Program Profile: Preventing Parolee Crime Program (PPCP)

This is a multidimensional, parole-based reintegration program that aims to reduce parolees’ crime and reincarceration by providing them with services that can facilitate a successful reintegration into society following release from prison. The program is rated Promising. Parolees who participated in the program had a statistically significant lower likelihood of reincarceration, compared with parolees who did not participate.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals

The Preventing Parolee Crime Program (PPCP) is a multidimensional, parole-based reintegration program run by the California Department of Corrections. The program aims to reduce crime and reincarceration of parolees by providing them with services that can facilitate a successful reintegration into society following release from prison. The program, originally called the Preventing Parolee Failure Program, was implemented in response to the record high recidivism rates among California parolees. The program was created to address the many problems that cause a high rate of return to prison among parolees reentering the community, including substance abuse, unemployment, illiteracy, and homelessness.

Services Provided

PPCP consists of six networks of service providers that offer community- and residential-based drug abuse treatment, job training and placement services, math and literacy skill development, and housing. Although the PPCP service networks vary in their specific treatment goals and activities, together they comprise an integrated, statewide program designed to reduce high rates of recidivism and reincarceration.

Employment

PPCP includes two community-based employment programs that work to help parolees gain steady, full-time employment. These programs include Jobs Plus (JP) and the Offenders Employment Continuum (OEC). The JP program consists of 12 subcontractors in 9 counties that develop job banks of local employers willing to hire parolees. Providers are paid for their services for each successful job placement. The program also offers a 1- or 2-day employment workshop that focuses on resume writing, interviewing strategies, and proper work attire, although attendance is not mandatory. The OEC consists of 6 subcontractors in 6 counties that provide mandatory 40-hour workshops that focus on improving parolees’ interest and aptitude for work, identifying and fixing barriers to long-term employment, and encouraging entry in vocational training. Providers are paid based on workshop enrollment, regardless of the number of eventual job placements.

Substance Abuse

Two networks of providers offer substance abuse education and recovery services, including the Substance Abuse Treatment and Recovery (STAR) and Parolee Services Network (PSN). STAR provides a 4-week educational program that helps parolees recognize, acknowledge, and prevent substance abuse problems. The program also helps parolees change antisocial attitudes and behaviors (such as habitual lying, stealing, and aggression); improve self-control; and develop problem-solving and conflict resolution skills. The STAR program is held in parole offices statewide and can serve more than 6,500 parolees a year.

PSN provides four primary modalities of substance abuse treatment, including short-term detoxification, long-term (180 days) residential drug treatment, and outpatient services. The fourth modality is sober-living support, which provides up to 90 days of drug- and alcohol-free community-based housing. PSN operates in eight counties across the State and offers a total of 500 treatment slots. Not all treatment sites offer all four treatment modalities.

Math and Literacy Education

The Computerized Literacy Learning Center (CLLC) aims to improve parolees’ mathematic and literacy skills by a minimum of two grade levels. It does this by providing training services through a self-paced, computer-assisted instructional program. Parolees can enter and exit the program at any time. In addition to a traditional curriculum, CLLC also develops custom curricula to assist parolees in obtaining and retaining employment. The CLLC provides more than 200 computer workstations in 19 sites across the State, including parole offices.

Housing

PPCP also has a network of six Residential Multi-Service Centers (RMSCs) that provide support to homeless parolees transitioning to independent living in the community through a residential therapeutic environment. In addition to providing a stable residential environment, RMSCs provide employment, math and literacy skill development, substance abuse education, and recovery services, as well as services to help develop communication and problem-solving skills. Employed parolees are required to save a certain percentage of their earnings in order to eventually transition to independent living. Parolees are allowed to reside in an RMSC for 6 months or up to a year with approval from a parole agent. The RMSCs also provide aftercare for 60 to 90 days.

Study

Zhang, Roberts, and Callanan (2006) used a quasi-experimental design to look at the effectiveness of the Preventing Parolee Crime Program (PPCP) in reducing recidivism and reincarceration of people on parole in California. The study population included all paroled Californians  who were released to parole between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2002. People were excluded if they were “second strikers” (who were the subjects of a separate evaluation) or if they were a specific type of offender, such as sex offenders, who were not eligible for certain PPCP services. The primary unit of analysis was the time spent on active parole (known as “parole spell”) between the parole release date and exit from parole because of reincarceration or absconding, or June 30, 2003, whichever came first. (The June 30 date was selected to ensure at least a 1-year observation period for most parole spells.) This study took an approach more commonly used to look at stratification and social mobility (such as movements in and out of the labor force) because the focus was on parole spells as the unit of analysis, rather than on distinct individuals. This approach was favored because of the pattern of serial short-term incarceration–release cycles and the need to find out whether parole spells that included PPCP services were substantively different in process and outcomes than non–PPCP parole spells.

The treatment group consisted of all parole spells in which the paroled person was enrolled in PPCP services (n = 28,598). The comparison group consisted of all release spells in which the paroled person did not enroll in PPCP services and had not enrolled in services in a prior spell (n = 148,343). This approach was favored over the practice of matching treatment group members with comparison group members, because it leveraged all available information for the paroled person population and maximized the ability to measure and statistically control for any differences between the two groups on known risk factors for recidivism, such as age, gender, race, number of prior incarcerations, and type of crime committed. The two groups were similar on several factors. PPCP participants were 85.7 percent male, and 36.6 percent African American, 31.2 percent white, 16.5 percent Latino, 12.6 percent Mexican, and 3.1 percent Pacific Asian or “other.” Those who did not participate in PPCP were 90.1 percent male, and 27.9 percent African American, 33 percent white, 16 percent Latino, 19.3 percent Mexican, and 3.8 percent Pacific Asian or “other.” Among PPCP participants, rates of participation varied significantly by race across services. For example, African Americans enrolled at a higher rate in the Offenders Employment Continuum (OEC) program, while white paroled persons are more likely to enroll in the Parolee Services Network (PSN).

The outcome measure of interest was recidivism, measured as reincarceration of a paroled person within 1 year of his or her release to parole. There were two primary independent variables. The first was participation in PPCP services, which was determined by whether a paroled person enrolled in PPCP services during the parole spell. The second was the intensity of participation services. This was measured in two ways: duration of time receiving program services, and whether the person met the service provider’s benchmarks for success. The benchmarks varied across programs. For example, the Computerized Literacy Learning Center benchmark was set at improvement in reading and math skills by two grade levels. The Substance Abuse Treatment and Recovery benchmark was completion of the 40-hour education workshop on substance abuse and recovery. The benchmark for the Jobs Plus program was defined as placement in a job, while the benchmark for the OEC program was defined as having completed the workshop and having gained employment. The benchmark for the Residential Multi-Service Centers was a graduated metric for assessing the intensity of treatment based on the number of days actually in residence. Finally, the benchmark for PSN was client specific and focused on whether a client had met a specific treatment goal and the number of treatment goals met.

Data was collected from two primary sources: the Offender-Based Information System and the Statewide Parole Data Base. These databases provided information on the movement of paroled persons through the California prison and parole system, and also provided some criminal history and background demographics data. Data was also collected from service provider records of participation in the program.

The study used multivariate linear modeling to assess the effects of program participation on recidivism (measured as reincarceration rate) that allowed for control of potential differences in recidivism risk factors between the treatment and comparison groups. Estimates of PPCP effects were calculated using logistic regression. The researchers conducted subgroup analyses.

Zhang, Roberts, and Callanan (2006b) conducted a statewide cost–benefit analysis of the Preventing Parolee Crime Program (PPCP). Program effectiveness was assessed by comparing program costs to costs of incarceration that were avoided (owing to decreases in recidivism rates after participation in PPCP). The cost–benefit analysis relied on the outcome results from the program evaluation of PPCP (Zhang, Roberts, and Callanan 2006). The results from that study showed that PPCP participants on average remained out of prison during the study period for 446.7 days, compared to 393.1 days among non–PPCP paroled persons. <br/><br/> The study looked at the average 2-year costs. The cost–benefit was found by subtracting the program offsets (i.e., total program expenditures including administration, evaluation, and parole supervision costs) from the gross savings achieved from the days of reincarceration avoided by the PPCP participants compared to non–PPCP participants. <br/><br/> The results showed a net savings of more than $21 million from the incarceration days avoided by the PPCP participants. In other words, for each $1 invested in PPCP, the net return was $0.47, after subtracting program expenses and regular parole supervision costs. The cost–benefit evaluation also used a survival analysis approach that could adjust for the effects of censoring certain cases and control for group differences. This approach resulted in an adjusted savings estimate of $26.6 million (versus the estimated $21.1 million).

Subgroup Analysis

Zhang, Roberts, and Callanan (2006) conducted subgroup analyses on the effects of the treatment services provided to Preventing Parolee Crime Program (PPCP) participants. After 12 months, the control group had a reincarceration rate of 52.8 percent, whereas treatment group participants of Residential Multi-Service Centers who met treatment goals had the lowest reincarceration rate (15.5 percent). The reincarceration rate for participants who met treatment goals at Jobs Plus was 33.1 percent, and the reincarceration rate was 28.5 percent for participants in the Offenders Employment Continuum. Participants in the Computerized Literacy Learning Center had a reincarceration rate of 26.5 percent, Substance Abuse and Treatment Recovery (STAR) program participants had a reincarceration rate of 40.4 percent, and Parolee Service Network participants had a reincarceration rate of 25.7 percent.

PPCP participants were grouped into three categories: 1) those who had minimum participation in the program (i.e., early dropouts); 2) those who received substantial services but did not meet treatment goals (i.e., service goals partially achieved); and 3) those who completed the treatment goals (i.e., service goals achieved). Meeting treatment goals was consistently associated with lower recidivism rates, regardless of service type. The results showed that, in general, the longer the paroled persons stayed in a program, the less likely they were to return to prison. For each program, early dropouts had the highest rate of return (for both observation periods), followed by those who partially achieved service goals and those who met the treatment goals.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Zhang, Sheldon, Robert E.L. Roberts, and Valerie Callanan. 2003. An Evaluation of the California Preventing Parolee Crime Program. San Macros, Calif.: California State University San Marcos.

Zhang, Sheldon X., Robert E.L. Roberts, and Valerie Callanan. 2005. “Multiple Services on a Statewide Scale: The Impact of the California Preventing Parolee Crime Program.” Corrections Compendium 30(6):6–7,30–35.

Zhang, Sheldon X., Robert E.L. Roberts, and Valerie J. Callanan. 2006b. “The Cost Benefits of Providing Community-Based Correctional Services: An Evaluation of a Statewide Parole Program in California.” Journal of Criminal Justice 34(4):341–50.

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Noncustodial Employment Programs for Individuals with Recent Criminal Records

This practice involves job training and career development for people with a recent criminal record in order to increase employment and reduce recidivism. These programs take place outside of the traditional custodial correctional setting, after they are released. The practice is rated Ineffective in reducing criminal behavior for participants in noncustodial employment training programs compared with those who did not participate.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Adult Reentry Programs

This practice involves correctional programs that focus on the transition of individuals from prison into the community. Reentry programs involve treatment or services that have been initiated while the individual is in custody and a follow-up component after the individual is released. The practice is rated Promising for reducing recidivism.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Rehabilitation Programs for Adults Convicted of a Crime

This practice includes programs that are designed to reduce recidivism among adults by improving their behaviors, skills, mental health, social functioning, and access to education and employment. They may become participants in rehabilitation programs during multiple points in their involvement with the criminal justice system. This practice is rated Promising for reducing recidivism among adults who have been convicted of an offense.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?