Criminal Justice Oversight Council · Council of State Governments Justice Center | 13 Staffing...
Transcript of Criminal Justice Oversight Council · Council of State Governments Justice Center | 13 Staffing...
Criminal Justice Oversight CouncilMarch 21, 2018
Sara Friedman, Senior Policy Analyst, State InitiativesCouncil of State Governments Justice Center
Overview
01 Background
02 Prison population trends
03 Supervision population trends
Key takeaways and next steps04
Challenges in Montana when state leaders embarked on Justice Reinvestment
Jail and prison overcrowding as well as increased arrests, district court case filing and length of time between arrest and disposition
Increased community supervision revocations accounting for 74 percent of prison admissions
Lack of risk based decision-making at the front end and back end of the system
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 3
The Council of State Governments Justice Center, “Justice Reinvestment in Montana: Report to the Montana Commission on Sentencing,” January 2017
Goals for Justice Reinvestment to increase public safety
Reserve prison space for the most serious and violent offenders
Reduce recidivism by changing offender behavior
Improve decision-making at the front end and back end of the system
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 4
CSG works with stakeholders in each state to identify key metrics and establish benchmarks for monitoring progress
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 5
Collect Data
Analyze Trends
Adjust to improve
outcomes
State monitoring is the process of collecting, monitoring, analyzing and using data about a state’s criminal justice system in order to improve outcomes and inform technical assistance.
Overview
01 Background
02 Prison population trends
03 Supervision population trends
Key takeaways and next steps04
Montana’s package of legislation is projected to avert prison population growth by 13 percent by FY23
Source: Montana Department of Corrections, “Adult Population Summary Actual – FY2008 to 2014; Projected FY2015 to 2025”; CSG Justice Center analysis based on projections from DOC
FY2016: 2,605
2,981
2,598
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
14% forecasted increase FY2017–FY2023
Projected population with legislation
-13% from forecasted populationFY2018–FY2023
ACTUALDOC Population
$69million
in averted costs
in prison than forecasted
FY2023 population
on supervision than forecasted FY2023
population
383 fewer
people
2,639 fewer
people
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 7
Montana’s prison population has increased by 57 people since JR enactment
Source: Montana Department of Corrections, “Adult Population Summary Actual – FY2008 to 2014; Projected FY2015 to 2025”; CSG Justice Center analysis based on projections from DOC; MDOC Monthly JR Tracking spreadsheet, 3-13-2018
FY2016: 2,605
2,981
2,598
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
ACTUALDOC Population
$69million
in averted costs
in prison than forecasted
FY2023 population
on supervision than forecasted FY2023
population
383 fewer
people
2,639 fewer
people
Population at enactment (May 2017)2,627
Current Population (Feb 2018)2,684
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 8
The pressure from county jail backlogs has been easing up since July 2017
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 9
Source: Montana Department of Corrections email communication with Justice Center staff, 3-20-2018
432
377358
334301
209 204
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Jul '17 Aug '17 Sep '17 Oct '17 Nov '17 Dec '17 Jan '18
Average Daily Population in County Jailsunder MDOC Jurisdiction
Prison admissions are outpacing releases, contributing to an increased prison population
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 10
Source: Montana Department of Corrections Monthly JR Tracking spreadsheet, 3-13-2018
Admissions
Releases
1100
1150
1200
1250
1300
FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18
Prison Admissions and Release Trends*
* Estimated based on 8 months of data
FY2018 Prison Admissions and Releases*
* Q3 Estimated based on 2 months of data
Admissions
Releases
275
300
325
350
375
Q1 Q2 Q3
Population in alternative facilities has increased
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 11
Source: Montana Department of Corrections “ADP History thru FY2014.xlsx” and communications with MTDOC staff
1,819
1,972 2,009 1,9632,085 2,106
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
Montana Alternative Facilities Population
Increase in alternative facility population has put pressure on county jail beds
FY2012
FY2017
FY2012
FY2017
FY2012 FY2017
FY2012
FY2017
New Commitments(no prior DOC history)
Returns of Former Offenders(not under supervision)
Revocations for Technical Violationsof Supervised Population
New Convictions ofSupervised Population
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
An increasing number of people in the stock prison population had no prior involvement with DOC
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 12
Source: Montana Department of Corrections Monthly JR Tracking spreadsheet, 3-13-2018
Composition of Prison Population by Prior Criminal History by Fiscal Year
Prior to 2017, there were a number of challenges related to board staffing and decisional practices
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 13
Staffing
Board members were 7 volunteers
Parole analysts were essentially making decisions related to release, revocation, clemency
Decision-Making
Not trained in decision making
Parole interviews focused on underlying crime
Practices
Set offs could be for up to 6 years in all cases
11 FTEs including parole analysts, clerical, media staff
Parole reports contained extraneous informationData show increasingly
delayed parole releases
Process was not transparent
SB 64 created sweeping changes for the board, with aggressive implementation timelines
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 14
Staffing
Board members were 7 volunteers
Parole analysts were essentially making decisions related to release, revocation, clemency
Decision-Making
Not trained in decision making
Parole interviews focused on underlying crime
Practices
Set offs could be for up to 6 years in all cases
Largely a paper-based system
11 FTEs including parole analysts, clerical, media staff
Parole reports contained extraneous informationData show increasingly
delayed parole releases
5 full-time, professional board members and 3 full-time support staff
Trained in best practices and using guidelines
Set offs limited to 1 year except for sex/violent cases
Process was not transparent
Pilot sample of 136 cases shows many people are scored as “likely to parole” but the Board uses it’s discretion in addition to the guidelines tool
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 15
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Distribution of Guidelines Pilot Scores
Guidelines Score
Granted Parole
-------------------- Recommend Grant -------------------- --------- Recommend Deny ---------
The Board of Parole decisions aligned with guidelines recommendations 74% of the time
Average score: 5.4
Source: CSG Justice Center analysis of guidelines pilot data
Where does the Parole Board deviate from guidelines recommendations?
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 16
85
4
31
13
-4
16
36
56
76
96
116
Guidelines recommend parole release Guidelines recommend deny parole
Parole Board Pilot Decisions that Agreed or Disagreed with Guidelines
Granted parole
Source: CSG Justice Center analysis of guidelines pilot data
Denied paroleGranted parole
Denied parole
What are the primary reasons cited for denying parole?
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 17
Source: CSG Justice Center analysis of guidelines pilot data
20
16
8
5
Failed to successfullycomplete programming
Currently enrolled inprogramming
Misconducts Other factors
Reasons for Parole Denial (N=44)
Of the 44 people denied, 16 (36%) were on waitlists for programming
Overview
01 Background
02 Prison population trends
03 Supervision population trends
Key takeaways and next steps04
9,546 9,564 9,709 9,775 9,803 9,816 9,849 10,025 10,129 10,248 10,333
1,044 1,041 1,045 1,045 1,063 1,062 1,077 1,090 1,101 1,111 1,123
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Jan '17 Feb '17 Mar '17 Apr '17 May '17 Jun '17 Jul '17 Oct '17 Nov '17 Jan '18 Feb '18
The supervised population has grown 8% since January 2017
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 19
Source: Montana Department of Corrections, Spreadsheet emailed 3/20/2018. Data unavailable for August, September, and December 2017
End of Month Adult Supervised Population
Adult Interstate Probation & Parole
Adult Probation & Parole Population
10,59011,456
From Jan 2017 – Feb 2018:
+866 adults on probation and parole
Placements to probation have increased slightly over FY18 while releases have remained steady, contributing to an increasing probation population
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Jul '17 Aug '17 Sep '17 Oct '17 Nov '17 Dec '17 Jan '18 Feb '18
Probation Placements and Releases
183
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 20
Source: Montana Department of Corrections Monthly JR Tracking spreadsheet, 3-13-2018
245
FY18 projected total placements: 3,312
FY18 projected total releases: 2,715
Placements
Releases
Similarly, placements to parole are also outpacing releases from parole in FY18, contributing to an increasing parole supervision population
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jul '17 Aug '17 Sep '17 Oct '17 Nov '17 Dec '17 Jan '18 Feb '18
Parole Placements and Releases
45
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 21
Source: Montana Department of Corrections Monthly JR Tracking spreadsheet, 3-13-2018
Placements
Releases4851
76
FY18 projected total placements: 831
FY18 projected total releases: 644
Conditional discharges from supervision (CDFS) were increasing as a result of JR policy in SB 63, but then declined significantly
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 22
Source: Montana Department of Corrections Monthly JR Tracking spreadsheet, 3-13-2018
11 1215
1615
0
10
20
30
40
50
FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17
Historic Trend of Monthly Average Conditional Discharges
15
10
17
50 5147
38
9
Jul '17 Aug '17 Sep '17 Oct '17 Nov '17 Dec '17 Jan '18 Feb '18
Monthly Conditional Discharges FY18
Currently, 4,890 probationers are potentially eligible for conditional discharge based on their length of time on supervision
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 23
Source: Montana Department of Corrections CDFS by Time Only spreadsheet, received 3/19/18
Not Eligible
37%
Probationers Eligible for Conditional Discharge Based on Length of Time, by Risk Level
Low Risk41%
Moderate Risk18%
Medium RiskHigh Risk
2%2%
Currently eligible for CDFS based only on length of time spent on supervision
The majority of individuals eligible for conditional discharge based on the length of time they have already been supervised are low or moderate risk.
However, a portion of these people may not be eligible due to their behavior on supervision.
Nearly half of probationers who reoffend do so within the first 12 months of supervision
Source: Montana Department of Corrections Admissions & Offense History Data
Justice Center
Number of FY 2012 New Probationers Resentenced over 36 months, and
Proportion of Those Resentenced Who Were Resentenced Each Year
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 24
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 months 6 months 12 months 18 months 24 months 30 months 36 months
15%
36%49%
41% of new FY
2012 probationers
were resentenced
within three years.
Of those, 49%
were resentenced
in the first 12
months.
Overview
01 Background
02 Prison population trends
03 Supervision population trends
Key takeaways and next steps04
Key takeaways from current data
1. Montana’s prison population is still slightly increasing, while at the same time some system pressures are easing as the number of people in MDOC jurisdiction who remain in county jails decreases.
2. The Board of Parole successfully piloted decision-making guidelines but programming remains a challenge.
3. The number of people on community supervision is increasing.4. This increasing probation and parole population is placing additional strain on
corrections resources. Recent challenges to the CDFS policy are delaying impacts for low risk offenders.
5. More data is needed to do a full scale analysis of the impact of justice reinvestment policies.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 26
Next step: track the impact of reinvestment spending
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 27
Bill Recipient Purpose FY 2018 FY 2019
SB 59 JudiciaryDevelop and administer a pretrial program for felony defendants $780,000 $780,000
SB 59Department of Corrections (Directors Office)
CJOC implementation accountability* $100,000 $100,000
SB 60Department of Corrections (Probation and Parole)
Creation of presentence investigation unit $360,000 $360,000
SB 64Board of Pardons and Parole
Transition to full-time,professional Board of Pardons and Parole $29,878 $59,755
SB 65 Board of Crime ControlSupportive housing grant program $200,000 $200,000
Total Funding $1,469,878 $1,499,755
Justice Reinvestment Appropriations
*SB 59 CJOC appropriations are a part of MDOC’s budget mitigation plan
Next step: shore up data resources
Convene researchers from multiple agencies to discuss impact tracking
Evaluate options for using current court disposition data
Use federal justice reinvestment implementation funding to improve MDOC’s data systems
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 28
The impacts of justice reinvestment policies will take years to be fully realized
Implementation is an ongoing process. It will likely take several months after policy effective dates for Montana to see impacts in data metrics and resulting reductions in system pressures
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 29
In the meantime, state leaders can look at process metrics to evaluate how implementation is moving forward
Sara Friedman, Senior Policy [email protected]
Receive monthly updates about justice reinvestment states across the country as well as other CSG Justice Center Programs.
Sign up at:CSGJUSTICECENTER.ORG/SUBSCRIBE
This material was prepared for the State of Montana. The presentation was developed by members of the Council of State Governments Justice Center staff. Because presentations are not subject to the same rigorous review process as other printed materials, the statements made reflect the views of the authors, and should not be considered the official position of the Justice Center, the members of the Council of State Governments, or the funding agency supporting the work.
Thank You