The Cook County Recidivism Reduction Project

The Cook County Recidivism Reduction Project (CCRRP) is an interagency public safety
initiative that helps adult probationers access needed services and develop more positive
connections to their neighborhoods. Implemented by the Cook County Adult Probation
Department (CCAPD), the CCRRP targets individuals who pose the greatest risk of committing
a new violent offense during their probation supervision. Over the past year, the CCAPD has
been getting increasing pressure from the Mayor of Chicago, the Cook County Board President,
the Cook County State’s Attorney, and other elected officials due to a newspaper series that
highlighted individuals who were on probation that were not monitored closely and who
committed serious offenses while on probation. As a result of the newspaper series, the Chief of
the CCAPD was fired and a new Chief was hired and implemented the CCRRP. The initiative’s
target population is any individual sentenced to probation with a history of arrests for crimes of
violence and is being supervised on probation in one of eight specific high-crime Chicago
communities. The eight communities were selected based on their overall crime rate plus having
community organizations that have been vocal and critical of the Mayor’s efforts to reduce crime
in their communities. When the program was launched, probation officers identified all of the
high-risk probationers who were living in the eight selected Chicago communities. The goal of
the CCRRP is to reduce violent recidivism among high risk probationers by increasing social
networks that are positive influences.

All of the high-risk probationers identified by the probation officers were informed that they had
to attend a CCRRP meeting at the CCAPD headquarters. The meeting was facilitated by a former
gang leader who now works for a non-profit social service provider that has contracted with the
CCAPD to serve participants in the eight Chicago communities involved in the project. During
the meeting, the facilitator describes the services provided in the program and the benefits of the
referrals and activities that will increase positive social networks. In addition, each participant is
paired up with a trained mentor: someone who lives in the community they are from that will
provide emotional support and assist the probationer in establishing connections to community
organizations, such as churches, block clubs, and substance abuse support groups. The offenders
are also provided with a list of community-based volunteer activities. Participation in the
CCRRP project is voluntary. To provide an incentive, those probationers who enter the program
and remain arrest-free for the first six months of their supervision were told that they will be
eligible to be hired into a part-time job with the city through its Apprenticeship Program for
Convicted Offenders (APCO). Although not explained during recruitment, those who volunteer
for the program will not have a violation of probation petition filed immediately if they are
arrested for a minor crime, but those who do not volunteer will have this occur.

Under the partnership with the Chicago Police Department (CPD), lists of those probationers
who volunteer for the CCRRP are provided by CCAPD to CPD supervisors in the targeted
neighborhoods. One of the goals was to get the probation officers to work more closely with both
the police officers and community organizations to address the root causes of crime in these
communities, particularly lack of social support and attachment to the community If a CCRRP
participant was rearrested for a minor offense, the probation officers were expected to work with
the probationer, their mentor and community organizations to ensure that the behavior does not
escalate to more serious, violent crime. If the CCRRP participant was non-compliant with this
effort, then the probation officer would file a violation of probation petition with the court and
seek to have the probation sentence revoked and have them sentenced to prison. Probationers
who did not volunteer for the CCRRP were subject to normal policies, which required probation
officers to file violation of probation petitions and seek revocation immediately if they were
rearrested for any new crime.

Researchers also conducted an outcome evaluation of the CCRRP. The researchers used a post-
test only comparison group design. The treatment group consisted of all 300 offenders who
participated in the CCRRP during 2012. The comparison group was selected using a convenience
sample of the 500 individuals eligible for participation in CCRRP but who did not volunteer for
CCRRP. The CCRRP group and comparison group were similar in terms of race, the
communities they lived in, and all were male offenders who were classified as high risk. The
comparison group tended to be younger, had more prior arrests, was more likely to be gang
involved, but was less likely to self-report a substance abuse problem compared to the CCRRP
group.

The main outcome measures for the evaluation were: a) the number of pro-social friends
probationers had; and b) whether the individual was rearrested within six months of being placed
on probation. To measure the number of pro-social friends, the evaluation team asked probation
officers to make each individual in the CCRRP and comparison group complete a survey at 6
months into their sentence asking them to list all of their friends who they felt were positive
influences in their lives. Probation officers reviewed the list to make sure each probationer
completed it, made a copy for their probation file, and then provided the completed lists to the
research team.

To measures recidivism, the research team from a local university went through individual
probation files to see if the CCRRP and comparison group had been rearrested. During the
course of the data collection, it was determined that a number of the CCRRP participants had
been rearrested but had still been recommended for the apprenticeship jobs, which violated the
program’s rules. Specifically, there was one probation officer who recommended that 20
participants in the CCRRP who had been rearrested within 6 months get an apprenticeship job.
The researcher notified a probation supervisor of this, and when the officer was confronted, he
admitted that he had recommended the apprenticeship job despite the arrest because they came
from poor families, it was an arrest for a minor crime, and perhaps this opportunity would turn
their life around. Because of the high visibility and support of the program among elected
officials in the community, the manager chose to not do anything about this violation of the
program policy by the officer for fear of the political backlash it could create if it became public.

Tables 1 and 2 provide the results on the bivariate analyses comparing the CCRRP and control
group on the number of pro-social friends and whether or not they were rearrested within six
months. Table 3 provides the multivariate analyses examining whether or not the individuals in
the study were rearrested.
Table 1. Effect of CCRRP on Number of Pro-Social Friends

CCRRP (N=300) Control (N=500) Statistical test

Average number of pro- Mean= 5.2 Mean= 5.0 Independent
social friends samples t-test t=1.2,
Standard Standard p >.10
Deviation=2.0 Deviation=2.5

Table 2: Effect of CCRRP on New Arrests

New Arrest No New Arrest Total

CCRRP Group 35% 65% 100% X2=7.7, p<.01,
(N=300) Phi=.15, p<.01
Control Group 45% 55% 100%
(N=500)
Total (N=800) 42% 58% 100%

Table 3. Effect of CCRRP Program on New Arrests (N=800)

Dependent Variable New Arrest (No

new arrest=0,
New arrest=1)
Odds Ratio
CCRRP (Comparison=0, CCRRP=1) 0.93*
Age (in years) 0.94 **
Race (white=0, non-white=1) 1.20
Substance Abuse Problem (no 2.10 ***
substance abuse problem=0, substance
abuse problem=1)
Number of pro-social friends 0.90
Employment status (0=unemployed, 0.55***
1=employed)
Nagelkerke R2 0.20

Chi-square 24.16***

*p<.05; **p<.01, ***p<.001

1.Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the program evaluation design. Also
discuss potential problems with the implementation of both the program/policy and
the evaluation of the program that may affect the ability to measure program
outcomes or attribute outcomes to the program. In doing so, you should assess the
internal, external, and construct validity of the research design. You need to make
sure to accurately identify the specific strengths and threats to internal, external and
construct validity of the scenario’s research design and accurately pair these strengths
and threats to the appropriate research terminology. Simply listing all of the treats to
validity without identifying which specific form of validity is threatened by each
specific issue is not sufficient. Based on your selected theory (see A above), propose
two additional measures that should have been included in the evaluation design,
such as additional control variables that were not included in the multivariate analyses
presented in Table 3.

2. Interpret the findings in Tables 1, 2 and 3. Your response should discuss the
existence and strength of statistical relationships evident in the analyses, the
degree to which the relationships can be interpreted as evidence of the program’s
effectiveness, and the difference between practical and statistical significance.
When interpreting the findings presented in Tables 1, 2, and 3, you should also
consider the strengths and weaknesses to the research design.