NCJ Number
196193
Date Published
2002
Length
68 pages
Annotation
This report presents data and information on Iowa's Residential Facilities Program (RFP), whose purpose is to provide accountability and treatment in a highly structured environment for higher risk/need offenders.
Abstract
The diverse client groups involved in the RFP include work releasees, persons convicted of drunk driving, probationers, parolees, and offenders with Federal and direct sentences. Probationers constituted the largest client group (49.4 percent) in fiscal year 2000. A study was conducted to obtain descriptive information on the functioning of the RFP facilities within the State regarding probationer populations served. Outcome data for the clients were also obtained. The study sample involved 500 probationers admitted to a facility during the period of January 1, 2000, through March 31, 2000. On-site visits were conducted at each facility serving clients. Data and information were obtained on the following variables: characteristics of the study population; reasons for entry into the RFP; admission arrests, number and seriousness; level system; disciplinary process and actions; resident finances, transportation, and nutrition; waiting lists; facility intake and resident orientation; resident records and medical screening; needs and risk assessments; facility work; facility rent rates; evaluation, educational, and treatment programs; and length of facility stay. The facilities operated in a similar manner in major policy areas; however, some demographic differences were found in the probationers admitted to the facilities, as well as in prior criminal justice experiences of the probationers. Program length also differed substantially among judicial districts. Across the judicial districts, there were differences in the recidivism rate for those who successfully completed the program and those who were unsuccessful. Of all successful program completers, only 22.6 percent recidivated, compared with a recidivism rate of 28 percent for all of those who unsuccessfully completed the program. Across the judicial districts, a number of different assessment tools were used to define the needs and risks of the resident. The report concludes with a listing of areas for improvement. 38 tables, 1 figure, and 16 notes