IOWA BOARD OF CORRECTIONS AGENDA Friday, July 11, 2014, 9

TERRY E. BRANSTAD, GOVERNOR
KIM REYNOLDS, LT. GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
JOHN R. BALDWIN, DIRECTOR
IOWA BOARD OF CORRECTIONS AGENDA
Friday, July 11, 2014, 9:00 a.m.
Iowa Department of Corrections
Anamosa State Penitentiary
406 North High Street
Anamosa, IA 52205
(319) 462-3504
TOPIC


PRESENTER
Call to Order
Reverend Michael Coleman
 Approval of June 6, 2014 Minutes (Action Item)
(A meeting notice will be posted on the DOC website: www.doc.state.ia.us)
Next Board meeting will be August 8, 2014
Reverend Michael Coleman
at the Ft. Des Moines Residential Facility,
Building 70 Thayer Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50315
(A meeting notice will be posted on the DOC website: www.doc.state.ia.us)
Welcome
Warden John Fayram
Director’s Report
Director John R. Baldwin
Student Study on Dementia
Dr. Harbans Deol
Sex Offender Registry
Dot Faust
Offender Phone Rate Changes
Fred Scaletta
PREA Update
Director John R. Baldwin
IPI Braille Program
Al Reiter
Cognitive Training
Dot Faust and Laura Scheffert
Reentry Grant Update
Jerry Bartruff
Budget Update
Brad Hier
Public Comments
Public
Open Discussion
Board Members
Adjournment
Board Members
A tour of the Anamosa State Penitentiary will be offered after the meeting.
The Board of Corrections’ agenda is posted on the DOC Web Site at www.doc.state.ia.us
under the Board of Corrections Tab.
The mission of the Iowa Department of Corrections is to:
Advance successful offender reentry to protect the public, staff and offenders from victimization.
(Office) 515-725-5701 - 510 East 12th Street, Des Moines, Iowa 50319 - (FAX) 515-725-5799
www.doc.state.ia.us
TERRY E. BRANSTAD, GOVERNOR
KIM REYNOLDS, LT. GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
JOHN R. BALDWIN, DIRECTOR
IOWA BOARD OF CORRECTIONS MINUTES
Friday, June 6, 2014
Iowa Department of Corrections
Newton Correctional Facility
Correctional Release Center
307 S. 60th Avenue West
Newton, IA 50208
Board Members Present: Nancy Turner, Dr. John Chalstrom, Rebecca Williams, Richard LaMere,
Lawrence Kudej. On Conference Call: Chair Rev. Michael Coleman, Dr. Mary Chapman.
Staff Present: Director John Baldwin, Diann Wilder-Tomlinson, Dot Faust, Jerry Bartruff, Fred
Scaletta, Sheryl Dahm, Jean Schlichtemeier, Dan Craig, Terry Mapes, Jim McKinney, Sally
Kreamer, Marty Hathaway, Steve Zdrazil, Wade Hammen, Randy Smith, Landen Ploeger, Eric
Reese, Lance Walding, Gary Weaver, Josh McNeil, Michael Stuckey, James Crouch, Cortney
Pearson, Steve Nelson.
Visitors Present:
Jean Basinger, Justice Reform Consortium and Iowa CURE; Elena Mitchell-Sadler, Ombudsman’s
Office; Cathy Engel, Senate Democratic Caucus Staff.
Call to Order, Chair Reverend Michael Coleman
 Reverend Michael Coleman called the meeting to order.
 Reverend Michael Coleman asked for any changes or a motion to approve the May 2,
2014 minutes. Nancy Turner made a motion to approve the minutes and Dr. John
Chalstrom seconded the motion. All members were in favor of approving the minutes,
motion passed.
 Richard LaMere was nominated by Dr. John Chalstrom and seconded by Lawrence
Kudej. All members were in favor. Richard LaMere is now the Vice Chair of the Iowa
Department of Corrections Board.
 The next Board meeting will be July 11, in Anamosa. The board meeting will start at the
Anamosa State Penitentiary at 9:00 a.m.
(A meeting notice will be posted on the DOC website: www.doc.state.ia.us)
Welcome, Warden Terry Mapes

Welcome to the Newton Correctional Facility – Correctional Release Center (NCF-CRC).
Director’s Report, Director John Baldwin

We are one of thirteen states competing for one of three $3 million Reentry Grants.

The IDOC is in the final stages of writing our Native American policy with expectations for
staff and Native American offenders on their roles and responsibilities.

Former Lt. Governer Joy Corning toured the Iowa Correctional Institution for Women
(ICIW).
The mission of the Iowa Department of Corrections is to:
Advance successful offender reentry to protect the public, staff and offenders from victimization.
(Office) 515-725-5701 - 510 East 12th Street, Des Moines, Iowa 50319 - (FAX) 515-725-5799
www.doc.state.ia.us






When Lt. Governor Corning left office she convinced local contractors to donate their
time and materials to build a Chapel at ICIW for the female offenders.
We have spent a great deal of time with the Attorney General and the Governor’s
Attorney to respond to the Federal Mandate by May 15th. The State of Iowa is going to try
for compliance of the PREA standards.
Randy Day, a long time 6th District CBC employee, retired recently.
We are working with the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) on the Burlington
Residential Facility. One of the classroom walls is caving in, dropping down into a furrow,
we will be working to fix.
The final meeting with Iowa State University College of Landscape Architecture was held
for a staff decompression area at ICIW.
Yesterday ICIW held their HiSET/GED Graduation.
Ft. Dodge Recognition, Board Members

The Ft. Dodge Correctional Facility (FDCF) was awarded the prestigious 2014 Law
Enforcement Award by the Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee.
 FDCF staff assisted in the search for kidnapping victim Kathlynn Shepard, who was
later murdered by Michael Klunder.
 Warden McKinney is very proud of the team effort of his staff that volunteered to
assist in the search.
Mitchellville Construction Update, Warden Patti Wachtendorf

While the ‘new’ ICIW was being built the ‘old’ ICIW was fenced off so that daily operations
could continue at the Institution. The same is being done now with the removal of the
‘old’ ICIW and the building of the new Programs building.
 Warden Wachtendorf showed photos of the construction project in progress.
Ft. Madison Construction Update, Warden Nick Ludwick and Deputy Warden Mark Roberts

The Iowa State Penitentiary (ISP) is adding 66 pumps to the geothermal system that are
essential to make the system work correctly.
 ISP has been utilizing the delay in moving offenders by conducting more training.
Drug Courts in Iowa, District Director Sally Kreamer

The Legislature provided additional funding for drug courts during the last Legislative
session.
 Drug courts were created in the 1980s to reduce recidivism for high risk drug
offenders, the first drug court in the state of Iowa was started in 1995.
 In 2014 there are 9 drug courts, juvenile and adult, in the state of Iowa.
 Drug courts are a diversion program. Drug offenses usually have lengthy prison
sentences. Offenders are asked if they would rather participate in drug court or go to
prison for the charges.
 Those that successfully completed drug court, 5 years later, had a 25% recidivism
rate, while those who didn’t complete drug court, had a 75% recidivism rate.
Prison Gardens, Warden Terry Mapes

The Newton Correctional Facility (NCF) supports the Special Olympics, Wounded
Warriors, Food Bank of Iowa, Big Brothers & Big Sisters, Skiff Medical Center Auxilery
Group.

NCF started a Braille program several years ago that has recently expanded with Iowa
Prison Industries (IPI).

NCF’s prison garden is 24 acres, 12 acres belong to the DOC the other 12 acres belong
to the Food Bank of Iowa.
2



NCF grew 43.2 tons of produce from the DOC garden in 2013, which saved NCF
$48,000 in food costs. They grew $31,951 worth of produce (31.1 tons) from the
Food Bank of Iowa’s 12 acres of garden.
NCF has trained 228 dogs from the Jasper County Animal Rescue League that have
been adopted out.
NCF just graduated its 34th leader dog. They are currently working with 12 leader dogs.
PREA Update, Jean Schlichtemeier

NCF, the North Central Correctional Facility (NCCF), and the Iowa Medical and
Classification Center (IMCC) will be the first 3 prisons audited in the state of Iowa in July

NCCF will be audited by another state’s auditor, while IMCC and NCF will be audited by
private Department of Justice (DOJ) certified auditors, the Nakamato Group.
Reentry Grant Update, Dot Faust

Dot is the Deputy Director of Offender Services

The IDOC has been working on the Second Chance Recidivism Reduction Grant, several
people from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) were assigned to assist in writing the
grant.
 The final grant application is due July 15th.
 Each grant is worth $3 million over 3 years.
Public Comments, Public

Marty Hathway, AFSCME, Correctional Officer at IMCC. Members of AFSCME have
asked their International President to write a letter to President or the White House saying
“We agree with PREA, but we do not agree with how the standards are being applied.
This takes us back to the 1980s, where a female officer had to announce her presence
before going into bunk houses. That is what the PREA standards are going back to.”
Open Discussion, Board Members

Dr. John Chalstrom, as a graduate of Ft. Dodge Senior High, wanted to express his
gratitude to all the staff at FDCF, those who assisted in the search for Kathlynn Shepard
and those who stayed at the institution to cover posts on behalf of the city of Ft. Dodge.

Lawrence Kudej asked if there is anything new on the 6th District.

Director Baldwin responded that more auditors have gone back into the 6th District to
continue to expand their audit. It is now in the hands of the Iowa State Auditor, the
Attorney General, and the Department of Criminal Investigations (DCI).
Adjournment Board Members

Dr. John Chalstrom motioned to adjourn the meeting and Nancy Turner seconded the
motion. All members were in favor. Motion passed, meeting adjourned.
Respectfully Submitted,
Abby Williams, Secretary
The Board of Corrections’ agenda is posted on the DOC Web Site at www.doc.state.ia.us
under the Board of Corrections Tab.
3
DEMENTIA IN IDOC
PRISON
POPULATION
Jennifer Becker, RN, BSN, DNP
Candidate
U. of Iowa College of Nursing
H. Deol, D.O.,Ph.D.
Iowa DOC
The number of older inmates in prison is rising
(Maschi
et al., 2012).
An Institute of Medicine (IOM) report from 2008
found that many healthcare and service providers,
including those in criminal justice, are unprepared
to care for this population.
 Inmates with dementia present unique challenges to
the order and obedience of a correctional
environment.
 Memory loss and impairment with reasoning, behavior,
and personality can make it difficult to abide to order
and obedience of prison environment.(Maschi et al., 2012).
 The most common and costly condition of geriatric
prisoners is cognitive impairment including dementia.
(Williams et al., 2012).
RISK FACTORS
 When compared with the general population, older prisoners have increased
risk factors for earlier development and more substantive cognitive impairment
(Loeb & Abudagga, 2006).
 History of traumatic brain injury (TBI)
 Fewer years of formal education
 Substance abuse
 Poor Nutrition
 Smoking
 Depression
 Other Cardiovascular risk factors
DESPITE THIS POPULATION BEING MORE
AT RISK, FEWER TREATMENT PROGRAMS,
POLICIES, AND GUIDELINES EXIST IN THE
CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM. (HALEY ET AL., 2009).
Little research has been conducted on prisoners
with dementia
National experts in correctional care have
identified staff training and recognition and
assessment of dementia as priority areas(Williams et al., 2012).
 Part of policy agenda to improve care of older prisoners
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Identify the most prevalent types of dementia in
inmates
Develop an evidence-based educational program
on dementia for correctional officers
Implement and evaluate educational training of staff
providing care to inmates with dementia.
RETROSPECTIVE CHART REVIEW
 Forty inmates in the Iowa Department of Corrections system.
 Data collected included demographics, substance abuse history,
traumatic brain injury, dementia screening tools utilized and
scores, and dementia key features.
 Dementia key features tool developed and used to identify
specific type of dementia
 Alzheimer’s, fronto-temporal, vascular, lewy-body, TBI, ETOH, HIV/AIDS
 No identifiable patient data was collected
DATA
 Average age of an IDOC inmate with dementia = 58
y/o
 Average age of an inmate with dementia due to head
trauma = 47.2 y/o
 60% of inmates were diagnosed before the age of 60
(n=24)
 Inmates with history of TBI = 19/40 or 47%
 Inmates with substance abuse hx = 15/40 or 37%
Current diagnosis
Due to Head
Trauma
NOS
0
20%
35%
20%
25%
Key Features Diagnosis
10%
Alzheimer's
General Medical
Condition
40%
50%
Alzheimer's
Mixed
TBI
 Offender’s currently being diagnosed using SLUMS, MMSE, or no tool.
 No standardized screening guidelines.
 No consistency in follow-up, yearly scoring.
 Retrospective Chart review found
Screening tool
5% 2.5%
45%
45%
No test
performed
SLUMS
MMSE
Refused to finish
SCREENING TOOLS
 There are multiple cognitive assessment tools available to healthcare
providers to aid in the diagnosis of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease
 The clinical context should impact the decision on which cognitive
assessment tool to use
 The clinic/healthcare staff also needs to decide which provider should
administer the test
 A pathway for intervention and follow-up should be established for any
patient who screens positive
SCREENING MEASURES
Cognitive
Assessment
Test
Administration Scale
Time
(Pts)
MCI
Dementia Dementia
Sensitivity Sensitivity Specificity
Mini-Cog
1-3 min
5
NA
76%
89%
MMSE
7 min
30
18%
78%
88-100%
SLUMS
10 min
30
92%
100%
81%
MoCA
12 min
30
90%
100%
87%
MINI-COG
 Mini-cog is a five point screen
 3 word verbal recall
 Clock draw
 Takes 1.5-3 minutes
 Short admin time makes it ideal for rushed primary care settings
MMSE
 Mini Mental Status Exam (MMSE) is on the of the most widely used
cognitive assessment tools
 Test has a 30 point scale and test orientation, memory, visuospatial,
construction and language
 Takes seven minutes to administer
SLUMS
The St. Louis University Mental Status Exam
(SLUMS)
One of the first cognitive assessment tools to
address MCI
Test has a 30 point scale
Takes 10 minutes to administer
MOCA
 The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) was
developed at the Montreal Neurological Institute
 MoCA is one of the most sensitive cognitive screens
available
 Takes 12-15 minutes to administer
 Tests executive function in addition to language, visuospatial
function and memory
RECOMMENDATIONS
 What is needed?................education for correctional staff
 Studies attest to wide-ranging benefits of interventions
for staff caring for those with dementia.
 A large systematic review including 179 randomized
control trials found that non-pharmacological therapies
can improve the quality of life of people with dementia
(Olazaren et al, 2010).
EDUCATION ……….
 Professional training for caregivers and behavioral
interventions are useful, versatile, and potentially costeffective approached to improving outcomes and quality
of life in people with dementia.
 Effective communication and interactions can decrease
challenging behaviors(such as agitation) in people with
dementia. (Olazaren et al, 2010).
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COGNITIVE
SCREENING
 It is recommended that geriatric patients 70 and older undergo an
annual cognitive screen
 Some advise the screening begin at age 65
 Benefits of screening the asymptomatic geriatric population are
currently being studied
Screening age may need to be adjusted in
correctional setting due to younger age of
dementia onset.
FUTURE PLANS
 Create a standardized dementia screening policy and guidelines
 Specific tool
 Age
 Follow-up
 Utilize chart review data for staff program development and facility
improvements
 Continuing education for correctional staff
NOTICE TO OFFENDERS IN‐STATE OFFENDER PHONE RATE CHANGES Effective March 13, 2014, all out‐of‐state offender phone calls (Interstate Rates) changed to a flat rate of $3.15 per call for the first 15 minutes and an additional $0.21 per minute beginning the 16th minute through the 20th minute. These changes are being implemented to meet the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) inmate telephone rate regulations. Effective August 1, 2014, all in‐state calls (local and intrastate) will change to the same rate as out‐of‐state (Interstate Rates). These changes will increase the cost of local calls but will substantially lower the cost of all long distance calls. International rates will remain the same. POSTED: July 15, 2014 Department of Corrections Iowa Department of Corrections
Return on Investment:
Evidence-Based Options to I m p r o v e Outcomes
May 2012
Introduction
T h e l o w a D e p a r t m e n t o fM a n a g e m e n t
Background
requested
Cost-Benefit
Analysis
t h e l o w a D e p a r t m e n t o fCorrections t oaccept t h e
C o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s is a n e c o n o m i c t o o l t h a t
P e w Center on the States' invitation t obe trained
allows policymakers t om a k e informed decisions
in assessing t h e r e t u r n o n i n v e s t m e n t t o t a x p a y e r s
a b o u t t h e effectiveness o fp r o g r a m s and policies.
f r o m criminal justice p r o g r a m s utilized by t h e
This f o r m o fanalysis a l l o w s policymakers t o
State o fl o w a . Using t h e Results First m o d e l , a
compare the monetary benefits of a program o r
nationally recognized, peer-reviewed tool
p o l i c y a g a i n s t c o s t s o v e r a p e r i o d o f t i m e . If t h e
d e v e l o p e d by t h e W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e I n s t i t u t e f o r
b e n e f i t s o u t w e i g h t h e costs, a p r o g r a m o rpolicy is
Public Policy (WSIPP), t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f
considered cost-effective.
Corrections has calculated t h e rate o fr e t u r n o n
1
The Results First Model
investment for Iowa adult offender programs for
In 2 0 1 0 , t h e P e w C e n t e r o n t h e S t a t e s a n d t h e
e a c h p r o g r a m area i n c l u d e d i nt h e m o d e l .
W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e Institute f o r Public Policy
This report s u m m a r i z e s findings by t h r e e p r o g r a m
partnered t odevelop a cost-benefit tool for states
areas: institutional programs, c o m m u n i t y
that w a s capable o fidentifying criminal justice
programs for prison releasees, and c o m m u n i t y
programs that represent prudent taxpayer
p r o g r a m s for higher risk p r o b a t i o n e r s . Analyses
i n v e s t m e n t s . T h e Results First m o d e l f o r states is
s h o w that avast majority of t h e adult criminal
b a s e d o n t h e o r i g i n a l W S I P P m o d e l , w h i c h is t h e
justice programs e m p l o y e d by the State o f lowa
culmination of over a decade of experience
yield positive rates o freturn o n investment,
identifying evidence-based policy strategies using
m e a n i n g that t h e benefits o u t w e i g h the costs o f
d a t a t o i n s t i t u t e r e f o r m s . T h e Results First m o d e l
operating the programs.
T h e l o w a D e p a r t m e n t o f C o r r e c t i o n s is c o m m i t t e d
t o evidence-based practices, and i n t h e past has
ceased operating s o m e programs that w e r e not
effective. This report replicates findings o f t h e
W a s h i n g t o n State Institute f o r Public Policy, t h a t
batterers' e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s in t h e c o m m u n i t y
are not effective inreducing recidivism for
is c a p a b l e o f e x a m i n i n g t h e e f f e c t o f r e d u c i n g t h e
average daily prison population and reinvesting
the m o n e y saved into evidence-based
criminal
j u s t i c e p r o g r a m m i n g . T h e i n t e n t o f t h e m o d e l is t o
allow policymakers to test different combinations
of p r o g r a m and policy choices t o m a k e t h e best
use of taxpayer dollars, while protecting o r even
improving public safety.
2
d o m e s t i c abusers. Inresponse, several district
d e p a r t m e n t s o fcorrectional services are piloting a
n e w program aimed at treating domestic abusers,
and are participating inresearch t o d e t e r m i n e
w h e t h e r t h e n e w p r o g r a m is effective.
1
Cost-Benefit K n o w l e d g e B a n k for Criminal Justice.
Accessed April 3,2 0 1 1 f r o m http://cbkb.org/basics/.
2
S . A o s & E . D r a k e ( 2 0 1 0 ) . WSIPP's Benefit-Cost
States: Examining
Corrections.
Policy Options
in Sentencing
Tool for
and
Olympia: W a s h i n g t o n State Institute for
Public Policy, D o c u m e n t No. 10-08-1201.
S u m m a r y o f Findings
T h e f o l l o w i n g subsections s u m m a r i z e findings by t h r e e p r o g r a m s areas:
°
°
Institutional Programs
C o m m u n i t y Programs for Prison Releasees
°
C o m m u n i t y Programs for Higher Risk Probationers
About this Report
This report represents the first
This s u m m a r y ranks programs on t w o measures:
o
Benefits m i n u s Costs. Benefits include both taxpayer and crime
°
product o f t h e l o w a Results First
v i c t i m b e n e f i t s . Costs a r e as c o m p a r e d t o " b u s i n e s s as u s u a l . "
M o d e l b e i n g e x p l o r e d by t h e l o w a
Benefit t oCost Ratio. T h e a m o u n t of dollars returned i nbenefits for
Public Safety Advisory Board. T h e
r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d by Lettie Prell,
every dollar spent on a program.
S e e p. 5 f o r a c h a r t c o n t a i n i n g c o m p l e t e statistics a n d n u m b e r s o f
Director o fResearch, lowa
Department of Corrections and
offenders served i n each program during calendaryear 2 0 1 1 .
Institutional
Programs
Five i n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o g r a m areas a r e i n c l u d e d in t h e R e s u l t s First m o d e l :
v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n , correctional e d u c a t i o n (basic o r p o s t - s e c o n d a r y ) ,
Sarah Wittig Galgano, research
assistant. T h e y a r e solely responsible
f o r its c o n t e n t s .
drug t r e a t m e n t , cognitive behavioral programs and prison industries.
T h e a u t h o r s w o u l d like to t h a n k t h e
Benefits f o r all t h e s e p r o g r a m s e x c e e d costs, ranging f r o m $ 6 , 0 9 5 f o r
following agencies for providing data
vocation education to $2,908 for prison industries. T h e
a n d o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n , and in s o m e
benefit-to-cost
r a t i o s i n d i c a t e all r e p r e s e n t g o o d i n v e s t m e n t s . C o g n i t i v e
cases lending t h e i r expertise:
behavioral
p r o g r a m s are very inexpensive t o run, returning $37.70 for every dollar
•
lowa D e p a r t m e n t of
•
Management
l o w a D e p a r t m e n t of Public
spent.
Prison-Based
Programs
Benefits minus
Health
•
Costs
lowa D e p a r t m e n t of Public
Safety
Vocational
" j
Education
$5,604
I
Correctional Education
J
Drug Treatment
$6,095
•
lowa Division of Criminal &
°
•
Juvenile Justice Planning
Judicial Branch
Judicial District D e p a r t m e n t s o f
$5,452
Correctional Services
•
$4,561
Cognitive Behavioral Programs
°
$2,908
Prison Industries
Legislative Services Agency, lowa
Legislature
Substance abuse treatment
agencies A D D S and SIEDA.
J
Figures are per program participant.
T h e a u t h o r s w o u l d also like t o t h a n k
the following agencies for providing
training, technical assistance and
Prison-Based
Programs
advice during the development o f
F o r e v e r y d o l l a r s p e n t o n t h e s e p r o g r a m s , t h e a m o u n t o f b e n e f i t r e t u r n e d is:
t h e l o w a Results First M o d e l :
•
:
Cognitive Behavioral Programs
Results First
•
J
Drug Treatment
P e w Center o n the States,
$8.25
W a s h i n g t o n State Institute for
Public Policy (WSIPP)
T h e R e s u l t s F i r s t M o d e l is b a s e d o n
Vocational
Education
J
Education
n
the WSIPP Benefit-Cost Tool. M o r e
$4.12
information o n this tool m a y b e
Correctional
found here:
http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/.
$2.91
P r i s o n i n d u s t r i e s is e x c l u d e d b e c a u s e n o t a x p a y e r d o l l a r s a r e s p e n t o n i t .
LT
Pg'2
Community
C o m m u n i t y Programs f o rPrison
Benefits minus
Releasees
Programs
for Prison
Seven community-based
Releasees
program
areas
included i n t h e Results First m o d e l a r e
Costs
c o m m o n l y targeted t o prison
releasees:
intensive supervision using t h e Risk N e e d
Intensive Supervision: RNR Model
Responsivity (RNR) Model,
electronic
monitoring, drug treatment,
Electronic Monitoring
intensive
supervision with treatment, work
Drug Treatment
release,
cognitive behavioral programs, a n d
e m p l o y m e n t training/job
Intensive Supervision w/Treatment
assistance.
B e n e f i t s f o rall t h e s e p r o g r a m s e x c e e d costs,
ranging f r o m $9,097 f o r Intensive
W o r k Release
Supervision using t h e RNR model, t o $2,168
for e m p l o y m e n t training/job assistance. T h e
Cognitive Behavioral Programs
benefit-to-cost ratios indicate all represent
E m p l o y m e n t Training/Job Assistance
]
good investments. Cognitive
$2,168
behavioral
programs are very inexpensive t o run,
Figures a r e per program
r e t u r n i n g $ 3 4 . 3 0 f o re v e r y dollar
participant.
C o m m u n i t y Programs f o rPrison
spent.
Releasees
Risk Need Responsivity Model &
F o r e v e r y d o l l a r s p e n t o n t h e s e p r o g r a m s , t h e a m o u n t o f b e n e f i t r e t u r n e d i s --
Cognitive Behavioral Programs
|
j
Evidence-Based Caseload
$34.30
Andrews, Bonta, and Hodge (1990)
Size
developed
t h e Risk N e e d R e s p o n s i v i t y ( R N R ) m o d e l . It is
based o n three
Drug Treatment
"
principles:
Risk Principle.
A n offender's level o f
service s h o u l d reflect t h e i r risk o f
Intensive Supervision: RNR Model
recidivism.
H
Electronic Monitoring
Need Principle.
A n offender's
criminogenic
needs should b eassessed a n d targeted f o r
t r e a t m e n t , w i t h h i g h e r risk o f f e n d e r s
E m p l o y m e n t Training/Job Assistance
receiving t h e most intensive treatment.
•
Intensive Supervision w/Treatment
Responsivity
Principle.
The type o f
intervention should correspond with the
offender's strengths and motivations.
W o r k R e l e a s e is e x c l u d e d b e c a u s e b e n e f i t t o c o s t r a t i o c o u l d n o t b e c o m p u t e d .
.
T h e R N R model typically supports
J
cognitive
b e h a v i o r a l o rsocial l e a r n i n g t r e a t m e n t s .
The effectiveness of t h e R N R model shown in
t h i s r e p o r t isb a s e d i n p a r t o n r e s e a r c h o f
More About Costs &
offenders supervised inPolk County byAbt
Benefits
Associates that also included findings o f a n
All cost data a n d benefit calculations a r e based o n l o w a data.
B e n e f i t T i m e F r a m e . All statistics, such as benefits m i n u s costs,
are realized over a ten-year t i m e period and are expressed i n
2 0 1 1 d o l l a r s (i.e., life-cycle, p r e s e n t v a l u e s ) .
result o fa program that reduces f u t u r e crime t oinclude
arrest,
custody/supervision.
Crime victim benefits are the monetized value o f avoided
victimizations as a result of t h e p r o g r a m , for e x a m p l e
i n t e n s i v e s u p e r v i s i o n c a s e l o a d size o f 3 0
caseload o f 5 0 offenders) reduces overall
r e c i d i v i s m b y2 5 . 5 % f o r a n e w c r i m e a n d
reduces t h e rate o frecidivism for n e w
property and violent crimes by 4 5 % ,
medical
and m e n t a l health care expenses, property d a m a g e a n d losses,
a n d r e d u c t i o n i nf u t u r e earnings incurred b yc r i m e
deliver RNR. T h e researchers found that an
offenders per officer (compared with a
T a x p a y e r b e n e f i t s a r e t h e state a n d local resources a v o i d e d as a
p r o s e c u t i o n / c o u r t s , jail, a n d corrections
o p t i m a l caseload size i no r d e r t o effectively
victims.
I o w a ' s intensive supervision p r o g r a m s all
i n c o r p o r a t e t r e a t m e n t ; h o w e v e r , not all
p r o g r a m s m a y a d h e r e t ot h e R N R m o d e i n o r
P r o g r a m c o s t s a r e t h o s e a b o v e "business as usual."
be able t o m a i n t a i n t h e o p t i m a l caseload size.
I
Pg-3
Community Programs for Higher Risk
f—
C o m m u n i t y Programs for Higher
Risk
Probationers
Probationers
Eight c o m m u n i t y - b a s e d p r o g r a m areas
Benefits minus Costs
included in t h e Results First m o d e l a r e
c o m m o n l y t a r g e t e d t o h i g h e r risk
$4,961
Mental Health Courts
•J "."'. J
Intensive Supervision: RNR Model
$4,508
probationers: intensive supervision using t h e
Risk N e e d Responsivity (RNR) M o d e l , d r u g
courts, mental health courts, electronic
; ; ; / ; ; .
Drug Courts
$4,450
monitoring, drug treatment, intensive
supervision with treatment,
Electronic Monitoring
$3,827
Drug Treatment
$3,794
Intensive Supervision w / T r e a t m e n t
E
Cognitive Behavioral Programs
I
cognitive
behavioral programs, a n d employment
t r a i n i n g / j o b assistance. B e n e f i t s f o r all t h e s e
programs exceed costs, ranging f r o m $ 4 , 9 6 1
for m e n t a l health courts, t o$ 1 , 0 1 0 f o r
$2,620
e m p l o y m e n t training/job assistance. T h e
$2,475
benefit-to-cost ratios indicate all r e p r e s e n t
good investments. Cognitive
$1,010
E m p l o y m e n t Training/Job Assistance
behavioral
programs a r every inexpensive t or u n ,
returning $19.46 f o r every dollar spent.
Figures a r e per program
participant.
The lower n u m b e r s f o r m a n y program areas
here compared t o t h e previous page does
n o t m e a n t h e s e p r o g r a m s a r e less e f f e c t i v e
C o m m u n i t y Programs for Higher Risk
in treating p r o b a t i o n e r s c o m p a r e d t o prison
Probationers
releasees. Rather, prison releasees tend t o
For e v e r y dollar spent o n t h e s e p r o g r a m s , t h e a m o u n t o f b e n e f i t r e t u r n e d is:
[
Cognitive Behavioral Programs
~J~~'
i
$19-46
compared
produces m o r e benefits in terms o f reduced
crime. Similarly, t o t h e extent these
$9.61
Drug Courts
have higher rates o freconviction
to probationers, s o treating prison releasees
programs aredelivered t o probationers
Drug Treatment
•
assessed as l o w e r risk, less b e n e f i t t o
$5.11
t a x p a y e r s - o r n o benefit a ta l l - w i l l result.
Intensive Supervision: RNR Model
f~3
For t h e l o w a Results First M o d e l , higher risk
$4.06
probationers w e r e defined as those
offenders w h ow e r e supervised at t h e high
Electronic Monitoring
n o r m a l level o f supervision o r intensive
E m p l o y m e n t Training/Job Assistance
supervision during a tleast a portion o f their
supervision period.
Intensive Supervision w / Treatment
Ineffective
M e n t a l Health Courts a r eexcluded because benefit t o cost ratio could n o t be
Programs
T h e Results First m o d e l includes analysis o f
Domestic Violence Perpetrator Treatment
a^puted^
Programs o fa type used i nlowa c o m m u n i t y based corrections. As s h o w n o nt h e
f o l l o w i n g page, t h i s p r o g r a m area isa w a s t e
o f t a x p a y e r dollars. Several district
P r o g r a m Fidelity
d e p a r t m e n t s o fcorrectional services a r e
T h e results s h o w n i nthis report a r e based o n a s u m m a r y o f g o o d ,
currently piloting a n e w program f o r
s o u n d research evaluations including those conducted o n lowa
domestic abusers, a n d a r e participating i n
offenders. Simply put,well-run programs will achieve these results o r
research t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h en e w
better. Poorly r u n programs will n o t .
p r o g r a m is e f f e c t i v e .
T h e l o w a D e p a r t m e n t o fCorrections h a s evaluated t h e d e g r e e t o
which institutional a n d community-based corrections
adhere t oevidence-based
programs
principles. I m p r o v e m e n t plans a r e i n place
f o r a n u m b e r o fprograms.
Pg-4
W h i l e n o t in t h e c u r r e n t m o d e l , p a s t a n a l y s i s by
offender treatment, and w e anticipate being able
t h e W a s h i n g t o n State Institute for Public Policy
t o analyze t h e costs and benefits o f this
has f o u n d a n u m b e r of programs for adult
in l o w a w i t h i n t h e n e x t year. A n a l y s i s o f o t h e r
o f f e n d e r s t o be ineffective. O n e class o f
p r o g r a m s f o r l o w a a d u l t o f f e n d e r s is a l s o n e e d e d ,
programs
program
c a l l e d L i f e S k i l l s E d u c a t i o n is c o m m o n i n I o w a ' s
including mental health treatment (other than
prisons a n d c o m m u n i t y - b a s e d corrections. Life
mental health court); dual diagnosis
skills e d u c a t i o n includes classes in financial
mentoring and offender reentry
programs,
programs.
m a n a g e m e n t , parenting, relationships, substance
abuse education, and other topics. T h e r e m a y be
Conclusion
sound objectives other than reducing recidivism t o
Using t h e Results First cost-benefit m o d e l , t h e
c o n t i n u e t o o p e r a t e at least s o m e of t h e s e
lowa D e p a r t m e n t of Corrections assessed t h e rate
programs. However, a review should be
of return lowa taxpayers receive f r o m investment
conducted to identify those that are not w o r t h
in t h e S t a t e ' s a d u l t c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e
running, and funnel those resources into the
Findings indicate most of the State's programs
programs that are a better investment for Iowa's
yield positive returns o n investment. Expansion of
taxpayers.
these programs to serve additional
programs.
prison
i n m a t e s , prison releasees and higher risk
Further Analysis of Programs
Needed
probationers would further reduce admissions to
jails a n d prisons and keep l o w a n s safer.
T h e W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e I n s t i t u t e f o r P u b l i c P o l i c y is
Total
Benefits
B e n e f i t s and costs are life-cycle, present v a l u e s per
participant in 2011 dollars.
S u m m a r y Statistics
Costs
Monetary Benefits
topic Area/Program
Taxpayer
Benefits
Only
(Above
"Business
as U s u a l " )
Benefits
Minus
Costs
M e a s u r e o f Risk O f f e n d e r s
Rate o f
Served in
Benefit to Return on (odds of a net
Cost Ratio Investment present value) Calendar 2011
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Institutional Programs:
Vocational Education in Prison
Correctional Education in Prison
D r u g T r e a t m e n t i n Prison
Cognitive Behavioral Programs in Prison
Correctional Industries in Prison
$
8,052
8,540
6,205
4,686
2,906
$
10,570
s
$
$
s
$
$
$
$
$
2,317
2,462
1,799
1,349
839
s
$
$
$
(1,957)
(2,936)
(753)
(124)
-
6,095
5,604
5,452
4,561
2,908
100%
100%
100%
99%
100%
226
2,981
1,454
1,577
1,400
79%
100%
70%
100%
1,431*
694
106%
53%
100%
99%
100%
99%
97%
4.12
2.91
8.25
37.70
-
43%
29%
93%
1731%
7.18
6.43
8.98
5.01
-
C o m m u n i t y Programs for Prison Releasees:
$
$ 3,058 $
9,126 S 2,637 s
8 , 2 9 1 $ 2,402 $
7,344 $ 2 , 1 2 1 $
825 $
2,848 $
4,608 $ 1,334 $
781 $
2,708 $
Mental Health Courts
Intensive Supervision: w i t h RNR M o d e l
$
$
4,472
5,980
3
s
4,967
Intensive Supervision: w i t h RNR M o d e l
Electronic M o n i t o r i n g
1
s
2
DrugTreatmentin the community
Intensive Supervision: w i t h Treatment
W o r k Release
Cognitive Behavioral Programs in the c o m m u n i t y
C o m m u n i t y E m p l o y m e n t Training/Job Assistance
s
$
s
(1,473) $ 9,097 $
(1,420) $ 7,706 $
(924) S 7,367 s
(1,468). $ 5,876 $
1,903 $ 4 , 7 5 1
(135) $ 4,474 $
(540) $ 2,168 $
n/e
n/e
34.30
5.02
1726%
55%
942
1,431*
1,878
1,543
unknown
C o m m u n i t y Programs f o r Higher Risk Probationers:
Drug C o u r t s - A d u l t
Electronic M o n i t o r i n g
1
s
2
DrugTreatmentin the community
Intensive Supervision: w i t h Treatment
Cognitive Behavioral Programs in the c o m m u n i t y
C o m m u n i t y E m p l o y m e n t Training/Job Assistance
s
s
s
$
Ineffective Programs:
Domestic Violence PerpetratorTreatment Programs* $
1
5,249
4,719
4,093
2,609
1,549
$
$
1,211 $
1,611 s
$ 1,344 s
$ 1,420 s
$ 1,275 $
$ 1,108 s
$
709 s
$
418 $
(977) $
(286) $
490 $ 4 , 9 6 1
(1,473) $ 4,508 $
(517) $ 4,450 $
n/e
n/e
4.06
51%
100%
100%
37
1,818*
653
9.61
225%
100%
(1,423) S 3,827 s
(925) S 3,794 $
1,473 S 2,620 s
(134) $ 2,475 s
(539) $ 1,010 $
3.70
46%
100%
761
5.11
2.78
19.46
2.88
69%
32%
931%
34%
100%
97%
99%
92%
3,579
1,818*
2,413
(328) $ (1,305) s
(2.99)
29%
21%
unknown
i
4,775
GPS and radio frequency only.
2
lnpatient/residential and outpatient treatment only. Treatment generally includes step-down and continuing care.
3
R e s u l t 5 s h o w n a re f o r Judge M o d e l o n l y a n d w h e n u s e d as a n a l t e r n a t i v e to p r i s o n .
4
T h i s c a t e g o r y i n c l u d e s a t r e a t m e n t m o d e l u s e d i n c o m m u n i t y b a t t e r e r s ' e d u c a t i o n c l a s s e s . A d i f f e r e n t m o d e l is u s e d i n t h e l o w a p r i s o n s y s t e m t h a t e m p l o y s c o g n i t i v e
behavioral techniques.
* T h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h a l l l o c a t i o n s a d h e r e t o t h e R N R m o d e l has n o t y e t been d e t e r m i n e d , a n d w i l l d e p e n d u p o n a b i l i t y t o o p e r a t e a t t h e o p t i m u m c a s e l o a d s i z e per o f f i c e r . T h o s e
locations n o t m e e t i n g the RNR Model s t a n d a r d a re opera ting Intensive Supervision w i t h Treatment.
Pg-5