You asked about actions taken to address prison overcrowding in recent years.

SUMMARY

To address prison overcrowding in recent years, the Department of Correction (DOC) has reopened previously closed buildings (such as the Northeast Correctional Institution, now known as the Bergin Correctional Institution, which reopened in February 1999), double bunked most cells, converted program space into inmate housing, increased the number of dormitory beds, and renovated other facility space for housing. Construction began in late 2001 on a project to add 600 beds at the MacDougal/Walker Correctional Institution in Suffield (Prison and Jail Overcrowding Commission, Report, January 16, 2002). Attached is a list of facility expansion projects provided by DOC.

The 2001 budget included funding in FY 03 to develop a 500-bed community justice center (CJC) and another act authorized DOC to use some of its bond authorizations in FY 02 to buy land and develop the project (SA 01-2, June Special Session and SA 01-2, June Special Session). According to David O. Elliott, director of Facilities Management & Engineering at DOC, there is currently no funding for the CJC but DOC is converting its old administrative building unit at the York facility in Niantic to a low security (Level 1 and 2) housing unit that could be used as a CJC if funding is available.

According to the Prison and Jail Overcrowding Commission's 2002 report, DOC has also expanded prison based drug treatment programs, added a therapeutic community, increased staffing, and enhanced substance abuse programming in intake facilities. Also, in October 1999, DOC entered a contract with the Virginia Department of Correction to house up to 484 inmates. The contract now allows up to 500 inmates.

In 2002, the State Bond Commission approved the sale of state boards for planning and environmental studies for a 720 prison bed expansion at Somers. According to Marvin Lyons of the Office of Fiscal Analysis, for the expansion to be built, the commission would have to approve the sale of an additional 30 or 40 million dollars in state bails.

Within the last five years, the Judicial Branch has addressed prison overcrowding by (1) creating a Jail Re-Interview program in 1998 to reassess defendants for possible bail modification; (2) enhancing residential services; (3) creating a split sentence notification project to notify offenders of the conditions of their probation to attempt to prevent violations of probation for failing to report; and (4) implementing the Probation Risk Reduction Program, a new assessment, classification, and supervision system, and hiring new probation officers. Attached is additional information provided by the Judicial Branch.

Recent legislation also addressed prison overcrowding by (1) creating a zero-tolerance drug supervision program, (2) altering parole eligibility, (3) expanding eligibility for the pretrial drug education and alcohol education programs, (4) expanding eligibility for the community service labor program, (5) giving judges discretion to impose less than the law's mandatory minimum sentence on some drug felons, (6) expanding eligibility for accelerated rehabilitation, (7) creating a state prevention council, and (8) increasing the credit that a person receives for his confinement in certain circumstances. A 2001 act authorized the Judicial Branch, within available appropriations, to establish an alternative incarceration center in the New Haven Judicial District.

JUDICIAL BRANCH

Jail Re-Interview

Under the Jail Re-Interview Program, intake, assessment, and referral staff reassess defendants held on bond for treatment needs or changes in circumstances to present a supervision plan to the court for bond modification. This applies primarily to low risk, non-violent young adults. According to the Judicial Branch, since the program began in 1998, 4,679 (58% of those assessed) have been released through family interventions or with a supervision plan attached to their conditions of release. In fiscal year 2002, 1,780 of the 2,672 defendants screened were released from DOC. Alternatives used through the Jail Re-interview process include alternative incarceration centers, bail supervision, residential treatment programs, and family interventions currently operating under the network funded by the Judicial Branch's Court Support Services Division (CSSD).

According to the Judicial Branch, in fiscal year 2000, funding also added staff and thirty residential substance abuse treatment beds.

Enhanced Residential Services

According to the Judicial Branch, CSSD received funding in FY 2000/2001 for 100 new substance abuse treatment beds to increase its existing network of 277 beds. With the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS), CSSD purchased 66 beds through DMHAS's contracted providers. According to the Judicial Branch, this resulted in a wider array of treatment services available to the courts and probation staff and expanded the availability of treatment services in areas of the state lacking adequate residential treatment availability.

Split Sentence Notification Project

CSSD also began the Split Sentence Notification Project. The project's goal is to meet with offenders to reiterate their court ordered conditions of probation and where to report in order to reduce the number of offenders who violate probation and are sent back to prison for not reporting to adult supervision officers on release from DOC facilities. According to the Judicial Branch, one-quarter of offenders were not aware of their court ordered probation stipulation.

According to the Judicial Branch, one jail re-interviewer was initially assigned to this project and this expanded to include three contracted employees who travel to facilities across the state to meet with offenders.

Probation Risk Reduction Program

In December 2001, CSSD implemented a new assessment, classification, and supervision system, the Probation Risk Reduction Program. The program is based on the Level of Service Inventory Revised (LSI-R), a risk classification instrument. The LSI-R predicts defendant/offender recidivism and determines the appropriate level of supervision to assign the offender. There are five categories of supervision: sex offender, surveillance, high supervision, medium supervision, and administrative supervision. CSSD will also deploy a warrant unit to coordinate violation of probation warrant services. CSSD also established the Center For Best Practices in 2001 to identify, develop, and implement new programs.

Since 1999, CSSD has hired approximately 70 new officers to implement the first phase of the system. It developed a fully staffed pilot program in the New London area to analyze the effectiveness of the instrument and new supervision structure. Caseload averages across the state have dropped from 240 to 187 with the addition of the 70 officers.

According to the Judicial Branch, the combination of reduced caseloads, improved supervision standards, more accurate assessments of offender treatment needs, and implementation of best practices is expected to improve recidivism rates, reduce the number of incarcerated probationers, and help offset prison and jail overcrowding.

LEGISLATION

Zero Tolerance Drug Supervision Program

PA 98-145. This act required the Board of Parole chairman, DOC commissioner, and chief court administrator to each establish a zero-tolerance drug supervision pilot program by October 1, 1998 for individuals eligible for (1) administrative parole (inmates not convicted of certain felonies who were sentenced to two to four years in prison and who served one-half of that time and any mandatory minimum), (2) DOC's community release program (which is for inmates sentenced to less than two years in prison who have served at least half of their sentence), and (3) probation. The act set criteria for the program, including a limit on the number of participants. It set requirements for participants and allowed probationers to participate only as a condition of probation. Conditions include submitting to periodic urinalysis drug tests, detention in a halfway house for up to two days when a person tests positive, and compliance with halfway house rules.

PA 99-34. This act expanded program eligibility to include all parolees (which includes those on medical, special, and regular parole).

PA 99-187. This act further expanded eligibility to include (1) people eligible for bail and ordered to participate, (2) probationers referred because they violated a condition of probation, and (3) youthful offenders and participants in accelerated rehabilitation (a pretrial diversion program for first offenders accused of "less serious crimes" who have not previously used the program) who are ordered by the court to participate as a condition of probation.

Parole

PA 99-196. This act allowed inmates convicted of murder, felony murder, arson murder, or any offense committed with a firearm on or within 1,500 feet of public or private elementary or secondary school grounds to be released on parole if they have six months or less to serve and served at least 95% of their sentence. Before release, an inmate must agree to be (1) subject to parole supervision for one year and (2) incarcerated in the prison they were paroled from for the rest of their sentence if they violate their parole terms or conditions. (The act also allowed those convicted of a capital felony to be released on parole under these conditions, but a separate statute, not referred to or amended by the act, prohibits their release from prison. )

The act allowed people convicted of other offenses, where the underlying facts and circumstances involved the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force to be paroled under the same circumstances. (By law, unchanged by the act, these offenders are eligible for parole after serving at least 85% of their sentence. )

Also, the act allowed inmates convicted of all other offenses to be paroled under the same conditions if they have six months or less left to serve on their sentences.

Finally, the act allowed inmates incarcerated for non-violent offenses to be paroled before serving all of their mandatory sentence if they are otherwise eligible.

PA 00-86. This act expanded eligibility for parole without a hearing before the parole board (administrative parole) to inmates eligible for special parole. With the exception of capital felons, inmates are eligible for special parole if they (1) have six months or less of their sentence remaining, (2) have served at least 95% of their sentence, (3) agree to supervised parole for one year, and (4) agree to serve the remainder of their term at the prison they were paroled from if they violate parole.

By expanding administrative parole in this way, the act made eligible for administrative parole inmates who are ineligible for regular parole because they were convicted of murder, felony murder, arson murder, an offense committed with a firearm within 1,500 feet of an elementary or secondary school, or an offense involving the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force. The law continues to prohibit the administrative parole of inmates convicted of manslaughter; vehicular misconduct; criminally negligent homicide; first-degree assault; first-degree assault of an aged, blind, or disabled person; first-degree sexual assault; first-degree aggravated sexual assault; sexual assault in a spousal or cohabiting relationship; first-degree kidnapping; first-degree kidnapping with a firearm; first-degree robbery; and employing a minor in an obscene performance.

The act also made eligible for administrative parole inmates sentenced to more than four years imprisonment but who have less than three years left to serve.

Pretrial Drug Education Program

PA 99-148. This act expanded the category of defendants eligible to participate in the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services' (DMHAS) Pretrial Drug Education Program, which is available to people charged with DWI for the first time, to include defendants charged with any drug possession crime, instead of just those charged with drug paraphernalia crimes and possession of certain controlled substances, typically a small amount of marijuana.

Pretrial Alcohol Education Program

PA 02-1, June Special Session. This act allowed drivers under age 21 to participate in the program, which is available to people charged with DWI for the first time. Another law prevented these drivers from applying when they were found to have a BAC of . 02% or more. The act made several changes in program procedures.

Community Service Labor Program

PA 99-148. This act expanded eligibility for participation in the Community Service Labor Program by allowing defendants charged with drug paraphernalia crimes to participate in the Community Service Labor Program. It also prohibited defendants from participating if they are charged with drug sale or possession crimes and were previously convicted of drug paraphernalia crimes. Under the act, past Pretrial Drug Education Program participants can participate in the Community Service Labor Program. The act also altered the length of time participants stay in the program.

The Community Service Labor Program can be a pretrial diversion, part of any conditional discharge, or a condition of probation. It includes unpaid labor for government agencies and nonprofit charitable institutions. The court must dismiss the charges against anyone who successfully completes the program.

Mandatory Minimum Sentences

PA 01-99. This act allowed judges to impose less than the law's mandatory minimum sentence on some drug felons. They can do so when no other person was hurt during the crime and the defendant (1) did not use, attempt, or threaten to use physical force; (2) was unarmed; and (3) did not use, threaten to use, or suggest that he had a deadly weapon.

Defendants must show good cause and invoke the act's provisions only once, and judges must put on the record their reasons for imposing a lesser sentence. Certain drug offenses involving children are excluded.

Accelerated Rehabilitation

PA 00-209. This act allowed the court to grant accelerated rehabilitation (AR) to someone previously adjudged a youthful offender, provided at least five years have passed since that occurred. (AR is a pretrial diversion program for people accused of offenses "not of a serious nature" if they were not previously convicted of a crime or certain motor vehicle violations and have not used the program before. There are other exceptions to eligibility. The Youthful Offender program is a diversion program that allows the court to erase the criminal records of first-time youthful offenders (16- and 17-year-olds) who meet eligibility criteria and who successfully complete a court-imposed sentence. )

In determining whether to grant AR to someone previously adjudged a youthful offender, the court must have access to the person's youthful offender records and may consider the nature and circumstances of the crime the person was charged with as a youth.

PA 01-16. This act allowed courts to grant AR to people accused of first-degree larceny as long as the crime did not involve the use or threat to use physical force. This offense is a class B felony. By law, people accused of other class B felonies are not eligible for AR.

State Prevention Council

PA 01-121. This act created a State Prevention Council consisting of state agency heads to (1) create a prevention framework for the state, (2) recommend a comprehensive statewide prevention plan, (3) better coordinate existing and future state agency prevention expenditures, and (4) increase fiscal accountability. The council must:

1. submit a report to the OPM secretary and the Appropriations Committee by July 1, 2002 identifying appropriations for prevention services in each involved agency's budget for the previous fiscal year;

2. recommend a comprehensive statewide prevention plan to the OPM secretary and the General Assembly by December 1, 2002; and

3. submit its recommendations on expanding the council, including the use of potential benchmarks, or terminating it to the OPM secretary and Appropriations Committee by July 1, 2004.

The law also requires the governor to include a prevention report in his budget document for the biennial budget covering July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2005.

It defines "prevention" as polices and programs that (1) promote healthy, safe, and productive lives and (2) reduce the likelihood of crime, violence, substance abuse, illness, academic failure, and other socially destructive behaviors.

Credit Towards Confinement

PA 01-78. This act allowed a person sentenced for an offense on or after October 1, 2001 to receive credit toward his prison sentence for time spent before sentencing confined in a police station or courthouse lockup because he could not obtain or was denied bail. A person receives one day of credit for each day of presentence confinement.

The act presumes that a person was confined in a police station or courthouse lockup because he could not obtain or was denied bail if he is confined in a correctional facility on October 1, 2001 for an offense for which he was sentenced before that date. The act gives him a one-day credit toward his sentence but allows the court to order otherwise.

If a person is sentenced to prison for a first conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, the act cannot reduce his sentence below the mandatory minimum of 48 consecutive hours in prison.

(By law, a person already received credit towards his sentence and fine for time confined prior to sentencing in a community correctional center or correctional institution under a mittimus or because he could not obtain or was denied bail. )

PA 02-18. This act increased (effective October 1, 2002) the credit someone earns toward payment of a fine, from $ 10 to $ 50 for each day of confinement, when he is convicted of a crime and held in a DOC facility only for payment of the fine. It also increases, from $ 10 to $ 50, the additional credit that someone can earn for each day of productive or maintenance work, if the person has a satisfactory work record.

The act also allows these individuals to be released by DOC, with the agreement of the Judicial Department's Court Support Services Division (CSSD), to perform community service under CSSD supervision. A person earns a credit towards payment of his fine of $ 50 per day for this service. He remains under DOC jurisdiction during this time and is released after completing the period of required service or when the fine is paid in full. The person can be returned to confinement if DOC determines that his conduct makes him unsuitable to continue in community service.

The act also increases from $ 10 to $ 50 the credit someone earns towards payment of a fine for each day he spends confined in a DOC facility before sentencing because he could not obtain or was denied bail.

In addition, a person can earn a reduction of his fine for good conduct if he obeys the facility rules while confined before sentencing in a DOC facility or police or courthouse lock-up. The act increases this amount from $ 100 to $ 500 for each 30 days of confinement.

Alternative Incarceration Center

A 2001 act authorized the Judicial Branch, within available appropriations, to establish an alternative incarceration center in the New Haven Judicial District (PA 01-4, June Special Session). In addition to the programs and services offered by alternative incarceration centers, this center must provide a residential and day reporting program for accused and convicted people with mental health needs. The act requires, within available appropriations, a full range of mental health services for program participants. It requires a clinical coordinator to (1) work with the center's director to facilitate timely access to appropriate services and (2) develop a network of community, social, and vocational rehabilitation support to enhance successful program participation and long-term community integration (PA 01-9, June Special Session, § 77).

No additional funds have been provided in the FY 02 or FY 03 state budget to implement this legislation. Consequently, the center has not been established yet.

CR: ro