Evidence-Based Practice and Policy Reform: Challenges, Pitfalls and Opportunities

1. Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) at Community Resources for Justice Evidence-Based Practice and Policy Reform: Challenges, Pitfalls and Opportunities Presentation to the Indiana Center for Evidence-Based Practices Learning Institute September 21, 2010 Kristy Pierce – Danford, MPA, Crime and Justice Institute

2. About Us • Community Resources for Justice • Direct services • Residential, reentry and day programming for adult and youth offenders, at-risk youth, and adults with mental illness and developmental disabilities • Crime and Justice Institute • Nonpartisan consulting • Policy analysis, research services, and capacity building technical assistance to improve public safety systems throughout the country. www.cjinstitute.org

3. Our Work • CJI takes a broad view of public safety and the role we play in achieving positive change. We: • Promote policies that support positive public safety outcomes • Promote system change through evidence based practices • Provide capacity-building technical assistance • Conduct research and program evaluation • Develop issue papers, policy briefs and recommendations • Conduct forums and focus groups to initiate public dialogue • Design and test new problem-solving models • Guide and facilitate public-private collaborations • Conduct educational and advocacy activities www.cjinstitute.org

4. CJI/NIC Integrated Model for the Implementation of Evidence Based Policy and Practice Created by CJI through a cooperative agreement with NIC in 2002 Visit www.cjinstitute.org/projects/integratedmodel www.cjinstitute.org

5. Integrated Model Impact Orange County, CA saw new felony offenses among probationers drop from 18% to 10%. Maricopa County, AZ increased successful probation terminations from 69% to 76%. Kansas Community Corrections was able to successfully implement Senate Bill 14 and reduce revocations to prison by more than 20%. www.cjinstitute.org

6. EBP Policy Reform • Partners in the Pew Center on the States, Public Safety Performance Project • Policy Framework • Reduce costs • Reduce reliance on incarceration • Improve public safety • SC Omnibus Sentencing Reform and Crime Reduction Act www.cjinstitute.org

7. An Age Old Debate Utilitarian Expressive www.cjinstitute.org

8. Public Safety and Punishment • Looking Backward • “Just deserts” punishment proportionate to the severity of the offense and blameworthiness • Looking Ahead • Specific and general deterrence • Restoration • Incapacitation • Rehabilitation www.cjinstitute.org

9. Public Safety and Punishment • Sentencing Types • Indeterminate • Determinate • Concentration of Power and Discretion • Legislative • Judicial • Executive • What most effectively and efficiently controls crime? www.cjinstitute.org

10. Historical Context • Colonial times (determinate) • Prevention and punishment was generally prescribed by the legislature with some precision • E.g., whipping, stockades, branding, death, fines, restitution, banishment • 1790 to 1820 (determinate) • Judicial discretion within limited ranges described by the legislature • Limited death and corporal punishments and began to shift toward incapacitation and reform www.cjinstitute.org

11. Historical Context • Late 1800s to early 1900s (early indeterminacy) • Began to shift discretion to judicial and executive branches as rehabilitation took hold • Crime as a moral disease that is to be treated; rehabilitation over “vindictive suffering” or lapses in time • Through the late 1900s (indeterminate) • Judiciary ordered sentences within broad ranges prescribe by the legislature • Increasing use of community corrections and executive branch discretion • E.g., Correctional authority to determine the actual length of incarceration necessary to achieve “reform” www.cjinstitute.org

12. Historical Context • 1970s onward (toward determinacy) • Opposition to “lenient” sentences and early parole release which were blamed for the perceived skyrocketing crime rate • Growing disillusionment with rehabilitation and distrust in state correctional systems • Perfect storm toward determinacy and limitations on judicial and executive discretion • Rockefeller laws, 3 Strikes, Willie Horton www.cjinstitute.org

13. Correctional populations more than tripled in the last few decades. INDIANA 1:26 Adults (Dec. 2007) 1:106 Adults (1982) . SOURCE: Bureau of Justice Statistics correctional surveys as cited by PSPP in the 2009 “1:31” report NOTE: Due to offenders with dual status, the sum of these four correctional categories slightly over states the correctional population

14. PSPP’s 1:31 report illustrates an exponential increase in the cost of corrections. Indiana spent 5.3% of State General Fund dollars on corrections in FY 2008.

15. Prisons Dominate Spending Indiana Spends 98 cents on the Dollar SOURCES: PSPP “1:31” 2009 report. Spending figures were collected from AR, AL, AK, CO, DE, GA, ID, IA, KY, LA, MA, ME, MD, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NM, NY, OK, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN, TX, VT, VA and WY. NOTE: Caution should be used in making interstate comparisons since a wide variety of factors beyond agency performance or efficiency can account for daily cost differences. Some states have separate probation and parole agencies while others have combined them. SOURCES: Spending figures were collected from AR, AL, AK, CO, DE, GA, ID, IA, KY, LA, MA, ME, MD, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NM, NY, OK, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN, TX, VT, VA and WY. NOTE: Caution should be used in making interstate comparisons since a wide variety of factors beyond agency performance or efficiency can account for daily cost differences. Some states have separate probation and parole agencies while others have combined them.

16. Despite Dramatic Increase in Incarceration Rate, We Have Not Seen Corresponding Decreases in Crime 1997-2007

17. Source: Pew Center on the States, “Prison Count 2010” report “Prison Count 2010” report

18. Policy Landscape Rising correctional populations Escalating cost of corrections High rates of probation and parole revocations Enhanced public safety impact awareness Focus on recidivism reduction and return on investment Refinement of sentencing and correctional policies and practices through EBP www.cjinstitute.org

19. Historical Context • Today (toward indeterminacy) • Opposition to over pursuit of incapacitation • Growing acceptance of the need for effective supervision and treatment • Recognition of the adverse consequences of mass incarceration • Evidence-based strategies to reduce recidivism leading reform efforts across the country www.cjinstitute.org

20. Public Policy Making • Stakeholders, Media, Politics and Consensus Building • The CJ policy making community • E.g., elected officials, sub government and public entities • Having the “right” answers, based on science and merit • Getting the “right” answers to the “right” people www.cjinstitute.org

21. Understanding Policy Reform • Turn front and back end valves to control cost and improve public safety • Direct sentencing • Types of release decision making • Front and back end alternatives • Effective use of diversions and release options • Use data to determine if existing options work well, need enhancement and/or if additional services are needed www.cjinstitute.org

22. Policy Questions Sentencing trends, length of stay and community supervision, sentencing and correctional practices Who goes to prison and for how long? What happens in correctional institutions and community corrections? How can the “system” improve its capacity to reduce recidivism and improve public safety? www.cjinstitute.org

23. Justice Reinvestment • Understand what is driving correctional growth • Develop and implement policy options to turn the curve • Increase effectiveness and accountability • Generate savings • Reinvest portion of savings • Measure impact and hold policymakers accountable for projected results www.cjinstitute.org

24. Resource Targeting Identify the risk to re-offend and characteristics that drive criminal behavior in each offender. Target resources to reduce the likelihood of re-offense. Use resources on what works to reduce recidivism and improve public safety. Avoid squandering resources on what does not work. www.cjinstitute.org

25. Why Policymakers Are Turning to EBP It improves outcomes, especially recidivism Reduces victimization It improves collaboration It increases appetite for data-driven decision making Targets funding toward the interventions that bring greatest returns

26. “Smart on Crime” Reform Efforts Criminal Code Reclassification Fiscal Impact Statements Evidence-Based Practices Earned Compliance Credits Enhanced Reentry Practices Administrative and Intermediate Sanctions Performance Measurement Performance Incentive Funding www.cjinstitute.org

27. Another Perfect Storm Evidence-based practices Widespread support for being “Smart on Crime” Economic downturn Technological innovations Results based accountability Understanding of the criminal justice policy making arena www.cjinstitute.org

28. Learning from the Past A common goal does not mean common means Need to balance the message conveyed by punishment and the purpose it serves A lack of trust or confidence in any one branch of government can result in over compensation by the others Too much emphasis in one area, or too little evidence of effectiveness hinders progress www.cjinstitute.org

29. Learning from the Past Be able to traverse political terrain and encourage consensus building Assuming reforms will work is never a good idea Accountability and transparency are vital Demonstrate effectives based on merit and evidence Policy reforms change system behavior, not criminal behavior www.cjinstitute.org

30. Corrections and EBP: The Holy Grail or “I told you so?” • Potential pitfalls • Fidelity • Net widening • Organizational development • Aligning budgets and business practices • Collaboration • Working together through common means and ends www.cjinstitute.org

31. Opportunities • Supportive political environment for evidence-based practices • Continuous Quality Improvement • Clinical skills • Intervention availability • Research and evaluation • Change leadership and organizational development • Stakeholder collaboration • Network of learning/community of practice • Be an influential voice in the process www.cjinstitute.org

32. Evidence-Based Organizations • In a Correctional EBO… • Everyone shares a common mission and vision • Resources are used effectively and efficiently • Offenders are held accountable • Data drives decisions • Learning and innovations are welcome • System players communicate and collaborate www.cjinstitute.org

33. Staying True Whatever you do, do no harm Risk: Do you match supervision and services with risk level? Need: Do you focus on criminogenic needs? Treatment: Do you utilize social learning and cognitive behavioral techniques? Responsivity: Are you responsive to the characteristics of individuals? Fidelity: Are you doing evidence-based work? Are you doing it well? Is it leading to desired outcomes? www.cjinstitute.org

34. Determining Destiny • 30 Years from Now • Will the Unites States still have the highest incarceration rate? • What kind of change will we see in our overall and violent crime rates? • How effective will we be in reducing recidivism? • How many communities will suffer from concentrated incarceration? • Will correctional spending continue to dominate? www.cjinstitute.org

35. For more information: www.cjinstitute.org Or contact: Elyse Clawson, Executive Director eclawson@crjustice.org Kristy Danford, Project Manager kdanford@crjustice.org www.cjinstitute.org