Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

1. Effective Alternatives to Incarceration:Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities Joanne Katz, J.D., Professor Missouri Western State University

2. Need for Viable Alternatives to Incarceration • Between 1972 and 2008, the adult population in the American penal system soared nearly 600 percent from 330,000 to 2.3 million • More than one in every 100 American adults is confined to jail or prison • What fueled this increase? (Pew, 2008)

3. Need for Viable Alternatives to Incarceration • 88 percent of the growth in the incarcerated population resulted from changes in sentencing policy (Mauer, 2004)

4. Sentencing Policies • “Get-tough” policies • Three-strike laws • Mandatory prison for drug offenses • Using prison as the response to probation / parole violations • “Low-risk” offenders are being incarcerated for nonviolent crimes and probation and parole violations • Same was found for juveniles

5. Costs of Incarceration • Twenty years ago, states spent a total of $11 billion on corrections; today states annual corrections costs are $52 billion • By far the largest share are incarceration expenses (Pew, 2009) • In 2007, states on average invested nearly 7 percent of their general funds—or one in every 15 dollars—on corrections • Average yearly cost in state prison is $29,000 per inmate

6. Human Costs of Incarceration • The impact of incarceration on the physical and mental health of the offender • Erode an offender’s relationship with family and other loved ones • Impact to the larger community of a segment of the population who are imprisoned and then reenter • Ability to find employment after prison • Physical and mental health problems after prison • Reoffense rates of those who have left prison (Tonry & Petersilia, 2000).

7. Alternatives to Incarceration • Community-based alternatives are less expensive • Cost of probation $3.42 per day or about $1,250 per year • Cost of parole $7.47 per day or about$2,730 per year (Pew, 2009) • Increased incarceration has not lowered rates of crime • Half of released inmates will reoffend in 3 years

8. Viable Alternatives to Incarceration

9. Historical View: Role of Law Enforcement in Alternatives to Incarceration • The COPS Office has long recognized the need for partnerships between law enforcement and the community • Partnerships with faith-based organizations resulted in the COPS Value-Based Initiative • faith community work closely with law enforcement in dealing with socioeconomic issues underlying crime(Gordon, 2004) • Partnerships with probation and parole officials have led to the establishment of reentry programs(La Vigne, Solomon, Beckman, and Dedel, 2006)

10. Police Involvement in Community Corrections • Community-based corrections offers yet another opportunity at collaboration • assists law enforcement in their efforts to maintain safe communities • Keeping low-risk offenders out of prison • in the community • actively involved in jobs and families • Can avert many of the social and emotional problems caused by incarceration

11. Police Involvement in Community Corrections • Police have much to offer community corrections organizations beyond their enforcement role • They often know people and neighborhoods better than corrections and / or rehabilitation groups do • By collaborating with established programs, the resources of law enforcement and community corrections can be greatly expanded

12. Model for Police / Community Corrections Collaborations

13. Unique Nature of Police / Community Corrections Collaborations • Nature of Collaborations: Traditional law enforcement role and also expanding the role • Types of Collaborations: Range from enforcement to other areas which impact public safety • Sustainability of Collaboration: Maintaining successes

14. Model for Police / Community Corrections Collaborations • Joint Efforts • Sustainability • Innovation • Ability to Duplicate • Measurable Results

15. Community as a Partner • Agencies • Faith-Based Organizations • Not-for-profits • Volunteers

16. Models: Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI) • Annie E. Casey Foundation responding to unnecessary detention of low-risk juveniles • Research shows that this “get-tough” approach to juvenile delinquency has similar consequences as it does to adults • It is extremely costly, both in financial and human terms • Communities spend $200–$300 per day to keep a youth in a juvenile facility • Neither rehabilitation of the offending juvenile nor protecting the community from harm is proven.

17. Models: Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI) • An estimated 50 to 80 percent of youth released from juvenile facilities are rearrested within 3 years • The long-term repercussions for the confined juvenile can be devastating. Compared to other youth, he or she is: • More likely to leave school without a diploma • Work in low-wage jobs • Struggle with substance abuse and other health problems • End up in jail or prison as an adult(Annie E. Casey, n/d)

18. Annie E. Casey Foundation – Core Strategies • Collaborationbetween major juvenile justice agencies and community organizations •  Use of accurate data to diagnose the system’s problems and identify real solutions • Objective admissions criteria and instruments to replace subjective decisions that inappropriately place children in custody • Alternatives to detention to increase the options available for arrested youth • Reforms to speed up case processing so that youth don’t languish in detention • Reducingthe use of secure confinement for special cases like technical probation violations • Improving conditions of confinement through routine inspections

19. Changes in Detention Rates

20. Changes in Crime Rates

21. Multnomah County, Oregon • Federal consent decree for overcrowding. Needed to make a change • Transformation through collaboration: Creating the Detention Reform Committee. Include every group who deals with the juveniles to agree on new policy, including police • Came up with High Risk / High Need formula for who to detain • Only detain high risk • Find other places for high need • Determine by Risk Assessment Instrument created by Committee • Created “Reception Center” high and low need juveniles

22. Multnomah County JDAI: Risk Assessment Instrument • Created own Risk Assessment Instrument. • The county’s juvenile RAI assigns point values for a range of indicators associated with the arrested youth: • The nature of current offense • Previous history in the juvenile justice system • Family support • School attendance and performance, etc.

23. Multnomah County • Essential Elements: • Collaborate with partners • Create a reliable risk assessment instrument • Provide a broad range of intervention services. These include: • substance abuse treatment • mental health services • health care • other support services for children and their families

24. New Jersey JDAI • First state-wide effort to initiate JDAI throughout the state • Two federal consent decrees in different counties • JDAI State Steering Committee: President of Juvenile Officers (police) state association on committee. Took two years to create their risk assessment instrument

25. New Jersey JDAI • 11 counties implemented, all 21 by 2011 • Juvenile Detention rates have lowered by 25% in JDAI counties, and risen 50% in non-JDAI jurisdictions • Juvenile crime rates have fallen 2% in the JDAI counties

26. New Approaches to Traditional Collaborations • Police / Corrections have a history of sharing information • New ways to use it in creating more effective programming • Examples include work with juveniles, adults and reentry

27. Operation Night Light: Boston • 1992 response to youth gang violence • Probationers not following terms, and because of violence, probation officers fear entering areas • Collaboration between Anti-Gang Violence Unit of Boston Police Department, and Dorchester District Court Probation Officers • Visit homes between 7 p.m. and midnight

28. Operation Night Light: Boston • Early Outcomes: • Probationer arrests declined 9.2 percent between January 1994 and June 1996 while arrests increased 14 percent statewide • Homicides, which reached a high of 152 in 1990, fell nearly 79 percent to 31 by 1999 • 2009 report findings: • In 2007, youth arrests were down 26 percent, from 971 in 2006 to 718 in 2007 • In Boston’s high-crime hot spots, violent crime declined 12 percent in a single 6-month period, October 2007–March 2008, compared with the same period the previous year • Several areas—including Codman Square (down 54 percent) and South End (down 40 percent) experienced significant reductions in violent crime during the same period in 2008

29. Kansas Reentry Program • Outcomes: • In 2000, the average number of monthly parole violations represented nearly 5 percent of parolees supervised by the state • By 2009, average monthly violations—representing 1.7 percent of parolees—were down by nearly two-thirds • From fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2008, there was more than a 50 percent reduction in the number of parolees returned to prison for felony offenses

30. Restorative Justice: Accountability, Restitution and Transformation • Restorative justice is a philosophy which holds that crime is committed against the victim, and the community • Several difference processes are available which holds the offender directly accountable to the victim and community • Instead of asking what laws were broken and how the offender will be punished, in RJ, the questions are: • Who was harmed and how? • Whose responsibility is it to repair the harm? • How can the harm be repaired?

31. Restorative Justice: Accountability, Restitution and Transformation

32. Different Restorative Justice Processes • Victim / Offender Dialogue: Victim and offender meet and discuss the crime. Work out restitution agreement • Neighborhood Accountability Boards: Offenders meet with community volunteers who explain the harm of the offender’s actions and work out restitution. Some victim involvement • Circles: In a circle process, the offender is held accountable to victims and the community

33. Vermont Community Justice Centers (CJCs) • Created by state statute • CJCs give citizens and government agencies an opportunity to collaborate on issues related to crime prevention, resolving conflict, and rendering justice • 12 CJC’s throughout the state of Vermont • Each center relies on cooperation with police, and community volunteers

34. Vermont CJC’s • CJC’s have Reparative Boards. Certain low-level offenders are referred (some directly by police through agreements with the DA.) • Within 2 weeks, the offender meets with the panel members, and begins diversion • 35 different boards, 500 volunteers and 1400 cases a year (2006)

35. St. Louis County Juvenile Justice Committees (JJC’s) Objectives when starting: • Kids needed more help than the court could give them, and the community needed to feel a part of dealing with juvenile issues • The people who were part of the individual communities within St. Louis County understood the diversity and attitudes and values of their communities better than the court did • The court did not have the financial resources to give each case the attention it deserved and would receive if community volunteers were utilized

36. St. Louis County JJC’s • Throughout the county, divided by school boundaries • Volunteers live within specific communities • Juvenile and parents meet with JJC. Members ask questions like, “Did you think this might not be a good idea?” “Did you think it might harm someone?” • Together they work out an agreement, and follow-up meetings

37. St. Louis County JJC’s • Police are on each board. • Improves relationships between police and parents • Outcomes: • All restitution paid • 98% of community service hours were completed • 4% reoffense rate in one year • highly rated by parents and juveniles • 112 juveniles served in 2008

38. Mental Illness and the CJ System • Overrepresentation of the mentally ill in the criminal justice system • Two ways that this creates problems: • Police interactions with mentally ill individuals • Troubles of incarcerating seriously mentally ill individuals • Solutions: • Crisis Intervention Teams • Mental Health Courts

39. Mental Illness and the CJ System • Crisis Intervention Teams: • Created with a partnership with National Association for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) • Training police to deal with mentally ill individuals within a criminal justice situation • Memphis first in U.S. Created a model most replicate and adapt • Able to deal with mentally ill much better • Develop protocol to hospitalize instead of jail • Less violence in the process of apprehension

40. Memphis Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) • Memphis Police Department established the CIT in 1988. First in country • Volunteer CIT officers trained to provide appropriate responses to “mental disturbance crisis calls” • The Memphis model requires that a minimum of 15 to 20 percent of sworn patrol officers be trained in CIT

41. Memphis Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) • CIT officers are available in all precincts and maintain their regular patrol duties and respond as needed to mental health-related calls. • Police dispatcher deploys a CIT officer whenever a call involves someone with a potential mental illness. He assesses situation, determines the risk, and intervenes in a way that ensures the safety of all involved. • CIT officers work closely with mental health and medical resources to assure a timely transfer of custody of people experiencing mental health crises. The CIT partner facilities accept all referrals by the police • CIT annual operating costs are about $70,000, or an average of $10 per call, for a CIT team of at least 180 officers(Dupont & Cochran, 2002) • There are between 500 and 600 jurisdictions nationwide that have adopted CIT programs based at least in part on the Memphis CIT model (Slate & Johnson, 2008)

42. Ft. Wayne, Indiana CIT • Similar to Memphis. Did training in Memphis • Prior to CIT, took 5-6 hours to take someone to hospital. Now 1 ½ hour because of partnerships • Of 926 calls involving potentially mentally ill suspects in 2008, only three arrests (or less than a third of a percent) were made • Since the implementation of the CIT program, there has been a 55 percent decrease in SWAT Team crisis calls, the majority of which involve some level of mental illness. Because each SWAT Team includes 28 members, all of whom respond to every call, a reduction in SWAT calls results in significant savings for the FWPD

43. Mental Illness and the CJ System • Mental Health Courts • A diversionary treatment options instead of hospitalizing the mentally ill • Have services available for the offenders, instead of jail time. Get mental health, substance abuse, job counseling, housing, health, etc. • Team works with offender. As long as stays with the prescribed program, stays with the court • Meets with judge for progress reports

44. Broward County, Florida Mental Health Court • 1st Mental Health Court in country • 1994 incident in Broward County Jail, involving a mentally ill person resulted in deaths. Created Task Force with stakeholders. • Broward stakeholders included the Public Defender’s Office, State’s Attorney’s Office, Sheriff’s Office, county government staff, local members of NAMI, as well as community mental health and treatment providers. • The first Mental Health Court was created in 1997 as a subdivision of the Broward County Criminal Court

45. Broward County, Florida Mental Health Court • Primary objectives of the Broward County Mental Health Court • High degree of sensitivity to the specialized needs of mentally ill defendants. • Assure that the offender does not languish in jail and is able to obtain needed emergency psychiatric treatment • Apply a therapeutic approach to the processing of mentally ill offenders • Ensure and oversee the coordination, effectiveness and accountability of 1. the delivery of community-based treatment and services and 2. compliance with treatment by the individual defendant • Reduce the contact of the mentally ill with the criminal justice system • Have teams which work with individual, including treatment, housing and employment. Regular court appearances about progress

46. Boone County, Missouri Mental Health Court • Boone County Mental Health Court was established in 2003 to allow the 13th Judicial Circuit (Columbia, Missouri) to better respond to the growing number of mentally ill people whose nonviolent criminal offenses were more the result of mental illness than an intent to cause harm • It consists of three phases: 1. Stabilization, which focuses on mental health, substance abuse and related services designed to stabilize people in crisis 2. Cognitive life skills building, which provides the practical education and related training services people need to develop the skills to be self-supporting. 3. Reintegration, which prepares people to live independently in the community

47. Boone County, Missouri Mental Health Court • Boone County Mental Health Court Team also includes a wide variety of community agencies that are in a position to deliver services typically needed by a mentally ill person in crisis • These include: • Housing services • Emergency assistance • Employment training and job counseling • Educational services • One-to-one assistance in filling out paperwork required to secure various services and government benefits

48. Boone County, Missouri Mental Health Court • Judge meets regularly with treatment team, and is well versed in each case when she meets with the offender in court • An officer from the Columbia Police Department is an integral part of the Mental Health Court Team. Because police are on the frontline in the community, knowledgeable about what is happening on the streets, he is often able to alert the team members to situations that might be dangerous or inappropriate for a court offender

49. Conclusion: Police Collaboration with Corrections • Cost effectiveness • Effectiveness of alternatives to incarceration • Lessening police hassles • More police discretion • Improving community / police relationships

50. For more information, or to contact the author: Joanne Katz Missouri Western State University 4525 Downs Dr., Wilson 204 St. Joseph, Missouri 64507 816-271-5837 katz@missouriwestern.edu