Slide 1 Examining Kansas SB 123: Mandatory Probation and Treatment Don Stemen, Loyola University Chicago The Honorable Richard Smith, Kansas Sentencing Commission Kelly Goodwin, Johnson County Public Defenders Officer Thomas J. Drees, Ellis County Attorneys 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 Initiatives Increased 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 1 st - or 2 nd- 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 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 Year Total Sentences Level 4 Drug Sentences(%) SB 123 Sentences(%)DirectRevocationTotal 2004 *13,0492, *2.8 * ,5172, , ,4563, , ,6462, , ,7102, , ,4012, , ,8102, , ,0032, , Total 8 Years107,59221, , ,0531,0302,083 *SB 123 Effective11/1/2003 Fiscal Year Direct Prison Admission Reduction SB 123 Revocation to Prison Admission Reduction Total Prison Admission Reduction 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, $2,525, $(1,542,480.29) 2005$5,106,505.20$150,224.27$4,956, $6,150, $(1,193,719.07) 2006$7,861,395.40$213,588.86$7,647, $8,325, $(677,193.46) 2007$8,642,249.50$202,853.89$8,439, $8,875, $(435,604.39) 2008$8,640,578.25$229,649.20$8,410, $9,875, $(1,464,070.95) 2009$7,677,082.00$382,769.17$7,294, $8,450, $(1,155,687.17) 2010$7,450,262.75$405,707.81$7,044, $8,650, $(1,605,445.06) 2011$7,058,160.50$314,313.00$6,743, $8,775, $(2,031,152.50) Total$53,434,701.35$ 1,915,054.24$51,519, $61,625, $(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) HighYYY LowYNN II ( ) HighYYY LowYNN III ( ) HighYYY LowYNN IV (0 - 16)High or LowYNN