Santa Clara County Department of Correction Recidivism Report

Recidivism Study of the 

Santa Clara County Department of Correction’s 

Inmate Programs 

Final Report 

Submitted by 

Huskey & Associates 

In association with 

University of Cincinnati 

Center for Criminal Justice Research 

January 31, 2012

Santa Clara County Department of Correction 


Santa Clara County Recidivism Steering Committee 

Sheriff Laurie Smith 

Chief John Hirokawa 

Assistant Sheriff Peter Rode 

Martha Wapenksi 

Captain Troy Beliveau 

Captain Toby Wong 

Kathy Sanchez 

Julie Chou 

Jordan Corpuz 

Fletcher Dobbs 

Remy Legaspi 

Nelson Uchimura 

Neelam Wadhwani 

Research Team 

Bobbie Huskey, MSW, Huskey & Associates, Project Coordinator 

Edward J. Latessa, Ph.D., Director, University of Cincinnati, 

Center for Criminal Justice Research 

Andrew J. Myer, Ph.D., Research Associate, University of Cincinnati 

Paula Tomczak, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, Huskey & Associates 

Elizabeth Donovan, Executive Assistant, Huskey & Associates 

Special recognition is given to Neelam Wadhwani for her leadership and to her staff 

for their dedication to improving programs within the Department of Correction and 

to Remy Legaspi and Fletcher Dobbs for their excellent coordination 

throughout the grant project. 

The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication, 

program/exhibition are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the 

Department of Justice. This project was supported, in part, by Award No. 2009-SB-B9-0976 awarded 

by the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, the 

Recovery Act - Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program. 

. 

Huskey & Associates in association with the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Page 2


Table of Contents 

Recidivism Study of the Department of Correction’s Inmate Programs 


Executive Summary 5 

PART I: RECIDIVISM STUDY 

Part I: Chapter 1. Introduction and Executive Summary 22 

Part I: Chapter 2. Profile of the Treatment and Comparison Population 33 

Part I: Chapter 3. Findings 46 

1. Artemis 58 

2. Breaking Barriers 59 

3. Day Reporting 60 

4. Get Right 61 

5. Healing Opportunity with Positive Enforcement (HOPE) 62 

6. M-8 63 

7. Mentoring You Substance Abuse Treatment of Recovering Individual 

(MY STORI) 

64 

8. Program about Change and Experience (PACE) 65 

9. Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) Phase I—Men 66 

10. Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) Phase I—Women 67 

11. Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) Phase II 68 

12. Veteran’s Educating to Succeed (VETS) 69 

13. Women Investigating New Gates for Sobriety (WINGS) 70 

Part I: Chapter 4. Discussion of Findings 90 

Part I: Chapter 5. Overview of Recommendations 96 




PART II: EVIDENCE-BASED EVALUATION OF INMATE PROGRAMS 

Part II: Chapter 1. Introduction 100 

Part II: Chapter 2. Literature Review of Principles of Effective Intervention 107 

Part II: Chapter 3. Evidence-Based Program Analysis 111 

Part II: Chapter 4. Individual Program Evaluations 123 

1. Artemis 127 

2. Breaking Barriers 129 

3. Day Reporting 133 

4. Get Right 137 

5. Healing Opportunity with Positive Enforcement (HOPE) 141 

6. Heart and Soul 144 

7. Literacy in Families Together (LIFT) 148 

8. M-8 151 

9. Mentoring You Substance Abuse Treatment of Recovering Individual 

(MY STORI) 

154 

10. Program about Change and Experience (PACE) 158 

11. Parents and Children Together (PACT) 161 

12. Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) Phase I—Men 165 

13. Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) Phase I—Women 169 

14. Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) Phase II 173 

15. Roadmap To Recovery 177 

16. Three Principles 180 

17. Trauma Recovery 183 

18. Veteran’s Educating to Succeed (VETS) 186 

19. Women Investigating New Gates for Sobriety (WINGS) 189 

20. Willing Individuals in Substance Education (WISE) 192 

21. Domestic Violence Curriculum 195 

Part II: Chapter 5. Summary Findings and Recommendations 200 

Part II: Chapter 6. Appendices 230 




1.1 Introduction 

Executive Summary 

Correctional practitioners across the country have found that inmate programs are an integral component in 

providing a safe and secure detention facility. Standard 1070 of the California Corrections Standards 

Authority Adult Title 15 Guidelines mandate jail administrators to provide “individual and/or family social 

service programs to inmates”. 1 

Traditionally, inmate programs have been measured by documenting the number of persons involved in 

programs and the amount of time they spend. The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and the 

Department of Correction have higher expectations regarding measurements of program effectiveness. 

Their goal is to reduce recidivism among the jail population thereby protecting public safety. 

It is widely accepted today among professional organizations and increasingly among policymakers that 

recidivism is one measure to evaluate the effectiveness of correctional programs. 2 Today, effectiveness is 

also defined as the degree to which a correctional program meets the Principles of Effective Intervention 

(Risk Principle, Need Principle, Responsivity Principle and Fidelity Principle defined in detail in Part II, 

Chapter 2). This research suggests that these performance metrics are important and should be used as 

standards for improving program performance. 

In June 2010, the Santa Clara County Department of Correction (SCCDOC) initiated a study of its inmate 

programs to measure the effectiveness of current programs (20 in-custody and 2 out of custody) 3 , to 

document recidivism of inmates who participated in these programs and to compare these outcomes with a 

comparison group of inmates who did not participate in these programs. 

Funding for the study of in-custody programs was provided through the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Formula 

Program and a one-time allocation from the County Department of Correction’s Inmate Welfare Fund 

(IWF). Funding for the study of out-of-custody programs was provided through the General Fund. 

After a widely advertised request for proposal process, the Department selected the team of Huskey & 

Associates from Chicago, IL, in association with the University of Cincinnati’s Center for Criminal Justice 

Research. Huskey & Associates is a national criminal justice consulting firm that has produced 165 master 

plans in 31 states, has worked in other California counties, and has served as a consultant to the California 

Corrections Standards Authority and the California Administrative Office of the Courts. Huskey & 

Associates has conducted previous corrections needs assessments and improvement projects for Santa 

Clara County. 

1 

California Corrections Standards Authority. 2005 Adult Title 15 Programs and Procedures Guidelines. “The range of 

programs at the discretion of the facility administrator is: individual, group and and/or family counseling; drug and 

alcohol abuse counseling; community volunteers; vocational testing and counseling; employment counseling; referral 

to community resources and programs; prerelease and release assistance; legal assistance; and regional center 

services for the developmentally disabled”, page 70. 

2 

American Correctional Association. American Probation and Parole Association. 

3 

The Department of Correction also offers Public Service, Weekend Work Program and other Alternative Sentencing 

Programs. These were not included in the Scope of Services for this project. 




The Center for Criminal Justice Research is located at the School of Criminal Justice at the University of 

Cincinnati and headed by Dr. Edward Latessa. The Center has conducted evaluations of more than 500 

offender programs, and has managed over $41 million dollars in grants and contracts. Dr. Latessa has also 

served as a consultant to California counties, the Corrections Standards Authority and the Administrative 

Office of the Courts. 

This Final Report is divided into two parts: Part 1 describes the findings of the Recidivism Study for the 

Department of Correction’s inmate programs documenting rearrests, reconvictions and reincarcerations for 

inmates who participated in 13 stand-alone 4 inmate programs and for those in a comparison sample. 

Recidivism data were available on all 13 programs from the County’s CJIC databases. 

Part 2 describes the findings of a qualitative evaluation of 21 inmate programs to determine the degree to 

which these programs are consistent with evidence-based practices, specifically the Principles of Evidencebased 

Interventions (Risk, Need, Responsivity and Fidelity) as is described in Chapter 2, Part II. Each of 

the inmate programs was evaluated using the Correctional Programs Checklist (CPC-GA), a program 

evaluation tool developed by the University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research. 

It is important to point out that these two parts of the report represent separate analyses of the 

Department’s programs. As described above, different performance measures and assessment tools were 

used to conduct both evaluations to ensure that all programs were evaluated. 

1.2 Project Goals 

This study was designed to answer the question “Does treatment in one of the Department’s inmate 

programs result in reduced rearrests, reconvictions and reincarcerations following discharge”. This is an 

important policy question since the Department and the Board of Supervisors want to invest in those 

programs that protect public safety and that are effective. 

The overall goals of the Department’s Recidivism Study and the Program Evaluation were to: 

1. Document the recidivism of inmates participating in the SCC Department of Correction’s (SCCDOC) 

programs and compare their outcomes to a similar sample of inmates who did not participate. In this 

study, recidivism was defined as a subsequent arrest, conviction or incarceration in the SCCDOC in 6, 

12 and 24 month intervals following discharge. Detailed definitions and research methodology are 

provided in Part 1, Chapter 1. 

4 

SCCDOC Programs Unit Programs Overview defines these 13 inmate programs as comprehensive, stand-alone 

programs since they consist of a series of classes grouped together to address specific needs of a targeted 

population. The SCCDOC Recidivism Steering Committee determined the programs to be examined in the 

Recidivism Study and in the Program Evaluation in December 2010 to ensure that all programs and providers were 

evaluated. 




2. Evaluate the effectiveness of Department programs so the Department and the Board of Supervisors 

can be informed about those programs that meet the nationally-accepted Principles of Effective 

Intervention (Risk, Need, Responsivity and Fidelity), and which programs should Continue as Is, 

Continue with Modifications or Discontinue. The following 21 programs were evaluated using the 

University of Cincinnati’s CPC-GA Checklist: 

1. Artemis 

2. Breaking Barriers 

3. Day Reporting 

4. Get Right 

5. Heart and Soul 

6. Healing Opportunity with Positive Enforcement (HOPE) 

7. Literacy in Families Together (LIFT) 

8. M-8 (A-H housing units) (collection of programs) 

9. Mentoring You Substance Abuse Treatment of Recovering Individual (MY STORI) 

10. Program about Change and Experience (PACE) 

11. Parents and Children Together (PACT) 

12. Regimented Corrections Program-Phase I (RCP I Men) 

13. Regimented Corrections Program-Phase I (RCP I Women) 

14. Regimented Corrections Program-Phase II (RCP II) 

15. Roadmap to Recovery 

16. Three Principles (Health Realization) 

17. Trauma Recovery 

18. Veteran’s Educating to Succeed (VETS) 

19. Women Investigating New Gates for Sobriety (WINGS) 

20. Willing Individuals in Substance Education (WISE) 

21. Domestic Violence Curriculum (not scored) 

Note: The Domestic Violence Curriculum was examined but not scored using the CPC-GA Assessment 

Tool. 

The Correctional Programs Checklist Assessment-GA measures the following four domains: 

1. Program Staff and Support 

2. Offender Assessment 

3. Treatment 

4. Quality Assurance 




All of the Department’s programs were measured against these four content areas to determine how many 

of these performance indicators the Department’s programs met. The CPC-GA evaluation tool includes 54 

indicators (see Appendix), totaling 56 total points. Effective is defined as the degree to which the program 

has the components sufficient to reduce recidivism. 

Using the CPC’s rating scale, each content area and all domains were scored and rated as: 

• Highly Effective: (65% to 100%) 

• Effective: (55% to 64%) 

• Needs Improvement (45% to 54%) 

• Ineffective (< 45%) 

1.3 Key Findings 

A sense of urgency exists for the County to invest in inmate programs that reduce recidivism to make the 

community a safer place to live and work. The following are key findings from the Recidivism Study and 

the Evidence-Based Program Evaluation (EBP Evaluation). 

1.3.1 The findings demonstrate that individuals who participated in treatment were significantly less likely 

to be rearrested or reconvicted at 6, 12, and 24 months compared to similar individuals who did not 

participate in treatment. For example, the 6 month rearrest rate for those persons who were in the 

treatment group was 19.2 percent compared to 34.0 percent for those persons not participating in 

treatment; the 12 month rearrest rate for the treatment sample was 32.6 percent compared to 46.6 

percent for persons not in treatment; the 24 month rearrest rate for the treatment sample was 58.2 

percent compared to 63.7 percent for persons not in treatment. 

Similar findings were documented for reconvictions following discharge from SCCDOC. At six 

months, 9.7 percent of the persons who received treatment while confined were reconvicted, 16.4 

percent were reconvicted at 12 months and 25.9 percent were reconvicted at 24 months. Each of 

these outcomes was lower for the treatment sample than the matched comparison sample of 

persons not receiving treatment (see Table 3.2 on page 48). 

1.3.2 In comparison, 12 and 24 month rearrests and reconvictions for inmates released from the 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) were higher than subsequent 

arrests and reconvictions for inmates released from SCCDOC’s programs. 5 Statewide, California 

inmates’ 12-month rearrest rate was between 57 percent and 58 percent compared to 32.6 percent 

for SCCDOC’s treatment population. At 24 months, CDCR’s subsequent arrests were between 70 

percent and 71 percent compared to 58.2 percent for SCCDOC’s programs. Similarly, 12 and 24 

month reconvictions for persons discharged from SCCDOC was also lower than CDCR. Thus, 

compared to CDCR, a smaller percentage of SCCDOC’s inmates were rearrested and reconvicted 

at 12 and 24 months than inmates released from CDCR. 

5 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 2011 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report. Office 

of Research, November 23, 2011. Note: No 6 month data were available from CDCR. 




1.3.3 Regarding subsequent reincarcerations for inmates released from SCCDOC, the findings show 

that treatment significantly reduced reincarcerations at 6 and 12 months compared to the matched 

comparison sample. For example, the 6 month reincarceration rates for persons who received 

treatment were 18.1 percent and 32.1 percent at 12 months. In contrast, treatment did not 

significantly lower reincarcerations at 24 months. Even though a slightly higher percent of 

individuals in SCCDOC’s treatment sample were returned to SCCDOC custody at 24 months 

compared to the matched comparison sample, the statistical difference is not significant. While 

60.8 percent of the treatment sample was returned to the SCCDOC at 24 months, 39.2 percent 

was not. (See Table 3.2 on page 48). 

In comparison, the State of California’s 24 months return to custody rate for all inmates was 60.5 

percent in FY06-07 and 59.2 percent in FY07-08 compared to 60.8 percent return to SCCDOC at 

24 months. These findings show that SCCDOC’s return to custody rate at 24 months is 

comparable to the State of California. 6 

1.3.4 Detailed comparisons of inmates in treatment in CDCR found that persons in treatment at CDCR 

with no aftercare had a return to custody rate of 66.5 percent after three years compared to 60.8 

percent after two years for the SCCDOC. 7 Further, SCCDOC’s reincarceration outcome for the 

matched comparison sample (non-treatment population) was 58.9 percent compared to 65.3 

percent for CDCR inmates. These findings show that SCCDOC’s treatment and non-treatment 

inmates had lower 24-month reincarcerations than CDCR inmates did. 

1.3.5 Treatment led to reduced rearrests and reconvictions 6 months following discharge from the 

SCCDOC in 11 of the 13 programs examined demonstrating a short-term effect of treatment. Ten 

of the 13 programs led to reduced rearrests at 12 months following discharge, and nine programs 

led to reduced reconvictions at 12 months demonstrating that treatment was sustained one year 

following discharge from SCCDOC. Finally, four of the 13 programs led to reduced reincarcerations 

at 6 and at 12 months. However, no program led to a reduction in reincarceration at 24 months 

demonstrating that the effects of treatment were not sustained. 

1.3.6 Five programs were statistically associated with reduced rearrests at 6, 12 and 24 months 

combined—Artemis, M8, MY STORI, RCP I Women and WINGS. 

1.3.7 Seven programs (Artemis, HOPE, M8, MY STORI, RCP I Men, RCP I Women, and WINGS) 

significantly reduced reconvictions at 6, 12 and 24 months combined. 

1.3.8 Three programs (HOPE, M8 and RCP I Women) led to reductions in reincarcerations at 6 and 12 

months combined but no program led to a reduction in reincarceration at 24 months. 

1.3.9 Only a few of the programs revealed no or little effect from treatment. For example, VETS resulted 

in no significant reductions in rearrests, reconvictions or reincarcerations compared to its matched 

6 

Ibid. 

7 

Note: No 2 year data were available from CDCR on inmates in treatment. The comparisons are based on 2 year 

data in SCCDOC and 3 year data for the State of California, thus this is not a direct one to one comparison due to 

unavailability of data. It can show a comparison of trends in the findings. 




comparison sample on any of the time intervals. Get Right showed a significant reduction in only 

one measure--reconvictions at 6 months compared to its matched comparison sample. Breaking 

Barriers produced significantly lower rearrests and reconvictions at 6 months only compared to its 

matched comparison sample suggesting that the power of the gang is more influential to formerly 

incarcerated individuals than the gains they achieved while confined at SCCDOC. 8 RCP II 

produced significantly lower rearrests at 6 and 12 months compared to its matched comparison 

sample. Day Reporting participants were significantly less likely to be rearrested and reconvicted at 

6 and 12 months. Artemis, HOPE, M8, MY STORI and RCP I Women produced significant 

reductions in reincarcerations at 6 months or at 12 months but the remaining 8 programs produced 

no differences. The remaining programs had some significant effect at one or more time intervals. 

Increasing the effectiveness of the Day Reporting and RCP II programs would greatly support the 

County’s Reentry initiative and reduce future reoffending. These two programs should provide 

structured reentry program elements needed for persons released from the Department and for 

those returning to Santa Clara County from state prison. (See Core Programs #5 and 6 in Chapter 

2, Part II). 

1.3.10 SCCDOC’s programs achieved the greatest effect on reducing rearrests when medium and high 

risk individuals were placed into treatment. This finding is consistent with national research on the 

Risk Principle. Lowenkamp, C. & E.J. Latessa (2005) found greater reductions in recidivism when 

medium and high risk offenders participated in effective treatment. For high risk inmates in 

SCCDOC treatment programs, 27.2 percent fewer high risk inmates were rearrested at 6 months, 

24.3 percent fewer high risk inmates were rearrested at 12 months, and 13.2 percent fewer high 

risk inmates were rearrested at 24 months than their comparison samples. 

For medium risk inmates who participated in treatment, 13.8 percent fewer inmates were 

rearrested at 6 months. Treatment resulted in 18.2 percent fewer medium risk inmates who were 

rearrested at 12 months. At 24 months, 5.4 percent fewer medium risk inmates were rearrested. 

Importantly, treatment is still shown to have a positive effect on medium and high risk inmates at 24 

months, even if the effect is smaller than at 12 months. In contrast, only 2.6 percent fewer low risk 

inmates were rearrested and only 1.6 percent fewer low risk inmates were reconvicted at 6 months. 

1.3.11 Reconvictions were found to result in the same overall pattern. Treatment had the greatest effect 

on medium and high risk inmates who participated in treatment compared to low risk inmates. For 

medium risk inmates who participated in treatment, treatment led to 12.7 percent fewer medium 

risk inmates reconvicted at 6 months, 15.6 percent fewer inmates were reconvicted at 12 months 

and 17.6 percent fewer inmates were reconvicted at 24 months. For high risk inmates who 

participated in treatment, 34.8 percent fewer high risk inmates were reconvicted at 6 months, 30.1 

percent fewer inmates were reconvicted at 12 months and 22.7 percent fewer high risk inmates 

were reconvicted at 24 months. In comparison, only 1.6 percent fewer low risk inmates who 

participated in treatment were reconvicted at 6 months and 3.0 percent fewer were reconvicted at 

12 months showing that the treatment effect was smaller for low risk inmates. Further, there was 

no statistical effect from treatment at 24 months for low risk inmates. When programs were 

8 Note: Case Managers were assigned to Get Right and to Breaking Barriers to increase their effectiveness. 




individually compared to a matched comparison sample, the majority of programs did not have any 

effect on low risk inmates. 

1.3.12 Low, medium and high risk inmates who participated in treatment were also significantly less likely 

to be reincarcerated at 6 and 12 months compared to their matched comparison samples. 

Treatment led to 2.5 percent fewer low risk inmates rearrested at 6 months and 5.8 percent fewer 

rearrests at 12 months. However, medium risk inmates in treatment had greater effects from 

treatment than low and high risk inmates at 6 and 12 months. There were no statistical differences 

between the treatment and matched comparison samples at 24 months for any risk level. This 

may suggest that not enough of the criminogenic needs of the medium and high risk inmate are 

being met thus leading to smaller effect sizes. 

1.3.13 SCCDOC would produce a greater benefit to inmates and to society if it matched medium and high 

risk inmates with intensive treatment aimed at reducing criminogenic needs. Eleven SCCDOC 

programs target some of the criminogenic needs (e.g. criminal values, attitudes and thinking 

patterns) 9 but others do not. Extensive research documents that these needs should be targeted 

for medium and high risk inmates to produce reductions in recidivism. 

1.3.14 Not only does targeting medium and high risk inmates for treatment demonstrate the best 

allocation of resources for the County, it is also critical to protect public safety once the individual is 

released to the community. This highlights the responsibility of the Department and its communitybased 

treatment providers to provide the greatest amount (duration and dosage) and the most 

effective type of treatment (cognitive behavioral treatment) to those inmates who have the highest 

risk of reoffending in the community after discharge. It is important to note that the housing 

classification of inmates must be taken into account because as is customary in the jail field, the 

SCCDOC does not mix maximum security classifications, protective custody, “keep aways,” and 

“gang drop outs” with medium and minimum classifications thus jeopardizing the staff and inmates’ 

safety. Assessment of risk to reoffend should be a separate process from housing classification, as 

an inmate assessed as medium security level may actually be high risk to reoffend based on an 

actuarial assessment instrument. 

1.3.15 Five risk factors were found to be statistically significant with future recidivism among all SCCDOC 

inmates: 

1. Age at time of incarceration 

2. Whether or not a person was flagged as being in a gang 

3. Whether or not the person had a previous charge of a drug offense 

4. The number of prior arrests 

5. The number of prior probation violations 

9 Artemis, PACT, PACE, Roadmap to Recovery, MY STORI, WINGS, WISE, HOPE, Day Reporting, Breaking 

Barriers and ARTEMIS. 




1.3.16 The Rehabilitation Officers are doing a reasonably good job using a subjective psychosocial 

assessment instrument in matching medium risk inmates with programs, since 59.6 percent of the 

inmates involved in treatment were assessed by this study as medium risk to reoffend. The 

Department’s “Case Notes” addresses the majority of the criminogenic factors such as current and 

past criminal history, drug and alcohol use/abuse, family history with substance use, gang 

affiliation, education, employment and residence. This finding shows the value of the ROs in 

conducting offender assessments and in matching inmates to treatment. Roughly 20 percent of 

individuals placed in treatment were scored as low risk to recidivate but were involved in treatment 

while another 20 percent of those in the treatment sample were scored high risk. Adopting an 

objective assessment procedure will improve the matching process. For Santa Clara County to 

reach its goal of lowering the recidivism of high risk inmates, more high risk inmates will need to be 

included in treatment; therefore, SCCDOC should assess inmates to determine who is high risk to 

reoffend, and to match them with appropriate treatment within their security level. 

1.3.17 According to the findings of the program evaluations described in Part II, the Department’s 

programs scored higher in the Program Staff and Support domain compared to the other three 

domains. All of the programs scored “Effective” in this domain; within the range of 60 to 100 

percent (PACT scored 100 percent). This finding shows that the SCCDOC’s Programs Unit staff 

and its community-based providers are well-qualified, experienced and capable to deliver a higher 

level of evidence-based treatment programs. This is extremely important for correctional programs 

as these staff characteristics have been demonstrated to be influential in reducing future recidivism 

(Lowenkamp and Latessa, 2002). 

1.3.18 The lowest score in the program evaluations was for Offender Assessment with a score of 0 for this 

domain. This score is a result of the Department not utilizing an empirically validated, objective tool 

to assess a person’s risk (to reoffend). Risk is defined as the probability of recidivating upon 

release, and inmates are scored as low, medium or high risk to reoffend after discharge using an 

objective assessment instrument. While the Department’s “Case Notes” addresses the majority of 

the criminogenic factors, it does not produce the data needed to score inmates as low, medium or 

high risk to reoffend, nor does it match inmates into treatment according to these risk levels. The 

adoption of such a tool would provide an effective assessment of risk to reoffend, and it will 

improve the matching of inmates to programs that relate to their needs. 

1.3.19 In the Treatment domain of the program evaluations, one program scored as “Highly Effective” 

(PACT), and the remaining programs scored in the “Ineffective” range. The primary reason why this 

occurred is because the program curricula focus on education. Education is one aspect of 

changing behavior but it falls short in transforming offenders who exhibit anti-social values, 

attitudes and distorted thinking patterns, which are characteristic of most medium and high risk 

offenders. Unless program staff address the individual’s underlying anti-social values and attitudes, 

teach them prosocial values and skills, give them opportunities to practice these skills, and alter 

their distorted thinking patterns, the offender’s behavior will not be changed (Landenberger and 

Lipsey, 2005; Lipsey, Chapman, and Landenberger, 2001). 




1.3.20 In the Quality Assurance domain of the program evaluations, PACT scored as “Effective” and the 

remaining programs scored in the “Ineffective” range. The PACT program contains more of the 

elements of the cognitive behavioral model of treatment than any of the other programs. Only two 

programs (PACT and Three Principles) evaluate their effectiveness using a pre and posttest 

measurement to demonstrate behavior change. 

1.3.21 The average length of stay for inmates indicate that there is sufficient time for unsentenced and 

sentenced felons to complete programs as their average length of stay ranges from 104.1-184.6 

days for unsentenced felons and 86.9-120.3 days for sentenced felons. Based on the number of 

hours inmates are involved in programs (240-308 hours for an 8-10 week cycle), it appears that 

there is sufficient time to complete programs. 

In summary, the Recidivism Study (Part I) found: (1) participation in treatment led to reductions in rearrests 

and reconvictions at 6, 12, and 24 months and in reincarcerations at 6 and 12 months; (2) No programs 

significantly lowered reincarcerations at 24 months; (3) Only a few of the programs revealed no or little 

effect from treatment; (4) The greatest effect from treatment occurred with medium and high risk inmates 

while the least effect occurred with low risk inmates. These findings suggest that intensive treatment 

resources should be dedicated to lowering the risk of medium and high risk inmates since they pose the 

greatest risk to society upon discharge. 

There are limitations to the study that the reader should take into account when interpreting the results. The 

only data available to assess the risk of inmates were offense, gangs, age, sex, and race. These criteria 

have traditionally been used throughout the nation to assess risk to reoffend. However, contemporary risk 

assessment tools take into account criminogenic needs such as substance abuse history, education level, 

employment status, and marital status, all of which mitigate risk. If data on criminogenic needs were 

available, the results may have been different. 

Data were not consistently available to indicate the reason a person was discharged from the program. 

That is, the current study was not able to empirically evaluate the relationship between reasons for 

termination with the recidivism results. 

The database could not differentiate those inmates who participated in more than one program because 

individuals who left their initial program and were transferred to another program were not tracked by the 

Department. Based on this limitation, recidivism outcomes had to be examined for inmates who participated 

in the initial program they entered rather than the subsequent programs they participated in during their 

stay at the SCCDOC. This method affected RCP II the most since individuals are transferred to RCP II from 

RCP I. Due to the limitation in the database, the researchers were not able to isolate RCP II participants 

from participants in other programs so the sample sizes for RCP II are small. Even with this limitation, 70 

percent of the individuals overall in the study were found to be participating in one program while 30 

percent of the individuals were found to be participating in more than one treatment program. 

Finally, the report makes comparisons between the recidivism of SCCDOC inmates with the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) inmates because the CDCR inmate database 

includes individuals from Santa Clara County. However, one must recognize that a direct comparison 

between SCCDOC and CDCR is not possible due to the unavailability of CDCR data and variances in time 




frames, in the seriousness of CDCR inmates compared to SCCDOC inmates and variances in risk to 

reoffend between both populations. 

Part II of this Report contains a separate analysis of inmate programs using the Correctional Programs 

Checklist (CPC-GA). This assessment found actions that could be taken to improve the programs so that 

an even greater effect on recidivism could be realized in the future. SCCDOC and its providers can take 

numerous steps (outlined in Part II) to upgrade these programs to achieve greater reductions in recidivism. 

The Department has made the following modifications in its programs since January 2011: 

• A Rehabilitation Officer has been assigned to the Main Jail facility to address the needs of the high 

risk population housed at the Main Jail. 

• The boot camp aspect of the Regimented Corrections Program has been omitted. 

• Library services will be offered by the Milpitas Unified School District. 

• A parenting class for Elmwood Men will be taught by Family and Children’s Services. 

• L.I.F.T. (Literacy in Families Together) class was discontinued. 

• All the classes offered in the M8 building have been relocated to the M4 and M5 buildings (the only 

change is the location). 

• One Rehabilitation Officer Position was deleted. 

• The Artemis, MY STORI and Regimented Corrections Program for women have been combined 

into a new Reentry Corrections Program for women without the boot camp aspect. 

• The HOPE and the Regimented Corrections Program for men have been combined in new Reentry 

Corrections Program for men without the boot camp aspect. 

• The RCP Phase I-Men has been modified. The marching and physical component was removed 

from the program. 

• The RCP Phase I-Women has been modified. The marching and physical component was 

removed from the program. 

• Breaking Barriers has been assigned a Case Manager. 

• Get Right has been assigned a Case Manager. 

Additionally, two more initiatives were created related to recidivism: A Center for Leadership and Training 

(CLT) group was created to look at re-entry strategies, and their findings were presented in December 

2011. A countywide committee called Community Corrections Partnership was formed to address the AB 

109 Public Safety Realignment Implementation Plan. 

1.4 Summary of Recommendations 

The report proposes a number of recommendations to enhance the inmate programs so they will fully meet 

the Principles of Effective Intervention and produce even greater reductions in recidivism. It is important to 

note that the SCCDOC is responsible for providing effective programming while the person is in custody 

and not after the person is discharged from custody. For those individuals who will continue in treatment 

after discharge, it is the community providers’ role to provide programming that meets the national 

Principles of Effective Intervention. 




The following is a summary of these recommendations: 

1.4.1 SCCDOC is recommended to adopt an objective and empirically validated risk and needs 

assessment instrument that scores inmates as low, medium and high risk to reoffend, and to use 

this information to match persons into the appropriate type, duration and dosage of treatment. 

Implementing this tool will ensure that more high risk and medium risk inmates are targeted for 

programming and fewer low risk inmates are admitted. To implement this recommendation, it is 

recommended that the Department obtain additional Rehabilitation Officers to conduct these 

assessments so that an accurate diagnosis of risk and needs can be established, and further, that 

staff can accurately match inmates with programs within their security level that meet their 

criminogenic needs. The classification of inmates must be taken into account because the DOC 

does not mix maximum security classifications, protective custody, “keep aways”, and “gang drop 

outs” with medium and minimum classifications thus jeopardizing the staff and inmates’ safety. 

1.4.2 All treatment programs should clearly outline inclusion and exclusion criteria. For example, if an 

individual is not assessed as having a substance abuse problem, he should not be placed in a 

substance abuse treatment program. 

1.4.3 Expand the number of Core Programs from one (substance abuse education) to include six major 

core program areas: 

1. Substance Abuse Treatment with Cognitive Behavioral Elements 

2. Cognitive Behavioral Skills Training 

3. Conflict Resolution/Anger Management 

4. Academic and Post-Graduate Education/Job Readiness Training 

5. Reentry Preparation 

6. Aftercare. 

1.4.4 Ensure that individuals are matched with these core programs based on their assessed risk to 

reoffend upon release and criminogenic needs. Inmates should be placed in one or more of these 

core programs based on the assessment. Select curricula that are designed to address all 

criminogenic needs and match inmates to one or more of the Core Programs that address these 

criminogenic needs. 

1.4.5 Low risk inmates should be considered for work assignments, self-guided educational activities 

(e.g. Roadmap to Recovery) and for other behavior management activities that reduce idleness 

such as creative arts, recreation, library, etc. 

1.4.6 SCCDOC should continue to work with its providers toward developing and delivering the Core 

Programs recommended in the EBP Evaluation Report (Part II) and to reduce the number of areas 

of improvement found in each of their individual evaluations. 

1.4.7 Treatment programs should follow the Principles of Effective Intervention (Risk, Need, Responsivity 

and Fidelity) and with the core correctional practices (e.g., effective approval, effective disapproval, 

relationship skills, modeling, skill building, and problem solving). 




1.4.8 Develop a policy and practice to ensure fidelity to treatment and quality assurance for all SCCDOC 

treatment programs such as tracking the progress of people participating in treatment based on pre 

and posttest examinations, monthly or quarterly observation of classes and formal feedback by 

supervisors to all instructors, and routine and formal feedback invited by staff and inmates on the 

value of the classes. 

1.4.9 Develop an initial and ongoing in-service training program for treatment staff. 

1.4.10 Three quarters (75 percent) of the programs is recommended to be continued with modifications 

and 25 percent are recommended to be discontinued and replaced with more effective 

programming (see Table 1.1 and 1.2 on following pages). Even when the program produced some 

reductions in recidivism, the analysis found many areas that could be improved so that greater 

reductions in recidivism will be realized. 

Table 1.1 on the following page displays the 13 programs that were examined in the Recidivism Study, the 

key findings for each of the programs and the consultant’s recommendations to Continue with Modifications 

or to Discontinue. 




PROGRAM Reduced 

Rearrests, 

Reconvictions & 

Reincarcerations 

6, 12 & 24 Months 

Table 1.1 

Programs with Significantly Lower Recidivism and Action Recommendations 

Reduced 

Rearrests, 

Reconvictions & 

Reincarcerations 

6 & 12 Months 

Reduced 

Rearrests & 

Reconvictions 

6, 12 & 24 

Months 

Reduced 

Rearrests & 

Reconvictions 

6 & 12 Months 

Reduced 

Rearrests & 

Reconvictions 

at 6 Months 

ARTEMIS -0- -0- 

BREAKING 

BARRIERS 

Reduced 

Rearrests 

6 & 12 

Months 

-0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 

DAY REPORTING -0- -0- -0- 

CONSULTANT’S 

RECOMMENDATION 

Continue with 

Modifications 

Continue with 

Modifications 

Continue with 

Modifications 

GET RIGHT -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Discontinue 

HOPE -0- -0- 

M8 -0- 

MY STORI -0- -0- 

PACE -0- -0- -0- 

RCP I MEN -0- -0- -0- 

RCP I WOMEN -0- 

RCP II -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 

Continue with 

Modifications 

Continue with 

Modifications 

Continue with 

Modifications 

Continue with 

Modifications 

Continue with 

Modifications 

Continue with 

Modifications 

Continue with 

Modifications 

VETS -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Discontinue 

WINGS -0- -0- 

Note: checks note significance and -0- notes no significance 

Continue with 

Modifications 




Table 1.2 includes all programs examined in the recidivism study and in the program evaluation, and it 

provides the consultant’s program recommendations. 

Table 1.2 

SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION 

All Individual Evaluation Recommendations 

Program Continue as Is Continue with 

Modifications 

1. Artemis 

Discontinue and 

Replace 

2. Breaking Barriers 

3. Day Reporting 

4. Get Right 

5. Healing Opportunities in a 

Program Environment 

(HOPE) 

 

6. Heart and Soul 

7. Literacy in Families Together 

(LIFT) 

8. M8 Program 

9. Mentoring You-Successful 

Transition of Recovering 

Individuals (MYSTORI) 

 

10. Program About Change and 

Experience (PACE) 

 

11. Parents and Children 

Together (PACT) 

 

12. Regimented Corrections 

Program Phase I-Men (This 

program has been modified 

and the boot camp aspect 

has been removed) 

 


Program Phase I-Women 

(This program has been 

modified and the boot camp 

aspect has been removed) 

 


Program Phase II 

 

15. Roadmap to Recovery 

16. Three Principles 

 



Modifications 

17. Trauma Recovery 

18. Veterans Educating to 

Succeed (VETS) 

19. Women Investigating New 

Gates for Sobriety (WINGS) 




Replace 

20. Willing Individuals in 

Substance Education (WISE) 

 

Overall Recommendation -0- 15 (75%) 5 (25%) 

Note: The Domestic Violence Curriculum was examined but not scored. 

 

 


PART I: RECIDIVISM STUDY

Part I: Chapter 1 

Introduction and Executive Summary




Part I. Chapter 1 

In this study, recidivism was defined as rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration to the SCC Department 

of Correction (SCCDOC). These three recidivism measures were examined for three time intervals-6 

months, 12 months and 24 months after discharge from the SCCDOC for a total of 9 outcome measures for 

each of the programs. 

The following provides a brief definition of each measure of recidivism: 

Rearrest 

• Excluded holds, informal contact by police, cite and release 

• Included all other persons who were discharged from the SCCDOC that had a subsequent arrest 

• Persons with multiple arrests were counted once as having been rearrested 

Reconviction 

• Same exclusions as in rearrest but also excluded remands into custody since this category did not 

result in a disposition of a conviction 

• Included all other individuals who were discharged from the SCCDOC that were later rearrested 

and had a disposition of a conviction 

• Persons with multiple convictions were counted once as having been reconvicted 

Reincarceration 

• Included all persons returned to the SCCDOC (remanded into custody by the court, pre-trial 

defendants held for trial, persons placed into custody as a result of a probation violation for a rule 

violation or for a new offense, or as the result of a new court commitment to jail) 

• Persons with multiple reincarcerations for these reasons were counted once as having been 

reincarcerated 

1.2 Description of Methodology 

For all recidivism measures, the length of time after discharge from the SCCDOC was measured. An 

inmate needed a minimum time of discharge of 6 months to be included in the 6 month time interval, a 

minimum of 12 months from discharge to be included in the 12 month time interval, and a minimum of 24 

months to be included in the 24 month time interval. For example, a person who was discharged for 14 

months would be included in the 6 and 12 month sample but not in the 24 month sample. 




All recidivism data were obtained from the County’s Criminal Justice Information Control (CJIC) in the 

following two databases: 

Booking File: CJIC’s “Booking” file provided information on the date of booking, reason for booking, current 

offense and the date of discharge. The discharge date was used as the starting point for examining 

discharge from SCCDOC and recidivism following release from SCCDOC. 

Court File: This file provided information on the disposition of the case. The CJIC database does not 

identify changes because of subsequent sentence modifications, and jail time does not take into account 

any concurrent/consecutive sentencing, suspended sentencing, stayed sentencing, or credit for time served 

that was ordered by the judge. 

Rearrest data were obtained from CJIC’s “Booking” file. This file indicated whether or not contact with the 

police resulted in an arrest. Thus, the Booking file identified if a person had an arrest after they were 

discharged. No informal contacts, holds, or cite and releases were counted as a rearrest. The remaining 

inmates who had a new arrest that was not the result of a hold, informal contact or cite and release were 

coded as having a new arrest. An inmate who may have had multiple arrests was only counted once as 

having been rearrested. 

Reconviction data was obtained from CJIC’s “Booking” and “Court” files. The Court file indicated whether or 

not a charge resulted in a new conviction. If an individual was identified as a hold, informal contact by the 

police, cite and release or a remand into custody, these incidents were not coded as a new conviction. If an 

individual was rearrested and their CEN number indicated a disposition of a conviction, an individual was 

considered to be reconvicted of a new crime. The remaining inmates who were discharged from the 

SCCDOC that were later rearrested and had a disposition of a conviction were counted as having a 

reconviction. An inmate who may have had multiple reconvictions was only counted once as being 

reconvicted. 

Finally, reincarceration data was also obtained from the CJIC “Booking” and “Court” files. The Court file 

determined whether or not a person returned to the custody of the SCCDOC. The reincarceration totals 

include all persons returned to the SCCDOC regardless of reason (e.g. remanded into custody, pre-trial 

defendants held for trial, persons placed into custody as a result of a probation violation for a rule violation 

or for a new offense, or as the result of a new court commitment to jail). An inmate was only counted once 

as being reincarcerated, regardless of multiple reincarcerations or for more than one reason for return to 

custody. This method was selected because it represents all persons returned to custody to the 

Department of Correction regardless of reason, and it is the same method used by the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 

The study used a quasi-experimental design drawing upon archival data from 2008, 2009 and through June 

2010. The use of existing data permitted quicker results, and it enabled the researchers to compare past to 

current recidivism outcomes. 




The study design involved the sampling of three groups confined in the SCCDOC during March 2008-June 

2010: 

1. All participants in the Department of Correction’s in-custody programs (placed in the Treatment 

Sample). 

2. All participants in the Department of Correction’s out-of-custody programs (placed in the Treatment 

Sample) and 

3. A matched comparison sample that did not participate in either in-custody or out-of-custody treatment 

(placed in the Matched Comparison Sample). 

Admission and discharge data for participants in the in-custody and out-of-custody programs were provided 

by the SCCDOC Programs Unit. The admission database consisted of 662 Excel files and the discharge 

database included 461 Excel files. Inmates were identified by the Department in one of 13 programs. The 

database could not differentiate those inmates who participated in more than one program because the 

database does not track individuals transferred to other programs. Based on this limitation, recidivism 

outcomes were examined for inmates who participated in the program they initially entered and not in 

multiple programs that they participated in during their stay at SCCDOC. This method effected RCP II the 

most since individuals are only eligible for this program after successfully completing RCP I. Due to the 

limitation in the database, the researchers were not able to isolate RCP II as the initial program so the 

sample sizes for RCP II are small. 

Even with this limitation, 70 percent of the individuals in all treatment programs were found to be 

participating in one program while 30 percent of the individuals receiving treatment were found to be 

participating in more than one treatment program. This methodology was approved by the SCCDOC 

Recidivism Steering Committee as it was determined not to have an impact on the overall findings. 

Data for the matched comparison sample (individuals who were confined in the SCCDOC but did not 

participate in programs) were provided by the County’s Criminal Justice Information Control (CJIC). These 

data were provided in the following four databases: 

1. Persons database (demographic characteristics-Date of Birth, Race, Gender, etc.) 

2. Booking database (date of arrest, booking date, release date, CEN Status, Security Level, etc.) 

3. Court database (previous jail/prison incarcerations, current and prior offenses, etc.) 

4. Supervision database (whether the person was on formal probation in the County and whether or not 

they successfully completed supervision) 

These four files were used to determine the characteristics of those inmates who participated in programs 

and the characteristics of inmates who did not participate in programs, to determine their potential risk to 

recidivate by low, medium, and high risk, and to measure inmates’ recidivism at 6, 12 and 24 months on 

rearrests, reconvictions and reincarcerations. CJIC provided updates on recidivism outcomes throughout 

the project, with the final update occurring on August 18, 2011. 

Recidivism outcomes for each program were compared with a matched comparison sample. Inmates in 

the treatment and in the matched comparison sample were matched on the following characteristics: sex, 

race, age, security level, and risk to recidivate. This matching process minimized substantive differences 

between the treatment and the matched comparison samples. Recidivism outcomes for rearrest, 




reconviction and reincarceration measures were reported at a 6-month, 12-month, and 24-month time 

interval following discharge. 

The following data were provided by CJIC and analyzed by the researchers for each individual participating 

in every program during the study period and for those inmates not participating. 

Table 1.1 

Individual Case Data Provided on the Study Sample 

Construct 

General 

Information 

Demographic 

Information 

Current case 

information 

Criminal history 

information 

Risk and need 

Information 

Closure 

Data Collected 

Case number, committing court, name of offender, as well as other 

control numbers, date of booking, date of release and security level 

Date of birth, race, sex, ethnicity, residence 

Date of arrest, California crime code/description, type of offense 

(felony, misdemeanor, ordinance), legal status (pre-trial/sentenced), 

probation violator, sentence disposition date, length of sentence, 

any special conditions 

Date of first arrest (back to 2003), number of prior 

felony/misdemeanor arrests, number of prior convictions, number 

of prior jail incarcerations, number of times on probation, number of 

unsuccessful terminations from probation supervision, gang 

membership by type 

Number/type of jail programs participated in while incarcerated 

All service referrals, program discharges, rearrests, reconvictions 

and reincarcerations 6, 12 and 24 months following discharge from 

the program, number and percent of inmates in a program, length of 

time before discharge 

The following methodology was used to analyze the data: 

• Databases were merged together in order to create a specific database that would allow an 

analysis of inmates who participated in SCCDOC programs and inmates who did not participate in 

programs. 

• Descriptive analyses were conducted on treatment and comparison populations. The analyses 

allowed for a determination of the comparability of samples and highlighted important differences 

and necessary statistical controls. These analyses also provided a profile of the offenders housed 

in the Department of Correction. 

• Risk (to recidivate) criteria were developed in order to match individuals on their likelihood of 

recidivating, and it enabled the researchers to score inmates into one of three groups – low, 

medium or high risk to recidivate. Risk was defined as “probability of reoffending after discharge” 

and not their risk to themselves or others within the correctional facility. The development of risk 




variables for the Santa Clara County Department of Correction’s Recidivism Study served one 

main purpose: to develop a statistical measure of “risk to reoffend” that can be controlled across 

the treatment group (i.e., defined as those inmates who participated in programs while in the 

SCCDOC) and a matched comparison sample (i.e., those who did not participate in programs while 

in the SCCDOC). It should be emphasized that these variables were used only for this study, and 

should not be applied to future inmates as a means of risk assessment. While the risk variables 

were found to be predictive of one’s risk to reoffend, the criteria describe partial risk factors for 

future reoffending. Information on other criminogenic needs such as substance use/abuse, marital 

status, employment, and education were not available in the CJIC database, thus resulting in a 

limitation in the risk assessment procedure that was used. 

• Two databases were created for the purpose of selecting samples. One database contained 

information on all individuals who participated in treatment programs during the overall study’s time 

frame (March 2008-June 2010). The second database contained information on all inmates that 

did not participate in programs during the study’s time frame. 

• After matched comparison samples were drawn, chi square analyses were conducted to determine 

if there were any differences in recidivism outcomes between those who participated in a program 

and a matched comparison sample of those inmates who did not participate. Multivariate statistical 

techniques were not used to assess differences in recidivism because the matched sample 

controlled for any outside influence of variables (i.e., there was no difference between samples on 

any of the matched variables). This made the chi square statistic the most appropriate statistical 

test to be conducted. 10 

This methodology produced a meaningful and timely report on the effectiveness of the Department’s 

programs to reduce recidivism. 

10 Chi square is one of the most frequently used statistical tests. Chi square compares the scores of cases on two 

different variables at the same time to determine if the is a significant relationship between the two variables. [χ 2 = ∑ 

((ƒ 0 - ƒe) / ƒ e); where ƒ e = (Row Marginal x column marginal)/N]. The different outcomes of the two variables are 

placed in a table which then compares the expected frequencies to the observed frequencies. If there is a large 

difference between the expected and observed frequencies for each cell, the less likely the variables are independent 

from one another. 




1.3 Programs Included in the Recidivism Study 

The focus of the recidivism study was to determine the recidivism outcomes for in-custody and out-ofcustody 

programs offered by the Department and on which data were available. The following programs 

were included in the recidivism study 11 : 

1. Artemis 


3. Day Reporting (out of custody program) 

4. Get Right 

5. Healing Opportunities in a Program Environment (HOPE) 

6. M8 (Collection of programs) 

7. Mentoring Youth-Successful Transition of Recovering Individuals (MY STORI) 

8. Program About Change and Experience (PACE) 

9. Regimented Corrections Program 1 (RCP I) Men 

10. Regimented Corrections Program 1 (RCP I) Women 

11. Regimented Corrections Program II (RCP II) (out of custody program) 

12. Veterans Educating to Succeed (VETS) 

13. Women Investigation New Gates for Sobriety (WINGS) 

These 13 programs were selected by the SCCDOC Steering Committee because these programs 

consisted of a variety of curricula and because recidivism data were available for these programs in 

existing databases. It should be noted that not all “programs” the Department offers are included on this list. 

This is because some of these are curricula that are delivered while an individual is enrolled in one of the 

above programs. For example, individuals enrolled in MY STORI are involved in: three hours of substance 

abuse programming a day; two hours of codependency/parenting each week; three hours of Three 

Principles each week; three hours of computer class each week; three hours of domestic violence each 

week; three hours of trauma recovery each week; three hours of LIFT each week; two hours of meditation 

each week; three hours of PACT parenting each week; and an optional three-hour PACT visit each. 

11 

These programs were approved by the Recidivism Steering Committee at its December 10, 2010 meeting. 




1.4 Summary of Key Findings 

The following are key findings from this analysis: 

1.4.1 The findings demonstrate that individuals who participated in treatment were significantly less likely 

to be rearrested or reconvicted at 6, 12, and 24 months compared to similar individuals who did not 

participate in treatment. 

1.4.2 In comparison, 12 and 24 month rearrests and reconvictions for inmates released from the 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) were higher than subsequent 

arrests and reconvictions for inmates released from SCCDOC’s programs. 12 Statewide, California 

inmates’ 12-month rearrest rate was between 57 percent and 58 percent compared to 32.6 percent 

for SCCDOC’s treatment population at 12 months. At 24 months, CDCR’s subsequent arrests were 

between 70 percent and 71 percent compared to 58.2 percent for SCCDOC’s programs. Similarly, 

12 and 24 month reconvictions for persons discharged from SCCDOC was also lower than CDCR. 

Thus, compared to CDCR, a smaller percentage of SCCDOC’s inmates were rearrested and 

reconvicted at 12 and 24 months than inmates released from CDCR. 

1.4.3 Regarding subsequent reincarcerations for inmates released from SCCDOC, the findings show 


comparison sample. In contrast, treatment did not significantly lower reincarcerations at 24 months. 

Even though a slightly higher percent of individuals in SCCDOC’s treatment sample were returned 

to SCCDOC custody at 24 months compared to the matched-comparison sample, the statistical 

difference is not significant. While 60.8 percent of the treatment sample was returned to the 

SCCDOC at 24 months, 39.2 percent was not. (See Table 3.2 in Chapter 3). In comparison, 

CDCR found that after two years following discharge from CDCR, 60.5 percent of CDCR’s former 

inmates returned to CDCR custody in FY06-07 and 59.2 percent in FY07-08. 

1.4.4 Detailed comparisons of inmates in treatment in CDCR found that persons in treatment at CDCR 

with no aftercare had a return to custody rate of 66.5 percent after three years. This compares to 

60.8 percent of the SCCDOC inmates return to custody after two years. 13 Further, SCCDOC’s 

reincarceration outcome for the matched comparison sample (non-treatment population) was 58.9 

percent compared to 65.3 percent for CDCR inmates. These findings show that SCCDOC’s 

treatment and non-treatment inmates had lower 24 month reincarcerations than CDCR inmates 

did. 

1.4.5 Treatment led to reduced rearrests and reconvictions 6 months following discharge from the 

SCCDOC in 11 of the 13 programs examined demonstrating a short-term effect of treatment. Ten 

of the 13 programs led to reduced rearrest at 12 months following discharge, and nine programs 

led to reduced reconvictions at 12 months demonstrating that treatment was sustained one year 

12 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 2011 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report. Office 

of Research, November 23, 2011. 

13 

Note: The comparisons are based on 2 year data in SCCDOC and 3 year data for the State of California due to 

unavailability of data. This is not a direct one to one comparison, but it can show a comparison of trends in the 

findings. 




following discharge from the SCCDOC. Finally, four of the 13 programs led to reduced 

reincarcerations at 6 and at 12 months. However, no program led to a reduction in reincarceration 

at 24 months demonstrating that the effects of treatment were not sustained. 

1.4.6 Five programs were statistically associated with reduced rearrests at 6, 12 and 24 months— 

Artemis, M8, MY STORI, RCP I Women and WINGS. 

1.4.7 Seven programs (Artemis, HOPE, M8, MY STORI, RCP I Men, RCP I Women, and WINGS) 

significantly reduced reconvictions at 6, 12 and 24 months. 

1.4.8 Three programs (HOPE, M8 and RCP I Women) led to reductions in reincarcerations at 6 and 12 

combined but no program led to a reduction in reincarceration at 24 months suggesting that the 

effects of treatment were not sustained. 

1.4.10 Only a few of the programs revealed no or little effect from treatment. For example, VETS resulted 

in no significant reductions in rearrests, reconvictions or reincarcerations compared to its matched 

comparison sample on any of the time intervals. Get Right showed a significant reduction in only 

one measure--reconvictions at 6 months compared to its matched comparison sample. Breaking 

Barriers produced significantly lower rearrests and reconvictions only at 6 months compared to its 

matched comparison sample suggesting that the power of the gang is more influential to formerly 

incarcerated individuals than the gains they achieved while confined at SCCDOC. Artemis, HOPE, 

M8, MY STORI and RCP I Women produced significant reductions in reincarcerations at 6 and 12 

months but the remaining 8 programs produced no differences. RCP II produced significantly lower 

rearrests at 6 and 12 months compared to its matched comparison sample. Day Reporting 

participants were significantly less likely to be rearrested and reconvicted at 6 and 12 months. 

The remaining programs had some significant effect at one or more time intervals. 

Increasing the effectiveness of Day Reporting and RCP II would greatly support the County’s 

Reentry initiative. Day Reporting and RCP II should provide structured reentry program elements 

needed for persons released from the SCCDOC and for those returning to Santa Clara County 

from state prison (see Core Programs #5 and 6 in Part II, Chapter 5). 

1.4.11 SCCDOC’s programs achieved the greatest effect on reducing rearrests when medium and high 

risk individuals were placed into treatment. This finding is consistent with national research on the 

Risk Principle. Lowenkamp, C. & E.J. Latessa (2005) found greater reductions in recidivism when 

medium and high risk offenders participated in effective treatment. For high risk inmates in 

SCCDOC treatment programs, 27.2 percent fewer high risk inmates were rearrested at 6 months, 

24.3 percent fewer high risk inmates were rearrested at 12 months and 13.2 percent fewer high 

risk inmates were rearrested at 24 months than their comparison samples. For medium risk 

inmates in treatment, 13.8 percent fewer inmates were rearrested at 6 months, 18.2 percent fewer 

medium risk inmates were rearrested at 12 months and 5.4 percent fewer medium risk inmates 

were rearrested at 24 months. Even at 24 months, treatment is shown to have an effect on medium 

and high risk inmates, even if the effect is smaller than at 12 months. In contrast, only 2.6 percent 

fewer low risk inmates in treatment were rearrested at 6 months but there was no significant 

difference in their arrests for 12 and 24 months. 




1.4.12 Reconvictions were found to result in the same overall pattern. Treatment had the greatest effect 

on medium and high risk inmates who participated in treatment compared to low risk inmates. For 

medium risk inmates who participated in treatment, treatment led to 12.7 percent fewer medium 

risk inmates reconvicted at 6 months, 15.6 percent fewer inmates were reconvicted at 12 months 

and 17.6 percent fewer inmates were reconvicted at 24 months. For high risk inmates who 

participated in treatment, 34.8 percent fewer high risk inmates were reconvicted at 6 months, 30.1 

percent fewer inmates were reconvicted at 12 months and 22.7 percent fewer high risk inmates 

were reconvicted at 24 months. In comparison, only 1.6 percent fewer low risk inmates who 

participated in treatment were reconvicted at 6 months and 3.0 percent fewer were reconvicted at 

12 months showing that the treatment effect was smaller for low risk inmates. Further, there was 

no statistical effect from treatment at 24 months for low risk inmates. When programs were 

individually compared to a matched comparison sample, the majority of programs did not have any 

effect on low risk inmates. 

1.4.13 Low, medium and high risk inmates who participated in treatment were significantly less likely to be 

reincarcerated at 6 and 12 months compared to their matched comparison samples. Treatment led 

to 2.5 percent fewer low risk inmates rearrested at 6 months and 5.8 percent fewer rearrests at 12 

months. However, medium risk inmates in treatment had greater effects from treatment than low 

and high risk inmates at 6 and 12 months. There were no statistical differences between the 

treatment and matched comparison samples at 24 months for any risk level. This may suggest 

that not enough of the criminogenic needs of the medium and high risk inmate are being met thus 

leading to smaller effect sizes. 

1.4.14 SCCDOC would produce a greater benefit to inmates and to society if it matched medium and high 

risk inmates with intensive treatment aimed at reducing criminogenic needs. Eleven SCCDOC 

programs target some of the criminogenic needs (e.g. criminal values, attitudes and thinking 

patterns) 14 but others do not. Extensive research documents that these needs should be targeted 

for medium and high risk inmates to produce reductions in recidivism 

1.4.15 Not only does targeting medium and high risk for treatment demonstrate the best allocation of 

resources for the County, it is also critical to protect public safety once the individual is released to 

the community. This highlights the responsibility of the Department and its community based 

treatment providers to provide the greatest amount (duration and dosage) and the most effective 

type of treatment (cognitive behavioral treatment) to those inmates who have the highest risk of 

reoffending in the community after discharge. It is important to note that the housing classification 

of inmates must be taken into account because as is customary in the jail field, the SCCDOC does 

not mix maximum security classifications, protective custody, “keep aways,” and “gang drop outs” 

with medium and minimum classifications thus jeopardizing the staff and inmates’ safety. 

Assessment of risk to reoffend should be a separate process from housing classification, as an 

inmate assessed as medium security level may actually be high risk to reoffend based on an 

actuarial assessment instrument. 

14 

Artemis, PACT, PACE, Roadmap to Recovery, MY STORI, WINGS, WISE, HOPE, Day Reporting, Breaking 





1.4.16 These findings are important for the Department and the County as they demonstrate that 

treatment lowers risk to the community after discharge. Since treatment reduces future recidivism, 

it is in everyone’s best interest to provide necessary resources to ensure that effective treatment is 

continued in the correctional system. 


Part I: Chapter 2 

Profiles of the Treatment Population 

and the Comparison Population

Part 1: Chapter 2 




This chapter provides a profile of the characteristics of inmates housed in the Santa Clara County 

Department of Correction and participating in its programs. 

2.2 Findings 

Table 2.1 provides a breakdown of the average daily population of the Santa Clara County jail population 

by legal status. The average daily population in November 2011 was 3,459. Nearly 72 percent of the 

confined population was unsentenced and more than one-quarter was sentenced. In comparison, the Jail 

Profile Survey from the Corrections Standards Authority reports for the first quarter of 2011 (latest data), 

70.9 percent of the state’s jail inmates were unsentenced demonstrating that the percentage of 

unsentenced inmates housed in the Santa Clara County Department of Correction is comparable to 

California jails. 15 

Table 2.1 

Average Daily Inmate Population by Legal Status 

November 2011 

November 

2011 

Population 

by Legal 

Status 

Ave. Popn. 

Unsentenced 

% of Total 

Ave. Popn. 

Ave. Popn. 

Sentenced 

% of Total 

Ave. Popn. 

Total Ave. 

Popn. 

2,483 71.8% 976 28.2% 3,459 

Source: Santa Clara County JailPop.xls 

Table 2.2 shows the average length of stay for unsentenced and sentenced males and females. There is a 

perception that inmates do not stay long enough to complete a program. This table documents that this 

perception is accurate for unsentenced and sentenced misdemeanants because their length of stay ranges 

from 22.6-34.6 days for unsentenced defendants and 41.3-53.6 days for sentenced misdemeanants. 

Table 2.2 

Average Length of Stay - In Custody Inmates by Sex 

FY11 

Sentenced Inmates 

Unsentenced Inmates 

Felony Misdemeanor Felony Misdemeanor 

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 

FY11* 120.3 86.9 53.6 41.3 184.6 104.1 34.6 22.6 

*through November 22, 2010 

Source: F.Dobbs - 11/24/10 z: /FDobb/Temp/Average in Custody Length of Stay.xlsx 

15 

Note: Unsentenced and sentenced inmates are eligible for programs. 




However, the data show that there is sufficient time for unsentenced and sentenced felons to complete 

programs. Their average length of stay ranges from 104.1-184.6 days for unsentenced felons and 86.9- 

120.3 days for sentenced felons. Based on the number of hours SCCDOC inmates are involved in 

programs (240-308 hours for an 8-10 week cycle), it appears that there is sufficient time to complete 

programs. Bourgon and Armstrong (2005) found that between 200-300 hours of treatment is required to 

produce a reduction in recidivism for a high risk offender while 100 hours of treatment is necessary for a 

medium risk offender. 

A further analysis was conducted of the average length of stay for FY10 of inmates by security level to 

examine the extent to which inmates stay long enough to complete programs. This information is found in 

Table 2.3. Inmate Security Level 1 (lowest risk 16 in custody) and Level 2 are housed at the Elmwood 

Facility and Security Levels 3 and 4 (highest risk in custody) are housed at the Main Jail. Individuals cited 

and released and released on bail were not included in this analysis. Those inmates who were held in 

custody and received a Security Level of 1 had an average length of stay in custody of nearly 35 days, 

while inmates who received a Security Level 2 rating had an average length of stay of approximately 39 

days. Those inmates who received a Security Level of 3 or 4 had average stays of 53 days and 57 days, 

respectively. 

Table 2.3 

Average Length of Stay by Security Level 

FY10 

Avg. Length of Stay in Days 

SL 1 34.68 

SL 2 39.29 

SL 3 52.74 

SL4 56.77 

Source: Santa Clara County, CA. CJIC booking.txt. 

These findings suggest that some inmates would not have sufficient time to complete programs based on 

security level alone. However, the study examined (controlled) the effect that security level had on the 

overall analyses, and it found that regardless of security level, treatment still had a significant effect on 

some inmates and not on others. 

16 

Note: Risk is defined here as risk of harm to oneself and to others while in custody and not risk to recidivate which 

is the focus of this study. 




Table 2.4 on the following page describes the characteristics of inmates placed in the treatment population 

(persons who received treatment), in the comparison population (persons who did not receive treatment) 

and on all inmates housed in the SCCDOC during March 2008 and June 2010. The purpose of this table is 

purely descriptive of the characteristics of all inmates in the SCCDOC during the timeframe of the study. 

Further analyses, beginning in Chapter 3, extracted samples from the treatment and the comparison 

populations. The total inmate population represents all inmates housed in the SCCDOC during the study 

period regardless of whether they participated in treatment or not. 

As is customary with many research studies, some of the totals across variables are inconsistent due to 

coding of the data by the SCCDOC. For example, the staff entering an inmate’s sex may not have coded 

race or age, thus resulting in inconsistent totals across variables. Although the analysis found some 

missing data across variables, there is sufficient data for a reliable analysis and an interpretation of the 

findings to be conducted. Also, the size of the overall sample provides enough cases to provide an 

accurate picture of inmate characteristics. 

The data used to develop Table 2.4 was obtained from the CJIC databases. An inmate’s sex, date of birth, 

and race was provided in CJIC’s Persons database. Sex was coded as a person being male (gender=0) or 

female (gender=1). The person’s date of birth was then used in conjunction with their first date of arrest 

between March 2008 and June 2010 to determine the inmates’ age. Inspection of the distribution of race 

led to the recoding of this variable into the following categories: Hispanic (race=0), White (race=1), Asian 

(race=2), Black (race=3), and other (race=4). CJIC’s Booking database was used to determine the Security 

Level for each inmate from 1-low risk to 4-high risk. 

Inmates were assigned by the research team to a risk level (low, medium or high risk) based on the 

analysis of 75,396 cases. Risk was defined as risk to recidivate following discharge, not risk to harm 

oneself or others while in custody. Each inmate was examined and then scored based on whether they 

possessed the following characteristics that were found to be statistically significant for recidivism upon 

release among SCCDOC inmates: 



3. Whether or not the person was charged with a prior drug offense 



If an inmate in the database could not be matched these five variables, they were not given a score and 

thus were not placed in one of three risk levels (low, medium or high risk). 


Gender 


Table 2.4 

Characteristics of Inmates in the Department of Correction 

March 1, 2008-June 30, 2010 


Treatment Population Comparison Population Total Inmate Population 

n % n % n % 

Male 7,150 78.0 61,733 79.2 68,883 79.1 

Female 2,012 22.0 16,166 20.8 18,178 20.9 

Race 

Hispanic 4,726 51.6 38,171 49.0 42,897 49.3 

White 2,441 26.6 21,481 27.6 23,922 27.5 

Asian 336 3.7 4,604 5.9 4,940 5.7 

Black 1,170 12.8 7,582 9.7 8,752 10.1 

Other 489 5.3 6,062 7.8 6,551 7.5 

Age 

24 and Under 2,002 21.9 20,567 26.4 22,569 25.9 

25 to 29 1,730 18.9 15,264 19.6 16,994 19.5 

30 to 34 1,516 16.5 10,878 14.0 12,394 14.2 

35 to 39 1,177 12.8 8,537 11.0 9,714 11.2 

40 to 44 988 10.8 7,603 9.8 8,591 9.9 

45 and Over 1,748 19.1 15,048 19.3 16,796 19.3 

Mean = 34.0 Mean = 33.6 Mean = 33.6 

Median = 32.0 Median = 31.0 Median = 31.0 

Std. Dev. = 10.5 Std. Dev. = 11.4 Std. Dev. = 11.3 

Security Level 

1 2,752 30.0 26,861 38.3 29,613 37.4 

2 5,332 58.1 37,931 54.2 43,263 54.6 

3 848 9.2 2,909 4.2 3,757 4.7 

4 246 2.7 2,344 3.3 2,590 3.3 

Risk level 

Low, 0-1 1,737 19.5 2,535 3.8 4,272 5.7 

Medium, 2-4 5,309 59.6 26,877 40.4 32,186 42.7 

High, 5-7 1,864 20.3 37,074 55.8 38,938 51.6 

Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data 




As is illustrated in Table 2.4, the majority of individuals in both the treatment and comparison population 

were male (78 percent and 79 percent, respectively). The treatment and comparison populations also had 

very similar breakdowns in racial composition. The largest racial category was Hispanic. Nearly 52 percent 

of the inmates who participated in treatment were Hispanic while 49 percent of the inmates that did not 

receive treatment were also Hispanic. The second largest racial category for both samples was White, 

followed by Black, Other, and Asian. The most frequent age category for both the treatment and 

comparison populations was 24 and younger. The mean age of the treatment population was 34, while the 

mean age of the comparison population was 33.6. 

Inmates were examined according to their Security Level (1–lowest risk to 4-highest risk). Risk is defined 

here based on their potential harm to themselves or others while confined, not by their probability of 

recidivating upon release which is the focus of this recidivism report. The most frequent security level for 

both populations was Security Level 2, with 58 percent of inmates within the treatment population and 54 

percent of inmates in the comparison population classified in this level. The next most frequent security 

level for both populations was Security Level 1, followed by Security Level 3 and Security Level 4. 

These findings show that there are little differences between the inmates in the treatment population and 

those in the comparison population. 

As Table 2.4 illustrates, the largest percent of the inmates in the treatment population was medium risk to 

recidivate and the next most frequent was high risk to recidivate. This is consistent with evidence-based 

principles that recommend targeting medium and high risk offenders for treatment programs. Nearly 60 

percent of the treatment population was assessed as medium risk compared to 40 percent of the 

comparison population. The second most frequent risk level for the treatment population was high risk (20.3 

percent) while nearly 56 percent of the comparison sample was high risk to recidivate. 

In contrast, only 20 percent of the treatment population was low risk compared to 4 percent of the 

comparison population. Again, this finding is consistent with evidence-based principles that recommend 

providing minimal to no treatment to low risk offenders. 

Finally, nearly 52 percent of the total inmate population confined during this study period was assessed as 

high risk to recidivate, followed by almost 43 percent medium risk and nearly 6 percent were low risk to 

recidivate. These findings show that 9 out of 10 inmates confined in the Department pose a medium to high 

risk to recidivate upon release thus demonstrating the importance of providing effective programs for these 

inmates to lower their risk to the community. 




Table 2.5 provides the number of individuals that participated in each of the programs and what percent 

they represent of all programs analyzed. This and subsequent tables in Part I: Chapter 3 represents a 

subset of the database illustrated in Table 2.4. 

The M8 program (A-H) represented nearly 52 percent of all inmates in programs during this study period. 

The second largest program was the WINGS program, with nearly 9 percent of inmates identified as 

participating in WINGS. Chapter 3 will present the analyses conducted by the researchers on these 

programs to assess their impact on the overall findings. 

RCP II had the least number of participants because RCP II was not the first program that an inmate 

entered. To be eligible for RCP II, an inmate must graduate from RCP I. 

Table 2.5 

Number of Inmates Participating in Programs 

March 2008-June 2010 

N % 

Artemis 396 4.2 

Breaking Barriers 472 5.0 

Day Reporting 327 3.5 

Get Right 331 3.5 

HOPE 592 6.3 

M8 (A-H) 4,879 51.7 

MY STORI 355 3.8 

PACE 167 1.8 

RCP I Men 463 4.9 

RCP I Women 370 3.9 

RCP II 28 0.3 

VETS 246 2.6 

WINGS 818 8.7 

Total 9,444 100.0 

Note: Includes the initial program that inmates 

entered and not into the subsequent programs that 

they were transferred. 

As presented later in the report, each program was analyzed individually to ensure that the results of one 

program did not influence the results of another program. 


2.3 Variables Associated with Recidivism after Discharge from SCCDOC 



Each variable within the CJIC database during March 2008-December 2009 was examined to determine 

which variables were statistically significant with recidivism outcomes after discharge from the SCCDOC. 

This time period was selected to allow the research team to develop a risk assessment procedure to 

examine all inmates throughout the study period (March 2008-June 2010), and to examine recidivism 

outcomes for inmates released from the Department. 

Accordingly, inmates were included in the sample if they were confined in the SCCDOC during March 

2008-June 2010 and possessed characteristics leading to recidivism. This procedure resulted in an initial 

sample of 31,046 individuals. Later, 75,396 inmates were assessed using the same risk assessment 

procedure, and these inmates were given a score that assigned them into three risk groups (low, medium 

or high risk). After examining all risk variables, the following five variables were predictive of recidivating 

among SCCDOC offenders: 



3. Whether or not the person was charged with a prior drug offense 


5. The number of prior probation violations 17 

These five variables were used to rate each inmate according to risk to reoffend once they were discharged 

from the Department. Inmates had to have all of the five characteristics to be scored. If an individual could 

not be matched to all of the five variables, they were not scored. Even after excluding some inmates from 

the sample, a total of 75,396 inmates could be scored. This means that there was sufficient number of 

cases remaining upon which to match the treatment with a matched comparison sample and to draw 

conclusions from the analyses. 

Each inmate was given a score ranging from 0 to 7 and then placed into one of three risk levels: 

• Low risk: Score 0-1 

• Medium risk: Score 2-4 

• High risk: Score 5-7 

Inmates in the treatment database were then matched to inmates in the comparison database on the 

following variables: sex, race, age, security level, and risk to recidivate. The matching of individuals who 

received treatment to individuals who did not receive treatment on these characteristics minimized the 

probability that differences between the two groups were due to factors other than treatment. 

The following graphs illustrate the number and percent of inmates within the sample of 31,046 individuals. 

All of these individuals possessed all five characteristics leading to recidivism. 

17 

Logistic Regression results on the final risk tool model are as follows: Model significant at p



The first variable that was significantly associated with recidivism was age at time of arrest. The findings 

indicated that nearly 58 percent of the inmates 24 years and younger had higher recidivism rates following 

discharge than other age groups. These individuals were given a score of 1 and persons 25 years or older 

received a score of zero. As demonstrated in Figure 2.1, individuals 24 years of age and younger was 5.1 

percent more likely to recidivate than those 25 years of age and older. 

Figure 2.1 

Age at Time of Arrest 

Percent 

59 

58 

57 

56 

55 

54 

53 

52 

51 

50 

52.7 

57.8 

25 or Older 24 or Younger 




The next variable that was significantly associated with recidivating after discharge was whether they were 

identified as being in a gang. Individuals that were flagged as being in a gang received a score of 1 while 

those inmates who were not identified as being in a gang received a score of 0. Figure 2.2 shows that 

almost three-quarters of the SCCDOC inmates identified as being in a gang recidivated following 

discharge. These findings demonstrate the strong influence that gangs have on individuals once they are 

discharged. 

Figure 2.2 

Identified as Being in a Gang 

Percent 

80 

75 

70 

65 

60 

55 

50 

45 

40 

52.8 

Not Flagged in Gang 

74.6 

Flagged in Gang 




Figure 2.3 shows that 7 out of 10 individuals charged with a drug offense recidivated. Individuals ever 

charged with a drug offense (including current offense) were more likely to recidivate than individuals who 

were not charged with a drug offense. When a person was currently or previously charged with a drug 

offense, they received a score of 1. If a person was not charged with a drug offense, they received a score 

of 0. These findings demonstrate that being charged with a drug offense is significantly associated with 

reoffending. These findings do not document individuals with addictions because this category includes 

individuals who were charged with selling or manufacturing drugs as well as drug possession. 

Figure 2.3 

Ever Charged with a Drug Offense 

Percemt 

79 

77 

75 

73 

71 

69 

67 

65 

63 

61 

59 

57 

55 

60.4 

No 

71.3 

Yes 




The number of prior arrests (excluding the current arrest) was significantly associated with recidivating. 

When data were inspected for this variable, it was found that there were three statistically relevant 

categories. Individuals who had zero prior arrests received a score of 0. Individuals who had one to five 

prior arrests received a score of 1. Finally, individuals who had 6 or more prior arrests received a score of 

2. As displayed in Figure 2.4, individuals with no prior arrests recidivated roughly 46 percent of the time 

and the percent of individuals who recidivated increased as the number of prior arrests increased. 

Individuals who had one to five arrests recidivated almost 57 percent of the time. Lastly, nearly 77 percent 

of the individuals who had six or more prior arrests recidivated following discharge. These findings 

demonstrate that a chronic history of offending is significantly associated with future reoffending. This is 

consistent with national research on criminogenic risk factors (Lowenkamp, C. and Latessa, E.J. 2003). 

Percent Rearrested 

85 

80 

75 

70 

65 

60 

55 

50 

45 

40 

35 

30 

45.8 

Figure 2.4 

Number of Prior Arrests 

56.5 

76.7 

Zero One to Five Six or More 




The last variable that was found to be significant to future recidivism was the number of prior probation 

violations for those in custody. Similar to the findings regarding the number of prior arrests, statistical 

inspection revealed that there were three predictive categories for this variable. Individuals who had no 

prior probation violations (not counting this current violation) received a score of 0. Individuals who had 

one or two prior probation violations received a score of 1. Finally, individuals who had three or more prior 

probation violations received a score of 2. Nearly 52 percent of the individuals with no prior probation 

violations were rearrested. This risk to recidivate increased to 71 percent for those who had one to two 

prior probation violations. Finally, almost 85 percent of the inmates who had three or more prior probation 

violations recidivated. These findings demonstrate that previous failures on probation were significantly 

related to future reoffending as this finding document a chronic history of non-compliance with society’s 

laws. 

Figure 2.5 

Number of Prior Probation Violations 

Percent Rearrested 

90 

85 

80 

75 

70 

65 

60 

55 

50 

45 

40 

51.7 

Note: These individuals were in custody at the time of the analysis. 

In summary, the five risk factors statistically significant with future recidivism among all SCCDOC inmates 

were: 

71.0 



3. Whether or not the person had a previous charge of a drug offense 



84.7 

Zero One to Two Three or More 



Recidivism by Program





To determine if the Department’s programs led to reduced rearrests, reconvictions and reincarcerations 

following discharge, a quasi-experimental design was used to compare the recidivism of individuals who 

received treatment to a group of matched individuals who did not receive treatment. Because there are 

multiple factors that could influence whether or not a person recidivates, each sample was matched on five 

characteristics (sex, race, age, security level, and risk to recidivate). The Statistical Package for the Social 

Sciences (SPSS), a nationally-accepted predictive analysis computer software program, was used to match 

each individual in each of the 13 programs 18 with an individual who did not receive treatment on each of the 

five characteristics to ensure that they did not differ on any of these characteristics. After controlling for 

these five characteristics, the only difference was that an individual participating in a program received 

treatment while an individual in the matched comparison sample did not receive treatment. 

The initial program that the inmate was admitted to was examined rather than the subsequent programs 

they participated in during their entire stay at the SCCDOC due to limitations in the database. 19 The 

researchers were unable to isolate RCP II as a single program so the sample sizes for RCP II are small. 

As the research team was charged with identifying recidivism outcomes for each of the programs 

individually, this process was necessary to calculate the recidivism outcomes for each program. 

Also, the reason why inmates left their initial program and were transferred to another program was not 

tracked consistently by SCCDOC thus creating limitations in the database. That is, an individual could 

have been discharged from the program due to behavior, they could have left before completion or they 

could have successfully completed the entire cycle of the program. Knowing the reason for their departure 

and when they left the program may or may not have had an impact on the recidivism findings; however, 

data were not consistently available to investigate the relationship between reason for departure and 

recidivism. 

Even with these limitations, the findings indicated 70 percent of all individuals identified as receiving 

treatment were found to be participating in one program while 30 percent of the individuals receiving 

treatment were found to be participating in more than one treatment program. This finding indicates that the 

study found sufficient number of cases upon which to draw conclusions. 

The study time period was March 2008-June 2010 indicating that there was sufficient time to examine 2 

year recidivism rates for inmates in the study. For example, 17,358 inmates (total of both the treatment 

sample and matched comparison sample) were discharged a minimum of 6 months and were included in 

the 6 month sample, the number of inmates was reduced slightly to 17,257 (total of both samples) inmates 

in the 12 month sample because fewer individuals had a minimum of 12 months after discharge; and 

14,916 inmates (total of both samples) were discharged long enough to be in the 24 month sample. 

18 

List of stand-alone programs was provided by the Department of Correction. 

19 

The exception to this was the Day Reporting program. Since no individuals were identified in the database as Day 

Reporting as their first program entry, any individual identified in the Day Reporting program was included. 




All of the tables in this chapter are taken from the database shown in Table 2.4 Characteristics of Inmates 

in the Department of Correction found in Chapter 2. 

Table 3.1 displays the number of inmates who were matched and the number who could not be matched. 

The column labeled “Treatment Total” indicates the number of individuals that were identified as 

participating in one of the 13 programs. The second column labeled (Number Comp. Matched) shows the 

number of treatment participants that were successfully matched to a comparison inmate on sex, race, age, 

security level, and risk to recidivate (low, medium and high risk). The third column labeled (Number 

Unmatched) represents the number of inmates identified as receiving treatment that were not able to be 

directly matched to a treatment group participant. That is, there was not a person in the database who 

could be matched on sex, race, age, security level, and risk to recidivate. Inmates could not be matched if 

(1) there was no identical match available or (2) the inmate who participated in the program had one or 

more match variables that were missing. 20 Inmates who were not matched were not included in any further 

analyses. 

Table 3.1 

Information on Matching Process 

Treatment 

Total 

Number 

Comp. 

Matched 

Number 

Unmatched 

Artemis 396 360 36 

Breaking Barriers 472 432 40 

Day Reporting 327 306 21 

Get Right 331 291 40 

HOPE 591 575 16 

M8 4,879 4,690 189 

MY STORI 355 322 33 

PACE 167 162 5 

RCP I Men 463 452 11 

RCP I Women 370 329 41 

RCP II 28 24 4 

VETS 244 229 15 

WINGS 818 679 139 

Total 9,441 8,851 590 

As noted in Table 3.1, the overwhelming majority (94.0 percent) of inmates were successfully matched thus 

leading to confidence with the findings. 

20 

Note: As previously noted the number of inmates in RCP II is low because these individuals had to complete RCP 

I first. 




3.1.2 Findings 

Table 3.2 presents the number and percent of individuals in the treatment sample and not in treatment that 

were rearrested, reconvicted and reincarcerated following discharge from the SCCDOC at 6, 12 and 24 

months. As the intent of this report was to document the recidivism of individuals in treatment, two samples 

were drawn for comparisons. Table 3.2 includes those individuals in treatment that were matched with a 

comparison sample of individuals not in treatment during March 2008-June 2010 by sex, race, age, security 

level and risk to recidivate (low, medium or high risk). 

The first column indicates those individuals who were identified as participating in treatment between March 

2008 and June 2010. The percent represents the proportion of the total sample who recidivated for each 

time interval. The second column represents a matched comparison sample of inmates who did not receive 

treatment for the same time period. This matched comparison sample was also drawn from all inmates 

confined in the SCCDOC between March 2008 and June 2010 that did not receive treatment. Inmates 

were selected for this sample on a case-by-case basis so that each inmate who did not receive treatment 

was matched to an inmate who did receive treatment on sex, race, age, security level, and risk to 

recidivate. This was done to ensure that there were no differences between samples on sex, race, age, 

security level, or risk to recidivate. The third column is the difference between the treatment and matched 

comparison sample, and it represents the effect treatment had on reducing the recidivism of inmates. For 

example, 19.2 percent of the inmates in treatment were rearrested at 6 months compared to 34.0 percent 

of the persons not in treatment; therefore, treatment reduced the number of inmates who were rearrested at 

6 months by 14.8 percentage points. This difference represents the effect treatment had on inmates 

participating in treatment. 

Table 3.2 

Recidivism by Populations 

Treatment Sample 

Matched-Comparison 

Sample 

Treatment 

Effect 

n % N % % 

Rearrest 

6 month* 1,689 19.2 2,913 34.0 -14.8 

12 month* 2,854 32.6 3,962 46.6 -14.0 

24 month* 4,549 58.2 4,525 63.7 - 5.5 

Reconviction 

6 month* 782 9.7 1,892 24.1 -14.4 

12 month* 1,315 16.4 2,553 32.8 -16.4 

24 month* 1,871 25.9 2,709 41.6 -15.7 


6 month* 1,353 18.1 1,694 24.1 - 6.0 

12 month* 2,389 32.1 2,703 38.8 - 6.7 

24 month 4,094 60.8 3,422 58.9 -- 

*p



The findings demonstrate that individuals who participated in treatment were significantly less likely to be 

rearrested or reconvicted at 6, 12, and 24 months compared to similar individuals that did not participate in 

treatment. 21 

In comparison, 12 and 24 month rearrests and reconvictions for inmates released from the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) were higher than the subsequent arrests and 

reconvictions for inmates released from SCCDOC’s programs. 22 Statewide, California inmates’ 12-month 

rearrest rate was between 57 percent and 58 percent compared to 32.6 percent for SCCDOC’s treatment 

population. At 24 months, CDCR’s subsequent arrests were between 70 percent and 71 percent compared 

to 58.2 percent for SCCDOC. Similarly, 12 and 24 month reconvictions for persons discharged from 

SCCDOC was also lower than CDCR. Thus, compared to CDCR, a smaller percentage of SCCDOC’s 

inmates were rearrested and reconvicted at 12 and 24 months than inmates released from CDCR. 

Table 3.3 

One, Two and Three-Year Recidivism Rates for 

Arrests and Convictions for Felons 

Released from California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

Between FY 2006-07 and FY 2007-08 

Arrests^ 

One Year Two Years Three Years 

Fiscal 

Year 

Number 

Released 

Number 

Arrested 

Recidivism 

Rate 

Number 

Arrested 


Rate 

Number 

Arrested 


Rate 

FY06-07 112,665 65,369 58.0% 79,893 70.9% 86,330 76.6% 

FY07-08 113,765 64,838 57.0% 79,756 70.1% N/A N/A 

Convictions^ 

One Year Two Years Three Years 

Fiscal 

Year 

Number 

Released 

Number 

Arrested 


Rate 

Number 

Arrested 


Rate 

Number 

Arrested 


Rate 

FY06-07 112,665 26,657 23.7% 46,106 40.9% 57,980 51.5% 

FY07-08 113,756 23,593 20.7% 41,312 36.3% N/A N/A 

Source: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 2011 Adult Institutions Outcome 

Evaluation Report. Office of Research, November 23, 2011. ^ Rates for “Arrests” and “Convictions” only 

include those felons where an automated criminal history record was available from the Department of 

Justice. These records are necessary to measure recidivism by arrest and conviction. 

One must recognize that a direct comparison between SCCDOC and CDCR is not possible due to the 

unavailability of CDCR data, variances in time frames, in the seriousness of CDCR inmates and variances 

in risk to reoffend between both populations. 

21 

Note: results are based on persons who were discharged from treatment not still participating in treatment. 

22 






Regarding subsequent reincarcerations for inmates released from SCCDOC, the findings in Table 3.2 show 


comparison population. In contrast, treatment did not significantly lower reincarcerations at 24 months. 

Even though a slightly higher percent of individuals in SCCDOC’s treatment sample were returned to 

SCCDOC custody at 24 months compared to the matched-comparison sample, the statistical difference is 

not significant. While 60.8 percent of the treatment sample was returned to custody after 24 months, 39.2 

percent was not. 

In comparison, the State of California’s 24 months return to custody rate for all inmates was 60.5 percent in 

FY06-07 and 59.2 percent in FY07-08 compared to 60.8 percent return to SCCDOC at 24 months showing 

that SCCDOC’s return to custody rate at 24 months is comparable to the State of California. 23 

Figure 3.1 shows the State of California’s (CDCR) return to custody rate for persons involved in in-prison 

treatment with or without aftercare three years following discharge. CDCR found that persons in treatment 

with no aftercare had a return to custody rate of 66.5 percent compared to 60.8 percent for the SCCDOC. 24 

70.0% 

60.0% 

50.0% 

40.0% 

30.0% 

20.0% 

10.0% 

0.0% 

Figure 3.1 

Three-Year Recidivism Rates for Substance Abuse Treatment Completers in California 

66.5% 

Recidivism with No 

Aftercare 

62.3% 

Recidivism with some 

Aftercare 

Source: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 2011 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report. 

Office of Research, November 23, 2011. 

29.3% 

Recidivism of 

Treatment + Aftercare 

Completers 

65.3% 

Recidivism of No 

Treatment/No 

Aftercare 

23 



24 

Note: The comparisons are based on 2 year data in SCCDOC and 3 year data for the State of California thus this 

is not a direct one to one comparison, but it can show a comparison of trends in the findings. 




Further, SCCDOC’s reincarceration outcome at 24 months for the matched comparison sample was 58.9 

percent compared to 65.3 percent for CDCR inmates. These findings show that SCCDOC’s treatment and 

non-treatment inmates had lower 24 month reincarcerations than CDCR inmates did. Figure 3.1 also 

documents the importance of substance abuse treatment combined with aftercare in the community as 

CDCR’s return to custody rate dropped to 29.3 percent at three years. 

3.1.2.1 Evaluation of M8 and WINGS Programs on Overall Recidivism Findings 

Separate analyses were performed to determine the impact of the M8 and WINGS treatment population on 

the overall findings because these two programs involved the highest number of individuals. 

The table below excluded M8 from the analysis. The overall findings are the same as shown in Table 3.2. 

Treatment led to significantly lower rearrests and reconvictions 6, 12 and 24 months and future 

reincarcerations 6 and 12 months compared to the matched comparison sample. In contrast, treatment did 

not significantly lower reincarcerations at 24 months. These findings indicate that the overall findings when 

M8 is excluded are the same as when M8 is included. 

Table 3.4 

Recidivism by Populations, M8 Removed from Analyses 



Sample 

Treatment 

Effect 

n % N % % 

Rearrest 

6 month* 800 19.4 1,390 34.7 - 15.3 

12 month* 1,369 33.2 1,882 47.2 - 14.0 

24 month* 2,241 59.6 2,163 65.1 - 5.5 

Reconviction 

6 month* 453 11.3 932 24.9 - 13.6 

12 month* 747 18.6 1,263 33.9 - 15.3 

24 month* 1,061 29.0 1,350 43.5 - 14.5 


6 month* 716 19.5 829 24.8 - 5.3 

12 month* 1,248 34.1 1,296 38.9 - 4.8 

24 month 2,079 61.9 1,624 58.9 -- 

*p



Table 3.5 excluded M8 and WINGS from the analyses. The findings are the same as shown in Table 3.2. 

Treatment led to significantly lower rearrests and reconvictions 6, 12 and 24 months and future 

reincarcerations 6 and 12 months compared to the matched comparison sample. In contrast, treatment did 

not significantly lower reincarcerations at 24 months. These findings indicate that the overall findings when 

M8 and WINGS are excluded are the same as when M8 and WINGS are included. 

Table 3.5 

Recidivism by Populations, M8 and WINGS Removed from Analyses 



Sample 

Treatment 

Effect 

n % N % % 

Rearrest 

6 month* 629 18.2 1,117 33.3 -15.1 

12 month* 1,109 32.2 1,526 45.7 -13.5 

24 month* 1,862 59.2 1,795 64.2 - 5.0 

Reconviction 

6 month* 359 10.6 743 23.6 -13.0 

12 month* 609 18.0 1,013 32.4 -14.4 

24 month* 873 28.2 1,103 42.1 - 13.9 


6 month* 584 18.9 680 24.3 - 5.4 

12 month* 1,038 33.6 1,078 38.7 - 5.1 

24 month 1,755 61.8 1,369 59.0 -- 

*p



3.1.3 Overall Recidivism Outcomes by Program 

The following analyses compared the difference between the treatment sample and the matchedcomparison 

sample for each program across all three time intervals. The question being examined was, 

“Does participating in treatment in one of the Department of Correction’s programs lead to reduced 

rearrests, reconvictions or reincarcerations?” 

To reiterate, the “Treatment Sample” is individuals who were identified as being in a program and matched 

to an inmate that did not receive treatment. The “Matched-Comparison Sample” is individuals who did not 

participate in treatment. Inmates in both samples were matched on five variables (i.e., age, sex, race, 

security level, and risk to recidivate) to equalize the samples so that the only difference was whether or not 

the person received treatment. The programs that are statistically significant are noted by an asterisk. 




Table 3.6 illustrates the percent of inmates rearrested who participated in each program for each time 

interval and identifies if the treatment sample differed significantly from a matched comparison sample. 

Eleven (11) treatment samples were identified by an asterisk as having significantly lower 6 month 

rearrests than their matched comparison sample; 10 treatment samples had significantly lower 12 month 

rearrests, and 5 treatment samples had significantly lower 24 month rearrests than their matched 

comparison sample. 

Treatment 

Sample (%) 

Table 3.6 

Percent of Rearrests for Each Program by Time Interval 

Rearrests 

6-month 12-month 24-month 

Matched- 

Comparison 

Sample (%) 

Treatment 

Sample (%) 

Matched- 

Comparison 

Sample (%) 

Treatment 

Sample (%) 

Matched- 

Comparison 

Sample (%) 

Artemis 17.8* 38.9* 32.2* 51.0* 58.5* 70.4* 

Breaking Barriers 14.8* 20.9* 26.1 29.3 52.6 51.9 

Day Reporting 19.3* 38.0* 35.0* 50.8* 63.4 65.9 

Get Right 20.7 25.0 34.2 36.9 58.8 59.2 

HOPE 15.1* 31.3* 30.3* 45.0* 58.8 61.1 

M8 19.0* 33.5* 32.0* 46.1* 56.9* 62.5* 

MY STORI 16.8* 37.3* 31.4* 50.5* 62.5* 72.0* 

PACE 13.3* 29.3* 27.4* 44.6* 65.2 59.0 

RCP I Men 18.6* 35.1* 33.4* 47.0* 58.8 65.2 

RCP I Women 15.5* 38.3* 27.7* 52.3* 54.8* 73.0* 

RCP II 8.3* 45.8* 20.8* 50.0* 29.2 52.6 

VETS 38.0 42.3 51.5 56.1 70.5 72.9 

WINGS 25.3* 41.7* 38.5* 54.5* 62.0* 69.7* 

*p



Table 3.7 shows the percent of individuals in both sample populations in each program who were 

reconvicted across each of the three time intervals. Similar to the rearrests presented in Table 3.6, fewer 

individuals in the treatment population were reconvicted compared to the matched comparison population. 

Eleven programs led to significantly lower 6 month reconvictions compared to a matched comparison 

sample, and nine programs led to significantly lower 12 month reconvictions compared to a matched 

comparison sample. Finally, seven programs had significantly lower 24 month reconvictions compared to a 

matched comparison sample. 

Overall, seven programs (Artemis, HOPE, M8, MY STORI, RCP I Men, RCP I Women, and WINGS) led to 

significantly lower reconvictions at 6, 12, and 24 months combined compared to the matched comparison 

sample. 

Table 3.7 

Percent of Reconvictions for Each Program by Time Interval 

Reconviction Rate 


Matched- 

Comparison 

Sample (%) 

Matched- 

Comparison 

Sample (%) 

Matched- 

Comparison 

Sample (%) 

Treatment 

Sample (%) 

Treatment 

Sample (%) 

Treatment 

Sample (%) 

Artemis 9.8** 30.0** 14.9** 38.8** 21.9** 48.8** 

Breaking 

Barriers 6.7* 11.0* 10.4 14.7 21.6 22.9 

Day Reporting 14.7** 29.4** 26.5** 40.1** 42.8 51.1 

Get Right 8.4* 15.6* 13.8 20.1 19.9 25.0 

HOPE 9.0** 22.7** 16.5** 33.3** 26.2** 43.2** 

M8 8.2** 23.5** 14.2** 31.8** 22.8** 39.8** 

MY STORI 10.3** 26.6** 17.2** 36.1** 29.0** 46.5** 

PACE 8.2* 17.2* 16.4* 26.1* 29.2 30.4 

RCP I Men 9.6** 24.8** 19.3** 34.3** 29.7** 47.2** 

RCP I Women 5.0** 27.4** 12.4** 39.1** 21.2** 54.0** 

RCP II 4.2^ 28.6^ 12.5^ 33.3^ 16.7^ 31.5^ 

VETS 32.2 34.8 42.3 44.7 51.4 55.5 

WINGS 15.1** 31.2** 22.2** 41.5** 33.5** 50.7** 

*p



Table 3.8 shows the percent of inmates who were reincarcerated in the SCCDOC for the treatment and the 

matched comparison sample for all programs across the three time intervals. Compared to rearrests and 

reconvictions, fewer programs demonstrated significant effects on reincarceration. Four programs 

demonstrated significantly lower 6 month reincarcerations compared to a matched comparison sample; four 

other treatment programs had significantly lower 12 month reincarcerations compared to the matched 

comparison sample; and no treatment program had significantly lower 24 month reincarcerations compared 

to a matched comparison sample. 

Table 3.8 

Percent of Reincarceration for Each Program by Time Interval 

Treatment 

Sample (%) 


Matched- 

Matched- 

Treatment 

Treatment 

Comparison 

Comparison 

Sample (%) 

Sample (%) 

Sample (%) 

Sample (%) 

Matched- 

Comparison 

Sample (%) 

Artemis 17.8* 24.8* 32.8 39.9 60.3 59.7 

Breaking Barriers 13.3 14.3 26.4 27.4 55.0 50.3 

Day Reporting 23.2 27.8 39.3 43.5 69.6 63.9 

Get Right 14.4 17.2 27.0 28.8 58.0 52.3 

HOPE 16.5* 24.8* 32.6* 38.9* 64.8 60.1 

M8 16.7* 23.5* 30.2* 38.6* 59.7 58.8 

MY STORI 20.0 26.3 32.5* 41.6* 62.5 57.7 

PACE 17.6 20.0 27.0 34.2 64.8 58.7 

RCP I Men 23.0 28.7 39.1 43.2 60.4 63.9 

RCP I Women 16.3* 25.0* 33.7* 42.1* 59.4 60.2 

RCP II 5.3^ 38.9^ 31.6 50.0 47.4 42.9 

VETS 33.5 33.7 47.1 46.9 67.2 65.9 

WINGS 23.0 27.4 36.6 40.3 62.4 58.9 

*p



• Three programs had significantly lower reincarcerations at 6 and 12 months combined (HOPE, M8 and 

RCP I Women). 

• Not all programs within the Department resulted in reduced recidivism. Overall, VETS did not lead to 

lower rearrests, reconvictions, or reincarcerations compared with their matched comparison sample at 

any of the time intervals. Get Right produced lower 6 months reconvictions only among the nine 

outcomes that were measured. Breaking Barriers produced only lower 6 months rearrests and 

reconvictions. 

3.1.4 Detailed Analysis by Programs 

Tables 3.9 through 3.21 displays the number and percent of inmates who recidivated in each of the 

programs for each recidivism measure and time interval. The number in each column represents the 

number of inmates that recidivated and the percent is the calculation of the percentage of that group that 

recidivated. All tables indicate whether or not chi square statistical results indicated significant differences 

in recidivism at p



Table 3.9 displays the recidivism outcomes for the Artemis program for women compared to the matched 

comparison sample. As observed, women participating in the Artemis program were significantly less likely 

to be rearrested and reconvicted at 6, 12, and 24 months compared to the matched comparison sample. 

Artemis participants were also significantly less likely to be reincarcerated at 6 months compared to the 

matched comparison sample. However, there was no statistical difference between Artemis participants 

and the matched comparison sample on reincarceration at 12 and 24 months. While the percentage of 

Artemis participants that were reincarcerated at 24 months was slightly larger than the matched 

comparison sample, this difference was not statistically significant. 

Table 3.9 

Recidivism Outcomes for Artemis Participants vs. Matched-Comparison Sample 



Sample 

n % n % 

Rearrest 

6 month** 64 17.8 135 38.9 

12 month** 116 32.2 176 51.0 

24 month** 197 58.5 193 70.4 

Reconviction 

6 month** 35 9.8 98 30.0 

12 month** 53 14.9 126 38.8 

24 month** 73 21.9 125 48.8 


6 month* 57 17.8 74 24.8 

12 month 105 32.8 118 39.9 

24 month 181 60.3 139 59.7 

*p



Table 3.10 provides recidivism outcomes for the Breaking Barriers program. Participants in Breaking 

Barriers were significantly less likely to be rearrested and reconvicted at 6 months compared to a matchedcomparison 

sample. However, there were no significant differences in the percent of individuals rearrested 

and reconvicted at 12 or 24. Likewise, there were no significant differences in reincarcerations across any 

of the time intervals compared to the matched-comparison sample. 

These findings demonstrate that there is a short-term benefit from participating in Breaking Barriers for 

rearrests and reconvictions at 6 months following discharge, but this benefit is not sustained in the long 

term. Since this program deals with gang members who drop their gang affiliation to become eligible for the 

program, it suggests that the power of the gang when someone is released is greater than the program 

gains that the individual achieved while confined. 

Table 3.10 

Recidivism Outcomes for Breaking Barriers Participants vs. Matched-Comparison Sample 


Treatment Sample Sample 

n % n % 

Rearrest 

6 month* 62 14.8 88 20.9 

12 month 109 26.1 122 29.3 

24 month 194 52.6 188 51.9 

Reconviction 

6 month* 28 6.7 44 11.0 

12 month 43 10.4 58 14.7 

24 month 79 21.6 79 22.9 


6 month 50 13.3 49 14.3 

12 month 99 26.4 93 27.4 

24 month 183 55.0 151 50.3 

*p



Table 3.11 reports the findings from the Day Reporting program, a program for inmates released from the 

SCCDOC. Day Reporting participants were significantly less likely to be rearrested and reconvicted at 6 

and 12 months compared to the matched comparison sample. However, there were no significant 

differences in the percent of individuals rearrested and reconvicted at 24 months, and neither were there 

any significant differences in reincarcerations across any of the time intervals compared to the matchedcomparison 

sample. 

These findings suggest that the Day Reporting program helped reduce rearrests and reconvictions in the 

short and medium term but the long term effect was not sustained. Later in this chapter, it is shown that the 

majority of inmates placed in this program are assessed as medium and high risk (see Tables 3.25-3.33), 

which suggests that these individuals require intensive reentry programming and aftercare services to be 

successful once they are released. Day Reporting could be an important element of the reentry continuum 

for persons released from jail and for individuals returning to Santa Clara County from the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation provided that it includes the elements of the Principles of 

Effective Intervention. 

Table 3.11 

Recidivism Outcomes for Day Reporting Participants vs. Matched-Comparison Sample 



Sample 

n % n % 

Rearrest 

6 month** 59 19.3 112 38.0 

12 month** 107 35.0 150 50.8 

24 month 175 63.4 162 65.9 

Reconviction 

6 month** 45 14.7 82 29.4 

12 month** 81 26.5 112 40.1 

24 month 118 42.8 119 51.1 


6 month 66 23.2 66 27.8 

12 month 112 39.3 103 43.5 

24 month 179 69.6 124 63.9 

*p



A comparison of the recidivism outcomes for Get Right participants compared with a matched comparison 

sample is described in Table 3.12. 

The only measure in which participants in the Get Right program was significant was for reconvictions at 6 

months. Participants in the Get Right program did not demonstrate any significant differences across any of 

the time intervals for rearrests or for reincarcerations. Moreover, participants in the Get Right program were 

not significantly less likely to be reconvicted at 12 or 24 months. The finding that 6 month rearrests were 

not significant but reconvictions at 6 months were could not be explained from the database. However, this 

effect is short term, as reconvictions at 12 and 24 months were not significantly different. 

Table 3.12 

Recidivism Outcomes for Get Right Participants vs. Matched-Comparison Sample 



Sample 

n % n % 

Rearrest 

6 month 58 20.7 69 25.0 

12 month 94 34.2 100 36.9 

24 month 144 58.8 135 59.2 

Reconviction 

6 month* 23 8.4 42 15.6 

12 month 37 13.8 53 20.1 

24 month 48 19.9 56 25.0 


6 month 38 14.4 41 17.2 

12 month 70 27.0 67 28.8 

24 month 134 58.0 103 52.3 

*p



Table 3.13 provides information on the recidivism outcomes of HOPE participants compared to the 

matched comparison sample. Participants in the HOPE program demonstrated significantly lower rearrests, 

reconvictions and reincarcerations at 6 and 12 months compared to the matched comparison sample. 

HOPE participants were also significantly less likely to be reconvicted at 24 months. In contrast, HOPE 

participants were not significantly less likely to be rearrested or reincarcerated at 24 months compared to 

the matched comparison sample. 

These findings indicate that the treatment effect that occurred at 6 and 12 months for rearrests and 

reincarcerations was not sustained at 24 months. The longer someone is not in treatment, the higher 

chances that they may be rearrested and later reincarcerated. 

Table 3.13 

Recidivism Outcomes for HOPE Participants vs. Matched-Comparison Sample 



n % n % 

Rearrest 

6 month** 87 15.1 173 31.3 

12 month** 174 30.3 247 45.0 

24 month 316 58.8 294 61.1 

Reconviction 

6 month** 50 9.0 118 22.7 

12 month** 91 16.5 172 33.3 

24 month** 136 26.2 195 43.2 


6 month** 86 16.5 117 24.8 

12 month* 170 32.6 183 38.9 

24 month 320 64.8 246 60.1 

*p



Table 3.14 provides information on the M8 program. M8 participants were significantly less likely to be 

rearrested and reconvicted at 6, 12, and 24 months compared to the matched comparison sample. 

Moreover, M8 participants were significantly less likely to be reincarcerated at 6 and 12 months compared 

to their matched comparison sample. However, there was no sustained effect of participating in the M8 

program on reincarcerations at 24 months. Since the majority of inmates participate in this program, it will 

be in the Department’s best interest to ensure that this program addresses all of the criminogenic needs for 

these inmates, and to provide reentry programming to reduce future reincarceration. 

Table 3.14 

Recidivism Outcomes for M8 (A-H) Participants vs. Matched-Comparison Sample 



Sample 

n % n % 

Rearrest 

6 month** 889 19.0 1523 33.5 

12 month** 1485 32.0 2080 46.1 

24 month** 2308 56.9 2362 62.5 

Reconviction 

6 month** 329 8.2 960 23.5 

12 month** 568 14.2 1,290 31.8 

24 month** 810 22.8 1,359 39.8 


6 month** 637 16.7 865 23.5 

12 month** 1,141 30.2 1,407 38.6 

24 month 2,015 59.7 1,798 58.8 

*p



Table 3.15 displays the findings for participants in the MY STORI program for women. MY STORI 

participants were significantly less likely to be rearrested and reconvicted at 6, 12, and 24 months 

compared to their matched comparison sample. Also, MY STORI participants were significantly less likely 

to be reincarcerated at 12 months compared to the matched comparison sample, but not significantly 

different at 6 or 24 months. While not significant, the 6 month reincarceration outcome was approaching 

significance [p=.08]. 

Table 3.15 

Recidivism Outcomes for MY STORI Participants vs. Matched-Comparison Sample 



Sample 

n % n % 

Rearrest 

6 month** 54 16.8 112 37.3 

12 month** 101 31.4 151 50.5 

24 month* 187 62.5 177 72.0 

Reconviction 

6 month** 33 10.3 74 26.6 

12 month** 55 17.2 100 36.1 

24 month** 86 29.0 105 46.5 


6 month 56 20.0 66 26.3 

12 month* 91 32.5 104 41.6 

24 month 163 62.5 116 57.7 

*p



Recidivism outcomes for the PACE program and the comparison sample are displayed in Table 3.16 

PACE participants were significantly less likely to be rearrested and reconvicted at 6 and 12 months 

compared to their matched comparison sample. In contrast, there was no significant difference on the 

percent of individuals rearrested or reconvicted at 24 months, and neither was there any significant 

difference on the percent of individuals reincarcerated at 6, 12 or 24 months. While the percent of 

individuals reincarcerated at 24 months is higher for the treatment sample than the comparison sample, it is 

not significant. 

Table 3.16 

Recidivism Outcomes for PACE Participants vs. Matched-Comparison Sample 



Sample 

n % n % 

Rearrest 

6 month** 21 13.3 46 29.3 

12 month** 43 27.4 70 44.6 

24 month 75 65.2 79 59.0 

Reconviction 

6 month* 12 8.2 23 17.2 

12 month* 24 16.4 35 26.1 

24 month 33 29.2 35 30.4 


6 month 25 17.6 24 20.0 

12 month 38 27.0 41 34.2 

24 month 70 64.8 61 58.7 

*p



Table 3.17 displays the recidivism results for the RCP I program for men. A smaller percentage of the men 

in the RCP I program were rearrested at 6 and 12 months and reconvicted at 6, 12 and 24 months 

compared to their matched comparison samples. There was no significant difference at 24 months for 

rearrest; however, the difference between the treatment and the matched comparison sample was 

approaching significance [p=.06].). Neither were participants in RCP I Men less likely to be reincarcerated 

at 6, 12 or 24 months. 

Table 3.17 

Recidivism Outcomes for RCP I Male Participants vs. Matched-Comparison Sample 



Sample 

N % N % 

Rearrest 

6 month** 84 18.6 154 35.1 

12 month** 151 33.4 206 47.0 

24 month 248 58.8 247 65.2 

Reconviction 

6 month** 43 9.6 100 24.8 

12 month** 86 19.3 138 34.3 

24 month** 124 29.7 166 47.2 


6 month 93 23.0 106 28.7 

12 month 158 39.1 159 43.2 

24 month 232 60.4 205 63.9 

*p



Table 3.18 displays the results for the RCP I program for women. Unlike the RCP I Men program, more of 

the women in RCP I were significantly less likely to be rearrested or reconvicted at 6, 12, and 24 months 

and significantly less reincarcerated at 6 and 12 months compared to their matched comparison sample. 

However, there was no significant effect of the RCP I Women Program on 24 month reincarcerations 

compared to the matched comparison sample. 

These findings show that the RCP I Program for women produced greater reductions in rearrests, 

reconvictions and reincarcerations compared to the RCP I program for men. It is unclear why the RCP I 

Program for women is more effective for women since eight program topics are the same for both the men 

and the women participating in the RCP I Program. The primary difference in the RCP I Women is the 

gender focus. 

Table 3.18 

Recidivism Outcomes for RCP I Female Participants vs. Matched-Comparison Sample 

Matched- 

Treatment Sample Comparison Sample 

n % n % 

Rearrest 

6 month** 51 15.5 123 38.3 

12 month** 91 27.7 168 52.3 

24 month** 171 54.8 181 73.0 

Reconviction 

6 month** 16 5.0 84 27.4 

12 month** 40 12.4 120 39.1 

24 month** 65 21.2 127 54.0 


6 month* 48 16.3 70 25.0 

12 month* 99 33.7 118 42.1 

24 month 165 59.4 127 60.2 

*p



Table 3.19 shows the recidivism outcomes for persons participating in the RCP II program, the community 

phase for RCP I graduates who are released from the SCCDOC. Participants in RCP II demonstrated 

significantly lower rearrests at 6 and 12 months compared to their matched comparison sample but it was 

not sustained at 24 months. 25 There was no statistical effect of participating in RCP II on reconvictions or 

for reincarcerations at any of the time intervals. However, it should be noted that cell values were too small 

to allow for statistical comparison at 6, 12, and 24 months for reconvictions and at 6 months for 

reincarcerations due to the fact that few individuals were identified in the database as having RCP II as the 

first program to which they were assigned. Moreover, results from chi square tests should be viewed with 

caution as there are small sample sizes and unstable estimates. Like Day Reporting, RCP II could be an 

important part of the Reentry Continuum for persons released from the SCCDOC or for persons returning 

to Santa Clara County from state prison. 

Table 3.19 

Recidivism Outcomes for RCP II Participants vs. Matched-Comparison Sample 

Treatment 

Sample 

Matched- 

Comparison Sample 

n % n % 

Rearrest 

6 month** 7 8.3 11 45.8 

12 month* 5 20.8 12 50.0 

24 month 7 29.2 10 52.6 

Reconviction 

6 month^ 1 4.2 6 28.6 

12 month^ 3 12.5 7 33.3 

24 month^ 4 16.7 5 31.5 


6 month^ 1 5.3 7 38.9 

12 month 6 31.6 9 50.0 

24 month 9 47.4 6 42.9 

*p



As shown in Table 3.20, there were no statistical differences between participants in VETS and their 

matched comparison sample on rearrest, reconviction, or reincarceration outcomes for any of the three 

time intervals. It is important to note that VETS is the only program that did not produce any significant 

differences on any of the time intervals for the three recidivism measures. 

Table 3.20 

Recidivism Outcomes for VETS Participants vs. Matched-Comparison Sample 



n % n % 

Rearrest 

6 month 87 38.0 94 42.3 

12 month 118 51.5 124 56.1 

24 month 148 70.5 129 72.9 

Reconviction 

6 month 73 32.2 72 34.8 

12 month 96 42.3 92 44.7 

24 month 107 51.4 91 55.5 


6 month 64 33.5 60 33.7 

12 month 90 47.1 83 46.9 

24 month 119 67.2 91 65.9 

*p



Table 3.21 presents the recidivism outcomes for the WINGS program. Participants in WINGS were less 

likely than their matched comparison sample to be rearrested and reconvicted at 6, 12, and 24 months. 

However, there was no difference in reincarceration at any of the three time intervals. It is unclear why 

there were significant differences in rearrests and reconvictions but not in reincarcerations. 

Table 3.21 

Recidivism Outcomes for WINGS Participants vs. Matched-Comparison Sample 

Treatment 

Sample 

Matched- 

Comparison Sample 

n % n % 

Rearrest 

6 month** 171 25.3 273 41.7 

12 month** 260 38.5 356 54.5 

24 month** 379 62.0 368 69.7 

Reconviction 

6 month** 94 15.1 189 31.2 

12 month** 138 22.2 250 41.5 

24 month** 188 33.5 247 50.7 


6 month 132 23.0 149 27.4 

12 month 210 36.6 218 40.3 

24 month 324 62.4 255 58.9 

*p



3.1.5 Recidivism Analysis by Risk to Recidivate 

Supplemental analyses were performed to determine if there was a significant relationship between 

recidivism measures and one’s risk to recidivate (low, medium or high). Risk is defined as “risk to 

recidivate” following discharge from the SCCDOC. Each inmate was assessed as low, medium or high risk 

to recidivate using the risk variables that were predictive of recidivism as defined in Part I: Chapter 2. This 

analysis enabled the researchers to examine if the observed statistical effects could be accounted for 

across different risk levels, or if the effects were a function of one or two specific risk levels. Specifically, 

recidivism analyses were conducted for both the treatment sample and the matched comparison sample by 

risk level and for each program by risk level. 

Tables 3.22 through 3.24 provide the results for each recidivism measure by risk level for each time 

interval. These tables represent the proportion of inmates in each sample who recidivated. The number in 

each column represents the number of inmates that recidivated and the percent is the calculation of the 

percentage of that group that recidivated. The percent difference is the difference between the treatment 

and the matched-comparison sample. The percentage reduction between the two samples represents the 

effect that treatment had on the inmates who participated in treatment. Chi square tests for significance 

was conducted at p



Table 3.22 presents the number and percent of inmates in both samples that recidivated by risk level and 

the percent difference represents the reduction of individuals who recidivated in each risk level in the 

treatment sample compared to the matched-comparison sample; thus, showing the effect that treatment 

had on inmates. 

Table 3.22 

Percent of Rearrests by Risk Level and Time Interval for All Programs 

6 Month Rearrest 12 Month Rearrest 24 Month Rearrest 

Low 

Risk 

Medium 

Risk 

High 

Risk 

Low 

Risk 

Medium 

Risk 

High 

Risk 

Low 

Risk 

Medium 

Risk 

High 

Risk 

Treatment 

Sample 

133 

(8.7)* 

913 

(17.1)** 

643 

(33.5)** 

293 

(19.2) 

1,661 

(31.2)** 

900 

(47.2)** 

722 

(49.8) 

2,762 

(57.8)** 

1,065 

(67.1)** 

Matched- 

Comparison 

Sample 

170 

(11.3)* 

1,602 

(30.9)** 

1,141 

(60.7)** 

327 

(22.0) 

2,298 

(49.4)** 

1,337 

(71.5)** 

646 

(47.3) 

2,673 

(63.2)** 

1,206 

(80.3)** 

Percent 

Difference -2.6 -13.8 -27.2 NS -18.2 -24.3 NS -5.4 -13.2 

*p



The same pattern is found with high risk inmates. High risk inmates that were in treatment were 

significantly less likely to be rearrested at 6, 12, and 24 months. Specifically, at 6 months, 33.5 percent of 

high risk inmates in treatment were rearrested compared to nearly 61 percent of high risk inmates not in 

treatment. Thus, treatment resulted in 27.2 percent fewer high risk inmates being rearrested at 6 months. 

More than 47 percent of high risk inmates in treatment were rearrested at 12 months compared to almost 

72 percent of high risk inmates in the matched comparison sample. Thus, treatment resulted in 24.3 

percent fewer high risk inmates being rearrested at 12 months. Finally, at 24 months, 67.1 percent of high 

risk inmates in treatment were rearrested compared to slightly over 80 percent of inmates in the matchedcomparison 

sample. Thus, treatment resulted in 13.2 percent fewer high risk inmates being rearrested in 24 

months. 

While the percentage of medium and high risk inmates who were rearrested increased at 12 months, 

treatment still had an effect on these individuals. Even at 24 months, treatment was shown to have an 

effect on medium and high risk inmates, even if the effect was smaller than at 12 months. 

Overall, the least effect from treatment was with low risk inmates while the largest effect was found with 

medium and high risk inmates at 6, 12 and 24 months consistent with the risk principle (i.e. there is higher 

treatment effects with high risk individuals). These findings suggest that SCCDOC should ensure that 

medium and high risk inmates are involved in effective treatment. 




Table 3.23 provides information on the percent of individuals reconvicted by risk level for all time intervals 

for the treatment sample compared to a matched comparison sample. Low risk inmates in treatment were 

significantly less likely to be reconvicted at 6 and 12 months compared to low risk inmates in the matched 

comparison sample. However, this effect was not significant at 24 months. Thus, placing low risk inmates 

in treatment had a short term benefit at 6 and 12 months, but there was no significant benefit at 24 months. 

Moreover, the treatment effect for low risk inmates was relatively small compared to the impact on medium 

and high risk inmates. That is, treatment resulted in only 1.6 percent fewer low risk inmates being 

reconvicted at 6 months. At 12 months, treatment resulted in a reduction of only 3 percent fewer low risk 

inmates reconvicted. 

While the percent of reconvictions for medium and high risk inmates in treatment increased over the three 

time intervals (which is consistent with findings from Lowenkamp, C. & Latessa, E.J., 2002, 2003, 2005), 

these individuals were still less likely to be reconvicted than the comparison sample. That is, medium and 

high risk inmates that received treatment were significantly less likely to be reconvicted at 6, 12, and 24 

months. This is evidenced by the higher percent differences between the treatment and comparison 

samples for both medium and high risk inmates. Even more important is the treatment effect. For medium 

risk inmates, treatment resulted in 12.7 percent, 15.6 percent, and 17.6 percent fewer inmates reconvicted 

at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. For high risk inmates, treatment resulted in 34.8 percent, 30.1 

percent, and 22.7 percent fewer high risk inmates reconvicted at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. 

These findings are also consistent with the risk principle; that is, low risk inmates receive little benefit when 

exposed to intensive treatment while medium and high risk inmates receive a greater benefit from 

treatment. These findings suggest that low risk individuals should not be placed into intensive treatment 

that they do not need. On the other hand, treatment should be intensive for medium and high risk inmates. 

Table 3.23 

Percent of Reconvictions by Risk Level and Time Interval for All Programs 

6 Month Reconviction 12 Month Reconviction 24 Month Reconviction 

Low 

Risk 

Medium 

Risk 

High 

Risk 

Low 

Risk 

Medium 

Risk 

High 

Risk 

Low 

Risk 

Medium 

Risk 

High 

Risk 

Treatment 

Sample 

30 

(2.0)** 

402 

(8.0)** 

350 

(23.1)** 

64 

(4.2)** 

726 

(14.6)** 

525 

(34.9)** 

156 

(10.8) 

1,085 

(24.1)** 

630 

(49.6)** 

Matched- 

Comparison 

Sample 

53 

(3.6)** 

990 

(20.7)** 

849 

(57.9)** 

106 

(7.2)** 

1,432 

(30.2)** 

1,015 

(65.0)** 

174 

(12.8) 

1,629 

(41.7)** 

906 

(72.3)** 

Percent 

Difference -1.6 -12.7 -34.8 -3.0 -15.6 -30.1 NS -17.6 -22.7 

*p



Table 3.24 provides information on the percent of inmates in the treatment sample and in the matched 

comparison sample who were reincarcerated in the SCCDOC by risk level and for all three time intervals. 

Low risk inmates in treatment were significantly less likely to be reincarcerated at 6 and 12 months 

compared to low risk inmates in the matched comparison sample. Treatment resulted in 2.5 percent fewer 

low risk inmates rearrested at 6 months and 5.8 percent fewer low risk inmates rearrested at 12 months. 

However, there was no significant difference on reincarcerations at 24 months between low risk inmates in 

the treatment and in the matched comparison sample. 

Medium risk inmates in treatment were also significantly less likely to be reincarcerated at 6 and 12 months 

compared to medium risk inmates in the matched comparison sample. The effect from treatment on 

medium risk inmates was 6.8 percent at 6 months and 7.5 percent at 12 months. However, there was no 

significant difference between the two samples in reincarceration at 24 months. 

Finally, high risk inmates in treatment were significantly less likely to be reincarcerated at 6 and 12 months. 

Treatment resulted in 6 percent fewer high risk inmates reincarcerated at 6 months and nearly 4 percent 

fewer high risk inmates reincarcerated at 12 months. As found in Table 3.24, there was no significant 

difference between samples at 24 months. 

Table 3.24 

Percent of Reincarcerations by Risk Level and Time Interval for All Programs 

6 Month Reincarceration 12 Month Reincarceration 24 Month Reincarceration 

Low 

Risk 

Medium 

Risk 

High 

Risk 

Low 

Risk 

Medium 

Risk 

High 

Risk 

Low 

Risk 

Medium 

Risk 

High 

Risk 

Treatment 

Sample 

137 

(9.3)* 

808 

(17.3)** 

408 

(30.6)** 

310 

(21.0)** 

1,495 

(32.2)** 

584 

(44.1)* 

851 

(60.3) 

2,541 

(60.4) 

702 

(62.9) 

Matched 

Comparison 

Sample 

164 

(11.8)* 

1,027 

(24.1)** 

503 

(36.6)** 

368 

(26.8)** 

1,679 

(39.7)** 

656 

(48.0)* 

722 

(57.0) 

2,055 

(59.5) 

645 

(59.3) 

Percent 

Differences -2.5 -6.8 -6.0 -5.8 -7.5 -3.9 NS NS NS 

*p

Overall, this supplemental analysis found the following key findings: 



• Treatment lowered risk in the community after discharge as evidenced by the reductions in the 

percent of individuals that participated in treatment who were later rearrested, reconvicted or 

reincarcerated. 

• Treatment had the greatest effect on reducing rearrests and reconvictions with high risk inmates 

at 6, 12 and 24 months consistent with the risk principle (i.e. target the high risk offender for 

effective treatment). 

• There was no significant effect from treatment with low, medium or high risk inmates for 

reincarceration at 24 months suggesting that the short-term effects of treatment were not sustained 

in the long term. 

• Treatment had the least effect with low risk inmates in rearrests and reconvictions at 6, 12 and 24 

months as compared to medium and high risk inmates consistent with the risk principle. 


3.1.5.2 Recidivism by Risk to Recidivate in Each Program 



Tables 3.25 through 3.33 display the percent of individuals who recidivated at 6, 12, and 24 months by risk 

level (low, medium or high risk) in each of the programs compared to their matched comparison sample. 

The low, medium, and high risk columns were calculated for both the treatment sample and the matched 

comparison sample for all programs. The number in each column represents the number of inmates that 

recidivated and the percent is the calculation of the percentage of that group that recidivated. All analyses 

were performed using the chi square statistical test at p



The findings demonstrate that low risk inmates were significantly less likely to be rearrested at 6 months in 

only one program (M8). That is, no other program led to significantly reduced rearrests at 6 months with low 

risk inmates. (Note: However, many of the programs did not have cell values large enough to allow for 

statistical comparison). 

In contrast, nine programs significantly reduced rearrests at 6 months with medium risk individuals. Eight 

programs led to significantly reduced rearrests at 6 months for medium and high risk inmates combined 

(Artemis, Day Reporting, HOPE, M8, MY STORI, RCP I Men, RCP I Women, and WINGS). 

Ten programs led to significantly reduced rearrests at 6 months with high risk inmates (Artemis, Day 

Reporting, Get Right, HOPE, M8, MY STORI, PACE, RCP I Men, RCP I Women, and WINGS). Thus, more 

programs demonstrated reductions in 6 month arrests when they targeted high risk inmates. 

The findings indicate that SCCDOC’s programs received the largest reductions in recidivism among high 

risk individuals in treatment. For example, there was a 42 percent reduction in the number of high risk 

inmates rearrested (69.9 – 27.9) in the Artemis program for women compared to the matched comparison 

sample. This program showed the greatest percentage reduction between the treatment and the 

comparison sample. 




Table 3.26 displays the percent of individuals who were rearrested at 12 months by each risk level in each 

program compared to the matched comparison sample. Similar to 6 month rearrests, SCCDOC programs 

received the largest reductions in recidivism among high risk individuals who participated in treatment. Ten 

programs significantly reduced 12 month rearrests for high risk individuals (Artemis, Day Reporting, Get 

Right, HOPE, M8, MY STORI, PACE, RCP I Men, RCP I Women, and WINGS). For example, 43.4 percent 

(71.2 – 27.8) fewer high risk inmates in the RCP I Women program were rearrested at 12 months 

compared to the matched comparison. 

Eight programs significantly reduced rearrests at 12 months for medium risk individuals. Seven programs 

led to reduced rearrests at 12 months with medium and high risk inmates combined. In contrast, only 

PACE significantly reduced rearrests for low risk inmates. These findings replicate the national research on 

the risk principle by demonstrating that more programs produce statistical reductions in recidivism when 

they target high risk inmates. 

Table 3.26 

Percent of Individuals Rearrested within 12 Months by Risk Level and 

Time Interval for Each Program 

12-month Rearrests 

Treatment Sample (%) Matched-Comparison Sample (%) 

Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk 

Artemis 3 (15.0)^ 79 (31.1)** 34 (39.5)** 3 (15.8)^ 106 (43.4)** 67 (81.7)** 

Breaking Barriers 46 (21.4) 58 (30.2) 5 (50.0)^ 42 (19.9) 73 (37.4) 7 (63.6)^ 

Day Reporting 2 (16.7)^ 58 (32.8) 47 (40.2)** 1 (9.1)^ 64 (37.6) 85 (74.6)** 

Get Right 21 (21.6) 60 (40.5) 13 (43.3)** 21 (22.3) 56 (38.1) 23 (76.7)** 

HOPE 23 (20.0) 117 (32.8)** 34 (33.0)** 24 (21.8) 149 (44.1)** 74 (73.3)** 

M8 169 (19.2) 845 (30.5)** 471 (47.9)** 198 (22.9) 1,204 (44.9)** 678 (70.4)** 

MY STORI 6 (24.0)^ 54 (25.8)** 41 (46.6)** 3 (12.5)^ 85 (45.0)** 63 (73.3)** 

PACE 3 (7.0)** 26 (34.2) 14 (36.8)** 12 (29.3)** 30 (40.0) 28 (68.3)** 

RCP I Men 8 (18.2) 119 (34.4)** 24 (38.7)** 12 (27.9) 155 (46.3)** 39 (65.0)** 

RCP I Women 3 (13.6)^ 73 (29.0)** 15 (27.8)** 5 (22.7)^ 126 (51.0)** 37 (71.2)** 

RCP II 0 (0.0)^ 5 (23.8)* 0 (0.0)^ 0 (0.0)^ 10 (47.6)* 2 (100.0)^ 

VETS 0 (0.0)^ 36 (35.6) 82 (66.1) 1 (25.0)^ 44 (44.9) 79 (66.4) 

WINGS 9 (19.6) 131 (31.0)** 120 (58.0)** 5 (11.4) 196 (48.9)** 155 (74.5)** 

*p



Table 3.27 displays the percent of individuals rearrested at 24 months after discharge by each risk level for 

each program compared to the matched comparison sample. Again, the findings are similar with the 

results found in the previous tables. Seven programs significantly reduced rearrests at 24 months with high 

risk inmates and five programs significantly reduced rearrests at 24 months with medium risk inmates. 

Unlike 6 and 12 month rearrests, none of the programs significantly reduced rearrests at 24 months with 

low risk inmates. 

Two programs (M8 and RCP I Women) significantly reduced rearrests at 24 months with medium and high 

risk inmates combined. 

Table 3.27 

Percent of Individuals Rearrested within 24 Months by Risk Level and 


24-month Rearrests 



Artemis 9 (45.0) 140 (58.8) 48 (60.8)** 10 (55.6) 129 (66.8) 54 (85.7)** 



Get Right 49 (54.4) 83 (62.9) 12 (52.2)* 40 (47.6) 77 (63.1) 18 (81.8)* 

HOPE 57 (50.4) 204 (60.5) 55 (63.2)** 43 (42.2) 181 (61.8) 70 (81.4)** 

M8 426 (50.6) 1,352 (55.9)** 530 (66.5)** 383 (48.2) 1,367 (61.7)** 612 (79.6)** 

MY STORI 13 (52.0) 118 (61.1) 56 (69.1)** 12 (54.5) 102 (67.5) 63 (86.3)** 

PACE 15 (38.5) 49 (76.6)** 11 (91.7) 21 (53.8) 32 (53.3)** 26 (74.3) 

RCP I Men 23 (54.8) 190 (59.0)* 35 (60.3) 14 (35.9) 193 (67.2)* 40 (75.5) 

RCP I Women 10 (50.0) 132 (55.0)** 29 (55.8)** 12 (57.1) 134 (72.4)** 35 (83.3)** 

RCP II 0 (0.0)^ 7 (33.3) 0 (0.0)^ 0 (0.0)^ 8 (50.0) 2 (100.0)^ 

VETS 0 (0.0)^ 62 (64.6) 86 (78.2) 1 (25.0)^ 54 (68.4) 74 (78.7) 

WINGS 23 (53.5) 220 (56.8)* 136 (75.1) 21 (51.2) 212 (66.0)* 135 (81.3) 

*p



Table 3.28 presents the percent of low, medium and high risk inmates who were reconvicted at 6 months 

by each risk level and for each program compared to the matched comparison sample. Similar to previous 

tables, 10 programs significantly reduced reconvictions at 6 months for high risk individuals demonstrating 

that when programs targeted high risk inmates, there were larger treatment effects and more programs 

reduced reconvictions. 

Nine programs significantly reduced reconvictions 6 months following discharge among medium risk 

inmates, and nine programs led to reduced reconvictions at 6 months for medium and high risk inmates 

combined. 

In contrast, treatment did not lead to a reduction in reconvictions with low risk inmates. However, it should 

be noted that many of the programs did not have cell values large enough for statistical analysis. 

Table 3.28 

Percent of Individuals Reconvicted within 6 Months by Risk Level and 


6-month Reconvictions 



Artemis 1 (5.0)^ 18 (7.1)** 16 (19.5)** 0 (0.0)^ 48 (20.9)** 50 (63.3)** 


Day Reporting 0 (0.0)^ 19 (10.7)** 26 (22.2)** 0 (0.0)^ 28 (17.0)** 54 (52.4)** 

Get Right 1 (1.0)^ 16 (10.8) 6 (21.4)** 5 (5.3)^ 20 (13.5) 17 (63.0)** 

HOPE 3 (2.6) 32 (9.2)** 15 (16.1)** 7 (6.3) 63 (19.6)** 48 (55.2)** 

M8 16 (1.8) 180 (7.2)** 133 (20.4)** 27 (3.1) 527 (21.4)** 406 (53.4)** 

MY STORI 2 (8.0)^ 11 (5.3)** 20 (23.0)** 0 (0.0)^ 32 (18.0)** 42 (55.3)** 

PACE 0 (0.0)^ 7 (9.5)* 5 (16.1)* 0 (0.0)^ 11 (17.2)* 12 (40.0)* 

RCP I Men 0 (0.0)^ 36 (10.5)** 7 (11.7)** 0 (0.0)^ 75 (24.4)** 25 (46.3)** 

RCP I Women 0 (0.0)^ 11 (4.5)** 5 (9.3)** 1 (4.5)^ 55 (23.5)** 28 (54.9)** 

RCP II 0 (0.0)^ 1 (4.8)^ 0 (0.0)^ 0 (0.0)^ 6 (31.6)^ 0 (0.0)^ 

VETS 0 (0.0)^ 16 (15.8) 57 (46.7) 0 (0.0)^ 19 (20.0) 53 (49.1) 

WINGS 0 (0.0)^ 36 (9.0)** 58 (33.0)** 0 (0.0)^ 81 (21.6)** 108 (58.1)** 

*p



Table 3.29 and 3.30 displays the percent of individuals reconvicted at 12 and 24 months by each risk level 

in each program compared to the matched comparison sample. Findings are very similar to reconvictions at 

6 months. Nine programs significantly reduced reconvictions for high risk inmates at 12 months, and seven 

programs significantly reduced reconvictions with high risk inmates at 24 months. 

Seven programs significantly reduced reconvictions at 12 and 24 months for medium risk inmates (Tables 

3.29-3.30). Seven programs significantly reduced reconvictions at 12 months with medium and high risk 

inmates combined (Table 3.29) while six programs reduced reconvictions at 24 months for medium and 

high risk inmates combined (Table 3.30). 

In contrast, only one program (M8) reduced the reconvictions of low risk inmates at 12 months (Table 3.29). 

No program reduced reconvictions at 24 months for low risk inmates demonstrating that there was no long 

term effect from treatment on these inmates (Table 3.30). 

Table 3.29 

Percent of Individuals Reconvicted within 12 Months by Risk Level and 





Artemis 2 (10.0)^ 30 (11.8)* 21 (25.6)** 2 (11.1)^ 68 (29.7)* 56 (71.8)** 



Get Right 4 (4.1) 25 (17.2) 8 (29.6)** 8 (8.6) 27 (18.8) 18 (66.7)** 

HOPE 7 (6.1) 59 (17.1)** 25 (26.9)** 10 (9.1) 102 (31.9)** 60 (69.0)** 

M8 33 (3.8)** 330 (13.3)** 205 (31.7)** 60 (7.0)** 744 (30.5)** 486 (64.6)** 

MY STORI 2 (8.0)^ 23 (11.1)** 30 (34.5)** 0 (0.0)^ 52 (29.4)** 48 (63.2)** 

PACE 1 (2.4)^ 14 (18.9) 9 (30.0) 2 (5.0)^ 17 (26.6) 16 (53.3) 

RCP I Men 1 (2.3)^ 68 (19.9)** 17 (28.3)** 3 (7.1)^ 106 (34.6)** 29 (53.7)** 

RCP I Women 0 (0.0)^ 28 (11.3)** 12 (22.6)** 1 (4.5)^ 83 (35.5)** 36 (70.6)** 

RCP II 0 (0.0)^ 3 (14.3)^ 0 (0.0)^ 0 (0.0)^ 7 (36.8)^ 0 (0.0)^ 

VETS 0 (0.0)^ 23 (22.8) 73 (59.8) 0 (0.0)^ 26 (27.4) 66 (61.7) 

WINGS 2 (4.3)^ 57 (14.2)** 79 (44.9)** 1 (2.3)^ 121 (32.4)** 128 (68.8)** 

*p



Table 3.30 

Percent of Individuals Reconvicted within 24 Months by Risk Level and Time Interval for 

Each Program 




Artemis 4 (20.0) 46 (19.3)** 23 (30.7)** 2 (11.8) 78 (43.6)** 45 (75.0)** 


Day Reporting 2 (16.7)^ 62 (37.1) 54 (55.7)* 2 (18.2)^ 59 (41.8) 58 (71.6)* 

Get Right 10 (11.1) 30 (23.1) 8 (38.1) 11 (13.3) 33 (27.3) 12 (60.0) 

HOPE 10 (8.9) 86 (26.3)** 40 (50.0)** 17 (16.7) 122 (44.4)** 56 (75.7)** 

M8 78 (9.3) 490 (22.5)** 242 (45.7)** 93 (11.7) 826 (41.0)** 440 (73.1)** 

MY STORI 4 (16.0)^ 40 (20.8)** 42 (52.5)** 4 (18.2)^ 54 (38.3)** 47 (74.6)** 

PACE 5 (12.8)^ 21 (33.3) 7 (63.6)^ 3 (7.9)^ 17 (33.3) 15 (57.7)^ 

RCP I Men 3 (7.1)^ 94 (29.5)** 27 (48.2) 4 (10.5)^ 131 (49.2)** 31 (64.6) 

RCP I Women 1 (5.0)^ 47 (20.0)** 17 (33.3)** 3 (14.3)^ 93 (53.8)** 31 (75.6)** 

RCP II 0 (0.0)^ 4 (19.0)^ 0 (0.0)^ 0 (0.0)^ 5 (35.7)^ 0 (0.0)^ 

VETS 0 (0.0)^ 31 (32.3) 76 (70.4) 0 (0.0)^ 32 (42.1) 59 (70.2) 

WINGS 9 (20.9) 88 (24.0)** 91 (59.9)* 5 (12.2) 134 (44.8)** 108 (73.5)* 

*p



Table 3.31 displays the percent of low, medium and high risk inmates who were reincarcerated at 6 months 

for each program compared to the matched comparison sample. Similar to the other tables, only one 

program (M8) demonstrated reduction in reincarcerations at 6 months for low risk inmates. 

In contrast, five programs demonstrated a reduction in 6 month reincarcerations for medium risk inmates 

compared to a matched comparison sample. Only two programs led to reduced reincarceration with high 

risk inmates at 6 months (M8 and RCP I Men). It should be noted that many programs had too few 

individuals in each risk category to allow for statistical comparison (e.g., low risk inmates in Artemis, RCP II 

and VETS). 

More programs led to reduced reincarceration with medium risk inmates than with high risk inmates. It is 

not surprising that medium risk inmates would be less likely to be reincarcerated than high risk inmates 

since they are assessed to have fewer criminogenic needs and risk factors. In contrast, high risk 

individuals have a higher degree of criminogenic needs and risk factors and are more likely to be 

reincarcerated. 

Table 3.31 

Percent of Individuals Reincarcerated within 6 Months by Risk Level and 


6-month Reincarceration 



Artemis 1 (5.6)^ 34 (14.7)* 22 (31.4) 1 (5.6)^ 47 (22.6)* 26 (35.6) 


Day Reporting 0 (0.0)^ 32 (19.2) 34 (32.1) 3 (27.3)^ 28 (19.7) 35 (41.7) 

Get Right 8 (8.3) 25 (17.5) 5 (20.8) 7 (8.0) 25 (19.8) 9 (37.5) 

HOPE 8 (7.1) 53 (16.3)* 25 (29.8) 13 (12.4) 70 (24.1)* 34 (44.2) 

M8 77 (8.9)** 392 (16.6)** 168 (28.7)* 105 (13.0)** 530 (24.2)** 230 (34.3)* 

MY STORI 4 (16.0)^ 32 (17.5) 20 (27.8) 2 (8.7)^ 39 (24.1) 25 (37.9) 

PACE 2 (4.8)^ 13 (18.8) 10 (32.3) 2 (5.6)^ 14 (25.0) 8 (28.6) 

RCP I Men 2 (4.7)^ 80 (25.6) 11 (22.9)* 4 (10.0)^ 80 (28.2) 22 (48.9)* 

RCP I Women 2 (9.1)^ 36 (15.9)* 10 (21.3) 2 (9.1)^ 54 (25.2)* 14 (31.8) 

RCP II 0 (0.0)^ 1 (6.3)^ 0 (0.0)^ 0 (0.0)^ 6 (37.5)^ 1 (100.0)^ 

VETS 1 (33.3)^ 18 (20.2) 45 (45.5) 0 (0.0)^ 19 (23.8) 41 (42.7) 

WINGS 7 (15.6) 69 (18.6)* 56 (35.4) 7 (16.3) 87 (25.6)* 55 (34.4) 

*p



Table 3.32 displays the percent of inmates who were reincarcerated at 12 months by each risk level for 

each program compared to the matched comparison sample. Similar to Table 3.30, only one treatment 

program (M8) produced statistically lower reincarceration with low risk inmates in treatment compared to 

the matched comparison sample at 12 months. Five programs significantly reduced reincarcerations for 

medium risk inmates at 12 months. In contrast, two programs (HOPE and M8) led to significant reductions 

in reincarcerations 12 months following discharge among high risk inmates. 

Table 3.32 






Artemis 7 (38.9) 66 (28.4)* 32 (45.7) 4 (23.5) 80 (38.6)* 34 (47.2) 

Breaking Barriers 50 (25.0) 45 (26.9)* 4 (50.0)^ 41 (22.4) 47 (31.5)* 5 (71.4)^ 


Get Right 20 (20.8) 44 (31.4) 6 (26.1) 17 (19.5) 39 (32.0) 11 (45.8) 

HOPE 23 (20.4) 109 (33.5) 38 (45.2)* 28 (26.9) 112 (38.8) 43 (55.8)* 

M8 171 (19.9)** 731 (31.2)** 239 (41.3)* 231 (28.7)** 869 (40.0)** 307 (46.2)* 

MY STORI 4 (16.0)^ 57 (31.1)* 30 (41.7) 4 (17.4)^ 69 (42.9)* 31 (47.0) 

PACE 4 (9.5) 22 (31.9) 12 (40.0) 8 (22.2) 21 (37.5) 12 (42.9) 

RCP I Men 10 (23.3) 128 (40.9) 20 (41.7) 12 (30.0) 124 (43.8) 23 (51.1) 

RCP I Women 4 (18.2) 76 (33.6)* 19 (41.3) 7 (31.8) 92 (43.0)* 19 (43.2) 

RCP II 1 (100.0)^ 5 (31.3) 0 (0.0)^ 0 (0.0)^ 8 (50.0) 1 (100.0)^ 

VETS 1 (33.3)^ 30 (33.7) 59 (59.6) 0 (0.0)^ 34 (42.5) 49 (51.6) 

WINGS 13 (28.9) 120 (32.4) 77 (48.7) 12 (27.9) 133 (39.3) 73 (45.6) 

*p



Finally, Table 3.33 shows the percent of low, medium and high risk inmates who were reincarcerated at 24 

months for each program compared to the matched comparison sample. Treatment produced no statistical 

effects for low or for high risk inmates in treatment 24 months following discharge. That is, low and high risk 

inmates were no less likely to be reincarcerated at 24 months compared to a matched comparison sample 

of inmates. One possible explanation for these findings is that the effects of treatment on these inmates 

could not be sustained the longer someone is away from structured treatment. 

While five programs significantly reduced reincarceration outcomes for medium risk inmates at 12 months, 

only two programs (Breaking Barriers and Get Right) reduced reincarceration for medium risk at 24 months. 

There were significant reductions among medium risk inmates in reincarcerations at 12 and 24 months 

within the Breaking Barriers program, but not for reconvictions or for rearrests. 

As noted in previous tables, low risk inmates did not demonstrate any significant reductions in 

reincarcerations. This suggests that SCCDOC should not target these individuals for treatment but channel 

them into behavior management activities. 

Table 3.33 






Artemis 12 (66.7) 129 (59.2) 40 (62.5) 11 (68.8) 97 (60.6) 31 (54.4) 

Breaking Barriers 100 (53.8) 79 (56.0)* 4 (66.7)^ 87 (51.2) 61 (48.8)* 3 (60.0)^ 


Get Right 49 (55.1) 77 (61.6)* 8 (47.1) 44 (56.4) 49 (48.0)* 10 (58.8) 

HOPE 73 (65.8) 195 (63.1) 52 (70.3) 58 (60.4) 146 (58.5) 42 (65.6) 

M8 500 (60.7) 1,217 (58.7) 298 (62.6) 424 (57.2) 1,067 (59.8) 307 (57.8) 

MY STORI 14 (56.0) 110 (64.3) 39 (60.0) 9 (42.9) 77 (60.6) 30 (56.6) 

PACE 24 (61.5) 39 (67.2) 7 (63.3) 19 (55.9) 29 (63.0) 13 (54.2) 

RCP I Men 24 (58.5) 185 (62.1) 23 (51.1) 21 (58.3) 158 (64.2) 26 (66.7) 

RCP I Women 11 (55.0) 126 (58.9) 28 (63.6) 14 (66.7) 96 (61.5) 17 (50.0) 

RCP II 1 (100.0)^ 8 (50.0) 0 (0.0)^ 0 (0.0)^ 5 (41.7) 1 (100.0)^ 

VETS 1 (33.3)^ 58 (66.7) 60 (69.0) 2 (100.0)^ 40 (63.5) 49 (67.1) 

WINGS 30 (71.4) 210 (61.8) 84 (61.3) 25 (62.5) 158 (59.0) 72 (57.6) 

*p



3.1.5.3 Treatment Effect on Programs 

In summary, the following tables display the treatment programs that significantly led to reductions in 

rearrests, reconvictions and reincarcerations at 6, 12 and 24 months compared to the comparison samples. 

Table 3.34 presents the 11 programs that were statistically associated with reduced rearrests at 6 months 

showing that treatment resulted in a short-term effect on inmates participating in treatment. Ten programs 

led to reduced rearrests at 12 months showing that the effects of treatment were sustained one year after 

discharge. Five programs led to lower rearrests at 24 months showing a long term effect from treatment. 

Table 3.34 

Programs Statistically Associated with Reduced Rearrests by Each Time Interval 

Program Title 6-month 12-month 24-month 

Artemis 

Breaking Barriers 

 

Day Reporting 

HOPE 

M8 

MY STORI 

PACE 

RCP I Men 

RCP I Women 

RCP II 

WINGS 

Note: the checks indicate those programs and time intervals that were statistically significant between the treatment 

and the comparison group. 

Five programs (Artemis, M8, MYSTORI, RCP I Women and WINGS) led to reduced rearrests across all 

three time intervals at 6, 12 and 24 months. 

In contrast, inmates participating in Breaking Barriers had significantly lower rearrests at 6 months but not 

at 12 or 24 months. Day Reporting, HOPE, PACE, RCP I Men and RCP II led to significantly reduced 

rearrests at 6 and 12 months but not at 24 months. 




Similarly, 11 programs were statistically associated with reduced reconvictions at 6 months. Nine programs 

led to reduced reconvictions at 12 months and seven programs reduced reconvictions at 24 months. 

Seven programs (Artemis, HOPE, M8, MY STORI, RCP I Men, RCP I Women, and WINGS) significantly 

reduced reconvictions across all three time intervals. 

Table 3.35 

Programs Statistically Associated with Reduced Reconvictions by Each Time Interval 


Artemis 


 

Day Reporting 

Get Right 

 

HOPE 

M8 

MY STORI 

PACE 

RCP I Men 

RCP I Women 

WINGS 

Table 3.36 presents the four programs that were statistically associated with reductions in reincarceration 

at 6 months and the four programs that led to reduced reincarcerations at 12 months. Three programs 

(HOPE, M8 and RCP I Women) led to reductions in reincarcerations at 6 and 12 months combined. 

However, no program led to a reduction in reincarceration at 24 months suggesting that the effects from 

treatment were not sustained. 

Table 3.36 

Programs Statistically Associated with Reduced Reincarceration by Each Time Interval 


Artemis 

 

HOPE 

M8 

MY STORI 

 

RCP I Women 



Discussion of Findings

Part I. Chapter 4 




Part I of this Final Report was intended to answer the question “Does participating in one of the 

Department’s inmate programs result in reduced rearrests, reconvictions and reincarcerations following 

discharge”. This is an important policy question since the Department and the Board of Supervisors want to 

invest in those programs that protect public safety and that are effective. 

The answer to this question is yes, treatment led to reduced rearrests and reconvictions 6 months following 

discharge from the SCCDOC in 11 of the 13 programs demonstrating a short-term effect from treatment. 

Ten of the 13 programs led to reduced rearrests at 12 months following discharge and nine programs led to 

reduced reconvictions at 12 months demonstrating that the effect from participating in treatment was 

sustained one year following discharge from confinement. Finally, four of the 13 programs led to reduced 

reincarcerations at 6 and at 12 months. In contrast, no program led to a reduction in reincarceration at 24 

months suggesting that effects from treatment were not sustained. 

In comparison, 12 and 24 month rearrests and reconvictions for inmates released from the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) were higher than subsequent rearrests and 

reconvictions for inmates released from SCCDOC’s programs. 26 Statewide, California inmates’ 12-month 

rearrest rate was between 57 percent and 58 percent compared to 32.6 percent for SCCDOC’s treated 

population. At 24 months, CDCR’s subsequent arrests were between 70 percent and 71 percent compared 

to 58.2 percent for SCCDOC. Similarly, 12 and 24 month reconvictions for persons discharged from 

SCCDOC was also lower than CDCR. Thus, compared to CDCR, fewer of SCCDOC’s inmates were 

rearrested and reconvicted at 12 and 24 months than inmates released from CDCR. 

Regarding reincarcerations, the State of California’s 24 months return to custody rate for all inmates was 

60.5 percent in FY06-07 and 59.2 percent in FY07-08 compared to 60.8 percent return to SCCDOC at 24 

months; thus, showing that SCCDOC’s return to custody outcome at 24 months is comparable to the State 

of California. 27 

26 



27 

Ibid. 




4.2 Discussion of Findings 

Examining each program’s recidivism outcomes individually revealed a number of patterns among 

programs and also variances on recidivism measures and across the three time periods (6, 12 and 24 

months). For example: 

• Five programs were statistically associated with reduced rearrests across all three time periods— 

Artemis, M8, MY STORI, RCP I Women and WINGS. 

• Seven programs (Artemis, HOPE, M8, MY STORI, RCP I Men, RCP I Women, and WINGS) 

significantly reduced reconvictions across all three time intervals. 

• Three programs (HOPE, M8 and RCP I Women) led to reductions in reincarcerations at 6 and 12 

months combined but no program led to a reduction in reincarceration at 24 months suggesting 

that the effects of treatment were not sustained. 

Only a few of the programs revealed no or little effect from treatment. For example, VETS resulted in no 

significant reductions in rearrests, reconvictions or reincarcerations compared to its matched comparison 

sample at any of the time intervals. Get Right showed a significant reduction in only one measure-- 

reconvictions at 6 months compared to its matched comparison sample. Breaking Barriers produced 

significantly lower rearrests and reconvictions only at 6 months compared to its matched comparison 

sample. Artemis, HOPE, M8, MY STORI and RCP I Women produced significant reductions in 

reincarcerations at 6 and 12 months but the remaining 8 programs produced no differences. Day Reporting 

produced significantly lower rearrests and reconvictions at 6 and 12 months compared to its matched 

comparison sample. RCP II produced significantly lower rearrests at 6 and 12 months compared to its 

matched comparison sample. The remaining programs had some significant effect at one or more time 

intervals. 

Increasing the effectiveness of the Day Reporting and RCP II programs would greatly support the County’s 

Reentry initiative and reduce future reoffending. These two programs need to provide structured reentry 

program elements needed for persons released from the Department and for those returning to Santa Clara 

County from state prison. (See Core Programs #5 and # 6 in Part II, Chapter 5). 

None of the programs statistically increased recidivism. While there was no specific program that was 

statistically more likely to increase recidivism; examination of all individuals in treatment compared to all 

individuals not in treatment demonstrated that treatment produced the least effect on low risk inmates and 

the highest impact on medium and high risk inmates. For example, roughly 9 percent of low risk individuals 

in the treatment population were rearrested at 6 months compared to 11.3 percent of the low risk inmates in 

the matched comparison sample, for a 2.6 percentage difference (treatment effect). In contrast, 13.8 

percent fewer medium risk inmates were rearrested at 6 months compared to their comparison sample, 

18.2 percent fewer medium risk inmates were rearrested at 12 months and 5.4 percent fewer medium risk 

inmates were rearrested at 24 months. 

For high risk inmates in treatment, 27.2 percent fewer high risk inmates were rearrested at 6 months, 24.3 

percent fewer high risk inmates were rearrested at 12 months and 13.2 percent fewer high risk inmates 

were rearrested at 24 months than their comparison samples. 




Even at 24 months, treatment is shown to have an effect on medium and high risk inmates, even if the 

effect is smaller than at 12 months. These findings show that SCCDOC’s programs achieved the greatest 

effect on reducing rearrests when medium and high risk individuals were placed into treatment. This finding 

is consistent with national research on the Risk Principle. Lowenkamp, C. & E.J. Latessa (2005) found 

greater reductions in recidivism when medium and high risk offenders participated in effective treatment. 

Reconvictions were found to result in the same overall pattern. Treatment had the greatest effect on 

medium and high risk inmates who participated in treatment compared to low risk inmates. For medium risk 

inmates who participated in treatment, treatment led to 12.7 percent fewer medium risk inmates reconvicted 

at 6 months, 15.6 percent fewer inmates reconvicted at 12 months and 17.6 percent fewer inmates 

reconvicted at 24 months. For high risk inmates who participated in treatment, 34.8 percent fewer high risk 

inmates were reconvicted at 6 months, 30.1 percent fewer high risk inmates were reconvicted at 12 months 

and 22.7 percent fewer high risk inmates were reconvicted at 24 months. In comparison, only 1.6 percent 

fewer low risk inmates who participated in treatment were reconvicted at 6 months and 3.0 percent fewer 

low risk inmates were reconvicted at 12 months showing that the treatment effect was smaller for low risk 

inmates. Further, there was no statistical effect from treatment at 24 months for low risk inmates. When 

programs were individually compared to a matched comparison sample, the majority of programs did not 

have any effect on low risk inmates. 

Low, medium and high risk inmates who participated in treatment were significantly less likely to be 

reincarcerated at 6 and 12 months compared to their matched comparison samples. Treatment led to 2.5 

percent fewer low risk inmates rearrested at 6 months and 5.8 percent fewer rearrests at 12 months. 

However, medium risk inmates in treatment had greater effects from treatment than low and high risk 

inmates at 6 and 12 months. There were no statistical differences between the treatment and matched 

comparison samples at 24 months for any risk level. This may suggest that not enough of the criminogenic 

needs of the medium and high risk inmates are being met thus leading to smaller effect sizes. 

While a slightly higher percentage of low, medium, and high risk inmates in treatment were reincarcerated 

at 24 months, these differences were not statistically different than those of the matched comparison 

sample. 

Eleven SCCDOC programs target some of the criminogenic needs (e.g. criminal values, attitudes and 

thinking patterns) 28 but others do not. Extensive research documents that these needs should be targeted 

for medium and high risk inmates to produce reductions in recidivism. 

Based on these findings, it will be important for the Department to determine the risk level of individuals so 

that inmates can be matched with the appropriate level of treatment to reduce risk of reoffending. SCCDOC 

would produce a greater benefit to inmates and to society if it matched medium and high risk inmates with 

intensive treatment aimed at reducing all criminogenic needs. Further, those inmates with high criminogenic 

needs should be matched with cognitive behavioral treatment programs combined with structured prosocial 

skills development. Unless medium and high risk individuals change their antisocial attitudes, thinking 

patterns and behaviors, they will continue to reoffend. 

28 

Artemis, PACT, PACE, Roadmap to Recovery, MY STORI, WINGS, WISE, HOPE, Day Reporting, Breaking 





Not only does targeting high risk inmates for treatment demonstrate the best allocation of resources, it is 

also critical to protect public safety once the individual is released to the community. This highlights the 

responsibility of the Department and its community-based treatment providers to provide the greatest 

amount (duration and dosage) and the most effective type of treatment (cognitive behavioral treatment) to 

those inmates who have the highest risk of reoffending in the community after discharge. 

It is important to note that the classification of inmates must be taken into account because as is customary 

in the jail field, the SCCDOC does not mix maximum security classifications, protective custody, “keep 

aways,” and “gang drop outs” with medium and minimum classifications thus jeopardizing the staff and 

inmates’ safety. However, the assessment of risk to reoffend should be a separate process, as an inmate 

assessed as medium security level may actually be high risk to reoffend based on an actuarial assessment 

instrument. 

While the Department should concentrate its treatment resources on medium and high risk inmates it 

should not neglect low risk inmates. In a jail setting, it is important to keep all inmates constructively 

occupied. 

The Rehabilitation Officers are doing a reasonably good job using a subjective psychosocial assessment 

instrument in matching medium risk inmates with programs, since 59.6 percent of the inmates involved in 

treatment were assessed by this study as medium risk to reoffend. The Department’s current assessment 

instrument addresses the majority of the criminogenic factors such as current and past criminal history, 

drug and alcohol use/abuse, family history with substance use, gang affiliation, education, employment and 

residence. This finding shows the value of the ROs in conducting offender assessments and in matching 

inmates to treatment. Roughly 20 percent of individuals placed in treatment were scored as low risk to 

recidivate but were involved in treatment while another 20 percent of those in the treatment sample were 

scored as high risk. Adopting an objective assessment procedure will improve the matching process. For 

Santa Clara County to reach its goal of lower recidivism for high risk inmates, more high risk inmates will 

need to be included in treatment. 

4.3 Limitations of the Research 

Since the risk criteria used in this study was based on demographic and criminal history variables (factors 

that cannot change), it has likely limited the analysis. This method was effective in categorizing the inmate 

population into different recidivism outcomes; however, it did not produce data on criminogenic needs to 

allow an assessment of these needs on recidivism outcomes. 

As previously noted, the only data available were offense, gangs, age, sex, and race. These criteria have 

traditionally been used throughout the nation to assess risk to reoffend. In contrast, contemporary risk 

assessment tools take into account criminogenic needs such as substance abuse history, education level, 

employment status, and marital status, all of which mitigate risk. As such, it could be possible that the 

inclusion of these criminogenic needs would reveal that some of the low risk people are actually medium 

risk individuals, or possibly even high risk. However, without data on criminogenic needs, it was not 

possible to examine the impact of criminogenic needs on risk. This reemphasizes the importance for 

SCCDOC to obtain the staff resources needed during the intake process to begin gathering information on 

substance abuse history, education level, vocational level, and marital status. 




It should also be noted that data were not consistently available to indicate the reason a person was 

discharged from the program. That is, the current study was not able to empirically evaluate the 

relationship between reasons for termination with the recidivism results. 

The database could not differentiate those inmates who participated in more than one program. Individuals 

who exited their initial program and were transferred to another program were not tracked. Based on this 

limitation, recidivism outcomes had to be examined for inmates who participated in the initial program they 

entered rather than the subsequent programs they participated in during their stay at the SCCDOC. This 

method affected RCP II the most since individuals are transferred to RCP II from RCP I. Due to the 

limitation in the database; the researchers were not able to isolate RCP II participants from participants in 

other programs so the sample sizes for RCP II are small. Even with this limitation, 70 percent of the 

individuals overall in the study were found to be participating in one program while 30 percent of the 

individuals were found to be participating in more than one treatment program. 

One must recognize that a direct comparison between SCCDOC and CDCR is not possible due to the 

unavailability of CDCR data, variances in time frames, in the seriousness of CDCR inmates and in the 

variances in risk to reoffend between both populations. 



Recommendations



5.1 Recommendations 


5.1.1 SCCDOC is recommended to adopt an objective and empirically validated risk and needs 

assessment instrument that scores inmates as low, medium or high risk to reoffend and to use this 

information to match persons into the appropriate type, duration and dosage of treatment (see 

pages 207-215). Implementing this tool will ensure that more high risk and medium risk inmates 

are targeted for programs and fewer low risk inmates are admitted. To implement this 

recommendation, it is recommended that the Department obtain additional Rehabilitation Officers 

to conduct these assessments so that an accurate diagnosis of risk and needs can be established 

and further, that staff can accurately match inmates with programs within their security level that 

meet their criminogenic needs. 

5.1.2 SCCDOC should work to ensure that low risk individuals are kept separate from high risk offenders 

whenever possible, and included in treatment only if they score (on an objective instrument) as 

high need in a criminogenic domain. The classification of inmates must be taken into account 

because the DOC does not mix maximum security classifications, protective custody, “keep 

aways”, and “gang drop outs” with medium and minimum classifications thus jeopardizing the staff 

and inmates’ safety. 

5.1.3 All treatment programs should clearly outline inclusion and exclusion criteria. For example, if an 

individual is not assessed as having a substance abuse problem, he should not be placed in a 

substance abuse treatment program. 

5.1.4 Expand the number of Core Programs from one (substance abuse education) to include six major 

core program areas: (see Core Programs in Part II: Chapter 5) 






6. Aftercare. 

Select curricula that are designed to address all criminogenic needs and match inmates to one or 

more of the Core Programs that address these criminogenic needs. 

5.1.5 Ensure that individuals are matched with these core programs based on their assessed risk to 

reoffend upon release and criminogenic needs. Inmates should be placed in one or more of these 

core programs based on the assessment. 

5.1.6 Low risk inmates should be channeled into work, self-guided educational activities (e.g. Roadmap 

to Recovery) and to other behavior management activities that reduce idleness such as creative 

arts, recreation, library, etc. 




5.1.7 SCCDOC should continue to work with its providers toward developing and delivering the Core 

Programs recommended in the EBP Evaluation Report (Part II) and to reduce the number of areas 

of improvement found in each of their individual evaluations. 

5.1.8 Treatment programs should follow the Principles of Effective Intervention (Risk, Need, Responsivity 


relationship skills, modeling, skill building, and problem solving). 

5.1.9 Develop a policy and practice to ensure fidelity to treatment and quality assurance for all SCCDOC 



supervisors to all instructors, and routine and formal feedback invited by staff and inmates on the 

value of the classes. 

5.1.10 Develop an initial and ongoing in-service training program for treatment staff. 

5.1.11 Three quarters (75 percent) of the programs is recommended to be continued only if they are 

modified and 25 percent are recommended to be discontinued and replaced with more effective 

programming (see Table 1.2 in Executive Summary). Even when the program produced some 

reductions in recidivism, the analysis found many areas that still needed to be improved so that 

greater reductions in recidivism could be realized. 

5.1.12 An upgrade to CJIC is recommended to support the Department in collecting the information 

needed to develop a valid, objective risk and needs assessment instrument and to track program 

admissions and program terminations by reason. 


PART II. 

EVIDENCE BASED PROGRAM EVALUATIONS

Part II. Chapter 1 

Introduction





Evidence-based programs and practices are increasingly becoming integrated into the organizational 

culture of jails and other segments of the criminal justice system. Many jail administrators recognize that 

the time an individual spends waiting for trial or serving a sentence should be constructive. It is consistent 

with the Department of Correction’s long-range goals of protecting society to provide the individual the 

opportunity to advance their education and to learn prosocial values, attitudes and thinking patterns that will 

reduce their rate of return. 

This is Part II of the Final Report for the Department of Correction. It provides a qualitative assessment of 

21 inmate programs to determine the degree to which they are consistent with evidence-based practices, 

specifically the Principles of Evidence-based Interventions (Risk, Need, Responsivity and Fidelity) as is 

described in Chapter 2, Part II. 

Each of the programs was evaluated using the Correctional Programs Checklist (CPC-GA), a program 

evaluation tool developed by the University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research. The 

following 21 programs were evaluated using the CPC-GA: 

1. Artemis 



4. Get Right 


6. Healing Opportunity with Positive Enforcement (HOPE) 



9. Mentoring You Substance Abuse Treatment of Recovering Individual (MY STORI) 



12. Regimented Corrections Program-Phase I (Men) 

13. Regimented Corrections Program-Phase I (Women) 









The Domestic Violence Curriculum was examined but not scored using the CPC-GA Assessment Tool. 



The Correctional Programs Checklist Assessment-GA measures the following four domains: 



3. Treatment 



All of the Department’s programs were measured against these four content areas to determine how many 

of these performance indicators the Department’s programs met. Each content area and all domains were 

scored and rated accordingly: 



• Needs Improvement: (45% to 54%) 

• Ineffective: (< 45%) 

The Department has made the following modifications in the programs. 

• A Rehabilitation Officer has been assigned to the Main Jail to address the needs of the high risk 

population housed at the Main Jail. 

• The boot camp aspect of the Regimented Corrections Program has been omitted. 

• Library services will be offered by the Milpitas Unified School District. 

• A parenting class for Elmwood Men will be taught by Family and Children’s Services. 

• L.I.F.T. (Literacy in Families Together) class was discontinued. 

• All the classes offered in the M8 building have been relocated to the M4 and M5 buildings (the only 

change is the location). 

• One Rehabilitation Officer Position was deleted. 

• The Artemis, MY STORI and Regimented Corrections Program for women have been combined into a 

new Reentry Corrections Program for women without the boot camp aspect. 

• The HOPE and the Regimented Corrections Program for men have been combined into a new Reentry 

Corrections Program for men without the boot camp aspect. 

• The RCP Phase I-Men has been modified. The marching and physical component was removed from 

the program. 

• The RCP Phase I-Women has been modified. The marching and physical component was removed 


• Breaking Barriers has been assigned a Case Manager. 

• Get Right has been assigned a Case Manager. 

Additionally, two more initiatives were created related to recidivism: A Center for Leadership and Training 

(CLT) group was created to look at re-entry strategies, and their findings were presented in December 

2011. A countywide committee called Community Corrections Partnership was formed to address the AB 

109 Public Safety Realignment Implementation Plan. 




1.2 Overall Key Findings 

As noted in Table 1.1, the domain in which the Department’s programs scored in the “Effective” category is 

Program Staff and Support within the range of 60 to 100 percent (PACT scored 100 percent). According to 

the findings of the program evaluations described in Part II, the Department’s programs scored higher in 

the Program Staff and Support domain compared to the other three domains. All of the programs scored 

“Effective” in this domain; within the range of 60 to 100 percent (PACT scored 100 percent). This finding 

shows that the SCCDOC’s Programs Unit staff and its community-based providers are well-qualified, 

experienced and capable to deliver a higher level of evidence-based treatment programs. This is extremely 

important for correctional programs as these staff characteristics have been demonstrated to be influential 

in reducing future recidivism (Lowenkamp and Latessa, 2002). 

Table 1.1 

Santa Clara County Department of Correction Program 

Descriptive Statistics by CPC Domain 

Content Area Mean Median Minimum and Maximum 

Program Staff & Support 66.0 60.0 60 – 100 

Offender Assessment 0.0 0.0 0.0 – 0.0 

Treatment 34.2 31.4 25.7 – 66.7 

Quality Assurance 14.0 0.0 0.0 – 60.0 

Source: Correctional Programs Checklist. 

The lowest score in the program evaluations was for Offender Assessment with a score of 0 for this 

domain. This score is a result of the Department not utilizing an empirically validated, objective tool to 

assess a person’s risk (to reoffend). Risk is defined as the probability of recidivating upon release. Inmates 

are scored as low, medium or high risk to reoffend after discharge. While the Department’s “Case Notes” 

addresses the majority of the criminogenic factors, it does not produce the data needed to score inmates as 

low, medium or high risk to reoffend, nor does it match inmates into treatment according to these risk levels 

and their security level. The adoption of such a tool would provide an effective assessment of risk to 

reoffend, and it will improve the matching of inmates to programs that relate to their needs. 

In the Treatment domain of the program evaluations, one program scored as “Highly Effective” (PACT), and 

the remaining programs scored in the “Ineffective” range. The primary reason why this occurred is because 

the program curricula focus on education. Education is one aspect of changing behavior but it falls short in 

transforming offenders who exhibit anti-social values, attitudes and distorted thinking patterns, which are 

characteristic of most medium and high risk offenders. Unless program staff address the individual’s 

underlying anti-social values and attitudes, teach them prosocial values and skills, give inmates 

opportunities to practice these skills, and alter distorted thinking patterns, the offender’s behavior will not be 

changed (Landenberger and Lipsey, 2005; Lipsey, Chapman, and Landenberger, 2001). 

In the Quality Assurance domain of the program evaluations, PACT scored as “Effective” and the remaining 

programs scored in the “Ineffective” range. The PACT program contains more of the elements of the 

cognitive behavioral model of treatment than any of the other programs. Only two programs (PACT and 




Three Principles) evaluate their effectiveness using a pre and posttest measurement to demonstrate 

behavior change. 

A separate analysis of the average length of stay for inmates indicated that there is sufficient time for 

unsentenced and sentenced felons to complete programs as their average length of stay ranges from 

104.1-184.6 days for unsentenced felons and 86.9-120.3 days for sentenced felons. Based on the number 

of hours inmates are involved in programs (240-308 hours for an 8-10 week cycle), it appears that there is 

sufficient time to complete programs. 

1.2.1 Overall Key Recommendations 

As a result of the program evaluation, none of the programs are recommended to be Continued as Is, 75 

percent of the programs are recommended to be continued with modifications and 25 percent are 

recommended to be discontinued and replaced with more effective programming (See Part II, Chapter 4 for 

recommendations for each program). The consultants attempted to balance the Department’s need for 

programming for every security level and housing unit while also making recommendations for 

improvement. 

The consultant team offers 12 general recommendations to reduce recidivism for the SCCDOC’s 

consideration: 

1. Select objective risk, needs and responsivity assessment tools. (See pages 207-215) (See Holsinger, 

Lurigio, and Latessa, 2001.) 

a. We recommend that each newly admitted inmate be screened by trained intake staff to eliminate 

those individuals who are low risk to reoffend and therefore do not require intensive programming. 

Constructive activities for the low risk individual will still need to be available to reduce idleness and 

promote safety within the facility. However, intensive programming should not be wasted on the 

low risk inmate because it is unnecessary, harmful and costly (see Andrews and Bonta, 2010; 

Lowenkamp and Latessa, 2004). 

Screening will take between 5 and 15 minutes to complete. The consultants recommend that 

SCCDOC utilize the screening tool as soon as possible after admission. Some risk assessment 

tools come with a screener version of their tool (e.g., LS/CMI, ORAS). The screening tool identifies 

low risk individuals early in the process so they can be omitted from the comprehensive 

assessment process; thus leaving staff the time and resources to conduct the full assessment on 

medium and high risk individuals. 

b. After the inmate is placed in their housing unit, the Programs Unit staff is recommended to conduct 

an in-depth risk and needs assessment of medium and high risk inmates. Trained Rehabilitation 

Officers should be charged with the responsibility of conducting these assessments. This 

assessment determines those inmates who are medium and high risk to reoffend and assesses 

their criminogenic needs so these can be addressed in their Treatment Plan. 

c. After the risk/needs assessment is conducted and specific need areas are identified, the SCCDOC 

staff should make a referral to one or more treatment providers delivering a specific Core Program. 




The provider should conduct a responsivity assessment prior to delivering the program so that the 

provider can tailor the group’s goals to address the specific needs of the participants. 

2. Treatment programs should follow the Principles of Effective Intervention (Risk, Need, Responsivity 


relationship skills, modeling, skill building, and problem solving). Research shows that cognitive 

behavioral interventions combined with role-play, practice and rehearsals consistently achieve larger 

reductions in recidivism compared to interventions solely based on education (Landenberger and 

Lipsey, 2005; Lipsey, Chapman, and Landenberger, 2001). The curricula that is selected should 

provide a manual that contains clearly articulated lesson plans, homework, and guidelines for 

facilitators on how to model and role play prosocial skills. Each facilitator should follow the manual and 

not deviate from it to ensure fidelity of the training. 

3. Expand the number of Core Programs from one (substance abuse education) to include six major core 

program areas: 






6. Aftercare. 

4. Ensure that individuals are matched with these core programs based on their assessed risk to reoffend 

upon release and criminogenic needs. Select curricula that are designed to address all criminogenic 

needs and match inmates to one or more of the Core Programs that address these criminogenic 

needs. 

5. Low risk inmates should be channeled into work, self-guided educational activities (e.g. Roadmap to 

Recovery) and to other behavior management activities that reduce idleness such as creative arts, 

recreation, library, etc. 

6. SCCDOC should continue to work with the providers toward developing and delivering the Core 

Programs recommended in this EBP Evaluation Report (Part II), and to reduce the number of areas of 

improvement found in each of their individual evaluations. 

7. Develop a policy and practice to ensure fidelity to treatment and quality assurance for all SCCDOC 



supervisors to all instructors, and routine and formal feedback invited by staff and inmates on the value 

of the classes. 

8. Develop an initial and ongoing in-service training program for treatment staff. 

9. Three quarters (75 percent) of the programs are recommended to be continued with modifications and 

25 percent are recommended to be discontinued and replaced with more effective programming (see 




Table, pages 197-198). Even when the program produced some reductions in recidivism, the analysis 

found many areas that could be improved so that greater reductions in recidivism could be realized. 

10. An upgrade to CJIC is recommended to support the Department in collecting the information needed to 

develop a valid, objective risk and needs assessment instrument and to track program admissions and 

program terminations by reason. 

11. Based on the science of implementation, the consultants recommend the formation of an EBP 

Implementation Team (EBP IT) consisting of DOC program, security and administrative staff and its 

treatment providers to meet monthly to lead change. Seven Implementation Workgroups are 

recommended to address the following areas: 

A. Risk, Needs and Responsivity Assessment Tools and referral and assessment protocols 

B. Core Programs 

C. Case Management 

D. Quality Assurance/Data Collection 

E. Training and Staff Development 

F. Reentry 

G. Aftercare 

12. To effectively implement these innovations, it is recommended that the Department follow the stages of 

implementation as defined in the research on successful implementation (National Implementation 

Research Network): 

1. Exploration: Review research and recommendations in this report and other research to 

support these seven workgroups. 

2. Installation: Select assessment tools, curricula, treatment providers, develop protocols to 

implement these seven areas; create a monitoring system to ensure that these innovations are 

regularly examined for fidelity. 

3. Initial Implementation: Select a sample population or housing unit to pilot, train staff in the use 

of the assessment tool, the curricula and protocol, pilot the use of the tool, curricula and 

protocol, evaluate its use in the pilot phase to establish fidelity and make modifications before 

going to next stage. 

4. Full Implementation: When 50 percent of the staff is proficient at implementing the 

assessment tool, curricula and protocol according to fidelity measures, ramp up to other 

populations and housing units, continue to evaluate. 

5. Innovation: Refine/fine tune the tools, curricula and protocols and bring in coaches to help 

examine the degree to which the new innovations are being implemented according to fidelity. 

6. Sustainability: Establish stable and adequate funding; maintain stakeholder support. 

The EBP IT and the Workgroups should provide quarterly reports to the Chief of Correction. The EBP IT 

should develop a timeline for implementation. A suggested timeline is recommended on page 225. We 

recommend the Department name an EBP Coordinator (preferably an independent party) to guide the 

change effort because of the complexity and size of this change effort, and to coach staff through the 

change process (see Petrosino, A & Soydan, H. 2005). 



Literature Review of Principles 

of Effective Intervention





For the purposes of this program evaluation, effectiveness was measured in accordance with the 

“Principles of Effective Intervention” (PEI). The four principles of effective correctional intervention are: 

• Risk Principle – target higher risk offenders (WHO) 

• Need Principle – target criminogenic risk/need factors (WHAT) 

• Responsivity Principle – adapt treatment to individual factors (HOW) 

• Fidelity Principle – implement program as designed (HOW WELL) 

The principles of effective intervention are based on extensive research findings spanning many decades 

(Palmer, 1975; Gendreau and Ross, 1987; Cullen and Gendreau, 2000). This body of research has 

demonstrated utility and importance for the evaluation of correctional programs (Latessa and Holsinger, 

1998), and it has spawned a number of principles that are beneficial to correctional programming (Andrews 

and Bonta, 2010; Andrews, Bonta, and Hoge, 1990). 

The risk principle has utility in both matching and prediction. This principle guides administrators as to who 

they should target for programs. The first part of the risk principle states that offender’s risk of recidivating 

should be measured by an actuarial risk assessment tool. This tool will be able to alert the program to an 

individual’s likelihood of reoffending based on an objective assessment of a set of characteristics or 

occurrences in his/her life that are correlated with the likelihood of future recidivism. The following eight risk 

factors have been found to be highly correlated with reoffending (Andrews and Bonta, 2010): 

1. Antisocial/procriminal attitudes, values, beliefs and cognitive-emotional states 

2. Procriminal associates and isolation from prosocial others 

3. Temperamental and antisocial personality patterns conducive to criminal activity 

4. A history of antisocial behavior 

5. Family factors that include criminality and a variety of psychological problems in the family of origin 

6. Low levels of personal, educational, vocational or financial achievement 

7. Low levels of involvement in prosocial leisure activities 

8. Abuse of alcohol and/or drugs 

The risk principle also states that high risk offenders are more likely to benefit from the most intensive 

treatment (Andrews and Bonta, 2010; Bonta, 2002; Bourgon and Armstrong, 2005; Dowden and Andrews, 

2000; Lowenkamp and Latessa, 2002, 2004, 2005). This is an important component of the risk principle, 

as research has demonstrated that the intervention must have sufficient duration and dosage to reduce 

recidivism (Bourgon and Armstrong, 2005). In addition, the risk principle states that low risk offenders 

should receive low intensity to no treatment, so as not to produce negative effects (Lowenkamp and 

Latessa, 2004). That is, when low risk offenders are mixed with high risk offenders in high intensity 

programs, national research has shown that low risk offenders are more likely to recidivate due to antisocial 

influences from high risk offenders and by removing them from pro-social protective factors. 




The second principle of effective intervention is the need principle. This principle directs programs on what 

components to target; specifically, programs should focus on criminogenic needs. Criminogenic needs are 

a subset of risk factors that are correlated with future recidivism. The need principle states that effective 

programming should target known criminogenic needs to reduce future offending (Andrews, Bonta, and 

Hoge, 1990; Zamble, 1993). The top criminogenic needs are: 

1. Antisocial attitudes, values and beliefs 

2. Antisocial friends 

3. Impulsive behavior (e.g., risk taking, self-control issues) 

4. Education/employment 

5. Substance abuse 

When targeted, programs that address known criminogenic needs have been demonstrated to reduce 

future offending (Andrews and Bonta, 2010; Lowenkamp and Latessa, 2002). Gendreau, French, and 

Taylor (2002) found that programs that focus on three or more criminogenic needs produce the highest 

reduction in future recidivism. 

The following needs have “not” been highly correlated with a reduction in recidivism: (Andrews, Bonta and 

Wormith 2006): 

1. Anxiety 

2. Low self esteem 

3. Creative abilities 

4. Medical needs 

5. Physical conditioning 

The third principle is the responsivity principle. This principle states that offenders should be matched to 

various modes of treatment to better facilitate change in the offender’s behavior (Andrews and Bonta, 

2010). There are two aspects of responsivity: general responsivity and specific responsivity. General 

responsivity states that the delivery of treatment to offenders should be a modality to which all types of 

offenders can respond. To adhere to general responsivity, programs should follow a cognitive-behavioral 

modality and be sufficient in duration and dosage to change behavior (Andrews et al. 1990; Dowden and 

Andrews, 2000; Lipsey, Chapman, and Landenberger, 2001). Cognitive-behavioral approaches have 

demonstrated the highest reductions in recidivism, especially programs that teach prosocial behaviors and 

develop new skills (Andrews, 1990; Andrews and Bonta, 2010; Andrews et al. 1990; Lipsey, Landenberger, 

and Chapman, 2001; Petersilia and Turner, 1995). Landenberger and Lipsey (2005) found that offenders 

involved in cognitive behavioral treatment had a one and one half times greater likelihood of not recidivating 

after discharge from correctional supervision than those who were not involved in treatment. 

According to specific responsivity, the unique characteristics of the offender (e.g., reading ability, language 

abilities, and motivation) should be taken into account when being matched with a program to produce 

higher reductions in recidivism (Andrews and Bonta, 2010; Andrews, Bonta, and Hoge, 1990). 

The fourth principle is the fidelity principle. This principle states that effective programs are based on a 

standardized curriculum that is delivered consistently and as the curriculum design is intended to be 




delivered (Andrews and Bonta, 2002). Deviations from standard curricula are not recommended because 

these do not produce the intended results. 

Andrews (1990) document that the following are “ineffective interventions” with offenders based on 

extensive research: 

• Boot camps, scared straight, etc. 

• Drug education programs teaching the pharmacology of drugs and alcohol 

• Drug prevention classes focused on fear and other emotional appeals 

• Insight/awareness therapy models 

• Programs that cannot maintain fidelity 

• Shaming offenders 

• Non-directive, client centered approaches 

• Bibliotherapy 

• Freudian approaches 

• Talking cures 

• Self-Help programs 

• Vague unstructured rehabilitation programs 

• Medical model 

• Fostering self-regard (self-esteem) 



Evidence-Based Program Analysis




3.1.1 Overview of Programs 

The Department of Correction offers 22 inmate programs/classes (20 are offered to in-custody inmates and 

2 are offered to out-of-custody inmates). Substance abuse education, two academic education and three 

vocational educational programs are offered as core components in all programs. Two of the in-custody 

programs (Get Right and Breaking Barriers) are offered to high medium security level inmates at the Main 

Jail. The remainder of the programs is offered to inmates housed at the Elmwood Facility. 

The Department of Correction gives a high priority to programs for inmates to facilitate their successful 

reentry to the community. The following statement within the DOC Mission Statement affirms the 

Department’s commitment to inmate programs: 

“The Department will maximize opportunities for offenders to participate in programs that reduce criminal 

behavior and enhance the offender’s reintegration into the community”. 

These programs are coordinated by the Inmate Programs Unit of the Department of Correction. The 

mission of the Program Unit is to: 

“Enhance the successful reintegration of the program participants into the community by providing them 

counseling, course study, personal skills training and after custody care components in a structured 

environment”. 

The overall purpose of programs as stated by the Inmate Programs Unit is: 

1. Help inmates keep busy in a constructive manner. 

2. Educate inmates that may have never had access to schools or formal education. 

3. Allow inmates to earn certificates in GED or other job training skills to assist them in obtaining a job 

upon release. 

4. Give inmates a sense of accomplishment. 

5. Help them rebuild their relationships with their families. 

6. Help inmates with their court cases thus helping the jail population and the costs incurred by the 

Department. 29 

The Inmate Programs Unit Directory of Classes and Programs states: “this is an attempt to return the 

inmate to his or her home with improved skills (emphasis added), to help them in their transition to the 

outside world”. This statement commits the Department to provide programming that increases skills, 

which goes beyond the traditional role of providing constructive activities just to keep inmates busy and of 

providing basic education on a variety of subjects to which a portion of the inmate population can relate. 

29 

Santa Clara County Department of Correction. Programs Overview. 2010. 




The overall goals of the Programs Unit are to: 

1. Establish a foundation for long-term recovery. 

2. Expand participant’s concept of their opportunities for positive, independent life styles. 

3. Enhance participant’s employability. 

4. Foster healthy relationships. 

5. Promote successful re-entry into society as evidence of adherence to individual contracts. 

6. Increase participant’s probationary success. 

All programs are offered equally to unsentenced inmates, sentenced inmates and to all security levels 

based on the (IWF) Settlement Agreement and on the nationally accepted operational principle that 

programs help reduce the level of violence within the correctional environment. Gibbons and de B. 

Katzenbach (2006), in the Report by the Commission on Safety and Abuse in American Prisons, concluded 

that “highly structured programs are proven to reduce misconduct in correctional facilities and also to lower 

recidivism rates after release.” Ward and Eccleston (2004) found that programs that address the underlying 

motivations of their actions and the consequences of their behavior can reduce misconduct in correctional 

facilities and lower recidivism rates by at least 10 percent. 

The Department provides the following 13 stand-alone programs: 

1. Artemis 


3. Get Right 


5. Program About Change and Experience (PACE) 

6. Parents and Children Together (PACT Parenting) 

7. Mentoring You-Successful Transition of Recovering Individuals (MYSTORI) 

8. M8 Program Units (Units A-H) 

9. Regimented Corrections Program Phase I Men 

10. Regimented Corrections Program Phase I Women 

11. Regimented Corrections Program Phase II 



Note: These programs target specific inmate populations and their needs and they include a variety of 

educational curricula focused on these needs. These were approved by the DOC Recidivism Steering 

Committee to be the focus of the Recidivism Study described in Part I. 

Inmates participating in these 13 stand-alone programs attend classes 6 hours each day for 5 days a week 

or for 30 hours each week. In addition, groups are also delivered in the evening such as Alcoholics 

Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA), although these classes are not required. When all 

classes are combined, inmates receive 240-300 hours of programming during an 8-10 week cycle. Inmates 

participating in the Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) receive 308 hours of programming for an 8- 

week cycle as they are in class 7.7 hours each day for 5 days a week, or for 38 hours each week. 




The Department makes available classes on a variety of topics that have been determined by the Inmate 

Programs Unit to meet the needs of inmates that is in accordance with their security level, housing unit 

designation and based on available resources. All other programs and curricula are offered as “electives.” 

Each of the classes has a target population to be served, educational goals, and a prescribed curriculum. 

Inmates can take a single class or a group of classes offered in accordance with their security level and in 

their housing unit. The practice of matching programs to an inmate’s classification and housing unit is a 

common practice in correctional institutions and will likely continue because the safety and security of the 

facility is the number one priority. However, matching inmates with programs that target criminogenic needs 

and risk to reoffend is a core element of effective programs that decreases the inmate’s rate of return. 

Other core elements of effective programs as defined by Andrews and Bonta (2010) and Lowenkamp and 

Latessa (2002) are: 

1. Evidence-based research guides the type of treatment modalities used with offenders. 

2. Use of a validated, standardized and objective instrument that measures their future risk to reoffend 

and their criminogenic needs. 

3. Group targets higher risk offenders for intensive programming while minimal programming is provided 

to low-risk offenders. 

4. The program adapts to the aptitude, learning style, personality, mental health disorders and gender of 

the offender. 

5. The major focus of the group is on criminogenic needs. 

6. Sufficient dosage and duration is provided to reduce criminality. 

7. The instructor and the group consistently follow a prescribed curriculum. 

8. Treatment groups are small to maximize interaction. 

9. The curriculum addresses the underlying values, attitudes and beliefs to identify antisocial thinking 

patterns. 

10. Teaching, modeling and reinforcing pro-social values, attitudes and behaviors through direct positive 

and negative reinforcement are provided consistently. 

11. Practice sessions with role play and corrective feedback are key components of the skills training. 

12. More rewards than punishers are given, and they are immediate with explanations of why they are 

given. 

13. Punishers address non-compliance and they are progressive with the least intrusive punisher given 

first, and the punisher is immediate with explanations of why they are given. 

14. Concrete problem-solving skills are taught and modeled. 

15. Performance metrics are used to measure performance. 

16. Performance measures track the progress from one phase to the next. 




As these components illustrate, effective inmate programs have specific performance measures that go 

beyond just keeping inmates busy and providing them basic education. Effective offender programs focus 

on teaching and developing prosocial values, attitudes, and behaviors which research demonstrates leads 

to reduced recidivism upon release (Smith, Gendreau, and Goggin, 2009). 

3.1.2 Program Administration 

The Programs Unit Manager oversees the programs and guides the coordinators from each of the agencies 

delivering services to the Department. This Unit is under the direction of the Support Services Division 

Commander. The Unit Manager supervises a staff of six Rehabilitation Officers (RO) that provide case 

management to nine programs. 30 The RO conducts the following functions to determine the inmates’ 

eligibility and suitability for the programs: 

1. Screens the inmate’s criminal record to determine suitability for in-custody programs. 

2. Interviews the inmate to assess needs and program suitability. 

3. Submits the names of suitable inmates to the Classification Unit so they can be housed in housing 

units that meet their classification level and that offer the programs that meet their needs. 

4. Screens and facilitates approval with the court for inmates to be considered for a sentence modification 

thus making them eligible for out-of-custody programs. For example, in June 2011, sentence 

modifications were approved for 16 inmates and in May 2011, a total of 11 inmates’ sentence was 

modified. This is evidence of the confidence the Court has in the DOC Programs Unit. 

On-going functions of the ROs are: 

1. Conduct orientation sessions with new inmates to acquaint them with the rules and regulations of the 

program. 

2. Conduct house meetings with inmates to resolve minor house rule issues. 

3. Recruit, enroll and monitor inmates’ attendance and participation in programs. 

4. Mentor and redirect inmate behavior when needed. 

5. Refer inmates to positions within the program such as “cadence caller” and “inmate worker” to develop 

leadership skills. 

6. Facilitate groups when instructors are absent. 

7. Assist instructors with inmate and classroom issues. 

8. Invite outside speakers to speak to inmates on special topics. 

9. Provide inmates with information on schedule release dates, court appearances, the early release 

program and eligibility for out-of-custody status. 

10. Coordinate specialized functions for inmates with special needs such as providing materials to veterans 

and coordinating treatment programs for veterans; assist pregnant women to enter the Artemis 

program designed for pregnant women and women with young children; coordinate clearances with the 

Social Services Agency of Santa Clara County for children to participate in the Parenting Program. 

11. Upon request of the inmate, communicate with family members to assist the inmate with family issues. 

12. Upon request, facilitate phone calls for inmates with family members, court, their attorneys and with 

treatment agencies. 

30 

The Programs Unit also consists of Program Sergeants, Correctional Officers, Custody Support Assistants, Law 

Enforcement Records Technician, Law Enforcement Clerks, and Management Aide. 



13. Prepare progress reports for the court and other requesting agencies. 

14. Upon program completion, coordinate graduation ceremonies. 

15. Prepare an Exit/Discharge Plan for inmates eligible for the out-of-custody phase. 

The ROs are assigned to the following 11 programs to serve as their case manager: 

1. Artemis 


3. Get Right 


5. Parents and Children Together (PACT Parenting) 


7. Regimented Corrections Program Phase I Men and Women (RCP I) 

8. Regimented Corrections Program Phase II Men and Women (RCP II) 


10. M8 Program Units (Units A-H) 



Inmates participating in these programs are eligible to be stepped down to an out-of-custody phase. Initial 

eligibility for programs is determined by the court in consultation with the inmate’s attorney and the District 

Attorney. Inmates can be admitted to programs by either being court ordered to participate, by submitting a 

request to the RO within the Inmate Programs Unit or by staff. The RO will screen the inmate’s criminal 

history background, past program performance, classification criteria and in-custody behavior. They will 

interview the inmate to determine the inmate’s interest. If determined to be suitable for the program, the RO 

will submit a request to the Classification Unit for their approval to be classified into a housing unit that 

offers them a specific program and a series of classes. 




The Classification Unit makes the decision to assign an inmate to a Security Level 1, 2, 3, or 4 and to a 

specific housing unit. 

Figure 3.1 

From Booking to a Program 

Source: Santa Clara County Department of Correction Programs Unit. 

After the inmate has been admitted to the housing unit, the Rehabilitation Officer will complete an in-depth 

psychosocial needs assessment to assess their specific needs for the programs. A case plan is developed 

based on this in-depth assessment. At midway into the program, the Rehabilitation Officer assigned to a 

specific program consults with the teacher to verify attendance and participation. The RO will provide 

progress reports and an exit/discharge plan to the court. After the exit/discharge plan is finalized, the 

inmate begins their transition to the community. 


Figure 3.2 

During the In-Custody Phase of Program 



Source: Department of Correction Inmate Programs Unit. 

Programs are delivered by nine community-based organizations. Four agencies offer inmate programs at 

no cost to the Department of Correction (Milpitas Unified School District, Santa Clara County Department of 

Alcohol and Drug Services, Veteran’s Administration and Next Door Solutions). While some programs are 

at no cost to the Department, mandated programs are funded through the General Fund and nonmandated 

programs are funded through the Inmate Welfare Fund (IWF) as is illustrated in Table 3.1 on the 

following page. 



Table 3.1 

Inmate Programs Offered by Community Based Organizations 

FY10-FY12 

Community Based Organization Program Delivered by CBO Contract Amount 

FY10-FY12 

1. Santa Clara County Health 

and Hospital System Adult 

Custody Mental Health 

Trauma Recovery 

$76,000 (IWF) 


2. Santa Clara County Library 

for the Administration of 

Inmate Library and Literacy 

Services 

Learner-Centered Literacy 

Instruction and Literacy in 

Families Together (LIFT) 

$288,000 ($142,000 FY10; 

$146,000 FY11) (IWF) 

$50,000 is dedicated to 

LIFT $0 for FY2012 

3. Milpitas Unified School District High School/GED 

preparation and testing; 

Vocational Education; 

Substance Abuse Education; 

Relapse Prevention; 

Computer Software 

Applications; English as 

Second Language; Artistic 

Expression; Exit Planning; 

Violence Prevention 

Library Services in FY2012- 

FY2013 

4. Adele Pat Cibart, LCSW Positive Parenting Classes 

and Parent/Child Visitation 

Program 

No cost for instructors 

$20,000 for GED testing 

(IWF) 

$30,000 (IWF) 

Contract amount for FY2012 

is $27,300 

5. Correctional Institutions 

Chaplaincy 

Heart and Soul 

6. Veteran’s Administration Veterans’ Services No cost 

$123,750 (General Fund) 

$41,250 (IWF) 

Contract amount for 

FY2012: $140,000* 

$105,000 (General Fund) 

$35,000 (IWF) 

7. Santa Clara County Health 

and Hospital System 

Department of Alcohol and 

Drug Services (DADS) 

Three Principles 

No cost 



Community Based Organization Program Delivered by CBO Contract Amount 

FY10-FY12 

8. Next Door Solutions Domestic Violence No cost 


9. Families & Children Services Parenting Services for Male $60,000 in FY2012. 

and Female Inmates at the 

Elmwood Complex (Similar 

to the LIFT Program) 

Source: Department of Correction Inmate Programs Unit. IWF is Inmate Welfare Fund. *Heart and Soul is 

one component of the overall contract for chaplaincy services. 




3.1.3 Methodology of the Evidence-Based Program Evaluation-Correctional Programs Checklist 

Assessment 

3.1.3.1 Assessment Process 

The assessment process consisted of surveys of program coordinators, group facilitators, correctional 

officers and SCCDOC staff, a total of 29 standardized and structured interviews with program providers and 

SCCDOC staff, an extensive review of curricula used in each of the 21 programs, the examination of 25 

representative files (open and closed) and observation of four classes. Four survey questionnaires were 

developed to collect data from: 

1. Program Coordinators (defined as the person responsible for oversight of their agency’s curriculum, 

hiring, firing and supervising their individual group facilitators or teachers 

2. Group Facilitators (defined as persons responsible for delivering the program/classroom) 

3. Correctional Officers (defined as custody employees of the Department of Correction assigned to 

programs and housing units in which programs are delivered) 

4. DOC Administrative Staff. 

Each of the programs was evaluated using the Correctional Programs Checklist (CPC), a tool designed by 

the University of Cincinnati to assess correctional programs. 31 The CPC is used to ascertain how closely 

correctional programs meet known principles of effective intervention. Several recent studies conducted by 

the University of Cincinnati on both adult and juvenile programs were used to develop and validate the 

indicators on the CPC. 32 These studies yielded strong correlations with outcomes between overall scores, 

domain areas, and individual items, (Holsinger, 1999; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2003, Lowenkamp, 2003; 

Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005a; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005). 

The CPC-GA is a program evaluation tool that closely examines the extent to which correctional group 

interventions meet the principles of effective intervention. Because all but one of Santa Clara County’s 

programs is delivered in a group, this tool was considered to be the best fit for the evaluation of the 

Department’s programs. 

The CPC-GA is divided into two basic areas: 1) Capacity and 2) Content. The Capacity area is designed 

to measure whether or not a correctional program has the capability to deliver evidence-based 

interventions and services for offenders. There are two sub-components in this area: 1) Program Staff and 

Support and 2) Quality Assurance. The Content area focuses on the substantive aspect of the group and 

also includes two domains: 1) Offender Assessment, and 2) Treatment. 

31 

The CPC is modeled after the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory developed by Gendreau and Andrews; 

however, the CPC includes a number of items not contained in the CPAI. In addition, items that were not found to be 

positively correlated with recidivism were deleted. 

32 

These studies involved over 40,000 offenders (both adult and juvenile), and over 500 correctional programs, 

ranging from institutional to community based. All of the studies are available on the UC website 

(www.uc.edu/criminaljustice). A large part of this research involved the identification of program characteristics that 

were correlated with recidivism. 




The treatment area is designed to measure core correctional practices and is divided into seven 

components; 1) Group Target and Process, 2) Effective Reinforcement, 3) Effective Disapproval, 4) 

Structured Skill Building, 5) Relationship Skills, 6) Cognitive Restructuring, and 7) Relapse Prevention. 

The CPC-GA tool includes 54 indicators totaling 56 total points (see Appendix for the list of Performance 

Indicators). Each area and all domains are scored and rated as either "Highly Effective” (65% to 100%); 

"Effective" (55% to 64%); "Needs Improvement" (45% to 54%); or "Ineffective" (less than 45%). 

Effective is defined as the degree to which the program has the components sufficient to reduce recidivism. 

The scores in all domains are then totaled and the same scale is used for the overall assessment score. 

The score represents the percent of evidence-based program indicators that are present in each program. 

It should be noted that not all of the domains are given equal weight, and some items may be considered 

“Not Applicable” in which case they are not included in the scoring. 

There are several limitations to the CPC-GA that should be discussed. First, the instruments are based on 

an ideal program. The criteria have been developed from a large body of research and knowledge that 

combines the best practices from the empirical literature on “what works” in reducing recidivism. Hence, 

achievement of meeting all indicators on the assessment is unlikely due to operational considerations 

within the correctional institutional setting. Second, as with all applied research, objectivity and reliability 

are important considerations. Although steps are taken to ensure that the information that is gathered is 

accurate and reliable, decisions about the information and data gathered are invariably made by the 

assessor given the nature of the process. Third, the process is time-specific; that is, the results describe 

the program at the time of the assessment. Changes or modifications may be under development, but only 

those activities and processes that are present at the time of the review were scored. Our experience 

demonstrates that effective programs are a “work in progress” as they are continually assessing their 

effectiveness and making modifications to increase their effectiveness. Fourth, the process does not take 

into account all system issues that can affect the integrity of the program. Lastly, the process does not 

address why a problem exists within a program. 

Despite these limitations, there are a number of advantages to this process. First, the criteria are based on 

empirically-derived principles of effective intervention. Second, the process provides a measure of program 

integrity and quality; in other words, it provides insight into the “black box” of the program, and this is 

something that an outcome study alone (e.g. Recidivism Study) does not provide. Third, the results can be 

ascertained relatively quickly. Fourth, it identifies both the strengths and weaknesses of the intervention. It 

provides the program with feedback regarding what it is doing that is consistent with the research on 

effective interventions, as well as those areas that need improvement. Finally, it generates some useful 

recommendations for program improvement. Since program integrity and quality can change over time, it 

allows a program to reassess its progress at a later date. 



Individual Program Evaluations





This chapter provides detailed summaries of the findings of the evaluation of each of the 21 programs. It 

describes the strengths in each program and the areas of improvement recommended by the consultant 

team. Recommendations are identified as “Continue as Is,” “Continue with Modifications,” or “Discontinue 

and Replace” (see pages 197-198). 

To reconfirm, the following 21 programs were evaluated using the University of Cincinnati’s Correctional 

Programs Checklist (CPC-GA): 

1. Artemis 



4. Get Right 








12. Regimented Corrections Program-Phase I (Men) 

13. Regimented Corrections Program-Phase I (Women) 









The Domestic Violence Curriculum was examined but not scored using the CPC-GA Assessment Tool. 

To reiterate, each of the programs was evaluated using the 54 performance indicators listed under the 

following domains: 



3. Treatment 





These four domains and the number of performance indicators the programs met are described in the 

following program profiles, and each program is rated as: 



• Needs Improvement (45% to 54%) 

• Ineffective (< 45%) 

Effective is defined as the degree to which the program has the components sufficient to reduce recidivism. 




Target Population 

Written Program Goals 

Program Description 

Classes Offered 

Duration of Program 

Department of Correction Program Profiles 

NAME OF PROGRAM 

ARTEMIS 

Minimum Security Pregnant Women and Women with Small Children 

(




ARTEMIS 

and they are supervised by the program coordinator. The program coordinator is involved in 

selecting the provider and is consulted on the selection and retention of teachers. 

4. Program staff is qualified to deliver the classes and adhere to ethical guidelines. 

5. The program has the support of the Sheriff, the Office of Women’s Policy, the Commission on the 

Status of Women, Judges and the Board of Supervisors. The program won the Thomas Warner 

Award in 2000. 

Treatment 

1. The program addresses substance abuse and relapse prevention for women, one of the 

criminogenic needs contributing to recidivism. 

2. One of the elements of the program focuses on family-based skills to train women how to deliver 

behavioral interventions effectively, which is an evidence-based model. 

3. Groups consist of women only thus encouraging them to be open. 

4. Facilitators appear to be knowledgeable, encourage participation, establish rapport and set 

appropriate group norms and boundaries to guide the group. 

5. The length is 8-10 weeks and involves 29 hours of programming which is an adequate dosage for 

initiating behavioral change but not sufficient for long-lasting change. 

6. Non-English speaking women are coached by other women to help them better understand the 

materials. 

7. The number of rewards is varied and encourages participation and compliance. 

8. Positive reinforcement through rewards appears to be given. 

9. Groups are conducted by trained facilitators and not inmates. 

AREAS THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT 

Program Staff and Support 

1. Only some of the teaching staff meets the CPC-GA requirements for education (a minimum of an 

Associates’ Degree/Bachelor’s Degree in the helping profession) and experience in the helping 

profession, specifically correctional treatment programs. 

2. Staff meetings are not routinely held at least bi-monthly with all facilitators. 

3. There are no formal, on-going training requirements that all facilitators shall meet. 

Offender Assessment 

1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out women who are not substance 

abusers or mothers; therefore, some women participate even if they are not addicted, pregnant or 

mothers. Nationally, it is recommended that the percentage of inappropriate matches should not 

exceed 20%. The women who do not meet criteria can be channeled into other inmate programs 

to ensure that they are involved in constructive activities and to avoid idleness. 

2. There is no objective, validated or standardized risk assessment given to determine if the women 

are low, medium or high risk for reoffending once released from the DOC. Without this type of 

assessment, it is difficult to determine if at least 70% of the women are assessed as medium to 

high risk. 

3. The women’s criminogenic needs and responsivity characteristics are not yet assessed using a 

validated, standardized and objective assessment instrument that clearly documents which 

women require this program, thus some women may be required to participate in the program that 





ARTEMIS 

does not meet their needs 

4. ARTEMIS does not assess to determine which of the women require intensive interventions so 

some of the women may be receiving services that they do not need. Medium risk women are 

recommended to receive 100 hours of intervention and high risk women are recommended to 

receive between 200-300 hours of intensive intervention. Low risk women are recommended to 

receive little to no interventions. 

Treatment 

1. ARTEMIS is not a treatment program but an education program which research has shown is not 

sufficient to lead to long-lasting behavior change. 

2. The substance abuse program is not one of the evidence-based models thus the existing program 

may not demonstrate behavioral change. Examples of evidence-based models are cognitive 

behavioral, structured social learning, radical behavioral. 

3. Groups can be interrupted due to crisis issues thus reducing the continuity of treatment. 

4. Homework is not routinely given by all facilitators so the gains achieved in class are not 

reinforced. 

5. Not all facilitators admit to following the prescribed program manuals consistently. Not all manuals 

contained goals, content of groups, recommended teaching methods, exercises, activities and 

homework assignments. 

6. Group size can be as large as 40 women with one facilitator, thus exceeding the optimum size for 

effective group treatment of 8-10 participants to 1 facilitator or with a co-facilitator when the group 

exceeds 10 participants. 

7. The application of rewards to punishers could be improved to meet the recommended 4 rewards 

for every 1 punisher. 

8. The range of punishers is limited warning, intervention from CO and removal. 

9. Antisocial values and attitudes are not routinely recognized by facilitators or participants who are 

recommended for reducing future recidivism. 

10. Prosocial alternatives to antisocial behaviors are not uniformly taught by facilitators nor are 

women given adequate opportunities to role play prosocial behavior in increasingly difficult 

simulated situations. 

11. Peers are not taught to be role models for prosocial behaviors for others. 

12. Women discharged from the program do not routinely have a written relapse prevention plan nor 

are the prosocial behaviors rehearsed to help them prepare for the triggers of relapse once 

discharged to the community. 

Quality Assurance 

1. Due to staff cutbacks, groups are not routinely observed. However, once they are observed, 

teachers receive feedback from the observer. 

2. There is no pre/posttest to measure the degree of knowledge gained. 

3. Client participation surveys are not routine. 

4. The criteria for successful completion is limited to attendance rather than linked to knowledge 

gains and behavioral change. 

5. Women discharged do not routinely have a written discharge summary with goals to be achieved 

once released nor is the inmate given a written reentry plan. 






ARTEMIS 

• Continue with Modifications: The Substance Abuse Program is recommended to be restructured 

as a Cognitive Behavioral Treatment model (see overall recommendations Part II Chapter 5) and 

it is recommended that a group facilitator has a minimum of an Associates’/Bachelor’s Degree and 

be CDAC-certified as a substance abuse treatment provider. 











Protective Custody, High and Medium Security Males Affiliated with a 

Gang Housed at Main Jail Who Commit to Drop Out of a Gang. 

To reduce substance use and abuse for protective custody inmates who 

have demonstrated a commitment to drop out of the gang lifestyle. 

Breaking Barriers is a substance abuse education program that targets 

medium and high security inmates of the main jail who have previous 

gang affiliations and who commit to cease participation in gang life. In 

addition to substance abuse education, program participants also work 

towards completing their GED, attend Narcotics Anonymous, and 

attempt to understand how their thoughts were formed and their 

experience was created in a health realization class. 

3 hours Substance Abuse Education twice a week, 3 hours GED 

Preparation, 2 hours Health Realization, 2 hours Narcotics Anonymous, 

3 hours Trauma Recovery per week. 

90 days 

Program Score by Each CPC-GA Domain: 

CPC-GA DOMAINS SCORE RATING 

Program Staff and 

Support 

60.0% Effective 

Offender Assessment 0.0% Ineffective 

Treatment 37.1% Ineffective 

Quality Assurance 20.0% Ineffective 

Overall Capacity 46.7% Needs Improvement 

Overall Content 31.8% Ineffective 

Overall Score 35.7% Ineffective 

STRENGTHS 


1. There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the Breaking Barriers program. 

2. The program coordinator plays an active role in selecting program staff. 

3. The program coordinator plays a role in supervising program staff who delivers treatment. 

4. Treatment specialists were selected based upon skills and values consistent with offender 

rehabilitation. 

5. Ethical guidelines are in place for Breaking Barriers facilitators. 

6. The institution/stakeholders provide support for the facilitation of the Breaking Barriers 

programming. 

Treatment 

1. The primary focus of the Breaking Barriers program is on a criminogenic need area, substance 

abuse. 






2. Breaking Barriers is a single sex group and delivered to only men, thus encouraging them to be 

open. 

3. Facilitators associated with the Breaking Barriers program appear knowledgeable of the material 

being taught. 

4. Facilitators consistently encouraged group participation. 

5. Group norms for Breaking Barriers participants are established. 

6. The length of the Breaking Barriers program is sufficient to affect behavior change. 

7. Breaking Barriers groups are consistently conducted by the facilitator rather than inmates. 

8. Responsivity issues such as language barriers or material comprehension are consistently 

addressed by group facilitators. 

9. Group facilitators apply appropriate rewards within the context of group (e.g., verbal praise, 

acknowledgement). 

10. Breaking Barriers group facilitators appear to have established rapport and boundaries with the 

group participants. 


1. Staff completes a discharge summary for each Breaking Barriers participant upon completion of 

the program. 



1. Not all group facilitators meet CPC-GA requirements for education and experience in correctional 

treatment programs. 

2. Group facilitators do not consistently attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e., 

bimonthly at minimum). 

3. Facilitators have minimal initial training related to the substance abuse curriculum, and the 

requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate. 


1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out men who are not substance abusers; 

therefore, some men participate even if they are not addicted. Nationally, it is recommended that 

the percentage of inappropriate matches should not exceed 20%. The men who do not meet 

criteria can be channeled into other inmate programs to ensure that they are involved in 

constructive activities and to avoid idleness. 

2. There is no objective, validated or standardized risk assessment given to determine if the men are 

low, medium, or high risk for reoffending once released from the DOC. Without this type of 

assessment, it is difficult to determine if at least 70% of the men are assessed as medium to high 

risk. 

3. The men’s criminogenic needs and responsivity characteristics are not yet assessed using a 

validated, standardized, and objective assessment instrument that clearly documents which men 

require this program. Thus, some men may be required to participate in the program which does 

not meet their needs. 

4. Breaking Barriers does not target high risk (to reoffend) men; thus, low and medium risk men may 

be receiving services that they do not need. 






Treatment 

1. Breaking Barriers is not a treatment program but an education program which research has shown 

is not sufficient to lead to long-lasting behavior change. 




3. Groups can be interrupted due to crisis issues and/or pill count thus reducing the continuity of 

treatment. 


reinforced. 




6. Group size can be as large as 64 men with one facilitator, thus exceeding the optimum size for 

effective group treatment of 8-10 participants per facilitator. 



8. Facilitators do not consistently encourage participants to recognize and promote one another’s 

prosocial behavior. 

9. The range of punishers is limited. 

10. Group facilitators do not always respond appropriately to noncompliance issues. (E.g. not doing 

homework, speaking out of turn, not participating, etc. Some instructors remove people from 

group for this type of behavior. One example was observed: A teacher assigned “busy” homework 

and shamed other inmates for trying to help others without permission.) 

11. Anti-social values and attitudes are not routinely recognized by facilitators or participants. 

12. Prosocial alternatives to anti-social behaviors are not uniformly taught by facilitators nor are men 

given adequate opportunities to role play prosocial behavior in increasingly difficult simulated 

situations. 

13. Facilitators did not consistently avoid argumentation and roll with resistance. 

14. The Breaking Barriers program does not directly target offenders’ underlying attitudes, values, and 

beliefs, or addresses antisocial thinking and high risk situations. 


16. Men discharged from the program do not routinely have a written relapse prevention plan nor are 

the prosocial behaviors rehearsed to help them prepare for the triggers of relapse once 



1. Breaking Barriers groups are not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group 

delivery skills. 


3. Group participants are not given a satisfaction survey upon group completion. 










as a Cognitive Behavioral Treatment model, which has been documented as an effective, 

evidenced based approach to substance abuse needs (see overall recommendations). 

Notes: Item 7 was determined by reviewing survey responses, obtaining data from the interviews and 

witnessing instructors. All group facilitators had to apply appropriate rewards. The goal is to ensure that all 

facilitators who teach a program are consistently carrying out this principle. Some instructors do this 

relatively well; however, an inmate may have that instructor for one aspect of a program, but a different 

instructor who does not do well on this for another aspect of the same program. Thus, there is no 

consistency between facilitators within the same program, and this is why some programs received points 

and others did not. 

Item 12 was determined through observation, interviews, and responses on confidential surveys. The 

researcher would often ask them how they conducted roleplays, how often they role played, what types of 

situations would they role play, etc. Most facilitators responded that they do not role play frequently, or 

some admitted they do not role play, or that they do role play extremely poorly. 










Day Reporting 

Sentenced Offenders, Minimum Security and Low and Medium Security, 

Eligible for Alternative Sentencing Program 

Reduce substance use and abuse; Give back to the community to make 

amends for past crimes through community service. 

The Day Reporting Program is an Alternative Sentencing Program that 

combines 4 hours of Substance Abuse education and 4 hours of 

community service each work day. This program is authorized by 

California Penal Code Section 4024.2 and administered by the Santa 

Clara Department of Correction. The Screening for eligible participants 

is completed by the Inmate Screening Unit and the participants are 

monitored by the Programs Unit. While working in the program the 

participant receives credit for one day time served for each 8-10 hours 

day on the program. The substance Abuse class is taught by Milpitas 

Adult Education. While in the program the participant is subject to all 

applicable rules and regulations as set forth by the department. 

Participants in the program may be assigned to work at various different 

work sites throughout the County. The person reports to the DRC 

Monday through Friday, from 8:00 am-4:00 pm. 

15 hours Substance Abuse Education per week; Community Service 

Work. 

45 days 




Support 

70.0% Highly Effective 







STRENGTHS 


1. There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the Day Reporting program. 



4. Group facilitators consistently attend staff meetings to review client progress (i.e., bimonthly at 






minimum). 



6. Ethical guidelines are in place for Day Reporting facilitators. 

7. The institution/stakeholders provide support for the facilitation of the Day Reporting programming. 

Treatment 

1. The primary focus of the Day Reporting program is on a criminogenic need area, substance 

abuse. 

2. Facilitators associated with the Day Reporting program appear knowledgeable of the material 

being taught. 


4. Group norms for Day Reporting participants are established. 

5. Day Reporting groups are consistently conducted by the facilitator. 





8. Day Reporting group facilitators appear to have established rapport and boundaries with the group 

participants. 


1. Staff completes a discharge summary for each Day Reporting participant upon completion of the 

program. 




treatment programs (see CPC-GA Requirements in Appendix). 

2. Facilitators have minimal initial training related to the group curriculum, and the requirements for 

yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate. 


1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out participants who are not substance 

abusers; therefore, some offenders participate even if they are not addicted. Nationally, it is 

recommended that the percentage of inappropriate matches should not exceed 20%. The 

offenders who do not meet criteria can be channeled into other inmate programs to ensure that 

they are involved in constructive activities and to avoid idleness. 

2. There is no objective, validated or standardized risk assessment given to determine if the 

offenders are low, medium, or high risk for reoffending once released from the DOC. Without this 

type of assessment, it is difficult to determine if at least 70% of offenders are assessed as medium 

to high risk. 

3. The offender’s criminogenic needs and responsivity characteristics are not yet assessed using a 

validated, standardized, and objective assessment instrument that clearly documents which 






offenders require this program. Thus, some offenders may be required to participate in the 

program which does not meet their needs. 

4. Day Reporting does not target high risk offenders (to reoffend); thus, low and medium risk 

offenders may be receiving services that they do not need. 

Treatment 

1. Day Reporting is not a treatment program (it is an alternative sentencing program) but an 

education program which research has shown is not sufficient to lead to long-lasting behavior 

change. 




3. Day Reporting groups can contain both men and women in the same group. Groups should be 

single sex groups. 

4. Groups can be interrupted due to crisis issues thus reducing the continuity of treatment. 


reinforced. Homework should be consistently given and then reviewed by the facilitators. 

6. The length of the Day Reporting program is sufficient to affect behavior change. Group length 

should be at least 100 hours for medium risk offenders and 200 or more hours for high risk 

offenders. 




8. Group size is larger than 8-10 participants with only one facilitator in the group. The optimum size 

for effective group treatment is 8-10 participants per facilitator. 






12. Group facilitators do not always respond appropriately to noncompliance issues. 


14. Prosocial alternatives to anti-social behaviors are not uniformly taught by facilitators nor are 

participants given adequate opportunities to role play prosocial behavior in increasingly difficult 



16. The Day Reporting program does not directly target offenders’ underlying attitudes, values, and 



18. Offenders discharged from the program do not routinely have a written Relapse Prevention Plan 

nor are the prosocial behaviors rehearsed to help them prepare for the triggers of relapse once 



1. Day Reporting groups are not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group 














evidenced based approach to substance abuse needs. Restructure as a Reentry Program with 

aftercare support services (education/employment assistance, federal benefits eligibility and 

assistance, mental health treatment referrals and case management, substance abuse treatment 

referrals and case management, medical referrals, mentoring support. (See Core Programs #5 

and 6, Chapter 5). 










Get Right 

High and Medium Security Men at Main Jail Housed in General 

Population, With Substance Abuse History. 

To reduce substance use and abuse for high and medium security male 

inmates who have a history of substance abuse issues. 

The Get Right program provides substance abuse education to men with 

a substance abuse history. Program participants also are taught the 

dynamics involving their abusive behavior in a violence prevention class, 

and further their education with GED preparation classes. Issues 

involving past trauma are addressed and skills to deal with these past 

issues are taught. Participants may also attend AA meetings and attend 

creative writing classes. 

3 hours Substance Abuse Education 3 times per week, 3 hours Violence 

Prevention per week; 1.5 hours Alcoholics Anonymous twice a week, 3 

hours GED Preparation twice a week, 2 hours Health Realization per 

week, 3 hours Trauma Recovery per week. 

90 days 




Support 








STRENGTHS 


1. There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the Get Right program. 





5. Ethical guidelines are in place for Get Right facilitators. 

6. The institution/stakeholders provide support for the facilitation of the Get Right programming. 

Treatment 

1. Get Right groups are offered to men solely. 

2. Facilitators associated with the Get Right program appear knowledgeable of the material being 





Get Right 

taught. 


4. Group norms for Get Right participants are established. 

5. Get Right groups are consistently conducted by the facilitator. 

6. The length of the Get Right program is sufficient to affect behavioral change. 



8. Group facilitators apply appropriate rewards within the context of the group (e.g., verbal praise, 


9. Get Right group facilitators appear to have established rapport and boundaries with the group 

participants. 


1. Staff completes a discharge summary for each Get Right participant upon completion of the 

group. 







3. Facilitators have minimal initial training related to the substance abuse and violence prevention 

group curricula, and the requirements for yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate. 










to high risk. 





4. Get Right does not target high risk offenders (to reoffend); thus, low and medium risk offenders 

may be receiving services that they do not need. 

Treatment 

1. The target of the Get Right program is on criminogenic need area, substance abuse. However, 

this is not the major focus of the group. The group receives more hours directed on non- 





Get Right 

criminogenic areas. Thus, the majority of the program’s time is not spent on a criminogenic need 

area. 

2. Get Right is not a treatment program but an education program which research has shown is not 





4. Groups can be interrupted due to crisis issues and/or pill count, thus reducing the continuity of 

treatment. 






7. Group size is larger than 8-10 participants with only one facilitator in the group. The Get Right 

program has a capacity of 64. The optimum size for effective group treatment is 8-10 participants 

per facilitator. 












15. The Get Right program does not directly target offenders’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs, 

or addresses antisocial thinking and high risk situations. 


17. Offenders discharged from the program do not routinely have a written relapse prevention plan 




1. Get Right groups are not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group delivery 

skills. 










Get Right 








HEALING OPPORTUNITY WITH POSITIVE ENFORCEMENT 

HOPE 

Target Population Minimum Security Men with Substance Abuse Histories who Deny Gang 

Affiliation 

Written Program Goals Reduce substance use and abuse and modify behavior. Upon 

completion, the inmate can transition to out of custody. 




A comprehensive substance abuse and behavior modification program 

for minimum security men. Men in this program are not required to 

engage in physical fitness or marching due to physical constraints. They 

are placed on case management with a Rehabilitation Officer where their 

interventions are coordinated and monitored, and they are assessed for 

sentence modifications making them eligible for an out-of-custody 

program. Men who complete successfully can be discharged to an outof-custody 

program with court approval where they will continue in 

programming for another 8-10 weeks. 

3 hours Substance Abuse Education daily (including Relapse 

Prevention), 3 hours Co-Dependency Education, 3 hours 

Communication Skills, 3 hours Job Readiness, 3 hours Parenting 

Education, 3 hours Trauma Recovery per week. 

8-10 weeks 




Support 





Overall Capacity 40.7% Ineffective 



STRENGTHS 


1. The program has adequate oversight and management by the DOC Program Manager. 

2. The program coordinator has relevant experience in jail programs. 

3. Program staff is supervised by the program coordinator. The program coordinator is involved in 

selecting the provider and is consulted on the retention of teachers. 


5. The program has the support of the Sheriff, judges in the Drug Court and probation staff. 

Treatment 






HOPE 

1. The program addresses substance abuse issues, relapse prevention and family relationships, 

some of the criminogenic needs contributing to recidivism. 

2. Groups consist of men only thus encouraging them to be open. 



4. The length is 8-10 weeks and involves 3 hours in the morning and 3 hours in the afternoon for a 

total of 18 hours of programming which is an adequate dosage for initiating behavioral change but 

not sufficient for long-lasting change. 

5. Non-English speaking men are coached by other men to help them better understand the 

materials. 

6. Positive reinforcement through rewards appears to be given. 

7. Groups are conducted by trained facilitators and not inmates. 



1. Only some of the staff meets the CPC-GA requirements for education and experience in 

correctional treatment programs. 

2. Not all group facilitators are selected for their skills in delivering treatment or their values as a 

treatment provider. 

3. Staff meetings are not routinely held at least bi-monthly by all facilitators. 

4. There are no formal, on-going training requirements for all facilitators. 




the percentage of inappropriate matches should not exceed 20%. 


low, medium or high risk for reoffending once released from the DOC. Without this type of 


risk. 


validated, standardized and objective assessment instrument that clearly documents which men 

require this program thus some may be required to participate in the program that does not meet 

their needs. 

4. HOPE does not assess which of the men require intensive interventions so some of the men may 

be receiving services that they do not need. Medium risk men are recommended to receive 100 

hours of intervention and high risk men are recommended to receive between 200-300 hours of 

intensive intervention. Low risk men are recommended to receive little to no interventions. 

Treatment 

1. The substance abuse program is the same for all inmates, regardless of individual need. It is not 

one of the evidence-based models thus the existing program may not demonstrate behavioral 

change. Examples of evidence-based models are cognitive behavioral, structured social learning, 






HOPE 

radical behavioral. 

2. This curriculum does not address trauma which is often prevalent with men housed in correctional 

facilities. (Note: The Trauma Recovery class addresses trauma related issues). 

3. Groups can be interrupted due to crisis issues within the unit thus reducing the continuity of 

treatment. 


reinforced. 




6. Group size can be as large as 64 men with one facilitator, thus exceeding the optimum size for 






9. Antisocial values and attitudes are not routinely recognized by facilitators or participants. 

10. Prosocial alternatives to antisocial behaviors are not uniformly taught by facilitators nor are men 


situations. 






1. Groups are not routinely observed. Once they are observed, teachers receive feedback from the 

observer. 


3. Client participation surveys are not routine. 



5. Only men approved by the court for Phase II will participate in the development of an Exit Plan; 

however, they are not provided a copy to guide them upon release. 



as a Cognitive Behavioral Treatment model (see overall recommendations Part II Chapter 5) 










HEART AND SOUL 

Women ages 15-24 years old in all custody levels 

Become aware of one’s identity; strengthen one’s faith; empowerment; 

deal with loss and grief, improve healthy relationships with family, 

children, community and God. 

Heart and Soul is a ministry of restoration for women to increase the 

women’s self-awareness of identity, spiritual empowerment, healthy 

relationships with family, children, community and God and in coping 

skills in dealing with loss and grief. 

Family relationships, loss and grief, healthy relationships, conflict 

resolution, domestic violence, parenting effectiveness, communication 

skills, goal setting, guilt and shame. 

22 hours; Offered 3-4 times a year 




Support 








STRENGTHS 


1. The program has a coordinator that oversees and manages the groups. 

2. The program coordinator selects, approves, supervises and fires the group facilitators. 

3. The program coordinator has a Master’s Degree in Divinity and has served as Chaplain for 5 

years in the jail. 

4. The program coordinator selects staff on their commitment to spiritual values, teaching 

experience, counseling background working with women and their Bachelor’s Degree. 

5. Prior to teaching alone, each facilitator observes the class of an experienced facilitator for 10 

weeks where they see how each of the 10 classes are taught. 

6. The program coordinator conducts weekly staff meetings with the facilitators/teachers. 

7. The facilitators receive 20 hours of specialized training and 4 hours of Chaplaincy Security training 

on an annual basis. (Note: 40 hours is recommended). 

8. The program is guided by the program’s written Volunteer Rules of Conduct and the DOC Ethical 






Guidelines. 

9. The program has the support of the DOC administration, judges, probation staff, and faith-based 

organizations. The program was so popular with the women that it was expanded to the men 

units. 

Treatment 

1. The program consists of women only and addresses issues specific to women. 

2. Facilitators are knowledgeable of the curriculum because they receive 25 hours of curriculum 

training, class observation by the program coordinator, and continuing feedback given by the 

program coordinator after each session. 

3. Facilitators encourage participation by calling on them to express their ideas. The participant is 

actively involved in discussing the material and applying it to their daily lives. 

4. A Manual is provided to each facilitator based on the 10 topical lessons. The Manual outlines the 

goals, provides the content to discuss, handouts, class exercises, and homework. The addiction 

content is based on Stephanie Covington’s gender-specific addiction model. 

5. Homework is assigned for some of the topics. (Note: homework is recommended for all topics). 

6. There is one group rule (to respect one another), facilitators teach and model this rule. 

7. Groups are conducted by the facilitator and not the inmate. 

8. Groups are usually 8 participants but at times will go to 14, a co-facilitator is provided for groups 

over 8. 

9. Participants who cannot keep up are permitted to be present but do not have to verbally 

participate. The facilitator connects with them after class one-on-one. 

10. Participants are given the opportunity to demonstrate communication skills through class 

exercises, scenarios and role plays. 

11. A certificate of completion is given at the end of successful completion. 

12. The facilitator establishes rapport with the individual through brief interactions during the week and 

through pastoral counseling, and the facilitator models respect to others and expects each 

participant to comply. 

13. Facilitators set boundaries in accordance with the Chaplaincy Training Manual and the DOC 

Rules. 

14. Faith and ethics are discussed frequently. 


1. Program coordinator gives immediate feedback after each session and discusses modifications 

before the next session. 

2. Each participant completes a self-satisfaction survey at the end of the 8 weeks. 

3. Some of the sessions use a posttest. 

4. Near the end of the program, the facilitator conducts exit planning with each participant where 

they identify expectations for life outside of jail and identify resources to support the women in the 

community. 








1. Not all facilitators have a degree in the helping profession nor have all of them had experience 

working in a correctional setting. They are selected if they have conducted groups with women in 

a church setting. 

2. Forty hours of annual in-service training is not mandated. 


1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out participants who need this program. 

2. There is no objective, validated or standardized risk assessment given to determine the risk level 

of each of the participants. 

3. The participant’s criminogenic needs and responsivity characteristics are not yet assessed using a 


participant requires this program thus some may be required to participate in the program that 

does not meet their needs. 

4. The program does not assess to determine which of the participants require intensive 

interventions so some of the participants may be receiving services that they do not need. Medium 

risk participants are recommended to receive 100 hours of intervention and high risk participants 

are recommended to receive between 200-300 hours of intensive intervention. Low risk 

participants are recommended to receive little to no interventions. 

Treatment 

1. The program does not focus on the criminogenic targets that research has found is correlated with 

recidivism. Topics are not scientifically associated with recidivism--family of origin, guilt and 

shame, friends, parenting, communication skills, romantic relationships, lack of goals are not 

criminogenic needs. While the program includes conflict resolution and domestic violence, which 

are criminogenic targets, the primary focus of the program is education with a spiritual focus. 

Research demonstrates that this is not sufficient to produce behavioral change. 

2. The program does not use evidence-based therapeutic models. 

3. Not all of the program lessons require homework, and when homework is given, it is not reviewed. 

4. The program has structured lesson plans but there is no formal sequence of order to the lessons. 

5. The length of the program (8 weeks) is not sufficient to produce long-lasting behavioral change. 

6. Rewards are limited to a certificate given after 4 and 8 weeks. 

7. Punishers are limited to removal from the program. 

8. Peers are not taught to coach other participants in “prosocial behaviors”. 

9. Underlying thoughts/values, antisocial values and attitudes are not a primary focus of the 

program. 

10. Prosocial alternatives to antisocial behaviors are not taught or modeled by facilitators. 

11. Participants do not practice or rehearse prosocial behavior in increasingly difficult simulated 

situations. Women participate in discussion and class exercises but it does not meet 40% of the 

total time nor is the content of the groups associated with antisocial values/attitudes and behaviors 

that are associated with recidivism. 

12. Persons discharged from the program do not have a written relapse prevention plan nor are the 

prosocial behaviors rehearsed to help them prepare for the triggers of relapse once discharged to 






the community. 


1. Some of the sessions have a posttest but the program does not measure the gains from 

participating in the program using a pretest followed by a posttest. 

2. There are no other completion criteria for the program but attendance. 

3. There is no written discharge summary provided at the end of the program. 


• Discontinue: Faith-based services provide valuable services to 1) expose inmates to various faiths 

2) strengthen one’s faith 3) improve one’s overall emotional well-being. However, the lack of 

spiritual values has not been scientifically associated with a reduction in recidivism. None of the 

topics have been scientifically associated with criminal behavior thus program provides minimal 

support for reducing future recidivism. 










LITERACY IN FAMILIES TOGETHER 

LIFT 

All Inmates who are Parents with Small Children. 

Break the inmate’s cycle of low literacy skills and incarceration; instruct 

inmates using quality children’s literature to teach their children and to 

make meaningful connections with them; teach inmates to become 

positive role models as mothers, fathers and caregivers; educate 

inmates to become a positive force as their child’s first teacher; empower 

children with literacy skills and self-esteem. 

An adult literacy program that emphasizes how to parent and stay 

connected with their child while their parent is incarcerated. The 

program provides information about how children learn, setting goals, 

importance of literacy, language acquisition, role modeling, 

communication, discipline, advocacy in school, influence of peers and 

siblings, importance of knowing family history. LIFT provides inmates 

the opportunity to read two children’s books to their children and teach a 

lesson at each group session. The books are sent home with the child 

for them to keep. 

3 hour Class in Parenting Education, Reading Children’s Books to 

Children 

8 weeks, one day a week for 2.5-3.0 hours, total of 12 sessions 




Support 








STRENGTHS 


1. The program has adequate oversight and management by the Santa Clara County Library 

coordinator. 

2. The program coordinator selects, approves, supervises and fires the teachers. 

3. The program coordinator selects staff on their literacy skills and values to work with offenders and 





LIFT 

their children. 

4. The program has the support of the DOC administration, judges and probation staff. 

Treatment 


1. Groups are single sex which encourages the parent to participate while minimizing their 

embarrassment. 

2. Groups go the entire time without interruptions. 



4. Group size is 12 or less which closely meets the optimum size of a group (8-10 participants). 

5. Groups are conducted by trained facilitators. 

6. The facilitator uses and follows structured manual (Father’s Program Guide for Men, Nine 

Candles for Women). 

7. Books are bilingual and non-English speaking participants are coached by other participants. 

8. Positive reinforcement through appropriate rewards appears to be given immediately and 

continually. 


1. A participant satisfaction survey is administered in English and in Spanish to participants at the 

end of the 8 th week. 



1. Facilitators do not meet the CPC-GA requirements for education and experience in correctional 


2. Staff meetings are not routinely held at least bi-monthly with the facilitators. 

3. There are no formal, on-going training requirements for all facilitators. 

4. There are no formal ethical guidelines used by the program coordinator or facilitators. 


1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out participants who are not parents. 












LIFT 

4. LIFT does not assess to determine which of the participants require intensive interventions so 

some of the participants may be receiving services that they do not need. Medium risk participants 

are recommended to receive 100 hours of intervention and high risk participants are 

recommended to receive between 200-300 hours of intensive intervention. Low risk participants 

are recommended to receive little to no interventions. 

Treatment 

1. The program does not target the criminogenic targets that have shown to contribute to recidivism. 

2. The program does not deliver an evidence-based model. 


reinforced. 

4. The length of the program is not sufficient to produce behavioral change. 



6. Peers are not taught to coach other participants in prosocial behavior. 

7. Antisocial values and attitudes are not addressed in the program. 

8. Prosocial alternatives to antisocial behaviors are not taught by facilitators nor are participants 

given opportunities to role play prosocial behavior in increasingly difficult simulated situations. 

Rehearsals are provided for reading books and teaching a lesson to the children but they do not 

address the offender’s antisocial behavior. 




10. Punishers are not linked to reducing antisocial expressions or to promote behavior change. 

11. It does not appear that the facilitator has a range of punishers or responds to non-compliance. 

Facilitator indicates that no one needs punishment since they volunteer. 


1. Groups are not routinely observed by the coordinator. DOC observes group twice a year. Once 

they are observed, teachers receive feedback from the observer. 




4. Participants do not receive a written discharge plan with goals for them to continue to achieve 

once released from the program. 


• Discontinue: LIFT does not target criminogenic needs or behaviors nor does it address antisocial 

values or attitudes. 






M-8 

Medium Security Men 





Reduce substance use and abuse; reduce anger; increase life skills; 

increase job readiness skills; increase parenting skills; earn a GED; 

learn English. 

Substance abuse education program that is supplemented by other 

components that address special needs. M-8 programming is offered to 

men housed in 8 medium security housing units. Supplemental 

programming components include: GED preparations, ESL, 

communication skills, exit planning, AA meetings, NA meetings, 

parenting classes, and domestic violence classes. 

12-15 hours Substance Abuse Education per week, 15 hours GED per 

week, 15 hours Spanish/ESL per week, 3-9 hours Exit Planning, 6 hours 

Communication Skills, 6 hours Parenting Education, 1 hour NA per week 

per week, 1 hour Anger Management per week, 3 Hours Violence 

Prevention per week, 3 hours Co-Dependency Education per week, 1.5 

hours Alcoholics Anonymous per week, 15 hours GED per week. 

90 days for each program unit 




Support 








STRENGTHS 


1. There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the M-8 program. 





5. Ethical guidelines are in place for M-8 facilitators. 

6. The institution/stakeholders provide support for the facilitation of the M-8 programming. 


Treatment 


M-8 



1. The primary focus of the M-8 program is on a criminogenic need area, substance abuse. 

2. M-8 is a single sex group and delivered to only men. 

3. Facilitators associated with the M-8 program appear knowledgeable of the material being taught. 


5. Group norms for M-8 participants are established. 

6. The length of the M-8 program is sufficient to affect behavior change. 

7. M-8 groups are consistently conducted by the facilitator. 





10. M-8 group facilitators appear to have established rapport and boundaries with the group 

participants. 







3. Facilitators have minimal initial training related to the substance abuse group curriculum, and the 





the percentage of inappropriate matches should not exceed 20%. The men who do not meet 

criteria can be channeled into other inmate programs to ensure that they are involved in 

constructive activities and to avoid idleness. 


low, medium, or high risk for reoffending once released from the DOC. Without this type of 


risk. 


validated, standardized, and objective assessment instrument that clearly documents which men 

require this program. Thus, some men may be required to participate in the program which does 

not meet their needs. 

4. M-8 does not target high risk men (to reoffend); thus, low and medium risk men may be receiving 

services that they do not need. 

Treatment 

1. M-8 is not a treatment program but an education program which research has shown is not 






M-8 





treatment. 


reinforced. 




6. The optimum size for effective group treatment is 8-10 participants per facilitator. M-8 does not 

meet this criterion. 








12. Prosocial alternatives to anti-social behaviors are not uniformly taught by facilitators nor are men 


situations. 


14. The M-8 program does not directly target offenders’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs, or 

addresses antisocial thinking and high risk situations. 






1. M-8 groups are not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group delivery skills. 





5. Formal discharge summaries are not prepared for completers of the M-8 program. 











MY STORI 

Minimum Security Women (not pregnant) who are unable to meet the 

physical requirements RCP. 

To reduce substance use and abuse for minimum security female 

inmates who have a history of substance abuse issues. 


MY STORI is a gender specific substance abuse education program that 

is supplemented by other programmatic components. In addition to 

substance abuse education, women explore past traumatic issues and 

learn skills to cope with these issues. Women also are taught to 

understand how their thoughts are formed and experiences are created. 

Previous issues of domestic violence are addressed and how to deal 

with these matters are addressed. Women also take parenting classes 

and learn skills to be a good parent. Participants also participate in 

computer technology classes. Participants are encouraged to participate 

in a women’s support group called Women’s Circle in the community. 

Classes Offered 3 hours Substance Abuse Education per day; 2 hours 

Codependency/Parenting; 3 hours Health Realization; 3 hours Computer 

Class; 3 hours Domestic Violence Education; 3 hours Trauma Recovery; 

3 hours LIFT Parenting; 2 hours Meditation; 3 hours PACT Parenting; 3 

hours PACT Visit per week; Community Mentor 


8-10 Weeks 




Support 








STRENGTHS 


1. There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the MY STORI program. 








MY STORI 

5. Ethical guidelines are in place for MY STORI facilitators. 

6. The institution/stakeholders provide support for the facilitation of the MY STORI programming. 

Treatment 


1. The focus of the MY STORI program is on criminogenic need area, substance abuse. 

2. MY STORI groups are offered to women solely. 

3. Facilitators associated with the MY STORI program appear knowledgeable of the material being 

taught. 


5. Group norms for MY STORI participants are established. 

6. MY STORI groups are consistently conducted by the facilitator rather than the inmate. 

7. The length of the MY STORI program is sufficient to affect behavioral change. 





10. MY STORI group facilitators appear to have established rapport and boundaries with the group 

participants. 


















to high risk. 





4. MY STORI does not target high risk offenders (to reoffend); thus, low and medium risk offenders 





MY STORI 

may be receiving services that they do not need. 

Treatment 

1. MY STORI is not a treatment program but an education program which research has shown is not 






treatment. 






6. Group size larger than 8-10 participants with only one facilitator in the group. The MY STORI 

program has a capacity of 30-40. The optimum size for effective group treatment of 8-10 

participants per facilitator. 












14. The MY STORI program does not directly target offenders’ underlying attitudes, values, and 







1. MY STORI groups are not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group delivery 

skills. 





5. Formal discharge summaries are not prepared for MY STORI completers. 



MY STORI 
















Program about Change and Experience (PACE) 

Medium Security Men in Protective Custody. 

Reduce substance use and abuse; modify anti-social behavior; reduce 

trauma; increase literacy; participate in group therapy. Note: these 

participants are not case managed. 

Participants receive substance abuse education, and receive adult 

literacy training on how to stay connected with their child while 

incarcerated. Participants also explore past traumatic issues and 

discuss how to deal with these matters. 

9 hours per week of Substance Abuse Education, 3 hours LIFT 

Parenting, 3 hours Trauma Group Therapy; 3 hours Art education per 

week. 

90 days 




Support 








STRENGTHS 


1. There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the PACE program. 





5. Ethical guidelines are in place for PACE facilitators. 

6. The institution/stakeholders provide support for the facilitation of the PACE programming. 

Treatment 

1. The focus of the PACE program is on criminogenic need area, substance abuse. 

2. PACE groups are offered to men solely. 

3. Facilitators associated with the PACE program appear knowledgeable of the material being taught. 


5. Group norms for PACE participants are established. 






6. PACE groups are consistently conducted by the facilitator. 

7. The length of the PACE program is sufficient to affect behavioral change. 





10. PACE group facilitators appear to have established rapport and boundaries with the group 

participants. 


















to high risk. 





4. PACE does not target high risk offenders (to reoffend); thus, low and medium risk offenders may 

be receiving services that they do not need. 

Treatment 

1. PACE is not a treatment program but an education program which research has shown is not 






treatment. 











6. The size for PACE groups is larger than 8-10 participants with only one facilitator in the group. 

The optimum size for effective group treatment is 8-10 participants per facilitator. 












14. The PACE program does not directly target offenders’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs, or 







1. PACE groups are not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group delivery 

skills. 





5. Formal discharge summaries are not prepared for PACE completers. 














PARENTS AND CHILDREN TOGETHER 

PACT 

Minimum and Medium Security Women 

Facilitate the development of a positive parent/child relationship; rebuild 

positive, trusting, honest relationships between parent/child which begins 

to deal with the child’s pain of separation; assist parents who will reunify 

with their children; provide structured parent-child visitations. 

A social skills and parenting skills training program for women with 

children that is a court-ordered program by the Dependency Court and 

the Social Services Agency. Women learn and practice conflict 

resolution and violence prevention techniques; women are educated on 

the four stages of child development; practice age-appropriate 

communication techniques; identify three positive discipline alternatives 

to corporal punishment; demonstrate an understanding of the negative 

effects of corporal punishment; list and practice methods for stress 

management and anger management; practice parenting skills, playing 

with children and communicating love in supervised visits; develop skills 

in communicating and cooperating with their social worker and/or child’s 

care giver; understand and acknowledge the impact on children when 

their parents are incarcerated. Structured contact visits with their 

children under the age of 12 are provided each week in a child-friendly 

room. DOC Rehabilitation Officers work with social workers and 

dependency court staff to coordinate the visits, monitor and document 

progress. 

The classes focus on family conflict resolution skills, family relationship 

skills and communication, parenting/healthy disciplining skills. 

30 hour program, 15 weeks. Groups are held once a week for 3 hours 

each; group therapy is 1 hour and child visit is 2 hours once a week. 




Support 



Treatment 66.7% Highly Effective 

Quality Assurance 60.0% Effective 

Overall Capacity 86.7% Highly Effective 

Overall Content 47.6% Needs Improvement 

Overall Score 57.9% Effective 




PACT 

STRENGTHS 




1. The program has a full-time coordinator that oversees and manages the groups. 


3. The program coordinator selects staff on their skills and values to deliver the curriculum. 

4. The program coordinator is a licensed social worker and has worked for the corrections system for 

many years. 

5. Group facilitators have a bachelor’s degree in social work, have conducted women’s groups 

previously, have experience in court-ordered programs, and have knowledge with women’s 

issues. 

6. Program coordinator has staff meetings once a week dealing with issues that arise in class, 

effective delivery of the curriculum, child development issues, and management issues within the 

corrections system. 

7. Program coordinator supervises each staff member once a week, observes their classes and 

gives them immediate feedback. 

8. Group facilitators and the program coordinator receive 36 hours of formal, annual training, and are 

awarded CEUs for their training, including NASW Code of Ethics training. 

9. The program has the support of the DOC administration, judges, probation staff and the Social 

Services Agency. 

Treatment 

1. The program uses social skills training and group therapy with an emphasis on family 

relationships, which are evidence-based treatment modalities. 

2. Groups are women only thus minimizing their stress. 

3. Facilitators have the educational credentials and experience to conduct groups and are specially 

trained in the Handbook, how to teach the curriculum and how to conduct role plays. 

4. Homework is regularly assigned and reviewed to reinforce the lessons learned in groups. 

5. Facilitators encourage participation, establish rapport, and guide the groups in accordance with 

the P.A.C.T. Rules (written ground rules for participation). 

6. Group size is 15-18 participants with two group facilitators, which meets the recommended 

number of co-facilitators for the size of the group. 

7. Groups are conducted by trained facilitators rather than inmates. 

8. The facilitator follows a structured 15-week program, uses a Handbook that outlines specific topics 

that build on one another from week 1 to week 15. The Handbook provides the content to 

discuss, class exercises, the role play to use and the homework to be assigned. 

9. Women who are non-English speaking are coached by other participants. 

10. Prosocial values and behaviors are regularly reinforced through continuing praise, earning a 

certificate at 20 hours and then a second certificate at 30 hours of completion on the final exam, 

and a positive report to the Dependency Court. There is more than one reward available. 

11. The group facilitator and the program coordinator provide immediate reinforcement, explain why 

they gave the reward and describe how the behavior should be used in reality. 






PACT 

12. Peers are encouraged to provide feedback to each other when they display effective parenting 

techniques, they recognize and promote prosocial behavior with the children and point out 

negative behaviors that are discussed in the group. 

13. There is evidence of a variety of appropriate punishers and response to non-compliance from 

warning, explanation of the behavior that is expected, deny the participant a visit with their child, 

suspension or termination. PACT rules are read and discussed at each weekly session. 

14. Prosocial alternatives to inappropriate behavior are taught by the group facilitator and reinforced 

by the program coordinator since the coordinator participates in all groups. Group facilitators give 

reasons why punishers are given and what the participant needs to change. 

15. Fifty percent of each group session is spent in practicing and rehearsing alternative prosocial 

behavior and receiving corrective feedback to improve skills. (Note: at least 40% of the total 

number of hours of group treatment should be allocated to rehearsal of skills). 


1. The program coordinator observes all groups every Friday morning and the visits with the children 

in the afternoon. 

2. Program coordinator provides feedback to each group facilitator on their knowledge and delivery 

of the curriculum, communication skills, group facilitation and conflict resolution skills. (Note: 

supervisor observation and feedback is recommended at a minimum once every group cycle or 

quarterly if the group has no cycle). 

3. A participant satisfaction survey is administered after each visit and the survey is administered in 

English and in Spanish. 

4. A pre and post survey is administered using an objective evaluation instrument (Adolescent Adult 

Parenting Inventory (AAPI) to measure their level of learning. 

5. Successful completion is linked to class participation in compliance with their participation 

agreement; homework assignments completed satisfactorily, acquisition of new knowledge and 

skills as evidenced by the AAPI and PACT Evaluations, satisfactory visits with their children, and 

satisfactorily completion of the 15-week curriculum. 

6. Participants receive a discharge summary that reports their completion of PACT requirements and 

a copy of the report are sent to the court and to the Social Services Agency. 



1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out participants who are not parents. 







4. PACT does not assess to determine which of the women require intensive interventions so some 

of the women may be receiving services that they do not need. Medium risk women are 






PACT 

recommended to receive 100 hours of intervention and high risk women are recommended to 

receive between 200-300 hours of intensive intervention. Low risk women are recommended to 

receive little to no interventions. 

Treatment 

1. The program does not target the criminogenic needs that have shown to contribute to recidivism. 

2. The class does not always go the entire time due to interruptions for pill call or for crisis in the 

units. 

3. The length of the program is not sufficient to produce long-lasting behavioral change. 




6. Prosocial alternatives to antisocial behaviors are not taught by facilitators nor are participants 

given opportunities to role play prosocial behavior in increasingly difficult simulated situations. 

Rehearsals are provided for parenting skills but they do not address the offender’s antisocial 

behavior. 





9. The annual in-service training is four hours short than what is recommended. 


• Continue with Modifications: Including cognitive restructuring components in this program would 

enhance its outcomes such as addressing the underlying antisocial values, attitudes and thinking 

patterns that are the basis of antisocial behaviors, modeling by the facilitator of prosocial 

alternatives to antisocial behaviors, practice and rehearsals that consist of at a minimum of 40% of 

the time in class. 






Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) Phase I—Men 

Minimum Security Men 





A three-phase program with the goal of reducing substance use and 

abuse and modify criminal behavior. Participants attend classes 

Monday-Friday from 8:00 am - 4:00 pm. The RCP program includes a 

physical and marching component. Upon successful completion, 

participants can transition to Phase II Out of Custody/Day Reporting and 

to Phase III Aftercare under the supervision of the Probation 

Department. 

R.C.P. – Phase 1, is an 8-10 week intensive in-custody program offered 

to minimum security inmates. Besides attending classes all day, 

participants also march and exercise daily. The R.C.P. program is a 

collaborative program between the Courts, the Dept. of Correction, 

Milpitas Adult Education and the Dept. of Probation. Most participants in 

the program are court referred and eligible to transition to the 2 nd phase 

of the program upon completing the 1 st phase. 

Physical Fitness, Marching, 15 hours Substance Abuse Education per 

week; 3 hours Co-Dependency Education; 3 hours Communication 

Skills; 3 hours Exit Planning; 4.5 hours Parenting Education; 6 hours 

Violence Prevention; 1 hour GED Preparation; 2 hours Creative Writing; 

3 hours World Cultures Education; 3 hours Health Realization; 3 hours 

Personal Inventory; 6 hours Anger Management; 3 hours Trauma 

Recovery per week. 

8-10 weeks 




Support 








STRENGTHS 


1. There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the RCP PHASE I program. 










5. Ethical guidelines are in place for RCP PHASE I facilitators. 

6. The institution/stakeholders provide support for the facilitation of the RCP PHASE I programming. 

Treatment 

1. RCP PHASE I groups are offered to men solely. 

2. Facilitators associated with the RCP PHASE I program appear knowledgeable of the material 

being taught. 


4. Group norms for RCP PHASE I participants are established. 

5. RCP PHASE I groups are consistently conducted by the facilitator. 

6. The length of the RCP PHASE I program is sufficient to affect behavioral change. 





9. RCP PHASE I group facilitators appear to have established rapport with group participants. 







3. Facilitators have minimal initial training related to the substance abuse group curriculum, and the 











to high risk. 










4. RCP PHASE I does not target high risk (to reoffend) offenders; thus, low and medium risk 


Treatment 

1. The focus of the RCP Phase 1 program is on criminogenic need area, substance abuse. 

However, this is not the major focus of the group. The group receives more hours directed on 

non-criminogenic areas. Thus, the majority of the program’s time is not spent on a criminogenic 

need area. 

2. RCP PHASE I is not a treatment program but an education program which research has shown is 

not sufficient to lead to long-lasting behavior change. 




4. The range of punishers is limited. Moreover, there is a reliance on marching, shaming, and 

physical exercise (e.g., push-ups) as punishers. These types of punishers have not been 

demonstrated to serve as an effective tool for behavioral change, and should not be used as a 

means to demonstrate disapproval. 


treatment. 






8. The group size for RCP PHASE I groups is larger than 8-10 participants with only one facilitator in 

the group. The Men’s RCP Phase I group can be as large as 80 participants with one facilitator. 






11. Group facilitators do not always respond appropriately to noncompliance issues and clear 

boundaries are not established between the facilitator and group participants. 






15. The RCP PHASE I program does not directly target offenders’ underlying attitudes, values, and 












1. RCP PHASE I groups are not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group 






5. Formal discharge summaries are not prepared for RCP PHASE I completers. 


• Continue with modifications: Restructure the program with a cognitive behavioral and structured 

social learning model (see overall recommendations). 









Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) Phase I—Women 

Minimum Security Women 


Also a three-phase program to reduce substance use and abuse with a 

gender focus; reduce trauma. 

R.C.P. – Phase 1, is an 8-10 week intensive in-custody program offered 

to minimum security inmates. Besides attending classes all day, 

participants also march and exercise daily. The R.C.P. program is a 

collaborative program between the Courts, the Dept. of Correction, 

Milpitas Adult Education and the Dept. of Probation. Most participants in 

the program are court referred and eligible to transition to the 2 nd phase 

of the program upon completing the 1 st phase. 

Physical Fitness, Marching, 15 hours Substance Abuse Education per 

week; 3 hours Co-Dependency Education; 3 hours Job Readiness; 4.5 

hours Parenting Education; 3 hours Violence Prevention; 1.5 hours GED 

Preparation; 1 hour Personal Inventory; 3 hours advanced Computer 

Class; 3 hours Relapse Prevention; 3 hours Trauma Recovery per week 

8-10 weeks 




Support 








STRENGTHS 


1. There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the RCP PHASE I program. 





5. Ethical guidelines are in place for RCP PHASE I facilitators. 

6. The institution/stakeholders provide support for the facilitation of the RCP PHASE I programming. 

Treatment 

1. RCP PHASE I groups are offered to women solely. 






2. Facilitators associated with the RCP PHASE I program appear knowledgeable of the material 

being taught. 


4. Group norms for RCP PHASE I participants are established. 

5. RCP PHASE I groups are consistently conducted by the facilitator. 

6. The length of the RCP PHASE I program is sufficient to affect behavioral change. 





9. RCP PHASE I group facilitators appear to have established rapport with group participants. 


















to high risk. 





4. RCP PHASE I does not target high risk offenders (to reoffend); thus, low and medium risk 


Treatment 

1. The focus of the RCP Phase 1 program is on criminogenic need area, substance abuse. 



need area 

2. RCP PHASE I is not a treatment program but an education program which research has shown is 










4. The range of punishers is limited. Moreover, there is a reliance on marching, shaming, and 

physical exercise (e.g., push-ups) as punishers. These types of punishers have not been 

demonstrated to serve as an effective tool for behavioral change, and should not be used as a 

means to demonstrate disapproval. 


treatment. 






8. The group size for RCP PHASE I groups is larger than 8-10 participants with only one facilitator in 

the group. The Women’s RCP Phase I group can be as large as 60 participants with one 

facilitator. The optimum size for effective group treatment is 8-10 participants per facilitator. 





11. Group facilitators do not always respond appropriately to noncompliance issues and clear 

boundaries are not established between the facilitator and group participants. 






15. The RCP PHASE I program does not directly target offenders’ underlying attitudes, values, and 







1. RCP PHASE I groups are not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group 






5. Formal discharge summaries are not prepared for RCP PHASE I completers. 







• Continue with modifications: Restructure the program with a cognitive behavioral and structured 

social learning model (see overall recommendations). 










Regimented Corrections Program (RCP) Phase II 

Sentenced Minimum Security Men and Women who have completed the 

Phase I RCP; No Holds; Clean and Sober Living Environment; Remain 

Clean and Sober 

Continue to support the offender in reducing their relapse to substance 

use and abuse while living in the community; connect participants with 

community resources to aid in their sobriety and non-criminal lifestyle. 

R.C.P. – Phase II, is an 8-10 week intensive out-of-custody program 

offered to men and women who have completed RCP Phase I and meet 

with all the requirements set forth by the Courts and the Dept. of 

Correction. At the DRC, the Rehab Officers provide case management 

and connect participants to community resources. Correctional officers 

provide security and structure and classes are taught by Milpitas Adult 

Education teachers. This program is located in the day reporting center. 

15 hours Substance Abuse Education per week; 3 hours Job Readiness; 

3 hours Parenting Education; 3 hours Health Realization; 3 hours 

Personal Inventory; 3 hours Anger Management; 3 hours Relapse 

Prevention; 5 hours 12-Step; 2 hours Parenting Education for men with 

young children per week 

8-10 weeks 




Support 








STRENGTHS 


1. There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the RCP Phase II program. 





5. Ethical guidelines are in place for RCP Phase II facilitators. 

6. The institution/stakeholders provide support for the facilitation of the RCP Phase II programming. 


Treatment 





1. Facilitators associated with the RCP Phase II program appear knowledgeable of the material being 

taught. 


3. Group norms for RCP Phase II participants are established. 

4. RCP Phase II groups are consistently conducted by the facilitator. 

5. The length of the RCP Phase II program is sufficient to affect behavioral change. 





8. Group Facilitators respond appropriately to non-compliance. 

9. RCP Phase II group facilitators appear to have established rapport with group participants. 

10. Facilitators appear to avoid argumentation and roll with resistance. 


1. Group participants are surveyed regarding their satisfaction with the program. 

2. Formal discharge summaries are prepared for RCP PHASE II completers. 


















to high risk. 





4. RCP Phase II does not target high risk (to reoffend) offenders; thus, low and medium risk 







Treatment 

1. The focus of the RCP Phase II program is on criminogenic need area, substance abuse. 



need area 

2. RCP Phase II is not a treatment program but an education program which research has shown is 





4. RCP Phase II groups are co-ed. Groups should be delivered in a single sex format. 

5. Groups can be interrupted due to crisis issues. 






8. The group size for RCP Phase II Groups is larger than 8-10 participants with only one facilitator in 

the group. The Men’s RCP Phase II group can be as large as 50 participants with one facilitator. 











14. The RCP Phase II program does not directly target offenders’ underlying attitudes, values, and 







1. RCP Phase II groups are not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group 











• Continue with Modifications: Incorporate the cognitive behavioral and structured social learning 

model with emphasis on reentry. Restructure as a Reentry Program with aftercare support 

services (education/employment assistance, federal benefits eligibility and assistance, mental 

health treatment referrals and case management, substance abuse treatment referrals and case 

management, medical referrals, mentoring support (see Core Programs #5 and 6, Chapter 5)). 










ROADMAP TO RECOVERY 

High Medium and Maximum Security Men and Women with Addiction 

issues 

Learn the connection between substance abuse addiction, behavior and 

criminal activity; learn the Stages of Change by Prochaska and 

DiClemente; reduce anger; learn problem solving skills; adapt 

responsible thinking skills; expand occupational skills; achieve academic 

success. Offer programming to inmates who would otherwise not be 

eligible for programming due to their security and classification levels. 

Individualized, self-taught manualized program published by The 

Change Company teaches the linkage between substance abuse, 

antisocial values and attitudes with criminal behavior. A trained facilitator 

coaches the participant through the 16 manuals, reviews and grades 

homework and discusses topics outlined in the manual on a weekly 

basis. 

16 Individualized Journals Addressing Addictive Behavior and Criminal 

Activity 

8 weeks, 16 journals. 




Support 








STRENGTHS 


1. The program has a coordinator that oversees and manages the program. 

2. The program coordinator directly selects, approves, supervises and fires the facilitators. 


4. The facilitator is an experienced Rehabilitation Coordinator who has worked for the corrections 

system for many years, is trained in Motivational Interviewing, drug education and The Change 

Company curriculum. 

5. The facilitator has a bachelor’s degree in the helping profession, has conducted groups previously 

at the DOC and has extensive experience as a Rehabilitation Coordinator coordinating inmate 





programs. 

6. The facilitator adheres to the ethical guidelines of the DOC. 

7. The program has the support of the DOC administration, judges and probation staff. 

Treatment 


1. The program targets medium and high risk participants. 

2. The facilitator has the educational credentials and experience to coach the participant through the 

Journaling Program and is specially trained in the Journals through a Teacher’s Guide. 

3. Homework is regularly assigned to reinforce the lessons learned in the Manuals and is reviewed 

by the facilitator at each session. 

4. The facilitator encourages participation, establishes rapport, and guides the participant through 

the Manuals. 

5. The facilitator follows a structured 8-week program and uses 16 Journals. The Participant and 

Facilitator’s Journal provides the content to discuss, exercises, and the homework to be assigned. 

6. The facilitator is required to be bi-lingual to communicate with non-English speaking participants. 

7. The program addresses underlying thoughts/values, antisocial thinking and high-risk situations. 

8. The facilitator teaches and models prosocial values, thinking patterns and behaviors. 


1. Program coordinator/facilitator reviews the completed journal and gives immediate feedback on 

completeness of their answers, honesty, and evidence that they are learning the material. 

2. A participant satisfaction survey is administered at the end of the completion of the 16 journals. 

3. Successful completion is linked to satisfactorily completion of 16 journals. 




abusers. 


of the participant. 





4. Roadmap does not assess to determine which of the men require intensive interventions so some 

of the men may be receiving services that they do not need. Medium risk men are recommended 

to receive 100 hours of intervention and high risk men are recommended to receive between 200- 

300 hours of intensive intervention. Low risk men are recommended to receive little to no 

interventions. 

Treatment 

1. The program is not a group treatment program where cognitive behavioral skills are taught, 

modeled, practiced and rehearsed. 






2. The length of the program is not sufficient to produce lasting behavioral change. 

3. Rewards are appropriate to the program such as praise, a certificate and a positive report to the 

court. 

4. Punishers are limited to a warning, removal from the program and a negative report to the court. 

5. Peers are not involved in promoting prosocial behavior or providing support to one another. 





1. Participants are not given a pre/posttest to measure the gains in their knowledge of the material. 

2. There is no completion criterion that is related to acquiring prosocial behaviors, attitudes and 

beliefs. 

3. Participants do not receive a written discharge plan with goals for them to achieve once released 



• Continue for low-risk and low-need inmates and Discontinue for medium and high risk and need 

inmates. A self-guided program such as this is more appropriate for low-risk and low-need 

individuals. Inmates who are assessed as medium risk/high risk are recommended to be treated 

in separate groups within their security classification where participants can role play, practice and 

rehearse new skills in increasingly difficult situations and peers can support one another through 

recovery. It is recommended that the program be restructured for medium and high risk persons 

and be piloted in two groups within their security classification. 






THREE PRINCIPLES 

Men and Women in All Classification Levels 


Help participants learn how their thoughts were formed, how their 

experience was created and how they use or misuse their ability to think; 

learn how behaviors such as addictions occur as a result of a learned 

habitual way of trying to find relief from cluttered, confused thinking. With 

this understanding, participants are expected to change their criminal 

behavior. 

Program Description An insight-oriented education program that increases one’s 

understanding of how addiction is driven by unhealthy thinking patterns. 

Focuses on health rather than dysfunction or disease. 


Teaches the Three Principles of Mind, Thought and Consciousness. 


8 weeks, 12 hours to complete, 20 topics are covered 3 hours per week. 




Support 





Overall Capacity 66.7% Highly Effective 



STRENGTHS 





4. The program coordinator is specially trained in the Three Principles curriculum and has worked in 

the drug addiction treatment field for more than 5 years. 

5. The group facilitator has a master’s degree in psychology, has conducted addiction groups 

previously, and has experience in court-ordered programs. 

6. Group facilitators satisfactorily complete an 8-month Academy training on the Three Principles 

and complete 12-18 months internship as a therapist under the supervision of a trained 

supervisor. 






7. Group facilitators are required to participate in 2-day in-service training on the Three Principles 

once a year. 

8. The program is guided by the Code of Conduct by the Board of the Department of Drug and 

Addiction Services Board and the Board of Behavioral Sciences. 

9. The program has the support of the DOC administration, judges, and the probation staff. 

Treatment 

1. Groups are single-sex which encourages participation. 

2. Groups go the entire time. 

3. Facilitators have the educational credentials and experience to conduct groups and are specially 

trained in the Three Principles. 

4. Facilitators encourage rapport before teaching the material. 


6. The facilitator follows a structured 8-week program, teaches a total of 20 sessions. The staff 

Training Manual provides the content to discuss, class exercises, and the role play to use. 


1. Each participant completes the Friedman “Well-Being Survey” (a pre/posttest) administered at the 

end of program completion which evaluates their degree of anger, anxiety, stress, sadness, and 

level of calm before and after program completion. 

2. Successful completion is linked to class attendance and completion of the Well-Being Survey. 



1. Staff meetings are held quarterly rather than twice a month. 

2. Facilitators do not receive 40 hours of in-service training per year. 


1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out participants who do not have 

addiction issues and who do not have distorted thoughts. 












Treatment 

1. The program is an insight-based, mind-consciousness therapeutic model whereby the focus is on 






achieving health through self-realization. These approaches have not been scientifically proven to 

reduce recidivism among offenders. 

2. The program is not cognitive behavioral therapy program (CBT) where inmates are taught 

prosocial alternatives to antisocial values, attitudes and behaviors. CBT has scientifically proven 

to be effective in producing long-lasting behavior change in offenders. 


4. No homework is assigned; therefore, participants do not receive on-going positive reinforcement. 

5. There are no group rules established as the coordinator indicates that they do not need it. 

6. Group size is typically 1 facilitator to 20 participants, but the group has gotten as high as 1:100, 

which greatly exceeds the recommended size of groups. 

7. Facilitator calls on other inmates to translate if there is a participant who is non-English speaking. 

8. The program does not apply rewards as the philosophy is not to reward good behavior. The 

program expects evidence that the person is demonstrating insight about their thoughts and does 

not acknowledge prosocial behavior. 

9. Participants are not reinforced when they exhibit prosocial behavior as this is not the focus of the 

program. The focus is for the participant to recognize when and why their thoughts and feelings 

were formed. 



12. Prosocial alternatives to antisocial behaviors are not taught or modeled by facilitators as this is not 

the focus of the program. 


situations. 

14. Persons near discharge do not rehearse the potential triggers for relapse so they are prepared for 

discharge to the community. 


1. Program coordinator observes group and gives feedback once a year which is too infrequent. 

2. There is no separate participant satisfaction survey given, the Well-Being Survey serves as the 

participant satisfaction and the pre/post-test. 



• Discontinue: Because the Three Principles program is not a cognitive behavioral therapeutic 

model, it is recommended to be discontinued. For the recommendation to be “continue with 

modifications”, it would need to include cognitive restructuring components such as exposing the 

inmate’s underlying antisocial values, attitudes and thinking patterns that are the basis of their 

antisocial behaviors, teach prosocial attitudes, values, thinking patterns and behaviors, modeling 

by the facilitator of prosocial alternatives to antisocial behaviors, practice and rehearsals of 

prosocial behaviors that consist of at a minimum of 40% of the time in class. 










TRAUMA RECOVERY 

Minimum, Medium and High-Medium Security Males and Females 

Manage trauma symptoms; cope without the use of substances; prevent 

self-destructive acts; take good care of oneself; free oneself from 

abusive relationships; find safe support systems; find ways to feel good 

about oneself and to enjoy life. 

A trauma-informed social skills program that identifies and develops 

alternative mechanisms to deal with trauma, replaces distorted thinking 

patterns, coping skills for dealing with posttraumatic stress, conflict 

resolution skills to reduce violence, increase one’s understanding of how 

trauma affects relationships, contributes to distorted thinking and 

behaviors; help inmates deal effectively with grief and loss and cope with 

stress and anger; help inmates learn effective communication skills to 

improve their relationships. 

1.5 hours Didactic Education on Trauma; 1.5 hours Group Therapy per 

week. 

8 weeks, 3 hours a week for a total of 24 hours 




Support 








STRENGTHS 




3. The program coordinator is a registered nurse with extensive experience in custody mental health. 

4. The program coordinator selects staff on their commitment to treatment, counseling background in 

a custody setting, and licensure as a Marriage and Family Therapist. 

5. Group facilitators are required to receive 40 hours annually to maintain their licensure as a MFT. 

6. The program is guided by the Code of Conduct by the Board of Behavioral Sciences and the DOC 

Ethical Guidelines. 

7. The program has the support of the DOC administration and judges. The program was requested 

to expand to the men units as it was well received by the women and the staff. 


Treatment 





1. The program for women is based on the widely recognized trauma program entitled Seeking 

Safety by Shelton, a gender-based trauma-focused skills-based therapeutic model. 

2. Facilitators also use David Burns’ The Feeling Good Handbook, a book that describes the 

cognitive behavioral therapeutic approach at developing positive attitudes, identifying and 

replacing distorted thinking patterns with prosocial thinking patterns that lead to healthier 

relationships and learning prosocial behaviors through a series of self-assessment exercises. 

3. Groups consist of 1.5 hours of didactic education about the topics and 1.5 hours of group therapy 

discussing the lesson and how to apply the techniques. 

4. Groups are single-sex as they are delivered in male or female units. 

5. Groups go the entire three hours. 

6. Facilitators have the educational credentials and experience to conduct therapy groups and are 

specially trained in the Trauma Recovery program. 

7. Facilitators encourage participation in the program by building rapport with them and the group 

and through exercises. 


9. The facilitator is guided by a structured 8-week program, 3 hours each week. The staff Training 

Manual provides the content to discuss and class exercises. 


1. Each participant completes a self-satisfaction survey at the end of the 8 weeks. 



1. Not all facilitators are licensed or have credentials and experience in a helping profession in a 

correctional setting. 

2. Staff meetings are held monthly rather than twice a month. 

3. Non-MFT licensed facilitators do not receive 40 hours of in-service training annually. 


1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out participants who do not have trauma 

or addiction issues so participants may receive services they do not need. 

















Treatment 

1. The program does not focus on a criminogenic target that research has found contributes to 

recidivism. Depression, anxiety and trauma are not scientifically associated with recidivism. 

2. While the program includes a cognitive behavioral component, the primary focus of the program is 

education and talk-therapy without practice and rehearsal. Research demonstrates that this is not 

sufficient to produce behavioral change. 

3. While the materials allow for homework, none is given. 



6. Facilitator teaches and facilitates group discussion but does not model new skills. Prosocial 

alternatives to antisocial behaviors are not taught or modeled by facilitators. 


situations. 

8. Underlying thoughts/values, antisocial values and attitudes are a secondary focus of the program. 

9. Facilitators are not required to use the standard curriculum specifically as designed, the facilitators 

are permitted to add additional material or use other curriculum if they choose. This does not 

comply with the “fidelity principle” thus the intended results of the program will not be the same 

across all facilitators. 




11. Not all staff is bi-lingual. 


1. Program coordinator observes group and gives feedback once a year which is too infrequent. 

2. There is no pre/posttest given to measure knowledge gains or increase in skills as a result of the 

program. 


4. There is no discharge summary provided at the end of the program. 


• Continue with Modifications : Increasing the cognitive restructuring components of this program 

would enhance its outcomes such as addressing the underlying antisocial values, attitudes and 

thinking patterns that are the basis of antisocial behaviors, modeling by the facilitator of prosocial 

alternatives to antisocial behaviors, practice and rehearsals of prosocial behaviors that consist of 

at a minimum of 40% of the time in class and teaching peers to recognize and model prosocial 

behaviors. 










Veteran’s Educating to Succeed (VETS) 

Incarcerated Veterans Classified as Minimum Security 

Reduce substance use and abuse; connect veterans to Veterans’ 

Services and benefits; enable eligible veterans to obtain substance 

abuse treatment. 

V.E.T.S. substance abuse education program for veterans. In addition 

to substance abuse education, participants also address past traumatic 

experiences and how to cope with these issues. Participants also 

attempt how to understand how their thoughts were formed and 

experiences created, as well as explore the dynamics of healthy 

relationships. 

6 hours Substance Abuse Education per week; 3 hours Trauma 

Recovery; 3 hours Healthy Relationships Education; 3 hours Healthy 

Relationships Group Therapy per week 

8-10 weeks 




Support 








STRENGTHS 


1. There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the VETS program. 





5. Ethical guidelines are in place for VETS facilitators. 

6. The institution/stakeholders provide support for the facilitation of the VETS programming. 

Treatment 

1. VETS groups are offered to men solely. 

2. Facilitators associated with the VETS program appear knowledgeable of the material being taught. 







4. VETS groups are consistently conducted by the facilitator rather than the inmate. 

5. The length of the VETS program is sufficient to affect behavioral change. 





8. VETS group facilitators appear to have established rapport and boundaries with the group 

participants. 


















to high risk. 





4. VETS do not target high risk (offender) offenders; thus, low and medium risk offenders may be 

receiving services that they do not need. 

Treatment 

1. The stated target of the VETS program is on criminogenic need area, substance abuse. However, 

this is not the major focus of the group. The group receives more hours directed on noncriminogenic 

areas. Thus, the majority of the program’s time is not spent on a criminogenic need 

area. 

2. VETS is not a treatment program but an education program which research has shown is not 











treatment. 

5. Group norms for VETS participants are not established. 






8. The group size for VETS can be larger than 8-10 participants with only one facilitator in the group. 

The optimum size for effective group treatment of 8-10 participants per facilitator. 












16. The VETS program does not directly target offenders’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs, or 







1. VETS groups are not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group delivery skills. 





5. Formal discharge summaries are not prepared for participants who complete the VETS program. 


• Discontinue: Replace with core programming that matches Veterans’ needs with a core 

program(s) (see overall recommendations). 






Women Investigating New Gates for Sobriety (WINGS) 

Medium Security Females 





A gender-relevant program to reduce substance use and abuse and 

modify anti-social behavior. Graduates can transition to out of custody 

programs or community based programs. 

The WINGS program is a collaborative effort between the Courts, the 

Dept. of Correction, and Milpitas Adult Education. In addition to 

substance abuse education, women work on communication skills, 

enhance their education with GED preparation, and attended classes on 

the skills needed to be a good parent. Participants may also attend NA 

meetings. 

3 hours Substance Abuse Education daily, 3 hours Communication 

Skills; 6 hours GED Preparation; 1.5 hours Narcotics Anonymous; 3 

hours Trauma Recovery; 3 hours PACT Parenting; 3 hours PACT Visit 

per week 

90 days 




Support 








STRENGTHS 


1. There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the WINGS program. 





5. Ethical guidelines are in place for WINGS facilitators. 

6. The institution/stakeholders provide support for the facilitation of the WINGS programming. 

Treatment 

1. The primary focus of the WINGS program is on a criminogenic need area, substance abuse. 






2. WINGS is a single sex group and delivered to only women, thus encouraging them to be open. 

3. Facilitators associated with the WINGS program appear knowledgeable of the material being 

taught. 


5. Group norms for WINGS participants are established. 

6. The length of the WINGS program is sufficient to affect behavior change. 

7. WINGS groups are consistently conducted by the facilitator. 



9. Group facilitators apply appropriate rewards within the context of the group (e.g., verbal praise, 


10. WINGS group facilitators appear to have established rapport and boundaries with the group 

participants. 










1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out women who are not substance 

abusers; therefore, some women participate even if they are not addicted. Nationally, it is 

recommended that the percentage of inappropriate matches should not exceed 20%. The women 

who do not meet criteria can be channeled into other inmate programs to ensure that they are 

involved in constructive activities and to avoid idleness. 

2. There is no objective, validated or standardized risk assessment given to determine if the women 

are low, medium, or high risk for reoffending once released from the DOC. Without this type of 

assessment, it is difficult to determine if at least 70% of the women are assessed as medium to 

high risk. 



women require this program. Thus, some women may be required to participate in the program 

which does not meet their needs. 

4. WINGS does not target high risk (to reoffend) women; thus, low and medium risk women may be 

receiving services that they do not need. 

Treatment 

1. WINGS is not a treatment program but an education program which research has shown is not 











treatment. 


reinforced. 




6. Group size can be as large as 70-80 women with one facilitator, thus exceeding the optimum size 

for effective group treatment of 8-10 participants per facilitator. 












14. The WINGS program does not directly target offenders’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs, 

or addresses antisocial thinking and high risk situations. 


16. Women discharged from the program do not routinely have a written relapse prevention plan nor 

are the prosocial behaviors rehearsed to help them prepare for the triggers of relapse once 



1. WINGS groups are not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group delivery 

skills. 





5. A formal discharge summary is not prepared for women who complete the WINGS program. 














Willing Individuals in Substance Education (WISE) 

Minimum Security Male Inmate Workers with Substance Abuse issues 

Reduce substance use and abuse for inmate workers who are unable to 

attend classes during the day due to their work assignments. 

W.I.S.E is a 16-class Substance Abuse Program offered to Minimum 

Security inmates. The W.I.S.E. program was created mainly for inmates 

who work as Inmate Workers and are unable to attend classes during 

the day. The W.I.S.E. class meets 3 times a week in the evening from 

1900 hours to 2100 hours. W.I.S.E. participants are self-referred. 

6 hours Substance Abuse Education per week 

16 weeks 




Support 








STRENGTHS 


1. There is a program coordinator in place to oversee the WISE program. 

2. The program coordinator plays and active role in selecting program staff. 

3. The program coordinator plays role in supervising program staff who deliver treatment. 



5. Group facilitators attend staff meetings to review client progress at least bimonthly. 

6. Ethical guidelines are in place for WISE facilitators. 

7. The institution/stakeholders provide support for the facilitation of the WISE programming. 

Treatment 

1. The focus of the WISE program is on criminogenic need area, substance abuse. 

2. WISE groups are offered only to men. 

3. Facilitators associated with the WISE program appear knowledgeable of the material being taught. 







5. Group norms for WISE participants are established. 

6. WISE groups are consistently conducted by the facilitator. 





9. WISE group facilitators appear to have established rapport and boundaries with the group 

participants. 





2. Facilitators have minimal initial training related to the group curriculum, and the requirements for 

yearly trainings related to service delivery is inadequate. 










to high risk. 





4. WISE does not target high risk offenders; thus, low and medium risk offenders may be receiving 

services that they do not need. 

Treatment 

1. WISE is not a treatment program but an education program which research has shown is not 






treatment. 











6. The length of the WISE program is not sufficient to affect behavioral change. Research has 

demonstrated that high risk inmates should receive a minimum of 300 hours of programming, and 

medium risk offenders should receive a minimum of 200 hours of programming to impart 

behavioral change. 

7. The group size for WISE Groups is larger than 8-10 participants with only one facilitator in the 

group. The optimum size for effective group treatment is 8-10 participants per facilitator. 












15. The WISE program does not directly target offenders’ underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs, or 







1. WISE groups are not regularly observed with feedback given to facilitators on group delivery skills. 





5. Formal discharge summaries are not prepared for WISE completers. 



as a Cognitive Behavioral Treatment model. Offer other core programs to working inmates based 

on assessed risk and need (see overall recommendations). 










DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CURRICULUM 

Women with Histories of Abuse 

To create a safe environment whereby individuals can share their 

feelings and thoughts about being a victim of abuse and how to avoid it 

in the future by developing a safety plan. 

A gender-specific program offered to women who have been physically, 

verbally and sexually abused that provides education on the 

characteristics of abusers, rationale why the woman stays in abusive 

relationships, create a safety plan to avoid abusive relationships and 

situations in the future. The curriculum is based on the Duluth, MN 

Power and Control model and was refined by Next Door Solutions. 

Curricula includes education on domestic violence, characteristics of the 

batterer, setting boundaries, communication skills, characteristics of 

healthy relationships, creating a safety plan for the woman and their 

children. The class is offered in the Artemis and MYSTORI programs 

once a week. 

8 weeks, once a week for 1.5 hours each session. 

STRENGTHS 


1. The curriculum is supervised by a coordinator who is responsible for keeping the curriculum 

current with the needs of the women and DOC officials. 

2. The coordinator hires, trains, supervises and fires the group facilitators. 

3. The staff has either a Bachelors or Master’s Degree, experience working with women. 

4. Program staff receives 40 hours of state certified domestic violence training and they shadow 

groups conducted by experienced trainers before conducting a group on their own. 


6. The program has the support of the Office of Women’s Policy, Sheriff, judges in the Family Court 

and in Criminal Court. 

Treatment 

1. Groups consist of women only thus encouraging them to be open. 

2. The curriculum is based on a well-established educational model. 

3. All women who complete the program leave with a safety plan. 

4. Non-English speaking women are coached by other women to help them better understand the 

materials. 

5. Each group session has 2 trained facilitators and is not conducted by inmates. 

6. A report is presented to the court once the woman completes the 8-week program confirming that 

the woman has completed the program. 

7. The woman is presented a certificate of completion at 8 weeks. 

8. Peers role play how to handle abusive relationships and how to protect oneself against the 



DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CURRICULUM 

batterer. 

9. Group rules are discussed at the beginning of each group session. 




1. Groups are monitored by the supervisor every month and feedback is provided to the group 

facilitators. 

2. Women are given a self-satisfaction survey at the end of the program. 



1. Staff meetings are held once a month with all facilitators rather than twice a month which is 

recommended. 


1. There are no written exclusionary criteria used to screen out women who have not been abused. 

Women who are not abused are also admitted. Nationally, it is recommended that the percentage 

of inappropriate matches should not exceed 20%. 



women require this program thus some women may be required to participate in the program that 


Treatment 

1. The Duluth Model is an educational model designed for the batterer rather than the victim. 

2. The program is not sufficient in length to learn, practice and rehearse new behavior skills. 

3. The curriculum is not designed to reduce recidivism. 

4. Group size can be as large as 60 women with two facilitators, thus exceeding the optimum size for 



5. The women’s antisocial values and attitudes are not routinely recognized by facilitators or 

participants. 

6. Prosocial alternatives to antisocial behaviors are not uniformly taught by facilitators nor are 









This table presents all of the inmate programs evaluated and the consultant’s recommendations. 

SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION 

Individual Evaluation Recommendations 


Modifications 

1. Artemis 

2. Breaking Barriers 

3. Day Reporting 

4. Get Right 

5. Healing Opportunities in a 

Program Environment 

(HOPE) 



Replace 

 

6. Heart and Soul 

7. Literacy in Families Together 

(LIFT) 

8. M8 Program 

9. Mentoring You-Successful 

Transition of Recovering 

Individuals (MYSTORI) 

 

10. Program About Change and 

Experience (PACE) 

 



 


Program Phase I-Men (This 

program has been modified 

and the boot camp aspect 

has been removed) 

 


Program Phase I-Women 

(This program has been 

modified and the boot camp 

aspect has been removed) 

 


Program Phase II 

 

15. Roadmap to Recovery 

16. Three Principles 

17. Trauma Recovery 

 



Modifications 

18. Veterans Educating to 


19. Women Investigating New 

Gates for Sobriety (WINGS) 




Replace 


Substance Education (WISE) 

 

Overall Recommendation -0- 15 (75%) 5 (25%) 

 

 



Summary Findings and Recommendations





This chapter discusses the overarching findings from all of the individual evaluations combined. It will 

summarize the general strengths and areas for improvement observed across all 21 programs, and it will 

present the consultant team’s general recommendations for improvement. 

Final results from the evidence-based program analysis are presented in Table 5.1, which provides 

descriptive statistics by CPC-GA domain for all inmate programs/curricula. 

Table 5.1 

Santa Clara County Department of Correction Program 

Descriptive Statistics by CPC Domain 

Content Area Mean Median Minimum and Maximum 

Program Staff & Support 66.0 60.0 60 – 100 

Offender Assessment 0.0 0.0 0.0 – 0.0 

Treatment 34.2 31.4 25.7 – 66.7 

Quality Assurance 14.0 0.0 0.0 – 60.0 

Source: Correctional Programs Checklist. 

The Program Staff and Support domain evaluates the experience and duties of the program coordinator, 

experience and education of individuals who facilitate groups and organizational processes as they relate 

to the staff. As noted in Table 5.1, the average score on this domain was 66 percent, with a range between 

60 and 100 percent falling in the “Effective” rating. This shows that all programs scored well in this domain. 

Santa Clara County programs excel in terms of staff and support. It is clear from the findings on the CPC 

that the DOC and service provider staff is well-qualified, experienced, and dedicated to offender change. 

This is extremely important for correctional programs, as these staff characteristics have been 

demonstrated to be influential in reducing future recidivism (Lowenkamp and Latessa, 2002). This is also a 

very important component to have in place when programs pursue changes. Santa Clara County should 

use and rely on this strength to make adaptations to the existing programs. 

The second domain of the CPC-GA is Offender Assessment. This domain of the CPC-GA evaluates 

whether the Department of Correction has an available validated assessment instrument that assesses risk 

to reoffend and criminogenic need factors, and matches the inmate with the program based on risk to 

reoffend and criminogenic need. As Table 5.1 demonstrates, all programs scored a 0 in this domain. This 

score is a result of the Department not utilizing an empirically validated, objective tool to assess a person’s 

risk (to reoffend). Risk is defined as the probability of recidivating upon release and is scored inmates as 

low, medium or high risk to reoffend after discharge. While the Department’s “Case Notes” addresses the 

majority of the criminogenic factors, it does not produce the data needed to score inmates as low, medium 

or high risk to reoffend, nor does it match inmates into treatment according to these risk levels and their 

security level. The adoption of such a tool would provide an effective assessment of risk to reoffend, and it 

will improve the matching of inmates to programs that relate to their needs. 




The third domain of the CPC-GA is Treatment. This domain assesses whether the program spends a 

substantial amount of time targeting criminogenic areas, if evidence-based treatment modalities are used 

(e.g. cognitive behavioral, classical conditioning, structured social learning, family-based skills 

development, etc.), numerous measures that assess how the program delivers the program content and 

whether the program has sufficient duration and dosage to change criminal behavior. As demonstrated in 

Table 5.1, the average program score on this domain was roughly 34 percent, with a median score of 31 

percent. While this suggests that most programs scored in the ineffective category, it is important to note 

that the range of scores was 26 percent to 67 percent. 

In the Treatment domain of the program evaluations, one program scored as “Highly Effective” (PACT), and 

the remaining programs scored in the “Ineffective” range. The primary reason why this occurred is because 

the program curricula focus on education. Education is one aspect of changing behavior but it falls short in 

transforming offenders who exhibit anti-social values, attitudes and distorted thinking patterns, which are 

characteristic of most medium and high risk offenders. Unless program staff address the individual’s 

underlying anti-social values and attitudes, teach them prosocial values and skills, give inmates 

opportunities to practice these skills, and alter distorted thinking patterns, the offender’s behavior will not be 

changed (Landenberger and Lipsey, 2005; Lipsey, Chapman, and Landenberger, 2001). 

The final domain of the CPC-GA is Quality Assurance. This domain measures the various mechanisms in 

place for the program to monitor and evaluate itself to ensure program fidelity. The average score on 

quality assessment was 14 percent, with a median score of 0. Just as with the treatment domain, it should 

be noted that the range of scores was from 0 percent (Ineffective) to 60 percent (Effective). Examples of 

quality assurance protocols include 1) an information system to track program success such as pre and 

posttest. 2) obtaining assessment tools that lend itself to pre and posttest 3) document quarterly reviews by 

supervisors 3) routine inmate satisfaction surveys (the Department is achieving this now) 4) specific criteria 

that defines who is eligible for the program and who is to be excluded 5) discharge summary for all inmates 

prior to release to assist them in successful reentry to the community. 

In the Quality Assurance domain of the program evaluations, PACT scored as “Effective” and the remaining 

programs scored in the “Ineffective” range. The PACT program contains more of the elements of the 

cognitive behavioral model of treatment than any of the other programs. Only two programs (PACT and 

Three Principles) evaluate their effectiveness using a pre and posttest measurement to demonstrate 

behavior change. 

5.2 General Recommendations 

This section will discuss general recommendations based on the patterns in all programs. The consultant 

team offers 12 general recommendations to reduce recidivism for the SCCDOC’s consideration: 

1. Select objective risk, needs and responsivity assessment tools. (See pages 207-215) (See Holsinger, 

Lurigio, and Latessa, 2001.) 

2. Treatment programs should follow the Principles of Effective Intervention (Risk, Need, Responsivity 


relationship skills, modeling, skill building, and problem solving). Research shows that cognitive 




behavioral interventions combined with role play, practice and rehearsals consistently achieve larger 

reductions in recidivism compared to interventions solely based on education (Landenberger and 

Lipsey, 2005; Lipsey, Chapman, and Landenberger, 2001). The curricula that is selected should 

provide a manual that contains clearly articulated lesson plans, homework, and guidelines for 

facilitators on how to model and role play prosocial skills. Each facilitator should follow the manual and 

not deviate from it to ensure fidelity of the training. 

3. Expand the number of Core Programs from one (substance abuse education) to include six major core 

program areas: 






6. Aftercare. 

4. Ensure that individuals are matched with these core programs based on their assessed risk to reoffend 

upon release and criminogenic needs. Select curricula that are designed to address all criminogenic 

needs and match inmates to one or more of the Core Programs that addresses these criminogenic 

needs. 

Research shows that cognitive behavioral interventions combined with role play, practice and 

rehearsals consistently achieve larger reductions in recidivism compared to interventions solely based 

on education (Landenberger and Lipsey, 2005; Lipsey, Chapman, and Landenberger, 2001). The 

selection of core programming should select from curricula that have a manual that contains clearly 

articulated lesson plans, homework, cognitive restructuring, and structured skill building that provide 

guidelines for facilitators on how to model and role play prosocial skills. Each facilitator should follow 

the manual and not deviate from it to ensure fidelity of the training throughout the Department. 

5. Low risk inmates risk inmates should be channeled into work, self-guided educational activities (e.g. 

Roadmap to Recovery) and to other behavior management activities that reduce idleness such as 

creative arts, recreation, library, etc. 

6. SCCDOC should continue to work with the providers toward developing and delivering the Core 

Programs recommended in this EBP Evaluation Report (Part II), and to reduce the number of areas of 

improvement found in each of their individual evaluations. 

7. Develop a policy and practice to ensure fidelity to treatment and quality assurance for all SCCDOC 



supervisors to all instructors, and routine and formal feedback invited by staff and inmates on the value 

of the classes. 

8. Develop an initial and ongoing in-service training program for treatment staff. 




9. Three quarters (75 percent) of the programs is recommended to be continued with modifications and 

25 percent are recommended to be discontinued and replaced with more effective programming (see 

pages 197-198). Even when the program produced some reductions in recidivism, the analysis found 

many areas that could be improved so that greater reductions in recidivism could be realized. 

10. An upgrade to CJIC is recommended to support the Department in collecting the information needed to 

develop a valid, objective risk and needs assessment instrument and to track program admissions and 

program terminations by reason. 

11. Based on the science of implementation, the consultants recommend the formation of an EBP 

Implementation Team (EBP IT) consisting of DOC program, security and administrative staff and its 

treatment providers to meet monthly to lead change. Seven Implementation Workgroups are 

recommended to address the following areas: 

A. Risk, Needs and Responsivity Assessment Tools and referral and assessment protocols 

B. Core Programs 

C. Case Management 

D. Quality Assurance/Data Collection 

E. Training and Staff Development 

F. Reentry 

G. Aftercare 

12. To effectively implement these innovations, it is recommended that the Department follow the stages of 

implementation as defined in the research on successful implementation (National Implementation 

Research Network): 

1. Exploration: Review research and recommendations in this report and other research to 

support these seven workgroups. 

2. Installation: Select assessment tools, curricula, treatment providers, develop protocols to 

implement these seven areas; create a monitoring system to ensure that these innovations are 

regularly examined for fidelity. 

3. Initial Implementation: Select a sample population or housing unit to pilot, train staff in the use 

of the assessment tool, the curricula and protocol, pilot the use of the tool, curricula and 

protocol, evaluate its use in the pilot phase to establish fidelity and make modifications before 

going to next stage. 

4. Full Implementation: When 50 percent of the staff is proficient at implementing the 

assessment tool, curricula and protocol according to fidelity measures, ramp up to other 

populations and housing units, continue to evaluate. 

5. Innovation: Refine/fine tune the tools, curricula and protocols and bring in coaches to help 

examine the degree to which the new innovations are being implemented according to fidelity. 

6. Sustainability: Establish stable and adequate funding; maintain stakeholder support. 

The discussions below elaborate on these recommendations. 




5.2.1 Program Staff and Support 

SCCDOC and its community-based organizations are capable and experienced to deliver a higher level of 

evidence-based treatment programs. This is a strength that should be utilized when undergoing 

programmatic changes. To ensure that the SCCDOC fully implements evidence-based practices, it is 

recommended that all newly hired group facilitators hold a degree in a helping profession (e.g., psychology, 

counseling, social work, criminal justice, etc.) and have at least two years’ experience in correctional 

programming. It is also preferred that staff has knowledge and work experience in core correctional 

practices and evidence-based treatment. 

Training of staff is an area that SCCDOC can improve upon. It is recommended that SCCDOC develop 

training protocols for all staff involved in treatment. While most of the facilitators evaluated are trained on 

the curriculum, some are not. All group facilitators should be formally trained on the curriculum(s) they are 

delivering. This is similar to recommendations in the education field which says that teachers should be 

credentialed in the area in which they teach. 

In addition to curriculum-specific training, SCCDOC should institute a policy and practice that teaches new 

facilitators evidence-based treatment practices (i.e., cognitive behavioral techniques, skills training) and 

core correctional practices (e.g., effective approval, effective disapproval, relationship skills, modeling, skill 

building, problem solving, etc.). Finally, SCCDOC should require a minimum of 40 hours of annual inservice 

training (delivered both in-house and through professional conferences) related to program delivery. 

This specific training should be in addition to other DOC mandated training (e.g., security training, restraint 

training, weapons training, fire and safety training, new policies and procedures, etc.). 

5.2.2 Offender Assessment 

It is strongly recommended that one of the first steps taken by SCCDOC is to select an empiricallyvalidated, 

objective assessment tool. A list of potential tools is provided at the end of this discussion. This 

is a necessary step in implementing evidence-based practices (Holsinger, Lurigio, and Latessa, 2001). The 

adoption of a risk/needs tool will allow SCCDOC to address the risk principle and the needs principle (see 

discussion below). 

This assessment process has three recommended steps for implementation: 

1. Initial Screening: Each newly admitted inmate should be screened by trained intake staff to 

eliminate those individuals who are low risk to reoffend and therefore do not require intensive 

services from the Department or its providers. Constructive activities for the low risk individual 

will still need to be available to reduce idleness and promote safety within the facility. 

However, intensive programming should not be wasted on the low risk inmate because it is 

unnecessary, harmful, and costly (Lowenkamp and Latessa, 2004). 

Screening will take between 5 and 15 minutes to complete. We recommend that SCCDOC 

incorporate the tool into its intake process to make sure this takes place as soon as possible 

after admission. Some risk assessment tools come with a screener version of their tool (e.g., 

LS/CMI, ORAS). The screener weeds out the low risk individuals from the medium and high 

risk individuals. Thus, it is not necessary to give a full assessment to these low risk inmates. 




2. Risk/Needs Assessment: After the inmate is placed in their housing unit, the Programs Unit 

staff should conduct an in-depth risk and needs assessment of the medium and high risk 

inmates. Trained Rehabilitation Officers should be charged with the responsibility of conducting 

this assessment. This assessment determines those inmates who are medium and high risk to 

reoffend and assesses their criminogenic needs. The information should be used by the ROs 

to develop their Treatment Plan. 

Landenberger and Lipsey (2005) found that offenders assessed as high risk are highly likely to 

reoffend and thus require more hours of structured treatment (between 200-300 hours) that 

targets known criminogenic needs; inmates assessed as medium risk need at least 100 hours 

of treatment to effect change; and those assessed as low risk should receive little to no 

structured treatment. In summary, the adoption of a risk and needs assessment is vital to move 

the SCCDOC toward fully implementing evidence-based practices. 

Following the risk principle, the referral process should flag those individuals scoring medium 

and high risk for treatment, and those scoring low risk for little to no treatment. Following the 

needs principle, the results of the risk/needs tool should inform what core programming the 

inmate should receive. (See Core Programs recommended below). For example, if inmate A 

scores as high risk, and scores high in the substance abuse domain, criminal thinking domain, 

and education/employment domain, inmate A should receive a referral to a cognitive 

behavioral group that addresses criminal thinking and replaces it with prosocial thinking, an 

evidence-based substance abuse program, and an employment skills and/or education 

program. If Inmate B scores medium risk and the only domain that he scores high risk in is 

criminal thinking, the only group Inmate B should be referred to would be a cognitive 

behavioral group that addresses criminal thinking so that he replaces his distorted thinking 

patterns with prosocial thinking. In short, the administration and scoring of the Risk/Needs tool 

should automatically trigger a referral to treatment for the offender if the offender scores 

medium and high risk to reoffend and if they present criminogenic needs. This will ensure that 

treatment decisions are objective and based on best practices (see Andrews and Bonta, 2010; 

Holsinger, Lurigio, and Latessa, 2001). The decision of what criteria are needed to trigger a 

referral should be made in conjunction with SCCDOC’s decision to match inmates with 

targeted programs. The practice of matching into programs is based on their assessed 

criminogenic needs; however, inmates are still maintained in their security level. 

The Risk/Need tool will also evaluate all of the major criminogenic need areas. The top 

criminogenic needs are: antisocial attitudes, values, and beliefs, antisocial associates, 

antisocial personality (e.g., risk taking, impulsivity, lack of empathy, etc.), leisure times, 

negative family environments/relationships, education/employment, and substance abuse. A 

specific criminogenic need instrument will provide the group facilitator and the Rehabilitation 

Officer (RO) more specific details about an individual’s criminogenic needs. The criminal 

thinking needs assessment (e.g., How I Think Questionnaire, Criminal Sentiments Scale) can 

reveal the extent to which inmates subscribe to criminal thinking patterns. For example, it will 

show if Inmate A believes that most laws are acceptable, but breaking the law is okay when he 

sees it as necessary for his survival. The tool will also identify if Inmate B believes that no laws 

are acceptable, and everyone breaks the law, he just got caught. In both of these examples, 




this assessment reveals that they need to be matched with a cognitive skills group that focuses 

on reducing their criminal thinking patterns. 

This information would provide the treatment provider valuable information to address in their 

cognitive skills group. To maintain safety, the provider would need to provide CBT in all 

housing units rather than in one location. 

These instruments can also be used to determine how well programming is addressing certain 

needs. In this manner, these tools can be incorporated as a pre/posttest for certain programs. 

For example, SCCDOC could determine how well an inmate is doing in replacing criminal 

thinking with prosocial thinking by comparing the results of the criminal thinking needs 

assessment that was administered at the beginning of treatment to the scores on the same 

instrument administered at the end of treatment. As one of the main benefits of criminogenic 

needs assessments are to help inform treatment duration and dosage (Andrews and Bonta, 

2010), we recommend that the SCCDOC refer participants to one or more of the Core 

Programs, but that the treatment providers administer the criminogenic needs/responsivity 

assessment once the individual has been referred to their group. (See list of risk, need and 

responsivity assessment tools on following pages). 

3. Referral to Treatment Provider: After the risk/needs assessment is conducted and specific 

need areas are identified, the SCCDOC staff should make a referral to one or more treatment 

providers delivering a specific Core Program. The provider should conduct a responsivity 

assessment prior to delivering the group so that the provider can tailor the group’s goals to 

address the specific needs of the participants. Responsivity factors are issues or 

characteristics that are not related to future crime, but can be a barrier to an individual’s 

receptivity for change. Examples include inability to speak English, low intelligence, lack of 

education, no sensitivity to gender, to name a few. To make sure that programming leads to 

behavioral change; pertinent responsivity characteristics should be assessed. (A list of 

responsivity tools are identified below under criminal thinking, substance abuse and mental 

health). We recommend that SCCDOC and its providers administer responsivity assessments 

prior to or at referral to treatment. This may be contingent upon the programming offered by 

SCCDOC, as well as the type of assessment. For example, some cognitive behavioral 

programs require that participants meet minimum cognitive capacity (e.g., read at least a fifth 

grade level). If SCCDOC implements such a program, then a responsivity tool that measures 

cognition should be administered prior to admittance to the cognitive group. However, other 

responsivity tools (e.g., tools that assess motivation to change) could be administered by the 

treatment provider after a referral has been made and the inmate is placed in the group. 

Finally, it is important to note that training is essential for the administration of all assessment 

instruments. Many of the risk/need instruments have specific training requirements (and recertification 

requirements), so SCCDOC should take this into account when selecting an instrument. Moreover, the 

DOC should train “master trainers” such as the Programs Unit Manager and a backup on the 

instruments to develop the capacity in-house. Regardless, SCCDOC should make sure that all involved 

in the assessment process are trained specifically on the tool. We also recommend that SCCDOC 

train any staff involved in treatment on the interpretation of the tool, so that they fully understand the 

results of the tool (i.e., what it means to be high risk, and what each of the domain scores refers to). 




Here are examples of Risk/Needs Assessments, Criminogenic Needs and Responsivity Assessments for 

SCCDOC to consider: 

Assessment Tools to Consider 

A. General Risk and Needs (Note: in alphabetical order, not in order of recommendation) 

Note: The following assessment tools screen and assess for general criminality (risk to reoffend) 

and criminogenic needs. It is recommended that Screening be conducted by the intake staff and 

the Assessment be conducted by the DOC Rehabilitation Officers and after transfer to the housing 

unit but before placement in a treatment group. Some of the assessment instruments have both a 

screening capacity and an assessment capacity in one package. Most assessment companies will 

work with the agency on developing the shorter, screening version. 

Correctional Assessment and Intervention System TM (CAIS). 

The National Council on Crime and Delinquency 

http://www.nccd-crc.org/nccd/initiatives/cais-jais.html 

(608) 831-8882 

caisinfo@mw.nccd-crc.org 

COMPAS 

Northpointe Institute for Public Management 

http://www.northpointeinc.com/home.aspx 

Contact Page: http://www.northpointeinc.com/contact.aspx 

Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GAIN) 

Chestnut Health Systems 

http://www.chestnut.org/li/gain/ 

$100.00 per project Available through Chestnut 

GAINInfo@chestnut.org 

Level of Service Inventory-Revised 

Multi-Health Systems Inc. 

https://ecom.mhs.com/(S(gomqio55frmsku45i3fxx5vi))/product.aspx?gr=saf&prod=lsi-rs&id=overview 

LSI-R: SV Complete Kit (Manual, 25 Interview Guides, and 25 QuikScore Forms) $143.00 

Level of Service Inventory-Case Management 

Multi-Health Systems Inc. 

https://ecom.mhs.com/(S(lse04wnpiy223fyzxdephx55))/product.aspx?gr=saf&prod=ls-cmi&id=overview 

LS/CMI Complete Kit 

(User's Manual, Scoring Guide, 25 Interview Guides, 25 Offender History Forms, 25 QuikScore Forms, 25 

ColorPlot Profile Forms, and 25 Case Management Protocols) $308.00 




Offender Screening Tool (OST) 

Kenneth Wanberg, Ph.D. 

Center for Addiction Research 

and Evaluation, Inc. 

5460 Ward Road, Suite 140 

Arvada, CO 80002 

(303) 421-1261 

Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS) Prison Intake Screening and Reentry Tools (No cost) 

University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute 

http://www.uc.edu/corrections/training.html 

“The ORAS is a dynamic risk/needs assessment system to be used with adult offenders. It offers criminal 

justice stakeholders the ability to assess individuals at various decision points throughout the criminal 

justice system. In order to use the ORAS, agencies must be trained. There is no cost to use the 

ORAS after training takes place. The training provides an overview of the assessment tools and 

techniques for administering and scoring the individual assessments and how to use the assessment 

information to develop case plans for reducing offender risk. This involves two days of training. A “train-thetrainers” 

is also available to equip agencies to conduct their own staff trainings. ORAS Validation Report” 

Intake Screening Tool (4 questions) 

1. Employed at time of arrest 

2. Longest time of employment past 2 years 

3. Living situation prior to incarceration 

4. Stability of residence prior to incarceration 

Full Assessment Instrument 

1. Criminal History 

2. Education, Employment and Finances 

3. Family and Social Support 

4. Substance Use and Mental Health 

5. Criminal Attitudes and Behaviors 

Reentry Domains 

1. Criminal History 

2. Education, Employment, Finances 

3. Criminal Attitudes and Behaviors 


B. Criminal Values, Attitudes and Thinking Errors Assessment Instruments 



Note: The following assessments measure responsivity to treatment, prepare persons for being 

motivated for change and assess special needs identified on the general Risk and Needs 

Assessment tool. This Responsivity Assessment tool is recommended to be conducted by the 

providers prior to beginning their treatment group. 

Criminal Attribution Inventory (CRAI) 

Kroner Daryl (ONT) [KronerDG@csc-scc.gc.ca] 

www.dakroner@kos.net 

Criminal Sentiments Scale 

Algonquin Correctional Evaluation Services 

http://www.acesink.com 

dave@acesink.com 

How I Think Questionnaire 

Research Press Publishers 

http://www.researchpress.com/product/item/5136/ 

Cost for questionnaires and manual ($25.95) 

TCU Criminal Thinking Scales (CTS) (No Cost) 

Texas Institute for Behavioral Research 

www.ibr.tcu.edu 

Contact Dr. Kevin Knight at k.knight@tcu.edu with any questions. 

Other free tools are found on: http://www.ibr.tcu.edu/pubs/datacoll/cjtrt.html 

The following table provides greater detail of assessment instruments for criminal thinking errors. 


Instrument 

Population 

Detailed Information on Assessment Tools for 

Criminal Thinking Errors 

Criminal Attribution 

Inventory 

(CRAI) 

adult males, male sex 

offenders, violent male 

offenders, male substance 

abusers 

(can be validated on females 

with Dr. Kroner’s assistance) 

offender’s perception of the 

causation of crime 

Extent of blaming others for 

one’s condition 


Criminal Sentiments 

Scale-Modified 

(CSS-M) 

adult male/female offenders 


How I Think 

Questionnaire 

(HITQ) 

adult male/female offenders 

Area of Assessment 

anti-social attitudes, values, social skill level 

beliefs 

Outcome Measure 

anti-social attitudes, values, Degree of self-serving 

beliefs 

cognitive distortion 

Time to Administer 20 minutes Unknown 10-15 minutes 

Qualifications/Administra self-administered 

can be self-administered No special qualifications 

tor 

Training required 

no special qualifications 

# of items on assessment 60 41 54 

Reading Level Required 5 th grade Unknown 4 th grade 

Categories of Questions Blames oneself 

3 subscales self-centeredness 

Blames mental illness 

blaming others 

Blames substance use 

mislabeling 

Blames the victim or society 

assuming the worst 

Scoring Method Computer or paper/pencil paper/pencil paper/pencil 

Validated Score Yes Yes unknown 

Interpreting Results Predict major offenses 

Measures treatment gains 

resulting from cognitive 

restructuring 

predictor of recidivism 

program placement 

How to Use 

Cost 

Screening 

Pre/post treatment outcomes 

Assessment 

Kroner Daryl (ONT) 

[KronerDG@csc-scc.gc.ca] 

www.dakroner@kos.net 

No charge 

Screening 

pre/post treatment outcomes 

assessment 

http://www.acesink.com 

dave@acesink.com 

program placement for 

correction of thinking 

errors 

Screening 

pre/post treatment outcomes 

http://www.researchpress.com 

/product/item/5136/ 

cost for questionnaires and 

manual ($25.95) 


C. Substance Abuse Screening and Assessment Instruments 

Addiction Severity Index 

A. Thomas McLellan, Ph.D. 

Building 7, PVAMC 

University Avenue 

Philadelphia, PA 19104 

Phone: 215-399-0980 

Fax: 215-399-0987 

E-Mail: tmclellan@tresearch.org 

Adult Substance Use Survey (ASUS) 

Kenneth Wanberg, Ph.D. 

Center for Addiction Research 

and Evaluation, Inc. 

5460 Ward Road, Suite 140 

Arvada, CO 80002 

(303) 421-1261 

Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GAINS) 

Chestnut Health Systems: http://www.chestnut.org/li/gain/ 

Contact Chestnut at GAINInfo@chestnut.org 

$100.00 per project available through Chestnut. 

Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI) 6 

The SASSI Institute 

201 Camelot Lane 

Springville, IN 47462 

(800) 726-0526 

http://www.sassi.com 



TCU Drug Screening II (No cost) 

Institute of Behavioral Research, Texas Christian University 

http://www.ibr.tcu.edu/projects/crimjust/tcuds.html#downloadTCUDS 

Assessment Tools: The Texas Christian University Drug Screening instrument is available through the 

Institute of Behavioral Research at Texas Christian University, Contact Dr. Kevin Knight at 

k.knight@tcu.edu with any questions. 




D. Mental Health Assessments 

Beck’s Depression Inventory 

The Beck Depression Inventory is available through the Pearson Assessments. 

http://www.pearsonassessments.com/HAIWEB/Cultures/en-us/Productdetail.htm?Pid=015-8018-370 

A complete kit, which includes a manual and 25 Record Forms costs $115.00. 

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PSDS) 

Western Psychological Services 

http://portal.wpspublish.com/portal/page?_pageid=53,70508&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL 

Screening Kit for TLEQ and PSDS $115.00 

(Manual, booklets and 25 sets of forms) 

Sets of 25 PSDS forms are $42.00 

State Trait Anger Expression Inventory 

Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. 

http://www4.parinc.com/Products/Product.aspx?ProductID=STAXI-2 

STAXI-2 Introductory Kit: includes STAXI-2 Professional Manual, 25 Reusable Item Booklets, 50 Rating 

Sheets, and 50 Profile Forms. $262.00 

Traumatic Life Events Questionnaire (TLEQ) 

Western Psychological Services 

http://portal.wpspublish.com/portal/page?_pageid=53,70508&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL 

Screening Kit for TLEQ and PSDS $115.00 

(Manual, booklets and 25 sets of forms) 

Sets of 25 TLEQ forms are $32.00. 

The following table provides greater detail of the types of assessment instruments recommended to 

diagnose psychiatric and trauma problems. 


Detailed Information on Assessment Tools 

for Trauma and Post Traumatic Stress 



Instrument 

Population 

Area of 

Assessment 

Outcome Measure 

Time to 

Administer 

Qualifications of 

Administrator 

# of items on 

assessment 

Reading Level 

Required 

Languages other 

than English 

Categories of 

Questions 

Traumatic Assessment Inventories 

(TAI) 

Traumatic Life Post-Traumatic 

Events 

Stress Disorder 

Questionnaire Screening and 

(TLEQ) 

Diagnostic Scale 

(PSDS) 

males/females 

age 17 to 65 

trauma history 

(TLEQ) 

trauma history 

10-15 minutes 

(TLEQ) 

licensed 

professional 

21 types of 

events 

9 th grade reading 

level 

males/females age 17 

to 65 

post traumatic stress 

disorder (PSDS) 

diagnosis of posttraumatic 

stress 

disorder 

1\0-15 minutes 

(PSDS) 

licensed professional 

38 items 344 

Personality 

Assessment 

Inventories (PAI) 

adult males and 

females 

Mental health 

Presence of mental 

health disorders 

50-60 Minutes 

licensed 

Professional 

8 th grade reading level 4 th grade 8 th grade 

Unknown Unknown Unknown 

range of 

potentially 

17 key features and 6 

DSM-IV criteria of 

22 discrete full 

scales 

Global Appraisal 

of Individual Needs 

(GAIN) 

adolescent and adult 

males/females 

wide variety of 

settings including 

correctional and 

treatment 

environments 

biopsychosocial 

assessment 


diagnostic measures 

120 minutes for initial 

full version 

60 minutes for 90 day 

follow up 

20-30 minutes for 

quick assessment 

some versions can be 

self-administered 

no special 

qualifications; training 

available 

100 scales and 

subscales 

short versions and 

follow-up versions 

available 

Spanish language 

version in 

development 

full range of 





Instrument 

Scoring Method 


(TAI) 


Events 



(TLEQ) 


traumatic events 

from natural 

disasters to 

sexual abuse 

descriptions are 

in behavioral 

terms 

paper/pencil 

computer 

optical scanning 

(PSDS) 

PSTD diagnosis 

paper/pencil 

computer 

optical scanning 

Validated Score yes Yes Yes 

Interpreting 

Results 

How to Use 

results 

demonstrate 

presence 

of exposure to 

trauma 

Screening 

corresponds to DSM- 

IV diagnostic criteria 

screening 

assessment 

Personality 

Assessment 


paper/pencil 

high correlation with 

PCL-SV; best as 

dimensional 

measure of 

psychopathy. 

PAI not necessarily 

generalizable to 

females; one study 

also showed few 

misidentifications of 

psychopathy but 

significant % of 

psychopathic 

offenders not 

classified correctly. 

Assessment 



(GAIN) 

indices 

paper/pencil 

computer-assisted 

version available 

computer generated 

reports available 

yes per publisher 

diagnostics 

program placement 

and planning 

monitoring change in 

clinical status 

meets criteria for 

DSM-IV, ASAM 

JHACO, DOMS and 

NHDSA 

Assessment 

pre/post treatment 

outcomes 




Instrument 

Cost 


(TAI) 


Events 



(TLEQ) 


(PSDS) 

http://portal.wpsp 

ublish.com/portal/ 

page?_pageid=53 

,70508&_dad=por 

tal&_schema=PO 

RTAL 

Screening Kit for 

TLEQ and PSDS 

$115.00 

(manual, booklets 

and 25 sets of 

forms) 

Sets of 25 TLEQ 

forms are $32.00 

http://portal.wpspublish 

.com/portal/page?_pag 

eid=53,70508&_dad=p 

ortal&_schema=PORT 

AL 

Screening Kit for 

TLEQ and PSDS 

$115.00 

(manual, booklets and 

25 sets of forms) 

Sets of 25 PSDS 

forms are $42.00 

Personality 

Assessment 


http://portal.wpspubli 

sh.com/portal/page? 

_pageid=53,69230& 

_dad=portal&_sche 

ma=PORTAL 

Exam Kit $349.00 

(manual, booklets 

and 25 sets of forms) 

Sets of 25 forms 

range from $42.00- 

59.50 per set. 



(GAIN) 

http://www.chestnut.o 

rg/li/gain/ 

$100.00 per project 

Available through 

Chestnut 

GAINInfo@chestnut.o 

rg 

5.2.3 Treatment 

It is recommended that the SCCDOC and its providers adopt the Principles of Effective Intervention 

framework for all inmate programming. We recommend that programs focus on criminogenic needs, be 

delivered to individuals who have been assessed as being medium to high risk to reoffend and have an 

assessed criminogenic need. In this sense, only individuals who have been assessed by a validated risk 

and needs tool to have a substance abuse problem should receive substance abuse treatment. This 

approach will conserve SCCDOC’s scarce resources, since only medium and high risk inmates will be 

matched with intensive treatment programs. 

We recommend that SCCDOC expand its core programs from substance abuse education to a total of six 

program areas (see following pages). 



RECOMMENDED CORE PROGRAMS FOR 

SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION 


The evidence-based literature documents the following eight risk/need factors as highly correlated with 

future recidivism. These factors are dynamic and can be changed with effective interventions. 

1. Antisocial/procriminal attitudes, values, beliefs and cognitive-emotional states 

2. Procriminal associates and isolation from prosocial others 

3. Temperamental and antisocial personality patterns conducive to criminal activity 

4. A history of antisocial behavior 

5. Family factors that include criminality and a variety of psychological problems in the family of origin 

6. Low levels of personal, educational, vocational or financial achievement 

7. Low levels of involvement in prosocial leisure activities 

8. Abuse of alcohol and/or drugs 

Extensive research has documented that cognitive behavioral interventions and social skills training are the 

two most effective interventions with offenders. At the February 2011 Community Forum, Dr. Edward 

Latessa explained why cognitive interventions and social skills training lead to reduced recidivism among 

offenders: 

1. Based on scientific evidence (cognitive & behavioral theories) 

2. Based on active learning (not talk therapy) 

3. Focus on the present (how offenders currently think and behave) 

4. Based on learning (most crime is learned) 

5. Target major criminogenic needs (e.g. attitudes, values, beliefs) 

6. Provide structure to groups and programs (manualized treatment) 

7. Provide opportunities for offenders to practice and rehearse the skills learned and role play real life 

situations to prepare them for discharge from custody to the community 

Based on these characteristics, it is in the Department’s best interest to develop Core Programs that have 

the highest chance of reducing recidivism among inmates. The consultant team recommends the following 

Core Programs: (Note: these are not in rank order but provide the Department a menu of core programs 

that inmates should be matched with based on their assessed risk to reoffend and criminogenic needs). 

Medium and high risk inmates may be assigned to one or more of these Core Programs based on their risk 

to reoffend and criminogenic needs. 

Core Program 1: Substance Abuse Treatment Program with Cognitive Behavioral Elements 

Examples of evidence-based curricula that the consultants recommend are: 

a. Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment for Substance Misuse, Corrections Institute, School of 

Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati. Combines motivational enhancement, cognitivebehavioral, 

social learning skills training and relapse prevention treatment modalities. 

Based on the extensive research on applying the Principles of Effective Intervention. The 

program consists of six modules delivered in 40 sessions covering motivation to change, 

prosocial attitudes, values and thinking patterns; emotional regulation skills; managing high 




risk situations and resisting peer pressure; problem solving skills training; relapse 

prevention plan and preparation skills to resist relapse. (Note: There is no cost to obtain 

the curriculum. Training of staff and master trainers has a cost based on number in group 

and number of training sessions). 

b. Group Treatment for Substance Abuse: A Stages-of-Change Therapy Manual, Mary 

Velasquez, Gaylyn Maurer, Cathy Crouch, Carlo DiClemente. Combines cognitive 

behavioral skills in the Stages of Change model that is widely recognized in the addiction 

treatment field. The program is based on the research-driven transtheoretical model of 

behavior change. The structured skills-building activities guide individuals through the 

stages of recovery (precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action and 

maintenance). The manual provides step-by-step training and exercises completed in 29 

sessions or two 14-15 session cycles. 

c. Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment: Strategies for Self-Improvement and 

Change, Kenneth Wanburg and Harvey Milkman. The book is based on two years of 

research by the authors. It presents cognitive behavioral therapy, Stages of Change 

treatment model and relapse prevention skills training. The manual provides structured 12 

modules completed in 50 sessions. 

Note: The substance abuse treatment program is recommended to be delivered by a 

CDAC-certified substance abuse treatment provider who has a degree in the helping field. 

Core Program 2: Cognitive Behavioral Skills Training 

Examples of evidence-based curricula that the consultants recommend are: 

a. Thinking for a Change, Integrated Cognitive Behavior Change Program, Version 3.0, Barry 

Glick, Ph.D., Jack Bush, Ph.D., and Juliana Taymans, Ph.D., in cooperation with the 

National Institute of Corrections. Version 3.0 is a new edition of the original Thinking for a 

Change (T4C). The program is an integrated, cognitive behavior change program for 

offenders that include cognitive restructuring, social skills development, and development 

of problem solving skills. Research conducted by the University of Cincinnati and others 

have shown that, when implemented with integrity, it can reduce recidivism among 

offenders (Lowenkamp, Hubbard, Makarios, and Latessa, 2009). T4C is designed for 

delivery to small groups in 25 lessons. NIC makes available the T4C offender program 

materials plus a curriculum for training program facilitators. 

b. Truthought: Corrective Thinking, Rogie Spon. The curriculum teaches offenders how to 

identify barriers in thinking and to substitute them with the appropriate behaviors. The 

curriculum consists of 110 hours of exercises that instruct offenders on the nine barriers in 

thinking and nine correctives (prosocial behaviors). Participants participate in exercises 

designed to alter their pattern of blaming others for their problems to taking greater 

accountability for their behavior. The University of Cincinnati conducted an evaluation on 

these curricula and found it to be valuable as a cognitive restructuring curriculum but that it 

needed to be supplemented with skills training (positive reinforcement, role play, rehearsal, 

and practice). Latessa’s evaluation concluded that since the curriculum focused more on 

cognitive restructuring rather than skill building, it may not be as effective. 




c. Reasoning & Rehabilitation and R&R2 Short Version for Adults, Richard Ross, Elizabeth 

Fabiano. The Reasoning & Rehabilitation (R&R) program is a multi-faceted, 35 session, 70 

hour, cognitive-behavioral program for teaching cognitive skills, social skills and values to 

high-risk adults that is required for prosocial competence. R&R is based on more than forty 

years of research studies that demonstrated that antisocial behavior is associated with 

inadequacy in specific social cognitive skills and values, and that teaching such skills is 

critical to the success of programs designed to promote prosocial behavior. The program 

requires 12 weeks (3 sessions a week) to complete. R&R2: Short Version for Adults is 

designed for medium-risk adults in a brief 15 session (24 to 30 hour) program. Both R&R 

and R&R2 Short Version teach prosocial skills and values including: 

• emotional regulation and control 

• conflict management 

• problem-solving 

• critical reasoning 

• alternative thinking 

• negotiation 

• prosocial values 

• social perspective-taking 

• desistence 

Medium-risk participants could benefit from their involvement in the short program and will 

not require the additional training that is provided in the more extended Reasoning 

& Rehabilitation Program for high risk individuals. 

d. MOVING ON, Orbis Partners. This structured gender-specific program teaches women 

prosocial alternatives to criminal activity by helping them to identify and mobilize both 

personal and community resources. The program is trauma-informed and based on 

gender-specific models such as Relational Theory, Motivational Interviewing, and 

Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention. It is delivered over 9 – to –13 weeks in small groups or 

on an individual basis by trained correctional practitioners. MOVING ON consists of seven 

distinct modules. Module 1 and 7 are provided on a 1:1 basis while Modules 2-6 are 

delivered in a group format. Each of the group modules consist of 5 sessions with 

approximately 2 hours of program content. There are a total of 25 group sessions which 

can be delivered in 5 weeks for women who are incarcerated or spread out over a 13 to 25 

week period for women in the community. 

Core Program 3: Conflict Resolution/Anger Management 

Examples of effective curricula are: 

a. Aggression Replacement Training, Arnold P. Goldstein and Barry Glick. ART®. Aggression 

Replacement Training®. Recommended by the California Institute for Mental Health and 

CIMH offers training on ART through its agreement with Educational & Treatment 

Alternatives, Inc., a recognized provider of Aggression Replacement Training®. ART is a 

multi-component cognitive-behavioral treatment that promotes prosocial behavior by 

addressing factors that contribute to aggression including limited interpersonal social and 




coping skills, impulsiveness, over-reliance on aggression to meet daily needs, and 

egocentric and concrete values. Aggression Replacement Training® consists of three 

components each of which is conducted with a group of 6-8 participants including 

Skillstreaming, Anger Control Training, and Moral Reasoning Training: 

• Skillstreaming teaches prosocial skills and consists of a series of social learning 

instructional procedures that are used to teach a set of 50 skills. The instructional 

procedures include: a. Modeling of prosocial skills. b. Role-playing—guided 

practice of the skills. c. Performance feedback—praise and reinstruction. d. 

Transfer training—homework involving applying the new skill in real life situations. 

• Anger Control Training teaches participants how to manage angry feelings. It 

consists of a series of social learning procedures taught across 10 weekly 

sessions including: a. Recognizing triggers—external events and internal 

appraisals that result in angry feelings. b. Recognizing cues—kinesthetic or other 

physiological sensations signifying anger. c. Learning and using reducers— 

arousal lowering techniques like backward counting, deep breathing, peaceful 

imagery, and reflection on long-term consequences. d. Use of reminders—selfinstructional 

statements designed to reinterpret and defuse internal triggers. e. 

Self-evaluation of the use and results from the anger control sequence. 

• Moral Reasoning teaches participants higher levels of moral reasoning. The 

approach consists of facilitated discussion in regard to understanding and 

responding to a series of moral dilemma vignettes. The group activities include: a. 

introducing the problem situation. b. Cultivating mature morality. c. Remediating 

moral developmental delays. d. Consolidating mature morality. 

b. Controlling Anger and Learning to Manage It (CALM): William Winogron, Ph.D. 

Marilyn Van Dieten, Ph.D., Laurence Gauzas, Ph.D. and 

Vicki Grisim, M.Ed. The Controlling Anger and Learning to Manage It Program (CALM) 

teaches adult male participants who have exhibited violent behavior to monitor and 

understand their emotions in order to prevent and control problematic behaviors. 

Personal assignments, modeling, role-play, teamwork, and self- and peer-evaluation 

are used to teach and promote lasting change of inappropriate and unproductive 

thought and behavior patterns. The 24 sessions that the CALM consists of teaches 

participants the skills necessary to reduce the frequency, intensity, and duration of 

anger in order to lessen the likelihood of aggression. 

The complete CALM Program includes 6 comprehensive group leader guides with 

instructions on how to deliver the 24 group sessions; an individual workbook of 

exercises and personal assignments for each group member; a master package for 

group leaders containing participant handouts and overheads; and an audiotape that 

features relaxation exercises and educational game scripts. 



Core Program #4: Academic and Post-Graduate Education/Job Readiness Training. 


Inmates who have a 6 th grade reading level are recommended to enroll in academic education while 

confined in the Department of Correction. Others who have completed 12 grades of secondary education 

but have not earned a degree are recommended to work toward their high school degree or GED 

certificate. Other inmates who have earned their degree are recommended to enroll in vocational 

educational or post graduate studies while confined. 

All inmates are recommended to be given a career assessment. Recommended career assessment 

inventories are: 

Career Focus 2000 Interest Inventory 

The Career Focus is an online, interactive career interest inventory designed to your personal interests and 

identifies matching occupations. The CF2II is not a test. There is no right or wrong answers. The CF2II 

contains 180 inventory items -- statements about work-related tasks that have been drawn from 18 major 

occupational fields found in the American work scene. These 18 occupational fields together comprise 

more than 90% of all work performed in the United States. (http://www.iccweb.com/careerfocus/About.asp). 

The test takes about 20 minutes to complete. 

Career Assessment Inventory: Vocational Version 

The CAI-V is useful for advising individuals who are re-entering the workforce or considering a career 

change, screening job applicants, and providing career development assistance to displaced workers. The 

Vocational Version of the Career Assessment Inventory instrument is an interest inventory that helps 

identify occupational interests for individuals who plan to enter careers immediately after high school or 

community college. This version focuses on careers requiring less than two years of post-secondary 

training. The test is designed for those with at least a 6 th grade reading level. It is available either as a 

pencil and paper or online test, and takes approximately 30 minutes to complete. The CAI-V was tested for 

both men and women. www.pearsonassessments.com 

Job Readiness Training 

Training is recommended on seeking employment techniques, completing job applications, writing resumes 

and cover letters, answering questions about convictions, employer tax credits, successful interviewing 

techniques, mock interview sessions, workplace expectations, getting along in the workplace, anger 

management, career advancement, and transportation issues. (See Appendix section). This training 

consists of 8-10 weeks. 


Core Program #5: Reentry Preparation (In-Custody Phase) 



Best practices reentry programming begins at intake to help the inmate and staff recognizes that the 

interventions provided within the custody environment will prepare them for successful discharge to the 

community 30-60 days prior to discharge (see Transition from Jail to Community (TJC) and Prison to 

Community, National Institute of Corrections). Reentry programming within the in-custody environment 

involves topics such as transportation, clothing, housing, child care arrangements, legal services, 

medication supply, medical and mental health referrals and appointments, referrals and appointments to 

substance abuse treatment, education planning, employment planning, Workforce Development agency 

support, reinstatement of federal benefits, assistance in obtaining identification cards, assistance in 

obtaining medical and dental insurance cards, financial planning, family reunification and parenting skills 

training. These topics can be taught by Rehabilitation Officers and by agency representatives at no cost to 

the Department (see appendix section). The Department qualifies for no cost training on reentry 

programming by the National Institute of Corrections, Jails Division. 

Core Program #6: Aftercare (Community Phase of Reentry) 

Aftercare is an important component of the continuum as it provides continuing support toward recovery 

after discharge from confinement. Every inmate requires a written Discharge Plan prior to their release that 

identifies goals to be achieved during the first six months following release. Referrals to social and 

treatment services need to accompany the Plan. Aftercare support services include education/employment 

assistance, federal benefits eligibility and assistance, mental health treatment referrals and case 

management, substance abuse treatment referrals and case management, medical referrals and mentoring 

support. Aftercare is recommended for a minimum of six months following discharge. The Day Reporting 

Program and the RCP II Program could be restructured as the community phase of Reentry as they provide 

the inmate with opportunities to practice the skills they learned while they were confined. 

Implementation Steps 

Once SCCDOC selects its core curricula, policies should be adopted to align with delivery practices known 

to be associated with reductions in recidivism. First, and foremost, all staff that will deliver a curriculum 

should be trained on that specific curriculum. 

Secondly, groups should not be co-ed. Groups should not be larger than 10 individuals per facilitator. 

Third, homework should be a common occurrence after nearly every group meeting, and staff should go 

over the last week’s homework at the beginning of the meeting. 

Because of this, we recommend that all staff who interacts with inmates should receive training in the 

Principles of Effective Intervention and core correctional practices. One aspect of this training is the 

effective use of approval and disapproval. Because of this, special attention is given to the aspects of 

rewards and punishment. In order to change behavior, rewards should outnumber punishers by a ratio of 

at least 4:1. To this end, it is important to have a range of rewards available to encourage and reinforce 

positive behavioral outcomes. For example, verbal praise should be continued by SCCDOC facilitators. 

However, the use of praise and issuing a certificate for attendance were the primary rewards observed in 

many of the programs. 




We recommend that SCCDOC develop a range of rewards that can be used to reinforce positive behavioral 

outcomes. The first step taken by SCCDOC should be a survey of inmates to see what rewards they would 

motivate them to participate. While some of the rewards recommended by the inmates may not be possible 

for SCCDOC to utilize, there may be some suggestions that are easy to implement. A list of possible 

reinforcers would include: specific praise/feedback on performance (which could also be posted on a 

bulletin board for all to see), indirect praise (e.g., verbal reports on how inmates are doing in front of staff 

and inmates), group recognition, field trip, extra visit/telephone call, private room/choosing desk or bed, 

items from commissary, badges, ribbons, additional certificates, game room privileges, extra food/snacks, 

free time, lunch with a staff member, television/radio privileges, more time outside of the housing unit (e.g., 

recreation), extra shower, playing host for visitors, job in a special setting, or a weekend pass. When 

developing a list of reinforcers, SCCDOC should make sure to consider the demographic characteristics, 

interests, and appetites of the inmates, because what is a reinforcer to one individual or group may not act 

as a reinforcer to another individual and group. 

The importance of reinforcing positive behavioral change cannot be stressed enough. However, 

consequences (punishments) are also a necessary part of behavioral change. If negative behavior is 

demonstrated, it should be punished to discourage the inmate from repeating that behavior. Results from 

the CPCs suggest that SCCDOC staff and providers do provide verbal warnings to inmates when unwanted 

behaviors are exhibited, but facilitators rely too heavily on terminating inmates who further act out. 

Just as it is important to develop a range of reinforcers, it is also important to develop policy and behavioral 

practices to enact effective disapproval. We recommend that SCCDOC develop a behavioral management 

system that all staff is trained on. Thus, staff (and inmates) is aware of what the consequences are of initial 

and repeated violations. To accomplish effective disapproval that promotes behavioral changes, we 

recommend that SCCDOC staff and its providers be trained on the use of punishers and rewards in 

correctional settings. One such tool that can be implemented as a means of effective disapproval is the 

Behavioral Contract. This is a tool that produces an agreement between two or more persons that lists 

specific behaviors that the parties will perform and the consequences that will result if these behaviors are 

not demonstrated. 

Finally, SCCDOC are recommended to develop specific criteria for completion of each program more than 

attendance, and each individual completing a program should have a discharge plan that covers relapse 

prevention. Group completion should be based on the acquisition of knowledge of the material and on skills 

as evidenced by a posttest rather than from attendance, length of time in program, or completion of 

assignments. Therefore, a person in the cognitive-based substance abuse program will not simply 

complete because he/she attended all the classes and turned in their homework; rather, that the individual 

will be considered a successful completer once they can demonstrate knowledge and skills. 

Scheduled activities such as pill count or individual counseling should not conflict when treatment groups 

are conducted to ensure that inmates receive their targeted number of program hours. 

Discharge plans should be developed for all inmates discharged from a program. These plans should 

clearly articulate the progress that has been met in meeting the inmates’ targeted behaviors and goals. 

These discharge plans should be specific to the program being taught. 


5.2.4 Effective Practices for Correctional Supervision (EPICS) 



Since the Rehabilitation Officers serve as case managers for the programs, the team recommends a model 

for interacting with inmates that is consistent with the research. The research on the principles of effective 

intervention, coupled with the most recent research on correctional supervision, provided the impetus for 

the development of a new model by the University of Cincinnati (UC). It represents a combination of the 

content included in both the Canadian and Australian studies. The purpose of the EPICS model is to teach 

case managers how to apply the principles of effective intervention (and core correctional practices 

specifically, including relationship skills) to their interaction with offenders. 

The EPICS model is currently being piloted in sites across the country, and analysis of the audio tapes 

indicates that the trained staff is using the skills at a higher rate than untrained staff. The core correctional 

practices (or competencies) are organized into an overall framework to assist with the application of 

specific skills within the context of correctional supervision. This overall framework, or “Action Plan,” 

assists with the development and implementation of case management plans to target the criminogenic 

needs of higher risk offenders. With the EPICs model, case managers follow a structured approach to 

their interactions with their offenders. Specifically, each session includes four components: 

1. Check-In, in which the case manager determines if the offender has any crises or acute needs, 

builds rapport and discusses compliance issues. 

2. Review, which focuses on the skills discussed in the prior session, the application of those skills, 

and troubleshooting continued problems in the use of those skills. 

3. Intervention, where the CM identifies continued areas of need, trends in problems the offender 

experiences, teaches relevant skills, and targets problematic thinking. 

4. Homework and Rehearsal is when the offender is given an opportunity to see the model the CM is 

talking about, provides opportunities to role play, assignment of homework, and gives instructions 

that the offender should follow before the next visit. 

The EPICS model is designed to use a combination of monitoring, referrals, and face-to-face interactions to 

provide the offender with a sufficient “dosage” of treatment interventions, and make the best possible use of 

time to develop a collaborative working relationship. Furthermore, the model helps translate the risk, 

needs, and responsivity principles into practice. Case managers are taught to increase dosage to higher 

risk offenders, stay focused on criminogenic needs, especially the thought-behavior link, and to use a social 

learning, cognitive-behavioral approach to their interactions. The EPICS model is not intended to replace 

other programming and services, but rather it is an attempt to more fully utilize case managers (and 

Rehabilitation Officers) as agents of change. 




5.2.5 Quality Assurance 

SCCDOC is committed to implementing evidence-based programs and has staff that is supportive of 

treatment. To enable SCCDOC to achieve its desired results, there must be mechanisms in place to 

ensure that programs are maintaining fidelity to evidence-based programs and to the policies developed by 

SCCDOC. We recommend that SCCDOC institute a policy and plan to require each program coordinator 

and Rehabilitation Officer to observe a group at least quarterly. After the observation, the program 

coordinator should provide the facilitator with formal feedback and the RO should ensure that feedback is 

given quarterly. We also recommend that each provider institute pre and posttests for their entire 

curriculum. This will provide SCCDOC with empirical data as to how well inmates are acquiring the 

knowledge being delivered in treatment programs. Finally, we also recommend that SCCDOC develop a 

mechanism for staff and inmates to provide feedback on the programming. Staff should be allowed to 

express concerns, praises, or suggestions for improving the delivery of programs. Inmates should routinely 

be surveyed at the completion of all programs to determine what they liked most, least, and what they feel 

can be done to deliver better treatment. We also want to stress that any changes that are recommended 

by staff or inmate should be piloted at least for three months before the provider fully adopts the 

suggestions. The RO and the provider should ensure review the results of the pilot and make modifications 

before fully implementing the change. 

5.2.6 Time Line for Implementation 

The consultant team has developed a Timeline for implementing the recommendations for the Programs 

Unit to consider. See Table 5.2. 



Table 5.2 

Implementation Recommendations 

Santa Clara County Department of Correction Programs Unit 


Recommendation Within One Year Within Two Years 


1. Conduct training of all 

program staff and providers in 

the Principles of Effective 

Intervention and how to 

translate them into day-to-day 

practice. Include in the 

training the strategies to 

prepare staff for change and 

the required conditions 

needed in the Department to 

implement change. 

2. Form an EBP Implementation 

Team to lead implementation. 

Form Workgroups of staff to 

develop Action Plans. 

Examples of workgroups 

include: 1. Risk, Needs and 

Responsivity Assessment 

Tools 2. Core Programs 3. 

Case Management 4. Quality 

Assurance/Data Collection 5. 

Training and Staff 

Development 6. Reentry 7. 

Aftercare. Create a monthly 

schedule of tasks and 

quarterly reporting of 

progress. 

3. Conduct training of all 

providers in the new Core 

Program curricula. 

4. Recruit new hires with 

education and experience 

from the helping profession. 

5. Designate the Programs Unit 

Manager as the Master 

Trainer and cross train this 

person on all assessment 

instruments and new Core 

 

 

 

 

 





Program Curricula to ensure 

continuity. 

6. Train all Rehabilitation 

Officers in the new Core 

Program Curricula. 

7. Develop an additional cadre 

of trainers for the new Core 

Program Curricula to ensure 

on-going capability when 

people retire or resign. 

8. Ensure that all program staff 

document 40 hours of inservice 

training related to the 

curriculum and delivery of 

treatment. 

9. Assign Rehabilitation Officers 

to case manage “high-risk” 

inmates and provide 

Motivational Interviewing and 

EPICS training to ROs. 

10. Recruit from existing staff 

persons with positive 

attributes, persons committed 

to rehabilitation, education 

and experience to be 

designated as trainers. 

11. Train Correctional Officers 

assigned to programs in the 

Principles of Effective 

Intervention and Motivational 

Interviewing techniques. 


1. Examine the list of screening 

tools to be used at intake and 

assessment tools to be used 

once the inmate is placed in 

their housing unit. Work with 

the provider to create a 

screener version if their 

assessment tool does not 

come with a screener version. 

Choose an assessment tool 

that addresses the risk 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 





factors associated with future 

reoffending and criminogenic 

needs. 

2. Collect new data to validate 

the tool on DOC inmates. 

3. Develop and incorporate the 

new screening process into 

Intake. Eliminate low risk 

inmates from being referred 

to programs. Train intake staff 

on the use of the tool. 

Replace the existing 

Psychosocial Assessment 

with the new Risk/Needs 

Assessment tool to determine 

who should be targeted for 

programs. Train 

Rehabilitation Officers on 

conducting the assessment. 

4. Hire or designate DOC staff 

 

to serve as an Assessment 

Specialist. 

5. Conduct training of providers 

on responsivity assessments 

to identify the issues that 

should be addressed in 

groups/individual case 

management. SCCDOC 

should include responsivity 

assessments as a part of the 

providers’ contract. 

6. Identify which tools that will 

be used as a pre/posttest 

measure. 

Offender Treatment 

1. Develop a Department policy 

 

adopting the Principles for 

Effective Intervention 

Framework and the new Core 

Programs. 

2. Finalize the new Core 

 

Curricula. 

3. Refer medium and high risk 

 

 

 

 





inmates to one or more Core 

Programs based on their 

assessed risk and need 

within their Security Level. 

4. Develop constructive 

behavioral management 

activities and self-guided 

treatment programs for low 

risk inmates. 

5. Develop a formal reward 

system and train program and 

correctional officers on this 

system. 

6. Develop a formal graduated 

sanctions system and train 

program and correctional 

officer staff on this system. 

7. Develop a written Discharge 

Summary template and 

guidelines for completion. 

8. Examine the schedule and 

ensure that there is a 

designated time for programs 

to ensure that inmates 

receive their targeted hours. 


1. Document the program 

supervisor’s observation of 

groups at least every quarter. 

2. Implement a pre/posttest 

measure. 

3. Implement a uniform Client 

Satisfaction Survey 

4. Implement new successful 

completion criteria based on 

demonstrated knowledge and 

achievement. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Appendices




Table 6.1 


Description of Inmate Programs 

Program Target Population Written Program Goals Classes Offered Duration 

1. Educational: These are 

included as an element in 

all programs. 

• Adult Education (GED 

Prep) 

• Cabinet Making/Wood 

Shop Program 

• Career Technology 

Class 

• Combination Welding 

Vocational Program 

• Learner-Centered 

Literacy Instruction 

• Upholstery Vocational 

Program 

• Substance Abuse 

Education 

All Inmates 

Minimum Security 

Males 


Females 


Males 

All Inmates 


Males 

All Inmates Gain greater knowledge of the basic 

pharmacology of drugs and the 

stages of addiction; Introduce 

population concepts of recovery 

from addiction, including the 12-step 

program; Understand the 

relationship of family issues in, on 

and because of addiction; Develop 

the skills necessary to make more 

positive life choices and to master 

relapse prevention strategies and 

Process of Addiction; 

Pharmacology; Recovery 

Process; Family System; Co- 

Dependency; Parenting; 

Communication Skills; Domestic 

Violence; Anger Management; 

Framework for Recovery; 

Relapse Prevention; Community 

Resources; Reentry; HIV/AIDS 

Awareness 

15 hours per 

week x 8 weeks 





techniques; Identify the six 

developmental stages of the 

recovery process; Discuss each of 

the 12 steps in the 12-step 

Recovery Program; Explain four 

characteristics and patterns of 

dysfunction within the family; 

Discuss the role of co-dependency 

in addiction; Identify all seven 

stages of domestic violence; Explain 

the four barriers to change; Identify 

HIV as a cause of AIDS; Identify 

three risky behaviors, four 

symptoms of AIDS infection. 

2. Artemis Women’s 

Program (Comprehensive 

Program) 


(Comprehensive Program) 


Pregnant Women and 

Women with Small 

Children 

Protective Custody 

High Medium Security 

Males Affiliated with a 

Gang Housed at Main 

Jail Who Commit to 

Drop Out of a Gang 

A gender-based program with the 

overall goal to reduce substance 

use and abuse with women and with 

women who have children. Women 

are educated on the effects of 

substance abuse on the fetus and 

on small children. Upon successful 

completion, women can transition to 

the out of custody program. 

To reduce substance use and abuse 

for protective custody inmates who 

have demonstrated a commitment to 

drop out of the gang lifestyle. 

3 hours Substance Abuse 

Education daily, 3 hours Co- 

Dependency Education, 

Meditation, 2 hours Health 

Realization, 3 hours Computer 

Class, 3 hours Trauma Recovery, 

3 hours LIFT, 3 hours Domestic 

Violence, 3 hours Art Education, 

3 hours PACT Parenting, 3 hours 

PACT visit each week 


Education twice a week, 3 hours 

GED Preparation, 2 hours Health 

Realization, 2 hours Narcotics 

Anonymous, 3 hours Trauma 

Recovery per week 

8-10 weeks 

90 days 





90 days 

4. Get Right 


5. Healing Opportunities 

in a Program Environment 

(HOPE) (Comprehensive 

Program) 

6.Health Realization- 

(Three Principles) 

High Medium Security 

Men at Main Jail With 

Substance Abuse 

History 


Men with Substance 

Abuse History, Court 

or Self-Referred 

All Security Levels 

and Genders in 10 

units 

To reduce substance use and abuse 

for high-medium security male 

inmates who have a history of 

substance abuse issues. 

Reduce substance use and abuse 

and modify behavior. Inmates are 

not required to march. Upon 

completion, the inmate can 

transition to out of custody. 

Develop a depth of understanding 

rather than information; 

Understanding through insight rather 

than through gaining intellectual 

knowledge; Focus on health rather 

than dysfunction or disease; Help 

participants realize their health 

within; Help participants learn how 

minds work, how their experience of 

life is created and how they use or 

misuse their ability to think; Learn 

how behaviors such as addictions 

occur as a result of a learned 

habitual way of trying to find a relief 


Education per week, 3 hours 

Domestic Violence per week; 1.5 

hours Alcoholics Anonymous 

twice a week, 3 hours GED 

Preparation twice a week, 2 

hours Creating Writing per week, 

3 hours Trauma Recovery per 

week; 3 hours World Cultures per 

week 


Education daily, 3 hours Co- 

Dependency Education, 3 hours 

Communication Skills, 3 hours 

Job Readiness, 3 hours 

Parenting Education, 3 hours 

Trauma Recovery per week 

Principles of Mind, Thought and 

Consciousness, 3 hours per 

week - Offered to various 

programs 

8 to 10 weeks 

10 sessions that 

cover 20 topics 





from cluttered, confused thinking. 

With this understanding, participants 

change naturally. 

7. Heart and Soul Women ages 15-24 

years old in all 

custody levels 

8. Literacy in Families 

Together (LIFT) 

9. Mentoring You- 

Successful Transition of 

Recovering Individuals 


Minimum and Medium 

Security Men and 

Women with Children 


Women (not 

pregnant) 

Become aware of one’s identify; 

strengthen one’s faith; 

empowerment; improve healthy 

relationships with family, children, 

community and God. 

Break the inmate’s cycle of low 

literacy skills and incarceration; 

Instruct inmates using quality 

children’s literature to teach their 

children and to make person 

connections with them; Promote 

positive role modeling as mothers, 

fathers and caregivers; Educate 

inmates to become a positive force 

as their child’s first teacher; 

Empower children with literacy skills 

and self-esteem. 

A gender-relevant program to 

reduce substance use and abuse, 

modify behavior and encourage 

engagement in a women’s support 

group. A mentor is located by the 

participant to assist them upon 

release. Upon discharge, the 

woman becomes a member of the 

Women’s Circle which meets every 

two weeks. 

Family relationships, loss and 

grief, healthy relationships, 

conflict resolution, domestic 

violence, parenting effectiveness, 

communication skills, goal 

setting, guilt and shame. 

3 hour Class in Parenting 

education, reading children’s 

books to children 


Education per day; 2 hours 

Codependency/Parenting; 3 

hours Health Realization; 3 hours 

Computer Class; 3 hours 

Domestic Violence Education; 3 

hours Trauma Recovery; 3 hours 

LIFT Parenting; 2 hours 

Meditation; 3 hours PACT 

Parenting; 3 hours PACT Visit 

25 hours; 

Offered 3-4 

times a year 

12 sessions 

8-10 weeks 





per week; Community Mentor 

10. M8 Program Units 

(Units A-H as 1 Entity) 





Medium Security Men Reduce substance use and abuse; 

reduce anger; increase life skills; 

increase job readiness skills; 

increase parenting skills; earn a 

GED; learn English. 

Minimum and Medium 

Security Women 

Identify the four stages of 

development; List ways to build selfesteem 

for themselves and their 

children; Practice age-appropriate 

communication techniques; Identify 

three positive discipline alternatives 

to corporal punishment; 

Demonstrate an understanding of 

the negative effects of corporal 

punishment; List and practice 

methods for stress management 

and anger management; 

Demonstrate age-appropriate 

games and activities for their 

12-15 hours Substance Abuse 

Education per week, 15 hours 

GED per week, 15 hours 

Spanish/ESL per week, 3-9 hours 

Exit Planning, 6 hours 

Communication Skills, 6 hours 

Parenting Education, 1 hour NA 

per week per week, 1 hour Anger 

Management per week, 3 hours 

Parenting Education per week, 3 

Hours Violence Prevention per 

week, 3 hours Communication 

Skills, 3 hours Co-Dependency 

Education per week, 1.5 hours 

Alcoholics Anonymous per week, 

15 hours GED per week 

Classes are once a week for 3 

hours each; preparation for visit 

is 1 hour and child visit is 2 hours 

once a week. Parenting classes, 

Family Conflict Resolution Skills, 

Family Relationship Skills and 

Supervised Visits with Children 

90 days for each 

program unit 

2-hour contact 

visit 





children; Learn and practice conflict 

resolution and violence prevention 

techniques; practice parenting skills, 

playing with children and 

communicating love in supervised 

visits; Develop skills in 

communicating and cooperating with 

their social worker and/or child’s 

care giver; Understand and 

acknowledge the impact on children 

when their parents are incarcerated. 

Facilitate the development of a 

positive parent/child relationship; 

Rebuild positive, trusting, honest 

relationships between parent/child 

which begins to deal with the child’s 

pain of separation; Assist parents 

who will reunify with their children; 

Provide structured parent-child 

visitations. 

12. Program about 

Change and 

Encouragement (PACE) 


Low Medium Security 

Men in Protective 

Custody 

Reduce substance use and abuse; 

modify anti-social behavior; reduce 

trauma; increase literacy; participate 

in group therapy. Note: these 

participants are not case managed. 

9 hours per week of Substance 

Abuse Education, 3 hours LIFT 

Parenting, 3 hours Trauma 

Group Therapy; 3 hours Art 

education per week 

90 days 





8-10 weeks 

13. Regimented 

Corrections Program 

Phase I (RCP)-Men 




Phase I (RCP)-Women 



Individualized Journaling 

Program 


Males 


Women 

High Medium and 

Maximum Security 

Men and Women with 

A three-phase program with the goal 

of reducing substance use and 

abuse and modify criminal behavior. 

Participants attend classes Monday- 

Friday from 8:00 am-4:00 pm. The 

RCP program includes a physical 

and marching component. Upon 

successful completion, participants 

can transition to Phase II Out of 

Custody/Day Reporting and to 

Phase III Aftercare under the 

supervision of the Probation 

Department. 

Also a three-phase program to 

reduce substance use and abuse 

with a gender focus; Reduce 

trauma. 

Provide inmates the opportunity for 

programs who are unable to access 

programs due to their security and 

Physical Fitness, Marching, 15 

hours Substance Abuse 

Education per week; 3 hours Co- 

Dependency Education; 3 hours 

Communication Skills; 3 hours 

Exit Planning; 4.5 hours 

Parenting Education; 6 hours 

Violence Prevention; 1 hour GED 

Preparation; 2 hours Creative 

Writing; 3 hours World Cultures 

Education; 3 hours Health 

Realization; 3 hours Personal 

Inventory; 6 hours Anger 

Management; 3 hours Trauma 

Recovery per week 

Physical Fitness, Marching, 15 

hours Substance Abuse 

Education per week; 3 hours Co- 

Dependency Education; 3 hours 

Job Readiness; 4.5 hours 

Parenting Education; 3 hours 

Violence Prevention; 1.5 hours 

GED Preparation; 1 hour 

Personal Inventory; 3 hours 

advanced Computer Class; 3 

hours Relapse Prevention; 3 

hours Trauma Recovery per 

week; 3 hours Health Realization 

16 Individualized Journals 

Reflecting on Addictive Behavior 

and Criminal Activity 

8-10 weeks 

8 to 10 weeks 





addiction issues classification levels. Learn the 

connection between substance 

abuse addiction, behavior and 

criminal activity; Learn the Stages of 

Change by Prochaska and 

DeClemente; Reduce anger; Learn 

problem solving skills; Empower 

adult students to strengthen selfesteem; 

Grow in social 

responsibilities; Expand 

occupational skills; Achieve 

academic success. 


Program 

17. Veteran’s Educating to 



18. Women Investigating 

New Gates for Sobriety 

(WINGS) (Comprehensive 

Program) 

Minimum, Medium 

and High-Medium 

Security Males and 

Females 

Incarcerated Veterans 

Classified as 


Medium Security 

Females 

Manage trauma symptoms; Cope 

without the use of substances; 

prevent self-destructive acts; Take 

good care of yourself; Free yourself 

from abusive relationships; Find 

safe support systems; Find ways to 

feel good about yourself and to 

enjoy life. 


Connect veterans to Veterans’ 

Services and benefits; Enable 

eligible veterans to obtain substance 

abuse treatment. 

A gender-relevant program to 

reduce substance use and abuse 

and modify anti-social behavior. 

Graduates can transition to out of 

custody programs or community 

1.5 hours Education on Trauma; 

1.5 hours Group Therapy - 

Offered to various programs 


Education per week; 3 hours 

Trauma Recovery; 3 hours 

Healthy Relationships Education; 

3 hours Healthy Relationships 

Group Therapy per week 


Education daily, 3 hours 

Communication Skills; 6 hours 

GED Preparation; 1.5 hours 

Narcotics Anonymous; 3 hours 

8 weeks 

8 -10 weeks 

90 days 





based programs. Trauma Recovery; 3 hours PACT 

Parenting; 3 hours PACT Visit 

per week 


Substance Education 

(WISE) 


Male Inmate Workers 

with Substance 

Abuse issues 

Reduce substance use and abuse 

for inmate workers who are unable 

to attend classes during the day due 

to their work assignments. 


Education per week 

16 weeks 

Out of Custody Programs 



Phase II (RCP) 


Sentenced Minimum 

Security Men and 

Women who have 

completed the Phase 

I RCP; They have no 

holds; they live in a 

clean and sober living 

environment and they 

remain clean and 

sober 

Continue to support the offender in 

reducing their relapse to substance 

use and abuse while living in the 

community; Connect participants 

with community resources to aid in 

their sobriety and non-criminal 

lifestyle. 


Education per week; 3 hours Job 

Readiness; 3 hours Parenting 

Education; 3 hours Health 

Realization; 3 hours Trauma 

Recovery; 3 hours Personal 

Inventory; 3 hours Anger 

Management; 3 hours Relapse 

Prevention; 5 hours 12-Step; 2 

hours Parenting Education for 

men with young children per 

week 

8-10 weeks 





45 days 

21. Day Reporting (An 

Alternative Sentencing 

Program) 

Sentenced Offenders, 


and Low Medium 

Security, Eligible for 

Alternative 

Sentencing Program 


Give back to the community to make 

amends for past crimes through 

community service. 


Education per week; Community 

Service Work: Participant is a 

graduate from RCP II. The 

person reports to the DRC 

Monday through Friday, from 

8:00 am-4:00 pm. 

Note: The descriptions of these programs were as of January 2011; thus do not reflect any modifications made to them since January 2011. 




An additional analysis was conducted to determine how many SCCDOC inmates were returned to CDCR 

during the study period. 

Table 6.2 

Reincarceration Outcomes of Santa Clara County Inmates in the 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 



Sample 

N % n % 


to State Prison 

6 month 773 10.3 483 6.9 

12 month 923 12.4 532 7.6 

24 month 1,646 24.4 941 16.2 

Note: Column totals may differ across variables due to missing data and 

differences in time in the community post release 

The researchers believe that these data are underreported; thus, caution should be exercised in using 

these data. 




References 

Andrews, D.A. & J. Bonta (2010). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (Fifth Edition). Cincinnati, 

OH: Anderson. 

Andrews, D.A., I. Zinger, R.D. Hoge, J. Bonta, P. Gendreau, & F.T. Cullen (1990). Does 

correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. 

Criminology, 28 (3), 369-404. 

Andrews, D.A., J. Bonta, & J.S. Wormith (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or 

need assessment. Crime & Delinquency. Vol. 52 No.1. 

Andrews, D.A, J. Bonta, & R.D. Hoge (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: 

Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17 (1), 19-52. 

Bonta, J. (2002). Offender risk assessment: Guidelines for selection and use. Criminal Justice 

and Behavior, 29 (4), 355-379. 

Bourgon, G. & Armstrong, B. Transferring the Principles of Effective Treatment into a “Real World” 

Prison Setting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 32 No.1, February 2005. 

Corrections Standards Authority. 2005 Adult Title 15 Programs and Procedures Guidelines. 

Cullen F.T. & P. Gendreau (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and 

prospects. Pp. 109-175 in Horney (ed.), Criminal Justice 2000, volume 3: Policies, processes, and 

decisions of the criminal justice system. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, US Department of 

Justice. 

Dowden, C. & D.A. Andrews (2000). Effective correctional treatment and violent reoffending: A 

meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology, October, 449-467. 

Dowden, C. & D.A. Andrews. (2004). The Importance of Staff Practice in Delivering Effective 

Correctional Treatment: A Meta-Analytic Review of Core Correctional Practice. International Journal of 

Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48(2), 203-213. 

Fixen, Dean. L., Sandra F. Naoom, Karen A. Blasé, Robert M. Friedman, Frances Wallace. 

Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature. University of South Florida. 2005. 

Gendreau, P. & R.R. Ross (1987). Revivification of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s. 

Justice Quarterly, 4 (3), 349-407. 

Gendreau, P., French, S.A., and A. Taylor (2002). What Works (What Doesn’t Work) Revised 202. 

Invited Submission to the International Community Corrections Association Monograph Series Project0 

Gibbons, J. & de B. Katzenbach, N. Confronting Confinement. 2006. 




Holsinger, A. M. (1999). Opening the 'black box': Assessing the relationship between program 

integrity and recidivism. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Cincinnati. 

Holsinger, A.M., A. J. Lurigio, & E. J. Latessa (2001). Practitioners’ guide to understanding the 

basis of assessing offender risk. Federal Probation, 65 (1), 46-50. 

Landenberger, N.A. & M.W. Lipsey (2005). The positive effects of cognitive-behavioral programs 

for offenders: a meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. Journal of Experimental 

Criminology, 1 (4), 451-476. 

Latessa, E.J., & A. Holsinger (1998). The importance of evaluating correctional programs: 

Assessing outcome and quality. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2 (4), 22-29. 

Latessa, E.J. Evidence-Based Correctional Program Checklist: Group Assessment. Center for 

Criminal Justice Research. Division of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati. 2009. Dowden, 

Lipsey, M.W., G. Chapman & N.A. Landenberger (2001). Cognitive-behavioral programs for 

offenders. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 578, 144-157. 

Lowenkamp, C. T. (2003). A Program Level Analysis of the Relationship between Correctional 

Program Integrity and Treatment Effectiveness. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Cincinnati. 

Lowenkamp, C. & E.J. Latessa (2002). Evaluation of Ohio’s Community Based Correctional 

Facilities and Halfway House Programs. University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute. 

Lowenkamp, C. & E.J. Latessa (2003). Evaluation of Ohio’s Halfway Houses and Community 

Based Correctional Facilities. Center for Criminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, 

OH. 

Lowenkamp, C. & E.J. Latessa (2004). Understanding the risk principle: How and why correctional 

interventions can harm low-risk offenders. Topics in Community Corrections, 3-8. 

Lowenkamp, C. & E.J. Latessa (2005). Increasing the effectiveness of correctional programming 

through the risk principle: Identifying offenders for residential placement. Criminology and Public Policy, 4 

(2), 263-290. 

Lowenkamp, C. & E.J. Latessa (2005a). Evaluation of Ohio’s CCA Programs. Center for Criminal 

Justice Research, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH. 

Lowenkamp, C. & E.J. Latessa (2005b). Evaluation of Ohio’s Reclaim Funded Programs, 

Community Correctional Facilities, and DYS Facilities. Center for Criminal Justice Research, University of 

Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH. 

Lowenkamp, C. T., D. Hubbard, M. D. Makarios, & E. J. Latessa (2009), a quasi-experimental 

evaluation of Thinking for a Change: A “real-world” application. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 36 (2), 137- 

146. 




Martin, Mark D. Richard J. Kaledas. Programs and Activities. Tools for Managing Inmate Behavior. 

National Institute of Corrections. June 2010. NIC Accession Number 024368 

National Institute of Corrections. Transition from Jail to Community (TJC) and Prison to 

Community. http://nicic.gov/JailTransition 

National Implementation Research Network. www.fpg.unc.edu/~nirn/ 

Palmer, T. (1975). Martinson Revisited. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 12, 

133-152. 

Petrosino, A. & Soydan, H. (2005). the impact of program developers as evaluators on criminal 

recidivism: Results from meta-analyses of experimental and quasi-experimental research. Journal of 

Experimental Criminology, 1(4), 435-450. 

Santa Clara County Department of Correction. Programs Overview. 2010. 

Smith, P. P. Gendreau, & C. Goggin (2009). Correctional treatment: Accomplishments and 

realities. In P. Van Voorhis, M. C. Braswell, and D. Lester (Eds.), Correctional Counseling and 

Rehabilitation, 7 th Ed. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Press. 

Texas Christian University. http://www.ibr.tcu.edu/pubs/datacoll/cjtrt.html 

Ward, T. and L. Eccleston. “Risk, Responsivity, and the Treatment of Offenders: Introduction to the 

Special Issue.” Psychology, Crime & Law 10, no. 3 (2004). 

Zamble, E. (1993). Expanding the Recidivism Inquiry: A Look at Dynamic Factors. Forum on 

Correctional Research, 5:27-30. 




Materials for Review 

and Consideration 



CORRECTIONS PROGRAM CHECKLIST PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 

FOR EFFECTIVE CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMMING 

CAPACITY: PROGRAM STAFF AND SUPPORT 


1) Program Coordinator in Place (Coordinator has overall responsibility for the oversight and 

management of the groups). 

2) Program Coordinator Selects or Approves Group Facilitators (If the Department contracts with 

a private provider, the Coordinator should have some involvement in the selection process of the 

provider such as in the interview and decision-making process). 

3) Program Coordinator Supervises Group Facilitators (Regular staff meetings, observation and 

review of staff, clinical supervision). 

4) Group Facilitators Have an Associate’s Degree or Higher in the Helping Field (e.g. 

counseling, addiction, social work, psychology, and criminal justice). 

5) Group Facilitators Have Hands-on Experience in Treatment Programs for At a Minimum of 2 

Years (Experience in currently position qualifies). 

6) Group Facilitators are Selected for Skills and Values (Strong support for offender treatment and 

change, empathy, fairness, life experience, non-confrontational but firm, problem solving and prior 

training or licensure). 

7) Regular Staff Meetings (At least bi-monthly staff meetings to discuss new intakes, case reviews, 

problems, progress reports, terminations). 

8) Initial and On-Going Training to Enhance Skills (Formal training on the curriculum and at least 

40 hours per year of ongoing workshops, courses, in-service or conferences related to groups and 

service delivery. Topics include booster sessions on the curriculum, training in assessment 

instruments, training in Principles of Effective Intervention, clinically relevant issues and training on 

group processes and facilitation skills). 

9) Ethical Guidelines for Group Facilitators (Professional standards, Code of Ethics). 

10) Support by Stakeholders (Regular referrals, support indicated by stakeholders, high ratings by 

staff on questionnaire or survey, no evidence of dissatisfaction with program or services). 

CONTENT: OFFENDER ASSESSMENT 

11) Exclusionary Criteria Followed and Appropriate Participants (Written criteria is policy and 

followed that determines who is suitable for the program and the offender is matched with the 

service that addresses their risk to reoffend and presenting problems. Percent of inappropriate 

participants does not exceed 20%). 




12) Risk Assessed Using Validated Instrument (Risk to reoffend is measured using a validated, 

standardized and objective risk assessment instrument that scores the Department’s offender 

population in low, medium and high risk). 

13) Domain Specific Need Assessed with Validated Instrument (Criminogenic needs are measured 

using a standardized and objective risk assessment instrument that scores the offender’s level of 

need). 

14) Responsivity Factors (The offender’s aptitude, reading level, gender, age, motivation level and 

psychiatric and substance abuse disorders are taken into account so that the group addresses the 

specific needs of the participants). 

15) Group Targets Higher Risk Offenders (Groups should target the higher risk offenders, at least 

70% of the program participants should be medium to high risk; low risk offenders should not be 

mixed with high risk offenders). 

16) Group Targets Relevant Higher Need Offenders (Groups should target high need offenders so 

that offenders assigned to treatment groups should have medium and high level of dependency). 

CONTENT: TREATMENT 

GROUP PROCESS 

17) Criminogenic Target (Groups should address the needs that are associated with reductions in 

recidivism such as antisocial attitudes, values and beliefs, antisocial peers, substance abuse, sex 

offender behavior, impulsive behavior, violence, aggression, and anger). 

18) Evidence-Based Treatment (Treatment should use modalities that have been proven to change 

offending behavior such as cognitive behavior therapy, social skills training, family-based 

approaches). 

19) Gender of Groups (Treatment groups should serve single sex). 

20) Group was Held Entire Time Scheduled (Groups should last the entire time that they are 

scheduled so they should begin on time and last the entire time scheduled). 

21) Group Facilitator Knowledgeable About Material Being Presented (Group facilitators should be 

able to answer questions, explain material clearly, provide clear examples and illustrations). 

22) Group Facilitator Encourages Participation (Group facilitators should engage participants so 

that all participants actively participate such as calling on participants; ensure that every participant 

is allowed to practice). 

23) Group Facilitator Regularly Assigns and Reviews Homework Assignments (Group facilitators 

should assign homework; they should review it and provide feedback). 




24) Group Norms are Established and Followed (Group rules should be formally established, 

discussed with participants, followed and documented). 

25) If Co-Facilitator, both are Active (If a co-facilitator is used, they should be active in facilitating). 

26) Length of Treatment is Sufficient (Duration of the group should be sufficient to change behavior). 

27) Manual Developed and is Followed (The facilitator follows a curriculum/manual that outlines 

goals, content, recommended teaching methods, exercises and homework assignments. Facilitator 

follows the manual). 

28) Groups are Conducted by Staff (Treatment groups are taught by trained staff, not offenders. 

Offenders could assist but they are not assigned as the instructor). 

29) Group Size (Treatment groups do not exceed 8-10 participants per facilitator, unless there is a cofacilitator). 

30) Facilitator Addresses Responsivity Factors (Facilitator addresses the special learning barriers 

of the participant such as a ESL tutor, participant with a lower reading level is not placed in a group 

that requires a higher reading level, women are not placed in treatment programs validated on men 

and vice versa). 

EFFECTIVE REINFORCEMENT 

31) Appropriate Rewards (Group facilitators identify and apply appropriate rewards, such as social 

rewards, earning privileges, certificates of completion, praise, acknowledgement, points/tokens, gift 

certificates, reduction in time, etc.). 

32) Ratio Favors Rewards (The application of rewards should outnumber punishers by at least 4:1). 

33) Appropriate Application of Rewards (Procedures for administering rewards include: immediate 

reinforcement, explanation of why the rewards are being administered, and reward is clearly tied to 

the behavior). 

34) Uses Peers to Promote Prosocial Behavior (The facilitator encourages participants to recognize 

and promote pro-social behavior, e.g. time may be allocated to recognize good performance, or 

facilitator asks group members to congratulate others). 

EFFECTIVE DISAPPPROVAL 

35) Appropriate Punishers (Appropriate punishers are used to extinguish antisocial expressions and 

to promote behavioral change in the future by showing the offenders that behavior has 

consequences, e.g., verbal disapproval, response cost – loss of privileges, points, levels, or extra 

homework). 




36) Facilitator Responds Appropriately to Non-Compliance (Group facilitators respond to noncompliance 

in an appropriate manner, (e.g. explaining to violator why behavior is unacceptable and 

holding offender accountable). 

37) Appropriate Application of Punisher (Procedures for administering punishers include: 

recognition of anti-social expression, consistency, explanation of why the punisher is being 

administered, maximum intensity, and termination after punisher is administered). 

38) Prosocial Alternative is Offered (After the punisher has been administered, the participant is 

taught an alternative to the inappropriate behavior). 

39) Recognizes and Deals Appropriately with Negative Effects (Evidence that the facilitator 

consistently recognizes whether the punishment produces emotional reactions that interfere with 

new learning or disrupts social relationships, produces avoidance/aggression toward punisher or 

program, leads to increased future use of unwanted behavior by the offender, or produces 

response substitution). 

STRUCTURED SKILL BUILDING 

40) Facilitator Models Prosocial Skills and Explains the Benefits of Learning New Prosocial 

Skills and Behavior (Participants are consistently taught to observe and anticipate problem 

situations through modeling and demonstrations by the facilitator. The facilitator also “sells” the 

new skill being taught to offenders by explaining to participants the advantages of learning the new 

skill or behavior and the benefits that will be derived). 

41) Prosocial Skill Training with Corrective Feedback (There is evidence that the participants 

consistently practice and rehearse alternative prosocial responses throughout the group and 

corrective feedback is provided to improve skills. Practice should be limited to prosocial responses 

to problematic situations. As a rule of thumb, during the cycle of a group approximately 40% of the 

total number of hours of group treatment should be allocated to practice. As such, practice should 

be a routine part of group in order for criteria to be met). 

42) Graduated Practice with Corrective Feedback (Participants practice new prosocial behaviors in 

increasingly difficult situations or more difficult role-playing scenarios are created and participants 

are given constructive feedback. There should be evidence that sufficient time is allocated to allow 

all participants time to practice new skills in increasingly difficult situations and that it is a routine 

part of group, or that offenders participate in an advanced practice group in order for the criteria to 

be met). 

RELATIONSHIP SKILLS 

43) Rapport Established (There is clearly established rapport between facilitator and group 

participants). 

44) Boundaries Established (There are clearly established boundaries between the facilitator and 

participants. The facilitator should maintain a professional relationship with participants and should 




refrain from using antisocial expressions as a means of bonding with participants. If self-disclosure 

is used, it should be brief and clearly used as a coping model for the participants). 

45) Facilitator Avoids Arguments and Rolls with Resistance (Facilitators do not get into arguments 

with the participants but rather they use appropriate techniques to roll with resistance, such as 

redirection or extinction). 

COGNITIVE RESTRUCTURING 

46) Underlying Thoughts and Values are Identified (There is evidence that some sessions include a 

focus on helping the participants identify underlying attitudes, values, and beliefs. Techniques 

include use of thinking reports, functional analysis, cost benefit analysis or other appropriate 

techniques to help participants recognize distorted/antisocial thinking). 

47) Antisocial Thinking and High Risk Situations are Addressed (Participants are taught how to 

address antisocial thinking and to identify high risk situations, triggers and cues, and work on 

strategies to avoid or appropriately handle risky people, places, and things. Techniques include 

thought stopping or use of thinking reports). 

48) Antisocial Thinking is Replaced with Prosocial Thoughts (Participants are taught how to 

replace antisocial thinking with appropriate prosocial thoughts. Techniques include Cost Benefit 

Analysis, Functional Analysis, Rule Tools, and Thinking Reports. Facilitators should also discuss 

more prosocial interpretations of participants’ antisocial thinking). 

RELAPSE PREVENTION 

49) Risk Plans are Developed and Rehearsed (Some of the group sessions should be devoted to 

developing risk or relapse prevention plans and there should be evidence that participants are 

given an opportunity to plan and rehearse risk plans and relapse prevention techniques. Plans 

should be individualized and should include strategies and scripts for responding to risky situations, 

people, and places). 

CAPACITY: QUALITY ASSURANCE 

50) Observation of Groups with Feedback (There should be evidence that the program coordinator 

or clinical supervisor observes group and provides constructive feedback at minimum once every 

group cycle (or quarterly if group has no defined cycle). Service delivery skills should be 

examined, e.g., communication skills, modeling of new behaviors, use of redirection techniques 

and behavioral reinforcements, group facilitation, and knowledge of curriculum). 

51) Participant Satisfaction (Participants should be surveyed/interviewed as to their satisfaction with 

groups. This can include exit surveys/interviews, post release surveys, phone calls, etc.). 

52) Pre-post Testing (There should be some form of pre/post testing of participants on target 

behaviors). 




53) Completion Criteria (Criteria should be clearly outlined as to when the program terminates for 

each offender. Termination should be defined by progress in acquiring pro-social behaviors, 

attitudes, and beliefs while in the program. Ideally, this would include performance measures that 

include change in attitudes, acquisition of new knowledge and insight, and demonstration of new 

skills and behaviors). 

54) Discharge Summary (A formal discharge summary should be developed for each offender upon 

completion of the group. These should include progress in meeting target behaviors and goals, 

recommendations regarding areas that need continued work, testing results, etc. Discharge 

summaries should be written by the facilitator and should be specific to the group being taught). 

Note: These criteria are proprietary to the University of Cincinnati and thus the public use of these 

criteria must be by permission from the University of Cincinnati. (www.uc.edu/criminal justice) 




















































































































































































































































Note: Source for this and other program profiles is: Martin, Mark D. Richard J. Kaledas. Programs 

and Activities. Tools for Managing Inmate Behavior. National Institute of Corrections. June 2010. 

NIC Accession Number 024368 
















CrimeSolutions.gov 

The Office of Justice Programs’ CrimeSolutions.gov uses rigorous research to determine what works in 

criminal justice, juvenile justice, and crime victim services. Santa Clara County Department of Correction 

can obtain individual profiles of effective and promising programs by examining this website. 

On CrimeSolutions.gov you will find: 

o 

o 

o 

• Research on program effectiveness reviewed and rated by Expert Reviewers 

• Easily understandable ratings based on the evidence that indicates whether a program achieves its 

goals: (Program Review and Rating from Start to Finish) 

Effective 

Promising 

No Effects 

• Key program information and research findings: Read more About CrimeSolutions.gov 

CrimeSolutions.gov is not an exhaustive list of all justice-related programs, and a program’s inclusion on 

this site does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Justice. Read more. 




Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature (2005). Fixen, Dean. L., Sandra F. Naoom, Karen 

A. Blasé, Robert M. Friedman, Frances Wallace 

Resource Type: National Implementation Research Network, University of North Carolina. Chapel Hill, 

North Carolina. Description: Over the past decade, the science related to developing and identifying 

"evidence-based practices and programs" has improved- however the science related to implementing 

these programs with fidelity and good outcomes for consumers lag far behind. To this end, our intent is to 

describe the current state of the science of implementation, and identify what it will take to transmit 

innovative programs and practices to mental health, social services, juvenile justice, education, early 

childhood education, employment services, and substance abuse prevention and treatment. This 

monograph summarizes findings from the review of the research literature on implementation and proposes 

frameworks for understanding effective implementation processes. The results of this literature review and 

synthesis confirm that systematic implementation practices are essential to any national attempt to use the 

products of science - such as evidence-based programs - to improve the lives of its citizens. 

View Table of Contents of this Report 




EXAMPLE OF AN EFFECTIVE DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAM 

The KEY-CREST program provides a three-phase treatment program beginning in custody for 6-12 months 

in jail (KEY Y Program), followed by 6-months semi-secure secure phase (CREST) followed by 6-months out-ofcustody 

outpatient treatment phase while on probation supervision. This program has been nationally 

recognized by the National Institute of Justice and the U.S. Substance Abuse Mental Health Services 

Administration as an evidence-based program. The outcomes of this program are significant: 

• Offenders who successfully complete the full 18 month continuum (KEY-CREST): 75 percent are 

drug free and 72 percent are arrest-free of any charge 18 months following discharge from 

treatment. 

• Persons who successfully complete treatment in custody (KEY) and complete only 6 months of the 

CREST program in residential treatment: 46 percent are drug free and 60 percent are arrest free 

18 months following discharge from treatment. 

• Persons who successfully complete treatment in custody only (KEY): 34 percent are drug free and 

46 percent are arrest free 18 months following discharge from treatment. 

Key-Crest Participants Remain 

Drug-Free and Arrest-Free Longer Than other Participants 

Source: http://www.state.de.us/correct/Programs/treatmentprograms.shtml Lipton, Douglas S. The Effectiveness of 

Treatment for Drug Abusers Under Criminal Justice Supervision. National Institute of Justice. Office of Justice 

Programs.

Santa Clara County Department of Correction Recidivism Report

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?