adam gelb , director public safety performance project

Adam Gelb, Director

Public Safety Performance Project

Smarter Choices …… Safer

Communities

www.pewcenteronthestates.com

America’s Prison Population at an All Time High

National incarceration rate

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

2.3 Million and Counting


1 in 31adults undersome form of correctional control

1 in 100adults now behind bars


Who’s Behind Bars? Adult women 1 in 580Adult white men 1 in 106Adult black men 1 in 15Young adult black men 1 in 9


U.S. has of the world’s population

5%

The World’s Incarceration Leader


and of the world’s prisoners

23%


Policy Choices Drive Growth


State Correctional Costs Have Exploded

$51Billion

Total Expenditures for State Corrections$12

Billion

$23Billion

Inflation Adjusted

FY 1987 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 (est.)


Higher Education Corrections

Of Books and Bars +137%

+24%

Spending increases between 1987 and 2008


Prisons Dominate Spending

CORRECTIONAL SPENDINGCORRECTIONAL POPULATION

PrisonsPrisons Probation and Parole


Prison SystemsProbation Agencies

How It All Stacks Up

$3.42Average

$78.95Average

One day in prison costs more than 23 days on probation


Return on Investment:A Tale of Two States

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

28.2% 29.2%

FL NYFlorida

New York

Prison Population Crime Rate


States Can Have Less Crime at a Lower Cost


Prisons: “from a peak of nearly 29,000 to a present low of 20,080”

Parole: “for the first time in history, there are more convicted offenders on parole than there are in prison”

Recidivism rate: “dropped to its lowest level in more than a decade”

Reagan Era: Dramatic Prison Reform

Probation Subsidy Act (1965): $4,000 for each eligible offender supervised at local level in the community


Reagan’s Second Inaugural Address (1971)

“Our rehabilitation policies and improved parole system are attractingnationwide attention. Fewer parolees are being returned to prison than at any time in our history, and our prison population is lower than at any time since 1963.”


Diverse States Pursuing Reinvestment Strategies

KANSAS

TEXASSOUTH CAROLINA

LOUISIANA

ARKANSAS

ALABAMA

WISCONSIN

MICHIGAN

KENTUCKY

OHIO

ILLINOISCOLORADO

NEW HAMPSHIRE


A Window of Opportunity

• Advances in supervision technology

• Advances in the science of behavior change

• More accurate risk assessments

• Increasing focus on cost-benefit analysis

• Public support for prison alternatives


BIPARTISAN RESEARCH TEAM

National Poll and Focus Groups

• 1,200 registered voters (March 2010)• Margin of error: +/- 2.83%

FOCUS GROUPS

NATIONAL SURVEY

Greenville, SCRural County

City of DetroitDenver

Suburb

• POS: McCain, R governors • BSG: Obama, unions


Poll Respondent Demographics

20% Victim or family member victim of a violent crime

48% Victim or family member victim of a nonviolent crime

17% Law enforcement households

43% Conservative

20% Liberal


91%

75%

Bottom Line… Let’s Reduce Crime

It does not matter whether a nonviolent offender is in prison for 21 or 24 or 27 months. What really matters is the system does

a better job of making sure that when an offender does get out, he

is less likely to commit another crime.

“ “STRONGLY AGREE

TOTAL AGREE


Underlying Attitudes

What percent of people currently in prison in the United States do you think could

be released from prison who would not pose a threat to overall public

safety?

“ “22%


87%

52%

Policy Solutions:Less Prison, More Accountability

Reduce prison time for low-risk, non-violent offenders and re-invest some of the savings

to create a stronger probation andparole system that holds offenders

accountable for their crimes.

“ “STRONGLY FAVOR

TOTAL FAVOR


GOP Independent Democrat

50% 53%

66%

87% 85%90%

Total FavorStrongly Favor

Policy Solutions: Reinvestment Support Strong Across Party Lines


Northeast Midwest South West

56% 57% 58% 58%

84%94%

87% 88%

Total FavorStrongly Favor

Policy Solutions: Reinvestment Support Strong Across Regions


Policy Solutions:Reward Performance

Rewarding probation and parole agencies with some of the savings if they increase their success rates and send fewer repeat offenders back to prison.

“ “0.42

TOP or HIGH PRIORITY


Business Leaders Speak Out

Kentucky

Dave AdkissonPresident & CEO,Kentucky Chamber of Commerce

Chairman of the Board, American Chamber of Commerce Executives

Florida

Barney T. Bishop IIIPresident and Chief Executive Officer, Associated Industries of Florida

Illinois

Frank H. BealExecutive Director, Chicago Metropolis 2020

Board Member, Business and Professional People for the Public Interest

Michigan

James R. HolcombVice President for Business Advocacy and AssociateGeneral Counsel, Michigan Chamberof Commerce

Oregon

Erin HubertVice President and General Manager, Entercom Radio

Board Chair, Citizens Crime Commission

“…Conservatives are known for being tough on crime, but we must also be tough on criminal justice spending…”

• Newt Gingrich, American Solutions for Winning the Future• Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform• Edwin Meese III, former U.S. Attorney General• William J. Bennett, former Education Secretary, “Drug

Czar”• Asa Hutchinson, former U.S. Attorney, DEA Administrator• Pat Nolan, Justice Fellowship, former CA House

Republican leader• David Keene, American Conservative Union• Richard Viguerie, ConservativeHQ.com• Chuck Colson, Prison Fellowship Ministries• Tony Perkins, Family Research Council• Ward Connerly, American Civil Rights Institute• John J. DiIulio, Jr., University of Pennsylvania


A Window of Opportunity

• Advances in supervision technology

• Advances in the science of behavior change

• More accurate risk assessments

• Increasing focus on cost-benefit analysis

• Public support for prison alternatives

• Budget pressure


Diverse States Pursuing Reinvestment Strategies

KANSAS

TEXASSOUTH CAROLINA

LOUISIANA

ARKANSAS

ALABAMA

WISCONSIN

MICHIGAN

KENTUCKY

OHIO

ILLINOISCOLORADO

NEW HAMPSHIRE


Common Policy Options

SentencingReclassify offense levels

Expand eligibility for community corrections, drug courts

ReleaseIncrease earned time for program completion

Base release decisions on risk assessment

Community CorrectionsUse graduated sanctions for technical violations

Offer incentives for agencies, offenders

1

2

3


Estimated cost of adding additional beds needed for FY 2008/2009: $900 Million

A Case Study: TEXAS

Tough-on-crime state adds 100,000 beds in the 1980s and 90s

1980 1990 2000 2010

Beds added

Beds needed

17,000 bedshortfallby 2012


A Case Study: TEXAS

ANALYSIS

• High recidivism rate• Revocation of technical violators• Low parole grant rate

• Bipartisan legislative team expands use of residential, diversion and treatment centers

• Compliance with parole grant law

SOLUTIONS


2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009140,000

145,000

150,000

155,000

160,000

165,000

146,059

163,312

155,428 155,062

2007 Baseline Projection

Actual

A Case Study: TEXAS


Estimated savings through FY 2012: < $2BParole recidivism rate: %25State crime rate:

A Case Study: TEXAS

$120M Annual reinvestment in community corrections continued by ’09, ‘11 Legislatures

= 1973


Pew Report: The State of Recidivism

1. First-of-its-kind 50-state survey of recidivism (return to prison) rates

2. Data for offenders released in 1999, 2004 and followed for three years

3. States reported recidivism for new crimes and technical violation of supervision

4. Differences in definitions, data collection procedures warrant caution about interstate comparisons


The State of Recidivism


The State of Recidivism OREGON

MICHIGAN

CALIFORNIA

28% 6% 67%

19% 3% 77%

13% 25% 62%

15% 16% 69%

14% 47% 39%

18% 40% 42%

1999

2004

1999

1999

2004

2004

NEW CRIME

TECHNICAL VIOLATION

NO RETURN


Protecting Public Safety and Cutting Costs

$14.4

$14.4$16.8$20.8$23.0$24.3$24.6$33.6$39.8$42.0$233.1

CA NY IL TX AK OH NC CT NJ MO

$472.5 million

One-year cost impact of a 10 percent reduction in recidivism


Strategies for Less Crime at Lower Cost

1. Define Success as Recidivism Reduction

2. Begin Preparation for Release at Time of Prison Admission

3. Optimize Use of Supervision Resources


Risk of Arrest Highest in First Months after Prison

Between months 1 and 15 after release from prison, the chance of arrest drops by 40%

Months after Release from Prison

2.5%

2.0%

1.5%

1.0%

0.0%

0.5%

Prob

abili

ty o

f Arr

est

1 – 6 31 – 3613 – 18 25 – 307 – 12 19 – 24

Drug

Violent

Property






4. Impose Swift and Certain Sanctions


Successful Model: HOPE Probation

Arrested Used Drugs Skipped Appointments Probation Revoked

47% 46%

23%15%

21%

13%9% 7%

Control

Hope






4. Impose Swift and Certain Sanctions

5. Create Incentives for Offenders to Succeed


Arizona Probation Outcomes2008-2010

28%31%

New felony convictions

Revocations to prison

Revocations to jail

39%

SOURCE: Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts, Adult Probation Services Division


A Rare Moment in Time

Smarter Choices …… Safer

Communities

adam gelb , director public safety performance project

Documents

com6pew center

compew center

sd3pew center

com11pew center

com10pew center

com8pew center

com2pew center

com4pew center