Presentation on theme: "Challenge Incarceration Program (CIP)"— Presentation transcript:
1 Challenge Incarceration Program (CIP) Phase 1 - Incarceration90 men at Willow River; women at TogoLegislatively-created in 1992 (M.S ) for carefully selected, nondangerous drug & property offendersRigorous physical exercise, drill, CD treatment, AA/NA, restorative justice projects, education, cognitive thinking skillsDrill, education, work service
2 Face-to-face agent contacts CIP Community Phases 2 & 3Minimum of 6 months each of intensive community supervisionFace-to-face agent contacts, alcohol and drug testing, mandatory work/education, community serviceAftercare treatment programmingFace-to-face agent contactsFailure to complete CIP Phases 2 or 3 will result in a return to prison, extending an offender’s period of incarceration
3 CIP Evaluation 2006Looked at all CIP offenders since the program began in 1992Examined three areas:- Has the demographic composition of the CIP population changed significantly in the last 5 years? If so, why?- Does CIP significantly reduce offender recidivism?- Does CIP reduce costs?
4 CIP Evaluation – Offender Profile A review of CIP offenders in the last 5 years found:Average age increased from 29 to 32Greater Minnesota participants grew from 37% to 48%Meth offenders increased from 4% to 60%White offenders increased from 47% to 76% - primarily due to the meth boom (85% of meth offenders are white)
5 CIP Evaluation – Recidivism Does CIP significantly reduce offender recidivism?Compared recidivism rates of 1,347 CIP offenders from FY93-02 with a control group of 1,555 inmates released during same time periodAverage follow-up period was 7.2 years (second longest of any boot camp evaluation to date)Recidivism defined as:Felony reconvictionReimprisonment for a new crimeAny return to prison, for a new crime or a technical violation
6 Recidivism Study Results CIP decreased chances of reconviction for new felony by 32%CIP decreased chances of reimprisonment for new crime by 35%CIP offenders less likely than control group to be reimprisoned for a person offenseWhen defining recidivism as any return to prison, CIP did not have a statistically significant impactCIP offenders are more likely to return to prison for technical violation (55% vs. 27% control group)Conversely, the control group was more likely to return for a new crime (73% vs. 45% CIP)
7 CIP Evaluation – Cost Savings Does CIP reduce costs?From FY93 to FY02, CIP has reduced costs by $18.1 million through saved bed days and recidivism reductionReduced recidivism enhances public safety in the community, decreases victimization, and saves state and local criminal justice dollarsCIP female squad drill at Togo