Public Safety Performance Project October 2, 2012

Public Safety Performance Project

October 2, 2012

Less Crime at Lower CostsSpecial Council on Criminal Justice Reform for Georgians

www.pewcenteronthestates.com

Background

State Examples: Less Crime at Lower Costs

GA Juvenile Corrections: High Cost, Low Returns

Agenda



Protect public safety

Hold offenders accountable

Control corrections costs

Goal: Help states get a better public safety return on their corrections dollars


Special Council : 2011 - 2012

Special Council on Criminal Justice Reform for Georgians created by General Assembly

Council undertook:» data-driven analysis of the adult system

» development of policy options and recommendations

HB 1176 passed the General Assembly unanimously Gov. Nathan Deal signed legislation into law

Gov. Deal: “a model of how the legislative process should work.”


HB 1176• Passed General Assembly unanimously.• Averts projected 8 percent increase in prison population and

associated cumulative cost of $264 million over five years. • Budget reinvests more than $17 million of the prison savings in

into measures designed to reduce reoffending.

Focus of HB 1176: • Focus Prison Space on Serious Offenders • Reduce Recidivism by Strengthening Probation and

Alternative Sentencing Options• Relieve Local Jail Crowding• Improve Performance Measurement


Special Council: 2012-2013

Governor extends the Special Council through Executive Order and expands the membership.

The state requests technical assistance from the Pew Center on the States and the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

State leaders charge the Special Council with identifying ways to:

» improve outcomes in the juvenile system

» develop fiscally sound, data-driven juvenile justice policies

» ensure Georgia’s tax dollars are used effectively and efficiently


Phase I: Bipartisan, Inter-branch Process

Data Analysis / System Assessment

Policy Development

Consensus Building

1

2

3

Stakeholder Engagement

State Examples: Less Crime at Lower Costs


Case Study: Ohio

40% increase in the state’s juvenile custody population spanning the 13 years leading up to 1992

State’s juvenile institutions operated at 180% of capacity

Many counties did not have the resources to supervise juveniles locally

Challenges:


Provides incentives to counties to develop and utilize community-based alternatives

Counties receive a formula based allotment, which is reduced for each juvenile committed to an institution

Counties receive the remaining funds to use in the community on a monthly basis

Targeted RECLAIM provides additional incentives for the six counties that commit the most youth to the state

Solution: RECLAIM Ohio

Case Study: Ohio


Total average daily facility population 2,600+Commitment rate for felony adjudicated youth

Case Study: Ohio

21%

650

12%

1992 2011


Case Study: Ohio

$30.6Mfunded programs in 88 counties in FY2011610+

4 facility closures save

in operational expenses$50M+

$330M+As of 2009

allocated to counties in FY2012 plus $16.7M through Youth Services Grant

in RECLAIM funds provided to local counties


Case Study: Ohio

spent on a RECLAIM-funded local program instead of placement saves the state$1 $11-$45

Cost Benefit Analysis


Case Study: Ohio

Low Moderate High Very High0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

48

22

44

29

4043

37

47

39

51

46

41

50

Recidivism rates by risk and placement type in Ohio

RECLAIM community supervision programs Community Corrections Facility (CCF)

Department of Youth Services (DYS) release Department of Youth Services (DYS) discharge

Risk level

Subs

eque

nt c

omm

itmen

t rat

e

Lowenkamp & Latessa (2005). Evaluation of Ohio’s RECLAIM Funded Programs


Case Study: Texas

Total average daily facility population (2007-2011)

Juvenile arrests (2007-2010) 14%

$84.5 MNew funding to counties (2009-2012)

60%

Georgia Juvenile Corrections: High Cost, Low Returns


Georgia's Historical Juvenile Disposed Population: Out-of-Home Youth

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2,973

1,917


High Cost

YDC (per bed)

RYDC (per bed)

Non-Secure Residential (per child)

Community Supervision (per child)

K-12 (per child)

UGS (per child)

$0$10,000$20,000$30,000$40,000$50,000$60,000$70,000$80,000$90,000

$100,000 $91,126 $88,155

$28,955

$3,139 $4,326 $5,408

Annual State Cost of Juvenile Placement vs. Education

1


Low Return on Investment

All Committed Youth =53%65%

Recidivism Rate:

Youth Development Campuses =

GA Department of Juvenile Justice


Key Findings

• Trends in Out-of-Home Youth

– Greater concentration of felons

– Increase in number of juveniles awaiting a long-term bed

– High percentage of low risk juveniles

– Non-Secure Residential: majority non-felony and non-violent, nearly half are low risk

• Recidivism remains high, half are re-adjudicated within three years

– Regardless of setting, public safety outcomes for out-of-home not improving

• Community-based options vary across the state

– DJJ spends more than 60% of its budget on out of-home‐– Community based options are dependent upon location and funding‐


Youth Out-of-Home: Offense Class

Misd28%

Felony57%

Status15%

2002

Misd21%

Felony76%

Status3%

2011

n = 2,652 n = 1,870


Who is in the YDC?

Felony68%

Misd22%

Status10%

2002

Felony99%

Misd1%

2011

n = 1,236 n = 619


Youth Out-of-Home: Legal Status

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

541

950

1,154

540

1,182

311

DFRegular CommitSTP

76% Increase in DF Out-of-Home


Youth in YDC: Offense Types2002 2011

Violent (30.8%) Violent (49.3%)

Property (29.8%) Property (26.2%)

Public Order (10.0%) Violent Sex (11.5%)

Violent Sex (8.4%) Public Order (6.9%)

VOP/VOAC/VOAP (8.2%) Weapons (3.1%)

Drug Use (4.7%) VOP/VOAC/VOAP (1.9%)

Weapons (3.4%) Drug Use (0.5%)

Drug Selling (2.0%) Drug Selling (0.5%)

Status (1.6%) Traffic (0.2%)

Sex Non-Violent (0.6%)

Traffic (0.5%)


Georgia's Juvenile Population: Youth Out-of-Home on June 30

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,6001,450

619

863

600

660 698

YDCNon-Secure ResidRYDC


Youth Out-of-Home: Risk Level

High16%

Medium41%

Low42%

2004

High19%

Medium41%

Low40%

2011

n = 2,367 n = 1,777


Youth in YDC: Risk Levels

272004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

HighMediumLow

In 2011: High = 25%

Medium = 37%Low = 39%


Designated Felons in the YDC: Risk Levels

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

HighMediumLow

In 2011: High = 24%



Who is in the Non-Secure Residential Placements?

Felony45%

Misd35%

Status20%

2002

Felony47%

Misd45%

Status8%

2011

n = 863 n = 584


Non-Secure Residential: Risk Levels

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

100

200

300

400

500

600

HighMediumLow

In 2011:High = 11%



Recidivism for all Released Youth

2003 2004 2005 2006 20070

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

All YouthPercent


Recidivism: Youth at the YDCs

2003 2004 2005 2006 20070

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

YDC

YDC

6 percentage point increase since 2003Percent


System Assessment: Key Finding on Community-Based Options

• Community-based options vary across the state

– DJJ spends more than 60% of its budget on out of-home.‐– Community based options are dependent upon location and funding‐



October 2, 2012

Less Crime at Lower CostsSpecial Council on Criminal Justice Reform for Georgians

Public Safety Performance Project October 2, 2012

Documents

Transcript of Public Safety Performance Project October 2, 2012