Transcript SB123 - National Association of Sentencing Commissions

Examining Kansas SB 123: Mandatory Probation and Treatment
Don Stemen, Loyola University Chicago
The Honorable Richard Smith, Kansas Sentencing Commission
Kelly Goodwin, Johnson County Public Defender’s Officer
Thomas J. Drees, Ellis County Attorney’s Office
National Association of Sentencing Commissions Conference
Chicago, August 6, 2012
Slide 1
This research is funded by NIJ grant # 2006-IJ-CX-4032
State-wide approaches to communitybased drug treatment
Mandatory Treatment Initiatives
Increased Treatment Initiatives
General goals of probation/treatment laws
targeting drug offenders
□System-Level Goals
□ Change sentencing practices to divert drug offenders from
prison at sentencing.
□ Increase the availability of treatment for drug offenders.
□ Reduce the number of drug offenders in prison.
□Individual-Level Goals
□ Improve outcomes for drug offenders by reducing
recidivism and substance abuse.
General problems encountered in
implementation of probation/treatment laws
□Small or narrowly-defined target populations
□Front-end and back-end net-widening
□Traditional focus on supervision/enforcement
rather than treatment
Content of SB 123
□Creates mandatory sentence of up to 18 months of
community corrections supervision and treatment.
□Eligibility restricted to 1st- or 2nd- offense drug
possession w/out a prior conviction for a person,
drug sale, or drug manufacture offense.
□Relies on a network of existing community-based
drug treatment providers.
□Seeks to create a treatment focused approach to
community-based sentences for drug possessors.
Implementation Issue I:
Front-End Net-Widening
Sentences for SB 123-eligible cases, pre- and
post implementation
Sentences for SB 123-eligible cases, pre- and
post implementation
Sentences for SB 123-eligible cases, pre- and
post implementation
Mean sentence lengths for SB 123-eligible
cases, pre- and post implementation
Implementation Issue II:
Circumvention
Sentences for SB 123-eligible cases, pre- and
post implementation
Implementation of SB 123
Some SB 123-eligible cases do not receive
treatment
3+ property
offenses
No criminal
history
Some SB 123-ineligible cases receive
treatment
3+ violent
offenses
3+ property
offenses
No criminal
history
Implementation Issue III:
Concentration of Treatment
SB 123 cases concentrated in just a few
counties
SB 123 treatment concentrated in just a few
providers
Implications and
Recommendations
Some conclusions about SB 123
□SB 123 increased the provision of treatment to
target population of drug possessors
□SB 123 helped achieve a shift in perspective
within probation
□SB 123 helped achieve a shift in perspective
among courtroom actors
□SB 123 encouraged innovation among local
communities
Some implications that may be common to
statewide initiatives
□Disagreement about program goals across
system actors
□ Gatekeepers emphasized system-level goals;
administrators emphasized individual-level goals
□“One size fits all” approach has both benefits and
drawbacks
□ Geographic diversity necessitated flexibility in
implementation; but it also affected fidelity
Some recommendations for mandatory
probation/treatment programs
□Maintain mandatory probation without mandating
a particular form of probation
□ Allow traditional judicial discretion to determine type of
probation based on risk/needs assessment; preserve
intensive supervision for those with higher levels of risk
□Preserve mandatory treatment only for those
assessed to need treatment
□ Allow probation discretion to determine mandatory
treatment based on substance abuse assessment; preserve
mandatory treatment only for those with high needs
SB 123 Structure and Practice
KANSAS SB 123 Drug Possession Sentencing
Prison Reduction
Fiscal Year
Level 4
Total
Drug
Sentences Sentences
(%)
SB 123
Sentences
(%)
Direct
Revocation
Total
2004 *
13,049
2,245
18.8
360 *
2.8 *
85
41
126
2005
13,517
2,764
20.4
1,105
8.2
115
128
243
2006
13,456
3,016
22.4
1,359
10.1
133
154
287
2007
12,646
2,932
23.2
1,261
10.0
151
144
295
2008
13,710
2,875
21.0
1,319
9.6
168
150
318
2009
13,401
2,555
19.1
1,166
8.7
124
127
251
2010
13,810
2,566
18.6
1,062
7.7
135
124
259
2011
14,003
2,527
18.0
1,072
7.7
142
162
304
107,592
21,691
20.2
8,704
8.1
1,053
1,030
2,083
Total 8 Years
*SB 123 Effective
11/1/2003
Direct Prison Admission Reduction
12%
11.10%
10%
9.60%
9.10%
8.70%
8.10%
8%
7.00%
6%
4.70%
4.20%
3.80%
4%
3.60%
2.70%
2%
0%
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Post SB 123
2004
2005
Pre SB 123
2006
2007
2008
2009
Probation Revocation to Prison Reduction
30%
26.90%
25.80%
25%
26.30%
23.90%
22.10%
20%
15.00%
15%
15.40%
14.60%
11.10%
10%
4.90%
5%
0.00%
0%
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Post SB 123
2004
2005
Pre SB 123
2006
2007
2008
2009
Changes in prison admissions due to
SB 123
Fiscal Year
Direct Prison
Admission
Reduction
SB 123 Revocation to
Prison Admission
Reduction
Total Prison
Admission
Reduction
2004
85
41
127
2005
115
128
244
2006
133
154
287
2007
151
144
295
2008
168
150
317
2009
124
127
252
2010
135
124
259
2011
142
162
304
Estimated savings due to SB 123
Fiscal
Year
SB 123
Expenditure
Money
Collected
Actual
SB123 Cost
Prison Cost
Avoidance
Estimated
Money Saved
2004
$ 998,467.75
$15,948.04
$982,519.71
$2,525,000.00
$(1,542,480.29)
2005
$5,106,505.20
$150,224.27
$4,956,280.93
$6,150,000.00
$(1,193,719.07)
2006
$7,861,395.40
$213,588.86
$7,647,806.54
$8,325,000.00
$(677,193.46)
2007
$8,642,249.50
$202,853.89
$8,439,395.61
$8,875,000.00
$(435,604.39)
2008
$8,640,578.25
$229,649.20
$8,410,929.05
$9,875,000.00
$(1,464,070.95)
2009
$7,677,082.00
$382,769.17
$7,294,312.83
$8,450,000.00
$(1,155,687.17)
2010
$7,450,262.75
$405,707.81
$7,044,554.94
$8,650,000.00
$(1,605,445.06)
2011
$7,058,160.50
$314,313.00
$6,743,847.50
$8,775,000.00
$(2,031,152.50)
$53,434,701.35 $ 1,915,054.24 $51,519,647.11
$61,625,000.00
$(10,105,352.89)
Total
SB 123 Level 4D
LSI-R Risk Level
(Score)
SASSI Score
Assessment
Funded
Treatment
Mandatory
Treatment
Funded
High
Y
Y
Y
Low
Y
N
N
High
Y
Y
Y
Low
Y
N
N
High
Y
Y
Y
Low
Y
N
N
High or Low
Y
N
N
I (33 and above)
II (25 - 32)
III (17 - 24)
IV (0 - 16)