By Sam Goldstein
Summary of Memo
The criminal justice system in Wisconsin is marked by recidivism: an individual commits a crime, is incarcerated, released on supervision, repeats a crime/commits a new one, and that individual is then reincarcerated. Based on the most recent data collected by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC), 31.3% of individuals released from a Wisconsin prison commit another new offense resulting in a conviction within a 3-year period of being released (Prison Policy Initiative, WI Profile). According to the DOC’s Wisconsin Prison Admissions from 2000 to 2019, 38.8% (over one-third) of the inmate population in Wisconsin consists of revocation only admissions; which are people who are on supervision, have committed another crime, and are reincarcerated. Those in the public that are not in the Wisconsin Corrections System can often think that community supervision is a rehabilitative experience while less than half of the offenders successfully completed their supervision in 2007, according to reports from the Department of Justice.
Background and Context
Wisconsin has begun lowering its prison population via an early-release initiative beginning in 2010 when former Governor Doyle signed legislation to grant early release to certain incarcerated individuals. Wisconsin’s prison population currently stands at approximately 19,580 inmates, 15% lower than it was in 2020 and the smallest that it has been since 1999 (Wisconsin Policy Forum). In FY 2017-18, adult institutions were at an average of 133.8 percent of their design capacities, according to the Prison Policy: Wisconsin. With COVID-19 coming into play within the last two years, the prison population has dropped due to trials being slowed and because Governor Evers issued an executive order blocking admissions to state prisons to help slow the spread of the pandemic. Wisconsin continues to operate under an extremely traditional system of probation and parole when the state could be doing more to focus on reducing recidivism. This traditional system is distinguished by outdated technology, and policy, and is lacking in external resources like high-quality treatment centers. For example, the Wisconsin DOC uses a standard assessment tool within the software program, this is called COMPAS, to determine the risk level of each offender, which in turn determines the offender’s rules of supervision, how often they must meet face-to-face with their agent if their agent must collect collateral from them, and so on. Wisconsin DOC should focus on lowering Wisconsin’s recidivism rate, which can lead to lowering the state’s overall prison population.
Introduction
Community corrections has its foundations in rehabilitation and community-based programming from nongovernmental organizations. Wisconsin has taken a very standard approach – not individualized treatment plans, to case plans and management among community corrections. The Wisconsin community corrections system struggles to have meaningful interventions with such a high volume of people who pass through the correctional system year after year. The Wisconsin probation and parole program is executed by the Wisconsin DOC under the Division of Community Corrections. According to the Wisconsin DOC’s 2020 Year in Review, 19,173 clients were ordered with probation cases in the fiscal year 2020 making the total 25,480 probation cases. Out of these, 15,684 clients had new incidents with their supervision. And of these, 8,157 clients were brand new to the DOC. With other circumstances included such as mandatory release and others, the statewide total of individuals under supervision was 64,022 in 2020. The national average of individuals under supervision in the United States is 303 per 100,000 adults, which places Wisconsin at the seventh-highest supervision rate nationally and the average length of supervision time is 1.7 times higher than the national average according to a report written by Michigan Justice Advocacy. Additionally, it is important to note that the Wisconsin DOC receives its funding from the state budget and DOJ grants.
Alternatives
With current DOC efforts using the COMPAS system to determine offender risk level and probability of recidivism, officials use alternatives to revocation (ATRs). These ATRs are used in response to probation/parole violations like using drugs, drinking alcohol, violating an ordinance, etcetera. When an offender commits an act like one described, their agent has the authority to revoke them and send them back to prison or jail, but they use an alternative such as going to treatment clinics instead. There needs to be a statewide effort to maintain this idea of support, but with alternatives to incarceration.
Applying these evidence-based practices can help with the collaboration between effective supervision and appropriate rehabilitation and treatment programs. It is important to note that this is dependent on the availability of said rehabilitation and treatment programs, but Wisconsin’s Division of Community Corrections must have multiple meaningful and supportive options. Having these helpful options not only gives community corrections the chance to be as successful as possible but also allows the courts to provide help in the process as well.
The case laws like State v. Gallion in 2004 and State ex. rel. Plotkin v. DHFS et. al. in 1974 gave Wisconsin a higher incentive for practicing meaningful community corrections programming. In State v. Gallion, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the framework and guidelines of sentencing include punishment and deterrence to others, but protection and rehabilitation. While considering different sentencing options, the courts must turn to McCleary v. State from 1971 which ruled that the chosen sentence must correspond with the lowest amount of confinement and incarceration while also keeping the public safe, and making sure the need(s) for rehabilitation and treatment are met for the offender. These efforts have improved the Wisconsin correctional system, however, it could be very useful to unearth these cases again today to take a look at the decision with a fresh set of eyes.
Alternatives to incarceration include all different forms of punishment/consequence that the court can impose on an individual after they have been convicted of a crime other than serving jail or prison time. These alternatives are much less expensive than keeping someone incarcerated and reduce prison overcrowding which is a serious epidemic in the United States. Studies across the United States have shown time and time again that alternative sentencing methods are either more or just as effective as serving time in prison, and when these non-custodial methods are used as an alternative to incarceration, they directly contribute to reducing the prison population and recidivism rates. For example, Virginia has the lowest recidivism rate in the United States. The Virginia DOC reported that its re-entry services, treatment-ordered facilities, and supervision by its probation/parole agents are what contribute to its low recidivism rate, as well as tailoring its program to meet the criminogenic needs of its clients. Their intensive re-entry program is six months long and is separated into three parts, and has been reported by the VA DOC as highly effective. In addition to that re-entry program, the VA DOC offers over one hundred courses for those incarcerated and those recently released for anything ranging from academia, job training, to cognitive work (Virginia Department of Corrections).
Some alternative programs include house arrest, special living communities, community service, mental health facilities, and alcohol and drug abuse treatment centers that are equipped with all the necessary equipment for emergencies and for top-of-the-line treatment because that is what Wisconsinites deserve. House arrest is not very invasive, special living communities give offenders a place where they can easily ease back into being a member of the community, community service allows the offender to work a certain amount of time doing community improvement work to tie them back to their community, mental health facilities give the offender a place where they can be treated by professionals and a place where they can also ease back into society, and alcohol and drug abuse programs that have the resources that private programs have to provide the offender the best chance to have a positive impact on their community and themselves.
Comparing the United States’ recidivism rates and practice to countries around the world can be a helpful tool when discussing different methods of rehabilitation and normalization when an individual is released from prison. A common comparison is Norway, and that is because the Norwegian prison system prioritizes educational, rehabilitation, and normalization programs which have shown to be effective in improving fine skills and lifestyle choices for use after incarceration. These programs have also increased employment for incarcerated individuals after they are released, which is also another pillar to help keep recidivism rates low and something that the United States could certainly learn from (Norway’s Prison System). These changes have not yet occurred in Wisconsin due to pushback from the GOP like tougher on crime legislation, for example.
These alternatives to incarceration help put public safety first, but they must also start putting the offender’s well-being first too. Without having hands-on, updated, and effective alternatives to incarceration, there will continue to be prison overcrowding and high recidivism rates. What is needed is reform, and it is needed now.
Expansion of Using Private and Non-Profit Providers for Offender Treatment/Assessment
Private and nonprofit involvement in the Division of Community Corrections (DCC) operations is largely limited to the purchase of goods and contracts for certain services unavailable through DOC. The DCC is the division that handles community supervision. Giving the opportunity to encourage healthy competition between private and nonprofit providers, in conjunction with the current public programs in place, would result in a more supportive and effective supervision environment. This can certainly be achieved by encouraging these providers to participate in these areas because they need innovation and expansion. By opening up this door, Wisconsin could see an increase in partnerships with these providers and more efficient state-run programs. In addition to all of these positive outcomes, Wisconsin is an ideal place to try these approaches. According to a study conducted by the CSG, Wisconsin is at a breaking point where recidivism rates and spending rates will continue to increase without the betterment of the community corrections system.
Statistics from the National Institute on Drug Abuse show that an estimated 65% of the United States prison population has an active substance use disorder. Moreover, the United States Department of Justice reported that more than half of state prisoners and over two-thirds of sentenced jail inmates met the certain criteria for drug dependence/abuse. These statistics have continued to rise over the years, and without proper intervention, the cycle will continue. Multiple reports from the CSG and the National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices have shown that substance use and mental health assessments across the state of Wisconsin are inconsistent and incompatible, and services provided by state agencies are not nearly as impactful as they could be. This is due to the fact that DOC selects the “lowest bidder” and does not use the expertise and professionalism of private or nonprofit organizations, which would be much more thought out, balanced, and would provide improved rehabilitation, keep the public safe, and improve the public’s view of supervision.
Private and nonprofit treatment providers can aid in filling the gaps to meet offenders’ needs all across Wisconsin. There is lots of room for improvement and reform, however, change and progress are possible.
The perfect example of why the expansion of private and nonprofit providers in Wisconsin’s community corrections system is their temporary housing/halfway housing program. The state contracts beds at community-based residential facilities for less than $70 per day, like Porchlight in Downtown Madison (Stopping the Revolving Door, The Badger Institute). These facilities provide a range of different treatment services, counseling, living skills services, supervision, a sense of personalized attention, and administrative work to maintain public safety. According to the Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau, over 60% of offenders living in halfway houses during their supervision are successfully discharged from the DOC, and less than half of them are discharged from strictly state-run supervision. The main problem with halfway house facilities in Wisconsin is that there is an extremely high demand for them which leads to months-long waiting lists. Expanding partnerships with private and nonprofit organizations can lend experience and an extra hand to community corrections.
Recommendations and Conclusion
According to the National Institute of Corrections under the Department of Justice, “Almost 700,000 prisoners were released from federal and state prisons in 2005, and the annual number of releases continues to grow. These individuals transition to communities all across the nation. Most are still under correctional supervision. A high percentage of them are rearrested in short order, and roughly two-thirds return to prison within 3 years—as a result of either new convictions or parole revocations. At the same time, many states are facing considerable budget shortfalls, prison populations continue to grow, and communities and policy-makers alike are asking how this cycle of failure and escalating costs can be interrupted.”
This piece is recommended to Wisconsin to further its goal of reducing recidivism rates and with that comes reducing prison populations, providing public safety, keeping offenders under supervision in the community, and generating cost savings.
To achieve these goals, this memorandum recommends including higher standards and thoughtfully written performance-based contracts to maintain accountability among providers. This will allow Wisconsin to deter providers that are able to have a low bid, but unable to meet the required qualifications. There must be a definition of benchmarks and result-oriented goals with the goal in mind of protecting the public and reducing recidivism in order to maintain expectations and deliver clear and concise solutions. A creation of regionally based purchasers of goods and services to decentralize the contracting process and encourage community participation, support, and problem-solving. The state would have the highest authority, and regional staff would choose how to allocate resources to meet the needs of offenders in each specific region. Establishing a plan to hold providers accountable to perform at the highest level to progress toward the main goals of supervision through evidence-based practices. The funding for these processes would be drafted into the DOC’s yearly budget, in the best case.
During this time of record prison populations and difficult corrections budgets, Wisconsin has the chance to be a national leader in supportive and meaningful community corrections reform. Through the recommendations of improving and expanding the community corrections processes, the state will raise the DCC operations standards, encourage innovation within private and nonprofit sectors, and more ideas and options can ebb and flow within the state agency.
Works Cited
“Community Corrections – General Information.” DOC Community Corrections – General Information, doc.wi.gov/Pages/AboutDOC/CommunityCorrections/GeneralInformation.aspx#supervision.
Initiative, Prison Policy. “Mental Health.” Prison Policy Initiative, www.prisonpolicy.org/research/mental_health/.
Initiative, Prison Policy. “Wisconsin Profile.” Wisconsin Profile | Prison Policy Initiative, www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/WI.html.
Marley, Patrick. “Wisconsin’s Prison Population Drops to Lowest Level in More than 20 Years during COVID-19 Pandemic.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 25 Mar. 2021, www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2021/03/25/covid-drives-wisconsins-prison-population-lowest-level-years/6987609002/.
National Institute of Corrections. nicic.gov/sites/default/files/024311.pdf.
Nic FY 2020 Advancing Community Supervision … – Nicic.gov. nicic.gov/sites/default/files/20CS16%20acsc%20.pdf.
Nic FY 2022 Correctional Industries Leadership … – Nicic.gov. nicic.gov/sites/default/files/22jd14_correctional_industries_final.pdf.pdf.
“Policy Reforms Can Strengthen Community Supervision.” The Pew Charitable Trusts, www.pewtrusts.org/research-and-analysis/reports/2020/04/policy-reforms-can-strengthen-community-supervision.
Practitioners Guide to Compas – Northpointeinc.com. www.northpointeinc.com/files/technical_documents/FieldGuide2_081412.pdf.
“Stopping the Revolving Door: Reform of Community Corrections in Wisconsin.” The Badger Institute, www.badgerinstitute.org/Reports/2009/Stopping-the-Revolving-Door-Reform-of-Community-Corrections-in-Wisconsin.htm.
Wisconsin Department of and Options Corrections … – Doc Home. doc.wi.gov/Documents/AboutDOC/AdultInstitutions/OpportunitiesOptionsResourceGuideEnglish.pdf.
Wisconsin Prison ADMISSIONS 6,000 2000-2019 4,000 … – Doc Home. doc.wi.gov/DataResearch/InteractiveDashboards/DAIAdmissionsExecSum2000to2019.pdf.
https://vadoc.virginia.gov/offender-resources/incoming-offenders/facility-programs/https://digitalcommons.coastal.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=bridges#:~:text=Due%20to%20the%20emphasis%20on,recidivism%20rates%20in%20the%20world.