U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Evaluation of Ohio's Community-Based Correctional Facilities, Final Report

NCJ Number
177065
Author(s)
E J Latessa; L F Travis; A Holsinger
Date Published
1997
Length
89 pages
Annotation
This report presents the methodology and findings from an evaluation of Ohio's six community-based correctional facilities in operation since 1992; a facility-by-facility comparison and analysis are provided.
Abstract
The report covers seven areas: a profile of the community- based correctional facility (CBCF) populations, services and contacts provided offenders, financial obligations of offenders, employment of offenders, program outcome and recidivism, factors associated with program completion and recidivism, and assessment of program quality. Samples of offenders sentenced to community- based correctional facilities and prison during the study period were drawn in each of the counties operating a CBCF. A random sample that represented 50 percent of all offenders admitted to CBCF facilities during fiscal years 1991 through 1993 was selected. The Correctional Program Assessment Inventory was used to determine how closely the CBCF's met known principles of effective correctional treatment. Data on case outcomes available in correctional program files were augmented with criminal record checks. A total of 822 CBCF offenders and a random subsample of 250 offenders from the prison group were selected to determine whether they had been incarcerated in an Ohio penal institution during the follow-up period. The evaluation concludes that program quality is in the "satisfactory range" for all of the facilities, as measured by the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory. There was considerable variation in rates of arrest and incarceration among the six facilities, not all of which could be explained by differences in offenders. Two of the facilities reported incarceration rates below that of the prison group. Recommendations pertain to the use of screening instruments, transitional aftercare, staff training, and the measurement of program completion. 36 figures and appended tables and evaluation instrument