Draft (February 16, 2004) Offender Background The following information is compiled from information received from the department and from Senate staff. Information has been requested from the department but not yet received. Items shaded are events during a period of department supervision/custody and are supervision/custody issues only. 1. Criminal History Date Location Charge(s)/Events 4-26-93 Sarasota Arrested for Aggravated Battery and Loitering/Prowling 9-29-93 Sarasota Placed on probation for 2 years, special condition to serve 60 days county jail 10-18-93 Sarasota Arrested for Driving While License Suspended, charge dismissed, unknown date 4-13-94 Sarasota Arrested Fleeing and Eluding and Driving While License Suspended, found not guilty on one charge and fined $130.00 on the other 11-24-94 Sarasota Arrested for Battery-Domestic Violence, no information filed 9-28-95 Sarasota Probation terminated (normal) 4-7-97 Sarasota Traffic/Careless Driving, ordered to driving school 7-1-97 Sarasota Arrested for Carrying Concealed Weapon/Knife, placed on 1 year misd. probation 11-7-97 Manatee Arrested for Kidnapping/False Imprisonment, Battery, found not guilty and dismissal 1
7-1-98 Sarasota Probation terminated? 3-31-99 Sarasota Arrested for Possession of Heroin w/int. to Sell, Possession of Blank Prescription and Possession of Drugs w/o Prescription 4-21-99 Sarasota Arrested for Solicit. to Delivering Cocaine, case not filed 5-7-99 Sarasota Traffic/Failure to use due care, fined $28.00 11-18-99 Sarasota Traffic/Failure to provide proof of insurance and load dropping, found not guilty 12-27-99 Sarasota Traffic/Failure to change address, fined $44.00 3-1-00 Sarasota Placed on 18, 6 and 12 months probation, concurrent, for 3-31-99 arrest 3-2-00 Referred to out patient substance abuse treatment at First Step of Sarasota 4-26-00 Treatment began 5-4-00 Sarasota Arrested for Attempt to Obtain Controlled Substance by Fraud, placed on 1 year misd. probation, date unknown 7-19-00 Successfully terminated from treatment program 8-15-00 Violation of Probation (details unknown) 9-28-00 Placed on Community Control (Assume probation revoked) 10-10-00 Referred to out patient substance abuse treatment at First Step of Sarasota 12-20-00 Received evaluation and no services were recommended 2
5-29-01 Returned to regular probation status from community control 10-22-01 Sarasota Arrested for new drug offense and violation of probation??? 11-20-01 Sarasota Probation revoked, sentenced to 16.8 months state prison 12-13-01 Received at the CFRC of the department 2-19-02 Transferred to Washington CI 1-1-03 Released from Washington CI 1-9-03 Sarasota Arrested for Possession of Cocaine 3-6-03 Sarasota Placed on probation for 3 years (drug offender probation initially) 10-23-03 Violation report for positive drug test 8-22-03 Baker Act, suicidal 12-30-03 Violation report for failure to pay court ordered monetary 2. Social History Family: unknown Education: unknown Vocational: Self reported auto mechanic, carpenter Military: unknown 3
Residential: unknown 3. Medical/Mental Health Medical: unknown Mental Health: Reference to Baker act, suicidal, other history and details not known Substance Abuse: Substantial history reflected in criminal arrests and dispositions Areas for Discussion Upon request, Commission staff has attempted to quickly identify areas of possible action areas which could be considered practical and have some positive impact on the system. It is noted that the members of the Commission itself have not be involved in the development of this information and points of discussion. 1. Predictive Tools a. Current situation: The department employees a classification approach to the supervised population which is policy and science driven. The result of that combination is found in the following table: New Classification System As Applied to August 1, 2003 Population Excluded From Model by Policy Number of Cases Pretrial Intervention 7,717 Administrative 2,880 Community Control 9,205 Sex Offender 7,620 Total Exclusions 27,422 Overrides to Maximum 4
Post Prison Violent 2,572 Violent Offense 29,392 Career Criminal 4 Habitual Offender 784 Post Prison Non-Violent 905 Pending Violation Status 10,211 Total Overrides 43,868 Missing Values (Default to Maximum) 2,935 Offenders Scored by Model 49,103 Probation 41,077 Drug Offender Probation 8,026 Classification of 49,103 Number (Percent) Minimum 11,807 (24.0) Medium 26,399 (53.8) Maximum 10,897 22.2) Total Caseload With Overrides and PTI 103,623 Minimum 19,524 (18.8) Medium 26,399 (25.5) Maximum 57,700 (55.7) When examined by just the risk scheme, the following is determined: Classification of August 1, 2003 Supervised Population Without Policy Overrides Level Number Percent of Total Minimum 27,085 23.2 % Medium 60,721 51.9 % Maximum 29,128 24.9 % 5
Total 116, 934 100.0% The risk scheme employed by the department is a validated likelihood to fail approach which examines a wide number of variable that are in the department data base. The department then creates a scale and determines levels. The list of variables that are examined have been determined to have some predictive ability in identifying if any of the following may happen: 1. Commit a new offense 2. Abscond 3. Commit a technical violation Note that this information is not routinely a part of any submission to the court or the state attorney as far as we know. Other than that mentioned above, there is no additional examination of an offender's level of risk. At one time there was the use of a semi-structured interview technique employed for the community control population. The technique was called Client Management Classification (CMC). That is no longer used by the agency. It is interesting to compare current law regarding assessment of offenders in the juvenile system versus those in the adult. Chapter 985 imposes several requirements regarding offender assessment. Nothing exists on the adult side. Is there a gap? This is difficult to answer for a number of reasons. First, are there tools that are really valuable in determining risk? Is it appropriate to use such tools by the judicial branch in reaching decisions such as sentencing? Should the department be required to develop, implement and then provide such information to the court? If so, at what stages i.e., at the time of submission of a violation report? At any hearing on violation or at sentencing? Should there be a policy change structuring assessments as is currently provided for in the juvenile system? If so, who would have the operational and financial responsibility for such an approach? Most importantly, are there good tools, if not, can they be developed, tested and then implemented with a known outcome leading to a safer public? 6
One last point. Is there a need to be concerned about this prediction issue based on one incident, or a few incidents? The answer to that may lie in the following table. This data clearly demonstrates that the supervised population consists of a large number of offenders who have established criminal histories of a felonious nature. In addition, the table notes that the probation population has within it, a sizeable number of offenders with histories defying the general thought that probation is usually a first offender. In looking at the table, it is important to note that some probation cases are "split-sentence" cases, i.e., they served some prison time prior to beginning a period of probation supervision. Prior Commitments by Supervision Category (Active and Active-Suspense) August 2003 Prior Supervision Commitments Probation* Community Control** Post-Prison Release*** None 79,628 62.9% 4,634 37.4% 2,283 40.9% One 25,726 20.3% 3,822 30.9% 1,553 27.8% Two 11,345 9.0% 1,923 15.5% 917 16.4% Three 5,343 4.2% 1,010 8.2% 470 8.4% Four 2,528 2.0% 543 4.4% 225 4.0% Five or More 2,124 1.7% 454 3.7% 140 2.5% Prior State Prison Commitments None 109,688 86.6% 9,983 80.6% 2,292 41.0% One 10,493 8.3% 1,412 11.4% 1,314 23.5% Two 3,481 2.7% 518 4.2% 951 17.0% Three 1,544 1.2% 228 1.8% 558 10.0% Four 810 0.6% 144 1.2% 266 4.8% Five or More 678 0.5% 101 0.8% 207 3.7% 7
In summary, the current practice in community supervision does not involve the use of a comprehensive assessment of risk to the community. There does exist a framework and partial assessment. b. Proposal: Task appropriate research entity to examine the following: 1. Determine if efficient predictive tool(s) can be developed which address the narrow question of violence against children particularly, or population as a whole. 2. Determine if documented instances of probation (community supervision) failures involving murder, attempted murder, sexual battery, etc.; can be analyzed for the purpose of developing more sophisticated and reliable predictive tool(s). 3. If tool(s) are developed, pilot implementation to determine and resolve process questions and costs. 2. Consolidated Data The Smith case reveals the possibility that different jurisdictional data is not continually consolidated which would provide a more comprehensive view of the individual. In this case, data from local and state entities provide a comprehensive picture when consolidated into a single format. The chronological look is revealing. There is some question as to whether the absence of such a "look" leads to less than rigorous examination by relevant parties such as the probation officer, the assistant state attorney, the judge, etc... Is there merit to the examination of the development of techniques, which consolidate data? For example, does even the existing department classification scheme use the traffic and misdemeanor conviction data present in this case? If not, should there not be some effort made to examine the relative importance of that information in assessing risk? Proposal: Assign responsibility to appropriate entity to examine development of comprehensive database on each individual offender. That database would bring together all existing information such as driving history, local arrests and dispositions in addition to state agency information. Include in this examination the issues of juvenile history and out of state histories. 8
A continuing challenge is the fact that the circumstances of arrests are not automated. This information can only be gleaned from an examination of arrest reports or other investigative type documentation. This is critical for one aggravated battery may well be different than another. The mere presence of the words "aggravated battery" on a rap sheet may or may not be significant in the overall assessment of a given case. The assault of a woman by a man not known to the victim is much different than an assault by a man on another man at a bar. 3. Information Sharing a. Current Situation: The criminal sentencing event may or may not have comprehensive information concerning the defendant available to the court. In fact, department data suggests that less than 10 percent of sentencing events have a presentence investigation (PSI). This is believed to be substantially different than years ago when the use of the PSI was much higher. A partial reason for the decline in PSI use is believed to be the structured sentencing approach with the sentencing guidelines of 1983. Coupled with a need for efficiency as docket sizes grew, PSI's were not seen as an important part of the sentencing decision. In addition to the PSI issue, violation report content has changed substantially over the course of time. A reading of department policy and procedure will clearly show that less and less information was required with an emphasis now placed on short and concise reports containing no background information of any consequence. Of particular concern is the fact that there appears to be no current policy and practice that routinely provides the court, at the time of submission of the violation report or at the revocation hearing, possible alternatives. This would be particularly helpful in cases involving substance abuse when treatment issues may be the focal point of the decision making. It is also true when thinking of enhanced offender surveillance in lieu of incarceration with the use of electronic monitoring. Criminal punishment code and information. Should the fact that the current law permitting the imposition of the statutory maximum in the discretion of the court cause a change in the thinking of what information is relevant at sentencing events? 9
b. Proposal: Initiate a pilot project in an appropriate jurisdiction for the purpose of developing a process where the trial judges are provided with comprehensive information concerning criminal defendants prior to sentencing. Basic features of the information effort are: 1. Information content must be complete, including traffic, local arrest and disposition and state information, including juvenile, DCF and normal corrections and FDLE information. 2. Process should be developed to include the acquisition of information from the defendant in the social, medical and mental health areas. 3. Process design should be structured to insure conformance with necessary time and cost considerations such that little if any change in case processing is noted. 4. Items 1-3 should be considered in light of advances in information technology and overall emphasis should be placed development of consolidated information in a useable form. 4. Stakeholder Communication a. Current Situation There is no existing avenue permitting the frequent and free flowing exchange of information, concerns and issues from the executive to judicial branch and vice versa. In other words, little is done to promote the development of a mutual understanding of issues that confront each entity. Corrections is not generally aware of judicial concerns and the judiciary is not aware of corrections concerns. It is believed that no forum has been developed which would permit the exchange of ideas and issues. Instead, what occurs is anecdotal and usually limited to very localized communications. The same situation exists for the prosecution and defense sides of the criminal justice teams. What needs to be fleshed out is an effort designed to enhance communication between all parties in order to establish prompt remedies to existing or emerging problems. In addition, the use of technology should surely be exploited in order to enhance this communication issue. Stop and consider: The secretary of corrections has the current ability to communicate with every sitting criminal division judge, public defender and state attorney at the speed of an email. The same is true for every sitting judge, public defender, state attorney. There is little reason why certain issues cannot be surfaced, shared and matters resolved efficiently. Why is this important? Example: A statutory change affecting the 10
probation world can be immediately communicated. The rendering of a written opinion on probation issue can be immediately communicated and policy and procedure changes shared at the same time. Currently, there is no, repeat no central point of contact or authority which has taken on the responsibility of creating a viable and effective information sharing system that meets the needs and interests of all parties. b. Proposal: Charge appropriate entity(s) with the responsibility to develop and coordinated communication system for judges, public defenders, state attorneys, corrections and juvenile justice. 5. Role of Assistant State Attorney's in Revocation Process a. Current Situation: Upon a police officer preparing an offense report either before or after an arrest, the police officer provides that report and other investigative information to an assistant state attorney. That assistant then determines what, if any, charges should be formally filed by way of information. In that case of probation violations, such is not the case, instead, the state attorney's office is rarely involved in the presentation of allegations of violation to the court. As a result, corrections staff are generally without the benefit of legal review prior the presentation of documents to the court (warrant/affidavit, violation report form). The question is whether this practice is good, bad or simply not an issue. What is also the case, generally, is the fact that at any revocation hearing, preparation for such hearing is typically done solely by the officer with no legal assistance or review. While revocation hearings involve different due process standards, some issues are nevertheless critical, such as no revocation can be supported by hearsay evidence only. This example is meaningful as in order to establish some violations, it is necessary to introduce direct evidence and the probation officer may not have or be the direct evidence. In other words, some revocation hearings may take on the appearance of a criminal trial. It is not known what the level of assistant state attorney participation is in the process. For many years it has been reported anecdotally that little participation is to be found. While that is certainly not true in all locations, it does appear that probation officers are more than likely to rely upon their own devices in presenting violation matters to the court. This 11
fact may be tempered by another fact, which would be a large percentage of cases being plead out and not proceeding to an adversary hearing. This ratio of pleading to adversary hearing is not known. What do we know? The following data may be helpful. 3,400 violation of supervision reports (new crimes) monthly average for FY 2002-03 5,217 violation of supervision reports (technical) monthly average for FY 2002-03 8,617 monthly average total Note that these data are for all types of supervision, which would include parole, conditional release and other states in addition to probation, community control, etc. The total is estimated to be 90 percent Florida court related. From the Office of the State Courts Administrator, management reports indicate that an average of some 6,300 revocation hearings were conducted monthly in FY 2000-01. What is not clearly established is the nature of the process and interaction of actors across the state and some evaluation of whether a particular approach is better than another. In other words, does full involvement of the state attorney lead to measurable differences in process outcomes, and is that good? Proposal: Identify appropriate entity to develop and execute a comprehensive survey of process activities that take place across the state in revocation of supervision activities. As a part of this effort, the entity would attempt to identify measures which will lead to some potential public safety implications of the a given process. Again, what happens as an outcome, for example, when the state is directly involved, partially involved or not involved? 12
13