Called to Order

 The meeting was called to order at 2:07 p.m. by Legislator Blanchard.

Presentation - Alternatives to Incarceration Program Evaluation Report

 Ms. Schlather provided the following Power Point presentation concerning the evaluation of Alternatives to Incarceration (ATI) Programs:

Three ATI Programs and Family Treatment Court
 

• Ithaca Misdemeanor Court - Judge Olds
• Felony Drug Court - Judge Sherman
• Day Reporting - Program of Probation
• Family Treatment Court (not an ATI program) - Judge Rowley.  Ms. Schather noted that his is mostly funded by a TANF grant.

To increase participants' ability to identify and to treat the underlying problems precipitating their violation; and
To reduce the need for jail space both currently, and in the future

Methodology

Started with a list of suggested areas for review
Presented to the two committees and incorporated their suggestions
Data was collected from the Program Directors from a variety of sources:  Intake Forms, WMS system, NYS UTA system and some had to be reconstructed

Ithaca Misdemeanor Drug Court

? 215 participants, from the start of the program in January 1998 through December 2002
? 77 graduates and 101 who failed to complete the program
? 53% success rate (includes 37 people still in the program)
u
Caucasian       66%     48%
Employed       64%     40%
Alcohol        38%     24%
Priors        46%     65%
% positive tests         5%     29%

Achievements of Graduates
    At Intake  At Exit
Employed FT       31%     73%
Received PA       43%     21%
Receiving MA       41%       8%

? 3 drug free babies born to participants

Recidivism

                                                              Post Program
     Graduates      Failures
6 months    7% (N=61)   15% (N=59)
12 months  11% (N=38)   23% (N=47)
18 months  14% (N=29)   23% (N=30)
24 months  27% (N=11)   17% (N=23)

 Misdemeanor Court Costs/Benefits

   Local Costs
 Salary and Fringe  $197,820
 Overhead   $  35,196
 Total Local Costs  $233,016
   Local Benefits
 2700 jail days saved  $256,500
 Total Local Savings  $  23,484

Felony Drug Court

? 86 participants, from the start of the program in April 2000 through February 2003
? 39 were still active
? 20 had graduated
? 8 had failed out of the court
? 2 had successfully transferred to another drug court out of the county
? 17 never engaged in the program beyond the intake process

Participant Traits
             Participants            Graduates
Caucasian       81%     90%
Employed       58%     75%
Alcohol        58%     70%
DWI        52%     70%
Single        52%     60%

 Program Accomplishments

? 88% have either graduated or are still active
? 97% of all drug tests between 2/02 and 2/03 were negative for both drugs and alcohol
? 5 (7%) participants in the program were rearrested during their time in the program
? One graduated has been rearrested (for a DWI)
Achievements of Graduates
    At Intake  At Exit
Employed/school      75%     85%
Received MA       25%       0%

? 442 hours of community service
? There were 3 drug free babies born to participants

Felony Court Costs/Benefits

   Costs 2002
 Salary and Fringe  $200,820
 Overhead   $  35,196
 Medicaid costs   $  66,800
 Total Local Costs  $302,816
   Benefits 2002
 Total Local Jail Days Saved $552,140
 Community service dollars $    2,863
 Total Benefits   $555,003
Total Local Savings  $252,187

Day Reporting

? 149 participants in 2002
? 114 unique individuals
? 88 were sentenced once to Day Reporting;
? 19 twice;
? 4 three separate sentences; and
? 2 were sentenced 4 times
? 64% of the 149 intakes successfully completed their time in Day Reporting

Participant Traits
               Successes  Failures
Caucasian       72%     56%
Single        85%     65%
Substance use       81%     74%
Priors        77%     69%

 Achievements
? Total number of days participants were in Day Reporting was 4826
? 1,524 days of community service
? Those in Day Reporting work on:  GED prep, resume, returning to school, housing, employment, DSS assistance, literacy assessment, emotions management, life skills, etc.

Day Reporting Costs/Benefits

   Local Costs 2002
 Salary and Fringe  $143,688
 Overhead Costs   $  35,196
 Total Local Costs  $178,884
   Local Benefits 2002
 Total Local Jail Days Saved $255,265
 Community service dollars $    7,849
 Total Benefits   $263,114
Total Local Savings  $  84,230

Family Treatment Court

? 36 participants, from the start of the program in July 2001 through December 2002
? 66% of those enrolled in the program either have successfully graduated or are still active
? 75% women
? 7 couples

*Ms. Schlather noted that 100% of graduates are women.

Participant Traits
    Graduates  Failures
Caucasian       67%     50%
Single        33%     75%
HS or GED       67%     42%
Employed/school      50%     33%
Children at home      50%       0%

Achievements

? 83% of the graduates either avoided having their children removed or had their children returned
? None of the participants have had any further indicated reports
? 67% of graduates saw an increase in job skills or employment
? 1 drug free baby born to a participant

Family Treatment Court Costs/Benefits

   Local Costs 2002
 Salary and Fringe  $  72,702
 Overhead Costs   $  35,196
 Local Medicaid costs  $  77,182
 Total Local Costs  $185,080
   Local Benefits 2002
 Total Foster Care Days Saved $  30,606
 Adoption Subsidy for 1 child
   for 1 year   $  10,034
 Total Benefits   $  40,640
Total Local Cost  $144,440

Summary

 These Alternatives to Incarceration programs are a new philosophy for dealing with non-violent crime.  They attempt to address the underlying cause of the violation instead of removing the violator from society in non-rehabilitative retribution or punishment.

Lower Rate of Recidivism

? The two Drug Courts have success rates comparable to national averages, and their recidivism rates are on a par with or better than other Drug Courts.
? With a national study listing a three year recidivism rate of 67.7% for drug offenders and a 51.5% rate for DWI's our local Drug Court graduates' two year 27.5% recidivism rate indicates that the program is meeting the goal of reduced recidivism.

Programs Appear to Save Money Using this Analysis

 Measuring the reduction in jail time savings is difficult.
? No one can say what sentence a participant would have received
? Calculating all of the costs
? Can add administrative costs due to increased intakes for the jail
? Since certain jail costs are fixed it's hard to assign costs savings per individual
? Might have spent longer in the system

Long Term Cost Savings

? Increased productivity
? Increased safety to the community
? Reduced reliance on Public Subsidies
? Generational benefits

Mr. Dentes asked if there was data that showed comparisons such as success rates, etc. between the "super" Probation programs (ATI programs) and the "traditional" Probation programs.  Ms. Schlather said the data she collected does not show that information.  She said there is a lot of data not collected such as recidivism at the jail and the costs and numbers of people who have failed the system.  Ms. Leinthall spoke about the value of the ATI programs and the ability to monitor participants closer, such as with more frequent drug testing.

Mr. Totman spoke about the costs of the programs and asked if it is really saving the County money.  Ms. Schlather said the services being provided are much more intense than what they were receiving the traditional way.  She said you may end up with two different answers to the question depending if you are looking at the numbers today or long-term.   She noted that Schuyler, Chemung, and Broome counties have drug courts.

Mr. Penniman said he recognized that the ATI programs have many benefits, but he felt the use of $95 per day savings was unreasonable, given that we do usually have some space available in the jail.  He asked what it costs to house an additional inmate if we do have space.  The Sheriff responded that most jail costs are fixed and that the added cost for another prisoner is probably $2 - $3 per day, mainly for food.

Ms. Robertson said the consultants working with the Public Safety Committee on Jail expansion have stated that they believe the jail population is down and that the original number in the consultants report is being reduced from 196 to 182.

Mr. Joseph responded to Mr. Dentes question and said that the population is not the same for the new ATI programs and the traditional probation programs and therefore would not provide an accurate report.  Mr. Joseph did comment that typically only new programs are evaluated and that old programs are not and that the question to be addressed should be are the new programs more successful than others.

Mr. Flaville asked about the duplication of services provided in the Alternatives to Incarceration programs and if existing agencies are being used.  Ms. Buechel spoke about the Day Reporting program and said the individuals are not the most motivated having programs on -site increases attendance.  Ms. Blanchard confirmed that some of the services provided in Day Reporting are provided by agencies that also offer services at other locations.

Ms. Blanchard requested that the cost of contractual services being provided in Day Reporting also be included in the report.

Mr. Joseph feels that examining these programs to see how they are run and what can be done differently to improve them would also be useful.  The report identifies dramatic differences in racial success rates, alcoholics and crack users, and use of jail sanctions and feels these are some areas that can be looked at.   Also, what positive reinforcements might be available in addition to negative ones, such as jail?

Mr. Whicher stated that information pertaining to people who are moving off of public assistance is quantifiable and would be useful as well.  Ms. Schlather said she would be willing to put together additional information upon request with the data she has already collected.

Adjournment

 The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.