Slide 1
Examining Kansas SB 123: Mandatory Probation and Treatment
Don Stemen, Loyola University ChicagoThe Honorable Richard Smith, Kansas Sentencing Commission
Kelly Goodwin, Johnson County Public Defender’s OfficerThomas J. Drees, Ellis County Attorney’s Office
National Association of Sentencing Commissions Conference
Chicago, August 6, 2012
This research is funded by NIJ grant # 2006-IJ-CX-4032
State-wide approaches to community-based drug treatment
Mandatory Treatment InitiativesMandatory Treatment Initiatives
Increased Treatment InitiativesIncreased Treatment Initiatives
General goals of probation/treatment laws targeting drug offenders
□System-Level Goals
□ Change sentencing practices to divert drug offenders from prison at sentencing.
□ Increase the availability of treatment for drug offenders.
□ Reduce the number of drug offenders in prison.
□Individual-Level Goals
□ Improve outcomes for drug offenders by reducing recidivism and substance abuse.
General problems encountered in implementation of probation/treatment laws
□Small or narrowly-defined target populations
□Front-end and back-end net-widening
□Traditional focus on supervision/enforcement rather than treatment
Content of SB 123
□Creates mandatory sentence of up to 18 months of community corrections supervision and treatment.
□Eligibility restricted to 1st- or 2nd- offense drug possession w/out a prior conviction for a person, drug sale, or drug manufacture offense.
□Relies on a network of existing community-based drug treatment providers.
□Seeks to create a treatment focused approach to community-based sentences for drug possessors.
Implementation Issue I:Front-End Net-Widening
Sentences for SB 123-eligible cases, pre- and post implementation
Sentences for SB 123-eligible cases, pre- and post implementation
Sentences for SB 123-eligible cases, pre- and post implementation
Mean sentence lengths for SB 123-eligible cases, pre- and post implementation
Implementation Issue II: Circumvention
Sentences for SB 123-eligible cases, pre- and post implementation
Implementation of SB 123
Some SB 123-eligible cases do not receive treatment
No criminal history
3+ property offenses
Some SB 123-ineligible cases receive treatment
No criminal history
3+ violent offenses
3+ property offenses
Implementation Issue III: Concentration of Treatment
SB 123 cases concentrated in just a few counties
SB 123 treatment concentrated in just a few providers
Implications and Recommendations
Some conclusions about SB 123
□SB 123 increased the provision of treatment to target population of drug possessors
□SB 123 helped achieve a shift in perspective within probation
□SB 123 helped achieve a shift in perspective among courtroom actors
□SB 123 encouraged innovation among local communities
Some implications that may be common to statewide initiatives
□Disagreement about program goals across system actors
□ Gatekeepers emphasized system-level goals; administrators emphasized individual-level goals
□“One size fits all” approach has both benefits and drawbacks
□ Geographic diversity necessitated flexibility in implementation; but it also affected fidelity
Some recommendations for mandatory probation/treatment programs
□Maintain mandatory probation without mandating a particular form of probation
□ Allow traditional judicial discretion to determine type of probation based on risk/needs assessment; preserve intensive supervision for those with higher levels of risk
□Preserve mandatory treatment only for those assessed to need treatment
□ Allow probation discretion to determine mandatory treatment based on substance abuse assessment; preserve mandatory treatment only for those with high needs
SB 123 Structure and Practice
KANSAS SB 123 Drug Possession Sentencing
Prison Reduction
Fiscal YearTotal
Sentences
Level 4 Drug
Sentences (%)SB 123
Sentences (%) Direct Revocation Total
2004 * 13,049 2,245 18.8 360 * 2.8 * 85 41 126
2005 13,517 2,764 20.4 1,105 8.2 115 128 243
2006 13,456 3,016 22.4 1,359 10.1 133 154 287
2007 12,646 2,932 23.2 1,261 10.0 151 144 295
2008 13,710 2,875 21.0 1,319 9.6 168 150 318
2009 13,401 2,555 19.1 1,166 8.7 124 127 251
2010 13,810 2,566 18.6 1,062 7.7 135 124 259
2011 14,003 2,527 18.0 1,072 7.7 142 162 304
Total 8 Years 107,592 21,691 20.2 8,704 8.1 1,053 1,030 2,083
*SB 123 Effective 11/1/2003
Fiscal Year
Direct Prison Admission Reduction
SB 123 Revocation to Prison Admission
Reduction
Total Prison Admission Reduction
2004 85 41 127
2005 115 128 244
2006 133 154 287
2007 151 144 295
2008 168 150 317
2009 124 127 252
2010 135 124 259
2011 142 162 304
Changes in prison admissions due to SB 123
Fiscal Year
SB 123 Expenditure
Money Collected
Actual SB123 Cost
Prison Cost Avoidance
Estimated Money Saved
2004 $ 998,467.75 $15,948.04 $982,519.71 $2,525,000.00 $(1,542,480.29)
2005 $5,106,505.20 $150,224.27 $4,956,280.93 $6,150,000.00 $(1,193,719.07)
2006 $7,861,395.40 $213,588.86 $7,647,806.54 $8,325,000.00 $(677,193.46)
2007 $8,642,249.50 $202,853.89 $8,439,395.61 $8,875,000.00 $(435,604.39)
2008 $8,640,578.25 $229,649.20 $8,410,929.05 $9,875,000.00 $(1,464,070.95)
2009 $7,677,082.00 $382,769.17 $7,294,312.83 $8,450,000.00 $(1,155,687.17)
2010 $7,450,262.75 $405,707.81 $7,044,554.94 $8,650,000.00 $(1,605,445.06)
2011 $7,058,160.50 $314,313.00 $6,743,847.50 $8,775,000.00 $(2,031,152.50)
Total $53,434,701.35 $ 1,915,054.24$51,519,647.1
1 $61,625,000.00 $(10,105,352.89)
Estimated savings due to SB 123
SB 123 Level 4D LSI-R Risk Level (Score) SASSI Score
Assessment Funded
Treatment Mandatory
Treatment Funded
I (33 and above)
High Y Y Y
Low Y N N
II (25 - 32)
High Y Y Y
Low Y N N
III (17 - 24)
High Y Y Y
Low Y N N
IV (0 - 16) High or Low Y N N
