Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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 of 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)
1 Committee on Causes and Consequences of High Rates of Incarceration ((Travis, I., Western, B., & Redburn, S.): Published by the National Academies Press. 2 Population Reference Bureau (Tsai, T., & Scommegna, P.). 3 United States Department of Justice, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. 4 University of Oxford Researchers (Fazel, S. & Wolf, A.): Published in PLoS One.
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
0
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
5, 6, & 7 United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 8 Pew Center on the States. Published by the Pew Charitable Trusts. 9 Michigan House Fiscal Agency (Risko, R.).
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 or less
10 Florida Department of Corrections. 11 Michigan State University School of Criminal Justice & the Michigan Department of Corrections. 12 Macomb County Jail Administrator, Michelle Sanborn.
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
13 Laura and John Arnold Foundation. 14 Published in Criminal Justice Review, (Williams). 15 Macomb County Community Correctors Director, Barbara Caskey.
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
12 Macomb County Jail Administrator, Michelle Sanborn.
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
16 Macomb County Sheriff's Office, 2014 Annual Report. 17 Michigan Legislature, County Jail Overcrowding Emergency.
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 one year cost:3
u State Governments: $ 29,141 u Daily: $ 79.84
u Federal Governments: $ 28,283 u Daily: $ 77.49
3 United States Department of Justice, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. 9 Michigan House Fiscal Agency (Risko, R.). 12 Macomb County Jail Administrator, Michelle Sanborn.
$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
9 Michigan House Fiscal Agency (Risko, R.). 12 Macomb County Jail Administrator, Michelle Sanborn. 18 Families Against Mandatory Minimums. 19 Centre for Criminal Justice Studies. (Gendreau, Goggin, & Cullen). 20 Published in the Journal of Criminal Justice. (Mears, Cochran, & Bales). 21 Campbell Collaboration. Published in Crime and Justice. (Villettaz, Gillieron, & illias). 22 Published in the Prison Journal. (Cullen, Johnson, & Nagin).
$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
23 Congressional Research Service, prepared for Members & Committees of Congress. 24 Michigan Supreme Court.
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
16 Macomb County Sheriff’s Office 2014 Annual Report.
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
16 Macomb County Sheriff’s Office 2014 Annual Report.
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
25 Michigan Supreme Court.
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 of 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
12 Macomb County Jail Administrator, Michelle Sanborn. 26 Previous Post-Booking Jail Diversion Assessor, Virginia Bessinger.
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
