Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Pretrial Decision Making and Officer SafetySACOP – SafeShield Committee Meeting Nashville, TN – March 10, 2013
Consequence of Uninformed Pretrial Release Decision Making
Officer Renninger
Officer Griswold
Officer Owens
Officer Richards
Lakewood, WA – November 29, 2009
IACP’s Stance on Pretrial
The IACP supports pretrial reform that would result in safe, fair, and effective pretrial release based on individual risk, rather than on the suspect’s financial means.
Voters say they would pay the most attention to judges and law enforcement officials, followed by crime victims’ groups and the Sheriffs’ Association. Retired judges, attorneys general, and public defenders also hold some sway.
8488
7682
7676
72
1511
20142121
24
44413733333129
7485
121010
Judges*
Law enforcement officials*
Crime victims' groups*
The Sheriff's Association*
Retired judges*
Attorneys general*
Public defenders*
Impact of Public Figures and Institutions No Attention Attention Net
+68
+76
+56
+68
+54
+55
+49
*Split-sample question. Darker colors indicate intensity
Three Key Questions
• Is risk assessment used for bail decision?
• Is it possible to hold a defendant on “no bail”?
• Is “no bail” preventive detention used?
The Purpose of Bail
1. Protect the integrity of the court process
2. Protect the public3. Protect against
punishment prior to conviction
Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951)
Bail must be fixed for each individualdefendant according to standards relevant to assuring the presence of that defendant.
Bond Schedules• Sometimes called
“standard bond”• The predominant
mechanism for assigning bail according to the National Pretrial Justice Survey
Bond Schedules
• Static/one dimensional
• Fail to factor individual risks and strengths of defendant
• Legislative mandate considerations
• Consideration of danger not part of process
• No individual conditions tailored to mitigate risk imposed/monitored
Offense-Based Risk Assessment
Offense Severity
Bond Amount
Actuarial Risk Assessment • What it is
• Data driven • Research informed• Objective aid to decision making• Used for decades in commerce
– Health, education, national security, etc. • What it isn’t
• Person-specific• A replacement for judicial discretion
Risk AssessmentAuto Insurance• Age• Distracted driving• Peer(s) in vehicle with
driver• Low driving skills• Low compliance with
traffic laws
Risk MitigationAuto Insurance
• Drivers education• Restrict nighttime driving• Prohibit peers as passengers• Strict enforcement • Seat belts, texting, etc.
How Does it Work?• Data sample is drawn and examined• Shared characteristics measured for predictive strength• Risk level assigned according to probabilities (low,
medium, high)• Model is tested to prevent unintended bias
Pretrial Outcomes in Kentucky
• Overall Release rate: 70%• Non-financial release rate: 66%• Rearrest rate: 8%• Failure to appear rate: 10%
Criminal Justice System?
The Goal of the EBDM Initiative• Test a “Framework” for evidence-based decision
making at the local level -- using evidence to inform decisions that lead to risk and harm reduction.
RECIDIVISM:a tendency to relapse into a previous condition or mode of behavior; especially : relapse into criminal behavior
- Merriam Webster
Key Decision PointsArrest Decisions Pretrial Status
DecisionsCharging Decisions
Local Institutional Release Decisions
Local Institutional Intervention
Decisions
Sentencing Decisions
Community Intervention
Decisions
Violation Response Decisions
Discharge from Criminal Justice
Intervention
Plea Decisions
Impact of Risk Level on Recidivism
020406080
Recidivism rates absent treatment
Likely recidivism with effective correctionsintervention
© The Carey Group 2008; www.thecareygroup.com; 651-226-4755
Applying the Risk Principle
• GET OUT OF THE WAY. Intensive treatment for lower-risk offenders can actually increase recidivism
• ZERO IN. Target those medium and high-risk offenders with a greater probability of recidivism
• LIVE IN THEIR BACK POCKET. Provide most intensive control to extreme high-risk offenders
Low
High
RESULTS DRIVEN PRACTICE
Use of actuarial tool
Professional judgment alone
Use of actuarial tool with professional judgment
Source: Patricia M. Harris, “What Community Supervision Officers Need to Know About Actuarial Risk Assessment and Clinical Judgement,” Federal Probation, Vol. 70, Nr. 2 (September 2006)
The Big FourCriminogenic Need Response
Anti-social cognition Reduce anti-social cognition, recognize risky thinking and feelings, adopt an alternative identity
Anti-social companions Reduce association with criminals, enhance contact with pro-social
Anti-social personality or temperament Build problem solving, self management, anger management, and coping skills
Family and/or marital Reduce conflict, build positive relationships and communication, enhance monitoring/supervision
Source: Andrews, Donald A. (2007), “Principles of Effective Correctional Programs”, in Motiuk, Laurence L. and Serin, Ralph C. (2007). Compendium 2000 on Effective Correctional Programming. Correctional Service Canada. Available at http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/compendium/2000/index-eng.shtml
The Lesser FourCriminogenic Need Response
Substance abuse Reduce usage, reduce the supports for abuse behavior, enhance alternatives to abuse
Employment Provide employment seeking and keeping skills
School Enhance performance rewards and satisfaction
Leisure and/or recreation Enhance involvement and satisfaction in pro-social activities
© The Carey Group 2008; www.thecareygroup.com; 651-226-4755
Source: Andrews, Donald A. (2007), “Principles of Effective Correctional Programs”, in Motiuk, Laurence L. and Serin, Ralph C. (2007). Compendium 2000 on Effective Correctional Programming. Correctional Service Canada. Available at http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/compendium/2000/index-eng.shtml
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3
Recidivism Reductions as a Function of Targeting Multiple Criminogenic vs. Non-Criminogenic Needs*
Better outcomes
Poorer outcomes
More criminogenic than non-criminogenic needs
More non-criminogenic than criminogenic needs
Source: Andrews, Donald A., Dowden, C., and Gendreau, P. (1999). “Clinically relevant and psychologically informed approaches to reduced reoffending: A meta-analytic study of human service, risk, need, responsivity, and other concerns in justice contexts.” Unpublished manuscript; Dowden, C., (1998) “A meta-analytic examination of the risk, need and responsivity principles and their importance within the rehabilitation debate,” unpublished master’s thesis
The Big Four Principles of Evidence-Based Practice
Risk Need Responsivity Fidelity
Based on Research + 4 Principles• The professional judgment of criminal justice system decision makers is
enhanced when informed by evidence-based knowledge.
• Every interaction within the criminal justice system offers an opportunity to contribute to harm reduction.
• Systems achieve better outcomes when they operate collaboratively at the individual, agency, and system levels.
• The criminal justice system will continually learn and improve when professionals make decisions based on the collection, analysis, and use of data and information
Sentenced, 25%
Pretrial, 60%
Awaiting Sentencing, 2% Violation, 7%
Other, 6%
Snapshot of Jail Average Daily Population by Status
Mental Health
District Attorney
Public Defender
Probation
Sheriff
Judges
Criminal Justice
Services
Parole
Private Defense
Bar
Other LE Agencies
CJS Leadership
Group
Himmelman, A., Collaboration For a Change: Definitions, Models, Roles, and a Guide to Collaborative Processes (1994).
Networking
CoordinatingCooperating
Collaborating
RETHINKING OFFENDER MANAGEMENTAddressing challenges through GPS tracking
The Greensboro and Charlotte North Carolina Experiences
Ken Miller, Chief of PoliceGreensboro, NC
IntroductionCriminal Justice System
Understaffed, underfunded, and overloadedNC case resolution: 8-15 monthsDismissals or pleas to lesser offensesProbation in lieu of incarceration
Repeat OffendersRobbery, burglary, larceny from auto, auto theft Insufficient structure or accountability
IntroductionPre-trial myths
Secure bonds equate to reduced riskPre-trial programs create unnecessary community riskPre-trial programs waste valuable CJ System dollars
Bonding regulations do not prevent abuseMay issue and intentionally revoke bondBonding via extension of credit
Agreements do not require judicial approvalAgreements are not public recordsUnreasonable payment plans fuel crime
IntroductionRethinking offender management
Leverage technology and structureCJ System-wide prioritization of offenders
Low-risk offenders = no/low bond and structured releaseHi-risk offenders = high bond and structured releaseOptimal utilization of existing jail beds
Magistrate/Judge ordered conditions of releaseCurfews, territorial restrictions, rehabilitation services, etcGPS reinforcedPolice/Sheriff monitoredCan pair GPS data with RMS for crime correlation
Electronic Monitoring Program Goals
Leverage technology/structure to reduce recidivism violenceproperty crimes
Promote community safety
ObjectivesReinforced structure for offenderProvide offender support for successFull and swift accountability for violations
Success> 88% compliance rate< 4% recidivism rate< 8% administrative rules failure rate
1818181800-0600 Home Curfew
24/7 Exclusion Zone
Offender Set Up
24/7 Exclusion Zone
Exclusion Zone #1
Exclusion Zone #2
Exclusion Zone #3
Gang Exclusion Zones
November 28, 2009 – Charlotte, NC• 911 report of shots fired in a community park• A vehicle is on fire in the park• Police arrive within minutes• Body discovered in the charred vehicle• EMU contacted and suspect developed within minutes of 911 call
Murder Crime-Correlation
Murder Crime-Correlation
Historical points were able to track the offender back to a gas station purchasing gas prior to the murder.
Murder Crime-Correlation
CJ System BenefitsProsecutorial
Fewer crimes from prior offendersStronger prosecutionsQuicker adjudication
JudicialGreater assurance of no additional crimesGreater flexibility in release/probation conditionsGreater confidence in offender behaviorLess expensive alternative
ConclusionChanging our priorities and focus
GPS-reinforced structure can improve system effectiveness and reduce recidivism
Prioritization of offenders improves CJ System performance at all levels
Pre-trial services perform valued function for low risk offenders of modest means
Offenders more inclined to put theirlives back on track
Call to Action
• Ask the Three Key Questions• Is risk assessment used for bail decision?• Is it possible to hold a defendant on “no bail”?• Is “no bail” preventive detention used?
• Engage in state-level conversation • Continue the conversation with us
Contact Information
Ken Miller Chief of PoliceGreensboro, [email protected]
Stan HilkeyMesa County [email protected]
Tim MurrayPretrial Justice [email protected]
Dianne [email protected]
