Assessing the Impact of Idaho s Parole Reforms

Transcription

1 JUSTICE POLICY CENTER Assessing the Impact of Idaho s Parole Reforms Justice Reinvestment Initiative Elizabeth Pelletier, Leigh Courtney, and Brian Elderbroom November 2018 In 2013, Idaho s imprisonment rate was the 11th highest in the country 1 and its prison population was projected to grow an additional 16 percent between 2014 and 2019 at a cost of $288 million. 2 In response, state leaders began exploring opportunities to better use prison space and invest in strategies to reduce recidivism. As part of this process, state leaders requested technical assistance through the Justice Reinvestment Initiative, a public-private partnership funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance and Pew Charitable Trusts. The state also convened the interbranch Justice Reinvestment Working Group to examine the drivers of incarceration and make recommendations for ways to improve public safety. Chief among their findings was that supervision and correctional programming was not reducing recidivism, prison space was being used inefficiently, and policymakers needed more information to track correctional outcomes. 3 In response to these challenges, Governor C. L. Butch Otter signed Senate Bill (S.B.) 1357 in March This legislation addressed the findings of the working group by strengthening probation and parole supervision, improving community-based substance use and cognitive behavioral treatment programs, providing structure to the parole decisionmaking process, and monitoring the impact of recidivism-reduction strategies. 4 Among other changes, the legislation sought to improve parole outcomes and safely control prison population growth 5 by increasing timely release for nonviolent offenses such as drug and property crimes. 6 (Box 1 lists definitions of timely release and other terms.) This brief focuses on two policy reforms contained in S.B that aimed to increase timely release and improve recidivism outcomes: implementation of parole guidelines and changes in prison programming that affect parole readiness. Using data from the Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC),

2 the Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole (the Commission), and the Idaho Supreme Court (the Courts), the Urban Institute assessed the impact of these two policy reforms by analyzing trends in timely release, time served, and recidivism before and after the reforms were implemented. Key findings include the following: Idaho has met its goal of increasing timely release. Between 2014 and 2017, the share of people released before serving 150 percent of their minimum sentence rose from 62 to 74 percent. Between 2013 and 2016, the share of people released within six months of their parole hearing grew from 47 to 71 percent. This change appears to be driven by more timely program completion and likely explains the increase in timely release. Increases in timely release have also corresponded with reductions in overall time served in prison, with the average length of stay for nonviolent offenses falling 21 percent since Parole guidelines have increased transparency related to the Commission s release decisions, but the grant rate has been stable, suggesting that implementation of the guidelines has not been a major driver of increased timely release. The Commission conforms to the recommendations of the parole guidelines in the vast majority of cases, but there is a growing gap between guidelines recommendations for parole and the Commission s grant rate. If the Commission increased its conformance to the recommendations, timely release would likely increase further. People released from prison since these reforms have similar recidivism rates (defined as return to prison or felony reconviction within one or two years of release) to people released before S.B. 1357, but the number of people reconvicted of misdemeanor offenses has increased. BOX 1 Key Terms Fixed term: The minimum prison sentence set by the court. Idaho law requires sentences with both a determinate (fixed) and indeterminate length. People become eligible for parole upon fulfilling the fixed portion of a sentence; the indeterminate portion can be served in prison or on parole supervision. For example, someone who receives a three-year fixed sentence and seven-year indeterminate sentence becomes eligible for parole after serving three years but could remain in prison up to 10 years if not granted parole. Parole eligibility date: The earliest date at which people may be eligible for release to parole supervision; coincides with the end of the fixed term. Timely release: The legislature s stated goal in S.B of releasing people convicted of nonviolent offenses before serving 150 percent of their fixed terms. Parole guidelines: Assessment developed to guide parole decisions by providing the Commission with a recommendation to either grant or deny release from prison to parole supervision. Implemented in 2015, the recommendation produced by the guidelines is discretionary and incorporates offense severity, risk to reoffend, programming completion, and disciplinary reports. Sources: Unified Sentencing Act of 1986; Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole; and S.B ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF IDAHO S PAROLE REFORMS

3 Background In 2013, Idaho s prison population was on the rise, having grown 10 percent between 2008 and It was projected to grow another 16 percent between 2014 and 2019, to more than 9,400 people. 8 This prison population growth was projected to cost state taxpayers an additional $288 million in prison construction and operating costs. In response, state leaders convened the interbranch working group and requested JRI technical assistance in June 2013 to identify strategies for controlling prison population growth and corrections spending while maintaining public safety. 9 The technical assistance provider, the Council of State Governments Justice Center (CSG Justice Center), analyzed the drivers of incarceration and opportunities to make better use of prison space and invest in recidivism reduction. The CSG Justice Center found that nonviolent offenses were a major driver of Idaho s prison population and that large numbers of people convicted of drug and property offenses were being held beyond their parole eligibility date. In fact, people convicted of nonviolent crimes were serving nearly twice as long as the national average, and people were staying in prison well beyond their minimum sentences and fixed prison terms. 10 To address this problem, the Justice Reinvestment Working Group developed policy recommendations to safely increase the parole grant rate and rate of timely release for people convicted of nonviolent offenses. The legislature adopted several of these reforms, and in March 2014, Governor Butch Otter signed S.B. 1357, requiring the Commission to establish guidelines to improve parole decisionmaking and reduce prison time served for people convicted of nonviolent offenses. The legislation also required IDOC to audit correctional programming every two years, including evaluating each program s adherence to scientific research on the most effective approaches to reducing reoffending. 11 Parole guidelines were implemented in January 2015, with the first Commission decisions incorporating those recommendations made in July 2015; the programming reforms were fully implemented by January (The graphs throughout this brief indicate the relevant implementation dates for particular reforms.) It is the intent of the legislature to focus prison space on the most violent or greatest-risk prisoners. To help accomplish this goal, the commission shall promulgate rules that establish clear guidelines and procedures that retain the commission's discretion in individual cases while achieving a reduction in the overall average percentage of time spent beyond the fixed term for prisoners who have been convicted of a property or drug offense. Idaho Senate Bill 1357 ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF IDAHO S PAROLE REFORMS 3

4 As part of its ongoing efforts to assess the impact of S.B. 1357, Urban conducted an in-depth analysis to determine the extent to which S.B reforms have helped the state meet its goal of increasing timely release for people convicted of nonviolent offenses while maintaining public safety. To this end, the analysis examined trends in parole grant rates, time served in prison, and recidivism rates for prison release cohorts. Urban analyzed eight years of individual-level data provided by IDOC, the Commission, and the Courts covering all misdemeanor and felony convictions, prison admissions and releases, and parole decisions. The study population (figure 1) was limited to people convicted of the nonviolent offenses targeted by the legislation: drug, property, and alcohol 12 crimes. All individuals included in the study population had a parole eligibility date for either a new sentence or a parole revocation, and releases from prison included both people released to parole and those mandatorily released without supervision after serving their maximum sentences. FIGURE 1 Size of Study Population Prison releases by offense type Drug Property Alcohol JRI implementation 1,412 1, , ,209 1, Source: Idaho Department of Correction. Timely Release Has Increased since S.B Implementation In the years since Idaho adopted JRI reforms, the state has increased its timely releases. As figure 2 demonstrates, greater shares of people have been released at or before serving 150 percent of their minimum sentences (or fixed terms) each year since reforms were implemented. Between 2014 and 2017, this figure rose from 62 to 74 percent of releases meaning that by 2017, nearly three in four people released from prison in Idaho had served no more than 150 percent of their fixed terms. 4 ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF IDAHO S PAROLE REFORMS

5 FIGURE 2 Timely Release Has Increased for People Convicted of Nonviolent Offenses Share of people released at or before 150 percent of their fixed terms, by release year 60% 62% 64% 65% JRI implementation 62% 63% 68% 74% Source: Authors calculations based on data from the Idaho Department of Correction. In each year since reforms were implemented, people released from Idaho prisons have spent less of their fixed terms there, on average. People released in 2017 had served an average of 164 percent of their fixed terms in prison, down from 181 percent in 2014 (figure 3). This downward trend holds for people convicted of drug, property, and alcohol offenses, and it represents an acceleration of a larger trend that began before the passage of JRI reforms. Moreover, the median share of fixed term served fell to 106 percent by 2017, meaning that many people were released almost immediately following the end of their fixed terms. FIGURE 3 Share of Fixed Sentence Served at Release Is Declining for Nonviolent Offenses Mean Median JRI implementation 185% 181% 129% 129% 164% 106% Source: Authors calculations based on data from the Idaho Department of Correction. ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF IDAHO S PAROLE REFORMS 5

6 Idaho has also experienced a decline in the number of people held in prison past their parole eligibility date. At the end of 2013, 1,279 people in Idaho prisons who had been convicted of nonviolent offenses were eligible for parole but had not yet been released; by 2017, this number had fallen 36 percent to 818 (figure 4). The number remaining in prison beyond their parole eligibility date has declined among people with drug, property, and alcohol convictions since reforms were implemented. FIGURE 4 Fewer People Are Being Held Past Parole Eligibility since S.B Implementation People incarcerated past parole eligibility Drug Property Alcohol 1,400 JRI implementation 1, , Source: Authors calculations based on data from the Idaho Department of Correction. Note: Represents a year-end count on December 31 of people in prison past their parole eligibility date. The number of days people are held in prison after becoming eligible for parole has also been trending downward. The average rose from 519 to 575 days in the year following JRI, then fell back to pre-reform levels (521 days). However, the median has fallen substantially, from 359 to 308 days, suggesting that a small number of people may be remaining in prison well past their parole eligibility dates and driving up the overall average. These trends also diverge across offense types: though the average number of days in prison past parole eligibility has fallen for people convicted of drug offenses, it has risen for people convicted of property and alcohol offenses. 6 ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF IDAHO S PAROLE REFORMS

7 The Role of S.B Reforms To assess whether Idaho s JRI legislation contributed to meeting the state s goal of increasing timely release, we analyzed two key elements of S.B. 1357: implementation of parole guidelines and changes in prison programming that affect parole readiness. Impact of the Parole Guidelines S.B directed the Commission of Pardons and Parole to develop guidelines that would structure its decisionmaking process while allowing commissioners to retain discretion over the outcomes of individual cases. These guidelines were officially adopted in January 2015, with the first hearings incorporating a guidelines score occurring in July of that year. Approximately six months before their parole hearing, individuals meet with a parole hearing investigator, who conducts an interview and prepares a report for the Commission. 13 Since the implementation of S.B. 1357, this review also includes an assessment according to the criteria in the guidelines. These include the severity of the original offense, risk assessment score, progress toward completing required programming, and disciplinary reports. Based on this assessment, individuals are assigned a score designed to inform the Commission s parole decision. This score is not prescriptive, however, and represents just one of many factors the Commission will take into account. Since implementation, the Commission s decisions have largely aligned with the recommendations of the parole guidelines for people convicted of nonviolent offenses. As seen in figure 5, the Commission typically grants parole in cases where the guidelines recommend granting release. Although the Commission occasionally departs from denial recommendations, particularly for alcohol offenses, its decisions align with the guidelines recommendations more often than not. FIGURE 5 Conformance to the Guidelines Is High, Particularly for Drug and Property Offenses More grants than denials More denials than grants Equal number of denials and grants No hearings with this guideline score Guidelines Recommend Grant Guidelines Recommend Deny Guideline score n Drug 462 Property 1,582 Alcohol 1,467 Source: Authors calculations based on data from the Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole. Since the Commission previously did not formally consider the criteria contained in the new guidelines, nor did it collect and report such data, it is clear that Idaho s parole guidelines have significantly increased transparency around parole decisionmaking. Although a person s guidelines score is just one factor considered by the Commission, the high rates of conformance suggest the ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF IDAHO S PAROLE REFORMS 7

8 guidelines are identifying the behaviors and characteristics central to the parole decision. The Commission now also publishes regular reports on its website summarizing parole grant rates and conformance to the guidelines. Although the parole guidelines have increased transparency in Commission decisionmaking, they do not appear to have influenced the rate at which people convicted of nonviolent offenses are granted parole. In the years since the guidelines were adopted, the grant rate has remained fairly stable, fluctuating by only a few percentage points (figure 6). This trend has held within each nonviolent offense type as well. FIGURE 6 Parole Grant Rates Have Been Stable since Implementation of the Guidelines Total hearings and grant rate by year 1,706 JRI implementation Grants Denials 1,499 1,362 1,380 70% 73% 74% 72% Source: Authors calculations based on data from the Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole. While the grant rate has remained steady, the rate at which the guidelines recommend parole has increased in recent years. As figure 7 shows, there has been a substantial increase in the share of cases in which the guidelines recommend granting parole. In fact, the guidelines now recommend release in more than 9 out of 10 cases involving a nonviolent crime. The Commission s steady grant rate suggests that implementation of the parole guidelines has not been a major driver of timely release. However, the growing gap between the guidelines recommended grant rate and the Commission s actual grant rate indicate that increasing conformance to the recommended grant rate could produce further gains. 8 ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF IDAHO S PAROLE REFORMS

9 FIGURE 7 Increase in Guidelines Recommending Release Is Not Associated with Increase in Grant Rate Guideline-recommended grant rate Actual grant rate 98% 74% 74% 70% 60% JRI implementation Hearing date Source: Authors calculations based on data from the Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole. Impact of Programming Changes at IDOC Another key reform of S.B was to require regular reviews of the effectiveness of the in-prison programming offered by IDOC. Shortly after the legislation passed, IDOC sought assistance from the CSG Justice Center to audit its programming. 14 The findings prompted a major overhaul of the state s correctional programs that included eliminating ineffective programs without an evidence base and replacing them with five core programs that have been shown by research to reduce reoffending. 15 By January 2016, these reforms had been fully adopted systemwide. 16 The availability of required programming in prison is a crucial factor in determining when and whether someone will be granted parole. At intake, people entering IDOC are assigned to programs they must complete before they may be released. When making release decisions, the Commission looks for evidence of progress toward rehabilitation, which is often best demonstrated through the completion of programming. Under the parole guidelines, a person s progress toward completing this programming is a key component of his or her score, with penalties for having failed to complete required programming even if he or she is on a waiting list at the time. IDOC s reforms increased access to programming and reduced delays that had prevented people from completing it in a timely manner. By making core programs available in every facility as well as removing restrictive requirements and unpopular programs, IDOC expedited program completion for people who had been waiting to enroll or had refused to complete mandatory programs that did not meet their needs. ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF IDAHO S PAROLE REFORMS 9

10 The success of these reforms in improving parole readiness and reducing unnecessary administrative delays is borne out by figure 8, which indicates that people being considered for parole have increasingly completed all required programming by the time of their parole hearing. However, the most recent data show that just one in three people have completed programming by the time of their hearing down from a peak of 50 percent in October This initial spike in completion rates likely occurred because of the elimination of certain programs with waiting lists, and the recent declines suggest that opportunities remain for additional reforms to further increase programming access and completion rates. FIGURE 8 More People Are Completing Required Programming by the Time of Their Parole Hearing Share completing required programming JRI implementation 50% 32% 14% 16% Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17 Jul-17 Aug-17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Hearing date Source: Authors calculations based on data from the Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole. While higher program completion may be driving the increase in release recommendations by the parole guidelines (see figure 7), the Commission s steady grant rate indicates that improvements to IDOC programming have not increased the likelihood of being granted parole. Instead, as figure 9 demonstrates, these reforms appear to be driving reductions in release delays among people who are granted parole. In other words, people who are on track to complete programming may now receive an earlier parole date from the Commission, and those who are given a tentative parole date are more likely to complete programming by that date. 10 ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF IDAHO S PAROLE REFORMS

11 FIGURE 9 Time in Prison Following Parole Hearing Is Shrinking, Driving Timely Release Share of releases by hearing year 6 months or less 6 months 1 year More than 1 year 100% 90% 80% JRI implementation 2% 2% 15% 11% 30% 27% 70% 60% 50% 38% 39% 40% 30% 20% 10% 47% 50% 67% 71% 0% Source: Authors calculations based on data from the Idaho Department of Correction and the Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole. Since IDOC s programming reforms were implemented, the share of people released within six months of their parole hearing has risen sharply to 71 percent, with only 2 percent of people being held longer than one year. This is almost certainly the result of reforms that have made it possible to complete programming by the time of one s hearing or shortly thereafter. Trends in Time Served and Recidivism Urban s analysis also examined a number of additional outcomes to assess the full impact of Idaho s JRI reforms beyond the benchmarks defined in S.B Chief among these were trends in time served in prison and trends in recidivism before and after implementation. TIME SERVED DECLINED AS TIMELY RELEASE ROSE The rise in timely release following S.B implementation has also corresponded with a decrease in the length of time people are staying in prison. Even when looking at multiple measures of time served, lengths of stay have fallen for both people who have been released to parole and those currently in prison. The average total amount of time served at release for a nonviolent offense has steadily fallen. After declining 10 percent over the four years before reform, this trend accelerated after reform, with an additional 12 percent decline in three years (figure 10). This change was most dramatic for people convicted of drug offenses, who served an average of 2.1 years in prison at release in 2017 down 18 percent since However, trends varied by offense category: while average time served declined for drug and property offenses, it rose for alcohol offenses. ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF IDAHO S PAROLE REFORMS 11

12 The average amount of time served to date by those who remain in prison has also declined. Our analysis of annual snapshots of the standing prison population found that time served to date for nonviolent offenses fell 15 percent between 2014 and 2017, reversing a previous upward trend. This downward postreform trend held for all nonviolent offense categories but was sharpest among people convicted of drug offenses, who had on average served 19 percent less time in prison at the time of the snapshot in 2017 (1.5 years) compared with 2014 (figure 11). FIGURE 10 Prison Time Served at Release Is Declining for Nonviolent Offenses Average time served, in years, by release year Mean Median JRI implementation Source: Authors calculations based on data from the Idaho Department of Correction. FIGURE 11 Reduced Lengths of Stay for Drug Offenses Are Driving Reductions in Time Served Time served to date, in years, by standing population date Drug Property Alcohol JRI implementation Source: Authors calculations based on data from the Idaho Department of Correction. 12 ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF IDAHO S PAROLE REFORMS

13 RECIDIVISM TRENDS ARE MIXED Since S.B implementation, recidivism trends, measured as both returns to prison and felony reconvictions, have been consistent. However, misdemeanor reconviction rates have risen sharply, driven primarily by convictions for low-level offenses. People released from prison following S.B implementation have returned to prison at nearly identical rates as people released before reform. Of those released in 2016, 8 percent had returned to prison within one year, compared with the 7 percent of those released in 2014 who returned to prison within a year of release (figure 12). Reconviction rates, however, have increased significantly. This is driven almost entirely by increases in new convictions for misdemeanors (figure 13). As shown in table 1, nearly half these reconvictions are driving violations or the possession or use of a controlled substance. In contrast, there has been very little change in the likelihood of receiving a new felony reconviction. FIGURE 12 Returns to Prison Since Reform Are Similar to Recent Years Recidivism rates by release year One-year rate Two-year rate JRI implementation 22% 22% 20% 19% 18% 16% 7% 6% 6% 8% 7% 4% 8% Source: Authors calculations based on data from the Idaho Department of Correction. TABLE 1 Top Charges for Reconvictions since Reform Share convicted as misdemeanors Share of all convictions Driving violation 100% 22% Controlled substance possession or use 60% 21% Petty theft 86% 8% Drug paraphernalia possession or use 94% 8% Obstructing, resisting, or attempting to elude officers 79% 6% Total 65% Source: Authors calculations based on data from the Idaho Department of Correction and the Idaho Supreme Court. ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF IDAHO S PAROLE REFORMS 13

14 FIGURE 13 Higher Reconviction Rates since Reform Are Driven by Misdemeanor Convictions Recidivism rates by conviction type and release year Felony convictions Misdemeanor convictions JRI implementation 19% 18% 18% 18% 19% 22% 12% 10% 12% 9% 9% 11% 13% 2% 7% 2% 7% 2% 7% 3% 7% 2% 7% 3% 8% 3% One-year Two-year One-year Two-year One-year Two-year One-year Two-year One-year Two-year One-year Two-year One-year Source: Authors calculations based on data from the Idaho Department of Correction and the Idaho Supreme Court. Notably, each of these trends held even when controlling for factors such as age at release, race, gender, offense severity, and LSI score (risk to reoffend). Full results from this multivariate analysis are listed in the appendix (page 16). Finally, this public safety analysis found that recidivism within two years of release is consistently lower among people who have completed programming by the time of their parole hearing. People who complete programming by the time of their hearing are returned to prison at a rate of 19 percent within two years (5 percent receive a new felony conviction) compared with 22 percent of people who do not complete programming (9 percent who don t complete programming receive a new felony conviction). This pattern reinforces the need to continue increasing program completion rates and parole readiness. Conclusion and Recommendations JRI reforms have helped slow Idaho s prison population growth by increasing timely release for people convicted of nonviolent offenses. These reforms have also maintained public safety, with returns to prison and felony reconvictions stable before and after the reforms. 14 ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF IDAHO S PAROLE REFORMS

15 Parole decisions are only one piece of the puzzle, however, and Idaho s prison population is on the rise again (figure 14). Although Idaho s prison population fell 6 percent between January 2015 and May 2016 following implementation of S.B. 1357, it has since climbed to pre-reform levels. 17 As of August 2018, the prison population is at an all-time high of 8,786 people. 18 In June 2018, IDOC requested $500 million for the construction of a new prison to increase capacity in response to the growing prison population and the strain it puts on IDOC facilities. 19 FIGURE 14 Idaho s Prison Population Fell Following Reform Implementation but Has Since Risen to Pre-JRI Levels Actual Projected JRI implementation 8,082 8,141 7,678 8,786 Jul-12 Oct-12 Jan-13 Apr-13 Jul-13 Oct-13 Jan-14 Apr-14 Jul-14 Oct-14 Jan-15 Apr-15 Jul-15 Oct-15 Jan-16 Apr-16 Jul-16 Oct-16 Jan-17 Apr-17 Jul-17 Oct-17 Jan-18 Apr-18 Jul-18 Oct-18 Source: Council of State Governments and Idaho Department of Correction. Findings from prior research 20 and this analysis support various policy options that Idaho could consider to build on the impact of the parole guidelines and programming changes and safely avoid the projected prison population growth: Continue to implement reforms that increase the number of people who complete their required programming by the time of their parole hearing. Given that timely program completion appears to be a key factor in both parole readiness and recidivism outcomes, IDOC should prioritize process improvements that further increase access to required programs and reduce release delays for those who are granted parole. Implement parole reforms that will further increase timely release and address the growing gap between the parole grant rate and guideline recommendations for nonviolent offenses. People convicted of nonviolent offenses who have completed all required programming by the end of ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF IDAHO S PAROLE REFORMS 15

16 their fixed terms should be released by default upon becoming parole-eligible, barring a documented public safety risk. Increase investments in behavioral health programming in the community and improve reentry by focusing on continuity of care between release and community-based treatment. A more robust network of behavioral health programs outside the prison system could allow eligible people to complete some of their required programming in the community, saving taxpayers millions. Idaho can build on its recent success in this area: as of 2016, the state had invested nearly $6 million in supervision, treatment, and performance measurement and documented more than $17 million in averted costs. 21 Adopt sentencing reforms that go beyond release decisionmaking to address the high number of misdemeanor convictions, probation revocations, and rider terms for nonviolent offenses. 16 ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF IDAHO S PAROLE REFORMS

17 Appendix To analyze whether the recidivism trends we observed held when controlling for demographic and casespecific factors, we estimated six logistic regression models with six recidivism measures (one- and twoyear prison admission, felony reconviction, and overall reconviction) as the dependent variables. Similar to the raw recidivism rates reported above, this analysis shows that returns to prison and felony reconviction rates remained stable pre- and post-sb 1357, but overall reconviction rates increased even when controlling for the characteristics of the population. Tables A.1 and A.2 contain the full results of those models. TABLE A.1 Results of Logistic Regression Models Predicting Readmission to Prison Prison Admission: One-Year Prison Admission: Two-Year Standard Standard Odds ratio error Odds ratio error JRI implementation Race a 0.79* Gender b 1.30* *** 0.13 Age at release 0.97*** *** 0.00 Offense type c LSI score 1.50*** *** 0.03 Notes:. = p < 0.1; * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < a 1 = not white; 0 = white b 1 = male; 0 = female c 1 = drug or alcohol offense; 0 = property offense. TABLE A.2 Results of Logistic Regression Models Predicting Reconviction Felony Conviction: One-Year Felony Conviction: Two-Year Conviction (Felony or Misdemeanor): One-Year Conviction (Felony or Misdemeanor): Two-Year Odds ratio Standard error Odds ratio Standard error Odds ratio Standard error Odds ratio Standard error JRI implementation 1.43* *** *** 0.12 Race a 0.60** * Gender b * *** *** 0.11 Age at release 0.96*** *** *** *** 0.00 Offense type c LSI score 1.33*** *** *** *** 0.02 Notes:. = p < 0.1; * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < a 1 = not white; 0 = white b 1 = male; 0 = female c 1 = drug or alcohol offense; 0 = property offense. ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF IDAHO S PAROLE REFORMS 17

18 Notes 1 Corrections Statistical Analysis Tool (CSAT) Prisoners, Bureau of Justice Statistics, accessed September 1, 2018, 2 Justice Reinvestment in Idaho: Analyses and Policy Framework, Council of State Governments Justice Center, January 16, 2014, Projection is for fiscal year See IDOC (Idaho Department of Correction), Justice Reinvestment in Idaho: Impact on the State. Report to the Legislature (Boise: IDOC, 2018). 4 Justice Reinvestment in Idaho: Analyses and Policy Framework. 5 Justice Reinvestment in Idaho: Analyses and Policy Framework. 6 See IDOC (Idaho Department of Correction) and Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole, Timely Release Report, 2018 (Boise: IDOC and Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole, 2018). 7 Corrections Statistical Analysis Tool (CSAT) Prisoners. 8 Justice Reinvestment in Idaho: Analyses and Policy Framework. 9 Justice Reinvestment in Idaho: Analyses and Policy Framework. 10 Justice Reinvestment in Idaho: Analyses and Policy Framework. 11 The full text of Idaho Senate Bill 1357 is available at 12 Although alcohol offenses are not named in the statutory language of S.B. 1357, they have been included in prior state analyses and constitute a small share of the cases in this analysis. 13 Frequently Asked Questions, Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole, accessed September 1, 2018, 14 Message from the Director: JPA Assessment and IDOC Program Changes, Idaho Department of Correction, September 17, 2015, 15 See IDOC, Program Effectiveness Report: Report to the Legislature on State-Funded Recidivism Reduction Programs (Boise: IDOC, 2017). 16 See IDOC, Program Effectiveness Report. 17 Council of State Governments, unpublished Idaho JRI tracking sheet, Idaho Department of Correction, Historical Population Data Dashboard, accessed September 1, 2018, 19 Idaho Officials Propose Spending $500M on Prison Expansion, U.S. News & World Report, June 12, 2018, 20 See Samantha Harvell, Jeremy Welsh-Loveman, and Hanna Love, Reforming Sentencing and Corrections Policy: The Experience of Justice Reinvestment Initiative States (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2016/2017). 21 Samantha Harvell and Jeremy Welsh-Loveman, Justice Reinvestment Initiative State Data Tracker: Idaho, Urban Institute, accessed September 1, 2018, 18 ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF IDAHO S PAROLE REFORMS

19 About the Authors Elizabeth Pelletier is a research analyst in the Justice Policy Center, where she primarily works on projects related to criminal justice reform. Before joining Urban, she researched education policy as a Fulbright grantee at the University of Toronto. Pelletier graduated from the College of William and Mary in 2014 with a BA in public policy and film studies. Leigh Courtney is a policy associate in the Justice Policy Center, where her work focuses on informing sentencing and corrections reform efforts by policymakers, practitioners, and communities. She has seven years of experience working in criminal justice policy and practice at the national, state, and local levels. Courtney holds a BA in sociology/anthropology and Spanish from Denison University and received her MPP from the University of Maryland School of Public Policy. Brian Elderbroom is an affiliated scholar in the Justice Policy Center. He is an independent consultant and national expert on sentencing and corrections policy with 15 years of experience working with state governments, national research and public policy think tanks, and state-based advocacy organizations. He has spent most of his career helping state lawmakers develop and evaluate policy changes to safely reduce the prison population and invest in alternatives to incarceration. ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF IDAHO S PAROLE REFORMS 19

20 Acknowledgments This project was supported by Grant No ZB-BX-K005 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, and the SMART Office. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the US Department of Justice. We are grateful to them and to all our funders, who make it possible for Urban to advance its mission. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Funders do not determine research findings or the insights and recommendations of Urban experts. Further information on the Urban Institute s funding principles is available at urban.org/fundingprinciples. Urban also would like to thank Director Henry Atencio, Janeena White, and Sean Falconer of the Department of Correction; Director Sandy Jones and Kari Nussgen of the Commission of Pardons and Parole; and Renae Bieri and Rob Owens of the Supreme Court for their valuable insights into the state s justice system and their assistance in obtaining and interpreting the data used in this report M Street NW Washington, DC ABOUT THE URBAN INSTITUTE The nonprofit Urban Institute is a leading research organization dedicated to developing evidence-based insights that improve people s lives and strengthen communities. For 50 years, Urban has been the trusted source for rigorous analysis of complex social and economic issues; strategic advice to policymakers, philanthropists, and practitioners; and new, promising ideas that expand opportunities for all. Our work inspires effective decisions that advance fairness and enhance the well-being of people and places. Copyright November Urban Institute. Permission is granted for reproduction of this file, with attribution to the Urban Institute. 20 ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF IDAHO S PAROLE REFORMS