What’s the Risk?

Judges, probationer officers, and parole board members ask themselves this question almost every day.  What is the risk of this person re-offending during pretrial release if I grant an unsecured bond?  What is risk this probationer will commit a new crime and how closely does he need to be supervised as a result?  What is the risk this inmate will re-offend if he is released from incarceration?  This concern with risk is entirely appropriate.  A criminal justice system should not only punish offenders but try to reduce the likelihood of crime as well.  Evidence-based policy-making research suggests at least two important principles affecting management of risk in the criminal justice system:

1.  Find a scientifically reliable way to differentiate between high, medium, and low risk individuals.  The key to efficiency and effectiveness is to get better at tailoring supervision to the level of risk – at pretrial, sentencing or parole.  The first step is to identify the actual risk factors.  This is a relatively simple matter of statistical analysis.  Not all people seeking pretrial release are equally at risk of failing to appear or re-offending.  Not all probationers and parolees are equally at risk of recidivism.  Criminal justice systems tend to squander money, resources and effectiveness by treating everyone the same.  

2.  Increase supervision and treatment of high risk individuals and decrease supervision of low and moderate risk individuals.  The second important finding of the research is that criminal justice systems tend to spend too little time and resources on high risk individuals and too much on low and moderate risk individuals.  In many criminal justice systems, low-risk individuals are burdened with excessive conditions of release which in many cases almost guarantee more court appearances for violations of conditions of release which do not rise to the level of committing another offense.  At the same time, high-risk individuals are not closely monitored on probation and are allowed to commit repeated violations of probation until they eventually do commit another crime.  Research suggests that the best systems use their ability to differentiate between high and low-risk individuals to become more efficient and effective.

That is how costs go down and the crime rate goes down, too.         

For  a more extensive discussion of these principles and their use see the Kentucky Task Force on the Penal Code and Controlled Substances Act Report

Contributed by Glenn McClister

Fundamentals of Evidence-Based Policy-Making

Evidence-based policy-making is an attempt to identify and adopt policies scientifically proven to achieve desired results.  In the area of criminal justice, the ultimate goal is to reduce crime while at the same time reducing spending.  Believe it or not, this has been accomplished in many states.

So what are the fundamentals of evidence-based policy making in the criminal justice system?  What principles result in less crime at lower cost? Here they are:

  • Sort offenders scientifically by risk – Save the expensive jail and prison space for people who are statistically high risk.  In bond decisions, sentencing decisions, and parole board decisions, seek to avoid incarceration of low and moderate risk individuals and adopt community-based alternatives instead.
  •  Base intervention programs on science – Literally thousands of programs all over the country have been studied and evaluated for their success in reducing things such as failure to appear, committing new crimes while out on bail, and recidivism after re-entry into the community.  The research is ample and best practices are being identified.  Just as an example, the research is clear that most programs need to invest more in supervision of people identified as high risk and less in supervision of low and moderate risk individuals.  Implementation of evidence-based practices results in average decrease in crime of 10 to 20 percent.
  • Harness technology – Technological innovations have made supervision of people before trial, on probation, or on parole, much easier and effective.
  • Make sanctions for violations certain and proportionate – Probation officers with high caseloads, a lack of a range of appropriate sanctions, and who have to go through administrative hurdles to get a sanction imposed,  often delay seeking sanctions until a really serious offense has been committed.  HB 463 introduces a mandate for graduated sanctions to be imposed on those who violate probation or parole and gives courts the ability to grant probation officers the authority to impose those sanctions without prior approval of the court for each violation.  This reduces delay, reduces time probation officers have to spend in court, and reduces time violators spend in jail.
  • Measure progress – Ways must be identified and adopted to measure progress throughout the entire criminal justice system.  Which jails, prisons are saving money?  What is happening to the recidivism rate?  Which circuits or districts are reducing failure to appear among those released prior to trial?  How many more people are paying restitution?  How many more people are completing treatment in community-based services rather than being incarcerated? 
  • Create incentives for success -  HB 463 contains provisions for creating incentives for success at many levels – that of the individual probationer or parolee, of a circuit or district court, of statewide programs.

For  a more extensive discussion of these principles and their use see the Kentucky Task Force on the Penal Code and Controlled Substances Act Report

Contributed by Glenn McClister

Background: HB 463 as Evidence-Based Policy-Making

It is evident to anyone who surveys the contents of HB 463 that it is a penetrating reform affecting almost every facet of the criminal justice system.  But it is more than that.  It is, in fact, the instantiation of a coherent set of policy decisions which all have one thing in common:  they have been proven to work.  The best way to understand why HB 463 makes the changes it does is to understand HB 463 as a model of evidence-based policy-making.

Evidence-based policy-making is being applied throughout the criminal justice system nationwide - from best ways to deal with status offenders in juvenile court to best practices in re-entry of adult offenders back into the community.  The PEW Center for the States helps states to identify evidence-based policies and incorporate those policies into effective legislation. 

Here is a link to their report on Kentucky.  The final report of the Kentucky Task Force on the Penal Code and Controlled Substances Act, incorporating PEW suggestions into the Kentucky justice system, can be found here.  (Note: HB 463 did not include every recommendation in the report.)

Contributed by Glenn McClister

 

HB 463 Official Certified Copy Now Available

Most of the provisions of historic House Bill 463 become effective today.  Representing one of the most sweeping and comprehensive reforms of the criminal justice system in Kentucky in decades, the legislation is based on models which evidence shows have been effective in other states in not only lowering systemic costs but lowering recidivism as well. 

Here is the certified copy and all the statutes effected by HB 463 which are either already in effect or go into effect today.  Once legislation is passed it goes to the revisor of statutes to codify the legislated amendments and additions into the statutes effected by that legislation.  The only “official” or “final” copy of what those new or amended statutes look like belongs to the revisor of statutes.  These are all the statutes effected by HB 463 in their new and final form, including the emergency provisions regarding conditional discharge revocations and those which take effect today.  Those sections which will not take effect till 2012, 2013, etc. are NOT included.  The revisor of statutes has also provided a copy of his certification of the accuracy/authenticity of this copy of the newly revised statutes (he will keep the original on file in his office, as it says in the certification).

The statutes you’ll want to look at first include the KRS 218A statutes, KRS 431 statutes, KRS 532.080, and KRS 534.   

Contributed by Glenn McClister

Other HB 463 related resources

June 2011 Edition of The Advocate Newsletter

DPA District Court Manual (updated to include HB 463)

Stay tuned to this blog or subscribe to updates through email, Twitter or Facebook for more news about HB 463 implementation. 

 

John Adams: Founding Defender

The ABA celebrates Law Day this year by picking an individual attorney for its theme – something that has only happened once before since Law Day began in 1958.  In 2009 the ABA picked Abraham Lincoln as its Law Day “hero” – 2009 being the bicentennial of Lincoln’s birth.  This year the ABA has chosen John Adams for his lifelong dedication to the fact that even the most unpopular among us must be given due process and adequate representation. 

For a short article on Adam’s importance, see this ABA Journal
John Adams Gets His Day: The First Lawyer-President Set a Standard for Representing Unpopular Causes

Contributed by Glenn McClister

DPA District Court Manual Now Updated to Include HB 463 Other New Legislation

The third edition of the District Court Manual (47 pages) is now available. 

Revised to include the new pretrial risk assessment scoring used by AOC as of March 1, 2011 and to include all the new provisions of HB121 and HB463 which apply to district court practice – including the very important new provisions regarding arrest, bail and the changes to enhanceable offenses.  The relevant caselaw is up to date and new sections on appealing bail in district court and on earning credit toward old fines and costs under HB 463 have also been included.

Contributed by Glenn McClister