Effective Alternatives to Incarceration:Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

Joanne Katz, J.D., Professor

Missouri Western State University

Need for Viable Alternatives to Incarceration

Between 1972 and 2008, the adult

population in the American penal system

soared nearly 600 percent

from 330,000 to 2.3 million

More than one in every 100 American

adults is confined to jail or prison

What fueled this increase?

(Pew, 2008)

Need for Viable Alternatives to Incarceration

88 percent of the growth in the

incarcerated population resulted

from changes in sentencing policy

(Mauer, 2004)

Sentencing Policies

“Get-tough” policies Three-strike laws Mandatory prison for drug offenses Using prison as the response to

probation / parole violations

“Low-risk” offenders are being

incarcerated for nonviolent crimes and

probation and parole violations

Same was found for juveniles

Costs of Incarceration

Twenty years ago, states spent a total of $11

billion on corrections; today states annual

corrections costs are $52 billion

By far the largest share are incarceration

expenses (Pew, 2009)

In 2007, states on average invested nearly

7 percent of their general funds—

or one in every 15 dollars—on corrections

Average yearly cost in state prison is

$29,000 per inmate

Human Costs of Incarceration

The impact of incarceration on the physical and

mental health of the offender

Erode an offender’s relationship with family and

other loved ones

Impact to the larger community of a segment of the

population who are imprisoned and then reenter

Ability to find employment after prison

Physical and mental health problems after prison

Reoffense rates of those who have left prison

(Tonry & Petersilia, 2000).

Alternatives to Incarceration

Community-based alternatives are less

expensive

Cost of probation $3.42 per day or about

$1,250 per year

Cost of parole $7.47 per day or about

$2,730 per year (Pew, 2009)

Increased incarceration has not lowered

rates of crime

Half of released inmates will reoffend in

3 years

Viable Alternatives to Incarceration

Historical View: Role of Law Enforcement in Alternatives to Incarceration

The COPS Office has long recognized the need for

partnerships between law enforcement and the

community

Partnerships with faith-based organizations resulted

in the COPS Value-Based Initiative faith community work closely with law

enforcement in dealing with socioeconomic issues underlying crime(Gordon, 2004)

Partnerships with probation and parole officials

have led to the establishment of reentry programs(La Vigne, Solomon, Beckman, and Dedel, 2006)

Police Involvement in Community Corrections

Community-based corrections offers yet another

opportunity at collaboration assists law enforcement in their efforts to

maintain safe communities

Keeping low-risk offenders out of prison in the community actively involved in jobs and families

Can avert many of the social and emotional

problems caused by incarceration

Police Involvement in Community Corrections

Police have much to offer community corrections

organizations beyond their enforcement role

They often know people and neighborhoods

better than corrections and / or rehabilitation

groups do

By collaborating with established programs, the

resources of law enforcement and community

corrections can be greatly expanded

Model for Police / Community Corrections Collaborations

Unique Nature of Police / Community Corrections Collaborations

Nature of Collaborations:

Traditional law enforcement role and also

expanding the role

Types of Collaborations:

Range from enforcement to other areas which

impact public safety

Sustainability of Collaboration:

Maintaining successes

Model for Police / Community Corrections Collaborations

Joint Efforts

Sustainability

Innovation

Ability to Duplicate

Measurable Results

Community as a Partner

Agencies

Faith-Based Organizations

Not-for-profits

Volunteers

Models: Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI)

Annie E. Casey Foundation responding to

unnecessary detention of low-risk juveniles

Research shows that this “get-tough” approach

to juvenile delinquency has similar

consequences as it does to adults

It is extremely costly, both in financial and

human terms Communities spend $200–$300 per day to

keep a youth in a juvenile facility Neither rehabilitation of the offending

juvenile nor protecting the community from harm is proven.

Models: Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI)

An estimated 50 to 80 percent of youth released

from juvenile facilities are rearrested within 3 years

The long-term repercussions for the confined

juvenile can be devastating. Compared to other

youth, he or she is: More likely to leave school without a diploma Work in low-wage jobs Struggle with substance abuse and other health

problems End up in jail or prison as an adult

(Annie E. Casey, n/d)

Annie E. Casey Foundation – Core Strategies

Collaboration between major juvenile justice agencies and community organizations

 Use of accurate data to diagnose the system’s problems and identify real solutions

Objective admissions criteria and instruments to replace subjective decisions that inappropriately place children in custody

Alternatives to detention to increase the options available for arrested youth

Reforms to speed up case processing so that youth don’t languish in detention

Reducing the use of secure confinement for special cases like technical probation violations

Improving conditions of confinement through routine inspections

Changes in Detention Rates

Changes in Crime Rates

Multnomah County, Oregon

Federal consent decree for overcrowding.

Needed to make a change

Transformation through collaboration:

Creating the Detention Reform Committee. Include every

group who deals with the juveniles to agree on new

policy, including police

Came up with High Risk / High Need formula for who to

detain Only detain high risk Find other places for high need Determine by Risk Assessment Instrument created by

Committee Created “Reception Center” high and low need

juveniles

Multnomah County JDAI: Risk Assessment Instrument

Created own Risk Assessment Instrument.

The county’s juvenile RAI assigns point

values for a range of indicators associated

with the arrested youth: The nature of current offense Previous history in the juvenile justice

system Family support School attendance and performance, etc.

Multnomah County

Essential Elements: Collaborate with partners Create a reliable risk assessment

instrument Provide a broad range of intervention

services. These include: substance abuse treatment mental health services health care other support services for children

and their families

New Jersey JDAI

First state-wide effort to initiate JDAI

throughout the state

Two federal consent decrees in different

counties

JDAI State Steering Committee:

President of Juvenile Officers (police) state

association on committee. Took two years

to create their risk assessment instrument

New Jersey JDAI

11 counties implemented, all 21 by 2011

Juvenile Detention rates have lowered by

25% in JDAI counties, and risen 50% in

non-JDAI jurisdictions

Juvenile crime rates have fallen 2% in the

JDAI counties

New Approaches to Traditional Collaborations

Police / Corrections have a history of

sharing information

New ways to use it in creating more

effective programming

Examples include work with juveniles,

adults and reentry

Operation Night Light: Boston

1992 response to youth gang violence

Probationers not following terms, and because of

violence, probation officers fear entering areas

Collaboration between Anti-Gang Violence Unit of

Boston Police Department, and Dorchester District

Court Probation Officers

Visit homes between 7 p.m. and midnight

Operation Night Light: Boston

Early Outcomes: Probationer arrests declined 9.2 percent between

January 1994 and June 1996 while arrests increased 14 percent statewide

Homicides, which reached a high of 152 in 1990, fell nearly 79 percent to 31 by 1999

2009 report findings: In 2007, youth arrests were down 26 percent,

from 971 in 2006 to 718 in 2007 In Boston’s high-crime hot spots, violent crime

declined 12 percent in a single 6-month period, October 2007–March 2008, compared with the same period the previous year

Several areas—including Codman Square (down 54 percent) and South End (down 40 percent) experienced significant reductions in violent crime during the same period in 2008

Kansas Reentry Program

Outcomes: In 2000, the average number of monthly

parole violations represented nearly 5 percent of parolees supervised by the state

By 2009, average monthly violations—representing 1.7 percent of parolees—were down by nearly two-thirds

From fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2008, there was more than a 50 percent reduction in the number of parolees returned to prison for felony offenses

Restorative Justice: Accountability, Restitution and Transformation

Restorative justice is a philosophy which holds

that crime is committed against the victim, and

the community

Several difference processes are available

which holds the offender directly accountable

to the victim and community

Instead of asking what laws were broken and

how the offender will be punished, in RJ, the

questions are: Who was harmed and how? Whose responsibility is it to repair the

harm? How can the harm be repaired?

Restorative Justice: Accountability, Restitution and Transformation

Different Restorative Justice Processes

Victim / Offender Dialogue: Victim and

offender meet and discuss the crime. Work

out restitution agreement

Neighborhood Accountability Boards:

Offenders meet with community volunteers

who explain the harm of the offender’s

actions and work out restitution. Some

victim involvement

Circles: In a circle process, the offender is

held accountable to victims and the

community

Vermont Community Justice Centers (CJCs)

Created by state statute

CJCs give citizens and government

agencies an opportunity to collaborate on

issues related to crime prevention,

resolving conflict, and rendering justice

12 CJC’s throughout the state of Vermont

Each center relies on cooperation with

police, and community volunteers

Vermont CJC’s

CJC’s have Reparative Boards. Certain low-

level offenders are referred (some directly by

police through agreements with the DA.)

Within 2 weeks, the offender meets with the

panel members, and begins diversion

35 different boards, 500 volunteers and 1400

cases a year (2006)

St. Louis County Juvenile Justice Committees (JJC’s)

Objectives when starting:

Kids needed more help than the court could give them,

and the community needed to feel a part of dealing with

juvenile issues

The people who were part of the individual

communities within St. Louis County understood the

diversity and attitudes and values of their communities

better than the court did

The court did not have the financial resources to give

each case the attention it deserved and would receive if

community volunteers were utilized

St. Louis County JJC’s

Throughout the county, divided by school

boundaries

Volunteers live within specific communities

Juvenile and parents meet with JJC. Members

ask questions like, “Did you think this might

not be a good idea?” “Did you think it might

harm someone?”

Together they work out an agreement, and

follow-up meetings

St. Louis County JJC’s

Police are on each board.

Improves relationships between police and

parents

Outcomes: All restitution paid 98% of community service hours were

completed 4% reoffense rate in one year highly rated by parents and juveniles 112 juveniles served in 2008

Overrepresentation of the mentally ill in the

criminal justice system

Two ways that this creates problems: Police interactions with mentally ill

individuals Troubles of incarcerating seriously

mentally ill individuals

Solutions: Crisis Intervention Teams Mental Health Courts

Mental Illness and the CJ System

Mental Illness and the CJ System

Crisis Intervention Teams: Created with a partnership with National

Association for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) Training police to deal with mentally ill

individuals within a criminal justice situation Memphis first in U.S. Created a model most

replicate and adapt

Able to deal with mentally ill much better Develop protocol to hospitalize instead of

jail Less violence in the process of

apprehension

Memphis Police Department established the CIT

in 1988. First in country

Volunteer CIT officers trained to provide

appropriate responses to “mental disturbance

crisis calls”

The Memphis model requires that a minimum of

15 to 20 percent of sworn patrol officers be

trained in CIT

Memphis Crisis Intervention Team (CIT)

CIT officers are available in all precincts and maintain their regular

patrol duties and respond as needed to mental health-related calls.

Police dispatcher deploys a CIT officer whenever a call involves

someone with a potential mental illness. He assesses situation,

determines the risk, and intervenes in a way that ensures the safety

of all involved.

CIT officers work closely with mental health and medical resources

to assure a timely transfer of custody of people experiencing

mental health crises. The CIT partner facilities accept all referrals

by the police

CIT annual operating costs are about $70,000, or an average of $10

per call, for a CIT team of at least 180 officers (Dupont & Cochran, 2002)

There are between 500 and 600 jurisdictions nationwide that have

adopted CIT programs based at least in part on the Memphis CIT

model (Slate & Johnson, 2008)

Memphis Crisis Intervention Team (CIT)

Similar to Memphis. Did training in Memphis

Prior to CIT, took 5-6 hours to take someone to hospital.

Now 1 ½ hour because of partnerships

Of 926 calls involving potentially mentally ill suspects in

2008, only three arrests (or less than a third of a percent)

were made

Since the implementation of the CIT program, there has

been a 55 percent decrease in SWAT Team crisis calls, the

majority of which involve some level of mental illness.

Because each SWAT Team includes 28 members, all of

whom respond to every call, a reduction in SWAT calls

results in significant savings for the FWPD

Ft. Wayne, Indiana CIT

Mental Illness and the CJ System

Mental Health Courts A diversionary treatment options

instead of hospitalizing the mentally ill Have services available for the

offenders, instead of jail time. Get mental health, substance abuse, job counseling, housing, health, etc.

Team works with offender. As long as stays with the prescribed program, stays with the court

Meets with judge for progress reports

Broward County, Florida Mental Health Court

1st Mental Health Court in country

1994 incident in Broward County Jail, involving a mentally ill

person resulted in deaths. Created Task Force with

stakeholders.

Broward stakeholders included the Public Defender’s Office,

State’s Attorney’s Office, Sheriff’s Office, county government

staff, local members of NAMI, as well as community mental

health and treatment providers.

The first Mental Health Court was created in 1997 as a

subdivision of the Broward County Criminal Court

Broward County, Florida Mental Health Court

Primary objectives of the Broward County Mental Health Court High degree of sensitivity to the specialized needs of

mentally ill defendants. Assure that the offender does not languish in jail and is able

to obtain needed emergency psychiatric treatment

Apply a therapeutic approach to the processing of mentally ill

offenders

Ensure and oversee the coordination, effectiveness and

accountability of

1. the delivery of community-based treatment and services and

2. compliance with treatment by the individual defendant

Reduce the contact of the mentally ill with the criminal justice

system

Have teams which work with individual, including treatment,

housing and employment. Regular court appearances about

progress

Boone County, Missouri Mental Health Court

Boone County Mental Health Court was established in

2003 to allow the 13th Judicial Circuit (Columbia,

Missouri) to better respond to the growing number of

mentally ill people whose nonviolent criminal offenses

were more the result of mental illness than an intent to

cause harm

It consists of three phases:

1. Stabilization, which focuses on mental health, substance abuse and related services designed to stabilize people in crisis

2. Cognitive life skills building, which provides the practical education and related training services people need to develop the skills to be self-supporting.

3. Reintegration, which prepares people to live independently in the community

Boone County, Missouri Mental Health Court

Boone County Mental Health Court Team also includes

a wide variety of community agencies that are in a

position to deliver services typically needed by a

mentally ill person in crisis

These include: Housing services Emergency assistance Employment training and job counseling Educational services One-to-one assistance in filling out paperwork

required to secure various services and government benefits

Boone County, Missouri Mental Health Court

Judge meets regularly with treatment team, and is

well versed in each case when she meets with the

offender in court

An officer from the Columbia Police Department is

an integral part of the Mental Health Court Team.

Because police are on the frontline in the

community, knowledgeable about what is

happening on the streets, he is often able to alert

the team members to situations that might be

dangerous or inappropriate for a court offender

Conclusion: Police Collaboration with Corrections

Cost effectiveness

Effectiveness of alternatives to incarceration

Lessening police hassles

More police discretion

Improving community / police relationships

For more information, or to contact the author:

Joanne Katz

Missouri Western State University

4525 Downs Dr., Wilson 204

St. Joseph, Missouri 64507

816-271-5837

katz@missouriwestern.edu