Evaluation of the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office Deferred Prosecution Program Presentation at ICJIA May 13 2015 Christine George, John Orwat, Don Stemen, Julie Hilvers, Jennifer Cossyleon, and Eddie Chong

Deferred Prosecution Program (DPP) Evaluation

• Purpose of the Evaluation (Began January 2013) • Best practices for replication • SB3349, Offender Initiative Program • DPP in Cook County as innovator • Contribute to literature Methodology Evaluation Approach

• Loyola Interdisciplinary research team: Center for Urban Research and Learning, Criminal Justice Dept., Social Work Dept. • Participatory evaluation Methodology Key Research Areas

• Based on Detailed RFP, with specific research questions: • Development of DPP • Operation and Service Delivery of DPP • Outcomes and Impacts of DPP

Methodology Data Collection Procedures

• Mixed methodology • Qualitative data • Participant observation • Interviews (both individual and group) • Program documents

• Quantitative data • Participant data from SAO, Pre-trial Services and TASC • Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) • Court data Cook County Clerk’s Office Methodology Select Data Sources

• Program staff, stakeholders and participants • Administrative data (SAO, DPP staff) • Case management data (Pre-Trial and TASC, Cook County Clerk of Court) • Criminal history data ( Illinois State Database, accessed via ICJIA). • CHRI data (used to track recidivism of DPP sample and comparison) • CC Clerk’s office court data Findings Development/Implementation of DPP

• DPP Incorporated and Supported within the Operations of States Attorney’s Office • Buy-in • Internal dissemination of program process and goals • Added to the routine assessments of cases by an ASA prior to • Strong Collaboration and Team Work • between SAO, Judge, Pre-trial Services • Flexibility of Program Design Findings Development/Implementation of DPP

• Modest program requirements - Goal of successful completion • Strong coordination • Strong support of leadership • Key role of director • Coordination of State Attorneys, Judge, and Pre-Trial Services • Fits into existing infrastructure • Non-traditional role of stakeholders • States Attorneys and Judge • Limited Role of Public Defenders • At Preliminary Hearing • Program participation Findings Attitude Toward Program—Overall Uniform Positive

• —appreciate non-traditional role, flexibility, “golden opportunity,” but DPP involves small percentage of cases that enter system • Public Defenders— “great program,” would like more input, high restitution, rotation of PD’s, judge as monitor, victims dictate entrance, expungement difficulties for graduates • Judges— “second chance,” good diversion • County officials— felt no input, lack of information about model, felt served small percentage of cases, questioned waiving preliminary hearing, suggest Felony Review Division role in reviewing cases • Program participants- welcomed opportunity, but raised some logistical issues– travel expenses, time consuming, restitution, expungement process, unclear guidelines Findings Program Participation Patterns

• Data from DPP Staff: • Number of Referrals – 1,295 • Number Enrolled – 1,232 (as of 3/21/14) Findings Number of DPP Admissions, by Month 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30

Number of Admissions 20 10 0 Jul 2011 Jul 2012 Jan 2013 Jun 2011 Jan 2012 Apr 2013 Jun 2012 Apr 2011 Oct 2011 Feb 2013 Apr 2012 Oct 2012 Sep 2011 Feb 2012 Dec 2011 Mar 2013 Sep 2012 Mar 2011 Dec 2012 Aug 2011 Nov 2011 Mar 2012 Aug 2012 Nov 2012 May 2013 May 2011 May 2012 Findings Number of DPP Admissions, by Referral Court

500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 Number of Admissions 50 0 Chicago District 2 - District 3 - District 4 - District 5 - District 6 - Branch Skokie Rolling Maywood Bridgeview Markham Meadows Findings Number of DPP Admissions, by Offense

300 250 200 150 100 50

Number of Admissions 0 Findings Number of DPP Admissions, by Offense (n=954)

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% Chicago Branch District 2 - District 3 - District 4 - District 5 - District 6 - (N=466) Skokie Rolling Maywood Bridgeview Markham (N=53) Meadows (N=38) (N=145) (N=95) (N=157) Retail Theft PSC/Cannabis Burglary Findings Service Needs, as Assessed by Pre-Trial Services

209 (23.5%) participants did not have a required service need Findings

Number of participants served by TASC according to data maintained by TASC

108

Not served by TASC (88.7%) Served by TASC (11.3%)

846 Findings Percent of Closed DPP Cases Nolle Pros and Terminated

31.40% Nolle Pros Terminated 68.60% Findings Percent of Closed DPP Cases Nolle Pros and Terminated, by Offense 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% Burlgary Retail Theft PSC/Cannabis Theft Possession of Forgery ID Theft Stolen Vehicle Nolle Pro Terminated Findings Percent of Closed DPP Cases Nolle Pros and Terminated, by Referral Court 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% Chicago Branch District 2 - Skokie District 3 - Rolling District 4 - District 5 - District 6 - Meadows Maywood Bridgeview Markham Nolle Pro Terminated Methodology Impact Analysis

• Sample • Treatment group = all DPP participants completing DPP between Feb 2011- Dec 2012 (n=695) • Comparison group = “DPP eligible” individuals not referred to DPP but adjudicated guilty in Cook County during same time period (n=991) • Outcome measures • Re- – defined as any arrest or warrant for arrest within 18 months of entry to DPP (treatment) or final disposition (comparison) • Time to re-arrest • Re-arrest was tracked for both treatment and comparison groups through June 2014 Methodology Impact Analysis • Independent variable • Admission to DPP • Individual co-variates • Current offense, criminal history, race, sex, age • Analyses • Binary logistic regression to examine effect of DPP on re-arrest relative to standard adjudication • Cox proportional regression models to examine the effect of DPP on time to re-arrest relative to standard adjudication Findings Re-Arrest Rates, Treatment and Comparison Groups

100%

80%

60%

40% 31.4% 34.6%

Percent Re-Arrested 20%

0% DPP Comparison Findings Impact Analysis • No significant effect of DPP on re-arrest • DPP participants were no more or less likely to recidivate than individuals adjudicated through traditional means • Factors associated with re-arrest • Sex (male) • Age (younger) • Prior arrest • Type of charge

• One significant difference: Older women charged with theft less likely to be re-arrested Findings Effects of Predictors on Likelihood of Re-Arrest

100%

80%

60% 47.0% 40% 18.0% 20% 13.0%

Percent change in odds 0% -3.0% -20% Male Age Prior Misd. Prior Fel. Findings Re-Arrest Rates, Treatment and Comparison Groups

100%

80%

60%

37.6% 38.1% 40% 27.8% 21.9%

Percent Re-Arrested 20%

0% DPP Men Comparison Men DPP Women Comparison Women Findings Impact Analysis

• No significant effect of DPP on time to re-arrest • DPP participants did not take longer to recidivate than individuals adjudicated through traditional means • Factors associated with time to re-arrest • Sex (male) • Age (younger) • Prior arrest • Type of charge Findings Re-Arrest Rates, Treatment and Comparison Groups

100%

80% 77.1%

60%

40% 34.6%

18.0% Percent Re-Arrested 20%

0% DPP Successful DPP Terminated Comparison Findings Re-Arrest Rates, Treatment and Comparison Groups

100%

80%

60% 53.7%

34.6% 40% 30.3%

Percent Re-Arrested 20%

0% DPP Successful or Term. Due DPP Terminated Comparison to Arrest Discussion DPP Programmatic Challenges I • Uneven implementation of DPP • “Unclear” entry criteria • No use of uniform screening tool

• Uneven use of discretion among State’s Attorneys • Limited training of new State Attorneys • Pre-Trial Services staffing burden (e.g. large caseloads) • Underutilization of

Discussion DPP Programmatic Challenges II • Participant Engagement • Narrow window for decision • Limited information about program requirements • Geographic constraints • Expungement Process • Limited communication • With criminal justice stakeholders/actors Discussion DPP Successes

• Leadership, buy-in and collaboration • Role of coordinator/ director • Implementation flexibility and responses (DPP pre- meeting, phone check ins with out of state respondents, re-training if SA’s) • Low cost of program, with caveats

Discussion DPP Successes

• Roughly 1,700 individuals have passed through DPP since implementation (Feb 2011-Feb 2015) • Given estimated graduation rates, roughly 1,300 of those individuals will successfully complete the program • In turn, 1,300 individuals avoid a felony conviction and the associated collateral consequences • In turn, the system avoids the formal adjudication process for these 1,300 individuals Research Limitations Process

• Difficulty recruiting private defense attorneys for interviews • Difficulty recruiting DPP participants despite collaboration with Pre-Trial • Added option for phone interview, recruited at weekly court calls, on site interview as option • Translated recruitment mechanisms for Spanish speaking clients • No attempt to recruit victims – info not maintained in central location (only in ASA case notes) Research Limitations Case management and Impact

• Data provided little info about program content, participation in services, or participant demographics (age, ethnicity, race, employment, education, income, substance use history etc.) for thorough recidivism analysis • Data prevented examination of other outcomes ( substance use, pro-social activities etc.) • Findings are suggestive and remain limited in ability to explain impact of DPP on participant outcomes Limitations Data Challenges

• Current data collection is limited on a number of factors • No data documenting State’s Attorneys use of discretion with participant selection • Don’t know the program participant “universe” • No data documenting who does not get into the program • No data to directly explore whether non-participants are more likely to “fail” compared to DPP participants • We don’t know which risk factors (or interventions) are more predictive with program outcomes • Inconsistency between Pre-Trial Services and TASC assessments • Limited demographic data to indicate which program participants are likely to succeed

Select Programmatic Recommendations

• Standardize screening procedures • Incorporate DPP a part of new SA initial training • Keep monitoring branch referrals • Include additional services for participants • Reconsider adding expungement process as part of program • Possibly re-evaluate meeting requirements for compliant participants • Spread awareness about program to Criminal Justice Stakeholders Thank you!!