Factors Impacting Recidivism in Vermont - Vermont Legislature

Factors Impacting Recidivism in Vermont

Report to House and Senate Committees April 21, 2011

Michael Eisenberg, Research Manager Jessica Tyler, Senior Research Associate

Council of State Governments, Justice Center

1

• National non-profit, non-partisan membership association of state government officials • Represents all three branches of state government • Justice Center provides practical, nonpartisan advice informed by the best available evidence

Criminal Justice / Mental Health Consensus Project

Second Chance Act: Reentry Policy Council


Justice Reinvestment

Vermont Policy Makers Contracted with the CSG Justice Center to Examine Factors Impacting Recidivism •

The Justice Center assistance involved examining Vermont’s recidivism rate and determining if practices are in place to reduce recidivism and make recommendations for improvement. The following areas were examined:  Does the state use a validated and reliable risk assessment instrument to differentiate the population by risk of recidivating? Are the risk assessment data being used to inform program assignment to ensure that high risk offenders are appropriately targeted?  Are programs science based, using designs and practices that have been validated as effective in reducing recidivism?  Are supervision policies and practices employed consistent with what research shows as effective in reducing recidivism?  Are reentry strategies place based?


3

How Does Vermont Measure Recidivism?

Returned to prison within 3 years for any reason or length of time.

Reconvicted within 3 years for any offense.

Reconvicted serving prison or jail time.

Reconvicted serving at least 1 year of prison time.

A significant percent of reconvictions do not result in jail or prison incarceration. Reconviction is a common recidivism measure but not very useful in examining factors impacting prison populations Council of State Governments, Justice Center

4

Vermont Counts Some in Recidivist Populations Who Are Not Counted in Other States Prison (Usually Sentenced to 365 Days or more)

Re-incarceration for new crimes and revocations counted as recidivists Most common method of calculating recidivism

Releases Tracked 3 Years after Release

Releases who were “sanctioned” but “not revoked” In Vermont

Counted in recidivism numbers Council of State Governments, Justice Center

For Example: Modification of conditions of supervision as a graduated sanction with shortterm incarceration in jail or intermediate sanction facility

In Most States

Not counted in recidivism numbers 5

Vermont Does Not Have a Recidivism Definition Easily Comparable to Other States

3 Year Relodging

Reconviction of a New Offense Relodging of over 90 Days Relodging of 90 Days or Less Relodging of over 1 Year

* Back in prison, serving time for a new prison sentence or for a technical violation http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf


6

Pew Recidivism Study Indicates Average Recidivism Rate of 43% Return to Prison in 3 Years


7

Vermont Uses a Validated Risk Assessment Instrument to Differentiate the Population by Risk

oup 3 Gr


s

8

Policy Directives Require Use of LSI Score to Target Interventions in a Variety of Operational Areas

Most directives use the LSI score to dichotomize the population by risk scores of 0-23 and 24 or greater Council of State Governments, Justice Center

9

Risk Assessment Information is Directed to be Used to Target Offenders for Program Assignment


10

Policy Directives Require the Use of Evidence-Based Practices in Program Design and Evaluation Policy Directive 52.01: design, training, operation, & evaluation requirements consistent with evidence-based practices known to reduce recidivism

Evaluations are required to demonstrate programs are implemented as designed and impact outcomes Council of State Governments, Justice Center

11

Policy Directives Require Use of Evidence-Based Practices in Supervision


12

LSI Targeting Based on Two Groups May Not be Most Effective Targeting of High Risk Offenders 61% of Offenders Targeted: Prison, Reentry, Parole, and Intermediate Sanctions

39%

61%

Is there enough program capacity to effectively target this population?

Is there a better way to differentiate the populations to target available program and supervision resources?


13

Three or More Risk Groupings Identified: Why Use Only Two Risk Groups in Directives? Five Groups

Vermont’s directives only use two risk groupings. Greater differentiation may better target offenders by risk of re-offending


14

Supervision Effectiveness •

Focus group interviews with Probation and Parole officers indicated:  Officers reported they received Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Motivational Interviewing, and training in evidence-based practices  Officers stated that while evidence-based supervision practices were in place for supervision, conditions established by the judiciary were primarily offense-based as opposed to conditions addressing criminogenic needs associated with criminality  Treatment resources for substance abuse counseling were available for officers to utilize to meet needs of offenders; however, long-term residential treatment was not available and resources were inadequate for:  Employment  Housing  Mentally ill  High risk offenders were targeted for interventions, and low risk offenders receive limited supervision resources

•

While practices appear to be in place for effective supervision of offenders that should moderate recidivism rates, current measures make it difficult to document effectiveness


15

Use, Capacity, and Effectiveness of Graduated Sanctions

An adequate array of sanctions and incentives were available and utilized in a timely manner.

Focus Group on Graduated Sanctions

Generally used in a progressive manner consistent with seriousness of violation and offender history. Appropriateness of sanctions and capacity issues were not fully evaluated. Vermont has no evaluation of the effectiveness of the use of graduated sanctions.


16

Program Effectiveness •

Programs utilized by the Vermont Department of Corrections are designed and implemented based on programs known to reduce recidivism  Program evaluations have not been completed in recent years due to lack of resources

•

Performance based measures are being developed and will be the basis for future funding allocations  Staff are being trained on the use of the Correctional Program Checklist (CPC), a program evaluation review that determines if evidence-based practices are in place

•

Program administrators are working with the University of Cincinnati (UC) and the University of Vermont to conduct program evaluations  UC evaluations of Ohio programs have identified inappropriate placement of low risk offenders and ineffective programs that have resulted in higher recidivism rates than comparison group offenders not placed in programs


17

Findings and Recommendations (1) •

Finding  Vermont uses reconvictions, a commonly used recidivism measure, as the primary recidivism measure of the Department of Corrections.  Reconvictions have limited utility in examining prison population pressure because a significant percent of reconvictions do not result in jail or prison incarceration.  Most states use re-incarceration as their primary recidivism measure.

•

Recommendation  Develop and implement a re-incarceration recidivism measure consistent with other states and the Bureau of Justice Statistics  Establish goal to reduce re-incarceration recidivism rate  Develop monitoring reports to measure progress and evaluate programs  Report recidivism rate to Governor and Legislature  Progress report on efforts to reduce recidivism and results


18

Recommendation: Calculate Re-Incarceration Recidivism Rate Consistent with Other States


19

States Have Required Recidivism Calculation Statutorily or Designated Agency To Calculate State Recidivism Rate Connecticut Public Law

Public Act No. 05-249 AN ACT CONCERNING CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING AND ELIGIBILITY FOR CRIME VICTIM COMPENSATION. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened: • Sec. 3. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2006) (a) The Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division within the Office of Policy and Management shall develop a reporting system that is able to track trends and outcomes related to policies designed to reduce prison overcrowding, improve rehabilitation efforts and enhance reentry strategies for offenders released from prison. Council of State Governments, Justice Center

Texas Government Code

Texas Government Code § 508.312. INFORMATION ON RECIDIVISM OF RELEASEES. The Texas Board of Criminal Justice shall collect information on recidivism of releasees under the supervision of the division and shall use the information to evaluate operations.

20

Recommendation: Set Goal of 20% Reduction in ReIncarceration of Medium and High Risk Offenders Released

Target treatment resources to population and use Reparative Justice and COSA approach. * Estimated numbers based on available data


21


•

Finding:  Vermont uses a validated risk assessment instrument in targeting offenders for program placement, supervision services, and risk reduction efforts as reflected in policy directives.  Targeting interventions using dichotomized LSI groupings may be improved Recommendation  Use re-incarceration recidivism measure to identify high re-incarceration rate groups and target for interventions  Examine re-incarceration rates by release type and interventions to determine if greater differentiation of the population for intervention might result in more efficient and effective allocation of supervision and program resources


22

Recommended Reports


23


•

Finding  While supervision and program practices appear to be evidence-based, recent program process, and outcome evaluations are not available to measure effectiveness.  Plans are being developed to use the CPC to assess programs and outcome evaluations are being planned to determine program effectiveness. Recommendations  Implement performance-based contracts and conduct process and outcome evaluations of programs as currently planned  Conduct CPC and examine relationship of CPC scores and re-incarceration rates by programs  Work with University of Cincinnati and University of Vermont to determine effectiveness of programs and where improvements can be achieved  Utilize re-incarceration recidivism rates to measure performance of release programs in achieving reduction of recidivism  Report to the Governor and Legislature on performance of programs and contract service providers in efforts to reduce recidivism of offenders targeted for intervention


24

Sample Recidivism Goal Tracking Report

All numbers are for illustration purposes. No actual calculations have been made.


25

Sample Recidivism Report on Change over Time

All numbers are for illustration purposes. No actual calculations have been made.


26


•

Finding  Pilot projects by law enforcement and the judiciary have been implemented to increase the use of evidence based practices throughout the criminal justice system  Pilot efforts to assess risk and needs have been initiated in some drug courts (per conversations with Court Program Manager Karen Gennette and Judge Amy Davenport)  The Rapid Arraignment and Intervention program, a law enforcement pilot project by Police Chief Schirling in Chittenden County, seeks to implement swift and certain sanctions with interventions for offenders who have previously recidivated Recommendation  The Department of Corrections, law enforcement, and the judiciary should coordinate efforts to integrate evidence-based practices through out the criminal justice system. Senate Bill 108 can serve as the framework for efforts in this area  Expand risk/need assessment pilot in drug courts to other courts  Expand law enforcement efforts use of evidence-based practices


27

Recommendation: Utilize S. 108 to Expand Implementation of EvidenceBased Practices Throughout Vermont’s Criminal Justice System


28

Acknowledgements •

Data and graphics for this report were “borrowed” extensively from the “Vermont 2010 Fact and Figures” statistical report and the 2007 “Plan to Reduce Correctional Costs and Achieve Savings for Reinvestment” report

•

The authors wish to thank Commissioner Pallito and Senator Sears for their support of this project

•

The authors would also like to thank Deputy Commissioner Lisa Menard, David Peebles, Sandra Olberg, Doug Bickford, Kim Bushey, Keith Tallon, and the staff of the Vermont Department of Corrections for providing information and sharing their expertise and experience in preparing this report  Any errors or misinterpretations of this information are the responsibility of the author.


29

Thank You

CONTACT

Mike Eisenberg Austin Office [email protected] Jessy Tyler Austin Office [email protected]

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.


30