Corrections Alternative Advisory Committee

1
Corrections Alternative Advisory Committee

• Presentation by Ginger Martin
• Oregon Department of Corrections
• August 2, 2006

2
Topics

• Community Corrections Act Principles and
  Practices
• Experiences with System Change
• Sanctions and Service Delivery
• Governance, Roles
• Funding
• Performance Monitoring

3
Oregon Department of Corrections
4
Community Corrections

• Evaluate each offenders likelihood to commit new
  crimes
• Monitor offenders according to behavior and risk
  to re-offend, concentrating their efforts on
  those offenders who are most likely to re-offend
• Holding offenders accountable to conditions of
  supervision
• Applying a continuum of effective community-based
  punishments according to behavior and risk to
  re-offend
• Offering programs designed to reduce the risk of
  a return to criminal activity

5
Community Corrections Act

• Legislative policy and intended purpose
• ORS 423.505

6
Oregon Community Corrections Act Guiding
Principles

• Support of Local Decision-Making
• Avoid Prison Costs
• Support Effective Practices

7
Principle Support of Local Decision-Making

• COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PARTNERSHIP ACT of 1995
• Full county participation
• Includes supervision, correctional treatment and
  services, and intermediate sanctions
• Felony probation, parole, and post-prison
  supervision

8
Principle Support of Local Decision-Making

• Promote Local CJS Planning
• Public Safety Coordinating Councils
• Mandated planning
• Increased local control and flexibility

9
Principle Avoid Prison Costs

• Transfer of Responsibility for Short Prison
  Sentences
• 12 months or less, including most revocations
• Construction projects to build local capacity
• Powers of the supervisory authority

10
Principle Effective Practices

• Administrative Sanctions (1993)
• Swift response to violations
• Use intermediate sanctions prior to revocation
• Consistency provided by sanctioning grid
• Reduce cost to the public

11
Principle Effective Practices

• Financial Consideration Improved System
• Coordinated local criminal justice response will
  impact crime better than a short prison stay
• Community based sanctions are effective against
  crime

12
Effectiveness of Community Sanctions

• Reconviction Rates

Risk Level
13
Why Change the System?

• Mandatory prison terms in a crowded prison system
• More than 25 of prison beds filled with
  revocations
• Local policy decisions drive that number
• Revocation practices vary widely from county to
  county

14
What Made the Change Acceptable?

• Multi-party negotiation
• Leadership, outside and inside corrections
• Data to answer the questions
• Perceived crisis
• History
• Principle-centered
• The poison pill

15
Benefits of the Changes

• Enhanced local planning and coordination
• Increased efficiency in using corrections
  resources
• Community owns community corrections
• Crime and corrections are better understood at
  the local level
• Local officials are more involved

16
Benefits of the Changes

• Improved relationships between local law
  enforcement and corrections
• Increased funding
• State-financed construction/capacity
• Funding neither rewards nor punishes local
  practices

17
Mix of Supervision, Services and Sanctions
18
Community-Based Services

• Alcohol/drug treatment
• Mental health treatment
• Sex offender treatment
• Domestic violence treatment
• Drug courts
• Cognitive restructuring
• Anger management

19
Community-Based Sanctions

• Electronic home detention
• Community service and work crews
• Intensive supervision
• Work release
• Day reporting
• Jail

20
Graduated Sanctions

• Funding includes dollars for community sanctions
• Administrative sanction process supports use of
  community sanctions
• History statewide policy to reduce technical
  revocations
• Present needed to manage local CJS resources

21
Governance Role of State

• Operate prisons
• Build local capacity (one time)
• Corrections Information System
• Interstate compact
• Jail inspections
• Sustain funding level at defined baseline based
  on actual costs

22
Role of the State Office

• Leadership for Community Corrections support the
  value of community corrections at the state and
  local level
• Work in partnership with counties open and
  participatory planning efforts
• Representation at the state legislature
• Clearinghouse for information and technical
  assistance

23
Role of Counties

• Operate community corrections agency
• Supervise felons on probation or following prison
• Carry out sentence for felons sentenced to prison
  for one year or less

24
Funding

• Policy impact of formulas
• Actual Cost
• Building the budget forecasting
• Distributing the dollars

25
Performance Indicators

• Process to develop performance indicators
• Goals of community corrections are to contribute
  to public safety and reduce the future criminal
  conduct

26
Performance Measures

• Reduce Criminal Behavior
• Reduce recidivism, as measured by felony
  convictions from initial admission to
  supervision, tracking for three years from
  admission.

27
Performance Measures

• Enforce Court and Board Orders
• Increase percentage of positive case closures

28
Performance Measures

• Assist Offenders to Change
• Increase employment rates for offenders on
  supervision.
• Increase the rate of participation in treatment
  programs for offenders on supervision.

29
Performance Measures

• Provide Reparation to Victims
• Increase the percentage of restitution and
  compensatory fines collected, owed to victims.
• Increase the number of community service hours
  provided by offenders on supervision. Reduce
  recidivism