justice reinvestment initiative introductory presentation
TRANSCRIPT
Justice Reinvestment Initiative Introductory Presentation Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice
August 2, 2018
2
Presentation Overview
• Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) Overview
•National Landscape
•Research and Evidenced-Based Practices
•Nevada Criminal Justice Challenges
•Next Steps
JRI Overview
4
Introduction
•The Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) at Community Resources for Justice works with local, state, and national criminal justice organizations to reduce recidivism, cut costs, and promote public safety throughout the country
•CJI provides nonpartisan policy analysis and technical assistance, research and program evaluation, and educational activities to jurisdictions throughout the country
5
CJI-Pew Justice Reinvestment Collaboration
VT
HI
NH
MA
RI
CT
NJ
DE
MD
DC
MEWA
MT ND
SD
MNOR
ID
WY
COUT
NV
CA
AZ NM
NE
KS
OK
TX
AK
LA
AR
MO
IA
WI
MI
IL INOH
PA
NY
WVVA
KY
TN
MS AL GA
SC
NC
FL
2018–2019 Active States
Prior JRI Reforms
6
JRI Phase I
•Process:•Analyze data & assess system policies and practices •Develop policy recommendations •Engage in legislative process
7
JRI Phase II
•Process:• Implement policies •Measure outcomes•Reinvest savings
National Landscape:Pre-Reform Era
9
The Prevailing View: 1970s –2000s
•High rates of recidivism are inevitable
•Rehabilitation doesn’t work
•Prison is the only effective deterrent of crime• More sentences to incarceration• Longer prison sentences
10
Martinson: Nothing Works
•Notable 1974 study of 231 rehabilitation programs
•Conclusion: Nothing works• “With few and isolated exceptions, the rehabilitation efforts
that have been reported so far have had no appreciable effect on recidivism.”
•Huge impact on criminal justice policy and research
Source: Martinson (1974)
11
U.S. Incarcerated Population Soars
Source: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
337,692
2,333,275
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008
Incarcerated Population, 1972-2008
12
U.S. Correctional Population Peaks
1,836,762
7,426,675
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007
U.S. Correctional Population (prison, jail, probation, and parole), 1980-2008
Source: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
13
Truth in Sentencing and Prison Growth
•The war on drugs and a spike in the crime rate also resulted in significant changes in sentencing policy known as truth in sentencing
•Measures such as mandatory minimum sentences, three-strikes laws, 85 percent requirements, and the elimination of or reduction in the use of parole in many states, led to more people going to prison and longer terms of incarceration
What Impact Has Incarceration Had on Crime and Recidivism?
15
Multiple Objectives of Incarceration
• Incapacitation: Reducing current criminal involvement by holding offenders in prison where they cannot commit crimes against the public
•Deterrence: Reducing the likelihood of future criminal involvement by increasing the punishment for the current offense
•Rehabilitation: Reducing the likelihood of future criminal involvement by offering effective programming and treatment during the period of incarceration
•Retribution: Payment or punishment, in the form of imprisonment, for violating community norms and order
16
What Impact Has Incarceration Had on Crime?
•Researchers attribute 10-20% of the post-1990s crime decline on increased incarceration
•Other factors had a larger impact on the crime decline:• Improved policing strategies• Technology and personal security habits• Demographic shifts• Changes in drug markets
•The US has reached the point of diminishing returns on incarceration
Source: National Research Council (2014)
17
Does Incarceration Reduce Recidivism?
• In general, research finds that incarceration is notmore effective than non-custodial sanctions at reducing recidivism
• For many individuals, incarceration can actually increase recidivism • Especially for first time offenses, drug offenses, and
technical probation violations• Incarceration creates instability and increases contact with
anti-social individuals
Sources: Campbell Collaboration (2015); Nagin, Cullen & Jonson (2009); Nagin & Snodgrass (2013)
18
Do Longer Sentences Reduce Recidivism?
•Research finds that longer prison stays do not reduce recidivism more than shorter stays
• Little to no evidence that increasing already-long periods of incarceration yields significant deterrent effects
Sources: Meade, et al. (2012); Nagin (2009, 2013)
What Works to Reduce Recidivism?
20
“Nothing Works” Revisited
•Martinson was trying to find one single type of treatment that worked reliably for all individuals in all circumstances
•Palmer (1975) reviewed Martinson’s article and concluded that 48% of the programs had reduced recidivism
•Call to action for research on what works to reduce recidivism
Source: Palmer (1975)
21
Evidence-Based Practices
•Risk, Need, Responsivity: Focus on high risk individuals, target criminogenic needs, address programming barriers
• Frontload resources for individuals coming out of prison
• Incorporate treatment into supervision
•Use swift, certain, and proportional sanctions to address negative behavior
•Reinforce positive behavior with rewards & incentives
•Monitor quality, fidelity, and outcomes
22
Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model
Risk
• WHO to target
• Target those individuals with higher probability (higher risk) of recidivism
• Assess through actuarial risk assessment tool
Need
• WHAT to target
• Certain factors are tied to recidivism
• Targeting these factors results in a reduction in future offending
Responsivity
• HOW to target
• Target barriers to individual treatment and supervision and use behavioral/ social learning theories that are most effective
23
Risk Principle
•High Risk offenders are more likely to recidivate• Require the most intensive intervention (supervision and
treatment)
• Low Risk offenders are not as likely to recidivate • Too much intervention can increase likelihood of recidivism• Intervention may not be necessary
24
Needs Principle
•The needs principle tells us what to pay attention to
•Criminogenic needs, dynamic risk factors which predict recidivism • “Criminogenic” means crime-producing • “Dynamic” means can be changed (e.g., substance abuse
disorders) • “Static” means can’t be changed (e.g., age and criminal
history)
•Targeting criminogenic needs has been shown to reduce recidivism
25
Needs Principle
• “Big Four” – Criminogenic risk factors• Antisocial attitudes • Antisocial peers • Antisocial personality• History of antisocial behavior (criminal history)
•Other criminogenic risk factors • Substance abuse• Employment/education• Low family affection/poor supervision/poor communication• Leisure/recreation
Source: Andrews & Bonta (1994)
26
Example: Heart Attack Study
1. Increased LDL/HDL ratios
2. Smoking
3. Diabetes
4. Hypertension
5. Abdominal obesity
6. Psychosocial (e.g. stress or depression)
7. Failure to eat fruits and vegetables daily
8. Failure to exercise
9. Failure to drink any alcohol
1. Peers
2. Attitudes
3. Personality
4. Substance abuse
5. Family
6. Education/Employment
7. Recreation
8. Accommodations
9. Financial
27
Responsivity Factors
•Responsivity factors impact the likelihood of an individual being successful in a program, intervention, or service
• Barriers that must be mitigated prior to treatment: Acute mental illness Child care Transportation
•Targeting such factors will increase the offender’s likelihood of success
28
Responsivity Spotlight: Mental Illness Does Not Cause Criminality
•Current research does not suggest that mental health issues are a criminogenic need, meaning they are not significantly associated with antisocial behavior
•While the rates of individuals in the correctional system with mental health issues is high, having a diagnosis is not predictive of criminal behavior
•We should not ignore mental health as it does impact success in programming and interventions this makes it a responsivity factor
Source: Bonta, Law & Hanson (1998)
29
Frontload Resources
• Focus community resources in the first days, weeks, and months when released individuals are most likely to commit a new crime and need most support
• Identify those who need enhanced supervision or support and those who do not
•Deter future crime and technical violations by changing behavior early in the reentry process
Source: National Research Council (2007); Nagin & Pogarsky (2001)
30
•Case plans should include referrals to treatment when appropriate• RNR principles
•Cognitive behavioral treatment and community-based drug treatment can significantly reduce recidivism
•Using Core Correctional Practices during supervision meetings can support behavior change and reduce recidivism
Incorporate Treatment into Supervision
31
Use Swift, Certain, and Proportional Sanctions to Respond to Negative Behavior
• Swift, certain, and proportional sanctions are more effective than delayed, random, and severe sanctions
• Sanctions are more effective when they are:• Communicated clearly in advance • Applied swiftly to the behavior • Proportionate to the behavior
• Sanctions are less effective when they are:• Imposed inconsistently • Imposed after a delay• Out of proportion to the behavior
Source: Nagin & Pogarsky (2001)
32
Incorporate Rewards and Incentives
Source: Petersilia (2007); Wodahl, Garland, Culhane & McCarty (2011)
Reinforce Positive Behavior
•Positive reinforcement is more impactful than negative reinforcement
•To reduce recidivism: • Incentivize and reward pro-social behavior • Use rewards for positive behavior more often than sanctions
for anti-social behavior
33
Monitor Quality, Fidelity, Outcomes
•Evidence-based practices require ongoing support • Validate risk and needs assessment tools• Train, supervise, and coach staff on evidence-based
practices• Monitor programs and collect data for compliance and
fidelity
•Programs designed to meet offenders’ criminogenic needs must be delivered with fidelity to the program model
Source: Andrews & Bonta (2006)
National Turning Point
35
U.S. Incarcerated Population Drops
503,600
2,310,300
2,162,400
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Incarcerated Population, 1980-2016
Source: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
36
U.S. Correctional Population Declines
1,842,100
7,339,600
6,613,500
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Correctional Population (prison, jail, probation, and parole), 1980-2016
Source: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
37
Crime Rates Do Not Increase
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
19
60
19
62
19
64
19
66
19
68
19
70
19
72
19
74
19
76
19
78
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
20
10
20
12
20
14
20
16
National Crime Rate by Type, 1960-2016
Violent Crime Rate Property Crime Rate
Source: Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics (UCR)
38
From 2008-2016, 35 States Achieved Reductions in Both Crime and Imprisonment Rates
VT
HI
NH
MA
RI
CT
NJ
DE
MD
DC
MEWA
MT ND
SD
MNOR
IDWY
COUT
NV
CA
AZ NM
NE
KS
OK
TX
AK
LA
AR
MO
IA
WIMI
IL INOH
PA
NY
WVVA
KY
TN
MS AL GA
SC
NC
FL
Source: Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Bureau of Justice Statistics
39
Researchers and the Public Agree
• “It does not matter whether a nonviolent offender is in prison for 21 or 24 or 27 months. What really matters is the system does a better job of making sure that when an offender does get out, he is less likely to commit another crime.”
90%
73%STRONGLY AGREE
TOTAL AGREE
Source: 2012 Public Opinion Strategies/Mellman poll
Behavioral Health Challenges in the Criminal Justice System
41
Serious Mental Illness is More Common Among Inmates
US Gen Pop 1 in 19
State/ Federal Prison
1 in 7
Jail 1 in 4
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics (2017)
20% of females14% of males
32% of females26% of males
42
Over Half of Inmates Meet the Criteria for Drug Dependence or Abuse
* Sentenced jail inmates onlySource: Bureau of Justice Statistics (2017)
~5% of US general population meets criteria for
drug dependence or abuse
72% of females 62% of males
Rates by Most Serious Offense:
74% Drug
72% Property
61% Violent
45% DWI/DUI
51% Other Public Order
63% in Jail* 69% of females
57% of males
Rates by Most Serious Offense:
67% Drug
68% Property
54% Violent
55% DWI/DUI
55% Other Public Order
58% in Prison
43
Mentally Ill Inmates Are More Likely to Have Substance Use Disorders Than Other Inmates
74% 76%
56%53%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
State Prison Local Jail
Substance Dependence or Use Among Prison and Jail Inmates, 2006
With mental illness Without mental illness
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics (2006)
44
Individuals with Behavioral Health Needs Are at Risk
Stay incarcerated longer on the same
charges and sentences
Are less likely to make bail
Are more likely to serve time in
segregation during incarceration
Are more likely to experience
victimization or exploitation
Incur disciplinary problems at higher
rates
Compared to those without such disorders, individuals with mental and substance use disorders:
Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2017); Council of State Governments Justice Center (2012)
Case Studies: Innovative Criminal Justice Solutions From Other States
46
Lack of Mental Health Assessment
State Problem Policy
South Dakota
No screening for mental health issues
People with mental illness are more likely to be jailed pretrial and to stay longer in jail
Required mental health screenings at jail intake
Established a process for mental health assessment following positive jail mental health screens
47
Limited Behavioral Health Resources
State Problem Policy
Utah 84% of substance abuse needs and 88% of mental health needs go unmet
Expanded community treatment capacity by funding additional licensed clinicians to provide services to offenders in Treatment Resource Centers and investing in community-based programs
48
Minimal Alternatives to Incarceration
State Problem Policy
Louisiana 86% of prison admissions are nonviolent and 56%are for revocations
Expanded eligibility for probation and other alternatives to incarceration
Mississippi 75% of prisonadmissions for probation revocations were for technical violations
Limited the amount of incarceration time a judge or the parole board can impose for a technical violation
49
Lengthy Sentences for Nonviolent Offenders
State Problem Policy
Oklahoma 75% of admissions are for nonviolent crimes
Reduced commercial drug crime mandatory minimums, standardized the felony theft threshold, narrowed the burglary statute
Maryland 58% of all prison admissions are for nonviolent offenses
Eliminated mandatory minimum sentences forcommercial drug offensesand made third and subsequent commercial drug offenders eligible for parole
50
Draining Community Supervision Resources
State Problem Policy
Louisiana Officers supervised more than 70,000 people in 2015, an increase of more than 10,000 in just 10 years
Reduced maximum probation terms for nonviolent crimes from 5 to 3 years
Utah Data showed that low risk offenders were spending more time on supervision than high risk offenders
Allowed probationers and parolees to earn time off of their supervision sentences for complying with supervision conditions
Nevada Criminal Justice Challenges
52
After Decades of Growth, Nevada Prison Population Continues to Climb
Source: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
1,350
13,757
12,839
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
19
78
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
Nevada Prison Population, 1978-2016
53
Nevada’s Imprisonment Rate is 15% Higher Than the National Average and Growing
406
468
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
19
78
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
Rat
e Pe
r 1
00
,00
0 R
esid
ents
Nevada Imprisonment Rate, 1978-2016
State Institutions Nevada
Source: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Prisoner Statistics 2016
54
Nevada’s Female Imprisonment Rate is 43% Higher Than the National Average and Growing
Source: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Prisoner Statistics 2016
60
86
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
19
78
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
Rat
e Pe
r 1
00
,00
0 R
esid
ents
Nevada Female Imprisonment Rate, 1978-2016
State Average Nevada
55
Nevada’s State Prison Budget Has Grown 20% Since 2012
$347,275,254
$-
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
$300,000,000
$350,000,000
$400,000,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Fiscal Year
Nevada's Legislatively Approved Budget for Department of Corrections, FY 2010 - FY 2019
Source: Legislatively Approved Biennium Budgets (FY2011-FY2019)
56
Compared to Other States, Nevada Uses Incarceration More Than Community Supervision
Source: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Correctional Populations in the United States 2016
31%
69%
52%48%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Percent of Correctional Population Incarcerated Percent of Correctional Population on CommunitySupervision
Offenders in Correctional Population, 2016
National Average Nevada
57
Clark County Jail Population Grew Steadily Despite Drop in Bookings
Source: Clark County Detention Center 2016 Annual Report
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
AD
P
Bo
oki
ngs
/Rel
ease
s
Bookings, Releases, and Average Daily Population (ADP) at Clark County Detention Center, 2006-2016
ADP Bookings Releases
58
Nevada Crime Rates Have Declined Since Mid-1990s
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
19
60
19
62
19
64
19
66
19
68
19
70
19
72
19
74
19
76
19
78
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
20
10
20
12
20
14
20
16
Rat
e Pe
r 1
00
,00
0 R
esid
ents
Nevada Crime Rate by Type, 1960-2016
Violent Crime Rate Property Crime Rate
Source: Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics (UCR)
59
Opioid-Related Hospitalizations Nearly Doubled from 2010 to 2016
2,963
7,495
4,362
8,621
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Opioid-Related Hospitalizations of Nevada Residents, 2010-2016
Emergency Room Encounters Inpatient Admissions
Source: Nevada Division of Public and Behavioral Health (2017)
60
Nevada Adults With a Mental Illness Access Services Well Below National Rates
Received Mental Health Services
33%
Did Not Receive Mental Health Services
67%
Past Year Mental Health Service Use Among Nevada Adults with Any Mental Illness (AMI), Annual Average, 2011–2015
Source: SAMHSA (2011–2015)
Next Steps
62
Data Analysis
•CJI staff will analyze data from: • Nevada Department of Corrections• Administrative Office of the Courts • Department of Public Safety’s Division of Parole and
Probation • Board of Parole Commissioners • Washoe and Clark County District Courts (pending)• Clark County Detention Center (pending)
•Analysis will include: • Trends in admissions, length of stay, releases, standing
population, supervision, and more
63
System Assessment Interviews
•Department of Corrections •Department of Public
Safety’s Division of Parole and Probation •Board of Parole
Commissioners•Court Administrators • Law Enforcement •County Jails •District Court Judges
• Justices of the Peace •Municipal Court
Judges •Prosecutors •Defense Attorneys •Behavioral Health
Coordinators •Victims’ and Survivors’
Representatives •Pretrial Services
Program Managers
64
ACAJ Roadmap
• Criminal Justice Trends • Examine what’s driving growth in the state’s prison population; how the prison and
supervision populations have changed over last decade
• System Overview• Examine how the criminal justice system is operating; how the state uses best
practices in sentencing and corrections
• Examine successful policies that have been implemented in other states; what the research shows works to reduce crime and incarceration
• Examine local policies and practices that drive the use of jail beds and the implications of the opioid crisis
• Policy Development • Evaluate potential policies; reach out to relevant stakeholders
• Final Findings and Recommendations • Finalize recommendations for legislative consideration in the 2019 legislative
session
65
ACAJ Calendar
•Meeting 1: Introductory Presentation
•Meeting 2: Admissions, Specialty Courts, and Alternatives to Incarceration
•Meeting 3: Sentencing Trends, Length of Stay, and Release Mechanisms
•Meeting 4: Community Supervision Practices and Reentry
•Meeting 5: Policy Development
•Meeting 6: Policy Development
•Meeting 7: Final Recommendations
66
Questions/Contact
•Contact information:Maura McNamaraPhone: 617-529-3654Email: [email protected]
Colby Dawley Phone: 603-616-6945Email: [email protected]
Alison Silveira
Phone: 617-733-1437Email: [email protected]
67
Disclaimer
This project was supported by Grant No. 2015-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.