Evidencebased Practices

1
Evidence-based Practices

• A Framework for Sentencing Policy
• November 2006

2
Mission

• Evaluate the use of split sentencing in Maine to
  determine its effectiveness in managing the risk
  and needs of offenders
• Discuss policies practices around the country
• Learn about alternative sentencing and
  corrections alternatives
• Recommend system changes which would reduce
  recidivism and create better outcomes for victims
  community, offenders, and existing resources

3
Guiding Principles

• The most effective strategy for reducing
  recidivism is through a systematic approach to
  the application of evidence-based practices
• Reducing recidivism through EBP is the key to
  enhancing public safety and reducing harm to the
  victims and community
• Correctional alternatives should be viewed as
  part of a permanent, continuum services system
  use to reduce recidivism
• A responsive system keeps abreast of the research
• The organization/system that is most successful
  in initiating interventions and supervision
  practices consistent with the principles will
  achieve the greatest recidivism reduction.

4
Major Findings in Maine

• Maine data indicated that twice as many split
  sentenced offenders entered probation in 2004 and
  2005 as those with straight probation sentences
• The likelihood of receiving a split sentence
  correlated with the individuals risk level
• Split sentences were found to be the majority of
  sentences whether the crime was a felony or
  misdemeanor
• Low risk offenders received a split sentence
  55.1
• 48.2 of low risk offenders who commit
  misdemeanors crimes receive a split sentence
• Split sentences appear to have a profound impact
  on low risk offenders as to whether they
  recidivate

5
Major Findings Continued

• Data analysis shows that split sentenced
  probationers have higher revocation rates
• Technical violations are the most common type of
  revocation regardless of sentence type
• 42 of the average daily sentenced population or
  266 inmates are serving sentences for a violation
  of probation
• 30 of the jails average daily pretrial
  population is being held for an alleged violation
  of probation or an alleged probation violation in
  conjunction with a new criminal offense

6
Hewey Analysis

• The process for sentencing defendants on Class
  A, B and C crimes involves a 3 part analysis
• First stage Focus on the particular nature and
  seriousness of the offense as committed by the
  offender
• Second stage After ranking the offense along
  the range of punishment for that class of crime,
  compared to all the ways the offense could be
  committed, consider all aggravating and
  mitigating factors including those factors
  peculiar to the offender. The purpose of the
  second state is to determine whether the sentence
  arrived at in the first stage of analysis should
  be increased or decreased
• Final stage the court analyzes what, if any,
  portion of the sentence arrived at in the first
  two stages should be suspended with probation

7
Implications

• Estimated that 80 of all sentences include a
  split sentence
• Consider whether the Hewey Analysis brings one to
  consider a split sentence
• Consider whether a suspended sentence is
  substantially longer than the defendant would
  have served had he/she received a sentence of
  straight incarceration
• When the defendant later appears for a Motion to
  Revoke Probation, whether based on technical or
  new criminal conduct, the amount of incarceration
  imposed is often based on the length of the
  suspended sentence-the amount hanging over the
  defendants head
• Consequently, he/she serves more time on
  probation revocations than he/she would have
  served for the original offense had he/she
  initially been sentenced to jail or prison
  without any probation

8
National Studies

• Studied 962 felony offenders sentenced to
  confinement and noncustodial programs over a 20
  year period
• Studied the effects of different sanctions on the
  offenders subsequent criminal careers
• Available sentencing choices had little
  effect-other than incapacitation-on recidivism as
  measured by new arrests and charges
• Gottfredson, Don, M., (1999) Effects of Judges
  Sentencing Decisions on Criminal Careers,
  National Institute of Justice.

9
Key Findings

• Whether the offender was confined or given
  noncustodial sanctions made no difference
• Where the offender was confined (jail or prison)
  made no difference
• The length of the maximum imposed sentence made
  no difference
• The length of time the offender was confined made
  little difference
• A split sentence of jail and probation made no
  difference
• Fines or restitution made no difference

10
Policy Implications

• It offered little support, aside from
  incapacitation, for increased use of confinement,
  emphasis on longer terms, or more acceptance of
  specific deterrence as a crime control strategy
• The study found no evidence to justify the belief
  that the addition of jail time to probation
  sentence has a specific deterrent effect
• The study supported abandoning the use of split
  sentences

11
National Data

• The length of time an offender remains behind
  bars has a negligible effect on whether he or she
  will be rearrested
• Longer prison terms may provide some
  incapacitation effects, but they do so at great
  cost and at the expense of more effective
  alternatives
• Recidivism of State Prisoners Implications for
  Sentencing and Corrections Policy, The Sentencing
  Project, August 2002

12
National Studies

• Vera studies policies implemented between 1975
  and 2002 and impacts of those policies on state
  incarceration rates
• States with the combination of determinate
  sentencing and presumptive sentencing had lower
  incarceration rates and smaller growth of
  incarceration rates
• States with a combination of determinate
  sentencing and voluntary sentencing guidelines
  had larger growth in incarceration rates than
  other states, however, the combination was not
  related to the size of the incarceration rates
• Vera Institute of Justice, 2002

13
National Studies

• States with separate time served requirements for
  violent offenders had higher incarceration rates
  than other states
• States with higher statutory minimum sentences
  for cocaine possessions had higher incarceration
  rates than other states
• States with more mandatory sentencing laws had
  higher incarceration rates than other states

14
Trends in Sentencing Corrections Reform

• Empanelling sentencing commissions
• Expanding early release provisions
• New approaches to technical violators
• Changing approaches to technical probation and
  parole violations
• Rethinking mandatory minimums for nonviolent
  offenders
• Expanding treatment based alternatives to
  incarceration

15
Alternative sentencing corrections alternatives

• Virginia, Texas, Minnesota using risk assessment
  information presentencing
• Virginia and Maryland conducting risk assessments
  for all sex offenders before sentencing
• Kansas expanded its continuum to use day
  reporting
• Arkansas is investing in a technical violator
  center
• Washington ended active supervision for many low
  level felony post releases
• Hawaii mandates treatment instead of
  incarceration for nonviolent offenders convicted
  for drug possession

16
Alternative sentencing corrections alternatives

• Oregon adopted a statute requiring that state
  program funds be used for evidence-based
  practices. By 2009 75 of program funds are to
  be used for EBP
• Ohio mandates that programs funded by grant
  monies through the Bureau of Community Sanction
  be audited annually
• Ohio uses halfway houses as step-down services
  from prison

17
Evidence-based Practices

• Includes risk reduction/risk management as key
  objectives in state sentencing policy
• Promotes the use of actuarial risk assessment
  instruments in assessing suitable of sentencing
  options
• Develop community based programs that address
  criminogenic needs of offenders
• Provides sentencing judges access to about the
  offender, availability of corrections programs
  and potential sentencing dispositions

18
Evidence-based practices

• Teaches all criminal justice stakeholders and
  community members about EBP and how it relates to
  public safety and the prevention of further
  victims
• Promotes collaboration

19
Pulling it All Together
20
Application of EBP at several junctures levels
to reduce recidivism

• Presentencing
• Sentencing
• Probation Conditions
• Probation Violations/Revocations
• Risk Assessment
• Program Services
• Collaboration
• Education/Training