1. Assessing the Effectiveness of Intermediate Sanctions in Multnomah County, Oregon
Andres F. Rengifo
Christine S. Scott-Hayward
Vera Institute of Justice
July, 2008 *

2. Key Questions
What is the incidence and prevalence of intermediate sanctions, specifically jail-based sanctions?
Is there an association between sanctions given and short- and long-term outcomes (discharge type and recidivism)?

3. Main Findings
Most clients did not receive any sanction while on supervision (71%).
Of those who do receive sanctions, most are given jail (92.5%). Other sanctions or interventions are rarely given.
Most clients were neither re-arrested (74%) nor re-convicted (85%) after their supervision ended.
Those who receive sanctions (particularly jail) are more likely to be unsuccessfully discharged and more likely to recidivate, controlling for a variety of factors.

4. Data and Methods Administrative Data Qualitative Data Methods
Probationers and individuals on post-prison supervision who ended supervision in 2005, with an average follow-up period of 20 months
Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington Counties
N = 7,542 (3,642 from Multnomah County)
Qualitative Data
Focus Groups with DCJ line officers (generic and specialized caseloads)
Interviews with supervising officers
Methods
Multivariate regressions (Logistic, Cox-regression)
Quasi-Experimental Design using Propensity Score Matching 4

5. Incidence of Intermediate Sanctions
Multnomah County: 29.4%
Clackamas/Washington Counties: 9.6%
Most individuals did not receive any type of sanction or intervention during their tenure on supervision. Of the 7,542 clients discharged in 2005, just 21.4% were given at least one sanction or intervention. In Multnomah County, this percentage is slightly higher – 28.9%. The charts in this slide shows the breakdown of these actions by type of action in the three counties. 5

6. Top-used Sanctions, by County
This chart shows the type of sanction given among clients who received a sanction.
Note – percentages do not add to 100 because each client could receive more than one type of sanction. Jail was used far more often in Multnomah than in the other two counties while restitution was barely used in Multnomah but used in almost 2/3 of cases in Clackamas/Washington 6 6

7. Top-used Interventions, by County
Similarly, here we look at the top used formal interventions among clients who received one. Again differences across counties. In Multnomah Day Reporting is used in more than 2/3 of cases while in Clackamas/Washington, the most commonly used intervention was modification of conditions. 7 7

8. Top Supervision Conditions associated with Sanctions/Interventions
Here we look at the types of violations for which sanctions or interventions were given. In Multnomah the most frequently reported incidents were associated with changing job or residence or failure to report. 8 8

9. Utilization of Jail Sanctions: Multnomah County
On average, individuals discharged in Multnomah County who received at least one jail sanction were given 62.9 jail days over the course of their tenure for a total of 61,244 jail bed days Individually they received a wide range of jail days – 1/3 receiving from 8-30 jail days. However, 37% of the total jail days were accounted for by the 82 clients (9%) who received more than 180 days of jail. 9

10. Short-Term Outcomes: Discharge Type
Most clients in Multnomah were successfully discharged from supervision 10

11. Short-Term Outcomes: Findings
Individuals who received intermediate sanctions were significantly more likely to experience an unsuccessful discharge than individuals who did not.
Controlling for demographic and crime related covariates, clients who received any sanction or formal intervention were 44% more likely to be revoked than clients who did not. Those receiving jail were 76% percent more likely to have their supervision revoked. 11

12. Long-Term Outcomes: Findings
Individuals who were successfully discharged were slightly less likely to be re-arrested or re-convicted at follow-up.
Intermediate Sanctions had a negative effect on long-term outcomes:
At least one sanction: 40% re-arrested; 25% re-convicted
No sanction: 20% re-arrested; 9% re-convicted
Clients who received jail sanctions were more likely to recidivate than clients who did not
At least one jail sanction: 48% re-arrested; 28% re-convicted
No jail sanction: 20% re-arrested; 11% re-convicted 12

13. Recommendations
Conduct a service inventory to ascertain whether sanctions can be readily accessed by supervision officers
Increase the use of non-custodial sanctions and consider targeting the use of jail to the group for which it is most appropriate, namely those who pose the greatest risk to public safety.
Examine in more detail how jail is used
Improve training of probation and parole officers to ensure accurate data collection and to ensure that sanctions given align with the agency’s goals
Conduct future studies, which should include cost-benefit analysis, on the effect of sanctions other than jail.

14. Overall view of our efforts
Baseline utilization of 462
Desired reduction of 75
Nine consecutive weeks of reduction with a low of 345 in jail for a sanction during the week of june 26
Most recent figures indicate reduction of 96 beds

15. This is all of dcj with out local control

16. broken out data by category: Probation Violation

17. PPS/Parole violation

18. Local control