View
0
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Mid-1970s to mid-’80s, U.S.’s incarceration rate doubled.
Mid-’80s to mid-’90s, it doubled again. In absolute terms, prison/jail population
from 1970 to present increased sevenfold.
U.S. has less than 5 percent of the world’s population – and 25 percent of the world’s incarcerated.
5
4Council of State Governments Justice Center
Overall crime has decreased
18 % from 2000 to 2014.
Montana is safer today than in 2000.
Property crime has decreased 31%, while violent crime increased 4%. Property crime is at its lowest rate in more than 25 years. Violent crime has recently increased but remains under the levels of the early- to mid- 2000s.
Between FY2009 and FY2015, arrests increased by 4,000. During the same period, crime decreased by 1,000 reported incidents.
Total arrests have increased
12% from FY 2009 to FY2015.
Council of State Governments Justice Center5
2,534 2,483 2,398 2,929 3,137
3,503 3,735
911 1,045 1,046
1,245
1,419
1,717 1,834
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
3,445
Felony drug arrests increased
100%(increased from 3% to 6% of all
arrests)
Misdemeanor drug arrests increased
47%(increased from 9% to 12% of all
arrests)
5,569
Source: Montana Department of Justice Arrest Data, FY2009 – FY2015
Felony and Misdemeanor Arrests for Drug Offenses, FY2009 – FY2015
Arrests for violations of probation and revocations up 106% (FY2009-2015)
Of every individual arrested in FY 2012 61% were re-arrested within 3 years
Up 67% between 2011 and 2013
How does this compare to our neighbors?
150360 220
260280
240320
290350
2013 Jail Incarceration Rate
Montana’s jail incarceration rate increased significantly in recent years, and is the highest of its neighbors. Jail length of stay is above average.
Percent Change in Jail Incarceration Rate, 2011-2013
21 22
12 12 12 13
20
27
18
MT CO ID ND SD MN WY UT NE
West / Midwest Jail LOS Average: 18
Jail Average Length of Stay, 2013
Source: US. Department of Justice, Census of Jails: Population Changes, 1999-2013
67%
-1%-11%
7% 2% 5% 6% 4% 7%
MT CO ID ND SD MN WY UT NE
Short period in jail pretrial - as few as 2 days - correlates with negative outcomes for offender and for public safety when compared to release within 24 hours.1
4x More Likely to Receive Incarceration Sentence.1
Go to Jail
MORE LIKELY TO BE ARRESTED BEFORE TRIAL1
51%MORE LIKELY TO RECIDIVATE AFTER SENTENCE COMPLETION1
56%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2-3 days 4-7 days 8-14 days 15-30 days
Likelihood of new criminal arrest compared to defendant detained 1 day
Series 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2-4 days 4-7 days 8-14 days 15-30 days
Likelihood of 2-year recidivism as compared to defendants detained 1 day – in percentage
Among formerly incarcerated men, 2/3 of whom were employed before being incarcerated, hourly wages decreased by 11%, annual employment by nine weeks and annual earnings by 40% as a result of time spent in jail or prison.1
ProgramChange in Recidivism
Intensive Supervision (no treatment)
0.0%
Electronic Monitoring 0.0%Adult Boot Camps 0.0%Juvenile Boot Camps 0.0%Wilderness Challenge 0.0%Intensive Supervision (Juveniles) 0.0%Scared Straight +6.1%
15
$1,880/year – Probation
$ 21,938/year – Pre-Release Center
$37,303/year – Prison
$1,870/year - Parole
Council of State Governments Justice Center Montana Dept of Corrections 2015 Biennial Report
Three of North America’s leading criminologists found many of our current sentencing and corrections practices are actually harming the very offenders they were designed to help. (Edward J. Latessa, Francis T. Cullen, and Paul Gendreau, Beyond Correctional Quackery: Professionalism and the Possibility of Effective Treatment, 66 FED. PROBATION, Sept. 2002, at 43)
Reduce recidivism through evidence-based practices and programs and offender risk and need assessments
Promote community-based alternatives to incarceration of appropriate offenders
1. Punishment2. Public Safety reduce risk of recidivism through rehab services reduce risk of recidivism through effective use of
specific deterrence – no evidence incarceration is a deterrence
reduce risk of recidivism through incapacitation or lesser behavioral controls
and, by determining crime by others though general deterrence (sending message, etc.)
3. Restitution/restoration of victim, community
3 Basic Principles of EBS:1. Risk Principle - Who to target?2. Needs principle - What to
address?3. Treatment principle – What
works?
If you put low risk people with high risk people, they become higher risk
If you over treat or over intervene with low risk people, they get worse
Traditional sanctions alone do not deter recidivism among medium and high risk offenders (i.e. prison doesn’t work very well)
Low Risk -53%Moderate Risk -40%
High Risk – 7%
Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk
Two types of risk factors: Static: characteristics of an offender that are associated with
the likelihood of recidivism, but are constant or historical and cannot be changed through intervention--age, gender, prior arrests, prior convictions, age at first arrest, history of anti-social behavior or alcohol/substance abuse.
Dynamic: characteristics of an offender that are associated with the likelihood of recidivism and that are subject to change through appropriate intervention (aka “criminogenicneeds”).
In order to reduce an individual’s likelihood of committing a crime, it is important to focus on the individual’s “dynamic risk factors” or “criminogenic needs.”
1. Anti-social attitudes2. Anti-social friends and peers3. Anti-social personality4. Family and/or marital factors5. Substance abuse6. Lack of education7. Poor Employment history8. Lack of Pro-Social Leisure Activities
The top 3 risk factors are more important than the lower criminogenic needs in predicting recidivism among medium and high risk offenders.
RNA tools can identify the specific dynamic risk factors that do predict and influence whether the particular offender will reoffend. They identify the appropriate targets for interventions which, if effective, will reduce the probability of recidivism.
The superiority of actuarial assessment over unstructured clinical assessment in predicting recidivism risk is well-established. (See, e.g., reviewing the research: P. Harris, “What Community Supervision Officers Need to Know About Actuarial Assessment and Clinical Judgment,” 70 Fed. Prob. J.(Sept. 2006))
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Clinical Actuarial
LowLow ModerateModerateHigh
28
RNA information is designed for use in effectively managing and reducing the risk of recidivism among offenders under supervision, not to establish the appropriate “punishment” or “penalty” for a crime.
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%
0-19Minutes
20-39Minutes
Over 40Minutes
Rec
idiv
ism
Rat
e
Avert Spending associated with growth in prison and jail populations
Make Pre-trial decision-making more informed Improve access to and the quality of programs funded
by taxpayers to reduce recidivism Reinvest in strategies to hold offenders accountable and
increase public safety Improve services and resources for victims of crime Modernize the parole process Ensure sustainability of data-driven policies and
evidence based practices.
Approx. 80% of offenders in U.S. meet broad definition of substance involvement.2
Incarceration has demonstrated incapacitation effects - inmates are prevented from committing criminal acts while incarcerated.2
Average effect of incarceration on crime following release from prison is approximately ZERO.2
70% to 85% of drug-abusing inmates return to drug use within 1 year of release.2
95% return to drug use within 3 years.2
Specialized court docket targeting criminal cases involving people who have drug dependency/addiction problem.
To achieve a reduction in recidivism and substance abuse and successfully habilitate offenders with a high risk to reoffend and a high need for treatment
Intensive alcohol and drug abuse treatment
Mandatory, random, frequent drug testing Appropriate and quick sanctions for non-
compliant behavior Incentives and recognition for hard work Continuous judicial oversight Employment and other services needed to
enter long-term recovery and become productive members of society.
FACT: Nationwide, 75% of Drug Court graduates remain arrest-free at least two years after leaving the program.3
FACT: Reductions in crime last at least 3 years and can endure for over 14 years.3
FACT: The most rigorous and conservative scientific “meta-analyses” have all concluded that Drug Courts significantly reduce crime as much as 45 percent more than other sentencing options.3
FACT: Nationwide, for every $1.00 invested taxpayers save as much as $3.36 in avoided criminal justice costs.3
FACT: When considering other cost offsets like savings from reduced victimization and healthcare service utilization, benefits range up to $27 for every $1 invested.3
FACT: Cost savings – in reduced prison costs, revolving-door arrests and trials, and victimization – benefits range from $3,000 to $13,000 per client.3
FACT: Without drug court supervision 25% fail to enroll and 70% drop out of treatment prematurely.3
FACT: Drug Courts are six times more likely to keep offenders in treatment long enough for them to get better.3
1996 – First Drug Court in Missoula
Currently 30 drug courts in MT including 5 tribal drug courts.4
The FY2016 fiscal expenditure for drug courts was: $1,234,136 $4,463 per admission
The FY2017 budget for drug courts is: $1,250,781 general fund
$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000
Conn. Corr
Passages/ADT
WATcH (West)
WATcH (East)
Nexus
Elkhorn
Series 1
1,523 participants (1,420 adults and 103 juveniles) entered Montana drug courts from 11/1/2012 – 10/31/2016.
As of October 31, 2016, 485 participants were active in a drug court (445 in adult drug court, 47 in family drug court, and 16 in juvenile drug court).4
114 veterans have been admitted to Montana drug courts in past 2 years.4
A total of 509 participants graduated from drug court during the 48-month reporting period - an overall graduation rate of 57.5%.
Ave. cost avoidance when only investment costs are taken into consideration was $2,438 per participant or $97,519 for 40 participants.4
When outcome costs are considered, in MT we avoid an estimated $11,070 per participant and $442,789 for every 40 treatment court participants.4
When investment, outcome and societal-impact (victimization) costs are combined, cost avoidance is estimated to be $81,879 per participant and $3,275,186 for 40 participants.
For adult participants admitted in 2012, 73 of 286 (25.5%) reoffended with conviction during 36 month period after induction.4
Recidivism rates were much lower for drug court participants who graduated compared to those who terminated early: a 2.8% re-offense rate for felonies and a 8.7% re-offense rate for misdemeanors.4
Graduates reported a 54% increase in full-time employment from admission to graduation.4
90.3% decrease in unemployment
35% decrease in participants w/o high school diploma or GED at admission.4
39.4% increase in those without a driver’s license.4
From May 2008 – Oct. 2016, 116 babies were born while a parent was in drug court. 108 of them were born drug free (93.1%).4
23% increase in those paying child support.4
Drug Courts Save Taxpayer Money
Drug Courts Save Lives
If we conducted research to determine the most effective way to assure public safety and court appearance, what would the research show?
DETAIN EVERYONE
What we really want to do is to detain the right people.
Many high-level, violent individuals who pose significant risk are released
Many low level/non-violent individuals are detained.
Implementing Pilot Risk Assessment Project in 5 Montana Counties: Lewis & Clark, Butte-Silver Bow, Lake, Missoula and Yellowstone
Implement the Public Safety Assessment – validated Risk measurement tool.
Risk of Failing to Appear Risk of committing new crime pretrial Risk of committing violent crime pretrial
Public Safety Assessment – developed by LJAF Used 1.5 million criminal cases from which
derived 750,000 for analysis Analyzed risk factors Tested 900 different correlations of risk
To Assure public safety and court appearance:
Detain Highest risk defendants Release Moderate risk defendants with
interventions and services targeted to manage risk Release Low risk defendants with minimal to
no conditions
Implemented in a number of states –Kentucky, Ohio, Arizona, Utah . . .
Promising results Decreased pretrial crime Fewer new arrests Fewer missed court appearances Decreased overall crime
Life is measured by the quality of one’s relationships with family and friends
Montana is a wonderful state – we have a unique Constitution that provides us rights to recreate and enjoy the great outdoors of our state
Current system/practices not sustainable DOC’s budget is $200 million/year!
I am evidently attracted to occupations requiring goofy uniforms
People and their problems matter I have never met a person whose goal
was to become addicted to drugs or alcohol
We cannot punish addiction out of people
We should do everything we can to keep from bringing people into the criminal justice system as once they are there, we know their chance of remaining increases and they generally do not become safer, more productive community members.
People respond better to incentives than they do sanctions
We need better access to quality treatment to address substance use disorders
We need attorneys and judges who will champion evidence based practices in all areas of law and not be satisfied with always handling cases as we have in the past – people with real passion for learning and improving their knowledge and skills and the system they work in
1. Subramanian, R. et al., Incarceration’s Front Door: The Misuse of Jails in America, Vera Institute of Justice, Center on Sentencing and Corrections, February 2015.
2. Marlowe, D., Evidence-Based Sentencing for Drug Offenders: An Analysis of Prognostic Risks and Criminogenic Needs, Chapman Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 1:1 (Spring 2009), pp.167-201.
3. Drug Courts Work, National Association of Drug Court Professionals, accessed 10/2/2015 at www.nadcp.org/learn/facts-and-figures.
4. Montana Drug Courts: An Updated Snapshot of Success and Hope, January 2017, Montana Judicial Branch, Montana Supreme Court, Office of Court Administration. http://courts.mt.gov/portals/113/cao/ct_services/treatment/docs/2017rpt.pdf
Recommended