washingtonsecondtaskforcepresentation by CSG Justice Center

Washington State Jus$ce Reinvestment Taskforce

Second Mee)ng

September 4, 2014

Council of State Governments Jus$ce Center Marshall Clement, Director, State Ini<a<ves Carl Reynolds, Senior Legal and Policy Advisor Monica Peters, Senior Research Associate Karen Chung, Policy Analyst

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center •  Na<onal nonproﬁt, nonpar<san membership associa<on of state government oﬃcials •  Engages members of all three branches of state government •  Jus<ce Center provides prac<cal, nonpar<san advice informed by the best available evidence

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Funding and partners

Justice Reinvestment

a data-‐driven approach to reduce corrections spending and reinvest savings in strategies that can decrease recidivism and increase public safety

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Washington’s prison popula<on exceeds capacity and is projected to con<nue to increase Year End (FY) Actual and Projected Prison Popula<on, 2002 to 2024 20,000 18,865

Actual

19,000

18,475

Projected

17,943

18,000 17,295

17,000

17,404

Projected Increase:

~1,400 Current Prison Capacity 17,187

16,000 15,743

15,000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024

Expanding capacity to address projected growth will cost the state $387 M to $481 M in capital outlay and opera)onal costs over 10 years Source: Caseload Forecast Council, June 2014 Forecast Criminal Jus<ce Planning Services, “Cost-‐Eﬀec<ve Incarcera<on of Washington State Adult Oﬀenders,” 2012

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Data from Washington State agencies is enabling an extraordinary degree of matching and analysis Washington State Patrol

Administra<ve Oﬃce of the Courts

Caseload Forecast Council

Felony and Misdemeanor Arrests 1980 – June 2014

Felony and Misdemeanor Court Disposi<ons – Criminal History Database provided by WSIPP

Felony Convic<ons 2000 – 2013

Prison and DOC Supervision: Admissions, Releases, On Hand 2004 – 2013

8.7 million records

8 million records

370,000 records

800,000 records

Department of Correc<ons

Linking of ﬁles on State ID (SID) Number Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Key stakeholders in the criminal jus<ce system are being engaged in reviewing analysis and providing input and ideas June – August Stakeholder Engagement Caseload Forecast Council ✓ Prosecutors ✓

Coun<es ✓ Public Defenders ✓ Department of Correc<ons ✓ Superior Court Judges ✓ Law Enforcement ✓ Vic<m Advocates ✓ Legisla<ve Staﬀ ✓ Washington Ins<tute of Public Policy ✓

9/2014 9/6 9/9 9/12 9/12

Upcoming Stakeholder Engagement Distribute survey to jail administrators Mee<ng with Superior Court Judges’ Associa<on Mee<ng with DOC’s Vic<ms’ Council Present to Sentencing Guidelines Commission Mee<ng with Council on Public Defense Present at Washington Associa<on of Prosecu<ng Aiorneys Membership Mee<ng Present to Sentencing Guidelines Commission Mee<ng with Washington Federa<on of State Employees and Teamsters 117

10/1-‐2 10/10 10/27 11/18-‐20 Present at Washington State Associa<on of Coun<es Conference Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Overview of detailed analysis Sentencing Guidelines •  •

Comparison with other guideline states U$lity of oﬀender score

Prison Growth •  •

Prison popula$on characteris$cs Trends impac$ng growth

Public Safety •  •

Recidivism analysis Impact of supervision

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

A brief history of U.S. and Washington sentencing Indeterminate sentencing

§  Legislatures set ranges §  Judges choose §  Parole boards release

Sentencing guidelines states & federal

Determinate sentencing states

1970

1980

Sentencing Reform Act of 1981

Right to a Jury on Sentencing Factors §  §  §  §

2000 – Apprendi 2004 – Blakely 2005 – Booker 2013 -‐ Alleyne

Puni$ve policies

Mandatory minimums; Three strikes; Truth-‐in-‐sentencing Life without parole

1990

2000

Persistent Oﬀender Accountability Act -‐ 1993

Oﬀender Accountability Act of 1999

2010

2014

WSIPP

reports beginning 1991 Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Washington is 1 of 21 sentencing guidelines states and 13 non-‐parole (determinate) sentencing states States with Sentencing Guidelines Alabama Alaska Arkansas Delaware DC Kansas Louisiana Maryland MassachuseYs Michigan Minnesota Missouri North Carolina Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Utah Virginia Washington Wisconsin Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

States Without Parole Release Arizona California Illinois Indiana Kansas Maine Minnesota North Carolina Ohio Oregon Virginia Washington Wisconsin 9

Washington’s grids have 169 total cells, with more columns and rows than other systems

258 cells: 9 grids with 3-‐6 rows and 6 columns 169 cells (16 x 10) + (3 x 3) (drug) 135 cells (10 x 9) + (5 x 9) (drug)

112 cells (14 x 8) 99 cells (11 x 9) 60 cells (10 x 6)

Seriousness Level

133 cells (11 x 7) + (8 x 7) (sex oﬀ.)

S e r i o u s n e s s L e v e l

LEVEL XIV LEVEL XIII LEVEL XII LEVEL XI LEVEL X LEVEL IX LEVEL VIII LEVEL VII LEVEL VI LEVEL V LEVEL IV LEVEL III LEVEL II

LEVEL I Unranked

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

0 to 2 59.5m 51-‐68 16m 12+-‐20 3m 0-‐6

LEVEL III LEVEL II LEVEL I

3 to 5 84m 68+-‐100 40m 20+-‐60 12m 6+-‐18

6 to 9+ 110m 100+-‐120 90m 60+-‐120 18m 12+-‐24

Offender Score 0

280m 240-‐320 171.5m 123-‐220 143.5m 123-‐164 108m 93-‐123 90m 78-‐102 59.5m 51-‐68 36m 31-‐41 24m 21-‐27 17.5m 15-‐20 13m 12+-‐14 9m 6-‐12 6m 3-‐9 2m 1-‐3 0-‐90 d 0-‐60 d

291.5m 250-‐333 184m 134-‐234 156m 134-‐178 119m 102-‐136 100m 86-‐114 66m 57-‐75 42m 36-‐48 30m 26-‐34 24m 21-‐27 17.5m 15-‐20 13m 12+-‐14 9m 6-‐12 5m 3-‐8 4m 2-‐6 0-‐90 d

304m 261-‐347 194m 144-‐244 168m 144-‐192 129m 111-‐147 100m 95-‐125 72m 62-‐82 47.5m 41-‐54 36m 31-‐41 30m 26-‐34 24m 21-‐27 15m 13-‐17 13m 12+-‐14 8m 4-‐12 6m 3-‐9 3m 2-‐5

LEVEL XVI LEVEL XV

Offender Score

LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT PAROLE/DEATH PENALTY 316m 327.5m 339.5m 364m 394m 271-‐361 281-‐374 291-‐388 312-‐416 338-‐450 204m 215m 225m 245m 266m 154-‐254 165-‐265 175-‐275 195-‐295 216-‐316 179.5m 192m 204m 227.5m 252m 154-‐205 165-‐219 175-‐233 195-‐260 216-‐288 140m 150m 161m 189m 207m 120-‐160 129-‐171 138-‐184 162-‐216 178-‐236 119m 129m 139m 170m 185m 102-‐136 111-‐147 120-‐158 146-‐194 159-‐211 78m 84m 89.5m 114m 126m 67-‐89 72-‐96 77-‐102 98-‐130 108-‐144 53.5m 59.5m 66m 89.5m 101.5m 46-‐61 51-‐68 57-‐75 77-‐102 87-‐116 42m 47.5m 53.5m 78m 89.5m 36-‐48 41-‐54 46-‐61 67-‐89 77-‐102 36m 42m 47.5m 66m 78m 31-‐41 36-‐48 41-‐54 57-‐75 67-‐89 30m 36m 42m 53.5m 66m 26-‐34 31-‐41 36-‐48 46-‐61 57-‐75 17.5m 25.5m 38m 47.5m 59.5m 15-‐20 22-‐29 33-‐43 41-‐54 51-‐68 15m 17.5m 25.5m 38m 50m 13-‐17 15-‐20 22-‐29 33-‐43 43-‐57 11m 14m 19.5m 25.5m 38m 9-‐12 12+-‐16 17-‐22 22-‐29 33-‐43 8m 13m 16m 19.5m 25.5m 4-‐12 12+-‐14 14-‐18 17-‐22 22-‐29 4m 5.5m 8m 13m 16m 2-‐6 3-‐8 4-‐12 12+-‐14 14-‐18 0-‐12m

431.5m 370-‐493 307m 257-‐357 299.5m 257.342 243m 209-‐277 215m 185-‐245 150m 129-‐171 126m 108-‐144 101.5m 87-‐116 89.5m 77-‐102 78m 67-‐89 72m 62-‐82 61.5m 53-‐70 50m 43-‐57 38m 33-‐43 19.5m 17-‐22

479.5m 411-‐548 347.5m 298-‐397 347.5m 298-‐397 279m 240-‐318 245m 210-‐280 230.5m 149-‐198 150m 129-‐171 126m 108-‐144 101.5m 87-‐116 89.5m 77-‐102 84m 72-‐96 73.5m 63-‐84 59.5m 51-‐68 50m 43-‐57 25.5m 22-‐29

10 10

Washington sentencing grids increase in oﬀense and criminal history severity from lower lep to upper right S e r i o u s n e s s L e v e l

LEVEL XVI LEVEL XV LEVEL XIV LEVEL XIII LEVEL XII LEVEL XI LEVEL X LEVEL IX LEVEL VIII LEVEL VII LEVEL VI LEVEL V LEVEL IV LEVEL III LEVEL II

Offender Score 0

LEVEL I Unranked

Source: Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Manual, 2012, Caseload Forecast Council

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Each grid cell contains a midpoint and a range in months S e r i o u s n e s s L e v e l

LEVEL XVI LEVEL XV LEVEL XIV LEVEL XIII LEVEL XII LEVEL XI LEVEL X LEVEL IX LEVEL VIII LEVEL VII LEVEL VI LEVEL V LEVEL IV LEVEL III LEVEL II

Offender Score 0

LEVEL I Unranked

17.5 m 15-‐20

Source: Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Manual, 2012, Caseload Forecast Council

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Sentences within a seriousness level or oﬀense type vary widely depending on oﬀender score S e r i o u s n e s s L e v e l

LEVEL XVI LEVEL XV LEVEL XIV LEVEL XIII LEVEL XII LEVEL XI LEVEL X LEVEL IX LEVEL VIII LEVEL VII LEVEL VI LEVEL V LEVEL IV LEVEL III LEVEL II

Offender Score 0

LEVEL I Unranked

Range across Oﬀender Score 1 month – 68 months

Source: Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Manual, 2012, Caseload Forecast Council

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Unlike other states that sentence to proba<on in lower sec<ons of the grid, Washington uses mostly conﬁnement Washington Sentencing Grid S e r i o u s n e s s L e v e l

Offender Score 0

LEVEL XVI

LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT PAROLE/DEATH PENALTY 304m 316m 327.5m 339.5m 364m 394m 261-‐347 271-‐361 281-‐374 291-‐388 312-‐416 338-‐450 194m 204m 215m 225m 245m 266m 144-‐244 154-‐254 165-‐265 175-‐275 195-‐295 216-‐316 168m 179.5m 192m 204m 227.5m 252m 144-‐192 154-‐205 165-‐219 175-‐233 195-‐260 216-‐288 129m 140m 150m 161m 189m 207m 111-‐147 120-‐160 129-‐171 138-‐184 162-‐216 178-‐236 100m 119m 129m 139m 170m 185m 95-‐125 102-‐136 111-‐147 120-‐158 146-‐194 159-‐211 72m 78m 84m 89.5m 114m 126m 62-‐82 67-‐89 72-‐96 77-‐102 98-‐130 108-‐144 47.5m 53.5m 59.5m 66m 89.5m 101.5m 41-‐54 46-‐61 51-‐68 57-‐75 77-‐102 87-‐116 36m 42m 47.5m 53.5m 78m 89.5m 31-‐41 36-‐48 41-‐54 46-‐61 67-‐89 77-‐102 30m 36m 42m 47.5m 66m 78m 26-‐34 31-‐41 36-‐48 41-‐54 57-‐75 67-‐89 24m 30m 36m 42m 53.5m 66m 21-‐27 26-‐34 31-‐41 36-‐48 46-‐61 57-‐75

431.5m 370-‐493 307m 257-‐357 299.5m 257.342 243m 209-‐277 215m 185-‐245 150m 129-‐171 126m 108-‐144 101.5m 87-‐116 89.5m 77-‐102 78m 67-‐89

479.5m 411-‐548 347.5m 298-‐397 347.5m 298-‐397 279m 240-‐318 245m 210-‐280 230.5m 149-‐198 150m 129-‐171 126m 108-‐144 101.5m 87-‐116 89.5m 77-‐102

LEVEL VI

280m 240-‐320 171.5m 123-‐220 143.5m 123-‐164 108m 93-‐123 90m 78-‐102 59.5m 51-‐68 36m 31-‐41 24m 21-‐27 17.5m 15-‐20 13m 12+-‐14

291.5m 250-‐333 184m 134-‐234 156m 134-‐178 119m 102-‐136 100m 86-‐114 66m 57-‐75 42m 36-‐48 30m 26-‐34 24m 21-‐27 17.5m 15-‐20

LEVEL V

9m 6-‐12

13m 12+-‐14

15m 13-‐17

17.5m 15-‐20

25.5m 22-‐29

38m 33-‐43

47.5m 41-‐54

59.5m 51-‐68

72m 62-‐82

84m 72-‐96

LEVEL IV

6m 3-‐9

9m 6-‐12

13m 12+-‐14

15m 13-‐17

17.5m 15-‐20

25.5m 22-‐29

38m 33-‐43

50m 43-‐57

61.5m 53-‐70

73.5m 63-‐84

2m 1-‐3 0-‐90 d

5m 3-‐8 4m 2-‐6

8m 4-‐12 6m 3-‐9

11m 9-‐12 8m 4-‐12

14m 12+-‐16 13m 12+-‐14

19.5m 17-‐22 16m 14-‐18

25.5m 22-‐29 19.5m 17-‐22

38m 33-‐43 25.5m 22-‐29

50m 43-‐57 38m 33-‐43

59.5m 51-‐68 50m 43-‐57

0-‐60 d

0-‐90 d

3m 2-‐5

4m 2-‐6

5.5m 3-‐8

8m 4-‐12

13m 12+-‐14

16m 14-‐18

19.5m 17-‐22

25.5m 22-‐29

LEVEL XV LEVEL XIV LEVEL XIII LEVEL XII LEVEL XI LEVEL X LEVEL IX LEVEL VIII LEVEL VII

LEVEL III LEVEL II

Minnesota Sentencing Grid

LEVEL I Unranked

Up to one year of conﬁnement

Presump<ve proba<on with up to a year of conﬁnement

0-‐12m

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Washington u<lizes supervision as a felony sentence less than the na<onal average and other recent JR states Washington

Michigan

Prison

39%

21%

BJS Na$onal Study Prison

41%

North Carolina

Idaho

Kansas

Prison

42%

24%

Jail

Jail 7%

55%

Jail

49%

Jail

28%

Jail

24%

Supervision In Lieu of Incarcera$on

10%

Proba$on Only

23%

Proba$on Only

27%

Proba$on Only

58%

Proba$on Only

69%

34%

Source: Statewide Disposi)ons – Fiscal Year 2012, Oﬃce of Community Alterna<ves, MI Dept. of Correc<ons, November 2012; KS Felony Sentencing Data; Structured Sentencing Sta)s)cal Report FY 2011/12, NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission; BJS Felony Sentences in State Courts, 2006 –Sta<s<cal Tables; WA Caseload Forecast Council sentencing data

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Washington has a wider sentence range and fewer sentencing op<ons for second degree burglary compared to other states 0 months

70 months

1–68 months conﬁnement

Washington

North Carolina

Kansas

Minnesota

10–19 months proba$on 10–30 months conﬁnement

12–27 months presump<ve proba$on 29–32 months conﬁnement

12–21 months proba$on 21–36 months conﬁnement

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Certain oﬀenses trigger double-‐ or triple-‐coun<ng of similar prior convic<ons in the oﬀender score Adult Criminal History: Four Felony Convic$ons

Oﬀender Score

Sentence Range

9–12 months

22–29 months

Oﬀender 1

Current Oﬀense: Burglary, Second Degree

1.  Del, Possess W/I to Deliver Methamphetamine (1 point) 2.  Assault 3 (1 point) 3.  Robbery 2 (1 point)

Oﬀender 2

1.  Burglary 2 (2 points) 2.  Burglary 2 (2 points) 3.  Burglary 2 (2 points)

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Offender score increases prison <me for offenders with similar criminal history and rearrest rate Offender Score 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+

Oﬀender Score 0-‐4

Oﬀender Score 5-‐9+ Re-‐arrest rate

FY2010 Prison Releases in Seriousness Levels 4 or Lower with 3 to 5 Prior Felony Arrests (N=1,331)

Three-‐Year Felony Rearrest Rate

43%

46%

Oﬀender Score 0-‐4

Oﬀender Score 5-‐9+

46%

Length of stay

Average Prison Length of Stay

19 mo

11 months

19 months

11 mo

Oﬀender Score 0-‐4

Oﬀender Score 5-‐9+

Source: Jus<ce Center analysis of DOC and WSP data

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Oﬀender score correlates strongly with number of prior felony arrests Average Number of Prior Felony Arrests by Oﬀender Score, FY2013 Prison Admissions–Drug Grid or Seriousness Level 4 or lower 12 10 10 Prior Felony Arrests

8 6 4

2 0 0

Oﬀender Score *Arrests include felony oﬀenses, excluding CC or parole viola<ons

Source: Jus<ce Center analysis of CFC and WSP data

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Rela<onship between offender score and rearrest rate diminishes for offender scores 4 through 8 One-‐ and Three-‐Year Felony Rearrest Rates by Offender Score, FY2010 Prison Releases–Drug Grid or Seriousness Level 4 or lower N = 5,168

80% 70% 60%

Three Year 58%

One Year

50%

47%

40% 30% 20% 10%

30% 22%

26%

11%

0% 0

N=320

N=214

N=366

N=387

4 N=611

N=542

N=623

N=424

N=373

N=1,308

Median Age at Release Source: Jus<ce Center analysis of DOC and WSP data

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Key findings regarding sentencing policies §  In Washington, the sentencing range, based on criminal history, is significantly wider than other guidelines states §  Other states u<lize community supervision as a sentence in lieu of confinement for a greater propor<on of felony sentences §  Prison sentences are longer for repeat offenders in Washington than other guidelines states §  Recidivism does not vary significantly based on offender score for those scoring 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8; but sentence length does

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Overview of detailed analysis Sentencing Guidelines •  •

Comparison with other guidelines states U$lity of oﬀender scores

Prison Growth •  •

Prison popula$on characteris$cs Trends impac$ng growth

Public Safety •  •

Recidivism analysis Impact of supervision

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

The on-‐hand prison popula<on is concentrated in the upper lep and lower right sec<ons of the grid FY2013 End-‐of-‐Year Prison Popula<on Standard Grid

Offender Score 0

Unknown Offender Score

LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT PAROLE/DEATH PENALTY

LEVEL XVI

LEVEL XV

158

808

LEVEL XIV

204

250

LEVEL XIII

LEVEL XII

303

108

235

124

217

597

LEVEL XI

164

118

180

LEVEL X

164

126

101

140

160

LEVEL IX

143

137

100

369

272

LEVEL VIII

LEVEL VII

125

349

LEVEL VI

LEVEL V

108

106

204

LEVEL IV

106

137

146

128

180

214

195

134

817

180

LEVEL III

177

151

170

181

174

733

102

LEVEL II

103

149

712

LEVEL I

341

Seriousness Level

S e r i o u s n e s s L e v e l

Drug Grid

Offender Score

0 to 2

3 to 5

6 to 9+

LEVEL III

LEVEL II

212

347

568

LEVEL I

129

384

Shaded grid cells represent a popula$on over 100

approx. 2% of popula<on with unknown Seriousness Level *Excludes Source: Jus<ce Center analysis of DOC data

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Detail of drug grid and level 1 – 4 standard grid felony sentences in FY2013 Possession of a Controlled Substance, Schedules III, IV, or V: 63% Jail 3,002

Violent/Crimes Against Person/Sex (3,170)

Property (7,784)

Drug (4,976)

Possession of a Controlled Substance, Schedule I or II: 26%

Jail 1,888

Poss. + Traf 1 + Traf 2 of Stolen Property: 18%

Man, Del, or Poss Marijuana: 5%

Assault 3: 48%

MV Thei + Possession of a Stolen Vehicle: 22%

Thei 1 + 2: 22%

Residen$al Burglary: 18%

Possession of a Controlled Substance, III, IV, or V: 37% Prison 1,974

Man, Del, or Poss Cocaine: 18%

Jail 4,746

Burglary 2: 16% Forgery + ID Thei: 2: 15%

Prison 3,038

Burglary 2: 16%

Other: 13%

ID Thei + Forgery: 15%

Assault 2: 35%

MV Thei + Possession of a Stolen Vehicle2: 13%

Thei 1 + 2: 10%

Del or Poss Meth : 17% Residen$al Burglary: 9%

Poss CS Sch I, II: 14% Malicious Mischief 2: 4%

Traf. 1 + Poss 2 of Stolen Property: 10%

Other: 7%

Other: 9%

Man/Del/Poss Sch I/II: 6% Other: 8%

Source: Jus<ce Center Analysis of CFC’s sentencing data

Unlawful Poss. Of Firearm 2: 12% Robbery 2: 7% Vehicular Assault Under Inﬂuence: 4%

Forged Prescrip CS: 3% Other: 2%

Assault 2: 16%

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Prison 1,282

Assault 3: 23% Robbery 2: 15% Unlawful Poss. Of Firearm 2: 13% Other: 14% 24

Admissions to prison have remained steady while the average length of stay has increased since 2004 Number of Prison Admissions and Average Length of Stay for Prison Releases, FY2004 and FY2013 30

12,000

Average LOS for Prison Releases Number of Prison Admissions

10,000

22 20

8,000

Average LOS (months) 15

6,000

4,000

2,000

0 2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

2012

Number of Prison Admissions

2013

Prison admissions for seriousness level 3 & 4 oﬀenses have increased in number and propor<on since FY2009 Number of Prison Admissions by Seriousness Level, FY2009 to FY2013 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0

Levels 8+ Levels 5-‐7

Levels 3-‐4

2,315 29%

2,730 34%

Levels 0-‐2 Drug 3 Drug 2 Drug 1

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

N = 8,092

N = 7,755

N = 7,667

N = 7,669

N = 8,124

*Excludes approx. 1% of admissions with unknown Seriousness Level

Source: Jus<ce Center analysis of DOC data

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

One-‐Third of the FY2013 on-‐hand prison popula<on was sentenced for oﬀenses in seriousness levels 0 -‐ 4 FY2013 On Hand Prison Popula<on N = 17,723

18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000

Standard Sentencing Grid Levels

6,000 4,000 2,000

Drug Grid Levels

14-‐16

12%

11-‐13

16%

8-‐10

14%

5-‐7

13%

3-‐4

23%

1-‐2 2 1

10%

64% of the popula<on in Seriousness Levels 0 – 4 are in prison for Assault, Burglary, or Thep

= 34%

0 (1%)

Assault 2 14% Residen<al Burglary 11% Burglary 2 11% Thep 11% MV Thep 9% Assault 3 8%

7% 3 (1%) 3%

*Excludes approx. 2% of popula<on with unknown Seriousness Level

Source: Jus<ce Center analysis of DOC data

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Drug oﬀenders composed a smaller propor<on of prison admissions in FY2013 compared to earlier years

Drug Possession: 971 (38%)

FY2004 Prison Admission Oﬀense Types (N=8,500)

FY2013 Prison Admission Oﬀense Types (N=8,124)

Violent: 3,201 38%

Violent: 3,355 41%

Drug: 2,531 30%

Drug: 1,710 21%

Property: 2,342 28% Other: 426, 5%

Drug Possession: 759 (44%)

Property: 2,533 31% Other: 526, 7%

Violent category was classified using RCW code and includes Homicide, Assault, Kidnapping, Sex Offenses, Criminal Mistreatment, Harassment, Family Offenses and Robbery Source: Jus<ce Center analysis of DOC data

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Over half of drug and property oﬀenders admiied to prison in FY2013 did not have a prior violent felony arrest Number of Prior Arrests for Property & Drug Oﬀenders

FY2013 Prison Admission Oﬀense Types (N=8,124)

0 or 1 Prior Felony Arrest: 640 25%

Violent: 3,355 41%

Prior Violent Arrest for Property & Drug Oﬀenders

No Prior Violent Felony Arrest: 2,604 62%

Drug: 1,710 21% 4,243

Property: 2,533 31% Other: 526, 7%

Prior Violent Felony Arrest: 1,601 38% Not Available: 38, 1%

Violent category was classified using RCW code and includes Homicide, Assault, Kidnapping, Sex Offenses, Criminal Mistreatment, Harassment, Family Offenses and Robbery

2,604

2 to 5 Prior Felony Arrests: 943 36%

6 to 10 Prior Felony Arrests: 596 23% 10 or More Prior Felony Arrests: 425 16%

Source: Jus<ce Center analysis of DOC and WSP data

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

The number of prison admissions that have one or more prior admissions has increased Prison Admissions, FY2004 and FY2013

FY2004

FY2013

44% 51% 3,722 3,960 4,778

4,164

One or More Prior Admissions

First Admission to Prison

Source: Jus<ce Center analysis of DOC data

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Property and drug oﬀenders have similar rates of alcohol and other drug (AOD) needs Prevalence of MH and AOD Needs by Oﬀense Type, FY2013 Prison Admissions No BH Needs

MH Needs

MH & AOD Needs

70%

12%

Drug Oﬀenders

68%

12%

Property Oﬀenders

61%

12%

All Admissions 0%

10%

20%

AOD Needs

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

*Need deﬁned as “Moderate” or “High” on the DOC Oﬀender Needs Assessment Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

People with higher oﬀender scores have higher prevalence rates of mental health and alcohol/drug needs Percent of Admissions with a Mental Health Need, FY2013

20%

11%

Percent of Admissions with an Alcohol/Drug Need, FY2013

85%

50%

4 5 Oﬀender Score

Percent of Admissions with a MH and AOD Need, FY2013

4 5 6 Oﬀender Score

18%

*Need deﬁned as “Moderate” or “High” on the DOC Oﬀender Needs Assessment

Source: Jus<ce Center analysis of DOC data

4 5 6 7 8 9+ Oﬀender Score Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Approximately 80% of drug and property offenders who recidivate commit a drug or property offense as their first rearrest First Rearrest Offense Type for 3-‐Year Recidivists FY2010 Prison Releases

Drug Oﬀenders

Property Oﬀenders

Other

24%

Drug

27%

Property

55%

Violent

55%

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Other Drug Property Violent

Key findings regarding prison growth §  A sizeable por<on of the prison popula<on are offenders convicted for lower severity offenses, but most have mul<ple prior arrests §  Prison admissions have been fairly stable, but average length of stay has increased §  Property and drug offenders open share similar criminal history backgrounds, consis<ng of mostly property and drug arrests, and have higher rates of behavioral health needs Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Overview of detailed analysis Sentencing Guidelines •  •

Comparison with other guidelines states U$lity of oﬀender scores

Prison Growth •  •

Prison popula$on characteris$cs Trends impac$ng growth

Public Safety •  •

Recidivism analysis Impact of supervision and programming

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Spending on prison-‐based programs has remained steady over the years Correc<onal Programming Expenditure, FY2004–FY2013 $35,000,000 $30,000,000 $25,000,000

Chemical Dependency Treatment

$20,000,000

Oﬀender Change Programming Educa<onal Services

$15,000,000

Sex Oﬀender Treatment $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13

Source: DOC Budget Oﬃce data

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Spending on community-‐based programs has increased signiﬁcantly Community Supervision Programming Expenditures, FY2004–FY2013 $20,000,000

Chemical Dependency Treatment

$18,000,000 $16,000,000

Chemical Dependency Treatment: Residen<al DOSA

$14,000,000

Chemical Dependency Treatment: Out-‐Pa<ent

$12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000

Chemical Dependency Treatment: In-‐Pa<ent

$6,000,000

Oﬀender Change Programming

$4,000,000

Oﬀender Job Training

$2,000,000

Sex Oﬀender Treatment

$0 FY04* FY05* FY06* FY07* FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13

*Sex Offender Treatment funding for FY04 and FY05 was not separated or tracked financially and chemical dependency treatment funding for FY04, FY05, FY06, and FY07 was not separated financially. Source: DOC Budget Office data

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

One-‐year recidivism rates for oﬀenders released from prison have remained stable or declined slightly since FY2004 One Year Rearrest, Reconvic<on, and Return to Prison Rates, FY2004 to FY2013 Prison Releases

40% 35% 30%

29%

Felony Rearrest

25%

23%

21%

20%

18%

15%

13%

Felony Reconvic$on

15% 13%

Return to Prison

10%

11%

5% 0% 2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Source: Jus<ce Center analysis of DOC, WSP, and AOC data

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Lower seriousness level oﬀenders have much higher recidivism rates than higher seriousness level oﬀenders Three Year Felony Rearrest and Return to Prison Rates by Seriousness Level, FY2010 Prison Releases

Seriousness Level 5 or Higher

Seriousness Level 4 or Lower & Drug Grid

Felony Rearrest Rate

Return to Prison Rate

33%

19%

Felony Re-‐Arrest Rate

Return to Prison Rate

45%

32%

Source: Jus<ce Center analysis of DOC and WSP data

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Percent of prison releases going to supervision has declined, especially among lower severity oﬀenders (drug & levels 0-‐4) Percent of Prison Releases on Supervision Upon Release by Seriousness Level, FY2004 to FY2013 Seriousness Level 5 or Higher

100% 90%

Seriousness Level 4 or Lower & Drug Grid

91% 85%

89% 88%

78%

80%

69%

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Source: Jus<ce Center analysis of DOC data

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Policy changes over 30 years have greatly altered who receives post-‐release supervision Post-‐Jail/As a Sentence Property

Pre-‐1984

L,M

Drug L,M

Post-‐Prison

Violent* L,M

Post-‐1984

L,M

1999

L,M

Property L,M

Drug L,M

L,M

Violent* L,M

L,M

2003

Today

L,M Low-‐ and Moderate-‐Risk

Supervision has been maintained for serious violent oﬀenses, sex oﬀenses, and those with alterna<ve sentences regardless of risk.

High-‐Risk

*Violent includes violent offenses and crime against a person offenses. Source: Communica<ons with Washington Department of Correc<ons staff Washington State Legislature, 56th Legisla<ve Session, [SB 5421] Enhancing supervision of offenders Washington State Legislature, 58th Legisla<ve Session, [SB 5990] Changing )mes and supervision standards for release of offenders Washington State Legislature, 61st Legisla<ve Session.,[SB 6162] Providing for the supervision of offenders sentenced to community

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Current policy regarding who receives supervision Supervision

No Supervision

All individuals convicted of a: •  Serious Violent Offense •  Sex Offense High-‐Risk individuals convicted of a: •  Drug Offense •  Violent Offense •  Crime Against a Person Offense Individuals who receive the following sentencing alterna<ves: •  Prison-‐Based DOSA •  Residen$al DOSA •  First Time Offender Waiver •  Family and Offender Sentencing Alterna$ve

All individuals convicted of a: •  Property Offense (non-‐DOSA) Low-‐ and Moderate-‐Risk individuals convicted of a: •  Drug Offense •  Violent Offense •  Crime Against a Person Offense

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Three out of four property oﬀenders released unsupervised are classiﬁed as high risk

FY2010 Prison Releases

Released Unsupervised

Property Oﬀenders

High Risk

7,805

1,909 25%

860 45%

642 75%

Source: Jus<ce Center analysis of DOC data

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Burglary arrests have increased since 2004, driven by the increase in repeat burglary arrests Number of Burglary Arrests by Arrest History, FY2004 to FY2013 9,000 7,726

8,000 7,000

Percent of all burglary arrests

6,579

6,000

46%

Prior Burglary Arrest

of all burglary arrests

5,000 4,000 3,000

26%

Prior Felony (Non-‐Burglary) Arrest

2,000 1,000 0 2004

No Prior Felony Arrests 2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

2012

2013 44

Key ﬁndings regarding public safety §  Resources to reduce recidivism through community-‐based programs have increased, and overall recidivism rates have declined §  Lower-‐severity oﬀenders released from prison are more likely to be rearrested, but are less likely to be supervised §  A growing share of individuals arrested for burglary had a prior burglary arrest

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Key takeaways

Washington’s sentencing guidelines dictate less use of supervision in lieu of incarcera<on and longer sentences for repeat property oﬀenders than other states.

A growing number of prison admissions are lower-‐severity oﬀenders and today they account for one out of three people in prison.

Lower-‐severity oﬀenders are more likely to be rearrested, and less likely to be supervised aper release from prison or jail.

Washington s<ll has the third-‐ highest property crime rate in the country.

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Proposed <meline Policy Rollout and Bill Introduc<on Project Launch

Taskforce Mee<ng #2

Taskforce Mee$ng #1

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Ini<al Data Detailed Data Analysis Analysis

Stakeholder Involvement

Taskforce Mee<ng #4

Taskforce Mee<ng #3

Sep Final Data Analysis

Stakeholder Engagement

Oct

Nov

Impact Analysis

Policy Op<on Development

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center

Dec

2015 Session

Data Analysis Provide Info to Policymakers and Media and Bill Keep Draping Stakeholders Involved

Thank You Karen Chung, Policy Analyst kchung@csg.org

csgjus<cecenter.org/subscribe

This material was prepared for the State of Washington. The presenta<on was developed by members of the Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center staff. Because presenta<ons are not subject to the same rigorous review process as other printed materials, the statements made herein reflect the views of the authors and should not be considered the official posi<on of the Jus<ce Center, the members of the Council of State Governments, or the funding agency suppor<ng the work.

Council of State Governments Jus<ce Center