1. The Need For Evidence Based Sentencing Chief Justice William Ray Price, Jr.

2.   Since the 1980’s we attempted to incarcerate our way out of crime and illegal drug use.

3.   The problem is, it didn’t work.   We were tough on crime.   Three strikes and your out.   Throw away the key.   The war on drugs   But, we were not smart on crime.

4.   Let’s look at the numbers.

5. Our Criminal Sentencing Problem Total Correctional Population Total Pop. Behind Bars 19822,194,0001982612,000 20087,308,20020082,304,000

6. Cost of Increased Incarceration  State correctional spending increased fourfold: 1988$11.7 billion 2008$47.3 billion

7.   “What we are seeing today is a growing recognition that our approach to dealing with convicted criminals is simply too costly. Not only is the price too high, but the benefits are too low. The states spend an estimated $50 billion on corrections annually, and the growth of these outlays over the past 20 years has outpace nearly all other essential government services.” Joan Petersilia, Stanford Law School

8. Incarceration and Crime Rates

9. U.S. Crime Volume 1982-2008  Violent Offenses 19821,322,390 20081,382,012  Property Offenses 198211,652,000 20089,768,000  Drug Offenses 1982676,000 20071,841,200

10. The War on Drugs  Drug Arrests  1980580,900  20071,841,200  As Percentage of All Arrests  19805.5%  200613.14%  Prison Population  1982612,000  20082,304,000 ↓ 1,692,000 more people behind bars

11. Drug Use Drives Crime And Fills Prisons Missouri New Prison Admissions (FY2004)  1,23913% Drug Convictions  2,03720% Probation for Drug Offense Revoked  4,04241% Other Crimes But Active ____Substance Abuse 74% of all new admissions are related to illegal drug use 74% of all new admissions are related to illegal drug use

12.   The key measurement of the failure of our incarceration strategy is the recidivism rate.   Too many people, keep coming back.

13. U.S. Recidivism Rates For all offenders (released 1994) :  Rearrest within 3 years: 67.5%  Reconviction within 3 years: 46.9% For drug offenders (released 1983 vs. released 1994) :  Rearrest rate increased 50.4%  66.7%  Reconviction rate increased 35.3%  47%

14.   The Good News About Our Failed Incarceration Based Policies Is That We Have Learned a Better Way

15.   Evidence Based Sentencing Practices   Focus On Results: Lowering Recidivism   At a Lower Cost

16.   Evidence Based Practices   Usually Reserve Prison Sentences for Violent and Habitual Offenders, and   Combine Strict Judicial Supervision, Behavioral Modification, and Treatment to Non-Violent Offenders Outside of Prison   Driven By Evidence Based Proven Strategies

17.   The Key of Evidence Based Practices is to Assess the Risks and Needs of Each Offender and Match the Most Effective and Least Expensive Strategy to Change his or her Behavior.   Usually, This Includes Swift Certain Sanctions For Bad Behavior. Rewards For Good Behavior. And Treatment, When Necessary   Data is Collected and Analyzed to Determine Best Practices

18.   Evidence Based Alternatives Are Available In Four Forms   Diversionary   Probationary   Prison   Reentry

19.   Diversionary Practices Are Pre-sentence   They May Be Pre or Post Plea or   With Stipulation of Facts   They Avoid a Record of Conviction

20.   Drug Courts, DWI Courts, Mental Health Courts, Veterans Courts are Typically   Diversionary   They Usually Include Treatment

21. Probationary Practices are Post Sentence   HOPE is an Example of a Post Sentence Alternative

22.   HOPE Avoids/Delays Incarceration By Using Enhanced Probation Services   Hope Replaces Revocation with Swift Certain Lesser Local Sanctions   Hope can also apply to Parole   Treatment May or May Not Be Included

23.   Incarceration Can Be Evidence Based   Personal Improvement / Not Years Served   Is the Key   Education   Job Skills   Sobriety

24.   Prison is Expensive   Prison Removes the Offender From Job and Family   Without Drug, Educational, Behavior Modification Programming, Prison Does Little More Than Move an Offender From Normal Society to a Society of Criminals   Generally, Prison Should Be Reserved For Dangerous or Habitual Offenders Who do not Respond to Other Strategies

25.   Reentry Programs Focus on the Need to Help the Prisoner Rejoin Society   Parole Revocation Decreases Significantly With Passage of Time After Release   Between 1 and 15 Months After Release The Chance of Arrest Drops by 40%

26.   Reentry Programs are Usually Conducted By Parole Boards or Departments of Corrections, although Courts are Becoming More Active in this Field

27. Good News about Drug Courts Numerous studies show that:  Drug court participation results in lower recidivism rates (5 studies 8 – 26%)  Drug courts result in substantial cost savings (6 studies)

28.   Drug Courts are Evidence Based Treatment Alternatives For Addicted Offenders

29.   Drug Courts Combine     Treatment   Judicial Supervision   Behavioral Modification   Rewards and Swift Certain Sanctions

30. Missouri Drug Courts Cost Substantially Less Than Incarceration Costs (per inmate per year) Incarceration$16,832 Drug Court $3,000 - 5,000

31. Drug Courts Provide Savings Over Probation Case Study: St. Louis City Adult Felony Drug Court  Initial cost = cost of probation + cost of treatment  In two years:$2,615 net savings  In four years:$7,707 net savings For every $1 spent  $6.32 of savings

32. MO Recidivism Comparison Recidivism Rates (rearrest within two years)  Prison41.6%  Drug Court Graduates10% (New JIS Tracking:18-month Graduates4.6% 18-month Terminations15.2%)

33.   A real life example of recidivism was the 35 year old St. Joseph man arrested for drunk driving June 16, 2010, just three hours after he was released from prison.

34.   Other Evidenced Based   Sentencing Alternatives

35.   Adult Felony Drug Court   DWI Court   Family Drug Court   Veterans’ Court   Mental Health Court   Reintegration/Reentry Court   All combine evidence based treatment with intense supervision

36.   “I believe we can take an approach that is both tough and smart…[T]here are thousands of nonviolent offenders in the system whose future we cannot ignore. Let’s focus more resources on rehabilitating those offenders so we can ultimately spend less money locking them up again.” Gov. Rick Perry, Texas

37.   Requirements for Evidence Based Sentencing Practices   Assessment Tool   Training   Data Collection   Evidence Based / Not Intuition Based Decisions

38. The Bottom line   The quality of justice is not measured by the length of sentence.   One size, one strategy, does not fit all offenders.   Breaking the cycle of addiction and crime requires scientific evidence based treatment and the development of job skills and intense supervision, not always prison walls.   Results matter. Cost matters.

39. SOURCES NADCP   NCSC   PEW   The Box Set paper by Roger Warren entitled, Evidence-Based Practice to Reduce Recidivism: Implications for State Judiciaries;Evidence-Based Practice to Reduce Recidivism: Implications for State Judiciaries   Curriculum materials for Evidence-Based Sentencing, http://www.ncsconline.org/csi/education.html; http://www.ncsconline.org/csi/education.html   Additional information about training in Evidence-Based Sentencing, http://cjinstitute.org/about/services/trainings/; and http://cjinstitute.org/about/services/trainings/   Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument materials, http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/corrections/riskAssessment/ http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/corrections/riskAssessment/   nadcp.org