Transcript Essential Principles of Criminal Justice Planning In Philadelphia

Essential Principles of Criminal
Justice Planning In Philadelphia
Presentation to the Essential Services
Coalition of Philadelphia
By
Leon A. King II, Esq.
Paul Heroux MS, MSc
Your Presenters
• Leon A King, II, Esquire
– Associate Teaching Professor of Criminal Justice, Drexel
University
– Commissioner of Philadelphia Prisons from, 2002-2008
– General Counsel Philadelphia Prisons, 1997-2002
– Deputy City Solicitor, Civil Rights and Labor, 1993-2002
• Paul Heroux, MS, MSc
– MPA candidate, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
– Director of Research and Planning, Massachusetts
Department of Correction, 2008-2009
– Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Philadelphia Prison
System, 2006-2008
Commissioned or Authored Reports
Intermediate Punishments, Massachusetts Department of Correction, 2009
Overcrowding Trend Analysis, Massachusetts Department of Correction, 2008- Paul Heroux, MS, MSc
Inmate Services Report, Philadelphia Prisons – Dugan Associates, LLC 2008
Reincarceration in Philadelphia Prison System 2008 – Paul Heroux, MS, MSc
Prison Population Report and Recommendations to Mayor Michael A. Nutter – Leon A King, II, Esq. 2007
Overcrowding Trend Analysis, Philadelphia Prisons, 2007- Paul Heroux, MS, MSc
Confinement in the Justice Process in Philadelphia, Temple University, 2006 – (Goldkamp)
Instituting Lasting Reforms for Prisoner Reentry in Philadelphia, Urban Institute, 2006
Prison Healthcare Project, Dugan Associates, LLC, 2006
Police and Prison Intake Operations, Dugan Associates, LLC 2006
Goal
• In Philadelphia we can:
–
–
–
–
Reduce the prison population,
save taxpayer’s dollars,
create jobs and economic opportunity, and
enhance public safety
Philadelphia Criminal Justice Myths
1. The increase in the prison census is caused by an
increase in crime.
2. Recidivism is the cause of overcrowding.
3. The prison population is constant, unchanging figure.
4. Keeping inmates locked up longer will deter them
from committing more crime after release.
5. Reducing the prison population by one inmate saves
the City about $35,000 per year per inmate.
6. We can build our way out of crime and prison
overcrowding.
7. The Prison population consists of mostly violent
offenders.
1. Myth Busted: The increase in the prison census is
not caused by an increase in crime
PPS Population and Philadelphia Violent Crime Rate
1,550
9,000
1,500
8,000
1,450
7,000
6,000
1,400
5,000
4,000
1,350
3,000
1,300
2,000
1,250
1,000
0
1,200
1990
1995
2000
2001
PPS ADP
2002
2003
2004
Violent Crime Rate
2005
Violent Crimes per 100,000 Citizens
PPS Average Daily Population
10,000
2. Myth Busted: Recidivism is not the cause of
overcrowding
2000-2006 Rate of Reincarceration in the PPS
% Reincarcerated
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Year
Reincarceration (recidivism) in Philadelphia trended down between
2000 and 2006. Reincarceration and recidivism are not responsible for
the growth in the prison population.
3. Myth Busted: The prison population is not a
constant, unchanging figure
PPS Average Daily Population, PPD Arrests, PPS Admissions
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
Mar-07
Sep-06
Mar-06
Sep-05
Mar-05
Sep-04
Mar-04
Sep-03
Mar-03
Sep-02
Mar-02
Sep-01
Mar-01
Sep-00
Mar-00
Sep-99
Mar-99
Sep-98
Mar-98
0
Time
Sum of ADP
Sum of Adults Arrested
Sum of Admitted
Linear (Sum of Adults Arrested)
Linear (Sum of Admitted)
The Prison population has grown 3-4% annually for the past decade.
4. Myth Busted: Keeping inmates locked up longer does not
appear to deter them from committing more crime after release.
Percent of Inmates
Reincarcerated
2006 Cohort - Reincarceration in the First Year and Length of Stay
in the PPS
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0-49
Days
50-99 100-149 150-199
Days Days Days
200299
Days
300399
Days
Length of Stay Category
400499
Days
500+
Days
5. Myth Busted: Reducing the prison population by one inmate doesn’t save the City
about $35,000 per inmate per year… when fixed and variable costs are calculated.
Category for Expense
Cost per day
Type of Cost
Dry goods, clothing and bedding
$
0.49
Variable Costs
Payments to prisoners
$
0.34
Variable Costs
Salaries
$
35.74
Fixed Costs
Purchase of services
$
31.75
Fixed Costs
Building construction
$
0.12
Fixed Costs
Electric
$
0.07
Fixed Costs
Fuel and heating oil
$
0.03
Fixed Costs
Janitorial and laundry
$
0.21
Fixed Costs
Plumbing
$
0.06
Fixed Costs
Other materials and supplies
$
0.30
Fixed Costs
Equipment
$
0.09
Fixed Costs
Fringe benefits
$
21.49
Fixed Costs
Building depreciation
$
1.67
Fixed Costs
Fleet management
$
0.23
Fixed Costs
Information Technology
$
1.00
Fixed Costs
Water, gas and electric
$
1.72
Fixed Costs
Telephone
$
0.32
Fixed Costs
Other materials and supplies
$
1.30
Fixed Costs
Mental Health Grant
$
0.85
Fixed Costs
Total cost per diem per day
$
97.78
Total cost per diem per year
$ 35,689.70
Total cost per diem per year for fixed costs
$ 35,386.75
Total cost per diem per year for variable costs
$
302.95
Classification matters!
Facility
Number Inmates
Facilities of the PPS on 24 January
2007
2000
1000
ASD
Minimum
Community
CFCF
Intake
Close
Special Management
2726
3000
1355
1584
180
1208
ASD CFCF
DC
DC
Medium
Minimum
Community
HOC
Minimum
Community
PICC
Close
Medium
Juveniles
Special Management
RCF
All
708
0
HOC PICC RCF
Facility
Classification Designations
6. Myth Busted: We can’t build our way out of crime
and prison overcrowding.
It is well known that building more jails and prisons does not result
in a decrease; as Philadelphia built more prisons we housed more
inmates and we didn’t see a decrease in crime.
There are however, numerous examples of jurisdictions where a
decrease in the prison population preceded a decrease in crime.
At one point during the past 10 years, these included: New York
City, New York State, San Diego County, the City of Boston, the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Maryland, Texas and Delaware.
We cannot build our way out of a prison population crisis or
citywide crime problem.
7. Myth Busted: The Prison population does not consist
of mostly violent offenders.
A Snap Shot of 15,000 PPS Inmates’ Most Serious Charges over 6 months
in FY 06
1481
5000
4000
3000
4172
DRUG RELATED USE OR DEALING
755
2128
THEFT/PROPERTY
RELATED
626
1527
OTHER LEGAL
VIOLATION
341
UNKNOWN
71
SEX RELATED
CRIME
7
AUTO RELATED
6
INVOLUNTARY
MANSLAUGHTER
0
WEAPON
RELATED (NONUSED)
1000
3475
VIOLENCE
RELATED
2000
ACCIDENT INV
PERSON
INJURY/DEATH
Number of Inmates
6000
What Causes PPS Overcrowding
PPS Average Daily Population, PPD Arrests, PPS
Admissions
Sep-06
Mar-07
Mar-06
Sep-05
Mar-05
Sep-04
Mar-04
Sep-03
Mar-03
Sep-02
Sep-01
Mar-02
Mar-01
Sep-00
Mar-00
Sep-99
Sep-98
Mar-99
Mar-98
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Time
Sum of ADP
Sum of Adults Arrested
Sum of Admitted
Linear (Sum of Admitted)
Average Number of Days Spent in the PPS
Inmate Average Length of Stay by Year
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
74.1
2000
76.4
2001
87.8
80.1
2002
2003
88.9
2004
90.5
89.7
2005
2006
91.3
2007
Average Daily ADMISSIONS
Linear (Sum of Adults Arrested)
Inmate Daily Admissions and Discharges
Number of Inmates
105
100
100
95
90
93
90
89
102
99
99
91
85
80
FY05
FY06
Average Daily ADMISSIONS
FY07
FY08
Average Daily RELEASES
LOS
Admissions per year
Estimated Population
90
36,000
8877
60
36,000
5918
What Causes PPS Overcrowding
2000-2007 Percent of Inmates' First-Time Admissions
to the PPS
First Time Admissions
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
2005
2006
2007
How to Implement better Criminal
Justice Planning
•
The “community” needs to send a consistent and powerful message to unconvinced or wavering
politicians that reducing the Prison population and providing alternatives is what we want (the DA
and Judiciary)
•
Get the new District Attorney to implement a new charging policy based on past data from the
Prison
•
The Criminal Justice Advisory Board needs to immediately hire a coordinator and related staff
•
Establish the number and type of inmates held at the Prison and commit to not building any new
prisons
•
Commit to reducing length of stay (LOS) from 90 days to 60 days
•
Commit to closing the House of Correction (HOC)
•
Use the money saved from reducing LOS and closing HOC to:
–
Reduce the City’s budgetary commitments
–
Generally investing in anything that speeds up the time it takes to adjudicate a case
–
Invest in diversionary programs, i.e. Community Court, Day Reporting
–
Expand Drug Court
–
Expand Mental Health Court
–
Invest in increased Probation and Parole staff to help reduce recidivism
–
Set up monitoring system for bail guidelines
The Essential Elements of any Programs
Designed to Reduce the Prison Budget
• Must be evidence-based
• Specific criteria must be agreed to that is taken
from actual data at the Prison
–
–
–
–
–
Classification
Budgetarily significant pools of candidates
Establish goals that relate to length of stay
Establish goals that relate to recidivism
Proper monitoring to ensure goals are being met