Presented By: Montgomery County Community CorrectionsTo the Montgomery County Bar Association

Criminal Justice/PrisonReform in Alabama &

Alternatives to Incarceration

Prison Overcrowding has Existed in AL for decades

Bibb Correctional Facility is the last Facility built (in 1997) Prior to 1997 there were 2 Prisons Built in

1990: Ventress Correctional and Easterling Correctional

The Problem Defined:

Tutweiller – Last Major Construction was in 1942Facility and Annex Designed Capacity is 545Current Pop. (11/2015) was 975

Draper – Opened in 1939Designed Capacity was 656Current Pop. (1/2016) was 1236

Many Facilities are Old and Inefficient

Nov. 2015 – Jurisdictional Population was: 31,044

- In-House Population was: 24,286

- Actual Design Capacity was: 13,318

= 183% of Capacity!

Alabama’s Prisons are Grossly Overcrowded and Largely

Ineffective

Correctional ParadigmsResolve the Problem

Make Them Pay

Rehabilitation Punishment

Facility Overcrowding places Citizens, DOC Staff and Inmates in Potential Jeopardy

Limited Space for Programs or RehabilitationOriginal Capacity Designs Optimized Staff

Resources – Now More Labor IntensiveOlder Facilities are Much More Costly to

Operate/StaffMultiple Federal Lawsuits Currently Pending

a. Equal Justice Initiativeb. Southern Poverty Law Centerc. American Civil Liberties Uniond. Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Center

Concerns for Citizens of Alabama:

If a Federal Take Over of the Prisons occurs, this would not be the first time for Alabama:

On January 14, 1976, U. S. District Judge Frank Johnson Jr., placed the BOC under federal court order, ordering sweeping prison reforms under the Newman-Pugh-James joint cases. Responding in part to the overcrowded conditions,

The official Web-site for the Alabama Sentencing Commission:http://sentencingcommission.alacourt.org/history.htmlTimeline for 1976 Reports:

• 1-13-1976 Federal District Judge Frank Johnson holds Alabama’s prison system’s living conditions unconstitutional in violation of the 8th and 14th Amendments in a consolidated class action suit. Capacity limitations placed on state correctional facilities, blocking transfers to DOC, results in the backlog of state inmates in county jails (by the end of 1976, 2,160 inmates were housed in county jails).

• 2-10-1976 Since the Alabama Legislature failed to address the issue of overcrowded and understaffed prisons in the 1975 legislative session, Judge Hand ordered prison officials to provide a report on present prison conditions and propose recommendations to be presented by the Board of Corrections at the next session of the Alabama Legislature.

• 10-11-1976 Reduction of inmate population in state facilities below design capacity accomplished.

ADOC Web-site Historical Timeline: In March of 1976 work release centers were opened at Camden, Grove Hill, and Montgomery. Later in June, Elba was opened. Then in July, Hamilton Work Release Center was opened.

Today California Prisons are under Federal control due to “systemic unconstitutional conditions related to medical and mental healthcare” (Trials started in 2002; Receivership in 2006; expected to be released in 2017)

Texas Prisons were under receivership from 1974 -1992. Trial Ended in 1979 (Consent decree 1981-2002)

Comparisons for Reference:

There followed decades of further litigation in the form of consent decrees, appeals and other legal actions, until a final judgment was rendered in 1992. But problems in enforcement continued, and in 1996 U.S. Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) to address these issues as well as abuse of the prison litigation process.

However, in October 1997, the district court, still not satisfied with the compliance of the TDC, gave permission for continuing site visits by attorneys and experts for the inmate class, and this continued into 1999. In response to this, the TDC issued more than 450,000 pages of evidence and accepted 50 additional site visits. In 2001, the court found that the TDC was in compliance on the issue of use of force against inmates and had adequate policies and procedures in place.

Texas - Continued

All This at What Cost?Alabama - Had new Facilities already under construction at the time – Estimated Costs were less than $25 Million which were planned – Court Costs were Considered Negligible

Texas – Faced Staggering Facility Costs and major systemic changes as well as nearly 3 decades of litigation and 2 separate trips to the U.S. Supreme Court. All Costs of the Court and Court Master/Staff were assessed to Texas. Best Estimates are facilities cost $1.6 - $1.8 Billion and Legal fees topped $135 million

California – Facility Costs to total about $1.45 Billion, Costs paid to Counties to house and program inmates = $1.1 – 1.25 Billion for the next several years – partly to offset the need for new County facility space. Legal and Court Fees – Unknown (Estimated over $35 Mil.)

Strengthens community-based supervision and treatment;

Prioritizes prison space for violent and dangerous offenders; and

Provides supervision to every person released from prison and improves notification to victims regarding releases from prison.

Now Comes Prison ReformAKA - Criminal Justice Reinvestment Act or SB 67(Sponsored by AL Senator Cam Ward).

Council on State Governments – Justice Center States:

Among other things, the law:

Alabama Prison Reform Task Force

Engaged the Justice Center – CSGAppointed Issue Specific Sub-Committees

with Stakeholder RepresentationChanged some Class C Felonies to new Class

DIncreased Size of P&P and Provided $$ for

ServicesThe Need is Expected to be Greatest in Counties Without a

CCPMandated EBPs in Community-Based

Programs and Directly tied CCPs Reimbursements to use of EBPs

Prison Reform Features:

Scope of Initiative has a Lifespan of 5 Years Issue Specific Sub-Committees are Facilitated by

Policy Advisors from the CSGNew Sentencing Guidelines in Place to Create and

Then Limit Class D Felons Going to PrisonP&P Ramping-up Training and “Train the Trainer”

efforts and seeking to hire at least 100 new POsEBP’s now Require a Validated Risk Assessment,

Case Planning and Referral to “Certified Treatment Providers” (Certification by ADMH)

Mandated Training to Community-Based Corrections on EBPs……..and…

OK…So What Does All of This Mean?

Refers to the use of research and scientific studies as a base for determining the best practices in a field. The movement began in the 1990s with a focus on the medical profession. It has since crossed the line to other professions, including education. The basic premise of the movement is to provide transparency and to assure the public that techniques and procedures will provide the best possible interventions or treatments. http://www.ehow.com/about_5048440_definition-evidence-based-practice.html#ixzz26MPQqnT2

 

Evidence-Based Practice

Behavioral Health Screenings of all Offenders is now Mandated for:

1. Alcohol2. Drug3. Mental Health

With Behavioral Health Referral to be made within 10 days of Behavioral Health Screening.

Along with the Uniform ARAS Risk/Needs Assessment,

The Practice of Rehabilitation/Corrections should be undertaken with a paradigm that is comprised of three concepts:Theoretical (Criminological)-What is the Errant Behavior we Intend to Change?Empirical Support (Correctional)-What are the Best Practices to Cause or Promote the Desired Change?Tools for Practitioners (Technological)-What Skills, Tools, Methods, Curriculum, etc. are Required to Accomplish This?

Contemporary View of Effective Corrections Practices

1) Criminal History2) Education, Employment and Financial Situation3) Family and Social Support4) Neighborhood Problems5) Substance Use (Alcohol and Drug)6) Peer Associations7) Criminal Attitudes and Behavioral Patterns

* ORAS – Ohio Risk Assessment System – Dr. Ed LaTessa, et al, Univ. of Cincinatti

The ARAS Risk Assessment Identifies Potential Risk to Recidivate Based On:

Focus on Core Correctional Practices1. Criminogenic needs are targeted.2. Cognitive-behavioral approaches are

used.3. Facilitators use structured skill building

exercises with clients.- Modeling and role playing skills- Graduated rehearsal

4. Offenders are supervised in treatment and the community.

5. Intensity and duration of services are varied by risk and need.

Evidence-Based Practices dictate that the most effort, resources and Case Manager time is spent with HIGH Risk Offenders and decreases to a minimal level of resources and case manager time being allocated to the LOW risk offender.

The fact is:Many Low Risk Offenders do Quite Well Without Our Help.

Risk and EBPs

Essentially, the practice of Responsivity is to place the right offender in the right program for the right dose (frequency, duration and intensity) required to achieve the desired outcome.

This principle takes into consideration the offender’s amenability to engage in the process and other factors regarding the offenders ability to engage including ability to read, cognitive ability, access to the treatment/program referral, etc.

Responsivity – an EBP

A Large Number of These are Drug Offenses and Property-related Expenses

With a few exceptions, Class D Felony Convictions either go to Probation or CCP

“Out” Recommendations go to Probation and “In” Recommendations go to CCP unless Enhanced.*

5 Year Sentence MaximumNo more than 2 Years on a Split

Impact of Class D Felonies on CCPEffective for Offenses Occurring After January 31, 2016

Enhanced Class D Offenses (to Class C) Can Occur – If the offender has 3 or more felony convictions

If the Offender has at least 2 Class A or B Priors – or

if the Offender has 3 Class C Priors, a prison sentence may be imposed also…

If the Sentencing County Does not have a CCP, the defendant on an “In” Recommendation must be placed in Intensively Supervised Probation (if not enhanced).

* “Out” Recommendations go to Probation and “In” Recommendations go to CCP unless Enhanced.

Referred to as Dips and DunksA. Dips are Officer Initiated and may

not exceed 3 days per episode (2-3 Days)

No more than 6 days in any month and 18 days total.

B. Dunks are Court initiated and are for 45 days in DOC. It takes 3 dunks (any violation less than the commission of a new offense) before the Court may proceed to Revocation.

Probation has Additional Sanctions Added

May Contract with Other Counties Having a CCP to Accept Offenders

May not Exceed Receiving County’s Stipulated Capacity

Must be Initiated by the Judge of the Sentencing County

Presiding Judge of the Receiving County Must Approve the Transfer

Violations Must be Referred Back to Originating County for Disposition

Counties or Judicial Districts Without a CCP

45 day DOC Sentence is initiated by the Parole Officer and approved by the Board.

Takes 3 Dunks (45 day periods of DOC incarceration before a full Parole Revocation may occur.

Parole has Similar Guidelines as Probation

If the defendant is sentenced to a period of five years or less, he or she shall be released by the Department of Corrections to supervision by the Board of Pardons and Paroles no less than three months and no more than five months prior to the defendant's release date;

If the defendant is sentenced to a period of more than five years but less than 10 years, he or she shall be released by the Department of Corrections to supervision by the Board of Pardons and Paroles no less than six months and no more than nine months prior to the defendant's release ate; or

If the defendant is sentenced to a period of 10 years or more, he or she shall be released by the Department of Corrections to supervision by the Board of Pardons and Paroles no less than 12 months and no more than 24 months prior to the defendant's release date.

Mandatory Supervision Leaving Incarceration