MULTNOMAH COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY JUSTICE

1
MULTNOMAH COUNTYDEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY JUSTICE

• REDESIGN OF ADULT OFFENDER SUPERVISION PRACTICES
• FINDINGS FROM THE NCCD EVALUATION
• A presentation to the Board of County
  Commissioners
• January 6, 2000

2
MULTNOMAH COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY JUSTICE
MISSION STATEMENT

• The mission of Adult Community Justice (ACJ) is
  to enhance public safety and promote the positive
  change of offenders in the community through
  integrated supervisory, rehabilitative and
  enforcement strategies.

3
GOALS OF MULTNOMAH COUNTYS PUBLIC SAFETY SYSTEM

• To protect, in order of priority, life, personal
  safety and property
• To reduce all crime to the maximum extent
  possible
• To protect and respect the victims of crime
• To protect constitutional principles of fairness,
  equity and due process and
• To change the future behavior of offenders by
  providing opportunities for them to return to
  their communities as productive citizens.

4
PREDICTING OFFENDER RISK TO RE-OFFEND

• Based on Oregon Case Management System (OCMS)
  which assigns a supervision level and contact
  requirements to each offender based on risk to
  reoffend.
• Initial assessment is conducted at Intake focus
  on prior criminal justice history and drug and
  alcohol use.
• Reassessment is conducted every six months
  thereafter also includes offender behavior since
  last assessment such as employment, substance
  abuse and response to supervision.

5
ACTIVE FELONY CASELOAD RISK TO REOFFEND
DISTRIBUTION
1998 ACTIVE FELONY CASELOAD
N7,447
6
WHY REDESIGN SUPERVISION PRACTICES?

• Adult Community Justices response to
• January, 1997 departmental audit calling for
  expansion of Casebank program for lower risk
  offenders to better utilize limited resources.
  (This expanded program became Centralized Team
  Supervision -- CTS)
• Reduction in community corrections funding from
  state Department of Corrections.

7
WHY REDESIGN SUPERVISION PRACTICES?

• Based on Andrews and others (1990)
  meta-analysis that shows
• appropriate intervention is most powerful in
  higher as opposed to lower risk offenders.
• further, there is some evidence that intensive
  involvement with criminal justice interventions
  may increase recidivism in lower risk offenders.
• Redesign implemented in April, 1997. Carleton
  University review involved 154 tests of
  effectiveness of correctional intervention and
  looked at magnitude of link between reduced
  recidivism and an experimental and control
  condition.

8
ELEMENTS OF THE REDESIGN
9
EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF REDESIGN

• In 1998, DCJ contracted with National Council on
  Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) to do a process and
  preliminary outcome evaluation.
• Was the Redesign implemented in the manner
  intended -- were higher risk offenders assigned
  to field caseloads and lower risk offenders
  assigned to Community Team Supervision (CTS)?
• Did the Redesign impact recidivism rates?
• Did the Redesign compromise public safety?

10
NCCDSEVALUATION METHODOLOGY

• Snapshot data used for felony caseload changes
  over time
• caseload characteristics on March 1st of 1995 (n
  7,503).
• caseload characteristics on March 1st of 1996
  (n7,540).
• caseload characteristics on March 1st of 1997
  (n7,486).
• caseload characteristics on March 1st of 1998
  (n7,447).

11
WAS THERE A CHANGE IN OFFENDER CASELOAD
ASSIGNMENT?
7039
7157
5701
3891
3051
1524
A smaller percentage of cases are assigned to
field supervision more are assigned to
centralized team supervision.
12
WAS THERE A CHANGE IN RISK LEVEL WITHIN
SUPERVISION STRATEGY?
The percentage of field supervision caseload that
is high/med risk increased from about 55 to
75. The Centralized Team Supervision caseload
remained nearly all low to limited risk.
13
NCCDSEVALUATION METHODOLOGY

• Data used for recidivism analyses
• 1995 Cohort -- offenders admitted to supervision
  in 1995 (prior to Redesign).
• 1998 Cohort -- offenders admitted to supervision
  in 1998 (after Redesign).

14
WAS PUBLIC SAFETY COMPROMISED?

• Recidivism analysis used three outcome measures
  Re-arrest, Re-conviction, and Re-incarceration.
• Data limitations
• Quasi-experimental design
• Short follow-up period -- 8 months
• The 1998 cohort used only offenders entering
  system in January. With this small sample size
  recidivism measures for 1998 may change.

15
WAS PUBLIC SAFETY COMPROMISED? RE-ARREST

• Random sample of 1995 cohort 229.
• Random sample of 1998 cohort 298.
• 1998 cohort is slightly more likely to be
  re-arrested during follow-up than 1995 cohort
  (37 vs. 31).
• 1998 cohort more likely to be arrested for
  non-violent offense and less likely to be
  arrested for a drug offense than 1995 cohort.

16
WAS PUBLIC SAFETY COMPROMISED?RE-CONVICTION

• In 1995 cohort (n7,514), 11 were reconvicted.
• In 1998 cohort (n835), 5 were reconvicted.
• In both cohorts, drug-related offenses were most
  frequent new offenses.

17
WAS PUBLIC SAFETY COMPROMISED? RE-INCARCERATION

• Compared to the 1995 cohort (n7,514), a larger
  proportion of the 1998 cohort (n835) were
  re-incarcerated, 6 and 13, respectively.
• In 1995, all 478 offenders who were
  re-incarcerated were returned to prison.
• In 1998, 57 (64 offenders) spent their custody
  time in a local jail. The remaining 48 offenders
  were returned to prison.

18
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM NCCD EVALUATION (AUSTIN,
DEDEL NARO, 1999)

• A major shift has occurred in terms of
  proportion of offenders assigned to various
  caseloads.
• Far fewer offenders are being assigned to Field
  Supervision, a shift which parallels the
  significant increase in the number of offenders
  assigned to Centralized Team Supervision.
• Data clearly indicate that the composition of
  the caseload tracks conforms to both the original
  design and policy directives that shaped their
  implementation.

19
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

• there are no significant changes in the
  overall profile of offenders on Community
  Supervision (from 1995 -- 1998). Therefore, it
  is likely that any changes in offender outcomes
  are a result of the intervention.
• these data provide tentative evidence that the
  caseload restructuring has accomplished its
  objective to focus resources on higher risk
  offenders and provide minimal supervision to
  lower risk offenders without compromising public
  safety.

20
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

• Although approximately 30 of offenders on CTS
  are re-arrested, most are arrested for
  non-violent offenses.
• Further, the large majority of offenders who are
  re-convicted and re-incarcerated are high-risk
  offenders assigned to Field Supervision/
  Specialized Caseload.

21
WHAT NEXT FOR THE DEPARTMENT?

• Implement an internal management system that
  tracks caseload characteristics and assignments.
• Continue to study the operational differences in
  levels and types of services provided to
  offenders on different caseloads.
• Undertake a full-scale recidivism study to
  ascertain the long-term impact of the Adult
  Redesign on public safety.
• Implement Phase II of Redesign to ensure high
  risk offenders get maximum supervision, services
  and sanctions.