Spatial Analysis of Returning Offenders and their Use and Proximity to Services

The Offender Reentry Mapping Initiative Erin Dalton March, 2007 Reentry Mapping Initiative ♦ Funders in Criminal Justice ♦ Allegheny County Department of Human Services ♦ Corrections Partners ♦ Criminal Justice Advisory Board Presentation Outline ♦ The Issue ♦ Maps: one helpful piece of the analysis ♦ Data to Action The Issue ♦ Nationally: ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ – 1.5 million in state and federal prison – Between 1970 and 2005 increased by 628%. State – 40% increase in inmates received; 60% increase in population – 9th largest; 353/100,000 incarceration rate Locally (Allegheny County): – 2nd most commitments to state prison – 24,000 booking to the jail Women: – Between 1977 and 2004, PA female prison population grew by 763% – Locally, admissions to the Jail have grown 27%, but for female offenders, bookings have grown 44%. More in = more out: 95% of all State prisoners will be released from prison at some point Over 600,000 offenders were released from State prison last year, a 46% increase over 1990 Key Questions 1. Who’s returning (demographic, offense, jail/prison 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. stay information)? What are the needs of returning offenders (job, education, ID, housing, addiction, mental health treatment, medical insurance)? What is DHS’s involvement with inmate/family? Where do inmates come from and go to? Where are inmates’ families and children? Where are community & government services? Data Agency Data Set 2002 Releases Department of Corrections Serving on 10/1/2004 2002-2004 Releases Client Data Treatment Facility Locations Incident Data by Census Tract Homicide & Shooting Data by address Bureau of Parole & Probation Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections Released to Parole 2003-2005 History File and Monthly downloads Department of Human Services City of Pittsburgh Police Who’s Returning? Female DOC N Gender Female Male Race Black White Other Age under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 0% 25% 29% 31% 11% 1% 0% 0% 8% 42% 31% 16% 2% 1% 0% 3% 32% 46% 14% 4% 1% 0% 11% 37% 29% 18% 4% 1% 0% 15% 39% 26% 15% 4% 1% 1% 28% 28% 25% 13% 3% 1% 64% 34% 2% 47% 51% 2% 44% 54% 2% 69% 30% 1% 61% 37% 1% 44% 51% 4% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 6% 94% 7% 93% 18% 82% 174 Parole 177 Jail 6992 DOC 2,950 Corrections Population Parole 2,520 Jail 38,666 Gender: Looking at Rate Gender Composition 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Allegheny County, 2000 Census Allegheny County Jail, Booked in 2005 Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 2004 Parolees Pennsylvania Allegheny Committed from State Department County Allegheny of Corrections, Commitments to County 12/31/02 the Department (Released from of Corrections, prison 200310/1/2004 2005) Male Female Rate per 1,000 40 30 20 10 0 Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections, Booked in 2005 Pennsylvania Board of Probationers/Parolees Pennsylvania State Probation and Parole, Committed from Department of 2004 Allegheny County, 2004 Corrections, 12/31/02 Allegheny County Commitments to the Department of Corrections, 10/1/2004 Male Female Race: Looking at Rate Racial Composition 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Allegheny County, 2000 Census Allegheny County Jail, Booked in 2005 Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole Pennsylvania Allegheny County Parolees Committed from State Department Commitments to Allegheny County of Corrections, the Department of Corrections, 12/31/02 (Released from 10/1/2004 prison 20032005) Black White Other Rate per 1,000 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections, Booked in 2005 Pennsylvania Board of Probationers/Parolees Pennsylvania State Probation and Parole, Committed from Department of 2004 Allegheny County, 2004 Corrections, 12/31/02 Allegheny County Commitments to the Department of Corrections, 10/1/2004 Black White Other What Are Their Needs? ♦ Substance Abuse ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ – 74% of “soon-to-be-released” prisoners have substance abuse problem Mental Illness – State prisons: 73% of females and 55% of males; – Local jails: 75% of females and 63% of males Employment – Less than 1/4 employed. Education – 26% did not finish high school; 3% more than high school. Housing – 16% of jail inmates were homeless in the year prior to admission. – Local: 43 percent were homeless or at risk of being homeless Family – 1.5 million children with incarcerated parents – 2% of all minor children; 7% African American children Actual Service Use Connection with Human Services DOC* Parole Jail* Female 89% 64% 64% Male 64% 58% 43% Drug & Alcohol and Mental Health Services Most Accessed Type of Service Drug & Alcohol Mental Health Employment & Training Housing & Homelessness Housing Authorities Child Welfare DOC 27% 42% 1% 1% 2% Parole 31% 35% 1% 1% 0% Jail 19% 21% 3% 4% 2% Analysis Being Conducted Accessing Services ♦ Timing: Over 60% access within three months ♦ Race and Gender: ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ – Black DOC clients are statistically less likely to access services from DHS than white offenders. – Same true for males. Age: – Young access drug and alcohol services and older access mental health services Mental Health: – 42 percent accessing mental health services had no mental health diagnosis. – 87 percent of offenders with serious mental health diagnoses received mental health services. Drug and Alcohol: – 52 percent of offenders accessing drug and alcohol services had a drug screen score of zero – 77 percent with a serious drug and alcohol score access drug & alcohol services. Type of Release – DOC clients who max-out are statistically less likely to access DHS services. – Re-parolees (those who have failed on parole at least once) are statistically more likely to access DHS services. Where Do They Return? ♦ Nationally: 5 states = 50% ♦ State: Philadelphia, Dauphin, and Allegheny Co. committed 45% of prisoners. ♦ Allegheny County: 57% have last known addresses in the “core city” of Pittsburgh. – 25% return to under 4% of all Allegheny County municipalities and neighborhoods. Geo-coding Results DOC (address at intake, serving on 9/2004) Parole (address at release 2003-2005) Jail (address at intake, 2005) Number Deaths No Address Institutional Outside County Of those Match Unmatched 3,268 52 1,362 231 1,623 85% 15% 2,626 591 231 2,045 93% 7% 8,926 3,333 800 582 4,211 89% 11% Cross-Systems: Number Department of Corrections Number of Offenders Community WILKINSBURG MCKEESPORT PENN HILLS PERRY SOUTH DUQUESNE LINCOLN-LEMINGTON-BELMAR HOMEWOOD NORTH HAZELWOOD MIDDLE HILL CLAIRTON GARFIELD NORTH BRADDOCK EAST LIBERTY HOMESTEAD MANCHESTER HOMEWOOD SOUTH BELTZHOOVER BROOKLINE MARSHALL-SHADELAND EAST HILLS Count 6% 6% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Parole Number of Offenders Community WILKINSBURG MCKEESPORT PENN HILLS MARSHALL-SHADELAND DUQUESNE MCKEES ROCKS PERRY SOUTH NORTH BRADDOCK SWISSVALE MOUNT WASHINGTON EAST LIBERTY HAZELWOOD HOMEWOOD NORTH EAST ALLEGHENY KNOXVILLE CLAIRTON CARRICK GARFIELD SHERADEN HOMESTEAD Count 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Jail - 7 Days or More Number of Offenders Community MCKEESPORT WILKINSBURG PENN HILLS CLAIRTON GARFIELD EAST LIBERTY MCKEES ROCKS DUQUESNE HAZELWOOD HOMEWOOD NORTH CENTRAL NORTHSIDE HOMEWOOD SOUTH PERRY SOUTH NORTH BRADDOCK WEST MIFFLIN SWISSVALE HOMESTEAD ALLENTOWN TERRACE VILLAGE LINCOLN-LEMINGTON-BELMAR Count 5% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Cross Systems: Rate Department of Corrections Rate (per 1,000) Community MIDDLE HILL HOMEWOOD WEST WILKINSBURG ESPLEN CALIFORNIA-KIRKBRIDE STRIP DISTRICT MANCHESTER UPPER HILL BEDFORD DWELLINGS HOMEWOOD NORTH PERRY SOUTH WEST OAKLAND BELTZHOOVER LARIMER HAZELWOOD HOMESTEAD LINCOLN-LEMINGTON-BELMAR CRAWFORD-ROBERTS GARFIELD CHARTIERS CITY Rate 14.0 11.7 10.9 10.1 9.2 7.5 7.2 7.1 7.1 6.6 6.3 6.2 6.1 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.1 5.0 Community ALLEGHENY WEST HOMEWOOD WEST WILKINSBURG WEST END EAST ALLEGHENY MIDDLE HILL CHARTIERS CITY MANCHESTER BELTZHOOVER BRADDOCK FAIRYWOOD PERRY SOUTH CALIFORNIA-KIRKBRIDE HOMEWOOD NORTH HOMESTEAD UPPER HILL KNOXVILLE MARSHALL-SHADELAND MCKEES ROCKS HAZELWOOD Parole Rate (per 1,000) Rate 17.7 10.8 10.8 10.7 10.6 10.3 8.4 8.0 7.9 7.6 7.3 7.2 7.2 6.9 6.7 6.7 6.3 6.0 6.0 6.0 Jail - 7 Days or More Rate (per 1,000) Community ARLINGTON HEIGHTS HOMEWOOD WEST WILKINSBURG SEWICKLEY TERRACE VILLAGE WEST END CENTRAL NORTHSIDE GARFIELD MIDDLE HILL HOMEWOOD SOUTH ALLENTOWN EAST ALLEGHENY CALIFORNIA-KIRKBRIDE HOMESTEAD BRADDOCK HOMEWOOD NORTH NORTHVIEW HEIGHT ESPLEN EAST LIBERTY LARIMER Rate 25.2 21.5 20.7 19.9 17.5 17.2 16.6 15.0 14.9 14.5 14.3 13.7 13.4 13.2 13.0 12.4 12.3 12.1 10.8 10.8 Cross Systems: Density Department of Corrections Density (per square mile) Community MIDDLE HILL BEDFORD DWELLINGS HOMEWOOD NORTH HOMEWOOD WEST MANCHESTER WEST OAKLAND GARFIELD CRAWFORD-ROBERTS UPPER HILL ALLENTOWN EAST LIBERTY CENTRAL NORTHSIDE HOMEWOOD SOUTH CALIFORNIA-KIRKBRIDE BELTZHOOVER KNOXVILLE EAST ALLEGHENY BLUFF PERRY SOUTH WILKINSBURG 97 83 70 68 64 64 61 60 52 48 47 46 46 41 40 40 38 36 36 36 Parole Density (per square mile) Community EAST ALLEGHENY KNOXVILLE ALLEGHENY WEST HOMEWOOD NORTH MANCHESTER MIDDLE HILL MOUNT OLIVER BORO CENTRAL NORTHSIDE FRIENDSHIP HOMEWOOD WEST EAST LIBERTY GARFIELD BELTZHOOVER WEST OAKLAND UPPER HILL ALLENTOWN CRAWFORD-ROBERTS UPPER LAWRENCEVILLE PERRY SOUTH MARSHALL-SHADELAND 117 93 75 72 71 71 68 65 64 63 59 54 52 50 48 48 48 41 41 41 Jail - 7 Days or More Density (per square mile) Community CENTRAL NORTHSIDE GARFIELD ALLENTOWN EAST ALLEGHENY KNOXVILLE HOMEWOOD SOUTH TERRACE VILLAGE HOMEWOOD NORTH EAST LIBERTY HOMEWOOD WEST MIDDLE HILL NORTHVIEW HEIGHT BLUFF MANCHESTER WEST OAKLAND MOUNT OLIVER BORO CRAWFORD-ROBERTS UPPER LAWRENCEVILLE HOMESTEAD WILKINSBURG 204 178 159 150 140 136 135 130 128 126 103 100 97 93 86 85 84 76 72 68 Offenders per 1,000 persons High Impact Communities (offenders per 1,000 residents) 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 HOMEWOOD WEST 0 CALIFORNIAKIRKBRIDE ESPLEN HOMESTEAD PERRY SOUTH HAZELWOOD SEWICKLEY FAIRYWOOD NORTHVIEW HEIGHT doc parole jail Other Ways of Thinking About Location: Cluster Mapping Offenders Come From Disadvantaged Communities # of % of communities communities in income in income level level 8 25 52 76 54 4% 12% 24% 35% 25% # of Returning Offenders 83 631 800 567 125 % of Returning Offenders 4% 29% 36% 26% 6% Average Per Capita Income <185% of poverty 186% - 300% 301%-400% 401% to $25,000 >$25,000 Offenders Come From Average & High Crime Communities Percentage of Offenders by Crim e Area 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Low Crime Average Crime High Crime Services Appear to be Where they Need to Be Drug & Alcohol Treatment Low Concentration of Offenders Average Concentration of Offenders High Concentration of Offenders 9 17% Employment & Training Centers 13 10% Mental Health Services 52 17% 13 31 25% 58% 62 60 46% 44% 109 141 36% 47% Well- and Under-Served Communities Average across neighborhoods: 72% served Well Served & “Relevant” 85% - 92% Served ♦ Mount Washington ♦ Homewood West ♦ California-Kirkbride ♦ Eilliott ♦ Highland Park ♦ Homestead ♦ East Liberty ♦ Brookline Under-Served & “Relevant” 56% - 69% Un-served ♦ Hazelwood ♦ North Braddock ♦ Larimer ♦ Penn Hills ♦ Upper Lawrenceville ♦ Monroeville ♦ Scott ♦ Beltzhoover ♦ Garfield ♦ Shaler ♦ Marshall-Shadeland ♦ Homewood North ♦ Middle Hill ♦ Central Northside Demand (Clusters of ex-offenders) Supply (Clusters of Clients) Are Addresses Reliable? ♦ Valid addresses for both DOC and Parole reviewed N=511 – 4% (20 of 511) returned to the same address – 25% (126 of 511) returned to the same neighborhood ♦ Evaluation of the Jail Collaborative, Hide Yamatani, University of Pittsburgh – Addresses (neighborhood) before release and addresses 30 days after release N=322 – 66% (213 of 322) returned to a different neighborhood DOC/Parole Jail 2.8% 74.8% 11.2% 11.2% Low to High Low to Low High to High High to Low 17.8% 47.9% 14.7% 19.6% Summary ♦ Mapping can help inform problem ♦ Key is using it to change policy/practice