
• Minimum of 6 months each of
intensive community supervision
• Face-to-face agent contacts,
alcohol and drug testing,
mandatory work/education,
community service
• Aftercare treatment programming
Face-to-face agent contacts
Failure to complete CIP Phases 2 or 3 will result
in a return to prison, extending an offender’s
period of incarceration
CIP Evaluation 2006
• Looked at all CIP offenders since the program
began in 1992
• Examined three areas:
-
Has the demographic composition of the
CIP population changed significantly in
the last 5 years? If so, why?
-
Does CIP significantly reduce offender
recidivism?
-
Does CIP reduce costs?
CIP Evaluation – Offender Profile
A review of CIP offenders in the last 5 years found:
• Average age increased from 29 to 32
• Greater Minnesota participants grew from 37% to 48%
• Meth offenders increased from 4% to 60%
• White offenders increased from
47% to 76% - primarily due to
the meth boom (85% of meth
offenders are white)
CIP Evaluation – Recidivism
Does CIP significantly reduce offender recidivism?
• Compared recidivism rates of 1,347 CIP offenders from
FY93-02 with a control group of 1,555 inmates released
during same time period
• Average follow-up period was 7.2 years (second longest
of any boot camp evaluation to date)
• Recidivism defined as:
– Felony reconviction
– Reimprisonment for a new crime
– Any return to prison, for a new crime or a technical violation
Recidivism Study Results
• CIP decreased chances of reconviction for new felony by 32%
• CIP decreased chances of reimprisonment for new crime by
35%
• CIP offenders less likely than control group to be reimprisoned
for a person offense
• When defining recidivism as any return to prison, CIP did not
have a statistically significant impact
• CIP offenders are more likely to return to prison for technical
violation (55% vs. 27% control group)
• Conversely, the control group was more likely to return for a
new crime (73% vs. 45% CIP)
CIP Evaluation – Cost Savings
Does CIP reduce costs?
• From FY93 to FY02, CIP has reduced costs by $18.1
million through saved bed days and recidivism
reduction
• Reduced recidivism
enhances public safety in
the community, decreases
victimization, and saves
state and local criminal
justice dollars
CIP female squad drill at Togo