Johnson v United States: Three Years Later

The Supreme Court struck down a part of the Armed Career Criminal Act that permitted sentencing enhancements for repeat violent offenders in 2015. But the debate over its impact on public safety and recidivism continues, pitting Attorney General Jeff Sessions against proponents of sentencing reform.

In at least two speeches this August, Attorney General Jeff Sessions called the consequences of a three-year-old Supreme Court decision “devastating for Americans.”

He was referring to Johnson v. United States, a 2015 ruling in which the Supreme Court struck down the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), finding it unconstitutionally vague.

ACCA imposes sentencing enhancements on repeat offenders who commit crimes with guns. Specifically, under ACCA, a defendant who is convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and who has three or more prior convictions for serious drug offenses or violent felonies is subject to an increased prison term of at least 15 years.

The residual clause had included under the definition of “violent felony” any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year that “involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.”

After the decision in Johnson, individuals sentenced under ACCA’s now-defunct residual clause filed petitions for collateral review, a procedure that allows prisoners, within certain constraints, to ask a court to amend their sentences. Additional follow-on litigation to Johnson has involved questions about other aspects of ACCA’s “violent felony” definition, as in next term’s United States v. Stitt, as well as vagueness challenges to definitions of “violent felony” in other statutes, as in last term’s Sessions v. Dimaya.

But even as these and other challenges play out in the courts, Johnson’s real-world consequences in the three years since the case was decided raise other questions about recidivism, re-entry and policy.

For example, have people sentenced as career offenders and released early after Johnson gone on to commit more crimes? If some have, are certain, less vague sentence enhancements — as Sessions has recommended and as new legislation introduced by two Republican senators would impose — the proper “fix” to Johnson?

This post looks at some of the different factors at play.

Recidivism and Reentry After Johnson

In his speeches, Sessions indicated that Johnson “has resulted” in more than 1,400 inmates obtaining early release from sentences originally enhanced for prior convictions under ACCA’s residual clause. Of this population, he said, 600 have been arrested again.

Sessions highlighted certain crimes. For instance, in a speech on Aug. 1, he discussed six individuals who allegedly went on to commit murder, rape and aggravated assault after their release.

“Releasing repeat offenders has consequences,” he said.

Sessions called this recidivism rate “staggering” and “likely an underrepresentation” of illegal activity. He also cited a 2016 U.S. Sentencing Commission report on recidivism that found a 69.5 percent recidivism rate for people sentenced as career offenders, including those sentenced under ACCA.

Sentencing-reform advocates question the conclusions Sessions drew from his data.

Priya Raghavan of the Brennan Center for Justice observes that it’s unclear from Sessions’ speech what offenses caused the rearrests. She also suggests that the individuals specifically mentioned by Sessions are not representative of the entire population of 1,400 released prisoners. She points to two studies by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the one on recidivism mentioned by Sessions and one on career-offender sentencing enhancements.

The second report indicates that the most frequent “most serious” offense committed by people sentenced as career offenders who were rearrested was assault, not homicide or rape. The report also reveals that the percentage of rearrested career offenders who had assault as their most serious new charge (24.9 percent) was the same as for non-career offenders.

Raghavan clarifies that assaults are not all violent; simple assault “typically involves only a verbal threat against another person.”

The career-offender report does not include the percentages of rearrested career offenders who had homicide or rape as their “most serious” recidivism offense. However, the recidivism report shows that homicide and rape were the “most serious” post-release offenses committed by only 1.3 percent and 1.9 percent of all rearrested offenders, respectively. It’s not clear how many homicides and rapes were committed by people sentenced as career offenders, but Raghavan believes these low rates suggest that only a small percentage of the 600 rearrested prisoners released after Johnson committed such crimes.

Even for those who have recidivated, the extent to which being released early after Johnson contributed to their recidivism remains unclear. Amy Baron-Evans, the national sentencing resource counsel for Federal Public and Community Defenders, adds that the proper comparison for recidivism by those released early after Johnson would be with recidivism by those who served full sentences under ACCA’s enhancement.

It is “too early” for such an analysis after Johnson, but Baron-Evans points to a third U.S. Sentencing Commission report, “Recidivism Among Federal Offenders Receiving Retroactive Sentence Reductions: The 2011 Fair Sentencing Act Guideline Amendment.”

Although focused not on those sentenced as armed career criminals, but on drug offenders who received a sentence reduction after the Sentencing Commission gave retroactive effect to an FSA guideline amendment for certain drug offenses, the report reveals “no difference in the recidivism rates of offenders who were released” early and “similar offenders who served their full sentences.”

To confront recidivism, Sessions called on Congress to “fix the law so violent career criminals are not let out of jail early.” But Raghavan contests the implication that longer sentences will lower crime rates.

A Brennan Center report, “How Many Americans Are Unnecessarily Incarcerated?,” reviews social science that “indicates that in the worst case scenario, longer lengths of stay produce higher recidivism rates, while the best case scenario points to diminishing returns of incarceration on public safety.”

John Seibler, a legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, suggests that longer sentences can reduce recidivism somewhat because individuals “age out” of criminality. However, echoing Raghavan, Seibler reports “general consensus” among researchers about the importance of prison programming toward reducing recidivism.

And indeed, to the extent that inmates released after Johnson have recidivated, that may be in part because they did not receive re-entry programming, despite the existence of policies promoting such support.

According to a 2007 program statement, the Federal Bureau of Prisons claims that the reduction of inmate recidivism is an objective of its Release Preparation Program. This program includes classes on different topics, such as employment and personal finance. Inmates “should enroll” in the program “no later than 30 months prior” to release. Additionally, a “unit release preparation phase” provides inmates with individual assistance from staff, which “usually begins in earnest” 11 to 13 months before release. This phase includes a focus on concrete “release plans” that address aftercare, conditions of supervision, release destination, relocation, residence and employment.

Inmates bringing Johnson claims for shortened sentences were often not in the final 13 or even 30 months of their original sentences. As a result, they did not all receive adequate re-entry planning before they were released, according to Benji McMurray, an assistant federal public defender in Utah. McMurray adds that the bureau rebuffed his attempts to coordinate important late-stage programming for his Johnson clients.

Bureau policy does state that “inmates are encouraged to participate in RPP courses throughout their confinement,” but McMurray says his clients report that meaningful opportunities did not always exist or were not helpful. Todd Bussert, an attorney in private practice with more than 20 years’ experience addressing issues related to the bureau, including as a member of the Sentencing Commission’s Practitioners’ Advisory Group, says of the bureau’s re-entry services that “a chasm between policy and practice” exists, so that the stated policy is not a “true barometer” of what is available to prisoners.

McMurray’s and Bussert’s anecdotal concerns find support in the Office of the Inspector General’s 2016 Review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Release Preparation Program. The report, which was not focused just on those released as a result of Johnson, indicates that the bureau “does not ensure that the RPP meets inmate needs” and “releases many inmates who have not completed the RPP.”

Despite recidivism by some after Johnson, there are success stories as well. McMurray reports that clients of his have gone to school and joined the work force. One now runs a mechanics business.

Congressional Response

Earlier this month, two Republican senators, Orrin Hatch of Utah and Tom Cotton of Arkansas, introduced the Restoring the Armed Career Criminal Act to, as they wrote in an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, “fix the law that was struck down.” In their press releases announcing the proposed legislation, Hatch and Cotton mentioned victims in their states whom Sessions also discussed.

According to a one-pager about the legislation, the act “would do away with the concepts of ‘violent felony’ and ‘serious drug offense’ and replace them with a single category of ‘serious felony.’ A serious felony would be any crime punishable by 10 years or more.”

Brian Colas, Cotton’s general counsel, and Baron-Evans agree that this new legislation would avoid the vagueness problems of the original ACCA residual clause. They disagree on how broadly the law would sweep. Whereas Colas points to the fact the crimes must be punishable by 10 years or more, which he takes as a proxy for the high seriousness of an offense, Baron-Evans worries about the many people regularly sentenced to less than 10 years but for whom 10 years or more would represent a statutory maximum.

Raghavan suggests that subjecting drug offenders to the same sentencing enhancement as violent offenders may not be warranted based on recidivism rates. In its 2016 report on people sentenced as career offenders, the Sentencing Commission split individuals into three categories: career offenders with only drug-trafficking offenses, those with only violent offenses, and those with mixed offenses.

People sentenced as career offenders with only drug-trafficking offenses had a lower recidivism rate than those in the other categories. Among those who did recidivate, those with only drug-trafficking offenses “tended to take longer to do so” than those in the other categories. Additionally, “offenders in the other two pathways who were rearrested were more likely to have been rearrested for another violent offense” than offenders with only drug-trafficking offenses.

The next step for the legislation is the Senate Judiciary Committee. Colas estimates that it will take six to eight months for this legislation to get through the committee. He notes that the act will be absorbed into a “broader fight” for criminal justice reform in Congress.

Andrew Hamm

Andrew Hamm

At the same time, Seibler observes that “if there’s anything Congress can efficiently pass, it’s a criminal penalty, especially when law enforcement wants it.”

Andrew Hamm, a scholar and commentator on the Supreme Court, writes the SCOTUSblog. A 2012 graduate of Harvard University, where he studied archaeology and government, Hamm previously completed a fellowship at the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and an internship with the Campaign for Youth Justice. The Crime Report is pleased to reprint this blog article with the permission of the author, and welcomes comments from readers.

from https://thecrimereport.org

The High Cost of Recidivism in Illinois: $13 Billion Over 5 Years

The estimated figure would be even higher if recidivism had not begun to decline since 2015, thanks to programs aimed at helping former inmates reintegrate into civilian society, according to a new study.

Recidivism now costs Illinois taxpayers over $1.5 billion a year —but the bill would be much higher if the state had not introduced programs aimed at improving counseling and other services dedicated to helping former inmates reintegrate into civilian society, according to a study by the Illinois Sentencing Policy Advisory Council (SPAC).

Projected over a five-year period that takes account of “accumulating” costs of sending people back to prison, the bill for recidivism in Illinois will be $13 billion if current trends continue, said the study authors, who based their estimate on the current recidivism patterns of the 59,000 individuals who are expected to be released from prison or sentenced to probation each year over this period.

 The study, which used cost-benefit analysis to arrive at what it called “the true cost of crime,” calculated that each time an inmate returns to prison because of a new crime or a violation of community supervision guidelines, it costs the state $151,662—representing an increase of 30 per cent since SPAC last examined the data in 2015.

Almost half of that cost ($75,408) is attributed to the “tangible and intangible costs borne by victims” of the new crime, according to the study. The resources used by law enforcement, court costs and renewed incarceration account for a third. Indirect costs make up the remainder.

According to the study, criminal history records show that those who recidivate account for a “substantial portion” crimes in Illinois each year.

“Each new conviction, each recidivating event, represents additional victimizations and costs to the system which accumulate over time,” the study explained.

But that estimate was still roughly $1 billion less than estimates of recidivism’s cost in the 2015 study, thanks to a decline in the numbers of those sent back to prison in the three years since.

SPAC, an independent commission of criminal justice stakeholders that reports to all three branches of government in the state, said the decline in repeat offenders was due to “evidence-based interventions,” such as reentry programs and social service counseling, designed to “help put offenders on the path to productive citizenship.”

It warned: “If recidivism is not addressed using research and cost-benefit analysis, the people of Illinois will continue to pay the high cost of maintaining the status quo.”

The studies, completed with the assistance of the Pew-MacArthur Results First Initiative, offer some important clues for other states dealing with recidivism, according to analysts.

“Illinois is one of many states embracing evidence-based policymaking to make more informed, strategic investments that generate positive outcomes for residents and get the most from taxpayer dollars,” wrote the analysts: Sara Dube, a director of the Pew-MacArthur Results First Initiative; Steve Lize, an officer of the Initiative; and Alyssa Doom, a senior associate.

In Illinois, 43 percent of those released from prison each year are returned to prison for new crimes or probation violations, and 17 percent will recidivate within one year of release.

The full SPAC study is available here.

from https://thecrimereport.org

Are Fewer Returns to Prison in Society’s Best Interest?

Background Pew offers data (below) showing a decrease in returns to prison. It uses US Department of Justice research. While we have no reason to dispute the findings, the question is why? Are fewer returns (revocations) to prison in our best interest? Author Leonard Adam Sipes, Jr. Retired federal senior spokesperson. Thirty-five years of award-winning […]

The post Are Fewer Returns to Prison in Society’s Best Interest? appeared first on Crime in America.Net.

Background Pew offers data (below) showing a decrease in returns to prison. It uses US Department of Justice research. While we have no reason to dispute the findings, the question is why? Are fewer returns (revocations) to prison in our best interest? Author Leonard Adam Sipes, Jr. Retired federal senior spokesperson. Thirty-five years of award-winning […]

The post Are Fewer Returns to Prison in Society’s Best Interest? appeared first on Crime in America.Net.

from https://www.crimeinamerica.net

Does Anything Work in Parole and Probation?

Observation As we celebrate parole and probation week, don’t agents (and society) deserve more than a system that seems hopelessly adrift? Author Leonard Adam Sipes, Jr. Retired federal senior spokesperson. Thirty-five years of award-winning public relations for national and state criminal justice agencies. Interviewed multiple times by every national news outlet. Former Senior Specialist for […]

The post Does Anything Work in Parole and Probation? appeared first on Crime in America.Net.

Observation As we celebrate parole and probation week, don’t agents (and society) deserve more than a system that seems hopelessly adrift? Author Leonard Adam Sipes, Jr. Retired federal senior spokesperson. Thirty-five years of award-winning public relations for national and state criminal justice agencies. Interviewed multiple times by every national news outlet. Former Senior Specialist for […]

The post Does Anything Work in Parole and Probation? appeared first on Crime in America.Net.

from https://www.crimeinamerica.net

Thinking Outside the Cell: Software Cuts Recidivism Among Texas’ Mentally Ill

In Dallas County, the main outlet of psychiatric care for those with mental illness is no longer the corrections system. A five-year initiative using predictive technology is helping to divert justice-involved mentally ill individuals into effective treatment programs.

In Dallas County, Texas, the main outlet of psychiatric care for those with mental illness is no longer the corrections system.

A five-year initiative aimed at bridging the gap between the legal and medical communities is successfully diverting justice-involved mentally ill individuals to effective treatment programs.

The key to the program is technology. The initiative uses software created by HarrisLogic, a Missouri-based technology and clinical services company that allows information about mentally ill individuals who fall afoul of the law to be shared among law enforcement, courts and health care providers.

Experts say such a tech-based approach could be critical to reducing overcrowding in U.S. jails.

There are now nearly ten times the number of mentally ill patients behind bars than those residing in the remaining state hospitals, according to a 2014 report by the Treatment Advocacy Center, an Arlington, Va.-based national nonprofit focused on mental illness issues.

A prime example is the Dallas County Jail, whose jurisdiction stretches from the cities of Carrollton to Mesquite, to just outside of Arlington. Dallas County’s major detention center, the Lew Sterrett Justice Center, is the second largest mental health facility in Texas, according to the County Sheriff’s Office.

In 2014, the county received a $7 million grant from the W.W. Caruth, Jr. Foundation for a “Smart Justice Initiative” to provide alternatives to jail for individuals with mental health problems who come into contact with the justice system. The county partnered with the Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute (MMHPI), a research and development organization that helps Texans connect to mental health care.

Now in its fourth year, the jail diversion program has reduced recidivism from 31 percent in 2014 to 26 percent in 2017, according to the National Association of Counties.

It’s “an impressive example of how local jurisdictions can implement data-driven innovations that enhance public safety, reduce jail costs to taxpayers, and provide effective and humane interventions for people with mental illness,” said Marc Levin, vice president of criminal justice at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Alternatives to Punishment

Relieving jails of the burden of providing mental health services is only a first step towards the goal of developing alternative and non-punitive options for treatment. It doesn’t address the decisions that bring mentally ill individuals into the justice system in the first place, mental health advocates say.

The Dallas County initiative uses technology to assist in the decision-making by police, courts and health providers.

Following a 911 call, if it is determined that jail is an initially appropriate response to a troubled individual, data from the standard mental health and suicide screening tests (as per Texas standards) is automatically integrated with any other data related to the individual’s medical history contained in police or emergency response records as well as hospital data.

Traditionally, such data was kept in separate silos, but the software implemented through the Jail Diversion Platform, created by Harris Logic, integrates all the personal information critical to determining a defendant’s immediate needs and subsequent care.

That includes information such as previous arrests or incarcerations, previous mental health rehabilitation, and current medication, Hudson Harris, chief engagement officer of HarrisLogic, said in an interview with The Crime Report.

This data is entered in the County Adult Information System, a “master index,” which is used to share information in a manner that allows for access by court and jail authorities, clinicians, legal professionals, and pretrial staff.

Privacy Protection

No mental health assessment is conducted without the prior permission of a defendant’s attorney—likely a public defender. Further privacy protections require that each agency using the data can only view what is authorized to them through a data usage agreement.

By involving multiple agencies, the combined knowledge and expertise allows future treatment to be tailored to an individual’s needs─better than simply checking a box during a mandatory evaluation, authorities say.

This step is arguably the most crucial. Without accurate and swift identification, issues stemming from an individual’s illness can make it more difficult for persons to follow jail rules, increasing the likelihood they will face harsh disciplinary measures, or be subjected to violence from other inmates or from guards.

The second intercept in the initiative is through pretrial release, providing an escape from being trapped in the justice system.

“Mental health patients often spend more time in jail waiting for their case to be resolved than that of a mentally healthy convict,” observed Alisa Roth, author of Insane: America’s Criminal Treatment of Mental Illness, in a recent article.

This may be due to the requirement in many states that inmates with serious mental illness undergo additional evaluations or be restored to competency before standing trial.

According to a survey of 40 state hospital officials by the Treatment Advocacy Center, 78 percent of the respondents were wait-listing pretrial inmates for hospital services. Often, mentally ill inmates spend more time behind bars waiting for their case to be heard than they would serve if they were convicted of the offense.

To remedy this delay, the comprehensive technology utilized in the Smart Justice program increases the likelihood of a pretrial release by allowing officials to determine if the person is a flight risk, or a danger to the public.

Using this complete data, a judge is more likely to issue a pretrial release, but with conditions for connection to treatment.

An evaluation of the Smart Justice Initiative from April 2017 to January 2018 showed that of the individuals presented before the magistrate for a release decision, 89 percent were successful in being granted a pretrial release bond. Of those granted bond, 100 percent were “released, connected to treatment, and supervised on bond with monitored treatment for the Court,” reports Dallas County.

Need for Coordinated Care

So why are mentally ill offenders more prone to getting re-arrested and re-booked than the general population, even with increased treatment availability?

The main reason, explains Hudson Harris, is the lack of coordinated care. This refers to the absence of follow-up treatment or supervision of mentally ill persons after they have been released from jail, typically back to the same environment that caused them to get arrested in the first place.

It’s here that the third intercept comes into play.

The software directly assigns an individual to a treatment program based on the data provided. Normally it takes weeks to find a person eligible for mental health care programs, but with this technology it takes an estimated 15 minutes or less.

Inadequate coordination is not only a problem within the jail system, but also in an individual’s contact with hospitals.

When dealing with an individual with a mental health illness, a hospital’s main goal is only to focus on the individuals’ current state of health─stabilize them, get them locked down, and then out the door as quickly as possible—with little to no coordination of care, says Harris.

There is no link between simply going to the hospital and getting better when you have a psychiatric condition.

In fact, a 2018 study from the American Psychological Association found that hospitalization has an iatrogenic effect on mental health, meaning the treatment causes a worsening of the condition.

 Follow-up Care Crucial

Connecting mentally ill persons with the care and follow-up that they require will ensure they are less likely to become involved in the justice system, said Levin.

“The initiative has resulted in rapid screening and diversion to appropriate treatment programs for thousands of individuals arrested for conducted related to a serious mental illness,” he said.

Providing access to treatment and follow-up care can also help authorities save money on their corrections budgets.

When mentally ill inmates do not receive consistent treatment, they frequently cycle in and out of the jails, forcing the facility (and taxpayers) to spend additional money on health professional staff, medication needed for certain mental illnesses, and simply housing them behind bars for longer periods of time.

A 2003 study reports that in Texas prisons, “the average prisoner costs the state about $22,000 a year compared to the cost of prisoners with mental illness, which ranges from $30,000 to $50,000 a year.”

Also at a state level, Texas spends $1.4 billion in emergency room costs and $650 million in local justice system costs annually to address mental illness and substance use disorders that are not otherwise being adequately treated, according to MMHPI.

The operation of increased treatment may seem like a burden to the jail’s budget, but simply by providing individuals with the appropriate care that they need, the cost of doing so declines; breaking the high-utilizer cycle and reducing contact of the mentally ill with the corrections system.

According to HarrisLogic, the Smart Justice Initiative will be able to trim over $30 million in these expenses over the five-year implementation period.

While the initiative has resulted in significant savings to Dallas County on jail costs and indigent defense costs, and helped reduce overcrowding in the courts system, Levin notes the challenge is to replicate it in other jurisdictions.

Laura Binczewski

Laura Binczewski

While Dallas received a large grant, other jurisdictions would have to provide upfront funding or use a pay-for-performance model in order to get similar initiatives off the ground, which may prove difficult for less-fortunate counties, he said.

However, the prospects for similar programs elsewhere have brightened thanks to the increased interest of private funders, and a call to action by the Stepping Up Initiative, a national effort to divert people with mental illness from jails by asking state and local officials to pass mental health legislation.

Noting that 451 counties across the nation have already passed motions calling for reforms to the justice system’s treatment of mentally ill, the initiative organizers said a nationwide consensus for change was crucial.

“Without change, large numbers of people with mental illnesses will continue to cycle through the criminal justice system,” the organization declared on its website, “often resulting in tragic outcomes for these individuals and their families, missed opportunities for connections to treatment, inefficient use of funding, and a failure to improve public safety.”

Laura Binczewski is a TCR news intern. She welcomes comments from readers.

from https://thecrimereport.org

Thinking Outside the Cell: Software Cuts Recidivism Among Texas’ Mentally Ill

In Dallas County, the main outlet of psychiatric care for those with mental illness is no longer the corrections system. A five-year initiative using predictive technology is helping to divert justice-involved mentally ill individuals into effective treatment programs.

In Dallas County, Texas, the main outlet of psychiatric care for those with mental illness is no longer the corrections system.

A five-year initiative aimed at bridging the gap between the legal and medical communities is successfully diverting justice-involved mentally ill individuals to effective treatment programs.

The key to the program is technology. The initiative uses software created by HarrisLogic, a Missouri-based technology and clinical services company that allows information about mentally ill individuals who fall afoul of the law to be shared among law enforcement, courts and health care providers.

Experts say such a tech-based approach could be critical to reducing overcrowding in U.S. jails.

There are now nearly ten times the number of mentally ill patients behind bars than those residing in the remaining state hospitals, according to a 2014 report by the Treatment Advocacy Center, an Arlington, Va.-based national nonprofit focused on mental illness issues.

A prime example is the Dallas County Jail, whose jurisdiction stretches from the cities of Carrollton to Mesquite, to just outside of Arlington. Dallas County’s major detention center, the Lew Sterrett Justice Center, is the second largest mental health facility in Texas, according to the County Sheriff’s Office.

In 2014, the county received a $7 million grant from the W.W. Caruth, Jr. Foundation for a “Smart Justice Initiative” to provide alternatives to jail for individuals with mental health problems who come into contact with the justice system. The county partnered with the Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute (MMHPI), a research and development organization that helps Texans connect to mental health care.

Now in its fourth year, the jail diversion program has reduced recidivism from 31 percent in 2014 to 26 percent in 2017, according to the National Association of Counties.

It’s “an impressive example of how local jurisdictions can implement data-driven innovations that enhance public safety, reduce jail costs to taxpayers, and provide effective and humane interventions for people with mental illness,” said Marc Levin, vice president of criminal justice at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Alternatives to Punishment

Relieving jails of the burden of providing mental health services is only a first step towards the goal of developing alternative and non-punitive options for treatment. It doesn’t address the decisions that bring mentally ill individuals into the justice system in the first place, mental health advocates say.

The Dallas County initiative uses technology to assist in the decision-making by police, courts and health providers.

Following a 911 call, if it is determined that jail is an initially appropriate response to a troubled individual, data from the standard mental health and suicide screening tests (as per Texas standards) is automatically integrated with any other data related to the individual’s medical history contained in police or emergency response records as well as hospital data.

Traditionally, such data was kept in separate silos, but the software implemented through the Jail Diversion Platform, created by Harris Logic, integrates all the personal information critical to determining a defendant’s immediate needs and subsequent care.

That includes information such as previous arrests or incarcerations, previous mental health rehabilitation, and current medication, Hudson Harris, chief engagement officer of HarrisLogic, said in an interview with The Crime Report.

This data is entered in the County Adult Information System, a “master index,” which is used to share information in a manner that allows for access by court and jail authorities, clinicians, legal professionals, and pretrial staff.

Privacy Protection

No mental health assessment is conducted without the prior permission of a defendant’s attorney—likely a public defender. Further privacy protections require that each agency using the data can only view what is authorized to them through a data usage agreement.

By involving multiple agencies, the combined knowledge and expertise allows future treatment to be tailored to an individual’s needs─better than simply checking a box during a mandatory evaluation, authorities say.

This step is arguably the most crucial. Without accurate and swift identification, issues stemming from an individual’s illness can make it more difficult for persons to follow jail rules, increasing the likelihood they will face harsh disciplinary measures, or be subjected to violence from other inmates or from guards.

The second intercept in the initiative is through pretrial release, providing an escape from being trapped in the justice system.

“Mental health patients often spend more time in jail waiting for their case to be resolved than that of a mentally healthy convict,” observed Alisa Roth, author of Insane: America’s Criminal Treatment of Mental Illness, in a recent article.

This may be due to the requirement in many states that inmates with serious mental illness undergo additional evaluations or be restored to competency before standing trial.

According to a survey of 40 state hospital officials by the Treatment Advocacy Center, 78 percent of the respondents were wait-listing pretrial inmates for hospital services. Often, mentally ill inmates spend more time behind bars waiting for their case to be heard than they would serve if they were convicted of the offense.

To remedy this delay, the comprehensive technology utilized in the Smart Justice program increases the likelihood of a pretrial release by allowing officials to determine if the person is a flight risk, or a danger to the public.

Using this complete data, a judge is more likely to issue a pretrial release, but with conditions for connection to treatment.

An evaluation of the Smart Justice Initiative from April 2017 to January 2018 showed that of the individuals presented before the magistrate for a release decision, 89 percent were successful in being granted a pretrial release bond. Of those granted bond, 100 percent were “released, connected to treatment, and supervised on bond with monitored treatment for the Court,” reports Dallas County.

Need for Coordinated Care

So why are mentally ill offenders more prone to getting re-arrested and re-booked than the general population, even with increased treatment availability?

The main reason, explains Hudson Harris, is the lack of coordinated care. This refers to the absence of follow-up treatment or supervision of mentally ill persons after they have been released from jail, typically back to the same environment that caused them to get arrested in the first place.

It’s here that the third intercept comes into play.

The software directly assigns an individual to a treatment program based on the data provided. Normally it takes weeks to find a person eligible for mental health care programs, but with this technology it takes an estimated 15 minutes or less.

Inadequate coordination is not only a problem within the jail system, but also in an individual’s contact with hospitals.

When dealing with an individual with a mental health illness, a hospital’s main goal is only to focus on the individuals’ current state of health─stabilize them, get them locked down, and then out the door as quickly as possible—with little to no coordination of care, says Harris.

There is no link between simply going to the hospital and getting better when you have a psychiatric condition.

In fact, a 2018 study from the American Psychological Association found that hospitalization has an iatrogenic effect on mental health, meaning the treatment causes a worsening of the condition.

 Follow-up Care Crucial

Connecting mentally ill persons with the care and follow-up that they require will ensure they are less likely to become involved in the justice system, said Levin.

“The initiative has resulted in rapid screening and diversion to appropriate treatment programs for thousands of individuals arrested for conducted related to a serious mental illness,” he said.

Providing access to treatment and follow-up care can also help authorities save money on their corrections budgets.

When mentally ill inmates do not receive consistent treatment, they frequently cycle in and out of the jails, forcing the facility (and taxpayers) to spend additional money on health professional staff, medication needed for certain mental illnesses, and simply housing them behind bars for longer periods of time.

A 2003 study reports that in Texas prisons, “the average prisoner costs the state about $22,000 a year compared to the cost of prisoners with mental illness, which ranges from $30,000 to $50,000 a year.”

Also at a state level, Texas spends $1.4 billion in emergency room costs and $650 million in local justice system costs annually to address mental illness and substance use disorders that are not otherwise being adequately treated, according to MMHPI.

The operation of increased treatment may seem like a burden to the jail’s budget, but simply by providing individuals with the appropriate care that they need, the cost of doing so declines; breaking the high-utilizer cycle and reducing contact of the mentally ill with the corrections system.

According to HarrisLogic, the Smart Justice Initiative will be able to trim over $30 million in these expenses over the five-year implementation period.

While the initiative has resulted in significant savings to Dallas County on jail costs and indigent defense costs, and helped reduce overcrowding in the courts system, Levin notes the challenge is to replicate it in other jurisdictions.

Laura Binczewski

Laura Binczewski

While Dallas received a large grant, other jurisdictions would have to provide upfront funding or use a pay-for-performance model in order to get similar initiatives off the ground, which may prove difficult for less-fortunate counties, he said.

However, the prospects for similar programs elsewhere have brightened thanks to the increased interest of private funders, and a call to action by the Stepping Up Initiative, a national effort to divert people with mental illness from jails by asking state and local officials to pass mental health legislation.

Noting that 451 counties across the nation have already passed motions calling for reforms to the justice system’s treatment of mentally ill, the initiative organizers said a nationwide consensus for change was crucial.

“Without change, large numbers of people with mental illnesses will continue to cycle through the criminal justice system,” the organization declared on its website, “often resulting in tragic outcomes for these individuals and their families, missed opportunities for connections to treatment, inefficient use of funding, and a failure to improve public safety.”

Laura Binczewski is a TCR news intern. She welcomes comments from readers.

from https://thecrimereport.org

Why Do We Keep Our Aging Prisoners Behind Bars?

We spend an incredible amount of money warehousing older and sicker low-risk people, while not spending what we should on intervention and re-entry resources for young people. A smarter approach to incarceration would do the reverse, write two justice experts.

The evolving figures on US prison populations represents both good news and bad news. The good news is that US incarceration rates are no longer increasing, and have even declined slightly.

The bad news is that we still far outpace the rest of the world in unnecessarily locking people up.

We don’t lock up more people because the US is a more dangerous place, we lock up more people primarily because we’ve made policy decisions over the last 30 years that give prosecutors enormous discretion and we have succumbed to cultural and political will for punishment that is closely linked to our continuing struggles with institutional racism and implicit bias.

Our incarceration rates also demonstrate an unwillingness to meaningfully discuss and change our approach to people charged with violent crimes.

But a new report on recidivism data recently released by the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) suggests that there are two places we could be making a significant difference, simultaneously reducing future crime and the costs of mass incarceration. The report shows a clear pathway that could create a significantly less expensive system that is fairer, and keeps everyone safer.

While young adults under age 24 are at high risk of recidivism, adults age 55 and above are at low risk for recidivism. We currently spend an incredible amount of money warehousing older and sicker low-risk people, while not spending what we should on effective intervention and re-entry resources for young people.

If we inverted that ratio, releasing the significant portion of older incarcerated people who can safely be released and putting those savings into strategies that would help reduce crimes committed by young adults, we would be much more successful in making society safer and healthier for today and tomorrow.

Marc Schindler

Marc Schindler

We know that young adults account for a disproportionately high percentage of violent crime, and the BJS data show that young adults also have the most difficulty returning to the community, with 51.8 percent being arrested in just the first year. In the Justice Policy Institute’s Improving Approaches to Serving Young Adults in the Justice System, we explore the tailored community-based services that build on the strengths of the young person to provide the best chance of success.

If we chose to implement developmentally appropriate prevention programs and provide research-based reentry approaches to successfully get youth beyond their first year of release, we would do much a much better job of preventing young adults from committing crimes. By tailoring services that provide sufficient education, employment opportunities, and health and mental health supports, states would not only lower recidivism rates, but also save a substantial amount of its budget.

Estimates show that each young adult who avoids returning to the justice system saves taxpayers $ two million. That’s something both the right and left can get on board with.

Contrary to young adults, older individuals, particularly those 55 and older, were re-arrested at much lower rates. This is consistent with previous research in the field. For example, in New York, only four percent of people age 65 and older were re-convicted; while in Virginia, only 1.3 percent of people older than 55 were re-convicted.

The research is clear: there is minimal negative impact on public safety from releasing older people from prison.

These findings are also consistent with an organic experiment playing out in Maryland. In what is known as the “Unger” case, almost 200 people who had been convicted of violent crimes and sentenced to life were released following a 2012 court ruling that jury instructions in their cases were constitutionally flawed.

Jeremy Kittridge

Jeremy Kittridge

With an average age of 64 upon release, and having served an average of 40 years, they have had a recidivism rate of less than one percent.

Part of the Unger defendants’ achievement can be credited to the re-entry support provided before and after their release. Their overwhelming success has been acknowledged by both legislators and prosecutors, who have said “the Ungers are a perfect example that you can age out of violent crime.”

Despite the incredible success rates among older people safely released from prison, we continue to annually spend approximately $16 billion to incarcerate this population. The financial impact will increase substantially with population projections for elderly incarcerated people to hit 400,000 by 2030. We have barely touched the surface of the potential savings that could be reinvested by safely returning older incarcerated individuals to the community.

We’re currently operating secure nursing homes for people who pose almost no threat to public safety; we should, instead, be better utilizing those resources by targeting services for a higher risk young adult population and thereby reducing crime.

Marc Schindler is executive director of the Justice Policy Institute (JPI). Jeremy Kittridge is a research and policy associate with JPI. They welcome comments from readers.

from https://thecrimereport.org

Should We Release Older Inmates? Aging Offenders and Recidivism

Observations Is it time to consider the release of older inmates considered to be an acceptable risk to public safety? A near 40 percent rearrest rate for those 60 and above (for the most serious category) is astounding and proves that age unto itself is not an indicator as to a “safe” release. Author Leonard […]

The post Should We Release Older Inmates? Aging Offenders and Recidivism appeared first on Crime in America.Net.

Observations Is it time to consider the release of older inmates considered to be an acceptable risk to public safety? A near 40 percent rearrest rate for those 60 and above (for the most serious category) is astounding and proves that age unto itself is not an indicator as to a “safe” release. Author Leonard […]

The post Should We Release Older Inmates? Aging Offenders and Recidivism appeared first on Crime in America.Net.

from https://www.crimeinamerica.net

Offender Employment and Education Programs Don’t Work

Prison Employment Observations Education and employment programs do not significantly affect offender recidivism. We have to stop being so simplistic when it comes to treatment programs for offenders. Author Leonard Adam Sipes, Jr. Retired federal senior spokesperson. Thirty-five years of award-winning public relations for national and state criminal justice agencies. Interviewed multiple times by every […]

The post Offender Employment and Education Programs Don’t Work appeared first on Crime in America.Net.

Prison Employment Observations Education and employment programs do not significantly affect offender recidivism. We have to stop being so simplistic when it comes to treatment programs for offenders. Author Leonard Adam Sipes, Jr. Retired federal senior spokesperson. Thirty-five years of award-winning public relations for national and state criminal justice agencies. Interviewed multiple times by every […]

The post Offender Employment and Education Programs Don’t Work appeared first on Crime in America.Net.

from https://www.crimeinamerica.net

Offender Employment and Education Programs Don’t Work

Prison Employment Observations Education and employment programs do not significantly affect offender recidivism. We have to stop being so simplistic when it comes to treatment programs for offenders. Author Leonard Adam Sipes, Jr. Retired federal senior spokesperson. Thirty-five years of award-winning public relations for national and state criminal justice agencies. Interviewed multiple times by every […]

The post Offender Employment and Education Programs Don’t Work appeared first on Crime in America.Net.

Prison Employment Observations Education and employment programs do not significantly affect offender recidivism. We have to stop being so simplistic when it comes to treatment programs for offenders. Author Leonard Adam Sipes, Jr. Retired federal senior spokesperson. Thirty-five years of award-winning public relations for national and state criminal justice agencies. Interviewed multiple times by every […]

The post Offender Employment and Education Programs Don’t Work appeared first on Crime in America.Net.

from https://www.crimeinamerica.net