rrec the public policy perspective · 2016-12-27 · 8 imnate id name tpai score sentence, days...

RREC – The Public Policy PerspectiveMike Lawlor, Undersecretary

Criminal Justice Policy & Planning DivisionOffice of Policy and Management

1

2

Connecticut’s prison populationsince February 2008

19,894

18,978

18,05317,746

17,022

16,646

14,000

15,000

16,000

17,000

18,000

19,000

20,000

21,000

FEB '0

8M

AR

AP

RM

AY

JUN

JUL

AU

GSEPO

CT

NO

VD

ECJA

N '0

9FEBM

AR

AP

RM

AY

JUN

EJU

LYA

UG

SEPO

CT

NO

VD

ECJA

N '1

0FEBM

AR

AP

RM

AY

JUN

EJU

LYA

UG

SEPO

CT

NO

VD

ECJA

N '1

1FEBM

AR

AP

RM

AY

JUN

EJU

LYA

UG

SEPO

CT

NO

VD

ECJA

N '1

2FEBM

AR

AP

RM

AY

JUN

EJU

LYA

UG

SEP

3

Average sentenced admits per month

435.8

425.2 426.8423.3

430.8

393.5

384.9389.5

350.0

360.0

370.0

380.0

390.0

400.0

410.0

420.0

430.0

440.0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Avg. sentenced admits per month

4

Monthly Criminal Arrests in CT

8,5

43

8,2

49

8,6

60

8,4

06

9,0

67

8,3

43

9,4

95

9,2

87

8,7938,368

10,6319,866

10,372 10,8479,773

10,6179,792

9,0728,660

7,998

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Criminal arrests, 2012

Criminal arrests, 2011

119,432 118,940115,601 115,337 114,011

117,196

124,249

114,156

104,983

90,000

100,000

110,000

120,000

130,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Statewide criminal arrests - 2003 - 2011

5

System Chart – Monthly Indicators Report, September 2012

6

Releases and discharges – Monthly Indicators Report, Sept. 2012

7

Average releases and discharges per month

1,773.1

1,789.61,798.8

1,728.8

1,780.9

1,703.3

1,720.11,706.5

1,640.0

1,660.0

1,680.0

1,700.0

1,720.0

1,740.0

1,760.0

1,780.0

1,800.0

1,820.0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Average number of monthly release and discharges

Monthly Average = Annual monthly releases and discharges divided by 12.

2012 Figure calculated through August - total was divided by 8

8

Imnate id Name

TPAI

score

Sentence,

days

Suspended

after, days

Date

sentenced

Last DOC

admit

Actual

release

date

Estimated

min. release

date

Actual days

incarcerated

Percent

incarcera

ted Release type

1 95277 WILSON,MARVIN 5 2920 2190 5/22/2003 3/18/2002 3/17/2008 3/16/2008 2,191 100% eos to SP

2 302350 PHILLIPS,WADSWORTH F 5 6570 2190 4/30/2003 7/9/2002 7/8/2008 7/7/2008 2,191 100% eos - jamaican citizen

3 268936 SALABERRIOS,NOEL 5 3650 365 9/19/2007 1/29/2007 1/29/2008 1/29/2008 365 100% eos

4 306755 COLE,KEVIN 5 5100 2190 4/21/2004 12/4/2002 12/2/2008 12/2/2008 2,190 100% eos -jamaican citizen

5 324484 PASCAL,BRENT 5 2555 1095 2/3/2006 2/2/2005 2/2/2008 2/2/2008 1,095 100% eos, dominican citizen

6 338290 GUIRAND,FRITZ D 5 1460 365 7/9/2007 7/9/2007 7/8/2008 7/8/2008 365 100% eos

7 306991 PADILLA,JIMMY JERRY 5 2920 1825 7/3/2003 6/30/2003 6/27/2008 6/28/2008 1,824 100% eos honduran citizen

8 326259 ROBINSON,STEFAN N JR 5 3650 1460 11/4/2005 2/10/2005 12/15/2008 2/9/2009 1,404 96% parole

9 297007 HARRISON,PAUL 5 4745 2555 2/14/2003 12/21/2001 7/29/2008 12/19/2008 2,412 94% parole

10 57999 CIANCI,RICHARD 5 3650 1825 5/28/2004 9/14/2003 5/27/2008 9/12/2008 1,717 94% parole

11 267655 DONNELLY,MICHAEL 5 2190 2190 6/26/2003 4/10/2003 11/12/2008 4/8/2009 2,043 93% parole

12 283901 RESTO,FRANKIE 5 4745 2250 1/23/2007 7/31/2006 4/12/2012 9/27/2012 2,082 93% eos, RREC

13 218881 ARRIAGA,ANGEL 5 5110 2190 7/17/2003 9/30/2002 4/14/2008 9/28/2008 2,023 92% parole

14 300392 EVANS,ALEX GODFREY 5 4380 2555 7/21/2003 4/29/2002 9/19/2008 4/27/2009 2,335 91% eos

15 319251 ROSS,NNAMDII R 5 3650 1350 7/20/2005 11/8/2004 3/25/2008 7/20/2008 1,233 91% parole

16 329194 SCOTT,BERNARD 5 2555 1260 9/16/2005 3/3/2005 4/18/2008 8/14/2008 1,142 91% CR

17 291885 GARDNER,DERMAINE D 5 3650 1825 7/1/2004 3/18/2004 9/15/2008 3/17/2009 1,642 90% CR

18 275238 PETTWAY,MARQUIS 5 6570 3560 9/6/2000 7/6/1999 4/10/2008 4/4/2009 3,201 90% parole

19 309283 BANTON,STEVE ANTHONY 5 1980 1980 11/14/2003 10/18/2003 7/8/2008 3/20/2009 1,725 87% CR

20 290232 QUINONES,ALEXIS 5 2555 2555 4/1/2002 5/22/2001 5/10/2007 5/20/2008 2,179 85% parole

21 13239 BURNEY,LEONARD 5 3650 3650 9/10/1998 2/9/1998 8/17/2006 2/7/2008 3,111 85% CR

22 316012 KRASOWSKI,THOMAS J 5 3650 1825 10/7/2004 8/26/2004 11/14/2008 8/25/2009 1,541 84% CR

23 316759 JACKSON,ERICK 5 3650 1825 4/30/2004 11/21/2003 1/28/2008 11/19/2008 1,529 84% CR

24 56811 DAVENPORT,DAVID 5 3650 3650 5/26/2000 3/12/1999 7/10/2007 3/9/2009 3,042 83% CR

25 316046 HENNEBERRY,MATTHEW 5 4380 1825 10/22/2004 4/3/2004 5/14/2008 4/2/2009 1,502 82% CR

26 180152 DIAZ,SIGFREDO 5 5840 2920 6/7/2002 9/4/2001 3/31/2008 9/2/2009 2,400 82% CR

27 326633 GREENE,DONALD L 5 2920 1825 9/2/2005 11/22/2004 10/10/2008 11/21/2009 1,418 78% CR

28 307859 MARTIN,KENNETH JAQUIN 5 3650 1825 4/12/2004 12/15/2003 10/29/2007 12/13/2008 1,414 77% CR

29 334848 GARAY,JOEL 5 2555 1095 5/25/2006 10/3/2005 1/17/2008 10/2/2008 836 76% CR

30 323836 RICHARDSON,STEVEN 5 4830 1825 11/21/2005 8/17/2004 6/4/2008 8/16/2009 1,387 76% CR

31 323923 CLARK,MATTHEW T 5 4830 1825 5/16/2005 12/16/2004 9/24/2008 12/15/2009 1,378 76% CR

32 319304 JOYCE,ROBERT 5 4380 1620 12/6/2004 3/20/2004 7/26/2007 8/26/2008 1,223 75% CR

33 326299 JOHNSON,TYRON 5 3650 1095 11/4/2005 2/10/2005 5/8/2007 2/10/2008 817 75% CR

34 318864 SMITH,STEVEN T 5 3650 1825 11/3/2004 9/28/2004 6/17/2008 9/27/2009 1,358 74% CR

35 332067 LEE,DAVID 5 3650 1460 6/24/2005 6/24/2005 5/28/2008 6/23/2009 1,069 73% CR

36 276654 HARRELL,JAMES C 5 6570 1825 11/10/2005 5/25/2003 1/19/2007 5/23/2008 1,335 73% CR

37 325118 VILLEGAS,RAFAEL 5 2920 1260 2/4/2005 9/28/2004 3/22/2007 3/11/2008 905 72% CR

38 348087 ARCE,LUIS 5 2920 730 2/9/2007 2/9/2007 7/9/2008 2/8/2009 516 71% CR

39 343504 PASK,BENJAMIN 5 3650 1095 8/30/2006 8/30/2006 8/21/2008 8/29/2009 722 66% CR

40 323818 HANSON,JEROME 5 2555 1460 7/8/2005 8/16/2004 2/19/2007 8/15/2008 917 63% CR

41 349906 MOISE,JOHN 5 4380 900 12/20/2007 4/26/2007 10/10/2008 10/12/2009 533 59% CR

9

93%

59%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

32

62

59

29

70

07

57

99

9

26

76

55

F. RESTO

21

88

81

30

03

92

31

92

51

32

91

94

29

18

85

27

52

38

30

92

83

30

92

83

29

02

32

13

23

9

31

60

12

31

67

59

56

81

1

31

60

46

18

01

52

32

66

33

30

78

59

33

48

48

32

38

36

32

39

23

31

93

04

32

62

99

31

88

64

33

20

67

27

66

54

32

51

18

34

80

87

34

35

04

32

38

18

34

99

06

Risk Reduction Earned Credits (RREC):a preliminary review of implementation and

performance issues

Karl Lewis – Director of Offender Classification and Population Management , The Connecticut Department of Correction

&Ivan Kuzyk, Director, Statistical Analysis Center

The Office of Policy & Management

10

Purpose of this analysis by OPM

OPM has been tracking RREC discharges since they were implemented last year.

This is the first opportunity OPM has had to summarize the impact of RREC on recidivism among offenders discharging from prison

Purpose of this analysis is both to: clarify the operations with respect to RREC, and to report preliminary findings with respect

to offender recidivism

11

Discretionary releases are a time-tested, widely used tool in correction systems in every U.S. state.

In October 2010, one year before the RREC began, 1,604 offenders were released or discharged from state prisons. 747 of these offenders (43%) left prison through some

discretionary release mechanism.

In October 2010, the DOC released prisoners through 6 discretionary release programs.

By September 2012, the DOC has expanded the number of discretionary release programs to 7 DUI Home confinement was introduced in March 2012

In October 2011, 1,722 offenders were released or discharged from DOC facilities

Discretionary Release Mechanisms at DOC

12

Discretionary release mechanisms: Parole Transitional Supervision Transfer Parole Transfer Placement DUI Home Confinement Re-entry Furlough Halfway Houses

Each mechanism provides an alternative pathway to completing a prison sentences in lieu of incarceration.

Discretionary Release Mechanisms at DOC (2)

13

Between October 5, 2011 and September 5,2012, 8,941 offenders were eligible to earn RREC only 8,700 were awarded at least one day of

RREC.

Discharges

177

600455

327 303 354 306 309 343 334 393

22

77

501584

493 507512

408 466 440 393431

220

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Oct. 2

01

1

No

v. 20

11

De

c. 20

11

Jan. 2

01

2

Feb

. 20

12

Mar. 2

01

2

Ap

r. 20

12

May 2

01

2

Jun

. 20

12

Jul. 2

01

2

Au

g. 20

12

Sep

t.20

12

Other From facilities From community

14

The average offender who was granted RREC earned 60.4 days.

The median offender earned 32 days of RREC 79% earned under 3 months

RREC receivers

15

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1 8 15

22

29

36

43

50

57

64

71

78

85

92

99

10

6

11

3

12

0

12

7

13

4

14

1

14

8

15

5

16

2

16

9

17

6

18

3

19

0

19

7

20

4

21

1

21

8

22

5

23

2

23

9

24

6

25

4

26

1

26

9

27

6

28

3

29

0

29

7

30

4

31

1

31

8

32

6

33

3

34

0

34

7

35

4

36

3

37

6

Off

en

de

rs r

ece

ivin

g R

REC

RREC days awarded

Average RREC awarded: 60.4 days

Median RREC awarded: 32.0 days

0 to < 1 month, 50%

1 to <2 months, 19% 2 to <3 months,

10%

3 to < 6 months, 13%

6 to < 9 months, 5%

9 to < 1 year, 3%

RREC and discretionary releases

In April 2012, 84% of offenders who discharged from prison, discharged with less than 90 days of RRECIn August 2012:– the average offender discharged from prison earned 49.3 days of RREC– the average offender discharged in the community earned 89.5 days.

734

200 234

100 7437 28 19 8 11 6 5 11

0

160

320

480

640

800

APRIL MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR

April prison and community discharges

RREC discharge

Discharge w/o RREC

408

161138

43 27 14 7 7 2 2 2 1 40

90

180

270

360

450

APRIL MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR

April discharges from prison

RREC discharge

Discharge w/o RREC

16

Measuring recidivism (2)Between October 5, 2011 and September 5, 2012, 8,941 offenders discharged from prison having earned RREC of these, 8,700 were awarded RREC

By September 5, 2012, there were 1,403 readmits to DOC facilities by these 8,941 men.

These 1,403 admits were made by 1,202 offenders

So, can we compute the recidivism rateof these offenders from this data?

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

10

/5/2

011

10

/12

/20…

10

/19

/20…

10

/26

/20…

11

/2/2

011

11

/9/2

011

11

/16

/20…

11

/23

/20…

11

/30

/20…

12

/7/2

011

12

/14

/20…

12

/21

/20…

12

/28

/20…

1/4

/20

12

1/1

1/2

012

1/1

8/2

012

1/2

5/2

012

2/1

/20

12

2/8

/20

12

2/1

5/2

012

2/2

2/2

012

2/2

9/2

012

3/7

/20

12

3/1

4/2

012

3/2

1/2

012

3/2

8/2

012

4/4

/20

12

4/1

1/2

012

4/1

8/2

012

4/2

5/2

012

5/2

/20

12

5/9

/20

12

5/1

6/2

012

5/2

3/2

012

5/3

0/2

012

6/6

/20

12

6/1

3/2

012

6/2

0/2

012

6/2

7/2

012

7/4

/20

12

7/1

1/2

012

7/1

8/2

012

7/2

5/2

012

8/1

/20

12

8/8

/20

12

8/1

5/2

012

8/2

2/2

012

8/2

9/2

012

9/5

/20

12

FACILITY COMM

17

Measuring recidivism (1)

Recidivist: a convicted criminal who reoffends

By extension, recidivism rates explain how and how long it takes for groups of criminals to reoffend

There are two main concerns: What events constitute recidivism, and How long should you wait before

calculating rates.

18


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

10

/5/2

011

10

/12

/20…

10

/19

/20…

10

/26

/20…

11

/2/2

011

11

/9/2

011

11

/16

/20…

11

/23

/20…

11

/30

/20…

12

/7/2

011

12

/14

/20…

12

/21

/20…

12

/28

/20…

1/4

/20

12

1/1

1/2

012

1/1

8/2

012

1/2

5/2

012

2/1

/20

12

2/8

/20

12

2/1

5/2

012

2/2

2/2

012

2/2

9/2

012

3/7

/20

12

3/1

4/2

012

3/2

1/2

012

3/2

8/2

012

4/4

/20

12

4/1

1/2

012

4/1

8/2

012

4/2

5/2

012

5/2

/20

12

5/9

/20

12

5/1

6/2

012

5/2

3/2

012

5/3

0/2

012

6/6

/20

12

6/1

3/2

012

6/2

0/2

012

6/2

7/2

012

7/4

/20

12

7/1

1/2

012

7/1

8/2

012

7/2

5/2

012

8/1

/20

12

8/8

/20

12

8/1

5/2

012

8/2

2/2

012

8/2

9/2

012

9/5

/20

12

FACILITY COMM

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

05

-Oct-1

1

12

-Oct-1

1

19

-Oct-1

1

26

-Oct-1

1

02

-No

v-11

09

-No

v-11

16

-No

v-11

23

-No

v-11

30

-No

v-11

07

-De

c-11

14

-De

c-11

21

-De

c-11

28

-De

c-11

04

-Jan-1

2

11

-Jan-1

2

18

-Jan-1

2

25

-Jan-1

2

01

-Feb

-12

08

-Feb

-12

15

-Feb

-12

22

-Feb

-12

29

-Feb

-12

07

-Mar-1

2

14

-Mar-1

2

21

-Mar-1

2

28

-Mar-1

2

04

-Ap

r-12

11

-Ap

r-12

18

-Ap

r-12

25

-Ap

r-12

02

-May-12

09

-May-12

16

-May-12

23

-May-12

30

-May-12

06

-Jun

-12

13

-Jun

-12

20

-Jun

-12

27

-Jun

-12

04

-Jul-1

2

11

-Jul-1

2

18

-Jul-1

2

25

-Jul-1

2

01

-Au

g-12

08

-Au

g-12

15

-Au

g-12

22

-Au

g-12

29

-Au

g-12

05

-Sep

-12

FACILITY COMM

To compute recidivism rates you require a fixed time component and a meaningful cohort

Six months

Six months

Six months

19


OPM had been publishing annual recidivism studies of state prisoners for almost a decade.

OPM uses: Data from the Dept. of Correction, the State

Police and the Judicial Branch (CSSD) We apply a consistent methodology to our

studies based on US DOJ practice We track four measures

New arrests New convictions Reincarceration events, and Returns to prison with a new sentence

20


In recent years OPM has published recidivism studies based on 2-year, 3-year and 5-year outcome data.

We have tracked recidivism among sex offenders, high risk offenders, career criminals and gun felons.

Our reports are available on the OPM website.

OPM has developed excellent benchmark recidivism data for cohorts of offenders who were released in 2004, 2005 and 2008.

21

Measuring recidivism – Typical analysis

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Cu

mu

lati

ve p

erc

en

t o

f co

ho

rt

Months since 2005 release/discharge

3-Year Recidivsm Rates for CT Offenders Released in 2005

New Arrest

Return to Prison

New Conviction (CCH)

New Prison Sentence

22

Measuring recidivism – Data Required + Time

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Cu

mu

lati

ve p

erc

en

t o

f co

ho

rt



New Arrest

Return to Prison


New Prison Sentence

DOC Data

Judicial, State Police data

Time to gather data 23

Measuring recidivism – 4 measures over time

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Cu

mu

lati

ve p

erc

en

t o

f co

ho

rt



New Arrest

Return to Prison


New Prison Sentence

67.5%

53.6%53.7%

36.6%

Predictive and stable24

Recidivism – Return to prison w/in 6 months

3,279 offenders who had earned RREC were released or discharged between October 1, 2011 and January 31, 2012 . 3,178 were awarded at least one day of RREC

During the 6-month period following their discharge dates, 420 offenders were returned to prison (12.8%)

By September 9, 2012 – 628 offenders in the group of 3,279 had returned to prison 769 times.

1.7%3.6%

6.3%8.8%

10.7%12.8%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Months since release or discharge

Recidivsm - Return to prison

25


12.8%

21.2%

33.5%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Months since release or discharge


RREC Cum. %

2008 Cohort, Cum. %

In 2008, 16,286 offenders were discharged or released from prison.

In the 6 months follow there releases, 21% were returned to prison

Offenders receiving RREC during October through January returned to prison at considerably lower rates than offenders in 2008.

26


12.8%

20.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months since release or discharge

Recidivsm - Return to Prison

RREC Cum. %

2008 Cohort, Cum. %

2005 Cohort, Cum. %

16,241 offenders were discharged or released from prison during 2005. These offenders returned to prison at rates similar to the rate for offenders in 2005.

Offenders receiving RREC during October 2011 through January 2012 returned to prison at considerably lower rates than offenders in 2005 or 2008.

27

RREC – The Numbers (3)

28

3-year 6-month 6-month

Cohort 2008 2008 RREC*

New admits 4,897 1,521 339

Other** 110 116 13

New sentences 783 169 23

Tech/criminal violations 2,613 1,640 45

Returned to prison 8,403 3,446 420

Cohort 16,286 16,286 3,279

Rate 52% 21% 13%

Recidivism, rate by type

Recid New admits 30% 9% 10%

Recid Other 1% 3% 3%

Recid New sentences 5% 1% 1%

Recid for Tech/criminal violations 16% 10% 1%

Recidivism, distribution by type

New admit 58% 44% 81%

Other 1% 3% 3%

New sentence 9% 5% 5%

Crim. & tech. violations 31% 48% 11%

Recid RTP 100% 100% 100%

*RREC - Releases and discharges, Oct. 1, 2011 through Jan. 31, 2012

** Other includes non-prejudical returns and other jurisdictions

29



New admits 4,897 1,521 339

Other** 110 116 13




Cohort 16,286 16,286 3,279

Rate 52% 21% 13%







New admit 58% 44% 81%

Other 1% 3% 3%



Recid RTP 100% 100% 100%


** Other includes non-prejudical returns and other jurisdictions



New admits 4,897 1,521 339

Other** 110 116 13




Cohort 16,286 16,286 3,279

Rate 52% 21% 13%







New admit 58% 44% 81%

Other 1% 3% 3%



Recid RTP 100% 100% 100%


** Other includes non-prejudical returns and other jurisdictions 30

6-month rate: 13% vs. 21%

12.8%

20.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


Recidivsm - Return to Prison

RREC Cum. %

2005 Cohort, Cum. %

Comparing the recidivism rates for 2005 and RREC receivers, OPM tested what would happen if technical violations were not counted in the 2005 rate.

31

2005 recidivism w/o technical violations

12.8%

20.7%

14.3%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12



RREC Cum. %

2005 Cohort, Cum. %

2005 Cohort - No TV, Cum. %

When technical violation were not added in, the 2005, 6-month recidivism rate for returns to prison dropped from 20.7% to 14.3%. Criminal violations in 2005 were still counted.

32

Nine month rates – 18% vs. 28%

33

20.7%

28.1%

12.8%

18.4%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


Recidivism - Return to prison

2008 Cohort, Cum. %

2005 Cohort, Cum. %

RREC Cum % 9 month

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

05

-Oct-1

1

12

-Oct-1

1

19

-Oct-1

1

26

-Oct-1

1

02

-No

v-11

09

-No

v-11

16

-No

v-11

23

-No

v-11

30

-No

v-11

07

-De

c-11

14

-De

c-11

21

-De

c-11

28

-De

c-11

04

-Jan-1

2

11

-Jan-1

2

18

-Jan-1

2

25

-Jan-1

2

01

-Feb

-12

08

-Feb

-12

15

-Feb

-12

22

-Feb

-12

29

-Feb

-12

07

-Mar-1

2

14

-Mar-1

2

21

-Mar-1

2

28

-Mar-1

2

04

-Ap

r-12

11

-Ap

r-12

18

-Ap

r-12

25

-Ap

r-12

02

-May-12

09

-May-12

16

-May-12

23

-May-12

30

-May-12

06

-Jun

-12

13

-Jun

-12

20

-Jun

-12

27

-Jun

-12

04

-Jul-1

2

11

-Jul-1

2

18

-Jul-1

2

25

-Jul-1

2

01

-Au

g-12

08

-Au

g-12

15

-Au

g-12

22

-Au

g-12

29

-Au

g-12

05

-Sep

-12

FACILITY COMM

Nine months

Nine months

Summary of the analysis

6-month recidivism rates for offenders discharged with RREC were significantly lower than the rates for offenders discharged during 2005 and 2008.

The difference in rates appears to be largely accounted for by the drop in the number of returns-to-prison for technical violations.

When technical violations were removed – the recidivism rates for both 2005 and 2008 cohorts declined to the near the level of RREC offenders.

34

35

Sentence Credits: The Historical Perspective

Connecticut’s sentencing structure has evolved greatly over the past three decades.

Currently, sentencing credits are more restrictive than at any time that these credits have been available.

36

Connecticut’s prison population 1973-2012

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

19

73

19

74

19

75

19

76

19

77

19

78

19

79

19

80

19

81

19

82

19

83

19

84

19

85

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

prison population

Indeterminate sentencing,to 10/1976

Determinate sentencing,from 7/1981

Definite,Indefinite &

Indeterminate sentencing

7/1983 – 10/1994

10 days per month

for first 5 years. 12

days for sixth and

subsequent years.

10/1976 – 7/198110 days per month for first 5 years. 15 days for sixth and subsequent years

Prior to 10/1976

60 days for first 5 years.

90 days for sixth and

subsequent7/1981 – 7/198310 days per month for first 5 years. 12 days for sixth and subsequent years

7/2011

5 days

per month

Between 10/1975 and 10/1994, offenders also earned good time credit for pre-trial incarceration.

37

Connecticut’s prison population 1973-2012

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

19

73

19

74

19

75

19

76

19

77

19

78

19

79

19

80

19

81

19

82

19

83

19

84

19

85

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

prison population

Violent crimes in CT

Indeterminate sentencing,to 10/1976

Determinate sentencing,from 7/1981

Definite,Indefinite &

Indeterminate sentencing

7/1983 – 10/1994

10 days per month

for first 5 years. 12

days for sixth and

subsequent years.

10/1976 – 7/198110 days per month for first 5 years. 15 days for sixth and subsequent years

Prior to 10/1976

60 days for first 5 years.

90 days for sixth and

subsequent7/1981 – 7/198310 days per month for first 5 years. 12 days for sixth and subsequent years

7/2011

5 days

per month

Between 10/1975 and 10/1994, offenders also earned good time credit for pre-trial incarceration.

38

Incentives and disincentives

Inmate-on-inmate assaults declined by 11% from FY 10-11 to FY11-12.

Disciplinary reports declined by 6% during the same period.

Anecdotal evidence indicates that program participation is up significantly and programs waiting lists have been reduced.

39

RREC – The Details (1)

The Risk Reduction Earned Credit (RREC) was implemented in accordance with Public Act 11-51.

Purpose: to provide an incentive for sentenced offenders to act in accordance with Department rules, and participate in programming that will reduce

the likelihood of re-offense. The Commissioner of Correction is authorized to

award up to five days per month credit for good behavior combined with adherence to rehabilitative programming recommendations.

40


Only inmates sentenced to a crime committed on or after October 1, 1994 are eligible to earn RREC. Accused prisoners may not earn RREC regardless of whether they accrue Jail Credit.

An inmate shall not earn credit, and may forfeit any or all credit earned (or credit that might be earned in the future), for: institutional misconduct refusing needed programming refusing to provide DNA being on escape or absconder status, or placement on a restrictive status.

41


The maximum amount of days earned per month is five. Thus, the maximum number of days that can be earned for a year is 52.

Inmates convicted of the following crimes are not eligible to receive RREC: 53a-54a – Murder 53a-54b – Capital Felony 53a-54c – Felony Murder 53a-54d – Arson Murder 53a-70a – Sexual Assault, First Degree with a

Firearm 53a-100aa – Home Invasion

42


RREC shall not reduce the mandatory portion of a sentence. There are more than 60 criminal statutes that carry mandatory minimums of this type in Connecticut.

Inmates earn credit on each separate sentence; however, an aggregate sentence will be reduced by no more than five days per month.

43


Retroactive credit at the rate of 5 days per month may have been applied if an inmate was serving a continuous sentence from April 1, 2006 or later through October 1, 2011 and met the conduct and programmatic criteria outlined above. By statute, the Department of Correction had until June 30, 2012 to complete the implementation of retroactive credit.

Credits that are forfeited due to a disciplinary finding may be restored after a prolonged period of good behavior and program participation.

44

RREC – Implementation (1)

The Department implemented the RREC program in October, 2011 and had until June 30, 2012 to complete implementation, including application of retroactive credits as authorized by the Public Act.

Application of retroactive credit within the implementation period was prioritized, with the lowest level offenders evaluated first and the highest level offenders last.

45


Approximately 4000 manual reviews for application of retroactive credit were completed.

Implementation presented considerable logistical challenges which were compounded by an antiquated information system and the fact that our central inmate records remain paper- based.

For example, because the Department’s computer system cannot docket full statute numbers, DOC staff had to manually review about 9,500 files to determine which sentences met mandatory-sentence criteria.

46


To accomplish the implementation in the given time frame, the Department diverted resources at the Correctional Counselor and Records ID Specialist levels and utilized overtime.

In order to increase the number of class sessions available and reduce inmate waitlists for recommended programs, the Department utilized overtime, generally on second shift, and redeployed resources from two correctional facilities that closed. This practice has reduced waitlists substantially.

47


The Department is establishing a Discharge Review Board that will: Review all inmates discharging from facilities

two weeks before discharge. Ensure all credit has been applied correctly. Ensure all programs have been accurately

credited. Ensure all non-compliance and disciplinary

action has resulted in appropriate penalties Review relevant victim impact information and

suspend or reduce credit as appropriate.

48


The Department is establishing a Discharge Review Board that will: Ensure that dangerous offenders who are not

in compliance with an Offender Accountability Plan, or who present a continued threat to public safety, receive negative RREC adjustments.

Integrate the new state-of the-art risk assessment tools (SCORES) into the discharge review process.

rrec the public policy perspective · 2016-12-27 · 8 imnate id name tpai score sentence, days...

Documents