jail alternatives annual report 2013 · 2014-02-21 · santa cruz county probation department –...

Santa Cruz County Probation Department – Adult Division

1 Jail Alternatives Annual Report 2013 Final Date: February 21, 2014

[Recent studies by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation] demonstrate that pretrial decisions may impact whether or not a defendant gets sentenced to jail or prison, and for how long; that an increased length of pretrial detention for low- and moderate-risk defendants is associated with an increased likelihood that they will reoffend both during the pretrial period and two years after the conclusion of their case; and that supervision may reduce failure to appear rates and, when done for 180 days or more, new criminal activity.

Laura and John Arnold Foundation Pretrial Criminal Justice Research

November 2013

JAIL ALTERNATIVES ANNUAL REPORT - 2013

The Santa Cruz County Probation Department maintains its commitment to public safety,

research-based practices, stewardship, and reserving costly and limited jail space for higher

risk offenders through alternatives to custody programs. Pretrial Services and other jail

alternative programs, such as the Warrant Reduction Advocacy Project (WRAP) and post-

sentence custodial alternatives programs, are part of our continuing jail reduction strategies

initiated by jail overcrowding and Public Safety Realignment.

The Department’s goal is to adhere to research-based principles by: 1) Applying actuarial risk tools to predict the likelihood of risk of flight and danger to the community; 2) Providing the least restrictive supervision necessary to effectively monitor compliance of release conditions; 3) Reminding defendants of their court appearance; 4) Reporting violations of release conditions which indicate an increased risk of pretrial failure to the court with a recommendation for modifications to mitigate risk; 5) Using evidence-based techniques to gain compliance and increase defendant engagement and motivation through strength based and motivational interviewing techniques; and 6) Using fidelity measures, data, and evaluation to ensure quality and effectiveness of services and guide decision-making. Pretrial Services serves the court by making fact-based release recommendations on defendants who are in-custody awaiting further disposition, taking in to account the risk the defendant poses to the community and the likelihood the defendant will appear at future court proceedings. Additionally, Pretrial Services supervises defendants who are out of custody awaiting trial. Pretrial supervision allows defendants the opportunity to remain engaged in their community while awaiting trial. Pretrial Services is also responsible for the collection, screening, and monitoring of all Probable Cause Declarations. Pretrial Services currently consists of two (2) Deputy Probation Officers, two (2) Probation Aides and one (1) Supervisor (Deputy Probation Officer III). In order to more adequately staff Pretrial Services and to ensure coverage seven days per week, the Department added the second Probation Aide in February 2013 and realigned resources so the Supervisor could dedicate their time entirely to Pretrial Services. The goal is to add up to two additional positions to Pretrial so that we can further fulfill our mission to assess, release and supervise as many defendants that meet release criteria and to ensure compliance with best practices in the field of pretrial. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 1) In September 2013, the Board of Supervisors approved the Department’s “Pretrial Report

Back” thereby accepting the report as a blue print to move forward with continuous quality improvement and directing the Department to return in May 2014 to report on progress in



meeting technical assistance evaluation recommendations and piloting of the new risk assessment.

2) Through enhanced pretrial services, supervised release, the Warrant Reduction Advocacy Project and post-sentencing electronic monitoring, the department has reduced the jail population by approximately 47 plus beds per day during CY13. At $85/day jail bed cost, this equates to a cost avoidance of over $1,458,000.

3) An 81% positive outcome rate was achieved in CY13 - 64% of defendants on pretrial

supervision successfully completed pretrial and 17% were returned to custody pending disposition for violating release terms [demonstrates accountability]. Less than 10% of defendants failed to appear, and only 9% were arrested for new crimes.

4) Pretrial has implemented a majority of the best-practice recommendations from the June

2013 Technical Assistance evaluation from Luminosity, Inc. 5) In December 2013, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation formally selected Santa Cruz

County as one of three sites in the nation to pilot their newly developed pretrial risk assessment (Public Safety Assessment-Court or PSA-Court).

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE [EVALUATION] RESULTS: During 2013, as part of pretrial system improvement, technical assistance was received from Luminosity, Inc. to evaluate the fidelity of our pretrial program and whether or not the program was right-sized. There were two primary objectives for the evaluation. The first was to evaluate the current state and fidelity of our pretrial program with regard to its implementation of pretrial core concepts and legal and evidence-based practices. The second was to address whether or not the program was right-sized. Multiple strengths were noted during the evaluation which represent pretrial’s solid foundation and its capacity to implement recommendations for continued growth and sustainability. Strengths identified include:

Criminal justice system stakeholder support Administering the VPRAI (Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument) Two supervision levels (Supervised Own Recognizance and Intensive Supervised Own

Recognizance Pre-arraignment release recommendations made to court

Short and Long Pretrial Reports

Use of technology – electronic monitoring, alcohol detection, tracking pretrial data

Case management training (core correctional practices)

Supervisory support

Several program challenges were noted as well. These challenges primarily address issues of fidelity and long-term sustainability. With the strengths noted above, Pretrial is well-suited to

2013 Supervised

Pretrial Pre-Arraignment

Releases Post-Sentence

EMP WRAP Total

Average Daily Population 36.9 1.4 – 3.5 2.75 6 47+

Bed Days Saved 13,468 506 to 1265 1,004 2,260 17,115+



adopt ongoing improvements for continued growth and sustainability which are deemed necessary and crucial in the field of pretrial. Ongoing quality improvement recommendations and challenges include: Training and supervisory oversight of pretrial staff with respect to -

o Administering the risk assessment to fidelity and risk principles ( Addressed); o Following policy regarding decision-making, recommendations to the court,

supervision practices ( Addressed); and o Developing a long term plan for increasing the sustainability of these activities,

improvement in increasing staff capacity is considered necessary (In progress). In order to maintain fidelity and for staff be available to perform supervision based on risk

and supervision level, prioritizing of pretrial duties is required and additional support and additional staffing resources are needed. 1

Currently Pretrial Services is not able to assess all defendants booked into custody and

there is the potential for a quantity of medium and high risk defendants to be released pretrial without supervision, neither of which is a best practice. Additional support and additional staffing resources to assess all defendants booked in the jail who meet the pretrial investigation criteria are needed.2

Replacing the current data system which has been outgrown with an integrated data system that will adequately measure pretrial outcomes. (In progress - Short-term: Taking preliminary steps to address through improving current pretrial database; Long-term: Incorporating pretrial into the current probation case management system - comes with moderate cost to do so).

Consideration for opportunity to relocate

staff within a more central location to conduct the pretrial investigation and provide the necessary equipment and data sources for staff to fulfill their role.

Adoption of a new generation pretrial risk

assessment instrument based on the growing empirical research that includes training of all staff and a train-the-trainer component for fidelity and sustainability ( Began pilot process January 2014)

Blanket approach to release conditions (to be addressed with Court and stakeholders.)

Validation Results: As part of Luminosity’s technical assistance, a validation analysis was conducted on the risk assessment implemented by the Department. Overall, the assessment was found to be a modest predictor of pretrial failures for our County’s sample. Based on this finding and the subsequent opportunity to pilot a next generation risk assessment instrument that is more predictive and is predictive of violence, the Department made the decision (along

1 To satisfy the recommendations of “additional staffing,” funding to add a minimum of 2 additional staff would be needed. 2 Utilization of the PSA-Court which does not require an interview will assist in meeting this recommendation.

Figure 1: Probation's Pretrial Staff are currently located in a small office within the main jail that does not accommodate all

staff and is away from the booking area.



… The Public Safety Assessment - Court (PSA-Court), a tool that reliably predicts the risk a given defendant will reoffend, commit violent acts, or fail to come back to court with just nine readily available data points. What this means is that there are no time-consuming interviews, no extra staff, and very minimal expense. And it can be applied to every defendant in every case.

Laura and John Arnold Foundation

November 2013

with the Presiding Superior Court Judge) to adopt a new pretrial risk assessment instrument that includes training of all staff and a train the trainer component for fidelity and sustainability. NEW OPPORTUNITY - PILOTING NEW PRETRIAL RISK ASSESSMENT: Based on our technical assistance work with Luminosity, Inc., and our reputation within the State as being a leader in pretrial services, we were one of three national jurisdictions chosen to pilot a new generation pretrial risk assessment [PSA-Court] through the Laura and John Arnold Foundation beginning January 2014. As being part of being one of a limited number of pilot sites, the County would receive significant amounts of technical assistance and resources in order to pilot and subsequently implement the next generation assessment. REPORT BACK TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: At the request of the Board of Supervisors (BOS), a “Pretrial Report Back” was submitted and the BOS approved the report’s recommendations: 1) Accept the Report Back as a blue print to move forward with continuous quality

improvement. 2) Endorse the Department piloting of the Arnold Foundation’s pretrial risk assessment. 3) Direct the Chief Probation to coordinate and meet with key county criminal justice

stakeholders to develop a formal proposal of collaboration on piloting of the Arnold Foundation’s pretrial risk assessment.

4) Have the Department return before the Board in May 2014 to report on progress in meeting the technical assistance evaluation recommendations and piloting of the new risk assessment.

OUTCOMES MEASURES AND RESULTS: 3 The following Outcome Measures, Performance Measures and Mission Critical Data were adopted in 2012 so that we can more accurately track our program’s effectiveness in meeting agency and justice system goals: 1. Appearance Rate: The percent of supervised defendants who make all scheduled court

appearances.

Supervised Pretrial 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Appearance Rate 91% 85.1% 89.0% 92.0% 90.3%

Goal 85% 85%

Analysis: The percentage of defendants released to pretrial supervision that failed to appear was at 9.7% in 2013 (24 of 247 participants).

3 In 2011, the National Institute of Corrections published, “Measuring What Matters Outcome and Performance Measures for the Pretrial

Services Field.” The publication recommended measures and data for pretrial service programs that would enable agencies to gauge more accurately their program’s effectiveness in meeting agency and justice system goals. The recommended outcomes measures and da ta elements

are consistent with the mission and goals of our Department.



The percent of defendants released pre-arraignment that failed to appear at arraignment was 26%.

2. Safety Rate: The percent of supervised defendants who are not charged with a new offense during the pretrial supervision.


Safety Rate 96% 92.5% 97.4% 92.5% 90.7%

Goal 95%

Analysis: The rate of defendants released to pretrial supervision that have been arrested for new offenses during their pretrial supervision in 2013 was 9.3% (23 of 247 participants).

3. Success Rate: The percent of released defendants who are 1) not revoked for technical

violations due to condition violations, 2) appear for all scheduled court appearances, and 3) remain arrest free during pretrial supervision.


Success Rate 71% 68.7% 76.1% 65.7% 63.6%

Goal 70%

Analysis: When examining “success” rates, you need to look at defendants that ”successfully” completed pretrial supervision by appearing at all their court hearing and those defendants that were held “accountable” for not complying with the term of pretrial release and were returned to custody pending disposition. 17.4% of supervised pretrial defendants in 2013 had technical violations which resulted in their pretrial release being revoked and returned to custody (43 of 247 participants).

4. Concurrence (Effectiveness) Rate: The ratio of released and detained defendants to the pretrial agency's release and detention recommendations.

2013 Released Detained Follow Recommendation

Recommended for Release 145 59 71.1%

Recommended for Detention 100 220 68.8%

Recommendation Followed (ALL) 69.7%

GOAL 75%

Analysis: Concurrence rate is an excellent measure of success in helping courts apply supervision levels [and release decisions] that match the defendant’s identified risk level. This is a recognized best practice in the criminal justice field. The measure also complements appearance and safety rates by allowing pretrial programs to track subsequent failure by defendants originally recommended for detention.

Failed - New Offense,

9.3%

Failed to Appear,

9.7%

Succcessful Completion / Technical Violation Return, 81.0%

2013 Pretrial Outcomes



CY13 results were fairly consistent with CY12 results but the concurrence rate is still lower than the established goal – even though the Court follows Pretrial’s recommendation almost 70% of the time, over 30% of the time the recommendation is not followed in making release or detain decisions on pretrial defendants.

5. Recommendation Rate: The percent of time program follows its risk assessment criteria when recommending release or detention [The percentage of overrides to the risk assessment scheme (the percent of time Pretrial Staff follow the risk assessment criteria)].

Recommendation Rate

Year Total

Recommendations Follows Risk

Assessment Criteria Overrides Risk

Assessment Follows

% Override Rate (%)

2012 4 175 106 69 60.6% 39.4%

2013 524 362 152 58.0% 42.0%

Goal: The acceptable standard by Pretrial experts is considered to be between a 10-15% override rate. Lower scores on the risk assessment are indicative of lower risk to failure to appear or engage in new criminal activity during pretrial supervision and higher scores are indicative of higher risk. Thus, low risk defendants should be recommended for release without supervision; moderate risk defendants should be recommended for supervised release; and the highest risk defendants should be either detained or have more structured supervised release such as ISOR. 5

Discussion and Analysis: Pretrial continues to have high override rate – 42% of the time the pretrial staff deviates from the risk level – that is a significantly high override rate compared to the “industry” standard of no more than 10-15% override rate. Pretrial will continue to examine the use of overrides in order to reduce subjective versus objective overrides. This examination will be done in conjunction with the piloting and implementation of the new pretrial risk assessment tool.

6. Number of Defendants Released By Release type and Condition: The number of

release types ordered during a specified time frame.

Pre-arraignment Releases Pretrial assess appropriate cases for release, prior to a first court appearance (arraignment). With a judge's verbal permission, the detainee is released with a signed promise to appear at arraignment. These releases typically save a minimum of 2 to 5 days of jail.

Pre-arraignment Releases 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Releases 244 188 309 377 253

Bed Day Savings 754 to 1885 506 to 1265

Reduction in Average Daily Population (inmates per day)

2.1 – 5.2 1.4 – 3.5

4 2nd Half 2012 Results 5 Moderate & higher risk persons identified are the most suited for [supervised] pretrial release, both programmatically &

economically, with conditions. Release conditions that include alternatives to pretrial detention generally decrease the likelihood

of success pending trial for lower risk defendants and should be required sparingly.



Supervised Release and Intensive Supervision (SOR and ISOR): All offenders booked into the county jail are assessed by Pretrial staff using a validated risk instrument, with the exception of those that only have federal, out-of-state, out-of-county, probation or parole only holds. Results from this screening guide the Probation Officer’s recommendation to the court regarding level of supervision needed to maximize the chance that the offender will appear for court and not recidivate prior to court. The levels of release vary and include: release on own-recognizance (OR), with no supervision; supervised release, which includes some monitoring of the offender at home and work by pretrial staff and often includes testing for drugs and/or alcohol; and intensive supervision for offenders needing a higher level of containment that adds electronic monitoring and a device that immediately detects the use of alcohol when needed. Some offenders move between these levels of supervision during the court process depending on their compliance.


Released 215 245

Average Daily Population 31.8 29.7 30.5 31.5 36.9

Bed Days Saved 11,621 10,831 11,110 11,532 13,468

Own- Recognizance Release (OR)

In addition to the defendants interviewed and released by Pretrial staff, numerous other defendants are released annually. At the booking stage, the Sheriff’s Office has a list of charges for which they can release defendants on, such as Drunk in Public, Petty Theft and non-violent misdemeanors [Sheriff’s Office OR]. In addition, defendants may post bail to secure their release.

Releases6 2012 2013

Bail 1,269 12107

Sheriff's Office OR (Own Recognizance) 2,941 2759

Court OR 399

6 Data Source: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office 7 Includes 1132 Bail Bonds, 33 Cash Bail and 45 combined Bail/Own Recognizance.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

25.1

31.8 29.7 30.5 31.5

36.9

Average Daily Population

(Supervised Pretrial)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

9178

11621 10831 11110 11532

13,468

Bed Days Saved (Supervised Pretrial)



POST-SENTENCE CUSTODIAL ALTERNATIVES PROGRAMS: Post Sentence Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP): In October 2009, the Department implemented an electronic monitoring home confinement program for suitable inmates sentenced to local custody. EMP’s primary function is to provide a resource to decrease the use of jail custody sanctions for offenders where an alternative sanction is appropriate. Since the implementation of the Sheriff’s Custody Alternative Program (CAP) in 2011, the number of inmates has steadily declined as CAP principally accomplishes, but to a much larger degree, what EMP was accomplishing. Even though EMP continues to serve inmates, referrals are primarily inmates that may be lower risk but do not meet CAP criteria due to the nature of the sentencing crime [Person-to Person Crime]. It is the Department’s goal to remove itself as a post-sentence custody alternative given the success of CAP and with the hope that CAP moves to a more of a risk-based versus charge-based approach to release of appropriate inmates. Participant compliance is monitored by Pretrial staff and use of an electronic ankle bracelet. Participants are allowed to attend work or school and pay for the cost of the program. During FY 12/13, 30 participants were on Post-Sentence EMP – 25 participants successfully completed the program, 4 participated successfully completed but with program rule violation(s), and 1 participant failed due to new offense.

Post Sentence EMP Success Rates FY 09-10 FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13

Successful Completion 91.7% 90.7% 100% 83.3%

Failure-to-Appear 0% 0% 0% 0%

Completion with program rule violation 5.6% 7.0% 0% 13.3%

Failed-New Offense 2.8% 2.3% 0% 3.3%

CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012 CY 2013

Average Daily Population 12.2 9.2 8.7 2.75

Bed Days Saved 4,446 3,353 3,199 1,004

Custody Alternative Program (CAP): In order to mitigate the impact of Public Safety Realignment locally, the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office collaborated with our Department to develop and implement an additional electronic monitoring program for sentenced offenders8 (implemented October 2011). The Sheriff’s Office manages the program with the assistance of one Deputy Probation Officer. The program is designed for offenders who pose a lesser risk to the community, have been convicted of less serious offenses or that may have special needs or problems that may be better handled in their home environment. A validated risk assessment tool is used to assist in these release decisions. During the first two years of the program [October 2011 through September 2013], there have been a total of 581 participants,9 including 52 1170(h) inmates. Of those 581 participants, 51 participants ((9%) were returned to custody for program violations and only 3 participants (less

8 The Sheriff is authorized to determine how inmates in their jail serve a sentence under 1203.016 and 1203.017 of the California Penal Code. 9 A few inmates have been in CAP twice for different sentences and/or rolled up and placed back on CAP.

The Custody Alternative Program

was recognized by the California

State Association of Counties

(CSAC) as a model of cost-

effective strategies to maintain

public safety with a

2013 CSAC

Challenge Merit Award.



Active or Successful

Participants, 527, 91%

Participants Returned to Custody, 51,

9%

Abscond, 3, 0%

Custody Alternatives Program (CAP) Outcomes over 2 years of Implementation

N = 581 Participants

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Sep

-11

No

v-1

1

Jan

-12

Mar

-12

May

-12

Jul-

12

Sep

-12

No

v-1

2

Jan

-13

Mar

-13

May

-13

Jul-

13

Sep

-13

CAP 1170h CAP Sheriff Parole

than 1%) absconded. Approximately 57 inmates per day are in the CAP program which translates into an annual bed day saving of over 20,000.

Warrant Reduction Advocacy Project (WRAP): The WRAP program was implemented in December 2005 to reduce the jail impact of lower risk probationers who were arrested on abscond warrants [for failing to maintain contact with their probation officer]10. The Department has contracted with Friends Outside (a non-profit agency that provides support to inmates and their families) to provide outreach to probationers who are failing to report to their probation officer and are on the verge of having a warrant requested. In addition to re-connecting the offender with probation, WRAP specialists assist the individual with peer and support groups and aftercare case management. The program has been successful in meeting established goals – referrals are at or near established goals [on target to be well over 100 referrals for the current FY) and the percent of averted warrants are meeting or exceeding established goals (reference table below).

During the first half of FY13/14, WRAP averted 37 warrants - projected over a twelve month period, the estimated annual jail bed days saving would be 2,260 conservatively (using a 30-day average length of stay per absconder) or almost a reduction of 6 jail beds per day.

10 A study conducted by the Vera Institute of Justice in Santa Cruz County showed that, on average, probationers who were picked up on bench

warrants issued for failing to maintain probation contact spent an average of 40 days in jail.

Referrals Warrants Averted

Number Goal 1 Goal 2 Met Goal Averted

Percent Averted

Goal Met Goal

FY09/10 204 100 150 96 47.1% 33%

FY10/11 132 100 150 48 36.4% 33%

FY11/12 91 100 150 27 29.7% 30%

FY12/13 223 100 150 69 30.9% 30%

FY13/14 (1st Half)

99

37 37.4% 30%

jail alternatives annual report 2013 · 2014-02-21 · santa cruz county probation department –...

Documents