diversion works: how connecticut can downsize prisons, improve public safety and save money with a...

8/14/2019 Diversion Works: How Connecticut Can Downsize Prisons, Improve Public Safety and Save Money with a Comprehensive Mental Health and Substance Abus

1/21

DI VERSI ON W ORKS:H o w Co n n e ct i cu t Ca n D o w n s i ze Pr i s o n s, I m p r o v e

Pu b l i c Sa f e t y a n d Sa v e M o n e y w i t h a Co m p r e h e n s i v e M e n t a l H e a l t h a n d Su b s t a n c e Ab u s e A p p r o a c h

A Be t t e r W a y Fo u n d a t i o n Re p o r t By Russ Immarigeon and Judith Greene

Justice Strategies

April 2008

Commissioned by the Drug Policy Alliance


2/21

E xecutive Summary

It is time for Connecticut of cials to renew their efforts to reduce the size of thestates exploding prison population. Connecticuts prison system continues to take in

thousands of nonviolent offenders with mental health and/or substance abuseproblems who would fare much better in alternative settings that draw oncommunity resources. Two-thirds of Connecticuts prisoners have serious addictionproblems and the number of prisoners with moderate to severe mental healthimpairment has risen by four percent in the last ve years.

After leading the nation in prison population reduction in 2003, Connecticuts prisonpopulation reached record high levels this year, with more than 19,800 men andwomen behind bars. A recent prison population forecast by the ConnecticutStatistical Analysis Center indicates that, unless measures are quickly taken to bringprison population levels back under control, taxpayers are likely to be burdened withexcessive and rising costs to pay for capacity expansion.

State of cials are struggling to avoid costly prison expansion. In the process,policymakers are starting to address the need for full-scale community interventionsfor offenders experiencing mild to severe mental health problems. National studiespeg the proportion of mentally ill prisoners at 10-20 percent. As Connecticuts prisonpopulation inches closer to the historic 20,000 mark, strategies for lowering theprison population and strengthening treatment services in the community are lookingmore attractive.

A new consensus is emerging that community-based treatment options for mentalillness, substance abuse problems and co-occurrence are more likely than civil orcriminal con nement to achieve the twin objectives of increasing public safety andreducing recidivism. Many prisoners with mental illness can be treated moreeffectively in community settings. They do not require incarceration for public safetyreasons. Two practices exist to minimize the use of imprisonment: diversion keepsdefendants or convicted persons out of prison in the rst place; decarcerationdeinstitutionalizes or displaces them from con nement once they have been putbehind bars. Diversion programs and alternatives to incarceration aim to divertthose persons subject to pretrial release or sentencing decisions.

The public safety advantages of sending people convicted of low-level drug crimes totreatment instead of prison are well established. A University of Connecticut polltaken in 2004 showed strong support for such sensible policies. Sending peopleconvicted of nonviolent crimes who have mental illness to treatment instead of prison in order to reduce prison crowding was supported by 89 percent of Connecticut residents. Gov. Rell has called for decarceration of some 1,200 people

who she says can be safely released to halfway houses and other communityprograms. Funding should be allocated to pay for intensive behavioral health servicesand supportive housing needed to make work the supervised diversion program forpeople with mental health treatment needs, established by legislators in January2008.

To make these approaches work, critical information must be shared between andamong criminal justice decision makers, including judges and correctionalauthorities, who make in/out custody decisions for men and women facing pretrialdetention, criminal sentencing, or transitional and parole release. Also, continuousassessment is needed to identify gaps in services compared with what client

1


3/21

2

I ntroduction

In February 2008, Connecticuts prison population reached record high levels, holdingmore than 19,800 men and women. Just a few years ago, this would have seemed an unlikelydevelopment. In 2003, Connecticut led the nation in prison population reduction with a drop of 4.2 percent, a remarkable turn-around, given that just the year before the state saw a 7.9 percentincrease in its prison population, the third highest growth rate in the nation.

In January 2003, the Council of State Governments (CSG) released a report onConnecticuts prison crisis that called for sweeping reform of the states parole policies andpractices. The authors proposed a new approach called Justice Reinvestment, arguing that if a portion of expenditures on imprisonment were instead reinvested in the communities whereprisoners return upon release, the prison population could be reduced and recidivism curtailed(Austin, Jacobson and Cadora, 2005). Rep. Michael Lawlor (D-East Haven), co-chair of the JointCommittee on Judiciary, and a long-time champion of sentencing reform, joined Rep. WilliamDyson (D-New Haven), then co-chair of the House Appropriations Committee, in welcoming the

concept of Justice Reinvestment.

With strong support from community activists and A Better Way Foundation, sweepingreforms addressing prison overcrowding were enacted in 2004. In 2005, activists won a landmarkvictory when legislators agreed to equalize penalties for crack and powder cocaine. Between2003 and 2005, the state prison systems 18 correctional facilities experienced overall reduc-tions in their population counts, re ecting the states new penal philosophy. Connecticut hadturned over a new correctional leaf. Instead of a myopically constructed law and order approach, the state stepped to the forefront of criminal justice reform in the United States,embracing correctional interventions designed to be more effective in terms of improving publicsafety as well as producing cost savings.

populations actually need, which may include counseling, substance abusetreatment, mental health services, supportive housing, vocational training andemployment.

Conversely, recent research and meta-studies conclude that punitive measures andincreased sanctions produce less constructive, more harmful consequences forpeople convicted of low-level crimes, for their families and communities, andultimately for the victims of crime. While intensive services and supportive housingdo not come cheap, these services can be provided at a small fraction of the cost

required to imprison mentally ill people.

This report offers a brief overview of the current state of incarceration of mentallyill people, many with co-occurring substance abuse problems. It identi es effectiveprogram models that could be used to ease the states prison population pressuresand reverse the growth trend. Downsizing the prisons could improve prospects forlong-term increases in public safety through Justice Reinvestment, makingstrategic investments of correctional savings to build healthier families and safercommunities.

Connecticut is currently embroiled in an extended public discussion about criminal justice practices. If policymakers are serious about bringing prison populations backunder control, they need to turn to the work that legislators intended when theyestablished the sentencing task force. Sentencing code revision and restructuringshould lead to abolition of mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws, including theharsh and ineffective drug-free zone law, that drive the states high rate of racialdisparity in the prisons.


4/21


5/21


6/21

During the special session convened on January 22, 2008, legislators created a new crimeof home invasion, which mandates that those convicted of the offense would serve 85 percent of their prison sentence. They authorized development of a comprehensive information technologysystem to allow criminal justice agencies to share a broader range of information. They voted toupgrade the parole board to provide full-time, professional members and added a forensicpsychologist and two victim advocates to its staff. They also voted to increase use of electronicmonitoring for parolees, and to provide more halfway house beds and staff secure residentialtreatment for people convicted of sex crimes. And they authorized creation of a superviseddiversion program for persons with psychiatric disabilities accused of a crime or crimes or a motorvehicle violation or violations for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment may beimposed, which crimes or violations are not of a serious nature. 4

Prison population data obtained from the Department of Correction (DOC) indicates thaton February 1, 2008, 19,894 prisoners were incarcerated in Connecticuts prisons, a gure that

is nearly the highest level in DOC history. Gov. Rells recent directives on parole policy and prac-tice in the wake of the Cheshire murders have undoubtedly helped accelerate the states prisonpopulation growth, but prison population changes (reduction, growth, stabilization) usually occurbecause of an accumulation of factors.

A March 2007 study of prison population projections concluded that changes in Connecticutsgeneral population, demographics, incidents of crime and other factors have little or noeffect on the expanding state prison population. Rather, population growth is due to policy changeswithin the criminal justice system. This study identi ed three leading factors with a signi canteffect on prison population size: the number of people arraigned; the number of people arraignedwith charges requiring them to serve 85% of their prison sentence if convicted; and the number of people sentenced to prison (Of ce for Policy and Management and Connecticut StatisticalAnalysis Center, 2007).

National studies indicate that estimates of the number of mentally ill in state prison popu-lations vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from one period of time to another. Accordingto a recent article, one researcher suggested that 10-15 percent of state prisoners are seriouslymentally ill, a second researcher felt the range covered 10-20 percent, and other researchersargue for 15-16 percent (Lurgio and Snowden, 2008).

5

M ental illness in Connecticuts prison population


7/21

The DOC classi cation system places prisoners on a ve-level scale according to theirmental health needs. Current data indicate that almost 4,000 people 19.3 percent of the peoplein Connecticuts prison suffer from moderate impairment (16.8 percent whose impairment is

controlled with medication, and 2.5 percent whose impairment precludes normal functioning),while less than one percent are severely impaired. Since 2003 the number of prisoners withmoderate to severe mental health impairment has grown by four percent, from 2,803 to 3,894:

6

The following chart provides a breakdown of the mental health status of Connecticutsprisoners by major offense categories:

SOURCE: DOC


8/21

7

W orking toward continuous impovement

D evelopments in mental health treatment for correctional populat ion s

Thirty- ve years ago, researchers started recognizing the growing number of mentally illpersons in American criminal justice systems (Abramson, 1972). In the 1980s, criminal justice interestgroups such as the National Coalition for Jail Reform acknowledged that jails were inappropriateplaces for persons with mental illness. Since the 1990s, states from Florida to Washington haveexperienced growth not only in their prison populations but also in the number of offenders theyincarcerate with serious mental health problems.

As state policymakers have started to grapple with the costs and consequences of con ningoffenders with mental health problems, many of them while examining their sentencing andrelease practices have begun to recognize that mental health treatment systems can fruitfullyserve the functions of sentencing offenders to community-based options, diverting offenders fromincarceration, and preparing offenders for release from con nement.

In the process, policymakers are starting to address the need for full-scale community-based social interventions for offenders experiencing mild to severe mental health problems, theformer because they can be better served in community settings, and the latter because theypresent public safety risks if released without such planning and supervision.

In 2002, the Council of State Governments launched an initiative known as the Criminal Justice/Mental Health Consensus Project, which aims to convene a mix of criminal justice and mentalhealth professionals with mental health advocates and consumers to improve interventions formentally ill men and women who become involved with the criminal justice system.

The Criminal Justice/ Mental Health Consensus Project proposes a range of collaborative

criminal justice system responses for people with mental illnesses, including law enforcement-mental health partnerships that assist police of cers in understanding the behaviors of mentallyill people; technical assistance to local jurisdictions that wish to establish mental health courts;collaboration between corrections and mental health organizations to improve continuity of carebetween these systems; and a criminal justice mental health information network to serve as asource of information about methods of improving outcomes for people with mental illness. Theproject promotes research-based policy and program designs, and provides a handbook for mentalhealth advocates who wish to reach out to criminal justice, mental health and legislative partnersto collaboratively address these challenges.

In recent years, Connecticut has been building a comparable approach toward mentally illpersons in the states criminal justice system. Some aspects of this approach have been innovative,research-based or at least research-informed, and others, such as the states womens jail diversion

program, have served as award-winning examples of best practices. Overall, Connecticut hasbegun to forge a comprehensive and collaborative approach, blending the strengths of formerlydisparate functions and services. In the course of this evolution, the state has accepted some, andrejected other, components of the Council of State Governments Criminal Justice/ Mental HealthConsensus Project. Specialty courts for the mentally ill (mental health courts), for instance, appearto have little support in the state.

What is needed, we believe, is continuous assessment to identify gaps in services betweenwhat is needed and what is in place, and evaluations that locate gaps between what appears onpaper and what is actually in place. This tension between what is available and what is not iscommon to any criminal justice system, including those in the midst of reform efforts. However,


9/21

8

C onnecticuts continuum of programs

it is rare that a system will identify its weaknesses, or even failures, even when the purpose of doing so is to improve its practices, that is, to learn and apply the lessons gleaned from experi-ence (Immarigeon, 2008).

Connecticut has been building a relatively rich and comprehensive continuum of alternatives

to incarceration and mental health programming for pretrial and sentenced populations in thestates criminal justice system. These options are made available, at various discretionarydecision-making points of the criminal justice process so that there are programs available at thearrest, arraignment, bail setting, detention, sentencing, probation, incarceration, pre-release andparole stages of the criminal justice process. Often, especially in the past few years, these programshave been making an effort to divert or displace offenders from con nement.

Th es e o p t i o n s i n c l u d e t h e fo l l o w i n g :

Crisis Intervention Teams (CIT) Accelerated Pretrial Rehabilitation Alternative Drug Intervention

Pretrial Alcohol Education System (PAES) Pretrial Drug Education Program (PDEP) Pre-Trial Decision Tool Aid Specialized Diversion Program for Trauma Survivors (JDT) Probation Transition Program (PTP) Technical Violation Unit (TVU) Access to Recovery/Recovery Support Services Jail Re-Interview Program Jail Diversion Programs Mental Health Day Reporting Center (MHDRC) Substance Dependency Evaluation (SDE) Womens Jail Diversion Programs Mental Health Diversionary Program Connecticut Offender Re-entry Program (CORP) Transitional Case Management (TCM)

Worthy of special note is the collaboration between Connecticuts Court Support ServicesDivision (CSSD) and the Division of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS) to providespecialized supervision and services for probationers with psychiatric disabilities. Ten mentalhealth probation of cers with specialized training from DMHAS and the National Alliance of MentalIllness provide case management and supervision for a reduced caseload of clients.

Common to all of these programs is the central function of providing critical information tocriminal justice decision makers, including judges and correctional authorities, who make in/outcustody decisions for men and women facing pretrial detention, criminal sentencing, or transitionaland parole release. The information provided at these stages is much like that offered throughtraditional pre-sentence reports, except that it is focused more intently on speci c release orsupervision conditions, and needs for counseling, substance abuse treatment, mental healthservices, as well as community support services related to such concerns as housing, vocationaltraining and employment.


10/21


11/21

Though corrections of cials say that despite population increases the prisons are safe andsecure, critics charge that Connecticuts prison system is overcrowded. This term has a signi cantshortcoming: it is more a measure of the systems capacity to house detainees and prisoners thana measure of how many men and women it should actually con ne. As Gov. Rell has rightly point-ed out, the prison system holds many people who do not require con nement.

Two practices exist to minimize the use of imprisonment: diversion keeps defendants orconvicted persons out of prison in the rst place; decarceration deinstitutionalizes or displacesthem from con nement once they have been put behind bars. Diversion programs and alternativesto incarceration aim to divert those persons subject to pretrial release or sentencing decisions.

A common problem with diversion services, however, is that resources are often wasted onserving persons who would not have been incarcerated in the rst place. To solve this problem,CSSD operates a diversion mechanism that was designed decades ago, when Connecticuts prisonswere hit with a severe overcrowding problem in the mid-1980s.

The Jail Re-Interview process (JRIP) was created to reduce the number of people held inpretrial detention prior to disposition of their cases. Research from various jurisdictions around thenation indicates that people who are unable to post bail to gain release from pretrial detention aremore likely to be sentenced to jail or prison if they are convicted. People who have been unable topost the cash bail or bail bond required by the court are screened by bail commissioners to determineif placement in a CSSD alternative to incarceration program would offer an effective option fortheir release. If a workable supervision plan (typically involving substance abuse treatment) canbe developed, judges are asked to reconsider the bail requirement.

When budget cuts hit the Judicial Branch in 2003, the JRIP program was temporarilysuspended, but by January 2004 the project had been re-established in three DOC facilities. Withadditional funding appropriated by the legislature in 2004, the program was renewed in all pretrialfacilities. In scal year 2004-2005, JRIP staff screened more than 6,000 pretrial defendants. Judges

agreed to release 64 percent of them to the community. In scal year 2006-2007 the number of people screened increased to 10,885 and the percentage of community release plans approved by judges reached 69 percent.

JRIPs success in winning release for defendants with substance abuse needs holds greatpromise as a diversion model for unsentenced defendants with psychiatric disabilities who aredetained and cannot make bail. Well-tailored release plans with appropriate community mentalhealth treatment placements and supportive services could provide signi cant relief for detentionand prison population pressures.

Successful diversion programs and decarceration practices do more than just keep peopleout of prison. They involve community resources with the care, treatment and resettlement of substance abusers and the mentally ill. The following is true for decarceration as well as diversion:

For diversion programs to be successful, they must include timely and accuratemental health screening and evaluation and link people to appropriate commun-ity-based services. Comprehensive community-based services are necessary tomeet the complex needs of diverted individuals. Individual treatment plans shouldbe focused on individual recovery and choice and should include mental and physi-cal healthcare, case management, appropriate housing, supported education,integrated substance abuse treatment, peer support, and psychosocial services.All services should be delivered in the least restrictive environment. In addition,the speci c needs of each community must be considered when designing adiversion program. (NMHA, 2003; emphasis added)

10

D iversion and decarceration


12/21


13/21


14/21

In New York City, a reentry support initiative was designed to enhance collaboration betweencorrections and mental health systems for improving the discharge planning done in jails on RikersIsland. The Frequent Users of Jail and Shelter Program, sponsored by the Corporation for SupportiveHousing (CSH), focuses on high need/high cost populations, including the mentally ill, who arechronically homeless and routinely bounce back-and-forth between jail and community sheltersand other institutions. The purpose of this program is to break the cycle of homelessness andincarceration among frequent users (Cho, 2007).

Research in the late 1990s found that chronically homeless persons with severe mentalillness routinely traversed a range of institutionalized settings from jails and hospitals, to detoxi cationcenters, in-patient programs, community-based shelters and the streets. The cost of caring forthis population is often high, even six- and seven- gure price tags are not unheard of. 5

Through partnerships between public agencies and non-pro t organizations, New York Cityestablished a total of 100 units of supportive housing (50 scattered sites and 50 within single-sitedevelopments). The 100 units are operated by eight non-pro t providers of housing and serviceswho receive lists of eligible individuals on a weekly basis. Each provider is granted Frequent UserService Enhancement (FUSE) fundings ($6,500 per tenant) to enhance exciting support services.The enhancement is provided for the rst year that each tenant is housed. After the rst year, thetenants service level is reduced back to the baseline level of services.

The FUSE initiative de ned eligibility criteria for its target population as those who hadat least four jail and four shelter stays in the past ve years. Program planners identi ed850-1,100 persons who t these criteria. Most of their stays in each institution were short-term,averaging 40 jail days and 63 shelter days a year, but the most frequent users (the top quarter)averaged 59 jail days and 134 shelter days. The following graphic shows the patterns and lengthsof one frequent users alternating jail (DOC) and shelter (DHS) stays over a two-year period(January 2001-December 2002):

New York Citys Frequent Users of Jail and Shelter

Among the FUSE population, upwards of 50 percent had mental health problems, with25 to 40 percent suffering serious mental illness; 80 percent were abusers of alcohol and other

drugs; and many had extensive histories of high-level involvement with multiple interventionsystems. The target group for this program was highly mobile and needy with numerous behavioralissues, a low level of independent living skills, and a high level of mistrust for providers in anyservice-delivery system.

Intensive case management and service programs help lower both criminal recidivism andtransient homelessness. Moreover, research suggests that economic assistance, such as housingand jobs, is as successful as mental health program intervention in lowering recidivism andhomelessness. Not surprisingly, supportive housing, which effectively combines these services,reduces the jail- and prison-involvement of homeless persons, including those with serious mentalhealth issues.

13

1/1 1/15 1/26 2/3 1/21 3/9 3/22 6/14 6/18 7/17 7/23 8/4 9/7 10/16 11/12 12/21 3/8 3/9 4/5 4/8 8/2

2001 2002

DHS

DOC

Neither System

Source: Corporation for Supportive Housing, 20


15/21

Spurred by New York Citys Commissioners for the Department of Correction and theDepartment of Homeless Services, private non-pro t groups joined with governmental agencies,academic institutions, and private foundations to plan and administer the program, which includesboth single- and scattered-site supportive housing that comes with front-loaded intensive services. Program staff arrange in-take interviews, psychosocial assessments, pre-placement stabilizationand assistance, resolution of eligibility restrictions, and services such as mental health services,independent living skills training, and intensive case management. Recreation and support groupsare also established for program participants.

Frequent user service enhancements and the use of peer mentors allow for more intensiveservices because caseloads are reduced. Intensive case management includes motivation inter-viewing and cognitive behavioral therapy, both found to be highly successful in recent programeffectiveness studies. Signi cantly, regular meetings are held among academic researchers andservice providers to examine speci c program evaluation measures, such as the number of daysof jail and shelter use, the time program participants take to return to jails or shelters, and thestability of housing options used in the program.

Preliminary research indicates that the FUSE option is working: 92 percent of programparticipants retain their housing, and 89 percent avoided jail, after being housed for six months.FUSE participants had a 99.5 percent reduction in the number of days they spent in shelters, anda 52 percent reduction in the number of days they were jailed. The studys comparison group,which did not receive FUSE services, experienced an increase in their jail use by 39 percent.

The preliminary evaluation suggests lessons similar to those found in other successful alternative to incarceration programming: it is vital to think creatively about the use of resourcesfor individual clients; and collaborative work among agencies and institutions can overcome thepropensity of people with unmet needs to cycle through revolving doors.

The FUSE program is ripe for replication in Connecticut. CSH is conducting initial planningin New Haven, Hartford, Bridgeport and Waterbury urban sites with large numbers of theirresidents in state prisons. Project partners have been identi ed, data are being collected, sourcesof funding are being sought, and target group criteria are being developed. At this point, accord-ing to CSH project staff, critical issues include the availability of affordable housing, and identi cationof the types of support that t peoples needs (not just our expectations about those needs).

Washington States Dangerous Mentally Ill Offender program

In 1999, the Washington state legislature enacted a dangerous mentally ill offender (DMIO) law that enhances interagency collaboration and expands funding community treatmentfor released mentally ill prisoners who may pose a high public safety risk. Washingtons DMIOlegislation provides for the payment of costs related to fostering and supporting interagencycollaboration and pre-release planning. Speci cally, the state corrections and the social and healthservices departments were assigned to work with Regional Support Networks (RSNs) and localtreatment providers to plan appropriate intervention and service delivery for persons releasedfrom prison.

The DMIO program uses the Department of Corrections computer system to identify mentally

ill offenders nearing prison release. The department reviews each persons psychiatric and criminalbackgrounds to assess the severity of their mental illness and dangerousness. A multi-agencyStatewide Review Committee (SRC) makes nal decisions about classifying offenders as DMIOprogram participants.

Responsibility for planning and delivering DMIO treatment and support services isassigned to a team that includes representatives from corrections, mental health, substanceabuse, developmental disability, the RSNs, and treatment providers. This planning teamrecommends whether DMIOs should be referred for evaluation under the states mental healthinvoluntary treatment laws or receive voluntary or supervised treatment in the community. In thecommunity, DMIOs are assigned to mental health caseworkers.

14


16/21

15

Funds offered through the DMIO program are based on the number of clients served eachmonth rather than on a fee-for-service basis. Contract agencies can bill the state as much as$6,000 for transitional and other pre- and post-release costs. Post-release costs cover only the rst three months of release. After this point, DMIO agencies received xed fees, which are basedon Medicaid eligibility ($700 a month for those who are, and $900 a month for those who arenot).

DMIO-related funds are generally used for housing and for mental health treatment forthose who are Medicaid-eligible. Also, these funds provide for such clinical services as substanceabuse and sex offender treatment. A recent evaluation of this initiative shows that 94 percent of available funding is used for either housing or personal expenses (82.4 percent for housing; 11.1percent for personal expenses). Less than seven percent of the funding was spent on treatment-speci cinterventions (Lovell and May eld, 2007).

Selection of DMIO participants by an interagency Statewide Review Committee has greatlyimproved the working relationships between corrections and social service staff, who have gaineda more appreciative understanding of each partys role in the overall treatment process. Research ndings (Phipps and Gagliardi, 2003) indicate that DMIOs are actually receiving the array of intensive pre- and post-release services that the original legislation envisioned:

81 percent of DMIOs receive pre-release mental health services fromcommunity providers;

87 percent of DMIOs received community mental health services in the

rst three months post-release;

93 percent of DMIOs received community mental health services in the rst 12 months post-release; and

29 percent of DMIOs received drug and alcohol treatment post-release.

Recidivism research conducted by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP)

found positive outcomes for those who participated in the program, as opposed to those who didnot. In particular, DMIO program participants were less likely to recidivate than non-participants.WSIPP researchers found that DMIO services resulted in a 20 percent reduction in criminal activity(Aos, 2006). Moreover, DMIO participants were less likely to be reconvicted of felonies thannon-participants (May eld, 2007).

Other positive outcomes were also documented. People who participated in the DMIO programwere nearly ve times as likely as non-participants to start receiving mental health services assoon as they were released from prison. They were ve times as likely to receive mental healthcare in the community in their rst year of being released. And they received more substanceabuse treatment and were granted quicker access to Medicaid and other social services (Lovelland May eld, 2007).


17/21

Funding for community-based initiatives such as those reviewed in this report is typicallysoft and unreliable. President George W. Bushs proposed FY2009 budget sharply cuts possiblefederal expenditures for community mental health services. Proposed cuts amount to approximately$144 million (half in discretionary funding), including school violence prevention programs, jaildiversion programs, post-traumatic stress-related programs, mental health consumer supporttechnical assistance centers, and comprehensive planning to alleviate the fragmentation of statemental health care systems (Bazelon Center, 2008).

The conversation that cant be lost, says Maureen Price-Borland, executive director of the Hartford-based Community Partners in Action and a member of Gov. Rells sentencing andparole task force, is that at the end of the day, creating and maintaining comprehensive reentryservices for individuals is a better way of increasing safer communities (Simpson, 2007). Thesame can be said for comprehensive services at all stages of the criminal justice system.

This report addresses the need to divert and decarcerate people with mental illness fromConnecticuts prison system. Signi cant components of such a comprehensive approach have alreadybeen established. Criminal justice practitioners from police of cers to parole of cers have experienceworking with mentally ill people and the community agencies that provide services to them. Wehave cited model programs from other jurisdictions that provide concrete evidence that treatingsuch people in the community will both save money and improve public safety. However, theseinitiatives will have only modest effects on the size of the states prison population as long as thestates sentencing code places improper restrictions on the exercise of judicial discretion.

Before the Cheshire tragedy, Connecticut was making exemplary progress toward resolvingthe problems of prison overcrowding and racial disparity. In 2004 legislators enacted the nations rst experiment with Justice Reinvestment. In 2005 they stepped up to lead a national movementto eliminate sentencing disparities between crack and powdered cocaine offenses. In 2006 theyendorsed Public Act 06-193, establishing a sentencing task force, and charged it with reviewingthe states criminal justice and sentencing policies and laws to create a more just, effective and

ef

cient system of sentencing. In June 2007, task force members established four subcommittees,each created to address a critical aspect of their legislative charge, as follows:

Community Supervision/ Alternative Sanctions subcommittee was asked todescribe the general availability of these programs in the state, the characteristicsof persons sentenced to these programs, the overlap of probationers and paroleesin these programs, the length of stay of persons monitored through these termsof supervision, and the nature and results of evaluation methods used to determinethe effectiveness of these programs.

Disparity subcommittee was given the task of assessing the impact of currentand proposed sentencing policy on racial, gender and geographic disparity inthe criminal justice system.

Offense Classi cation subcommittee was assigned to review the possibility of classifying certain unclassi ed crimes and to determine the proportional relationshipof various classi ed crimes to one another.

A Sentencing Structure subcommittee was chosen to compare the structure of Connecticuts sentencing practices, including the use of mandatory sentences, withthose of other states.

16

B ack to basics


18/21

17

In the months since the tragedy in Cheshire, public of cials and others have given earnestattention to critically important criminal justice issues. At a conference held at Eastern ConnecticutState University in January 2008, for example, public of cials reported that they have learnedmuch since July 2007 about prisoner reentry and related issues.

Connecticut is in the midst of an extended public discussion about criminal justice practices.We believe this is entirely for the better but, if policymakers are serious about bringing prisonpopulations back under control, they need to turn to the work that legislators intended when theyestablished the sentencing task force. Sentencing code revision and restructuring should lead toabolition of mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws, including the harsh and ineffective drug-free zone law, that drive the states high rate of racial disparity in the prisons.

1 In February 2007, analysts at the Council of State Governments Justice Center observed thatConnecticuts pretrial population was growing, at least in part because it was not subject to the states JusticeReinvestment initiatives of 2003 and 2004 (Pew Charitable Trusts and Council of State Governments, 2007).

2 The term co-occurring disorders (COD) refers to people who are said to have one or more substancerelateddisorders as well as one or more mental disorders. Depending on the severity of their symptoms, theseindividuals may require the same full range of services that are needed when they meet the individual

criteria for both conditions established independently (Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 2007).3 Justice Strategies has gathered descriptive and narrative data from of cial state reports, researchevaluations, program descriptions, and newspaper reports. We interviewed state of cials, nongovernmentalprofessionals and community residents. We attended legislative hearings and executive committee meetings.

4 Public Act No, 08-1.5 Journalist Malcolm Gladwell once reported about a homeless person who cost New York City approximately

$1 million in jail and shelter expenditures.


19/21

18

Abramson, M.F. (1972). The Criminalizing of Mentally Disordered Behavior: PossibleSide Effects of a New Mental Health Law. Hospital and Community Psychiatry , 23,101-107.

Aos, S., Miller, M. and Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-Based Public Policy Options toReduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates. Olympia:Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Available online athttp://www.wsiip.wa.gov/rpt les/06-10-1201.pdf.

Austin, J., Jacobson, M. and Cadora, E. (2005). Building Bridges From Corrections toEmployment. Available online at http://justicereinvestment.org/ les/Building.Bridges.pdf.

Cho, R. (2007). The New York City Frequent Users of Jail & Shelter Initiative. NewYork: Corporation for Supportive Housing.

Culhane, D.P.; Metraux, S.; and Hadley, T. (2001). The New York/ New YorkAgreement Cost Study: The Impact of Supportive Housing on Service Use for Homeless

Mentally Ill Individuals. Washington, D.C.: Corporation for Supportive Housing.

Hladky, G.R. (2007a). Prisons rife with mentally ill. New Haven Register . September30.

Hladky, G.R. (2007b). Petit asks lawmakers to x justice aws. New Haven Register.November 27.

Houghton, T. (2001). The New York/ New York Agreement Cost Study: The Impact of Supportive Housing on Services Use for Homeless Mentally Ill Individuals. New York,NY: Corporation for Supportive Housing.

Immarigeon, R. (2008). What Does Not Work? Lessons from the Center for CourtInnovations Failure Roundtable. Offender Programs Report , 11(5): 65, 78-79.

Lipsky, M.W. and Cullen, F.T. (2007). The Effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation:A Review of Systematic Reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science. 3: 297-320.Available online at http://lawsocsci.annualreviews.org.

Lovell, D. and May eld, J. (2007). Washingtons Dangerous Mentally Ill Offender Law:Program Costs and Developments. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for PublicPolicy. Available online at http://www.rpt les/07-03-1901.pdf.

Lurgio, A. and Snowden, J. (2008). Prison Culture and the Treatment and Control of Mentally Ill Offenders. In: J.M. Bryne, D. Hummer and F.S. Taxman, eds. , The Cultureof Prison Violence. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 164-179.

May eld, J. (2007). The Dangerous Mentally Ill Offender Programs: Cost Effectiveness2.5 Years After Participants Prison Release. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institutefor Public Policy. Available online at http://www.rpt les/07-01-1902.pdf.

National GAINS Center for People with Co-Occurring Disorders in the Justice System(2002). The Nathaniel Project: An alternative to incarceration program for people withserious mental illness who have committed felony offenses. Program Brief Series.Delmar, NY: Author. Available online athttp://gainscenter.samhsa.gov/pdfs/jail_diversion/nathaniel_project.pdf.

R eferences


20/21


21/21

A B E T T E R WAY

FOUNDATION

diversion works: how connecticut can downsize prisons, improve public safety and save money with a...

Documents