Process Evaluation of the Adult Redeploy Illinois Intensive Supervision Probation With Services Program

Introduction

The Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA) manages Adult Redeploy Illinois (ARI), established by the 2009 Illinois Crime Reduction Act (730 ILCS 190/). ARI provides financial incentives through grant funding to local jurisdictions for programs that allow diversion of individuals at risk for a correctional commitment to more cost-effective community-based supervision. To date, ARI provides program funding to 25 sites serving 44 counties in Illinois.

ARI supports several program models, including Intensive Supervision Probation with Services (ISP-S). ISP-S is a modified version of Intensive Supervision Probation (ISP), with a greater emphasis on evidence-based treatment services and enhanced supervision requirements of the original ISP model. The current study, conducted by Southern Illinois University Carbondale (SIUC) researchers and supported with ARI funding, examined four ARI-funded sites (DuPage, Macon, Peoria, and St. Clair counties) providing ISP-S programming to justice-involved individuals. The researchers evaluated program design and implementation, fidelity to ISP-S criteria, use of evidence-based practices, challenges and limitations of operations, and short-term outcomes associated with program participation.

Methodology

SIUC researchers collected data from the four sites between March and June of 2018. The data included site overviews, interviews with ISP-S program staff, participant surveys, a program cataloguing tool, administrative data, and the Intervention Demonstration Assessment Tool (IDAT). Site overviews were provided during roundtable discussions with ISP-S probation supervisors, probation officers, administrators, state’s attorneys, and treatment service providers. Topics included ISP-S program features, admission processes, participant characteristics, treatment services, and completion requirements. The staff interviews—conducted at each site and typically lasting 45 minutes—covered topics such as selection and supervision procedures, use of best practices, sanctions and rewards, and funding allocation.

Program participants were approached during their reporting time at their respective probation sites and asked to complete a survey packet. In all, 126 program participants completed the survey, which included multiple self-report measures used to assess criminogenic risk levels, transition difficulties, criminal blame, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) program satisfaction, and ISP-S program satisfaction. One-on-one structured interviews using the program cataloguing tool were conducted with ISP-S staff members to take inventory of the CBT programs offered at each site. This 15-item interview assessed the purpose, dosage, mechanisms, theory, and attendance of each program.

Researchers acquired administrative data on 826 ARI ISP-S participants in the program from January 2014 to December 2017. Variables included age, race, gender, education, employment, housing, and marital status.

SIUC researchers designed the IDAT to systematically examine the effectiveness of correctional interventions. The IDAT gives greater structure to evaluating interventions, resulting in a component score that can assess relative strengths among the components of the tool. The components included a description of the intervention, rationale for risk reduction and strength promotion, participant selection, targeted and acquired skills, progression and retention strategies, and quality assurance. A score was assigned to each of the six components of the ISP-S intervention to ultimately provide a summary total score.

Findings

The data indicated each of the four sites utilized collaborative, multi-disciplinary teams. These teams were composed of program coordinators, probation officers, attorneys, judges, and service providers. The teams reviewed and decided on matters regarding program acceptance, phase progression (i.e., progression into the next stage of the program), sanctioning, and general supervision. The study found ISP-S program staff and service providers demonstrated a strong commitment to and awareness of program components and compliance criteria.

ISP-S program staff acknowledged the role of addressing criminogenic needs using risk assessment tools, strong supervision policies, and the utilization of community resources, which were in line with best practices; however, there was some deviation from these practices. For example, the program used the Level of Supervision Inventory–Revised (LSI-R) risk assessment tool after program acceptance and some programs included low-risk and high-risk participants mixed together, as well as traditional probationers not in the ISP-S program. Though the sites adhered to appropriate training and certification in the use of LSI-R, some sites indicated they treated any medium- or low-risk participants as high-risk upon admission to the program and there was little evidence of participant reassessment despite program staff indicating they understood its importance in determining treatment adjustments. A lack of procedural clarity was also found, as standards for violations were unclear and unequally applied and the standards for phase progression were inconsistent. In fact, many participants did not progress past Phase 1 despite completing their probation sentences.

In terms of supervision strategies, the sites consistently prioritized high frequency contacts in line with best practices. To facilitate compliance, most sites provided travel assistance, such as bus passes, and probation officers offered flexibility to make supervision requirements more convenient for participants. Supervision fulfilled multiple functions above basic surveillance as frequent and varied supervision contacts were consistently prioritized.

Treatment was as important to the ISP-S program as supervision, and ARI ISP-S staff at all sites indicated a commitment to treatment and a belief in its efficacy in promoting positive behavioral change. Treatment requirements were consistent across the sites, as each site required participants to engage in CBT and most sites provided access to substance use, mental health, and anger management treatment, among other services. Staff interviews indicated that treatment was provided according to the risks and needs of each participant; however, participation data indicated a fairly equal distribution of treatment across risk levels at each site, which deviates from best practices. Additionally, some CBT groups contained both ISP-S and standard probationers as well as low- and high-risk participants, which is also counter to best practices standards. Since treatment referrals were sometimes considered sanctions, the frequency of treatment referrals may have been underestimated in documentation of treatment requirements.

Community engagement (e.g., mentorship, volunteer service requirements) was less emphasized as a component of ISP-S. Only one site, Macon, tied community engagement to phase progression and graduation. The site reported program participants benefitted from community reintegration and relationship-building. The researchers recommended incorporating more community resources into phase progression requirements in order to benefit reintegration efforts. The use of rewards to incentivize compliance and sanctions to deter noncompliance also was limited due to budgetary restrictions and lacked procedural clarity, though the overall effort to comply with graduated sanctions and rewards was evident.

The goal of phase progression is to gradually wean participants off supervision and is based on positive behavioral change. Most sites provided criteria for phase progression, though the actual determinations for advancement were less clear. To better understand programming and phase outcomes, better definitions of success and completion were needed.

Another component of ISP-S, case management, was appropriately emphasized across the sites. This approach involved building strong and dynamic relationships between ISP-S probation officers and participants through frequent contact. The ideal relationship with participants was non-authoritarian, interactive, and emphasized communication; the participant was encouraged to have a voice in their ISP-S programming.

Program Challenges

The SIUC researchers noted several important challenges to the ISP-S programs. Program participants faced structural or external conditions, such as residing in communities prone to higher rates of crime, lack of housing, lack of employment, and limited transportation, that increased the difficulty of meeting supervision requirements and staying program-compliant. It can be difficult to overcome these challenges, as the sites noted budgetary and resource limitations as frequent barriers to ISP-S programming. Several ISP-S staff noted participants need stabilization (e.g., housing, employment, treatment) before they can effectively phase-up through the program. In addition, consistency in terms of services offered by the programs was hindered due to uncertain resource allocation and concrete rewards (e.g., gift cards) were not consistently provided. Finally, risk assessment procedures may not have been fully utilized to determine phase progression, which complicated the procedures for probation officers and the courts. Some judges opted to release participants at the end of their probation sentences even if they had not fully progressed through the phases, which could have inhibited motivation to complete the program in its entirety.

Program Outcomes

The evaluation found tentative evidence of positive short-term outcomes. About half of the participants completed the program requirements successfully, a relatively positive findings considering the generally higher failure rates of reentry for high-risk populations. ISP-S staff indicated employing consistent and concentrated efforts to avoid incarceration despite relapses and other program condition violations. The researchers recommend measuring longer term outcomes as necessary to reveal whether the program is producing the expected results of reduced recidivism, stabilization, and reintegration.

Recommendations to Enhance Policy and Practice

SIUC researchers provided multiple recommendations. First, the programs should maximize and reinforce their strengths by having ISP-S staff communicate with ARI once per quarter. In addition, though CBT was offered, there was room for its expansion to become a stronger part of the routine case management practices. Evaluators also recommended that programs practice better resource management. This involves administering the risk assessment tool in the adjudication process prior to participant acceptance into the program so treatment and programming content needs can more accurately be assessed and resources better apportioned. Also recommended was phase restructuring to promote the success of most participants by having stronger supervision requirements in the latter phases rather than at the beginning, referred to as a crescendo model.^[1]

Finally, evaluators said programs should enhance program fidelity and procedural clarity. Regular risk and criminogenic need frequencies from standardized assessments should be completed regularly to properly serve the participants. Guidelines on criteria for program entry and termination should be more clearly defined in conjunction with the phase program restructuring, with an emphasis on language consistency for all major tasks, including data entry.

Conclusion

The ARI-funded process or implementation evaluation of the four ISP-S probation programs incorporated site overview discussions with ISP-S staff, one-on-one interviews with ISP-S staff, surveys of participants, analysis of administrative data, and other methods. Overall, the evaluation found strong commitment to and belief in the program, with equal focus on treatment and supervision by ARI ISP-S program court staff and service providers. Each site utilized multi-disciplinary, collaborative teams that made decisions regarding program acceptance, phase progression, and general supervision. The sites were also found to prioritize community integration, though some sites did not incorporate community mentorship and service work as requirements of phase progression.

Researchers also found that while all sites consistently used the LSI-R risk assessment tool, the assessments were completed after admission to the program was granted; all participants were categorized as high-risk at the beginning of the program regardless of their actual risk level. This may have resulted in an over-prescription of services leading to a waste of valuable resources. Additionally, inconsistencies in terms of phase progression benchmarks and violation standards were noted, signifying some lack of procedural clarity among the sites. As such, researchers made several recommendations to the sites to enhance communication with ARI program administrators for technical assistance, and expand use of CBT, improve resource management, and increase program fidelity and procedural clarity.