Home

Oklahoma Digital Prairie: Documents, Images and Information

Justice reinvestment in Oklahoma : detailed analysis

Reference URL

Add tags

To link to this object, paste this link in email, IM or document
To embed this object, paste this HTML in website

Justice reinvestment in Oklahoma : detailed analysis

View Description

View PDF & Text

Download

small (250x250 max)

medium (500x500 max)

Large

Extra Large

large ( > 500x500)

Full Resolution

PDF
Text

search this item

Text Search...

              Council of State Governments Justice Center | 1
Justice Reinvestment in Oklahoma Detailed Analysis October 17, 2011 Council of State Governments Justice Center Marshall Clement, Project Director Anne Bettesworth, Policy Analyst Jessy Tyler, Senior Research Associate Robert Coombs, Senior Policy Analyst Funders and Partners
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 2 October-January
Oklahoma Justice Reinvestment Process
3
Collect & examine quantitative data
Reported crime & arrests
Court dispositions & sentencing
DA supervision
Probation and parole supervision
Prison admissions, population & releases
Develop & present a comprehensive analysis of the state’s criminal justice system
Develop a framework of policy options that together would increase public safety and reduce/avert taxpayer spending
June-October
July-October
Engage stakeholders
Law enforcement
Judges
Prosecutors
Defense bar
Victim advocates/survivors
County officials
Supervision agencies
Behavioral health & treatment providers
Analyze Data & Develop Policy Options The Big Picture “Developing” From the Analyses
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 4
1.
Violent crime is unacceptably high; the number of police per capita in three of the largest cities has declined.
2.
Supervision for felony offenders is declining: more are being placed on DA supervision and fewer are supervised after release from prison.
3. The prison population is growing, and more spending will be required to increase capacity unless the population growth is managed. Violent Index Crimes Reported to Police in OK Remained High; Arrests Dropped
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 5
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
5% increase in violent crimes from 2000 to 2010
Violent crime arrests dropped 5% from 2000-2010
Violent Crime Rate Change, 2000-2010 Oklahoma: -4% (498 to 480) Nationally: -20% (507 to 404)
Source: United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (September 2011). Crime in the United States, 2000-2010. From http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010.
Robbery Rate Increased Significantly Since 2000; Drop in Murder Rate is Far Outpaced by US
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 6
Source: United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (September 2011). Crime in the United States, 2000-2010. From http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010.
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Robbery rate: OK: +15% US: -18%
Murder rate: OK: -2% US: -13%
Aggravated Assault
Robbery
Forcible Rape
Murder Violent Crime Trends in Select Cities, by Type
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 7
Oklahoma City and Tulsa account for 56% of murders in the state of Oklahoma.
Robberies increased significantly in Tulsa.
Violent Crime increased in Enid, Lawton, and OKC despite a slight statewide drop.
Enid
Lawton
Norman
Oklahoma City
Tulsa
2000
2010
+/-
2000
2010
+/-
2000
2010
+/-
2000
2010
+/-
2000
2010
+/-
Murder
0
2
--
3
3
0%
0
2
---
38
54
42%
33
54
64%
Forcible Rape
24
28
17%
55
60
9%
66
47
-29%
388
340
-12%
242
252
4%
Robbery
27
25
-7%
119
113
-5%
38
36
-5%
990
1,112
12%
737
1,381
87%
Aggravated Assault
165
171
4%
365
665
79%
105
53
-50%
2,535
3,798
50%
3,399
2,617
-23%
Violent Crime Total
216
226
5%
542
831
53%
209
138
-34%
3,951
5,304
34%
4,411
4,304
-2%
Source: United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (September 2011). Crime in the United States, 2000-2010. From http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010.
Violent Crime Rate & Law Enforcement Staffing Per Capita 2000-2010
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 8
17%
11%
Oklahoma City
Tulsa
Lawton
Norman
Percent Change in Violent Crime Rate &
Law Enforcement Staffing Per Capita
2%
8%
28%
10%
43%
18%
+
- Summary: Violent Crime
•Violent index crime remains unacceptably high statewide.
•The number of robberies per capita has increased 15 percent statewide.
•The number of violent index crimes increased while the number of arrests decreased.
•The number of law enforcement officers per capita has declined in Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Lawton.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 9 The Big Picture “Developing” From the Analyses
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 10
1.
Violent crime is unacceptably high; the number of police per capita in three of the largest cities has declined.
2.
Supervision for felony offenders is declining: more are being placed on DA supervision and fewer are supervised after release from prison.
3.
The prison population is growing, and more spending will be required to increase capacity unless the population growth is managed. DA Supervision is Replacing Regular Probation as the Most Common Form of Supervision for Felons
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 11
Administrative Office of the Courts, Oklahoma County Court Records, FY2008-FY2011.
229
2,063
1,947
566
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
2008
2009
2010
2011
DA Supervision
Probation (DOC & Private)
Oklahoma County Court Felony Deferrals and Convictions
-70%
+800% 229
+801%
1,947
-71%
206
+9%
533
-5%
1,602
+8%
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2008
2009
2010
2011
Prison
Jail
Com. Sent.
Probation (DOC
& Private)
DA Supervision
DA Supervision Even Appears to be Reducing Some of the Population Going to Prison or Jail
AOC, Oklahoma County Court Records, FY2008-FY2011.
Oklahoma County Court Felony Deferrals and Convictions
+16% overall
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 12 Prison 33%
Jail 10%
Supervision (Private, DOC, Community Sentencing) 18%
DA Supervision 39%
In Oklahoma County, More Felons Are Now Sentenced to DA Supervision than to Prison (FY2011)
AOC, Oklahoma County Court Records, FY2008-FY2011.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 13 Felony
1,042
Misdemeanor 1,755
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
CY2007
CY2008
CY2009
CY2010
Top Four Felony Offenses Sentenced to DA Supervision
254 Drug Possession 79 Larceny (from retailer) 52 Uttering Forged Instrument 41 Burglary (second degree)
DA Supervision Placements in Tulsa County Have Increased Dramatically for Both Misdemeanor and Felony Offenders
Tulsa County DA Probation Intakes 2007-2010
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 14 DA Supervision Termination Outcomes in Tulsa County
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 15
Tulsa County DA Probation Intakes and Exits 2007-2010
Terminations by Calendar Year
2008
2009
2010
Completed
21
780
999
Failed
17
280
549
N/A
1
10
48
Total
39
1,070
1,586
% Failed
44%
26%
35%
34%
Average Failure Rate After Prison, More and More People Are Being Released Unsupervised
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 16
Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Evaluation and Analysis. (2011). The State of Corrections in Oklahoma: Fiscal Year, 2010 http://www.doc.state.ok.us/newsroom/annuals/2010/annualreport2010.pdf.
3,396
3,060
1,655
4,352
3,440
761
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
No Supervision
Probation
Parole
2005
2010
The number of offenders released to parole dropped in half
51% released unsupervised in 2010 Current Law Hinders Supervision After Prison For Higher Risk Offenders
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 17
1st Felony Conviction
3rd or Subsequent Felony Conviction
Post-Prison Suspended Sentence Allowed
Post-Prison Suspended Sentence Prohibited Unless Permitted By District Attorney
Unintended Consequence:
Offenders with criminal histories that suggest a higher likelihood of reoffending are much less likely to be on supervision after prison What is Re-Arrest Recidivism?
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 18
100
Offenders Released from Oklahoma DOC Facilities in FY2007
53
Offenders Rearrested
53%
Rate of re-arrest recidivism if 53 of 100 are re-arrested within 36 months of discharge
FY2008
Arrest
FY2008
Without Arrest
FY2009 Arrest
FY2009 Without Arrest
FY2010 Arrest
Track arrests in year 2
Track arrests in year 1
Track arrests in year 3
A person cannot be counted multiple times:
1.First arrest for a non-traffic offense within 36 months removes an offender from the pool of “releases” to “re-arrest recidivists”.
2.The number of arrests do not matter; it is the first arrest that bifurcates the population. Re-Arrests Within 36 Months of Release
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 19
OKDOC and OSBI raw data files of 2007 Prison Releases
7,693
Unique Releases from DOC Facilities during FY2007
3,606
Offenders Not Re-Arrested in 36 Months
4,087
Offenders Re-Arrested
1,999
Year 1
1,298 Year 2
790
Year 3
53%
Arrested within 3 years of release
47%
Not arrested within 3 years of release Re-Arrest Rate of Unsupervised Releases
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 20
OSBI Arrest Data for OKDOC 2007 Release Cohort.
3,677
Released Unsupervised in 2007
53% Re-Arrested within 3 years
47% Not Re-Arrested
within 3 years
1,953
Re-arrested within 36 months of discharge Individuals Released from Prison with High Risk Assessment Scores Were More Likely to be Re-Arrested
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 21
OKDOC and OSBI raw data files of 2007 Prison Releases
43%
Low Risk
Re-Arrest Rate
52%
Moderate Risk
Re-Arrest Rate
62% High Risk Re-Arrest Rate
Three Year Re-Arrest Rate by Risk Categories as Defined by the LSI-R Summary: People Under Supervision
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 22
•In Oklahoma County, DA supervision is becoming the dominant felony disposition.
•DA supervision may be insufficient for offenders assessed as high or medium risk on the LSI-R or other risk assessment.
•More and more offenders are being released from prison unsupervised; current law encourages that trend.
•53 percent of offenders released are re-arrested for a non-traffic/ticket offense within three years.
•The LSI-R is predictive of the likelihood of re-arrest. The Big Picture “Developing” From the Analyses
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 23
1.
Violent crime is unacceptably high; the number of police per capita in three of the largest cities has declined.
2. Supervision for felony offenders is declining: more are being placed on DA supervision and fewer are supervised after release from prison.
3.
The prison population is growing, and more spending will be required to increase capacity unless the population growth is managed. 26,692
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Prison Population
Prison & Jail Backlog
Oklahoma’s Prison Population is Growing
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 24
OK: OKDOC Annual Reports 2009 and 2010
National: Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics
1996 - 2010: +34%
2000 - 2010: +15%
1,323 offenders were backlogged in jail
? Two Key Questions from the Last Meeting
•Is the prison population projected to increase?
•Do Oklahoma’s “non-violent” offenders have arrests for violent crimes or lengthy criminal histories?
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 25 FY
Total Admissions
New Receptions
Probation (new charge)
Probation Revocation
Parole Violators
Not Specified
(w/o new charge)
2005
8,730
6,057
1,066
1,106
494
0
2006
8,423
5,708
1,016
1,182
473
41
2007
8,903
6,141
1,171
1,061
367
156
2008
8,763
6,054
1,066
1,103
273
260
2009
8,707
6,076
1,116
1,137
182
184
2010
9,373
6,614
1,148
1,204
198
206
2011
8,354
5,866
1,040
1,071
127
246
%
-4%
-3%
-2%
-3%
-74%
Analysis of Change in Admissions: Fairly Stable
OKDOC, FY05-FY11 Admissions
*85% New Sentences include new receptions, probation revocations, Interstate, and not specified.
FY
85% New Sentences*
Non-85% New Sentences
2005
826
7,403
2006
727
7,179
2007
872
7,501
2008
871
7,352
2009
894
7,435
2010
979
7,987
2011
846
7,131
%
2%
-4%
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 26 Analysis of Length of Stay in Years: 85% Offenders LOS Increasing as Expected
OKDOC, FY05-FY11 Releases
FY
All Releases
New Receptions
Probation (new charge)
Probation Revocations (w/o new charge)
Parole Violators
2005
2.8
2.4
2.1
1.7
3.7
2006
2.9
2.3
2.2
1.9
3.3
2007
2.9
2.6
2.4
1.9
3.2
2008
3.0
2.7
2.5
1.9
3.6
2009
3.1
2.7
2.6
1.9
4.3
2010
3.2
2.8
2.8
1.9
3.8
%
14%
17%
33%
12%
3%
85% New Sentences
Non-85% New Sentences
2005
2.6
2.4
2006
3.1
2.3
2007
3.7
2.6
2008
3.7
2.7
2009
3.9
2.7
2010
4.4
2.8
%
+69%
19%
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 27 What did we plug into the math equation?
1%
Average Annual Increase
2012-2021
2005-2011
1%
Average Annual Increase
Admissions
Of 85% Offenders
Length of Stay of 85% Offenders
Used actual length of stay by cohort calculated with 2005-2010 exits
It is what it is
Despite a 7% decrease in admissions of non-85% offenders and a 14% percent increase in average length of stay, we assumed the population of non-85% offenders remains constant at the 2011 level.
Non-85% Population
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 28 The Math Worksheet Using These Numbers
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 29
85% Population at Start of Fiscal Year
85% Admissions During Fiscal Year
Modeled Exits During Fiscal Year
Left During Year from 12/31/2010 On Hand Population
85% Population Incarcerated
Non-85% Population
County Jail Backup
Total Population
85% as Percent of Total Population
FY2005
2,560
+
21,285
+
1,166
=
25,011
10%
FY2006
3,094
+
21,223
+
1,536
=
25,853
12%
FY2007
3,669
+
21,313
+
1,181
=
26,163
14%
FY2008
4,205
+
21,139
+
1,323
=
26,667
16%
FY2009
4,643
+
20,570
+
1,542
=
26,755
17%
FY2010
5,226
+
20,675
+
1,477
=
27,378
19%
FY2011
5,670
+
19,699
+
1,323
=
26,692
21%
FY2012
5,670
+
857
-
2
-
382
=
6,143
+
19,699
+
1,323
=
27,165
23%
FY2013
6,143
+
865
-
51
-
395
=
6,562
+
19,699
+
1,323
=
27,584
24%
FY2014
6,562
+
873
-
184
-
391
=
6,860
+
19,699
+
1,323
=
27,882
25%
FY2015
6,860
+
883
-
229
-
312
=
7,202
+
19,699
+
1,323
=
28,224
26%
FY2016
7,202
+
892
-
290
-
297
=
7,507
+
19,699
+
1,323
=
28,529
26%
FY2017
7,507
+
900
-
367
-
283
=
7,757
+
19,699
+
1,323
=
28,779
27%
FY2018
7,757
+
910
-
406
-
242
=
8,019
+
19,699
+
1,323
=
29,041
28%
FY2019
8,019
+
915
-
445
-
222
=
8,267
+
19,699
+
1,323
=
29,289
28%
FY2020
8,267
+
927
-
466
-
177
=
8,551
+
19,699
+
1,323
=
29,573
29%
FY2021
8,551
+
937
-
555
-
167
=
8,766
+
19,699
+
1,323
=
29,788
29% Estimate of Growth in Prison Population (Driven by Stacking of the 85% Offenders)
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 30
Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Entry and Exits, FY2005 to FY2011.
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
85% Population
2,560
3,094
3,669
4,205
4,643
5,226
5,670
6,143
6,562
6,860
7,202
7,507
7,757
8,019
8,267
8,551
8,766
Non-85% Population
21,285
21,223
21,313
21,139
20,570
20,675
19,699
19,699
19,699
19,699
19,699
19,699
19,699
19,699
19,699
19,699
19,699
Jail Back-Up
1,166
1,536
1,181
1,323
1,542
1,477
1,323
1,323
1,323
1,323
1,323
1,323
1,323
1,323
1,323
1,323
1,323
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
+3,110
Propagation Model
85% Population Assumes 1% increase in annual admissions for 85% crimes, but population growth is driven by stacking as offenders serve much longer than they have historically.
Non-85% Population
Assumes the annual population of offenders incarcerated for non-85% offenses remains constant at 2011 levels.
This is not a projection of the non-85% population, but rather a static estimate. This share of the population may increase or decrease
depending on any change in admissions or length of stay. Will this really happen?
What could cause the population from increasing less than we estimated?
–A reduction in crime and offenders convicted for 85% offenses
–An increase in plea bargains for 85% offenses down to non-85% offenses
–The non-85% population declines due to decreased admissions or reduced length of stay
What could cause the population from increasing more than we estimated?
–An increase in offenders convicted for 85% offenses
•More arrests and convictions for current 85% offenses
•Additional types of crimes added to the 85% statute
–An increase in admissions or length of stay for non-85% offenses
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 31 Two Key Questions from Last Meeting
•Is the population projected to increase?
•Do Oklahoma’s “non-violent” offenders have arrests for violent crimes or lengthy criminal histories?
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 32
YES Most People Admitted to Prison in 2010 Had Many Prior Arrests, But Some Had Relatively Few
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 33
OSBI Arrest Data and Oklahoma Department of Corrections 2010 Reception Data
Oklahoma Statute Defined Violent Crimes
506
1,151
60
Property and Other Public Order Crimes
369
3,149
335
Drug Crimes
423
2,779
306
1-3
4-16
17
or more
Lifetime Arrest Events (including current arrest)
2010
Oklahoma DOC Admissions Top “Nonviolent” Prison Admissions (Cumulative FY05-FY10)
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 34
DOC Admissions, FY05-FY10. Possession Cases Are Around 30% of Court Dispositions in Oklahoma and Tulsa Counties
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 35
Administrative Office of the Courts: Oklahoma and Tulsa County Court Data
34%
66%
32%
68%
31%
69%
31%
69%
32%
68%
28%
72%
28%
72%
27%
73%
Oklahoma County
Tulsa County
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011 Average Sentences for Top “Nonviolent” Admissions
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 36
Oklahoma, Department of Corrections, Receptions FY05-FY2010.
5.2 Years
Possession
7.3 Years
Distribution
4.9 Years
Burglary II
3.9 Years DUI
4.7 Years
Stolen Property
10 Years
Manufacture
10.3 Years
Trafficking
4.5 Years
Unauthorized Vehicle
4.8 Years
Forged Instrument
5.6 Years
Convicted Felon Charged with Possession of Firearms
Property Crimes are clustered together with an average sentence length of 4.8 years. Parole Release Process
Earned Credit System
85%
Law
Behavior/Offense
Offense
33%
92%
45%
Governing Release System
Determining
Factor
Minimum %
of Sentence
Served
Yes
No
No
Supervision Likely Upon Release
Behavior
Oklahoma’s Sentencing Policy is Evolving
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 37 The Big Picture “Developing” From the Analyses
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 38
1.
Violent crime is unacceptably high; the number of police per capita in three of the largest cities has declined.
2.
Supervision for felony offenders is declining: more are being placed on DA supervision and fewer are supervised after release from prison.
3.
The prison population is growing, and more spending will be required to increase capacity unless the population growth is managed. Upcoming Site Visits
Dates
Activity
October 17-19
•Working Group Meeting
•Town Hall Meetings: Enid, Lawton & Muskogee
•Stakeholder Engagement
November 2-3
•Stakeholder Engagement
November 16-17
•Stakeholder Engagement
December 7-8
•Stakeholder Engagement
December 12
•Working Group Meeting
January ?
•Working Group Meeting
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 39 Council of State Governments Justice Center | 40
Thank You
Anne Bettesworth
Policy Analyst, Justice Reinvestment
abettesworth@csg.org
This material was prepared for the State of Oklahoma. 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.

Description

Okla State Agency	House of Representatives, Oklahoma
Okla Agency Code	'422'
Title	Justice reinvestment in Oklahoma : detailed analysis
Authors	Justice Center (Council of State Governments) Clement, Marshall. Bettesworth, Anne. Tyler, Jessy. Coombs, Robert.
Publisher	Justice Center, The Council of State Governments
Publication Date	2011-10-17
Publication type	Research Report/Study
Subject	Criminal justice, Administration of--Oklahoma. Corrections--Oklahoma. Criminal statistics--Oklahoma.
Purpose	This material was prepared for the State of Oklahoma. The presentation was developed by members of the Council of State Governments Justice Center staff.
Notes	originally a PowerPoint presentation
OkDocs Class#	L1305.3 J96d 2011
Digital Format	PDF, Adobe Reader required
ODL electronic copy	Downloaded from agency website: http://justicereinvestment.org/files/JR_OK_Detailed_Analysis_10_17_11.pdf
Rights and Permissions	This Oklahoma state government publication is provided for educational purposes under U.S. copyright law. Other usage requires permission of copyright holders.
Language	English
Full text	Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 1 Justice Reinvestment in Oklahoma Detailed Analysis October 17, 2011 Council of State Governments Justice Center Marshall Clement, Project Director Anne Bettesworth, Policy Analyst Jessy Tyler, Senior Research Associate Robert Coombs, Senior Policy Analyst Funders and Partners Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 2 October-January Oklahoma Justice Reinvestment Process 3 Collect & examine quantitative data Reported crime & arrests Court dispositions & sentencing DA supervision Probation and parole supervision Prison admissions, population & releases Develop & present a comprehensive analysis of the state’s criminal justice system Develop a framework of policy options that together would increase public safety and reduce/avert taxpayer spending June-October July-October Engage stakeholders Law enforcement Judges Prosecutors Defense bar Victim advocates/survivors County officials Supervision agencies Behavioral health & treatment providers Analyze Data & Develop Policy Options The Big Picture “Developing” From the Analyses Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 4 1. Violent crime is unacceptably high; the number of police per capita in three of the largest cities has declined. 2. Supervision for felony offenders is declining: more are being placed on DA supervision and fewer are supervised after release from prison. 3. The prison population is growing, and more spending will be required to increase capacity unless the population growth is managed. Violent Index Crimes Reported to Police in OK Remained High; Arrests Dropped Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 5 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 5% increase in violent crimes from 2000 to 2010 Violent crime arrests dropped 5% from 2000-2010 Violent Crime Rate Change, 2000-2010 Oklahoma: -4% (498 to 480) Nationally: -20% (507 to 404) Source: United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (September 2011). Crime in the United States, 2000-2010. From http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010. Robbery Rate Increased Significantly Since 2000; Drop in Murder Rate is Far Outpaced by US Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 6 Source: United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (September 2011). Crime in the United States, 2000-2010. From http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010. 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Robbery rate: OK: +15% US: -18% Murder rate: OK: -2% US: -13% Aggravated Assault Robbery Forcible Rape Murder Violent Crime Trends in Select Cities, by Type Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 7 Oklahoma City and Tulsa account for 56% of murders in the state of Oklahoma. Robberies increased significantly in Tulsa. Violent Crime increased in Enid, Lawton, and OKC despite a slight statewide drop. Enid Lawton Norman Oklahoma City Tulsa 2000 2010 +/- 2000 2010 +/- 2000 2010 +/- 2000 2010 +/- 2000 2010 +/- Murder 0 2 -- 3 3 0% 0 2 --- 38 54 42% 33 54 64% Forcible Rape 24 28 17% 55 60 9% 66 47 -29% 388 340 -12% 242 252 4% Robbery 27 25 -7% 119 113 -5% 38 36 -5% 990 1,112 12% 737 1,381 87% Aggravated Assault 165 171 4% 365 665 79% 105 53 -50% 2,535 3,798 50% 3,399 2,617 -23% Violent Crime Total 216 226 5% 542 831 53% 209 138 -34% 3,951 5,304 34% 4,411 4,304 -2% Source: United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (September 2011). Crime in the United States, 2000-2010. From http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010. Violent Crime Rate & Law Enforcement Staffing Per Capita 2000-2010 Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 8 17% 11% Oklahoma City Tulsa Lawton Norman Percent Change in Violent Crime Rate & Law Enforcement Staffing Per Capita 2% 8% 28% 10% 43% 18% + - Summary: Violent Crime •Violent index crime remains unacceptably high statewide. •The number of robberies per capita has increased 15 percent statewide. •The number of violent index crimes increased while the number of arrests decreased. •The number of law enforcement officers per capita has declined in Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Lawton. Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 9 The Big Picture “Developing” From the Analyses Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 10 1. Violent crime is unacceptably high; the number of police per capita in three of the largest cities has declined. 2. Supervision for felony offenders is declining: more are being placed on DA supervision and fewer are supervised after release from prison. 3. The prison population is growing, and more spending will be required to increase capacity unless the population growth is managed. DA Supervision is Replacing Regular Probation as the Most Common Form of Supervision for Felons Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 11 Administrative Office of the Courts, Oklahoma County Court Records, FY2008-FY2011. 229 2,063 1,947 566 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 2008 2009 2010 2011 DA Supervision Probation (DOC & Private) Oklahoma County Court Felony Deferrals and Convictions -70% +800% 229 +801% 1,947 -71% 206 +9% 533 -5% 1,602 +8% 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 2008 2009 2010 2011 Prison Jail Com. Sent. Probation (DOC & Private) DA Supervision DA Supervision Even Appears to be Reducing Some of the Population Going to Prison or Jail AOC, Oklahoma County Court Records, FY2008-FY2011. Oklahoma County Court Felony Deferrals and Convictions +16% overall Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 12 Prison 33% Jail 10% Supervision (Private, DOC, Community Sentencing) 18% DA Supervision 39% In Oklahoma County, More Felons Are Now Sentenced to DA Supervision than to Prison (FY2011) AOC, Oklahoma County Court Records, FY2008-FY2011. Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 13 Felony 1,042 Misdemeanor 1,755 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 CY2007 CY2008 CY2009 CY2010 Top Four Felony Offenses Sentenced to DA Supervision 254 Drug Possession 79 Larceny (from retailer) 52 Uttering Forged Instrument 41 Burglary (second degree) DA Supervision Placements in Tulsa County Have Increased Dramatically for Both Misdemeanor and Felony Offenders Tulsa County DA Probation Intakes 2007-2010 Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 14 DA Supervision Termination Outcomes in Tulsa County Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 15 Tulsa County DA Probation Intakes and Exits 2007-2010 Terminations by Calendar Year 2008 2009 2010 Completed 21 780 999 Failed 17 280 549 N/A 1 10 48 Total 39 1,070 1,586 % Failed 44% 26% 35% 34% Average Failure Rate After Prison, More and More People Are Being Released Unsupervised Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 16 Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Evaluation and Analysis. (2011). The State of Corrections in Oklahoma: Fiscal Year, 2010 http://www.doc.state.ok.us/newsroom/annuals/2010/annualreport2010.pdf. 3,396 3,060 1,655 4,352 3,440 761 - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 No Supervision Probation Parole 2005 2010 The number of offenders released to parole dropped in half 51% released unsupervised in 2010 Current Law Hinders Supervision After Prison For Higher Risk Offenders Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 17 1st Felony Conviction 3rd or Subsequent Felony Conviction Post-Prison Suspended Sentence Allowed Post-Prison Suspended Sentence Prohibited Unless Permitted By District Attorney Unintended Consequence: Offenders with criminal histories that suggest a higher likelihood of reoffending are much less likely to be on supervision after prison What is Re-Arrest Recidivism? Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 18 100 Offenders Released from Oklahoma DOC Facilities in FY2007 53 Offenders Rearrested 53% Rate of re-arrest recidivism if 53 of 100 are re-arrested within 36 months of discharge FY2008 Arrest FY2008 Without Arrest FY2009 Arrest FY2009 Without Arrest FY2010 Arrest Track arrests in year 2 Track arrests in year 1 Track arrests in year 3 A person cannot be counted multiple times: 1.First arrest for a non-traffic offense within 36 months removes an offender from the pool of “releases” to “re-arrest recidivists”. 2.The number of arrests do not matter; it is the first arrest that bifurcates the population. Re-Arrests Within 36 Months of Release Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 19 OKDOC and OSBI raw data files of 2007 Prison Releases 7,693 Unique Releases from DOC Facilities during FY2007 3,606 Offenders Not Re-Arrested in 36 Months 4,087 Offenders Re-Arrested 1,999 Year 1 1,298 Year 2 790 Year 3 53% Arrested within 3 years of release 47% Not arrested within 3 years of release Re-Arrest Rate of Unsupervised Releases Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 20 OSBI Arrest Data for OKDOC 2007 Release Cohort. 3,677 Released Unsupervised in 2007 53% Re-Arrested within 3 years 47% Not Re-Arrested within 3 years 1,953 Re-arrested within 36 months of discharge Individuals Released from Prison with High Risk Assessment Scores Were More Likely to be Re-Arrested Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 21 OKDOC and OSBI raw data files of 2007 Prison Releases 43% Low Risk Re-Arrest Rate 52% Moderate Risk Re-Arrest Rate 62% High Risk Re-Arrest Rate Three Year Re-Arrest Rate by Risk Categories as Defined by the LSI-R Summary: People Under Supervision Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 22 •In Oklahoma County, DA supervision is becoming the dominant felony disposition. •DA supervision may be insufficient for offenders assessed as high or medium risk on the LSI-R or other risk assessment. •More and more offenders are being released from prison unsupervised; current law encourages that trend. •53 percent of offenders released are re-arrested for a non-traffic/ticket offense within three years. •The LSI-R is predictive of the likelihood of re-arrest. The Big Picture “Developing” From the Analyses Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 23 1. Violent crime is unacceptably high; the number of police per capita in three of the largest cities has declined. 2. Supervision for felony offenders is declining: more are being placed on DA supervision and fewer are supervised after release from prison. 3. The prison population is growing, and more spending will be required to increase capacity unless the population growth is managed. 26,692 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 Prison Population Prison & Jail Backlog Oklahoma’s Prison Population is Growing Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 24 OK: OKDOC Annual Reports 2009 and 2010 National: Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics 1996 - 2010: +34% 2000 - 2010: +15% 1,323 offenders were backlogged in jail ? Two Key Questions from the Last Meeting •Is the prison population projected to increase? •Do Oklahoma’s “non-violent” offenders have arrests for violent crimes or lengthy criminal histories? Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 25 FY Total Admissions New Receptions Probation (new charge) Probation Revocation Parole Violators Not Specified (w/o new charge) 2005 8,730 6,057 1,066 1,106 494 0 2006 8,423 5,708 1,016 1,182 473 41 2007 8,903 6,141 1,171 1,061 367 156 2008 8,763 6,054 1,066 1,103 273 260 2009 8,707 6,076 1,116 1,137 182 184 2010 9,373 6,614 1,148 1,204 198 206 2011 8,354 5,866 1,040 1,071 127 246 % -4% -3% -2% -3% -74% Analysis of Change in Admissions: Fairly Stable OKDOC, FY05-FY11 Admissions 85% New Sentences include new receptions, probation revocations, Interstate, and not specified. FY 85% New Sentences Non-85% New Sentences 2005 826 7,403 2006 727 7,179 2007 872 7,501 2008 871 7,352 2009 894 7,435 2010 979 7,987 2011 846 7,131 % 2% -4% Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 26 Analysis of Length of Stay in Years: 85% Offenders LOS Increasing as Expected OKDOC, FY05-FY11 Releases FY All Releases New Receptions Probation (new charge) Probation Revocations (w/o new charge) Parole Violators 2005 2.8 2.4 2.1 1.7 3.7 2006 2.9 2.3 2.2 1.9 3.3 2007 2.9 2.6 2.4 1.9 3.2 2008 3.0 2.7 2.5 1.9 3.6 2009 3.1 2.7 2.6 1.9 4.3 2010 3.2 2.8 2.8 1.9 3.8 % 14% 17% 33% 12% 3% 85% New Sentences Non-85% New Sentences 2005 2.6 2.4 2006 3.1 2.3 2007 3.7 2.6 2008 3.7 2.7 2009 3.9 2.7 2010 4.4 2.8 % +69% 19% Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 27 What did we plug into the math equation? 1% Average Annual Increase 2012-2021 2005-2011 1% Average Annual Increase Admissions Of 85% Offenders Length of Stay of 85% Offenders Used actual length of stay by cohort calculated with 2005-2010 exits It is what it is Despite a 7% decrease in admissions of non-85% offenders and a 14% percent increase in average length of stay, we assumed the population of non-85% offenders remains constant at the 2011 level. Non-85% Population Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 28 The Math Worksheet Using These Numbers Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 29 85% Population at Start of Fiscal Year 85% Admissions During Fiscal Year Modeled Exits During Fiscal Year Left During Year from 12/31/2010 On Hand Population 85% Population Incarcerated Non-85% Population County Jail Backup Total Population 85% as Percent of Total Population FY2005 2,560 + 21,285 + 1,166 = 25,011 10% FY2006 3,094 + 21,223 + 1,536 = 25,853 12% FY2007 3,669 + 21,313 + 1,181 = 26,163 14% FY2008 4,205 + 21,139 + 1,323 = 26,667 16% FY2009 4,643 + 20,570 + 1,542 = 26,755 17% FY2010 5,226 + 20,675 + 1,477 = 27,378 19% FY2011 5,670 + 19,699 + 1,323 = 26,692 21% FY2012 5,670 + 857 - 2 - 382 = 6,143 + 19,699 + 1,323 = 27,165 23% FY2013 6,143 + 865 - 51 - 395 = 6,562 + 19,699 + 1,323 = 27,584 24% FY2014 6,562 + 873 - 184 - 391 = 6,860 + 19,699 + 1,323 = 27,882 25% FY2015 6,860 + 883 - 229 - 312 = 7,202 + 19,699 + 1,323 = 28,224 26% FY2016 7,202 + 892 - 290 - 297 = 7,507 + 19,699 + 1,323 = 28,529 26% FY2017 7,507 + 900 - 367 - 283 = 7,757 + 19,699 + 1,323 = 28,779 27% FY2018 7,757 + 910 - 406 - 242 = 8,019 + 19,699 + 1,323 = 29,041 28% FY2019 8,019 + 915 - 445 - 222 = 8,267 + 19,699 + 1,323 = 29,289 28% FY2020 8,267 + 927 - 466 - 177 = 8,551 + 19,699 + 1,323 = 29,573 29% FY2021 8,551 + 937 - 555 - 167 = 8,766 + 19,699 + 1,323 = 29,788 29% Estimate of Growth in Prison Population (Driven by Stacking of the 85% Offenders) Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 30 Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Entry and Exits, FY2005 to FY2011. FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 85% Population 2,560 3,094 3,669 4,205 4,643 5,226 5,670 6,143 6,562 6,860 7,202 7,507 7,757 8,019 8,267 8,551 8,766 Non-85% Population 21,285 21,223 21,313 21,139 20,570 20,675 19,699 19,699 19,699 19,699 19,699 19,699 19,699 19,699 19,699 19,699 19,699 Jail Back-Up 1,166 1,536 1,181 1,323 1,542 1,477 1,323 1,323 1,323 1,323 1,323 1,323 1,323 1,323 1,323 1,323 1,323 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 +3,110 Propagation Model 85% Population Assumes 1% increase in annual admissions for 85% crimes, but population growth is driven by stacking as offenders serve much longer than they have historically. Non-85% Population Assumes the annual population of offenders incarcerated for non-85% offenses remains constant at 2011 levels. This is not a projection of the non-85% population, but rather a static estimate. This share of the population may increase or decrease depending on any change in admissions or length of stay. Will this really happen? What could cause the population from increasing less than we estimated? –A reduction in crime and offenders convicted for 85% offenses –An increase in plea bargains for 85% offenses down to non-85% offenses –The non-85% population declines due to decreased admissions or reduced length of stay What could cause the population from increasing more than we estimated? –An increase in offenders convicted for 85% offenses •More arrests and convictions for current 85% offenses •Additional types of crimes added to the 85% statute –An increase in admissions or length of stay for non-85% offenses Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 31 Two Key Questions from Last Meeting •Is the population projected to increase? •Do Oklahoma’s “non-violent” offenders have arrests for violent crimes or lengthy criminal histories? Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 32 YES Most People Admitted to Prison in 2010 Had Many Prior Arrests, But Some Had Relatively Few Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 33 OSBI Arrest Data and Oklahoma Department of Corrections 2010 Reception Data Oklahoma Statute Defined Violent Crimes 506 1,151 60 Property and Other Public Order Crimes 369 3,149 335 Drug Crimes 423 2,779 306 1-3 4-16 17 or more Lifetime Arrest Events (including current arrest) 2010 Oklahoma DOC Admissions Top “Nonviolent” Prison Admissions (Cumulative FY05-FY10) Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 34 DOC Admissions, FY05-FY10. Possession Cases Are Around 30% of Court Dispositions in Oklahoma and Tulsa Counties Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 35 Administrative Office of the Courts: Oklahoma and Tulsa County Court Data 34% 66% 32% 68% 31% 69% 31% 69% 32% 68% 28% 72% 28% 72% 27% 73% Oklahoma County Tulsa County FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Average Sentences for Top “Nonviolent” Admissions Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 36 Oklahoma, Department of Corrections, Receptions FY05-FY2010. 5.2 Years Possession 7.3 Years Distribution 4.9 Years Burglary II 3.9 Years DUI 4.7 Years Stolen Property 10 Years Manufacture 10.3 Years Trafficking 4.5 Years Unauthorized Vehicle 4.8 Years Forged Instrument 5.6 Years Convicted Felon Charged with Possession of Firearms Property Crimes are clustered together with an average sentence length of 4.8 years. Parole Release Process Earned Credit System 85% Law Behavior/Offense Offense 33% 92% 45% Governing Release System Determining Factor Minimum % of Sentence Served Yes No No Supervision Likely Upon Release Behavior Oklahoma’s Sentencing Policy is Evolving Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 37 The Big Picture “Developing” From the Analyses Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 38 1. Violent crime is unacceptably high; the number of police per capita in three of the largest cities has declined. 2. Supervision for felony offenders is declining: more are being placed on DA supervision and fewer are supervised after release from prison. 3. The prison population is growing, and more spending will be required to increase capacity unless the population growth is managed. Upcoming Site Visits Dates Activity October 17-19 •Working Group Meeting •Town Hall Meetings: Enid, Lawton & Muskogee •Stakeholder Engagement November 2-3 •Stakeholder Engagement November 16-17 •Stakeholder Engagement December 7-8 •Stakeholder Engagement December 12 •Working Group Meeting January ? •Working Group Meeting Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 39 Council of State Governments Justice Center \| 40 Thank You Anne Bettesworth Policy Analyst, Justice Reinvestment abettesworth@csg.org This material was prepared for the State of Oklahoma. 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.
Date created	2011-11-04
Date modified	2013-05-16

Justice reinvestment in Oklahoma : detailed analysis

Description

Tags