Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice. Justice Reinvestment Presentation #3 November 8, 2018

Transcription

1 Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice Justice Reinvestment Presentation #3 November 8, 2018

2 Agenda Follow-Up Questions File Review Findings Community Supervision Data What Works to Reduce Recidivism? Data and Practices Summary Takeaways Policy Development Overview 2

3 Data Used Data sources include Nevada Department of Corrections Division of Probation and Parole Administrative Office of the Courts Second Judicial District Court (Clark County) Eighth Judicial District Court (Washoe County) Unless stated otherwise, all data presented was analyzed by CJI in consultation with providing agency Data presented here may not match agency reports due to different methodologies for analysis 3

4 Follow-Up Questions

5 Months Months Sentences Grew Most for First-Time Felony Offenders Mean Minimum Sentence Imposed for New Prisoners by Number of Prior Felonies, 2008 vs No Priors 1 to Mean Maximum Sentence Imposed for New Prisoners by Number of Prior Felonies, 2008 vs No Priors 1 to Source: Nevada Department of Corrections 5

6 Trends in Trafficking Admissions Vary Across the State County 2017 New Prisoner Admissions % Change Since 2008 Clark % Washoe 50-7% Carson 14 56% Elko 9 125% Churchill 7 75% Humboldt 5-29% Lyon 5 150% Nye 4 0% White Pine 4 Eureka 1 Lander 1 Lincoln 1-50% Mineral 1 Pershing 1 Douglas 0-100% Esmeralda 0 Storey 0-100% Source: Nevada Department of Corrections 6

7 Parole Violators Most Likely to Expire Sentence in Custody 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Prison Releases by Release Type and Admission Type, , , New Prisoner Parole Violator Probation Violator Discretionary Parole - Granted Mandatory Parole Review - Granted Expiration of Sentence Source: Nevada Department of Corrections 7

8 Graduates Slightly Outpace Revocations in First Year of Day Reporting Center Participants in Nevada Day Reporting Centers by Outcome Status, 2018 Revoked 13% Graduated 16% Discharged 13% Current Active Supervision 58% Source: Summary data provided by Nevada Division of Probation and Parole. Day Reporting Center opened in Las Vegas in October 2017 and in Reno in February

9 283 People in Prison Pending Parole Plan Approval Offenders Overdue for Parole Release in NDOC Custody Population by Month, Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Source: Summary data provided by Nevada Department of Corrections 9

10 Under 2% of District Court Cases in Nevada are Resolved at Trial New Criminal Case Filings in Nevada District Courts by Disposition Type, FY 2017 Bench Trial Dispositions 0.13% Jury Trial Dispositions 1.14% Non-Trial Dispositions 98.74% Source: Summary data provided by Administrative Office of the Courts 10

11 88% of Felony Dispositions Reached via Guilty Plea Before Trial 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Share of Felony Cases Disposed via Guilty Plea Before Trial by Offense Type, FY % 92% 85% 93% Person Property Drug Other Source: Administrative Office of the Courts 11

12 Crime Rate per 100,000 Residents Property Crime Rate Dropped 25%, Violent Crime Rate Dropped 24% 4,000 Crime Rate in Nevada by Type, ,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, Property Violent Source: Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics 12

13 Crime Rate per 100,000 Residents Violent Crime Decline in Las Vegas Driving Statewide Trend 900 Violent Crime Rate in Nevada by Metropolitan Statistical Area, Las Vegas Reno Carson City Source: Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics 13

14 District Court Filings Increased 33% While Dispositions Stabilized 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 16,167 13,585 District Court Case Filings and Dispositions, FY ,011 16, District Court Dispositions District Court Filings Source: Summary data published by the Administrative Office of the Courts 14

15 Property Dispositions Peaked in 2015 As Person Dispositions Steadily Dropped 7,000 6,000 District Court Felony Case Dispositions by Offense Type, FY ,180 5,000 4,000 3,000 4,007 3,087 4,176 2,963 2,000 1, ,077 2,205 1, Person Property Drug Other Source: Administrative Office of the Courts. Data excludes administrative closures and other manners of disposition. FY 2010 not displayed due to changes in reporting model 15

16 U.S. Population Rises While U.S. Incarcerated Population Drops 6% Percent Change of U.S. Total Population vs Percent Change of U.S. State and Federal Prison Population, % 2% 4.75% 0% -2% -4% % -6% -8% % Change U.S. Population % Change Prison Population Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Census Bureau 16

17 State Population Growth Does Not Cause Prison Population Growth 20% Percent Change in State Population vs Percent Change of State Prison Population, % 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% 10% -6% Texas 9% 14% 9% -4% Nevada Florida 7% Idaho -0.2% 5% -6% Virginia 3% -15% -20% -25% -21% Louisiana State Population % Change Prison Population % Change Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Census Bureau 17

18 Case Study: Florida Florida s state population grew 9.36% to 20.6 million between 2010 to 2016 In addition, Florida received million visitors in 2016, a 36% increase over 2010 Florida s prison population declined by 4% between 2010 and 2016 Admissions to prison declined 28% and revocations declined 39% between 2007 and 2016 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Florida Department of Corrections: Gov. Scott Press Release, March 20,

19 77% of PSIs Reviewed Involved Nevada Resident Defendants State Residency for Offenders in PSI File Review, 2017 Data Unavailable 6% Out of State 17% Nevada Residents 77% 19

20 74% of Felony Defendants in Washoe County are Nevada Residents State Residency for Criminal Defendants in Second Judicial District Court, 2017 Data Unavailable 18% Out of State 8% Nevada Residents 74% Source: Nevada s Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County 20

21 File Review Findings

22 79% of PSIs Reviewed Indicated Behavioral Health Needs PSI File Review by Mental Health and Substance Abuse, 2017 No Mental Health or Substance Abuse 15% Mental Health and Substance Abuse 27% Data Unavailable 6% Mental Health 3% Substance Abuse 49% 22

23 63% of Burglaries Were Non-Residential Burglary Admissions in PSI File Review by Location, 2017 Residence 37% Other 23% Vehicle 17% Retail Store 23% 23

24 More Than 70% of Burglaries Occurred With No Victim Present Burglary Admissions in PSI File Review by Presence of Victim, 2017 Victim Present 27% No Victim Present 73% 24

25 Nearly 80% of Burglaries Involved No Forced Entry Burglary Admissions in PSI File Review by Evidence of Forced Entry, 2017 Forced Entry 22% No Forced Entry 78% 25

26 46% of Trafficking Cases Were Charged On Weight Alone Trafficking Admissions in PSI File Review by Indicia of Sale, 2017 Observed Sale 31% Circumstances of Sale Present 23% Weight Only 46% 26

27 Wide Range of Weights Identified in Felony B Trafficking Cases 30% Trafficking Admissions in PSI File Review by Weight of Controlled Substance, % 26% 20% 20% 17% 15% 14% 10% 10% 5% 5% 2% 5% 0% 4-10g 10-14g 14-20g 20-28g 28-50g g g Over 500g 27

28 Methamphetamine Most Commonly Implicated Drug in Trafficking Cases Trafficking Admissions in PSI File Review by Controlled Substance, 2017 Other 3% Cocaine 11% Methamphetamine 64% Heroin/Other Opioid 22% 28

29 48% of Habitual Criminal Admissions Had No Prior Violent Felonies Habitual Criminal Admissions in PSI File Review by Nature of Prior Felony Convictions, 2017 Only Violent Priors 2% Only Non-Violent Priors 48% Both Violent and Non- Violent Priors 50% 29

30 90% of Habitual Criminals Present Behavioral Health Needs Habitual Criminals in PSI File Review by Mental Health and Substance Abuse, 2017 No Mental Health or Substance Abuse 4% Data Unavailable 6% Substance Abuse 51% Mental Health and Substance Abuse 37% Mental Health 2% 30

31 34% of Community Supervision Returns Sent to Prison For Technical Violations 40% 35% Most Recent Violation in Violation Report File Review by Type, % 30% 25% 25% 25% 20% 15% 16% 10% 5% 0% Absconder Technical New Felony Charge New Misdemeanor Charge 31

32 Substance Abuse A Major Factor Behind Revocations for Technical Violations 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Technical Violations by Type as Most Recent Violation in Violation Report File Review, % Non-Compliance with Specific Conditions of Supervision 35% Positive Drug Test 20% Treatment or Programming Failure 7% Other Misconduct 32

33 Drug and Property Charges Most Common for Violators Facing New Felony New Felony Charge by Type as Most Recent Violation in Violation Report File Review, 2017 Person 19% Drug 35% Other 13% Property 33% 33

34 Public Order Offenses Dominate New Misdemeanor Charges for Violators 35% 30% 25% New Misdemeanor by Type as Most Recent Violation in Violation Report File Review, % 29% 20% 17% 15% 10% 13% 10% 8% 5% 0% Person Property Drug DUI Traffic Public Order 34

35 44% of Failures on Supervision Involved Substance Abuse Substance Abuse Supervision Failures in Violation Report File Review, 2017 Substance Abuse Failure 44% No Substance Abuse Failure 56% 35

36 Key Takeaways 63% of burglaries are non-residential The majority of burglaries do not include any forced entry and have no victim present 46% of trafficking cases are solely based on an individual possessing the threshold weight The defendant s role in the transaction does not dictate charge or the disposition Substance abuse issues are prevalent among community supervision violators 44% of failures on supervision involve substance abuse Drug test and treatment failure are among the most common technical violations leading to revocation 36

37 Community Supervision Data

38 Admissions Growth Concentrated Among Community Supervision Returns 3,500 Prison Admissions by Admission Type, 2008 vs ,000 2,500 2,000 Probation Violator Admissions Grew 15% 1,500 1,000 Parole Violator Admissions Grew 43% New Prisoner Parole Violator Probation Violator Other Source: Nevada Department of Corrections 38

39 Community Supervision Process Supervision conditions imposed by judge or Board Supervision level assigned at intake based on NRAS Monthly reports Home visits Personal contacts (10-20/ month) Employment verification Treatment verification Surveillances Reinstatement or modification of conditions Revocation to serve prison sentence Violation Hearing Violation of conditions of supervision, and submission of a violation report Compliance with conditions of supervision Supervision terminated 39

40 Parole Population Grew 84% as Number of Probationers Declined 7% 14,000 13,281 Community Supervision Population Subject to Revocation, ,000 12,310 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 2,704 4, Parole Probation Source: Nevada Division of Parole and Probation. Populations exclude inmates granted parole and currently in prison awaiting release, as well as Nevada-based supervisees under the custody of other states 40

41 Probation Sentences Imposed in Clark County Have Grown Over Last Decade Mean Length of Indeterminate Sentences to Probation from the Eighth Judicial District Court, 2008 vs 2017 Mean Length of Fixed Sentences to Probation from the Eighth Judicial District Court, 2008 vs Source: Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County 41

42 93% of Clark County Probation Sentences Are At Least Three Years 1, Under 6 Months Probation Sentences from the Eighth Judicial District Court by Type and Length of Sentence Imposed, Months Months Months Months Months Months 60+ Months Source: Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County 42

43 Over Half of Washoe Violation Reports Filed in First 6 Months of Supervision 60% Months Before Filing of Probation Violation Report in Second Judicial District Court 54% 50% 40% 30% 23% 20% 10% 0% 0 to 6 Months 7 to 12 Months 11% 13 to 18 Months 6% 19 to 24 Months 3% 25 to 30 Months 2% 1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 31 to 36 Months 37 to 42 Months 43 to 48 Months 48 to 54 Months 55 to 60 Months Over 60 Months Source: Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County 43

44 1 in 3 Probation Revocations in Washoe Occurred Within 6 Months Share of Probation Violators by Months Before Probation Revocation in Second Judicial District Court 35% 30% 25% 33% 31% 20% 15% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0 to 6 Months 7 to 12 Months 13 to 18 Months 9% 19 to 24 Months 6% 25 to 30 Months 3% 31 to 36 Months 2% 37 to 42 Months 1% 0% 0% 0% 43 to 48 Months 48 to 54 Months 55 to 60 Months Over 60 Months Source: Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County 44

45 Months Discharged Probationers Spend An Average of 31 Months on Supervision 35 Mean Months Served on Probation Prior to Completion in the Second Judicial District Court by Year of Discharge, Source: Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County 45

46 Months Discharged Parolees Spend An Average of 8 Months On Supervision 10 Mean Months Served on Parole Prior to Completion of Sentence, Source: Nevada Department of Corrections 46

47 Key Takeaways Prison admissions increased 43% for parole violators and 15% for probation violators since 2008 Underlying parole population grew by more than 2,200 while probation population shrunk by nearly 1,000 Probation failures occur early despite lengthy sentences 93% of Clark County probation sentences were for three or more years, and the average sentence was 45 months 1 in 3 probation revocations in Washoe County occurred during in the first six months of supervision Discharged probationers served an average of 31 months 47

48 Reducing Recidivism: Data and Evidence-Based Practices

49 Does Incarceration Reduce Recidivism? Research finds that incarceration is not more effective than non-custodial sanctions at reducing recidivism Nagin & Snodgrass (2013): Found incarceration made no significant difference in 1, 2, 5, and 10-year re-arrest rates compared to non-custodial sanctions Campbell Collaboration (2015) (meta-analysis): Found incarceration has a null or criminogenic effect on re-arrest and re-conviction rates compared to noncustodial sanctions In fact, research shows for many low-level offenders, incarceration can actually increase recidivism Nieuwbeerta, Nagin, and Blokland (2009): Found first-time, imprisoned offenders who served less than 1 year were 1.9 times as likely to be reconvicted within 3 years, compared to offenders sentenced in the community Sources: Campbell Collaboration (2015); Nieuwbeerta, Nagin, and Blokland (2009); Nagin & Snodgrass (2013) 49

50 Compared to Other States, Nevada Uses Incarceration More than Community Supervision 80% 70% Offenders in Correctional Population, % 60% 52% 48% 50% 40% 30% 31% 20% 10% 0% Percent of Correctional Population Incarcerated National Average Percent of Correctional Population on Community Supervision Nevada Source: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Correctional Populations in the U.S

51 4 in 10 Admissions Have No Prior Felony Convictions Prison Admissions by Prior Felony Convictions, Priors 29% No Priors 41% 1 to 2 Priors 30% Source: Nevada Department of Corrections 51

52 39% of Admissions Come From Community Prison Admissions by Admission Type, 2017 Supervision Failures Probation Violator 26% Parole Violator 13% Other 7% New Prisoner 54% 794 parole violators were admitted in 2017, an increase of 43% from ,566 probation violators were admitted in 2017, an increase of 15% from 2008 Source: Nevada Department of Corrections 52

53 Do Longer Sentences Reduce Recidivism? Research finds that longer prison stays do not reduce recidivism more than shorter stays Nagin, Cullen & Jonson (2009) (systematic review): Found no relationship between time served and recidivism Meade, et al. (2012): Prison terms of 5 years or less have no effect on recidivism; prison terms of 10 years or more have some reduction in re-arrest due to aging out Studies show little to no evidence that longer periods of incarceration yield significant deterrent effects United States Research Council (2014): Lengthy prison sentences are ineffective as a crime control measure to prevent crime by incapacitation Sources: Meade, et al. (2012); Nagin (2009); United States Research Council (2014) 53

54 Mean Time Served (Months) Time Served Up 31%, Nearly 7 Months for New Prisoners 35 Mean Time Served in Prison and Jail by Admission Type, New Prisoner Probation Violator Parole Violator Source: Nevada Department of Corrections. Consecutive sentences excluded from analysis 54

55 Mean Sentence (Months) Both Min and Max Sentences Have Increased for Newly Sentenced Prisoners Mean Minimum and Maximum Sentences for New Prisoner Admissions, 2008 vs Minimum Sentence Maximum Sentence Source: Nevada Department of Corrections. Life sentences and aggregate sentences excluded from analysis 55

56 Recidivism in Nevada Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) defines recidivism as the proportion of felony offenders that return to prison within 36 months of release NDOC uses this definition to measure outcomes for annual reporting Source: NDOC Policy 56

57 Recidivism Rate Number Released 1,506 People Released from Prison in 2014 Returned Within 3 Years 36-Month Recidivism Rate and Release Cohort Size for Cohorts Released, % 6,000 30% 25% 20% 15% 25% 28% 29% 29% 30% 29% 29% 5,000 4,000 3,000 10% 2,000 5% 1,000 0% Year of Prison Release 0 Size of Release Cohort Recidivism Rate Source: NDOC Recidivism Analysis for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Release Cohorts. Rates released annually from 2011 to

58 Recidivism Rates Have Grown for Female Offenders 35% 30% 25% 36-Month Recidivism Rate by Gender for Cohorts Released, 2009 vs % 28% 29% 29% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Female Male Source: NDOC Recidivism Analysis for 2009 and 2014 Release Cohorts. Rates released in April 2013 and February Recidivism rates by gender not published in 2008 release cohort analysis 58

59 Recidivism Rates Up for All Offense Types Except DUI 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 24% 36-Month Recidivism Rate by Offense Type for Cohorts Released, 2008 vs % 31% 37% 21% 25% 25% 22% 15% 10% 5% 12% 6% 0% Drug DUI Property Sex Violence Source: NDOC Recidivism Analysis for 2008 and 2014 Release Cohorts, released in July 2011 and February

60 Key Takeaways Wide body of research on reducing recidivism finds: Incarceration can increase recidivism for low-level offenders Longer prison stays do not reduce recidivism more than shorter stays NDOC analysis finds that 29% of individuals released from prison will return within three years Just over 1,500 people released from prison in 2014 had already returned to prison by 2017 Recidivism rates grew the most for female offenders, drug and property offenders 60

61 What Works to Reduce Recidivism?

62 Evidence-Based Practices Risk, Need, Responsivity: Focus on high-risk individuals, target criminogenic needs, address programming barriers Frontload resources for individuals on community supervision Incorporate treatment into supervision Use swift, certain, and proportional sanctions to address negative behavior Reinforce positive behavior with rewards and incentives Monitor quality, fidelity, and outcomes 62

63 Risk, Need, and Responsivity Research Summary Focus resources on high-risk offenders, target interventions on factors most closely tied to recidivism, and address programming barriers Nevada Practices Standard conditions are imposed for all offenders regardless of risk level, criminogenic needs, or responsivity factors impacting their ability to successfully complete certain conditions There is no requirement that supervision practices and resources be focused on high-risk offenders or be tailored to those factors that are most likely to cause recidivism Source: Latessa et al.,

64 Limited Adherence to RNR Model The results of the risk and needs assessment are not used to create individualized conditions of supervision There is no clear state statute requiring the use of a validated risk and needs assessment to identify appropriate supervision conditions and guide programming referrals The Nevada Risk Assessment System (NRAS), which identifies supervision levels for offenders, is conducted after conditions are already imposed A person s treatment conditions are not based on a needs assessment 64

65 Supervision Conditions Do Not Account for Programming Barriers Responsivity factors such as housing, transportation, and mental health issues are not considered when setting conditions of supervision Some programs individually address programming barriers, such as the Day Reporting Center, the Ridge House, and Siegel Suites, but there is no system-wide infrastructure in place P&P officers must get approval from the judge or Board of Parole Commissioners to modify conditions if they find a programming barrier is impeding their supervisees success 65

66 Supervision Conditions Standard Conditions Must Report Must Notify Residence & No Out-of-State Travel No Intoxicants & Controlled Substances No Weapons No Contact With Prohibited Associates Must Seek Employment Must Pay Financial Obligations Must Abide by Curfew Special Conditions Must Obtain Substance Abuse or Mental Health Evaluation Must Complete GED Program Must Complete Gambling or Financial Counseling Must Pay Restitution to Victim & Fines No Gambling No Contact With Known Gang Affiliates 66

67 Frontloading Resources Research Summary Because recidivism is most likely to occur in the first few months of supervision, focusing resources at the beginning of supervision reduces the likelihood of reoffending Nevada Practices Majority of offenders are revoked within their first year Different forms of supervision, which allow officers to focus resources on those offenders who need it most, are only available in certain jurisdictions Parole reentry plan concentrates on residency and does not provide any other reentry services Source: National Research Council (2007); Nagin & Pogarsky (2001) 67

68 1 in 3 Probation Revocations in Washoe Occurred Within 6 Months Share of Probation Violators by Months Before Probation Revocation in Second Judicial District Court 35% 30% 25% 33% 31% 20% 15% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0 to 6 Months 7 to 12 Months 13 to 18 Months 9% 19 to 24 Months 6% 25 to 30 Months 3% 31 to 36 Months 2% 37 to 42 Months 1% 0% 0% 0% 43 to 48 Months 48 to 54 Months 55 to 60 Months Over 60 Months Source: Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County 68

69 93% of Clark County Probation Sentences Last At Least Three Years Under 6 Months Probation Sentences from the Eighth Judicial District Court by Type and Length of Sentence Imposed, Months Months Months Months Months Months 60+ Months Source: Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County 69

70 Providing Reentry Resources Largely Discretionary Area Clothing, Food, and Transportation Financial ID and Important Documents Housing Employment and Education Healthcare Practices NDOC may work with inmates to obtain clothing, food, and transportation NDOC may provide a sum of up to $100 at departure from the institution NDOC may work with an inmates to provide them with a photo ID. Staff works to secure social security cards, identification cards, and birth certificates for inmates prior to reentry NDOC may place the offender in a transitional housing for released offenders Specialists must review opportunities for educational programming as well as availability for inmates to participate in college courses NDOC in practice provides inmates with a 30 day supply of medication and makes referrals to a federally qualified healthcare service provider. However this is not required by statute Source: AR 817 and NRS , NRS

71 Parole Reentry Plan Focuses on Residency Options Nevada statute requires inmates granted parole to have a reentry plan approved by P&P in order to be released Plan focuses exclusively on residency options and the requirements are not outlined in statute There are many circumstances that make it difficult to secure appropriate residency: Offenders awaiting indigent funding Offenders waiting for interstate compact acceptance Offenders refusing to submit plans Restrictions on housing due to sex offender status NDOC disciplinary action since parole was granted Source: NRS

72 Incorporate Treatment into Supervision Research Summary A supervision model focused only on surveillance is not effective at reducing recidivism Treatment and programming that target an individual s criminogenic needs must be incorporated into supervision practices to reduce recidivism Nevada Practices Limited programming or services in the community to address criminogenic needs There are no formal individualized case plans to address ongoing treatment and programming needs Treatment referrals are not based on a needs assessment Substance abuse is a predominant factor in revocations Source: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Steve Aos,

73 Substance Abuse Prevalent Among Community Supervision Violators For 44% of violators, substance abuse was a predominant factor in their supervision failure 65% of those offenders reported a substance abuse issue in their PSI 25% of those offenders had an underlying drug offense 73

74 73% of Community Supervision Violators Indicated Behavioral Health Needs Behavioral Health of Community Supervision Violators in File Review, 2017 Data Unavailable 5% Mental Health and Substance Abuse 24% No Mental Health or Substance Abuse 22% Substance Abuse 45% Mental Health 4% 74

75 Use Swift, Certain, and Proportional Sanctions Research Summary Swift, certain, and proportional sanctions are more effective than delayed, random, and severe sanctions Nevada Practices Nevada statute does not require the use of alternative sanctions prior to revocation when responding to violations of the conditions of supervision There are no notification or documentation requirements for using graduated sanctions There are no time frame requirements for responsive conduct prior to arrest for a violation Source: Nagin & Pogarsky (2001) 75

76 Reinforce Positive Behavior with Incorporate Rewards and Incentives Incentives and Rewards Research Summary Studies show that recidivism can be reduced by incentivizing and rewarding pro-social behavior. Using incentives and rewards at a higher rate than sanctions increases the likelihood of success Nevada Practices Pro-social behavior is incentivized through earned credits Parolees cannot earn credits for programs or treatment like probationers and inmates can Early termination of probation is discretionary and lacks administrative or statutory criteria Sources: Petersilia (2007); Wodahl, Garland, Culhane & McCarty (2011) 76

77 Monitor Quality, Fidelity, Outcomes Research Summary Evidence-based practices require ongoing support and evaluation Nevada Practices No statutory requirement for validation of risk and needs assessments Quality assurance policies to ensure proper scoring of the risk and needs assessment tool have not been implemented across agencies Training on evidence-based supervision practices is not statutorily required Agencies do not have uniform definitions for key variables Source: Lipsey et al. (2010) 77

78 Gaps in Data Collection, Consistency and Collaboration Agencies have outdated data tracking systems that do not facilitate inter-agency communication or data analysis across systems Agencies often have discrepancies when measuring the same variable Court system is not unified, and each court has a different data system Treatment records are not tracked across agencies or community providers 78

79 Key Takeaways Standard conditions of supervision are imposed without consideration of an individual s criminogenic needs, level of risk, or barriers to success Substance abuse is a predominant factor in the failures of community supervision violators High incidence of failure in first 6 months of supervision underlines the need to frontload case management, support, and treatment services for high-risk offenders Despite changes made to incorporate certain evidencebased policies and practices, important steps to ensure the practices are implemented with fidelity are missing 79

80 Summary Takeaways

81 Summary Takeaways Nevada s prison population has grown 7%, driven by increases in the number of people sent to prison and the length of time they spend incarcerated Admissions are up 6% since 2008, driven by community supervision violators Time served is up 20% since 2008, driven by longer sentences and fluctuating parole release rates This growth is not the result of crime rates, higher case filings, or population increases Non-person offenses play a large part in this growth Non-person offenses now make up 66% of prison admissions and serve 30% longer on average than in

82 Summary Takeaways Burglary and attempted burglary are the two most common offenses at admission 63% of burglaries were non-residential 70% of burglaries did not have a victim present Admissions for possession of a controlled substance increased 53% since 2008 The average minimum sentence imposed is 13 months and the average maximum is 37 months Sentence lengths increased most for first-time felony offenders Four out of 10 admissions in 2017 were for first-time felony offenders 82

83 Summary Takeaways Amid admissions growth and longer sentences, recidivism rates are up for nearly all offense types Just over 1,500 people released during 2014 returned to prison within three years Community supervision violators are typically revoked within their first year on probation or parole Revocations are often due to substance abuse issues Nevada s female prison population has grown 29% Driven by 39% growth in admissions over the past decade, particularly for drug and property offenses Recidivism rates for women have grown at a faster rate than men 83

84 Policy Development

85 Subgroup Questions How can the data findings inform a more effective criminal justice system? What policies and practices need to be adjusted to focus resources on higher-risk offenders to improve public safety? How can we address behavioral health needs within the criminal justice system? What are we doing well that should be expanded? 85

86 Sentencing and Pretrial Diversion Subgroup Examine policies and opportunities that divert individuals from the criminal justice process, an adjudication of guilt, or incarceration Examine offense and sentencing policies such as Sentencing recommendations through the PSI report Misdemeanor and felony classifications Sentencing constraints such as mandatory minimum terms Sentence ranges 86

87 Release, Reentry, and Community Supervision Subgroup Examine parole and release policies that incentivize program and treatment participation and reduce delays transitioning to the community Review reentry preparation and transition practices to reduce supervision failure and improve stability in the community Examine community supervision policies and practices to improve outcomes and reduce recidivism 87

88 Subgroup Membership Sentencing and Pretrial Diversion Chair: Justice Hardesty Paola Armeni Julie Butler Director Callaway District Attorney Jackson Deputy Public Defender Jones Brady Assemblywoman Krasner Judge Wilson Amy Rose Release and Reentry Chair: Chairman Yeager Judge Bateman Chairman DeRicco Director Dzurenda Senator Ford Kymberli Helms Attorney General Laxalt Sheriff McNeil Chief Wood 88

89 Next Steps Victims Roundtable November 8 th : Reno at 10am November 9 th : Las Vegas at 10am Subgroup Meetings Sentencing and Pretrial: Carson City November 29 th at 9am December 18 th at 1pm Release and Reentry: Las Vegas November 27 th at 9am December 18 th at 9am Final Meeting: January 11 th 89

90 Questions? 90

91 Contact Contact information Maura McNamara Phone: Alison Silveira Phone:

92 Disclaimer This project was supported by Grant No ZB-BX-K002 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Department of Justice s Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, and the SMART Office. Points of view or opinions in this presentation are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 92