SMART JUSTICE BOS INFORMATION PRESENTATION.PDF

maricopa county SMART JUSTICE
Improving Public Safety Outcomes in Maricopa County
Through Evidence-Based Decision-Making, Polices and
Practices
Smart Justice Update
BOS Informal Meeting
May 2, 2016

Introduction & Presentation Overview
MaryEllen Sheppard
Assistant County Manager
• Smart Justice Update
• Justice Involved Women’s Initiative
• Clean Start
• Justice Involved Persons with Serious Mental Illnesses Initiative (Stepping Up)
• Why Smart Justice is “Smart”
• The Hidden Costs of Pretrial Detention

smart justice UPDATE
Chief Brian Lee
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
Smart Justice Subcommittee, Chair

Goals and Objectives
The Smart Justice Committee was launched in 2011 creating
collaboration amongst Maricopa County criminal justice partners
making the best use of county resources to improve public
safety and reduce recidivism into our jail system.

Goals and Objectives
Smart Justice has since:
• Officially become a sub-committee of MCJustice
• Created specific goals related to enhancing public safety by reducing the
use of jail and/or jail days for non-violent low-risk offenders and the
reduction of recidivism amongst individuals deemed to be high risk to
reoffend*.
*Identified based on the risk, needs, and responsivity model.

Efforts and Accomplishments
• MCSO and CHS are now focused on evidence- • In custody programs now continue upon
based programming in the jail release through collaboration with the Adult
Probation Department
• Only moderate to high risk individuals are
targeted for the most resource intensive
programs • Effectiveness now being measured by JSPI
• Processes in place to reduce length of jail stay • Partners are speaking the same language and
for non-violent low risk offenders
are dedicated to the same goals
• Pre-screening tools have been put into place to
manage risk and needs • All partnering agencies have identified and are
working toward their own individual goals to
• Several process efficiencies are in place with assist in meeting the group’s overall goals
better information sharing

Today’s Focus: Two Strategic Priorities
• Justice Involved Women
• Justice Involved Persons with Serious Mental Illnesses

JUSTICE INVOLVED WOMEN’S INITIATIVE
Dr. Dawn Noggle
CHS Mental Health Director
Smart Justice Subcommittee, Co-Chair

Estrella Jail
AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION
1000
950 930 964
941
900
850 881
800 813
750
700
Jul-12 Sep-12 Nov-12 Jan-13 Mar-13 May-13 Jul-13 Sep-13 Nov-13 Jan-14 Mar-14 May-14 Jul-14 Sep-14 Nov-14 Jan-15 Mar-15 May-15 Jul-15 Sep-15 Nov-15 Jan-16 Mar-16

Negative Impact of
Parental Incarceration on Children
• Academic health (poor school attendance, increased drop out rates, poor performance).
• Behavioral health (Attention Deficit Disorder, conduct problems, substance abuse).
• Mental health (depression, anxiety and other disorders).
• Physical health such as obesity, asthma.
• Brain health (increased rates of neurological problems such as Traumatic Brain Injury).
• Social and economic health (increased risk for poverty, increased incidence of future criminal justice
involvement).
For many of these conditions, the risk doubles with an incarcerated parent.

Justice Involved Women’s Initiative High Points
• June 2015 – March 2016: Led by CHS, community behavioral health agencies came together for
effective jail to community transition of high risk/high needs individuals, arranging “warm transfers”
for 376 women (release directly to case managers and peer navigators).
• July 2015: Community collaboration initiated with the Women’s Service Network developing a
collaboration with the Regional Behavioral Health agencies, serving women under one umbrella.
• January 2016: Pathfinders established (community collaboration with multiple stakeholders).
• January 2016: Estrella Mosaic six-week specialized treatment program targeting women with
significant mental health needs/moderate to high recidivism risk.

Justice Involved Women’s Initiative
The CHS Mosaic Program
The Goals
• Understanding of the factors that led to incarceration
• Understanding of how to prevent future incarceration
• Create community support to assist successful transition and productive lives in the community
The Population to Be Served
• Fifty-eight (58) women graduated as of March 2016
• For 2016, capacity to provide services to 224 women/goal to graduate minimum of 150-170

CLEAN START
Bruce Liggett Chief Therese Wagner
Human Services Director Adult Probation Department
Jeannie Reardon Karen Gaddis
HSD Workforce Development MCSO Laundry Manager

Clean Start
Bruce Liggett
MARICOPA COUNTY
Human Services Director CLEAN START
PROGRAM
MARICOPA COUNTY
MARICOPA COUNTY MARICOPA COUNTY MARICOPA COUNTY
MARICOPA COUNTY JUSTICE SYSTEM
ADULT PROBATION HUMAN SERVICES CORRECTIONAL
SHERIFF'S OFFICE PLANNING &
DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT HEALTH SERVICES
INFORMATION
ONSITE WORK PROGRAM
COMMUNITY ANALYTICAL
RECRUITMENT EXPERIENCE ORIENTATION &
REFERRALS SUPPORT
TRAINING ENROLLMENT
ONSITE WORK
WIOA INTENSIVE PROCESS
REFERRALS EXPERIENCE
CASE MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT
SUPERVISION
PERFORMANCE JOB COACHING & EVIDENCE BASED
RISK & ASSESMENT
EVALUATIONS SKILLS READINESS STRATEGIES
TAILORED
THINKING FOR A DAY TO DAY PROGRAM
EMPLOYMENT &
CHANGE (T4C) OPERATIONS EVALUATION
SUPPORT SERVICES

Clean Start
Chief Therese Wagner
Adult Probation Department
Clean Start Criteria
• Read above a 6th grade level
• Physically able to stand for extended periods, bend and lift (>25 lbs.) repeatedly
• Never been convicted of a sex offense or promoting prison contraband
• Med High to High Risk Level per FROST/OST
• Arizona at Work Enrolled Client

Clean Start
Jeannie Reardon,
Human Services Workforce Development

Transferable Skills
• JOB ASSIGNMENTS
• Machine Operator
• Washing Machine Operator
• Shipping and Receiving
• Order Processing
• Housekeeping
• Sorting
• Folding

Employment Service Model
HSD SMART JUSTICE TARGET INDUSTRY SECTORS
Warehousing
18% Construction
23% Construction
Hospitality
Transportation
5% Manufacturing
Professional & Business Svcs
Hospitality
12% Retail
Transportation
Retail Manufacturing
31% 6% Warehousing
Professional & Business Svcs
5%

Top Ten Reasons to
Hire a Clean Start Candidate
Achieved three (3) months of recent, full time, verifiable work experience.
Successfully completed three (3) months of employment
readiness training covering:
Thinking for a Change Time Mgmt. Communication Problem Solving & Customer Service Team Work
Supported and mentored by our Career Advisors and
community partner agencies.
Engaged job seekers with backgrounds tend to be loyal when employed.
Complied and complying with required community supervision.

Top Ten Reasons to
Hire a Clean Start Candidate (continued)
Arizona at Work Maricopa County services approximately
3,000 new jobs seekers per month.
Arizona at Work Maricopa County has a proven track record of success, including a high
rate of employment placement and retention.
Tax liabilities may be diminished with the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) by as
much as $96001 per employee hired.
Option to protect your company with a Federal Fidelity Bond for
$5000 for the first six (6) months2.
Reduce crime in your community3 and create tax paying citizens.

Staggered Group
Additional groups
contingent on
evaluation results
and available
resources

Productivity
Karen Gaddis
MCSO Laundry Manager

Clean Start Video
Place hold to embed video

Participant Stories
Unique Rayford, Clean Start Participant
Jeanette Covarrubias, Clean Start Participant

justice involved smi’s STEPPING UP
Shelley Curran
Mercy Maricopa Integrated Care

Justice Involved Persons with SMI (STEPPING UP)
• Recap of significant accomplishments
– FACT teams (mod-high risk SMI)
– Criminal Justice Engagement Teams (Low Risk SMI)
• Stepping Up Summit

Why Smart Justice is “Smart”
Ryan Cotter, Ph.D.
Director of Research
Justice System Planning and Information

RISK-NEEDS-RESPONSIVITY MODEL

THE RISK-NEEDS-RESPONSIVITY (RNR) MODEL
• RNR was developed in the 1980s by Bonta and Andrews
• Three principles of the RNR model:
– RISK Principle identifies who should be treated;
– NEEDS Principle identifies what should be treated; and
– RESPONSIVITY Principle identifies how to provide treatment.

RISK PRINCIPLE
• RISK PRINCIPLE: Intensity of treatment should match offender risk level.
– Targeting MODERATE-TO-HIGH RISK offenders reduces recidivism.
– Targeting LOW RISK offenders can increase recidivism.

NEEDS PRINCIPLE
• NEEDS PRINCIPLE: Interventions should target the central eight criminogenic
risk/needs factors.
• Recidivism reduction is maximized when multiple criminogenic needs are
targeted.

RESPONSIVITY PRINCIPLE
• RESPONSIVITY PRINCIPLE: Treatment is most effective if it:
– Employs a cognitive-behavioral approach;
– Tailors treatment to the specific learning style and attributes of the offender.

SMART JUSTICE INITIATIVES
• Intensity of intervention is based on offender risk level
– Moderate-to-high risk offenders receive most intensive programming
• MCSO programs target moderate-to-high risk offenders
• FACT teams target moderate-to-high risk SMI
– Non-violent low risk offenders are diverted out of the system and connected to
community resources
• Criminal Justice Engagement Teams targeting low risk SMI
• PSA Court
• Targeting identified criminogenic needs
– Clean Start: employment and employability skills, T4C, etc.
• Smart Justice Initiative are targeting specific sub-populations
– Female offenders
– SMI population

LOW RISK OFFENDERS
• Research suggests:
– Targeting LOW RISK offenders can increase recidivism.
• Creating counter-productive obstacles
• Exposing them to negative influence from high-risk peers in group intervention

THE HIDDEN COSTS OF PRETRIAL DETENTION
LOWENKAMP et al.,

THE HIDDEN COSTS OF PRETRIAL DETENTION
LOWENKAMP et al.,
• In 2013, Lowenkamp et al., examined the relationship between pretrial
detention and recidivism.
– Examined:
• Detention ~ FTA
• Detention ~ Pretrial NCA
• Detention ~ Post-disposition NCA
• Sample data: 153,407 defendants booked into a Kentucky jail in FY2010.
• All bookings in FY2011-12 were used to develop measures for NCA.

PRINCIPAL RESEARCH FINDINGS
LOWENKAMP et al., (2013)
• Detaining low risk defendants, even just for a few days, is strongly correlated
with higher rates of new criminal activity.
• As length of pretrial detention increases up to 30 days, recidivism rates for
non-violent low risk defendants also increases.
• For example:
– Low risk defendants held 2-3 days were
• 39% more likely to be arrested before trial
• 16% more likely to recidivate within 12 months post-disposition
– Low-risk defendants held for 8-14 days are:
• 56% more likely to be arrested before trial
• 45% more likely to recidivate within 12 months post-disposition

PRINCIPAL RESEARCH FINDINGS
LOWENKAMP et al., (2013)
PRETRIAL NCA
Exp b (95% CI) p-value
Low Risk 2 to 3 Days 1.39 (1.27, 1.52) 0.00
4 to 7 Days 1.50 (1.30, 1.72) 0.00
8 to 14 Days 1.56 (1.33, 1.85) 0.00
15 to 30 Days 1.57 (1.26, 1.95) 0.00
31 or more Days 1.74 (1.39, 2.18) 0.00

PRINCIPAL RESEARCH FINDINGS
LOWENKAMP et al., (2013)
PRETRIAL INCREASE IN RECIDIVISM
LOW-RISK DEFENDANTS
80%
74%
DEFENDANTS
60% 56% 57%
TO
LESS 50%
COMPARED OR
39%
DAY INCREASE 40%
AS 1
%
RECIDIVISM DETAINED
20%
OF
LIKELIHOOD
0%
2-3 DAYS** 4-7 DAYS** 8-14 DAYS** 15-30 DAYS** 31+ DAYS**
** STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT AT THE .01 LEVEL OR LOWER

PRINCIPAL RESEARCH FINDINGS
LOWENKAMP et al., (2013)
POST-DISPOSITION NCA
Exp b (95% CI) p-value
Low Risk 2 to 3 Days 1.16 (1.10, 1.23) 0.00
4 to 7 Days 1.32 (1.21, 1.43) 0.00
8 to 14 Days 1.45 (1.33, 1.59) 0.00
15 to 30 Days 1.43 (1.28, 1.61) 0.00
31 or more Days 1.09 (0.98, 1.21) 0.11

PRINCIPAL RESEARCH FINDINGS
LOWENKAMP et al., (2013)
POST-DISPOSITION INCREASE IN RECIDIVISM
LOW-RISK DEFENDANTS
80%
DEFENDANTS
60%
TO
LESS
COMPARED OR 45% 43%
DAY INCREASE 40%
AS 1
32%
%
RECIDIVISM DETAINED
20% 16%
OF
9%
LIKELIHOOD
0%
2-3 DAYS** 4-7 DAYS** 8-14 DAYS** 15-30 DAYS** 31+ DAYS
** STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT AT THE .01 LEVEL OR LOWER

THE HIDDEN COSTS OF PRETRIAL DETENTION
MARICOPA COUNTY

SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
MARICOPA COUNTY
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Released in 2014 105,397
Holds - 4,439
Summons bookings - 4,072
Turned over to another agency - 19,767
Sentencing dispositions - 31,901
No proxy - 25,795
All risk levels 19,423
Low risk defendants 6,352
Duplicate SIDS - 725
Sample N = 5,627

1 DAY vs 2-3 DAYS
MARICOPA COUNTY
• There was no statistically significant difference in recidivism between
individuals detained for 1 day vs. 2-3 days (p = 0.76).

LOGISTIC REGRESSION
MARICOPA COUNTY
1 DAY vs 2-3 DAYS
B (RSE) Exp b (95% CI) p-value
2 to 3
Low Risk
Days -0.05 (0.15) 0.95 (0.71, 1.29) 0.76
(Reference = 1 day)

PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING
MARICOPA COUNTY
• Used R (MatchIt) program to conduct multivariate propensity score matching
(PSM).
• Method used was nearest neighbor (k-NN matching).
• Covariates:
– Proxy Score
– Age
– Gender
– Ethnicity
– Target Felony
– Target Drug
• Balanced matched sample = 2,728

PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING
MARICOPA COUNTY
MATCHING OUTCOMES
Unmatched Data Matched Data
Reference Comparison Reference Comparison t or x2
𝒙 or % 𝒙 or % 𝒙 or % 𝒙 or % p-value
Proxy Score 0 0.21 0.15 0.21 0.21 0.83
Proxy Score 1 0.35 0.32 0.35 0.33 0.83
Proxy Score 2 0.45 0.53 0.45 0.46 0.83
Age 38 40 38 38 0.65
Male 0.60 0.65 0.60 0.61 0.67
Hispanic 0.23 0.19 0.23 0.24 0.09
African American 0.13 0.16 0.13 0.12 0.09
White 0.57 0.59 0.57 0.59 0.09
Other 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.09
Target Felony 0.51 0.65 0.51 0.53 0.47
Target Drug 0.16 0.21 0.16 0.15 0.71

RISKS OF PRETRIAL DETENTION
MARICOPA COUNTY
• Equivalent pretrial low risk defendants detained 4 or more days had greater
odds of new criminal activity.
• Compared to low risk defendants detained 1-3 days, individuals detained:
– 4-7 days were 49% more likely to recidivate within 12 months of release
– 8-14 days were 54% more likely to recidivate within 12 months of release
– 15-30 days were 84% more likely to recidivate within 12 months of release
– 31+ days were 78% more likely to recidivate within 12 months of release
• The lower odds of recidivism for the 31+ days group may be a result of
offender programming (e.g., cognitive restructuring, anger management, etc.)
and dosage level.

MULTIVARIATE LOGISTIC REGRESSION
MARICOPA COUNTY
REBOOKED WITHN 365 DAYS
B (RSE) Exp b (95% CI) p-value
Low Risk 4 to 7 Days 0.40 (0.12) 1.49 (1.18, 1.89) 0.00
8 to 14 Days 0.43 (0.11) 1.54 (1.24, 1.92) 0.00
15 to 30 Days 0.61 (0.14) 1.84 (1.40, 2.43) 0.00
31 or more
0.58 (0.14) 1.78 (1.35, 2.36) 0.00
Days
Proxy Score 1 0.33 (0.12) 1.39 (1.10, 1.75) 0.01
Proxy Score 2 0.48 (0.11) 1.61 (1.30, 2.00) 0.00
* Reference = 1-3 days

MULTIVARIATE LOGISTIC REGRESSION
MARICOPA COUNTY
INCREASE IN RECIDIVISM
LOW-RISK DEFENDANTS
150%
DEFENDANTS
125%
TO
LESS 100%
COMPARED 84%
OR
78%
DAY INCREASE 75%
AS 1
% 54%
RECIDIVISM DETAINED 49%
50%
OF
25%
LIKELIHOOD
0%
4-7 DAYS** 8-14 DAYS** 15-30 DAYS** 31+ DAYS**
** STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT AT THE .01 LEVEL OR LOWER

TIME-TO-EVENT ANALYSIS
MARICOPA COUNTY
• TTE analysis supports the findings that defendants detained 1-3 days have
lower recidivism rates


RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS
• Low risk pretrial defendants detained 1-3 days had similar recidivism
outcomes.
• Low risk pretrial defendants detained 4 or more days had increased odds of
recidivism.

QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS