Final Analysis & Framework for Justice Reinvestment in Wisconsin April 7, 2009

Final Analysis & Framework for Justice Reinvestment in Wisconsin April 7, 2009 Dr. Tony FabeloDirector of Research Dr. Fred OsherDirector of Health Systems & Services Policy Marshall ClementJustice Reinvestment Project Director Hope Glassberg & Marc PelkaPolicy Analysts

Overview 1. Big Picture & Prison Population Projection Dr. Tony Fabelo 2. Analyses of Crime Marshall Clement 3. Substance Abuse & Mental Health Analyses Dr. Fred Osher 4. Community Corrections & Employment Marshall Clement 5. Framework for Justice Reinvestment in WI Dr. Tony Fabelo

System OverviewPercent Change in # of Incidents & Persons, 2000-2007 Reported Crime ViolentUp +30% Arrests ViolentDown -4% Court Sentences Stable Jail Population +12% Probation Population Felony Up; Misd. Down Prison Population 1998-2008: +20% Revocations +14% Revocations +83% Post-Release SupervisionPopulation + 76%

JFA vs. APL Projection APL Projection (2008) • Percent of Resident Population in Prison (Rate)XProjected Resident Population in a Given Year=Projected Prison Population • Applies rates of incarceration by sex, race/ethnicity, and age to projected changes in the resident population • JFA Simulation Model (2009) • Based on admissions and releases from WI DOC facilities for a series of years • Simulates the current sentencing structure of WI to mimic how offenders flow through the state’s CJ system • Allows policymakers to project the impact of policy options by modifying assumptions in the model

New Prison Population Projection JFA Projection & Previous APL Projection 25% increase (JFA Projection) 14% increase(APL Projection) Capacity Shortfall 6,935 current capacity *Current Capacity Includes DAI Male and Female Operating Capacity. Does not include WRC (300 beds) or contract beds.

Projection by Admission Type & Gender * 45% of New Crime & Probation Violators Category are Probation Violators.

Cost of Building to Accommodate Growth JFA Projection 25% increase (JFA Projection) 10 Year Cumulative Cost Estimate $1.4b Construction $1.1b Operating (10 yrs.) $2.5b Total current capacity *Current Capacity Includes DAI Male and Female Operating Capacity. Does not include WRC (300 beds) or contract beds. *Mead & Hunt 10 Year Plan, based on the APL Projection, estimated $1.2 billion in necessary construction costs to provide sufficient capacity to operate facilities at 85%. *The costs presented year assume 95% operating capacity.

Admissions to Prison per 1000 Adults(2007) Wisconsin Counties Counties with at least 2% of the State’s Prison Admissions Milwaukee County is home to 16% of the State’s residents but accounts for 37%of the State’s’ prison admissions; 76% of whom are Black. Data Source: Wisconsin Department of Corrections Maps: Justice Mapping Systems

Admissions to Prison per 1000 Adults(2007) Milwaukee Block-Groups with Alderman Districts Districts with Prison Admission Rates of at Least 10 per 1000 Each District has nearly the same population; but while together, the 15th and 6th districts represent about 12% of the City’s population, they account for about 31% of the City’s prison admissions. Data Source: Wisconsin Department of Corrections Maps: Justice Mapping Systems

Percent Change in Violent Crime Rates(2000 – 2007) Wisconsin Statewide Violent Crime Milwaukee County‘s violent crime rate grew by 42% between 2000 and 2007. Its residents—only 16% of the State’s population—bear over half (54%) of the State’s violent crime. Dane County with the second highest share of the State’s violent crime (7%), is home to 8% of the State’s population, and experienced a moderate 8% increase. Home to 4% of the State’s residents, Brown County experienced a 70% increase in violent crime and has the State’s third highest share, a still proportionate (4%). Data Source: Office of Justice Assistance Maps: Justice Mapping Systems

Crime v. Prison Admissions(2007) Milwaukee Incident Density Property Crimes Violent Crimes Prison Admissions The highest violent crime rate Alderman District is 10 times higher than the lowest violent crime rate District. The highest property crime rate Alderman District is only 3.5 times higher than the lowest property crime rate District. Prison admissions are more concentrated than either violent or property crime. The highest prison admission rate Alderman District is 19 times higher than the lowest prison admission rate District. Data Source: Milwaukee Police Department and Wisconsin Department of Corrections Maps: Justice Mapping Systems

Violent and Property Crime in the Triangle(2007) Density of Incidents VIOLENT CRIMES The “Triangle” PROPERTY CRIMES Violent Crimes: 492 Total Property Crimes: 561 Total Aggravated Assault : 114 Assault: 243 Homicide: 9 Robbery: 91 Sex Offence Forced: 6 Shooting: 29 Burglary: 97 Larceny / Theft: 317 Motor Veh. Theft: 125 Stolen Property: 22 Data Source: Milwaukee Police Department Maps: Justice Mapping Systems

Reentry and Supervision in the TrianglePrison Releases (2007), Supervision (May, 13, 2007) PRISON RELEASES The “Triangle” PROBATIONERS AND POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION Probationers: 161 Post-Release Supervision: 190 People Released from Prison: 136 Data Source: Wisconsin Department of Corrections Maps: Justice Mapping Systems

Law Enforcement Focus Groups

Substance Use Disorders Among Jail Admissions (National Data) Source: The National GAINS Center, 2004

Serious Mental Disorders General Population vs. Jail Admissions (National Data) Source: The National GAINS Center, 2004

Co-Occurring Disorders Among Jail Detainees with SMI (National Data) Without Co-Occurring Substance Use Disorders With Co-Occurring Substance Use Disorders Source: The National GAINS Center, 2004

NORMAL DEPRESSION Figure 1 J Douglas Bremner, MD, Yale University Morphologic Changes Associated with MI

Sequential Intercept Model Source: Munetz, Griffen, 2005

Methods • Focused on individuals with behavioral health disorders on Probation, Parole, Mandatory Release (MR), and Extended Supervision (ES) • Analyzed data from the Division of Adult Institutions (DAI) and Division of Community Corrections (DCC) from 2005 and 2007 • Assessed issue with subject matter experts from DAI, DCC, and DHS; judges, community behavioral healthcare providers; and group assembled by Chief Justice Abrahamson related to Chief Justice Initiative • Developed recommendations in key focus areas

Law-Enforcement: Current Practices • Law enforcement officers expressed concern about encounters with people with mental illnesses • Officers describe lack of booking alternatives • Officers from approximately 70 communities have received Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training

Courts: Current Practices • Assess Inform and Measure (AIM) project implemented in six counties • 20 drug courts in Wisconsin, and Eau Claire County launched Mental Health Court Pilot • Chief Justice Mental Health Task Force

DOC Intake:Behavioral Health Current Practices • At intake, all prisoners screened for mental health needs and substance use disorders all go through second level of screening with psychology staff • Unstructured assessment process (at Taycheedah more intensive follow-up and assessments required at Wisconsin Resource Center) † • Based on screen, may be transferred to special facility/unit, but treatment resources and housing capacity limited † For those with identified mental health needs, there is a mandate for mental health monitoring, which includes file reviews and interviews. Therefore, further "assessment" is routinely done on those with identified mental health needs, although it is not done with a structured, formal assessment instrument.

DOC Intake:Prison Admissions Data: Mental Health, Alcohol, Drug * Inmate population as of July 2008, from Legislative Audit Bureau Report, see pg. 24 † AODA information is compiled from available DOC 502 Risk and Needs Assessment,, which takes place upon intake to supervision (not intake to prison), so percentages only apply to individuals who have been under community supervision prior to intake to prison. Also, for the AODA information, intake to prison includes any admission type (new sentence, no new sentence, ATR, and Temp P&P holds). This slide includes AODA information for individuals admitted to prison in 2007.

Reentry:Current Practices • Minimal specialized reentry planning focused on mental illnesses and substance abuse • All inmates complete a general health education module, includes some behavioral health elements • DOC policy is to provide two-week supply of meds, as well as 30-day prescription • Social workers in DOC assist MH-2 in applying for Social Security benefits before release

Supervision: Current Practices • No standardized mental health or substance abuse screens used for probationers, limited assessment • Limited community-based options for continuum of services, sanctions, and alternative to revocation options • DCC agents do not routinely receive behavioral health information from institutions for parolees and ES • Specialized mental health supervision unit in Milwaukee (10 agents) and Dane (2 agents)

Supervision: Current Practices

Community-Based Services: Current Practices • Inadequate access to behavioral health services • In rural communities, transportation to services a significant challenge • Marked variations between counties in range and type of services • Services for probationers not prioritized by county systems (in limited cases, some parolees/ES are prioritized) • Inadequate access to Evidence-based Practices • Separate mental health and substance use disorder service systems limit co-occurring treatment options • Few Cognitive-Behavioral Interventions targeted to risk • Long wait lists for Assertive Community Treatment (CSP)

Purchase of Service Overview • AODA spending increased significantly over the past three years • Limited POS for COD and mental health treatment • Challenge to ensure that limited funding is directed to services that match risk/needs of supervised population

Tailor Supervision & Treatment to Level of Risk and Functional Impairment • New Justice Center guide, Improving Outcomes for People with Mental Illnesses under Community Corrections Supervision: A Guide to Research-Informed Policy and Practice available at www.consensusproject.org

Intercept-Specific Recommendations Courts PrisonReentry Community Corrections Law Enforcement Jails • Increase training opportunities • Develop capacity for drop-offs • Increase number of specialized LE programs across the state • Address medication gap issue • Expand AIM • Consider expansion of specialized dockets • Chief Justice Task Force follow-up • Assign agents based on SA/MH needs • Improve information sharing • Prioritize people by impairment/risk • Increase agent behavioral health training • Decrease size of specialized caseloads

System Recommendations • Screening & Assessment • Information Sharing Across Systems • Community-Based Service Capacity • Coordination

Financing Recommendations • Target resources toward those who are high/medium risk and high need, save resources and have greater impact • Investigate alternative use of jail assessment funds • Consider use of DOC POS dollars to leverage federal dollars as county match for Medicaid services

Next Steps • Incorporate feedback from the committee on recommendations and areas of interest • Justice Center Justice Reinvestment staff to return next week with policy options

Revocations Drive WI Prison Admissions Revocations (w/ No New Sentence) increased from 50% to 61% of all prison admissions Cost of Incarceration for Revocations (w/ No New Sentence) in 2007: $286 m % of prison population incarcerated for a revocation (w/ No New Sentence) increased from 16% to 39%

Revocations (w/ No New Sentence) by Type of Supervision(2000-2007) 2000 2007 Probation Revocations 14% 1,948 2,234 Probation Population -3% 54,385 55,905 Post-Release Supervision Revocations (ES/Parole/MR) 83% 1,842 3,374 Post-Release Population 76% 9,890 17,376

Supervision Period Has Doubled Length of Prison Admissions w/ New Sentences Post Release Supervision Population 9890 14,052 17,376

Community Supervision per 1000 Adults(May 13, 2007) Milwaukee Block-Groups Districts with Supervision Rates of at Least 50 per 1000 Thirteen percent (13%) of adults in the 15th District and 11% of adults in the 6th District are under probation or post release (ES, Parole, MR) supervision. Data Source: Wisconsin Department of Corrections Maps: Justice Mapping Systems

Employment Employment Status of Post-Release Supervision Population Employed 1 Year 1% Unemployed 71% (approximately 12,000 individuals) Unemployable 11% Employed 18% . Coordinating & Expanding Local Efforts Numerous local non-profits and foundations developing or running employment programs either targeting people on community supervision or accessible to them. Opportunity in Milwaukee to review target population and coordinate among programs Developing a Strategy Annie E. Casey Foundation is supporting WI DOC in developing strategies for people in prison and returning to the community WI DOC Community-Based Programs Windows to WorkPartnership between WI DOC and Bay Area Workforce Investment Board serving 40 individuals/yr currently across three counties providing job prep in prison and job development in the community. Planning to expand to Milwaukee Community Corrections Employment Program71 transitional job slots currently occupied; 46 work subsidies/OJT currently being used

Releases from Prison per 1000 Adults(2007) Milwaukee Block-Groups with Alderman Districts Districts with Prison Reentry Rates Greater than 15 per 1000 People returning from prison to the 15th District and the 6th Districts are returning to neighborhoods with unemployment rates of 19%and18%respectively. Data Source: Wisconsin Department of Corrections Maps: Justice Mapping Systems

Employment Strategies Initial Employment Upon Release Stable Employment & Job Upgrades Pre-Release Preparation In-Prison Education & Training Community Corrections Employment Program (transitional jobs, wage subsidies, placement) Numerous nonprofit programs Various foundations are interested in employment strategies for people on community supervision Fairly extensive vocational training offered by WI Technical Colleges and DOC-hired instructors Need to examine the alignment of training offered to current employment sectors and job market Work Release Bureau of Correctional Enterprises Pre-release curriculum offered to update resume, develop job search plan, fill out practice applications Development of “portfolios” to help offenders present their strengths to employers Windows to Work Workforce Investment Board Job Centers across the state

Big Picture • Population Projection • 25% growth by 2019 • $2.5 billion (10 year cumulative cost) • Crime Analysis • Despite rising prison population, violent crime has increased • Milwaukee accounts for half of all violent crime • Within Milwaukee, certain neighborhoods are disproportionately victimized • Substance Abuse & Mental Health • Permeates key aspects of the CJ system’s population • “Dropping the Baton” • Limited access to services

Big Picture, cont. • Community Corrections & Employment • Another issue that permeates the CJ system’s population • 70% of people on community supervision are unemployed • People released from prison disproportionately return to neighborhoods with high unemployment

Justice Reinvestment Policy Framework for Wisconsin Goal: Increase Public Safety & Reduce Spending on Corrections Front-End/Sentencing Back-End/Supervision Coordination& Evaluation Targeting Supervision Changing Behavior

Next Meeting Bipartisan, inter-branch, bicameral structure • 1 • Analysis • Identify Drivers • Solicit Input from Stakeholders • Map Key Issues • Develop Framework • Identify Policy Options • Estimate Costs & Savings 2 Implementation 3 Accountability April 7: Meeting to review final analysis & framework March 11: Meeting to review progress Next meeting to review policy options & cost savings estimates

Thank You CONTACT Marc Pelka Policy Analyst (646) 383-5720 mpelka@csg.org

Final Analysis & Framework for Justice Reinvestment in Wisconsin April 7, 2009