• Degree and type of agency influence on agency’s chosen benchmarks and high-level outcomes:

Benchmark #64 relates to adult recidivism – the percentage of paroled adult offenders convicted of a new felony within three yearsof initial release.  The state target is 28.8%.  The 2003 Benchmark Performance Report to the Legislative Assembly indicated that adult recidivism remains in the 30% range with little change since the mid 1990’s.

 

The Department of Corrections does have influence on this measure through its efforts to give inmates the tools necessary to successfully remain in the community after release.  the Department has made that effort a priority during the last few years through establishment of the Oregon Accountability Model.  That model recognizes that transition begins at intake when a corrections plan is developed for each inmate that addresses criminal risk factors to enhance successful reintegration into the community and in turn reduce recidivism.  The Department’s performance measure #5 mirrors this benchmark.  The 2004 data indicates the recidivism rate is 31.2%.  The targeted goal of 28.8% was not met.

• Summarize the year’s successes and barriers to achieveing performance measure targets.

The two other measures not met during this reporting period are the following:

PM # 3 – Percentage of inmates’ corrections plan completed while at DOC.  This was a new measure and DOC had little data to accurately define a target.  The 2004 target was 68% and actual completions were 64%.

PM # 8 - The rate of workers compensation time loss claims per 100 employees.  The Department continues to struggle to meet the targe in this area.  Our actual data suggests we are reasonably stable in claims – but the target is low.

 

The four measures met included:

PM # 2 – Percentage of inmates in compliance with the 40-hour work / education requirements of the constitution (Ballot Measure #17)

PM # 6 – The rate of Class 1 inmate assaults on staff per month.

PM # 7 – The rate of inmate walk-a-ways from minimum custody, outside work crews per month.

PM # 10 – Rate of electrical consumption by the Department in kilowatt-hours per month.

• Future challenges:

Responsibilities of the Department of Corrections will continue to increase as the inmate population increases.  These responsibilities include providing safe, secure housing, and effective programs and services, to allow inmates to successfully transition back into the communities.  In the environment of limited resources we must be as efficient and effective as possible.  Establishment of reasonable performance measures and appropriate data monitoring will validate our efforts both within DOC and to the outside viewer.

• Successful reintegration of inmates into the community.

• Benchmark #64 relates to adult recidivism – the percentage of paroled adult offenders convicted of a new felony within three years of initial release.  The state target is 28.8%.  The 2003 Benchmark Performance Report to the Legislative Assembly reported the following answer to the question – Is Oregon making progress?  No.  Adult recidivism remains in the 30% range with little real change since the mid 1990’s.

• Development of a work ethic, a basic education, etc., contributes to the successful return of inmates to society, thereby reducing recidivism.

• The Department has met or exceeded the published targets for the current and prior years, but it is becoming increasingly more difficult to reach the increased target.  For example, work opportunities can be limited by type of inmate.  Outside work crews must be lower custody with additional public safety restrictions.  The Department is finding fewer inmates with these characteristics even though the overall population is growing.

• DOC is not aware of an industry standard.

• Institution maintenance, janitorial work, kitchen help, garment factory, and laundry are examples of work that count toward the 40 hour requirement.  Programs such as education and alcohol and drug treatment also qualify.  The Department continues to accommodate growing numbers of inmates; however, the availability of work and program opportunities becomes more restricted.  The growing of additional inmates into facilities does not necessarily create the need for additional jobs, and limited funding for programs will not reach all those in need.  

• The Department will continue to prioritize the development of and offering of programs and work opportunities that count toward compliance with the requirements of Measure 17.

• Successful reintegration of inmates into the community.

• Benchmark #64 relates to adult recidivism – the percentage of paroled adult offenders convicted of a new felony within three years of initial release.  The state target is 28.8%.  The 2003 Benchmark Performance Report to the Legislative Assembly reported the following answer to the question – Is Oregon making progress?  No.  Adult recidivism remains in the 30% range with little real change since the mid 1990’s.

• The Oregon Corrections Plan is developed for each inmate which addresses criminal risk factors to enhance successful reintegration into the community and reduce recidivism.  Inmates are prepared for community living through specific interventions related to their corrections plan such as work, education, and focused treatment and reentry programs.   The percentage of plans completed while at DOC was a new measure for 2003.  Completion data will partially depend upon the capacity of the existing system to address identified needs.

• Since this was a new measure, the Department chose to use the 2003 baseline data as the benchmark percent.  The target is to improve the percent of inmate plans completed prior to returning to the community.   The drop in completion rates between 2003 and 2004 likely relates to the stricter definition of completion used today than previously.  For example, alcohol and drug classes may have been counted previously, where it must be treatment currently.  In addition, the inmate population continues to increase while resources for new program slots have not kept pace.  That means the percentage of inmates in program slots may decrease.

• The Department is not aware of an industry standard for corrections plans, nor percentage of completion for those plans.

• Oregon Corrections Plans are prepared for each inmate entering the Department’s system.  The stock population also has plans which will be updated over time to reflect the criminogenic risk based model.

• Increased accuracy of data collection and targeted effectiveness research.  As budget and population management issues reduce the ability to address the demand for programs and services, it will be necessary to focus on the percent of the population DOC is able to serve.  The plans will assist to focus available resources on the highest risk offenders.

• Successful reintegration of inmates into the community.

• Benchmark #64 relates to adult recidivism – the percentage of paroled adult offenders convicted of a new felony within three years of initial release.  The state target is 28.8%.  The 2003 Benchmark Performance Report to the Legislative Assembly reported the following answer to the question – Is Oregon making progress?  No.  Adult recidivism remains in the 30% range with little real change since the mid 1990’s.

• The Oregon Corrections Plan is developed for each inmate which addresses criminal risk factors to enhance successful reintegration into the community and reduce recidivism.  This performance measure tracks the number of ex-prison inmates who are convicted of a new felony crime within one year after their release from prison and compares the group who had completed a corrections plan with the group that did not.  In addition, it demonstrates how successful the prison system has been in providing the kinds of programs and interventions that will lower recidivism.

• This was a new measure in 2003 and targets had not yet been set.  However, the data does show that offenders that have a risk factor identified and then complete the recommended treatment in their corrections plan while in prison do have lower rates of recidivism than those who have a risk factor and do not complete the recommended program.  That was true for both times frames sampled.

• DOC is not aware of an industry standard.

• The Department has made many system improvements to better target in-prison interventions and to improve the delivery of those interventions.  Inmates are assessed for criminal risk factors at intake and a corrections plan is developed reflecting the interventions that will address those risk factors.  Appropriate interventions are then delivered which should result in lower rates of recidivism.

• The graphic above is based on data collected on prison releases during the period between  June and November 2002 and March though August 2003 (and then tracked for one year).  The interventions tracked addressed alcohol and drug and cognitive needs.  The combined data for both types of interventions in the first sample showed a 1-year recidivism rate of 9% for those who did not complete their plan, and 7.2% for those who did.  The next data set showed a 9.6% rate for those who did not complete and 8.9% for those who did.  In both cases fewer individuals who did complete their plans with the alcohol and drug and cognitive factors addressed were convicted of a new felony crime within one year after release.

• Successful reintegration of inmates into the community.

• Benchmark #64 relates to adult recidivism – the percentage of paroled adult offenders convicted of a new felony within three years of initial release.  The state target is 28.8%.  The 2003 Benchmark Performance Report to the Legislative Assembly reported the following answer to the question – Is Oregon making progress?  No.  Adult recidivism remains in the 30% range with little real change since the mid 1990’s.

• This measure tracks the number of ex-prison inmates who are convicted of a new felony crime within three years of their release from prison.  Being free of new felony convictions following prison is one measure of how well ex-inmates have been successful in becoming responsible community members.  It is also a measure of how well the prison system has done in providing new skills and knowledge to inmates and in planning and coordinating their continued supervision in the community.

• The data shows a drop in recidivism for 2000 and 2001, a sharp rise in 2002, a reduction in 2003 and then another increase in 2004.  At no time has it reached the state target of 28.8% which is the actual benchmark.  The data suggests that the expected recidivism rate, based upon the profile of the offenders being released, is expected to be 30%.  The current rate exceeds that as well.

• There is no common definition for recidivism; therefore, there is no standard targeted rate.

• As noted for the previous measures, the Department has put considerable effort into assessment and inmate corrections plan development to address identified needs which will bolster the success of inmate’s positive re-entry into society.  System improvements have been made to better target in-prison interventions and to conduct more careful and coordinated release planning.

• The performance measure will continue to be tracked to determine if improvements in prison programs and transition planning have a measurable effect on recidivism.  Specific program effect will need to be measured.  In addition, the target may need to be revisited.  In the meantime, the Department will maintain the goal of 28.8%.

• To be a safe, civil and productive organization.

• Agency mission.

• The performance measure gives an indication of how well the institutions are functioning.  It also is an indicator of the effectiveness of the Oregon Accountability Model.  The model in part requires staff to hold offenders accountable by providing both positive and negative consequences to inmate behavior and guiding offenders toward pro-social behavior.

• The data indicates the Department is exceeding targeted performance. 

• The Department is not aware of an industry standard.

• Each assault is reviewed to see its cause or motivation and identify if staff training issues need to be addressed.
• Protective measures are initiated as needed – these could be for staff or facility changes.
• Class 1 assaults are referred to the State Police for investigation.

• The Department will continue with implementation of the Oregon Accountability Model and the positive approach to inmate management.
• Assaults that do occur will continue to be analyzed for cause.
• We will ensure staff are appropriately trained to manage assaultive inmates.
• Inmates with violent histories toward staff will address that issue as part of their corrections plan.

• To be a safe, civil and productive organization.

• Agency mission.

• This performance measure indicates if the Department criteria for placement of select inmates on work crews are appropriate and / or the manner and level of supervision is adequate.

• The data suggests the Department is performing well with respect to management of the minimum custody inmate work crews.  The rate for walk-a-ways has decreased nearly every year since 1999.  The Department is well below the target of one per month.

• The Department is not aware of an industry standard.

• Screening and classification reviews continue to be done to ensure that only appropriate offenders are housed at minimum custody facilities and are assigned to work crews.  Specific training is also provided for work crew supervisors.

• The Department will continue current activities.

• To be a safe, civil, and productive organization.

• Agency mission.

• This performance measure directly relates to a safe working environment for staff, which corresponds to a more productive environment by reducing the costs of operation – such as overtime.  A safe working environment also increases the moral of staff, again making it a more productive environment.

• The data reveals that time loss claims have increased even taking into account increased staffing levels.  The downward trend from 2001 to 2002 did not hold for 2003 and 2004.  Given the history, the targeted rate for 2005 does not appear realistic. 

• The Department is not aware of an industry standard within correctional operations.

• An example of a program or activity related to this measure would be the Department’s Early-Return-To-Work (ERTW) program.  ERTW programs help reduce the costs associated with time loss claims.

• The data indicates that the majority of time loss claims originate from lifting items and slips, trips, and falls.  In order to reduce these types of incidents it would appear that there needs to be a renewed emphasis on proper lifting techniques and a general awareness of safety to avoid such accidents.

• Operational efficiency. 

• Agency mission.

• The operation of the Department’s medical services is cost effective compared to a health service program delivering health care to a similar indigent population.  While this cost effective measure is important, it must be matched with a program quality measure to ensure the taxpayer is really getting the best return on investment.  To that end, the program maintains national accreditation by National Commission on Correctional Health Care to ensure both quality and cost effectiveness are balanced in the equation.

• The data for 2004 indicates the Department’s health services cost per inmate per month averaged $219 as compared to the average cost per patient per month under the Oregon Health Plan was $292.  From March 2001 through June 2004, the cost of DOC medical services has been below comparable cost of service under the Oregon Health Plan.

• Please see the next question.

• Health Services continues to generate and review monthly service and performance data and compare it with market practices and trends.  This review frequently identifies options for improved cost effective operation.  An example of these options is the evaluation of off-site services to consider the appropriateness for moving on site.  Recent evaluations included MRI services and denturist services.  In the case of MRI services the evaluation indicated that at this time, the volume, time and location of need did not support bringing MRI services on-site, and should not increase operational efficiency.  In the case of denturist services, the evaluation indicated that it would be appropriate, and operationally more efficient, to bring a denturist on-site at SRCI.  This has been implemented.

• Continue current effectiveness efforts.

• Operational Efficiency.

• Agency mission.

• *The target (4,182,800) nor reported data number for 2004 (3,929,174) do not include consumption for the two newest institutions.   The intention was to keep the comparisons for this document as clean as possible.  The Department is requesting to modify this measure to BTU’s per square foot for the future.
• Based upon calendar year 200 data, DOC decreased the consumption rate by 7% in 2001.  We increased that reduction to 7.5% in 2002, and 9.1% in 2003.  Our consumption rate through the first eight months of 2004 indicates a further reduction of 9.8% from our 2000 level.

• The Department is exceeding the targeted performance.

• The Department does not currently have this data.

• General conservation measures (turning off lights and equipment when not needed), in addition to de-lamping efforts, electrical upgrades, and thermostat setbacks.

• Continue current effectiveness efforts.  Identify areas for motion sensor controlled lighting and install motion sensors as funding permits.