Offender Recidivism in Macomb County DANIELLE L. HICKS, BA, MSW - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Offender Recidivism in Macomb County

DANIELLE L. HICKS, BA, MSW CANDIDATE ‘16

Recidivism Defined

u Recidivism can be defined very differently but for

the purposes of my research and this presentation, recidivism is defined as…

u Any additional arrest after

being released from incarceration

2

Research Questions

What resources and programs are offered to Macomb County offenders that reduce the potential for recidivating, as expressed through recidivism rates? What are the recidivism rates in Macomb County? For specific programs? In what ways can Macomb County increase the efficacy

• f its already existing resources and programs to reduce

recidivism rates?

3

?

…Who do I talk to to get more information on recidivism in Macomb County?

Interviews for Macomb County

u Meetings with…

u Community Corrections Director – Barbara

Caskey

u Macomb County Jail Administrator –

Michelle Sanborn

u Macomb County Community Mental Health u Executive Director – John Kinch u Internal Services Administrator – Sheila

Cote

u Jail Diversion Program – Dan Dekorse &

Virginia Bessinger

u Macomb County Sheriff’s Office Chief of

Staff– Captain John Roberts

4

u Prisoner ReEntry Program Community

Coordinator – Paula Keena

u 41 B District Court u Honorable Judge Linda Davis (Drug

Court)

u Specialty Court Coordinator – Kara

Jacquemain

u 16th Circuit Court u Court Services Director – Lisa Ellis u Honorable Judge Tracey Yokich (Family

Court)

u Juvenile Justice Center Director – Rhonda

Westphal

u Juvenile Division Administrator – Nicole Faulds

Interviews with the Prosecutor’s Office & Parole/Probation departments are still being pursued

Research Methodology

u Literature review & establishment of research questions u Development of an interview tool with 4 sections

1.

Interviewee Information

2.

Programs & Resources Related to the Interviewee’s Agency

3.

Programs & Resources for Offenders in Macomb County

4.

Conclusions

u Conducting interviews u Compiling research results u Presenting the findings to the Macomb County Board of Commissioners u Request a resolution with the Macomb County Board of Commissioners u Present the findings and resolution to the public of Macomb County

5

Worldwide

6

Incarceration & Recidivism Worldwide

Since 2002, the U.S. has had the highest incarceration rate in the world1, 2, 3

7

707 474 286 209 188 186 157 148 145 137

USA RUSSIAN FEDERATION UKRAINE POLAND TURKEY HUNGARY CZECH REPUBLIC UNITED KINDGOM SPAIN PORTUGAL

Worldwide Incarceration Rates2

(per 100,000)

But what are the recidivism rates?

u Countries define recidivism

differently, which limits the ability to compare recidivism rates worldwide4

u Rearrest, reconviction, technical

violations…

u 2 years, 3 years, 10 years

United States & Michigan

8

Recidivism in the U.S. & Michigan

u Michigan: 1999-2002, 38.0 %8

u U.S. rate: 45.4 %

u Michigan: 2004-2007, 31.0 %8

u U.S. rate: 43.3 %

u Additionally, the 2005 study

found that within 5 years, the rate increased to 76.6 %5

9

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 6 Months 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years

U.S: Percent Re-Arrested After Release from Incarceration5, 6, 7

1983 1994 2005

The decrease for Michigan is attributed to the Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative, which launched in 20038

u

Michigan spends $1.6 billion of its Corrections budget on costs for incarcerating inmates9

u

In Michigan, incarcerating one person for one year costs: $28,569 (does not include health care and mental heath services)

Macomb County

10

Macomb County Offenders

u In 1999, Macomb County probationers…11

u 59 % had a history of drug abuse u 46 % had a prior conviction u 35 % had been on probation at some point u 28 % had a history of alcohol abuse u 14 % had been previously incarcerated

11

u Characteristics that impact recidivism include:10

u Age, gender, race, education level & skill u History of alcohol or drug abuse u Length & severity of criminal history, conduct during incarceration, & length of incarceration

u Of the current Jail population, it is

estimated that…12

u 85 % are incarcerated for charges

related to drugs

u 54 – 60 % are incarcerated because

they are unable to meet bond

u Of the 54 – 60 % unable to meet bond,

16 % are unable to meet bond of $1,000

• r less

12

Pretrial Detention & Services

u Research shows that the longer the length of pretrial

detention, the more likely the following items occur:13, 14

u Longer jail and prison sentences u Decreased likelihood of attending summons u Criminal activity after case completion à Increased

recidivism as a result of new charges, rather than violations

One of the unique issues facing Macomb County is that individuals are held in local lockups for 24 – 72 hours with a bond already set before being transferred to the Macomb County Jail15

u Community Corrections is only able to serve

about 10 % of the weekly bookings into the Macomb County Jail15

u The services include: background information,

criminal history, mental health and substance use status, as well as risk to the community

Both increase the likelihood for recidivism10

Recidivism & the Macomb County Jail

13

The recidivism rate of the Macomb County Jail is estimated at 80 – 82 %

This indicates that approximately 958 out of 1,197 inmates have previously been incarcerated12

Detroit News Photo

Result of High Recidivism Rates

14

u Since 2003, there have been 14

state of emergency declarations as a result of overcrowding

u When the jail population exceeds

capacity for 7 days, within 14 days the jail must decrease the population down to having 25 empty beds17

1160 1200 1197

1100 1200 1300 2012 2013 2014

Average Daily Population16

CAPACITY - 1238

In 2014, the Jail booked 17,881 people into the jail16

Cost of High Recidivism Rates

15

u In 2012, incarcerating one person for

• ne year cost:3

u State Governments: $ 29,141

u Daily: $ 79.84

u Federal Governments: $ 28,283

u Daily: $ 77.49

$84.75 $78.27 $77.49

$72 $74 $76 $78 $80 $82 $84 $86

MACOMB COUNTY JAIL MICHIGAN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Daily Cost Per Inmate3, 9, 12

u The recidivating population alone

costs…12

u Daily: ~ $ 83,000

u Annually: ~ $ 1,350,000

Alternatives to Incarceration

16

Not only is incarceration expensive but it is not effective in reducing recidivism rates – research even indicates that incarceration increases the potential for recidivating19, 20, 21, 22

$85 $30 $10 $10 $- $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90

MACOMB COUNTY JAIL DRUG COURTS PROBATION HOUSE ARREST

Daily Cost Per Participant12, 18

Offender and reentry services are effective in reducing recidivism with services such for employment, housing, mental health and substance abuse treatment23

7% 3% 4% 9% 23% 16% 12% 16% 18% 30% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

ALL COURTS SOBRIETY ADULT DISTRICT ADULT CIRCUIT JUVENILE

2 Year Michigan Drug Court Reconviction Rates 2012-201424

Drug Court Graduates Comparison Members

7% 17% 27% 35% 41% 22% 46% 56% 64% 70% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 1 YEAR 2 YEARS 3 YEARS 4 YEARS 5 YEARS

Michigan Mental Health Court Reconviction Rates24

Mental Health Court Graduates Comparison Members

Alternatives to Incarceration

17

$5,190,260 $5,059,406 $6,017,759

$4,400,000 $4,600,000 $4,800,000 $5,000,000 $5,200,000 $5,400,000 $5,600,000 $5,800,000 $6,000,000 $6,200,000

Dollars Saved in Incarceration Costs16

2012 2013 2014

Jail Bed Days Saved16 2012 – 61,242 2013 – 59,698 2014 – 71,006

Macomb County: Alternatives to Incarceration

u Community Mental Health – Pre- and Post-

Booking Jail Mental Health Diversion Programs

u Community Corrections

18

201416 Total referrals & inmates screened 2,995 Jail diversions completed 53 Jail days saved 4,547

u Within Jail Operations

u Correct Care Solutions Healthcare u L’Anse Creuse Public School District Education u Clinton Counseling Substance Abuse Treatment

In 2014, there were:16

823 mental health interventions

&

173 inmates on psychiatric medications

1,970 2,003 1,928

1,850 1,900 1,950 2,000 2,050 2012 2013 2014

Number of Substance Abuse Program Participants16

Macomb County: Alternatives to Incarceration

19

u Specialty Courts:

u Adult & Juvenile Drug Courts u DWI Courts u Mental Health Court u Veteran’s Treatment Courts

u Probation/Parole u Prisoner ReEntry Program

3.4% 11.0% 14.4% 29.0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 2 YEARS 4 YEARS

16th Circuit Drug Court Recidivism Rates25

Drug Court Graduates Comparision Members

Macomb County: Alternatives to Incarceration

20

21

Observations & Recommendations

• 1. Data Collection

u Lack of available data on recidivism in Macomb County – most data is

compiled statewide

u Recommendation: Increased data collection within individual organizations

for the purpose of program development, including the method through which a person is re-incarcerated (technical violation, new arrest, etc.)

u Different definitions of recidivism limit the ability to compare program

efficacy

u Recommendation: Adhere to the Michigan Department of Corrections’

definition

u A return to prison within 3 years after release as a result of a violation or new

conviction

u Adjust to Macomb County setting – including jail

Observations & Recommendations

22

• 2. Stakeholder Collaboration

u Increased collaboration among key stakeholders

u Recommendations: Establishment of a task force to

address recidivism in Macomb County

u Continuation of the Macomb Criminal Justice Reform

Committee

u Utilize: Duluth Model Coordinated Community Response

to Domestic Violence

Observations & Recommendations

23

u The Duluth Model is designed as a response

to situations of domestic violence, and involves offenders, survivors, as well as all of

Duluth Model Coordinated Community Response

24

u Adaptations to Respond to Recidivism in Macomb County

u County wide written policies for best practices to reduce

recidivism, as well as the implementation of these policies

u Protocols and procedures promoting information sharing

amongst various agencies and disciplines the agencies that interact with these individuals (Batterers’ Intervention Programs, Shelters, Criminal Justice System, Community Members)

Duluth Model Photo

• 3. Increasing Access to Pretrial Services & Decreasing

Rates of Pretrial Detention

u Many offenders are taken to local lockups and held for 24 – 72

hours with a determination of bail before arriving to the Macomb County Jail

u Recommendation:

u Creating a central intake and booking facility that would handle all

arrests made in Macomb County

OR

u Positioning pretrial assessors and supervisory staff in every district court

• f Macomb County

Observations & Recommendations

25

• 4. Increasing Awareness

u Increased awareness of how mental health and substance abuse

impact the likelihood of committing crime

u Recommendations:

u General public – public/community outreach u Criminal justice system – trainings

u Adopting policies that are “tough on crime” and “smart on solutions”

u Recommendations:

u Adopting alternative practices for low to mid level offenders u Providing similar services for high risk offenders while incarcerated and

upon community reentry

Observations & Recommendations

26

5.

Resources

u Funding for these programs has decreased over time u Recommendations: Increased support for

currently existing programs such as…

u Community Corrections u Community Mental Health u Probation/Parole u Prisoner ReEntry Program u Specialty Courts u Internal Jail Operations

u Criminal justice Reform Study – working to provide

alternatives to incarceration for those with substance abuse or mental health issues who would be better served outside of the Jail

Observations & Recommendations

27

• CMH – Post-Booking Jail

Diversion Programs26

• Previously: 4 full-time

positions

• Current: 1 full-time

position

• Internal Jail Operations –

Adult Education, GED Courses, & Vocational Training12

• Previously: 30 teachers
• Current: 2 teachers and

no vocational training

• 6. Jail Inmate Aftercare

u Recommendation: Adopt a program similar to the Prisoner

ReEntry Initiative but for local jails

u Existing

research:

Inmate ReEntry for Local Jails27

• Similar demographics: gender, drug use, inmate

classification, recidivism rates

• Key Finding: Inmates who utilized reentry services for 90

days post release were less likely to recidivate than non- participants and those who utilized less than 90 days of services – not statistically significant result à lack of sufficient research

Observations & Recommendations

28

References

u

1 Travis, J., Western, B., & Redburn, S. (2014, April). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring

causes and consequences. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

u

2 Tsai, T., & Scommegna, P. (2012, August). U.S. has world’s highest incarceration rate. Retrieved from

http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2012/us-incarceration.aspx.

u

3 United States Department of Justice, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2012, August). Rising prison

costs: Restricting budgets and crime prevention options.

u

4 Fazel, S., & Wolf, A. (2015, June). A systematic review of criminal recidivism rates worldwide: Current difficulties

and recommendations for best practice. PLOS One., 10(6).

u

5 United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2014, April).

Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. (Report No. NCJ 244205).

u

6 United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2002, June).

Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. (Report No. NCJ 193427).

u

7 United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1990, April).

Recidivism of prisoners released in 1983.

u

8 Pew Center on the States. (2011, April). State of recidivism: The revolving door of America’s prisons.

Washington, D.C: The Pew Charitable Trusts.

u

9 Risko, R. (2015, December). House Fiscal Agency background briefing: Corrections. Retrieved from

http://www.house.mi.gov/hfa/PDF/Briefings/Corrections_BudgetBriefing_fy15-16.pdf.

u

10 Florida Department of Corrections. (2001, May). Recidivism Report. Retrieved from

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/recidivism/2001/factors.html.

29

References

u

11 Maxwell, S. R., Gray, M. K., & Bynum, T. (1999, August). Probationer recidivism in Michigan: A

collaborative study between the School of Criminal Justice and the Michigan Department of

• Corrections. Retrieved from

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 237481862_PROBATIONER_RECIDIVISM_IN_MICHIGAN_A_COLLABORATIVE_STUDY_BETWEEN_THE_SCHOOL_ OF_CRIMINAL_JUSTICE_AND_THE_MICHIGAN_DEPARTMENT_OF_CORRECTIONS.

u

12 M. Sanborn, personal communication, September 11, 2015.

u

13 Laura & John Arnold Foundation. (2013). Laura and John Arnold Foundation releases new studies

focused on pretrial detention and supervision. Retrieved from http://www.arnoldfoundation.org/laura-john-arnold-foundation-releases-new-studies-focused-pretrial- detention-supervision/.

u

14 Williams, M. R. (2003). The effect of pretrial detentions on imprisonment decisions. Criminal Justice

Review, 28(2), 299-316.

u

15 B., Caskey, personal communication, February 10, 2016.

u

16 Macomb County Sheriff’s Office. (2015). Macomb County Sheriff’s Office annual report 2014.

u

17 County Jail Overcrowding State of Emergency (Excerpt) Act 325 of 1,982, Michigan Legislature.

u

18 Families Against Mandatory Minimums. (2011). Alternatives to incarceration in a nutshell. Retrieved

from http://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/FS-Alternatives-in-a-Nutshell-7.8.pdf.

u

19 Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Cullen, F. T. (1999). The effects of prison sentences on recidivism. Centre for

Criminal Justice Studies. Retrieved from http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/e199912.htm.

30

References

u

20 Mears, D. P., Cochran, J. C., & Bales, W. D. (2012, June). Gender differences in the effects of prison on

• recidivism. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 370-378.

u

21 Villettaz, P., Gillieron, G., & Killias, M. (2015, February). The effects on re-offending of custodial vs. non-

custodial sanctions: An updated systematic review of the state of knowledge. Crime and Justice, 11(1). Retrieved from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/22/.

u

22 Cullen, F. T., Jonson, C. L., & Nagin, D. S. (2011, September). Prisons do not reduce recidivism: The high

cost of ignoring science. The Prison Journal, 91(3), 485-655.

u

23 James, N. (2015, January). Offender reentry: Correctional statistics, reintegration into the community,

and recidivism. Congressional Research Service: Informing the Legislative Debate Since 1914. Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34287.pdf.

u

24 Michigan Supreme Court, State Court Administrative Office. (2014). Michigan Problem-Solving Courts:

Performance and Outcomes 2014.

u

25 Michigan Supreme Court. (2015). Michigan’s problem solving courts: Solving problems, saving lives.

Lansing, MI: Michigan Supreme Court, Michigan Hall of Justice.

u

26 V. Bessinger, personal communication, October 9, 2015.

u

27 White, M. D., Saunders, J., Fisher, C., & Mellow, J. (2012). Exploring inmate reentry in a local jail setting:

Implications for outreach, service use, and recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 58(1), 124-146.

31