Tennessee Criminal Justice Summit

1
Tennessee Criminal Justice Summit

• Alternatives to Incarceration
• Rosevelt L. Noble, Ph.D.
• Director of WIA with THEC
• Professor of Sociology Vanderbilt University
• November 15, 2004

2
Community Corrections Acts

• Began in the late 1960s and early 1970s when many
  states developed legislation that would establish
  financial and programmatic incentives for local
  governments to divert offenders from state prison
  systems.
• Community corrections acts in various states are
  designed to make it possible to divert certain
  prison-bound offenders into local, city, or
  county level programs where they can receive
  treatment and assistance rather than
  imprisonment.
• Alternative sanction programs established through
  community corrections acts include halfway
  houses, outreach centers, electronic monitoring,
  day reporting centers, community service, home
  incarceration, boot camps, etc.
• Community corrections is best understood in terms
  of its two primary goals
• Reduce reliance on the state and federal prison
  system
• The notion that local governments know best how
  to deal with their own crime problems.

3
Goals of Community Corrections

• Alleviate prison and jail overcrowding
• Facilitate offender reintegration
• Foster offender rehabilitation
• Provide an alternative range of offender
  punishments
• Heighten offender accountability

4
General Problems with Community Corrections

• Sentencing Issues
• Principle of Interchangeability
• Selection of Offenders
• The Target Group
• Problems of Bias
• Surveillance and Control
• Widening the Net of the Criminal Justice System
• The NIMBY Syndrome

5
States With Community Corrections Acts

• Alabama Minnesota Tennessee
• Arizona Missouri Texas
• Colorado Montana Virginia
• Connecticut Nebraska Wyoming
• Florida New Jersey
• Indiana New Mexico
• Iowa North Carolina
• Kansas Ohio
• Kentucky Oregon
• Maine Pennsylvania
• Michigan South Dakota

6
Alternative Sanctions for CJS Discussion

• Electronic Monitoring
• Home Confinement
• Boot Camps
• Intensive Supervised Probation
• Day Reporting Centers

7
Cost of Alternatives to Incarceration
8
Electronic Monitoring

• Definition Electronic Monitoring (EM) involves
  the use of telemetry devices to verify that
  offenders are at specific locations during
  particular times.
• Tamper resistant electronic devices such as
  anklets or wristlets are fastened to offenders
  and must not be removed for the duration of the
  offenders punishment period.
• EM first began in the U.S. during the late 1980s
  and has grown rapidly. For instance, in 1987
  there were 826 reported offenders in EM programs
  and by 2000 this number had increased to 90,000.

9
The Versatility of EM
10
Types of EM Systems Continuous Signaling

• Continuous Signaling Devices emits a continuous
  signal that can be intercepted by telephonic
  communication from a central dialing location
  (police stations or probation offices).
• This type of system has three essential parts a
  transmitter, a receiver and a central computer.
• The transmitter is strapped to the offender and
  broadcasts a coded signal over a telephone line
  at regular intervals.
• The receiver picks up the signals from the
  offenders transmitter and reports to a central
  computer when the signal starts and stops.
• The computer compares any signal interruptions
  with the offenders curfew schedule and alerts
  correctional officials to unauthorized absences.

11
Types of EM Systems Programmed Contact

• Programmed Contact a computer is programmed to
  call the offender at random or at specific times,
  and then reports the results of the call.
• The offenders verifies there presence at the
  prescribed location in one of several ways
• Offender inserts a device that has been strapped
  to their wrist into a verifier box connected to a
  telephone.
• Some programs use voice verification technology
  that analyzes the offenders voice when he or she
  answers a call. The voice print recorded during
  the call is match to a voice print gathered when
  the offender first entered the program.
• Other systems may require the offender to wear a
  pager and call a specified number when the pager
  beeps. Caller-ID technology establishes whether
  the offender is at an approved location at a
  specific time.

12
EM Show Me The Money!

• The costs incurred by EM programs is often
  subsidized by fees paid by offenders. For
  example, in Colorado offenders are charged a one
  time fee of 75, and they must pay a daily fee.
• The initial startup costs associated with EM
  range from 25,000 to 50,000 or more, depending
  on the sophistication of the EM system and the
  number of clients monitored.
• Once the systems is in place EM is a cheap means
  verifying an offenders whereabouts.
• EM costs compare very favorably with the average
  daily costs of incarcerating offenders in state
  or federal prisons.

13
EM Show Me The Money!
14
Strengths of EM Programs

• Offender avoids criminogenic atmosphere of prison
  or jail
• Offender retains employment and supports family
• Assist probation officers in monitoring duties
• Giving judges and other officials greater
  flexibility in sentencing offenders
• Potential to reduce recidivism rates
• Potential to reduce jail and prison populations
• More cost effective in relation to incarceration
• Can be used to monitor a wide range of offenders
  at various stages of the criminal justice
  process.

15
Weaknesses of EM Programs

• Potential exists for racial, ethnic, or
  socioeconomic bias
• Public safety maybe compromised
• EM may be too coercive
• Little information exists about the impact of EM
  of recidivism rates
• Selection bias
• Technological problems exists
• EM may widen the net of the criminal justice
  system
• EM use raises constitutional issues
• Public perception of EM as going easy on crime
• Costs of EM may be more than published estimates
• Offender to conduct illegal activities from home

16
Home Confinement

• Definition Punishment consisting of confining
  offenders to their residences for mandatory
  incarceration during evening hours, after a
  specified curfew, and on weekends.
• Florida was the first state to adopt home
  confinement as a statewide punishment through its
  Correctional Reform Act of 1983.
• By 2002, more than 30,000 offenders were under
  home confinement in conjunction with supervision
  by probation officers in the United States.

17
Strengths of Home Confinement

• It is cost effective.
• It is easily implemented
• Enables offenders to hold jobs and earn a living
  while caring for their families and/or making
  restitution to victims.
• Fosters rehabilitation and reintegration by
  maintaining offenders controlled presence within
  the community.
• Reduces jail and prison overcrowding
• Can be used in conjunction with electronic
  monitoring for an added level of surveillance.
• Allows offender participation in community-based
  treatment programs.

18
Weaknesses of Home Confinement

• Widening the net of the CJS
• Focuses primarily on offender surveillance
• It is intrusive and possibly illegal
• Race and class bias may enter into participant
  selection
• May compromise public safety

19
Effectiveness of Home Confinement1

20
Effectiveness of Home Confinement

21
Issues Concerning Home Confinement

• Punishment versus Rehabilitation and
  Reintegration
• Public Safety
• Crime Control and Deterrence

22
Boot Camps

• Definition Highly regimented, military-like,
  short-term correctional programs (90 to 180 days)
  where offenders are provided with strict
  discipline, physical training, and hard labor
  resembling some aspects of military basic
  training.
• The first boot camps for adult offenders were
  established in 1983 by the Georgia Department of
  Corrections Special Alternative Incarceration
  (SAI).
• In 2001, there were 24 state systems operating 44
  boot camp programs for adult offenders with more
  states planning to establish similar programs.

23
Rationale Behind Boot Camps

• Some offenders lack discipline to control their
  emotions, such as anger and hostility. Boot
  camps promote discipline and emotional control.
• Controlled environments are necessary for some
  offenders who lack social and psychological
  capacity to live around others. Boot camps train
  offenders in responsive living techniques to help
  them become law-abiding citizens.

24
Example Boot Camp Schedule

• North Carolina IMPACT Boot Camp Program
• 430 A.M. Wake up
• 430 530 A.M. Personal Training
• 530 550 A.M. Physical Training
• 550 600 A.M. March to Breakfast
• 600 630 A.M. Breakfast
• 630 645 A.M. Return to dormitory
• 645 745 A.M. Clean rooms / inspection
• 745 800 A.M. Reveille (flag raising)
• 800 1200 P.M. Work / drill
• 1200 1230 P.M. Lunch
• 1230 400 P.M. Work / drill
• 400 445 P.M. Personal hygiene
• 445 500 P.M. Retreat (flag lowering)
• 500 510 P.M. March to dinner
• 510 530 P.M. Dinner
• 530 545 P.M. Return to dormitory
• 545 600 P.M. Preparation for school
• 600 1030 P.M. School

25
Boot Camp Costs

26
Boot Camp Costs

• On both the 4-state graph and the national graph,
  boot camps cost significantly more than any other
  form of punishment.
• Boot camps are more expensive to operate because
  they require a high staff-to-inmate ratios.
• Daily per-inmate costs for operating boot camps
  in thirty-one states and the federal system in
  2000 were 61.45, even higher than the average
  cost for all prisons during 2000 of 61.04.

27
Effectiveness of Boot Camps

• Research regarding the impact of boot camp
  programs on recidivism has reached mixed results.

28
Effectiveness of Boot Camps

• Despite the few states and studies showing
  positive benefits of boot camp programs,
  researchers overwhelming conclude that such
  programs do not reduce recidivism rates.
• This conclusion is supported by research such as
  Dale Parents 2003 report entitled Correctional
  Boot Camps Lessons from a Decade of Research
  published by the U.S. Department of Justice.
• This is perhaps the most comprehensive evaluation
  of boot camp programs to date.
• In this report Parent provides answers to four
  pressing questions concerning boot camp
  effectiveness.

29
Is there evidence that boot camps reduce
recidivism?

• There is not enough evidence to reach the general
  conclusion that boot camps reduce recidivism.
• Four reasons given for boot camp ineffectiveness
• Low dosage effects
• Too little attention to reentry
• Conflicting or unrealistic goals and mandates
• The absence of a strong underlying treatment
  model

30
Do boot camps improve inmate behavior and
attitudes?

• The evidence suggests that boot camps are
  effective in changing behavior and attitudes
  during the course of the program.
• Boot camps create work and living environments
  that are safer for staff and inmates.
• There are indications that boot camp graduates
  show increased self-esteem, better
  problem-solving and coping skills, and lower
  antisocial attitudes.

31
Do boot camps reduce prison populations?

• The results in this area are mixed.
• Boot camps became popular at a time when prison
  populations were growing faster than at any point
  in the nations history.
• Even at their peak (which has likely passed),
  boot camps housed a very small fraction of the
  total prison population.
• Boot camps may achieve a small relative reduction
  in the number of prison beds needed in a
  jurisdiction, but owing to their relatively
  restrictive entry criteria, they have been unable
  to achieve significant reductions in the prison
  population.

32
What have we learned from the boot camp
phenomenon?

• Three Main Lessons
• Reintegration into the community should be part
  of every prerelease plan for inmates, whatever
  the conditions of their incarceration.
• Boot camps do reduce prison populations where
  time served is substantially discounted for those
  who complete the program, and where inmates
  selected for participation are among those
  sentenced to longer terms.
• Lower recidivism is greatest for those programs
  that last longer and offer both intensive
  treatment in the program and post-release
  supervision.

33
Intensive Supervised Probation

• Definition A supervisory system in which
  probation officers have lighter caseloads,
  perhaps as few as 10 clients per month, institute
  regular drug tests, and carry out other intensive
  measures, such as work and home visits.
• ISP began in Georgia in 1974 when selected felony
  probationers were determined to need additional
  supervision.
• The frequency of contacts between the probation
  officer and the offender can vary drastically
  from a low of 2 contacts per month in Texas to a
  high of 32 contacts per month in Idaho.
• The average caseload of offenders supervised
  under ISP was about 35 in 2001. Nebraska and
  Minnesota had the smallest caseloads of 10 to 12
  clients, while Rhode Island had the highest
  caseloads at 62 per probation officer
• ISP has grown in use significantly across the
  U.S. in the past decades.

34
Growth in Intensive Supervised Probation

35
Intensive Supervised Probation Costs (NC)

36
Effectiveness of Intensive Supervised

• RAND Corporation Assessment In a study including
  14 counties in nine states authorities assigned
  probationers randomly to either intensive
  supervision or regular probation or parole. The
  test and control subjects were followed for one
  year. The study is acclaimed as the largest
  experimental study of probationers and parolees
  ever undertaken.
• Findings
• ISPs releasees had a technical violation rate
  almost twice that of the controls (70 versus
  40).
• ISPs reoffended and returned to prison at a
  higher rate than those on regular probation (27
  versus 19).
• ISPs cost more per releasee to administer.
• Our results suggest that ISP programs, as
  implemented in this study, are not effective for
  high-risk offenders if effectiveness is judged
  solely by offender recidivism rates. (Petersilia
  Turner 1990, xiii).

37
Day Reporting Centers (DRC)

• Definition facilities where offenders are
  assigned to be supervised by a probation officer
  and are required to report on a daily basis or
  other regular basis at specific times for a
  specified length of time to participate in
  activities such as counseling, treatment, social
  skills training, or employment training.
• DRCs may be differentiated from other alternative
  sanctions by a marked concentration on
  rehabilitation.
• The first DRC began in the U.S. in 1986 in
  Hampden County, Massachusetts.
• Proponents of DRCs boast that these arrangements
  satisfy several justifications of punishment -
  incapacitation, retribution, and rehabilitation.

38
Effectiveness of Day Reporting Centers

• Little empirical research exist regarding the
  effectiveness of DRCs. There are two primary
  reasons for the lack of scholarly research
• Relatively New Sanction
• Large variation in DRCs in terms of target
  population, eligibility criteria, services
  offered, etc.
• The few evaluations of DRCs in existence suggests
  that this particular sanction tends to produce
  lower recidivism rates, both in the short-term
  and long-term.

39
Effectiveness of DRCs - Longitudinal Assessment

40
Effectiveness of DRCs - Longitudinal Assessment

41
Effectiveness of DRCs Time in Program

• From An Evaluation of the Cook County Sheriffs
  Day Reporting Center Program Rearrest and
  Reincarceration after Discharge

42
Effectiveness of DRCs Arrest Survival Times
43
Effectiveness of DRCs Incarceration Survival
Times