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

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "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"

Pamela Hart
5 years ago
Views:

2 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.

3 5

Montana is safer today than in 2000. Overall crime has decreased 18 % from 2000 to 2014. Total arrests have increased 12% from FY 2009 to FY2015.

4 Montana is safer today than in Overall crime has decreased 18 % from 2000 to Total arrests have increased 12% from FY 2009 to FY2015. 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. Council of State Governments Justice Center

5 6,000 5,569 Felony and Misdemeanor Arrests for Drug Offenses, FY2009 FY2015 5,000 4,000 3,445 1,419 1,717 1,834 Felony drug arrests increased 100% (increased from 3% to 6% of all arrests) 1,245 3, ,045 1,046 2,000 1,000 2,534 2,483 2,398 2,929 3,137 3,503 3,735 Misdemeanor drug arrests increased 47% (increased from 9% to 12% of all arrests) Source: Montana Department of Justice Arrest Data, FY2009 FY2015 Council of State Governments Justice Center

6 Arrests for violations of probation and revocations up 106% (FY ) Of every individual arrested in FY % were re-arrested within 3 years

7 Up 67% between 2011 and 2013 How does this compare to our neighbors?

8 Montana s jail incarceration rate increased significantly in recent years, and is the highest of its neighbors. Jail length of stay is above average Jail Incarceration Rate Percent Change in Jail Incarceration Rate, MT CO ID ND SD MN WY UT NE Jail Average Length of Stay, 2013 MT CO ID ND SD MN WY UT NE 27 67% West / Midwest Jail LOS Average: % 2% 5% 6% 4% 7% -1% -11% Source: US. Department of Justice, Census of Jails: Population Changes,

9 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

10 4x More Likely to Receive Incarceration Sentence. 1 Go to Jail

11 56% MORE LIKELY TO BE ARRESTED BEFORE TRIAL 1 51% MORE LIKELY TO RECIDIVATE AFTER SENTENCE COMPLETION 1

12 60 Likelihood of new criminal arrest compared to defendant detained 1 day days 4-7 days 8-14 days days Series 2

13 60 Likelihood of 2-year recidivism as compared to defendants detained 1 day in percentage days 4-7 days 8-14 days days

14 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

15 Program Intensive Supervision (no treatment) Change in Recidivism 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

16 $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

18 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)

19 Reduce recidivism through evidencebased practices and programs and offender risk and need assessments Promote community-based alternatives to incarceration of appropriate offenders

20 1. Punishment 2. 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

21 3 Basic Principles of EBS: 1. Risk Principle - Who to target? 2. Needs principle - What to address? 3. Treatment principle What works?

22 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)

23 Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Low Risk -53% Moderate Risk -40% High Risk 7%

24 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 antisocial 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 criminogenic needs ). 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 attitudes 2. Anti-social friends and peers 3. Anti-social personality 4. Family and/or marital factors 5. Substance abuse 6. Lack of education 7.

25 1. Anti-social attitudes 2. Anti-social friends and peers 3. Anti-social personality 4. Family and/or marital factors 5. Substance abuse 6. Lack of education 7. Poor Employment history 8. 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.

26 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.

27 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))

28 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Low Low Moderate Moderate High 0% Clinical Actuarial 28

29 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.

32 Recidivism Rate 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0-19 Minutes Minutes Over 40 Minutes

33 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.

34 Approx. 80% of offenders in U.S. meet broad definition of substance involvement. 2

35 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

36 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

37 Specialized court docket targeting criminal cases involving people who have drug dependency/addiction problem.

38 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

39 Intensive alcohol and drug abuse treatment Mandatory, random, frequent drug testing Appropriate and quick sanctions for noncompliant 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.

40 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

41 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

42 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

43 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

44 1996 First Drug Court in Missoula Currently 30 drug courts in MT including 5 tribal drug courts. 4

45 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

46 Series 1 Elkhorn Nexus WATcH (East) WATcH (West) Passages/ADT Conn. Corr $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000

47 1,523 participants (1,420 adults and 103 juveniles) entered Montana drug courts from 11/1/ /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) veterans have been admitted to Montana drug courts in past 2 years. 4

48 A total of 509 participants graduated from drug court during the 48-month reporting period - an overall graduation rate of 57.5%.

49 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

50 When investment, outcome and societalimpact (victimization) costs are combined, cost avoidance is estimated to be $81,879 per participant and $3,275,186 for 40 participants.

51 For adult participants admitted in 2012, 73 of 286 (25.5%) reoffended with conviction during 36 month period after induction. 4

52 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

53 Graduates reported a 54% increase in full-time employment from admission to graduation % decrease in unemployment 35% decrease in participants w/o high school diploma or GED at admission % increase in those without a driver s license. 4

54 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

55 Drug Courts Save Taxpayer Money Drug Courts Save Lives

56 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.

57 Many high-level, violent individuals who pose significant risk are released Many low level/non-violent individuals are detained.

58 Implementing Pilot Risk Assessment Project in 5 Montana Counties: Lewis & Clark, Butte-Silver Bow, Lake, Missoula and Yellowstone

59 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

60 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

61 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

62 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

63 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!

64 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

65 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

66 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 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 Drug Courts Work, National Association of Drug Court Professionals, accessed 10/2/2015 at 4. Montana Drug Courts: An Updated Snapshot of Success and Hope, January 2017, Montana Judicial Branch, Montana Supreme Court, Office of Court Administration. 7rpt.pdf

The Cost of Imprisonment

HB 1006 The Cost of Imprisonment According to FY 2014 data provided by the FBI, U.S. Marshals Service and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, To detain in Jail Pending Trial $27832 Imprison after