1 Discussion and Reasons for Change Evidence Based PracticesKathy Waters Director, Adult Probation Service, Arizona Supreme Court I really want to talk to you today about thinking outside the box and really looking at the issues we will discuss today in a different manner. I am going to spend some time with you to talk about what we know works and what we know that does not work and it all has to relate to research and our trust of the data and doing what the research says. I also want to talk about why you are here. You are here to discuss what can be done. I want to challenge you to think outside the box of what has been done and what can be done. There needs to be leaders and champions of change. Coconino County is a leader in this area but I think we can all do more. I will talk to you about what the courts have been able to accomplish and other goals the courts have set for themselves. Northern Arizona Justice Summit May 15, 2017
2 Evidence Based Practices:DEFINITION Evidence Based Practices: Evidence based practices is the use of scientific research to guide and inform efficient and effective justice services. Began in the medical field in the 1800’s, evidence based practices are now used by all professions. This research adds organizational value by focusing staff time and resources on the best way to change offender behavior and reduce the likelihood of future crime. Using data to drive our decision making in supervision and treatment decisions. The term evidence based practices originated form the medical world in the late 1700’s. Can you imagine our medical world and medicine today if we do not rely on the science and doing what research says we should do?
3 Risk of Heart Attack 1) Elevated LDL and low HDL levels 2) Smoking 3) Diabetes 4) Hypertension 5) Abdominal obesity 6) Psychosocial (i.e., stress/depression) 7) Diet (not enough fruits and vegetables) 8) Lack of exercise By following the research of meta analysis, Some criminogenic needs are more criminogenic than others, i.e., more highly predictive of the likelihood of recidivism. By analogy, there are some dynamic risk factors for heart attack that are more highly predictive of having a heart attack than others. This slide lists the risks for heart attack in order of strength of top to bottom. The risk of a heart attack for individuals who have all of these factors, is almost 130 times higher than for somebody with none of them. These eight factors predict 90% of all heart attacks. The first two of these risk factors (lipid readings and smoking) alone predict 2/3 of all heart attacks. Yusuf, et.al., INTERHEART STUDY, The Lancet, v. 364, issue 9438, pp (9/11/04) (International study of risk factors associated with heart attack among 15,000 heart attack patients from 52 countries and compared to to case-matched controls)
4 Dynamic Risk Factors (Criminogenic Needs)Anti-social attitudes Anti-social friends and peers Anti-social personality pattern Family and/or marital factors Substance abuse Lack of education Poor employment history Lack of pro-social leisure activities The order of correlation with likelihood of committing future crime is listed above. The top three risk factors are more important than the lower five criminogenic needs in predicting recidivism among medium and high risk offenders. D. A. Andrews and Craig Dowden, The Risk–Need--Responsivity Model of Assessment and Human Service in Prevention and Corrections: Crime-Prevention Jurisprudence,” 49 Can. J. Criminology & Crim. Just (2007). Yet today we tend to focus corrections resources on risk factors below the line, e.g., substance abuse, employment, and education. The point is not that factors below the line are unimportant (they are not), but only that factors above the line, in which we tend not to focus current resources, are even more critical and must be addressed in the case of medium and high risk offenders in order to obtain significant recidivism reduction effects. Typically, it is the individual's pattern of dynamic risk factors that will lay the groundwork for the type and intensity of interventions. High risk offenders typically have several dynamic risk factors both above and below the line. A low risk offender, however, typically has an isolated treatment need such as chemical dependency. The treatment modality and level of supervision would look very different for these two persons in spite of the fact that they both have addictions.
5 * meta-analysis of 230 studies (Andrews et al., 1999)Impact of Adhering to the Core Principles of Effective Intervention: Risk, Needs, and Responsivity* Better outcomes The research tells us that if we focus on the risk, needs which reduce risk and have the correct supervision strategy which is like a prescription, we can reduce recidivism by upwards of 30%. We are not saying do not do less supervision or no supervision at all, but doing supervision differently and focusing on the higher risk individuals. I want yo to remember those figures. Poorer outcomes * meta-analysis of 230 studies (Andrews et al., 1999)
6 What Would You Do? “What is done [today] in corrections would be grounds for malpractice in medicine.” (2002) Latessa, Cullen, and Gendreau, “Beyond Correctional Quackery…” What would be your response to a doctor if you or one of your loved ones was not diagnosed and treated to the very best of the doctor’s ability based on what the latest research says in regards to medical treatment? We have come to expect it and much more so to demand it So in contrast, if the research is telling us what does not work in the criminal justice world, why do we continue to do what we have always done at least for the past 30 year when the current laws and criminal code were adopted? Why do we continue to react to the end results rather than look at the systems and underlying cause that has landed most people on the wrong side of the law? You have the opportunity to make an impact prior to criminal justice as the solution. It just takes the courage to change the way we are looking at the issues and how we address the problems. In most states, our current sent/corrs. policies date back years to 70’s & 80’s. These prevailing practices over past years were originally fueled & have been sustained in large part by great skepticism about our ability to reduce recidivism--change offender behavior First enacted in mid-70’s and 80’s in wake of huge surge in violent crime rate ‘60-’75: violent crime rate tripled; people angry, frustrated, and scared Nothing seemed to work; Invested in imprisonment and incapacitation rather than probation and treatment; Conventional wisdom that nothing works became a self-fulfilling prophecy Loss of confidence in probation; “probation is a joke”; unprecedented recidivism rates, esp. at front-end of cj system; Today, 90% of state corrections funding is spent on prisons while up to 70% of the criminal offenders are in the community. Historically, there has been little evidence that our prevailing community corrections practices have been effective, and indeed some evidence, as three of North America’s leading criminologists noted above, that many of our current sentencing and corrections practices are actually harming the very offenders they were designed to help. (Edward J. Latessa, Francis T. Cullen, and Paul Gendreau, Beyond Correctional Quackery: Professionalism and the Possibility of Effective Treatment, 66 Fed. Probation, Sept. 2002, at 43). But today, there is a large body of rigorous research that provides judges, prosecutors, defenders, and corrections officials with guidance as to how they can do a better job in protecting public safety and reducing recidivism and victimization, thus saving taxpayer money, lowering crime rates, and reducing family breakdown and the other social and economic costs associated with crime.
7 Colleges Struggle With Mental Health NeedsUSA Today “Let’s not treat heart attacks, let’s treat high cholesterol. In mental health, we need to ask ourselves that same (type of) question.” Why do we not ask ourselves this same question in criminal justice? While preparing for this presentation, I wanted to approach the topic differently. This article was in the USA today last Saturday. It was perfect. Until we can address the underlying issues of trauma, mental health and other life issues, we cannot get to the reason for the use of substance or address the issues. We diagnose with the criminal justice system and then wonder why people fail on supervision and if sent to DOC, we wonder why they come out with the same issues and chances are they fail again.
8 Top concerns of state trial judgesin felony cases: High rates of recidivism Ineffectiveness of traditional probation supervision in reducing recidivism Absence of effective community corrections programs Restrictions on judicial discretion A 2006 survey of state chief justices identified these four concerns as the top concerns of state felony trial court judges.
9 Court Leadership and InitiativesChief Justice Ruth McGregor Good To Great Goal 2D Protecting Children Families and Communities Provide a balanced approach to probation that focuses on holding probationers accountable, keeping communities safe, and providing treatment and rehabilitative services to offenders. Develop innovative, effective methods to assist substance abusing offenders, including the continued expansion of drug courts, to prevent additional contact with the justice system and ensure community safety. Conduct research on offender management, treatment and rehabilitation programs used in Arizona to ensure best practices are utilized. Persons who violate the laws of the state must be held accountable. Courts are required to determine the appropriate punishment for these individuals, within the context of existing law, in order to deter crime and protect the public. If a court determines probation to be the most appropriate action, it must ensure that the offender not only is held accountable, but also is offered rehabilitative services designed to reduce or eliminate future criminal activity. Those offenders with history of substance abuse or mental illness present a unique challenge, and innovative approaches such as therapeutic courts, must be considered to reduce offender recidivism and promote public safety. Successful management of juvenile and adult probation populations requires following proven principles of effective community supervision and using treatments and rehabilitation programs supported by research and experience
10 Percent of Revocations to ADOC-Year to YearFY 08 Base Line FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 Base Line to FY 09 (%) FY 09 to FY 10 FY 10 to FY 11 FY 11 to FY 12 Base Line to FY 12 Statewide 6,801 5,942 4,913 4,120 3,794 -12.6 -17.3 -16.1 -7.9 -44.2 Table 5.1: Percent of Revocations to ADOC-Year to Year
11 Court Leadership and InitiativesChief Justice Rebecca White Berch Justice 20/20 Goal 4 Protecting Children Families and Communities Reduce revocations by striving for successful terminations from probation. Implement Project SAFE (Swift, Accountable, Fair Enforcement). Employ evidence based practices to Improve the revocation process, Incorporate evidencebased practices into Juvenile Justice Services field operations, Complete a statewide rollout of all evidencebased practice codes, and Establish a process to evaluate adult treatment programs. Implement the juvenile detention center certification and monitoring process. Evaluate the effectiveness of therapeutic courts.
12 Percent of Revocations to ADOC-Year to YearArizona: Statewide FY 2008 Base Line: 6,801 FY 2009: 5,492 FY 2010: 4,913 FY 2011: 4,120 FY 2012: 3,794 FY 2013: 4,108 FY 2014: 4,694 FY 2015: 5,252 FY 2016: 4,804 Increase / Decrease FY FY 2009: FY FY 2010: FY FY 2011: FY FY 2012: -7.9 FY FY 2013: +8.3 FY FY 2014: FY 2014 – FY 2015: FY 2015 – FY 2016: -8.5 FY 2008 Base Line to FY 2016: Decrease of 29.4%
13
14 Percent of Probationers w/a New Felony Conviction – Year to YearArizona: Statewide FY 2008 Base Line: 3,174 FY 2009: 3,114 FY 2010: 2,188 FY 2011: 1,857 FY 2012: 1,979 FY 2013: 1,900 FY 2014: 2,087 FY 2015: 2,222 FY 2016: 2,496 Increase / Decrease FY FY 2009: -1.9 FY FY 2010: FY FY 2011: FY FY 2012: +6.6 FY FY 2013: -4.0 FY FY 2014: +9.8 FY 2014 – FY 2015: +6.5 FY 2015 – FY2016: FY 2008 Base Line to FY 2016: Decrease of 21.4%
15
16 Cost Avoidance for Safe Communities Criteria2009 $ 5,926,460.75 2010 $ 27,803,567.29 $ 46,311,057.58 $ 51,797,266.96 $ 47,750,340.90 $ 38,217,205.47 $ 28,599,406.31 $33,594,566.08 Total $ 279,999,871.32 Based on the counties that met the criteria of reducing violations to DOC and new felony convictions. This is the cost avoidance of DOC if those individuals had served their average length of stay when revoked to prison. If you look at the cost avoidance of just revocations to DOC by all counties, that cost avoidance is even larger.
17 Cost Avoidance for Safe Communities CriteriaCoconino County Adult Probation cost avoidance over eight years amounts to: $14,358,968 $111,999,948 owed to probation departments for reducing revocations and new felony convictions. Justice Reinvestment. Coconino appropriation over time should have been $5,743,588
18 Cost Avoidance for all CountiesRevocations to DOC and based on Average length of stay saving to the state numbers $392,900,289.69
19 Court Leadership and InitiativesChief Justice Scott Bales Advancing Justice Together: Courts and Communities Goal 2 Center for evidence-based practices: Improve and expand the use of evidence based practices to determine pre-trial release conditions for low-risk offenders. Evaluate and, as appropriate, implement new or expanded evidence based Programs for Arizona’s Adult and Juvenile Probation Services. Problem-solving courts: Problem solving courts must also follow evidence based practices to succeed. Evidence-based practices” are identified by rigorously studying the effects of different policies and processes. Important research regarding evidence-based practices in the legal system is underway throughout the nation. Although the Arizona judiciary has successfully incorporated evidence-based practices in probation services, Arizona’s courts must stay current with this research and remain a leader in implementing successful approaches. The Arizona Center for Evidence-Based Practices will support these efforts. The Center will bring together judicial leaders, researchers, and practitioners to design the best programs to promote juvenile and adult offender accountability, rehabilitation, crime reduction, and community protection. Improve and expand the use of evidence-based practices to determine pre-trial release conditions for low-risk offenders. Evaluate and, as appropriate, implement new or expanded evidence- based programs for Arizona’s Adult and Juvenile Probation Services. Programs to evaluate include: - S upervision of the seriously mentally ill, - Positive adult mentoring of juvenile probationers, - E ffective practices to reduce the risk of violence, especially gun violence involving probationers, - E ffective community re-entry for adults and youth after incarceration or detention, - Family inclusive probation supervision and services, and - E ffective community supervision programs to reduce adult and juvenile recidivism. Encourage and support the use of evidence-based services and interventions for children and families for reunification and permanency in dependency cases. Encourage and support the educational needs of all youth under court supervision as a critical factor in future well-being. Problem-solving courts must also follow evidence-based practices to succeed. Although some Arizona courts have implemented problem-solving courts, there is a continuing need to create courts designed to serve the distinct needs of certain individuals, such as homeless courts, drug courts, veterans courts, and mental health courts. Collaborate with justice partners, treatment providers, and other community service entities to expand problem-solving courts including drug, homeless, veterans, mental health, and domestic violence courts. Develop evidence-based practices bench books, training, and other information for judges assigned to problem-solving courts. Identify strategies, including statutory changes, allowing multi-court collaboration and use of technology to establish and expand problem-solving courts across jurisdictional boundaries.
20 Arizona Implementation of the PSAArizona Pretrial Services Culture of Release Arizona Implementation of the PSA 5 original pilot sites Spring 2014 to June 2015: Pinal County Yuma County Gila County Mohave County Mesa Municipal Court (pilot only) All 11 other AZ Counties adopted the PSA beginning in 2015 and statewide implementation was completed in August 2016. This just illustrates the time line for implementation of the PSA. After the pilot implementation, the LJAF continued to work closely with AZ on the statewide roll-out with assistance from consultants from Justice System Partners.
21 Summary of Task Force RecommendationsJustice for All Summary of Task Force Recommendations Today’s presentation will include an overview of the work of the “Task Force on Fair Justice for All” which was established by Chief Justice Scott Bales in March 2016. In the AO that created the task Force, the Chief Justice wrote that our ideal of justice for all means that people should not be disparately punished because they are poor. While everyone should face consequences for violating the law, fees and fines should not themselves promote a cycle of poverty or unduly restrict peoples ability to be gainfully employed. He asked the TF to review statutes, court rules, financial obligations and pretrial release policies to explore opportunities for improvement. The Task Force included 24 members; including public members, representatives of NAACP and ACLU, Law Enforcement, Jail rep, City and County Prosecutors, Public Defense, Limited Jurisdiction and Superior Court Judges/Commissioner, Limited Jurisdiction and Superior Court Administrators, a Clerk of the Court and a County Manager. Numerous presentations and meetings attended by people, including guests, other criminal justice professionals, and guest presenters from the community. The report of recommendations was completed on August 16, 2016 and will be presented to the AJC in October.
22 Core Values for Fair CourtsRelease decisions/conditions should protect public safety & ensure appearance at proceedings. People should not be jailed for failing to pay fines or court-assessed financial sanctions for reasons beyond their control. Court practices should help people comply with court-imposed obligations. Sanctions such as fees and fines should promote compliance with the law, economic opportunity, and family stability. The AO which created the Task Force included these “Core Values” which the Task Force worked from in making their recommendations: Release decisions/conditions should protect public safety & ensure appearance at proceedings People should not be jailed for failing to pay fines or court-assessed financial sanctions for reasons beyond their control Court practices should help people comply with court-imposed obligations Sanctions such as fees and fines should promote compliance with the law, economic opportunity, and family stability
23 Two-Component SolutionReasonableSanctions Pretrial Bail Reform The Task Force addressed 2 sets of problems; The report and recommendations of the Task Force are focused on these 2 primary areas; Consideration of a persons ability to pay when the court is imposing sanctions AND when setting financial conditions associated with bail.
24 Report Summary The Task Force report: Eleven PrinciplesSixty-five Recommendations Each of the 11 principles contain specific recommendations for either “best-practices”, changes to policy or procedures, and where necessary, recommended changes to Court Rules, Statutes or State Constitution. The 65 recommendations also include “training and educational” requirements necessary to implement these changes and inform courts and stakeholders of the reasons for the changes.
25 Small Ticket, Big Problem LaterFor some, a small ticket can become a big problem. Pete the Pizza Guy is 23, earns slightly more than $12,000/year and gets a ticket for a seat belt violation and no proof of financial responsibility (insurance). Seat Belt Violation $ 139 No Proof of Insurance $ 1040 Because Pete doesn’t have $1,179, he doesn’t go to court. The following few slides illustrate a fairly common scenario we see in our courts: Pete the Pizza Guy is 23, drives an older car he loves, and is living paycheck to paycheck on a salary of about $12,000. He gets pulled over for a “California Stop” but the officer gives him a warning but cites him for not wearing his seatbelt, He also doesn’t have insurance because he couldn’t afford the premiums. Pete is thankful he didn’t get the ticket for the rolling stop but he still doesn’t have $1,179 to pay his fines. Believing he has to have the money when he goes to court, he skips his court date.
26 Pete is Stopped Again Because Pete never showed up in court:Court notifies MVD & Pete’s license is suspended With out-of-date address, doesn’t get suspension notification Pete’s charged with driving on a suspended license (a criminal charge) Pete’s arrested for driving on a suspended license, car impounded (fees!), and Pete is hauled off to jail & has to pay booking fees. When someone doesn’t show up in court, a default order is issued and the Motor Vehicles Division is notified to suspend his license. MVD issues a letter notifying the person of the license suspension. In Pete’s case, he moved a few months ago and never updated his license. He never gets the MVD notice and continues driving. When he gets stopped for speeding, the officer charges him with a criminal offense – driving on a suspended license, arrests him, impounds his car and he’s booked into jail. The impound fees are added to his new speeding ticket fine, the driving on a suspended license fine, plus he has to pay booking fees for his stay in jail. Now Pete’s going to owe between $2,000 and 4,000 in fines and fees. Remember, Pete only makes about $12,000!
27 Civil Tickets Can Lead to Criminal Charges27% simple speeding 103,000 Failures to Appear 53% later cited for driving on a suspended license 41% of criminal offenses = driving on suspended One of the concerns the task Force considered is civil traffic violations leading to a criminal charge. Typically occurs if a person fails to pay a traffic fine; court notifies MVD ; driver’s license then suspended. Frequently, the defendant may not be notified of the suspension because they may have moved, etc. Then later pulled over and charged with criminal offense of DOSL. Out of 103,000 failures to appear, 27 percent of those are simple speeding violations. 53% are later cited for a criminal offense. 41 percent of all criminal citations are for driving on a suspended license
28 **UPDATE** Legislative Proposal 2017-04 submitted (SB1157)Principle Seven: Special Needs Offenders Should Be Addressed Appropriately **UPDATE** Legislative Proposal submitted (SB1157) SB1157 was introduced to revise the “Request for Competency Exam” statute ARS , to allow a Presiding Judge of a Superior Court to authorize a Justice or Municipal Court to exercise jurisdiction over a competency hearing. This bill was signed by the Governor 03/14/2017 UPDATES (read from slide). Recommendations 34, 35 & 36
29 Unconvicted in Jail DoubledIt’s important to know who is in your jails. This slide illustrates a national trend and is similar to the jails in AZ.
30 Even Short Periods of Pretrial Incarceration Cause HarmCollateral damage from pretrial incarceration: Loss of employment Economic hardship from loss of income Interruption of education or training Inability to care for children or family Loss of place of residence Increased exposure to negative influences In addition; several studies have shown that longer periods of incarceration are associated with increased recidivism and longer jail sentences.
31 Likelihood to Commit New Crimes Before TrialUnited States Maricopa County Low-risk defendants held in jail 2-3 days A 4-7 day stay increases likelihood to commit new offense Pretrial detention of 8-14 days 40% 39% 50% 50% Even a short period of pretrial detention causes harm. This information is from 2 studies, and interestingly show almost the exact same results. One is from the Arnold Foundation, conducted by Marie VanNostrand and Chris Lowenkamp and the other was conducted recently in Maricopa County. Other similar studies have been conducted with similar results: In Harris County, PA, misdemeanor defendants incarcerated pretrial were 25 percent more likely to plead guilty, 43 percent more likely to be sentenced to prison, and received sentences more than double the length of those received by similarly situated defendants who were not incarcerated pretrial. In Philadelphia, felony and misdemeanor defendants detained pretrial were 13 percent more likely to be convicted than similarly situated defendants who were not detained. In addition, detained defendants received sentences five months longer and owed an average of $128 more in court fees. (Quattrone Center for Fair Administration of Justice, University of Penn Law School, August 18, 2016). 56% 56% Source:
32 What Doesn’t Work: Traditional Sanctions AlonePunishment, sanctions, or incarceration Specific deterrence, or fear-based programs (e.g. Scared Straight) Physical challenge programs Military models of discipline and physical fitness (e.g. Boot Camps) Electronic monitoring Intensive supervision Traditional sanctions are also ineffective in encouraging pro-social behaviors among offenders. Punishment in the justice system takes many forms. In the absence of a treatment component, none of these sanctioning programs has been shown to be effective in reducing recidivism as they do not change the thinking patterns of offenders, target criminogenic needs, or teach pro-social skills and behaviors. In fact, the Scared Straight program actually increases recidivism significantly. Source: E. K. Drake, et al., Evidence-based public policy options to reduce crime and criminal justice costs: Implications in Washington State, 4 Victims Offenders (2009). That does not necessarily mean they are inappropriate as a sanction. They may be appropriate for other purposes of sentencing, including “just deserts,” incapacitation, or general deterrence. With respect to incapacitation and general deterrence, however, the most recent and exhaustive review of the relevant scientific research concluded: “The increase in incarceration [over the past 40 years] may have caused a decrease in crime, but the magnitude of the reduction is highly uncertain and the results of most studies suggest it was unlikely to have been large Given the small crime prevention effects of long prison sentences and the possibly high financial, social, and human costs of incarceration, federal and state policy makers should revise current criminal justice policies to significantly reduce the rate of incarceration in the United States.” (National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, The Growth of Incarceration in the United States (2014). With respect to the scientific research on the effect of incarceration on recidivism reduction, the National Research Council concluded that current evidence “consistently points either to no effect or to an increase rather than a decrease in recidivism. Thus, there is no credible evidence of a specific deterrent effect of the experience of incarceration.”
33 Procedural Fairness There is improved compliance and motivation when the offender views the decision- making process as “procedurally fair”: Views decision-maker as impartial Has an opportunity to participate Is treated with respect Trusts the motives of the decision maker (“trustworthiness”) As mentioned in the preceding slide, the process used to respond to a violation should also be procedurally fair. In dual role relationships with offenders, research indicates that the effectiveness of the decision of a judge, police officer, or probation officer depends on the extent to which the offender views the decision-making process as being “fair.” Research in the field of “procedural fairness” describes the qualities of “procedural fairness“ from the point of view of one coming into contact with a police officer or judge. The slide identifies those four qualities. The most important quality seems to be “trustworthiness,” a belief on the part of the subject that the public official is trying to do the right and fair thing. When offenders feel they have been treated “fairly,” the research indicates they are more likely to accept the decision-making system as legitimate, more likely to voluntarily comply with orders and directives, and more likely to obey the law thereafter. See, e.g., Tom R. Tyler & Yuen J. Huo, Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Court (Russell Sage Foundation, 2002).
34 Top two reform objectives:Reduce recidivism through expanded use of evidence-based practices, programs that work, and offender risk and needs assessment tools Promote the development, funding, and utilization of community-based alternatives to incarceration for appropriate offenders To address those concerns state chief justices, in the same survey, identified these two activities as their top two sentencing reform objectives.
35 So Why Evidence-Based Practices?Enhances our ability to reduce recidivism Promotes accountability Creates a system that allows for informed policymakers, practitioners, and consumers I know w ehave all had the thought of if they don’t want to go to jail, don’t violate the law. If they can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. Accountability but lets look at the circumstances and underlying issues that triggered these issues and perhaps have a better resolve for them other than the criminal justice system. It’s about time we reviewed what we are doing and I challenge each of you to do that.
36 Questions ? ????