The Need ForEvidence Based Sentencing

Chief Justice William Ray Price, Jr.

Since the 1980’s we attempted to incarcerate our way out of crime and illegal drug use.

The problem is, it didn’t work.

We were tough on crime. Three strikes and your out. Throw away the key. The war on drugs

But, we were not smart on crime.

Let’s look at the numbers.

Our Criminal Sentencing Problem

Total Correctional Population Total Pop. Behind Bars1982 2,194,000 1982 612,000

2008 7,308,200 2008 2,304,000

Cost of Increased Incarceration State correctional spending increased fourfold:

1988 $11.7 billion

2008 $47.3 billion

“What we are seeing today is a growing recognition that our approach to dealing with convicted criminals is simply too costly. Not only is the price too high, but the benefits are too low. The states spend an estimated $50 billion on corrections annually, and the growth of these outlays over the past 20 years has outpace nearly all other essential government services.” Joan Petersilia, Stanford Law School

Incarceration and Crime Rates

U.S. Crime Volume 1982-2008

Violent Offenses1982 1,322,390

2008 1,382,012

Property Offenses1982 11,652,000

2008 9,768,000

Drug Offenses1982 676,000

2007 1,841,200

The War on Drugs

Drug Arrests 1980 580,900 2007 1,841,200

As Percentage of All Arrests 1980 5.5% 2006 13.14%

Prison Population 1982 612,000 2008 2,304,000

↓

1,692,000 more people

behind bars

Drug Use Drives CrimeAnd Fills Prisons

Missouri New Prison Admissions (FY2004)

1,239 13% Drug Convictions

2,037 20% Probation for DrugOffense Revoked

4,042 41% Other Crimes But Active____ Substance Abuse

74% of all new admissions are related to illegal drug use

The key measurement of the failure of our incarceration strategy is the recidivism rate.

Too many people, keep coming back.

U.S. Recidivism Rates

For all offenders (released 1994): Rearrest within 3 years:

67.5% Reconviction within 3 years:

46.9%

For drug offenders (released

1983 vs. released 1994): Rearrest rate increased

50.4% 66.7% Reconviction rate increased

35.3% 47%

The Good News About Our Failed Incarceration Based Policies Is That We

Have Learned a Better Way

Evidence Based Sentencing Practices Focus On Results: Lowering Recidivism

At a Lower Cost

Evidence Based Practices

Usually Reserve Prison Sentences for Violent and Habitual Offenders, and

Combine Strict Judicial Supervision, Behavioral Modification, and Treatment to Non-Violent Offenders Outside of Prison

Driven By Evidence Based Proven Strategies

The Key of Evidence Based Practices is to Assess the Risks and Needs of Each Offender and Match the Most Effective and Least Expensive Strategy to Change his or her Behavior.

Usually, This Includes Swift Certain Sanctions For Bad Behavior. Rewards For Good Behavior. And Treatment, When Necessary

Data is Collected and Analyzed to Determine Best Practices

Evidence Based Alternatives Are Available In Four Forms

Diversionary Probationary

Prison Reentry

Diversionary Practices Are Pre-sentence

They May Be Pre or Post Plea or With Stipulation of Facts

They Avoid a Record of Conviction

Drug Courts, DWI Courts, Mental Health Courts, Veterans Courts are Typically

Diversionary

They Usually Include Treatment

Probationary Practices are Post Sentence

HOPE is an Example of a Post Sentence Alternative

HOPE Avoids/Delays Incarceration By Using Enhanced Probation Services

Hope Replaces Revocation with Swift Certain Lesser Local Sanctions

Hope can also apply to Parole

Treatment May or May Not Be Included

Incarceration Can Be Evidence Based

Personal Improvement / Not Years Served Is the Key

Education Job Skills Sobriety

Prison is Expensive

Prison Removes the Offender From Job and Family

Without Drug, Educational, Behavior Modification Programming, Prison Does Little More Than Move an Offender From Normal Society to a Society of Criminals

Generally, Prison Should Be Reserved For Dangerous or Habitual Offenders Who do not Respond to Other Strategies

Reentry Programs Focus on the Need to Help the Prisoner Rejoin Society

Parole Revocation Decreases Significantly With Passage of Time After Release

Between 1 and 15 Months After Release The Chance of Arrest Drops by 40%

Reentry Programs are Usually Conducted By Parole Boards or Departments of

Corrections, although Courts are Becoming More Active in this Field

Good News about Drug Courts

Numerous studies show that:

Drug court participation results in lower recidivism rates (5 studies 8 – 26%)

Drug courts result in substantial cost savings (6 studies)

Drug Courts are Evidence Based Treatment Alternatives For Addicted

Offenders

Drug Courts Combine

Treatment Judicial Supervision

Behavioral Modification Rewards and Swift Certain Sanctions

Missouri Drug Courts Cost Substantially Less Than Incarceration

Costs (per inmate per year)

Incarceration $16,832

Drug Court $3,000 - 5,000

Drug Courts Provide Savings Over Probation

Case Study: St. Louis City Adult Felony Drug Court

Initial cost = cost of probation + cost of treatment

In two years: $2,615 net savings

In four years: $7,707 net savings

For every $1 spent $6.32 of savings

MO Recidivism Comparison

Recidivism Rates (rearrest within two years)

Prison 41.6%

Drug Court Graduates 10%

(New JIS Tracking: 18-month Graduates 4.6%

18-month Terminations 15.2%)

A real life example of recidivism was the 35 year old St. Joseph man arrested for drunk driving June 16, 2010, just three hours after he was released from prison.

Other Evidenced Based Sentencing Alternatives

Adult Felony Drug Court DWI Court Family Drug Court Veterans’ Court Mental Health Court Reintegration/Reentry Court

All combine evidence based treatment with intense supervision

“I believe we can take an approach that is both tough and smart…[T]here are thousands of nonviolent offenders in the system whose future we cannot ignore. Let’s focus more resources on rehabilitating those offenders so we can ultimately spend less money locking them up again.” Gov. Rick Perry, Texas

Requirements for Evidence Based Sentencing Practices

Assessment Tool Training Data Collection Evidence Based / Not Intuition Based

Decisions

The Bottom line The quality of justice is not measured by the length of

sentence.

One size, one strategy, does not fit all offenders.

Breaking the cycle of addiction and crime requires scientific evidence based treatment and the development of job skills and intense supervision, not always prison walls.

Results matter. Cost matters.

SOURCES

NADCP NCSC PEW

The Box Set paper by Roger Warren entitled, Evidence-Based Practice to Reduce Recidivism: Implications for State Judiciaries;

Curriculum materials for Evidence-Based Sentencing, http://www.ncsconline.org/csi/education.html;

Additional information about training in Evidence-Based Sentencing, http://cjinstitute.org/about/services/trainings/; and

Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument materials, http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/corrections/riskAssessment/

nadcp.org