700 S. Hydraulic
Wichita, KS 67211
Community Corrections (CC) in Kansas was established
through enactment of K.S.A. 75-5290 by the 1978 Legislature.
Patterned after the Minnesota Community Corrections Act, Community Corrections
was intended to provide alternatives to both incarceration and new prison
construction. Initially, CC was optional and counties were
not required to establish CC programs. However, with the
passage of SB 49 in 1989, counties not previously participating in CC were
required to establish programs – whether singly, in groups, or by contracting
with existing programs. Adult offenders were the primary
population until the 1994 Legislature provided for statewide expansion of
juvenile services through CC. The responsibility for juvenile
offender supervision was transferred to the Juvenile Justice Authority (JJA) by
the 1997 Legislature.
The 2000 Kansas Legislature approved legislation that
defined the target population to be served by CC agencies.
Probation violators must be assigned to CC before being revoked and sent to
prison unless the violation includes a new conviction or the court makes a
finding that public safety and/or the offender’s welfare will not be served by
doing so. The law further provides that CC agencies may
provide services to juveniles if the local advisory/governing board grants
Currently, thirty-one CC agencies provide services for
adult offenders in all 105 Kansas counties. The
following chronological record recounts the significant events of Community
Corrections in Sedgwick County.
Located in south-central Kansas, Sedgwick County is the second most populous of all
105 Kansas counties. The United States Census (2013)
estimates more than 505,000 residents of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds
reside within the county. The City of Wichita is the largest
city in Sedgwick County, as well as the entire State of Kansas, with over
382,000 residents. The racial and ethnic composition of the
total population has steadily become more diverse and in 2013 was 70.7% White
and 29.3% Minority (13.7% Hispanic, 10% African American, 4.5% Asian, and 1.1%
Sedgwick County began their process in May 1980 when the Community
Corrections Advisory Board was established by County Resolution Number 119-1980.
The Board’s focus was to identify service gaps in the existing system and
consider programs for Community Corrections funding. Early in the planning
process, it became clear that the primary focus for Community Corrections should
be the adult chargeback population. A controlled adult residential facility
became the major program goal for the adult population. Although Community
Corrections funding was also intended to serve the targeted juvenile chargeback
offenders, it was determined to be a lower priority as the juvenile system had
relatively more available community-based services. (Juvenile Community
Corrections services were not implemented until 1988.)
The Community Corrections Division officially began on July 1, 1983 and the
first client was ordered to the adult residential program on July 5, 1983.
The adult chargeback population included most 1st and 2nd time class D & E
felony offenders. The State’s fiscal award was based on an entitlement funding
formula which was subsequently reduced by the daily rate times the number of
days that Sedgwick County’s chargeback offenders spent in prison. The
Division’s goal was to divert this targeted population to community
corrections’ programming in order to fully utilize the State entitlement funds.
To accomplish this, staff evaluators screened all felony cases set for
disposition in the 18th Judicial District (JD) and made formal recommendations
to the Court regarding those in the chargeback population.
Administrative and Non-Residential services were initially housed in the
Sedgwick County Courthouse, 525 N. Main, on the mezzanine level. Residential
programming was established in a 22 bed male facility at 1158 N. Waco.
Additional male beds, as well as the female beds, were provided through a
contract with the Halfway House for Adults, Inc., a private, nonprofit agency.
The residential program was a highly structured facility which emphasized
client supervision and accountability. The program also provided referrals and
intensive services in the areas of employment, substance abuse and psychological
counseling, education and family therapy. All residents were expected to
maintain full-time employment and/or school placement in the community.
Considerable emphasis was placed on budgeting of personal income, mastering
daily living skills, and preparing for the client’s eventual release to the
community. All clients were also expected to complete a minimum of 24 hours of
community service. Residential programming involved movement through levels
which generally averaged 140 days to complete.
Implementation of the 1983 plan included four major areas: Administration,
Intake/Evaluation, Adult Residential Services, and Non-Residential Services. The
Non-Residential services component was further broken down into four additional
sub-components: Non-Residential Supervision, Community Service Program, and two
contracted services including Sexual Abuse Treatment Program and Victim Offender
Mediation Services. The Community Service Program and the Non-Residential
Supervision components were implemented in October, 1983. The Community Service
Program was also utilized by the 18th JD court judges when a defendant was
ordered to perform community service work in lieu of jail time, payment of a
fine, or as a condition of probation. The majority of court-ordered participants
were DUI offenders who were ordered to perform 100 hours of community service in
lien of a minimum of 2 days in jail. Others were allowed to pay their fine
through community service.
During the early years of Community Corrections, the most common reason for
revocation was absconding from the residential facility. Other common revocation
reasons were persistent violations of program regulations and court-ordered
conditions of probation.
In 1985, the administrative and non-residential services were relocated to
604 N. Main (ECCO Plaza building). The residential center was also relocated to
a leased building at 309 N. Market where it operated as a 54 bed co-ed facility.
In 1985, the Residential Center was awarded a Certificate of Accreditation by
the American Correctional Association (ACA) for a prestigious 100% compliance
with all corrections standards for operation of an adult residential facility.
In 1986, Non-Residential Services moved to 1007 W. Douglas and a
three-quarter way house was created above the office space at 1007 ½ W. Douglas.
The ¾-way house provided semi-structured, supervised apartment living for up to
six lower-risk, male clients. Previously, because of a lack of finances or
appropriate residences, these clients were typically placed in the residential
facility. The program was designed to avoid unnecessary costs and crowding in
the residential facility. Rent payments from the clients in the ¾-way house
substantially supported the office space rental at 1007 W. Douglas.
Also in 1986, the Home Surveillance Program was initiated as a
super-intensive level of non-residential supervision, with a minimum of four
field contacts per week, including curfew checks. The Home Surveillance Program
was analogous to programs called “House Arrest” in other jurisdictions. It
provided another alternative to residential placement for appropriate clients.
Additionally, in-house substance abuse programs, AA and NA groups and a minority
support group were all initiated within the residential program.
Despite the fiscal impacts, the Division responded to the needs of the
community’s stakeholders by reassessing the targeted offender criteria. In 1987,
the Division broadened its acceptance criteria by screening any offender
referred directly by the sentencing judge. However, in 1988, SB 457 eliminated
the chargeback provision of the CC funding plan. Without financial penalty,
counties then had conditional access to their total community corrections
entitlement monies to provide locally-based community corrections programming.
CC juvenile programming began in 1988 with the addition of one ISO to
coordinate efforts with SRS regarding targeted juvenile offenders.
In May 1989, the residential facility again achieved 100% compliance with ACA
standards when it successfully completed the 3 year reaccreditation process.
Also in 1989, the County purchased the 905 N. Main building for the combined
Administrative and Field Services (previously referred to as non-residential)
activities and purchased the buildings at 207/209 N. Emporia for the expanded
residential center. The leased buildings at 1007 W. Douglas, 1007 ½ W. Douglas,
604 N. Main, and 309 N. Market were vacated.
Throughout the years, many special purpose grants have provided client
services in substance abuse treatment, GED preparation, etc. These sometimes
lasted a year or so before being defunded. For example, Bureau of Justice grant
monies were used for two certified drug and alcohol counselors who provided
post-treatment counseling for clients in the residential program. Also, Adult
Day Reporting was developed in 1993. Services included GED preparation,
contractual services for alcohol/drug evaluations, outpatient substance abuse
treatment groups, relapse prevention treatment, individual counseling with
family involvement, pre-treatment, and life skills groups with included job
readiness and employment maintenance.
In April 1992, electronic monitoring programming was added to the Adult
Intensive Supervision Program (AISP).
In 1995, the county Divisions of Youth Services and Community Corrections
were merged to create the current Division of Corrections.
1995 also brought an increased focus on the goal of promoting positive,
long-term behavioral change in all CC clients. Use of the client management
classification (CMC) tool assisted intensive supervision officers in identifying
and prioritizing offender needs and developing objective-based plans with the
offenders to aid and encourage their efforts to become law-abiding citizens.
A partnership with Social & Rehabilitative Services (SRS) in 1995 provided
intensive supervision services to youthful offenders departing state youth
For 12 years, the 76 bed co-ed residential facility operated at 207/209 N.
Emporia. However, once again, the residential programming need exceeded the
capacity of the physical plant. In 1999, on any given day there were 30
offenders in the community awaiting admission into the residential facility and
another 30 – 35 waiting in jail. A supplemental award from the Community
Corrections Violator Grant allowed the implementation of the Intensive Day
Intervention Program. (IDIP) The program’s focus was to assist in reducing the
number of condition violator prison placements by providing client centered
In 1998, the administration and funding of the juvenile community corrections
changed with the implementation of the Juvenile Justice Reform Act. As the
Sedgwick County Division of Corrections assumed supervision of the juvenile
offenders in the custody of the Juvenile Justice Authority, the JISP was moved
to the Division’s new Juvenile Field Services Division. (JFS)
In 2001, the County sold the residential buildings on N. Emporia and
purchased the buildings at 622 E. Central and 623 E. Elm. The current 120 co-ed
bed capacity residential facility and the services center serve the adult
residential services programming needs. The new location provided many
improvements such as: more space for more classes and multiple activities to be
in session at one time; an all purpose room that provides space for visitation,
inside recreation and weekend faith services; a separate dorm building that
allowed staff to monitor the clients on one floor: and better security and
safety for both staff and clients.
In 2003, significant reductions were made due to funding cuts. The AISP
surveillance team, electronic monitoring (EMD) and employment assistance were
suspended or eliminated due to funding cuts.
In 2003, the Wichita Day Reporting Center (DRC) became available as a
resource for CC clients who might otherwise be sent to prison as a result of
probation violations. CC clients were served as space allowed at no cost to the
Division or County.
In 2004, the Condition Violator grant was defunded. During 2005, SB 123 (the
new alternative drug sentencing law) was passed to address many of the same
client substance abuse treatment needs with a new target population.
In January 2005, as a result of work with the Criminal Justice Coordinating
Council (CJCC) and Sedgwick County government, CC received local funding for a
45-bed expansion of the residential center. The expansion helped to reduce the
waiting list of clients housed at the jail.
In 2006, as a result of the growth in staffing from the addition of SB 123
programming, CC Administrative Services relocated to the newly constructed
Juvenile Detention Facility at 700 S. Hydraulic. Adult Field Services offices
currently remain at 905 N. Main.
As a result of SB 14, a Risk Reduction Plan was developed and approved by the
Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners with implementation in November 2007.
The plan targeted two client groups that were at moderate to high risk to
reoffend and/or fail to succeed on probation and enter prison. The first was the
Risk Reduction Group assigned to ISP and scoring in the moderate to high-risk
category on the LSI-R assessment instrument. The second was the Reentry Group
and included clients returning to live in the community from the residential
center and the Labette Correctional Conservation Camp (LCCC). Specialized and
proven interventions were developed that reduced officer caseloads, enhanced
case planning and management, competency development, cognitive behavioral
skills training, reentry management and facilitated client transitions.
In January 2008, AISP re-organized offenders and classified them to specific
teams based on risk levels determined by the LSI-R. During implementation, ISOs
were trained in the use of evidence-based practices. Cognitive skills
programming with the clients began in May, 2008.
About this same time, another obstacle faced our local criminal justice
system with the closure of Labette Correctional Conservation Camp (LCCC).
With the influx of new funding to support SB 14 RRI plans, additional
resources for staff and clients were added. They included the Skills Developer
(to develop staff skills with Motivational Interviewing), a contracted COMCARE
mental health case manager, and Employment Specialist to assist clients obtain
and maintain employment. Client flex funds assisted clients with housing,
education, transportation, and treatment.
In November 2008, the Sedgwick County Drug Court Program was added to the
Division. It was designed to serve 120 felony offenders who are most in need
of treatment services and whose addictions most negatively impact our community.
Most referrals come from AISP.
Sedgwick County experienced positive results with the transition to
evidence-based practices. In SFY 2008, client revocations were reduced by 29%.
In SFY 2009, client revocations of probation were reduced by 15.6% and
successful completions increased by 12% from the baseline year (SFY2006).
In 2009, the intake process was refined and a short version of the LSI-R was
used to determine initial team assignments in AISP. This form is referred to as
the LSI-R Short Version (LSI-R S/V). The LSI-R S/V does an effective job of
identifying a client’s risk level for assigning them to the appropriate
supervision team with 91% accuracy.
In November 2009, Adult Residential and AISP merged and became the Community
Corrections division. The consolidation of the Reentry and Residential teams
occurred in January 2010 due to budget constraints and a program evaluation by
Wichita State University (WSU). The program evaluation recommended that the
majority of the resources be targeted to the intensive supervision Level II and
III clients. As a result, a containment model of supervision for Level I clients
was adopted that included electronic monitoring, increased reporting, curfew,
the utilization of thinking reports and decisional balance exercises. Fewer
resources are also devoted to the Level IV clients.
The LSI-R was not designed to accurately measure the risk level of the sex
offender population. To address this area, staff have been trained on the
administration of the Static 99. In November 2010, the entire supervisory staff
and four ISOs were trained on the use of the Static 99, and the Acute and Stable
07 sex offender assessments.
The Static 99 and the Acute and Stable 07 sex offender
assessments were utilized with every new sex offender assigned to AISP.
This information was utilized as a supervision strategy to identify risk
of the offender in the community and to share with treatment providers as they
work with our clients in individual and group sessions. This
was a significant change in our organizational development which has led to
increased public safety regarding the sex offenders we supervise in our
We have utilized Masters in Social Work (MSW) students in a
variety of areas to extend staff resources. They assist with
cognitive skills groups, the implementation of a weekly employment lab at
Residential, administer motivational surveys, conduct mock job interviews,
monitor client computer time, and provide individual assistance with client job
The capacity of the Adult Residential Facility was reduced
from 120 to 65. The reason for this change was a decision by
the County to stop funding the bed expansion made in 2005.
The target population was changed to serve probation violators only, eliminating
the sentencing option for direct placement by the District Court.
Reducing capacity required stopping admission for 6 months and the
elimination of a waiting list for admission. Acceptance was
based upon a bed being available with 14 days. After this change, assignments
were only made to adult intensive supervision and to our surprise the number of
offenders with downward departure sentences increased to 39% of admissions.
The result has been an increase in revocations for new crimes. Thus,
these system changes have had a significant negative impact upon our overall
Evidence-based practices have been demonstrated to reduce
revocations, increase client success and reduce recidivism in our community.
However, it takes staff resources to get the full effect from the
investments that have already been made. A local cost of
$7/day to provide intensive supervision with evidence-based programming is
required. Funding at the $5/day resulted in increased
caseloads, less intensive supervision, less programming and more revocations.
The client recidivism rate for those that successfully
complete probation is outstanding. As part of our monitoring
and evaluation, we track those clients in our local criminal justice database at
6 and 12 months to determine if they were arrested or received a new charge.
The recidivism rate is running at less than 11%.
Community Corrections experienced an
increase in clients failing on probation and being sent to prison as compared to
the prior year. We did not meet the 20% target reduction in revocations set by
the Legislature. However, we did achieve the 20% increase in
successful completions as compared to the SFY06 baseline.
Community Corrections was assigned 313 new
presumptive prison cases from the District Court. These cases
were in addition to the numbers that were already under supervision.
This continued to be a difficult population to manage and effect long
lasting behavior change in order to address their pro-criminal attitudes and
Significant differences can be identified
between probation populations as a whole, and those who are revoked. These
differences are identified through the risk assessment process where scoring in
the 10 domains has proven to predict their risk to commit further crimes.
Clients closing successfully demonstrate lower risk in these areas while
revoked clients demonstrate higher risk. The analysis
indicates that this does not occur by chance and that the identified domains can
be used in understanding likely success or failure.
Community Corrections was assigned 322 new presumptive
prison cases from district court. This practice has continued
to present significant challenges for the program to meet state outcomes.
Community Corrections improved successful client
completions of probation by 7% over the previous year. This
rate of improvement exceeded the state minimum threshold requiring at least a 3%
gain to meet the annual performance. While this is a
noteworthy accomplishment, the success rate in Sedgwick County is significantly
lower than the average of the other agencies. (Sedgwick
County success rate of 49.2% compared to the average of others at 70.5%.)
Effective Practices in Community
Supervision (EPICS) training was rolled out by KDOC for all case management
staff. All AISP/Residential ISOs attended the training which
provided valuable case management information that they have begun planning to
integrate into their daily work.
We administer the LSI-R short version to
clients at intake to quickly assess actuarial risk in order to place them on the
appropriate supervision level as soon as they start supervision.
We continue to administer the full LSI-R assessment within the first 45
days of client assignment. If the two assessments vary, the
supervision level is set by the full assessment’s results.
We have collaborated with the
administration at Ellsworth and Norton Correctional Facilities to provide
refurbished used bicycles to address transportation barriers for some of our
A new initiative was a pilot project with
the District Court and Wichita State University (WSU) to develop and validate an
evidence-based pretrial risk assessment instrument. Staff from the
Pretrial Services Program were tasked with field testing the instrument by
interviewing detainees at the adult detention facility for analysis by WSU.
The goal was to complete a sample of 1,200 assessments by the end of 2014.
Additionally, a pilot project to implement and refine a risk assessment
at the presentence stage of criminal proceeding for felony offenders with
pending sentences of presumptive prison was undertaken in cooperation with Court
Services. Their staff completed the risk assessments on offenders facing
border box sentences. The information was provided to judges for
consideration when making sentencing decisions.
New grant funding from KDOC via the Justice
Reinvestment Initiative provided new and expanded behavioral interventions to
address mental health and substance abuse in high risk clients.
The funding also provided expanded collaboration through co-location of
staff from treatment agencies. WSU is providing ongoing
assessment and reevaluation of results for use in making course corrections in
A plan was implemented to launch a new
intervention strategy with gang members through partnership with local gang
intervention specialists. Through these new and expanded
strategies, our goals are to reduce the number of revocations for arrests for
new crimes and increase success of high risk clients on probation.
Our Division continues to strive to place
an emphasis on ISOs and supervisors refining their Motivational Interviewing
(MI) skill set. They receive annual MI refresher training in
order to continue to enhance their skills. In addition,
quality assurance is a regular practice for all teams at AISP.
Supervisors complete audio tape audits of MI interactions between ISOs
and their clients. Another quality assurance involves the
supervisors completing a comprehensive file audit to examine the use of MI
strategies, as evidenced by chronological documentation, and to ensure that the
case plan represents collaboration between the ISO and the client.
Over the last three decades, Sedgwick County has been
progressive and has made great strides in providing adult community corrections
programming. However, this is an area where there is always
more that needs to be done. The more recent trend of judicial departures for
offenders facing presumptive prison sentences has had a significant negative
impact on our outcomes. Additionally, there continues to be too many technical
probation violators, mentally ill, and offenders with overwhelming needs.
With the Risk Reduction Initiative and evidence-based practices, we have
seen what can be achieved when adequate funding was available.
There remains a real expectation that when given appropriate fiscal
resources, more offenders can be successful in the future.
Mission: To assure quality public services that provide for the present and future well-being of the citizens of Sedgwick County.
© Copyright 2014
and Notice of Privacy Practices Regarding Medical Information.