The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTJ Area Crime Proj 9/1998B a__&¢_~ ro u n d Re op_Q¢. Pretrial Services, 1990 to 1998 Local Probation Services, 1996 to 199.8 September 1998 Produced by the Thomas Jefferson Community Criminal Justice Board in association with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission INTRODUCTION This is second in a series of reports concerning crime and the criminal justice system in central Virginia. The first report, "Crime Patterns 1990~1996" examined available information on the incidence of crime in the nine localities defining the Thomas Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board (CCJB) planning area (see Figure 1). This report examines services that are central to the CCJB mandate, pretrial court services and local probation (community correc- tions). The mission of the CCJB is "to enable the participating localities to work together to develop community-based alternatives to incarceration for pretrial court services and post- conviction sentencing alternatives for certain misdemeanants or persons convicted of nonviolent felonies." The purposes of the report are to provide a descriptive background review of the pro- grams and to identify key issues for follow-up by the CCJB in its regional planning effort. TABLE OF CONTENTS Part IV: Glossary Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2 Acronyms Used in the Report ........................................................................................................... 2 Part I: An Introduction to Community Corrections .......................................................................... 4 Pan II: Pretrial Services .................................................................................................................... 4 Community Corrections in the Thomas Jefferson Planning Area ................. 4 Pretrial Services ............................................................................................ 4 Data Used in this Report ............................................................................... 8 Evaluating Pretrial Programs ........................................................................ 8 The Pretrial Interview Program .................................................................. 10 The Supervision Program .......................................................................... 14 Program Costs ............................................................................................ 18 Looking at Pretrial Services in a Statewide Context ..................................20 Discussion .................................................................................................. 21 Recommendations ...................................................................................... 22 Description of Variables ............................................................................ 24 Selected Demograpic Information; OAR, FY1990 to FY1998 .................. 26 Part III: Local Probation Services .................................................................................................. 27 History of Local Probation for Non-Violent Offenders ............................. 27 Data Sources .............................................................................................. 28 Program Review ......................................................................................... 29 Discussion .................................................................................................. 37 Recommendations ...................................................................................... 38 ACRONYMS USED IN THE REPORT ACRJ CCCA CCJB CDI CVRJ DCJS DOC FTA OAR PSA Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Comprehensive Community Corrections Act (see § 53.1-180, Code of Virginia) Community Criminal Justice Board Community Diversion Incentive Act Central Virginia Regional Jail Department of Criminal Justice Services Department of Corrections Failure to appear (in court) OAR/Jefferson Area Community Corrections (also Offender Aid and Restoration) Pretrial Services Act (see § 19.2-152.2, Code of Virginia) Figure 1. Planning area map, Thomas Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board. ?Madison County Greene Albemarle County City of Charlottesville Orange County Louisa County Nelson County Fluvanna County Goochland County PART I: AN INTRODUCTION TO COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS The criminal justice system has devised a range of sanctions, called community correc- tions, that are intended to allow a defendant or offender to remain outside jail under controlled conditions that preserve public safety and allow for the continuation of employment and family life (thus reducing public assistance and encouraging restitution). The intent is also to ensure public safety at a lower cost per case, thus releasing public resources to deal more adequately with those offenders that should not be released. Community corrections is a category of sanctions that is usually reserved for nonviolent offenders of less serious crimes. In Virginia these options are primarily targeted to "jailable" (as opposed to prison-bound) offenders (misdemeanants, class V and VI nonviolent felons and nonclassified nonviolent offenders). It provides flexibility for judges to channel appropriate offenders into special programs designed to provide supervision and restitution (in cash to the victim and/or to the court system or by way of community service work). Some community corrections alternatives, such as probation and parole have been in use for many years. Others, such as house arrest, electronic monitoring and day reporting centers are new or have changed in recent years to facilitate restitution. Community Corrections in the Thomas Jefferson Planning Area The community corrections services in place in the Thomas Jefferson planing area include pretrial court services, local and state probation and parole services, electronic monitoring, public inebriate diversion services and an Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP) (Figure 2). The programs of greatest direct interest for the CCJB are those funded by a grant administered by the Department of Criminal Justice Services. The services include two pretrial services programs administered by OAR/Jefferson Area Community Corrections and the Central Virginia Regional Jail; local probation services administered by OAR; and a public inebriate service administered by Region Ten Community Services Board. PART I1: PRETRIAL SERVICES * Purpose The pretrial services program provides two main services to the courts. First, it under- takes pretrial interviews and investigations of all defendants not immediately re[eased from jail on bond. These investigations assist the court in determining the risk of flight or of further criminal activity during the period before trial. Case managers provide advice on conditions of bail. Second, the program provides pretrial supervision and other services for low-risk defendants at the request of the court in lieu of incarceration. Pretrial investigations involve face-to-face interviews with defendants while in jail awaiting an initial hearing. The interview solicits information regarding the subject's background, the offense, prior convictions, and current living and working situations. Prior convictions are conf'm'ned using the Virginia Crime Information Network (VCIN) which is maintained by the Virginia Department of State Police. Pretrial case managers are currently certified to use the system. Pretrial investigators confmn information received in interviews to the extent that time and other resources permit. Supervision services are primarily targeted for defendants charged with nonviolent misdemeanant and Class V and VI felony offenses who are admitted to bail but are not required to obtain a secure bond. Under normal circumstances, pretrial supervision will involve weekly face- to-face contact with the accused, and may include regular drag testing and other conditions imposed by the courts. · Pretrial Services in Virginia The history of pretrial services in Virginia is tied to the evolution of bail reform. Pretrial incarceration is a device used by judicial officers to ensure that defendants appear for trial. Because our system of justice is based on the notion that defendants are innocent until proven guilty, bail is a right (albeit, that is limited if the defendant will fail to appear at trial or if his/her release will pose an unreasonable danger to the community). Pretrial incarceration or supervision should not be viewed as a sanction because guilt has not been assigned. Bail can take many forms, but the traditional approach involves imposition of a secured bond, the amount of which is set by a judicial officer. The amount of the bond normally reflects a judgement as to how likely the defendant is not to appear in court as ordered. A higher bond, requiring a larger purchase price from the defendant, is associated with more serious crimes and past failures to appear. Those who cannot pay for the bond will, normally, remain in jail until the appointed court date. The need for bail reform in Virginia derives from the belief that requiring monetary conditions for bail is discriminatory: release from jail is assured for those who have money but may be impossible for those who are poor. Poverty is not a defensible reason to keep someone in jail. Alternative methods of ensuring appearance at court that do not penalize the poor include pretrial supervision. Assessing the situation to ensure appearance at court, maintain public safety and reduce costs to the state within a framework that does not withhold rights on the basis of poverty is a central role of the Pretrial Services Program. The federal Bail Reform Act of 1966 made provision for certain basic (and now, famil- iar) pretrial actions, including the use of unwritten promises to appear, the use of unsecured bonds and the placing of an accused in the custody of a third party. This act provided the pattern for a 1973 act of the Virginia General Assembly to reform bail. In 1975, Title 19.2 was passed, provid- ing for the right to bail and the use of preventive detention. Various changes were made in 1984 and 1985 including increasing oversight of the system by the circuit courts. Additional changes were made in 1992, when under 19.2-123 (A) pretrial services agencies were authorized. In 1994 the General Assembly established the Pretrial Services Act, which became effective on July 1, 1995. The act authorized localities to establish new pretrial services Under a grant-making program administered by the Department of Criminal Justice Services. Participating localities are required to form a Community Criminal Justice Board for certain aspects of program oversight and to develop a biennial plan. These pretrial programs are part of an effort to provide greater local control over criminal justice coordination, especially for those offenders deemed to be "locally responsible." · Pretrial Services inCentral Virginia OAR-Jefferson Area CommUnity Corrections (OAR) began providing pretrial services to the Charlottesville and Albemarle courts in 1976. OAR was the second pretrial program to be introduced in Virginia (the first was OAR-Fairfax, which began servtce in 1975); it was one of five programs introduced as a pilot by the Commonwealth. The program was funded by a combi- nation of LEAA, local government and United Way funds. Currently the program is funded by an annual grant administered by the Department of Criminal Justice Services suplemented with funds from local governments. In 1995, the Central Virginia Regional Jail (CVRJ) introduced pretrial services for.courts within its five-county service area (Greene, Louisa, Madison, Orange and Fluvanna). The program is administered in parallel with OAR (by the same fiscal agent, Albemarle CoUnty) funded exclusively under the same DCJS grant. The program currently provides pretrial investigation and interview services and pretrial supervision. Figure la. Pretrial services: program delivery areas. Key OAR/Jzff~mon Area Community Corrections Albemarle County City of C harl ottesvil le Figure 2. Graphic Outline of community corrections in theThomas Jefferson plamling area. ~ommission on Virgini'~a Alcohol Safety Action p rartment of~o~ rect~~/ District 9 3robafion & Parole Albemarle- Charlottesville Regimal Jail Cmtral Vir[~nia Regional Jail James River ASAP Electronic Monitoring Electronic Monitoring I ~~~t sPartment of Men~l~ h, Mental Retardation d Substa.n ce Abuse // 'l'horms J~ff~r~on Am~ ........................ Gammunity ,~r~ie~ Board ........ C=mmunity Criminal Juslice Board OAR/Jefferson Area Cern munity Corrections Note: Shaded areas indicate programs supported by CCCA/PSNPIC program administered through DCJS. Data Used in this Report This report draws upon information from four sources: 1. Monthly statistical reports to DCJS are available for FY1991 through FY1997. The reports ask for information concerning caseload status (especially case flow and case success levels). In FY1997, a new reporting format was issued, producing greater detail for some aspects of program reporting. 2. OAR program annual reports. Internal data (primarily demographic in nature) are collected by OAR to inform the agency, its board and community funding agencies about the profile of people being served. 3. Case files that were active during the third quarter of FY1996 (i.e., January through March 1996) were sampled. The result was three sets of data; one from the OAR Pretrial Inter- view subprogram (70 cases), one from the OAR Pretrial Supervision subprogram (71 cases) and one from the CVRJ Pretrial Interview subprogram (75 cases). 4. Statewide statistics are a recent product ofDC$S. A Qrst attempt at releasing basic program-by-program information was made in FY1991. A shortened list of descriptive case-flow indicators (i.e., interviews conducted, recommendations for supervision, supervision cases and average daily caseload) was released in FY1992 and FY1993. More extensive data are available for FY1995 and FY1997. (Due to the inception of the Pretrial Services Act in 1995 and various program and reporting changes during the first year of operation resulting in program repons of highly varying reliability, statewide data were not developed for FY1996.) Evaluating Pretrial Programs No complete approach for evaluation is currently available for pretrial services. Existing measures are, furthermore, often strongly affected by conditions not under the control of the programs. For pretrial supervision one criterion for success is widely accepted: successful outcome for program clients (defendants) means appearance at court without additional charges/convic- tions. Success rate (the percent of closed cases that were successful) is a direct measure of Case-Based and Demand-Based Recommendation Styles Program success for the interview and recommendation phases of pretrial services are based on more than the reliability, validity and relevance of information reported to the court. Program success relies partly upon relationships maintained between the pretrial investiga- tor and the court. The Demand-Based Style Where trust does not exist, supervision referrals may not be forthcoming and court accep- tance of recommendations will be Iow. Demand-based recommendations (where past decisions by judges drive current recommendations) may build trust and mutuality between tl~e judge and pretrial program and may produce greater court acceptance. The cost, however, is that fairness to the defendant may be sacrificed (along with the intent of §19.2- 121). The Case-Based Style In order to discharge his/her duties as a judicial officer, the pretrial investigator should remain focused on the facts of the case and make recommendations that are grounded in those facts, notwithstanding the expected views of the judge. This is what is meant by a case-based recommendation style. program success for the supervision subprogram. While the intent of the pretrial interview program is clear (to provide valid, rehable and relevant information to the courts in a cost-effective and timely manner) no clear measurement of program success is available. Here are some proposed measures: 1. Court acceptance of recommendations: Presuming that information presented by program interviewers is of high quality (valid, reliable and relevant), and that recommendations are appropriate, one measure of success would be acceptance of recommendations by the court. The connection between court acceptance and program success is imperfect. The incidence of court acceptance could be high when a program is not providing appropriate recom- mendations in some cases. If recommendations follow the expected dispositions of the judge (that is, they are demand-based) rather than in the facts of the case (case-based recommendations), then a high level of court acceptance would not point to success. (For a discussion of demand-based and case-based recommendation styles, see the side-bar on page 8). Low court acceptance might prevail despite a case-based recommendation style if judges remain resistant to community corrections (preferring traditional forms of bail) or disagree with the interviewer about the relevance of risk factors, etc. Still, court acceptance rates describe an important aspect of program outputs and should be examined with interest. 2. Appropriateness: Recommendations are appropriate when they produce success. Currently, information on the appropriateness of interviewer recommendations is available only for those who were interviewed and admitted to supervision. Other types of recommendations and conditions of bail are not tracked for their outcomes. Furthermore, for those cases that are tracked, there is no way to determine if tmsuccess is the result of inappropriate recommendation or substandard supervision (or neither of these). Appropriateness will not be assesed in this report due to the relatively small number of clients entering supervision with the benefit of a program recommendation. 3. The value of information presented: The provision of valid and reliable pretrial information to the courts should be seen as an intrinsic benefit. This leaves open the question, however, of how valid and reliable the information is that is presented to the courts. It is the purpose of this report to provide a starting point from which to build a more complete framework for monitoring and evaluating community corrections in central Virginia. THE PRETRIAL INTERVIEW PROGRAM During FY1991 to FY1995, the average number of interviews conducted annually at the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail (ACLU) through OAR was 217. The range was from a Iow of 80 in FY1991 to a high of 299 in 1993 (Figure 3). Misdemeanants have outnumbered felons in each year but one, 1996. In FY1997, DCJS began to require interviews for all available defendants at the jail, resulting in a more than doubling in interview volume. OAR interview activity in FY1998 was almost identical to that of FY1997 (Figure 3). Year-end statistics for FY1997 show that 280 interviews were conducted thxough the program at CVRJ. The program showed a reduction of 23.9% in the number of interviews conducted in FY1998. Figure 3. Interviews conducted, FY1991 to FY1998. 700 §00 500 -- 400 300 200 ..... 100 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Felons Misdemeanants 1997 1998 Source: OAR/Jefferson Area Community Corrections; CVRJ Pretrial Services Table 1. Pretrial Cases: selected demographic statistics, OAR, FY1991 to FY1998. 1991 1992 1963 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Gender Percentage males 90.0% 84.8% 86.8% 87.2% 90.8% 85.9% 73.1% 85.1% Ethnicity African-American 53.8% 54.5% 55.9% 53,9% 50,9% 57.0% 43.1% 58.3% Caucasian 45.5% 43.4% 42.4% 45.0% 46.7% 40.9% 50.0% 38.8% Other 0,7% 2.0% 1.6% 1.1% 2.4% 2.2% 2,0% 2.8% Age 18-30 66.1% 99.5% 60.3% 56,7% 55.7% 59.5% 57.0% 49.3% 31:64 33.6% 0.00% 39.4% 43.1% 44.3% 40.5% 42.2% 50,7% 65+ 0.3% 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% Source: OAR/Jefferson Area Comunity Corrections. 10 Summary demographic information is not available for CVPJ interviews. However, a sample of FY1996 cases from OAR and CVPJ was drawn and provides a comparative profile of cases interviewed during that year (Table 2). Table 2. Pretrial OAR and CVRJ interview programs: Selected statistics from program case samples, FY1996. OAR (n- 70) CVRJ (n- 75) Residence Charlottesville 57% 0% Albemarle 43% 0% Fluvanna 0% 12% Goochland 0% 0% Greene 0% 7% Louisa 0% 29% Nelson 0% 0% Orange 0% 43% Average age 32.2 yrs. 29.3 yrs. Percent under aoe 35 64.3% 77.3% Percent male 92.9% 84.0% Race African.American 57.4% 48.3% Caucasian 36.7% 50.0% Hispanic 2.9% 1.7% Other 0% 0% Education Percent with 9th grade or less 26.5% NA Percent with 12th grade or less 67.1% 50.0% Employment Percent full-time 45.7% NA Currently under probation 24.3% NA History of substance abuse 43.9% fda Percent with prior conviction for same offense~ 32.9% 29.3% Prior convictions~ Percent with no prior felony 67.1% 58.1% Percent with one prior felony 11.4% 16.1 Percent with more than one prior felony 21.4% 25.8% Percent with no prior misdemeanor 20.0% 39.1% Percent with one prior misdemeanor 21.4% 15.6% Percent with more than one prior misdemeanor 58.6% 45.3% Current charge is a misdemeanor 60.3% 50.0% Current charge is a felony 36.8% 50.0% 1 VCIN information NA =not available Source: Interview case samples, OAR and CVRJ Pretrial Interview Programs, FY1996 · Recommendations to the Courts The distributions of recommendations presented to the courts by the two pretrial pro- grams were quite different in FY1998 (Figure 4). Overall, the CVRJ program was more likely to recommend "Same Bond" than was OAR; less likely to recommend "Release on Own Recogni- zance.'' Figure 4. Distribution of recommendations by program, FY 1998. n=373 n=285 n=111 n=103 100% 80% ~ 40% 20% 0% I Same Bond Reduc~ Bend Reteased on ovm Recogn, Source: OAR/Jefferson Area Community Corrections. CVRJ Pretrial Services · Court Acceptance Rates The OAR program achieved a very high court acceptance rate for supervision recom- mendations during 1991 to 1995; the range was 93% to 100% (Figure 5). After 1995 supervision acceptance rates declined; in 1998 the supervision acceptance rate for misdemeanants was 27.4%, for felons it was 40.6%. The comparable supervision acceptance rates at the CVRJ program was 50.0% for misdemeanants and 33.3% for felons in FY1997. Figure 5. Court acceptance rates (recommendations for supervision), FY1991 to FY1998. 100% ,, 13. 0% ! 1991 I 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1997 1998 Source: OAR,'Jeffe*son Area Community CorrectJons, CVRJ Pret~al Ses~ces 12 During 1998, court acceptance rates for five types of recommendations f~om the OAR program showed that rates were consistently higher for CVRJ (Figure 6) than for OAR. Highest levels of court acceptance for CVRJ were for recommendations of"Bond with Supervision" and "Same Bond." For OAR the highest court acceptance rates were for "Bond with Supervision" and "Release on Own Recognizance." Lowest court acceptance rates for both programs were for recommendations for "Supervision." Figure 6. Court acceptance rates, FY1998. ..~ ~ OAR ~ I i I I I I I I i l 0% 20% 40% 60% 80°/$ 100% Percent Source: OAR/Jefferson Area Community Con'eclion$; CVRJ Pretrial Services 13 THE SUPERVISION PROGRAM Pretrial supervision placements at OAR averaged 158.6 between FY 1991 and FY1995 (Figure 8). The low point prior to the new program was FY1991 with 15 rrdsdemeanants and 18 felons under supervision, for a total caseload of 33. The high point (FY 1993) produced 74 misdemeanants and 150 felons, for a total of 224. There was a drop in cases during 1995, reflect- ing a statewide pattern that is not well understood. In FY1998 new supervision placements to OAR grew by 24.7%, accounted for entirely by a 33.5% increase in felony referrals. Referrals to the CVRJ program in FY1997 and FY1998 were equal at 36 referrals. As Figure 9 shows, length of supervision for misdemeanants has remained lower than the Figure 8. Pretrial supervision placements, FY1991 to FY1998. 30O 250 200 _ 'o '6 150 .... 1991 1992 1993 1994 lS95 I Felons Mtsdemeanants 1997 1998 1997 1998 Source: OAR/Jeffemon Area Community Corrections. CVRJ Pretrial Sen~ces DCJS-recommended standard of 60 days. (In FY1998 the average was 59.7 days.) For felons in the OAR program, length of supervision remained below the 120-day standard for all years except FY1991 and FY1998. For the CVRJ program, average lengths of supervision for felons were above 120 days for both FY1997 and FY1998. Figure 9. Average length of supervision, misdemeanor and felony cases, FY1991 to FY1998. 160 140 120 100 8o gO 40 2O 1991 1992 1993 Felons Misdemeanants 1994 1995 1996 1997 I 998 1997 1998 Source: OAR/Jefferson Area Community Corre~ons. CVRJ Pre.al Services 14 Figure 10. Average daily supervision caseload, FY1991 to FY1998. 100 80 z 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1997 1998 Felons Misdemeanants Source: OAR/Jefferson Area Community Corre~ons; CVRJ Pretrial Services. Average daily supervision caseload is presented in Figure I 0. The Iow caseload reported by OAR in 1995 is the result of Iow referral levels (Figure 9). The low caseload level reported in 1997 is the result of declining length of supervision. A more than doubling of average daily caseload resulted in part from longer average length of supervision and partly from higher levels of referral. 15 Figure 11 indicates that 18.9% of OAR recommendations (126 cases) were for pretrial supervision in 1998. Of those, 43 cases were referred to the program. These referral cases consti- tuted 14.7% of total supervision placements. The remainder (85.3%) were under supervision either against program recommendation ("bond & supervision" or "against program recommenda- tion'') or were referred without local program input ("direct referrals" and "transfers-in" from other localities). It is also worth mentioning that the program rarely recommended "bond & supervision" (14 cases or 2.1% of total recommendations) but received 137 referrals (46.9% of all referrals) in that category. Figure 11. OAR recommendations and new placements, by category of referral, FY1998. 700 5OO 4O0 _ 2O0 100 0 Bond & supervision (2.1%) Same bond (16.8%) Reduce bond (33.1%) recognizance (27.7%) Supentision (18.9%) Recommendations Source: OAR/Jefferson Area Community Corrections New p~cemen~ Transfers-in (4.8%) Bond & supervision (46,9%) Direct referral (20.2%) Against prog. rec. (11.6%) Based on prog. rec, (15.4%) In 1998 the CVRJ program recommended that 16 cases be referred to the program for supervision (7.4% of all referrals) (Figure 12). Of those, 7 cases were referred to the program, representing 19.4% of new placements. The remainder of the program placements (80.6%) were against program recommendation or without local program input. Average daily caseload in FY1998 was 10.1. Success rates for pretrial supervision have remained above 65% for the OAR program Figure 12. CVRJ supervision recommendations and new placements, FY1998. 25O 200 5150 =E 100 z 50 Recommendations Bond & supervision (7.4%) Same bond (42.0%) Reduce bond (36.9%) Released on own recognizance (6.1%} Supervision [7.4%) Soume: OAR/Jefferson Area Community Corrections;CVRJ Preffial Se~ices New placements Transfers-in (22.2%) Bond & supervision (36.1%) Direct referral (19,4%) [Against prog. recom. (0%)] Based on prog. recomm.(22.2%) (Figure 13). Since 1993, success rates have, in general declined. Success rates for the CVRJ program declined by almost 23 percentage points in FY1998 (based on 41 closures during the year). Figure 13. Success rates, misdemeanor and felony cases, FY1991 to FY1998. lOO% ~ ~~~.~~ 8O% :!:!1 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1997 1998 Source: OAFt/Je~Terson Area Community Corrections, CVRJ Pmtria! Program Figure 14 presents a review of the prevalence of technical violations, new arrests and failures-to-appear for unsuccessful closures. Figure 14. Unsuccessful closures by reason for failure, FY1992 to FY1998. 40 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1997 1998 Sourco: OAR/Jefforson Area CommuniB, Co~ections, CVRJ Preb~al Sorvices 17 Program Funding Total annual program expenditures for FY1993 through FY1998 are given in Figure 15. The OAR expenditures are audited amounts and include locality contributions and relevant overhead and indirect costs as well as grant receipts from DCJS. Consequently, expenditure figures and subsequent expenditures per case and per supervision day cannot be compared with figures from other programs (for which only DCJS grant amounts are available). The CVRJ figure includes only expenditures from the DCJS grant. Figure 15. Program funding, FY1993 to FY1998. $200,000 , $150.000 ~ oo.ooo_ _ $50.000 ~ $o IV"//////~ I I I I I 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1997 1998 Source: OAR audited figures, CVRJ year end report. Average annual funds available per supervision case (new placements) are shown in Figure 16. For the OAR program, funds available per case were m a narrow range for all but one program year: FY1995. During 1995, new placements declined by 36% from the previous year (Figure 9). The CVRJ program funds available per case of $1,282.14 in FY1997 reflects the Figure 16. Average funds per case, FY1993 to FY1998. $1.400 $1.200 $1.000 $800 $600 $200 $0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1997 1998 Source: OAR audited figures, CVRJ year end 18 relatively low level of referrals. Average annual funds available per supervision day (Figure 18) shows that for the OAR program, funds available were relatively higher in FY1995 and FY1997 than in other years. The FY1995 level reflects the decline in placements referred to the program. The increasing funds available in FY1997 reflects the lower average length of supervision achieved that year (the average in FY1996 had been 89.3 days; FY1997 showed a 36% reduction, to 57.5 days.) The CVRJ average funds available per supervision day, at $11.83, reflects lower referral levels and a higher average length of supervision than reported by the OAR program. Figure 17. Program funds per supervision day, FY1993 to FY1998. $12 $10 $8 $2 1993 19~ 1~5 1996 1997 1998 1997 1998 Source: OAR audited figures, CVRJ year end 19 LOOKING AT PRETRIAL SERVICES IN A STATEWIDE CONTEXT Table 3 compares statewide averages with OAR and CVRJ figures for FY1998. They show the following: · A higher portion of felony case defendants admitted to jail awaiting trial were investigated by OAR than were investigated statewide. CVRJ conducted interviews on a lower portion of both misdemeanants and felons. · A larger portion of investigated cases (both felons and misdemeanants) were placed with OAR's supervision program than was the case statewide. CVRJ received a smaller portion of interviewed cases on supervision. · Average daily supervision caseload for OAR was 86.7. This equates to 21.7 cases per case manager. For CVRJ, average daily caseload (and caseload per case manager) was 10.1. · Overall success rate for OAR was 70.0%. For CVRJ: 63.4%. Both were lower than the statewide average. · As expected, the rate of unsuccessful closures due to "other" was high in comparison with the state average. Table 3. Comparison of statewide averages with OAR and CVRJ program statistics, FY1998. Statewide average OAR CVRJ Misd. Felons Total Misd. Felons Total Misd. Felons Total 1. "Awaiting trial" admiss, to jail 111,819 63,521 175,340 2,255 797 3,052 807 546 1,353 2. Pretrialinvestigationas % of"l' 17.3% 27.9% 21.2% 18.9% 36.6% 23.6% 13.9% 18.5% 15.7% 3. Placements as % of "2" 24.0% 23.8% 23.9% 17.1% 75.0% 40.5% 15.2% 19.8% 17.4% 4. Average daily caseload 821.2 1,149.4 1,970.6 11.6 74.8 86.7 2.4 7.7 10.1 5. Average length of supervision (days) 64.3 99.3 67.1 130.1 54.3 140.2 6. Total cases closed 4,817 4,155 8,972 59 178 237 16 25 41 7. Successful as % of "6" 85.0% 73.5% 79.7% 79.7% 66.8% 70.0% 75.0% 56.0% 63.4% 8. FTA rate~ 6.3% 7.6% 6.6% 6.8% 9.5% 8.9% 9. New arrest rate1 1.3% 3.6% 2.4% 0 1.7% 1.3% 10. Technical violation rate~ 4.8% 11.0% 7.7% 1.7% 8.9% 7.2% 11. "Other" rate~ 2.5% 4.2% 3.3% 11.9% 12.9% 12.6% ' per 100 closed cases; results not reported for CVRJ due to Iow number of cases. Raw data sources: Department of Criminal Justice Services, summary of FY1998 statewide statistics; monthly program reports 20 DISCUSSION Acceptance Rates Acceptance rates for OAR recommendations to supervise (Figure 5) between 1991 and 1995 were high. Since then they have declined. The reason (or reasons) for this change are not readily apparent. The factors that may affect this rate are many, but the key ones are the attitudes and experiences of judges and commonwealth's attorneys with community corrections and the approach and experience level of the case manager in conducting the investigation and making recommendations. Most likely both sets of factors are in play, here. Acceptance rates are difficult to interpret. The decline in judicial acceptance may signify increasing program maturity and greater willingness to apply professional judgement (in making case-based recommendations) rather than submitting recommendations based upon expected dispositions by the judge (demand-based recommendations). Our current information does not help to clarify whether this is the case or whether judicial confidence in the program has, in fact, declined. It is the view of the program, however, that program recommendations have shifted from demand-based to case-based, leading to lower court acceptance rates. If so, this would be an example of a lower court acceptance rate reflecting a program improvement. The CVRJ program's low level of acceptance by its courts' judges may likewise point to program maturity or judicial resistance. Once again, current information does not help us to answer this question. In this situation, however, the case manager has accepted the proposition that referrals have sometimes been made in a demand-based manner. In addition, however, some judges and commonwealth's attorneys appear to be resistant to the use of investigative informa- tion and in some cases to pretrial supervision as an alternative to secured bond. Referral Levels to the CVRJ Program Although no lower bound has been identified that defines a minimum level of referrals in order to justify the support of a pretrial services program, referrals to the Central Virginia Re- gional Jail's program are very low by any accounting. DCJS believes that an average daily caseload should be approximately '25 per case manager (assuming that case managers are also conducting pretrial investigations) in order to ensure public safety at a reasonable cost. The average daily caseload at CVRJ is less than one-half that level. Two reasons appear to act together to reduce referrals. First, judges serving the area are reputed not to believe that pretrial supervision without secure bond serves the public interest. Second, the case manager recommended only 16 cases for supervision during FY1998 (7.5% of all recommendations). The pretrial program will most likely remain under pressure to increase its level of activity until both of these factors are addressed. The Use o? Supervision with Secured Bonds Figure 11 (page 16) illuslxates that OAR program personnel have been receiving a high proportion of supervision referrals either without formal program input or against program recommendations. Supervision cases also under secured bonds is one category of bail that is often referred despite recommendations made by the program: the prevalence of these bail conditions warrants ongoing study and remedy. The intent of pretrial supervision is to provide greater and more equitable access to bail (given the presumption of innocence and the discriminatory effect of monetary bond). Pretrial supervision meets this intent when it is used as an alternative rather than as an adjunct to monetary bond. No doubt the addition of supervision to the use of monetary bond provides judges with 21 added security that may be warranted in some or many situations. In the case of the OAR pro- gram, however, the prevalence of this dual coverage was 46.9% of all cases under supervision during FY1998. The statewide average was 16.1% in FY1997 (Table 3, page 20). DCJS accepts as a rule-of-thumb that as many as 10% of all cases might defensibly be covered by bond with supervision. Judges are not yet aware that all FY 1998 new placements under supervision with a secure bond had a success rate of only 65%. The success rate of cases under supervision only and when consistent with program recommendations was 88%. The Need For Risk Assessment Information Pretrial services programs in the Commonwealth are evolving slowly. Whereas some states have been measuring and managing risk for many years and are experienced at conducting the corrections business similar to an "insurance" operation (i.e., where risk of failure, rights to bail and program operating costs are balanced actuarially), Virginia has yet to begin collecting the relevant data. Attention to improving the capacity to assess risk of reoffending or flight would put all programs in the Commonwealth on a more businesslike footing, would permit more strategic targeting of scarce resources and improve the public safety benefits of the program. The Need for Electronic Record Keeping Local data collected by OAR and the Central Virginia Regional Jail, including information reported to DCJS monthly, are useful for identifying broad patterns in the programs. Not until case records are available electronically (sometime in mid 1999) will data be conve- niently available for detailed examination of questions produced by these more general data. RECOMMENDATIONS 1, A "model" (or theory) of program success should be developed, together with a system of relevant indicators. The model should include def'mitions of effectiveness, efficiency and outcomes and should concern itself with impacts on the courts, defendants, victims and other community organizations. 2. A valid risk-assessment tool should be identified (or developed) and implemented for court reporting and for program assessment and planning. 3. The CCJB and pretrial services programs should facilitate the early introduction of the statewide case management system currently under development by DCJS. 4. A local program for report auditing should be implemented to ensure the highest level of data integrity possible. 5. A major effort should be mounted to promote the purposes of pretrial services pro- grams to the judiciary, including information on the problem of secure bonds when used with supervision. 6. A strategy to increase referrals to the CVRJ program should be implemented quickly and aggressively. 22 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Description of key variables Demographics of OAR Supervision Placements DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLES Pretrial Interview Program 1. Court Acceptance Rates Court acceptance rates refer to the incidence with which the court sets bail conditions in agreement with recommendations from the pretrial case manager. A high court acceptance rate may indicate judicial acceptance of community corrections as a viable alternative to jail and general agreement with the case manager on the factors that contribute to successful supervision. 2. Appropriateness Appropriateness refers to the success of recommendations made by the case manager. Of the five categories of recommendations made by case managers (personal recogaizance withouth supervision, supervised release with either a personal recogizance bond or secure bond, reduced bond or same bond) only the success of those under supervision is tracked. Appropriateness is measured (indirectly and incompletely, therefore) by comparing the rates of success of those cases under supervision as a result of a recommendation with those under supervision against program recommendation. Pretrial Supervision Program 1. Overall supervision success rates Success is defined as appearance at court before final disposition of the case (without new arrest or technical violation). This is the explicit purpose cf the pretrial supervision program and the success rate is a direct measure of success. 2. FTA, new arrest and technical violation (unsuccessful) rates This measure is the percent of all cases closed that are unsuccessful due to failure-to- appear, new arrest or technical violation. For failures-to-appear (for example), the calculation is as follows: (((FTAs) / closures) X 100). 3. Referral patterns Caseload may or may not be a reflection on the supervision program. A low level of referrals from a given locality may indicate lack of familiarity with or lack of acceptance of community corrections by the judiciary and may, in extreme instances, lead to program termina- tion. This, then, is a descriptive measure, not necessarily evaluating the program but pointing to areas that may need further exploration to uncover the reason for low referrals. 4. Average length of supervision Average length of supervision (ALOS) is expressed in days and may be a measure of efficiency. ALOS is calculated as follows: (total supervision days)/(new placements). Length of supervision varies inversely with the number of clients that can be served. Long supervision times consume staff time, preventing new cases from being assigned (assuming an upper limit for manager caseloads). Length of supervision for pretrial cases is largely determined by the court system, since case closure is determined by court appearance. (DCJS standard: Program average should not exceed 60 days for misdemeanants; 120 days for felons) 24 5. Average Daily Caseload Average daily caseload is the average number of cases under active supervision at any one time. Average daily caseload is calculated as: (total supervision days)/(number of calendar days). 6. Program Expenditures Average annual expenditure per case is calculated as: (fiscal year expenditure) / (new placements). Average annual expenditure per supervision day is calculated as: (fiscal year expendi- ture) / (total supervision days). 25 SELECTED DEMOGRAPIC INFORMATION; OAR~ FY1990 TO FY1998 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No, Percent No. Percent No, Percent No. Percent No. Percen! 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 18.3o 251 69.53% 197 66.11% 439 99.55% 375 60.29% 306 $6.62% 253 $5.73% 419 59.52% 426 57.03% 64o 49,3% 31.64 107 29.64% 100 33.56% 0 0.00% 245 39.39% 233 43.15% 201 44.27% 285 40.48% 315 42.17% 65950.7% 3 0.83% 1 0.34% 2 0.45% 2 0.32% 1 0.19% 0 0% 0 0% 6 0% 0 0% Sex Male. Female 327 90.58% 269 89.97% 375 84.64% 540 86.82% 471 87.22% 414 90.79% 618 86.95% 546 73.09% 1105 86.1% 34 9.42% 30 I0.03% 67 15.16% 82 13.18% 69 12.78% 42 9.21% 101 14,05% 201 26.91% 194 15.0% R~c8 African. American 220 60.64% 161 53.85% 241 64.52% 348 55.95% 291 53.89% 232 50.88% 421 56.97% 322 43,11% 758 68.3% Caucasian 135 37.40% 136 45.48% 192 43,44% 264 42.44% 243 45.00% 213 48.71% 302 48.87% 410 64.89% 504 38.8% Other 6 1.66% 2 0.67% 9 2.04% 10 1,61% 6 1.11% 11 2.41% 16 2.17% 15 2.01% 37 2.8% Residence Charlottesville 216 60% 182 61% Albemarle 60 25% 85 28% Louisa 1 0% 4 1% Fluvanfle I0 3% 3 1% ,Nelson 0 0% 1 Greene 5 1% 2 1% Other 39 11K 22 7% 268 61% 391 83% 330 62% 243 64% 416 67% 503 67% 214 63.9% 109 25% 149 24% 145 27% 124 28% 207 28% 137 18% 830 16,6% 8 2% 11 2% 5 1% 5 1N 22 3% 12 2% 18 1.4% 12 3% 15 2% 6 1% 8 2% 13 2% 22 3% 21 lr6% 2 0% 5 1% 3 1% 12 3% 8 I% 17 2% 11 0.8% 5 1% 9 1% 8 1% 13 3% 10 1% 6 I% 31 2.4% 38 9% 42 7% 38 7% 44 10% 55 8% 50 7% 174 13.3% Source: OAR 26 PART II1: LOCAL PROBATION SERVICES History of Local Probation for Non-Violent Offenders Community-based supervision for non-violent offenders was first introduced in 1980in Virginia under the Community Diversion Incentive (CDI) program (§53.1-180 et seq.). The intent was to reduce overcrowding in prisons by diverting nonviolent, convicted offenders (misdemeanant or felon) as determined by a local Community Corrections Resources Board (CCm~). The Jefferson Area CDI Program Inc. was created in 1980 as one of 5 pilot projects under the act, covering the localities of Albemarle, Charlottesville, Fluvanna, Louisa, Greene and Nelson. The program was expanded in 1983 to include Goochland, Culpeper, Fauquier, Madison, Orange and Rappahannock. 1983 also saw expansion of the program to include jail diversions. In 1987 a separate program was formed (the Middle Virginia CDI Program, Inc.) for providing services under CDI to the counties of Culpeper, Fauquier, Madison, Orange and Rappahannock. Beginning in 1981, Offender Aid and Restoration provided supervision services for misdemeanants under CDI and continued in that role through the sunset of the program in 1995. In 1994, the Comprehensive Community Corrections Act (CCCA) replaced CDI (§53.1-180 et seq.) as part of the legislative package abolishing parole. The act became effective on July 1, 1995 and instituted the following changes: Whereas the intent of the CDI program was reduction of overcrowding in Virginia prisons and jails, the CCCA program was intended to provide locally-controlled probation services for General District Courts and for lower-class felons in Circuit Courts. Eligibility criteria were reduced from any non-violent person convicted of a misdemeanor or felony to any non-violent person convicted of a misdemeanor or Class 5 or 6 felony Under CDI, non-violent persons were so deemed by the CCRB; under CCCA, non- violent persons are so deemed by the court. Under CDI, diversion was available only to those sentenced to incarceration; under CCCA, supervision is also made available to those cases taken under advisement (deferred judgment). Under CDI, any length of sentence to incarceration could be suspended to community- based supervision; under CCCA, only a jail sentence (of 12 months or less) can be suspended and qualify for supervision. Under CDI, local probation programs were administered by the Virginia Department of 27 Corrections. With CCCA, responsibility for local probation was transferred to the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services under a grant-making program that places greater responsibility for program policies and fiscal accountability in the hands of localities. During the transition period prior to July 1, 1995, it was determined that the new CCCA program would be operated locally through OAR/Jefferson Area Community Corrections. The CCRB was dissolved and the new CCJB was formed; the CDI office was closed with two case managers being transferred to OAR. The CDI caseload continued to be managed by OAR until June 30, 1997, at which time all offenders were supervised under the terms of the CCCA. Probation services for non-violent offenders in the Thomas Jefferson Area has been delivered during the past 18 years by two organizations, Jefferson Area CDI and OAR/Jefferson Area Community Corrections. There is continuity in the service, evidenced by a continuous history of service use (especially by the General District Courts) and by long-term involvement in the system by Pat Smith and Dave Pastors, Executive Directors of the delivery organizations. Because the services have, over the years, changed in many ways (marked especially by the transition from CDI to CCCA), data from the two periods cannot be compared or meaningfully combined. For the purpose of this report, therefore, a review of local probation will be restricted to CCCA (FY1996 to FY1998).t Data Sources OAR has provided three types of data. These data cannot be combined, and in many instances cannot be compared directly. Furthermore, only one set of data is complete for the three fiscal years 1996 to 1998 (Table 1). 1, Monthly program information reported to the Department of Criminal Justice Services. These data have been collected since July 1, 1996 (beginning of FY1997) and include service delivery factors (i.e., case volume and flow variables, successful/unsuccessful, categories of supervision and services delivered to offenders) broken down by misdemeanants and felons. These are the most detailed and reliable data, providing the greatest diversity of information. 2. Annual Report data, including internal statistics collected by OAR staff. These data are reported monthly to the Executive Director and are aggregated annually for external report to funding sources, volunteers and others. These data give demographic information (age, gender, race) not available from the DCJS monthly reports. 3. Information from case files. Case-level data for FY1996 and FY1997 (from case file face- sheets, presenting a small subset of 12 variables) were entered into a data base. This data base allows us to examine various categories of offenders by cross tabulation and to conduct other case-level analyses. (Unfortunately, case success is not one of the variables included in face- sheet records.) Note: Fiscal year is July through June. 28 Table 1. Comparison of availability of information sources. FY1996 FY1997I FY1998 Monthly DCJS Reports 'l~ ~ Internal Annual Reports ~ ~ Information from Case Files ,,. Program Review · Case Pool Cases are included in the case pool if they are open at any time during the fiscal year. This includes cases open at the beginning of the year, cases opened during the year (called new placements) and cases reactivated during the year. Cases leave the pool through inactivation or case closure. The yearly pattern of case flow (the movement of people into and out of the case pool) is incompletely understood at this point. Statistics do not track individual cases from one year to the next. Since placements commonly remain under supervision for more than one year (sometimes for two years or more), length of stay in the case pool is not known. Consequently, estimating average length of supervision is not possible for the local probation program. During FY1997, OAR had a case pool of 979 cases. During FY1998 the case pool grew by 35.2% to 1,324 cases (Figure 1). Carry-overs from previous year(s) constituted 33.8% of the case pool in FY1997; 30.8% in FY1998. Those leaving the case pool include closed cases (43.5% of the case pool in FY 1997, 47.4% in FY1998) and those placed on inactive status (15.1% of the pool in FY1997 and 17.0% in FY1998). In 1997 148 cases Figure 1. Caseflow: individuals entering and leaving case were placed on inactive status; in 1998 only 103 were reactivated. The difference (45 cases, 3.4% of the 1998 case pool) represents cases inactive for more than a year (due primarily to capias charges not served). pool during FY1997, FY1998. 1400 -- 1200 ~ 1000 m 800-- 600 · 400 ~ 200 Ca~m Entering Pool Leaving Pool ~ur~: OA~Jeffe~ Ama ~un~ Entering Pool Leaving Pool 29 · New Placements New placements for local probation amounted to 576 in FY1997, and 807 in FY1998 (Figure 2). Ninety-five percent were misdemeanants in FY1997; 97% in FY1998. In FY1997, 8.8% of new placements were transfers fi.om other programs; 8.4% in FY1998. Figure 2. New placements, FY1997, FY1998. 1000-- 400 --. - Referrals from area courts in FY1997 and FY1998 are presented in Figure 3. It shows that Charlottesville and Albemarle General District Courts generally make the most referrals, with the Charlottesville and Albemarle Juvenile and Domestic Relations courts next. Charlottesville is the only Circuit Court making sizeable referrals. Significant growth in referrals during FY1998 was through both the Charlottesville and Albemarle General District Courts. Figure 3: Top ten referring courts by locality/court, FY1997, FY1998. __ Chville GDC AIb GDC Other CtwiUe JDR Chvale CC AIb JOR Mad GDC Gm GOC Om GOC Mad JDR Ch~ille GOC AIb GDC Ctwille JOR Ot~er AIb JDR Ctwille CC Mad GDC Ora GDC Gm GDC Ma~ JDR --+- 0 50 Note: Data nl]t avadable for FY199~ Source: OAR/Je~rson Area Communly Come,ions 998 1997 100 Refemals 150 l 200 30 · Program/Case Manager Workload Average daily caseload was 376.4 in FY1997; 437.7 in FY1998. This is a 16.3% growth in program workload (Figure 4). Likewise, the average daily caseload per case manager was 75.3 in FY1997 and 87.5 in 1998 (Figure 5), a 16.2% increase. Figure 4. Average daily caseload, FY1997, FY1998. 500-- Felons 200 .... Misdemeanants Source: OAR/Jeffemon Area Community Corrections Felons Misdemeanan~ Figure 5. CCCA average dally caseload per case manager, FY1997, FY1998. 100 -- Mlsdemeananls MIsflemeanan~s Source: OAR/Jefferson Area Community ~orre~tlons 31 · Demographics of New Referrals Table 1 shows that new placements are primarily white males, predominantly fi.om Charlottesville and weighted in age toward the 18 to 30 year group. Table 1. Demographic profile of CCCA clients, FY1996 to FY1998. I FY1996 FY1997 ~ FY1998 Number ~ Percent Number ~ Percent ! Number ! Percent Total new placements j. 429 ~ 100.0% ,, 576 ~ 100.0% ~ 807 ..: 100.0% '"'~'~'~ ................................... Black .: 197 45.9% 213 i 37.0% i 289 i 35.8% ...........Wh~te" ................................... "~ ................... 219 ~ .............. 51 0~:~'"*~ ......... ' ......... 355 ~: ................... 61 6% ".' ................... 501 ': ................... 62 1% ............................................... ~ ................................ .' ....... ,,. ................... .;. ........... ~ ....... £ ................... ; ..........: ........ Other i 13 3.0% i 8 [ 1.4% i 17 i 2.1% ............................................... ~ ................... ~ ................... ~ ................... .,. ................... ~ ................... ~. ................... ............................................... .~ ................... .~ ................... ... ................... ~. ................... .~ ................... : ................... Sex ............................................... ~ ................... .~ ................... .. ................... : ................... ; ................... : ................... Male i 302 70.4% 451 [ 78.0% [ 591 i 73.2% Female " 127 29.6% 125 [ 22.0% i 216 i 26.8% ............................................... ? ................... .., ................... .* ................... ., ................... : ................... : ................... Age 13-17 : 0 0.0% i 5 ~ 1.0% i 0 i 0.0% 18-30 i 265 61.8% 334 i 58.0% i 483 i 59.8% 31-64 [ 164 38.2% 242 i 42.0% i 320 i 39.3% 65+ : 0 0.0% ~ 3 i 1.0% i 4 ~ .5% : .............................................. : ................... .,. ................... ; ................... : ................... .~. ................... : ................. Residence .............................................. ..~ ...................,,. ................... .,. ................... : ................... ; ................... £ ................... Albemade : 107 24.9% 128 i 22.2% i 233 i 28.9% Charlottesville [ 212 49.4% 269 i 46.7% ~ 251 [ 31.1% Fluvanna i 12 [ 2 8% ~ 14 [ 2.4% i 24 ~ 3.0% Goochland i 17 4.0% 20 i 3.5% i 10 [ 1.2% ..... '~'i~'~ .................................................................................................................................................... ~ 21 . 4.9% 25 i 4.3% i 53~ 6 60/0 ...............................................Louisa ~ ............ §~ ........... 7.0% 31 [ 5.4% [ 56 [ 6.9% Madmen .' 17 4.0% 37 ! 6.4% ! 31 ! 3.8% ............................................... ~. ................. ~. .................. ~. ................... : ................... : ................... : .................. Nelson 0 0.0% ~ 6 [ 1.0% ~ 19 [ 2.3% Orange 13 3.0% ' 46 i 8.0% ~ 47 i 5.8% Source: OAR/Jefferson Area Community Corrections 32 · Case Closures Figure 1 shows that case closures amounted to 426 in FY1997 and 629 in FY1998. Unsuccessful cases were 10.9% of closures in FY1997; in FY1998 the ratio increased to 15.9% (Figure 6). Success rates (Figure 7) reflected this increase in unsuccessful cases: the FY1997 success rate was 88%; in FY1998 it was 72%. Figure 6. Case closures by successful/unsuccessful status, FY 1997, FY1998. 700 -- 600 .......................................................................... ~ ...... 400 -- 300--- 100 -- O-- Soume: OAR/Jelferson Area Comm~,W Con'ecttom Figure 7. Monthly/annual success rates, FY1997, FY1998. 100% .... 90% - 80% - 70% -- 60% -- 50%-- Source: OAPJJefferson Area Community Correc~ons 33 A review of unsuccessful closures shows that technical violations have increased from 43 in 1997 to 99 in 1998 (Figure 8), an increase a 125% increase. As a percent of closures, technical violations increased from 10.7% of closures in 1997 to 16.2% in 1998. Figure 8. Unsuccessful closures by type of breach, FY1997, FY1998. 120-- O-- · Restitution, Court Costs and Collection Rates Figure 9 shows that total restitution and court costs collected from offenders during FY1996 and FY1997 were approximately $60,000; restitution amounted to 78% of the total (or $48,384) in FY1996 and 74% (or $44,117) in FY1997. In 1998 the total collected for both categories increased by 72.1% over the previous year. The increase is accounted for by an almost doubling of restitution payments. Figure 9. Restituion and court costs collected, FY1996 to FY 1998. $120,000 -- $100,000 $80,000 .... $60,000 ...... $40.000 $20.000 ....... $0 34 · Comparison with Statewide Statistics Table 3. Comparison of Virginia and local area statistics, FY1997 only. Virginia Thomas Jefferson Area New placements 20,937 576 Restored to active N/A 72 Carryover from FY1996 N/A 331 Total case pool N/A 979 Community service hours (CSH) performed 443,900 hrs 14,929 Average CSH per case N/A 15.25 Average CSH per new placement 21.20 25.92 Restitution collected :$590,853 $44,117 Average restitution per case N/A $45.06 Average restitution per new placement $28.22 $76.59 Court costs collected $772,850 $15,210 Average court costs collected per case N/A $15.54 .................................................... o .................................. . ........................................................ ,{ .......................................................... Average court costs collected per new placement $36.91 $26.41 Program Cost $8.11 million $208,802 ................................................................................................. ,a .............................................. a .......................................................... Program cost per supervision day $2.74 $1.52 Program cost per case N/A $213.28 ............................ . .................................................................... · .............................................. · .......................................................... Program cost per new placement $387.27 $362.50 ............................................................................................................................................... · .......................................................... Overall success rate 73% 88% Source: OAR/Jefferson Area Community Correction; DCJS Due to the unavailability of some information at the statewide level (cases restored to active status and Carry-overs from previous years), some comparisons with statewide information cannot be made. If the case pool is redefined as new placements, however, a broad comparison can be undertaken. Overall, higher average levels of community service hours and restitution per case were registered by OAR than was the statewide average in FY1997. Court costs collected per case were lower than the statewide average. Cost per supervision day and per new placement were lower at OAR and success rates were higher than the statewide average. 36 Discussion The most obvious change in program operations during FY1998 is the 35.5% increase in the size of the case pool. This translated into a 16.2% increase in the average caseload per case manager. In terms of case referrals, most of the growth resulted from increasing referrals from the Albemarle County courts. Increases were also recorded in referrals from Madison County and Greene County. Drug-related first offenses 'are also believed to have increased significantly This increase comes during a year when program success rates declined by 16 percentage points, leading to the possibility that there is a connection between growing case levels and declining success rates. The most immediate hypothesis suggests that the staff must distribute a fixed supply of supervision hours across more cases, resulting in an average reduction of supervision per case. In addition, the increased stress of supervising a larger case load could lead to declining quality of supervision. Increasing technical violations potentially indicate a case management staff that is increasing its level of supervision per case; greater attention to client activities leads to increased likelihood of detecting technical violations. According to ease managers, however, declining success rates have resulted from increasing use of drug testing by the courts, and from increasingly specific instructions from judges. This permits a closer and more effective level of supervision, resulting in a larger number of violations. Declining success rates, it should be noted, reflect on the performance of offenders. They do not necessarily reflect unsuccessful program administration. Another observation deserving discussion is the increased level of collections for restitution. This 60% increase in 1998 over 1997 may be due to the combined effects of increasing referrals and in increased vigilance in making collections and recording payments. Unfortunately, we do not know the level of restitutions imposed by the court and are, therefore, unable to determine the payment rate or to determine if improved program operations can be credited. The foregoing discussion relies on informal staff input. It points to a data system that is not adequate for program assessment. Further exploration of the issues raised above will require use of case-based information. Such information could be extracted from case files and computerized. This would require considerable staff resources (currently not available). The Department of Criminal Justice Services is currently developing a statewide system for computerized case record management. This will allow the Jefferson Area CCJB to explore program utilization patterns in some detail and to learn about criteria that lead to cost-effective program success. The development of the system is currently projected for completion in February 1999; introduction to local community corrections programs should follow shortly thereat~er. Programs are asked to key all FY1998 records into the system. 37 Recommendations 1. A "model" (or theory) of program success should be developed, together with a system of relevant indicators. The model should include definitions of effectiveness, efficiency and outcomes and should concern itself with impacts on the courts, defendants, victims and other community organizations. 2. A valid risk-assessment tool should be identified (or developed) and implemented for court reporting and for program assessment and planning. 3. The CCJB and local probation program should facilitate the early introduction of the statewide case management system currently under development by DCJS and develop local changes to the system to suit regional information needs. The system should provide greater detail, for example, in tracking specific types of technical violations. 4. A local program for report auditing should be implemented to ensure the highest level of data integrity possible. 38 Glossary Inactive Case A case is considered inactive when supervision has been suspended. These cases have not been closed however, supervision days are not counted. This may occur when: 1. A show cause has been issued and supervision has ceased; 2. A defendant or offender has returned to confinement for more than two (2) days; 3. For pretrial, a capias has been issued for failure to comply with the conditions of release (for post trial, this would result in a case closure); 4. A defendant or offender has been transferred out to an established PSA or CCCA program in another jurisdiction. New Placement A placement that is opened for the fa'st time. Other (Case Closure Category) A case is closed due to one of the following actions: 1. Defendants who are arrested on an old warrant, detainer or capias and who are revoked from bail; 2. Revocation of bail for the protection of the defendant; 3. Death of a defendant or offender while under supervision; 4. Defendants and offenders removed by court action due to new case information; 5. Offenders removed from supervision by court action due to a previous offense of concurrent offense(s) which result in incarceration or placement in another supervision program. Placement An action either by a judicial officer as a result of a bail determination or by court order requiring a defendant or offender to be supervised by a program or agency established under the authority of the PSA or CCCA. This requires an actual release from confinement. Successful Completion A defendant or offender approved by any judicial officer as having met the conditions of a pre or post trial supervision. Technical Violation A case is closed unsuccessfully when a defendant or offender has significantly failed to comply with (violates) the terms and conditions of pretrial release or post trial supervision including removal due to intractable behavior Unsuccessful Completion Removal from supervision by the court for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of pretrial or post-trial supervision. For post-trial this includes the issuance of a capias for failure to comply with the court order. For pretrial this includes the issuance of a capias for failure to appear in court. 39