Alternatives to Incarceration in Jefferson County, Kentucky: Intensive Probation, Home Incarceration, and Work Release

This article was contributed by Deborah G. Wilson, Ph.D., SAC Director, Office of the Attorney General, Kentucky.

Jail and prison crowding continues to be a major problem across the United States. During the fall of 1986, jail crowding in Jefferson County, Kentucky came to the forefront of public concern. The average daily population of the jail had risen by 37 percent in five years--from 634 in 1981 to 1,079 in 1986. This increase was prompted by two factors: 1) a 12 percent increase in the total number of individuals housed annually in the facility (39,392 in 1981 to 44,799 in 1986) and 2) a 40 percent increase in the average length of stay (6.3 days in 1981 to 8.8 days in 1986). In addition to these increases, a Federal court order established a ceiling of 823 inmates that was to be met by February of 1987.

In response to the situation, the County established a Corrections Advisory Board to be appointed by the County Judge Executive to review the situation and make recommendations to solve the problem. Following a careful review of construction options as well as a variety of alternative programs, the Committee recommended alternative sentencing programs in lieu of additional jail space.

As a result of this recommendation the county simultaneously instituted three alternative sentencing programs: home incarceration, a work-release center, and an intensive supervision program for misdemeanant probationers. To facilitate the start-up of these programs, all were instituted via contracts with private corrections corporations or existing correctional agencies.

The home incarceration program, CHAMPS (County Home Arrest Monitoring Program) was operated by U.S. Corrections Corporation; the work-release center was established through a contract with Dismas House of Kentucky, Inc., a non-profit corporation; and the intensive supervision program, MIP (Misdemeanant Intensive Probation) was operated through contractual arrangements with the State Division of Probation and Parole.

The primary purpose of all three programs was to divert low-risk offenders from incarceration and consequently alleviate overcrowding in the jail. Additionally, an emphasis was placed on rehabilitation in those programs. This included employment, treatment, and educational conditions.

Program Implementation
The process of implementing new programs such as these is rarely without problems. A number of varied individuals, groups, and agencies with vested interests in the problem and the solution must be identified and their support gained. If not, the opposition of constituencies can promote the demise of alternative sentencing programs. In retrospect, the most crucial constituency for program success was the cadre of District Court Judges who sentenced the convicted misdemeanants and therefore had the discretion to choose the type of sentence. If the judges accepted and supported an alternative program, offenders would be diverted to the program and the effort would work. If the judges did not feel comfortable with a program, it would not be utilized and the program would languish. While this is an over-simplification of the variety of contributors to program success or failure, it was nonetheless a critical factor.

Of the three programs, Misdemeanant Intensive Probation had the smoothest implementation. This program, simply an upgrade of regular misdemeanant probation, included more frequent client/officer contacts; a 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew accompanied by a minimum of one weekly curfew check; and participation in educational programs, employment, or active employment search as conditions. It was a program with components that were familiar to the sentencing judges and conditions comparable to a similar program for felons that had been operating successfully for a number of years. The vendor was also known to the judges. The Division of Probation and Parole had a well established and respected record of performance. Additionally, the sentencing judges had direct input into the development of program conditions and received regular program status reports.

The home incarceration program (CHAMPS) was the most problematic to implement. Local officials were unfamiliar with the technology of the electronic monitoring devices. Additionally, the program was operated by a private corporation which had no prior record in the community. Finally, though efforts were made to familiarize local officials with the monitoring technology, the sentencing judges felt they had little input into the program development and were not kept adequately informed about the status of the program and its clients. Eventually, skepticism over the program resulted in a transfer of the operation from the private corporation to the County Department of Corrections in 1988.

The implementation of the privately operated work-release center, though difficult, was complicated even further by factors very different from those affecting the other programs. The concept of work-release was familiar to local officials. The County has operated a work-release center, rather successfully, for a number of years but had no room for expansion of the program. Similarly, the private vendor operated halfway houses for felons in the community for several years and was able to quickly set up a work-release center. Resistance to this program came from members of the community who did not want a community-based facility located in their neighborhood. As a result, the capacity of the facility was reduced from 350 to 175 and entry was monitored by a neighborhood review board.

Program Assessment
Data for the program assessment were collected from the case files of all persons entering the three programs during 1987. In all three programs, eligibility of a convicted offender was contingent on the nature of the present offense and prior criminal record. In all cases, clients were limited to those with a non-violent misdemeanant current offense and to those without a prior record of violent convictions.

During 1987, a total of 2,359 convicted misdemeanants was diverted into the three alternatives: 804 to home incarceration; 1,282 to work-release; and 273 to intensive probation. (The smaller number of clients in the probation program was due to the availability of program slots and average length of stay of the clients). These clients had been convicted of a variety of crimes. The most prevalent conviction for all diverted misdemeanants was DUI (52 percent). This was followed by: non-payment of child support (10 percent), traffic offenses (9 percent), theft/fraud (8 percent), and drug/alcohol charges, public order offenses, and contempt (each at 3 percent).

The work-release center and home incarceration programs were most often used for convicted DUI offenders (54 percent work-release, 73 percent home incarceration) while intensive probation received a broader range of offenders with theft/fraud (26 percent) being the most prevalent current offense.

In all programs the clients were predominantly white (64 percent), male (84 percent), and between 31 and 39 years of age (30 percent). Additionally, over 60 percent were employed at the time of their conviction.

Since a primary purpose of the alternatives was to allow low-risk offenders to successfully remain in the community; employment or enrollment in educational programs was a major condition of program placement. Overall, between 64 and 85 percent of the clients in these programs were employed or enrolled in educational programs while under supervision.

The jail sentences given to clients of the three programs reflect variation, especially between intensive probation and the other two programs. The median jail sentence for clients on home incarceration and work-release was identical, 30 days. Similarly, more than half (80 percent home incarceration, 60 percent work-release) the clients in these two programs were sentenced to under 30 days. In contrast, the median jail sentence for the intensive probation clients was 180 days with less than one percent sentenced to under 30 days.

Program Results
Given the eligibility criteria which limited clients to those with non-violent current offenses and criminal histories, offenders were low-risk and presumably posed little threat to the community. This presumption was borne out by the data on program outcome for each of the three alternatives.

Overall, 1,599 (68 percent) of the offenders were supervised without violations of program conditions, new criminal arrests, or new convictions. An additional 490 (21 percent) of the clients had technical violations, but were retained in the program. A total of 270 (11 percent) of the combined clients were returned to jail. Two-hundred and forty (89 percent) of these clients were returned for violations of program conditions and 30 (11 percent) for new convictions.

The client reconviction and returned-to-jail rates varied by program. Clients in the work-release program (.6 percent) and home incarceration (1 percent) programs had the lowest reconviction rates. The comparable rate for intensive probation was 6 percent. Similarly, clients in the work-release and home incarceration programs were returned to jail in equal proportions (6 percent) for violations or new convictions, while the proportion for intensive probation was 21 percent.

While these rates vary, they are more reflective of the nature of the clients and the length of stay in the program than the quality of supervision provided. Clients on intensive probation were relatively higher-risk offenders (26 percent having been convicted of theft/fraud offenses) and served time under program supervision that was 487 percent longer than time served by clients in the other programs. The average time served under intensive supervision was 117 days while the average time served on work-release and home incarceration was 25 and 23 days respectively.

In general, those offenders placed in alternative community-based programs functioned successfully in the community and did not pose a serious threat to public safety. And, while it is difficult to calculate specifically, these programs certainly aided in the reduction of new entries to the jail.

In addition to the contribution made to jail crowding reduction, these alternatives resulted in a cost savings to the community. The total jail days committed by sentencing for those clients was 124,000 days. At a cost of $37.50 per day, the cost to incarcerate those offenders would have been $4.65 million. Instead the county expended $907,105 for a cost savings of $3,742,895.

This assessment of the jail alternatives implemented in Jefferson County, Kentucky as a response to jail crowding indicates that these programs resulted in continued public safety, reduced jail day commitments, and in a reduction of costs to the community. The success of the programs was due in part to specific eligibility criteria that screened out high-risk offenders and an attempt to make the programs responsive to the concerns of the public and local officials. Currently, the programs continue as an integral part of Jefferson County Corrections.