Less Crime at Lower Costs Special Council on Criminal Justice Reform for Georgians Public Safety Performance Project October 2, 2012
Agenda Background State Examples: Less Crime at Lower Costs GA Juvenile Corrections: High Cost, Low Returns
Public Safety Performance Project Protect public safety Hold offenders accountable Control corrections costs Goal: Help states get a better public safety return on their corrections dollars
Special Council : 2011-2012 Special Council on Criminal Justice Reform for Georgians created by General Assembly Council undertook:» data-driven analysis of the adult system» development of policy options and recommendations HB 1176 passed the General Assembly unanimously Gov. Nathan Deal signed legislation into law Gov. Deal: a model of how the legislative process should work.
HB 1176 Passed General Assembly unanimously. Averts projected 8 percent increase in prison population and associated cumulative cost of $264 million over five years. Budget reinvests more than $17 million of the prison savings in into measures designed to reduce reoffending. Focus of HB 1176: Focus Prison Space on Serious Offenders Reduce Recidivism by Strengthening Probation and Alternative Sentencing Options Relieve Local Jail Crowding Improve Performance Measurement
Special Council: 2012-2013 Governor extends the Special Council through Executive Order and expands the membership. The state requests technical assistance from the Pew Center on the States and the Annie E. Casey Foundation. State leaders charge the Special Council with identifying ways to:» improve outcomes in the juvenile system» develop fiscally sound, data-driven juvenile justice policies» ensure Georgia s tax dollars are used effectively and efficiently
Phase I: Bipartisan, Inter-branch Process Data Analysis / System Assessment Policy Development Stakeholder Engagement Consensus Building
State Examples: Less Crime at Lower Costs
Case Study: Ohio Challenges: 40% increase in the state s juvenile custody population spanning the 13 years leading up to 1992 State s juvenile institutions operated at 180% of capacity Many counties did not have the resources to supervise juveniles locally
Case Study: Ohio Solution: RECLAIM Ohio Provides incentives to counties to develop and utilize communitybased alternatives Counties receive a formula based allotment, which is reduced for each juvenile committed to an institution Counties receive the remaining funds to use in the community on a monthly basis Targeted RECLAIM provides additional incentives for the six counties that commit the most youth to the state
Case Study: Ohio 1992 2011 Total average daily facility population Commitment rate for felony adjudicated youth
Case Study: Ohio 4 facility closures save As of 2009 in operational expenses in RECLAIM funds provided to local counties allocated to counties in FY2012 plus $16.7M through Youth Services Grant funded programs in 88 counties in FY2011
Case Study: Ohio Cost Benefit Analysis spent on a RECLAIM-funded local program instead of placement saves the state
Subsequent commitment rate Case Study: Ohio Recidivism rates by risk and placement type in Ohio 55 51 50 50 47 46 43 44 45 40 41 39 40 37 35 30 29 25 22 20 15 10 8 5 4 0 Low Moderate Risk level High Very High RECLAIM community supervision programs Community Corrections Facility (CCF) Department of Youth Services (DYS) release Department of Youth Services (DYS) discharge Lowenkamp & Latessa (2005). Evaluation of Ohio s RECLAIM Funded Programs
Case Study: Texas New funding to counties (2009-2012) Total average daily facility population (2007-2011) Juvenile arrests (2007-2010)
Georgia Juvenile Corrections: High Cost, Low Returns
Georgia's Historical Juvenile Disposed Population: Out-of-Home Youth 3,500 3,000 2,973 2,500 2,000 1,917 1,500 1,000 500 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
High Cost $100,000 $90,000 $80,000 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 Annual State Cost of Juvenile Placement vs. Education 1 $91,126 $88,155 YDC (per bed) RYDC (per bed) $28,955 Non-Secure Residential (per child) $3,139 $4,326 $5,408 Community Supervision (per child) K-12 (per child) UGS (per child)
Low Return on Investment Recidivism Rate: All Committed Youth = Youth Development Campuses = GA Department of Juvenile Justice
Key Findings Trends in Out-of-Home Youth Greater concentration of felons Increase in number of juveniles awaiting a long-term bed High percentage of low risk juveniles Non-Secure Residential: majority non-felony and non-violent, nearly half are low risk Recidivism remains high, half are re-adjudicated within three years Regardless of setting, public safety outcomes for out-of-home not improving Community-based options vary across the state DJJ spends more than 60% of its budget on out of-home Community based options are dependent upon location and funding
Youth Out-of-Home: Offense Class 2002 2011 Status 3% Status 15% Misd 28% Misd 21% Felony 57% Felony 76% n = 2,652 n = 1,870
Who is in the YDC? Status 10% 2002 Misd 1% 2011 Misd 22% Felony 68% Felony 99% n = 1,236 n = 619
Youth Out-of-Home: Legal Status 1,400 1,200 1,000 1,182 1,154 76% Increase in DF Out-of-Home 950 800 DF 600 400 541 540 311 Regular Commit STP 200 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Youth in YDC: Offense Types 2002 2011 Violent (30.8%) Violent (49.3%) Property (29.8%) Property (26.2%) Public Order (10.0%) Violent Sex (11.5%) Violent Sex (8.4%) Public Order (6.9%) VOP/VOAC/VOAP (8.2%) Weapons (3.1%) Drug Use (4.7%) VOP/VOAC/VOAP (1.9%) Weapons (3.4%) Drug Use (0.5%) Drug Selling (2.0%) Drug Selling (0.5%) Status (1.6%) Traffic (0.2%) Sex Non-Violent (0.6%) Traffic (0.5%)
Georgia's Juvenile Population: Youth Out-of-Home on June 30 1,600 1,450 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 863 660 698 619 600 YDC Non-Secure Resid RYDC 200 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Youth Out-of-Home: Risk Level 2004 2011 Low 42% High 16% Low 40% High 19% Medium 42% Medium 41% n = 2,367 n = 1,777
Youth in YDC: Risk Levels 500 450 400 In 2011: High = 25% Medium = 37% Low = 39% 350 300 250 200 High Medium Low 150 100 50 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 27
Designated Felons in the YDC: Risk Levels 350 300 In 2011: High = 24% Medium = 37% Low = 39% 250 200 150 High Medium Low 100 50 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Who is in the Non-Secure Residential Placements? 2002 Status 8% 2011 Status 20% Felony 45% Felony 47% Misd 35% Misd 45% n = 863 n = 584
Non-Secure Residential: Risk Levels 600 500 In 2011: High = 11% Medium = 40% Low = 49% 400 300 200 High Medium Low 100 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Recidivism for all Released Youth Percent 90 All Youth 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Recidivism: Youth at the YDCs Percent 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 YDC 6 percentage point increase since 2003 YDC 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
System Assessment: Key Finding on Community- Based Options Community-based options vary across the state DJJ spends more than 60% of its budget on out of-home. Community based options are dependent upon location and funding
Less Crime at Lower Costs Special Council on Criminal Justice Reform for Georgians Public Safety Performance Project October 2, 2012