Council of State GovernmentsCriminal Justice Programs

Building Bridges: From Conviction to EmploymentA Proposal to Reinvest Corrections Savings in an Employment Initiative

ONE YEAR LATER

Submitted to: Representative William DysonChair, Appropriations CommitteeConnecticut General Assembly

February 18, 2004

Points of view, recommendations, or findings stated in this document are those of the authors and do notnecessarily represent the official position or policies of the Council of State Governments.

The Council of State Governments (CSG) is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that serves allelected and appointed officials in the three branches of state government. Founded in 1933, CSG is unique inboth its regional structure and its constituency-which includes state legislators, judges, and executive branchofficials. The organization is funded largely through state government dues.

Building Bridges: From Conviction to EmploymentA Proposal to Reinvest Corrections Savings in an Employment Initiative:

One Year Later

Table of Contents

Memorandum: Update to the “Building Bridges” Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Table 1: Changes in the Connecticut Prison Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 2: Key Changes in Admissions and Releases, 2002 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Table 3: Cross Tab of Admit Types with Legal Status, Comparison of 2002 and 2003 . . . . . . . . 7

Table 4: Cross Tab of Release Types with Legal Status, Comparison of 2002 and 2003 . . . . . . . 8

Table 5: Average Length of Stay by Release Type, Comparison of 2002 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Historical Inmate Population by Gender and Legal Status (4 charts) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Maps of Connecticut Prison Admissions and Expenditures by Jurisdiction (7 maps) . . . . . . . . 14

Memorandum: analysis of potential budget savings from implementation of HB 6694 . . . . . . . 22

Biographies of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

To: Rep. William Dyson, Chair, Appropriations Committee Rep. Michael Lawlor, Chair, Judiciary Committee From: Michael Thompson, Director of Criminal Justice Programs, Council of State

Governments, Eastern Regional Conference Date: February 18, 2004 Re: Update to the “Building Bridges” Report Approximately one year ago, you commissioned from the Council of State Governments options that you and your colleagues in the legislature could consider to improve employment rates among people released from prison and jail. That report, Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment, was presented at a statewide conference you convened and at a hearing a few months later in which the governor testified in support of many of the concepts described in the document. This year, you inquired about changes in the population under supervision of the Connecticut Department of Corrections since the “Building Bridges” report was issued. Specifically, you asked the following:

1) Has the number of people incarcerated in Connecticut, and the characteristics of that population (e.g., pretrial status, sentence imposed, and demographics) changed since we last studied the inmate population about one year ago;

2) What appears to have caused the inmate population to increase, decrease, or

stay the same over the past year? 3) To what extent do particular neighborhoods in Connecticut continue to receive

the majority of people released from prison or jail?

The findings in this report are based on research conducted by nationally-known experts James Austin, Ph.D., Michael Jacobson, Ph.D., and Eric Cadora. Biographies for these expert consultants, who have assisted dozens of states and served in prominent positions, appear at the conclusion of this report.

Also included in this report is a memorandum prepared last year by Drs. Austin

and Jacobson, which describes the impact that legislation you introduced to address prison overcrowding, increase public safety, and reduce recidivism would have on the prison population and the Department of Corrections budget. The projected impact of that legislation, which you re-introduced this year, remains the same this year.

Data used to inform this research includes numbers provided by the Department of Corrections. Without their cooperation, this report would not have been possible. That said, the quality of data being recorded by the DOC and its capacity to analyze the data is extremely limited as compared to most state prison systems. These limitations make it impossible to issue reliable forecasts of future prison populations, evaluate the impact of past initiatives, and test the impact of proposed legislation and policies. The expert consultants note that the costs of upgrading the state’s research and planning capabilities are minimal as compared to how much money would be saved by improving the effectiveness of current correctional agency operations.

Compiled by James Austin, Ph.D.

TABLE 1 CHANGES IN THE CONNECTICUT PRISON POPULATION

Prisoner Group Jan 2003 July 2003 Jan 2004 Change

Total 19,216 19,121 18,523 -693

Sentenced 15,220 15,243 14,336 -884

Accused 3,628 3,417 3,633 +5

Federal/INS 368 461 554 +186

Major Sentenced Offense Group

Violation Probation/CS 2,346 2,293 2,080 -266

Sale of Narcotics 2,207 2,161 1,960 -247

Possession of Drugs 804 806 765 -39

Community Supervision Populations 3,915 NA 4,130 +215

Parole Population 2,100 NA 2,343 +243

Halfway House 759 668 680 -79

Transitional Supervision 1,012 1,069 1,060 +48

Re-entry Furlough 44 45 47 +3

Compiled by James Austin, Ph.D.

TABLE 2 KEY CHANGES IN ADMISSIONS AND RELEASES

2002 AND 2003

Admission/Release Attribute 2002 2003 Difference

Total Un-sentenced Admissions 15,714 15,375 339

Parole Technical Violators 700 502 198

0

Total Releases 30,469 31,464 -995

Time Served Releases 7,925 8,774 -849

TABLE 3 CROSS TAB OF ADMIT TYPES WITH LEGAL STATUS

COMPARISON OF 2002 AND 2003

Legal Status Sentenced>2 year Sentenced<2 year Un-sentenced Federal Total Admit Type

2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003New Admits 436 369 2,280 2,282 5,929 5,543 111 98 8,756 8,292New Admits-Other 184 169 200 118 511 231 606 1,351 1,501 1,869New Admits-Civil 25 10 60 54 1,040 268 80 684 1,205 1,033Parole-Return 7 19 7 20 68 18 14 65 96 122Parole Viol-Tech 529 317 42 24 60 35 69 126 700 502Return Other 60 60 34 16 8 2 8 2 110 80Return from Trans/Com 487 494 693 730 130 165 12 17 1,322 1,460Readmission-Other 41 157 22 184 80 313 383 355 526 1,009Readmission-Sentence 706 657 3,051 3,187 171 258 20 22 3,948 4,124Readmission Continued 1,975 2,177 3,484 4,322 7,620 8,476 75 101 13,514 15,076Return with New Charge 270 249 61 69 60 57 7 35 398 407Readmission Parcom/Cuscom 3 2 2 3 37 9 8 51 50 65Total 4,723 4,680 9,936 11,009 15,714 15,375 1,393 2,907 31,766 34,039

Compiled by James Austin, Ph.D.

TABLE 4 CROSS TAB OF RELEASE TYPES WITH LEGAL STATUS

COMPARISON OF 2002 AND 2003

Legal Status

Sentenced>2 year

Sentenced<2 year Un-sentenced Federal

Total Release Type

2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003

Absconding from Parole 134 1,136 18 1,559 8 118 17 10 177 2,823

Consignment to Other Jurisdiction 40 45 30 15 9 0 4 0 83 60

Discharge to Special Parole Supervision 2 13 6 19 8 21 149 314 165 367

Discharge Other 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 4

Discharge to Court 319 252 835 443 6,180 5,429 109 324 7,443 6,448

Discharge from Parole, End of Sentence 799 -- 25 -- 55 -- 3 -- 882 --

Discharge from Trans Supv 219 -- 1,328 -- 93 -- 4 -- 1,644 --

Discharge to Feds 1 8 1 3 9 6 381 251 392 268

Discharge to Immigration 3 4 3 2 11 4 824 1465 841 1,475

Discharge to Police 1 0 10 5 8 19 18 25

Fine Paid 2 4 26 23 136 94 111 164 232

Time Served 1,677 1,672 5,468 6,411 766 682 14 9 7,925 8,774

Escape 92 46 59 25 4 0 1 0 156 74

Death 34 36 11 7 12 5 4 57 52

Parcom Cased Closed 7 6 10 2 39 3 6 36 62 47

Parole Discharge from Parcom 9 13 3 0 30 2 38 42 53

Parole to Feds 16 10 0 0 1 1 17 11

Other Release 11 14 10 8 5 2 1 26 25

Release to Community 1,085 558 428 255 2 3 4 1,516 819

Release to Extended Supervised Parole 8 4 3 0 1 0 0 12 4

Release to Parcom 51 65 1 0 8 0 10 60 75

Release to Re-entry Furlough 69 22 29 41 3 2 1 1 102 66

Released to Supervised Parole 1,095 1,555 24 36 13 12 9 23 1,141 1,626

Released to Home Jurisdiction 2 4 2 1 20 8 11 15 35 28

Transfer to Trans Supv 306 484 604 822 26 28 1 4 937 1,338

Un-sentenced Discharge on Bond 388 396 495 544 5,659 5,436 14 269 6,556 6,645

Court Order 1 1 3 0 9 12 1 2 14 15

Total 6,371 6,397 9,422 10,252 13,114 11,875 1,562 2,940 30,469 31,464

Compiled by James Austin, Ph.D.

TABLE 5 AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY BY RELEASE TYPE

COMPARISON OF 2002 AND 2003

Average LOS (Mos.) Release Type

2002 2003 Absconding from Parole 45.9 23.6 Consignment to Other Jurisdiction 12.7 13.6 Discharge to Special Parole Supervision 29.7 34.3 Discharge Other 28.9 14.4 Discharge to Court 2.1 0.9 Discharge from Parole, End of Sentence 53.5 Discharge from Trans Supv 11.3 Discharge to Feds 6.7 5.8 Discharge to Immigration 1.1 5.9 Discharge to Police 2.1 3.0 Fine Paid 1.7 0.2 Time Served 14.8 11.4 Escape 19.8 23.1 Death 37 55.8 Parcom Cased Closed 33.8 24.5 Parole Discharge from Parcom 32.6 42.2 Parole to Feds 46.5 38.1 Other Release 21.5 6.0 Release to Community 21.4 24.8 Release to Extended Supervised Parole 65.8 43.4 Release to Parcom 52.7 45.7 Release to Re-entry Furlough 28.8 16.1 Released to Supervised Parole 42 43.2 Released to Home Jurisdiction 23.6 10.2 Transfer to Trans Supv 9.1 10.2 Un-sentenced Discharge on Bond 0.5 0.5 Court Order 1.3 1.7

Compiled by James Austin, Ph.D.

FIGURE 1 HISTORICAL INMATE POPULATION BY GENDER (1990-2004)

19,21618,873 18,52318,500 1,43017,700 1,38917,459 1,373

16,776 1,2471,24016,500 1,093 15,588 15,909

14,889 14,967 1,1191,15814,500 14,125 1,0591,021

849

12,500 11,76911,022 10,814

8,994 10,201 10,403 11,087

13,276 13,868 13,908 14,430 14,79015,683 16,219 16,453

17,484 17,786 17,150595

613 619 682

10,500 Inmates

9,589

8,500

6,500

4,500 Total Female Incarcerated

Total Male Incarcerated2,500

500 1990 1991 1992 1999 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year

Compiled by James Austin, Ph.D.

FIGURE 2 HISTORICAL PRISON POPULATION BY LEGAL STATUS (1990-2004)

19,21618,87319,000 18,523

17,70017,45916,776

17,000 15,90915,588

15,22014,96714,889 14,84515,000 14,36414,125

14,33614,23013,483

13,000 12,37012,04011,769 11,659

9,589

10,814 11,022

4,187

7,740

1,849 1,813 1,859 2,134

2,466 2,849 2,9533,369 3,539 3,293 3,095

3,4704,028

3,628

9,001 9,163 9,635

12,014 12,219

11,000 Inmates

Total Incarcerated9,000

Total Accused/Feds

7,000 Total Sentenced

5,000

3,000

1,000 1990 1991 1992 1999 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year

Compiled by James Austin, Ph.D.

FIGURE 3 HISTORICAL INMATE POPULATION BY GENDER (1990-2003)

25,000

Female Sentenced

Male Sentenced 19,12120,000 Total Female Accused 18,873

Total Male Accused 17,700 1,02294817,45916,776 854919

1,709 1,701 1,712 1,954 2,227 2,602 2,679 3,068 3,172 3,010 2,774 3,077 3,587 3,489

7,285 8,500 8,691 9,133

11,04911,266 11,229

11,362 11,618 12,673 13,445 13,37613,897 14,221

455 501 472

502

610774 785

857 752 15,909 14,889 81015,588

14,96715,000 14,125

Inmates

11,022 11,76910,814 9,589

10,000

5,000 441

367 389283 393301 321274247239140 180147 112

0 1990 1991 1992 1998 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

Compiled by James Austin, Ph.D.

FIGURE 4 HISTORICAL SUPERVISED POPULATION (1990-2004)

*2004 data for Jan. 1, 2004 20,85820,529 20,26320,000 19,10118,79518,478 19,12118,873 18,52317,401 17,51717,181 17,70016,721 16,409

15,968 16,182 17,45916,09415,829 16,77615,909

15,000 15,58814,96714,889

No. of Inmates 14,125

11,769

10,814 11,02210,000 9,589

Total Supervised

Total Incarcerated6,587 6,379 Total Community Inmates5,699

5,000 4,6402,343 on parole

1,215 1,593 1,608 1,7021,205 1,4011,704 1,336 1,737 1,7401,656

0 1990 1991 1992 1999 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004*

Year

Compiled by James Austin, Ph.D.

New Haven

Bridgeport

HartfordWaterbury

Incarcerated Persons per 1000 Residents, 2003by Connecticut Towns, with County Boundaries

Counties

Incarcerated per 1000 (2003)4.1 - 13.32.1 - 4.01.1 - 2.00.1 - 1.0

Incarcerated Persons and Parole Violators by Town

Town Incar. % of Total PVs % PVsHartford 1,611 13.99% 279 17.32%New Haven 1,416 12.29% 264 18.64%Bridgeport 1,226 10.64% 188 15.33%Waterbury 922 8.00% 157 17.03%New Britain 538 4.67% 83 15.43%Meriden 339 2.94% 68 20.06%New London 302 2.62% 80 26.49%East Hartford 290 2.52% 56 19.31%Stamford 267 2.32% 65 24.34%West Haven 249 2.16% 48 19.28%Bristol 234 2.03% 42 17.95%Danbury 232 2.01% 58 25.00%Manchester 229 1.99% 44 19.21%Norwalk 229 1.99% 52 22.71%Norwich 219 1.90% 67 30.59%

Production Director: Eric CadoraCartographer: Charles SwartzData Source: CT Dept. of Correction, 2003 Admissions

New Haven

Bridgeport

HartfordWaterbury

Incarceration Expenditure, 2003by Connecticut Towns, with County Boundaries

Counties

Expenditure (2003)$5,000,000.01 - $86,447,850.00$1,500,000.01 - $5,000,000.00$500,000.01 - $1,500,000.00$150.00 - $500,000.00

Incarceration and Parole Violator Expenditure by Town

Production Director: Eric CadoraCartographer: Charles SwartzData Source: CT Dept. of Correction, 2003 Admissions

Town Expenditure % of Total PV Expend. % PV ExpendNew Haven $86,447,850 16.28% $19,372,350 22.41%Hartford $75,537,075 14.23% $16,699,050 22.11%Bridgeport $75,164,700 14.16% $13,046,250 17.36%Waterbury $52,351,125 9.86% $11,484,525 21.94%New Britain $24,564,000 4.63% $4,727,550 19.25%Stamford $15,959,400 3.01% $3,150,375 19.74%Norwalk $12,373,275 2.33% $4,054,275 32.77%New London $12,252,750 2.31% $3,820,050 31.18%Meriden $12,161,625 2.29% $3,547,050 29.17%West Haven $11,707,050 2.20% $2,169,825 18.53%Danbury $10,133,250 1.91% $2,629,500 25.95%East Hartford $10,010,475 1.89% $2,601,525 25.99%Norwich $8,263,275 1.56% $3,300,600 39.94%Manchester $8,255,250 1.55% $3,355,275 40.64%Hamden $8,138,775 1.53% $1,923,975 23.64%

No

rth

Me

ad

ow

sN

ort

h M

ea

do

ws

No

rth

Ea

st

No

rth

Ea

st

Blu

e H

ills

Blu

e H

ills

As

ylu

m H

ill

As

ylu

m H

ill

We

st

En

dW

es

t E

nd

Up

pe

r A

lba

ny

Up

pe

r A

lba

ny

Cla

y A

rse

na

lC

lay

Ars

en

al

Do

wn

tow

nD

ow

nto

wn

Fro

g H

oll

ow

Fro

g H

oll

ow

Pa

rkv

ille

Pa

rkv

ille

Be

hin

d t

he

Ro

ck

sB

eh

ind

th

e R

oc

ks

So

uth

We

st

So

uth

We

st

So

uth

En

dS

ou

th E

nd

So

uth

Me

ad

ow

sS

ou

th M

ea

do

ws

Ba

rry

Sq

ua

reB

arr

y S

qu

are

Sh

eld

on

S

he

ldo

n

Ch

art

er

Oa

kC

ha

rte

r O

ak

So

uth

S

ou

th

Gre

en

Gre

en

Inca

rcer

ated

Per

sons

per

100

0 R

esid

ents

, 200

3by

Har

tford

Blo

ck-G

roup

s, w

ith N

eigh

borh

ood

Boun

darie

s

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

ds

Inca

rcer

ated

per

100

0 (2

003)

20.1

- 30

.312

.1 -

20.0

6.1

- 12.

01.

0 - 6

.0Pr

oduc

tion

Dire

ctor

: Eric

Cad

ora

Car

togr

aphe

r: C

harle

s Sw

artz

Dat

a So

urce

: CT

Dep

t. of

Cor

rect

ion,

200

3 Ad

mis

sion

s

Neig

hbor

hood

Inca

r.%

of T

otal

PVs

% P

VsN

orth

Eas

t18

413

.9%

3418

.5%

Asy

lum

Hill

143

10.8

%26

18.2

%B

arry

Squ

are

135

10.2

%26

19.3

%Fr

og H

ollo

w13

310

.0%

3224

.1%

Cla

y A

rsen

al12

79.

6%25

19.7

%U

pper

Alb

any

123

9.3%

1310

.6%

Blu

e H

ills

104

7.9%

1312

.5%

Beh

ind

the

Roc

ks89

6.7%

1516

.9%

Sou

th E

nd79

6.0%

1215

.2%

Par

kvill

e41

3.1%

819

.5%

Sou

th G

reen

403.

0%8

20.0

%S

held

on C

harte

r Oak

372.

8%8

21.6

%S

outh

Wes

t33

2.5%

824

.2%

Wes

t End

312.

3%6

19.4

%D

ownt

own

201.

5%4

20.0

%S

outh

Mea

dow

s5

0.4%

240

.0%

Nor

th M

eado

ws

00.

0%0

0.0%

Tota

l1,324

100%

240

18.1%

Inca

rcer

ated

Per

sons

and P

arole

Vio

lato

rs b

y N

eighbor

hood

No

rth

Ea

st

No

rth

Ea

st

No

rth

Me

ad

ow

sN

ort

h M

ea

do

ws

So

uth

Me

ad

ow

sS

ou

th M

ea

do

ws

So

uth

En

dS

ou

th E

nd

So

uth

We

st

So

uth

We

st

Be

hin

d t

he

Ro

ck

sB

eh

ind

th

e R

oc

ks

Ba

rry

Sq

ua

reB

arr

y S

qu

are

So

uth

So

uth

Gre

en

Gre

en

Sh

eld

on

S

he

ldo

n

Ch

art

er

Oa

kC

ha

rte

r O

ak

Fro

g H

oll

ow

Fro

g H

oll

ow

Do

wn

tow

nD

ow

nto

wn

As

ylu

m H

ill

As

ylu

m H

ill

We

st

En

dW

es

t E

nd

Pa

rkv

ille

Pa

rkv

ille

Blu

e H

ills

Blu

e H

ills U

pp

er

Alb

an

yU

pp

er

Alb

an

y

Cla

y A

rse

na

lC

lay

Ars

en

alIn

carc

erat

ion

Expe

nditu

re, 2

003

by H

artfo

rd B

lock

-Gro

ups,

with

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d Bo

unda

ries

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

ds

Expe

nditu

re (2

003)

$1,2

00,0

00.0

1 - $

2,96

5,05

0.00

$600

,000

.01

- $1,

200,

000.

00$2

50,0

00.0

1 - $

600,

000.

00$4

,500

.00

- $25

0,00

0.00 Prod

uctio

n D

irect

or: E

ric C

ador

aC

arto

grap

her:

Cha

rles

Swar

tzD

ata

Sour

ce: C

T D

ept.

of C

orre

ctio

n, 2

003

Adm

issi

ons

Inca

rcer

atio

n E

xpen

diture

by

Nei

ghborh

ood

Neig

hbor

hood

Expe

nditu

re%

of T

otal

PV E

xpen

d.%

Of E

xpen

d.U

pper

Alb

any

$8,2

10,5

5012

.7%

$802

,500

9.8%

Nor

th E

ast

$8,1

92,4

7512

.7%

$1,8

72,3

7522

.9%

Frog

Hol

low

$7,2

31,1

2511

.2%

$2,2

99,5

0031

.8%

Bar

ry S

quar

e$7

,093

,350

11.0

%$1

,227

,375

17.3

%A

sylu

m H

ill$5

,856

,075

9.1%

$1,5

75,0

0026

.9%

Cla

y A

rsen

al$5

,737

,950

8.9%

$1,1

88,3

7520

.7%

Blu

e H

ills

$5,0

87,1

757.

9%$5

90,2

5011

.6%

Beh

ind

the

Roc

ks$4

,952

,775

7.7%

$967

,500

19.5

%S

outh

End

$3,2

30,7

005.

0%$7

96,0

5024

.6%

She

ldon

Cha

rter O

ak$2

,124

,375

3.3%

$728

,250

34.3

%P

arkv

ille

$1,7

40,7

502.

7%$4

07,6

2523

.4%

Sou

th W

est

$1,4

17,7

252.

2%$4

08,3

7528

.8%

Sou

th G

reen

$1,2

91,1

252.

0%$3

00,7

5023

.3%

Dow

ntow

n$1

,159

,350

1.8%

$923

,625

79.7

%W

est E

nd$1

,134

,900

1.8%

$367

,875

32.4

%S

outh

Mea

dow

s$1

10,6

250.

2%$8

1,37

573

.6%

Nor

th M

eado

ws

$00.

0%$0

0.0%

Tota

l$64,571,025

100.

0%$14,536,800

22.5

%

We

stv

ille

We

stv

ille

We

sth

ills

We

sth

ills

Ne

wh

all

vil

leN

ew

ha

llv

ille

Pro

sp

ec

t H

ill

Pro

sp

ec

t H

ill

Fa

ir H

av

en

Fa

ir H

av

en

He

igh

tsH

eig

hts

Ea

st

Sh

ore

Ea

st

Sh

ore

Lo

ng

Wa

rfL

on

g W

arf

Ch

urc

h S

t. S

ou

thC

hu

rch

St.

So

uth

Hil

l (4

Cit

y P

oin

t)H

ill

(4 C

ity

Po

int)

Ed

ge

wo

od

Ed

ge

wo

od

We

st

Riv

er

We

st

Riv

er

Be

av

er

Hil

lsB

ea

ve

r H

ills

Dix

we

llD

ixw

ell Y

ale

Ya

le

Ea

st

Ro

ck

Ea

st

Ro

ck

CB

DC

BD

Wo

os

ter

Wo

os

ter

Sq

ua

reS

qu

are

Dw

igh

tD

wig

ht

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

ds

Inca

rcer

ated

per

100

0 (2

003)

25.1

- 13

3.3

15.1

- 25

.07.

1 - 1

5.0

0.4

- 7.0

Inca

rcer

ated

Per

sons

and P

arole

Vio

lato

rs b

y N

eighborh

ood

Prod

uctio

n D

irect

or: E

ric C

ador

aC

arto

grap

her:

Cha

rles

Swar

tzD

ata

Sour

ce: C

T D

ept.

of C

orre

ctio

n, 2

003

Adm

issi

ons

Inca

rcer

ated

Per

sons

per

100

0 R

esid

ents

, 200

3by

New

Hav

en B

lock

-Gro

ups,

with

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d Bo

unda

ries

Neig

hbor

hood

Inca

r.%

of T

otal

PVs

% P

VsH

ill (4

City

Poi

nt)

267

21.2

%48

18.0

%Fa

ir H

aven

203

16.1

%35

17.2

%N

ewha

llvill

e14

211

.3%

2215

.5%

Edg

ewoo

d - W

est R

iver

112

8.9%

2118

.8%

Wes

thill

s96

7.6%

1414

.6%

Hei

ghts

836.

6%15

18.1

%D

wig

ht66

5.2%

1421

.2%

Dix

wel

l60

4.8%

1016

.7%

Woo

ster

Squ

are

564.

4%16

28.6

%E

ast S

hore

534.

2%15

28.3

%B

eave

r Hill

s42

3.3%

819

.0%

Pro

spec

t Hill

262.

1%5

19.2

%W

estv

ille

151.

2%4

26.7

%Lo

ng W

arf -

Chu

rch

St.

Sou

th14

1.1%

642

.9%

Cen

tral B

usin

ess

Dis

trict

121.

0%4

33.3

%E

ast R

ock

90.

7%0

0.0%

Yal

e3

0.2%

133

.3%

Tota

l1,259

100.0%

238

18.9%

We

sth

ills

We

sth

ills

We

stv

ille

We

stv

ille

He

igh

tsH

eig

hts

Ea

st

Sh

ore

Ea

st

Sh

ore

Fa

ir H

av

en

Fa

ir H

av

en

Lo

ng

Wa

rfL

on

g W

arf

Ch

urc

h S

t. S

ou

thC

hu

rch

St.

So

uth

Wo

os

ter

Wo

os

ter

Sq

ua

reS

qu

are

Ea

st

Ro

ck

Ea

st

Ro

ck

Pro

sp

ec

t H

ill

Pro

sp

ec

t H

ill

Ne

wh

all

vil

leN

ew

ha

llv

ille

Ed

ge

wo

od

Ed

ge

wo

od

We

st

Riv

er

We

st

Riv

er

Hil

l (4

Cit

y P

oin

t)H

ill

(4 C

ity

Po

int)

Dw

igh

tD

wig

ht

Dix

we

llD

ixw

ell Y

ale

Ya

le CB

DC

BD

Be

av

er

Hil

lsB

ea

ve

r H

ills

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

ds

Expe

nditu

re (2

003)

$1,5

00,0

00.0

1 - $

3,17

7,82

5.00

$800

,000

.01

- $1,

500,

000.

00$4

00,0

00.0

1 - $

800,

000.

00$2

,250

.00

- $40

0,00

0.00

Inca

rcer

ation E

xpen

diture

by

Nei

ghborh

ood

Prod

uctio

n D

irect

or: E

ric C

ador

aC

arto

grap

her:

Cha

rles

Swar

tzD

ata

Sour

ce: C

T D

ept.

of C

orre

ctio

n, 2

003

Adm

issi

ons

Inca

rcer

atio

n Ex

pend

iture

, 200

3by

New

Hav

en B

lock

-Gro

ups,

with

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d Bo

unda

ries

Neig

hbor

hood

Expe

nditu

re%

of T

otal

PV E

xpen

d.%

PV

Expe

ndH

ill (4

City

Poi

nt)

$16,

463,

325

21.4

%$3

,211

,875

19.5

%Fa

ir H

aven

$13,

274,

550

17.2

%$3

,052

,950

23.0

%N

ewha

llvill

e$1

1,25

9,45

014

.6%

$2,0

20,2

0017

.9%

Edg

ewoo

d - W

est R

iver

$5,8

29,3

007.

6%$1

,128

,450

19.4

%W

esth

ills

$5,6

16,2

257.

3%$1

,226

,625

21.8

%H

eigh

ts$5

,426

,400

7.0%

$1,2

99,3

7523

.9%

Woo

ster

Squ

are

$3,6

96,9

754.

8%$1

,337

,250

36.2

%D

wig

ht$3

,416

,700

4.4%

$849

,750

24.9

%E

ast S

hore

$3,0

91,5

004.

0%$9

61,2

7531

.1%

Dix

wel

l$3

,018

,975

3.9%

$477

,225

15.8

%B

eave

r Hill

s$1

,886

,250

2.4%

$359

,625

19.1

%P

rosp

ect H

ill$1

,348

,500

1.7%

$306

,375

22.7

%E

ast R

ock

$732

,000

0.9%

$00.

0%Lo

ng W

arf -

Chu

rch

St.

Sou

th$7

15,5

000.

9%$3

63,7

5050

.8%

Wes

tvill

e$5

39,6

250.

7%$1

75,5

0032

.5%

Cen

tral B

usin

ess

Dis

trict

$462

,375

0.6%

$126

,375

27.3

%Y

ale

$289

,125

0.4%

$97,

500

33.7

%To

tal$77,066,775

100.

0%$16,994,100

22.1%

Hil

l (4

Cit

y P

oin

t)H

ill

(4 C

ity

Po

int)

Lo

ng

Wa

rfL

on

g W

arf

Ch

urc

h S

t. S

ou

thC

hu

rch

St.

So

uth

Fa

ir H

av

en

Fa

ir H

av

en

Wo

os

ter

Sq

ua

reW

oo

ste

r S

qu

are

Prod

uctio

n D

irect

or: E

ric C

ador

aC

arto

grap

her:

Cha

rles

Sw

artz

Dat

a So

urce

: CT

Dep

t. of

Cor

rect

ion,

200

3 Ad

mis

sion

san

d U

S C

ensu

s Bu

reau

, 200

0 C

ensu

s D

ataRat

io o

f Res

iden

ts to

Inca

rcer

ated

Offe

nder

s, 2

003

by N

ew H

aven

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

ds

Hil

l (4

Cit

y P

oin

t)H

ill

(4 C

ity

Po

int)

Ne

wh

all

vil

leN

ew

ha

llv

ille

Fa

ir H

av

en

Fa

ir H

av

en

Wo

os

ter

Sq

ua

reW

oo

ste

r S

qu

are

Res

iden

ts :

Offe

nder

46:1

to 7

5:1

76:1

to 1

25:1

126:

1 to

250

:1

over

251

:1

B/M

Res

. 18-

49 :

B/M

Off.

18-

49

7:1

to 1

0:1

11:1

to 1

5:1

16:1

to 2

0:1

21:1

to 3

4:1

Rat

io o

f Res

iden

ts t

o O

ffen

der

sRat

io o

f Bla

ck M

ale

Res

iden

ts A

ge

18 t

o 4

9

to B

lack

Mal

e O

ffen

der

s Age

18 t

o 4

9

City

Tota

l =

98:1

City

Tota

l =

14:1

Note: Some reported figures will be different regarding total numbers incarcerated and total expenditures for New Haven and Hartford when reported in the state maps of Connecticut as compared to the city maps of New Haven and Hartford. The difference is a result of geocoding techniques. When geocoding towns for the state maps, the "town" field was used to count instances of incarceration and to calculate expenditures – these are nearly 100 percent accurate. When geocoding neighborhoods for the city maps, the "street address" fields were used, in which case approximately 10 percent of the street addresses were not geocoded due to inaccurate data. The result is that the totals in the city maps will be slightly smaller than those in the state maps. Production Director: Eric Cadora Cartographer: Charles Swartz Data Source: CT Dept. of Correction, 2003 Admissions

TO: Representative William R. Dyson, Chairperson Senator Toni N. Harp, Chairperson Senator Joan V. Hartley, Vice Chairperson Representative Annette Carter, Vice Chairperson Representative Konstantinos Diamantis, Vice Chairperson Representative Sandy Nofis, Vice Chairperson Representative Christel H. Truglia, Vice Chairperson Senator Robert L. Genario, Ranking Member Representative Peter A. Metz, Ranking Member

Appropriations Committee Representative Michael P. Lawlor, Chairperson Senator Andrew J. McDonald, Chairperson Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Vice Chairperson Representative Christopher R. Stone, Vice Chairperson Senator John A. Kissel, Ranking Member Representative Robert Farr, Ranking Member Judiciary Committee Connecticut General Assembly FROM: James Austin, The Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections, George

Washington University Michael Jacobson, John Jay College of Criminal Justice DATE: April 3, 2003 RE: Raised HB 6694 Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment

We are writing to offer an initial analysis of the potential budget savings that can result from implementation of many of the proposals contained in General Assembly Bill 6694. We offer our estimate of cost savings for the proposals that will have a specific and quantifiable reduction in prison beds.

It is important to note a couple of key assumptions when reviewing this analysis. First, we are using a per-diem cost of $50 to calculate savings to the Department of Correction. Though the average daily cost per prisoner is about $74, we believe that using a more “marginal” savings reflects the reality that there are some administrative, managerial and support costs that are so fixed that even significant bed reductions will not save the “fully loaded” cost of $74 per day.

Second, many of these savings will take at least two and perhaps more years to fully phase in. The savings figures presented here reflect the fully annualized savings of each of the proposals.

Finally, it must be remembered that a huge management and organizational effort will be required in order to achieve some of the savings especially for the proposal that is designed to divert probation violators from prison into alternative community based sanctions. The cost savings estimates are as follows:

Proposal: Inmates required to serve at least 50 percent of their court-imposed sentence who are not discretionarily released by the board shall be automatically released upon serving 75 percent of their sentence.

Prison Bed and Savings Impact: Approximately 1,750 beds at an annual savings of $31.9 million.

Proposal: Inmates required to serve at least 85 percent of their court-imposed sentence shall be automatically released upon meeting that requirement.

Prison Bed and Savings Impact: Approximately 400 beds at an annual savings of $7.3 million

Proposal: The judicial branch’s Court Support Services Division, the Board of Parole, and the Department of Correction collectively will develop an incremental sanctions policy for technical violations. Prison Bed and Savings Impact: Approximately 490 beds – this is based on our last estimate that suggested the state reduce the number of technical violators by 25 percent – at an annual savings of $8.9 million.

These three proposals combine to save 2650 prison beds at a total (and conservative) annual savings of $48.1 million.

This analysis does not include bed savings that would result from a variety of other proposals contained in the legislation but for which the bed impact is currently unknown. Additionally, it does not include bed savings from reducing the amount of time that probation technical violators spend in prison (this proposal is not currently included in the legislation). If, for example, this group spent, on average, three months fewer in prison, there would be a savings of approximately 340 beds at an annual savings of $6.2 million.

The potential for the bed and fiscal savings to grow beyond these estimates is substantial. The total annual savings of $48 million is based on a conservative per-diem figure and includes only the bed savings that we have been able to specifically calculate and leaves out others for which the savings are less calculable but real nonetheless and doesn’t include other efforts at bed savings such as reducing the length of stay for technical probation violators.

At savings of this magnitude the state should reinvest a significant proportion of these funds into both community-based programs and the neighborhoods receiving the majority of people released from prison. Some reinvestment must be made in order to achieve some of these savings in the first place (such as creating the alternatives to prison for technical violators) and other kinds of investment can be used to strengthen the communities from which these prisoners come to help ensure that fewer of them go to or return to prison. cc: Members of the Appropriations Committee Members of the Judiciary Committee

James Austin

Director, Institute on Crime, Justice, and Corrections, George Washington University

Dr. James Austin is the director of the Institute on Crime, Justice, and Corrections at the George Washington University in Washington, D.C. Prior to joining the GWU, he was the Executive Vice President of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency where he was employed for 20 years. He began his career in corrections in 1970 when he was employed by the Illinois Department of Corrections as a correctional sociologist at the Joliet and Stateville prisons.

Dr. Austin was named by the American Correctional Association as its 1991 recipient of the Peter P. Lejin's Research Award. In 1999 he received the Western Society of Criminology Paul Tappin award for outstanding contributions in the field of criminology. Since 2000, he has served as the Chair of American Society of Criminology National Policy Committee.

Dr. Austin has authored numerous publications including three books. His most recent book, It's About Time: America's Imprisonment Binge, was first published in 1996 (co-authored with Dr. John Irwin). The third edition was published this spring.

Each year the ICJC is awarded approximately $1.5 million in research contracts from federal and state correctional agencies. Many State departments of correction, including those in Texas, Georgia, and California, have sought Dr. Austin's assistance in analyzing their prison population. Dr. Austin has also directed studies in 25 states that entail projections of correctional populations based on current and proposed sentencing reforms. In addition, the ICJC has recently conducted national evaluations of "Three Strikes and You're Out" laws, the privatization of prisons, juveniles in adult corrections, and prison classification systems. In 1999 Dr. Austin was designated by the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division to serve as the Federal Monitor to oversee major reforms in the Georgia juvenile correctional system.

BIOGRAPHIES OF PRESENTERS

Michael P. Jacobson

Professor, John Jay College of Criminal Justice

Dr. Michael P. Jacobson teaches at the City University of New York Graduate Center and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in the Department of Law, Police Science, and Criminal Justice Administration. He has also served on the Graduate Faculty of the Wagner School of Public Administration at New York University, where he taught courses on public policy analysis and governmental budgeting. He has a Ph.D in Sociology from the CUNY Grad Center.

Dr. Jacobson retired from government administration in 1997. He had been appointed Correction Commissioner in 1996 by Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, after serving as Acting Correction Commissioner beginning in January 1995. While Acting Correction Commissioner, he continued to serve as Commissioner of the New York City Probation Department, having been appointed to that position in 1992.

Prior to his appointment as Probation Commissioner, he served as Deputy Budget Director at the City’s Office of Management and Budget, where he worked for seven years. He previously served as Deputy Director of the Mayor’s Arson Strike Force for five years, where he helped plan and coordinate the City’s anti-arson strategies.

For two decades, Dr. Jacobson has specialized in the field of criminal justice, particularly in the areas of financial issues, technology initiatives, multi-agency operations and victims’ rights. He also is a member of the Vera Institute of Justice Board of Trustees.