1. EBDM in Milwaukee

2. Mission The mission of the Milwaukee County Community Justice Council (CJC) is to work collaboratively to ensure a fair, efficient, and effective justice system that enhances public safety and quality of life in our community.

3. Goals of CJC Enhance public safety Foster collaboration among agencies Create efficiencies in the use of limited resources Implement sustainable evidence-based practices Educate the community about justice-related issues Engage neighborhoods in productive responses to crime & social disorder

4. Executive Committee Milwaukee County Circuit Court Chief Judge - Jeffrey Kremers (Chair) Milwaukee County Sheriff - David Clarke, Jr. County Executive - Chris Abele Milwaukee County District Attorney - John Chisholm Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office - Richard Schmidt, Inspector County Supervisor - Willie Johnson, Jr. City of Milwaukee Mayor - Tom Barrett City of Milwaukee Chief of Police - Edward Flynn First Assistant Public Defender - Tom Reed Department of Corrections - Roberta Gaither, Regional Chief Community Member - Kit Murphy McNally Office of Justice Assistance - Niki Leicht, Criminal Justice Policy Analyst Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission – Mallory O’Brien, Director US Marshall, Eastern District of WI - Kevin Carr (ex officio)

5. Evidence-Based Decision Making Using evidence to inform decisions throughout the criminal justice system: at the case level, agency level, and system level. Mapping current criminal justice system process in Milwaukee and identifying key decision points where evidence-based programs/ policies could be introduced. For example: Universal Screening Diversion & Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPA) Dosage Based Sentencing Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) Bail Determinations Our commitment to the discipline of EBDM will enable us to hold offenders accountable, reduce the overall crime rate and recidivism, and give taxpayers a better return on the dollars they invest in criminal justice.

6. Why is EBDM so critical? Current criminal justice system practices are fiscally unsustainable. Evidence-based practices produce better outcomes throughout the system, increasing community safety. Milwaukee has a disproportionate number of individuals involved with the criminal justice system, contributing to racial disparity. We need to develop/expand more effective and efficient responses. Community engagement and support is critically important to improving the justice system.

7. Department of Corrections Spending Source: Legislative Fiscal Bureau, Information Papers on Adult Corrections

8. Prison Admissions by Race (2009-10) Prison Admissions by County (2007) While 6.2% of WI’s population is African American, the same population represents 51% of prison admissions. While Milwaukee County makes up 16% of the state’s population, it is responsible for 37% of prison admissions. Source: Council of State Governments Justice Center, Justice Reinvestment in Wisconsin Source: Legislative Fiscal Bureau, Information Papers on Adult Corrections

9. Why Does the Community Need to be Engaged? Community members are more familiar with neighborhood problems than the criminal justice agencies are and may have more practical solutions. The effectiveness of the criminal justice system has a considerable impact on the quality of life in your neighborhood. Crime and incarceration are not evenly distributed. There are “hot spots” that experience a churning of the population as residents are sent to prison and then return, as less employable adults, to the same neighborhood. Costs for these neighborhoods make up a significant percentage of costs for criminal justice, child welfare, and other social services.

11. Shared Goal - Apply Evidence-Based Decision Making to Pretrial Release and Detention ♦ Enhance Public Safety ♦ Good Stewards of Public Funds ♦ Best Utilization of Limited and Precious Resources  Jail  Pretrial Services  Courts  Public Defender  District Attorney  Law Enforcement  Treatment Services and Community Resources Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release & Detention

12. Measuring & Managing Risk – What the Evidence Tells Us ♦ Risk is Inherent in Pretrial Release  Our system of justice DEMANDS that we take risk for most pretrial defendants  Question is not IF we take risk – Question is “How well do we MEASURE risk and how well do we MANAGE it”  Release and detention decisions focus primarily on the charge not the risk posed  Pretrial release and detention is often determined by resources not risk  Enhancing public safety and being good stewards of public funds requires us to manage release and detention based on RISK Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release & Detention

13. Measuring & Managing Risk – What the Evidence Tells Us ♦ Risk Principle (pretrial) “Pretrial Risk Assessment in the Federal Court” (Department of Justice, Office of Federal Detention Trustee, 2009)  Moderate and higher risk defendants who were required to participate in alternatives to detention (ATD)* pending trial were more likely to succeed pending trial  Lower risk defendants who were required to participate in ATD pending trial were more likely to fail pending trial *Third-party Custodian, Substance Abuse Testing, Substance Abuse Treatment, Location Monitoring, & Housing and Shelter Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release & Detention

14. Measuring & Managing Risk – What the Evidence Tells Us ♦ Monetary bail does improve court appearance rates for higher risk defendants ♦ Monetary bail does not improve court appearance rates for low risk defendants and can have negative consequences ♦ Monetary bail does not improve community safety ♦ Implementing differential pretrial supervision strategies based on pretrial risk does improve pretrial outcomes ♦ Jurisdictions that employ court reminder notification procedures have significantly reduced FTA rates Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release & Detention

15. Measuring & Managing Risk – What the Evidence Tells Us ♦ LAW requires a defendant be released on the least restrictive terms and conditions reasonably necessary to assure court appearance and community safety ♦ RESEARCH demonstrates that if we follow the law we will achieve the best outcomes (and your shared goal) ♦ PRAXIS - puts the law & research into practice PRAXIS is a tool that puts theoretical knowledge and research into practice Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release & Detention

16. Milwaukee County Research – Pretrial Risk Assessment ♦ Develop pretrial risk assessment tool for use by Milwaukee County which classify risk of pretrial failure for all pretrial defendants EXCEPT domestic violence (FTA & New Arrest) ♦ Data used for analysis provided by Justice 2000 & WCS and includes all (3,202) defendants released between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010 to  Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse (AODA) program  Pretrial Mental Health program  GPS program  Pretrial OWI program Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release & Detention

17. Milwaukee County Research – Pretrial Risk Assessment ♦ Examine available common predictors of pretrial outcome ♦ Best predictors of pretrial outcome  Cases Filed  Prior Failure to Appear in Court  Arrested While Out on Bond  Employment/Primary Caregiver  Residence  UNCOPE Score (measure of risk for substance abuse or dependence) Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release & Detention

18. Milwaukee County Research – Pretrial Risk Assessment 1.Cases Filed – t otal number of criminal case filings  1 case = 86.7%(0 points)  2 ‐ 3 cases = 81.7%(1 point)  4+ cases = 73.3%(2 points) 2.Prior Failure to Appear in Court – total number of FTAs  0 FTA = 93.3%(0 points)  1 FTA = 79.7%(1 point)  2 FTA = 66.8%(2 points)  3+ FTA = 60.1%(3 points) 3.Arrested While Out on Bond – on pretrial release at the time of the alleged offense  No = 82.9%( 0 points)  Yes = 73.0%(1 point) Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release & Detention

19. Milwaukee County Research – Pretrial Risk Assessment 5.Employment/ Primary Caregiver – primary caregiver or employed full time at the time of the arrest  Yes = 85.9%(0 points)  No = 77.4%(1 point) 4.Residence – time at current residence  1 year or more = 84.7%(0 points)  Less than one year = 78.4% (1 point) 6.UNCOPE Score – total UNCOPE score  0, 1, or 2 score = 85.1%(0 points)  3+ cases score = 75.9%(1 point) Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release & Detention

20. Milwaukee County Research – Pretrial Risk Assessment Failure to Appear/New Criminal Activity Rates by Risk Category Risk Category FTA/NCA (Failure Rates) I (0-2) 7% II (3-5) 19% III (6-7) 33% IV (8-9) 41% Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release & Detention

21. Milwaukee County Research – Praxis ♦ PRAXIS is a tool that puts theoretical knowledge and research into practice ♦ Considers the offense type and risk level - 6 grids ♦ Provides guidance for bond types, ranges, supervision levels, and supervised conditions ♦ Does NOT apply to cases involving domestic violence ♦ “The Praxis [provides] … a set of recommendations, a consistent, systematic starting point for the parties and the court to make decisions about bail” Chief Judge Kremers Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release & Detention

22. A grid for almost every offense Risk level Bond type & Range Supervisio n level Supervised Conditions I II III IV Risk level Bond type & Range Supervisio n level Supervised Conditions I II III IV Risk level Bond type & Range Supervisio n level Supervised Conditions I II III IV Risk level Bond type & Range Supervisio n level Supervised Conditions I II III IV Risk level Bond type & Range Supervisio n level Supervised Conditions I II III IV Risk level Bond type & Range Supervisio n level Supervised Conditions I II III IV Misdemeanor/Cr Traff Misdemeanor/risk injury OWI misdemeanor Felony Felony/risk injury OWI Felony

23. Milwaukee County Research – Praxis ♦ Considers the offense type and risk level - 6 grids  Grid 1 – Misdemeanor and Criminal Traffic (Excluding OWI and Risk of Injury)  Grid 2 – Misdemeanor Risk of Injury (Excluding Domestic Violence)  Grid 3 – Felony (Excluding OWI and Risk of Injury)  Grid 4 – Felony Risk of Injury (Excluding Domestic Violence)  Grid 5 – Misdemeanor Operating While Intoxicated  Grid 6 – Felony Operating While Intoxicated Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release & Detention

24. Milwaukee County Research – Praxis ♦ Bond Types and Ranges  Personal Recognizance [Low] = $0 to $250  Personal Recognizance [Moderate] = $250 to $750  Personal Recognizance [High] = $750 to $2,500  Cash [Low] = $0 to $500  Cash [Low/Moderate] = $500 to $2,500  Cash [Moderate] = $2,500 to $10,000  Cash [High] = Minimum of $10,000 Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release & Detention

25. Milwaukee County Research – Praxis ♦ Supervision Levels STANDARDENHANCED INTENSIV E Face-to-Face ContactMonthly Every other week Weekly Alternative Contact (phone, text, e-mail) 1 x/month Every other week NA Supervised Conditions Compliance Verification As authorized Court Date ReminderXXX Criminal History/CJIS CheckXXX Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release & Detention

26. Milwaukee County Research – Praxis ♦ Conditions Authorized CONDITION Authorized when the defendant: DRUG TESTING Is eligible for supervision according to the Praxis AND Scores 3 or greater on UNCOPE PORTABLE BREATHALYZER TESTING Is eligible for supervision according to Grids 1-4 of the Praxis AND Scores 3 or greater on UNCOPE OR Is eligible for supervision on OWI Grids 5-6 GPS MONITORING Qualifies for Intensive Supervision on Grids 2-4 OR Concern exists for victim safety/no contact monitoring Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release & Detention

27. Praxis Preview Professional judgment Actuarial research Professional judgment + Actuarial research Professional judgment + Actuarial research

28. Praxis Hypothetical Shirley, 42, charged with burglary while armed, PTAC, breaking into home of mother of boyfriend’s other child, to settle a score 4 previous cases filed 1 previous FTA Primary caregiver Residence < 1 yr UNCOPE score of 3

29. Praxis Hypothetical Shirley, 42, charged with burglary while armed, PTAC, breaking into home of mother of boyfriend’s other child, to settle a score 4 previous cases filed [2 pts] 1 previous FTA [1 pt] Primary caregiver [0 pts] Residence < 1 yr [1 pt] UNCOPE score of 3 [1 pt]

30. Praxis Hypothetical Shirley, 42, charged with burglary while armed, PTAC, breaking into home of mother of boyfriend’s other child, to settle a score 4 previous cases filed, most recent in 1990 1 previous FTA, most recent in 1990 Primary caregiver Residence < 1 yr UNCOPE score of 3

31. Praxis Hypothetical Shirley, 42, charged with burglary while armed, PTAC, breaking into home of mother of boyfriend’s other child, to settle a score 4 previous cases filed 1 previous FTA, 2010, extradited from Mexico Primary caregiver Residence < 1 yr UNCOPE score of 3

32. Milwaukee County Research – Praxis Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release & Detention

33. Milwaukee County Next Steps Applying EBDM to Pretrial Release & Detention

34. Evidence-Based Decision Making Initiative System Scorecard Four Commitments We Make to Criminal Justice in Milwaukee The Milwaukee County Criminal Justice Council, a collaboration of all stakeholders in Milwaukee’s justice system, is firmly committed to greater accountability in criminal justice and better stewardship of criminal justice resources. To make this vision a reality, we are implementing Four Systemic Changes with the assistance of the National Institute of Corrections and the Bureau of Justice Assistance. By applying what research and data tell us about what works in protecting the community, holding offenders accountable and making the smartest possible use of our limited resources, by the end of 2013 we will: 1. Reduce by 25% the number of people with mental health needs who lose their benefits due to being jailed or losing housing, and increase by 25% the number of individuals with mental health needs who are reconnected to the services they need within 20 days after arrest. 2. Safely release and/or supervise 15% more pretrial detainees in the community rather than in jail, generating at least $1,000,000 in savings that can be reinvested in the community, and at the same time reduce by at least 40% the already low rates at which defendants waiting for trial fail to follow pretrial rules. 3. Divert or defer prosecution in 10% more cases than we do currently, holding offenders accountable, compensating victims and reducing recidivism, while generating at least $350,000 in savings that can be reinvested in the community. 4. Demonstrate in a pilot project that by terminating probation as soon as an offender in need of treatment has received sufficient treatment, we can cut the cost of probation by at least 50% and at the same time reduce probation recidivism by 50%