ks-jr-wkgrp-3-pres-final

Justice Reinvestment in Kansas 3rd Working Group Meeting October 29, 2012 Andy Barbee, Research Manager Anne Bettesworth, Policy Analyst

Council of State Governments Justice Center • National non-profit, non-partisan membership association of state government officials • Engages members of all three branches of state government

• Justice Center provides practical, nonpartisan advice informed by the best available evidence

Council of State Governments Justice Center

2

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 Justice Center

3

Justice Reinvestment Focuses on Four Evidence-Based Strategies 1. Focus on the people most likely to commit crime 2. Use programs proven to work and ensure they are high quality 3. Deploy supervision policies and practices that balance sanctions and treatment 4. Target places where crime and recidivism rates are the highest

Council of State Governments Justice Center

4

Kansas Prison Population to Grow 23% Over Next Ten Years 12,000

Kansas Prison Population

10,250 9,370

9,181

8,500

8,610 9% increase from July 2009 through June 2012.

6,750

11,484

Up 23% from 2012 to 2022

Cost of projected increase exceeds $125 M

5,000

Sources: Kansas Sentencing Commission, 2013 Prison Population Projection, August 2012

Council of State Governments Justice Center

5

Justice Reinvestment Process Bipartisan , bicameral, inter-branch working group Phase I

Phase 2

Analyze Data and Develop Policy Options

Implement New Policies

• Analyze data to look at crime, court, corrections, and supervision trends

• Identify assistance needed to implement policies effectively

• Solicit input from stakeholders • Map allocation of resources

• Develop policy options & estimate cost savings

• Deploy targeted reinvestment strategies to increase public safety • Track the impact of enacted policies/programs • Monitor recidivism rates and other key measures

Council of State Governments Justice Center

6

Wrapping Up Detailed Analysis and Developing Policy Framework Phase I

Analyze Data & Develop Policy Options

Collect and examine quantitative data  Reported crime & arrests  Court dispositions & sentencing  Court services, community corrections & post-release supervision  Prison admissions, population & releases

Develop and present a comprehensive analysis of the state’s criminal justice system

Engage stakeholders       

Law enforcement Judges County/district attorneys & defense counsel Victim advocates County officials Supervision agencies Behavioral Health Treatment Providers

June - October Council of State Governments Justice Center

Develop a framework of policy options that together would increase public safety and reduce/avert taxpayer spending

November - December

7

Data Used to Inform Analyses Data*

Source

Status

KSC

Received

Judiciary

Received

DOC

Received

Prison Admissions, Releases, & DOC Annual Population Snapshot

Received

Parole/Post-Release Supervision

DOC

Received

Arrests

KBI

Prohibited by State Law

Felony Sentences Court Services Community Corrections

* Denotes case specific records at person level. Court Services data are the exception as they were available only in aggregate form.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

8

Presentation Overview

Crime Challenges

Probation Under Strain

Reentry and Victim Issues

Council of State Governments Justice Center

9

Kansas Faces Three Public Safety Challenges That Are Also Contributing to Growth in the Corrections System

1

Crime – Statewide crime rate is lower than national averages,

2

Probation – Kansas has taken steps to strengthen supervision

3

Reentry – Recidivism has fallen thanks to successful efforts,

but law enforcement resources are challenged by rising or higher rates of crime in certain communities and with particular populations.

in the community, but the locally-driven community corrections system's resources are now strained.

but opportunities exist to broaden these gains and better address the needs of victims.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

10

Presentation Overview

Crime Challenges

Probation Under Strain

Reentry and Victim Issues

Council of State Governments Justice Center

11

Summary of Crime Findings

Crime is down when viewed as a statewide average, but... ď ą More than 60% of counties face rising crime or have rates exceeding the statewide average. ď ą More than half of all counties are experiencing significant increases in domestic violence.

ď ą Constrained resources are limiting ability of law enforcement to be more effective in preventing crime.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

12

Declines in Reported Index Crime which Index Arrests Have Begun Tracking Property

Violent

20,000

16,000 12,000

Reported Index Crimes

120,000

% Change Reported Crime

2006 2011

2009 2011

Property

- 13%

- 1%

Violent

- 8%

- 9%

Property

% Change Index Arrests

2006 2011

2009 2011

Violent

Property

+ 14%

- 1%

- 1%

- 8%

Property Violent

8,000

100,000 80,000 60,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 12,000 9,000

Arrests for Index Crimes

6,000 3,000

Violent

0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Sources: Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Crime Statistics by Year.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

13

Feedback from Law Enforcement Officials Emerging Challenges  Few options for addressing mental health issues when responding to calls for service  Increased amount of time spent transporting offenders (esp. behavioral health crisis)  Backlogs at KBI prevent timely processing of crime scene evidence  Need for greater data sharing across systems and agencies  Local budget cuts leading to reductions in force  Large geographical distances being covered by too few officers

Characteristics of Crime  Drugs and alcohol frequently a contributing factor to criminal activity  Rising domestic violence incidents

Accountability  Perceived lack of accountability for those on supervision when violating conditions Council of State Governments Justice Center

14

Despite Overall Statewide Declines in Crime, Many Counties Face Increasing Crime % Change: 2006-11 Violent Crime Rate 0% Washington Barber Gray Hodgeman Meade Cowley Cheyenne Osborne Norton McPherson Woodson Pratt Cloud Saline Doniphan Barton Russell Labette

50%

% Change: 2006-11 Property Crime Rate 0%

100% 150% 200%

5 counties w/ growth in excess of 200% (3 counties excl. due to reporting anomalies)

Statewide violent crime rate decreased 11% during same timeframe.

Ford Cowley Norton Sheridan Morris Phillips Osage Pratt Osborne Graham Rush Bourbon Gray Wichita Sumner Cloud Neosho

50%

100%

150%

200%

5 counties w/ growth in excess of 200%

Statewide property crime rate decreased 16% during same timeframe.

Sources: Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Crime Statistics by Year.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

15

Even if Crime Declined, Many Counties Still Well Above Average Crime Rates 2011 Violent Crime Rate per 10,000 0 Sedgwick Wyandotte Labette Montgomery Shawnee Leavenworth Geary Cloud Woodson Reno Russell Ford Harvey Cowley Douglas Hodgeman Finney Statewide

25

50

2011 Property Crime Rate per 10,000 0

75

65

National violent crime rate = 40.

35

Wyandotte Shawnee Reno Saline Sedgwick Crawford Douglas Bourbon Barton Montgomery Lyon Labette Sumner Ford Cowley Statewide

150

300

450

600

541

National property crime rate = 294.

301

Sources: Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Crime Statistics by Year, and FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2010.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

16

64 of 105 Counties Have Increasing Crime or Rates Higher than the Statewide Average Increasing Crime

Rates Higher than State Average

Both

Butler − Robbery

Cowley − − − −

Leavenworth − Agg. Assault − Burglary

Reno

Shawnee

Sedgwick − Burglary

− Robbery − Theft

Agg. Assault Burglary Theft MV Theft

− Agg. Assault − Burglary

Saline − Rape − Agg. Assault

Wyandotte − Rape − Burglary

Sources: Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Crime Statistics by Year.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

17

Beyond “Index” Crimes...

Reports of Domestic Violence Increasing 27,500 25,000

Domestic Violence Incidents: 2006 - 2011 24,159 23,077

2011 DV Incidents highest in history of reporting  12% increase since 2008

22,500

21,500

20,000

13% increase in domestic violence arrests during same time period

17,500 15,000

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Number of domestic violence homicides related rose from 17 in FY 2007 to 28 in FY 2011. − Representing a 65% increase Sources: Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Annual Reports on Domestic Violence, Stalking, and Rape in Kansas.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

18

56 of 105 Counties Had Increased Reports of Domestic Violence Since 2006

Additional 2,456 DV Incidents from 2006-11

Counties experiencing increased reports of DV incidents accounted for a 19% increase from FY 2006 to FY 2011.

Sources: Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Annual Reports on Domestic Violence, Stalking, and Rape in Kansas.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

19

Crime Prevention Hampered Due to Insufficient KBI Capacity to Process Evidence Long Waits for Analysis Results − DNA ~ 1 Year − Toxicology ~ 9 Months

Based on Survey of Local Law Enforcement by KBI:

35% of KS law enforcement agencies use their own funds to use a private lab

Lack of Adequate Physical Lab Space

25% of cases were dismissed or had charges reduced due to KBI processing delays

Challenges finding, training, and retaining technicians

75% of prosecutors said they had cases ready to prosecute but couldn't due to KBI processing delays

Sources: Interview with KBI Director Kirk Thompson

Council of State Governments Justice Center

20

Johnson County: Case Study of Specialized Police-Based Response to People with Mental Illness Johnson Co. received a grant in 2010 to pilot a “co-responder” approach, which is a partnership between: • Johnson County Mental Health • Olathe Police Department • Johnson County Sheriffs Office

 Qualified Mental Health Professional

+  Police Officer (at scene where mental illness is suspected)

=

Co-Responder Model

Preliminary result indicate success. Of 442 cases, only 5 resulted in jail admission/charges.

Compared to the same period of time the previous year:

– Time spent on calls involving a mental illness dropped 36%, from 69 to 44 minutes.

– Hospital trips decreased 75%, from 20 to 5 trips.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

21

We Want Even More Input from Law Enforcement and Created a Survey Asking About...

Department Characteristics & Jurisdiction Trends Jail Capacity Crime Analysis & Prevention

Processing Crime Scene Evidence

Results will be in by midNovember!

Mental Health Training & Transport

Council of State Governments Justice Center

22

Presentation Overview

Crime Challenges

Probation Under Strain

Reentry and Victim Issues

Council of State Governments Justice Center

23

Summary of Probation Findings

Despite modest growth in felony probation population, revocations are on the rise contributing to prison growth.  17% increase in rate of revocations to prison since FY 2009 – almost exclusively conditions violators.  Most revoked high-risk probationers do not receive adequate programming in community.

 Successful, low-risk probationers are being supervised as long as high-risk probationers.  Barriers exist to more effective supervision practices.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

24

Probation Revocations to Prison Have Increased Almost 25% Past Three Years 2,000

1,841

1,759 1,500

1,479

1,000

After a decline in revocations from FY07 to FY09, they have since risen by 24%.

500

0

Sources: Kansas Sentencing Commission, Felony Sentencing Case Data, and 2013 Prison Population Projection, August 2012

Council of State Governments Justice Center

Only one-quarter of Community Corrections revocations involve “presumptive prison” or “border box” offenders.

25

Most Probationers Revoked to Prison Have Behavioral Health Needs 1,200 1,000 800

FY 2011 Probation Revocations to Prison Indicating BH Needs 993 58% of adms

 58% had SA score of 4 or higher  17% had MH score of 3 or higher

600 400

291 17% of adms

200 0

SA Score 4+  SA Scores range from 0 to 9 and are based on nine questions within the substance abuse domain within the LSI-R risk assessment.

(A score of 4 means that four of the nine questions were answered in the affirmative.)

Sources: Kansas Dept. of Corrections, Prison Admissions and Inmate Assessment Case Data.

Of FY 2011 Probation Revocations

 12% had both

MH Score 3+  MH Scores range from 1 to 7 and are based on a continuum of MH programming intensity.

For comparison, only 16% of the successfully terminated CC probationers had an SA score of 4 or higher.

1. Not currently requiring MH

2. Receives time-limited mental health services 3. Receives on-going mental health services that may include medication management 4. Receives special needs treatment monitoring 5. Placed in mental health structured reintegration program at LCF-TRU 6. Placed in intensive mental health placement at LCMHF or TCF-MHU 7. Hospitalization at LSSH

Council of State Governments Justice Center

26

Successful Probationers Are Twice as Likely to Receive Programming as Those Revoked FY 2011 Total CC Terminations

Of successful mod/high risk terminations:

4,881 Low Risk

4% Revoked

Mod Risk

37% Revoked

High Risk

ďƒź 57% completed two or more behavioral health programming interventions.

Of the mod/high risk revocations: ďƒź Only 31% completed two or more behavioral health programming interventions.

76% Revoked

Sources: Kansas Dept. of Corrections, Community Corrections Case Data.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

27

Higher Risk Probationers with Behavioral Health Needs Cost the State $20 million Annually when Revoked Moderate/High Risk Probation Condition Violators with Behavioral Health Needs Revoked to Prison in FY 2011

787

 Avg. stay in prison = 365 days  Average cost per day = $70

$20 million annually

 76% of these revocations were non SB123 probationers. − −

$20m can buy a One-third had zero behavioral health interventions great deal of One-quarter had only one behavioral health intervention effective programming.

Sources: Kansas Dept. of Corrections, Community Corrections, Prison Admissions and Inmate Assessment Case Data, and FY 2011 Annual Report.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

28

Graduated Sanctions Coupled with Targeted Programs and Supervision Are Less Costly than Traditional Approaches − Unlikely to receive programs in prison to reduce risk

Ineffective Practice

− No supervision upon release to monitor risk & mitigate

12 months incarceration

~0% recidivism reduction $25,500 cost per person

Effective Practice

3 months incarceration

3 month program in the community ~18 months remaining on supervision

Council of State Governments Justice Center

~20% recidivism reduction $13,800 cost per person 29

Probation Agencies Indicate Challenges to Providing Successful Supervision Uniform LSI-R cut-off scores are not used across the state for purposes of sentencing to probation.

Officers are unable to move an offender between Community Corrections and Court Services.

Court Services and Community Corrections not truly distinguished according to risk level.

There is no standardized grid of progressive sanctions for responding to violations.

Sanctions lack speed; much time elapses between motion to revoke filing and the hearing date.

Accountability weakened.

Many agencies cannot impose a brief jail stay without going back to court.

Officers spend excessive time in court due to continuances and postponements.

Restitution-only cases comprise significant share of caseload; they still require officer face time.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

Probation officers spend valuable time on matters unrelated to public safety.

30

Low-Risk Community Corrections Probationers Spend As Long on Supervision as High-Risk Probationers Months on Probation for Community Corrections Terminations

Low Risk

Moderate Risk

High Risk

24 months

25 months

22 months

4%

37%

76%

Revocation Rate

Revocation Rate

Revocation Rate

Other states have found ways to better target resources towards higher risk probationers, often through the use of incentive-based earned discharge options for low-risk probationers.

Sources: Kansas Dept. of Corrections, Community Corrections Case Data.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

31

More than Half of Probation Condition Violators Released from Prison to No Supervision 2,000

Probation Condition Violators Released from Prison 1,582 total probation condition violators released from prison in FY 2011.

1,500 1,000 500

Releases to No Supervision

890 in FY 2011 (56% of tot rels)

0 FY 2007

FY 2008

FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

In stark contrast to PRS, where there are capped revocation responses ensuring programming and return to supervision, most probation condition violators:  Exhaust sentence in prison,  Receive little or no programming, and  Are returned to the community without any further supervision.

Sources: Kansas Dept. of Corrections, Prison Release and Inmate Assessment Case Data

Council of State Governments Justice Center

32

Presentation Overview

Crime Challenges

Probation Under Strain

Reentry and Victim Issues

Council of State Governments Justice Center

33

Summary of Reentry-Related Findings

Kansas has demonstrated success in reducing recidivism for those released to post-release supervision, and there are opportunities to expand that success even further.  Increased delivery of behind-the-walls programming for those in need and resulting reductions in recidivism.  As with probation, supervision resources unnecessarily devoted to low-risk PRS population.  Many obstacles to preservation of victims’ interests identified by advocates.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

34

Post-Release Supervision Revocations Down Almost 25% Since FY 2007 Post-Release Supervision Revocations

1,400 1,200

1,234

Cond. Vio.

New Off. 955

1,000 800 600 400 200

200

141

0

PRS Supervision

FY 2007

FY 2011

% Change

Releases to PRS

3,393

3,427

+ 1%

Supervised Pop.

5,626

5,938

+ 6%

During the past five years, while the numbers on postrelease supervision have risen:

ďƒź PRS condition violation revocations have declined 23% ďƒź PRS new offense revocations have declined 30%

Sources: Kansas Sentencing Commission, 2013 Prison Population Projection, August 2012, and Kansas Department of Corrections Annual Reports.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

35

Programming in Prison Has Increased Tenfold Since FY 2007 Prisoners with Behavioral Health Needs Released to Post-Release Supervision

FY 2007

FY 2009

FY 2011

1,822 PRS Rels

1,961 PRS Rels

2,006 PRS Rels

6%

41%

64%

Received BH Programming

Received BH Programming

Received BH Programming

Passage of legislation to expand and incentivize participation in risk reduction programming.

Ideal is to deliver programming to 100% of those in need.

Sources: Kansas Dept. of Corrections, Prison Release and Inmate Assessment Case Data

Council of State Governments Justice Center

36

Low-Risk Post-Release Supervision Clients Spend As Long on Supervision as High-Risk Clients Months on Probation for Post-Release Supervision Terminations

Low Risk

Moderate Risk

High Risk

31 months

22 months

17 months

Other states have found ways to better target resources towards higher risk parolees, often through the use of incentive-based earned discharge options for low-risk parolees.

Sources: Kansas Dept. of Corrections, Parole/Post-Release Supervision Case Data.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

37

Victim Advocate Feedback Need to enhance prioritization of issues surrounding the crime of domestic violence

Inadequate victim services, especially in rural areas Insufficient training and oversight of victim witness coordinators

No automated victim notification system A need to strengthen restitution collection Council of State Governments Justice Center

38

Kansas’ Restitution Collection Policies Present Opportunities for Better Practices  Begin collecting restitution from inmates earlier than current practice (i.e. before work release).  Expand funds from which restitution can be collected (i.e. tax return garnishments, other inmate deposits).  Only allow commissary purchases for inmates who are up to date in meeting restitution obligations (either in whole or in accordance with a payment plan).  Ensure that parole/PRS officers have easy access to payment history/amount owed.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

39

Victim-Witness Coordinators & DOC Need More Access to Training & Resources for Improving Notification  Funding for training of victim-witness coordinators has dwindled as grant funds diminish.  Victim notification of offender movement is not electronic like most states. Rather, in Kansas it’s typically done through traditional paper mail or phone calls.  There is little consistency across the state regarding the kinds of services a victim-witness coordinator provides.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

40

Other JR States Have Addressed Issues with Victim Restitution, Notification and Services

JR in Ohio

JR in Hawaii

 Called for a Blue Ribbon Commission to study and recommend statewide restitution practices

 Increased funding for victimwitness coordinators  Improved restitution polices  Supported an updated victim notification system Council of State Governments Justice Center

41

Key Findings from the Data Analyses and Stakeholder Engagement Many locations dealing with crime challenges

Challenges to probation effectiveness

 Majority of counties experiencing either rising crime or higher than average rates

 Rising revocations to prison

 Significant resource challenges

 Lack of programming for high risk probationers with behavioral health needs  Barriers to effective supervision Council of State Governments Justice Center

Opportunities to build upon re-entry successes  Post-release supervision unnecessarily long for low risk groups  Obstacles to collecting restitution, notifying victims, and training coordinators 42

Principles to Guide Development of Policy Framework 1. Focus on the people most likely to commit crime

Are valuable supervision resources focused on those who are high risk and needs?

2. Use programs proven to work and ensure they are high quality

Is there enough programming capacity in the community to promote public safety outcomes?

3. Deploy supervision policies and practices that balance sanctions and treatment

Does supervision graduate sanctions and promote accountability through swift/certain sanctions balanced with incentives?

4. Target places where crime and Does local law enforcement have the tools it recidivism rates are the needs to protect community? highest Council of State Governments Justice Center

43

Timeline and Next Steps Date

Activity

May-June

• Data Collection

June 6

• Bill Signing

June 13

• Working Group Meeting

July-October

• Detailed Data Analysis • Stakeholder Engagement

September 5

• Working Group Meeting

October-November

• Policy Framework Development • Stakeholder Consultation

October 29

• Working Group Meeting

November-December

• Policy Option Vetting

December 7

• Working Group Meeting

Council of State Governments Justice Center

44

Appendix of Additional Analyses

Felony Sentencing Trends

Additional Probation Analyses

Council of State Governments Justice Center

45

Increase in Guilty Disposition Rate Has Yielded More Felony Sentences 2007 Guilty Disps

10,750

19,534

14,893

New Felony Sentences* * Unduplicated, most severe punishment, excludes probation revocations.

2011 Felony Case Filings

19,608

Guilty dispositions as a percent of all felony filings increased from: ď ą 76% in 2007, to ď ą 82% in 2011.

Yielded

Felony Case Filings

Yielded

Guilty Disps

11,932

16,041

New Felony Sentences*

=

11% increase in new felony sentences

0.3% growth in filings Sources: Kansas Judicial Branch, Annual Reports; Kansas Sentencing Commission, Felony Sentencing Case Data.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

46

Large Increase in Number of Offenders Falling in Higher Severity Levels of Grids “Grid” Sentences Criminal History

Presumptive Prison

Offense Severity

 25% of FY 2008 Grid Sentences  29% of FY 2011 Grid Sentences

+ 577 offenders Border Box Presumptive Probation

 66% of FY 2008 Grid Sentences  60% of FY 2011 Grid Sentences

 9% of FY 2008 Grid Sentences  11% of FY 2011 Grid Sentences

- 159 offenders

+ 185 offenders

 Net increase of 603 offenders in higher severity levels Sources: Kansas Sentencing Commission, Felony Sentencing Case Data.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

47

More than One-Quarter of Prison Sentences Are “Presumptive Probation” Offenders While 12% of “presumptive probationers” are sentenced to prison, they account for 26% of all new sentences to prison.

Sentences of Presumptive Probationers

Sentences 745

FY11 = 6,172

To Prison FY11 = 2,887

12% of 6,172

26% of 2,887

Sources: Kansas Sentencing Commission, Felony Sentencing Case Data.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

48

Special Rules Largely Account for “Presumptive Probationers” Receiving Prison Sentences FY 2008 Presumptive Probationers Sentenced to Prison

78% due to Special Rule

610

FY 2011 Presumptive Probationers Sentenced to Prison

84% due to Special Rule

745 Sources: Kansas Sentencing Commission, Felony Sentencing Case Data.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

58% of those sentenced under “Special Rule” were sentenced under SR #9 Commissionofofoffense offensewhile while Commission alreadyon onfelony felonyprobation, probation, already parole/post-release parole/post-release supervision,conditional conditional supervision, release,or orincarcerated incarceratedon onaa release, felonyoffense. offense.Court Court“may” “may” felony imposeprison. prison.However, However, impose sentenceimposed imposedmust mustbe be sentence consecutivetotopre-existing pre-existing consecutive case. case.

49

90% of “Presumptive Probation” Sentences to Prison Involve Nonviolent Offenses Offense Type

FY 2011 Sentences of Offenders Falling in Presumptive Probation Total Sentenced

# to Prison

% to Prison

6,172

745

12%

730

72

10%

Property

2,754

388

14%

Drug

1,654

92

6%

Other

1,034

193

19%

Total Violent

VIO 10%

DRUG PROP 52%

12%

OTH 26%

 More than half of the “property” offenses are theft.  The “other” offenses involve escape from custody, obstructing legal process, fleeing or eluding a law enforcement officer (2 or more priors of same), criminal threat, aggravated failure to appear...

Sources: Kansas Sentencing Commission, Felony Sentencing Case Data.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

50

Modest Growth in the Number Sentenced to Probation New Sentences to Probation

15,000 12,000 9,000

11,310

10,338

8,270

7,747

6,000

3,000

Misdemeanor probation placements have increased 9% since FY07. − All misdemeanor probationers are supervised

by Court Services.

Felony probation placements have increased 7% since FY07.

0

Roughly one-quarter of felony probation sentences involve “presumptive prison” or “border box” offenders.

− About two-thirds of felony probationers are supervised

by Community Corrections.

− The remainder are supervised by Court Services.

Sources: Kansas Sentencing Commission, Felony Sentencing Case Data.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

51

Number Supervised by Court Services Has Increased 11% Since FY 2007 Court Services Supervision Population 15,000

12,000

13,207

11,657

The misdemeanor supervision population has increased by over 1,700 offenders (+13%).

9,000 6,000

3,000

3,750

3,557

The felony supervision population has increased by over 200 offenders (+5%).

0

Sources: Kansas Judicial Branch, Court Services Fiscal Year Reports.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

52

Court Services Revokes Only 15% of Cases Court Services Misdemeanor Probation Terminations Misd. Terminations

FY 2007

FY 2012

Total Terminations

15,184

16,688

Revocations

2,343

2,238

15%

13%

% Revocation

Court Services Felony Probation Terminations Fel. Terminations

FY 2007

FY 2012

Total Terminations

4,618

4,452

939

934

20%

21%

Revocations % Revocation

FY 2012 Total Cases Terminated = 21,140 FY 2012 Total Cases Revoked = 3,172

FY 2012 Revocation Rate = 15.0%

Sources: Kansas Judicial Branch, Court Services Fiscal Year Reports.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

53

Community Corrections Placements Have Increased Less than 5% Since FY 2007

8,000

6,000

Community Corrections Placements 5,685

5,500

3.4% growth since FY 2007

4,000

2,000 FY 2007

FY 2008

FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

Sources: Kansas Dept. of Corrections, Community Corrections Case Data.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

54

Probationers Are Spending Almost 20% Longer on Supervision Months on Probation for CC Terminations

0 All Terms

10

20 FY07 FY11 FY07 FY11

Success Revs

30

FY07 FY11

 19% increase in months on supervision FY07-11 − 20mos to 24mos

 29% increase for “presumptive probationers” − 18mos to 24mos

The increased length of supervision does not seem to be related to success or failure on probation.

Sources: Kansas Dept. of Corrections, Community Corrections Case Data.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

55

Number Supervised by Community Corrections Has Increased 5% Since FY 2007 Community Corrections Population 10,000 8,000

7,800

7,406

6,000 4,000 2,000 0

FY 2006

FY 2010

FY 2012

Modest growth in Community Corrections placements (+3%) and supervised population (+5%) actually mask other, more worrisome underlying trends... ďƒź Increasing revocations ďƒź Increasing lengths of supervision

Sources: Kansas Department of Corrections Annual Reports.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

56

Thank You Anne Bettesworth Policy Analyst, Justice Reinvestment abettesworth@csg.org

This material was prepared for the State of Kansas. The presentation was developed by members of the Council of State Governments Justice Center staff.

Because presentations are not subject to the same rigorous review process as other printed materials, the statements made reflect the views of the authors, and should not be considered the official position of the Justice Center, the members of the Council of State Governments, or the funding agency supporting the work.

Council of State Governments Justice Center

57