County Associations and State Governments: Working Together Toward - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

County Associations and State Governments: Working Together Toward Smart Justice

By Michael Thompson

October 24, 2013

• National non-profit, non-partisan

membership association of state government officials

• Represents all three branches of state government
• Provides practical, nonpartisan

advice informed by the best available evidence

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 2

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 3

Austin, TX New York, NY Seattle, WA Bethesda, MD

90 staff in 4 offices

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 4

Criminal Justice / Mental Health Consensus Project School Discipline Consensus Project National Reentry Resource Center

Major Initiatives Underway Regarding Youth, Mental Health, and Reentry

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 5

Justice Reinvestment in 18 States

NV AZ TX WI IN VT RI CT HI OK KS NH WV PA ID MI NH NC OH

County data and stakeholder input enriches analysis and justice reinvestment policies

Council of State Governments

6

Require the use of a pretrial risk screen within 3 days of booking to identify those with greatest risk of flight 42% of the regional jail population is pretrial 25% of prison admissions are misdemeanor

• ffenders – with a 3-

month average length

• f stay

Misdemeanor offenders may be housed in a jail if:

• The sheriff voluntarily accepts
• Bed space exists
• Reimbursed by new state funds

Probation violators spend lengthy periods in jail awaiting hearings Create a 30-day cap in statute for probationers awaiting violation hearings

STATE FINDING POLICY

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 7

Overview

Understand the latest science and research Improve outcomes for people with mental illnesses in contact with justice system Reduce re-offense rates for people released from jail

Recidivism across the states

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 8

Knowledge on Improving Criminal Justice Outcomes Has Increased Dramatically Over the Last 20 Years

Academics and practitioners have contributed to this growing body of research

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 9

What are 3-4 things I need to know about what works to reduce recidivism?

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 10

“Just as helpful as pointing out commonly made mistakes are the cutting-edge practices identified in the report. … The report, in other words, should be required reading.”

• The Washington Post, February 27, 2011
• 1. Focus on individuals most likely

to reoffend

• 2. Base programs on science and

ensure quality

• 3. Implement effective

community supervision policies and practices

• 4. Apply place-based strategies

Identify and Focus on Higher-Risk Offenders

Who? LOW 10% re-arrested MODERATE 35% re-arrested HIGH 70% re-arrested Risk of Re-offending Without Risk Assessment… With Risk Assessment…

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 11

• 1. Focus on

individuals most likely to reoffend

TITLE (Ohio)

• Adopted a common set of risk assessment

instruments across the state’s criminal justice system.

• Ensured that program placement is driven by

risk assessment score.

*Presentation by Latessa, “What Works and What Doesn’t in Reducing Recidivism: Applying the Principles of Effective Intervention to Offender Reentry”

Average Difference in Recidivism by Risk for Halfway House Offenders

Low Risk

+ 3 %

Moderate Risk

• 6 %

High Risk

• 14 %

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 12

• 1. Focus on

individuals most likely to reoffend

Target the Factors that Evidence Shows Are Most Central to Criminal Behavior

Criminal Behavior

Leisure Family Employment/ Education Substance Use

Thinking Peers Personality Past Criminality*

Antisocial

The Big Four

(impacting these are the major drivers to reducing criminal behavior)

Higher-risk

• ffenders are

likely to have more of the Big Four.

Programs targeting these needs can significantly lower recidivism rates

* Past criminality cannot be changed.

Housing

What?

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 13

• 1. Focus on

individuals most likely to reoffend

After Who and What Are Answered, Supervision and Programming Should Be Well Targeted

Low Supervision/ Program Intensity Moderate Supervision/ Program Intensity High Supervision/ Program Intensity LOW 10% re-arrested MODERATE 35% re-arrested HIGH 70% re-arrested Risk of Re-offending

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 14

• 2. Base programs
• n science and

ensure quality

Ensure Funded Programs Are Reducing Recidivism

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 15

• 2. Base programs
• n science and

ensure quality

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 16

Ensure Programs Are High Quality and Properly Implemented Program Effectiveness

(reduced recidivism)

Is the program based on principles demonstrated to be effective? Are program staff properly trained? Is program matched with appropriate client population? Is program implemented as designed? Is performance tracked and measured against expectations?

How Well?

• 2. Base programs
• n science and

ensure quality

Where and How Treatment Is Delivered Impacts the Degree of Recidivism Reduction

Source: Lee, S., Aos, S., Drake, E., Pennucci, A., Miller, M., & Anderson, L. (2012). Return on investment: Evidence-based options to improve statewide outcomes, April 2012 (Document No. 12-04-1201). Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Impact of Treatment Intervention on Recidivism Rates

Supervision, with effective “RNR” principles, yields the biggest recidivism reduction

Source: Latessa, Lovins, and Smith, “ Follow-up Evaluation of Ohio’s Community Based Correctional Facilities, Outcome Study, February 2010

• 24%
• 30%
• 17%

Supervision with Risk Need + Responsivity Drug Treatment in the Community Drug Treatment in Prison

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 17

• 2. Base programs
• n science and

ensure quality

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 18

Elements of Effective Supervision

Use a graduated range of sanctions and incentives to guide specific type of response to violations and compliance. Enable officers to respond meaningfully to violations without delay or time-consuming processes. Prioritize the most expensive, restrictive sanctions for offenders committing the most serious violations. Focus supervision officer time and program resources on the highest-risk offenders.

Dosage/Intensity Consistency Swiftness Cost-effectiveness

• 3. Implement effective

community supervision policies and practices

Prison Admissions Hotspots

Arizona, 2004

60%

• f the S

tate’s prison population comes from and returns to the Phoenix-Mesa metropolitan area.

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 19

• 4. Apply place-

based strategies

Prison Admissions Hotspots

Maricopa County, 2004

South Mountain Zip Code 85041 Prison Admissions = 31.8 per 1000 adults Jail Bookings = 96.5 per 1000 adults Probation = 25.1 per 1000 adults

A single neighborhood in Phoenix is home to 1% of the state’s total population but 6.5%

• f the state’s prison population
• 4. Apply place-

based strategies

Cent ral Cit y Est rella Laveen Encant o Alhambra Nort h Mount ain Camelback East

Within high expenditure neighborhoods there are numerous, smaller area, million dollar block groups

$1.8 Million $1.1 Million $1.6 Million

Glendale Maryvale S

• ut h Mount ain

Prison Expenditures in Dollars

Maricopa County, 2004

• 4. Apply place-

based strategies

High Density of Probationers in South Phoenix

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 22

• 4. Apply place-

based strategies

Reducing Criminal Behavior Requires Focusing on Risk, Need, and Responsivity

Responsivity Risk Need

Deliver programs the same way to every

• ffender

Deliver programs based on

• ffender learning style, motivation,

and/or circumstances

Supervise everyone the same way

Assess risk of recidivism and focus supervision on the highest-risk

• ffenders

Assign programs that feel or seem effective

Prioritize programs addressing the needs most associated with recidivism Evidence-Based Practices

Traditional Approach

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 23

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 24

Overview

Understand the latest science and research Improve outcomes for people with mental illnesses in contact with justice system Reduce re-offense rates for people released from jail

Alcohol and Drug Use Disorders: Significant Factor in Jail and Prisons

10 20 30 40 50 60 Household Jail State Prison

Alcohol use disorder (Includes alcohol abuse and dependence) Drug use disorder (Includes drug abuse and dependence)

2 % 47 % 54 % 44 % 53 %

Source: Abrams & Teplin (2010)

Percent of Population

8 %

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 25

5% 95% 72% 83% 17% 28%

General Population Jail Population

Serious Mental Illness No Serious Mental Illness Serious Mental Illness No Serious Mental Illness Co-Occurring Substance Use Disorder No Co-Occurring Substance Use Disorder

Prevalence of Serious Mental Illness and Co-Occurring Disorders in Jail Populations

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 26

County Officials: “Jails are the wrong place to treat mental illnesses”

“New York City jails, like jails across the country, have disproportionately high numbers of inmates whose mental health needs present unique challenges.”

• - Deputy Mayor Gibbs, Health and

Human Services, New York, NY “Our jails are increasingly a place of last resort for offenders who are mentally ill. Even as the department’s total inmate population continues to fall, this group is unable to get out or stay out.”

• - Commissioner Dora Schriro,

Department of Corrections, New York, NY ”I would welcome the chance to take all of our mentally ill and medically challenged inmates…and put them somewhere they could get programming, but I haven’t heard anyone stepping up to do that.”

• - Sheriff David Mahoney, Dane

County, WI

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 27

“In every city and state I have visited, the jails have become the de facto mental institutions…there are not enough resources out there to care for them [mentally ill].”

• - Sheriff Tom Dart, Cook County, IL

Case Study: Florida Counties

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 28

• St. Petersburg Times, November 2007

Ocala Star-Banner, November 2007 Lakeland Ledger, February 2001

Flowchart of select events in the Orange County Criminal Justice System

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 29

http://static.nicic.gov/Library/022134.pdf

Identification of mental health pretrial release program participants

http://static.nicic.gov/Library/022134.pdf

Entry into mental health pretrial release program

53,091 7,260 Detainees who participated in the program were released from jail and put under the MHPTR program’s supervision. 36 percent of the 1,101 detainees referred to the program did not participate because they had already been released from jail. Others did not participate because they did not meet the clinical criteria, declined to participate, had a history of violence, were not an Orange County resident, or had been referred to another program.

http://static.nicic.gov/Library/022134.pdf

Completion of mental health pretrial release program

53,091 7,260 Offenders have satisfied their charges with the court system without further

• arrests. Time in

program for successful participants varies depending on when participants satisfy their charges without further arrests Offenders are returned to jail on an outstanding warrant, another arrest/charge, or a revocation due to noncompliance with the conditions of the MHPTR program prior to the disposition of current charges

http://static.nicic.gov/Library/022134.pdf

Not all Substance Use Disorders are Alike

Abstinence Dependence

The Substance Use Disorder Continuum

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 33

Mental Illnesses In the General Population

Diagnosable mental disorders 16% Serious mental disorders 5% Severe mental disorders 2.5%

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 34

Not All Mental Illnesses Are Alike

Risk/Needs Assessment 101: Science Reveals New Tools to Manage Offenders, http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2011/Pew_Risk_Assessment_brief.pdf

Criminal Justice Risk on a Continuum

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 35

• Develop a shared language around the risk of criminal activity

and public health needs

• Integrate the best practices in mental health treatment,

substance abuse treatment, and recidivism reduction

• Help system administrators allocate scarce resources more

wisely

• Maximize the impact of interventions on public safety and

public health

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 36

Why a Framework Was Needed

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 37

The Framework

Low Criminogenic Risk (low) Medium to High Criminogenic Risk (med/high) Low Severity of Substance Abuse (low) Substance Dependence (med/high) Low Severity of Substance Abuse (low) Substance Dependence (med/high) Low Severity

• f

Mental Illness (low) Serious Mental Illness (med/high) Low Severity

• f

Mental Illness (low) Serious Mental Illness (med/high) Low Severity

• f

Mental Illness (low) Serious Mental Illness (med/high) Low Severity

• f

Mental Illness (low) Serious Mental Illness (med/high) Group 1 I – L CR: low SA: low MI: low Group 2 II – L CR: low SA: low MI: med/high Group 3 III – L CR: low SA: med/high MI: low Group 4 IV – L CR: low SA: med/high MI: med/high Group 5 I – H CR: med/high SA: low MI: low Group 6 II – H CR: med/high SA: low MI: med/high Group 7 III – H CR: med/high SA: med/high MI: low Group 8 IV – H CR: med/high SA: med/high MI: med/high

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 38

NYC: Why is the number of people with mental illnesses increasing in our jail?

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 39

3,319 4,391 10,257 7,557

2005 2012 M Gr

• up

Non- M Gr

• up

76% 63% 37% 24%

13,576 T

• tal

11,948 T

• tal

NYC Jail Population (2005-2012) Average Daily Jail Population (ADP) and ADP with Mental Health Diagnosis Analyses Revealed Greatest Potential Impact by Addressing Pretrial Detainee Population

Pr e tr ial 62%

Se nte nc e d 24% Sta te Pr ison Se nte nc e 15% AL OS for Pr e tr ia l Admissions (Da ys) 79 40 81 60 AL OS for Se nte nc e d Admissions (Da ys)

NYC Analyses Reveal Greatest Potential Impact by Addressing Pretrial Detainee Population

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 40

20.8% 11.8%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%

Similar minimum bail amounts set but M group much less likely to make bail

% Making Bail Post-Arraignment Lowest amount needed for release (grouped median)

Felony Misd.

$4,784 $4,769 $1,055 $1,001

NYC Adopts Changes & Begins Implementation

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 41

• City releases RFP for CIRT Provider Applications
• City starts development of IT infrastructure to share appropriate

information

December Spring

Fall

2012 2013

Spring 2011

2013 Summer 2013

Mayor announces the allocation

• f nearly $10 million to create

“Court-based Intervention and Resource Teams” (CIRTs) to serve over 3,000 clients with mental health needs annually Justice Center Final Report

• City selects CIRT providers for each

borough and negotiates performance based contracts

• Borough-specific implementation

planning begins with goal of serving first clients by December 2013

Johnson County, KS Hillsborough, NH New York City, NY Bexar County, TX Mental Health Assessment ✔ ✔ ✔− Substance Abuse Assessment ✔− Risk Assessment ✔−

Significant Challenge #1: No county effectively screening and assessing, and recording in an info system

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 42

Concerns that too much information undermines defense or prosecution strategies Confusion about distinctions between risk and need, dangerousness, and failure to appear Few sites using information to inform conditions of release, supervision intensity, or service package

Significant Challenge #2: Results of assessment not driving decision making

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 43

Static Risk Factors Dynamic Risk Factors

Criminal history number of arrests number of convictions type of offenses Current charges Age at first arrest Current age Gender Anti-social attitudes Anti-social friends and peers Anti-social personality pattern Substance abuse Family and/or marital factors Lack of education Poor employment history Lack of pro-social leisure activities

Significant Challenge #3: Workforce not ready to apply these concepts/strategies

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 44

Behavioral Health Criminal Justice

Reluctance to focus on higher risk individuals Insufficient skillsets involving cognitive behavioral interventions targeting needs Serious shortages in treatment capacity Judges are skeptical (NY training example) Community corrections, jail, and prison staff need improved understanding of mental health issues and how to serve this population effectively

Significant Challenge #3: Workforce not ready to apply these concepts/strategies

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 45

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 46

Overview

Understand the latest science and research Improve outcomes for people with mental illnesses in contact with justice system Reduce re-offense rates for people released from jail

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 47

Texas Counties: How do we compare rates of recidivism across counties?

County Recidivism Rate Harris 40% Dallas 30% Bexar 28% Tarrant 30% Travis 37% Average 33% Comparable Recidivism Measure

Step 1: Set baseline for counties to get comparable recidivism measure Measure recidivism of jail releases, probationers and parolees to the county Later steps: Track changes in recidivism over time Review why recidivism rates may vary by county Review relation of recidivism rates to county practices and programs

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 48

Recidivism is a Return to Criminal Activity after Previous Criminal Involvement

Fabelo, Tony and Nancy Arrigona. March 1991. Recommended Methodologies for State Criminal Justice Agencies. State of Texas. Accessed March 4, 2013 http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Public_Safety_Criminal_Justice/Reports/UniRecid.pdf

Y. Outcome tracked Rearrest Conviction Return to Incarceration Z. Uniform follow up period Follow up matters – a one year rate will track offenders for 12 months X. Released during time period Fiscal year Calendar year Recidivism Rate

The number of offenders in a county under community supervision (probation or parole) or released from custody during time period (X) with

• utcome (Y) within (Z) number of

months Number of offenders under community supervision or released from custody during time period (X)

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 49

Need Standard Definition of Recidivism

Definition Re-arrest

Percent Re-arrested

One Year Uniform Tracking Period

Uniform one, two and three year follow-up Follow-up

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 50 Harris Probation “Learning Site” Report to Judicial Officials, April 18, 2012

Re-arrest Rate for Probationers in Harris County

Felons Percent Re- arrested after Three Years 1 year 2 year 3 year 36% Misdemeanors Percent Re- arrested after Three Years 1 year 2 year 3 year 27% Overall Recidivism Rate 30% 18% 27% 13% 21%

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 51

Need to Access Data in Multiple Storage Systems

Case Data to Be Requested – Calendar Year 2011 County Jail Releases CSTS Probation Admissions TDCJ Releases to Parole Data – CY 2011-12 DPS Criminal History SID Admission Date Release Date Release Type Offense Type Offense Level SID Admission Date Completion Date County Offense Type Offense Level Risk Score Risk Cutoff SID Parole Start Date Parole End Date County of Release Offense Type Offense Level Risk Score Risk Cutoff Arrests for each SID Date of Arrest Date of Birth Gender Race/Ethnicity

Recidivism Data Collection Elements

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 52

Need to Make Rates Comparable Across Counties by Controlling for Risk

Use risk assessment from county jail data for offenders

Ideal Measure

Build a proxy risk score using static factors (age, gender, criminal history) from the county jail and criminal history file

Working Measure If unavailable

Risk assessment in criminal justice is a systematic methodology to determine the risk of recidivism of an offender for a variety of purposes using:

Static Factors

(cannot change)

Dynamic Factors

(can change)

Prior conviction history Age at first conviction Employment status Treatment completion

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 53 Harris Probation “Learning Site” Report to Judicial Officials, April 18, 2012

Recidivism Probationers by Risk in Harris County

Minimum Three Year Recidivism Rate for Felons by Wisconsin and Combined LSI-R Risk Categories Wisconsin LSI-R 23.6% 25.2% Medium Wisconsin LSI-R 36.8% 34.1% Maximum Wisconsin LSI-R 47.9% 41.3% Wisconsin = 11 Risk Factors LSI-R = 44 Risk Factors

Summary

Outcome Measurement

Risk Offense level Demographics

Key Elements Uniform Follow-Up Period Control for Risk

365 days from release for each

• ffender

County Jail Release: Rearrest Probation and Parole: Rearrest

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 54

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 55

Determine Logistics for Extracting Data

• Houses the data?

Who

• Data is available for extraction?

What

• Can the data be extracted?

When

• Do we need to get permission for the

extraction?

Where

• Do we want to structure the file

extract?

How

• Leverage state county association networks to offer trainings,

disseminate latest information

• Coordinate closely with state county associations when we

work intensively in a state/county

• Partner with state county associations to pilot concepts in

particular sites and then replicate lessons in other counties

• Imbed capacity in state county associations to provide

technical assistance to county officials

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 56

Counties Are Where It’s At

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 57

Thank You

Report at: www.justicecenter.csg.org

mthompson@csg.org

The presentation was developed by members of the Council of State Governments Justice Center staff. The statements made reflect the views of the authors, and should not be considered the official position of the Justice Center, the members of the Council of State Governments, or the funding agency supporting the work. Citations available for statistics presented in preceding slides available on CSG Justice Center web site.