Assessing the Effectiveness of Intermediate Sanctions in Multnomah County, Oregon Andres F. Rengifo Christine S. Scott-Hayward Vera Institute of Justice July, 2008 *

Key Questions What is the incidence and prevalence of intermediate sanctions, specifically jail-based sanctions? Is there an association between sanctions given and short- and long-term outcomes (discharge type and recidivism)?

Main Findings Most clients did not receive any sanction while on supervision (71%). Of those who do receive sanctions, most are given jail (92.5%). Other sanctions or interventions are rarely given. Most clients were neither re-arrested (74%) nor re-convicted (85%) after their supervision ended. Those who receive sanctions (particularly jail) are more likely to be unsuccessfully discharged and more likely to recidivate, controlling for a variety of factors.

Data and Methods Administrative Data Qualitative Data Methods Probationers and individuals on post-prison supervision who ended supervision in 2005, with an average follow-up period of 20 months Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington Counties N = 7,542 (3,642 from Multnomah County) Qualitative Data Focus Groups with DCJ line officers (generic and specialized caseloads) Interviews with supervising officers Methods Multivariate regressions (Logistic, Cox-regression) Quasi-Experimental Design using Propensity Score Matching 4

Incidence of Intermediate Sanctions Multnomah County: 29.4% Clackamas/Washington Counties: 9.6% Most individuals did not receive any type of sanction or intervention during their tenure on supervision. Of the 7,542 clients discharged in 2005, just 21.4% were given at least one sanction or intervention. In Multnomah County, this percentage is slightly higher – 28.9%. The charts in this slide shows the breakdown of these actions by type of action in the three counties. 5

Top-used Sanctions, by County This chart shows the type of sanction given among clients who received a sanction. Note – percentages do not add to 100 because each client could receive more than one type of sanction. Jail was used far more often in Multnomah than in the other two counties while restitution was barely used in Multnomah but used in almost 2/3 of cases in Clackamas/Washington 6 6

Top-used Interventions, by County Similarly, here we look at the top used formal interventions among clients who received one. Again differences across counties. In Multnomah Day Reporting is used in more than 2/3 of cases while in Clackamas/Washington, the most commonly used intervention was modification of conditions. 7 7

Top Supervision Conditions associated with Sanctions/Interventions Here we look at the types of violations for which sanctions or interventions were given. In Multnomah the most frequently reported incidents were associated with changing job or residence or failure to report. 8 8

Utilization of Jail Sanctions: Multnomah County On average, individuals discharged in Multnomah County who received at least one jail sanction were given 62.9 jail days over the course of their tenure for a total of 61,244 jail bed days Individually they received a wide range of jail days – 1/3 receiving from 8-30 jail days. However, 37% of the total jail days were accounted for by the 82 clients (9%) who received more than 180 days of jail. 9

Short-Term Outcomes: Discharge Type Most clients in Multnomah were successfully discharged from supervision 10

Short-Term Outcomes: Findings Individuals who received intermediate sanctions were significantly more likely to experience an unsuccessful discharge than individuals who did not. Controlling for demographic and crime related covariates, clients who received any sanction or formal intervention were 44% more likely to be revoked than clients who did not. Those receiving jail were 76% percent more likely to have their supervision revoked. 11

Long-Term Outcomes: Findings Individuals who were successfully discharged were slightly less likely to be re-arrested or re-convicted at follow-up. Intermediate Sanctions had a negative effect on long-term outcomes: At least one sanction: 40% re-arrested; 25% re-convicted No sanction: 20% re-arrested; 9% re-convicted Clients who received jail sanctions were more likely to recidivate than clients who did not At least one jail sanction: 48% re-arrested; 28% re-convicted No jail sanction: 20% re-arrested; 11% re-convicted 12

Recommendations Conduct a service inventory to ascertain whether sanctions can be readily accessed by supervision officers Increase the use of non-custodial sanctions and consider targeting the use of jail to the group for which it is most appropriate, namely those who pose the greatest risk to public safety. Examine in more detail how jail is used Improve training of probation and parole officers to ensure accurate data collection and to ensure that sanctions given align with the agency’s goals Conduct future studies, which should include cost-benefit analysis, on the effect of sanctions other than jail.

Overall view of our efforts Baseline utilization of 462 Desired reduction of 75 Nine consecutive weeks of reduction with a low of 345 in jail for a sanction during the week of june 26 Most recent figures indicate reduction of 96 beds

This is all of dcj with out local control

broken out data by category: Probation Violation

PPS/Parole violation

Local control