Moving the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ...

Moving the CaliforniaDepartment of Corrections andRehabilitation from an Offense-Based to Risk-Based SystemSusan TurnerUniversity of California, IrvineSeptember 2010

Presentation Will Cover• Size and scope of CDCR• Pressures under which it currentlyoperates• Recommendations for change• Major Risk-Based Initiatives• Lessons learned

Traditionally, Focus HasBeen on Offense Committed• Three-strikes legislation focuses on “seriousand violent” conviction– “striker” caseloads for parole• Sex convictions drive institutional and paroleplacements– GPS caseloads for high risk sex offenders• Gang affiliation increases institutionalclassification, parole supervision

CDCR Faces Pressures onSeveral Fronts• Three judge panel ruling– Overcrowding contributes to poor inmatehealth– Requires CDCR to come up with a plan toreduce prison by over 40,000 inmates• Statewide budget cuts target corrections– $250 mil cut to programs, 800+ teachers laidoff– $8.8 billion budget down from $10 bil+– 15% payroll cuts, similar to other stateagencies

CDCR Faces Pressures onSeveral Fronts (cont)• California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB) established in 2007 by AB 900– Mission is to regularly examine mentalhealth, substance abuse, educational, andemployment programs– 11 member board chaired by InspectorGeneral•• Representation from UCs, CSUs, communitycolleges, CDCR…

Expert Panel RepresentsMajor Shift in Thinking• Experts convened in 2007 to devisenew model for CDCR program delivery• Evidence-based approachesconsidered for adoption– Risk, needs, responsively focus• Critical look into programmingprovided by CDCR for institutions andparole

CDCR Programming WasLimited• Half of inmates participate in noprograms before they are released– 18% in traditional education– 7% in substance abuse treatment– 6% in vocational education– 37% in support services• Many programs are rated as complyingwith evidence-based practices

California Logic ModelDeveloped by Expert Panel

Presentation Will Cover• Size and scope of CDCR• Pressures under which it currentlyoperates• Recommendations for change• Major Risk-Based Initiatives• Lessons learned

Major Risk-Based InitiativesDeveloped Since EP Report• California Static Risk Assessment(CSRA)• Parole Violation Decision MakingInstrument (PVDMI)• Non-revocable parole• New parole model

UCI Asked to Assist with RiskPrediction for CDCR Population• Develop an actuarial risk predictioninstrument using available data• Validate the instrument to determinepredictive power for the CDCRpopulation• Operate as a “plug in” to the existingCOMPAS tool

Resulting CSRA Uses 22 Itemsto Predict Recidivism• Demographics– Age at release, gender• Number of felony sentences• Felony sentences for murder/ manslaughter,sex, violent, weapons, property, drug andescape offenses• Misdemeanor sentences for assault, sex,weapons, property, drug, alcohol and escapeoffenses• Revocations of probation or parole supervision

CSRA Scores Offenders onThree “Nested” Sub-ScalesScales1. Violent Sub-ScaleScale2. Property & Violent Sub-ScaleScale3. Any Felony Sub-ScaleScaleThis allows CDCR to differentiate risk by typeof recidivism

CSRA Risk Group IsDetermined HierarchicallyViolent Score103 or higher?NoProperty/Viol. Score 119or higher?NoFelony Score 127 orhigher?NoProperty/Viol. Scoreor Felony Score 96or higher?LowNoYesYesYesYesHigh ViolentHigh PropertyHigh DrugModerate

CSRA Divides the Populationinto Distinct Risk Groups100908082 82 82706960Any FelonyPercent5040302010481710112821482622 23344026313138Drug FelonyProperty FelonyViolent Felony0Low (22%) Moderate (33%) High Drug (9%) High Property (19%) High Violent (17%)"Any Arrest" Rates by Risk Group

Major Risk-Based InitiativesDeveloped Since EP Report• California Static Risk Assessment(CSRA)• Parole Violation Decision MakingInstrument (PVDMI)• Non-revocable parole• New parole model

PVDMI Developed to IncreaseConsistency of PV Decisions• Concern that parole agent responses toviolations were not consistently made• Concern with offenders “churning” backinto CDCR for minor offenses• Desire to place “right” parolees in the“right” programs• Possibility of reducing prison population inresponse to budget and judicial pressures

PVDMI Based on ViolationSeverity and Offender RiskViolation SeverityLow Moderate High MandatoryReferralHighMostIntensiveMandatoryReferralModerateMandatoryReferralLowLeastIntensiveMandatoryReferral

Least Intensive ResponsesEmphasize Community-BasedProgramsPVDMI Response Level 1: LeastIntensive• Verbal reprimand• Increase reporting requirements• Refer to community-based substanceabuse treatment• Electronic monitoring

Moderately Intensive ResponsesInclude Treatment and IncreasedSupervisionPVDMI Response Level 2: ModeratelyIntensive• Referral to psychological assessment/evaluation• Increase UA testing• Refer to day reporting center• Refer to structured drug treatmentprogram

Most Intensive Responses IncludeDrug Treatment and CustodyMost Intensive A• Placement into mental health services• Placement into intensive residential oroutpatient drug treatment• Refer to Parolee Substance Abuse Program(PSAP)• Refer to In-Custody Drug Treatment Program(ICDTP)Most Intensive B or C• Recommend for revocation

Destabilizing Factors Are Requiredto Override the PVDMI• Violation directly related to commitment offenseor pattern of criminal behavior• Acutely unstable home situation• Demonstrated inability to support self• Evidence of escalating drug or alcohol addiction• Chronic pattern or violations under supervision• Lack of appropriate program in recommendedresponse level

Stabilizing Factors Are Required toUnderride the PVDMI• Presence of positive family, peer, or other socialsupport in the community• Job stability• Enrollment/participation in an establishededucation and/or treatment program• Stable and appropriate residence• Positive performance history on supervision• Lack of appropriate program in recommendedresponse level

DAPO Followed PVDMIRecommendation Majority of theTime

Frequency and Pattern of CurrentViolation Leads to Overrides

Overrides Reveal Need for “MostIntensive A” A Programs

Lack of Programs Leads toUnderrides

“Most Intensive A” A Program NeedsAlso Seen in Underrides

Major Risk-Based InitiativesDeveloped Since EP Report• California Static Risk Assessment(CSRA)• Parole Violation Decision MakingInstrument (PVDMI)• Non-revocable parole• New parole model

NRP and New Model TwoSides of the Coin• Remove lower-risk risk parolees fromsupervision to concentrate on higher risk– Follows risk principle– Follows need principle• match offenders needs with services– Follows responsivity• Train agents in MI, listening skills– Provides potential cost savings

Non-Revocable Parole Considersboth Risk and “Stakes” ofParolees• No sex offenders• No prior or current “serious” or “violent”conviction• No convictions for serious disciplinaryoffense• Not validated gang member• Offender agrees to placement• Not high risk on CSRA– But NOTHING about treatment needs

NRP Program RemovesParolees from Active Caseloads• Parolees are screened and asked to sign acontract• Law enforcement allowed “search andseizure”– Outcry from local law enforcement andDAs regarding NRP• Treatment concerned about “dumping”• Some parolees have minimal oversight tofinish court ordered programs

Impact of NRP is Not yetKnown• UCI conducting process and outcome evaluationusing historical comparison group• Analysis of the “pipeline” of eligibility– Estimates may be smaller than previouslythought• Outcomes will measure technical violations as wellas new arrests• Additional studies might focus on local communities– Are courts being clogged?– What pressures are placed on law enforcement,health, and other services

Lessons Learned fromCurrent CDCR Efforts• Disconnect between CDCR HQ and staff on theground• Staff resistance to actuarial tools– Second-guess tool or use information redundantly• Offense still relatively more important than risk• Lack of resources (e.g., treatment availability) toeffect evidence-based changes• “Risk” vs. “stakes” causes confusion– Sex offenders

Lessons Learned fromCurrent CDCR Efforts (cont)• Focus on risk presents fertile ground forcritics of CDCR reform– Law enforcement, prosecutors, victims’groups use scare tactics• Risk focus may “push” problem to localcorrections and law enforcement• “Evidence-based” is not 100% accurate