The URL can be used to link to this page

2013-914-Minutes for Meeting January 07,2013 Recorded 4/30/2013COUNTY NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,F000NTY CLERKDS COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 04/30/2013 11;40;39 AM II II Il~l~llnllll~lll~ll II ~II 2 1 -114 i Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page DESCHUTES COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL tUG~JT cO`za, n < MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 2013 Allen Rom, County Administration Building, 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR MINUTES OF MEETING Present were Commissioners Alan Unger, Tammy Baney and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Senior Judge (retired) Michael Sullivan, Interim County Administrator Tom Anderson; Deputy County Administrator Erik Kropp; Sheriff Larry Blanton; Court Administrator Jeff Hall; Scott Johnson, Health Services; Eileen Stein, City of Sisters Manager; Jacques DeKalb, defense attorney; Rob Poirier and Sara Crosswhite, 9-1-1 Service District; Nathan Garibay, Redmond Police Department; and Corey Darling, Bend Police Department. Also in attendance were Dave Cook, citizen member; Carl Rhodes, Oregon State Police; Donna McClung, Oregon Youth Authority; Ken Hales, Community Corrections;, Ken Hales, Community Corrections; Charles Puch, Juvenile Corrections; John McCall; Bend Police Department; Shelly Smith, KIDS Center; Denney Kelley, Black Butte Ranch Police Department; District Attorney Patrick Flaherty; Tanner Wark, Parole & Probation; citizen Marilyn Burwell for Immigrant Family Advocates; Roger Olson for NAMI of Central Oregon; and John MacAuley of KBND Radio 1110. 1. Call to Order & Introductions Senior Judge Michael Sullivan explained that he would now be a citizen member, as it is his first day of retirement. 2. October 2012 Minutes Ken Hales moved approval of the October 2012 minutes as written; Eileen Stein seconded; the minutes were unanimously approved. Minutes of PSCC Meeting Monday, January 7, 2013 Page 1 of 11 3. Public Comment Sheriff Blanton advised that former Judge Joseph Thalhofer passed away on January 5, and services are in Bend on Friday at St. Francis Catholic Church. He was a District Court Judge for over thirty years. Judge Sullivan noted that Mr. Thalhofer had a large, extended family here. No other comments were offered. 4. Oregon Commission on Public Safety Recommendations Judge Sullivan briefly reviewed the recommendations and welcomed comments. Ken Hales said that Tanner Wark participated in the Commission's meetings. They are monitoring recommendations, focusing primarily on ways to reduce demands on prison space. He anticipates if there are any significant reductions in those numbers or how long prisoners can be held, they may not have to build or staff more prisons. A big part of the Governor's recommendations is based in large part on this. He would shift savings to community services. This was not unanimously supported. The District Attorney did not support this and had alternative recommendations. This would mean a significant change in public safety and policy. It is a significant fiscal item as well as a public safety issue. This would impact the prison population. It would involve modifications to Measure 11, with options. Each would have different impacts. They are shooting for a negative number to save prison beds. Sheriff Blanton said that part of the Public Safety Commission represents the Sheriff s Association. Some ideas were shot over the bow on how to reduce expenditures. Few were submitted as potential recommendations, but there is the potential of additional responsibilities at the County level. They will take a look at Measures 11 and 1145, but sentencing structure is still in the works. Some Sheriffs on the committees are looking at ways to reduce costs. He is on the food committee. This County pays about $1.30 per meal while the State serves meals for about $2.50 each. There are union and other issues to consider. The County contracts this out. Minutes of PSCC Meeting Monday, January 7, 2013 Page 2of11 There are a lot of things that still need discussion. This is a call for a legislative concept. There is a potential to add 1145 dollars per se, and submit for reimbursement for programs. 1145 dollars are not an issue right now. There would be potential savings to the State, and the Department of Corrections should be worked back into reimbursement. Part of the Governor's cost savings for the Department of Corrections assumes a significant cost reduction for PERS. It is a really loose scenario now. He is trying to pay attention to it due to potential issues. Mr. Hales asked if the Sheriff anticipates the Association will articulate support or will oppose it. Sheriff Blanton responded that they voted on a number of recommendations, but approved just a few. The District Attorney is at about the same place. They meet in Salem at the Department of Justice, and the District Attorney and Sheriff's Association are okay with a few ideas, but not others. Mr. Hales stated that after reading the report, it seems that the District Attorney's Association is not supportive of Measure 11 crime changes and early release, and a few others. Some are supported but may not change the population. It talks about specialty courts, oversight and structured sanctions. Sheriff Blanton said that the main thing is that this has been a work in progress for decades. Attention needs to be given through positive policing and programs. It should trend down if those are in place. The primary concern is making it work here. It is potentially passed down from the State, it will cause local issues. In his opinion, that is what is going on. District Attorney Flaherty noted that the Sheriff is correct. The Oregon District Attorneys Association has followed lock-step with the alternative report. Some are supported, but it began as an all-out effort to undermine mandatory sentencing. The first salvo was for low risk offenders, and this sparked the ODAA to take aggressive action. Every County has some of these. Once the ODAA decimated the offender data, the Commission took on a different tact. It makes sense for recommendations to align the threshold for some things with federal guidelines. Specialty courts here lead the way and should expand. But the ODAA does not want to undermine the public referendum by changing things back, like time served. Minutes of PSCC Meeting Monday, January 7, 2013 Page 3 of 11 Scott Johnson stated there are questions regarding financial information, especially costibenefit information as it relates to specialty courts. Mr. Hales said that they looked at fiscal impacts if something impacts beds. Some don't. Fiscal impact has to do with the number of beds. Sheriff Blanton noted that the sole focus was to cut costs at the Department of Justice. Jeff Hale said there were 37 recommendations. In regard to the drug court, they get a $2.41 return on each dollar invested. Sheriff Blanton stated that it does not state that this is not funded by the State. District Attorney Flaherty when they were looking at how to reduce DOC cots, they did not look at how to do this internally. This not how you become more efficient. Sheriff Blanton said that at presentations at the State Sheriff s conference, it was said that State has to provide things differently since they feel the counties just have to hold people for a few days. He noted that the local jail sometimes has people for three or four years. They were quickly reminded that the counties have the same problems. Some inmates don't need to be there, and some don't need to be there as long. Research is pervasive that after a period of time, the benefit of incarceration has lapsed and there may be more benefit in letting them out. Community corrections, with treatment and paying restitution, makes sense. Some of these ideas are supported by the DDA. Judge Sullivan said that some belong in jail for community protection and can never be rehabilitated. The challenge is figuring out which ones. A lot of people can be rehabilitated while some never can. Sheriff Blanton noted that Measure 11 was voted on by the people. Some agree, some don't. But he is to uphold and support what the people want. He and others are cast in the middle of something awkward. No further comments were offered. Minutes of PSCC Meeting Monday, January 7, 2013 Page 4 of 11 5. Juvenile Detention Needs Assessment Mr. Hales highlighted the needs assessment report from Chinn Planning, regarding Juvenile Community Justice. Part of the key findings is that the detention center costs about $2.8 million to operate. The average daily population dropped to an average of 11, so the current facility is 50% utilized; two of four housing units. Also the Deschutes County admission rate is half of comparison counties. The detention rate is higher, and those who are admitted stay longer. The admission policy is fairly strict and they don't admit all offenders. Juvenile detention centers are expensive to build. A survey of some shows the average bed space of 1,100 to 1,200 square feet per detainee. Construction costs here would be about $375,000 to $400,000 per square feet. The consultant did a number of projections. It was linear, with a zero increase, but most felt this is unrealistic. Additional projects were based on averages and current population, as well as length of stay. There is no magic formula. They have to rely on their own best judgment. In some, the assessment was for 24 to 36 beds in the next thirty years. They identified and looked at relocation options, but they are all very expensive and the cost per day becomes more as the number of beds goes down. The cost of building a new facility is prohibitive. The value per bed and utility of the old facility provided less than the best conditions and a high expense per bed. The Board was more interested in what could be done with the work center. They want to maintain a target date of July 1 to relocate the adults, and asked staff to work with architects to reconfigure the work center to house more juveniles with less staff. That work began today. Commissioner Baney asked about the numbers for beds over five or ten years, with some from other counties. She asked if the number would be the same if it were just for Deschutes County youth. Mr. Hales replied that part is driven by the average daily population, plus the peaking factor. The idea behind that is if you construct a facility, you need capacity for the average plus the peak. The analysis is unique in that the peaking factor is greater than that at other facilities. Minutes of PSCC Meeting Monday, January 7, 2013 Page 5 of 11 Judge Sullivan asked how many beds they would have in the work center. Mr. Hales said there would be a minimum of twelve or as many as 1.6. If it is on the lower side, they won't have capacity for the peak numbers. As a result, they would have to force policy decisions regarding intake. Efforts will be made to remove staffing costs and use just one unit, but there can be no multiple classifications. Otherwise it would require a separate housing unit, with costs the same whether there is one or 12 beds. They have over 6 FTE for round the clock care as required. They will be looking at how to apply staffing within the unit. Judge Sullivan asked how they could have 16 rather than 12. Mr. Hales explained that the initial concept is to relocate the showers. There are impediments since in the middle of the housing units there is a shear wall. This makes construction expensive. The architect said it is cheaper to build out a wall; to extend out to add beds instead. There would be other design challenges for a sally port. Commissioner Baney asked if they would be able to keep the programing. Mr. Hales replied that other space would be available, so they could have a classroom and breakout room and some administrative space, but not the same level as now. They would give up a lot with recreation areas, such as basketball. It would be multi-purpose space. An outdoor recreation area may be available some months. Mr. Johnson asked about gaps in service and whether other enhancements might be offered. Mr. Hales said that other things should be part of the continuum because an absence of those would aggravate the system. A good example of that is shelter beds, a handful of beds for those who can't go home. This is a very limited resource. Judge Sullivan asked about those with special needs. Mr. Hales responded that there would be no separate housing for those persons. Mr. Flaherty asked if the predicted rate correlates with the juvenile court filing rate. Mr. Hales said that the averages have gone down. Based on the recommended consensus, it is 31 per 1,000. Minutes of PSCC Meeting Monday, January 7, 2013 Page 6 of 11 Judge Brady stated that the admission criteria now used keeps the population artificially low. It is strict criteria. Ms. Chinn noted that if the criteria were more typical, it would have been much higher. The peak rate would change to 30%. What this means is that the courts will need to be involved in the front end, with intake criteria, and handle complaints from law enforcement regarding kids that they want to see be taken in. The far end requires a court order; matrixing would be used if they are at capacity. They would need a priority list. This could happen in the middle of the night or on a weekend, so the process needs to be approved in advance. Mr. Hales stated that the complicating factor is the matrix. There may not be anyone around to release the kids to. There has to be a responsible adult. Commissioner Baney noted that a system of care is critical. At the end of the day, they don't want to detain them any longer than necessary. They need to know what is lacking in the community; the safety nets. Jeff Hall said that the impression is a lot of that is already in place. Those who need to be are locked up. This is a strict intake policy. However, the length of stay is longer. These are youth involved in personal felonies, sex crimes and other serious thighs. Sheriff Blanton asked why there is such a strict intake policy, which keeps the numbers artificially low; whether this is a philosophy. Mr. Hales said that it is a policy that reflects a philosophy, to detain those who are a greater risk to self or others. Many places hold the others as well. Sheriff Blanton asked what happens if there is a first-time minor in possession offense. Mr. Hales stated that the parents get a letter. The difference has been in the second offense. If there has been a letter or prior contacts, there is then an interview with the court. Sheriff Blanton said that he doesn't know whether a letter to the parents will make an impact. It seems like it becomes the responsibility of the Sheriff s Office to issue temporary drivers' licenses for a suspended license. They can submit for a provisional drivers' license to get to school or work. Minutes of PSCC Meeting Monday, January 7, 2013 Page 7 of 11 Letters to parents regarding poor decisions, controlled substances or a DUI or drug issues don't seem like much. Mr. Hales said these are not delinquency offenses but violations. There is greater success with diversion. About 85% of those cases are one time only. They don't want them in the system. The approach is not so much correctional, but support. The Sheriff said his office does "shop with a cop". When they deliver gifts to a home, they want to assume the parents are responsible, but that is an assumption that should not be made. Sometimes the place smells like alcohol or meth, the power is turned off, and so on. A lot of people make one-time mistakes but the hope is they have a parent around who will be responsible. Mr. Hales said that if the person is on conditional release or probation and has a new delinquent offense, they are held for a hearing. If it ratchets up, there is no risk to the public and they are less likely to be held. Judge Adler stated that the committee reviewed options, and she understands juvenile will be moved from the current facility, but it was to be a long-term plan. The Courts are looking at this change being short-term since it does not fill needs, and have to release those that should be held. This is a one- or two-year plan in her view. Mr. Hales said he can't answer this. He helped design it so it can be more staff-efficient while meeting the minimums. Commissioner Baney explained the direction was not for a long-range plan. It is an interim step to figure out projected needs and to right-size. Fully- loaded would be what they are investing in, to keep kids out altogether. There have been too many programs lost that should not have been. Mr. Hales said they are designing a risk assessment tool, and identifying current practices. This does not change anything until they have to respond to capacity issues. Minutes of PSCC Meeting Monday, January 7, 2013 Page 8 of 11 Judge Brady said in 2012, 43% was peak. If the average is 14 to 17, the peak rate is much higher. Mr. Hales replied that the average might be 12, but some days it might be 20. This can happen when there is a specific event that might mean they get four at once. Commissioner Baney asked if the only option is matrixing, or if they could instead contract out. Mr. Hales said that certain things can be done immediately. Contracting is a tool, but can't be routinely used. If someone is being held for thirty days, they might go to another location. But population management will be difficult. Commissioner DeBone said they are looking at millions of dollars down the road. This is going back to a solution for a while. It might be a bonding issue to add to the adult jail or for other needs. It is a big problem. Ruth Burwell asked if there are mental health issues, whether the County has a secure facility for those people. Commissioner Baney said they have a 16- bed facility and a system of care, which they did not have before. They also have a five-bed facility. However, it is not for prisoners. Instead of enhancing the jail setting, they need to get appropriate care outside of that. But the Sheriff is trying to create mental health units. Sheriff Blanton indicated that the State used to help with this, but stopped. They are not equipped to handle this problem. Eileen Stein said that it would be good to build upon mental health services instead, to take the pressure off. Judge Sullivan noted that this is ongoing, for adults as well as juveniles. Some people are receptive to treatment and some aren't. The primary purpose of the jail and juvenile is not to treat mental health issues. Sheriff Blanton said they are changing this somewhat to better help them. Judge Sullivan stated that this needs additional space. There is a concern about this and the constant search for resources. It is a huge expense to build more just for mental health issues. Ms. Stein noted that the question is whether people are willing to tax themselves to make this happen. Minutes of PSCC Meeting Monday, January 7, 2013 Page 9 of 11 Officer Garibay said that Redmond had 604 juvenile arrests in 2009 and 731 in 2011. The increase is in criminal arrests. The general population increase is flat. Some of these offenders are frequent fliers. Mr. Flaherty noted that this might be tied to cutbacks in the school resource officer program. The community is young. They lost 20% of staff At one point they had six sworn officers. They are trying to bring this back and add after school programs. Ms. Stein asked if the trend is down nationally. Mr. Hales said that it is in both adult and juvenile except for some areas. Some reasons are better police practices and better correctional practices and therapy. In actuality, crime had gotten so bad that it could be sustained at that level. The crime- prone age is smaller than it used to be. Drug crime has gone from kids on street corners to adults in buildings. This is a demographics change. After two or three decades of Planned Parenthood, the number of teen mothers is down as well. All of this indicates stronger sociological health. Ms. McClung asked about taking kids from out of county. Mr. Hales said they have no 30-day programs. They will hold those arrested here. Then it becomes as space is available, but won't keep them. They will be detained if there is a warrant. Ms. McClung said it is helpful to have the report and objective information. 6. Other Business Judge Sullivan said in advance of the next meeting, it is a good time to ask what the group wants to do regarding a Chair for PSCC. There should be a Vice Chair as well. Sometimes there is a need to question how things are done. He asked if they feel the day of the meetings should change; whether there is a better day or time. It seems like Mondays are bad for the Courts anyway. The same is true for the District Attorney, getting in new cases from the weekend. This will be discussed further at the next meeting. Rob Poirier introduced Sara Crosswhite, the new operations manager at 911, who will back him up when needed. Minutes of PSCC Meeting Monday, January 7, 2013 Page 10 of 11 Being no further items brought before the group, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bonnie Baker Recording Secretary Attachments • Agenda Sign-in sheets • Summary of Commission on Public Safety Recommendations • Juvenile Services Needs Assessment Minutes of PSCC Meeting Monday, January 7, 2013 Page 11 of 11 DESCHUTES COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL w Z~ q { 4'3-r ES co Monday, January 7, 2013 - 3:30 p.m. Allen Rom, County Administration Building, 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR AGENDA I Call to Order & Introductions Judge Sullivan II October Minutes Attachment 1 Judge Sullivan Action: Approve October 2012 minutes III Public Comment Judge Sullivan IV Oregon Commission on Public Safety Attachment 2 Judge Sullivan Discussion on Public Safety Commission Recommendations V Juvenile Detention Needs Assessment Attachment 3 Ken Hales Briefs council on needs assessment report from Chinn Planning VI Other Business Judge Sullivan z z 0 W to 4 W J a v a 0 C L v L v Q. z z V %A W W J CL I II~~ I I I I DO +r C OJ E I it ro Z I I', c V ~ ~ <J vVi I4 aV ~ ~ II v C O m _O c L CD Q) Cl. Commission on Public Safety Recommendations Summary 1. Weight Thresholds for Marijuana Recommendation: Align marijuana weight thresholds in Oregon with the federal marijuana weight thresholds and set sentencing ranges according to the new thresholds. This reform would be prospective and would not apply to offenders currently in the custody of DOC. 2. Presumptive Sentences for Driving While Suspended Recommendation: Reduce penalties for felony DWS sentences so that the presumptive sentence is either a jail or probation sentence. This reform would be prospective and would not apply to offenders currently in the custody of DOC. 3. Sentences for Robbery 2nd, Assault 2nd, and Sex Abuse 1st- M11 Mpdifka*m Recommendation 1: Remove Robbery 2nd, Assault 2nd, and Sex Abuse 1st from the list of offenses with required mandatory minimum sentences and allow judges to sentence offenders based on current sentencing guidelines, which take into account criminal history and seriousness of offense. This reform would be prospective and would not apply to offenders currently in the custody of the DOC. OR Recommendation 2: Reduce the mandatory minimum sentence for Robbery 2nd, Assault 2nd, and Sex Abuse 1st to 36 months. This reform would be prospective and would not apply to offenders currently in the custody of DOC. 4. Sentences for Certain Repeat Property and Drug Offenses - M57 Modification Recommendation 1: Provide a wider sentence range for repeat property offenders (19-24 months or 13- 18 months, depending on the seriousness of the offense and the criminal history) and retain the mandatory sentence requirements for repeat drug offenders who target minors. This reform would be prospective and would not apply to offenders currently in the custody of DOC. OR Recommendation 2: Establish an opt-out provision (avaiilable to judges only in extenuating circumstances) that allows departure from the required sentence. This reform would be prospective and would not apply to offenders currently in the custody of DOC. S. Transitional Leave Recommendation: Extend transitional leave to 90 days and strengthen the transitional leave application process such that DOC and community corrections proactively assist eligible inmates in applying and preparing a case plan. This reform would be prospective and would not apply to offenders currently in the custody of DOC. 6. Earned Time Recommendation: Expand earned time so that eligible offenders can earn an additional 10 percent (with the possibility of exiting prison after serving 70 percent of their sentence) for participating in programs and exhibiting positive conduct. The Commission emphasized that this policy must include rigorous conditions. Offenders would have to earn their time off. Earned time should never be automatically given to offenders as credit for time simply spent in prison. Additionally, this reform would not be available to offenders with non-qualifying concurrent sentences, would not require resentencing of any offenders, and would not apply to offenders currently in the custody of DOC. 1 7. Alternative to Incarceration Program Recommendation: Expand AIP access by changing AIP to an "opt out" instead of an "opt in," making AIP the default option that can be affirmatively prohibited by the sentencing judge. This policy would be prospective and would not apply to offenders currently in the custody of DOC. 8. Earned Review for Youth Offenders: "Second Look" Recommendation: Allow all youth offenders sentenced as adults to be reviewed by a judge at 50 percent and 75 percent of their sentences upon petition by the Oregon Youth Authority (OYA). This policy would be prospective and would not apply to youth offenders currently in the custody of OYA. 9. Community Corrections Earned Discharge Recommendation: For offenders on probation and post-prison supervision, allow community supervision officers to calculate day-for-day earned time and terminate supervision based on credit earned for satisfying the conditions of supervision and participation in recidivism reduction programs. 10. Structured Sanctions Recommendation: Prohibit the judgment order from restricting the use of structured sanctions in response to non-criminal violations of supervision 11. Supervision Conditions Recommendation: Require conditions of probation be determined with the guidance of a risk and needs assessment by the supervising officer at the community corrections level. 12. Oversight Entity Recommendation: Establish an oversight entity, including representatives from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches as well as from across the public safety sector, to track the implementation and outcomes of the public safety reforms. For the next four years, the entity should meet quarterly and submit annual progress reports to the Governor and the legislature. 13. Definition of Recidivism Recommendation: Establish and expand the definition of recidivism in statute to include re-arrest, re- conviction, and re-incarceration. Require that these recidivism outcomes be reported at least annually to an oversight entity, and that the rates be reported by offender risk levels. 14. Specialty Courts Standards Recommendation: Require statewide standards based on the 37 recommendations from the Oregon study and the key components document for data collection, staff training, specialty court team composition, and eligibility criteria that focus on moderate- to high-risk offenders. 15. Correctional Forecasts Recommendation: Require that OEA publish its margin of error and include a breakdown of growth in its six-month forecast reports such that any growth or decline is attributed, where possible, to specific policies or to specific components of the "baseline" (e.g. population demographics or crime trends). 16. Program Evaluation Recommendation: Strengthen statutory standards for the terms "evidence-based" and "cost-effective" by requiring the use of the CJC Cost-benefit Analysis tool to assess and guide all state investments in correctional programs. Additionally, strengthen statutory standards for evaluation to encourage the best possible evaluations of correctional programs including randomized controlled trials where possible and appropriate. 2 17. Fiscal Impact Notes Recommendation: Require a 10-year time horizon in required fiscal impact statements for legislation and initiatives that change sentencing or corrections policies. 18. Performance Incentive Funding Recommendation: Create a voluntary performance incentive grant program that provides fiscal incentives for counties to reduce recidivism and safely reduce their impact on the state prison population. This incentive funding program would be in addition to, and not supplant, the Community Corrections Partnership Act (SB 1145) baseline funding for community supervision. In addition, counties receiving a performance incentive grant would also have the option of holding offenders sentenced from 12-15 months in local control. 19. DOC Cost Per Inmate Per Day Recommendation: Set a legislative target to reduce the DOC cost per inmate per day by a specified percentage in the next 10 years and ensure that reducing the cost per day does not diminish public safety outcomes and holds harmless prison security and recidivism reduction programs. Impact Scenarios Policy Option 1 2 3 Marijuana x x x DWS x x x M11 Modification Option 1 x M57 Modification Option 1 x M11 Modification Option 2 x M57 Modification Option 2 x Earned Time x Transitional Leave x x AIP x x Juvenile Earned Review x x Prison Bed Impacts 2-year DOC Bed Impact -786 -278 -90 10-year DOC Bed Impact -2,498 -1,128 -129 2-year OYA Bed Impact -31 -8 0 10-year OYA Bed Impact -197 -180 0 ~I 1 C O a1 L O C~ s V to 0 v U o Z ❑ E O w cf) ~ ~ Z Gov Q W CL wo > -0 w j U ~ a Z ~ z U W ~ z C L t 5 i~ CO W ■ N W 7 O Al c L W G N W, N V 4i d~ da N ai u N a `c F E O C> 7 U N w U r fi fi 1 0. fi V cn w www www ~i. c~ wrw■ .i, Q OE CD ev ~C ~ aD aD JtD Lx1 13~ N (D N ~ (q m aD C4 M! N N P.: N H O La w ~ ~ V C LO ~ ( 0 . H 4 ~ a 17L 3 7 A A U vl a O 0 NO O t N C O N CL c O c N N 0 r m m c r a r 6 L 0 as f+ ~ rN1w 11 ~ • 0 O ~ ~ ds 7- (n Ny C 3 ~ 0 O~ C C a w o v W ~ N w ~44 C x r i .s V C 7 N U U h h a m N E O C s O N O d) C L CL a~ a .0 3 cc D - > a 0 c E ~ C 0 C r 0 m y N ~ v •c 7 U_ 'p O O E C 7 G 7 0 cri N C O C 20- C to . N N ~ a N D v1 N O of ~ N O _ V ~ ~ t C : ~ O C O t0 pN C y yp N•rn CL C O © cII U a a 61 fi fi ro a fi V L v LL O d 1 i C ~ M L .L] L N cn V- -o ~ N 'p Lo C C © m ~ N v Cr a c C CD ~ s D1 7 cry 0- LL C C N N ~ N N ~ N A LO C1 ti C a e .fi v V i O i a~ o ,4w cc a° 0 a~ a' O d 4w 4) ri~ 1 m o .n Wr r► It 0 r m 10 co W) r, qi r rei v N r rl N ~ In N 0 0 N N r0 OD N tp r^ t0 CA ~ tp (V M T 4 oi C O r- T © Gs 4 01 v . r r r r N rw r- N 9 M ao r1 Vr ao •r +r W~ q ,t o r- o e r C1 cl) w (X 40 r- in r o ri Oi o r- r r r or W w to 't h O rv Cl Oa 00 O rn O OR O O * P- • Ol b QO cc W) ' N ^ 9l t0 Cl OR 1 r n M ill r,.! r rn c! GD rl 11 OR %l q n r w! ag M O OD 'r %n A 1[] A to A b T O N N N r r N N N d N 4'l ul r p O N M N N - OQ ~ f• ~ u] N O r0 N p r hl c; 4 O C Q O. t0 00 r~ A N N N cv N N N N N N N N N N N v ~ IF- = o c) U N -C C ~N O y o N O N =:3 O o 17 N 7+ ❑ 7 0 d' >6❑ cOao O 0~ v.. O OW.O .0 CLO 0 CL O C N C 7 N N 7+ o O C 00 N 7+ I'- C ti p L- -P cn 50 U 0 -b- O cc N 0 © 1 C O O W d C N ff C E C ,t] O som- N 0.2 A :3 N v- C N y+ N a O N U N O p~ +0• O` G N z U) ct3 N O 7 O O N N O O O 0 7 Co CL (D c: F-- 'v -v U Q ❑ ~c -v rn a, V) F- U co 7 pN N C w ci C c c a c V O L E 0 MI co r,~ww v/ A~ w~ W O v~l 75 O a I I- C A~ W AMP W w O 10 7+ G n U a ~ m n ~ m v0 qt G r c to 0 Cb. U iL H w O n CL 0 I cL O m m m a it N r d N 0 N O m d v 2 N C O U N a U rn 4) 00 4 N m n co 0 d N 0 N U U .y 7 a O U w 0 U a~ a fi U y 4i O A .L! C N .L O Q~ C N U C O +.r C N Z7 N L O CL O CL M -0 7 o O N L c~ t 0 :3 4-A 0 C N N C W O LU cn ~s N U W N Q~ 0 N .C L L U D) LL M r Q C fi r U 47 O LO 0 In 0 N N ~ U) L O sm 0 AE '~IAAI V+ ca W .N N E V a L Q1 Qa 0 H Ci C 3 O C) L 0 C R C a C v O d ~ 7 0 ~ fA C 41 70 O U LL h r 2 C N O d le 0 'O a G O m R a m U .y O 7 E cli O Q) C O U 10 Q) r U Q N ~ Q Qi O O co CD C) :6 o 0' N ■ N N U' N i OI 4 ~ 0 N m F 0 OD Q N ti N a o a a o 0 0 (D LO <l (Y] N r N r o N C C (u (n o (D N U c C (Q N (1) L CL O L E ' L a-0 C CU 0 (D W E -0 r U_ t s 3 C r~-+ 0 E 0 r a) c c N 0 (U U (D (n (D =S 6Z U N U) 0 0 0 U_ 0 -0 cn .9 C e7 0 cn N L cn E U- m co v C C 4 C C U i 0 L 0 d 40 H co il N _ O N a N O V ~ o C N ~ Q V FA N ~ 6 O sA N t r (V N N LO O 1{ 1 O U ~i Z3 N cd CL E O U N A m M r O C O U v O C rJ'+ C W O1 C m m O c m O U (D s-0 Cn O © O a.o r 0 c; C 0. C C V t 0 L E 0 ,one co rww~ W w m N Wn n n n W r m o 7 m ti N O 17 O N N N N N r r x N N • 0 O a 0 4) d w 1 N O O _ O 'o Uf ~ p) ~ O 0 o -p ~v v, LL • co M ~ c c ar. o . ~ ~ ~n oo~ 3 7+ N ~ C7 O = C d t tCf O N 0 5 . cc (D c~, -2 r .o oh' -0 (Li ~ o s c 0) I al m m ■ A O O M N c a ti o c v; 3 N ° CO d c~ N Q E O o O S ~ v o ~ ..r V C , m r- o M CO O O c a >W c i ~ 4 ) ~ Sr N d CN m rn m c r-~ N CL 0 ~ U) 7 .N N m m O T w ~ = - (D 0 0 m H 4 - V5 c w h 0 r c C 0. C C U W i i 1 a c d ~ N N v m a a` ~y!1 W v~ ti r aid 400 O C C M N .^s to x u~ x g h h a m O 4) U) C O t 4• r... 79 A? 7r o. m U) C 3 ~ O O U '(D O M O U E N E ,1= r -C O Os N '0 c 0 O 0 (D a m T C O ~ O.2 CL 1'*- 0 7 T rn Z5 Z G r a c e 6 y a O v ;r ■ a V 7 7 r C U Z% U C O 0 C C O U O > U O C vL- ~0 ~ L V n~ S ° L O L L J(D ~ L o ~ CL EU O U N QD N ;C ~ U rn N r ti 1 h~ a c c r v 13 c L H 15 O i 1 1 l AW 4) 4) 4) V n 0 r t0 q A t0 S dl N c C 4 b r ~ r r O ~ e4 N N w r r r 4A Ci O G G O O G O O O i • • aD rD W cis N • if ti at r e4 is N N b fp ~ O N ly N p N [V w O p l'7 w N fp N b N N r ®r p VVV C ,O N N 0 :3 CLA CUB p„~ EE wGEt 0-0 O y q~ U me ° L 0 7 (D 7 0 CL '00 Q) N u N O a Q N = .N co 3 ui 0 N C C O Of o ao S V N O - Cn C C ~ ~ in N e ~ IQ U C N M M 4) ~ > 7 m c -C co . M = ca 'a ■ N c+~ ci c c c r Ow e C V ~ T3 C C O s oCa ~ CL N 0 N ~ N O A O E C j O D tII C C CL E .2% a O c c N m U) y Y p O N 7 CL r- co C C. O a 0 00 O 0 m O U) a ■wrw N C r rwr S ld m c ~ U ~ v a N Ql ~ '7 ~ L O CO N cA ~ c00 ~ N Qa T! C y ~ C • C .C S O O C C C (0-) O C C E ~ 7. 7+ N C m Y°°° E a o c _ 0 N c°n vOi C C Q c m 0 O C V (a -0 C w0.. O 41 V O 60 (D cn;~ 2: (D d ~ E o o 'c (D E °a .E U) m O N u) : v~ 0 U) N N W 4, W -6-0 0 Q CO x N ~ m C U N O C Q m 0 U L E 0) U) Y C- \ \ ~.a W O C= U U) N m A r r r r r rl ■ r 11 c c C a c U `rI i t s ~ o c ~ c > aNi c v C w a r o CL U voi d~ o v o C m a 0 c W ° is ° o E _ E j w C C C C t ~0 L C L- .0 E U o = O 4) "D 0 0 . fq NL ° CL Q M m V a y U U CL o 7+ m r- = C o LL rn C ~s O H a ~ L a 3 m= a m a a. Co LL. co It r_ r M k A k k k k a c to m (D 3 U- Q U L U u~ c c c c d c .fi O LL. O 4mo 1 4w LL. O O r f«w w in .n r r• Y Y Y o ~ ~ ui a .ri • O O fP K> •7 M ~ a ci ~ r ~ ri ry a r r ~ r ~ r ~ N N ~ ~ a ~ a M a ~ _ M q m ~ m N m j r O .0 O N O E 72 5 -.2 `V a m m 00 C p O C M .E U 'O 0 C r(a N am+ N 0 1 7 ~ m 3 m-mp C•:•N m mO 0•- 4 O O m 0 O C m ro QO O 2 r 7 5 O N 'CJ y 0 U O N a Z. 0 tv,m~ooo - Oars .2 CL W) U) o v,mro mm mca~ ~3°' 75 :3 c ,n y a a= 'D 6. a 2 0. U C ~ a7' S,2 0 (a CL 0. 0 Uf g 0.0 U_ 0. CL 10 ■ ■ N U C Q C 7 N m O ~ -v N c 0 c N U o ~ m cv N M m O O it O N U 0007 _ Cl) .0 O .a ~ •C N N m O li c O m UQ O E U- .0 ~ N 0 cr) c~ ,Fa o a ■ ■ c~ 5 c 4 6 4mm !v v L C LL 4) A~ r O ~ a o c o of d v N r ~ vi m ~ r O 4 F N ~ ~ N r ~ M b m bC rry 4 s - ~ a a N a Q w! O O [V c O M w M N m r !•i a. a ~ O O s ry ~ ~ n N O M M ~O C vi M a = NN N r t3 R i • i P-i r ~ atl v `.e SS O U U S $ 7 7 ~ U U 'A xk 4 f N a M a a a n r co N ~ Tx~ a7 C 5 V ~ E y. 41 r a ccc C y V G1 d C .49 0) co .2 y 0 4 . N w. -6 1? 7 e0 m 20 E cc CL ~ u cn CD ~ T igl az ~v O Sic N CV Cl 8.0 4 ) E 5 N C C4 V C 7 ~ O o 0 C C) 0 - A U. 3 N 0 v.. o r- ti C C 4 C V a r O CL O V cv W Q as D a~ J_ W 7 LL O z 0 U) W 0 z a z 0 O W a O w W V V a. W m J a z 0 a z N N Y E N 7 0 O v N N m a r- 0 U N m C m C a~ a C Y g 0 U N C 0 c"a c~ CL N CO .02 Cr m "C7 C Vl z co N U U U m 0 N m z V C y l1y 7 C .7o C O CL N O C E m CD CL . • ■ CL O a. N V O N C1 y.O+ 2 O Cl (A N E cc O Q) 2 a N N~y ~.Iw T3 W O CL CL E m a (D W M 0 0 U) a~ U m C 4) E 0 C W N 0 V-0 U N O LA CA m m N Lo C 0 (D CD O C 0 m ■ . i 4 G 0 w O C .y CL CO CO .9 X c C c c~ CO c O N U O 0 C N V U N N r c co C: O co U) y N 0 0 O Q1 C CL I CA U C CL 7 0 N CD C FX M N ■ ac r 1 fi e 1 a fi V 0 a W 0 s f+ 0 { 1 w' w J a z 0 a z w CO N CO Z 4 N A tD C V N cn c .y 0 2 t is c`a 2 2 N N Q A Z a~ CO 72 0 w.. N NS W CO O 7 0 N CL 0 . ~C Q co a N O Ix 0 N N C Q .2 LL. CL` C N N CL ~Q S 2 d N C 7 0 N N v~ c O 0 c C O {A. (b LLB 7 0 v N N Q 0 1 I-W CV V- ~p c~ v. D x N V N yN i 0 a. c_ .g' c~ r U a X U- 0 -v U Q A 8 ts N O O 0 C1 V c C C X W N Q O C 0 C ca C a N O t1 c t 4 C~ 0 N 1 c c lob a La co c x W a p- ~ ~ M I _I i C> ,a w (.j 0 a U a fi a c V 1 O .o v LL. O r rr• AMA d) rrrrr r rrrr 1 E J C] W z O +rr ..r rrw V 0 a J o~ W o OW a m' O° F-r ~a ■O A u I~ Lb L~ c 0 ac C O 04 Ct ,C C C 6 O ll. CL O t~ u c O rMM 4) r,ml 4) 4) O COMES ca. u.. c O c m m v 0 O 0 cc a O c m tL c cc c 0 c ca x W F1 ■ ■ c r ~ MEND2 ~E ■ ■ %W -w L 012 c 0 10 CL .2 IL 'm c V ..H] s+ N © r ~M~C'J m LL. ca r O A 1= E O. O A O C= m N N C C 4 C .fi fi U c i 0 0 ~ z LLM 0 •w as 0 a~ 0 1 m m O 0 omm CI 1 N a v C a0 9 CJ a 11 m j? 0 wr c 3111 I a O M N c v o . rnrr CL 0 C 0 4) 0 w "Mai V z rrrr V♦ U... -r La 4a ~U W ~ ~ W = m a ~X LL W 0 a Z DO a" W n U z W N V.o A~ r~ a ~ A 6 V pgg F ot = lot' 6 5 t b 4 q ~y L = II f 7 N ~ M w J 1 z W a~ ~ J W ~ C/) W 7C W oa 01.21 rim =a:*: eS~ S =0 i~ c,.X my C m W O C n v N U C t a c .c v O ■ CL Q r rrw r rrr LL. c 4 Q rrrr• r..r M w LL. ~ M aQi O W) N V S fi fi 4 fi 6 co N Q a a v W J m Q D Z CL } F U CL a v VI ~■i F f O O m ' 3 $i ~ a fX 0. rn N Or C C N r c CIE n c Kai N e N @!/ n U) fn a ar a~ U) i . II II 11 c a E CM ccc y 11 +x ^ : a w vvn N y II II II ~ = 0 93 E0 N ~ H ~ N(7 t ! E 6 ago j c wt~v•o m H U fi fi 4 C fi t V O 4 V LL O n w G W J Z W J W J V p T T r T T w . y . 0 L N M Ul Lo cq C6 " qw N m y, N N Q N N N A ~ V A F U c ~ U ~ ~ U U ( j U v 07 x co fl- C4 c a c 6 U) a ■0 CL 0 V LL ,0 AMR 4) 4) 3 { f ` a f 1 w 0 CO) 0 J a z 0 CL 0 z a z _0 V z 0 LL 0z 0 as 20 D J v) a 4L ti N all O t 9 9 ;1 La in ~ ~ N M M M M N » a N N ~ N ~ r N P N Cs N ~ S If 2S e o ` 25 y N O O L~ O O O O a ~ ~ = a w r ~ ~ f .tea ~ V ~ N a Q O. A A tp A A n A C •K W U N D1 ~ G ~ X t C O ~ N C 0 O U y" G a ~ .r 0A Z yQ .G y~ N C o O.Ql x p0 Ca C1 W to C U N fl) N .r~wr 4) o -5 5 (D .0 w z E U y 5 o .02 cUO C ar :7 t4)A ~ C a -0p .0 co U 41 C ~ ~ ao N u .c `c a 6 Alternative Report and Recommendations to the Governor's 2012 Commission on Public Safety Submitted by Clackamas County District Attorney John S. Foote, Commission Member December 2012 Introduction: This alternative report is offered in an effort to complete the factual record of the work of the Governor's 2012 Public Safety Commission. In addition, we want to offer proposals that will address the very issues the Governor has identified when he established his first Public Safety Commission last year. While this report is written in the capacity of a Commission member, the author is also writing as the representative of the Oregon District Attorneys Association. During the past six months, the author has endeavored to keep all of Oregon's 36 elected District Attorneys fully informed of all the information that has been provided by the Commission, as well all the information I have provided to the Commission. Many of the DA's have personally attended Commission meetings. Finally, throughout this process, Oregon's elected District Attorneys have expressed overwhelming support for the work the author has performed on their behalf and that overwhelming support extends to the content of this report. While we are offering a different point of view of the challenges and opportunities that we face, we also share the concerns of both the Governor as he has expressed publicly and the majority of the commission members to continuously work to improve Oregon's criminal justice system. We will begin with a brief description of what we believe to be a more accurate description of the challenges we face. Then, we will identify the Commission proposals with which we concur and discuss our own proposals (some of which the Commission report has adopted) which we believe will accomplish the very things the Governor has identified while preserving the enormous success that Oregon's criminal justice system has accomplished in the past 25 years. Finally, we will briefly discuss our concerns about the remaining proposals that have been offered during the commission process. Although this Commission was formed to address a perceived problem of "unsustainable" prison growth, at the most fundamental level we are not convinced that such a problem exists. We believe that projected Oregon prison growth is modest and reasonable, and should be affordable under any objective and rational analysis of the issue. We suggest that a closer look at the matter should be persuasive on that score. 1. THERE IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE STATE REVENUE AVAILABLE TO FUND THE MODEST PROJECTED PRISON GROWTH OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS. Oregon has been "smart-on-crime" for more than two decades. The pragmatism of the voters and the effective actions of state and local law enforcement officials has resulted in an extraordinary outcome: the growth of Oregon's prison population is expected to be outpaced by revenue growth by a threefold factor. The Oregon Office of Economic Analysis is directed by statute to make detailed projections in a number of areas. Their forecasts on state revenue, demographics, and corrections are critical to an 2 1 P a g e understanding of the purported problem in prison growth. The graph below plots the state economist's projections on prison growth against their projections of growth in state general fund revenue over the same period of time. Far from being the catastrophic prison expansion that is often described, the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis has termed the ten-year projected prison growth as "very modest by historical standards."' Percentage Increase in Revenue vs. Percentage Increase in Prison Population 60% sacs 48% Increase In Revenue ~ ♦ Percentage rrlcrease in General turxl Rr+renue Oy Rknnium Aver 7tli1-2tl11• ^21--pt entw rntreose in Prison Population over 2012" 20% 1r10 96 i on n o% 2012 2014 2016 z01a 2020 2022 2024 • Data taken from Oregon Office of &onomK Analysis Oregon Economic and Revenue Forecast Report, December 2012, Page 66, Table R,2 Data taken from Oregon Offke of P.connmic Analysis Corrections Population Report, October 2012 Monthly Detail tables As is readily apparent from this graph, there should be more than adequate state revenue to fund the moderate projected growth in prison capacity over the next ten years. By 2021, the outside limit of the revenue forecast, state general fund revenues will have risen by 48% while the prison inmate population will have increased by only 15%. Funding for this growth should; therefore, be relatively straightforward and uncontroversial. This holds true even if a robust annual inflation rate of 3% is factored into the equation. Citizens and taxpayers should reasonably expect that the expense of a given government service will not rise faster than projected increases in revenue. Unfortunately, this has not been the case in our state. One of the very best examples is the disproportional increase in the costs of health care, particularly inmate health care. We understand the Governor is attempting to address some of these issues. Rather than addressing the structural reasons for the disproportional increases in costs, however, the historical response of our government has been to cut essential government services instead of attacking increasing costs. ' Oregon Prison Forecast Accuracy 2000-2012, Oregon Office of Economic Analysis, p. 5 3 1 P a g e Oregon has low incarceration rate 2, but a high cost per day/per inmate. Yet, the Commission seems intent upon reducing Oregon's modest incarceration rate as its first priority. Respectfully, we cannot agree. This is why our primary proposal, in this Commission and before the previous Commission on Public Safety, has been to attack the expanding daily costs of incarcerating inmates rather than simply by releasing those inmates into the community. Adjusting sentencing policies downward to compensate for ballooning government spending by cutting prison beds will be a process that will be revisited each biennium unless an equilibrium is achieved that prevents our government spending from growing faster than revenue. 2. PROJECTED PRISON GROWTH IN OREGON IS LARGELY THE RESULT OF PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH. The state Office of Economic Analysis produces a corrections population forecast twice each year. The latest forecast from October has made a point of breaking down the projected growth into components. While the office predicts a need for an additional 2300 prison beds in ten years it has determined that 62% of that growth will simply be the result of "baseline" growth, the increase in state population during that period.3 This finding is important, but we believe has been largely ignored. Repeated presentations to this Commission and to the first Commission have asserted that the primary "driver" of prison growth is sentencing policy, and specifically mandatory sentencing policy. That assertion is false. The primary "driver" of prison growth is the fact that our state's population will be larger in ten years than it is today, which will require more government services, including prison capacity. Only 38% of projected prison growth, or about 800 beds, is attributable to sentencing policies. Ballot Measure 11 mandatory sentences account for absolutely none of the growth, since the Measure 11 inmate populations have been stable for some time. It is important to distinguish the need for additional services due to population growth from the need for more services due to policy decisions because growth in services due to population growth is self-funding. A growing population will produce a growing tax base to support government services. (62% of projected prison growth will be funded by a revenue structure that has expanded with the population.) 2 Oregon has the 33d highest incarceration rate in the nation; as of 2010, Oregon ranked just 33rd among states in incarceration rate. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics "Prisoners in 2010". See http://Www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pIO.pdf, Table 9, page 22. 3 See baseline tables attached to October 2012 Corrections Population Forecast, Oregon Office of Economic Analysis. 4 1Paga As a consequence, the effective (that is, truly unfunded beyond tax produced by population growth) growth in prison population over the next ten years will be only about 800 beds, or 5% of inmate population, over the next ten years.4. It is this predicted growth of 800 beds that should legitimately be the subject of this policy debate. Although it seems apparent from the figures cited above that there should be adequate funding to address this small growth in inmate population, we understand the reason to prevent that increase, if it can be done safely. We support that effort and have presented to the Commission what we believe are cogent and well-thought-out proposals that would effectively halt most prison growth (and certainly will halt prison growth in excess of that which is produced by population growth). Finally, presentations made to the Commission attempt to demonstrate that Oregon's incarceration rate has increased faster than the national average in the past 12 years. Texas is often used as an example of a state which has reduced its incarceration rate in a manner that Oregon would do well to emulate. The first Commission on Public Safety even called experts from that state to testify about their progress. We believe this paints an irrationally distorted picture of the Oregon corrections and justice systems. A broader view allows some perspective. Between 2008 and today Texas reduced its incarceration sufficiently only to change its ranking from the highest incarceration rate in the nation to the fourth highest incarceration rate in the nation. During the same period, Oregon dropped from the 30th highest incarceration rate to the 33rd highest. The incarceration rate in Texas today remains almost twice as high as ours. In short, Oregon started with an extremely low incarceration rate and remains that way. It is deceptive to suggest that because other states started out with outrageously high incarceration rates and reduced those rates slightly, Oregon should follow suit. Actually we believe it should be the other way around. Other states should follow our lead and reduce their incarceration rates to the rates we have always had. Of the 18 Commission proposals, there are 11 with which we concur, and of those 11, there are 6 that were actually suggested by Oregon's District Attorneys. Below is a list of the commission proposals with which we concur, as well as a discussion of some of our own proposals. 4 We have noted that corrections forecasting in Oregon has been extremely unreliable in only one direction. All 10-year forecasts since 1995 have proven to be high, some by as much as 47%. Therefore, based upon the history of 10 year forecasts, it appears highly likely that future 10 year forecasts will continue to be high. (Please see attached chart showing the record of all prior 10 year prison forecasts in Appendix A.) Nonetheless, we believe that the current staff of the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis has done an admirable job in addressing the policy purposes of the forecast and, while we believe that the current forecast may over-predict prison growth somewhat, it serves as a sound document for this policy discussion. 5 1 P a g e December 31, 2011, 1 co-authored a letter with Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schrunk and Washington County District Attorney Bob Hermann to the Commission re-emphasizing that point. I have repeatedly made it a key recommendation to this Commission. Reducing the daily costs of incarcerating inmates just slightly, to something closer to national averages, will solve the funding of prison growth over the next ten years, and it will do so without releasing dangerous inmates into our communities. A direction by the legislature to the Department of Corrections to reduce inmate costs, accompanied by a disciplined budget, would accomplish this purpose. We recommend that the Oregon Department of Corrections be directed during the next biennium to reduce its costs per day/per inmate as currently measured by at least 5% and again in the following biennium by another 5%. We believe this could easily be the only recommendation of the Commission, and it would effectively accomplish our goals. 2. ESTABLISH AN EFFECTIVE RE-ENTRY PROGRAM FOR INMATES RELEASED FROM PRISON AND HOPE PROBATION FOR DEFENDANTS ON SUPERVISION IN THE COMMUNITY. Over 4500 inmates are released from our prison system each year. 26% of those inmates will be convicted of a new felony within three years of their release from prison. The figure is even higher for those who are released from state local control sentences in county jails. Many, if not most, of those convictions will result in a return to prison, either immediately or upon a revocation of supervision. The arithmetic of this situation makes it clear that the growth in Oregon's prison inmate population can be halted by targeting the recidivism rate of just these 4500 inmates. Each month, the Department of Corrections releases approximately 380 inmates. According to the current prison forecast during the next three years if the number of defendants sent to prison is reduced by only 31 per month statewide the prison population will remain stable. And over the next 10 years the target for prison admissions drops to only 18 per month statewide. Effective inmate re-entry programs exist to achieve this goal. One of these programs was piloted in four Oregon counties in 2009 under grants from the Criminal Justice Commission. At a cost of only $3400 per inmate, felony recidivism was reduced by 33%. The calculated savings in tax dollars and victim costs was determined to be seven dollars saved for each dollar invested. Mike Wilson of the Criminal Justice Commission, in fact, testified about the effectiveness of this program before the first Commission on Public Safety5. It is unfortunate that this program did not receive as much attention in the second Commission as it did in the first. Applied to all 4500 inmates released from Oregon prisons each year, the same re-entry program would cost $15.3 million annually, but would save $60 million in prison expenses each year by halting prison growth, and possibly even reducing prison 5 See testimony of Michael Wilson before the Commission on Public Safety, October 21, 2011 in Appendix B. 7 1 P a g e Proposals with which we concur: 1. Increasing threshold amounts of marijuana for presumptive prison sentences to federal court levels. It has been estimated this will save as many as 120 prison beds in the 10 year forecast.* 2. Eliminating presumptive prison sentences for felony driving while suspended. This has been estimated to save as many as 60 beds in the 10 year forecast.* 3. Community Corrections Earned Discharge. 4. Supervision Conditions 5. Definition of Recidivism.* 6. Specialty Court Standards. 7. Correctional Forecasts.* 8. Program Evaluations.* 9. Fiscal Impact Notes. 10. DOC Costs per day.* 11. Oversight Entity. District Attorney Proposals* The following is a further explanation of some of the the proposals that we have advanced on this Commission. The utility of these proposals is that they will effectively freeze the cost of our prison system without changing sentencing policy, much of which has been enacted by the people themselves. 1. CONTROLLING PRISON COSTS PER DAY/PER INMATE. As discussed previously, if the goal of this Commission is to flatten the expense curve of our prison system, that goal can be reached in a number of ways without changing sentencing policy. The fundamental budget problem we face in this state today is unrelated to the growth of public services like prisons. The real culprit, as noted earlier, is poorly controlled state spending policies. These policies have allowed the cost of government services, such as the incarceration of criminal offenders, to expand much faster than the economy expands. Oregon daily inmate costs are well above the national average, despite the fact that the per capita GDP in this state is below the national average according to the American Corrections Association (ACA). Our state led the nation in increased daily inmate costs in the last biennium, at a time when many other states were actually reducing their costs (Appendix D). I have repeatedly made the point that the only decisive manner to address long-term prison spending is to control daily prison bed costs. On November 21 of last year I appeared at the first Commission on Public Safety meeting to make this point, and on 6 1 P a g e population. This would again be another policy that would achieve the purpose of this Commission without altering sentencing policy. In addition, HOPE probation has been rigorously evaluated in Hawaii using randomized controlled trials over a 2-year period. It has proven to be extremely effective in pushing criminals on supervision away from substance abuse. Their success rate is truly remarkable. Furthermore, HOPE program in Hawaii was created with virtually no additional funding and can be operated very cost effectively, particularly when compared to the general cost of probation and local control which HOPE probation replaces. Finally, according to PEW, each year more than 2200 offenders are revoked off of supervision and sent to prison. This should be our target population for both of these kinds of programs. If these programs can produce the kinds of results that the "evidence" suggests, we should be immediately successful in dramatically reducing the number of revocations to prison each year, thereby relieving pressure on prison growth for the foreseeable future. This is a much better approach because it protects the public with existing voter approved sentencing. 3. ALTER PRISON ELIGIBILITY FOR TWO OFFENSES. Upon viewing the list of "low-risk" inmates it appeared that, while virtually all of those on the list merited prison sentences, there were two categories of offenders, many of whom we believe could be better managed outside of prisons--those convicted of marijuana delivery offenses and those convicted of felony driving while suspended. Changing the sentencing guideline grid-block on felony driving while suspended and aligning marijuana delivery amounts to conform with federal amounts would save a number of prison beds, initially estimated at approximately 180 by PEW, although we believe that the number might be somewhat larger. 4. ALTER THE DEFINITION OF RECIDIVISM. Oregon currently has one of the weakest definitions of recidivism in the nation. We suggest this be changed so we can more readily compare our performance to that in other states. I believe there is a consensus among the Commission on this point, so I will refrain from elaborating further. 5. RAISE THE STANDARD BY WHICH WE EVALUATE PROGRAMS. Oregon has led the country in our efforts to enact "evidence based" programs. That is good public policy and has helped Oregon lower its recidivism rate. However, too many of Oregon's programs for offenders are inadequately evaluated. Oregon must raise the bar when it comes to the "evidence" that shows a program works. In these tight economic times, we should only fund programs that have been rigorously and 6 See, Evaluation of the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Community Supervision Strategy, 2007-2009 (1CPSR 27921) 8 1 P a g e independently tested. We should insist upon more use of "randomly controlled trials" as the gold standard for evaluations. These will result in fewer kinds of programs, but the programs that we do fund will gain the confidence and trust of the entire public safety community. And we will continue to build on Oregon's more recent success in reducing recidivism and victimization. In addition, this effort should include a complete and ongoing inventory of every program in the state by type, number and location and be accompanied by the "evidence" that supports each program's effectiveness. And the standard for whether or not a program is effective should be, "does it change behavior that would not change otherwise." Just because graduates of a program are successful in and of itself does not prove the program is the cause of the success. It might be that the program is filled with participants who would succeed without the program. Only independent and highly rigorous testing will provide the "evidence" that the program is changing criminal behavior that would not change otherwise. Having presented our proposals, in many instances in agreement with the proposals of the remainder of the Commission, we additionally feel it is incumbent upon us to explain why we oppose certain of the major changes sought by the majority of this Commission. This is not to say we oppose the entire package. We feel the need to clarify our position on these matters. BALLOT MEASURE 11 We oppose changes in Ballot Measure 11, and particularly any changes that are designed simply to save money. As a ballot initiative, Measure 11 constitutes as close a representation of the will and intent of the people as can be achieved in a democracy. It should be trifled with only upon a clear showing that it constitutes errant policy, and never for the sake of finances. Easily over 95% of our state's laws were never specifically approved by voters, and if changes to laws are necessary to readjust finances it should be from among those laws that these changes come. Failing to do so constitutes a fundamental lack of respect for the clearly expressed will of the people, as expressed on the rare occasions they find it necessary to do so directly. Additionally, and just as importantly, Measure 11 has proven to be one of the most successful policy initiatives in the recent history of our state. Violent crime was literally cut in half in this state after this measure was passed, the second largest reduction in violent crime in the nation. Oregon now has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the nation. The national violent crime rate is 56% greater than Oregon's, and only three states with major metropolitan areas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Kentucky, have lower violent crime rates. It turns out in fact that the people can on occasion make better decisions than the experts. Nor does Measure 11 reflect draconian sentencing policy, as some contend; its sentences remain well below average for sentences for the same crimes across the 9 1 P a g e nation. Even the same experts who were once in opposition to such laws now grudgingly accept the uncontroverted evidence that sentencing policies such as Measure 11 have been a key ingredient in the dramatic decline in crime in this nation. Ballot Measure 11 has in fact been the lead player in a progressive Oregon justice system that is second to none in this country. In this state we have the lowest percentage of non-violent prison inmates in the nation. Prison is reserved only for violent felons and serious repeat offenders. The rest are given multiple opportunities to reform. Oregon was the first state to demand by law the use of evidence-based supervision practices. Only a quarter of convicted felons in this state are sentenced to prison, as opposed to a national average of 40%. And we have achieved our dramatic improvement in violent crime with a very low incarceration rate, the 33rd highest incarceration rate in the nation. Throughout the country our criminal justice system is presented as a model for others, and Measure 11 has been the key reason for our success. We believe that Ballot Measure 11, along with other voter-approved justice policies like truth in sentencing statutes and victims' rights measures, have restored accountability for offenders and integrity to a justice system that was, charitably, dysfunctional in the 1980s. These measures were overwhelmingly supported by the electorate, and in the case of Ballot Measure 11, twice. We cannot believe the public feels differently now. BALLOT MEASURE 57. For the same reasons as those expressed above for Ballot Measure 11, we also oppose changes to Ballot Measure 57, an initiative that was passed by 61 % of voters in 2008. There seems to be a common misperception that Measure 57 contains mandatory prison sentences. In fact, Measure 57 was proposed and supported by Oregon's District Attorneys as an alternative to Measure 61 because 61 had mandatory prison sentences and 57 does not. Oregon's District Attorneys designed most of Measure 57, in collaboration with the legislature and governor, without mandatory minimum sentences and as an extension of the existing Repeat Property Offender statutes the legislature passed in 1995. It was written with the specific intent of preserving judicial discretion as contained in sentencing guidelines and the RPO statutes Measure 57 represents a thoughtful and targeted approach to career property criminals who do so much damage in Oregon's communities. In stark contrast to our violent crime rate, Oregon's property crime rate is higher than the national average, and the public certainly has noticed. Even more troubling is the fact that, led by Oregon metropolitan areas, Oregon's property crime rate is actually increasing at a time when national rates are declining. Between 2010 and 2012 FBI statistics show that national property crime rates dropped 1.3% while Oregon's rate increased 2.5%. And unfortunately these FBI crime statistics do not record the type of property crime that is most prevalent today, cyber crime and credit card fraud, which 101Page has increased dramatically over the last decade. The real increase in property crime, therefore, is significantly understated by that 2.5% figure.? Oregon imprisons the lowest percentage of non-violent offenders in the nation, and it is reasonable to believe that this is a key reason we have had far less success in controlling property crime in this state than we have had in controlling violent crime. The public was well warranted in approving a measure that has moderately increased penalties for repeat offenders. We see no policy reasons to change Ballot Measure 57, and as in the case of Ballot Measure 11, do not believe that tampering with a voter initiative is appropriate for financial reasons. EXTENSIONS OF EARNED TIME, WORK TIME, AND TRANSITIONAL LEAVE. One of the principal accomplishments of sentencing policy over the last 25 years has been the movement to establish truth in sentencing. Prior to the advent of sentencing guidelines there was little correlation in our state practice between sentences pronounced in court by judges and the time actually served by inmates. Parole and terminal leave became simply an inmate population control device, and inmates who had been sentenced to twenty years or more were often released by parole boards in two or three years, many to return to the community to commit significant crimes upon their early release. Victims were seldom notified. Corrections officials and parole boards, far removed from the original sentencing decision in the courtroom with all parties present and distant from the devastating impacts that crime has on victims and the community, became the real judges of criminal conduct and punishment. Their decisions were motivated by the necessity to manage the inmate population of a chronically underfunded prison system. This practice was one of the major factors that led to the alarming erosion of public trust in our justice system. Voter initiatives are the inevitable result of such policies. The recommendations by this Commission, we believe, signal a return to that prior state of affairs. The chart below demonstrates the result of these proposed policies, placing sentence reductions of up to 50% in the hands of corrections officials. By law and regulation, these decisions on earned time, work time, and transitional leave are sheltered from input from the state or victims. In short, in many cases, the key arbiter of prison sentences will become the Department of Corrections which is properly and almost exclusively focused on offenders and is not in the best position to determine a just and proportional sentence in each case. As in the 1980's the key consideration once again will be controlling the number of prison beds and will once again result in the erosion of public trust and confidence in our entire system. The FBI index crime statistics include only burglary, larceny, and auto theft in their statistical analyses. Excluded from the FBI definitions of property crime are credit card fraud, cyber crime, and fraud in general, all of which are increasing dramatically according to BJS studies. Ironically, for instance, possibly the largest property crime in history, the $50 billion Ponzi scheme fraud of Bernard Madoff, does not appear as a crime in FBI index crime statistics. 111Page Impact of Increased Earned Time and Transitional Leave on Current Non-Measure 11 Sentences Sentencing Ordered by Court Increased Earned Time Reduction (30%) Increased Transitional Leave (3 Months) Actual Sentences Served (not counting any time served before sentence Percentages of Sentence Actually Served 18 months -5.4 months -3 months 9.6 months (53%) 24 months -7.2 months -3 months 13.8 months (57.5%) 30 months -9 months -3 months 18 months (60%) 40 months -12 months -3 months 25 months (62.5%) 50 months -15 months -3 months 32 months (64%) 60 months -18 months -3 months 39 months (65%) 70 months -21 months -3 months 46 months (65.7%) 80 months -24 months -3 months 53 months (66.25%) 90 months -27 months -3 months 60 months (66.7%) 100 months -30 months -3 months 67 months (67%) 121Pege PERFORMANCE ENHANCED FUNDING. We are compelled to oppose the Commission proposal for Performance Incentive Funding (founded on incentives to not send serious criminals to prison when they would otherwise be subject to prison sentences under sentencing guidelines). When sentences are determined in open court, the primary focus is proportionality and justice for victims, defendants and the community. Although Oregon only incarcerates a small percentage of convicted criminals, there are times when a defendant's criminal conviction and criminal history require a prison sentence in order to achieve justice. This must remain the primary focus at every criminal sentence. It would be truly paradoxical for the state to enact, as it has done, a system of sentencing guidelines designed to promote uniformity in sentencing across the state, and then offer financial incentives for various counties to ignore that system. Furthermore, our entire criminal justice system and particularly every local courthouse and local public safety office must be fiscally responsible with resources. While individual cases are focused on justice, the backdrop for these cases is what results are affordable within the system. The sentencing guidelines were established in 1989 to require uniformity and to ensure affordability by establishing sentences that matched the available prison and supervision resources. To achieve this, there is constant communication between all local public safety and criminal justice partners to balance what we want to accomplish with the resources that are available. There is no need to provide some outside incentive to make fiscal responsibility a priority at the local level. It will only drive a wedge between the pursuit of justice and outside incentives to achieve state funding. FINAL OBSERVATIONS OF PEW'S SELECTIVE USE OF DATA When PEW claims that Oregon's prison incarceration rate "hovers below the national average" they fail to add that the national average, at 497 per 100,000 population, is actually "hovering" 37% higher than Oregon's, at 361 per 100,000. When PEW asserts that "admissions have grown to include increasing percentages of non-violent offenders," they make a subtle, and deceptive distinction. It may be true that the number of admissions for non-violent offenders, including short terms for supervision revocations, have increased, but the actual percentage of inmates taking up a bed in Oregon prisons today for non-violent offenses has actually decreased in the last seven years, from 31.6% of total inmate population to 30.9%, according to Department of Corrections statistics. The truth is that Oregon is actually imprisoning a lesser percentage of non-violent offenders than seven years ago. So when the PEW group chose to highlight the admissions, and ignored DOC inmate profile statistics that were more relevant, skepticism is warranted. Additionally, while it was emphasized that property offenders are serving longer sentences than a decade ago, the average increase in these prison sentences is only 131Page one month, which was not emphasized. And never mentioned was the fact that these types of moderate increases in sentences were actually recommended by our legislature and approved by the voters in 2008 in a legislative referendum. When Pew claims that "nearly half of the projected prison growth in the next decade will be a result of M57," the actual figure is 35% (824 beds out of 2300), according to the latest prison forecast. The continued assertion that sentencing policy is the main driver of prison growth is wrong; it is simply state population growth that will "drive" the majority of our state's moderate prison growth. When it was asserted that 26% of Oregon prison admissions were "low-risk" offenders, no attempt was made to clarify who those supposed "low-risk" offenders were, and that their status as low risk offenders was determined by a software tool that failed to include out-of-state and juvenile convictions, and which included many convicted murderers on the list. CONCLUSION: Oregon's criminal justice system has been enormously successful over the past 25 years. Crime is at 40 year lows. We have prioritized our prisons for violent criminals.8 As a consequence, violent crime in Oregon has dropped more than 50% in the 17 years since Measure 11 was passed by the voters. We have used less expensive community resources to deal with most property and drug offenders. In fact, we are a "low incarceration" state, ranking in the bottom third of the 50 states. Only 25% of convicted felons in Oregon actually go to prison. And we have led the nation in the use of "evidence based" programs to change criminal behavior. It is worth noting that the report, perhaps at the behest of PEW which has operated in many of these states, seems to try and make the argument that other states have done things Oregon has not. The argument seems to be that we can learn from these other states like, perhaps, Texas. However, what PEW fails to mention is that each of those states has taken a different path than Oregon which has been a leader in progressive sentencing policy. For instance, New York previously provided for draconian sentencing laws for possession and distribution of controlled substances, something Oregon abandoned decades ago. Texas seems also to be a state that PEW likes to use as a comparison. Again, they fail to put Texas' performance in perspective. Recently the noted conservative Grover Norquist sent an editorial to the Bend Bulletin newspaper in which he made many of these same arguments. He used Texas as a great example of what Oregon should be doing. In response, this author also provided an editorial in response. Please see attached Appendix F which is a copy of that editorial. We believe it fairly puts the performance of Texas in recent years in perspective. Simply put, Texas has a lot to learn from Oregon, not the other way around. 8 See Appendix C. 141Page As Jake Horowitz, one of the leaders on public safety from PEW, reported to the Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee on February 1,5th 2010, "A lot of good things going on in Oregon_ Large decreases in crime and a comparatively low violent crime rate. Legislative endorsement of evidence-based practices, mandate for administrative sanctioning and community supervision, including probation and parole, solid data and research on which to ground debates on these policies and overall a modest incarceration rate. And it is national viewed that Oregon has made good use of probation and parole and has largely prioritized its prison space for violent offenders as opposed to low- level drug and property offenders." We believe, therefore, that our solutions must first focus on the area in which we are performing the worst. We must require that our Department of Corrections lower their daily inmate costs in the next biennium. Whatever savings are realized from those cost reductions should be directed towards the other area in which we need improvement: the large number of offenders on supervision in the community who are failing and returned to prison. We should invest in the best programs in a targeted way to lower that number. If we are successful we will immediately begin to control the projected growth in prison beds for the foreseeable future. And with these reasonable and cost- effective measures, we will also preserve the wonderful success story that is Oregon's criminal justice system. 151 Page Appendix A s Oregon District Attorneys Association ErlcNisley. Pra;ideat Timothy Cdehan,l-VacePreMdent Robert Hennana.2 'Vaoc President Paul Fms:ier-Soerewy: rK'°Surer DafN VildbLnt- Director AM] Qudney ma-- itldwd Weienherg. ountor M AM:pu. Past Ptesident OREGON 10 YEAR PRISON POPULATION FORECAST CONSISTENTLY HIGH Damon Bell, Senior Analyst, for the Oregon Office of Econonic Analysis provided recently revised prison population forecast numbers showing the 10 year prison populatbn forecasts from 1995 to 2002 as compared to the actual number of inmates in prison. All ftxecasts were still high. In fact, tile K year average went from 14.4% high to 14.7% hoh and the 6 year averaoe went from 7.1% hill to 73Vii, hioh. The revised edits and numbers are shownin red. Forecast Future Date Forecast Actual Difference % Hiah October 1995 Jul 2005 12875 5293 +41.1% Aon1 1996 Julv 2005 19246 12875 6371 +49.5% October 1996 July 2006 17752 13229 4523 +34.2% Aoril1 997 January 2007 1 1 8 13292 1876 +14.1% October 1997 July 2007 14346 13498 848 +6-30/o Aoril1 998 January 2008 14158 13405 7 +5.6% October 1998 July 2008 14275 13547 728 +5.40% Aoril 1999 Januarv 2009 14557 13631 926 +6.8% October 1999 July 2009 14676 13926 750 +5.4% Aori12000 January 2010 14952 13620 1132 +8.2% October 2000 Jul 2010 14956 14016 4 +6.7% A n 1 January 2011 14949 13924 1025 +7A% October 2001 Jul 2011 151 0 14073 1027 +7.3% Aoriii2002 January 2012 14973 13921 1052 +7.6% 161 Page 8 year average-1995 to 2002--the forecast is 14.7% high which means an over forecast of approximately 2051 inmates in 2020. ( Forecast 2020 is 16,000/114.7% = 13,949. 16,000 -13,949 = 2051) • 6 year average-1997 to 2002--the forecast is 7.3% high which means an over forecast of approximately 1089 inmates in 2020.( Forecast 2020 is 16,000/107.3% =14,911. 16,000 - 14,911= 1089) • Oregon's general population increase is predicted to be 10.68% from 2011 to 2020. A 10.68% increase in 14,000 inmates is 1497 additional inmates. 171 Page Appendix B Commission on Public Safety Michael Wilson, Economist Oregon Criminal Justice Commission October 21, 2011 What is cost-benefit analysis? D An approach to policymaking D A systematic tool for evaluating public policy D A method to weigh options D A way for finding out what will achieve the greatest results at the lowest cost 181 Page Why use cost-benefit analysis? Strengths: 0Inform policy 0 Efficient use of resources D Common measurement Weaknesses: 0 Accuracy O Dependent on assumptions Figure 1: Probability of Arrest, Conviction and Incarceration Oft i Unlu-io.d Olusu -nmt•d Offe H...--. C-Ati- f 4 M W LxNlW Ca~~M11MIL r~i.l Jlt W 191 Page Applications of Cost Benefit: Three Examples Example 1: Prison Economics O What is the impact of incarceration on crime? - The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission found that a 10°/o increase in the incarceration rate leads to a 2.60/o reduction in crime. - Others, including the Washington State Institute of Public Policy (WSFP P), have found similar results. 0 How many crimes are avoided by incarceration? O What is the cost-benefit ratio of incarceration? 20 1 Page Crimes Avoided by Incarcerating an Additional Offender 90 28 20 15 10 e a Cost-Benefit Analysis of Incarceration 211 Page 1998 l 99 2 00 266-727-2-5603 264 2605'706 07 L-1-997- Source: Oregon CriminalJusticeCommission Example 2. Cost-Benefit and Programs D Statewide Re-Entry Program - Reduces recidivism by 27°/0 - For every 10 participants we estimated that more than three and half felony convictions will be avoided over a 10 year period - Costs of Oregon's Re-Entry program are $3,400 per participant Benefits are $8,600 to taxpayers and $14,000 in avoided victimizations Benefit-cost ratio of $6.73 Example 3. Cost-Benefit and Risk Assessment O Examine property offenders from 2005-2007 O Examined their risk of being reconvicted of a felony O Overlap where some high risk property offenders were sentenced to prison and some low risk property offenders were sentenced to probation O By using risk at sentencing it is possible to save prison beds while keeping crime constant or to reduce crime while keeping beds constant 221 Pag Distribution of Risk Scores by Sentence Type for Property Offenders Risk Scores by Sentence Type Prop®rty Convictions 2005-2007 I R • i darn i f i 0°r° l Ww Risk H1ghRi.;k Prisoners Prohatlone.rs RzkSwro Swap high risk probationers with low risk prisoners D Method 1 - Prison Bed Neutral - Move 650 high risk probationer to prison O Expect to avoid 350 felony arrests - Move 650 low risk prisoners to probation O Expect to have 240 felony arrests - Savings of 110 felony arrests - Using the cost-benefit model we avoid an estimated $3.9 million in costs to tax payers and crime victims 231 Page Swap high risk probationers with low risk prisoners D Method 2 - Crime Neutral - Move 780 low risk prisoners to probationer O Expect to have 900 felony arrests - Move 550 high risk probationers to prison O Expect to avoid 940 felony arrests - Savings of 230 prison beds and avoids 40 felony arrests - Using the cost-benefit model based on Oregon's cost of incarceration we save $3.4 million to tax payer.::: Justice Reinvestment 241 'age: Justice Reinvestment D Can we save taxpayer money and still improve public safety? D Are there programs that can reduce crime at a lower cost than incarceration? WA State Cost-Benefit Model D Many states are beginning to look at criminal justice spending through cost-benefit analysis D Oregon is a national leader behind Washington and is the first state to have this tool operational 251 Page Document Roproduces Poorly (Archived) Criminal Justice Programs "Consumer Reports" till,~l tell I IJFn f ,I .Irl'Mli .II ' l1.111'I Ill lu •I•" " • Ill I z", 1 ~:r l!.I INI f NNNIII MINIM MN~ ~ N~ '.II Il1~I, Nw N~ II rrr' Illlpl.!Ilf AMI:Mtlllli.l ""\'ll ',II t~a1 111111 t. 1 II .111111 I.rl'.I II Ilr 11 ~ 1111111 l\ I I 1 1 L11..... 11HI', Ir!r r~ ra rr 261 Page WWII I t Justice Reinvestment D Example of reducing the prison forecast by 100 beds and re-investing 50°/o in evidence based programs vro~n~ vain v raneOf ~t G~ Mwn ~ ~ Saa qz. ~ ` Paikls ►~IIP~I,.00 ~ I~rdrtd ~ ~ 110 $1.2'38 WI I SAWKift P*w PO ~ $~17~ `&1.017 (111 . SI_ 0 . V 108 ac SUS7 bSSO PON 8'13 701 $-1192 0 _7S 01, $$.022 25 65 err Illl\''1,>tlA IS[UIIU(: iII CUIII SL1' $170 $367 11"S ""0110 Treotment l' oster cat- $7,730 V,747 .$.5,929 ' $2.988 $x}902 0 T F.,finolioli i lntzerat'd J nsltions(IRA) $10,991 '!60I $ZAG6 0"a of Scngccs $386 $786 $1,216 0"6 Cam $17,553 0 $7,.7.47 0 FI7TIO''ll,{wlen11Pr06~li0n 53.191 $6305 $2.621 0'0 $22_219 ZS". Y4 Do-urnent Ramrod ces Poorly (Archived) 261 Page Limitations of CBA in criminal justice D Requires investment of dollars D Requires time for benefit to accrue D Requires data on costs and programs D Risk adverse investors on 2 year cycle D "Past performance does not guarantee future results" For More Information Contact... • Michael Wilson Economist, Criminal Justice Commission Michael. K. Wilson@state. or. us (503) 378-4850 271 Page E:: ocurroant R, pt c ces poorly (Archived) Appendix C 4! M1 r < - , - t ..T -6 < : c 9 U. IV 1110 ..'r• - ' ~ rr 4 W w 0 rr - o 1f - rr ff. :S: f: 281 Page 11 rr rr p~ 7 11 ~ 'f V 5 _ It 29171Fgp 281 Page Appendix D Adult correctional Budgets Yoar 20"10 (III 0 291 Page 1 arc.wrr M•.d 4b -l 0 pNMM1i1d11MM ' 01 " C,r .;Ii~1MlAG~ltar IMf~d►rWfww..~AlasMevt~La.ruwMCnc+►muara~rnaaa+ax if iii 291 Page /e=- c< a f C9 r- Qp N N C U) Lo U3 Q~ C C O ~ AU G N UN G ti V N C C O Q ks U O cD N 4 O d 0 N Q U❑T C o O O ~ N ~ O co v O o nnO N 4 1. Q N 2 Cq N M O O N N O C N w / LA Q1 ca ~ C'7 N = 6 O O N 4 O O N Y 7 Appendix F Oregooissmmicincrime.bulDeeds tobesm noocosn I IThe9uUeriO. bendbuletin.com The Bulletin Oregon is smart on crime, but needs to be smart on costs By John Foote 1 read with interest therecentt opinion piecein your newspapa,authored by GrovefoNorco st,oneof asmalhandfuiofoonsefyativefigtres whohow partnetedwiththeWashington_ O_C.asedPew Center to actvocatefordosingprisortsacrossthenation- Now the Pew Center IsinOregon attempting to do thesamehere -advocating that wedeaf with aineproblemsby aiCNngmore oonvidedaiminalsto remain out ofcustody while they OM treated for theirbehavior, in hopes that theymight not oontime to corrmit crimes. lvtd as they have doneinothostates, the Pew Center has erlsted the assistance of NorgJst b advocate fortharposition_ Both the PewCerterand Norgtistpoint to the state of Texas as anexarrt'ol the direction that Oregon shodd take to'get smartoncrime - Theirrelianceon Texasas abeacon for jstice policy is oddly misplaced. For allo at thestate al Texas might have doneto reduce itsnumber of prison inmates. theitxarcerationrateinthat state is sdltwice as high as itisinOregon- almost hatfofintnatesarenonviolentoffendetS and thestater s violentcrime rate is almost twice as high as ours. Prison econornization there has been aehie'Ved by t\.ming vast segmentsof thN prisonsysrem owerto private corporations. resultklgin a trail of lawsuits forthe mistreatment of ftnates. we doubt that Oregonians wouldchoose to trade ou'lowercrimerates andotrlowerincarcetationrates for thaprivate prisms and greater crime that existin Texasiloday.HTexas is ever to achieve the suCCessin jtrstioe policy that wealready erjoy here nOregon_ itmust look forward to many-many rrore years of aMbonalrefonns. Therealityisthat Oregonscorrection system isreCC9'ixedasashining exarrt"fortherest ofthenatiorLandnottheother wayaround- We have lhe33niTighesti'Icarcetationralenthenation-butnpnhave been seoondinthenation nthereduction ofvi)kwicrine since 1995. (Eaten attNitsrefunns- Texas st i has thefounh highest i'learcetation rate nthe country. ) Wehave the lowest percentage of nonviolent orfendersin prison of any state in thenation_ In Oregon only 31 percent of prisonirmatesaremmoetated for nonviolentcrines. whereasin Texas almost half ofirwnatesarenonviolent offende(S,even after Norgist'shIRI)etedreforms.lnOregon- orlyaofcoruictedfelons are sentenced to prison, as opposed to a national average of 40 percent Oregon is probably the on y statein the nation that requires by statutetheuse ofscientificallyvalidatedprogramstotreat offenders. In short. ourstate -got smart oncrirte'marry years ago-arid we did it without the hpof o utside actvocacy groupsiikethe Pew Center. and Norquiat. Where Oregon hasindeEd Caied to get smarti s on controingprison costs. and curiously no was in state gownwrierrt has shCMn nv.JCh i'lclratio n to taddethat problem. Oregon has one of the most expensive dalykw ate costsin the nation, and the American Corrections Association found that itled thenation nincressedinmatecostsinlhelast bierri.m_Ifwearespending toonuchrroneyoncorrections_itis notbecauseweareloddttguptoomarry criminals: wearenotItisbecauseourprison adminisi,latiw.andlabor oostsaremuch hq\er than n most other states. Yet the leacWShP of the current Commission on Public Safety has repeatedly attempted to takeany dismssion of prison adrrinisli-Mon andcostsoffthetable- and has concentrated sdelyon saingmoney by sending fewer convitxedfelons toprison_ One rnq.t have e)IdiededNorquist.V.110made hisnameasanadvocateofleaner goventment.tohave taken upthsissue_ rather than veMurhg into an area wherehe has no expertiseand where he simply got his facts wrong. -John Foote isOackamasComty district attorney and former deputy dredorandinspectorgeneral oftheOregon Oepanment:of Corrections. P\tllished Daly in Bend Oregon by Western Commurications. Inc.C 2011 www. bendbutefi n-com ttTr~ t II]irJ91] 12AXL t 101111111 31 1 Page FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 17, 2012 For more information: Oregon Commission on Public Safety, contact Craig Prins at (503) 378-4858. COMMISSION ON PUBLIC SAFETY SUBMITS RECOMMENDATIONS ON CORRECTIONS AND SENTENCING REFORMS Commission report includes policies to improve public safety, hold offenders accountable, avert $600 million. SALEM - The Oregon Commission on Public Safety released today its final report on policy reforms aimed at protecting public safety, holding offenders accountable, and controlling corrections costs. Convened by the governor in May 2012 at the request of the Legislature, the Commission was tasked with analyzing Oregon's corrections and sentencing data, auditing existing policies, and submitting a package of policy recommendations. The Commission included legislators from both parties and chambers as well as practitioners from the criminal justice system, including judges, a district attorney, a member of the defense bar, a community corrections director, a sheriff, a public member, and the director of the Oregon Department of Corrections. The Commission met 10 times over six months to review data, hear testimony, and engage in policy discussions that were open to the public and archived online. With the completion of this data-driven public process, today the Commission submitted to the governor a package of recommendations focused on achieving fiscally sound and pragmatic policy solutions that offer a better public safety return on taxpayer investments. Taken together, these recommendations would avert the projected 2,300 prison beds and the accompanying $600 million dollars in additional corrections costs over the next decade. The complete report can be found here hqp://www.oregon.gov/CJC/Pages/2012ComPubSafaspx. Commission on Public Safety Report to the Governor December 17, 2012 Foreword in this stark fiscal climate, Oregon has distinguished itself by prioritizing data-driven policymaking focused on smart investments in the long-term needs of our state. In the past two legislative sessions, our state's leaders have shepherded comprehensive, bipartisan legislation to reform our highest spending areas-education and healthcare---to ensure taxpayers are getting the best return on their investment in these core functions of state government. It is now time to turn our collective attention to another core function and the state's third highest category of spending: public safety. While Oregon has been considered a national trend-setter in sentencing and corrections policy, recent trends threaten our leadership position and our ability to deliver citizens the best possible public safety results. In the past decade, Oregon's prison population has grown by nearly 50 percent to over 14,000 inmates and taxpayers now spend more than $1.3 billion each biennium to pay for corrections. Meanwhile, Oregon has cut funding to critical public safety areas like state police, county sheriffs, community corrections, and victim services. Without action, prisons will consume an even greater share of Oregon's public safety budget and overall state spending. The state projects its prison population will grow by another 2,300 beds in the next 10 years. This prison growth-fueled mostly by nonviolent offenders-will cost taxpayers an additional $600 million dollars. Our state has convened several working groups to analyze the sentencing and corrections policies that drive our rising correctional population and costs, including the 2011 Commission on Public Safety. This prior work established an important foundation, but did not culminate in comprehensive legislative action. This time must be different. Oregon cannot afford inaction. In May of this year, following a request from legislative leadership, Governor Kitzhaber reconvened and expanded the Commission on Public Safety (Commission), a bipartisan, inter-branch task force, charged with analyzing Oregon's sentencing and corrections data, auditing existing policies, and submitting recommendations that will protect public safety while containing corrections costs and holding offenders accountable. In addition to legislators from both parties and chambers, the 2012 Commission includes practitioners from the criminal justice system including a district attorney, a defense attorney, a community corrections director, a trial judge, a sheriff, a public member, and the director of the Oregon Department of Corrections. What the Commission found in Oregon's data was, as expected, a state with tremendous public safety achievements. Commissioners were in complete accord that we begin our process by taking stock of the many things we have done well in our public safety system. Paramount among these is the historic and sustained crime decline we have experienced in Oregon. What's more, we have achieved this crime decline with a comparably modest incarceration rate (still below the national average) and a prison system that focuses largely on offenders convicted of violent and sex offenses. This means that, for the most part, our state is appropriately focusing its most expensive public safety resource on the offenders who need it most. Finally, through its renowned commitment to evidence-based practices, Oregon's corrections system has achieved one of the nation's lowest recidivism rates. However, the Commission found that Oregon has lost ground on some of these achievements over the past 10 years. Even though our state imprisonment rate hovers below the national average, it has grown at over three times the rate of the national average in the last decade. During that same period, Oregon's prison admissions have grown to include increasing percentages of nonviolent offenders, diluting the state's strategy of concentrating prison beds on the violent and sex offenders who warrant 2 them most. Oregon also has been handing down longer sentences for all offense types, including nonviolent offenses. Despite a growing body of research that points to the diminishing public safety returns of longer prison sentences, Oregon offenders are staying longer in prison today than they have at any point in the last decade. Finally, the Commission found that as the state directs increasing resources to prisons, resources for Oregon's community corrections programs, lauded across the country for their success in reducing recidivism, have shrunk. Many counties face significant shortfalls in the sanctions and services they need in order to hold offenders accountable at the local level. Additionally, critical public safety agents like sheriffs, victim service providers, and the state police have gone underfunded. These shortfalls pose a real and pressing threat to sustaining Oregon's reductions in recidivism and victimization. This report provides analysis and policy options. The Commission considered these recommendations and options and agreed to forward them to the Governor and legislature for consideration and action in the 2013 legislative session. The Commission recommends that where potential savings are achieved, the savings should be reinvested into those policies, programs, and practices proven to reduce recidivism and improve public safety. These include investing in evidence-based community corrections, law enforcement, victim services, and specialty courts. We have done a lot of things right in our public safety system in Oregon but we must remain vigilant in maintaining these achievements. We cannot afford even small slips in our commitment to focus prison beds on those offenders who need it most, and to ensure we are using taxpayer dollars in the most effective way to protect public safety in our communities. 'lot Justice Paul De Muniz (Commission Chair) 3 Acknowledgements The Commission would like to thank the following agencies, associations, and individuals for their assistance throughout the Commission's work: Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision Ore on De artment of Corrections Jay Scroggin, Candace Wheeler Nathan Allen, James Barta, Paul Bellatty, Larry Bennett, Margaret Braun, Jamie Breyman, Criminal Justice Commission Elizabeth Craig, Shawn Miller, Shannon Myrick, Steven Carter, Amber Kaatz, Gregory Lay, Anita Nelson, Steve Robbins, Bethany Smith, Kelly Officer, Craig Prins, Liz Skinner Heidi Steward Department of Justice Susan Amesbury, Karen Heywood, Aaron Knott, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, Shannon Sivell Legislative Staff Monica Brown, Legislative Fiscal Office William Taylor, Counsel to Judiciary Office of Economic Analysis Damon Bell, Andre Harboe, Joshua Lehner, Mark McMullen Oregon Association of Communitv Corrections Directors Steve Berger, Washington County Ginger Martin, Multnomah County Kiki Parker, Klamath/Lake County Reed Ritchey, Washington County Mark Royal, Umatilla County Ted Smietana, Director of Yamhill County Jeff Wood, Marion County Oregon District Attorneys Association Doug Harcleroad Oregon Judicial Department David Factor, Honorable Julie Frantz, Phillip Lemman Oregon State Police Captain Mike Dingeman, Richard Evans, Kailean Kneeland Oregon State Sheriffs' Association Sheriff Thomas Bergen, Clatsop County Sheriff John Bishop, Curry County Sheriff Patrick Garrett, Washington County Sheriff Jim Hensley, Crook County Holly Russell Sheriff Diana Simpson, Benton County Oregon Youth Authority Jan Blanshan, Fairborz Pakseresht, Lance Schnacker Victim Roundtables 36 victim advocates and survivors in attendance in Salem and Klamath Falls 4 Overview of the Commission's Work Following a request from legislative leadership, Governor Kitzhaber issued Executive Order No 12-081 in May 2012 to reconvene and expand the Commission on Public Safety (Commission), a bipartisan, inter- branch task force. The Order begins The state is on an unsustainable path of corrections growth that will limit funding available for proven crime-prevention, reformation, and re-entry strategies. We must reverse the presumption of unlimited corrections growth and redesign a sustainable system that provides opportunities to reduce victimization and keep people safe in the long term, as it holds offenders accountable and protects public safety. The Governor charged the Commission with analyzing Oregon's sentencing and corrections data, auditing existing policies, and identifying and recommending "fiscally responsible and sustainable, evidence-based policies and practices that will control corrections growth, hold offenders accountable, and protect public safety." In addition to legislators from both parties and chambers, the Commission includes practitioners from the criminal justice system including a Supreme Court Justice, a district attorney, a defense attorney, a community corrections director, a trial judge, a sheriff, a public member, and the director of the Oregon Department of Corrections. The Commission met 10 times over six months to review data, hear testimony, and engage in policy discussions that were open to the public and are archived online.' In order to engage a broader audience, the Commission held meetings in Bend, Salem, and Roseburg, and also reviewed feedback from victim roundtables in Salem and Klamath Falls. After an extensive review of Oregon's sentencing and corrections data, the Commission divided into two subgroups to develop specific policy options in those two areas. The subgroups met three times during the fall to explore policy options before presenting their findings and recommendations to the Commission. The Commission has assembled packages of policy options with the underlying goal of protecting public safety and compiled this report to the Governor for full consideration by both the Governor and the Legislature in the 2013 legislative session. The purpose of this report is to provide the Governor and the Legislature with options to achieve cost savings in our prison system. Part of this savings would result from avoiding growth in the state prison population - and the costs associated with such growth - over the next ten years. Several proposals considered by the Commission were not included in the report, and unfortunately it does not address with enough attention cost drivers outside of prison population. Further, some of the recommendations included in the report do not have unanimous support of the Commission members. However, despite a lack of complete agreement on all of the recommendations, this report puts forward proposals that should be weighed, vetted, and considered by policy makers. That consideration is necessary if Oregon is ever to achieve a goal of saving funds, particularly from prison population growth, so that scarce resources can be redirected to other areas of the public safety system that are in dire need of support. 1 Executive Order NO. 12-08- Reconvening the Governors Commission on Public Safety htto://www.oremon.ggvlzov/docs/executive ordersleol2-08commissiononoublicsafety.pdf : For agendas, presentations, and audio, see http://www.oregori,ggy/CiCiPastes/2012ComPubSaf.asox 5 The Commission received technical assistance from the Public Safety Performance Project of the Pew Center on the States (Pew) as part of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative of the United States Department of Justice. The Justice Reinvestment Initiative supports bipartisan and inter-branch efforts, driven by data and evidence on what works and focused on achieving fiscally sound and pragmatic policy solutions that offer a better public safety return on taxpayer investments. In Oregon, Pew's team was assisted by the Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice. The Commission also received staffing support from Oregon's Criminal Justice Commission and the Oregon Justice Department. v r m is " Publis-Safely Justice Paul DeMuniz (Chair) Representative Chris Garrett Representative Andy Olson Senator Floyd Prozanski Senator Jackie Winters Director Colette S. Peters Director Scott Taylor Sheriff Jason Myers District Attorney John Foote Honorable John Collins Larry Matasar, Attorney Dick Withnell Oregon Supreme Court House of Representatives, District 38- Lake Oswego House of Representatives, District 15- Albany State Senate, District 4 South Lane and. North Douglas Counties State Senate, District 10- Salem Department of Corrections ' Multnomah County Department of Community Justice Marion County Sheriff's Office Clackamas County District Attorney's Office Yamhill County Circuit Court Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association Public Member 6 Oregon's Prison Growth in the National Context Since 2000, Oregon's prison population has grown by nearly 50 percent, from 9,491 inmates to more than 14,234 inmates today. During this time, Oregon's imprisonment rate has remained below the national average but has grown more than three times faster than the national average.3 Oregon vs. US Imprisonment Rate ore"'' t1iStOYi[AI prison Pulladon January 1990. December 2009 soo 16,00D us -p--t rate. 502 5% increase since 2000 478 14,000 sm 14.284 q00 373 10,000 57% 2growth 000 297 316 0,101 nce 2000 ~ 3m eoaD OR imprisonment rate: s,ea1 6,000 Z°0 223 OR' increase since 4 OOD 2000 tm tow . ~ -oreyon incarceration rate - u5 imprisonment race As Oregon's prison population has grown, the state's biennial corrections budget has expanded by nearly 40 percent since 2001-03 to more than $1.3 billion in 2011-2013.0 Oregon's corrections budget, largely consumed by prisons, has grown as a percentage of state spending (by 23 percent in the past decade) and now accounts for nearly one in every 10 state dollars.' During the next 10 years, Oregon's prison population is forecasted to grow by 2,300 inmates.r' Oregon taxpayers will be forced to spend an additional $600 million on prison construction and operations in order to accommodate this growth. Because the Oregon prison system is nearing capacity, the Department of Corrections (DOC) will need to launch construction of a 15th state prison, in Junction City. The DOC also will need funds to open two vacant prisons, including opening a never-used medium security unit at Deer Ridge Correctional Institution in Madras, and converting a closed minimum security prison in Salem into a women's prison. To respond to both the imminent growth and 10-year growth, the DOC will require funds to start all three projects inside the next two biennia. Finally, while the most significant cost driver in Oregon's corrections budget is its growing inmate population, Oregon's cost of incarceration, fueled in part by steep rises in inmate healthcare costs (which have grown 180% in the last decade), also contributes to the growing cost of corrections. Though Oregon's public safety system stands out in many positive ways from the rest of the nation, its struggle with unsustainable prison growth is not unique. Across the nation, state prison populations have grown dramatically and budget appropriators have diverted an increasing share of taxpayer dollars to keep pace with soaring prison costs. During the 20 years ending in 2010, state spending on corrections has been the second fastest growing major state budget item behind Medicaid.' 3 Bureau of Justice Statistics. National Prisoner Statistics (NPS) Series. Accessed at: httD://bis.oio.usdoi.gov/index.cfm?tv=dcdetail&iid=269 4 Legislative Fiscal Office, Budget information Report, "Correctional Spending Trends." September 2011. httD://www.lecstate.onus/commllfo/corr ctional spending trends 2011,9)df 5 Ibid. Combined General and Lottery Funds. The national average is one in 14 state general fund dollars. 6 Oregon Office of Economic Analysis. October 2012 Corrections Population Forecast. http://www.2t2Ron.gov/DAS/OEA/docs/prison/DOCForecast2Ol210.pdf 7 Analysis performed using data from the National Association of State Budget Officers Expenditure Reports. 7 This high price of prisons would be more than defensible had it yielded proportionate improvements in public safety in the most cost-effective manner. And evidence suggests that a meaningful share of prison expansion did result in substantial reductions in crime. The national crime rate has been falling since the early 1990s, and is now at its lowest level since 1968.8 Oregonians, for example, are as safe today as they were 40 years ago.9 Prison expansion certainly contributed to this trend: the most often-cited research credits prison growth for one-quarter to one-third of the crime drop during the 1990s.10 In short, the increased use of incarceration had an important but minority role in improved public safety. Other factors likely included increasing numbers of law enforcement officers on the streets, advances in law enforcement practices, changes in drug markets, and an aging resident population." Finally, while a simple glance at the nation's rising incarceration rates and falling crime rates might imply a direct causal relationship, a deeper look at state trends reveals a far more complicated picture. Consider Florida and New York, two states that began the 21St century with nearly the same size prison population of approximately 70,000 inmates. In the ensuing decade, Florida added 30,000 inmates and now has more than 100,000 offenders behind bars. Meanwhile, New York's prison population fell below 60,000. Yet the crime rate dropped in both states by about the same amount. In fact, New York's crime drop was slightly larger (29.2 percent) than Florida's (28.2 percent). 12 New York is not alone. Between 2000 and 2010, all 17 states that reduced their imprisonment rates also experienced a decline in their crime rates. State examples like these, plus dramatic reforms in law-and-order states like Texas and supportive public opinion, have combined with state budget pressures to provoke a growing national conversation that puts prison spending under greater scrutiny than ever before. For the better part of the past four decades, the most common question that policy makers asked about their state corrections budgets was, "How many more prisons do we need?" Today, state leaders from both parties are asking a much tougher question: "How do we get taxpayers a better public safety return on their corrections dollars?" Last year, policymakers in Georgia faced a projected eight percent prison population growth over the next five years at a cost of $264 million. Rather than invest more taxpayer dollars in prisons, Georgia legislators looked to more cost-effective approaches. They unanimously passed a package of reforms that controlled prison growth through changes to drug and property offense sentences, and invested in improving public safety by strengthening community supervision and investing in local sanctions, treatment, and accountability courts. 13 Similar bipartisan, inter-branch efforts have succeeded in bending the corrections cost curve and enhancing recidivism reduction efforts in states like Arkansas, Hawaii, Kentucky, and South Carolina. Just this fall, a Justice Reinvestment Act was signed into law in Pennsylvania. This omnibus, bi-partisan legislation is expected to save the state nearly $253 million through 2018. The new law requires that a portion of these savings be reinvested to support local law enforcement, victim services, county, 8 FBI. Uniform Crime Reports as prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data. Accessed December 2012. s Ibid. 10 William Spelman, "The Limited Importance of Prison Expansion," in The Crime Drop in America, eds. Alfred Blumstein and Joel Wallman (Cambridge University Press, 2000), 97-129; Steven D. Levitt, "Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six That Do Not," Journal of Economic Perspectives 18, no. 1(Winter 2004): 163-19Q httricetheo .uchica o.edu levittPa ers LevittUnderstandin Wh rim 2 4. f. 11 Levitt (2004). 12 Pew Center on the States, "State of Recidivism," April 2011. 13 Pew Center on the States, "2012 Georgia Public Safety Reform." July 2012. 8 probation and parole, and other programs and services that work to cut crime and increase criminal justice system effectiveness." 34 Council of State Governments, "Pennsylvania General Assembly Sends Justice Reinvestment Bill to Governor Corbett," October 2012. Accessed at: htto://austicereinvestment.orit/file(10-18-12-CSG-1C-Justice-Reinvg$lmentPR.odf Sidebar: Oregon's Prison Forecast Oregon's prison population has grown nearly 50 percent since 2000. Without policy change, there is no reason to expect that it will stop growing now. Oregon's Office of Economic Analysis (OEA) has conducted the state's correctional forecasts since 1995, releasing an updated forecast every six months in April and October. In 2000 OEA's forecasting model was revised and since then has become increasingly accurate. Prison population forecasts include two different types of growth: baseline growth (or the continuation of current growth) and growth from new policies. Forecasters have a wealth of data to use when forecasting baseline growth (including population demographics, crime rates, and criminal justice practices affecting admissions and length-of-stay in prison). In Oregon, the prison population's steady growth during the past two decades suggests continued baseline growth. Forecasting the impact of new policies is more complicated because it relies on estimates about how those policies will be implemented. A Forecast Advisory Committee of criminal justice experts approves all forecast assumptions regarding policies and practices in the criminal justice system and the impact of policy changes on the corrections populations. The OEA forecasters are unusually well-equipped to forecast on the Measure 57 (M57) impact (that represents a significant portion of the 10-year forecast) because they rely not just on assumptions from the Advisory Committee but also on data from the brief implementation of M57 in 2009. Additionally, this year's October forecast has another eight months of data on how M57 has been implemented since it came back into effect in January of this year. The October 2012 forecast projects a 14 percent growth in Oregon's prison population over the next 10 years (from 14,234 inmates to 16,534 inmates). Baseline growth accounts for approximately 60 percent of this 2,300 bed growth, with the remainder attributed to recently or soon-to-be implemented policies. Charting a sustainable path for the next 10 years is critical for budgeting and planning purposes, but prison population growth is not just a distant problem. Approximately half of the 10-year growth is projected to occur in the next two to three years. This imminent growth is predicted with more confidence because short-term prison forecasts are historically very accurate. The past 20 two-year forecasts (going back to 2000) have had an accuracy rate within one percentage point.is The Forecasting Advisory Committee consists of: Honorable Julie Frantz (Chair), Multnomah County Chief Criminal Judge Aaron Felton, Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision John Haroldson, Benton County District Attorney Greg Hazarabedian, Public Defender Services of Lane County Craig Prins, Criminal Justice Commission Executive Director Donald Rees, Multnomah County Deputy District Attorney Colette Peters, Director of the Department of Corrections Jeffery Wood, Director of Marion County Community Corrections Diana Simpson, Benton County Sheriff 15 Oregon Office of Economic Analysis. Presentation to the Corrections Population Forecast Advisory Committee. September 2012. 10 Findings on Oregon's Corrections System During the past six months, the Commission conducted an extensive review of Oregon's sentencing and correction data to better understand and evaluate the state's public safety system and corrections spending. Snapshots of Oregon's prison population over the past decade show a system largely focused on violent and sex offenders. This Commission emphasized that it was commendable that Oregon has traditionally focused its prison beds on those offenders who deserve them most. However, the pressing issue that commanded the Commission's attention was not a snapshot of the prison population but rather the trends that have contributed to prison growth over the past decade and the trends that will drive the prison population in the coming decade. In particular, the Commission focused on sentencing and corrections policies driving Oregon's prison growth. Prison populations rise and fall according to two variables: 1) how many offenders are admitted to prison, and 2) how long those offenders remain behind bars. Beyond the crime control benefit, many Oregonians support the use of prison and even long prison terms for serious, violent offenders for retributive purposes. However, there is a growing body of research showing that for many low-level offenders, prison terms are more likely to increase than to reduce recidivism. 16 At the same time, for a substantial number of offenders there is little or no evidence that keeping them locked up longer prevents additional crime. This research has provoked serious questions about whether long prison terms are the most effective way to increase public safety. There are two methods by which length of stay in prison could benefit public safety: incapacitation (the reduction of current criminal involvement because offenders are physically held in prison) and deterrence (the reduction of future criminal involvement because of the increasing severity of the current penalty). Incapacitation is very effective at preventing individual offenders from committing crimes (though the number and type of crimes averted varies substantially by offender and offense type) and it comes at a substantial cost. The best measurement for whether deterrence works is whether similar offenders, when subjected to different terms of incarceration, recidivate at different levels. The most methodologically sophisticated research studies (those matching offenders to minimize the effect of pre-existing differences) find no significant effect, positive or negative, of longer prison terms on recidivism rates. 17 A 2012 study of three states found that between 28 and 57 percent of nonviolent offenders could have been released between three months and two years ahead of schedule without losing either incapacitation or deterrent effects. 18 A study of violent inmates in Georgia showed that the ability to earn time had a greater effect on reducing recidivism than longer lengths of stay.19 Based on this research, many states are reducing length of stay through the reclassification of offense types (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Kentucky, Montana, South Carolina, and Washington among others), revision of mandatory minimum laws (including Michigan and New York), 16 Daniel S. Nagin, Francis T. Cullen, and Cheryl Lero Jonson, "Imprisonment and Reoffending," in Michael Tonry (ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 23 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008). 17 G. Matthew Snodgrass, Arjan A.1. Blokland, Amelia Haviland, Paul Nieuwbeerta, Daniel S. Nagin, "Does the Time Cause the Crime? An Examination of the Relationship Between Time Served and Reoffending in the Netherlands," Criminology 49 (2011): 1149-1194; Thomas A. Loughran, Edward P. Mulvey, Carol A. Schubert, Jeffrey Fagan, Alex R. Piquero, and Sandra H. Losoya, "Estimating a Dose-Response Relationship Between Length of Stay and Future Recidivism in Serious Juvenile Offenders," Criminology 47 (2009): 699-740. 1s Pew Center on the States, "Time Served: The High Cost and Low Return of Longer Prison Terms," June 2012. 18 Ilyana Kuziemko, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper (2007): "Natural experiment when Georgia eliminated parole for violent offenders." 11 expansion of earned time opportunities (including Colorado, Kansas, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina), and alteration of parole policy and practice (including Georgia and Mississippi). Despite these research findings, Oregon has increased both its prison admissions and the amount of time offenders stay in prison during the past decade. Admissions Oregon has traditionally sentenced the vast majority of its felony offenders to probation rather than to prison. However, in the past decade, Oregon has increased its use of prison sentences in lieu of probation and local jail sentences by 18 percent. The vast majority-90 percent-of this growth in the use of imprisonment for convicted felons was among offenders convicted of nonviolent offenses (including drug, property, and other nonviolent offenses). Looking at Oregon's prison admissions over the past decade, the Commission found several trends that cut against the state's long-standing strategy of focusing its prison resources on violent and sex offenders. First, Oregon has been increasing its use of prison as a sanction for "technical violations" of supervision. Eighteen percent of all prison admissions in 2011 were offenders admitted on a technical violation of supervision. These violations include both noncriminal infractions of the rules of supervision and criminal conduct that would not have resulted in prison but for the fact that the offender was already on supervision. Since 2000, technical violators of probation as a share of all prison admissions increased by 26 percent. Second, offenders convicted of nonviolent crimes have increased by 10 percent as a share of all prison admissions during the past decade. This includes offenders convicted of property offenses (this admissions group grew by eight percent as a share of all admissions) and "other" nonviolent offenses (a DOC category largely comprised of DUI and weapons offenses). Offenders convicted of "other" offenses grew by 42 percent in that same period as a share of all prison admissions. Finally, half of the top 10 offenses resulting in prison admissions in 2011 were drug or property offenses. Nearly half the projected prison growth in the next decade will be a result of M57, an initiative passed by voters in 2008. M57 reduces the number of prior offenses needed for a prison sentence and creates mandatory prison sentences for certain drug offenses, thus increasing the number of drug and property offenders admitted to prison. Length of Stay As Oregon has been sentencing more offenders, including more nonviolent offenders, to prison, the state has also been handing down longer sentences for all offense types. Since 2000, length of stay for drug offenses has climbed 22 percent and length of stay for technical violations of probation has risen 20 percent. All in all, offenders are staying in prison longer in 2011 than at any other point in the past decade. Finally, while much of the prison growth from Measure 11 (M11), which was approved by voters in 1994, has leveled off in the second half of this last decade, M11 is still a major contributor to the prison population (accounting for 14 percent of 2011 admissions but 49 percent of the prison time imposed in 2011) due to the lengthy sentences for offenses within that mandatory minimum sentencing scheme as well as the lengthy sentences for M11 indictments that ultimately result in lesser convictions. 12 Again, nearly half the projected prison growth in the next decade will be a result of M57. This growth is due in part because the measure increased sentence lengths for certain drug and property offenders. Community Corrections Oregon has received recognition from across the nation for its early endorsement of evidence-based practices in community corrections. Since 2003, Oregon has statutorily required that a portion of its investments in corrections programs be evidence-based and cost-effective. 20 This unique support for research-based correctional practices has contributed to one of Oregon's most pronounced public safety achievements: while other states struggle to drive their recidivism rates down, Oregon public safety professionals have succeeded in cutting the recidivism rate by 21 percent in the past decade alone.21 A 2011 study that compared post-prison recidivism rates across states found that Oregon had the lowest rate in the country. 22 The Commission conducted a review of current research guiding evidence-based practices in corrections and then assessed Oregon's practices against these standards. Not surprisingly, Oregon corrections programs largely adhere to the research about what works to reduce recidivism. For example, many states do not supervise certain offenders when they are released from prison, despite evidence that supervision within the first year of release is crucial to reducing recidivism. In Oregon, every offender released from prison is supervised though post-prison or parole supervision. Also, Oregon incorporates risk and needs assessments at various points across the corrections process in order to target supervision and services to the appropriate offenders.23 Another practice supported by research is to respond to violations of supervision with swift, certain, and proportional sanctions. Too often, offenders accumulate many violations before facing any type of consequence. When offenders are finally cited back to court, prison seems the only appropriate sanction for the ongoing pattern of violations. This is not swift, certain, nor proportional, and it undermines the deterrent value of the sanctions. To Oregon's great credit, supervision officers for nearly two decades have used a structured sanctioning grid that boosts swiftness, certainty, and proportionality and has contributed to the reduction in recidivism. 24 The Commission did identify some gaps in Oregon's use of evidence-based practices. Though Oregon does rely on risk and needs assessments at various stages in the criminal justice process, there is no requirement to conduct risk and needs assessments prior to setting conditions of probation supervision. Risk and needs assessments are conducted once offenders are transferred to supervision but this is after conditions of probation have been set by the court. As a consequence, probation conditions may not target appropriate offenders or risk factors. Also, although supervision officers do use a structured sanctions grid to respond swiftly and proportionately to violations of probation, these structured sanctions can be waived at sentencing by the judge. In these instances, probationers need to be taken 20 SB267 htto~//www.leg.state.or.us/03rex/pdfLESB2,67- 21 This decline is based on a felony reconviction inside of three years. Comparing the first half of 1999 to the first half of 2009, probation recidivism declined 21% to 18.8% (this is measured from the beginning of the probation term out 36 months) and post-prison/parole recidivism declined 21% to 25.6% (this is measured from release to post-prison supervision/parole out 36 months). 22 Pew Center on the States, "State of Recidivism," (2011). This study measures recidivism as return to prison within 3 years. 23 An offender's risk of recidivism is only one element among many used to make decisions throughout the criminal justice system. Probation and parole agencies, prison and jail systems, and the courts must evaluate numerous factors about the offense (such as the severity of the crime and harm to victims) and the offender and then must consider multiple goals (including retribution, incapacitation, general deterrence, specific deterrence, rehabilitation, and victim restoration) before selecting an appropriate course of action. A recidivism risk score provides valuable information but is just one piece of information in a highly complex set of deliberations, and it should never alone determine decisions. See "Pew Risk Memo to Commission" http://www.oregon.gov/CJC/`Paees/2012ComPubsaf.asox 24 http:awww.Qregon.itov/DOC/CC/nacres/structured kgnaions.asox 13 back to court for noncriminal violations, a practice that can result in uncertain, delayed or disproportionate sanctions. Earned discharge credits can provide a powerful incentive for offenders to participate in programs, obtain and retain a job, and remain drug- and alcohol-free. The Commission found that Oregon probation and post-prison supervision does not allow for earned discharge. Evidence-based supervision requires a balance of sanctions and treatment options to target offenders' risks and needs. After assessing Oregon's use of evidence-based practices, the Commission found that the most pressing threat to sustaining Oregon's recidivism reduction is the shortfall and geographic variation of local sanctions and community-based treatment options, often funded precariously by private or federal dollars. By way of example, the four counties in the table below on the 1eft25 each have markedly different access to the sanctions listed on the Oregon sanctioning grid. Of the five sanctions listed on the sanctioning grid, the only sanction that all four counties have available is jail, and while all counties have a jail, not all counties have jail space available. In the table below on the right 26are four counties close in geographic proximity but with widely different access to treatment and services. P_ R111 r 17 Jim X' X X x cagekivc X X Day Reporting X X Domesticyiolence X X Center Substance Abuse - X x Empl%"" X Inwient Cutumtk oVAnk X X Mental Health X X X Center ElectrankHome X X OeteMlon Sex Offender x rrcatmmt X X X A 2011 survey of Oregon community corrections directors'' revealed a significant lack of resources in community corrections and concluded that these shortfalls were detrimental to evidence-based supervision. For example, a third of the counties surveyed reported that GPS and other electronic monitoring were not available to manage offenders in their jurisdictions. Additionally, after Community Corrections sustained state budget cuts28 in 2011, half of Oregon's counties experienced reductions in substance abuse outpatient treatment and mental health services. The impacts, illustrated by Umatilla and Klamath Counties, can be dire. As a result of budget reductions over the past several years, Umatilla County has closed its residential treatment center, its Day Reporting Center Program, its Early Re-entry Program, and its subsidized sex offender treatment. In Klamath County, community corrections has reduced staffing levels from 39 employees on July 1, 2010 to 19 employees on July 1, 2012 and has also reduced contracts for sex offender treatment and domestic violence treatment by 23 percent since July 1, 2010. 25 Oregon Department of Corrections ]6 Ibid. l] OACCD Member Survey Results, Oregon Association of Community Corrections Directors, November 2011 2e Community Corrections sustained $26.1 million in cuts in 2011 14 Recognized nationally for its approach to community corrections and significant recidivism reduction, Oregon's community corrections agencies have faced a series of budget reductions that are placing their practices and outcomes in jeopardy. The loss of programs and services and the limited availability of jail beds have forced these counties to make very difficult decisions that transfer corrections and cost burdens to the state prison system and, more importantly, undercut public safety achievements. Policies to Protect Public Safety, Control Prison Costs, and Hold Offenders Accountable Over the years, Oregon has achieved remarkable public safety outcomes through its sentencing and corrections system. The Commission's goal is to fine-tune Oregon's already advanced public safety system in order to protect public safety, control prison costs, and hold offenders accountable. Based on Oregon's data, the growing body of research about what works in corrections, and examples of successful innovations from states across the nation, the Commission proposes the following set of policies, grouped under five objectives: • Ensure prison beds are focused on serious violent offenders • Incentivize good behavior and reduce the likelihood of recidivism • Enhance evidence-based, cost-effective community supervision practices + Establish performance objectives and measure outcomes • Promote sustainable use of corrections resources Ensure Prison Beds Are Focused on Serious Violent Offenders 1. Weight Thresholds for Marijuana Oregon's sentencing options for possession and, separately, manufacturing and distribution of marijuana are more severe than those under federal law. Sentences are longer and the quantity of marijuana triggering a long sentence is less than required under federal law. While these offenses are not significant drivers of the prison population, in some cases they lead to offenders occupying expensive prison beds for extended periods.29 Reducing the sentence ranges for marijuana offenses was recommended by the Oregon District Attorneys Association (ODAA) and would be in keeping with the strategy to concentrate prison resources on serious violent offenders. Recommendation: Align marijuana weight thresholds in Oregon with the federal marijuana weight thresholds and set sentencing ranges according to the new thresholds. This reform would be prospective and would not apply to offenders currently in the custody of DOC. 2. Presumptive Sentences for Driving While Suspended In Oregon, felony Criminal Driving While Suspended or Revoked (DWS) is a Class B felony and is classified as crime category 6 with a sentencing range from 90 days probation to 25 months in prison. While this offense is not a significant driver of the prison population, some of these offenders occupy expensive prison beds for an extended period.30 Reducing penalties for DWS offenses was recommended by the ODAA and would be in keeping with the strategy to concentrate prison resources on serious violent offenders. 19 Marijuana offenders made up approximately two percent of admissions in 2011 and had an average length of stay of 17 months. 30 Based on the 41 admissions to prison in 2011 the average length of stay is 17 months 15 Recommendation: Reduce penalties for felony DWS sentences so that the presumptive sentence is either a jail or probation sentence. This reform would be prospective and would not apply to offenders currently in the custody of DOC. 3. Sentences for Robbery 2"" Assault 2"d and Sex Abuse 1st- M11 Modification The Commission decided not to recommend any changes to 19 of the 22 M11 offenses. The three offenses included in this recommendation 31 warrant a different approach (and have already received some attention from the legislature 32) because of the broad spectrum of criminal conduct encompassed by their definitions. For example, Robbery 2nd can include everything from two teenagers pushing a man down and stealing his cell phone to a person holding an unloaded gun at someone's head and demanding money. 33 Assault 2nd can capture everything from causing "substantial pain ,34 by using a shoe as a weapon to beating someone into a life-threatening medical condition 35. Finally, Sex Abuse 1st includes everything from an adult patting the clothed buttocks of a 13 year old for purposes of sexual arousal to forcible sexual contact short of rape. 36 In each of these comparisons, there are significantly different types of criminal conduct and, possibly, very different impacts on the victims of the offenses. Option 1: Mandatory minimum sentencing restrictions do not permit the courts to exercise discretion that responds to the particulars of the offense or the criminal history of the offender. This leads to extended stays in expensive prison beds by offenders who could be better managed with shorter prison terms and more intensive community supervision. Moving these sentences into a penalty range with high maximums (available so that judges can apply appropriate and lengthy sentences for those offenders who warrant them) while lowering minimums will help the courts tailor punishments that fit the crimes and ensure that prison beds are reserved for serious violent offenders. Recommendation 1: Remove Robbery 2"d, Assault 2nd, and Sex Abuse 1st from the list of offenses with required mandatory minimum sentences and allow judges to sentence offenders based on current sentencing guidelines, which take into account criminal history and seriousness of offense. This reform would be prospective and would not apply to offenders currently in the custody of the DOC. Option 2: A lower mandatory minimum threshold would lessen the severity of the sanctions in these offenses but would limit the ability of judges to take into account criminal history and seriousness of offense. Recommendation 2: Reduce the mandatory minimum sentence for Robbery 2"d, Assault 2nd, and Sex Abuse 1" to 36 months. This reform would be prospective and would not apply to offenders currently in the custody of DOC. "These three crimes accounted for approximately 10 percent of prison admissions for a new crime in 2011 and had average expected length of stay of 63, 58, and 109 months, respectively. 32 SB 1049 httD:!/www.le .state.or.us/10ss1/measodf/sb1000.dir/sb1049.intro.ndf 33 ORS 164.405 34 ORS 161.015(7) 3S ORS 163.175 36 ORS 163.427 16 4. Sentences for Certain Repeat Property and Drug Offenses - M57 Modification over the past few years, restrictive sentencing changes have increased the proportion of offenders in prison for property and drug offenses. There are 16 property offenses and 21 drug offenses for which a second conviction requires a de facto mandatory sentence. The judge is restricted from imposing a downward departure or probation sentence depending on the criminal history. These sentencing restrictions are projected to be a major driver of the continued prison growth as noted previously. Option 1: Altering the sentence restrictions and giving judges a sentencing range including high maximums (so that judges can apply appropriate and lengthy sentences for those offenders who warrant them) while lowering minimums would help the courts tailor punishments that fit the crimes and further focus prison resources on serious violent offenders. Recommendation 1: Provide a wider sentence range for repeat property offenders (19-24 months or 13-18 months, depending on the seriousness of the offense and the criminal history) and retain the mandatory sentence requirements for repeat drug offenders who target minors. This reform would be prospective and would not apply to offenders currently in the custody of DOC. Options 2: Allowing judges to deviate from the sentencing restrictions in specific cases would enable judges to impose a less severe sentence in extenuating circumstances. Recommendation 2: Establish an opt-out provision (available to judges only in extenuating circumstances) that allows departure from the required sentence. This reform would be prospective and would not apply to offenders currently in the custody of DOC. Incentivize Good Behavior and Reduce Recidivism 5. Transitional Leave The DOC is able to prepare certain offenders-' for release with a 30-day period of community supervision prior to release in order to support their successful reentry. During this time, the offender continues to be a DOC inmate and can be returned to prison at any time. Offenders who successfully complete the 30-day reentry period are transferred to post-prison supervision. Currently, the DOC and community corrections do not proactively assist eligible offenders with their transitional leave applications or transitional plans. Additionally, some of Oregon's community corrections professionals assert that 30 days is not a sufficient period to take on the complex work of reentry. Expanding transitional leave would ensure that more offenders would be better prepared for successful reentry into the community. Recommendation: Extend transitional leave to 90 days and strengthen the transitional leave application process such that DOC and community corrections proactively assist eligible inmates in applying and preparing a case plan. This reform would be prospective and would not apply to offenders currently in the custody of DOC. 37 Measure 11 offenders are not eligible for transitional leave nor are offenders sentenced prior to the sentencing guidelines (prior to 1989; parole eligible population). Also, the DOC is restricted from releasing an offender on transitional leave unless the court authorizes the defendant's eligibility with specific language in the sentencing judgment. 17 6. Earned Time Offenders are staying in prison longer in Oregon than at any other point in the past decade and this increased length of stay is a driver of prison population growth. As discussed above, research suggests that for many offenders length of stay can be decreased without affecting recidivism, particularly when combined with programs proven to reduce recidivism and participation incentives. For eligible offenders in Oregon, earned time is periodically reviewed and calculated by the DOC. Half of all eligible earned time can be earned for participation in programs and the remaining half can be earned for good behavior. From July 2013 forward, earned time eligible offenderS38 will be able to earn as much as 20% off their sentence (with the possibility of exiting prison after serving 80% of their sentence). Recommendation: Expand earned time so that eligible offenders can earn an additional 10 percent (with the possibility of exiting prison after serving 70 percent of their sentence) for participating in programs and exhibiting positive conduct. The Commission emphasized that this policy must include rigorous conditions. Offenders would have to earn their time off. Earned time should never be automatically given to offenders as credit for time simply spent in prison. Additionally, this reform would not be available to offenders with non-qualifying concurrent sentences, would not require resentencing of any offenders, and would not apply to offenders currently in the custody of DOC. 7. Alternative to Incarceration Program DOC operates an Alternative to Incarceration Program (AIP) that consists of two phases: a six-month institutional phase with 14-16 hours per day of highly structured and regimented routine and a three- month non-institutional phase, also with structured programming. Offenders can earn a maximum amount of 20 percent additional time off their prison stay for successful completion of both AIP phases. Certain crimes are statutorily ineligible for AIP, such as M11 and all sex crimes. 39 Prior to 2009, the DOC could release an offender on AIP so long as the court did not restrict the offender from AIP in the sentence. Recommendation: Expand AIP access by changing AIP to an "opt out" instead of an "opt in," making AIP the default option that can be affirmatively prohibited by the sentencing judge. This policy would be prospective and would not apply to offenders currently in the custody of DOC. S. Earned Review for Youth Offenders: "Second Look" Some youth offenders aged 15 to 17 who are convicted in adult court are eligible to be evaluated by judges after serving half of their sentences in order to determine if they can be safely transferred to community placement. This is called "second look" in statute.40 During this review, a judge determines whether the eligible youth offender has been "rehabilitated and reformed," based on the youth's behavior and participation in recidivism reduction programs. This review is not available for M11 youth offenders (accounting for 27 percent of the Oregon Youth Authority standing population), and also can be denied to other youth offenders as a part of a plea agreement. 38 Repeat offenses under the "Denny Smith Law" and Measure 11 offenses are statutorily ineligible for any earned time that would reduce the minimum sentence ORS 137.635 and ORS 137.700. Accesed at: htte://www.lea.state.or.us/ors/137.html 39 M11, assaults in the 3rd degree, incest, failure to perform duties of a driver to someone seriously injured as a result of an accident, and sex crimes/attempts. ORS 137.751 40 ORS 420A.203 18 Recommendation: Allow all youth offenders sentenced as adults to be reviewed by a judge at 50 percent and 75 percent of their sentences upon petition by the Oregon Youth Authority (OYA). This policy would be prospective and would not apply to youth offenders currently in the custody of OYA. 9. Community Corrections Earned Discharge Currently in Oregon, earned discharge is not available to offenders on probation or post-prison supervision for complying with the terms of supervision, participating in recidivism reduction programs, or paying victim restitution .4' The average length of supervision for probationers has increased from 1.3 years in 2000 to 1.8 years in 2011 (a 38 percent increase) and post-prison supervision periods have increased from 1.3 years in 2000 to 1.5 years in 2011 (15 percent growth). States like Arkansas, Arizona and Missouri have implemented earned credits in order to incentivize good behavior, reduce recidivism, and allow community supervision officers to focus more time, supervision and resources on higher-risk offenders. Recommendation: For offenders on probation and post-prison supervision, allow community supervision officers to calculate day-for-day earned time and terminate supervision based on credit earned for satisfying the conditions of supervision and participation in recidivism reduction programs. Note: The Commission recognized that without explicit efforts, the implementation of earned discharge could negatively affect community corrections budgets. The Commission recommends earned discharge if probation and post-prison funding allocations are amended so that they are based on supervision intakes rather than volume. This would allow community corrections to implement this best practice without triggering additional budget cuts. Enhance Evidence-Based, Cost-Effective Community Supervision Practices 10. Structured Sanctions Oregon has been a leader in the use of swift, certain, and proportional sanctions to respond to violations of supervision conditions. Oregon's probation officers use a research-proven sanction grid including further restrictions on movement, additional drug testing or substance abuse treatment, curfews, more frequent reporting, and other sanctions. These sanctions are targeted to deter or respond to the offending behavior and designed to get the immediate attention of violating probationers. Research shows that this kind of measured, immediate response reduces the likelihood of revocation hearings and the use of revocation sanctions and jail.41 A provision in the current statute guiding structured sanctions can be used to prohibit supervising officers from applying structured sanctions and instead require that offenders be returned to court for non-criminal violations. A requirement that probation officers be allowed to use graduated sanctions on all probationers will enhance public safety and reduce costs related to the use of court time and local jail beds for non-criminal violations. 41 ORS 144.085 47 Martin B, Van Dine S. Examining the Impact of Ohio's Progressive Sanction Grid, Final Report. Office of Policy and Offender Reentry, Ohio Department of Correction. August 2008. 19 Recommendation: Prohibit the judgment order from restricting the use of structured sanctions in response to non-criminal violations of supervision. 11. Supervision Conditions The conditions of probation supervision, such as frequency of reporting and participation in cognitive therapy or substance abuse treatment, should be based on the offender's individual risks and needs. In Oregon, supervision conditions are set by the court after sentencing but not necessarily before assessment of risks and needs. Probation officers do use a risk and needs assessment tool to further refine the supervision plan, but the conditions previously set by the court must be followed even if they conflict with the probation plan. This can lead to over-supervision of offenders or conditions that are expensive to carry out and unrelated to public safety outcomes. The Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision recently established a new policy requiring that a risk and needs assessment be conducted prior to setting any supervision conditions. The policy requires the supervising officer in the community to review the assessment results and set supervision conditions based on the risk to reoffend and programmatic conditions based on identified needs. A similar policy for probationers would make their supervision in the community more effective and efficient. Recommendation: Require conditions of probation be determined with the guidance of a risk and needs assessment by the supervising officer at the community corrections level. Establish Performance Objectives and Measure Outcomes 12. Oversight Entity Reforms to Oregon's sentencing and corrections system will require careful implementation and oversight. Several states that have undertaken similar comprehensive criminal justice reforms have established time-limited entities to track implementation and to report on the outcomes. Recommendation: Establish an oversight entity, including representatives from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches as well as from across the public safety sector, to track the implementation and outcomes of the public safety reforms. For the next four years, the entity should meet quarterly and submit annual progress reports to the Governor and the legislature. 13. Definition of Recidivism States, localities, and research institutions measure recidivism differently. Oregon's current measure of recidivism, a felony conviction within three years of release from prison, is a common measure across the field. However, this definition, as with all others, has limitations in what it indicates about offender behavior and public safety. Since recidivism rates frequently are used to judge the effectiveness of correctional agencies, it is important to look at the rates separately for offenders of different risk levels. This will help paint a more accurate picture of system performance as Oregon seeks to further concentrate its prison space on serious, violent and chronic offenders-that is, inmates who will tend to have a higher risk of recidivism. 20 Recommendation: Establish and expand the definition of recidivism in statute to include re-arrest, re- conviction, and re-incarceration. Require that these recidivism outcomes be reported at least annually to an oversight entity, and that the rates be reported by offender risk levels. 14. Specialty Courts Standards Oregon's specialty courts (drug courts, veterans' courts, and mental health courts) are known for effectively addressing the risks and needs of participating offenders. These courts, operated throughout the state, have shown an ability to reduce recidivism and stabilize successful participants, which improves public safety and uses few, if any, corrections resources. However, these courts operate independently from county to county with few standardized practices, including offender eligibility criteria, supervision or treatment standards, or data collection protocols. Drug court practices are based on the 10 key components established by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, but there are no specific statewide standards which the courts must follow.43 A 2010 cost-benefit study of Oregon's drug courts identified significant positive results. The analysis, which looked at drug court investments, recidivism outcomes, and the costs of recidivism, concluded that "there is a net benefit to the public safety system of at least $2.41 for each $1 invested in drug court." Certain courts had greater recidivism reduction rates than others and the report found that the use of the key components was not consistent throughout the state.44 Recommendation: Require statewide standards based on the 37 recommendations from the Oregon study and the key components document for data collection, staff training, specialty court team composition, and eligibility criteria that focus on moderate- to high-risk offenders. 15. Correctional Forecasts OEA releases a prison forecast every six months (in April and October) that includes information about forecasted prison growth over a 10-year period.45 OEA has conducted the state forecast since 1995, and has used its current forecasting model since 2000. The forecast report is crucial to ensuring policy makers and taxpayers have a comprehensive understanding of Oregon's correctional population over time. Recommendation: Require that OEA publish its margin of error and include a breakdown of growth in its six-month forecast reports such that any growth or decline is attributed, where possible, to specific policies or to specific components of the "baseline" (e.g. population demographics or crime trends). 16. Program Evaluation S13267, 46 passed in the 2003 legislative session, demonstrates the state's commitment to investing in what works by requiring that 75 percent of Oregon's correctional programs be evidence-based and cost- effective. However, the statute does not detail how these programs should be evaluated to meet these requirements. As a result, program evaluation is inconsistent across the state. Along with several other states, Oregon has built substantial capacity to conduct cost-benefit analysis of in-state programs and policies. Oregon's analytic capacity and software is housed at the Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) and 43 Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. National Association of Drug Court Professionals, Drug Court Standards Committee, Bureau of Justice Assistance, October 2004 (Reprinted). 44 Oregon Drug Court Cost Study: Statewide Costs and Promising Practices htto://nicic.aov/LibraryL025100 45 ORS 184.351 45 htto://www.leg.state.or.us/03regJodf/ESB267.ndf 21 is capable of evaluating a host of correctional programs based on an analysis of available research to identify what works; a calculation of Oregon's potential return on investment; an assessment of risk; and a ranking of Oregon's programs based on their costs and benefits. Recommendation: Strengthen statutory standards for the terms "evidence-based" and "cost-effective" by requiring the use of the GC Cost-benefit Analysis tool to assess and guide all state investments in correctional programs. Additionally, strengthen statutory standards for evaluation to encourage the best possible evaluations of correctional programs including randomized controlled trials where possible and appropriate. 17. Fiscal Impact Notes Currently, agencies must submit an Agency Fiscal Impact Statement form when a legislative measure or concept has an actual or potential fiscal impact on the agency.47 A fiscal impact means an increase or decrease in state agency expenditures and/or revenues and/or full time equivalent positions. The form must include agency written analysis, agency quantitative analysis, and descriptions of other considerations. it currently requires information regarding the fiscal impact exclusive to the next biennium. Many sentencing and corrections reforms do not affect biennial budgets, but have significant impacts on budgets four, six, and eight years out or longer. Fiscal impact statements that cover a longer period of time would give policy makers a more accurate account of the budget implications of proposed sentencing and corrections policies. Recommendation: Require a 10-year time horizon in required fiscal impact statements for legislation and initiatives that change sentencing or corrections policies. Promote Sustainable Use of Correction 1& Performance Incentive Funding Currently, local public safety professionals who reduce their county's impact on the state prison population through decisions made in sentencing, supervision, and revocation are not fiscally compensated for doing so. For instance, if a court holds a probation violator accountable with a swift and certain sanction in the community, local government continues to shoulder the cost of supervision when it could have reduced that cost by revoking the violator to state prison. Savings at the state level are not reinvested in front-line public safety agents or agencies. In order to build community corrections and local law enforcement capacity, several states have implemented performance incentive funding models.48 In one version of the model, participating counties enter into an agreement with the state to protect public safety while reducing their impact on the prison population by a specified percentage over a specified period of time. If reduction targets are met, counties receive funds for local public safety programs and practices. 47 2012 Legislative Session INSTRUCTIONS FOR AGENCY FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT FORM htto://www.leiz.state.or. us/cOmM/"lfol2012session/c%202012%20FIS%201 nstructions.odf 48 The Vera Institute of Justice, Performance Incentive Funding. Accessed at: h"o://www.vera.org/proiect/oerformance-incentive-funding 22 Recommendation: Create a voluntary performance incentive grant program that provides fiscal incentives for counties to reduce recidivism and safely reduce their impact on the state prison population. This incentive funding program would be in addition to, and not supplant, the Community Corrections Partnership Act (SB 1145) baseline funding for community supervision. In addition, counties receiving a performance incentive grant would also have the option of holding offenders sentenced from 12-15 months in local control.49 19. DOC Cost Per Inmate Per Day The majority of the state's 10-year $600 million projected cost increase is tied to the growing inmate population and not to increases in the DOC cost per inmate per day. However, in addition to looking at those policies that would contain corrections costs by averting inmate population growth, the Commission also explored the possibility of containing the DOC cost per inmate per day. Oregon's cost per inmate per day is currently $82.48, which includes security, health care, food, recidivism reduction programs like mental health and drug treatment, and other operational costs, but excludes community corrections grants, debt service, capital construction, and new prison start-up costs. Since 1993-95, the overall DOC budget has grown by over 250 percent. In that time, the DOC cost per inmate per day has grown by 65 percent.SO This demonstrates that while most of the growth in corrections costs is attributed to growth in the inmate population, some of the growing costs are associated with growth in the cost per day. However cost per day should not be considered in a vacuum. Programs and practices that may add to the DOC cost per day have also been shown to reduce recidivism and improve public safety. Recommendation: Set a legislative target to reduce the DOC cost per inmate per day by a specified percentage in the next 10 years and ensure that reducing the cost per day does not diminish public safety outcomes and holds harmless prison security and recidivism reduction programs. 49 Currently, Oregon felony offenders sentenced to 12 months or less serve their sentence in local control. 50 Legislative Fiscal Office, Budget Information Report, "Correctional Spending Trends." September 2011. httn://www l4s,state.or.us/comm/Ifo/correctional spending trends 2011.odf 23 Policy Options and Impacts Some of the recommendations in the section above would greatly improve public safety and offender accountability but may not directly impact prison population or cost growth. Policies addressing probation conditions and program evaluation are examples of those policies that would not directly impact prison population growth. Other policy recommendations, like performance incentive funding, could impact prison population growth but the impact cannot be measured with any confidence at this time because impacts would vary widely depending on how many and which counties opt in to the program, what reduction targets are set for each county, and over what period of time. The prison bed impacts of the policy packages below are based on those policies that can be confidently projected to impact prison population growth. However, it is important to note that because the Commission was interested in more than controlling prison population and cost growth, each package below also includes the remaining (non-impact) policies listed in the section above. icy options Marijuana Patel 1 x Pap4ge 2 x Pa aV 31 x DW5 ~ x M11 Modification Option 1 x M57 Modification Option 1 M11 Modification Option 2 x x M57 Modification Option 2 x Earned Time =X- Transitional Le Yave x x_ Juvenile Earned Review x x Prison Bed Impacts (negative numbers indicate averted beds) 10-year DOC projected growth of 2,275 beds-91 10-year OYA projected growth of 47 beds52 2-year DOC Bed Impact -786 - -278 10-year DOC Bed Impact -2,498 -1,128 -129 2-year OYA Bed Impact -31 _ -8J IO - 0-ye.ar OYA Bed Impact= 1 F 197 . -180 0 Taken together, these policies would meet the charge of the Governor's executive order by holding offenders accountable, protecting public safety, and averting all of the growth in the prison population projected for the next 10 years. Under this scenario, the DOC population would fall from what where it is today by approximately 220 beds rather than increase by approximately 2,300 beds. Package 1 would .51 While the projected policy impacts were projected over a 10 year period beginning with an effective date of July 2013, 2,275 includes all growth projected from October 2012 to July 2023. The state forecasts that 253 beds will be needed between October 2012 and July 2013, and 25 beds added after the period shown here, between July 2023 and December 2023. The OYA forecast only goes until October 2022, therefore both the original forecast and policy impact forecasts end on that date. While the current projected OYA growth begins in October 2012, no growth is projected before the effective date for the policy impacts of July 2013. 24 also reduce the OYA close custody population by approximately 150 beds from where it is today rather than increase the population by approximately 50 beds (through policy changes affecting youth offenders sentenced in adult court) during the same period. At a minimum, this policy package would avert $600 million in otherwise required spending. Projected Impacts on DOC Population 17,500 - 16,509 16,SOD - - i 15,380 15,500 f i " 14,500 - - - - - - . 1_.._...- - 14,234 14,11 13,500 i 12,500 I i 11,500 y+ pp p p Historical Populatbn October Forecast Package 1 Package 2 - - Package 3 Projected impacts on OYA Population 921 1 cw I 100 0 I .......---T 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 ---October Forecast ^ , Pac.tage 1 Package 2 5ackage 3 25 Should Package 1 be adopted, the Commission strongly recommends that a portion of any savings be reinvested in programs and practices to improve public safety. The Commission considered two other policy packages (Packages 2 and 3) with much more modest impacts on projected prison population and cost growth. These packages did not receive the support that Package 1 received. Package 2 contains modest sentencing changes and excludes the earned time policies of Package 1 and, consequently, the prison population would still grow by more than 1,100 offenders in the next decade. As a result, Commissioners foresaw little chance for reinvestments in community supervision, policing, and victim services. Package 2 is projected to have a similar long-term impact on the OYA population as Package 1. The Commission also considered Package 3 which included two sentencing policies. This package is projected to have relatively minor impacts the prison population would grow by more than 2,100 offenders in the next decade. Additionally, Package 3 would have no impact on the OYA population. Due to the continued growth of the DOC population under Package 3, Commissioners also foresaw little chance for reinvestments in community supervision, policing, and victim services. The Commission agreed to include all three packages in this report to better inform decision making in the 2013 legislative session. Reinvestment Priorities The Commission urges the Governor and legislature to take the action necessary to reduce the need for funding of additional prison beds and reinvest savings from controlled prison growth into local law enforcement, community corrections, victim services, and specialty courts. Invest in community corrections including probation and post-prison supervision, as well as local alternatives that reduce recidivism and support offender re-entry. The Commission heard numerous examples of how the vital work done by local public safety agencies has been seriously compromised as a result of repeated budget cuts in recent years. The Commission found that many programs have been recently reduced or eliminated across the state, including • Josephine County closed its mental health court, • Douglas County eliminated its ADAPT offender outpatient program and its mental health treatment program, s3 • Klamath County is now unable to provide misdemeanor supervision, • Lane County closed a wing of its jail and had to release 31 inmates in November 2012,54 and • Baker County eliminated its cognitive restructuring program and its work crew program.ss These were only a few of the examples reviewed by the Commission highlighting the reduced capacity to apply the evidence-based practices for which Oregon is well known. 53 OACCD Member Survey Results, Oregon Association of Community Corrections Directors, November 2011 50 http://www.kmtr,com/news/local/story/Lane-Countv-Jail-releases-31-more-inmates-one-re[TPRiYGcfiO2l4Y8A75Finw.csox ss OACCD Member Survey Results, Oregon Association of Community Corrections Directors, November 2011 26 The Commission discussed the extent to which investments in local programs could, alone and without sentencing or corrections reform, control prison growth by stopping the cycle of offenders returning to prison. There are three primary reasons why, critical as they will be to protecting public safety, these investments will not be able to control the projected prison growth. First, the majority of Oregon's prison growth is due not to revocations from supervision but to sentencing policies and practices that send more offenders (including many first time offenders) to prison, and keep them for longer stays. Oregon's probation recidivism rate declined 21 percent in the past decade while the prison population grew by 50 percent. While reducing recidivism can have some impact on prison growth, it is no match for the sentencing and corrections policies driving Oregon's increased admissions and length of stay. Second, while offenders on community supervision are more likely to be returned to prison after recidivating than in the past and therefore make up an increasing share of admissions (nearly half the offenders entering prison in 2011 were on some form of community supervision), they do not stay as long in prison as other offender groups. Therefore, targeting these offenders alone will not be enough to curb the projected growth (or equalize the number of admissions with releases). Finally, without additional revenue sources, Oregon's budget cannot accommodate expansion of recidivism reduction programs and other local efforts. In fact, if the state's prison growth continues, existing community corrections resources may be reduced further in order to build and operate additional prison beds. While driving Oregon's low recidivism rate even lower is a worthwhile goal, the Commission finds that the more immediate challenge is simply to maintain the current rate. Invest in victim services to ensure that crime victims have access to emergency shelter and support in their communities and can achieve their constitutional rights in the justice system. At a state and local level, the Commission finds that the delivery of services to victims of crime is inadequate. The crisis in available shelter beds highlights the severity of the lack of services. In 2011, there were over 20,000 requests for emergency shelter from violence that could not be met because of a lack of funding for community-based domestic and sexual violence programs.56 Similar to other areas of the justice system, funding has not kept up with need. The victim roundtables, conducted as part of the Commission's work, illustrated in great detail the challenges faced by victims of crime. The consensus priorities from those roundtables can be found in the Victim Roundtable Report, 57 but Commissioners have identified three investment priorities from that document. The first is to increase funding for the Oregon Domestic and Sexual Violence Services Fund, which is the only support from the state general fund for domestic and sexual violence services that provide access to lifesaving shelter and support. The second is to increase funding for system-based victim services programs to ensure that victims who are going through the criminal and juvenile justice systems can access their rights under law at every stage of system. The third priority is to increase funding for the Child Abuse Multidisciplinary Intervention Program (CAMI), which funds the development and maintenance of specialized multidisciplinary investigative teams and specialized child abuse intervention centers. 56 "Striving to Meet the Need: Summary of Services Provided by Sexual and Domestic Violence Programs in Oregon"- January through December 2011. DHS Child Welfare Programs, April 2012. htto://www.oregon.gov/dhs/abuse/domestic/docs/dv sa 11summary.odf 57 htto://www.oreeon.aov/CIC/Pages/2012ComPubSaf.asox 27 Invest in the Oregon State Police crime lab and in law enforcement leadership training. In the past decade, Oregon law enforcement budgets have not kept pace with Oregon's correctional budget and the Commission identified two key law enforcement areas as priority reinvestments. First, the Commission felt it was critical to support the Oregon State Police in order to ensure Oregonians access to emergency assistance, criminal investigation, and other critical protections. Specifically, the Commission felt strongly that investments in the Oregon State Police crime lab were critical to ensuring speedy and rigorous investigations. Second, cuts to the Department of Public Safety Standards (DPSST) and Training have resulted in the elimination of leadership training programs for officers across law enforcement, including state and city police, as well as county sheriffs. To ensure that law enforcement leaders receive cutting-edge training on emergency response, crime reduction strategies, and professional standards, the Commission recommends investing in leadership training. Specifically, the Commission recommends investing in an evidence-based policing center at DPSST to promote police services that are based on the latest science of crime control. Invest in specialty courts, including drug, veterans; mental health, and DUII courts. The majority of Oregon's specialty courts (drug, veterans', mental health, and DUII courts) are funded through federal grants distributed through the CJC. Many of these federal grants are set to expire in 2013 and, without additional funding, several of Oregon's specialty courts will cease to exist. Specialty courts can provide cost-effective options for improving public safety by targeting sanctions and treatment options based on offenders' risks and needs in order to reduce recidivism and stabilize participants. As described above, a 2010 cost-benefit study of Oregon's drug courts found significant positive results. Specialty courts also provide a significant amount of the treatment options available throughout Oregon. In Umatilla County, for example, drug courts provide 75 percent of the county's available treatment. The Governor has demonstrated a commitment in his budget to fund these courts for the 2013-2015 biennium, with almost $9 million in general funds directed towards drug courts. The Commission recommends investing in statewide, sustainable funding for specialty courts. Items Recommended for Further Review There were five policy areas that carried significant support from Commissioners but required further analysis before a complete recommendation could be formed. The Commission encourages the legislature to look into these issues further. The first policy area was to address the rising cost of Oregon's inmate health care, which grew 181% from 2001-2011, with health costs for the 61 and over age group averaging more than five times the cost for age groups under 45.58 According to a 2012 study published by the Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 2001 and 2008 Oregon had the second fastest growing prison medical costs of any state in the nation, both in absolute and per capita terms.59 Prisons are not eligible for federal reimbursement for healthcare under Medicaid rules and so these costs are shouldered entirely by the DOC. These rising costs drive up the direct DOC cost per day. The Commission discussed several options for expanding Oregon's medical release policies (just two se Legislative Fiscal Office, Budget Information Report, "Correctional Spending Trends." September 2011. http:/1www.leg.state.or.us/comm/Ifo/correctional spending trends 2011.0df 59 Bureau of Justice Statistics, "State Corrections Expenditures, FY 1982-2010," December 2012. Accessed at: hUo:(Lmm.bi5.gov/index.cfm?tv=pbdetail&iid=4556 28 offenders60 have been released under existing statutes61 since 2009), but ultimately could not be assured that these expansion options would not shift cost burdens to localities. Second, there was significant discussion around the effect of State v. BUChOIZ. 62 Under this case, when a person is before the court for sentencing on multiple felonies, each offense advances the criminal history score under sentencing guidelines thus increasing the length of the sentence. It has the effect of treating, for example, a person before the court on one occasion for sentencing on three felonies the same as a person with two prior convictions before the court for her/his third felony. Some Commissioners felt this was inequitable and resulted in inappropriately longer total sentences. While there was interest in exploring this issue farther, the Commission felt the issue was much more complex than could be addressed in the limited time. The Commission also discussed two policy areas affecting youth convicted of M11 offenses: removing the automatic waiver to adult court for M11 youth63 and extending earned time to M11 youth.64 There was support from many Commissioners that changes should be made to address these restrictions on M11 youth, but ultimately there was no consensus on a single recommendation. Finally, the Commission discussed a review of Oregon's expungement laws and the importance of pursuing expungement laws that promoted successful reentry. Because a separate review of these laws is already underway by a working group, the Commission did not develop its own policy on this issue. 60 Email from the Department of Corrections, October 22, 2012. 6' ORS 144.122 and ORS 144.126 6' State v. Bucholtz, 317 Or. 309, 855 P.2d 1100 (1993) 63 Juveniles age 15-17 charged with Measure 11 offenses are automatically waived to adult court and are subject to the same mandatory minimum sentences as adults. These youth are ineligible for early release through earned time or Second Look. 64 Measure 11 offenses are statutorily ineligible for any earned time that would reduce the minimum sentence, therefore juveniles who have been sentenced under Measure 11 are not eligible for earned time. 29