Introduction

Pre-Trial Diversion and Alternative Sanctions

Incarceration has long been the traditional response to persons convicted of crimes. Another common sanction is probation, which is a non-custodial sentence of conditional liberty. Convicted offenders on probation are legally subject to the authority and under the supervision of the judicial branch. Both incarceration and probation are founded on four criminal justice policy goals: punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and public safety.

For a number of reasons, including but not limited to prison overcrowding, great efforts have been made over the past twenty years in Connecticut and nationally to meet these goals through methods other than incarceration, but short of probation. The concept of alternatives to incarceration has taken root as an acceptable criminal justice system response to a criminal conviction. These methods are called alternative sanctions. For a convicted offender, an alternative sanction is any punishment more restrictive than traditional probation and less punitive than incarceration. (Appendix A summarizes the development of the major alternative to incarceration policies in Connecticut.)

Arrested persons accused of criminal activity can also impact prison overcrowding. The majority of arrested persons are released under some kind of bond arrangement prior to case disposition. However, a pre-trial defendant who cannot post or is ineligible for bail is incarcerated in the state’s jail system until case disposition. The alternative to incarceration concept was expanded to offer a viable option to augment traditional bail for certain incarcerated defendants.

As far back as the 1940s, Connecticut recognized in some cases the standard punishment options of incarceration or community supervision may not be in the best interest of an offender, a victim, or the public. Diverting a defendant from the criminal justice system to medically supervised treatment for serious mental illness or severe drug addiction or a structured educational program focusing on the consequences of certain criminal behavior were deemed to be more appropriate and effective. This early pre-trial diversion option was within the parameters of the alternatives to incarceration concept. Pre-trial diversion is intended to redirect persons arrested for the first time from further involvement with the criminal justice system by deferring prosecution and ultimately dismissing the charge upon successful compliance with certain court-ordered conditions.

The primary goal of the alternatives to incarceration concept clearly was to help control the growth in the inmate population thus addressing prison overcrowding. Beyond just an overcrowding remedy, however, it was intended to also better address the offender’s rehabilitation and reduce court backlogs. It is important to note the emphasis on alternatives to incarceration was always to be consistent with public safety protection.

While the overall goals of the state’s alternatives to incarceration policy have not changed, there has been a recent shift in focus from a general goal of controlling prison overcrowding to a specific goal of reducing recidivism (Public Act 04-234). The underlying principle of the new direction is that a reduction in the overall recidivism rate will not only help to manage the growing prison population, but eventually will also have a broader public safety impact by addressing the causes of crime rather than simply focusing on prison bed savings.

The outcome measures of success have also been redefined to include tracking a reduction in the recidivism rate and determining the adequacy of community-based treatment, vocational, educational, supervision and other service programs. Any savings achieved through a reduction in prison population and greater efficiency of community-based programs are to be reinvested in existing alternatives to incarceration.

Scope of study. As set out in the scope of study adopted by the committee in March 2004, this study is focusing on the organization, effectiveness, and efficiency of the state’s system of pre-trial diversion and alternative sanctions, including whether it meets its original mandates. Specifically, the study is reviewing the following:

Report organization. This report is divided into five sections. Section One outlines the existing network of community-based pre-trial diversion and alternative sanction programs. Section Two provides an analysis of the capacity of the alternative sanction network and program utilization and satisfactory client discharge rates. Section Three describes the organization and responsibilities of the Court Support Services Division within the judicial branch. Section Four summarizes the process to develop, contract for, and monitor the network of contracted alternative sanction programs. The final section outlines the program review committee staff preliminary findings.

Section One

Program Overview

The three categories of alternatives to incarceration included in the scope of the committee’s review are:

All three are delivered statewide throughout the five CSSD regions: Northwest; North Central; Southwest; South Central; and Eastern.

All pre-trial diversion and alternative sanction programs and one specialized court program (mediation) are provided by community-based, non-profit agencies under contract with CSSD. The Community Court and the Drug Court are administered by the Superior Court for criminal matters. In some cases, professionals under fee-for-service contracts provide clinical services. The Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS), under an agreement with CSSD, contracts for providers of the pre-trial alcohol and drug education programs and the drug and alcohol evaluation and treatment services for the alternative sanction programs.

The Court Support Services Division does not directly provide any services. It is solely responsible for case management, which includes intake, assessment, and referral, and the supervision of defendants and offenders. CSSD is further responsible for managing the network of community-based programs including developing, contracting for, and monitoring the programs for efficiency and effectiveness. The division’s duties and activities are discussed in detail in Sections Three and Four.

This section provides a description of the existing network of pre-trial diversion, alternative sanction, and specialized court programs including the client eligibility criteria for various programs. First, the steps within the criminal justice process at which a defendant or offender enters a pre-trial diversion, alternative sanction, or specialized court program are identified.

Criminal justice process. A person enters the state’s criminal justice system through an arrest by state or local police. In general, an arrested person, a defendant, is referred to the criminal court for bail setting, arraignment, case disposition, and sentencing. If guilty and sentenced for the criminal charges against him or her, the person, now an offender, is transferred to the custody of the:

Once an offender successfully completes the court-imposed sentence, he or she is discharged from the criminal justice system.

Built into the criminal justice process are options to defer prosecution of pre-trial defendants and to provide sanctions other than incarceration for both pre-trial defendants and sentenced offenders. As shown in Figure I-1, the pre-trial diversion and alternative sanctions options affect the custody status and or sentences of persons at different points throughout the criminal justice process. The following description of pre-trial diversion and alternative sanction programs will identify the points at which a defendant or offender can be diverted from prosecution or participate in an alternative sanction program.

Pre-trial Diversion Programs

To be eligible for a pre-trial diversion program a defendant must be charged for the first time with one of the following statutorily targeted offenses:

Table I-1 summarizes the six pre-trial diversion programs established in state statutes. The table outlines the statutory client eligibility criteria, program components, and fees. A list of existing contracted providers for each program is in Appendix B.

Program fees. As shown in Table I-1, all pre-trial diversion programs except pre-trial CSLP assess a participation fee set in statute. The Pre-trial School Violence Education Program fee amount is not specified in state law; which fee a parent or guardian is required to pay. The current participation fee administratively set by the contracted providers for the program is $300. The pre-trial alcohol education program charges application, evaluation, and victim impact panel participation fees. However, no eligible defendant may be denied access to any program based on an inability to pay a fee as a judge can waive all or part of any fee.

The pre-trial alcohol and drug education programs fees are credited to the pre-trial account -- a separate, nonlapsing account of the state’s General Fund -- used to finance the two programs. The family violence education, school violence education, and hate crimes diversion program fees are credited to the state’s General Fund.

Eligibility. A defendant can apply for a pre-trial diversion program after posting bond at arrest or subsequent to arraignment. All arrested persons, except those charged with a capital felony offense subject to the death penalty, have bail set by the:

CSSD confirms eligibility and refers a defendant to the appropriate program. The Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS), which contracts for the group education components of the pre-trial alcohol and drug education programs, also evaluates applicants.

Once a defendant is accepted into a program, a judge vacates the bail bond and suspends prosecution of the criminal charges. A defendant then has one year to complete the court-ordered educational component. Defendants must agree to a suspension (tolling) of the statute of limitations for the pending criminal offense and waive the right to a speedy trial. Court files are sealed from the public during the program participation period.

A defendant enrolled in a program is not actively supervised by CSSD and is not required to appear before a judge. The program provider reports a client’s successful completion to CSSD, which is then reported to a judge.

Upon successful completion of a pre-trial diversion program as determined by the program provider, the criminal charge against a defendant is dismissed. This is an administrative process requiring no formal court proceeding or court appearance by the defendant. The defendant receives written notification of the dismissal of the criminal charge.

If a defendant fails to successfully complete a program, a judge may: (1) re-instate the criminal charges, unseal the court file, enter a plea of not guilty on behalf of the defendant, and refer the case to the state’s attorney for prosecution; or (2) for good cause extend the program participation period to allow for completion.

Alternative Sanction Programs

Programs. There are many types of alternative sanction programs. For contracting purposes, they are categorized into seven general areas:

Appendix B lists the existing contracted alternative sanction providers by region.

There is overlap in the types of services provided by alternative sanction programs with most offering various types of individual counseling and treatment including: mental health and substance abuse evaluation and treatment; individual, group, and family counseling; educational and vocational counseling and placement; life skills counseling; recreation; case planning; and referral services. What differs among the programs is the setting and client profile. The programs can provide services in a residential or nonresidential setting offering various levels of supervision to persons under different sentencing statuses and custody levels.

There are supplemental services that augment both probation supervision and alternative sanction programs such as electronic monitoring and drug testing. However, they are not defined as alternative sanction programs.

Eligibility. In general, most pre-trial defendants and sentenced offenders are eligible to participate in alternative sanction programs. CSSD or a judge determines a defendant’s eligibility during the bail setting process and can order participation in an alternative sanction program as a special bail release condition. Sentenced offenders are referred to an alternative sanction program one of three ways:

As will be discussed, some alternative sanction programs target special populations or provide specific services not appropriate for the general client population. CSSD and the provider contractually set the eligibility criteria for those programs. Exceptions to client eligibility will be noted at the end of each program description that now follows.

Alternative Incarceration Centers. The 18 Alternative Incarceration Centers (AIC) are the cornerstone of the alternative sanctions network and were specifically designed to provide an alternative for clients whom, if not for the availability of the service, would otherwise be incarcerated -- the “jail bound” offender population.

AICs monitor defendant and offender behavior and provide structured, center-based, day and evening services such as:

Community service and transitional housing are integral components of AICs. Transitional housing for up to 30 days is currently provided in the Hartford, Middletown, New Haven, and Waterbury centers, but the beds may be used by any AIC in the state. Often a day-reporting client is placed in a transitional housing bed as a sanction for noncompliance with other conditions of the program.

All court locations are serviced by an AIC liaison responsible for identifying defendants and offenders eligible to participate in the program, developing supervision and service delivery plans, and reporting on clients’ progress to judges and CSSD.

Defendants and offenders admitted to an AIC are required to:

AICs typically do not accept defendants charged with or offenders convicted of sexual assault or arson offenses or clients with a diagnosed serious mental illness or substance abuse problem. It should be noted, however, CSSD and DMHAS are collaborating to develop a pilot AIC for clients with serious mental illness. The agencies are developing the program under the auspices of the Alternatives to Incarceration Advisory Committee of the Prison and Jail Overcrowding Commission.

Day Incarceration Centers. Day Incarceration Centers (DIC) provide a combination of control and supervision, treatment, punishment, and community restitution in a more restrictive and punitive setting than an AIC. DICs provide:

Pre-trial defendants and sentenced offenders participate in the program up to seven days per week for eight hours per day. Sentenced offenders typically participate in the DIC program for four months unless otherwise ordered by a judge or probation officer, while pre-trial defendants are enrolled until case disposition.

As of June 2004, the DIC program was terminated due to budget cuts. DIC served less than 200 clients statewide and the division decided to close the program due to forced budget reductions rather than negatively impact other programs such as AIC that had larger client populations.

Adult services. Many defendants and offenders involved with the criminal justice system have multiple-service needs. Adult services programs provide a coordinated range of community-based, nonresidential services including:

The adult services programs are less intensive and structured than AICs and do not generally provide supervision nor require scheduled reporting, but clients are required to attend and participate in program sessions.

During 2004, as part of its shift to evidenced-based programming (discussed in Section Four), the scope of adult services programs, now called adult behavioral health services, was revised to specifically focus on providing: (1) substance abuse assessment; (2) group and intensive outpatient substance abuse treatment; (3) mental health evaluation and treatment; and (4) group anger management counseling. Under the new contract, providers must offer specific evidenced-based programs with research to support efficacy such as the anger management curriculum CALM (Controlling Anger and Learning to Manage It) or ART (Aggression Replacement Training). (Appendix C provides an overview of the evidenced-based program strategy.)

The other existing services including GED preparation and emergency transitional housing were eliminated under the new contract because they do not specifically target identified criminogenic needs of the client population or provide supervision strategies to reduce the clients’ risk of re-offending. For the eliminated services, CSSD instead plans to refer clients to Infoline², a statewide, comprehensive, help-by-telephone service that provides free, 24-hour information, community referrals, and crisis intervention to non-contracted, supplemental services.

To date, however, CSSD has not selected the providers for the new adult behavioral health services contract. It has authorized an extension of the existing adult services contract.

Residential treatment. Residential treatment programs are for adult male and female defendants and offenders in need of emergency or short- or long-term placement to avoid incarceration. Residential treatment programs, except some that service special populations, do not accept clients who may pose a threat to the safety of other clients or program staff due to their history of violent crimes, sexual assault offenses, and arson, or clients in need of emergency psychiatric care or taking psychotropic medication.

Residential treatment services include halfway houses, transitional housing, detoxification, intensive drug treatment (up to 18 months), and special facilities for the mentally ill or those dually diagnosed with mental illness and drug dependency. Table I-2 lists the existing eight types of residential programs serving different target populations, the average length of stay, bed capacity, and services.

Transitional housing programs provide comprehensive supervision to male and female defendants and offenders lacking appropriate living arrangements, which may make them unsuitable for release on bail or probation. In addition to the residential arrangement, the programs generally provide drug testing, substance abuse counseling, community service referrals, and client compliance reporting. This service, often coupled with an AIC for daytime supervision, is provided for up to 45 days.

The residential detoxification programs can last up to seven days depending on the needs of the client. Licensed medical professionals monitor the detoxification process.

The length of intensive, residential drug treatment programs vary from 30 days to 18 months with an outpatient aftercare component. Detoxification services are not provided. Residential programs are highly structured, therapeutic communities that focus on educational or vocational counseling, community service, physical fitness training, life skills, and health related programming.

As show in the table, there are specialized residential facilities for clients dually diagnosed, pregnant, HIV positive, and with dependent children.

Domestic violence. A family (or domestic) violence crime is statutorily defined as a crime that results in physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or threatened violence that constitutes fear or imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault between family or household members except an act by parent or guardian disciplining a minor child unless it constitutes abuse. Adult males convicted of a family violence crime are eligible to participate in the EVOLVE and EXPLORE programs

EXPLORE is a 26-week group-based program for men convicted of a domestic violence crime against female intimate partners. The focus of the program is education and behavior change for positive interpersonal and conflict resolution and behavior management skills. A client is required to attend a one and one-half hour class per week.

EVOLVE is a 26 or 52 week, intensive psycho-educational, peer confrontational, behavior modification group for male offenders convicted of domestic violence crimes against female intimate partners. The pilot program was developed in 2000 at the request of the U.S. Department of Justice to determine the best practices for sanctioning domestic violence offenders and effecting long-term behavior change. Program effectiveness is being determined by independent research funded by the National Institute of Justice.

Clients can participate in any additional alternative sanction programs such as an AIC or outpatient substance abuse treatment concurrent with the two domestic violence programs.

Special Population. Special population programs are designed for certain types of clients who have previously been underserved or have very specific criminal histories or service needs. The identified groups are convicted sex offenders, and female or Latino defendants or offenders. CSSD currently administers only one gender specific program for women and one geared to Latino clients.

Female defendants and offenders often have dependent children, a history of substance abuse, or have been victims of abuse, sexual assault, or violent or domestic violence crimes. They tend to be involved with other social or health care service systems such as the Department of Children and Families.

It is acknowledged that females involved with the criminal justice system have unique service needs that are often expensive to provide and difficult to address. Women represent a small -- but growing -- percentage of the offender population making it inefficient and difficult for agencies to develop and provide a program for only a few clients. Gender specific programs attempt to target women by providing services to reduce the risk of re-offending and meet the client’s needs.

Currently STARS (Striving Toward Achievement, Reward, and Success) is the only gender specific program for female defendants and offenders age 16 and older providing intensive supervision and comprehensive services. The STARS program serves as a step-down service from the residential women and children’s programs.

The Latino Youth Offender Program provides intensive case management and counseling for Latino/Latina defendants and offenders between 16 and 23 years. The program develops educational, economic, social, and community resources.

The treatment and supervision of sex offenders in the community is an important public safety component. The Intensive Supervision Sex Offender Unit model is a victim-centered approach to high-risk supervision and treatment provided in collaboration between CSSD for supervision, The Connection, Inc. for treatment, and the Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services, Inc. (ConnSACS) for victim advocacy. Probation officers, treatment providers, and victim advocates staff each program site.

The program goals are to provide:

The program serves predominately male offenders at least 16 years old convicted of a sexual offense (primarily child molestation and rape) in need of specialized treatment for sexual disorders. The program offers treatment services for female sex offenders in Hartford and New Haven. Treatment is also available for clients who are developmentally disabled or borderline intellectual functioning. Offenders are likely to have previous treatment failures, a high probability of probation violations and re-arrest, and the potential to be a high risk in the community.

Active supervision caseloads are capped at 25 high-risk sex offenders per probation officer and 50 cases per relapse prevention officer. Three probation officers and one relapse prevention officer staff each unit. Sex offenders are evaluated pre-sentence or at the beginning of the probation period and are re-evaluated every six months to track progress and determine the supervision level.

Clients are classified for intensive treatment (four days per week, three hours per day), regular treatment, or follow-up. The treatment method is primarily group therapy, but a client may receive individual counseling if he is not yet capable of participating constructively in a group setting or is experiencing certain problems better addressed on an individual basis. The program provides services to bilingual offenders. Families of sex offenders are expected to participate in treatment, and clients are required to undergo and participate in:

Other services. There are two programs in this category: Zero-Tolerance Drug Program; and Community Service Labor Program (CSLP), which is a separate program from the Pre-trial CSLP although pre-trial defendants may participate in CSLP.

The Community Service Labor Program provides unpaid supervised work at non-profit community agencies, municipal projects, and civic organizations. CSLP projects are coordinated and supervised by the AICs and include:

The AIC screens a defendant or offender to determine interest, skill, and availability for placement and determines the CSLP placement site and schedule. The length of program participation varies according to court order. There is no program cost to the client.

An offender age 18 and older with a history of substance abuse can be ordered by a judge to participate in the Zero-Tolerance Drug Program. Clients enter into a contract with the CSSD agreeing to:

Specialized Courts

Connecticut established specialized court programs as alternatives to the traditional criminal court process. The programs include: Community Court; Drug Intervention Program; and mediation.

Community Court. In 1997 (Public Act 97-199), the Community Court program was established to provide alternative dispositions for misdemeanor offenses except motor vehicle offenses and infractions, violations of local ordinances, and offenses referred from the housing court. The intention was for the court to deal in an alternative way with a variety of low level, “quality of life” crimes. Table I-3 lists the offenses referred to the Community Court and the recommended sentence.

The court program is operated in Hartford and to a lesser degree in Waterbury. To participate, a defendant charged with one of the eligible offenses is issued a summons and/or arrested. He or she is referred and required to appear at the Community Court within two days of being arrested, excluding weekends and holidays.

Defendants enter a conditional guilty plea to the criminal charge and are sentenced according to the guidelines set forth in Table I-3. Most defendants work between one to five days for eight hours per day on a community service project. After successfully completing the required number of community service days and any other court-ordered condition and remaining crime-free for one month, the conditional guilty plea is vacated and the charges dismissed.

For repeat offenders, the recommended sentence may be increased from the guidelines to include more community service or a period of incarceration. Also, a judge can terminate a defendant’s participation in the Community Court program and impose another sentence including prison.

The court’s social services team composed of representatives from the Hartford Department of Human Services, state Department of Social Services (DSS), and DMHAS assesses each defendant’s service needs and facilitates access to community-based treatment and social services. In addition, the Community Court has implemented three special programs.

Drug Intervention Program. In 2002, the Drug Intervention Program replaced the Drug Court, which was terminated in 2000 due to budgetary constraints. The program establishes a drug intervention docket separate from other criminal matters for defendants with a substance abuse problem in the Bridgeport GA court.

The program accepts: (1) offenders who have violated probation and as a result could be sent to prison; and (2) offenders sentenced directly to the program. Offenders accepted into the program have their prison sentences suspended and must agree to:

If a residential treatment bed is ordered but not available, the offender can await placement in prison or opt out of the program and move onto the sentencing phase.

A defendant admitted for a violation of probation who successfully completes the program has his or her sentence terminated. Defendants directly sentenced to the program in lieu of prison are transferred to an aftercare component to complete any remaining probationary period. The violation sanctions of the drug intervention program include:

Mediation Services. A 1982 law (Public Act 82-383) created a mediation program for a defendant, the victim, and an impartial third party (mediator) to voluntarily resolve a dispute by developing a mutually acceptable resolution. While the program is voluntary, the defendant does not waive the right to counsel.

Defendants charged with any criminal offense may participate in mediation with the exception of class A and B felonies, family violence, child abuse, and any offense subject to a mandatory minimum sentence.

Mediation services last less than 90 days and cases typically are resolved within one month. The program provides information about the process and the disputants’ rights to self-determination in defining issues and outcomes. The program develops procedures to ensure impartiality and neutrality, confidentiality of client information, and compliance with terms of a mediated agreement. There is an emphasis on language and cultural diversity matching ethnicity, race, gender, age of the parties, and the community.

If mediation is successful, the state’s attorney can terminate the prosecution. If mediation is unsuccessful or the defendant fails to comply with the terms of the mediation agreement the case is referred to the state’s attorney for prosecution. There is no mediation cost to the participants.

Section Two

Program Capacity and Utilization Analysis

A key area of the program review committee’s study is determining the demand for, participation in, and outcomes of alternative to incarceration options. Information gathered to date by the committee staff is presented in this section.

The CSSD Quality Control Unit regularly collects from contracted providers the number of program beds and slots, contracted program capacity to serve clients, and the number of client admissions and discharges. Utilization and satisfactory discharge rates are determined based on the aggregate caseload data for alternative sanction and specialized court programs. There are many limitations to the data noted below; however, these are the best available data to track demand, capacity, and client participation.

Table II-1 summarizes the key points of the detailed data analysis.

Pre-trial Diversion Programs

Pre-trial diversion programs are not included in the analysis because the division does not set contracted capacity nor uniformly collect reliable client admission and discharge data. The capacity of the pre-trial diversion programs is basically unlimited and all eligible defendants are served. The duration of the statutory programs is relatively short and defendants have at least one year during which to complete a program. In some cases, they can even be granted a court-ordered extension so wait lists and overcapacity are negligible. The utilization rate for every pre-trial diversion program, therefore, is always reported as 100 percent.

Based on available information, the program review committee staff estimate several thousand defendants participate in the six pre-trial diversion education programs each year. Without the basic caseload data, the utilization and satisfactory discharge rates for the pre-trial diversion programs cannot be calculated. It is important to note before a criminal charge can be dismissed, a judge must be informed of a defendant’s successful completion of a pre-trial diversion program. However, the data are not collected in the aggregate for the purposes of monitoring or analysis. Because there are no pre-trial diversion data, the following analysis is incomplete as it only tells half the story of the available alternatives to incarceration.

Alternative Sanctions and Specialized Courts

The total number of residential beds and non-residential client openings (called “slots”) determines capacity. The estimated community-based program capacity, considered a fluid number, has generally been difficult to calculate. In analyzing capacity there are several factors that should be considered.

First, typically more than one person can be serviced by a single, non-residential slot, which is a more flexible option than a residential bed that can only be used by one person for a specified period of time. Program duration also impacts capacity. Most programs have a specified length of service, some of which are only a matter of weeks whereas others continue for more than a year. The residential and intensive non-residential programs tend to require longer client participation periods. Therefore, non-residential program capacity is more difficult to calculate than residential program and prison bed capacity, which are definite and finite.

Second, the capacity of residential and nonresidential pre-trial and alternative sanction programs is contractually set and refers in the following analysis to the total number of anticipated clients served during a fiscal year. A fee is assigned to each slot or bed, which determines the monthly CSSD payment to a program provider. Fee-for-service clinical programs also have an anticipated capacity.

Third, contracted capacity is set based on historical use of a program. CSSD tracks the number of defendant and offender admissions to each program and uses the data to project future capacity needs. Judges have a significant impact on capacity through court-ordered referrals and conditions to participate in specific programs. CSSD reports that judges tend to favor certain programs over others and there are trends among the various judicial regions in program use. There have also been some alternative sanction programs that certain judges have not liked and have not used.

Fourth, CSSD allows programs to exceed contracted capacity up to 10 percent. A program’s actual capacity may change from one year to the next based on an increase or decrease in clients admitted, but the contracted capacity number does not change unless the contract is amended or a new contract is awarded. If a program exceeds 10 percent capacity, especially for an extended period, then CSSD has in the past increased funding and contracted capacity or has instructed the program provider to limit admissions by creating a wait list.

Lastly, available state resources ultimately control contracted capacity. Many factors impact the state budget both in terms of appropriations and expenditures such as the state’s recent budget crisis, which reached its apex in FY 02. The resulting state budget forced reductions in appropriations to all state agencies including the judicial branch and thus, CSSD. The division’s adult Alternative Incarceration Program sustained the largest reduction of almost $4 million (66 percent of the total reductions) among the judicial branch’s budget areas. The FY 03 appropriation reduction authorized by the Office of Policy and Management (OPM), as shown in the following analysis, had a system-wide impact on program capacity and admissions.

In sum, program review committee staff analysis presents the capacity of the alternative sanction network and the specialized courts in two ways: (1) contracted capacity specifying the actual number of program slots or beds set forth in a contract; and (2) capacity to serve representing an estimated number of client admissions that could be served in a fiscal year by the contracted capacity. Together, the data provide the most accurate description of the statewide capacity of the CSSD Alternative Incarceration Program.

Contracted capacity. As shown in Table II-2, there has been no significant growth in contracted capacity for the alternative sanction programs except for the domestic violence program. Beginning in FY 02, CSSD modified its domestic violence program and implemented the EVOLVE and EXPLORE programs.

Capacity to serve. Over the past five fiscal years, some programs have been eliminated or merged into existing contracts. For example mental health services were merged into the adult services contract and Day Incarceration Centers, the Latino Treatment Track, and the Domestic Violence Sanctions programs were eliminated while the EVOLVE, EXPLORE, and STARS programs were brought online.

Figure II-1 shows the trend in contracted capacity compared to capacity to serve for alternative sanction and specialized court programs except for the Drug Intervention Program, which has no capacity data. As shown, the capacity to serve is much greater than the actual number of contracted program slots or beds (contracted capacity). As previously stated, this is because a slot or bed can accommodate several clients throughout a fiscal year and in some programs a slot can service more than one client per day. Capacity to serve, therefore, will always be greater than contracted capacity. The trend lines, as expected, mirror each other.

Table II-3 lists the capacity to serve for the two categories of programs for the past five fiscal years. The overall capacity to serve has increased from about 16,000 clients in FY 00 to over 26,000 in FY 04 -- a 63 percent increase. Capacity to serve reached its highest point (about 33,000) in FY 02 followed by a 17 percent drop the next fiscal year. The decrease in capacity to serve can primarily be attributed to the state budget crisis, as discussed earlier, during which forced reductions to state agency appropriations were made to balance the budget. The budget reductions negatively impacted contracted capacity and capacity to serve. Capacity has stabilized over the past two fiscal years.

The following graphic (Figure II-2) compares the growth in the CSSD community-based contracted capacity and the Department of Correction’s prison bed capacity³. Despite dealing with a serious prison overcrowding crisis for the past several years, both systems had almost no growth since FY 00. Relatively few prison beds have been added through small expansion projects at existing facilities. The capacity of the CSSD alternative sanction programs capacity appears to have been negatively impacted by FY 02 budget reductions whereas DOC prison capacity was not impacted.

Figure II-2 represents an interesting system-wide trend in managing the offender population. Currently, less than 25 percent of the total offender population (over 19,000 inmates) is incarcerated. The remainder of the population -- almost 60,000 sentenced to probation and another 25,000 defendants under some type of pre-trial diversion or supervision program -- participate in community-based alternative to incarceration programs. Yet, DOC capacity is nearly 20,000 permanent prison beds while the CSSD alternative sanction network capacity is only 5,000 community-based slots and beds representing a 4:1 ratio whereas the ratio between inmates in prison and defendants and offenders in an alternative sanction programs is 1:4.

Utilization rate. Client admission and program utilization rate data for the past five fiscal years were analyzed. Together these data along with capacity to serve show the trend in the actual use of alternative sanction and specialized court programs.

Client admission data are counts of the number of persons enrolled in an alternative sanction or specialized court program. It is important to note a person can be admitted to a specific program more than once during a fiscal year and also enrolled in several programs at the same time. Therefore, the number of admissions does not represent the actual number of persons participating in the programs. The total number of client admissions is most likely greater than the actual number of persons enrolled.

The program utilization rate is the percentage of slots or beds used in a fiscal year. It is calculated by dividing the total client census (e.g., total number of clients admitted to a program) by the capacity to serve and multiplying by 100. CSSD has administratively set a target for contracted programs of at least a 90 percent utilization rate.

The target rate is based on the ideal of 100 percent capacity tempered with the realization that the court process and case disposition causes delays in admitting clients to programs. Often defendants and offenders must wait for a court order to be released from custody and/or to enroll in a program.

Figure II-3 shows the total number of client admissions for alternative sanction and specialized court programs during the past five fiscal years. Specialized court admissions steadily rise. The specialized courts can serve many clients due to the short duration of the programs and the types of services provided.

Alternative sanction admissions peaked in FY 02 at almost 19,000 and have since declined in each of the next two fiscal years to a low of about 13,700 (a 28 percent decrease).

When compared, as shown in Figure II-4, the trend in capacity to serve and client admissions for alternative sanction and specialized court programs tracks for the first three fiscal years with admissions at or slightly less than capacity to serve. In FY 02, after forced state budget reductions decreased the capacity to serve, the trend reverses.

To further explore this trend, committee staff analyzed the alternative sanction programs with the most client admissions: Alternative Incarceration Centers; adult services; and residential treatment services. The following graphics (Figures II-5, II-6, and II-7) track the five-year trends in capacity to serve and client admissions for each program. The trends are then compared to the utilization rates.

Alternative Incarceration Centers. CSSD reports AICs are one of the most frequently used alternative sanction programs for pre-trial defendants and sentenced offenders. Overall, however, since FY 00, the capacity to serve has steadily decreased. As shown in Figure II-5, the capacity to serve dropped from a high of 6,554 AIC clients in FY 00 to 5,659 clients in FY 04 (a 14 percent decrease).

Similarly, there is a downward trend in client admissions, but admissions are only over or under capacity to serve by less than 5 percent in any given fiscal year. The AICs consistently exceed the CSSD target utilization rate of 90 percent and, in FY 02, were over-utilized (104 percent).

Adult services. The adult services program provides a wide variety of services including anger management counseling and mental health or substance abuse evaluation and treatment. The adult services data include capacity to serve and admissions for the separate mental health services operational through FY 01.

The number of admissions for adult services is consistently well above the capacity to serve during the period under analysis, although the actual number of admissions did not steadily increase. Adult services capacity to serve, as shown in Figure II-6, was reduced each fiscal year until it reached its lowest point in FY 03, when there were slightly more than 4,000 clients. Capacity to serve had a minor recovery in the last fiscal year, reaching about 5,000 clients.

The graphic shows, despite a decrease in capacity to serve, the adult services program served thousands more clients than expected. The program held at well over 100 percent utilization. During FY 01 and FY 02 the program operated at over 120 percent utilization and peaked in FY 03 at 141 percent.

As previously stated, providers are permitted to exceed capacity to serve between 5 and 10 percent for a period of time before CSSD intervenes. For the past five fiscal years, the adult services program has consistently exceeded the limit. The division explained this is because the type of services provided in the program and other funding sources that allow increased client admissions impact the trend.

Over-capacity to serve is caused, in part, because judges frequently order substance abuse and mental health evaluations of defendants and offenders and further require any treatment recommended as a result of the evaluation to be part of the bail, case disposition, and sentencing processes. The adult services program provides both of these evaluations.

The adult services program accepts third-party payments (e.g., State Administered General Assistance, private insurance) for client evaluation and treatment. CSSD reported many of its clients are eligible for SAGA. The program also receives funds from other state sources such as DMHAS grants-in-aid. The additional funds allow the program to expand its capacity to serve beyond the rate contracted for by the division.

CSSD acknowledges the gap in capacity to serve and admissions is often a financial hardship on the adult services program agencies. In an effort to address the issue, as discussed in Section Two, the division has changed the scope of the adult services contract to focus on clinical evaluation and treatment services for substance abuse, mental health, and anger management. The new contracts, which have yet to be awarded, exclude services such as transitional housing, GED preparation classes, and other social services. It is believed the scope of the new adult behavioral health services contract will allow for better utilization of resources and management of capacity to serve, although the division stated the gap in the trend between capacity to serve and admissions will most likely continue.

Residential treatment services. Excluding the women and children’s programs, during the first three fiscal years, residential programs more than doubled capacity to serve from about 600 to almost 1,200 client admissions (Figure II-7). Capacity to serve then leveled off. However, except during the first two fiscal years when admissions were at capacity, the utilization rate for residential programs dropped to about 80 percent. In FY 04, the utilization rate increases to 88 percent.

CSSD reported it is always at 100 percent utilization for the community-based residential programs for which there is high demand by judges and criminal justice agencies and need among clients, but historically there has been a serious lack of availability. Typically, the residential programs maintain wait lists with some clients waiting, often in prison, as long as four months to be admitted. The division explained that the gap between capacity to serve and admissions beginning in FY 02 was the result of new residential programs being opened. New residential programs stagger admissions to allow the program and facility to phase-in to full operation over several months. The lag time in the court and evaluation processes also accounts for the difference in the trends and may suggest an area needing further improvement.

Client status. The following graphic (Figure II-8) shows the total number of client admissions by pre-trial and sentenced status for alternative sanction programs. Because the admission numbers were relatively small, the women and children’s programs are included in the residential category. The “other” category includes DICs and domestic violence, specialized populations, and Zero-Tolerance Drug programs.

The total client population participating in an alternative sanction program is composed of about 55 percent sentenced offenders and 45 percent pre-trial defendants. As shown in Figure II-8, two-thirds of the admissions to an AIC (3,471) are pre-trial defendants. Over 70 percent of the clients admitted to adult services (4,088) are sentenced offenders. Within the remaining categories, more sentenced offenders than pre-trial defendants are admitted.

Satisfactory discharge rate. Client discharge data represent the number of persons released from a program. Like admission, the number of discharges does not represent the actual number of individual clients because a person can be released from a specific program more than once and discharged from several programs during a fiscal year.

A client can be discharged after successfully or unsuccessfully completing a program. There are a variety of reasons for unsuccessful completion such as failing to attend, participate, or otherwise follow program guidelines, voluntarily terminating enrollment, threatening or assaulting a staff member or client or exhibiting other disruptive behavior, presenting symptoms or problems needing medical or psychiatric attention not providing by the program, or being arrested for a violation of probation or other new crime.

The satisfactory discharge rate is the percentage of clients successfully completing an alternative sanction, or specialized court program. The rate is calculated by dividing the total number of satisfactory client discharges by the total number of client discharges and multiplying by 100.

The satisfactory discharge rate target is at least 60 percent. CSSD initially set the rate to encourage providers to work toward better client outcomes. The division expects providers to continue serving clients despite some noncompliant behavior; however, serious misbehavior or an arrest for a new crime is almost always grounds for a program to expel a client. To assist programs in meeting the target rate, CSSD offered services to augment the programs such as Project READ and electronic monitoring.

In general, during the five fiscal years under analysis, the alternative sanction programs (excluding the Sex Offender Program, which does not maintain reliable data to calculate the rate) exceeded the 60 percent satisfactory discharge target rate. In FY 01, the satisfactory discharge rate for all programs combined dropped to 54 percent, but during the next fiscal year it rose to 67 percent, the five-year high.

Table II-4 lists the satisfactory discharge rates for each type of alternative sanction and specialized court program. The AIC program is consistently successful in meeting the target satisfactory discharge rate, but DIC⁴ failed in four of the past five fiscal years to meet the target rate. Adult services, in comparison, exceeded the target 60 percent satisfactory discharge rate in four of the past five fiscal years. Based on this measure, adult services appear to be the most successful alternative sanction program.

After exceeding the target rate during FYs 00 and 01, for the past three fiscal years, the satisfactory discharge rate for residential services is significantly lower than 60 percent. The total number of satisfactory discharges was compared to the total number of discharges from the program (Figure II-9). As the client population increased, the efficacy of the program based on the satisfactory discharge measure, decreased.

CSSD was unable to account for this negative trend. The division did acknowledge that residential programs generally serve clients recently discharged from prison with a wide range of serious problems including homelessness and severe substance addiction and/or serious mental illness. Most of the residential clients have a high failure rate in other nonresidential alternative sanction programs and previous incarcerations, which is the reason for the residential placement. Because of the severity of the clients’ criminal histories and service needs and prior record of program failures, residential providers may be less tolerant of noncompliant behavior and may be prone to discharge a client rather than continue the client’s treatment. It does not appear from available data or information, however, clients in residential programs in FY 00 were less serious based on criminal history, past program performance, and service need than clients admitted in FY 04.

CSSD further explained that clients placed in residential programs, which generally range from 30 days to 18 months, often have difficulty sustaining compliance over these longer periods of time. While residential programs restrict a client’s liberty more than a nonresidential program, most facilities are not secure and the client is free to leave the facility without permission and fail to return (abscond). The division believes this is one factor that accounts for the low satisfactory discharge rate.

In comparison, the satisfactory discharge rate for women and children’s residential programs has improved after the first two fiscal years during which the program did not meet the target rate. The satisfactory discharge rate for women and children’s residential programs in FY 04 was 65 percent. The female client population, especially with dependent children, is growing. CSSD has focused attention on developing gender specific programs to address the unique service and treatment needs of this offender group. This focus may have positively impacted the satisfactory discharge rate.

Finally, specialized courts (especially mediation) are very successful based on this measure, consistently maintaining about a 70 percent satisfactory discharge rate. It should be noted that these programs typically serve persons charged with misdemeanors and low level, nonviolent felony offenses and violations of local ordinances. The success may be due, in part, to the client profile rather than the specific program intervention and the relatively short duration of the service (most persons perform one or two days of community service restitution).

Section Three

Court Support Services Division

The Court Support Services Division within the judicial branch has the primary responsibility for the administration of bail and probation services and pre-trial diversion, alternative sanction, and specialized court programs for adult defendants and offenders. CSSD is also responsible for family and juvenile matters. However, those services are not included in the scope of this study. (A brief description of the judicial branch criminal court system is contained in Appendix D.)

Figure III-1 shows the Court Support Services Division organization, which is headed by an executive director, and is divided into four primary divisions each headed by a director:

The four units within the Operations Division are: (1) programs and services; (2) adult probation and bail services; (3) juvenile probation services; and (4) juvenile detention services. A deputy director is assigned to oversee the operations of the programs and services and adult probation and bail services units, which are the two units with direct responsibility for pre-trial diversion and alternative sanction processes and network of programs.

Programs and Services Unit

The Programs and Services Unit is divided along three functional lines: (1) program development and design; (2) quality assurance; and (3) statewide contract oversight. Staff from the three areas participate in a “Center for Best Practices” dedicated to designing, developing, and implementing new programs and evidence-based strategies.

Program development. The unit’s primary responsibility is the development and design of the community-based alternative sanction programs. It also drafts the program provider contracts and monitors new programs in collaboration with the Grants and Contracts Monitoring Unit within the Administrative Division.

The unit recently established a “Center for Best Practices” to consolidate research on evidenced-based programming. The key goal of evidenced-based programs is to reduce recidivism among the high and medium risk supervised population (this concept is discussed in Appendix C.)

Quality assurance. To augment program development and design, the unit established a quality assurance process. However, to date, this process focuses on providing training to probation officers to, in effect, change the probation supervision culture to adopt new evidenced-based processes such as motivational interviewing and offender assessment tools including the Level of Service Inventory (LSI). (A description of the offender assessment tools and motivational interviewing is provided in Appendix E.)

Implementing the new evidenced-based or “best practices” model requires training to ensure reliability of programs and assessment strategies (e.g., motivational interview). The quality assurance function, therefore, is focusing on this first phase of implementation, which is staff training. The training also includes a follow-up component that provides probation officers with feedback and “booster” training sessions.

Statewide contracts. The final function of the unit consolidates the oversight of a series of program contracts for drug testing, electronic monitoring, administrative level probation supervision, residential treatment, and the pre-trial alcohol education program, along with special projects including the jail re-interview project, DNA testing for felony offenders, and the Interstate Probation Compact. To date, these contracts and projects are not being adapted to include evidenced-based practices and strategies and are administered and monitored separately.

Adult Probation and Bail Services Unit

The Adult Probation and Bail Services Unit is responsible for the day-to-day, community-based case management and supervision of pre-trial defendants with bail release conditions and offenders sentenced to probation in the custody of the judicial branch.

The unit is divided along two functional lines: (1) intake, assessment, and referral (IAR); and (2) probation supervision. Its primary functions are:

Intake, assessment, and referral. The criminal justice system process to collect and verify information about a person charged with a crime begins at arrest and continues throughout the administration of a court-imposed sentence. As the person moves through the criminal justice system, the information collected about him or her becomes more descriptive, accurate, and useful to the custodial agencies. The CSSD pre- and post-conviction intake, assessment, and referral process begins shortly after a person is arrested for bail setting purposes and continues until he or she is discharged from a sentence.

A pre-trial defendant is assessed for the purposes of bail to determine the likelihood of appearance for scheduled court proceedings and, depending on the facts and circumstances of the offense, the potential danger he or she poses to others. The key points at which a pre-trial defendant may be subject to assessment by a bail commissioner (also called an IAR specialist) to set bail and special release conditions and/or to determine program eligibility are:

CSSD is statutorily required to use a “written uniform weighted” release criteria to standardize pre-trial bail decisions. The risk assessment tool⁵ scores a defendant based on eight factors set out in state law:

The assessment process for the sentencing and supervision phases is more comprehensive and is intended to assist a judge impose the most appropriate sentence to meet punitive and rehabilitative purposes and determine the level of community-based supervision, if that is part of the sentence, based on an offender’s risk of re-offending and treatment and service needs. The points at which a convicted offender may be assessed are:

Beginning in 2002, as part of the IAR process, CSSD adopted a validated, objective, quantifiable assessment tool called the Level of Service Inventory (LSI). The short version of the LSI (LSI-SV) identifies those offenders posing a low risk and need level. The full version (LSI-R) is used for offenders identified as posing a medium to high risk and need level based on the LSI-SV score.

Each offender sentenced to probation is scheduled for an LSI interview, which takes about two hours and is conducted by an IAR specialist (a probation officer). Offenders also complete a self-administered Adult Substance Use Survey (ASUS) to assess alcohol and drug use and addiction. An IAR specialist can assist an offender who is illiterate, does not speak English, or has a learning or other disability that makes it difficult for him or her to complete the ASUS.

The calculated scores of the LSI and ASUS determine an offender supervision level (or classification) and treatment plan. Based on the treatment plan and any court-ordered condition, an IAR specialist refers the offender to the appropriate alternative sanction program(s). The offender is then transferred to the Supervision Unit for case management and supervision.

Alternative Incarceration Plan. As part of the sentencing phase, a judge may order an alternative incarceration plan (AIP) that provides a community-based sentencing option to incarceration for an offender who is found guilty of a crime that carries a statutory prison sentence or pleads guilty to a crime and negotiates a sentence that includes a period of incarceration. An AIP may be ordered for an offender convicted of a misdemeanor or felony except for:

An AIP is similar to a pre-sentence investigation report (PSI)⁶ except that it provides an alternative sentence to probation and admission to one or more alternative sanction programs rather than incarceration whereas a PSI may recommend a prison term, alternative sanction, or both. The AIP can recommend placement in an intensive probation program and/or any community-based residential and nonresidential contracted alternative sanction program that provides supervision, employment counseling, psychiatric or psychological evaluation and counseling, and drug and alcohol treatment. It can also propose special probation conditions such as electronic monitoring, drug testing, and restitution.

In completing the AIP, an IAR specialist assesses the offender based on the LSI and ASUS and reviews the circumstances of the offense, the attitude of the victim or immediate family in cases resulting in the death of the victim, and the offender’s criminal and psychosocial history and present condition. The AIP may, at the discretion of a judge, also include a physical and mental examination of the offender. A victim impact statement, which summarizes the victim’s feelings about the offense, the damages suffered including medical expenses, loss of earnings, and property loss, and the victim’s opinion about the sentence recommendation, is also part of the AIP.

An offender is required to comply with all conditions and probation supervision ordered as part of the alternative to incarceration plan; this is referred to as a “direct” alternative sanction sentence.

Probation supervision. The adult probation and bail unit is also responsible for case management and supervising defendants in pre-trial diversion programs and with special bail release conditions, and supervising convicted offenders sentenced to probation. The level of supervision, based on the IAR process, determines the amount of oversight and contact between a probation officer and offender. Supervision contacts range from in-person meetings between a probation officer and offender to telephone calls or written correspondence. Table III-1 outlines the five probation supervision levels and contact standards from the highest to lowest.

A probation officer is also required to make collateral contacts with persons involved in providing treatment or services to the offender and persons such as a spouse, family, friends, and employer who have knowledge about the offender’s activities and compliance with special conditions.

A classification reassessment may be conducted, at any time, if a probation officer believes the circumstances of the case have changed and the offender would benefit from a higher or lower level of supervision. However, if the reassessment tools do not reflect the proposed change in risk or need, a probation officer may request a classification override from a supervisor.

Offenders who did not have a LSI assessment during the IAR process and were classified either at the surveillance, high, or medium supervision level may be reclassified with supervisory approval. An offender must have been supervised at the current classification level for a minimum of six months, be in compliance with all conditions of probation, have no pending criminal charges, and not been arrested for a new crime within the past year.

Upon successful completion of the probation sentence, an offender is discharged from state custody. However, if arrested again at any time after discharge, the criminal justice process begins again.

Alternative sanction programs. As stated, as a condition of bail or sentence of probation, almost any offender may be ordered to participate in any alternative sanction program described in Section Two. CSSD, however, has recently focused the contracted alternative sanction programs at primarily high- and medium-level defendants and offenders. It refers low level defendants and offenders to Infoline for information, referral to services, and crisis intervention.

In addition to participating in an alternative sanction program, an offender may also be ordered by a judge or probation officer to comply with special probation conditions such as electronic monitoring, curfew, drug testing, no contact with a co-defendant, restitution, community service, and employment or attendance at school. An offender may also have a court-ordered restraining or protective order that prevents him or her from having contact with a specific person, usually a victim, and/or frequenting a specific location.

Violation of probation. The conditions of probation are violated whenever an offender is arrested for a new crime, does not comply with the special conditions imposed by a judge, or fails to abide by CSSD supervision rules and conditions. When a violation occurs, a probation officer has discretion to report the violation to the court thereby initiating the arrest warrant process -- a violation of probation (VOP) is a new felony offense -- that may result in revocation of probation and incarceration.

Once arrested, an offender appears before a judge who determines if the offender is guilty of a violation of probation and, if so, may:

Technical violation. A technical violation of probation is misbehavior by an offender under supervision that is not by itself a criminal offense. It is generally a violation of a release condition imposed by a judge, a supervision condition monitored by a probation officer, or a program condition overseen by a contracted provider and reported to a probation officer such as failing to report for a scheduled office or home visit, failing to attend a treatment or program session, missing a curfew, lack of employment, and testing positive for drug use.

A technical VOP does not usually result in a new arrest, but a series of relatively minor technical violations can indicate an offender’s unwillingness to abide by the probation release conditions and may result in a more punitive response. Probation officers have a range of graduated sanctions available to respond to a technical violation including a verbal reprimand and increased reporting to referral to an alternative sanction treatment or service program. Ultimately, however, a probation officer can request an arrest warrant for a VOP if the sanctions fail to modify an offender’s misbehavior.

Staff Development and Quality Control Division

The Staff Development and Quality Control Division is composed of: (1) the Training Academy; (2) the Quality Control Unit; and (3) the Statewide Community Services Unit. The Training Academy provides pre- and in-service staff training and development programs for CSSD adult, juvenile, and family services personnel. The Statewide Community Services Unit schedules and coordinates large, public community service labor projects such as the Nutmeg Games, Special Olympics, Senior Games, building handicap accessible playgrounds in municipal parks, the Department of Children and Families’ Suitcases for Kids project, and provides work crews for mass mailings and fund raising events (e.g., walks and marathons) for nonprofit groups such as the American Cancer Society.

Quality control. The Quality Control Unit measures the effectiveness of contracted pre-trial diversion, alternative sanction, and specialized court programs. As discussed in Section Three, the unit tracks capacity, the number of client admissions and discharges, and utilization and satisfactory discharge rates to determine compliance with the administrative target rates of at least 90 percent for program utilization and at least 60 percent for satisfactory discharges.

The quality control data analysis is evaluated to estimate capacity and service need by the CSSD executive team composed of the executive director, division directors, and regional managers and supervisory staff.

Administration Division

The Administration Division, as expected, is composed of the Human Resources, Budget, Facilities, and Information Technology Units. It is also responsible for monitoring provider agency compliance with grants and contracts.

The Budget Unit is responsible for developing the CSSD budget, processing alternative sanction contract and fee-for-service payments, and managing offender restitution accounts. The Information Technology Unit is currently developing a new automated case management information system (CMIS) for adult probation. Most CMIS functions are on-line with several additional functions in the planning and testing stages.

Contract monitoring. This unit oversees the Grants and Contracts unit responsible for the day-to-day monitoring of provider compliance with alternative sanction program contracts. A detailed description of this process is included in Section Five, which also discusses the relationships between program development, contracting, and contract compliance monitoring processes. The program review committee staff are using these processes and data to measure the effectiveness of pre-trial diversion, alternative sanction, and specialized court programs.

Family Services Division

While the majority of the responsibilities of the Family Services Division do not fall within the scope of this study, its responsibility to oversee family violence programs is included. The division manages the Pre-trial Family Violence Education Program and two alternative sanction programs aimed at persons convicted of a domestic violence crime: EVOLVE and EXPLORE.

Court Support Services Division Budget

The Alternative Incarceration Program (AIP) is a separate line item in the judicial branch budget. It covers the costs of contracted pre-trial diversion, alternative sanctions, and specialized court programs, excluding CSSD staffing costs. As shown in Figure III-2, over the past five fiscal years, AIP (for adults only) represented less than 10 percent of the total judicial branch appropriated budget, which was almost $359 million in FY 03.

In FY 96, the Juvenile Alternative Incarceration Program (JAIP) was established, becoming a separate budget line item. When combined, the two programs represent about 15 percent -- totaling approximately $50.6 million in FY 03 -- of the total judicial branch budget.

Figure III-3 shows the trend in the total amount appropriated for the AIP budget for each fiscal year since FY 90. The trend in the AIP budgeted appropriation has generally increased over the past 14 years. The program’s budget appropriation dropped and leveled off for a four-year period after the General Assembly, in 1995, passed a series of “Truth In Sentencing” laws intended to increase time served of prison sentences and the state became eligible for federal Violent Offender Truth In Sentencing Act (VOTIS) funds geared to adding prison and secure residential program beds. The budget trend climbed again between FY 99 and FY 02 but declined after forced reductions were imposed on state agencies as a result of the state’s budget crisis.

Overall, CSSD spends the total amount budgeted. Only during the first three start-up years of the program (FYs 90 through 92) and the last two fiscal years (FYs 02 and 03), has the budget appropriation for AIP not been spent.

Figure III-4 shows the breakdown of the division’s FY 04 budget between the types of alternative sanction programs. For this analysis, the AIC category includes DICs and the new Adult Risk Reduction Center. The residential category includes halfway houses, jail re-interview, medical detoxification, Project Green, intermediate and long-term substance abuse treatment, and women and children’s programs. The specialized population category includes the gender specific programs, Latino Youth Offender Services, and the Sex Offender Unit, and the “other” category consists of the Zero-Tolerance Drug Program, the Community Court, and the Mediation Program.

As shown, the AICs account for almost half (over $14 million) of the FY 04 alternative to incarceration program budget, which totaled almost $32 million. Each of the 17 Alternative Incarceration Centers averaged $788,917 in expenditures for the fiscal year.

The residential programs totaled over $8 million (31 percent) and varied from a low of $327,195 for a single halfway house contract to a high of $3.5 million for six long-term substance abuse treatment programs. Adult services, which admit the bulk of pre-trial and sentenced clients, accounts for less than 10 percent of the total FY 04 program budget.

Section Four

Program Development and Evaluation

Since 1990, state law has required the judicial branch to plan and establish alternative sanction programs. The judicial branch is further mandated to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative sanctions and their impact on offenders, prison overcrowding, court backlogs, and community safety. To meet the expansive objectives of its mandate, the judicial branch, through CSSD, has implemented three distinct processes:

In addition, a supplementary quality control process tracks target rates for program utilization and satisfactory discharge based on capacity and client admission and discharge data. The data are used to monitor the program network efficacy in terms of caseload and capacity to serve clients.

The CSSD infrastructure responsible for these processes includes the Program Development and Design Unit including the “Center for Best Practices” and Quality Assurance, the Quality Control Unit, and the Grants and Contract Monitoring Unit. As discussed in the previous section, the units are administered within three separate divisions and are not formally connected in terms of policy or process.

Program Development

The Court Support Services Division is currently spearheading a shift in its philosophy and process to develop and contract for community-based alternative sanction programs for high and medium risk defendants and offenders. Its focus is now on “evidenced-based programming,” which is a term used nationally to refer to principles and best practices scientifically shown to improve outcomes such as reducing recidivism. The strategy is supported by evidence of the causes of crime, and research supporting correctional programs and practices proven to positively change criminal and deviant behavior.

As discussed in Section Three, program development and design is done under the auspices of the Operations Division, in particular its “Center for Best Practices.” The center identifies specific program interventions or curricula previously shown to be effective in addressing particular criminogenic needs, which are offender characteristics (e.g., substance abuse, criminal or anti-social peers, dysfunctional family relations, anti-social attitude) directly linked to criminal behavior that, when changed, reduce the probability of recidivism. To meet evidenced-based standards, the selected “pre-packaged” programs must be implemented according to the established intervention or curriculum and provided to the target client population. CALM and ART are two evidenced-based anger management programs that will be delivered under the new adult behavioral health services contracts once providers are selected.

Complete evidenced-based programs are not always available to address a particular service need or client population. The center, in these instances, relies on strategies purported to be effective based on available research. The gender specific STARS program for women, operating in Bridgeport, is research-based. Since its shift in programming philosophy, CSSD has implemented both research- and evidenced-based programs.

A key component of evidenced-based program development is identifying outcome measures linked to program goals, which for the CSSD alternative sanction program includes reducing recidivism among the client population. Collection of reliable outcome data, therefore, is necessary to monitor progress toward achieving the program goal of reduced recidivism.

Contract Development and Award

CSSD follows the statutory state contracting process as shown in Figure IV-1. Program contracts are typically awarded for a three-year period with an option for two one-year extensions.

Contract award process. After a program has been designed incorporating the evidenced-based interventions or services, an RFP is drafted and published in all major Connecticut newspapers, posted on the judicial branch website, and forwarded to existing contracted providers. Within 10 to 14 days after publication, a bidders conference is held during which CSSD briefs potential bidders on the contract award process and responds to questions. It also responds to any written questions submitted up to three days after the conference.

Bid proposals are due within 30 days from the RFP notice publication date. A seven-member contract review panel, composed of staff from the purchasing, program development and design, grants and contracts monitoring, and regional probation officers, scores each proposal. The lowest qualified bidder is awarded the contract.

Performance measures. Currently, CSSD does not have performance-based contracts with clearly defined outcome measures for any alternative sanction programs. It has not set a target recidivism rate for the programs to gauge effectiveness. It appears, at this point, that there is not a viable way to assess efficacy and incorporate this information into managerial decision-making.

Contract Management

Contract management (or monitoring) encompasses all actions taken to assure compliance with contract terms after the award phase. The primary goal of contract management is to ensure that quality services are received on time and at a reasonable price. The Grants and Contracts Monitoring Unit, within the Administrative Division, is responsible for management of programmatic and fiscal compliance of agencies and persons under contract with CSSD.

The monitoring process was centralized in 2003 and is carried out by three compliance teams each consisting of two sanction monitors and an accountant. The teams are assigned to oversee and audit specific contracting agencies rather than on a regional or service basis.

Comprehensive monitoring. Contracted provider agencies are subject to either comprehensive or administrative monitoring. Agencies in their first contract year or with contracts larger than $50,000 are comprehensively monitored.

The process includes a monthly site visit conducted by a compliance team during which the provider is assessed on performance and compliance in nine specified areas including: maintenance of client files; facility and equipment condition; quality of the food service; programming; and staffing. If found in noncompliance, an agency is required to submit a corrective action plan for any identified deficit areas, and the team tracks compliance during future site visits.

In addition, agencies under comprehensive monitoring undergo an annual program audit in accordance with the division’s financial guidelines. As part of the audit, the agency’s budget and quarterly financial reports are reviewed.

Administrative monitoring. Administratively monitored contracted agencies meet at least one of the following conditions:

The administrative monitoring process consists of as-needed visits and an annual monitoring report that includes overall contractor performance, financial status, program accomplishments, program contract compliance, CSSD satisfaction, and any recommendations proposed by the monitoring team.

During 2004, there were 96 CSSD contracts requiring comprehensive monitoring and 55 under administrative monitoring. Analysis of contract noncompliance data will be included in the program review committee staff’s findings and recommendations report.

Performance measures. Although the contract monitoring process described above seeks to assess contract performance based on the efficiency of administrative processes, the contracts do not contain clearly defined outcome measures against which program performance, or effectiveness, could be measured. One such measure is a target recidivism rate, which the division has not yet set. It appears, at this point, that there is no viable way to assess efficacy and incorporate this information into managerial decision-making.

On another criminal justice front, though, the ability to measure and reduce recidivism will become vital. New legislation (Public Act 04-234) requires the judicial branch, the Departments of Correction, Labor, Mental Health and Addiction Services, and Social Services, and the Board of Pardons and Paroles to collaborate to develop and implement a comprehensive offender re-entry strategy to provide a continuum of custody, care and control for offenders who are discharged from prison. The strategy is intended to:

The legislation sets out an array of measures with which the success of the offender re-entry program is to be evaluated:

To be successful, the offender re-entry strategy must rely on the existing alternative sanction programs to target reducing recidivism and provide evidence of that reduction. CSSD, therefore, will play an important role, but currently lacks the ability to track recidivism.

The division’s current program development and evaluation efforts do not integrate recidivism information into program monitoring, contracting decision-making, nor data collection systems. Consistent with the new legislative mandate, the division had previously adopted evidenced-based programming, a strategy that relies on collecting and monitoring outcome measures. However, while recidivism information is part of the division’s new automated case management information system (CMIS), it has not built the capability to link outcome data on an ongoing basis with participation in pre-trial and alternative sanction programs.

A focus on recidivism will help to manage the growing prison population, but is intended to eventually have a broader impact by addressing the causes of crime rather than simply focusing a prison bed savings.

Contracted performance studies. CSSD has relied on outside, contracted consultants to conduct short-term studies about its program’s impact. The first three-year longitudinal study⁸, completed in 1996, conducted on a sample of defendants and offenders participating in alternative incarceration programs found, in general, the clients admitted to carefully supervised community-based programs in most instances posed less risk as measured by new arrests than offenders in a comparison sample who were released from prison. Currently, the division has contracted with an organization called JSAT to conduct a multi-year evaluation of selected alternative sanction programs and the new Probation Risk Reduction Program, which was initiated in response to a provision in Public Act 04-234 mandating a 20 percent reduction in the number of offenders incarcerated for a violation of probation. The scope of the longitudinal study, begun in July 2002, is to determine what impact the alternative sanction programs have on recidivism rates. (Appendix F provides a summary of the scope and findings of both evaluation projects.)

Such isolated studies as the Longitudinal Study and JSAT projects will not lead to a sustained effort to collect and monitor recidivism on a regular basis as required by the new offender re-entry strategy. By investing in building the capability into regular, ongoing CSSD functions such as quality assurance and program development, the division will have a greater chance of achieving their goals.

Section Five

Preliminary Findings

Appendices

Appendix A

Development of Alternative to Incarceration Policies

Probation, which could be considered the original alternative sanction, was codified in Connecticut in 1903. Thus, for more than a century, prior to any prison capacity concerns, Connecticut has acknowledged that incarceration is not the only legitimate response to criminal behavior.

As far back as the 1940s, however, Connecticut statutes allowed persons with serious mental illness to be diverted at the pre-trial stage from prosecution and possible sentence to prison to the mental health treatment system. Recognizing in some cases punishment may not be in the best interest of the public or a mentally ill defendant, a judge is authorized to order residential treatment under medical supervision for up to two years for an arrested person diagnosed with a serious mental illness. A judge can, upon successful completion of treatment: dismiss the criminal charge; continue the court-imposed residential treatment; or reinstate the charges and refer the case for prosecution. During the past 20 years, the deferred prosecution provision was expanded to include persons with a serious drug addiction.

Beginning in 1958, Connecticut statutes first authorized another pre-trial diversion tool -- accelerated rehabilitation (AR). This tool diverts a defendant from the normal disposition route by suspending prosecution in exchange for a year of acceptable behavior from the defendant. If successful, the individual has no criminal record.

During the late 1960s, the state legislature enacted two alternatives to incarceration in recognition that in some circumstances an inmate and the public would be better served by allowing the inmate a temporary release from prison: a work release and educational release program for convicted offenders (1967) and a prisoner furlough program (1969). Under the first, inmates would attend sites off prison grounds for work and school and return to the prison facilities at night. As the Senate sponsor of the bill noted, the bill went “along with the entire new concept of the department of corrections in the state of Connecticut… It will enable the commissioner of corrections to help the rehabilitation process.”⁹ Under the furlough program, prison wardens were authorized to allow prisoner furloughs, releasing inmates for up to 15 days¹⁰ for any reason consistent with rehabilitation.

A pre-trial diversion concept focusing on educating persons arrested for specific offenses about the consequences of the crimes rather than punishment developed in Connecticut in the 1980s. The programs allow for the suspension of prosecution and ultimately a dismissal of the charge upon successful completion of the program by an eligible defendant. The pre-trial education programs were developed following high profile cases including the Tracy Thurman case and the 1999 Columbine high school shooting incident that focused public and political attention on the criminal and social issues surrounding drunk driving, domestic violence, and violence by students.

The 1980s

1980 marked the advent in Connecticut of the “alternative sanction” as a viable response to a criminal conviction, largely because prison overcrowding had become an issue. By the 1980s, Connecticut’s correction facilities were over capacity as a whole.¹¹ The state had been sued successfully in federal court for federal law violations related to capacity. A sentencing commission established by the legislature had just recommended the state change from an indeterminate sentencing system to a determinant one, which would ultimately exacerbate overcrowding. These events and others, led then-Governor Grasso to appoint a task force to address the problem of prison overcrowding.

Prison and Jail Overcrowding Commission. The task force issued a report in 1981, and was succeeded in 1982 by the statutorily created permanent Prison and Jail Overcrowding Commission that exists today. The task force’s summary of its recommendations describes the framework for the direction the PJOC took in subsequent years:

From 1982 until 1989, the PJOC made a series of recommendations demonstrating a commitment to “managing overcrowding through a balanced approach of alternatives to incarceration and new and expanded prison facilities.” These include:

During this time period, the PJOC annually reported on the growth of alternative sanction instruments in place and their effectiveness, measured primarily by the numbers of prison bed spaces saved. It reported most of its recommendations -- or versions of the recommendations -- were adopted by the state legislature and the criminal justice system.

Other initiatives were started in the 1980s as well. The Pre-trial Alcohol Education Program, enacted in 1981, was aimed at persons arrested for the first time for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). In 1986, the Pre-trial Family Violence Education Program was enacted to target persons arrested for the first time for a domestic violence crime. Additional pre-trial education diversion programs followed: the Community Service Labor Program (1990); Pre-Trial Drug Education Program (1997); Pre-Trial School Violence Education Program (1999); and most recently the Hate Crimes Diversion Program (2000).

In the early 1980s, Connecticut established the state’s first alternative dispute resolution program within the criminal justice system: the Mediation Program. An alternative to the traditional criminal case disposition process of prosecution and trial, the Mediation Program allows a defendant, the victim, and an impartial third party (mediator) to voluntarily resolve a dispute arising from a criminal arrest by developing a mutually acceptable resolution. Again, the state recognized the available criminal sanctions (e.g., prison, probation) may not be in the best interests of the public, victim, or defendant in certain cases. The concept was broadened to include other specialized court programs: the Drug Court (1995) and the Community Court (1997).

Alternative Incarceration Program. In 1989, the legislature broadened the goal of alternative sanctions beyond just an overcrowding remedy by establishing an Alternative Incarceration Program (AIP) for persons convicted of certain crimes (Public Act 89-383). Under the new provision, a judge could impose a direct sentence to a particular kind of alternative sanction in lieu of incarceration.

At his or her discretion, a judge could order an assessment of a convicted offender for placement in an alternative to incarceration program. The Office of Ault Probation, within the judicial branch, conducted the assessment. If the plan recommended an offender be placed in an AIP, the judge could suspend any prison sentence and make the AIP participation a condition of probation.

The act provided that an alternative incarceration program could include but not be limited to:

Under its establishing legislation, the alternative sanction program was only to be in effect until July 1, 1994. In 1994, however, Public Act 94-128 reenacted the program provisions without a termination date.

Office of Alternative Sanctions. The Office of Alternative Sanctions (OAS) was established in the Judicial Branch via Public Act 90-213 “in response to a widely held view that alternative sanctions would improve court operations and relieve prison and jail overcrowding. The Office is an outgrowth of a multi-year trend in Connecticut to develop a range of court-based sanctions in addition to traditional incarceration and probation sanctions…”.

The Office of Alternative Sanctions had the overall responsibility to oversee and coordinate implementation of alternative sanctions and many of its other duties related to program evaluation and criteria for suitable offenders. The program goals were to effectively impact:

According to the OAS mission statement, the “definition of alternative sanctions would include any punishment which is more restrictive than straight probation and less punitive than confinement.” Under this definition alternative sanctions are intended for persons who would otherwise be “jailbound,” not for persons who a judge believes are eligible for traditional probation, with monitoring by a probation officer.

Under its enabling legislation, the duties and responsibilities of OAS were to:

Further, in the same public act, an advisory committee to the office of alternative sanctions was also established in 1990. The committee consisted of nine members appointed by the chief state’s attorney, including a superior court judge, representatives of the offices of adult probation and bail commissioner, the corrections department and the criminal justice division, along with representatives of private nonprofit agencies serving offenders and providing alternative sanction programs and public members.

An early recommendation of OAS was to change the term “alternative sanctions” to “judicial sanctions” to reinforce the idea that optimally all possible responses to criminal behavior should be seen as a continuum of rational response. Ultimately, the change in terminology was seen to be too confusing and not pursued.

From 1990s to Present

During the 1990s, OAS continued to develop alternative sanctions programs. The office prepared strategic plans identifying specific office goals and objectives, began publishing a newsletter, and made its annual reports to the general assembly. The office also commissioned a longitudinal study to assess the effectiveness of both the pre-trial and post-sentence programs. (Refer to Appendix F for a summary of the study scope and findings.)

Court Support Services Division. Over the last five years, alternative sanction operations have been subject to structural and administrative changes. However, virtually all the substantive statutory responsibilities related to alternative sanctions, first codified in 1990, remain.

In 1999, the legislature established by statute a Court Support Services Division (CSSD) within the Judicial Branch. The impetus behind the CSSD reorganization was a recommendation from the National Center of State Courts (NCSC) management study of the Connecticut Judicial Branch completed in 1998.

This new division was to consist of the transferred duties of the Office of Adult Probation, the Office of Alternative Sanctions, the Office of Bail Commission, the Family Division, and the Juvenile Detention Services Division. Those offices and divisions, all of which were statutory, were repealed with the creation of the CSSD. Further, the Judicial Branch was given the authority to “establish such job titles and assign the units and functions formerly assigned to the offices, divisions and personnel which comprise the CSSD in order to efficiently and effectively carry out the duties of the CSSD.” The bill sponsors explained the creation of CSSD as one of several technical revisions to court operations the judicial branch sought that year.

Finally, in 2002, the OAS statute was amended to reflect the dissolution of Office of Alternative Sanction as a separate office by replacing the reference to the OAS with the Court Support Services Division (PA 02-132). The only other change was the elimination of the annual reporting requirement to the General Assembly.

Prisoner re-entry strategy. Under Public Act 04-234, the judicial branch, the Departments of Correction, Labor, Mental Health and Addiction Services, and Social Services, and the Board of Pardons and Paroles are required to collaborate to develop and implement a comprehensive offender re-entry strategy to:

The legislation further states the success of the offender re-entry strategy will be measured by:

The new offender re-entry strategy heavily relies on the existing alternative sanction network to implement many of the initiatives to reduce recidivism. CSSD, therefore, will play an important role.

Appendix B

Appendix C

Evidenced-Based Programming

As discussed in the staff briefing report, the Court Support Services Division is currently spearheading a shift in its philosophy and process to develop and contract for community-based alternative sanction programs for high and medium risk defendants and offenders. Its focus is now on “evidenced-based programming,” which is a term used nationally to refer to principles and best practices scientifically shown to improve outcomes such as reducing recidivism.

The strategy is supported by evidence of the causes of crime and research supporting correctional programs and practices proven to positively change criminal and deviant behavior. CSSD has embraced evidence-based programming as an effective strategy to reducing offender recidivism¹², which for the purposes of this study is defined as new criminal activity by a person after admission to either a pre-trial diversion or an alternative sanction program.

Evidenced-based programming is based on specific program interventions or curricula previously shown to be effective in addressing criminogenic risks, which are offender characteristics directly linked to the causes of crime and the probability of re-offending (recidivism) such as age, gender, criminal history, substance use and abuse, mental health, and education level or employment status. Criminogenic risk factors are used in offender management to predict future criminal behavior and to assign levels and types of supervision and treatment services.

Risk factors are divided into: (1) static, unchangeable variables (e.g., age, criminal history); and (2) dynamic or changeable factors targeted for rehabilitation (e.g., substance use or abuse, family or marital problems, educational level or employment status). Static risk factors are important in assessing long-term recidivism probability. Dynamic risk factors, also called criminogenic needs, are important in choosing the most appropriate treatment program or service. The strategy supports the likelihood that recidivism decreases when criminogenic needs are addressed. Based on evidenced-based programming research, CSSD identified and targeted six primary criminogenic needs:

Table C-1 lists the four principles of evidenced-based programming based on the risks and needs of the offender population.

CSSD adapted the evidenced-based program strategy into a framework for implementing alternative sanction programs. As shown in Figure C-1, based on the four primary principles of an evidenced-based program strategy, the division’s “Center for Best Practices” established eight program development principles to address the network of existing programs and the client population in Connecticut.

Appendix D

Judicial Branch

The state structure within which pre-trial diversion, alternative sanction, and specialized court programs operate is the judicial branch, specifically the Superior Court and the Court Support Services Division. The judicial branch’s mandate includes the responsibility to develop and oversee a graduated system of alternative disposition and sentencing options.

Superior Court. The state judicial branch is composed of the Superior Court for civil, family, and adult and juvenile criminal matters, the Appellate Court, and the Supreme Court. The Superior Court for criminal matters is divided into Judicial District (JD) and Geographical Area (GA) courts. JD (Part A) courts adjudicate and dispose of the most serious criminal cases; typically class A felonies. GA (Part B) courts handle all other criminal and motor vehicle cases.

The state is divided into 13 JD courts: Ansonia-Milford; Danbury; Fairfield; Hartford; Litchfield; Middlesex; New Britain; New Haven; New London; Stamford-Norwalk; Tolland; Waterbury; and Windham. There are 20 GA courts: Bantam; Bridgeport; Bristol; Danbury; Danielson; Derby; Enfield; Harford; Manchester; Meriden; Middletown; Milford; New Britain; New Haven; New London; Norwalk; Norwich; Rockville; Stamford; and Waterbury.

Judicial support divisions. The judicial branch also operates the following divisions:

The Court Operations Division is responsible for functions and services related to the operations of the courts, Superior Court records, the Central Infractions Bureau, court reporters and interpreters, judges support services, Judicial Marshal, legal services, and support enforcement services, and the Office of Victim Services. The Administrative Services Division handles the branch’s budget, human resources and personnel, equipment, and auditing services. The External Affairs Division oversees legislative affairs, communications and media relations, and programs for volunteers and interns and the Information Technology Division is responsible for the branch’s automated information systems.

Appendix E

CSSD Assessment Tools

Level of Service Inventory. In 2002, the Court Support Services Division adopted new offender assessment tools, the Level of Service Inventory (LSI) and the Adult Substance Use Survey (ASUS). The LSI and ASUS assess a sentenced offender’s risk of re-offending and need for services and treatment based on a weighted scoring system. The LSI and ASUS scores determine the level of supervision (classification) best suited to meet the needs of the offender and provide public safety.

There are two versions of the LSI. The LSI-Short Version (LSI-SV) is an abbreviated assessment of six criminogenic risk factors. All offenders are initially assessed through the LSI-SV, which is intended to identify the offender posing the lowest risk of re-offending and having minimal service needs. Offenders classified as high or medium risk are further assessed based on the LSI-Revised (LSI-R), which is a longer, more comprehensive version scoring over 50 criminogenic risk factors.

The LSI tool focuses on the following offender risk factors:

Adult Substance Use Survey

The Adult Substance Use Survey assesses an offender’s alcohol and drug use. The ASUS is a self-reported questionnaire completed by an offender after the LSI interview process.

Scores are calculated for the following areas:

Motivational Interviewing. Probation officers -- also called Intake, Assessment and Referral specialists -- are trained in a motivational interviewing technique to complete the LSI based on self-reported information from an offender. The LSI interview is conducted after an offender has been sentenced to a period of probation and re-assessments can be done throughout the supervision period.

Motivational interviewing has grown in use nationally over the past decade, including use during emergency room intakes, in adolescent mental health and within the criminal justice system. It is purported to lead to less client defensiveness, noncompliance, and program dropouts.

Motivational interviewing strategies:

Appendix F

Contracted Evaluation Studies

Since 1990, state law has required the judicial branch, now through the Court Support Services Division, determine the effectiveness of its alternative sanction programs to positively impact the offender, prison overcrowding, court backlog, and community safety. To date, in meeting its mandate, the division has relied on one completed and one on-going evaluation projects, both conducted by contracted consultants.

Longitudinal study. In 1991, the Justice Education Center, Inc., was contracted by the judicial branch to conduct a three-year longitudinal study comparing a sample of pre-trial and sentenced offenders participating alternative sanction programs with a similar group not participating in any programming. The center concluded in its final report (Longitudinal Study: Alternatives to Incarceration Sentencing Evaluation, September 1996) that while the results “are not fully conclusive, they are highly suggestive and provide an argument for expanded use of carefully supervised sentences to community-based alternative to incarceration programs.”

In general, the center found:

JSAT Study. Since the 1996 longitudinal study, the only other evaluation project to measure the effectiveness of alternative sanction programs is the current study being conducted by a contracted criminal justice consulting firm, the Justice System Assessment & Training Company (JSAT). CSSD has contracted for a four-year evaluation of its alternative sanction programs and the new Probation Risk Reduction Program. The study is scheduled to be completed in 2006.

The overall scope of the JSAT study, begun in July 2002, is to determine the impact the alternative sanctions programs on the recidivism rate among its sentenced clients. Specifically, the study will focus on:

JSAT is focusing on a sample of 2,000 adult and 900 juvenile offenders within six specific populations:

Data on the offender sample is being collected in three annual waves from nine local probation sites, five of which are identified as “experimental” or “demonstration” sites. Program providers in the demonstration sites are given enhanced training by JSAT to deliver services in a manner consistent with the evidenced-based strategies designed to reduce recidivism whereas providers in the remaining four sites do not receive the training.

Performance information is collected by JSAT from individual alternative sanction program providers, probation officers, and the criminal courts. The offender outcome data includes: (1) termination and discharge status; (2) official recidivism (re-arrest) records; (3) self-report deviant behavior; and (4) self-report grade and employment retention.

¹ For a detailed description of the bail setting and release process refer to the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee final report on Bail Services in Connecticut, December 2003

² Infoline 2-1-1 originated in 1976 and is funded through a partnership between Connecticut and the United Way. It maintains a computerized database of over 4,000 health and human service agencies offering approximately 38,000 services such as counseling, emergency shelter, basic needs (e.g., food, clothing), crisis intervention, family counseling, child care, financial assistance, disability services, and suicide prevention.

³ DOC prison bed capacity is a count of permanent prison and jail beds, but does not include temporary or out-of-state beds. Since FY 00, the department has contracted for 500 beds in two Virginia prisons. At times during the recent overcrowding crisis, the department has used several hundred temporary beds throughout the prison system. Both out-of-state and temporary beds increase the total prison bed capacity.

⁴ The DIC program was eliminated as of June 2004.

⁵ During 2003, the judicial branch examined the validity of its existing risk assessment tool used for bail decision-making. The study evaluated the point scale system to determine which factors are predicative of bail decisions and outcomes and to identify additional factors to improve the validity of future risk assessment tools. Based on the study’s recommendations, the judicial branch implemented a revised point scale system.

⁶ State law requires a pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report for offenders convicted for the first time of an offense, except a capital felony, that may result in a prison term of more than one year. However, a judge may order a PSI for any offender except those convicted of a capital felony. An offender with the consent of a judge and the state’s attorney may waive the pre-sentence investigation.

⁷ It should be noted, under Public Act 04-234, the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee and the Office of Fiscal Analysis are required to report, no later than January 2006 and 2008, on the effectiveness of the offender re-entry strategy based on the statutory measures. In addition, no later than January 2005 and annually thereafter, the Department of Correction is also required to submit a report on the program’s effectiveness.

⁸ Longitudinal Study: Alternatives to Incarceration Sentencing Evaluation, Justice Education Center (1997).

⁹ Sen. Jackson, Senate Proceedings, June 6, 1967 (p. 2283)

¹⁰ Public Act 04-234 extended the furlough period to a maximum of 30 days.

¹¹ Refer to Factors Impacting Prison Overcrowding, Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee (December 2000).

¹² For a detailed definition and analysis of recidivism, refer to the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee report on Recidivism in Connecticut, 2001.

¹³ High risk offenders are those who have a greater likelihood of committing significantly more crimes (i.e. had a higher recidivism rate) than lower risk offenders during similar periods of time.