Study of Recidivism, Race, Gender, and Length of Stay

Similar documents
Background/Analyses TABLE #1

PROMISING SHORT TERM INTERVENTIONS:

Report of Pinellas Data Collaborative CJIS System Change Over Time 2007 Findings DRAFT

Report of Pinellas Data Collaborative CJIS System Change Over Time 2007 Findings. Final

Ramsey County Proxy Tool Norming & Validation Results

National Findings on Mental Illness and Drug Use by Prisoners and Jail Inmates. Thursday, August 17

LUCAS COUNTY TASC, INC. OUTCOME ANALYSIS

Assessment of the Safe Streets Treatment Options Program (SSTOP)

Aging and mortality in the state prison population

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center April Prepared by: Kristine Denman, Director, NMSAC

Nature of Risk and/or Needs Assessment

Allen County Community Corrections. Home Detention-Day Reporting Program. Report for Calendar Years

AGING OUT IN PRISON Age Distribution of the Colorado Prison System

Impact Evaluation of the Adolescent Behavioral Learning Experience (ABLE) Program

REVISED. Tulare County 2007

REVISED. Stanislaus County 2007

PROGRAM INTEGRITY & THE CPAI-2000: LESSONS LEARNED IN MAINE

Eighth Judicial District Court. Specialty Courts. Elizabeth Gonzalez. Chief Judge. DeNeese Parker. Specialty Court Administrator

Mental Health and Recidivism. Bria C. Higgs La Salle University Student, Department of Sociology & Criminal Justice

Contra Costa County 2010

Evaluation of Santa Fe s LEAD Program: Criminal Justice Outcomes

Indicators of Alcohol and Other Drug Risk and Consequences for California Counties

Indicators of Alcohol and Other Drug Risk and Consequences for California Counties

Indicators of Alcohol and Other Drug Risk and Consequences for California Counties

Santa Clara County 2010

El Dorado County 2010

Indicators of Alcohol and Other Drug Risk and Consequences for California Counties

Riverside County 2010

Stanislaus County 2010

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY DRUG COURT. An Overview

San Francisco County 2010

Indicators of Alcohol and Other Drug Risk and Consequences for California Counties

San Bernardino County 2010

San Joaquin County 2010

Mendocino County 2010

San Luis Obispo County 2010

Indicators of Alcohol and Other Drug Risk and Consequences for California Counties

Douglas County s Mental Health Diversion Program

The Cost of Imprisonment

Washington Association of Sheriffs & Police Chiefs

Evaluation of the Eleventh Judicial District Court San Juan County Juvenile Drug Court: Quasi-Experimental Outcome Study Using Historical Information

REVISED. Inyo County 2007

Prison Population Reduction Strategies Through the Use of Offender Assessment: A Path Toward Enhanced Public Safety

Prescription Drug Overdose

Indicators of Alcohol and Other Drug Risk and Consequences for California Counties

REVISED. Humboldt County 2007

epic.org EPIC WI-FOIA Production epic.org/algorithmic-transparency/crim-justice/

Drug Policy Update. Misdemeanor marijuana arrests are skyrocketing. and other California marijuana enforcement disparities

Helping Women Recover/Beyond Trauma:

Florida Adult Felony Drug Courts Evaluation Report

Allen County Community Corrections. Modified Therapeutic Community. Report for Calendar Years

Women Prisoners and Recidivism Factors Associated with Re-Arrest One Year Post-Release

CHAPTER 1 An Evidence-Based Approach to Corrections

Indicators of Alcohol and Other Drug Risk and Consequences for California Counties

Co-occurring Mental Health and Substance Abuse Disorders among Juvenile Detainees in Maricopa County

Evaluation of the First Judicial District Court Adult Drug Court: Quasi-Experimental Outcome Study Using Historical Information

Dauphin County MH/ID Mental Health and Forensic Initiatives PRESENTATION TO RCPA SEPTEMBER 29, 2016

CCAO Second Wednesday Webinar September 13, 2017

The Public Safety Coordinating Council s. Criminal Justice System Data Book January 2014

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

MINNESOTA DWI COURTS: A SUMMARY OF EVALUATION FINDINGS IN NINE DWI COURT PROGRAMS

Restructuring Proposal for the Criminal Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County

BJA Corrections Options Technical Assistance (COTA) Program

Criminal Justice Reform: Treatment and Substance Use Disorder

Addressing a National Crisis: Too Many Individuals with Mental Illnesses in our Jails

Are Drug Treatment Programs in Prison Effective in Reducing Recidivism Rates?

Most Recent Incarceration Summary. Offender Sentence History

STATIC 99R and Community Notification

San Mateo County Quarterly Realignment Bulle n

Lifetime Benefits and Costs of Diverting Substance Abusing Offenders from State Prison

West Virginia Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety

Responding to Homelessness. 11 Ideas for the Justice System

Moving Beyond Incarceration For Justice-involved Women : An Action Platform To Address Women s Needs In Massachusetts

Smart on Crime, Smart on Drugs

Medical Conditions, Mental Health Problems, Disabilities, and Mortality Among Jail Inmates American Jail Association

Nebraska LB605: This bill is designed to reduce prison overcrowding and allows for alternatives to incarceration like CAM.

On an average day in , up to 4.4% of state

Spokane District/Municipal Mental Health Court

DRUG POLICY TASK FORCE

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 901 R.S. Gass Boulevard Nashville, Tennessee (615) Facsimile (615) TDD (615)

Fact Sheet: Drug Data Summary

The current system of using money bail to

Examining the Factors Associated with Recidivism. Nathanael Tinik. David Hudak

Improving Outcomes for Young Adults in the Justice System

Jail Diversion Literature Review

Managing Correctional Officers

Validation of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections Risk Assessment Instrument

A Dose of Evaluation:

FY17 Planning & Implementation Guide

Executive Summary. The Case for Data Linkage

THE 21ST CENTURY CURES ACT: TACKLING MENTAL HEALTH FROM THE INSIDE OUT

Where EVERY CLIENT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SUCCESS

elements of change Denver's Drug Court Seems to Be Meeting Many Original Goals s

SAQ-Adult Probation III & SAQ-Short Form

Fact Sheet: Drug Data Summary

Presentation at the BJS/JRSA 2010 National Conference Portland, Maine Meredith Farrar-Owens, Deputy Director Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission

NO. OF PAGES: 1-CORE-4D-14, 1-CORE-4D-15, 1-CORE-4D-16 5

Corrections, Public Safety and Policing

Policy and interventions for adults with serious mental illness and criminal justice involvement

Berks County Treatment Courts

Transcription:

Study of Recidivism, Race, Gender, and Length of Stay Releases from the Dutchess County Jail December 2011 - October 2012 November 12, 2013 1

As part of its ongoing commitment to evidence-based criminal justice policy and practice, Dutchess County utilizes a nationally validated tool, known as the Proxy, to screen and evaluate the level of risk posed to the local community by adult offenders for re-offense of any type. Proxy surveys are conducted at the time of an offender s incarceration. Dutchess County began collecting Proxy data in 2011 and is now beginning evaluation of local criminal justice outcomes and practices using that data. The following analysis is the first of these evaluations and provides demographics for all inmates released from the Dutchess County Jail to Dutchess County communities from December 2011 through October 2012. The analysis shows the relationship between the Proxy score, inmates average length of stay in jail, and the rate of recidivism up to one year after the inmates release. The sample size is 2,144 inmates and the breakdown is explained on the following pages, charts and graphs. The sample only includes inmates released directly from the Dutchess County Jail to Dutchess County communities. It does not include those sentenced to state prison, housed for another facility or agency while in transit, or on immigration detainers. The Proxy evaluates an offender s risk to reoffend based on a simple, three question format. Proxy scores range from a lowest risk to reoffend score of 0 to a highest risk score of 6. Scores do NOT reflect the severity or type of crime. With sufficient proxy data, a local jurisdiction can understand the composition of its entire offender population, the risks posed to the local community, and how best to apply evidence-based criminal justice practices to enhance long-term public safety outcomes. The 3 data points used to determine risk level of each inmate, based on comparison to national normative data, include: Current Age: A value of 0, 1, or 2 is assigned based on the offender s age, relative to that of the remainder of the population. A score of 2 = offenders who fall within the first third of the population (youngest), 1=within the middle third of the population, and 0=within the last third of the population (oldest). AFA: A value of 2, 1, or 0 is assigned based on the offender s age at first arrest (including juvenile arrests). A score of 2 = offenders who fall within the first third of the population (youngest), 1=within the middle third of the population, and 0=within the last third of the population (oldest). The use of offender self-report for age at first arrest is generally reliable. A question such as How old were you the very first time you ever got into trouble with the law, arrested, ticketed, or given a summons? will help to elicit this information. Priors: A value of 2, 1, or 0 is assigned based on the number of times an offender has been arrested (including juvenile arrests). A score of 2 = offenders who fall within the last third of the population (highest number of priors), 1=within the middle third of the population, and 0=within the last third of the population (least number of priors). The use of offender self-report for number of priors may be more reliable than official records. The scores from each of these three fields are then totaled to provide a proxy score for each offender. Please note: While the current data sample is sufficient to evaluate and benchmark Dutchess County's incarcerated populations in aggregate; as can be ascertained after review of the current analyses, small sample sizes of various sub-populations will require that additional proxy data are collected over a longer period of time to further guide important criminal justice decisions as well as the application of evidence-based policy and practice throughout Dutchess County. Accordingly, readers are cautioned from drawing final conclusions beyond the validity of this data sample.

Aggregate Demographic Data DCJ Inmates Released to Local Communities Race and Gender White = 1189 (55% Total Sample) Male = 931 (78% of Whites) Female = 258 (22% of Whites) Black = 728 (34% Total Sample) Male = 571 (78% of Blacks) Female 157 (22% of Blacks) Hispanic = 227 (11% Total Sample) Male = 185 (81% of Hispanics) Female = 42 (19% of Hispanics) Male = 1687 (79% Total Sample) White = 931 (55% of Males) Black = 571 (34% of Males) Hispanic = 185 (11% of Males) Female = 457 (21% Total Sample) White = 258 (56% of Females) Black = 157 (34% of Females) Hispanic = 42 (9% of Females) 3

Aggregate Demographic Data DCJ Inmates Released to Local Communities Crime Type, Race and Gender White = 1189 Misdemeanor = 679 (57%) Non-Violent Felony = 329 (28%) Violent Felony = 64 (5%) Violation/Lower = 117 (10%) Black = 728 Misdemeanor = 449 (62%) Non-Violent Felony = 144 (20%) Violent Felony = 47 (6%) Violation/Lower = 88 (12%) Hispanic = 227 Misdemeanor = 142 (63%) Non-Violent Felony = 48 (21%) Violent Felony = 16 (7%) Violation/Lower = 21 (9%) Male = 1687 Misdemeanor = 964 (57%) Non-Violent Felony = 419 (25%) Violent Felony = 106 (6%) Violation/Lower = 198 (12%) Female = 457 Misdemeanor = 306 (67%) Non-Violent Felony = 102 (22%) Violent Felony = 21 (5%) Violation/Lower = 28 (6%) 4

Overall Recidivism by Offense All Releases and Reincarceration by Crime Type # Crime Type % of All Crime # Reincarcerated % Reincarcerated Misdemeanor 1270 59% 546 43% Non-Violent Felony 521 24% 225 43% Violation/Lower Violent Felony 226 11% 92 41% 127 6% 54 43% 5

% Recidivism - 12 Months Post-Release by Proxy Score (Risk to Reoffend) 80% 73% 70% 60% 58% 50% 49% 40% 39% 30% 20% 19% 24% 29% 10% 0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Proxy Score - Risk to Reoffend Lower risk of recidivism Higher risk of recidivism 6

Rate of Recidvism by Race and Gender (ALL = 43%) Hispanic Female Black Female 33% 35% Female White Female Hispanic White Hispanic Male White Male Black Male 38% 40% 41% 42% 43% 43% 44% 44% Black Male 47% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Percentage Returned 7

Average Length of Stay By Proxy Score (Risk to Reoffend) Lower risk of recidivism Higher risk of recidivism 8

Lower risk of recidivism Higher risk of recidivism 9

Average Length of Stay (ALOS) Comparison by Race and Gender Overall ALOS =24 ALOS Black Female ALOS White Female ALOS Female ALOS Black ALOS Black Male ALOS White ALOS Hispanic Female ALOS Male ALOS White Male ALOS Hispanic ALOS Hispanic Male 17 17 18 23 24 24 25 26 27 29 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Average # of Days in Jail 10

Future Research/Planning Considerations Evaluate Average Length of Stay in Jail by Jurisdiction, Crime Type, Race, Gender, etc. to Inform Future Jail Sizing Analyses Review System Process by Jurisdiction, Crime Type, Race, Gender, etc. to Identify Opportunities for Efficiency Query and Evaluate Existing Programs and Services to Determine Adherence to Evidence-Based Practice Review and Evaluate Programmatic Assignments by Risk and Need System-Wide Evaluate System Outcomes for Existing Interventions and Strategies for their Effect on Long-term Public Safety within Dutchess County Identify Gaps and/or Duplications in Service/Resource to Accommodate/Advance Desired Long-Term Public Safety Outcomes 11

APPENDIX A: Releases by Proxy Score (Risk to Reoffend), Days Housed Outside DC Jail and Reincarceration Proxy Score 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ALL Housed Out 20+ Days 8 13 31 46 87 67 24 276 Housed Out 1-19 Days 1 9 20 29 51 32 8 150 Not Housed Out 107 203 245 347 477 272 67 1718 Total 116 225 296 422 615 371 99 2144 # Reincarcerated 22 53 86 163 304 217 72 917 % Recidivism 19% 24% 29% 39% 49% 58% 73% 43% Lower risk of recidivism Higher risk of recidivism 12