Supervision Types Probation Probation Before Judgment Supervision before the court imposes a verdict (PBJ) Probation After Judgment Supervision under which the court suspends a prison sentence and allows the offender to serve a term in the (PAJ) community Post-Release Supervision Parole Supervision while on a period of discretionary, conditional release from prison granted by the Maryland Parole Commission Mandatory Release Supervision while serving the remainder of an offender’s sentence less diminution of confinement Supervision credits after mandatory release from prison; only applies to offenders with sentences of 18 months or more 29
Supervision Levels Supervision level for cases assigned to VPI. Individuals under Violence this supervision level will be assigned to one of two supervision Prevention levels: VPI 1 or VPI 2 Initiative (VPI) Supervision level for offenders with a risk score of fifteen or High above Supervision level for offenders with a risk score above 6 or below Moderate 15 Supervision level for offenders with a risk score of 6 or lower Low-Moderate Least intensive supervision level for offenders. This type of Low supervision level has no contact reporting requirements Specialized caseload for offenders who have been convicted of a Sex Offender sex offense. Offenders under this supervision level are assigned to one of four supervision levels (LV1 through LV4) 30
Discharge Types Unsatisfactory Discharge The offender is guilty of a new offense committed while under supervision and the court or parole Revocation: commission finds the offender guilty of a Violation of Probation or Parole (VOP) that includes the New Offense new charge as a basis of the VOP (regardless of whether or not the VOP results in incarceration) Revocation: Technical Violations other than new convictions that result in the offender being found guilty of a VOP (regardless of whether or not the VOP results in incarceration) Violation Unsatisfactory: The offender is guilty of an offense that was committed during the supervision or monitoring period, and the case is closed (with or without a hearing) by the court or parole commission without finding New offense the offender guilty of a VOP Unsatisfactory: Violations other than new convictions have been documented in a report to the court or parole commission and the case is closed (with or without a hearing) without the offender being found No New Offense guilty of a VOP Satisfactory Discharge Expiration of sentence The case reaches the legal expiration date Early termination The court agrees to close the case in a satisfactory status prior to the legal expiration date The case that resulted in the offender being placed under supervision is commuted Commutation Other Discharge Transferred out of The offender is transferred to supervision in another jurisdiction state 31
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ACTIVE POPULATION 32
Pretrial Population DPP Active Population Outline • Population over time • Demographics • By supervision type • By supervision level • By geographic region or jurisdiction 33
Pretrial Population DPP Active Population 5% Decrease in Community Corrections Population in Last Decade Community Corrections Population by FY 60,000 50,000 49,734 47,467 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 34
Pretrial Population DPP Active Population Active Cases Per 100,000 Residents Dropped 29% in Baltimore City Over Last Decade, Steady in the Rest of the State Community Corrections Population Per 100,000 Residents, FY05 vs FY14 3,000 2,778 2,500 1,976 2,000 1,500 1,000 595 589 500 0 Baltimore City All Other Jurisdictions 2005 2014 35
Pretrial Population DPP Active Population 80% of Offenders on Community Supervision on Probation Community Corrections Population by Supervision Type, FY14 Other Mandatory Supervision 1% 8% Parole 11% Probation 80% 36
Pretrial Population DPP Active Population Probation Population Has Larger Proportion of Females Than Post-Release Supervision Population Probation Population by Gender, FY14 Post-Release Supervision Population by Gender, FY14 FEMALE, 8% FEMALE, 23% MALE, 77% MALE, 92% 37
Pretrial Population DPP Active Population Blacks Are Overrepresented in Probation and Post- Release Supervision Populations Probation Population by Race, FY14 Post-Release Supervision Population by Race, FY14 UNKNOWN, ASIAN, ASIAN, UNKNOWN, INDIAN, 1.8% 0% 0.8% INDIAN, 0% 1% 0.1% WHITE, 27% WHITE, 43.3% BLACK, 54.0% BLACK, 72% 38
Pretrial Population DPP Active Population 4% Decline in Probation Population Over Last Decade Probation Population by FY 50,000 45,000 39,844 38,206 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 39
Pretrial Population DPP Active Population Declines in Both Supervision Types Probation Population by Supervision Type, FY05 vs FY14 40,000 33,417 35,000 32,588 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 6,427 5,617 5,000 0 Probation Before Judgment Probation After Judgment 2005 2014 40
Pretrial Population DPP Active Population Central, South Regions Supervise Over Three Quarters of Probation Population Probation Population by Region, FY14 North, 24% South, 37% Central, 40% 41
Pretrial Population DPP Active Population 71% of Probation Population on Low or Moderate Supervision Probation Population by Supervision Level, FY14 Sex Offender, 6% VPI, 5% Low, 14% High, 19% Low-Moderate, 26% Moderate, 31% 42
Pretrial Population DPP Active Population PAJ Has Higher Percent of VPI, Sex Offender, High Risk Cases Probation Population by Supervision Level by Supervision Type, FY14 100% 3% 5% 11% 90% 20% 80% 29% 70% VPI 60% 31% High Moderate 50% Low-Moderate 40% 33% Low 25% 30% Sex Offender 20% 21% 13% 10% 6% 2% 0% Probation Before Judgment Probation After Judgment 43
Pretrial Population DPP Active Population 8% Decline in Post-Release Supervision Population Over Last Decade Post-Release Supervision Population by FY 12,000 10,000 9,717 8,981 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 44
Pretrial Population DPP Active Population Decline Driven by 29% Drop in Mandatory Supervision Population; Parole Population Up 17% Post-Release Supervision Population by Supervision Type, FY05 vs FY14 6,000 5,306 5,189 5,000 4,528 4,000 3,675 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Parole Mandatory Supervision 2005 2014 45
Pretrial Population DPP Active Population Central Region Supervises Half of Post-Release Supervision Population Post-Release Supervision Population by Region, FY14 North, 16% South, 33% Central, 50% 46
Pretrial Population DPP Active Population 62% of Post-Release Supervision on Moderate or Low Supervision Post-Release Supervision Population by Supervision Level, FY14 Sex VPI, 8% Offender , 9% Low, 11% High, 21% Low-Moderate, 23% Moderate, 28% 47
Pretrial Population DPP Active Population Key Takeaways • 5% decline in community supervision population in last decade • Probationers make up 80% of community supervision population • 71% of probation population is moderate or low risk • 62% of post-release supervision population is moderate or low risk 48
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS DISCHARGES 49
Pretrial Population DPP Discharges Outline • Satisfactory vs unsatisfactory discharges – Changes over time • New criminal convictions • By supervision type • By supervision level • By geographic region or jurisdiction 50
Pretrial Population DPP Discharges 38% of Probationers Fail, Down in Last Decade Probation Discharges by Type, FY05 Probation Discharges by Type, FY14 Other closing, Other closing, 1% 4% Unsatisfactory Satisfactory closing, 38% Unsatisfactory closing, 51% closing, 48% Satisfactory closing, 58% 51
Pretrial Population DPP Discharges Large Increase in Successful Discharge for Baltimore City Probationers Probation Discharges by Type and Jurisdiction, FY05 vs FY14 100% 0% 0% 2% 3% 90% 80% 36% 40% 45% 57% 70% 60% Other closing 50% Unsatisfactory closing 40% Satisfactory closing 61% 30% 57% 55% 43% 20% 10% 0% 2005 2014 2005 2014 Baltimore City All other jurisdictions 52
Pretrial Population DPP Discharges PBJ Has More Successful Discharges Than PAJ Probation Discharges by Discharge Type and Supervision Type, FY14 100% 2% 4% 90% 27% 80% 40% 70% 60% Other closing 50% Unsatisfactory closing 40% Satisfactory closing 71% 30% 56% 20% 10% 0% Probation Before Judgment Probation After Judgment 53
Pretrial Population DPP Discharges 84% of Probationers Discharged Without a New Criminal Conviction While on Supervision Probation Discharges by New Criminal Conviction Status, FY14 New offense, 16% No new offense, 84% 54
Pretrial Population DPP Discharges VPI Offenders More Likely to Fail Supervision Probation Discharges by Supervision Level and Discharge Type, FY14 100% 3% 3% 4% 4% 5% 7% 13% 90% 23% 80% 84% 40% 35% 75% 70% 63% 60% 69% Other closing 58% 56% 50% Unsatisfactory closing 40% Satisfactory closing 30% 33% 26% 20% 10% 0% VPI High Moderate Low-Moderate Low Sex Offender 55
Pretrial Population DPP Discharges Low Risk Offenders Fail Supervision for Reasons Other Than a New Criminal Conviction % of Unsuccessful Probation Discharges Convicted of a New Offense, by Supervision Level, FY14 60% 51% 50% 46% 45% 40% 40% 34% 30% 30% 20% 10% 0% VPI High Moderate Low-Moderate Low Sex Offender 56
Pretrial Population DPP Discharges Large Variation in Probation Failure Rate Across Jurisdictions Unsatisfactory Discharge Rate by Jurisdiction, FY14 Allegany 52% Cecil 52% Caroline 51% Anne Arundel 49% Calvert 47% St. Mary's 46% Wicomico 45% Talbot 44% Dorchester 44% Frederick 44% Harford 39% Prince George's 39% Carroll 38% Garrett 37% Queen Anne's 37% Charles 36% Baltimore County 36% Montgomery 36% Baltimore City 36% Worcester 35% Washington 35% Kent 33% Somerset 32% Howard 31% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 57
Pretrial Population DPP Discharges Most Jurisdictions Have New Conviction Rate Around 15%, But Some Variation Percent of Probation Discharges with New Criminal Conviction by Jurisdiction, FY14 Wicomico 23.7% Allegany 20.9% Anne Arundel 18.9% Harford 18.2% Baltimore City 15.8% Baltimore County 15.4% Carroll 15.4% Frederick 14.8% Cecil 14.5% Montgomery 14.3% Worcester 14.2% Howard 13.4% Washington 13.1% Prince George's 12.9% Charles 12.9% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 58
Pretrial Population DPP Discharges 39% of Offenders on Parole or Mandatory Supervision Fail Supervision Post-Release Supervision Discharges by Post-Release Supervision Discharges by Type, FY05 Type, FY14 Other closing, Other closing, 1% 4% Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory closing, 42% closing, 39% Satisfactory Satisfactory closing, 57% closing, 57% 59
Pretrial Population DPP Discharges 83% of Parole or Mandatory Supervision Offenders Discharged Without a New Criminal Conviction While on Supervision Post-Release Supervision Discharges by New Criminal Conviction Status, FY14 New offense, 17% No new offense, 83% 60
Pretrial Population DPP Discharges VPI Offenders Most Likely to Fail Supervision Post-Release Supervision Discharges by Supervision Level and Discharge Type, FY14 100% 2% 3% 4% 4% 4% 6% 9% 90% 17% 89% 28% 80% 80% 46% 52% 70% 69% 67% 60% Other closing 50% Unsatisfactory closing 48% 45% 40% Satisfactory closing 30% 30% 20% 10% 0% VPI High Moderate Low-Moderate Low Sex Offender 61
Pretrial Population DPP Discharges VPI Offenders More Likely to Fail Post-Release Supervision Without a New Criminal Conviction % of Unsuccessful Post-Release Discharges Convicted of a New Offense, by Supervision Level, FY14 60% 56% 55% 50% 49% 50% 40% 33% 30% 25% 20% 10% 0% VPI High Moderate Low-Moderate Low Sex Offender 62
Pretrial Population DPP Discharges Key Takeaways • Just under 40% of community supervision cases fail supervision • Probation success rates are up over the last decade, driven by improvement in Baltimore City • Less than 20% of probationers, parolees, and offenders on mandatory release supervision are convicted of a new crime committed while on supervision • Almost 60% of unsuccessful cases do not involve a new criminal conviction – For probationers, low risk offenders more likely to fail without a new criminal conviction – For parolees and offenders on mandatory release supervision, VPI offenders more likely to fail without a new criminal conviction 63
TIME SERVED ON COMMUNITY SUPERVISION 64
Pretrial Population DPP Time Served Outline • By supervision type • By supervision level • By geographic region or jurisdiction 65
Pretrial Population DPP Time Served Offenders Serve 18 Months on PBJ, Two Years on PAJ Average Time Served on Probation by Supervision Type, FY05 vs FY12 30 24.1 23.9 25 20 18.2 17.4 Months 15 10 5 0 Probation Before Judgment Probation After Judgment 2005 2012 66
Pretrial Population DPP Time Served Very Little Difference in Time Served by Outcome Average Time Served on Probation, by Discharge Type, FY05 vs FY12 30 24.7 25 23.7 22 22 20 17 Months 15.1 15 10 5 0 Satisfactory closing Unsatisfactory closing Other closing 2005 2012 67
Pretrial Population DPP Time Served Low Risk Offenders Serve Almost as Long on Probation as High Risk Offenders Average Time Served on Probation by Supervision Level, Before Satisfactory Close, FY12 VPI 22.3 High 24.8 Moderate 22.7 Low-Moderate 21.2 Low 20.8 Sex Offender 30.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Months 68
Pretrial Population DPP Time Served Large Variation in Probation Time Served by Jurisdiction Average Time Served on Probation by Jurisdiction, FY12 Charles 39.5 Calvert 29.6 Kent 29.9 Prince George's 29.8 Carroll 27.6 Baltimore City 26.1 Worcester 25.8 Cecil 24.3 Wicomico 23.4 St. Mary's 23.2 Talbot 22.7 Dorchester 22.4 Howard 22.5 Frederick 21.5 Anne Arundel 21.8 Baltimore County 20.7 Queen Anne's 20.8 Harford 19.7 Caroline 19.1 Garrett 19.5 Allegany 18.7 Montgomery 18 Somerset 16.7 Washington 16.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Months 69
Pretrial Population DPP Time Served PBJ Offenders Serve Less Time Across the Board Average Time Served on Probation by Supervision Type and Discharge Type, FY12 30 25.2 25 23.5 21.5 20 16.7 Months 15 10 5 0 Probation Before Judgment Probation After Judgment Satisfactory closing Unsatisfactory closing 70
Pretrial Population DPP Time Served Parolees Serve Longer on Supervision; Both Types Up Since 2005 Average Time Served on Post-Release Supervision by Supervision Type, FY05 vs FY12 35 29.6 30 26.4 25 21.3 Months 20 17.5 15 10 5 0 Parole Mandatory Supervision 2005 2012 71
Pretrial Population DPP Time Served Time Served on Supervision Up Across Both Discharge Types Average Time Served on Post-Release Supervision by Discharge Type, FY05 vs FY12 30 26.9 25 21.8 21.5 19.2 20 Months 15 10 5 0 Satisfactory closing Unsatisfactory closing 2005 2012 72
Pretrial Population DPP Time Served Low Risk Offenders Serve Longest Average Time Served on Post-Release Supervision by Supervision Level, Before Satisfactory Closing, FY12 VPI 15 High 19.5 Moderate 25.3 Low-Moderate 33.5 Low 49.9 Sex Offender 30.9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Months 73
Pretrial Population DPP Time Served Key Takeaways • Low risk probationers serve the same amount of time on supervision as high risk probationers • Time spent on probation varies widely by jurisdiction • Offenders on parole and mandatory release supervision are serving longer than they did a decade ago – Last month we saw prison sentences were growing • Low risk offenders on parole and mandatory release supervision serve an average of 49 months compared to 19 months for high risk offenders 74
What Works to Reduce Recidivism? Justice Reinvestment Coordinating Council August 18, 2015 75
Outline • Research on incarceration • Research on reducing recidivism 76
RESEARCH ON INCARCERATION 77
Research on Incarceration Does more incarceration result in less crime? Researchers have examined the question of whether increased incarceration caused the crime decline in the 1990’s, and have found that it was responsible for 10-30% of the crime decline Difficult to isolate the impact, because of other simultaneous variables Improved police strategies, technology, and personal security habits Demographic shifts Changes in drug markets Source: National Research Council (2014), The Growth of Incarceration in the United 78 States
Research on Incarceration Does more incarceration result in less crime? Diminishing returns: The marginal impact of incarceration (the value to society of sending one more person to prison) has declined since the 1990’s Agreement among researchers: Increasing incarceration today will have little if any effect on crime Source: National Research Council (2014), The Growth of Incarceration in the United 79 States
Research on Incarceration Does more incarceration result in less crime? Steve Levitt (2004) “Expenditures on prisons appear to have benefits that outweigh the direct costs of housing prisoners.” Steve Levitt (2012) “Today, my guess is that the costs [of incarceration] outweigh the benefits at the margins. I think we should be shrinking the prison population by at least one-third .” Sources: Levitt (2004), Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s ; New York Times 80 (Dec. 11, 2012), For Lesser Crimes, Rethinking Life Behind Bars , quoting Steve Levitt.
Research on Incarceration Does incarceration reduce recidivism? Researchers have examined whether incarceration reduces recidivism more than non-custodial sanctions Research models: Matched samples or experimental design: incarceration vs. non-custodial sanctions Comparing recidivism outcomes Findings: No significant difference in recidivism rates or a criminogenic effect of incarceration Sources: Campbell Collaborative (2015); Nagin & Snodgrass (2013); Nagin, Cullen, 81 and Lero Jonson (2009)
Research on Incarceration Does incarceration reduce recidivism? Campbell Collaboration (2015) (meta-analysis): Found incarceration has a null or criminogenic effect on re-arrest and re-conviction rates Nagin & Snodgrass (2013): Found no significant difference in 1, 2, 5, and 10-year re-arrest rates Nagin, Cullen & Jonson (2009) (systematic review): Found incarceration has a null or criminogenic effect compared to non-custodial sanctions 82
Research on Incarceration Does incarceration reduce recidivism? Spohn and Holleran (2002) Found that drug offenders sentenced to prison were 5-6 times more likely than probationers to be rearrested and charged, controlling for offender characteristics Drake and Aos (2012) Found that technical violators of probation serving a period of confinement (jail or prison) had significantly higher recidivism than offenders sanctioned in the community 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 • Property crimes: 2 times as likely • Other nonviolent crimes: 1.8 times as likely 83
Research on Incarceration Does incarceration reduce recidivism? Researchers have also examined whether longer periods of incarceration reduce recidivism more than shorter periods Research models: Matched samples: shorter periods vs. longer periods Compared: recidivism outcomes Findings: No increased benefit of longer periods of incarceration Sources: Nagin (2009); Anwar & Stephens (2011); Meade, et al. (2012) 84
Research on Incarceration Does incarceration reduce recidivism? Nagin, Cullen & Jonson (2009) (systematic review): Found no relationship between time served and recidivism The United States Sentencing Commission (2014): No difference in recidivism for drug offenders with reduced sentences after retroactive application of a new sentencing law Meade, et al. (2012): For prison terms of 5 years or less: no effect on recidivism For prison terms of 10 years or longer: some reduction in re- arrest due to aging out 85
Research on Incarceration Does incarceration reduce recidivism? “ [L]engthy prison sentences are ineffective as a crime control measure… [and] an inefficient approach to preventing crime by incapacitation unless they are specifically targeted at very high-rate or extremely dangerous offenders. ” National Research Council The Growth of Incarceration in the United States (2014) Source: National Research Council (2014), The Growth of Incarceration in the United 86 States
Research on Incarceration Summary Prison expansion historically: Played a small but significant part in the U.S. crime decline Prison expansion today: Has little, if any, additional crime reduction effect (diminishing returns) Reducing recidivism: Incarceration is not more effective than non-custodial sanctions Longer prison terms do not guarantee better outcomes 87
RECIDIVISM REDUCTION PRINCIPLES 88
Key Principles Recidivism Reduction Focus on high risk offenders, target criminogenic needs, address programming barriers (Risk, Need, Responsivity) Use sanctions and incentives to respond to behavior Frontload resources for offenders coming out of prison Incorporate treatment into supervision Monitor quality, fidelity, and outcomes 89
The Risk Principle The risk principle tells us who to target 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 Source: Bonta & Andrews (2007), Risk-Need-Responsivity Model for Offender 90 Assessment and Rehabilitation
The Risk Principle Risk of future offending ≠ seriousness of the current offense Someone who committed a serious crime could be more likely to reoffend (high-risk) or less likely to reoffend (low-risk) Same for someone who committed a low-level crime Source: Andrews (1999), Recidivism Is Predictable and Can Be Influenced: Using Risk 91 Assessments to Reduce Recidivism
The Risk Principle Source: Andrews, Bonta & Wormith (2004), Level of Service / Case Management 92 Inventory (LS/CMI): An Offender Assessment System (user’s manual)
The Risk Principle Correctional Interventions Targeting Low-Risk and High-Risk Offenders (Meta-Analysis) 10% 4% 5% Percent Change in Recidivism Rate 0% Low Risk High Risk -5% -10% -15% -20% -19% -25% Source: Dowden & Andrews (1999) (meta-analysis) 93
The Risk Principle Recidivism Outcomes for Ohio Halfway House and Community Residential Placements 4% Percent Change in Recidivism Rate 2% 2% 0% Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk -2% -4% -6% -6% -8% -10% -10% -12% Risk Level Source: Latessa et al. (2010), Follow-up Evaluation of Ohio’s Community Based 94 Correctional Facilities and Halfway House Programs
The Risk Principle Programming Intensity and Dosage 60% 51% 50% 40% Recidivism Rate 32% 32% 30% Low Risk High Risk 20% 15% 10% 0% Minimal Intensive Dosage of Programming Source: Bonta et al. (2000), A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of an Intensive 95 Rehabilitation Supervision Program
The Needs Principle The needs principle tells us WHAT we should be paying attention to Certain factors (criminogenic needs) are tied to criminal behavior Criminogenic = crime-producing Criminogenic needs = risk factors which predict recidivism AND are dynamic (can be targeted for change) Static = cannot be changed (e.g., age and criminal history) Targeting criminogenic needs has been shown to reduce recidivism Source: Bonta & Andrews (2007), Risk-Need-Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment 96 and Rehabilitation
The Needs Principle Criminogenic Needs “Big Four” Criminogenic Risk Factors: Antisocial attitudes (dynamic) Antisocial peers (dynamic) Antisocial personality (dynamic) History of antisocial behavior (static) Other Criminogenic Risk Factors: Substance abuse Employment/education Low family affection/poor supervision/poor communication Leisure/recreation Source: Bonta & Andrews (2007), Risk-Need-Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment and Rehabilitation 97
The Needs Principle Risk Factors of a Heart Attack: 1) Increased LDL/HDL ratios (i.e., elevated LDL and low HDL levels) 2) Smoking 3) Diabetes 4) Hypertension 5) Abdominal obesity 6) Psychosocial (i.e., stress or depression) 7) Failure to eat fruits and vegetables daily 8) Failure to exercise 9) Failure to drink any alcohol 98
The Needs Principle Effect of Criminogenic vs. Non-Criminogenic Programming on Recidivism 5% +1% 0% Change in Recidivism Rate Non-Criminogenic Criminogenic -5% -10% -15% -20% -25% -30% -32% -35% Needs Targeted Source: Gendreau, French & Taylor (2002), What Works (What Doesn’t Work) 99
Recommend
More recommend
