BREAKING GROUND:
PRELIMINARY REPORT
OF
BUTTE COUNTY SHERIFF’S
ALTERNATIVE CUSTODY SUPERVISION
PROGRAM
ACS Program Details
 ACS program established to mitigate impacts of
AB 109 and serve interests of public safety
 ACS Deputies oversee offenders removed from
the jail and placed on home detention
 Prior to placement on ACS offenders are assessed
to determine potential risk to public safety
 If the offender is found to be suitable & meets
program requirements he or she is accepted into
ACS
ACS Program Details
 Offenders are required to wear electronic ankle
bracelets so deputies can monitor their location
 Offenders are not allowed to leave their homes
without permission
 Deputies conduct regular unannounced home
visits to ensure compliance
 Day Reporting Center (DRC) a key component of
ACS program
A Sample of DRC EBT Programs
 Moral Reconation Therapy – MRT
 Drug & Alcohol Abuse Prevention/Recovery
 Anger Management
 Theft Prevention
 Parenting Courses
 GED Preparation
Sheriff’s ACS Program Statistics
261 offenders placed on ACS since October 2011
107 offenders currently
on ACS program
5%
20%
34%
41%
88 offenders successfully
completed ACS program
53 offenders returned to
jail for program
violations
14 offenders charged
with escape
CSUC - Preliminary Report Released
The team of Chico State professors and criminal justice interns working
with the Butte County Sheriff’s Office to evaluate the Sheriff’s Alternative
Custody Supervision (ACS) program released its initial report at the
September 19, 2012, meeting of Butte County’s Community Corrections
Partnership. The preliminary report indicates that the Sheriff’s ACS
program is on track and showing promise. The report also makes
recommendations for overall improvement of the program, which are being
implemented.
CSUC – Recommendations
 CSUC recommends BCSO staff conduct a supervision and treatment plan for
all potential ACS eligible inmates
 CSUC recommends BCSO continue its search for an appropriate offender
management system that has the capacity to store historical data and network
with other county systems
 CSUC recommends BCSO further formalize the ACS program, to include
additional officer training and a comprehensive, evidence-based supervision
strategy
 CSUC recommends that the BCSO explore a population-validated risk
assessment tool
 CSUC recommends the BCSO work proactively to prioritize research projects
promoting public safety and resource management
Preliminary Findings
THE STATISTICAL DETAILS
1. ACS ELIGIBLE INMATE NEEDS
2. ESTABLISHING A BASELINE RECIDIVISM
MEASURE
3. EXPLORING RISK
ACS Eligible Inmate Needs
Variables
Affordable Housing
Employment
Education
Transportation
Childcare
Vocational Training
Financial Assistance
Public Assistance
Food Stamps
Medical Treatment
Mental Health Treatment
Further college education
Desires to enroll in classes while in custody
Obs
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
Mean
0.61
0.78
0.48
0.43
0.22
0.43
0.52
0.26
0.61
0.39
0.09
0.74
0.48
sd
0.50
0.42
0.51
0.51
0.42
0.51
0.51
0.45
0.50
0.50
0.29
0.45
0.51
Min
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Max
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ACS Participant Descriptive Statistics
Variables
Risk
Low
Medium
High
Demographics
Age
Male
Black
White
North County
Supervision
GPS
Radio Frequency
Recidivism
Failed Program
Days to Failure
Obs.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Min
Max
137
137
137
0.40
0.20
0.39
0.491993
0.399253
0.490463
0
0
0
1
1
1
137
137
137
137
137
36.38
0.62
0.09
0.73
0.53
9.993039
0.487059
0.283737
0.445627
0.501179
19.718
0
0
0
0
57.3744
1
1
1
1
137
137
0.31
0.67
0.462761
0.471379
0
0
1
1
131
131
0.18
158.35
0.38832
54.97876
0
8
1
182.625
ACS Survival Descriptive Statistics
Royston-Parmar: ProgramFailure
Failure
Low Risk (Comparison)
Medium Risk
Odds
P>z Sig.
1.78
High Risk
1.71
Y-Intercept
-1.90
0.42
0
0.34
1
0.00
0
Number of obs.
LR chi2(2)
Prob > chi2
Log likelihood
114
1.12
0.5726
-52.384619
Pseudo R2
0.0105
Royston-Parmar with Control Variables
Predictors
Medium Risk
High Risk
GPS
Age
Male
Black
North
Spine_1
Spine_2
Spine_3
Spine_4
Spine_5
Spine_6
Spine_7
Spine_8
Spine_9
Constant
Odds
2.01
2.08
1.12
0.88
0.89
1.62
1.04
1.70
1.33
0.99
0.98
1.00
0.93
0.97
1.07
0.99
1.77
P>z
0.31
0.22
0.82
0.00
0.82
0.46
0.94
0.00
0.01
0.94
0.47
0.93
0.03
0.11
0.03
0.39
0.13
Sig.
**
**
**
*
*
Royston-Parmar Hazard Ratios
Questions or Comments