Mid-1970s to mid-’80s, U.S.’s incarceration rate doubled.

Mid-’80s to mid-’90s, it doubled again. In absolute terms, prison/jail population

from 1970 to present increased sevenfold.

U.S. has less than 5 percent of the world’s population – and 25 percent of the world’s incarcerated.

5

4Council of State Governments Justice Center

Overall crime has decreased

18 % from 2000 to 2014.

Montana is safer today than in 2000.

Property crime has decreased 31%, while violent crime increased 4%. Property crime is at its lowest rate in more than 25 years. Violent crime has recently increased but remains under the levels of the early- to mid- 2000s.

Between FY2009 and FY2015, arrests increased by 4,000. During the same period, crime decreased by 1,000 reported incidents.

Total arrests have increased

12% from FY 2009 to FY2015.

Council of State Governments Justice Center5

2,534 2,483 2,398 2,929 3,137

3,503 3,735

911 1,045 1,046

1,245

1,419

1,717 1,834

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

3,445

Felony drug arrests increased

100%(increased from 3% to 6% of all

arrests)

Misdemeanor drug arrests increased

47%(increased from 9% to 12% of all

arrests)

5,569

Source: Montana Department of Justice Arrest Data, FY2009 – FY2015

Felony and Misdemeanor Arrests for Drug Offenses, FY2009 – FY2015

Arrests for violations of probation and revocations up 106% (FY2009-2015)

Of every individual arrested in FY 2012 61% were re-arrested within 3 years

Up 67% between 2011 and 2013

How does this compare to our neighbors?

150360 220

260280

240320

290350

2013 Jail Incarceration Rate

Montana’s jail incarceration rate increased significantly in recent years, and is the highest of its neighbors. Jail length of stay is above average.

Percent Change in Jail Incarceration Rate, 2011-2013

21 22

12 12 12 13

20

27

18

MT CO ID ND SD MN WY UT NE

West / Midwest Jail LOS Average: 18

Jail Average Length of Stay, 2013

Source: US. Department of Justice, Census of Jails: Population Changes, 1999-2013

67%

-1%-11%

7% 2% 5% 6% 4% 7%

MT CO ID ND SD MN WY UT NE

Short period in jail pretrial - as few as 2 days - correlates with negative outcomes for offender and for public safety when compared to release within 24 hours.1

4x More Likely to Receive Incarceration Sentence.1

Go to Jail

MORE LIKELY TO BE ARRESTED BEFORE TRIAL1

51%MORE LIKELY TO RECIDIVATE AFTER SENTENCE COMPLETION1

56%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2-3 days 4-7 days 8-14 days 15-30 days

Likelihood of new criminal arrest compared to defendant detained 1 day

Series 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2-4 days 4-7 days 8-14 days 15-30 days

Likelihood of 2-year recidivism as compared to defendants detained 1 day – in percentage

Among formerly incarcerated men, 2/3 of whom were employed before being incarcerated, hourly wages decreased by 11%, annual employment by nine weeks and annual earnings by 40% as a result of time spent in jail or prison.1

ProgramChange in Recidivism

Intensive Supervision (no treatment)

0.0%

Electronic Monitoring 0.0%Adult Boot Camps 0.0%Juvenile Boot Camps 0.0%Wilderness Challenge 0.0%Intensive Supervision (Juveniles) 0.0%Scared Straight +6.1%

15

$1,880/year – Probation

$ 21,938/year – Pre-Release Center

$37,303/year – Prison

$1,870/year - Parole

Council of State Governments Justice Center Montana Dept of Corrections 2015 Biennial Report

Presenter

Presentation Notes

If we need to build a new prison – its going to cost a fortune!

Three of North America’s leading criminologists found many of our current sentencing and corrections practices are actually harming the very offenders they were designed to help. (Edward J. Latessa, Francis T. Cullen, and Paul Gendreau, Beyond Correctional Quackery: Professionalism and the Possibility of Effective Treatment, 66 FED. PROBATION, Sept. 2002, at 43)

Reduce recidivism through evidence-based practices and programs and offender risk and need assessments

Promote community-based alternatives to incarceration of appropriate offenders

1. Punishment2. Public Safety reduce risk of recidivism through rehab services reduce risk of recidivism through effective use of

specific deterrence – no evidence incarceration is a deterrence

reduce risk of recidivism through incapacitation or lesser behavioral controls

and, by determining crime by others though general deterrence (sending message, etc.)

3. Restitution/restoration of victim, community

3 Basic Principles of EBS:1. Risk Principle - Who to target?2. Needs principle - What to

address?3. Treatment principle – What

works?

If you put low risk people with high risk people, they become higher risk

If you over treat or over intervene with low risk people, they get worse

Traditional sanctions alone do not deter recidivism among medium and high risk offenders (i.e. prison doesn’t work very well)

Low Risk -53%Moderate Risk -40%

High Risk – 7%

Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk

Two types of risk factors: Static: characteristics of an offender that are associated with

the likelihood of recidivism, but are constant or historical and cannot be changed through intervention--age, gender, prior arrests, prior convictions, age at first arrest, history of anti-social behavior or alcohol/substance abuse.

Dynamic: characteristics of an offender that are associated with the likelihood of recidivism and that are subject to change through appropriate intervention (aka “criminogenicneeds”).

In order to reduce an individual’s likelihood of committing a crime, it is important to focus on the individual’s “dynamic risk factors” or “criminogenic needs.”

1. Anti-social attitudes2. Anti-social friends and peers3. Anti-social personality4. Family and/or marital factors5. Substance abuse6. Lack of education7. Poor Employment history8. Lack of Pro-Social Leisure Activities

The top 3 risk factors are more important than the lower criminogenic needs in predicting recidivism among medium and high risk offenders.

RNA tools can identify the specific dynamic risk factors that do predict and influence whether the particular offender will reoffend. They identify the appropriate targets for interventions which, if effective, will reduce the probability of recidivism.

The superiority of actuarial assessment over unstructured clinical assessment in predicting recidivism risk is well-established. (See, e.g., reviewing the research: P. Harris, “What Community Supervision Officers Need to Know About Actuarial Assessment and Clinical Judgment,” 70 Fed. Prob. J.(Sept. 2006))

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Clinical Actuarial

LowLow ModerateModerateHigh

28

RNA information is designed for use in effectively managing and reducing the risk of recidivism among offenders under supervision, not to establish the appropriate “punishment” or “penalty” for a crime.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

More than 60% of offenders successfully completing probation do so after serving more than 3 years – 30% serve more than 5 years

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Not a good slide – Of those offenders who are on probation and revoked 92% are revoked in the first 3 years with 47% in year one, 33% in year 2 and 15% in year 3. Probation costs about $1,900/year – from a cost and recidivism standpoint putting offenders on probation for greater than 3 years, is probably not wise.

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

0-19Minutes

20-39Minutes

Over 40Minutes

Rec

idiv

ism

Rat

e

Avert Spending associated with growth in prison and jail populations

Make Pre-trial decision-making more informed Improve access to and the quality of programs funded

by taxpayers to reduce recidivism Reinvest in strategies to hold offenders accountable and

increase public safety Improve services and resources for victims of crime Modernize the parole process Ensure sustainability of data-driven policies and

evidence based practices.

Approx. 80% of offenders in U.S. meet broad definition of substance involvement.2

Incarceration has demonstrated incapacitation effects - inmates are prevented from committing criminal acts while incarcerated.2

Average effect of incarceration on crime following release from prison is approximately ZERO.2

70% to 85% of drug-abusing inmates return to drug use within 1 year of release.2

95% return to drug use within 3 years.2

Specialized court docket targeting criminal cases involving people who have drug dependency/addiction problem.

To achieve a reduction in recidivism and substance abuse and successfully habilitate offenders with a high risk to reoffend and a high need for treatment

Intensive alcohol and drug abuse treatment

Mandatory, random, frequent drug testing Appropriate and quick sanctions for non-

compliant behavior Incentives and recognition for hard work Continuous judicial oversight Employment and other services needed to

enter long-term recovery and become productive members of society.

FACT: Nationwide, 75% of Drug Court graduates remain arrest-free at least two years after leaving the program.3

FACT: Reductions in crime last at least 3 years and can endure for over 14 years.3

FACT: The most rigorous and conservative scientific “meta-analyses” have all concluded that Drug Courts significantly reduce crime as much as 45 percent more than other sentencing options.3

FACT: Nationwide, for every $1.00 invested taxpayers save as much as $3.36 in avoided criminal justice costs.3

FACT: When considering other cost offsets like savings from reduced victimization and healthcare service utilization, benefits range up to $27 for every $1 invested.3

FACT: Cost savings – in reduced prison costs, revolving-door arrests and trials, and victimization – benefits range from $3,000 to $13,000 per client.3

FACT: Without drug court supervision 25% fail to enroll and 70% drop out of treatment prematurely.3

FACT: Drug Courts are six times more likely to keep offenders in treatment long enough for them to get better.3

1996 – First Drug Court in Missoula

Currently 30 drug courts in MT including 5 tribal drug courts.4

The FY2016 fiscal expenditure for drug courts was: $1,234,136 $4,463 per admission

The FY2017 budget for drug courts is: $1,250,781 general fund

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000

Conn. Corr

Passages/ADT

WATcH (West)

WATcH (East)

Nexus

Elkhorn

Series 1

1,523 participants (1,420 adults and 103 juveniles) entered Montana drug courts from 11/1/2012 – 10/31/2016.

As of October 31, 2016, 485 participants were active in a drug court (445 in adult drug court, 47 in family drug court, and 16 in juvenile drug court).4

114 veterans have been admitted to Montana drug courts in past 2 years.4

A total of 509 participants graduated from drug court during the 48-month reporting period - an overall graduation rate of 57.5%.

Ave. cost avoidance when only investment costs are taken into consideration was $2,438 per participant or $97,519 for 40 participants.4

When outcome costs are considered, in MT we avoid an estimated $11,070 per participant and $442,789 for every 40 treatment court participants.4

When investment, outcome and societal-impact (victimization) costs are combined, cost avoidance is estimated to be $81,879 per participant and $3,275,186 for 40 participants.

For adult participants admitted in 2012, 73 of 286 (25.5%) reoffended with conviction during 36 month period after induction.4

Recidivism rates were much lower for drug court participants who graduated compared to those who terminated early: a 2.8% re-offense rate for felonies and a 8.7% re-offense rate for misdemeanors.4

Graduates reported a 54% increase in full-time employment from admission to graduation.4

90.3% decrease in unemployment

35% decrease in participants w/o high school diploma or GED at admission.4

39.4% increase in those without a driver’s license.4

From May 2008 – Oct. 2016, 116 babies were born while a parent was in drug court. 108 of them were born drug free (93.1%).4

23% increase in those paying child support.4

Drug Courts Save Taxpayer Money

Drug Courts Save Lives

If we conducted research to determine the most effective way to assure public safety and court appearance, what would the research show?

DETAIN EVERYONE

What we really want to do is to detain the right people.

Many high-level, violent individuals who pose significant risk are released

Many low level/non-violent individuals are detained.

Implementing Pilot Risk Assessment Project in 5 Montana Counties: Lewis & Clark, Butte-Silver Bow, Lake, Missoula and Yellowstone

Implement the Public Safety Assessment – validated Risk measurement tool.

Risk of Failing to Appear Risk of committing new crime pretrial Risk of committing violent crime pretrial

Public Safety Assessment – developed by LJAF Used 1.5 million criminal cases from which

derived 750,000 for analysis Analyzed risk factors Tested 900 different correlations of risk

To Assure public safety and court appearance:

Detain Highest risk defendants Release Moderate risk defendants with

interventions and services targeted to manage risk Release Low risk defendants with minimal to

no conditions

Implemented in a number of states –Kentucky, Ohio, Arizona, Utah . . .

Promising results Decreased pretrial crime Fewer new arrests Fewer missed court appearances Decreased overall crime

Life is measured by the quality of one’s relationships with family and friends

Montana is a wonderful state – we have a unique Constitution that provides us rights to recreate and enjoy the great outdoors of our state

Current system/practices not sustainable DOC’s budget is $200 million/year!

I am evidently attracted to occupations requiring goofy uniforms

People and their problems matter I have never met a person whose goal

was to become addicted to drugs or alcohol

We cannot punish addiction out of people

We should do everything we can to keep from bringing people into the criminal justice system as once they are there, we know their chance of remaining increases and they generally do not become safer, more productive community members.

People respond better to incentives than they do sanctions

We need better access to quality treatment to address substance use disorders

We need attorneys and judges who will champion evidence based practices in all areas of law and not be satisfied with always handling cases as we have in the past – people with real passion for learning and improving their knowledge and skills and the system they work in

1. Subramanian, R. et al., Incarceration’s Front Door: The Misuse of Jails in America, Vera Institute of Justice, Center on Sentencing and Corrections, February 2015.

2. Marlowe, D., Evidence-Based Sentencing for Drug Offenders: An Analysis of Prognostic Risks and Criminogenic Needs, Chapman Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 1:1 (Spring 2009), pp.167-201.

3. Drug Courts Work, National Association of Drug Court Professionals, accessed 10/2/2015 at www.nadcp.org/learn/facts-and-figures.

4. Montana Drug Courts: An Updated Snapshot of Success and Hope, January 2017, Montana Judicial Branch, Montana Supreme Court, Office of Court Administration. http://courts.mt.gov/portals/113/cao/ct_services/treatment/docs/2017rpt.pdf