Getting the Right People in the Right Program Urban & Rural Approaches to Offender Screening.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Implementation of HB 1736 September 1, OVERVIEW H.B. 1736, enacted during the 81 st Legislative Session, provided the following support for.
Advertisements

Mental Health & Substance Abuse
Oklahoma Department of Corrections DUI Offender Profile
Public Safety Performance Project October 2, 2012 Less Crime at Lower Costs Special Council on Criminal Justice Reform for Georgians.
Criminal Justice and Behavioral Health Partnerships Review of projects recognizing the needs of and providing treatment supports to DUI offenders Nisha.
1 Michigan Department of Corrections Office of Community Corrections  Office of Community Corrections was created pursuant to Public Act 511 of 1988,
Criminal Justice, Substance Abuse & Mental Health Reinvestment Grant
Yamhill County: Evidence-Based Decision Making (EBDM)
1 17-Year-Old Offenders in the Adult Criminal Justice System Legislative Audit Bureau April 2008.
Public Safety Realignment Local custody for non-violent, non- serious, non-sex offenders Changes to State Parole Local Post-release Supervision Local.
Police chiefs | formerly incarcerated people | pretrial service administrators | probation officials | state legislators | substance abuse treatment providers.
MILWAUKEE COUNTY’S PRETRIAL RELEASE DECISION PROCESS & PRETRIAL SERVICES RE-DESIGN PRESENTED TO THE MILWAUKEE COUNTY COMMUNITY JUSTICE COUNCIL JULY 24,
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 1 Michael Thompson, Director Council of State Governments Justice Center July 28, 2014 Washington, D.C. Measuring.
Ray Luick – Justice System Improvement Specialist, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Justice Programs Unit Tony Streveler – Executive Policy Initiatives.
Second Chances: Housing and Services for Re-entering Prisoners National Alliance to End Homelessness Annual Conference Nikki Delgado Program Manager Corporation.
Criminal Justice Mental Health and Substance Abuse Reinvestment Grant Housing Strategies Ellen Piekalkiewicz Department of Children and Families Florida.
Implementing Evidence Based Principles into Supervision March 20,2013 Mack Jenkins, Chief Probation Officer County of San Diego.
Probation Operations Department of Corrections GEORGIA House Bill 1176 Implementation Presented by: Jay Sanders Special Assistant to the Director of Probation.
Challenges & Opportunities
Immediate Sanction Probation Pilot Project Status Update Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission March 18, 2013.
County College Parole & Probation Services
Redesigning the Front End of the System Options for Analysis, Goal-Setting, and Change August 23, 2013.
Participant Choice – Access to Recovery as a Voucher Service Delivery Model Presented to National Summit on Prisoner Re-Entry Sponsored by the White House.
MA County Jail Pilot Armstrong-Indiana-Clarion Drug and Alcohol Commission December 31, 2013 UPDATE Statistics reference December 1, 2012 through December.
1 Ed Monahan Public Advocate Substance Abuse: Senate Bill 4 (2009) Treatment options expanded Ernie Lewis KY Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers June.
State of CT Judicial Branch Court Support Services Division Major Initiatives Update Presented to the Criminal Justice Policy Advisory Commission September.
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 2011 PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT PLAN AUGUST 30, 2011.
The Rhode Island Experience Ellen Evans Alexander Assistant Director RI Department of Corrections.
By Jacqueline Gallegos ……to  Chaired by Judge Wells  Invited Executive Level Management  Working toward Local Implementation ◦ Local government.
Ohio Justice Alliance for Community Corrections October 13, 2011.
Probation Supervision and Information Gathering Presentence Reports.
November 5, 2014 New Nonviolent Offender Risk Assessment Instruments – Status Update VIRGINIA CRIMINAL SENTENCING COMMISSION.
Aimed at a reduction in alcohol and drug use and criminal activity.
Integrating Offender Screening Process into Specialty Court Eligibility Determination Presenter: Steven Fritz, LPC, LADC Clinical Director, Human Skills.
Pretrial, Probation and Parole
PREPARED BY NPC RESEARCH PORTLAND, OR MAY 2013 Florida Adult Felony Drug Courts Evaluation Results.
EXTENDING THE THERAPEUTIC JUSTICE MODEL TO PROBLEM GAMBLERS Mark G. Farrell, JD; Jessica Aungst Weitzel, MPH; Thomas H. Nochajski, PhD, Buffalo Center.
TREATMENT COURTS Inns of Court Presentation By John Markson & Elliott Levine October 17, 2012.
North Carolina TASC NC TASC Bridging Systems for Effective Offender Care Management.
Salient Factor Score CTSFS99. What it is How to use it.
Missouri Reentry… It’s a Process! George A. Lombardi, Director Missouri Department of Corrections.
History and Background Formed in 2006 as a joint collaboration of San Mateo County Courts, Probation Department, District Attorney Office, Sheriff’s Office,
 Performance assessments can:  help identify potential problems in the program  help identify areas where streamlining the process could be useful.
2 3 Texas has one of the largest Probation Populations in the United States (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2007) 4 Selected StatesProbation Population.
LEON COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM.
HB 3194 CRAIG PRINS3/5/14 OREGON CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION NEVADA ADVISORY COMMISSION ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
HEALTH GENERAL ARTICLES §8-505, 8-506, 8507
Immediate Sanction Probation Pilot Project Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission June 8, 2015.
Drug Courts Prepared by Sheri Heffelfinger Montana Legislative Services Division For the Law and Justice Interim Committee February 2008.
Task Force on Public Safety OREGON CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION OCTOBER 30, 2013.
Yavapai County Jail Planning Services Presentation to: Yavapai County Board of Supervisors January 6, 2016.
ADULT REDEPLOY ILLINOIS Mary Ann Dyar, Program Administrator National Association of Sentencing Commissions August 7, 2012.
Task Force on Public Safety Oregon Criminal Justice Commission November 22, 2013.
Cleveland Municipal Drug Court: SAMHSA CSAT Adult Treatment Drug Court Grant Dr. Margaret Baughman Madison Wheeler, BS Paul Tuschman, BA Begun.
Jude Prather Veterans Service Officer Hays County Veterans Court Program.
Improving Access to Mental Health Services: A Community Systems Approach Leslie Mahlmeister, MBA PhD Student Department of Political Science Wayne State.
 As of July 1, 2014, 61 operational courts: › 28 Adult Drug Courts  5 Hybrid Drug/OWI Courts › 14 OWI Courts › 9 Veterans Treatment Courts › 4 Mental.
Court Services A Continuum of Behavioral, Therapeutic and Supervision Programs.
Problem Solving Courts Bench Bar Conference Double Tree Hotel April 20, rd Judicial District Court of Common Pleas – Berks County.
Senate Bill 64 Omnibus Crime/Corrections Bill To improve public safety, slow the growth of Alaska’s prison population, and save money. 1.
Juvenile Legislative Update 2013 Confidentiality of Records and Interagency Sharing of Educational Records.
North Carolina TASC Clinical Series Training Module Nine: Screening.
Douglas County, KS Criminal Justice Intercept Practices
Juvenile Reentry Programs Palm Beach County
Summit County Probation Services
North Carolina TASC Clinical Series Training
Community Corrections Alternative Program
Beyond the referral Presented by:
Presentation transcript:

Getting the Right People in the Right Program Urban & Rural Approaches to Offender Screening

Problem  Oklahoma’s incarceration rate is among the highest in the nation.  Spending on corrections has increased 41% over the last decade.  Crime rates have fallen less than most other states. From jrioklahoma.com

History  January 2011: Governor Mary Fallin, Speaker of the House Kris Steele, Senate Pro Tempore Brian Bingman, and Supreme Court Justice James Edmondson requested technical assistance from the Bureau of Justice (BJA) and the Pew Center on the States (PEW) to provide a comprehensive analysis of Oklahoma’s criminal justice system.

History  In response, the Counsel of State Governments (CSG) was retained to work with several state agencies, including ODMHSAS.  May 2011: HB 2131 was signed into law which among many things, increased the eligibility for early release from prison. It also created a JRI workgroup to further assess the state’s sentencing codes.

History  Throughout the months that the Legislature was not in session, the JRI workgroup continued to work with CSG conducting an in depth review of sentencing programs and policies creating a framework of recommendations.  Within those recommendations was the need for a statewide screening program for offenders to better identify sentencing alternatives.

History  May Governor Fallin signed into Law HB3052.

HB 3052 Any person found guilty of a felony offense shall, prior to sentencing be required to submit to an approved risk, mental health, and substance abuse assessment and evaluation which shall be administered and scored by assessment personnel certified by the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services. Any person lacking sufficient skills to comprehend or otherwise participate in the risk, mental health, and substance abuse assessment and evaluation shall have appropriate assistance. The court, district attorney, arrested person, and counsel for the arrested person shall have access to the risk, mental health, and substance abuse assessment and evaluation. The risk, mental health, and substance abuse assessment and evaluation shall not be admissible as evidence in the criminal case unless specifically waived by the defendant or for purposes of determining sentencing options for a defendant who has pled guilty and punishment is to be determined by the court. The court and the district attorney shall consider the results of the risk, mental health, and substance abuse assessment and evaluation to determine sentencing options for the person.

HB2254  Trailer bill which repealed parts of HB3052  Changed the shall to may

HB2254  Any person found guilty of a felony offense may, prior to sentencing be required to submit to an approved risk, mental health, and substance abuse assessment and evaluation which shall be administered and scored by assessment personnel certified by the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services. Any person lacking sufficient skills to comprehend or otherwise participate in the risk, mental health, and substance abuse assessment and evaluation shall have appropriate assistance. The court, district attorney, arrested person, and counsel for the arrested person shall have access to the risk, mental health, and substance abuse assessment and evaluation. The risk, mental health, and substance abuse assessment and evaluation shall not be admissible as evidence in the criminal case unless specifically waived by the defendant or for purposes of determining sentencing options for a defendant who has pled guilty and punishment is to be determined by the court. The court and the district attorney shall consider the results of the risk, mental health, and substance abuse assessment and evaluation to determine sentencing options for the person.

HB2254  Effective November 1, 2012  New section of law was placed in: OK ST T. 43A 3-704

May 2013  Any person found accused of a felony offense may, prior to sentencing submit to an approved risk, mental health, and substance abuse assessment and evaluation which shall be administered and scored by assessment personnel certified by the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services. Any person lacking sufficient skills to comprehend or otherwise participate in the risk, mental health, and substance abuse assessment and evaluation shall have appropriate assistance. The court, district attorney, arrested person, and counsel for the arrested person shall have access to the risk, mental health, and substance abuse assessment and evaluation. The risk, mental health, and substance abuse assessment and evaluation shall not be admissible as evidence in the criminal case unless specifically waived by the defendant or for purposes of determining sentencing options for a defendant who has pled guilty and punishment is to be determined by the court. The court and the district attorney shall consider the results of the risk, mental health, and substance abuse assessment and evaluation to determine sentencing options for the person.

Screening Goal Determine:  Likelihood to Reoffend (risk screening)  Substance Dependence vs. Substance Abuse  Potential Mental Health Concerns

Risk and Treatment Need  Why is it important to know?  Two parts: Level of Treatment Offender’s risk to reoffend Research shows that matching levels of supervision and treatment with risk and needs levels results in significantly better outcomes. (Risk-Need Responsively Model) Offender recidivism can be reduced if the level of treatment and supervision services provided to the offender is proportional to the offender’s risk to reoffend.

Information Needed  Risk Screening  Substance Abuse Screening  Mental Health Screening

Risk Assessment  Ohio Risk Assessment System- Community Supervision Tool (ORAS- CST)  Training was provided by the University of Cincinnati

Mental Health Screening Mental Health Screen Form lll Initially designed by the Project Return Foundation, Inc. Recommended by SAMHSHA for use in criminal justice populations. Screens for both mild and serious mental health issues.

Substance Abuse Screening Texas Christian University Drug Screen ll (TCUDS-ll)  Validated for use in correctional settings to determine eligibility for substance abuse treatment services.  Recommended by SAMHSA.

Administration  Total time for the administration of these tools is approximately 45 minutes.  User friendly  Computer based

Training Required Certification is required to be able to provide offender screenings Trainings are available free of charge through ODMHSAS

History of Offender Screenings Programs Pontotoc & Tulsa Counties Pontotoc  Awarded grant to AACDC October 2012  3 staff attended OS training in October 2012 and received certification  November 2012 began planning and implementation of screenings Tulsa  Awarded grant to F & CS December 2012  3 staff attended OS training in February 2013 and received certification  March began planning in conjunction with various organizations: Court Services, PDs office, DA’s office, Judges, Com. Sentencing  April began pilot program

Pilot Program Pros Ada  Established tx center in the community  Jail Diversion programs viable in community  Small town connections Tulsa  Jail Diversion program in place for 10+ years  2 staff were officed within the county jail  Already had access to offenders and computers/internet

Pilot Program Challenges Ada  Educating judges and attorneys about the program  Learning about the recommendation options  Communications between individuals/offices involved  Finding time to do the screening on top of maintaining caseloads  Gaining access to offenders  Unavailability of internet access in the county jail Tulsa  Educating judges and attorneys about the program  Communications/feedback between individuals/offices involved  Finding ideal time to screen  Obtaining accurate info about offenders criminal history  Finding location to screen offenders out of custody

Alternatives to Incarceration Programs Already in Place Ada  Probation  S/A Education  Outpatient S/A treatment  IOP treatment  Residential Inpatient TX  DA Supervision  Mental Health Court  Drug Court Tulsa  DOC Supervision  DA Supervision  DOC Female Offenders Program  Community Sentencing  Drug/DUI Court  Mental Health Court  Veterans’ Court  Women in Recovery

Progress Ada  Gained access to the offenders through the Sheriff’s office/staff  Meetings were set up with judges, district attorney, and attorneys and OIDS  Continue to hand write and enter OS and enter online once back in the office  Able to gather criminal history data through OCDR/OSCN  Able to dedicate one full time staff member to the OS process Tulsa  Learning about the referral options/ programs  Meetings were set up with Drug Court, Mental Health Court, Community Sentencing, etc.  Services, resources, target population  Educating attorneys and judges about the program  Gathering accurate information through the OSCN/ODCR/JOLTS systems

One County’s Outcomes 87% Decrease in Jail Days Length of Time Offenders Spent in Jail Information provided by ODMHSAS

One County’s Outcomes 87% Decrease in Jail Days Cost of Incarcerating Offenders Information provided by ODMHSAS

Another County’s Outcomes 87% Decrease in Jail Days Length of Time from Arrest to Drug Court Admission Information provided by ODMHSAS

4 ORAS-CST TRAINERS CERTIFIED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI SCREENINGS AVAILABLE IN 18 COUNTIES OVER 3,000 OFFENDERS SCREENED TO DATE OVER 60 CERTIFIED SCREENERS OVER 1,900 FINAL DISPOSITIONS Recorded OVER 80% of OFFENDERS HAVE BEEN DIVERTED FROM PRISON

Contact Us: Michael Lewis Vicki Orsburn