Salient Factor Score CTSFS99. What it is How to use it.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Criminal Justice Process: Sentencing & Corrections
Advertisements

Sentencing Structure Comparisons Barb Tombs July 16, 2007 Presentation to the CT Sentencing Task Force Subcommittees.
Chapter 12 Preparing for Prisoner Reentry: Discretionary Parole and Mandatory Release.
Background The Sentencing Commission is a public governor and legislature- appointed body whose purpose is to study Louisiana sentencing and incarceration.
Conducting Research in Challenging Times: California Parolee Reentry Court Evaluation Association of Criminal Justice Research, California March
California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA)
Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative (DOSA): Treatment and Supervision
Study of Virginia’s Parole- Eligible Inmate Population.
“Justice Reinvestment through Policy Analysis in South Carolina” South Carolina State Senator Gerald Malloy 1.
May 1, Division of Parole and Probation Tony DeCrona, Interim Chief Kim Madris, Deputy Chief Tony DeCrona, Interim Chief Kim Madris, Deputy Chief.
Presentation by: Andrew Clark Director of the Institute for the Study of Crime & Justice and the Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy at CCSU Institute.
Re-Entry and Recidivism
Objective Point Base Classification Carol Mici Acting Deputy Commissioner Massachusetts Department of Correction.
13 Prison and Jails.
THE IMPACT OF AB 109 ON LAPD. Overview AB 109 impact on the LAPD Statistical information AB 109 impact on LAPD jail facilities Securing the safety of.
CHAPTER EIGHT SENTENCING.
Criminal Justice Process: Proceedings Before Trial
Community Corrections.  Community Corrections are the subfield of corrections in which offenders are supervised and provided services outside jail or.
Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 8 th Chapter 15 Release from Incarceration.
Community Corrections
© The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill CHAPTERCHAPTER EIGHTEIGHT.
Chapter 13 Parole Conditions and Revocation. Introduction Parole conditions determine the amount of freedom versus restriction a parolee has Accomplishment.
Pre-Sentence Investigation Proposal Purpose: To gather and provide information to the Courts and to other Criminal Justice stakeholders that will aid at.
In the Community. Community Corrections Continues after incarceration And it deals with split sentences.
 Parole officers interact with recently-released prisoners and their families in order to help them become productive members of society.  They develop.
Evaluation of the Connecticut Judicial Branch’s Three Court-Mandated Family Violence Programs: FVEP, EXPLORE, and EVOLVE Stephen M. Cox, Ph.D, Professor.
Chapter 15: Criminal Justice Process ~ Sentencing & Corrections Objective: The student should be able to list the various options to sentencing & identify.
Intro to Law Criminal Process: Sentencing. Sentencing Options Suspended Sentence – given, but does not have be served at that time, but may have to serve.
JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas Risk Assessment Facts, Myths and Trends James Austin, Ph.D
1 THE MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL Office of the Correctional Investigator Royal Canadian Mounted Police Solicitor General Department National Parole.
CJPAC Cross-Training August 2010 State of Connecticut Department of Correction.
The Rhode Island Experience Ellen Evans Alexander Assistant Director RI Department of Corrections.
Probation Supervision and Information Gathering Presentence Reports.
November 5, 2014 New Nonviolent Offender Risk Assessment Instruments – Status Update VIRGINIA CRIMINAL SENTENCING COMMISSION.
Pretrial, Probation and Parole
Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office Special Investigations Unit n 98% of our investigations involve crimes where the victim has been assaulted by someone.
Chapter 6 Postimprisonment Community Supervision.
Chapter 12 Parole and Release to the Community 1.
Criminal Justice System. Police Have immediate control over who is arrested “Police discretion” Size of U.S. population and number of police officers.
Criminal Sentencing in N.C.. Structured Sentencing In 2011, N.C. passed the Structured Sentencing law to organize the punishment of criminals. – Sentencing.
ASCA Performance Based Measures System Training Performance Standards, Measures, and Key Indicators ASCA 1.
Purpose of Punishment Corrections. Retribution – An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth. – Society, through the criminal justice system, taking on the.
Sentencing and Corrections. Once Found Guilty, a defendant will be sentenced by a jury or judge.
PAROLE. Parole  The release of an inmate into the community before the full sentence is served.
Proposed Recommendations for Guidelines Revisions.
Connecticut Department of Correction Division of Parole and Community Services Special Management Unit Parole Manager Frank Mirto October 14, 2015.
11/18/20151Sex Offenders Notes - Kuzyk Notes on recidivism among Connecticut sex offenders: Male offenders released in 2005 CT OPM – Criminal Justice Policy.
JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)
Risk Assessment and Community Notification Mark Bliven, Minnesota Dept. of Corrections Wednesday, Dec 9, 2015 Special Committee on Sex Offenders Connecticut.
Muskie School of Public Service 2008 Maine Crime and Justice Data Book March, 2009.
Yavapai County Jail Planning Services Presentation to: Yavapai County Board of Supervisors January 6, 2016.
SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS CHAPTER 15 PAGES
OBJECTIVE CLASSIFICATION AR’s 503, 521 & 523. Learning Objectives What is objective classification? What is objective classification? What is the purpose.
Criminal Justice Policy & Planning Division STATE OF CONNECTICUT OFFICE OF POLICY & MANAGEMENT (OPM) 1 ANNUAL REPORTS.
Kaplan University Online CJ101 Unit 8 Introduction to the Criminal Justice System.
Thinking About A Risk-Based Registry. Sex offender risk assessments are most often employed in applied forensic settings for purposes of decision-making.
Unit 8 Prof. Hulvat CJ240. Housekeeping…. We are winding down…. We are winding down…. Late work…. Late work…. Coming up in our final unit 9 Coming up.
Community Corrections What happens when a prisoner is released?
CLASSIFICATION & RECEIVING OF OFFENDERS CLASSIFICATION DEFINED.
Corrections Also known as community-based corrections Community corrections: Refers to a wide range of sentences that depend on correctional resources.
BCJ 3150: Probation and Parole
Copyright 2011 Curriculum Technology, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
BCJ 3150: Probation and Parole
Use Of Risk Assessments in Utah Sentencing
Class Name, Instructor Name
24-hours a day 7-days a week 365 days per year
Criminal Justice Process: Sentencing & Corrections
Parole.
Sentencing.
Federal Pretrial Services
Presentation transcript:

Salient Factor Score CTSFS99

What it is How to use it

Sec a.(a) “A person…may be allowed to go at large on parole in the discretion of the panel of the Board of Parole…if (1) it appears…that there is reasonable probability the such inmate will live and remain at liberty without violating the law, and (2) such release is not incompatible with the welfare of society.”

The Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles is committed to protecting the public by making responsible decisions regarding when and under what circumstances eligible offenders will be released from confinement. Decisions are based primarily on the likelihood that offenders will remain at liberty without violating the law. The Board sets appropriate conditions to manage risk and maximize the potential for offenders to remain crime free.

An Objective Tool Based on:  a review of available information,  information related to recidivism,  professionally recognized statistical methods, THAT Assigns inmates to groups, based upon the probability of their violating the law

 Parole guideline systems since the 1920s  Salient Factor Score used by the U.S. Parole Commission since 1972  United States Sentencing Commission’s Guidelines - since 1987  DOC Classification System - since 1989  Probation and Parole Supervision Levels

 Risk Assessment in this context estimates “group probabilities” and assigns a person to a group.  There is no assessment of a specific individual’s risk.

 The Salient Factor Score (SFS) was created in the 1970s by the U.S. Parole Commission as a way of estimating an inmate’s likelihood of recidivating following his/her release from prison (Hoffman, 1994)  The Connecticut Board of Parole began using its own SFS in 1998 based on research conducted on a 1991 sample of 2019 inmates released from Connecticut’s prisons and followed for 3 years. The findings of this study were used as the foundation for the creation of a prediction instrument based on historical information. In 1999 a fifth factor was added, violence, resulting in the creation of the Connecticut Board of Parole Salient Factor Score (CTSFS99)

 New arrest, unsupervised  Returns from parole, SHR, halfway houses  new charges, new sentences, technical violations  Arrests while on probation  Escape, absconding  Event date (offense or return to jail)  Disposition date (court action)  Release date (from prison or jail, not probation) Every Type of Criminal Justice Event and Date

 Prior convictions and commitments  Age (first offense, this offense)  Number, severity and types of offenses  Severity of criminal history  Community Supervision History  Crime-free periods  DOC classification variables (mental health, education, substance abuse)

The Current risk assessment consists of the following Factors : 1. Prior Commitments of 60 Days or More (both court commitments and returns from community supervision) 2. Age at Commencement of Current Offense 3. Recent Commitment Free Period (Crime free period between the instant offense(s) and release from previous offense(s) 4. Prior Court-Imposed Terms of Imprisonment of More than One Year 5. Violence

Any court commitment for a term exceeding one year, or a return to confinement for more than one year

Commitments exceeding 60 Days 04 Points 13 Points 22 Points 3,41 Point 5+0 Points

Prior prison court commitments 2 or less2 points 3 or 41 point 5 or more0 points

Age and prior commitments points points points points 5+ commitments ? Subtract 1 point

Crime-free period No prior record2 points 3 years2 points 1-3 years1 point Less than 1 year0 points

Risk FactorRange Total0- 13 (limited to 11)

VIOLENCE  Apply original four factors and calculate score  Convert raw score range of 0-13 to group score range (0-3, enter 0 points); (4-5, enter 1 point); (6-8, enter 2 points); (9 or more enter 3 points)  If history of violence (defined by instant offense, or one prior conviction for violent offense within two years of instant offense; or two prior violent convictions - EVER), add 0 points  If no history of violence, add 1 point

 Possible scores divided into recommended proportions to serve  Suggested range of release dates provided  Adjusted by 85% determination  Override for exceptional cases

 Guideline Ranges assigned by policy are the percentages of time to be served before release  If score is 4 or 3, then 50% - 60%  If score is 2, then 60% to 70%  If score is 1, then 70 to 85%  If score is 0, then 85% to 100%

Mitigating Factors: - Program Completions - Positive Institutional Adjustment - Community Support Aggravating Factors - Victim Impact/Injury - Disciplinary Reports - Lack of Programs

 Lean too heavily on instrument  Statistics predict group behavior well  Some individuals predicted to succeed will fail  Some individuals predicted to fail will succeed  Guidance for usual cases  Would you prefer an unknown or 70/30 chance?  Consistency in decision-making  Important part of a release decision- making policy

 Completed by the Connecticut Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) which is a Bureau of Justice Statistics funded collaborative venture between the Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division at the Office of Policy and Management and the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Central Connecticut State University  Summary: Prison and court data were collected and analyzed on 2,539 parole eligible inmates who were released from prison in 2000.

 The study utilized data collected electronically from the Department of Correction and the Connecticut Judicial Branch. Data were collected for the 2,539 inmates who were released from Department of Correction facilities and supervision between January 1, 2000 and December 31, The study group was limited to inmates who were released to parole or who were eligible for parole but were not granted it.

 The scoring from the Salient Factor Score allows for classification of offenders and is useful in reducing disparity in parole decision making. However, it does not provide guidance for supervision levels, treatment needs, or case programming  Conclusion: The CTSFS99 is a valid but limited measure of offender risk for re-arrest and/or re-incarceration (Cox, 2007).

Rich Sparaco Parole and Community Services Manager (203)