Jus$ce Reinvestment in Pennsylvania First Presenta+on to the Pennsylvania Jus+ce Reinvestment Working Group March 9, 2016 Carl Reynolds, Senior Legal and Policy Advisor Marc Pelka, Deputy Director Ed Weckerly, Research Manager Patrick Armstrong, Policy Analyst Working Group Composi+on Josh Shapiro Mark Bergstrom Tyree Blocker Mark Brunelle Randy Albright Sally Barry Chairman, Execu+ve Director, Commissioner, Execu+ve Deputy Secretary, Chief Proba+on Officer, Pennsylvania Commission Pennsylvania Commission Pennsylvania Chief of Staff to the Office of the Budget Lebanon County on Crime and Delinquency on Sentencing State Police Governor Theodore Dallas William Danowski Michael Green Tom Darr Sarah E. Galbally Senator Secretary, Pennsylvania Secretary, Chairman, Pennsylvania Court Administrator Secretary, Stewart Greenleaf Department of Human Governor's Office Board of Proba+on and of Pennsylvania Governor’s Office of 12th Senatorial District Services of Legisla+ve Affairs Policy and Planning Parole Hon. Jolene Michael Hanna, Jr. Elliot Howsie Robert Jolley Ellen Greenlee Mary Isenhour Grubb Kopriva Deputy Secretary, Director and Chief President, Pennsylvania Defender Associa+on of Chief of Staff, President Judge, Governor's Office of Public Defender of Chiefs of Police Philadelphia (Ret.) Governor's Office Blair County Legisla+ve Affairs Allegheny County Associa+on Les Neri Kathleen Kane Linda Kelly Senator Representa$ve Edward Marsico, Jr. President, Fraternal Order Pennsylvania Court Administrator, Daylin Leach Ron Marsico District ATorney, of Police - Pennsylvania ATorney General Allegheny County 17th Senatorial District 105th Legisla+ve District Dauphin County State Lodge Mavis Nimoh Brinda Carroll Penyak Representa$ve Linda Rosenberg Denise Smyler Keith Snyder Secretary, County Commissioners Execu+ve Director, General Counsel, Execu+ve Director, Joseph Petrarca Pennsylvania Board Associa+on of Pennsylvania Commission Governor’s Office of Juvenile Court Judges' 55th Legisla+ve District of Pardons Pennsylvania on Crime and Delinquency General Counsel Commission Gary Tennis John Wetzel Hon. Sheila Jennifer Storm Edward Sweeney Seth Williams Secretary, Pennsylvania Secretary, Pennsylvania Woods-Skipper Vic+m Advocate, Office Director of Correc+ons, District ATorney, Department of Drug and Department of President Judge, of Vic+m Advocate Lehigh County Philadelphia County Alcohol Programs Correc+ons Philadelphia County Council of State Governments Jus+ce Center 2 Pennsylvania leaders have indicated strong interest in and commitment to jus+ce reinvestment (JR). Pennsylvania Jus+ce Reinvestment Launch Event, February 18, 2016 Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarna$ “We need to reduce recidivism to benefit our communi;es and help ensure that taxpayer dollars that are being sent to Harrisburg are being used produc;vely.” House Speaker Mike Turzai “When legislators from both sides of the aisle work together to tackle these tough issues, we create genuine results. We proved that with a jus;ce reinvestment approach we took in 2012.” Governor Tom Wolf “A broken criminal jus;ce system is a failure to deliver on the promise of a fair Chief Jus$ce Thomas Saylor and just society, and we must all work “Jus;ce reinvestment provides a clear together to ensure Pennsylvania leads the opportunity to do a thoughIul analysis of na;on in rehabilita;on and not our criminal jus;ce challenges.” incarcera;on.” Council of State Governments Jus+ce Center 3 Council of State Governments (CSG) Jus+ce Center • Na+onal nonprofit, nonpar+san membership associa+on of state government officials • Engages members of all three branches of state government • Jus+ce Center provides prac+cal, nonpar+san advice informed by the best available evidence Council of State Governments Jus+ce Center 4 Presenta+on Overview Jus$ce Reinvestment Key Challenges Next Steps Council of State Governments Jus+ce Center 5 A data-driven approach to reduce correc1ons spending and reinvest savings in strategies that can decrease recidivism and increase public safety The Jus+ce Reinvestment Ini+a+ve is supported by funding from the U.S. Department of Jus+ce’s Bureau of Jus$ce Assistance (BJA) and The Pew Charitable Trusts Council of State Governments Jus+ce Center 6 Jus+ce reinvestment offers states a comprehensive step-by-step process. Bipar$san, Interbranch Assemble prac;;oners and leaders; receive and 1 Working Group consider informa;on, reports, and policies Data compiled from across the criminal 2 Data Analysis jus;ce system for comprehensive analysis Complement data analysis with input from 3 Stakeholder Engagement stakeholder groups and interested par;es Develop Policy Op$ons Present a policy framework to reduce correc;ons 4 & Es$mate Impacts costs, increase public safety, and project the impacts Iden;fy assistance needed for implementa;on and 5 Implement New Policies deliver technical assistance for reinvestment strategies Target Reinvestments & Track and monitor the impact of enacted policies and 6 Monitor Key Measures programs, and adjust implementa;on plan as needed Council of State Governments Jus+ce Center 7 CSG has worked on jus+ce reinvestment in 21 states, with five underway in 2016 including a return to Pennsylvania. 2016 States WA NH MT ND VT MA ID WI MI RI PA NV NE CT IN OH WV KS NC AZ OK AR AL TX HI Council of State Governments Jus+ce Center 8 Pennsylvania’s previous JR project led to a data-driven policy framework, which was then converted to legisla+on. 2012 Policy Framework • Reduce inefficiencies in the correc+ons and parole process • Priori+ze CCC/CCFs for higher-risk parolees who benefit most from the intensive programs • Apply shortened periods of incarcera+on to technical parole violators followed by supervision • Provide performance-driven funding to help divert misdemeanants and the short-minimum- sentence prison popula+on • Expand local resources to reduce recidivism Council of State Governments Jus+ce Center 9 Although implementa+on of policies enacted in 2012 has varied in +ming and impact, it has s+ll generated significant savings. Reducing inefficiencies Address inefficiencies that delay decision-making in parole by Efficiencies have in parole increasing the propor+on of parole cases interviewed per month increased paroles decision making Priori$zing use Redesign CCCs and CCFs as parole transi+on and viola+on centers, of CCC/CCF prohibi+ng “pre-release” offenders and priori+zing the placement Some programs of higher-risk parolees improvements but room Applying shorter periods of Respond to major technical parole viola+ons with shortened for more incarcera$on for parole periods of incarcera+on in SCI followed by supervision. violators Addressing Require low-level misdemeanants (UM and M3) to be Impact less low-level sentenced to a sanc+on other than prison than expected offenders in prison Diver$ng Delay in the short-min Provide funding to help coun+es divert misdemeanants and funding has impaired short-minimum sentence popula+on (<1 year in prison) popula$on impact Through avoided construc+on, facility closures, and annualized opera+ng cost savings, the DOC es+mates that the total averted costs in the three years since JRI 2012 are $285 million. Council of State Governments Jus+ce Center 10 With savings increasing each year, nearly $4 million has been reinvested since 2012. Implementa$on Reinvestments Act 122 (FY2015–2016 Total) Calcula$on of generated savings Vic$m services FY2012–2013 FY2013–2014 FY2014–2015 Crea$on of guidelines $1,000,000 $57,000 $990,719 $11,812,718 for proba$on and parole violators including Risk assessment intermediate sanc$ons $400,000 Increased eligibility for Savings required for reinvestment boot camp, RRRI, and Policing SIP FY2013–2014 FY2014–2015 FY2015–2016 $668,000 75% 100% ($21m cap) 25% Sentencing low-level offenders (UM and M3) Proba$on to a sanc$on other than $404,000 prison Total reinvested County short-min Crea$on of high- FY2013–2014 FY2014–2015 FY2015–2016 diversion intensity supervision $43,000 $990,719 $2,953,000 $326,000 programs for county proba$on Local reentry Caps on length of stay $62,000 During implementa+on, state agencies recognized some barriers to for technical parole achieving the full impact of Acts 122 and 196 of 2012. Important violators administra+ve policy adjustments were made in the laTer stages of the Parole release implementa+on period to increase impact and generate greater savings. $93,000 Council of State Governments Jus+ce Center 11 Despite recent reduc+ons, the prison popula+on is 36 percent higher than in 2000. Pennsylvania Prison Popula+on, 2000–2015 2013-2015 Jus+ce reinvestment legisla+on passed -3% 50,000 49,914 51,512 2000-2015 40,000 +36% 36,810 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Source: DOC Annual Sta+s+cal Reports. Council of State Governments Jus+ce Center 12 The 2016 jus+ce reinvestment project differs from the 2012 effort in +meline, scope, and data analysis. Pennsylvania Jus$ce Reinvestment 2012 2016 5 months 10 months Timeline Launched in January 2012 with policy Project launch in March 2016; policy op+ons developed by May 2012 op+ons targeted for January 2017 Primarily focused on Comprehensive Examina$on Scope Prison and Parole Including arrest, diversion, pretrial, sentencing, proba+on, jail, prison and parole State Research Staff CSG Research Staff Partnering with state research staff Provided discrete data sets and analy+cal Analysis to conduct case-level analysis; support; cross-system analyses limited linking of data across systems Council