EBDM in Milwaukee

1
EBDM in Milwaukee
2
Mission

• The mission of the Milwaukee County Community
  Justice Council (CJC) is to work collaboratively
  to ensure a fair, efficient, and effective
  justice system that enhances public safety and
  quality of life in our community.

3
Goals of CJC

• Enhance public safety
• Foster collaboration among agencies
• Create efficiencies in the use of limited
  resources
• Implement sustainable evidence-based practices
• Educate the community about justice-related
  issues
• Engage neighborhoods in productive responses to
  crime social disorder

4
Executive Committee

• Milwaukee County Circuit Court Chief Judge -
  Jeffrey Kremers (Chair)
• Milwaukee County Sheriff - David Clarke, Jr.
• County Executive - Chris Abele
• Milwaukee County District Attorney - John
  Chisholm
• Milwaukee County Sheriffs Office - Richard
  Schmidt, Inspector
• County Supervisor - Willie Johnson, Jr.
• City of Milwaukee Mayor - Tom Barrett
• City of Milwaukee Chief of Police - Edward Flynn
• First Assistant Public Defender - Tom Reed
• Department of Corrections - Roberta Gaither,
  Regional Chief

5
Evidence-Based Decision Making

• Using evidence to inform decisions throughout the
  criminal justice system at the case level,
  agency level, and system level.
• Mapping current criminal justice system process
  in Milwaukee and identifying key decision points
  where evidence-based programs/ policies could be
  introduced. For example
• Universal Screening
• Diversion Deferred
• Prosecution Agreements (DPA)

• Dosage Based Sentencing
• Crisis Intervention Training (CIT)
• Bail Determinations

Our commitment to the discipline of EBDM will
enable us to hold offenders accountable, reduce
the overall crime rate and recidivism, and give
taxpayers a better return on the dollars they
invest in criminal justice.
6
Why is EBDM so critical?

• Current criminal justice system practices are
  fiscally unsustainable.
• Evidence-based practices produce better outcomes
  throughout the system, increasing community
  safety.
• Milwaukee has a disproportionate number of
  individuals involved with the criminal justice
  system, contributing to racial disparity . We
  need to develop/expand more effective and
  efficient responses.
• Community engagement and support is critically
  important to improving the justice system.

7
Department of Corrections Spending
Source Legislative Fiscal Bureau, Information
Papers on Adult Corrections
8

• Prison Admissions by Race (2009-10)

• Prison Admissions by County (2007)

While 6.2 of WIs population is African
American, the same population represents 51 of
prison admissions.
While Milwaukee County makes up 16 of the
states population, it is responsible for 37 of
prison admissions.
Source Council of State Governments Justice
Center, Justice Reinvestment in Wisconsin
Source Legislative Fiscal Bureau, Information
Papers on Adult Corrections
9
Why Does the Community Need to be Engaged?

• Community members are more familiar with
  neighborhood problems than the criminal justice
  agencies are and may have more practical
  solutions.
• The effectiveness of the criminal justice system
  has a considerable impact on the quality of life
  in your neighborhood.
• Crime and incarceration are not evenly
  distributed. There are hot spots that
  experience a churning of the population as
  residents are sent to prison and then return, as
  less employable adults, to the same neighborhood.
• Costs for these neighborhoods make up a
  significant percentage of costs for criminal
  justice, child welfare, and other social
  services.

10
(No Transcript)
11
Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release Detention

• Shared Goal - Apply Evidence-Based Decision
  Making to Pretrial Release and Detention
• Enhance Public Safety
• Good Stewards of Public Funds
• Best Utilization of Limited and Precious
  Resources
• Jail
• Pretrial Services
• Courts
• Public Defender
• District Attorney
• Law Enforcement
• Treatment Services and Community Resources

12
Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release Detention

• Measuring Managing Risk What the Evidence
  Tells Us
• Risk is Inherent in Pretrial Release
• Our system of justice DEMANDS that we take risk
  for most pretrial defendants
• Question is not IF we take risk Question is
  How well do we MEASURE risk and how well do we
  MANAGE it
• Release and detention decisions focus primarily
  on the charge not the risk posed
• Pretrial release and detention is often
• determined by resources not risk
• Enhancing public safety and being good
• stewards of public funds requires us
• to manage release and detention based on RISK

13
Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release Detention

• Measuring Managing Risk What the Evidence
  Tells Us
• Risk Principle (pretrial)
• Pretrial Risk Assessment in the Federal Court
  (Department of Justice, Office of Federal
  Detention Trustee, 2009)
• Moderate and higher risk defendants who were
  required to participate in alternatives to
  detention (ATD) pending trial were more likely
  to succeed pending trial
• Lower risk defendants who were required to
  participate in ATD pending trial were more likely
  to fail pending trial
• Third-party Custodian, Substance Abuse Testing,
  Substance Abuse Treatment, Location Monitoring,
  Housing and Shelter

14
Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release Detention

• Measuring Managing Risk What the Evidence
  Tells Us
• Monetary bail does improve court appearance rates
  for higher risk defendants
• Monetary bail does not improve court appearance
  rates for low risk defendants and can have
  negative consequences
• Monetary bail does not improve community safety
• Implementing differential pretrial supervision
  strategies based on pretrial risk does improve
  pretrial outcomes
• Jurisdictions that employ court reminder
  notification procedures have significantly
  reduced FTA rates

15
Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release Detention

• Measuring Managing Risk What the Evidence
  Tells Us
• LAW requires a defendant be released on the least
  restrictive terms and conditions reasonably
  necessary to assure court appearance and
  community safety
• RESEARCH demonstrates that if we follow the law
  we will achieve the best outcomes (and your
  shared goal)
• PRAXIS - puts the law research into practice
• PRAXIS is a tool that puts theoretical knowledge
  and research into practice

16
Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release Detention

• Milwaukee County Research Pretrial Risk
  Assessment
• Develop pretrial risk assessment tool for use by
  Milwaukee County which classify risk of pretrial
  failure for all pretrial defendants EXCEPT
  domestic violence (FTA New Arrest)
• Data used for analysis provided by Justice 2000
  WCS and includes all (3,202) defendants released
  between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010 to
• Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse (AODA) program
• Pretrial Mental Health program
• GPS program
• Pretrial OWI program

17
Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release Detention

• Milwaukee County Research Pretrial Risk
  Assessment
• Examine available common predictors of pretrial
  outcome
• Best predictors of pretrial outcome
• Cases Filed
• Prior Failure to Appear in Court
• Arrested While Out on Bond
• Employment/Primary Caregiver
• Residence
• UNCOPE Score (measure of risk for substance abuse
  or dependence)

18
Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release Detention

• Milwaukee County Research Pretrial Risk
  Assessment
• Cases Filed total number of criminal case
  filings
• 1 case 86.7 (0 points)
• 2-3 cases 81.7 (1 point)
• 4 cases 73.3 (2 points)
• Prior Failure to Appear in Court total number
  of FTAs
• 0 FTA 93.3 (0 points)
• 1 FTA 79.7 (1 point)
• 2 FTA 66.8 (2 points)
• 3 FTA 60.1 (3 points)
• Arrested While Out on Bond on pretrial release
  at the time of the alleged offense
• No 82.9 ( 0 points)
• Yes 73.0 (1 point)

19
Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release Detention

• Milwaukee County Research Pretrial Risk
  Assessment
• Employment/ Primary Caregiver primary caregiver
  or employed full time at the time of the arrest
• Yes 85.9 (0 points)
• No 77.4 (1 point)
• Residence time at current residence
• 1 year or more 84.7 (0 points)
• Less than one year 78.4 (1 point)
• UNCOPE Score total UNCOPE score
• 0, 1, or 2 score 85.1 (0 points)
• 3 cases score 75.9 (1 point)

20
Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release Detention

• Milwaukee County Research Pretrial Risk
  Assessment
• Failure to Appear/New Criminal Activity Rates by
  Risk Category

Risk Category FTA/NCA (Failure Rates)
I (0-2) 7
II (3-5) 19
III (6-7) 33
IV (8-9) 41
21
Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release Detention

• Milwaukee County Research Praxis
• PRAXIS is a tool that puts theoretical knowledge
  and research into practice
• Considers the offense type and risk level - 6
  grids
• Provides guidance for bond types, ranges,
  supervision levels, and supervised conditions
• Does NOT apply to cases involving domestic
  violence
• The Praxis provides a set of
  recommendations, a consistent, systematic
  starting point for the parties and the court to
  make decisions about bail Chief Judge Kremers

22
A grid for almost every offense
Misdemeanor/Cr Traff
Felony
Risk level Bond type Range Supervision level Supervised Conditions
I
II
III
IV
Risk level Bond type Range Supervision level Supervised Conditions
I
II
III
IV
Misdemeanor/risk injury
Felony/risk injury
Risk level Bond type Range Supervision level Supervised Conditions
I
II
III
IV
Risk level Bond type Range Supervision level Supervised Conditions
I
II
III
IV
OWI misdemeanor
OWI Felony
Risk level Bond type Range Supervision level Supervised Conditions
I
II
III
IV
Risk level Bond type Range Supervision level Supervised Conditions
I
II
III
IV
23
Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release Detention

• Milwaukee County Research Praxis
• Considers the offense type and risk level - 6
  grids
• Grid 1 Misdemeanor and Criminal Traffic
  (Excluding OWI and Risk of Injury)
• Grid 2 Misdemeanor Risk of Injury (Excluding
  Domestic Violence)
• Grid 3 Felony (Excluding OWI and Risk of
  Injury)
• Grid 4 Felony Risk of Injury (Excluding
  Domestic Violence)
• Grid 5 Misdemeanor Operating While Intoxicated
• Grid 6 Felony Operating While Intoxicated

24
Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release Detention

• Milwaukee County Research Praxis
• Bond Types and Ranges
• Personal Recognizance Low 0 to 250
• Personal Recognizance Moderate 250 to 750
• Personal Recognizance High 750 to 2,500
• Cash Low 0 to 500
• Cash Low/Moderate 500 to 2,500
• Cash Moderate 2,500 to 10,000
• Cash High Minimum of 10,000

25
Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release Detention

• Milwaukee County Research Praxis
• Supervision Levels

STANDARD ENHANCED INTENSIVE
Face-to-Face Contact Monthly Every other week Weekly
Alternative Contact (phone, text, e-mail) 1 x/month Every other week NA
Supervised Conditions Compliance Verification As authorized As authorized As authorized
Court Date Reminder X X X
Criminal History/CJIS Check X X X
26
Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release Detention

• Milwaukee County Research Praxis
• Conditions Authorized

CONDITION Authorized when the defendant
DRUG TESTING Is eligible for supervision according to the Praxis AND Scores 3 or greater on UNCOPE
PORTABLE BREATHALYZER TESTING Is eligible for supervision according to Grids 1-4 of the Praxis AND Scores 3 or greater on UNCOPE OR Is eligible for supervision on OWI Grids 5-6
GPS MONITORING Qualifies for Intensive Supervision on Grids 2-4 OR Concern exists for victim safety/no contact monitoring
27
Praxis Preview
Professional judgment
Actuarial research
Professional judgment Actuarial research
28
Praxis Hypothetical

• Shirley, 42, charged with burglary while armed,
  PTAC, breaking into home of mother of boyfriends
  other child, to settle a score
• 4 previous cases filed
• 1 previous FTA
• Primary caregiver
• Residence lt 1 yr
• UNCOPE score of 3

29
Praxis Hypothetical

• Shirley, 42, charged with burglary while armed,
  PTAC, breaking into home of mother of boyfriends
  other child, to settle a score
• 4 previous cases filed 2 pts
• 1 previous FTA 1 pt
• Primary caregiver 0 pts
• Residence lt 1 yr 1 pt
• UNCOPE score of 3 1 pt

30
Praxis Hypothetical

• Shirley, 42, charged with burglary while armed,
  PTAC, breaking into home of mother of boyfriends
  other child, to settle a score
• 4 previous cases filed, most recent in 1990
• 1 previous FTA, most recent in 1990
• Primary caregiver
• Residence lt 1 yr
• UNCOPE score of 3

31
Praxis Hypothetical

• Shirley, 42, charged with burglary while armed,
  PTAC, breaking into home of mother of boyfriends
  other child, to settle a score
• 4 previous cases filed
• 1 previous FTA, 2010, extradited from Mexico
• Primary caregiver
• Residence lt 1 yr
• UNCOPE score of 3

32
Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release Detention

• Milwaukee County Research Praxis

33
Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release Detention

• Milwaukee County Next Steps

34
Evidence-Based Decision Making Initiative System
Scorecard

• Four Commitments We Make to Criminal Justice in
  Milwaukee
• The Milwaukee County Criminal Justice Council, a
  collaboration of all stakeholders in Milwaukees
  justice system, is firmly committed to greater
  accountability in criminal justice and better
  stewardship of criminal justice resources.
• To make this vision a reality, we are
  implementing Four Systemic Changes with the
  assistance of the National Institute of
  Corrections and the Bureau of Justice Assistance.
  
• By applying what research and data tell us about
  what works in protecting the community, holding
  offenders accountable and making the smartest
  possible use of our limited resources, by the end
  of 2013 we will
• 1. Reduce by 25 the number of people with mental
  health needs who lose their benefits due to being
  jailed or losing housing, and increase by 25 the
  number of individuals with mental health needs
  who are reconnected to the services they need
  within 20 days after arrest.
• 2. Safely release and/or supervise 15 more
  pretrial detainees in the community rather than
  in jail, generating at least 1,000,000 in
  savings that can be reinvested in the community,
  and at the same time reduce by at least 40 the
  already low rates at which defendants waiting for
  trial fail to follow pretrial rules.
• 3. Divert or defer prosecution in 10 more cases
  than we do currently, holding offenders
  accountable, compensating victims and reducing
  recidivism, while generating at least 350,000 in
  savings that can be reinvested in the community.
• 4. Demonstrate in a pilot project that by
  terminating probation as soon as an offender in
  need of treatment has received sufficient
  treatment, we can cut the cost of probation by at
  least 50 and at the same time reduce probation
  recidivism by 50