#1Justice Reinvestment in North Dakota Third Presentation to the Incarceration Issues Committee: Prison Populations, Probation Supervision, and What Works June 7, 2016 MARC PELKA, Deputy Director, State Division STEVE ALLEN, Senior Policy Advisor KATIE MOSEHAUER, Project Manager RACHAEL DRUCKHAMMER, Senior Research Associate MICHELLE RODRIGUEZ, Program Associate MARRIAH VINSON, Program Associate JUSTICE CENTER THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS#2The Council of State Governments Justice Center Corrections Justice Reinvestment Mental Health Reentry Substance Abuse So ✓ Alcohoi Courts .0 Youth Law Enforcement ICE CS National nonprofit, nonpartisan membership association of state government officials that engages members of all three branches of state government. JUSTICE CENTER THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS Justice Center provides practical, nonpartisan advice informed by the best available evidence. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 2#3What is Justice Reinvestment? JUSTICE REINVESTMENT A data-driven approach to reduce corrections spending and reinvest savings in strategies that can decrease recidivism and increase public safety The Justice Reinvestment Initiative is supported by funding from the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and The Pew Charitable Trusts Council of State Governments Justice Center | 3#4Justice reinvestment includes a two-part process spanning analysis, policy development, and implementation I. Pre-enactment Bipartisan, Interbranch 1 Working Group 2 Data Analysis 3 Stakeholder Engagement 4 Policy Options Development II. Post-enactment 5 Policy Implementation 6 Monitor Key Measures Assemble practitioners and leaders; receive and consider information, reports, and policies Analyze data sources from across the criminal justice system for a comprehensive perspective Complement data analysis with input from stakeholder groups and interested parties Present a policy framework to reduce corrections costs, increase public safety, and project the impacts Identify needs for implementation and deliver technical assistance for reinvestment strategies Monitor the impact of enacted policies and programs; adjust implementation plan as needed Council of State Governments Justice Center | 4#5States using the justice reinvestment approach with CSG Justice Center WA NV ID AZ Past states Current states (Phase I or II) MT ND NE TX KS WI MI NH VT MA PA ст 210 RI IN OH WV OK AR AL NC HI Council of State Governments Justice Center | 5#6Overview 01 Project Update 02 Prison Populations uu 03 2 500 04 Supervision Populations What Works-Supervision Best Practices Next Steps#7Data analysis update, and challenges identified in source data used in today's presentation Justice Reinvestment Data Request Update Data Requested Criminal History Information Filing, Disposition, & Sentencing Probation and Parole Supervision Prison Population, Admissions, & Releases County Jail Population, Admissions, & Releases Source Attorney General Bureau of Criminal Investigation Administrative Office of the Courts Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Status Received; Analyzed Received; Analyzed Received; Analysis pending Received; Analysis pending Criminal Justice Information Sharing Requested Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Challenges with Source Data Used in Today's Presentation Lack of detailed prison admission information for supervision violators Prison admission data does not include information on the type of violation for inmates admitted for violations of probation or parole. CSG Justice Center research staff were unable to differentiate between inmates admitted for violations due to a new offense, a technical violation, or absconding. Lack of detailed offense information for supervision records The degree of offense is not tracked in the supervision case management system, so CSG Justice Center research staff could not provide a detailed analysis of supervision activity for low-level felony offenders. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 7#8North Dakota's rich prison and supervision data powered the analysis in today's presentation 1.4 million records received from DOCR Probation/parole admission: Unit of supervision data analysis representing the event at which a person begins either probation or parole supervision. Admissions are based on case number and supervision start date, and can include multiple charges within a case. Prison release: Unit of prison data analysis representing the event at which a person is released from a DOCR or contracted facility. Prison release counts are based on release date and can include multiple cases and charges, if the sentences ended on the same day. Probation/parole one-day snapshot: Unit of supervision data analysis representing all active probation and/or parole cases on the last day of a fiscal year (June 30th). Prison one-day snapshot: Unit of prison data analysis representing the standing population in DOCR or contracted facilities as of the last day of a fiscal year (June 30th). Prison admission: Unit of prison data analysis representing the event at which a person is admitted to a DOCR or contracted facility. Prison admission counts are based on admission date and reason and can include multiple cases and charges if the sentences began on the same day. Governing Offense: The single charge associated with a prison inmate or supervision case. If there are multiple charges, the governing offense is categorized by the most serious charge based on a prioritized scale. For prison length of stay analysis, the controlling offense is used as the governing offense. Probation/parole termination: Unit of supervision data analysis representing the event at which a person ends either probation or parole supervision. Terminations are based on case number and termination date and can include multiple charges within a case. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 8#9Definitions of offense categories used in this analysis Person Aggravated Assault Robbery Homicide Manslaughter Assault Kidnapping Domestic Violence Child Abuse Sexual Assault Property Theft of Property/Service Insufficient Funds Possession of Stolen Property Burglary Criminal Mischief Forgery/fraud Motor Vehicle Theft Drug Possession Distribution (includes possession with intent to distribute) Manufacturing Drug paraphernalia Forged prescription • Controlled substance at school Other Disorderly conduct Criminal Trespass Resisting/Evading Arrest Reckless Driving Leaving the Scene of an Accident Source: NCIC offense information from BCI • Minor in possession of alcohol Contributing to the delinquency of a minor Driving without Insurance Cruelty to animals Hunting offenses Driving Under the Influence Driving while License Suspended . Court offenses Council of State Governments Justice Center | 9#10Today's analysis focuses on prison and probation supervision, with a review of other areas to be addressed in future presentations WHEN ANALYSIS WILL TOPIC OF ANALYSIS Sentencing policy Sentencing practices Statute review Probation Prison Recidivism/outcomes Parole Front-end pressures County Jails Pretrial processes (pretrial release, length of stay, bail, etc.) BE COVERED April April April Today Today Today Today/July July July July Council of State Governments Justice Center | 10#11CSG Justice Center staff are pursuing regional perspectives in stakeholder engagement, reflecting the state's size and diversity 87 CALLS & MEETINGS 10 ON-SITE VISITS 8 DIFFERENT REGIONS SINCE FALL 2015 Probation & Parole Officer Survey Probation and parole officers across the state participated in an online CSG Justice Center staff survey. 71 percent of probation officers responded, and their input is included in today's presentation. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 11#12Stakeholder input informs the data analysis presented today Incarceration Issues Committee Individual meetings/calls with working group members and their staff Corrections Meetings with DOCR staff, Centre Inc., and the Dakota Women's Correctional Rehab Center; probation officers survey; and observation of probation reporting sessions North Dakota Legislature Meetings with Senators and House Representatives Courts Meetings/calls with individual judges, state attorneys, and the Attorney General's Office; administration of a judicial survey; and court observations Behavioral Health DHS, Regional Human Services Centers, Ruth Meiers Hospitality Center, ADAPT Inc., Heartview Foundation, Heart River Alcohol and Drug Abuse Services, Native American Resource Center, and Choice Recovery Counseling Law Enforcement Burleigh, Ward, and Cass County Police Department; Bismarck and Minot Police Department; Stark and Williams County Sheriff's Office; Southwest Multi Correction Center; and presented at the joint Chiefs and Sheriffs Associations meeting ++ نشون Community and Tribal Organizations NDACO, Indian Affairs Commission, Three Affiliated Tribes, CAWS North Dakota, North Dakota Council on Abused Women Services Coalition, and North Dakota Board of Addiction Counseling Services Council of State Governments Justice Center | 12#131 North Dakota's jail and prison populations are growing faster than nearly every other state The North Dakota prison population had the FOURTH HIGHEST percent increase in the country between 2005 and 2014 Stable Prison Population The North Dakota jail population had the THIRD HIGHEST percent increase in the country between 2006 and 2013 Stable Jail Population Significant Growth in Jail Population Significant Growth in Jail Population 32% 83% *The 2006-2013 timeframe is the most recent data available for national data comparisons on jail populations. Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Census of Jails: Population Changes, 1999-2013 (Washington DC: BJA, 2015). Excludes the unified jail and prison systems in Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and Vermont. BJS, "Correctional Statistical Analysis Tool (2005-2014)," retrieved on January 21, 2016, from http://www.bis.gov/index.cfm?ty=nps. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 13#142 $250 $200 Without action, public safety dollars will be consumed trying to keep up with growth rather than investing in crime and recidivism reduction strategies General Fund Corrections Appropriations (in millions), FY2007-2017 Corrections Spending Increase, FY07-09 to FY15-17 $181 $160 $150 $144 $131 $100 $50 $215* $0 FY 07-09 FY 09-11 FY 11-13 FY 13-15 FY 15-17 64% The FY2009-11 state budget provided $64 million ($22.5 million from the General Fund) for construction and renovation at the North Dakota State Penitentiary. DOCR also receives special funding allocations. *Budgeted, not spent for 2016 and 2017. Biennial budgets run on a two-year cycle. Budget information cited here is from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2005 and the most recent running from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2015. Source: DOCR, Biennial Report 2003-2005. (Bismarck: DOCR, 2005); DOCR, Biennial Report 2013-2015. Actual General Fund appropriations were $83,458,031 for 2005 and $178,475,785 for 2015. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 14#153 Maintaining the status quo will cost North Dakota a minimum of $485 million in additional spending over the next decade Ten-year cost of relying on contracted capacity to accommodate HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED ONE-DAY TOTAL INMATE COUNTS, FY2005-2025 projected prison growth 3,500 3,000 2,500 Current contract beds (530) 2,000 1,751 carried forward through 2025 $220M 1,329 1,500 1,000 + 500 0 T Population growth (1,310) carried through 2025 $265M Total Estimated Cost of Accommodating Prison Growth Through Contract Beds daily rate estimate is $114/day = $485M 2013 2015 2017 2005 2007 2009 2011 Actual One-Day Count 3,061 EXISTING CAPACITY 1,515 2019 T 2021 2023 2025 Projected One-Day Count Building a NEW STATE PRISON would add costs above the contract beds OUT-OF-STATE CONTRACT BEDS likely would be needed, possibly increasing collateral costs Contract beds within the state of North Dakota are NOT ADEQUATELY EQUIPPED to handle inmates' special needs Source: DOCR emails (2015-17 contract facility budget information and DOCR facility cost-per-day figures); DOCR housing data; DOCR inmate projections; "Locking Up North Dakota," DOCR 2015. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 15#16Overview 01 Project Update 02 Prison Populations 03 Supervision Populations 04 What Works-Supervision Best Practices 05 Next Steps#17Section Preview: Supervision failures and lowest-level property and drug offenses are creating prison population pressure Property and drug offenses and probation and parole revocations make up 72 percent of all prison admissions 62 percent of new offense admissions are from the lowest felony class; most are for property and drug offenses 27 percent of people in prison on any given day are there following a probation or parole revocation Council of State Governments Justice Center | 17#18Prison admissions spiked 21 percent between 2011 and 2014 1,400 Prison Admissions, FY2005-2014 1,290 1,206 1,200 1,118 1,059 1,076 1,065 1,062 1,043 1,019 1,005 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 Source: DOCR prison admission data files 2005-2011 2011-2014 Difference Difference Prison Admissions -5% +21% Council of State Governments Justice Center | 18#19New offense admissions drove the increase in prison admissions, with property and drug offenses accounting for over half the growth Prison Admissions, FY2010-2014 1,400 1,200 1,000 PROPERTY & DRUG +42% NEW 800 PERSON & OTHER OFFENSE ADMISSIONS 600 400 200 -3% PROBATION AND PAROLE REVOCATIONS 0 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 PERSON & OTHER 242 253 270 317 341 99 PROPERTY & DRUG 307 286 303 338 436 2010 to 129 2014 REVOCATIONS 503 453 476 536 488 DIFFERENCE -15 TOTAL 1,052 992 1,049 1,191 1,265 213 Source: DOCR prison admission data files Council of State Governments Justice Center | 19#20People sentenced for property and drug offenses present the biggest challenge-and opportunity-for recidivism reduction • • . What we know about people convicted of property and drug offenses Property and drug crimes represent a large share of arrests and sentences, consuming law enforcement and court resources. These people tend to have criminal records (more prior arrests) but are convicted of nonviolent offenses. They may have significant criminogenic needs, including substance use and criminal attitudes, that must be addressed to prevent future criminal behavior. A combination of effective supervision and treatment is shown to produce the largest reductions in recidivism. Average Number of Prior Arrests, FY2014 New Offense Admissions 5.3 5.0 4.5 3.6 Property Drug Person Other Source: DOCR prison admission data files; BCI criminal history data Council of State Governments Justice Center | 20#21New offense admissions to prison increased in every judicial district 250 200 150 100 93 Change in New Offense Admissions by Judicial District, FY2010-2014 2010 2014 110 110 60 60 97 97 98 88 81 58 58 44 165 213 68 80 38 23 14 0 East Central North Central Northeast Northeast Northwest Central South Central Southeast Southwest 50 50 54 .... *Less than 1% of prison admissions are missing district information in each fiscal year Source: DOCR prison admission data files Council of State Governments Justice Center | 21#22Admissions for new drug and property offenses, probation violations, and parole violations make up almost three-fourths of all prison admissions Prison Admissions, FY2014 (N=1,290) 400 350 300 250 200 13% 150 100 50 20% 16% 72% 11% 22% 16% 2% New Offense: New Offense: Property Drug New Offense: Person New Probation Parole Other Offense: Violation Violation Admissions Other "Other admissions" include Appeal Bond, Federal Authorities, Out of State, Recapture, and Transfer admissions. "Other" offenses include DUI, traffic offenses, obstruction, escape, and other offenses. Source: DOCR prison admission data files#2362 percent of new offense admissions are from the lowest felony class, mostly property and drug offenses. 4% 17% AA FELONY A FELONY Drug 15 Drug Property 0 Property 2 New Offense Admissions by Felony Class, FY2014 14% B FELONY N=777 62% C FELONY 44 Drug 98 Drug Property 30 Property 31% of all new offense admissions are for property and drug crimes 99 Person 18 Person 31 Person 32 Person 117 Other 0 Other 0 Source: DOCR prison admission data files Other 6 Other 124 139 Council of State Governments Justice Center | 23#24The share of the prison population serving sentences for the most serious offenses (Class AA and A) increased 21 percent Prison Snapshot Population, FY2010-2014 1,800 FY2010 to FY2014 Change 1,600 258 1,400 163 250 181 211 +21% 1,200 353 365 Class AA and A 332 366 344 1,000 800 600 982 922 927 965 986 400 200 0 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 *Inmate population as of 6/30/2014. Source: DOCR prison one-day population snapshot data files Stable Class B and C, and misdemeanors Council of State Governments Justice Center | 24#25Individuals with person offenses have an outsized representation in the snapshot population due to longer lengths of stay Prison Population of New Offense Admissions, FY2014 Person Property Drug Other Admissions (n=777) 26% 22% Snapshot Population (n = 1,138) 51% 34% 18% 16% 24% 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% *As of 6/30/2014. Population admitted for new offenses only. Probation violations, parole violations, and other admission types are excluded. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 25 Source: DOCR prison admission and one-day population snapshot data files#26One in four people in prison was revoked from probation and parole supervision Probation Revocation Parole Revocation 6% Prison Snapshot Population, FY2014* N=1,609 21% 70% New Offense Admission Length of Stay Following a Probation or Parole Revocation Parole Revocation 178 days Probation Revocation 391 days Some "New Offense Admissions" are likely individuals who were on community supervision but were convicted of a new offense without having their supervision terminated. *Prison population on June 30, 2014. 1% of the prison population had an admission type of "Other." Source: DOCR prison one-day snapshot and release data files Council of State Governments Justice Center | 26#27Native Americans make up a much larger portion of prison. admissions from probation revocations than new offense admissions NEW OFFENSE ADMISSIONS N = 777 18% Native American 4% Hispanic Asian Other 1% 7% Black 70% Caucasian ADMISSIONS FOR PROBATION REVOCATIONS N = 282 32% Native American Asian Other 1% 5% Black 3% Hispanic 59% Caucasian Rates shown are for FY2014 In 2014, the Native American population made up 5.4% of North Dakota's resident population. Source: DOCR prison admission data files Council of State Governments Justice Center | 27#28North Dakota spends $25 million incarcerating lowest-level property and drug offenders and people revoked from probation and parole NEW OFFENSE ADMISSIONS (FY2014) Admissions Average LOS Cost Per Day Total Drug Offense (Class C) 99 233 days $113.59 $2.6M Property Offense (Class C) 139 349 days $113.59 $5.5M + PROBATION AND PAROLE REVOCATIONS (FY2014) Admissions Average LOS Cost Per Day Total Parole Revocations 206 178 days $113.59 $4.2M Probation Revocations 282 391 days $113.59 $12.5M $25 Million Spent on lowest-level felony property and drug offenses and probation and parole revocations (FY2014) Source: DOCR prison admission and release data files; DOCR cost-per-day estimates Council of State Governments Justice Center | 28#29Overview 01 Project Update TO 02 02 Prison Populations 03 Supervision Populations 04 What Works-Supervision Best Practices 05 Next Steps#30Section Preview: Failures on probation and parole supervision add significant cost to the prison system 46 percent of probation revocations involve noncriminal violations of supervision conditions There is a substantial need for substance use treatment, and barriers exist to accessing adequate care Half of people revoked from probation are sent to prison and another third are sent to jail, creating state and local costs Council of State Governments Justice Center | 30#31Revocation rates climb as supervision levels increase, indicating a need to shift resources to higher supervision levels Percent of unsuccessful exits from probation, FY2014 N = 3,209* 11% 26% 47% 64% Diversion Minimum Medium Maximum Higher-risk probationers require more intensive supervision and programs to reduce recidivism. Applying similar supervision and program intensities to lower-risk probationers can have the reverse effect, increasing recidivism. *979 probationers were categorized as "Not Classified" and are not represented in this chart because they are incarcerated or out of state and not actively overseen by the North Dakota probation department. Less than 1% of probation cases were missing classification levels. 2% of probation cases had an outcome of "Death" or "Other." Source: DOCR supervision data Council of State Governments Justice Center | 31#32Twice as many probationers, 2.5 times as many high-risk probationers, live in the South Central judicial district than anywhere else in the state Northeast North Central Northeast Northwest Central Southwest South Central Southeast East Central POs in many areas of the state reported that their caseloads allowed time to regularly employ supervision best practices 75 PERCENT of POs in the South Central district reported having challenges employing best practices due to the high volume of higher-risk individuals (and associated higher contact standards) on their caseloads. Total Probationers High/Moderate-High Probationers East Central 984 295 North Central 668 276 Northeast 591 218 Northeast Central 711 288 Northwest 402 129 South Central 2,202 938 Southeast 581 177 Southwest 369 109 Rates shown are based on probation one-day snapshot population on 6/30/2014 Source: DOCR supervision data; CSG Justice Center Probation and Parole Officer Survey Council of State Governments Justice Center | 32#33South Central had both the highest rate and the largest number of probation revocations Probation Revocations, FY2014 N = 1,166 43% 37% 35% 34% 32% 29% 29% 26% 464 109 249 109 85 45 69 35 Northwest South Central Northeast East Central Northeast North Central Southwest Southeast Central Source: DOCR supervision data Council of State Governments Justice Center | 33#3446 percent of probation revocations across the state were for noncriminal violations of supervision conditions 60% Probation Revocations by Reason, FY2014 N = 1,166 50% 48% 46% 13% 40% 21% 3% 30% 20% 24% 10% 25% 7% 0% (with or without technical 7% New Offense violations or absconding) 7% Technical Violation (with or without Absconded Only absconding) One case was missing revocation information. Source: DOCR supervision data 44% of all probation revocations involve absconding Abscond Only Technical Violation + Abscond Technical Violation Only New Offense + Technical Violation + Abscond I New Offense + Abscond New Offense + Technical Violation ■New Offense Only Council of State Governments Justice Center | 34#35Half of revoked probationers were sent to prison, and one in three were sent to county jails Probation Revocations by Disposition, 2014 5% TERMINATED FROM SUPERVISION N = 1,166 10% REVOKED TO 59 SUPERVISION 122 PRISON FOLLOWED BY 84 PROBATION 51% REVOKED TO PRISON AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF $12.5 MILLION Includes revocations for any reason. Source: DOCR supervision data PRISON 516 JAIL 291 33% REVOKED TO JAIL 94 JAIL COSTS NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME JAIL FOLLOWED BY PROBATION Council of State Governments Justice Center | 35#36POs work extensively with probationers and parolees to address behavior before moving to revoke community supervision Curfew restrictions Other Jail Electronic monitoring Referral to CB treatment Administrative review conference Homework Informal counseling Increase in reporting frequency Referral to MH or SU treatment Increase in drug testing Verbal warning FREQUENCY OF USE Source: CSG Justice Center Probation and Parole Officer Survey Frequency of Use of Intermediate Sanctions Most POs felt there were barriers to using some sanctions such as overburdened jails, lack of health insurance for offenders, inability of some individuals to pay the out-of- pocket expense of private treatment Council of State Governments Justice Center | 36#37Probation and parole officers reported an acute need for substance use services in the community Half of POS reported that 75% or more SUBSTANCE USE of their clients MENTAL HEALTH needed substance use treatment Half of POS reported that fewer than 50% of their clients needed mental health treatment NEED FOR TREATMENT AVAILABILITY OF TREATMENT 2% 12% Unavailable Available & 24% accessible Somewhat unavailable Somewhat available 62% NEED FOR TREATMENT AVAILABILITY OF TREATMENT 2% Unavailable €4% Somewhat unavailable 46% Available & accessible 48% Somewhat available Source: CSG Justice Center Probation and Parole Officer Survey Council of State Governments Justice Center | 37#38A majority of POs observed wait times of at least three weeks to access all forms of community treatment Reported Wait Time for Treatment Services Less than 1 week 1-2 weeks ■3-4 weeks More than 4 weeks 100% 23% 57% 47% 90% 80% 70% 51% 60% 50% 40% 74% over 32% 79% 25% 30% 3 weeks 82% over over 3 weeks 20% 16% 3 weeks 16% 10% 10% 10% 8% 0% Substance use treatment Mental health treatment 5% Cognitive behavioral treatment Source: CSG Justice Center Probation and Parole Officer Survey Council of State Governments Justice Center | 38#39Barriers to treatment and effective sanctions left POs feeling only moderately confident in their ability to hold offenders accountable Confidence and Accountability How confident are you that you are able to hold probationers/parolees accountable for technical 4% 37% violations? 37% 22% The lack of treatment results in a number of violations for substance use while an individual is waiting for access. As a result, most POS ultimately end up recommending about one third of their caseloads for revocation each year. Very confident Somewhat confident Not very confident Source: CSG Justice Center Probation and Parole Officer Survey Not confident at all Council of State Governments Justice Center | 39#40Overview 01 Project Update TO 02 12 Prison Populations 03 Supervision Populations 50 04 What Works-Supervision Best Practices 05 Next Steps#41Section Preview: DOCR utilizes many evidence-based practices, but systemic challenges impede maximum impact Risk assessment informs access to programs within DOCR facilities and supervision intensity in the community. Individuals at higher supervision levels are revoked at higher rates, suggesting that additional supports and services are needed earlier in their supervision period. Supervision, programs, and treatment that adhere to evidence-based practices are able to reduce recidivism at lower cost than interventions in prison. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 41#42SYSTEM CHECKLIST: Reducing recidivism and promoting recovery 1 Assess risk and need 2 Target the right people 3 Frontload supervision and treatment 4 Implement proven programs 5 Address criminal thinking 6 Hold individuals accountable 7 Measure and incentivize outcomes Council of State Governments Justice Center | 42#431. ASSESS: Efforts to reduce recidivism fall short unless driven by high- quality risk and needs assessments Without Risk Assessment... With Risk Assessment... == == Risk of Reoffending Low Moderate High 10% re-arrested 35% re-arrested 70% re-arrested Council of State Governments Justice Center | 43#441. ASSESS RISK AND NEED: North Dakota has adopted and consistently uses a modern risk and need assessment tool No risk assessment Full risk assessment Validated risk and need assessment tool with periodic reassessment CURRENT PRACTICE Probation and parole officers are regularly trained on and consistently use a validated risk tool. Officers conduct re- assessments on the LSI-R every 6 months. GOING FORWARD Conduct a validation study every 5 years Implement recommendations of 2011 validation study Consider adopting the Woman's Risk Needs Assessment (WRNA) to add predictive validity of the LSI-R for women Examine the predictive validity of the current LSI-R for Native Americans Council of State Governments Justice Center | 44#452. TARGET: To reduce recidivism, supervision and programs must be focused on people with higher risk/need Risk Assessment Low Risk Treatment Assessment Interventions { Low to High Treatment Needs Standard Supervision Standard Treatment ர்ர் Low to High Treatment Needs Enhanced Supervision Enhanced Treatment Mod/High Risk Council of State Governments Justice Center | 45#462. TARGET THE RIGHT PEOPLE: Officers consider risk levels when setting supervision contacts and developing supervision plans Supervision not differentiated by risk Supervision differentiated by risk Supervision and programs focused on high risk CURRENT PRACTICE Officers conduct the LSI-R and use risk levels to determine contact standards and supervision plans GOING FORWARD Ensure that risk levels are used to prioritize access to community programs and treatment Step down felony probationers from active to diversion caseload based on risk level and demonstrated compliance Council of State Governments Justice Center | 46#473A. FRONTLOAD: Supervision and supports should be focused on the period when people are most likely to reoffend North Dakota Three-year re-arrest rates among prison releases, FY2012 N = 1,048 44% 500 not re-arrested 450 459 400 32% re-arrested 350 A majority of new arrests are for drug offenses or court violations 300 335 250 17% rearrested 200 150 100 50 178 7% rearrested 76 0 No re-arrest within 3 years of release Re-arrested within 1 year of release Re-arrested 1-2 years after release Re-arrested 2-3 years after release Average number of days from release to re-arrest: 166 FY2012 releases are used to allow for three full years from the date of release Source: DOCR prison release data files; BCI criminal history data Council of State Governments Justice Center | 47#483A. FRONTLOAD SUPERVISION: Probation officers prioritize contact with individuals at the onset of probation No frontloading Supervision differentiated by risk Supervision and programs focused on high risk CURRENT PRACTICE At the onset of probation, officers make referrals to programs and treatment and initiate case planning. After a proven period of compliance, contact standards may be decreased. GOING FORWARD Clarify the step-down processes to diversion and other supervision levels Expand treatment and programing available to probationers Council of State Governments Justice Center | 48#493B. FRONTLOAD SUPPORTS: A continuum of services must be able to provide the right services at the right time High Risk, High Need High Level of Supports Residential Treatment While people should start at the level of supports they initially need to address their risk and needs, they should "step down" into lower-intensity and lower-cost interventions Intensive Outpatient Outpatient Maintenance & Recovery Low Risk, Low Need Low Level of Supports Council of State Governments Justice Center | 49#503B. FRONTLOAD ACCESS TO EVIDENCE-BASED TREATMENT: Individuals have prompt access to treatment services that will support their success on community supervision. Lack of access Community behavioral health treatment is available Supervisees have prompt access to high- quality treatment CURRENT PRACTICE Judges report sentencing to prison to access treatment that is not currently available in the community. Officers. report that a lack of treatment options contributes to a high supervision failure rate. GOING FORWARD Expand availability of treatment services for individuals in the community Ensure individuals have needed health care coverage Ensure timely access to effective services Council of State Governments Justice Center | 50#514. IMPLEMENT: Selecting and implementing proven programs helps ensure resources are expended wisely Who: Targeting High Risk? How Well: High Cost/Benefit ratios Program Quality? Program Impact Intervention ROI Cognitive behavioral treatment (for $24.01 high and moderate risk offenders) Therapeutic communities for drug $7.39 offenders (community) Outpatient drug treatment $5.46 (community) What: High quality community supervision $3.42 Effective (for high- and moderate-risk Program Models? offenders) Intensive supervision (surveillance only) ($0.77) Source: Lee, S., Aos, S., Drake, E., Pennucci, A., Miller, M., & Anderson, L. (2012). Return on investment: Evidence-based options to improve statewide outcomes, April 2012 (Document No. 12-04-1201). Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 51#524. IMPLEMENT PROVEN PROGRAMS: Some programming is offered in the community, but availability fluctuates by region Programs do not adhere to best practices Programs based on what works Programs based on what works and regularly assessed for quality CURRENT PRACTICE The only programming provided through probation is at transitional centers like BTC or Centre Inc., though some offices are conducting T4C pilots. There is limited access available through Human Service Centers or private providers. GOING FORWARD Options should be explored that look at the ability for community providers to adopt cognitive-behavioral programs like Thinking for a Change Examine whether probation and parole officers have the capacity to offer groups in the probation offices Identify opportunities to expand capacity with existing providers Council of State Governments Justice Center | 52#535. CRIMINAL THINKING: Programs intended to reduce recidivism must address needs as well as criminal thinking Examples of Types of Criminal Thinking Denial of Victim "I'm the one who is getting messed with." "They had it coming." Denial of Injury "No one really got hurt here." "They have insurance for that." Denial of Responsibility “I didn't do it." "I had no choice!" The Condemnation of the Condemners "The cops are just out to get me." "You do the same things. You just haven't been caught." Appeal to Higher Loyalties "My friends needed me. What was I going to do?" "I didn't do it for myself." Source: Sykes GM, Matza D. Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency. American Sociological Review 1957, Volume 22, Issue 6. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 53#545. CRIMINAL THINKING: Probation and parole officers target criminogenic needs of the people they supervise No CBT programming CBT programming CBT programming & CBT-driven supervision CURRENT PRACTICE Officers integrate cognitive- behavioral interventions during reporting and target the thoughts, values, and attitudes that contribute to the criminal behavior of individuals under supervision. GOING FORWARD ◉ Fully implement EPICS across all districts Options should be explored that look at the ability for community providers to adopt cognitive-behavioral programs like Thinking for a Change Examine whether probation and parole officers have the capacity to offer groups in the probation offices Council of State Governments Justice Center | 54#556. ACCOUNTABILITY: Swift, certain, and fair responses to violation behavior are critically important Washington Technical violators can be held for 2-3 days for low-level violations and up to 30 days for high-level violations Days Incarcerated 2010 Georgia Prompt sanctions to correct behavior of troublesome probationers North Carolina Swift and certain "dips" of brief jail sanctions and "dunks" of prison sanctions in response to violations Days in Jail Status Quo Prison Admissions 2011 -65% 23 Days 31 Days 2013 8 Days Source:: Washington Department of Corrections; An Evaluation of Georgia's Probation Options Management Act, Applied Research Services, October 2007; . -74% POM 8 Days -51% 2014 15,188 7,440 Council of State Governments Justice Center | 55#566. ACCOUNTABILITY: While policies provide guidance on violation responses, system challenges limit the ability to hold offenders accountable Delayed, inconsistent, and severe sanctions Use of consistent responses to non-compliance Applying swift, certain, and fair sanctions CURRENT PRACTICE Officers struggle to hold offenders accountable due to limitations of resources in the community. Officers do reinforce positive behavior, but there are not formalized incentives defined in policy. GOING FORWARD ■ Revise policies on offender management with input of officers across the state to reflect regional differences ■ Update the offender management policy to include more detail on incentives and reinforcement Improve collaboration between DOCR, the courts, and jails to develop solutions that allow officers to use the jails consistently in order for jail sanctions to work as a deterrent Council of State Governments Justice Center | 56#577. MEASURE OUTCOMES: Agencies and program providers must be held accountable for demonstrating results Are key outcomes identified and measured across all systems? ● • • Tracking recidivism rates over time at each part of the system Creating incentives to drive performance, especially by program providers Assessing how well agencies are coordinating efforts with shared populations Council of State Governments Justice Center | 57#587. MEASURE OUTCOMES: While DOCR collects internal data, there are no formal mechanisms in place to monitor the quality of services of outside providers Not measuring outcomes Tracking outcomes Incentivizing outcomes CURRENT PRACTICE DOCR collects data on revocation rates and risk assessment overrides and conducts QA on contract facilities. Officers reported a wide variety of quality of services, but no formal assessment of services exists. GOING FORWARD Develop mechanisms to collect data on quality assurance from community programming Assess the quality of community providers and identify whether they use cognitive-behavioral interventions Analyze trends to monitor recidivism rates, identify training opportunities, and assess the efficacy of treatment and programming Council of State Governments Justice Center | 58#59Overview 01 Project Update TO 02 12 Prison Populations 03 Supervision Populations 04 What Works-Supervision Best Practices 05 Next Steps#60Key challenges identified by sentencing analysis Felony sentence events doubled between 2011 and 2014, primarily due to drug offenses Three-quarters of lowest-level felony sentence events (Class C) were to incarceration Over half of sentence events to probation included suspended periods of incarceration Council of State Governments Justice Center | 60#61Key challenges identified by prison population and probation supervision analysis Probation and parole revocations and lowest-level felony property and drug offenses account for nearly three- quarters of all admissions to prison Probation revocations cost the state more than $12 million each year in state prison costs, plus additional costs at the county level Probation supervision policies are based on best practices but face real-world challenges in being carried out effectively Council of State Governments Justice Center | 61#62projected prison growth Ten-year cost of relying on contracted capacity to accommodate North Dakota's criminal justice system poses significant financial challenges unless policy action is taken 3,500 FY2005-2025 HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED ONE-DAY TOTAL INMATE COUNTS, Current contract beds (530) 3,000 carried forward through 2025 2,500 3,061 $220 M 2,000 1,500 1,329 1,751 1,000 Population growth (1,310) carried through 2025 + 500 0 $265 M = 2005 2007 2009 2011 EXISTING CAPACITY 1,515 Actual One-Day Count 2013 2015 2017 T T 2019 2021 2023 2025 Total Estimated Cost of Accommodating Prison Growth Through Contract $485 M Beds daily rate estimate is $114/day Projected One-Day Count Building a NEW STATE PRISON would add costs above the contract beds OUT-OF-STATE CONTRACT BEDS likely would be needed, possibly increasing collateral costs Contract beds within the state of North Dakota are NOT ADEQUATELY EQUIPPED to handle inmates' special needs Source: DOCR emails (2015-17 contract facility budget information and DOCR facility cost-per-day figures); DOCR housing data; DOCR inmate projections; "Locking Up North Dakota," DOCR 2015. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 62#63CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM CHALLENGE North Dakota relies more heavily on incarceration for lower-level felonies than most states In FY2014, just 19 PERCENT of felony sentences were to probation. In other states, this rate is higher: nationally, it is 27 percent; in Idaho, 58 percent, and in Kansas, 69 percent. Washington North Dakota Nebraska Michigan National North Carolina Idaho Kansas Prison/Jail 88% Prison/Jail Prison/Jail 76% 74% Prison 60% Jail 16% Prison 52% Jail 22% Prison 21% Jail 55% Prison/Jail Prison/Jail Prison/Jail 76% 69% 66% Prison 41% Jail 28% Prison 42% Jail 24% Prison/Jail 42% Prison 42% Prison/Jail 31% Prison 24% Jail 7% Prison 39% Jail 49% Probation Probation Probation Probation Probation 34% Probation 10% 19% 22% 23% 27% Probation 58% Probation 69% The majority of people sentenced for offenses under the lowest felony class (Class C) receive sentences to prison, where their average length of stay is 10 months, a costly sanction that provides limited options for programs that can lower recidivism. Sentencing people convicted of a Class C offense to probation, however, enables a sentence of up to 5 years that provides longer periods of accountability and monitoring. Probationers can receive treatment as needed, be sanctioned for failure to comply with conditions, and be revoked and sentenced to prison. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 63#64CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM CHALLENGE Similar dynamics existed in Nebraska, where a majority of sentences to prison were for lowest-level felonies Justice reinvestment research found that 55% of felony sentences were for class IV convictions (FY2012-FY2013) Class IIIA (13%) 90 percent of Class IV offenses were nonviolent, 73 percent of Class IV sentences were to incarceration, the average time served was 10 months, and one-third were released without supervision. People with sentences for low-level felony offenses had lower recidivism rates on probation than following prison. 2-Year Recidivism Rates for Probation (FY2011) and Prison (FY2010) by Sentence Type Class IV 50% Probation Prison Class III (21%) (55%) 33% 30% 40% 30% 26% 20% 17% 10% Class II (7%) Class I(A- D) (3%) 13% 13% 10% 3% 0% Class IV Felony Source: NDCS prison admission and release data, JUSTICE FY2012-FY2013 sentencing data Low Medium High Council of State Governments Justice Center | 64#65POLICY AREAS EXPLORED BY OTHER STATES Use probation + treatment for people with nonviolent, low- level offenses Nebraska Reclassified felony offenses according to whether they involve violence or are sex offenses. This enhanced the rationality of the state's felony classifications by more uniformly grouping offenses by the severity of the conduct involved. Ohio Requires people convicted of first-time, low-level property and drug offenses to serve probation terms. Alabama Created a new felony category for the lowest-level property and drug offenses for which sentences to community corrections programs or intensive probation may be imposed. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 65#66POLICY AREAS TO EXPLORE Use probation + treatment for people with nonviolent, low- level offenses APPROACHES FOR THE INCARCERATION • ISSUES COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER Provide greater structure in statute regarding populations that should be sentenced to probation rather than incarceration. Distinguish offenses within felony classes according to whether they contain violence or are sex offenses. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 66#67CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM CHALLENGE Individuals failing on community supervision put significant pressure on county and state facilities. On any given day, 27 PERCENT of North Dakota's prison beds are occupied by people who were on probation and parole supervision prior to being revoked and required to serve a term in prison. Probation Revocation 21% Parole Revocation 6% 70% New Offense Admission Prison Snapshot Population FY2014 Probation and parole revocations impose substantial costs for county governments as well: 33 percent of people revoked from probation are required to serve terms in jail. 45 percent of revocations from probation involved no new criminal offenses; the probationer violated the conditions of his or her supervision. In surveys, probation and parole officers indicated they are seeking additional tools-sanctions, incentives, and treatment where needed-to hold probationers and parolees accountable. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 67#68CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM CHALLENGE In North Carolina, more than half of prison admissions to prison were probation revocations Challenge 76% of probation revocations to prison were for violating the conditions of supervision North Carolina Prison Admissions FY2001-2009 Impact Since policy enactment, probation revocations fell by half In FY2011, probation revocations accounted for 52% of prison admissions In FY2014, probation revocations accounted for 33% of prison admissions FY 2001 20,000 17,500 15,000 12,500 11,586 10,000 7,500 5,000 2,500 0 Probation Revocations 15,976 FY 2002 FY 2003 Source: North Carolina Department of Correction Annual Statistical Reports FY 2004 FY 2005 Other FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 New Offense Convictions 15,118 FY 2009 Probation Revocations Revocation CRV* FY2011 2,274 7,491 FY2014 *Confinement in response to a violation is a flat period of confinement that probation violators may be required to serve as a sanction. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 68#69JUSTICE REINVESTMENT POLICY IMPACT 45,000 Public safety and corrections trends following enactment of the justice reinvestment statutes Prison Population at JRA Passing June 2011 41,030 Baseline Projected Prison Population 43,220 $560m averted costs and savings by FY2017 40,000 35,000 2005 Actual Prison Population 36,663 June 30, 2014 Actual Prison Population 37,665 JRA Projected Prison Population 38,264 8% drop in prison population 10 prisons closed since 2011 175 new probation officers in FY2014 and FY2015 30,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 11% drop in crime between 2011-2013 Council of State Governments Justice Center | 69#70POLICY AREAS EXPLORED BY OTHER STATES Strengthen Supervision North Carolina Provides probation officers with tools to respond immediately to supervision violations, including short, cost-effective periods of incarceration. New Hampshire Arizona & Nevada Frontloads supervision by focusing resources on individuals early in their supervision periods, when risk is highest. Developed earned-time policies to incentivize success on probation and focus supervision on people who are at high risk of reoffending Idaho Created a violation response matrix to sanction supervision violations and provide incentives for positive behavior. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 70#71POLICY AREAS TO EXPLORE Strengthen Supervision APPROACHES FOR THE INCARCERATION ● ISSUES COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER ● Focus supervision resources on higher-risk probationers and parolees Improve probation and parole officers' ability to respond to violations with swiftness and certainty Respond to major violations with cost-effective periods of incarceration followed by supervision Council of State Governments Justice Center | 71#72CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM CHALLENGE There is a substantial need for substance use treatment, and barriers exist to accessing adequate care POs believe that 75 PERCENT 1,200 1,000 800 of people on probation or parole have a need for substance use treatment, and probation and parole officers indicate long wait periods to access behavioral health 200 treatment. 600 400 Felony Sentence Events, FY2011-FY2014 Drug 148% Property 91% Person 176% 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 Other 24% A shortage of behavioral health treatment is a factor underpinning many of North Dakota's criminal justice challenges. This issue has been raised by numerous criminal justice system stakeholders, including local law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys. Over a three-year period, from 2011 to 2014, the number of felony sentences for drug offenses increased two-and-a-half times. In 2014, four out of five felony drug sentences were for possession. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 72#73CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM CHALLENGE Before justice reinvestment, WV provided few substance use services for the probation and parole population Justice reinvestment research found that: 22% of new commitments are for drug offenses 62% of probation revocations to prison had a substance score indicating abuse or addiction Alcohol and drug use cited in 78% of technical parole revocations and 65% of revocations for new crimes Source: D.A. Andrews & James Bonta, "ColorPlpt Profile Form for Men," The Level of Service Inventory - Revised: U.S. Norms, 2003 Steven Belenkoa & Jordon Peugh "Estimating Drug Treatment Needs Among State Prison Inmates." Drug and Alcohol Dependence 77, no. 3 (2005): 269–281. Conversation with Alexa Eggleston and Fred Osher, November, 2012 Probation Parole Funding for services $0 $0 Capacity to provide services None None Estimated demand 1,449 492 for services - Total Outpatient 580 197 Intensive 580 197 Outpatient Residential with step down 290 98 Council of State Governments Justice Center | 73#74JUSTICE REINVESTMENT POLICY IMPACT In the three years after enacting policies, West Virginia has reinvested $9 million in substance use treatment PLEASANTS MARO TYLER PRESTON BERKE WOOD boco ROGE TAYLOR MINERAL LEY HAMPSHIRE RICHE BARBOUR TUCKER GRANT LEWIS HARDY GILMER MASON ROANE BRATON PENDLETON PUTNAM CABELL CLAY WEBSTER Cha WAYNE LINCOLN NICHOLAS FOCAHONTAS BOONE FAYETTE GREENBRIER RALEIGH WYOMING MCDOWELL SUMMERS MONROE Intensive outpatient treatment Parole Outpatient Peer supports treatment Behavioral health Correctional programming services Also recommended investments to grow the provider base and improve rural treatment access NA/AA Recovery residences Successful Treatment Supervision programs cover a continuum of treatment, supervision, and collaboration activities. Community engagement specialist Intensive supervision Probation Collaboration and Program Management IOP/OP are the only program components that require credentialed behavioral health practitioners. Joint case coordination & planning Outcome focus & reporting Council of State Governments Justice Center | 74#75POLICY AREAS EXPLORED BY OTHER STATES Increase Behavioral Health Treatment Capacity West Virginia Allocated $9 million between FY2014 and FY2016 to expand access to substance use treatment for people on supervision, with county-level grants awarded for treatment services and more. Alabama $12 million over two years for behavioral health treatment for people on supervision. Kansas Wisconsin $5 million added over two years in behavioral health treatment for people on supervision. $10 million over two years to expand community-based recidivism reduction programs including mental health services, substance use treatment, and employment services Council of State Governments Justice Center | 75#76POLICY AREAS TO EXPLORE Increase Behavioral Health Treatment Capacity APPROACHES FOR THE INCARCERATION ISSUES COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER • Reinvest savings in community-based behavioral health treatment • Expand the base of treatment providers and provide training to providers who treat people involved in the criminal justice system • Maximize existing opportunities under Medicaid expansion Council of State Governments Justice Center | 76#77North Dakota Justice Reinvestment Timeline Press Conference & Project Launch Meeting 1 Initial Analysis Meeting 4 TBD Final Analysis Meeting 7 TBD Policy Options Discussed Legislation Pre-Filed Meeting 6 Meeting 2 April 20 Interim Report Meeting 3 TBD June 7 Interim Report Policy Options Discussed Final Report Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct ... Jan 2017 Initial Analysis Detailed Data Analysis Impact Analysis Data Analysis Stakeholder Engagement Policymaker & Stakeholder Engagement, Briefings Policy Development Ongoing Engagement Council of State Governments Justice Center | 77#78JUSTICE CENTER THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS Thank You Michelle Rodriguez, Program Associate [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 North Dakota. 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 agencies supporting the work.#79This project was supported by Grant No. 2015-ZB-BX-K001 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 document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.