Outline for Today

1. An evaluation of theCalifornia Parole Supervisionand Reintegration Model(CPSRM) Joseph R. Tatar IICenter for Evidence-Based Corrections (CEBC)UC Irvine

2. Outline for Today CPSRM overview Origins Principles Pilot implementation Process evaluation Parole agent attitude surveys Behavioral study of agent-parolee interaction Parole agent interviews Parolee interviews Current status of the evaluation

3. Origins of CPSRM How CPSRM was hatched within DAPO SB3X 18 in early 2010 introduced Non- Revocable Parole (NRP), removing ‘lower risk, lower stakes’ parolees from caseloads Provided an opportunity to focus resources Parole Reform Task Force established, produced a report outlining parole reform Anticipated 400 new parole agent positions (= lower caseloads) Calls for parole reform (eg from Legislature)

4. CPSRM Principles A ‘social work’ model Caseloads reduced to 48:1 (down from >70) Better agent understanding of criminogenic needs/RNR (COMPAS, comprehensive interviews, agent training) Addressing criminogenic needs (Using Motivational Interviewing, program referrals, ‘dosage’) Involvement of the parolee (CCR, self-disclosure, goal setting, contacts with families/employers)

5. Commenced 1st August, 2010 • at 4 Pilot Sites • Implemented in 3 Phases • Rollout to 20 units Oct 2011 The CPSRM Pilot Santa Rosa Bakersfield When: San Gabriel Valley Tricity (at Riverside)

6. INPUT The Black Box of Supervision OUTPUT The Process Evaluation ‘The New Model’ Reentry success Agent attitudes Agent perceptions Agent-parolee behavior Parolee perceptions • Major Research Question • Have parole agents changed the way they do business? • how they view their role • how they view the value of rehabilitation • whether they have adopted new verbal techniques • whether parolees have noticed a difference

7. surveillance punishment Agent Attitudes - Methodology social work treatment Fulton et al 1997 7 item, semantic differentials Cullen et al 1985 9 statements, rated from 1-7 1. Toward role 2. Toward Rehabilitation Sample: N = 51 agents at baseline, July 2010 N = 36 agents at follow-up, Jan 2011 Agents who completed surveys at both baseline and follow-up: N= 28 (for Role survey) and N = 31 (for Rehabilitation survey)

8. surveillance surveillance social work Selected Results - Role social work • Slight overall shift toward a social worker role • Social work vs. law enforcement orientation • Agents were fairly balanced in their role • ‘Punitive’ agents tended to be White, males BASELINE FOLLOW-UP

9. punishment punishment Selected Results - Rehabilitation treatment treatment • Slight positive shift re: theory of rehabilitation • Agents held positive views toward rehabilitation • Especially if they were Black, veterans of DAPO, not Corrections Officers previously BASELINE FOLLOW-UP treatment punishment • Slight negative shift re: current practices in rehabilitation

10. Agent Behavior – Study Design BASELINEFOLLOW-UP Spring 2010 Fall/Winter 2010 PILOT (Tricity) NON-PILOT (Riv1) Do agents change their communication under CPSRM? 2 types of behavior - use of Motivational Interviewing - discussion of criminogenic needs CPSRM 1 hr audio per agent 1 hr audio per agent 1 hr audio per agent 1 hr audio per agent

11. Coding Scheme (Martin et al 2005) AgentParolee1. MI consistent 1. Ask question2. MI inconsistent 2. Follow/Neutral3. Open question 3. Change talk4. Closed question 4. Counter change talk5. Reflect6. Direct7. Other Agent Behavior - Coding 2. Criminogenic Needs 1. Motivational Interview Coding Scheme (Bonta, 2009)Criminal personalityProcriminal attitudesProcriminal associatesFamily/maritalEmployment/school Leisure/recreation Substance abuse Non criminal Acute Needs/Parole Cond.

12. Agent Behavior – Preliminary Results CPSRM group – Mean percentage of sessions where the criminogenic need was discussed

13. Agent Behavior – Preliminary Results Control group – Mean percentage of sessions where the criminogenic need was discussed

14. Agent Interviews (n=23) – Selected Results Agents were split 50/50 into two ‘camps’ The positive camp: improved quality of contacts worked closer with parolees front-loading of services likely to enhance public safety The negative camp: too much paperwork reduced time in the field Some examples of DAPO policy changes: Monthly goals changed to quarterly Consolidated separate initial/comprehensive interviews into one Reduced redundancy in paperwork Changed the mix of supervision categories on caseloads

15. Parolee Interviews What do parolees think of supervision under CPSRM? overall rating relationship quality help with crim needs social support employment/education substance abuse etc N = 80 (40 from pilot units, 40 from non-pilot units) Structured face-to-face, $20 grocery store gift card Items from Urban Institute Returning Home study We are currently interviewing parolees

16. 3 Points for Take Home • 1) Agents perceived their role as more “social work” oriented and valued rehabilitation as a general principle, but felt current practices (e.g. traditional parole) need improvement • 2) Agents spent more time discussing criminogenic needs in session post-CPSRM training • 3) Agents were divided between the merits of CPSRM and the costs of increased workload • Results sparked DAPO action to alleviate concerns

17. Current Status of the Evaluation Completed: Study on agent attitudes, with report Agent interviews, with report Data capture and coding for behavioral study Currently working on: Data analysis and report for behavioral study Parolee interview study To do: Outcome evaluation of recidivism: 1 – 3 year follow-up

18. Acknowledgments & Questions CDCR – Office of Research DAPO – Robert Ambroselli, Margarita Perez, Rick Winistorfer, David Babby, John Heise, Carol Avansino, Bill Cuellar, Bill Dunkak, Craig Toni, Carrie Daves All the agents, supervisors and parolees who have contributed CEBC – The many Graduate Student Researchers who have contributed Tim Martin and colleagues – MI-SCOPE Jim Bonta and colleagues – The STICS Project Christy Visher – Returning Home study helen.b@uci.edu http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/