Redesigning the Front End
of the System
Options for Analysis, Goal-Setting, and Change
August 23, 2013
Pretrial Stage of Criminal Case
NIC Evidence Based Decision Making
Arrest
Decisions
Local
Institutional
Release
Decisions
Pretrial
Release/
Supervision
Decisions
Local
Institutional
Intervention
Decisions
Community
Intervention
Decisions
Diversion
Decisions
Sentencing
Decisions
Violation
Response
Decisions
Charging
Decisions
Plea Decisions
Discharge
from Criminal
Justice System
Decision
Transition from Jail to the Community
National Institute of Corrections
The Urban Institute
Importance of Criminal Justice
Coordinating Councils
• Informal poll of judges, coordinators, attorneys
▫ Themes







Easier to facilitate change
Easier to work with each other outside of meetings
Diminishes barriers
Facilitates openness and goodwill
More planned use of resources
Necessary to receive grants (State and Federal)
Focus on research
2001-2013 CJMC Recommendations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Expand electronic monitoring for pre-trial and sentence (2001)
Implement Drug Treatment Court (2002)
Closing the work release facility (2005)
Implement an OWI (intoxicated drivers) Treatment Court (2006)
Systems assessment – The Carey Group (2007)
Gender-specific programming (2008)
Incorporate mental health screenings and increase mental health
services in the jail (2008)
Participate in the Transition from Jail to Community Initiative
(2009)
Town Hall Meeting (2011)
Cognitive-behavioral groups in jail and community (2011)
Heroin Summit (2013)
Pretrial “Assessment”
• Proxy (citations)
• Risk Assessment for Failure to Appear, Rearrest
Pretrial
• Short forms for mental health, substance abuse
 referral for assessments
• Diversion assessment
• Problem solving court criteria
• Etc.
Goals of Pretrial Assessment
• Maximize release pending trial
• Public Safety – no new arrests pending trial
▫ Integrity of Judicial Process – victim, witness
intimidation
• Appearance – make all court appearances
Use of the Hawaiian Proxy at the Decision
to Arrest
Why Complete a Proxy at arrest?
•
•
•
•
•
ID low risk early
Save resources
Protect community
Inform other decision makers
Triage the need for a full COMPAS
What makes a low risk offender
•
•
•
•
Self-correcting
Does harm
Interrupts pro-social activities
Wastes $$
Medium
To High
1. Current Age
2. Age of First Arrest
3. Number of Prior
Arrests
Use of the PROXY/COMPAS
PRE CHARGING DIVERSION
Diversion Summary
2012
Totals
2012: 258
2013: 138 (YTD)
25
21
21
18
33
24 25
23
22 22
19
18
6
JAN
FEB
38
2013
30
25
21
Offender re-arrest information 12
months out from 2012 participants:
January – May 2012
24 subjects
• One felony/misdemeanor
• One misdemeanor
• Four forfeitures
6
MAR
APR
MAY JUNE JULY
Totals referred from 2012 to July 2013
Number referred: 396
Number not completed due to no show or new
charge : 25
Number Completed: 371
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
Offense Level Breakdown
140
126
119
Offenses
120
•
•
100
80
65
67
2012
60
2013
40
13
20
6
0
Ordinance
Misdemeanor
Felony
•
•
Retail Theft
Possession of THC
paraphernalia
Disorderly Conduct
Other
Milwaukee County Pretrial Risk
Assessment & Screening Tools
• MCPRAI-R
▫ Validated, 6-factor pretrial risk assessment instrument
▫ Measure risk for pretrial failure (NCA/FTA)
• LSI-R:SV
▫ Validated, 8-item risk assessment instrument
▫ Long term risk for recidivism
▫ Taken from LSI-R
• UNCOPE
▫ 6 question screener
▫ ID risk for abuse/dependence for alcohol and other drugs
Milwaukee County Pretrial Risk
Assessment & Screening Tools
• INTAKE INTERVIEW
▫ Demographics, info needed to supervise defendant,
risk instrument factors, ID needs
• PRAXIS
▫ Tool designed to guide bail and release condition
decisions
• RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
▫ Provides all relevant risk assessment information via
web-enabled access for all parties
Milwaukee County Purpose of
Screening
• Provide stakeholders with objective information
regarding a defendant’s risk for pretrial
misconduct (FTA/NCA) and recommend pretrial
conditions that will mitigate that risk.
• Identify potential candidates for available Early
Intervention strategies such as TAD.
Milwaukee County Pretrial & EI Risk Assessment
Process
LSI-R:SV
Score = Low
Risk (0-2)
Jail
Booking
Universal/EI
Screening
LSI-R:SV
Score =
Low (0-2)
Eligibility
Screening
For EI
(DIV/DPA)
Diversion
Eligible
(MCPRAI-R,
UNCOPE, LSI-R: SV,
Praxis)
LSI-R
Score =
Moderate
(14-33)
LSI-R:SV Score =
Moderate Risk
(3-5)
Conduct
LSI-R
DPA
Not
Eligible for
EI
Diversion/Problem Solving Courts
La Crosse County
JSP - Bed Days Saved Compared to the Jail Population
350
300
272
297
250
252
267
259
245
266
252
225
235
243
198
200
234
220
183
237
196
187
181
150
85
100
58
50
18
16
1999
2000
26
34
192
172
172
Estimated:
$22.50/day for community programs
$100/day for jail
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Justice Sanctions
2006
2007
Jail
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
La Crosse Treatment Courts
• Drug Treatment Court
▫ 2005 Process evaluation
Cost/Benefit of 3.6/1
▫ 2012 Outcome evaluation
indicated a 10-year
recidivism rate of 20%
▫ 2012
 ADP of 23
 5 successful
 4 unsuccessful
• OWI Treatment Court
▫ Current undergoing a process
and outcome evaluation
(funding through OJA)
▫ 2012
 ADP of 135
 17,075 bed days saved (47
beds/day)
 55 successful
 35 unsuccessful
Self-Assessment
• Compare with ABA Standards
Questions to
Ask System
Stakeholders
Performance Measures
• Numerators and
Denominators
• # of arrestees cited/# arrestees
eligible for citation
• # of custodial arrests
screened/# custodial arrests
• % low, medium, high risk
• Concurrence Rates
• How they got out, by type of
release and risk
• How they perform, by type of
release and risk
• Etc…
Wood County Drug Court Outcomes
• Collecting data since receiving the TAD grant in
2007
• Used to inform, improve and measure
performance
• Since 2007
▫ 56% completion rate
▫ 113 total participants
▫ Total incarceration days averted 10,697
Milwaukee County Pretrial Outcomes
•
•
•
•
•
•
89% of eligible defendants screened
75% pretrial release rate
Felony appearance rate = 85%
Felony no new criminal activity rate = 87%
Misdemeanor appearance rate = 67%
Misdemeanor no new criminal activity rate =
83%
Milwaukee TAD Outcomes
• Since 2007
▫
▫
▫
▫
15,000 TAD Screenings
1,519 admissions 1,418 discharged
65% successful completion rate
99,421 incarceration days averted
 *72,147 local jail bed days
 *27,795 prison bed days
Getting Started
• Compare yourself against the
standards of practice
• Collect and analyze data
▫ Ask for help
• Get creative
Help!
• Bureau of Justice Assistance, National Training
and Technical Assistance Center (NTTAC)
• National Institute of Corrections
• National Association of Pretrial Services
Agencies
• Pretrial Justice Institute
• Crime and Justice Institute
• Etc.
For Follow Up
• Tiana Glenna, Community Justice Council
Coordinator, Eau Claire County
• Jane Klekamp, Justice Support Services
Program Manager, La Crosse County
• Holly Szablewski, Judicial Review Coordinator,
Milwaukee County
• Ryan McMillen, Adult Drug Court
Coordinator/Case Manager, Wood County