Factors Impacting Recidivism in Vermont Report to House and Senate Committees April 21, 2011 Michael Eisenberg, Research Manager Jessica Tyler, Senior Research Associate Council of State Governments, Justice Center 1
National non-profit, non-partisan membership association of state government officials Represents all three branches of state government Justice Center provides practical, nonpartisan advice informed by the best available evidence Criminal Justice / Mental Health Consensus Project Second Chance Act: Reentry Policy Council Justice Reinvestment Council of State Governments, Justice Center
Vermont Policy Makers Contracted with the CSG Justice Center to Examine Factors Impacting Recidivism The Justice Center assistance involved examining Vermont s recidivism rate and determining if practices are in place to reduce recidivism and make recommendations for improvement. The following areas were examined: Does the state use a validated and reliable risk assessment instrument to differentiate the population by risk of recidivating? Are the risk assessment data being used to inform program assignment to ensure that high risk offenders are appropriately targeted? Are programs science based, using designs and practices that have been validated as effective in reducing recidivism? Are supervision policies and practices employed consistent with what research shows as effective in reducing recidivism? Are reentry strategies place based? Council of State Governments, Justice Center 3
How Does Vermont Measure Recidivism? Returned to prison within 3 years for any reason or length of time. Reconvicted within 3 years for any offense. Reconvicted serving prison or jail time. Reconvicted serving at least 1 year of prison time. A significant percent of reconvictions do not result in jail or prison incarceration. Reconviction is a common recidivism measure but not very useful in examining factors impacting prison populations Council of State Governments, Justice Center 4
Vermont Counts Some in Recidivist Populations Who Are Not Counted in Other States Prison (Usually Sentenced to 365 Days or more) Re-incarceration for new crimes and revocations counted as recidivists Most common method of calculating recidivism Releases Tracked 3 Years after Release Releases who were sanctioned but not revoked In Vermont In Most States For Example: Modification of conditions of supervision as a graduated sanction with shortterm incarceration in jail or intermediate sanction facility Counted in recidivism numbers Not counted in recidivism numbers Council of State Governments, Justice Center 5
Vermont Does Not Have a Recidivism Definition Easily Comparable to Other States 3 Year Relodging Reconviction of a New Offense Relodging of over 90 Days Relodging of 90 Days or Less Relodging of over 1 Year * Back in prison, serving time for a new prison sentence or for a technical violation http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf Council of State Governments, Justice Center 6
Pew Recidivism Study Indicates Average Recidivism Rate of 43% Return to Prison in 3 Years Council of State Governments, Justice Center 7
Vermont Uses a Validated Risk Assessment Instrument to Differentiate the Population by Risk 3 Groups Council of State Governments, Justice Center 8
Policy Directives Require Use of LSI Score to Target Interventions in a Variety of Operational Areas Most directives use the LSI score to dichotomize the population by risk scores of 0-23 and 24 or greater Council of State Governments, Justice Center 9
Risk Assessment Information is Directed to be Used to Target Offenders for Program Assignment Council of State Governments, Justice Center 10
Policy Directives Require the Use of Evidence-Based Practices in Program Design and Evaluation Policy Directive 52.01: design, training, operation, & evaluation requirements consistent with evidence-based practices known to reduce recidivism Evaluations are required to demonstrate programs are implemented as designed and impact outcomes Council of State Governments, Justice Center 11
Policy Directives Require Use of Evidence-Based Practices in Supervision Council of State Governments, Justice Center 12
LSI Targeting Based on Two Groups May Not be Most Effective Targeting of High Risk Offenders 61% of Offenders Targeted: Prison, Reentry, Parole, and Intermediate Sanctions 39% 61% Is there enough program capacity to effectively target this population? Is there a better way to differentiate the populations to target available program and supervision resources? Council of State Governments, Justice Center 13
Three or More Risk Groupings Identified: Why Use Only Two Risk Groups in Directives? Five Groups Vermont s directives only use two risk groupings. Greater differentiation may better target offenders by risk of re-offending Council of State Governments, Justice Center 14
Supervision Effectiveness Focus group interviews with Probation and Parole officers indicated: Officers reported they received Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Motivational Interviewing, and training in evidence-based practices Officers stated that while evidence-based supervision practices were in place for supervision, conditions established by the judiciary were primarily offense-based as opposed to conditions addressing criminogenic needs associated with criminality Treatment resources for substance abuse counseling were available for officers to utilize to meet needs of offenders; however, long-term residential treatment was not available and resources were inadequate for: Employment Housing Mentally ill High risk offenders were targeted for interventions, and low risk offenders receive limited supervision resources While practices appear to be in place for effective supervision of offenders that should moderate recidivism rates, current measures make it difficult to document effectiveness Council of State Governments, Justice Center 15
Use, Capacity, and Effectiveness of Graduated Sanctions An adequate array of sanctions and incentives were available and utilized in a timely manner. Focus Group on Graduated Sanctions Generally used in a progressive manner consistent with seriousness of violation and offender history. Appropriateness of sanctions and capacity issues were not fully evaluated. Vermont has no evaluation of the effectiveness of the use of graduated sanctions. Council of State Governments, Justice Center 16
Program Effectiveness Programs utilized by the Vermont Department of Corrections are designed and implemented based on programs known to reduce recidivism Program evaluations have not been completed in recent years due to lack of resources Performance based measures are being developed and will be the basis for future funding allocations Staff are being trained on the use of the Correctional Program Checklist (CPC), a program evaluation review that determines if evidence-based practices are in place Program administrators are working with the University of Cincinnati (UC) and the University of Vermont to conduct program evaluations UC evaluations of Ohio programs have identified inappropriate placement of low risk offenders and ineffective programs that have resulted in higher recidivism rates than comparison group offenders not placed in programs Council of State Governments, Justice Center 17
Findings and Recommendations (1) Finding Vermont uses reconvictions, a commonly used recidivism measure, as the primary recidivism measure of the Department of Corrections. Reconvictions have limited utility in examining prison population pressure because a significant percent of reconvictions do not result in jail or prison incarceration. Most states use re-incarceration as their primary recidivism measure. Recommendation Develop and implement a re-incarceration recidivism measure consistent with other states and the Bureau of Justice Statistics Establish goal to reduce re-incarceration recidivism rate Develop monitoring reports to measure progress and evaluate programs Report recidivism rate to Governor and Legislature Progress report on efforts to reduce recidivism and results Council of State Governments, Justice Center 18
Recommendation: Calculate Re-Incarceration Recidivism Rate Consistent with Other States Council of State Governments, Justice Center 19
States Have Required Recidivism Calculation Statutorily or Designated Agency To Calculate State Recidivism Rate Connecticut Public Law Public Act No. 05-249 AN ACT CONCERNING CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING AND ELIGIBILITY FOR CRIME VICTIM COMPENSATION. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened: Sec. 3. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2006) (a) The Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division within the Office of Policy and Management shall develop a reporting system that is able to track trends and outcomes related to policies designed to reduce prison overcrowding, improve rehabilitation efforts and enhance reentry strategies for offenders released from prison. Council of State Governments, Justice Center Texas Government Code Texas Government Code 508.312. INFORMATION ON RECIDIVISM OF RELEASEES. The Texas Board of Criminal Justice shall collect information on recidivism of releasees under the supervision of the division and shall use the information to evaluate operations. 20
Recommendation: Set Goal of 20% Reduction in ReIncarceration of Medium and High Risk Offenders Released Target treatment resources to population and use Reparative Justice and COSA approach. * Estimated numbers based on available data Council of State Governments, Justice Center 21
Findings and Recommendations (2) Finding: Vermont uses a validated risk assessment instrument in targeting offenders for program placement, supervision services, and risk reduction efforts as reflected in policy directives. Targeting interventions using dichotomized LSI groupings may be improved Recommendation Use re-incarceration recidivism measure to identify high re-incarceration rate groups and target for interventions Examine re-incarceration rates by release type and interventions to determine if greater differentiation of the population for intervention might result in more efficient and effective allocation of supervision and program resources Council of State Governments, Justice Center 22
Recommended Reports Council of State Governments, Justice Center 23
Findings and Recommendations (3) Finding While supervision and program practices appear to be evidence-based, recent program process, and outcome evaluations are not available to measure effectiveness. Plans are being developed to use the CPC to assess programs and outcome evaluations are being planned to determine program effectiveness. Recommendations Implement performance-based contracts and conduct process and outcome evaluations of programs as currently planned Conduct CPC and examine relationship of CPC scores and re-incarceration rates by programs Work with University of Cincinnati and University of Vermont to determine effectiveness of programs and where improvements can be achieved Utilize re-incarceration recidivism rates to measure performance of release programs in achieving reduction of recidivism Report to the Governor and Legislature on performance of programs and contract service providers in efforts to reduce recidivism of offenders targeted for intervention Council of State Governments, Justice Center 24
Sample Recidivism Goal Tracking Report All numbers are for illustration purposes. No actual calculations have been made. Council of State Governments, Justice Center 25
Sample Recidivism Report on Change over Time All numbers are for illustration purposes. No actual calculations have been made. Council of State Governments, Justice Center 26
Findings and Recommendations (4) Finding Pilot projects by law enforcement and the judiciary have been implemented to increase the use of evidence based practices throughout the criminal justice system Pilot efforts to assess risk and needs have been initiated in some drug courts (per conversations with Court Program Manager Karen Gennette and Judge Amy Davenport) The Rapid Arraignment and Intervention program, a law enforcement pilot project by Police Chief Schirling in Chittenden County, seeks to implement swift and certain sanctions with interventions for offenders who have previously recidivated Recommendation The Department of Corrections, law enforcement, and the judiciary should coordinate efforts to integrate evidence-based practices through out the criminal justice system. Senate Bill 108 can serve as the framework for efforts in this area Expand risk/need assessment pilot in drug courts to other courts Expand law enforcement efforts use of evidence-based practices Council of State Governments, Justice Center 27
Recommendation: Utilize S. 108 to Expand Implementation of EvidenceBased Practices Throughout Vermont s Criminal Justice System Council of State Governments, Justice Center 28
Acknowledgements Data and graphics for this report were borrowed extensively from the Vermont 2010 Fact and Figures statistical report and the 2007 Plan to Reduce Correctional Costs and Achieve Savings for Reinvestment report The authors wish to thank Commissioner Pallito and Senator Sears for their support of this project The authors would also like to thank Deputy Commissioner Lisa Menard, David Peebles, Sandra Olberg, Doug Bickford, Kim Bushey, Keith Tallon, and the staff of the Vermont Department of Corrections for providing information and sharing their expertise and experience in preparing this report Any errors or misinterpretations of this information are the responsibility of the author. Council of State Governments, Justice Center 29
Thank You CONTACT Mike Eisenberg Austin Office meisenberg@csg.org Jessy Tyler Austin Office jtyler@csg.org The presentation was developed by members of the Council of State Governments Justice Center staff. Because presentations are not subject to the same rigorous review process as other printed materials, the statements made reflect the views of the authors, and should not be considered the official position of the Justice Center, the members of the Council of State Governments, or the funding agency supporting the work. Council of State Governments, Justice Center 30