Corrections & Public Safety: Towards More Wise Public Investments

1. August is not too late for meeting with everyone. However, it would be nice to have the location firmed up to be included in all promotional materials before then. I will call the LeMoyne woman directly and see what our options are. Sound ok? Corrections & Public Safety:Towards More Wise Public Investments Governmental Research Association Annual Conference July 27, 2009 Washington DC

2. Topics and Presenters Five Fallacies About Corrections and Public Safety in America The Decision to Invest in Corrections: Michigan Case Study The Local Incarceration Effect: Investing More Wisely in New York Wrap Up and Discussion Adam Gelb, Pew Center on the States, Public Safety Performance Project agelb@pewtrusts.org Craig Thiel, Citizens Research Council of Michigan cthiel@crcmich.org Donald Pryor, Center for Governmental Research dpryor@cgr.org

3. Setting the Stage • Historical context – expanding use of incarceration and impacts on crime • Vantage point: state and local level • Fiscal challenges provide new “lens” • Public debate clouded by “myths” • Fresh look at past decisions aided by new research and data

4. Five Fallacies About Corrections and Public Safety in America

5. Five Fallacies Fallacy #1 Police Determine the Crime Rate Reality Police Are Important, Corrections Plays a Huge Role

6. Five Fallacies Fallacy #2 The Crime Rate Drives the Incarceration Rate Reality Policy Choices are the Primary Driver

7. Five Fallacies Fallacy #3 Prisons are Full of Low-level, Non-violent Offenders Reality Most are Serious Offenders, but Small % Can Save Big $

8. Five Fallacies Fallacy #4 Everything “Works,” Nothing “Works” Reality Well Targeted, Well Run Can Cut Recidivism by Up to 30%

9. Five Fallacies Fallacy #5 Rational Crime Policy Is Political Suicide Reality It’s Political Salvation!

10. The Decision to Invest in Corrections in Michigan: Where Has it Gotten Us?

11. One Theme Since 1973: Growth

12. Michigan’s Prison System as a Bathtub:Why is it Filling Up? • Behavioral, structural, and policy factors – not all equal in terms of their influence • Stable commitment rates + longer stays = pop. growth • Longer stays result of: • Declining parole approval rates • Returns to prison for technical violations • Significant discretion provided to Parole Board results in “re-sentencing” • Public policies not crime led to population growth in Michigan

13. Length of Stay Driving Population Increases in Michigan Source: CRC Calculations, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Annual Releases

14. Assessing Michigan’s Investment:What Are the Dividends? • Growth was sustainable and desirable • Michigan an outlier in regional comparisons • Are we getting what we paid for? • Prison spending effectively “crowding out” other areas • Problem: Michigan no longer wealthy and coping with on-going structural budget deficits

15. Getting Out Not as Easy:A Case of “Buyer’s Remorse”? • “Rebalance” state investment mix • Change will be driven by fiscal challenges • State solutions -->local problems • Immediate solutions – admin. & politically difficult • Will take time

16. Prison Reform in Michigan: Past and Present • Past attempts – failure to address state’s structural deficit deflected attention • Past attempts – little movement from established, predictable positions • A brokered solution: Council of State Gov’t • Bi-partisan and across branches of gov’t • Data driven • Goal: maintain public safety through “reinvestment” • Real savings result from population reductions, but nothing off the table

17. Actions to Date and Prospects • Calls for change – business weighing in • Focus on release • Parole Board expanded and appointed directly by Governor • Reduce number serving past min. sentence • Still waiting for presumptive parole legislation • Expand use of community release • Next steps: turn attention to “front” end • Sentencing reforms - truth in sentencing • Mostly executive branch actions, legislature still a little leery about acting • Looking forward: budget decisions will be key

18. Investing More Wisely in Incarceration at the Local Level: Experience in New York

19. Jail “Investment” Decisions at the Local Level: Incentives Tend to Favor New Building or Expansion • Political Considerations • Historical Trends • Typical patterns of few days pretrial and often at least some sentenced jail time, typically with few alternatives to incarceration in place • Little research done on implications, and few incentives or resources to change • Financial Incentives to Build or Expand • NYS Commission of Correction • Historical push to build or expand • Rarely has pushed counties for other options

20. Reality Often Shows Much Incarceration is Unnecessary • Jail admissions and daily census often increase even as crime and arrest patterns decline • Defendants often held several days for minor offenses and ultimately released safely; why not sooner? • Long waits for Pre-Sentence Investigations and sentencing dates; often non-jail sentences result • Few ATIs in place in many counties • Often increasing number of women incarcerated on minor charges, with few alternatives in place • Judges, DA, defense attorneys, POs often unaware of composite impact of decisions on jail population

21. Jail Admissions Increasing While Arrests Stable

22. Long Unsentenced Jail Stays for Minor Offenses • Example: 60% of unsentenced cases in which bail set were set at $500 or less, typically for minor charges, most with no other holds • Many of these remained in jail an average of 12 days before being released • Unsentenced inmates grew by 51% from 2001 to 2005 • Of those, >80% never sentenced to jail or prison on the charge they were held on

23. Greater Use of Jail for Minor Infractions than for Felonies, and Long Delays to Process Cases • Example: 12% of jail sentences on convictions were for felony charges, vs. 22% for minor traffic offenses and violations • Typical felony cases took > 9 months to resolve; 3 of those months case languished in lower court prior to filing at felony court level • Almost 40% of case resolution elapsed time was spent between time verdict was reached and final sentencing; lengthy delays to conduct PSIs + 4 additional weeks until formal sentencing

24. Other Criminal Justice Practices Affecting Jail Population • Numerous issues related to case screening, case assignment and follow-through, case tracking, delays and dismissals in DA’s office affected length of time cases open and unnecessary jail time • Communication issues between DA, defense attorneys and police officers • Ineffective and outdated case monitoring in most criminal justice and program offices • Wide variation in ATI, court processing and sentencing practices across courts and judges

25. One County: Seven Strategies to Reduce Jail Time

26. Projected Impact of Recommendations in One County • Once fully implemented, significant savings projected, depending on which of 3 options implemented: • Close 2 or more jail units, estimated annual savings of about $500,000 • Use 2/3 of projected 60 cells saved per day to board in prisoners from other counties or federal prisons, at $80/night: increased revenues of almost $1.2 million per year • Combination of the 2, closing 1 unit and boarding in 30 inmates/night: taxpayer benefit of > $1.1 million • Potential additional savings of several hundred thousand dollars per year from reduced overtime.

27. Actual Impact in First Year • Average Daily Inmate Population reduced from 209 in 2006 to 172 in 2008 – without implementation of Electronic Home Monitoring, which expected to reduce population by an additional 20 or more beds per day • Jail overtime cut in half, from $858,ooo in 2006 to $410,000 in 2008

28. Other Examples of Impact on Jail Population and Reduced Taxpayer Costs • Full use of an array of pretrial release and sentencing alternatives in one county saved need for constructing two to three additional jail units/PODs otherwise needed to meet state classification standards • Avoided construction costs of $2.5 million to $3 million, plus any related debt service costs • Avoided operating costs of between $750,000 and $900,000 each year

29. What Counties Can Do to Make Better Jail Investment Decisions • Conduct comprehensive review of entire criminal justice system and its decision-making processes and timelines, policies and practices • Analyze jail population in depth, and the impact of various decisions at key points on who’s in jail for how long; understanding who makes what decisions, based on what information, key to reducing jail census and jail costs, both current and capital • Use data to educate key decision-makers on impact of their individual and collective decisions; review data periodically to ensure ongoing impact

30. Toward a More Rational State/Local Partnership Re Local Jail Investment • New leadership in NYS Commission on Correction, with more focus on local perspectives and reduced imposition of top-down decisions • Opportunity to impact on CoC and how they make recommendations for individual counties. CGR and New York State Association of Counties beginning to work in collaboration with CoC and selected counties in partnership, based on comprehensive study of criminal justice practices in counties prior to making final decisions about future of local jails • Such partnership especially important in this economy, to help reduce taxpayer costs.

31. Your Reactions: Implications for Your Communities?