Development of a CC Board Release Guideline Tool Lessons Learned from the Denver Board Experience...

Development of a CC Board Release Guideline Tool

Lessons Learned from the Denver Board Experience

Colorado Association of Community Corrections Boards

February 7 , 2014

- 2 -Colorado Community Corrections Statewide Training Series

Brief Recap from November Overview of each significant step in the process (Staff and

Board perspectives) Real world application (Case Examples) Update on progress

DCCB Board Members : Jane Prancan Chair, Citizen Rep Sylvia Sich- Systems Rep Law Enforcement Dianne Tramutola-Lawson Citizen Rep

DCCB Board Staff: Greg Mauro Esther Smith Kelly Arneson

Today’s presentation


RECAP FROM NOVEMBER CACCB


Denver CC Board

• 21 Members appointed by Mayor, Confirmed by City Council

• 10 positions represent criminal justice/human services

DA, PD, DPD, Denver Director of Corrections (Sheriff),

Chief PO-Denver Adult, Chief PO- Denver Juvenile, CDOC- Adult Parole, Colorado Department of Human

Services-DYC, Denver Human Services, Denver Department of Safety

• (1) Locally Elected Official• (1) Representative of Victim Services• (1)Denver Public Schools, • (2) persons with experience/knowledge, expertise CJ• (6) Citizens of City and County of Denver


Current Process

3 options for case review: (1955 referrals in CY2012)

- Admin Accepts (Approx 15% of referrals)

-Screening Committee ( Approx 25% of referrals)

-Full Board ( Approx 60% of referrals –More Serious Crimes)


Timeline

Origins in Post Incarceration Task Force of CCJJ (2009)

Spring 2010- Presentation to Colorado Association of Community Corrections Boards-Structured Decision Making

Fall of 2011: Denver Board Retreat ( Offender Reentry and Evidence Based Principles - Council of State Governments) Assessment Training ( LSI and CARAS) , Board supports project

Spring 2012-Consultant identified and selected

Summer of 2012- Individual and Group perspectives about the process members follow in making decisions, and to help identify the “most important” factors they consider when making acceptance/rejection decisions.

October 2012- Group meeting to review broad decision making goals and objectives, and to see if there was consensus about top considerations in making acceptance/rejection decisions.

April 2013- Meeting to review DRAFT Tool and Definitions

Summer 2013- Tested on prior cases (254 Transition & 21 Diversion)

Fall 2013: Approval to “go live” begin with case review in September


Who was involved

Denver Community Corrections Board

Denver Department of Safety/Division Community Corrections

Consultant: Richard Stroker

Denver CC Programs

DCJ

DOC/Probation ( Through Board Membership)


Phases of Project

I. Education and Training

II. Board Discussion on Purpose, Philosophy, and Decision Making

III. Desire to improve

IV. Deciding on what is important

V. Development of a RGT


I. EDUCATION AND TRAINING


Education and Training- Building the Foundation

Education and Conversation with board members about evidence based principles

•Risk Assessment•Risk Principle

and evidence based approaches to decision making:

•Structured decision making •Release guidelines


Risk Assessment ( Highlights)

There are different ways that people can attempt to assess a potential risk. We can rely on our experience and judgment to evaluate a person’s situation – in the professional world this is usually referred to “clinical judgment.”

We can also use statistically-based tools that inform us about the likelihood of some future risk by evaluating a variety of factors that are statistically related to previous occurrences

Every potential placement involves some risk– These folks committed crimes– We can’t completely control what they do in future

Public safety is best insured by employing evidence based approaches to reduce risk– We can impact risk by employing evidence based principles and

practices– These principles involve notions of risk, need, dosage, and

responsivity


Parole Resource Center Practice Target #1: Use good, empirically-based, actuarial tools to assess risks and criminogenic needs of offenders.

Research: Empirically-based assessment tools provide a more accurate statistical probability of reoffense than professional judgment alone.

– See: Andrews & Bonta, 1998; Andrews et al., 1990; Gendreau et al., 1996; Grove et al., 2000; Grove & Meehl, 1996

Practice:

Use empirically based assessment tools to assess offender risk and criminogenic needs


Parole Resource Center Practice Target #5: Consider release of low risk offenders at the earliest stage possible—in light of statutes and other sentencing interests.

Research: Offenders who are at low risk to reoffend are unlikely to benefit from a

correctional intervention designed to change their behavior. See: Andrews, 2007; Andrews & Bonta, 2007; Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith,

2006; Andrews & Dowden, 2007; Andrews, Dowden, & Gendreau, 1999; Bonta, 2007; Dowden, 1998; Gendreau, Goggin, & Little, 1996; Lipsey & Cullen, 2007

Low risk offenders tend to recidivate at higher rates when services/interventions are over-delivered.

See: Andrews & Bonta, 2007; Cullen & Gendreau, 2000; Gendreau, Goggin, Cullen, & Andrews, 2001; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2004; Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Holsinger, 2006

Practice: PA BOPP policy to release low risk offenders even if they don’t receive

institutional programming TN BOPP to add community conditions for low risk offenders they

feel would benefit from programming


Conclusions

Appreciating the risks posed by a potential offender is one of the most important components of release decision making.

Using an objective risk assessment tool, as part of a guideline, represents a best practice in the parole field.

Understanding and applying offender risk principles can help a Board to employ effective risk management and risk reduction methods.


Parole Guidelines

In addition to utilizing a risk assessment tool, many parole boards have a guideline that they developed and use to assist them in making parole decisions.

Some of these guidelines, such as the one’s used in Texas, Maryland, and Ohio, focus primarily on two factors – risk and crime severity. Others, such as the one’s used in Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Delaware include a variety of additional factors – such as compliance with institutional programming, the strength of the parole plan, institutional behavior, etc.


Parole Resource Center Practice Target #2: Develop and use clear, evidence-based, policy-driven decision making practices and tools that reflect the full range of a paroling authority’s concerns (e.g., punishment, safety, etc.)

Research: Assure the fair and consistent application of concerns in release and revocation decision making and condition setting in every case. • 80% of paroling authorities say they used structured decision tools (APAI,

2008)

Practice: Use structured decision making tools that articulate the board’s concerns and

includes an actuarial risk and needs assessment Measure the effectiveness of tools periodically over time to assure they

continue to achieve goals; adjust as needed Examples:

TN Parole Release Decision making Guidelines


Why do Board’s have a guideline?

To meet legal requirements (in their state). Promote consistency by individual board members and

between board members. Encourage equality in the disposition of cases (similar results

for similarly situated offenders). Demonstrate a more professional basis for individual

decisions. To help demonstrate how particular factors were considered

by the Board.


The use of guidelines A guideline should reflect certain philosophies and policies of

a Board. It should help a Board member to apply these philosophies or policies in individual cases.

The Board’s guideline does not require any particular outcome – but it’s purpose is to guide Board members in the execution of their duties.

Guidelines can help Boards to balance a variety of interests – such as public safety or the use of correctional resources – in an objective way.


Was education and training on EBP and other concepts helpful?

Any recommendations for other Boards in this area?

Q & A


II. DISCUSSION ON BOARD PURPOSE, PHILOSOPHY, AND DECISION MAKING


Goal of Community Corrections in Denver

“Productive reintegration of offenders back into society.”

The purpose of this phase of the project was to talk about the factors that guide decisions regarding the acceptance or rejection of individuals into community corrections programs.

– Agree on certain values or principles that guide decision making

– Agree on an approach that might aid in consistently applying these values and principles to cases


What role should these sanctioning goals play in decision making?

Punishment? Rehabilitation? Incapacitation? Risk Reduction? Restoration? Deterrence?

Public safety is probably an over-arching goal.

What are the goals of your Board?

Which of these possible sanctioning goals do you believe is most relevant in helping us achieve the stated objectives?


Some of the broad things that the group identified as “important” in making decisions included:

– Regard for public safety

– Equitable – similar outcomes for similar cases

– Consistency – both individually and for the group

– Perception by others that decisions are “Fair”

– Minimizing “misleading” factors

– Support effective transition and reentry


Share perspective from a citizen and system rep on the board regarding decision making?

Is there value in identifying a board’s philosophy for community corrections in a JD?

Is there value in discussing and reaching consensus on a philosophy for decision making?

Q & A


III. DESIRE TO IMPROVE


Reviewed board process and decision data

There are a large number of Board members– Each member may weigh factors differently or perceive information

differently There are many potentially important issues

– There are difference amongst Board members regarding the importance or value of some of these factors

The pilot study also helped to indicate:– That the few low/moderate risk cases that came before the Board

were often not approved for placement

– That a relatively high percentage of very high risk cases that involved inmates who had committed violent offenses and were not well prepared for transition were accepted for placement


Belief that a guideline might help

Board members indicated that they thought that a guideline which could be used when reviewing cases might help to:– Achieve more consistency in decision outcomes– Effectively organize and use existing information to aid in decision-

making– Promote the use of “best practices” – Provide an objective basis for explaining decisions


What does the public think?

o 61% indicate that when criminal justice professionals make decisions, research on what works in preventing crime should be the most important thing they rely on, followed by 24% who say professional experience and 9% who say personal beliefs should be the major determinant.


Why structure decision making/guideline tool?

A guideline tool organizes some of the information that you think might be important in making an acceptance/rejection decision.

It uses an objective scoring system to reflect a person’s performance or situation regarding areas that you think are significant.

The outcome of the tool is not “the answer.” It can provide a common starting point regarding issues that you think are relevant, and can help you in making your decision. It’s an aid.


How important is it for the Board to make similar decisions in cases that involve individuals with similar circumstances?

How important is it for Board members to be individually consistent with their decisions over time in similar types of cases?

How important is it for the Board’s decisions to be seen as “fair” or guided by principles that they can articulate?

Q & A


IV. IDENTIFYING WHAT IS IMPORTANT - DECISION TOOL ELEMENTS


To develop a guideline, a Community Corrections Board must be able to:– Identify and agree upon the most “important” considerations in

making a decision– Determine how considerations should be highlighted, weighted or

aligned to aid the decision making process– Agree on a wide variety of definitions regarding terms related to

these important factors– Define exceptions or special considerations– Agree to use the guideline as a decision making aid

Developing a guideline


What are the major areas of interest or concern ?

Risk of new crime Risk of program failure Risk of absconding Nature of the crime Presence of violence in

this or other crimes Number of prior crimes Number of prior

revocations Age Victim perspective

Amount/percentage of time served

Time to mandatory release date

Case manager notes Plans in the community Participation in

programs Family/community

support Institutional conduct Willingness to take

responsibility


Organizing the elements of a guideline tool

For Denver Board members, the “most important” factors agreed upon when reviewing a case and making a decision were: – Risk of new offense; likelihood of failure– Prior violence; likelihood of future violence– Steps the offender has taken to prepare for release - to include

treatment, reentry planning, etc.– Length of time remaining on the sentence; whether sentence would soon

be completed (DOC).


Q &A


V. CREATION OF A GUIDELINE TOOL


Definitions

In order to properly apply the tool, it is important that definitions be created so that a variety of issues contained in the guideline can be objectively determined and consistently scored from case to case.


Diversion Cases


Sub-CategoriesOf needs

Transition Needs

Violence

Risk Assessment:

LSI

Score ranges


Transition Cases


Transition Needs

Score ranges

Risk Assessment:

CARAS

Violence

Sub-CategoriesOf needs


Demographic Information

Outcomes snapshot from scoring sheet

Violence:Yes or No

Transition Needs:

Addressed or Unaddressed

RISK:L = Low

M= ModerateH= High

VH = Very HighExplanation of

terms and abbreviations

Special Considerations for

the case


Q &A

What is your experience with the Denver Release Guideline Tool?

Pros? Cons?


REAL WORLD APPLICATION


Case 1

Male Offender Age: 35 MRD: 11/03/2037 CARAS: 38

Arrival to DOC: June 1994 Incarcerated: 20 years Custody Classification: Medium

Prior Probation/Parole/Community Corrections: None Escape History: None

Current Sentence Summary

County of Conviction: Denver Crime Violent: Yes

Crime Description: 2nd Degree Murder Felony Class: 2 Sentence: 48 years

Brief Description of offense:

Offender was identified as the shooter in a incident involving rival gang groups. The Offender identified a group of juveniles across the street as rival gang members, a verbal altercation ensued, and the Offender and his co-defendant were showing a weapon. The Offender took the gun from the co- defendant and shot into the other group of juveniles, striking the victim, causing death. He originally denied that he had possession of a gun. The weapon was retrieved from a back yard, and the fingerprints on the gun were identified as the Offender.

Crime Description: Weapons – (Mis) Felony Class: 9 Sentence: 1 year

The Offender was on juvenile probation at the time of this felony offense.

He has served 19 years for the current offense. He was 14 years old at the time of his sentencing.


Criminal Behavior Summary: No previous adult convictions

Juvenile History: Yes

The Offender has previous Juvenile history arrests:

His first felony offense was at age 12 for First degree criminal trespass. He had at least 3 probation revocations while for this offense. He was cited with positive Urinalysis Tests, and had multiple “failure to report” while on juvenile probation.

The Offender reports that his first negative contact with law enforcement was at the age of 10. He has stated that he was involved with STG at the time of his arrest, and was still active with STG during the early years of his incarceration. He indicates that the last several years has really dis-associated from his gang affiliation, and has custody issues in CDOC for trying to remove himself from the gang.

No prior Adult criminal history due to current conviction and sentence.

Institutional Adjustment:

The Offender has the following COPD History, with his last COPD being on 7-25-2011

for Bartering/Selling Goods.

Case 1 (continued)


He has an extensive history of violations:

07/25/2011 CTCF BRT/SELGDS 09/04/2009 CTCF ADVFACDSPT07/13/2009 CTCF UNAUTHABS 05/28/2009 CTCF UNAUTHPOSS04/05/2005 SCF UNAUTHPOSS 01/13/2005 SCF ADVFACDSPT12/02/2004 SCF UNAUTHPOSS 02/18/2003 SCF DISLAWORDR09/18/2002 FCF POSSDNGDGS 05/24/2002 FCF INT W/SRCH/ TOBBACCO04/18/2002 FCF FRAUD 07/30/2001 FCF DISLAWOR

05/23/2001 FCF POSSDNGD/TOBACCO 05/30/2000 FCF TOBBACCO05/16/2000 FCF ADVFACDS 05/16/200 FCF DISLAWOR02/24/2000 AVCF REFUSAL TO WORK 02/24/2000 AVCF DISLAWOR 11/04/1999 KCCF ASSAULT 09/16/1999 KCCF DISLAWORDR 05/19/1999 KCCF REF DRUGTS 04/08/1999 KCCF UNAUTHPOSS 02/08/1999 KCCF UNAUTHABS 06/04/1997 CCF VIOLOPRULE 02/04/1997 CCF POSSDNGDGS 06/27/1996 CCF DISLAWORDR 06/25/1996 CCF VIOLOPRULE 06/18/1996 CCF VIOLOPRULE 06/12/1996 CCF VIOLOPRULE 12/19/1995 CCF POSSDNGDGS 05/25/1995 CCF POSSDNGDGS 10/04/1994 CCF DISLAWORDR 09/19/1994 CCF DISLAWORDR

Program Summary: The Offender is currently in GED. He needs to obtain his GED certificate and if

released would need to continue to work towards GED.

He has had the following work assignments:

Cell house Offender Care Aide III, Cell house: Offender Care Aide II: and Offender Care Aide I, Custodian,

Food Service, Laundry. He was on restricted privileges from 04/01/2010 to 04/23/2010. But has had no

behavioral issues in housing unit since last RP.

Case 1 (continued)


He has taken the following programs: Academic Housekeeping: Obtained Custodial Certificate: 11/02/2011 to 12/14/2011

Schema Therapy: 09/29/2009 to 07/09/2010 Pre GED Currently assigned & previous attempts.

Custodial Training: 01/19/2009 to 03/17/2009 T for C:11/15/2008 to 03/18/2009

T for C:09/24/2008 to 11/14/2008 RP: 08/29/2008 to 02/20/2009

Orientation for T for C Crime Impact: 09/15/2007 to 10/05/2007

Life Skills Drug and Alcohol

Anger Management Stress Management and Life coping skills

Treatment Needs: Mental Health (P3N) Anger Management Drug and Alcohol programming

The Offender is a 34 years of age, and has been incarcerated since he was 14 years old. He is single, but has family support, from his grandmother, father, and siblings. He has served 19 of a 48 year sentence. He is scheduled to meet the Parole Board for the first time in May 2014.

Residence/Employment/Etc:

Grandmother:

234 Euclid Street Denver, CO 80207 303-877-9977

He plans on looking for employment in health care, custodial, as these are the occupational interest learned during incarceration.

Case 1 (continued)


How would you vote?


Case 1 - Decision Tool Outcome


Case 2

Male Offender Age: 34 MRD: 12/06/2017 CARAS: 39

Incarcerated: 7 years Custody Classification: Medium

Prior Probation/Parole/Community Corrections: Offender was placed on Parole 01/2006 and committed a new crime and arrested in 12/2007. He has been incarcerated since 12/2007.

Escape History: None


County of Conviction: Jefferson Crime Violent: Yes

Crime Description: Agg Robbery - Menace Victim w/deadly Wpn. / Dang/Auto Wpn. Burg 2 of Building.

Felony Class: F3/SE/F4 Sentence: 10yrs on Ct2 and 2yrs onCt7 -Consecutive.

Brief Description of offense:

Per the case work the victim reported that two masked men entered the business he worked at and attacked him. The victim states each perpetrator was armed with a knife in their hands. The victim stated he was told,‘ If you move or say anything, I'll stab you.' The Victim stated that a physical confrontation ensued where he was struck several times in the face with closed fists. The victim had fresh injuries to his face, forehead and left eye. The co-defendant, per the PSIR states that the inmate was the one who broke the window with a brick and he was observed assaulting the victim and he was holding a baseball bat.


Case 2 (continued)

County of Conviction: Jefferson Crime Violent: No

Crime Description: Poss Con Sub - Sched II Felony Class: 4 Sentence: 6 years DOC

Per the case work – the offender was stopped after a police officer observed some traffic infractions. Upon stopping the offender, the officer observed - visible track marks on the offender's forearms consistent with drug use. The offender could not provide any vehicle information and while running the offender for wants/warrants the officer observed that the offender has a history of Dangerous Drugs. The officer asked the Inmate if he could search the vehicle and/or have anything on her person that might be dangerous. The officer located a used syringe and further searching located plastic baggies, containing Methamphetamines. The offender was arrested for possession of Drugs and Paraphernalia.

County of Conviction: Montezuma Crime Violent: Yes (SBI)

Crime Description: Third Degree Assault-Know/reckless Cause Injury

Felony Class: N/A Sentence: 2 years concurrent with 03CR139

Crime Description: According to the Offender the victim started threatening to "kick LF's ass" because their respective girlfriends were roommates and the Offender (LF) had some domestic issues with his girlfriend. The Offender states that he never gave the victim a chance to "kick my ass" because he saw him at the Grocery store, and walked up to him and punched him once, while they were in the parking lot. The Offender said that the victim stumbled back ward, but that he explained that he was not the one talking bad about the Offender, that it was his girlfriend instead. The Offender states that he apologized to the victim and they "talked it out“.The victim received injuries to his cheekbone, which required a metal plate to be inserted.


Case 2 (continued)County of Conviction: Montezuma Crime Violent: No

Crime Description: Dist Con Sub Scheduled 2 Felony Class: 3 Sentence: 4 years concurrent with 03CR84

Crime Description: According to the Offender he sold methamphetamine to the same confidential informant on two occasions.

Criminal Behavior Summary: He has been convicted on the following misdemeanors: 2001 – DUR, 2000 – Public Peace, 2000 – Traffic, 1999 – Traffic, 1998 – Assault, 1998 – Criminal Mischief, 1998 – Traffic. It appears that he was given a couple days in jail on two separate occasions, for having positive urinalyses, but that they terminated the Deferred Judgment on 2/02/01. The Offender appears to be a single state offender.

Juvenile History: No Age of First Arrest: 18

Institutional Adjustment: The offender has the following COPD violations: 11/2012 – Fighting, 07/2010 - Disobeying a Lawful Order, 07/2010,Advocating and creating a facility Disruption and Fighting, 07/2010 - Unauthorized Possession


Program Summary: The Offender completed voc. welding at AVCF . Completed other programs during previous incarceration.

The Offender arrived at AVCF on 07/08/2013 and he is report free and not considered a management issue at this time.

Treatment Needs: He has a current substance abuse treatment need of 4a (Enhanced Outpatient). He has completed all recommended programs as well as college classes at FMCC.

Residence/Employment/Etc: 2277 South Praire Court Denver, Co. 80236 303 888-5555

He plans on working in the construction field - working on heavy equipment.

Case 2 (continued)


How would you vote?




Case 3Male Offender Age: 39 MRD: 05/28/2018 CARAS: 41

Arrival to DOC: March 2003 Incarcerated: 11 years Custody Classification: Medium

Prior Probation/Parole/Community Corrections: Offender was housed in community corrections Peer I in 2008 progressed to ISP and failed in 2009. He was placed at CCTC in 2011 completed and went to ISP 06/13/2012 and was regressed from ISP on 07/02/2012 and placed at CCTC. Shortly after being returned to CCTC the Offender escaped from the program, which is his current escape charge. Offender has been back in custody since 07/31/2012.

Escape History: Community Corrections on 07/31/2012


County of Conviction: Arapahoe

Crime Description: Attempted Escape Felony Class: 5 Sentence: 3 years

Brief Description of offense: According to the Offender, he failed to report back to community

center. Offender states that his father had passed away and that’s why he was late.


County of Conviction: El Paso

Crime Description: Second Degree Burglary Felony Class: 4 Sentence: 6 years

According to the Offender, a convenience store was burglarized. The store had security video cameras that recorded the break in. The co-defendant RG was later arrested in another Burglary. He was tied to the convenience store burglary and charged in that case. The co-defendant exposed the Offender as the other party involved in the Burglary. He was arrested for case 02CR3677 and was then charged in the Burglary case.

County of Conviction: El Paso

Crime Description: Aggravated Robbery Felony Class: 3 Sentence: 16 years

According to the Offender, his co-defendants in this case were arrested for a related offense. They provided information to the Colorado Springs Police that the Offender had been the perpetrator in this case. He was apprehended on September 13, 2002. The Offender

reported that co-defendant had given him information that the victim had a large amount of cash from selling drugs. He confronted the victim at his home as he was getting into his car. He simulated a weapon and took about $800.00 from him.

Criminal Behavior Summary:

The following cases were all committed in Chicago, Illinois and the Offender was sentenced to DOC in all. 1997 Armed Robbery, 1995 Delivery of Con Sub, 1995 Possession Con Sub, 1994 Possession Con Sub It appears the Offender’s major source of subsistence was drug trafficking thru the year of 2002. He had a lengthy record of drug sales in Chicago during the years of 1994 thru 1995. He has two cases of Agg Robbery, one in 1997 and one in 2002, with a case of 2nd Burglary in 2002.

Case 3 (continued)


Juvenile History: No Age of First Arrest: 19

Institutional Adjustment: 01/2013 – Fighting, 08/2012 – Escape, 07/2012 0 Failure to Remain or Return, 01/2012 – Possession Drugs, 07/2010 – Disobeying Lawful Order, 04/2010 – Possession Drugs, 01/2010 – Possession Drugs, 06/2003 – Disobeying Lawful Order

Program Summary:

Offender has previously completed Peer I Therapeutic Community in 2008. Offender completed the CMRC program in 10/2011. As of 05/2012 the Offender relapsed on cocaine. Offender had been granted discretionary and would have paroled on 06/05/12; however, parole was rescinded due to his possession/use of drugs. He has refused programming for his substance abuse.

He has had the following work assignments: He arrived at AVCF on 09/18/2012; he was assigned to food service and was terminated due to negative behavior. Offender has a verified GED he received from KCCC Burlington, CO 07/04. Offender has no plans as of this writing to continue his education upon release. Vocational training is recommended.

Treatment Needs: Offender has the need for substance abuse treatment.

Residence/Employment/Etc:

2222 Emerson St, Denver, Colorado 80247 720 888 7777

Offender plans on obtaining employment at 24 Hour Towing in Denver, CO.

Case 3 (continued)


How would you vote?




ONGOING EVALUATION


Progress since implementation

Applied decision tool on 399 referrals (Sept 13-Jan 14)

41% fell into Category Green ( Recommend acceptance) 44% fell into Category Yellow ( Recommend acceptance unless

offender risk and needs cannot be address in CC) 15% fell into Category Red ( Recommend do not accept unless

special consideration is present) Board Decisions 79% accepted Category Green ( Recommend acceptance) 50% accepted Category Yellow ( Recommend acceptance unless

offender risk and needs cannot be address in CC) 16% accepted Category Red ( Recommend do not accept unless

special consideration is present)


Future Evaluation

Measure % of time DCCB agrees with tool Measure % of time individual members agree with tool Track and Code how offenders sort into the matrix Track performance in CC programs


Greg Mauro, DirectorDivision of Community CorrectionsDenver Department of [email protected]

Esther Smith, Compliance CoordinatorDivision of Community CorrectionsDenver Department of [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Date post:	15-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	carolyn-ruff
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Development of a CC Board Release Guideline Tool Lessons Learned from the Denver Board Experience...

Documents