Sustaining and Disruptive Correctional Technologies: Can Savings Derived from Correctional Technologies Reduce

Correctional Costs and Burdens?

What the Research Suggests: Funding, Marketing and Acquiring New Correctional Technologies

Dr. Peter Scharf with the support of Dr. William Stone, Mr. Paul Wormeli and Dr. Michael Geerken

Research ProfessorTulane University School of Public Health and Tropical

MedicinePscharf@tulane.edu

504-710-5625

Instructional Goals: Describe current status of correctional technologies Describe “correctional crisis” following economic meltdown of 2008 Offer two frameworks to help us engage in discourse about how correctional

technologies might save society desperately needed funds?: Christensen’s Innovator’s Solution model BJA JIS Performance Measurement Model

Discuss argument regarding control of correctional costs and dialog about selling, funding and buying technologies through efficiency and outcome measures

Presentation Organization:1. Overview:

2. Disruptive Correctional Technologies and performance measure concepts:

3. Hard Facts and Realities: Pew Trust(“1in 100 Study” and follow-up) and the economic crisis of 2008-:

4. Four Technologies: RFID, Video Visitation, Video Arraignment and Inmate Banking Kiosks:

5. Can correctional technologies meaningfully reduce correctional costs, Can savings be documented through efficiency performance measures?

I. Problem Focus/Concepts: Overview

Population and prison capacity explosion (1970-2008)

Causes: crime and arrest trends, technology, legislative, self-interest, political, policy

Challenges to the prison paradigm from Congress, Public and States

Future of Imprisonment

The Jailer of the World Worse than Iran?(3.5 times

worse?) Why are we the world’s anomaly? Consequences in new (post

October 2008) economy Need for a new correctional

paradigm? Policy and de-institutionalization

imperatives

Concepts: Christensen's Idea of Disruption: SWA example

Christensen’s Sustaining and Disruptive Technologies: examples

Driving to Spring Break/SWA Disk Swapping-Sleeves/Internet Colon Surgery/Colonoscopy Road Side Diner (“Miss Albany Diner”)/Macdonald’s

Older Sustaining technology replace by new Disruptive technology Risks to Business Model

Implications for Correctional Technologies

Measuring Change: Types of Correctional Technology Performance Measures: output, outcome and efficiency measures: making your case

1. Output measures: Any product of a project activity. Output measures are usually indicators of the volume of work accomplished (e.g., number of cell searches, number of officers attending training) as opposed to the intended results of that work (e.g., of inmate or staff assaults, “cheeking” medicine incidents, etc.)

2. Outcome measures: The consequences of a program or project. Outcome measures focus on what the project makes happen rather than what it does, and are closely related to agency goals and mission (e.g. reduction in inmate suicide deaths, improved re-entry rates, etc. .) These are measures of intended results, not the process of achieving them.

3. Efficiency measures: Measures that indicate the affect of the project on a criminal justice agency’s efficiency in its use of resources ( reduction in correctional cost, time, personnel, etc.).

What Makes a Good Correctional Technology Measure:.

– Goal focused. The measure must be an indicator of the achievement of an agency goal, not just a count of your agency’s activities.

– Feasible. The measure must be possible for your agency to implement.

– Inexpensive. Implementation of the measure must be relatively inexpensive, or it will compete for resources needed to accomplish your agency’s goals.

– Understandable. The measure must be clear and simple enough to be successfully communicated to, and understood by, non-experts.

– Unambiguous. The measure must be stated in language sufficiently precise to be unambiguous.

– Accurate. The measure must accurately capture the events or condition it is supposed to be an indicator of.

– Valid. The measure must be designed to minimize bias, error, and distortion.

– Project /Correctional Technology Innovation Linked. Causal links must be established between the project correctional /technology and the measures of agency goal achievement

II. Hard Realities: baseline Correctional Cost drivers Corrections and the

economic crisis of 2008-? Cost barriers Consequences to

State/Local and Tribal budgets

Short term correctional thinking and strategies

Maintaining the status quo: reasons: Stuck in prison paradigm Prison Unions Institutional inertia Refusal to face evidence

based conclusions regarding incarceration outcomes

Knee jerk crime solutions Balance of staff and public

safety with cost-optimization issue

III. Correctional Technologies: (sustaining technology)

change: Potential near-term Savings from Correctional Technologies:

RFID: Video Visitation: Video Arraignment: Kiosks/Inmate trusts:

Can Correctional Technologies Reduce Correctional Costs?-Examples

RFIDFunction: keep track of inmates

Cost Savings: staff time used for observation

Potential Offset: implementation expenses

Video VisitationReplace face to face with video visits

Staff time used to monitor visits contraband

Morale related disorder

Video Arraignment

Replace face to face routine court appearances

Transport/ security costs

Legal challenges

Kiosks/TrustsReplace manual accounting

Slippage and staff costs

Implementation/service costs

RFID: What it is?: inmate tracking system using

radio frequency ID code

What it does for Corrections: Correctional intuitions conduct periodic “counts” to ensure that no inmates have escaped. To conduct a count, all intuitional activity must be frozen and the staff checks for the presence of each individual inmate.

What it saves? (efficiency measure): During this time the effective productive of almost all employees is frozen. This would represent a daily lost personnel cost of about $1,800 and an annual cost of about $657,000 for a medium sized institution.

Video Visitation: What it is?: Video visitation is the use of an

audio-video link between an inmate and visitor

What it does for Corrections: In a video visitation system a visitor in an area outside an interior security perimeter (and sometimes outside all security perimeters) communicates with an inmate inside the facility, either in the inmate’s housing unit or another, specialized, visitation unit convenient to inmate housing

What it saves? (efficiency): Staffing efficiency is closely related to – but not synonymous with – cost efficiency. Video visitation systems provide cost offsets other than staffing costs.

Video Arraignment:

What it is?: provides a two-way interactive video and audio link between an arrestee and a district judge or some other lower court justice.

What it does for Corrections: Preliminary Hearings/Bail Setting, Criminal Hearings, Interviews between Public Defenders And Arrestees.

What it saves? (efficiency): The costs associated with video proceedings are generally reported to be lower than those associated with holding face to face preliminary arraignments.

KIOSK (Banking, Purchases, Trust, etc.): What it is?: Modern inmate banking systems

(also referred to as inmate trust fund accounting systems) and commissary systems include not only the software designed to manage transactions and perform accounting and internal control functions but peripheral devices such as kiosks.

What it does for Corrections: offers inmates and families increased opportunities for purchases of goods and services they provide a financial benefit to the institution or its governing entity by increasing profit margins from sales and increasing funds available to the purchasers.

What it saves? (efficiency Measure: Kiosks can replace much of staff activity related to counting cash and accounting for it through the booking and intake cycle. Visitation officers are no longer required to process cash, money orders, and cashier’s checks.

Over the Horizon Technologies: present (sustaining) policy framework

Biometrics: Community Monitoring: Data and Intelligence Sharing: Inmate

Accountability: Inmate Drug Testing: Language Translators: Officer Safety: Operational Safety: Software for Managing Inmate Functions:

Suicide watch (see picture right) Telephone Monitoring: Tracking Devices: Vulnerability

Assessments:

V. Making the performance measures case for a new correctional technology:

1. Define Innovation:

2. State value premise and results chain assumptions

3. Make Case: output, outcome or efficiency

4. Define a metric/comparison

5. Calculate Savings (define format to present results)

V. Proving Correctional Technology Savings: Cost Efficiency Argument: RFID Example

A bit of Complexity: moving from sustaining to disruptive change

One-off Correction Technology dilemma

Structure of Correctional Technology Market-Place

Disruptive vs. sustaining Correctional Technologies

Core Value Dilemma: how many people need to be in prison to assure public safety

Can Correctional Technologies help de-prison America??

Second Chance Act issues: reducing institutional correctional capacity/costs

Closing prisons, slashing

sentences.In a sour economy,

Washington's and other

states' lawmakers

are considering budget cuts that would

close prisonsAssociated Press , April 9, 2009

THE CORE QUESTIONS RE-CONSIDERED: Sustaining Technology Framework

Can Correctional Technologies Meaningfully Reduce Correctional Costs?

How? Can you document these

savings? How? Future of Correctional

Technology?

The Future of Correctional Technologies?

V. Disruptive Change: Correctional

technologies New Value Proposition New Policies-, e.g. Second Chance

Act, Youth Promise Act- de-emphasizing institutional care

What are the correctional technologies which might facilitate these policy directions: e-monitoring, e-parole, e-correctional education/training, opiate detection, etc.

What would be savings measured by efficiency performance measure?

Disruptive Challenge: Liberty Ship Analogy:

1. Liberty ships in WWII were constructed in weeks not years due to national necessity caused by U-boats.

2. Sustaining shipbuilding by craftsman replaced by mass production (disruptive) construction helped win war.

3. Why can’t the CTA/BJA and the Congress find ways to reduce Correctional costs by 30% or more due to both value and economic crisis?

Using technology to bring about disruptive change: (example) Intervening to improve health care connectivity?

Theory: parolees re-offend due to lack of continuity of medications

Intervene with IT solution to bridge corrections and community healthcare

Can this make a difference in terms of correctional costs?

Final Thoughts: Correctional Technology at the Tipping Point:1. Savings using traditional prison framework may be at the value

contribution margin

2. True disruptive correctional technology requires new value set/policy direction

3. Given a new paradigm correctional technologies could save billions of dollars

4. New paradigm will require new technology ideas (e.g. from military technology transfer)

5. Can correctional technologies meaningfully reduce correctional costs, Can you prove it?

Your turn:

• Blumstein, A.. (1995). Violence by Young People: Why the Deadly Nexus. Blumstein, A.. (1995). Violence by Young People: Why the Deadly Nexus. National Institute of Justice National Institute of Justice Journal, Journal, 229, 2-9. 229, 2-9.

• Braga, Anthony A. (2008). Pulling Levers Focused Deterrence Strategies and the Prevention of Gun Braga, Anthony A. (2008). Pulling Levers Focused Deterrence Strategies and the Prevention of Gun Homicide. Homicide. Journal of Criminal JusticeJournal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 36, 332-343., Vol. 36, 332-343.

• Christensen, Clayton, Christensen, Clayton, Innovator’s DilemmaInnovator’s Dilemma: NY, Wiley, 2001: NY, Wiley, 2001• Geerken,M. and Scharf, P. (2008).Justice Information Systems Performance Measures. Washington, DC: Geerken,M. and Scharf, P. (2008).Justice Information Systems Performance Measures. Washington, DC:

OJPOJP• Harper, Gemma and Chitty Chloe. (2004). "The Impact of Corrections on Re-Offending: A Review of 'What Harper, Gemma and Chitty Chloe. (2004). "The Impact of Corrections on Re-Offending: A Review of 'What

Works'." London: Home Office RDS.Works'." London: Home Office RDS.• Levitt, S. (2004). Understanding Why Crime fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six Levitt, S. (2004). Understanding Why Crime fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six

that Do Not. that Do Not. The Journal of Economic PerspectivesThe Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18, 163-190. Retrieved February 22, 2007 from JSTOR , 18, 163-190. Retrieved February 22, 2007 from JSTOR database.database.

• Loeber & Farrington. (1998).Loeber & Farrington. (1998). Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders, Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders, A report of the Office of Juvenile Justice A report of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Workgroup on Violence and Serious Offending and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Workgroup on Violence and Serious Offending

• Petrosino, A., C. Turpin-Petrosino, and J. Buehler. (2003). "'Scared Straight' and Other Juvenile Awareness Petrosino, A., C. Turpin-Petrosino, and J. Buehler. (2003). "'Scared Straight' and Other Juvenile Awareness Programs for Preventing Juvenile Delinquency." Programs for Preventing Juvenile Delinquency." Campbell Review Update I. Campbell Review Update I. The Campbell Collaboration.The Campbell Collaboration.

• Pew Charitable Trust: 1 in 100 report, Washington DC, 2008Pew Charitable Trust: 1 in 100 report, Washington DC, 2008• Roman, John and Graham Farrell. (2002). "Cost-Benefit Analysis for Crime Prevention: Opportunity Costs, Roman, John and Graham Farrell. (2002). "Cost-Benefit Analysis for Crime Prevention: Opportunity Costs,

Routine Savings and Crime Externalities." Pp. 53-92 in Routine Savings and Crime Externalities." Pp. 53-92 in Evaluation for Crime PreventionEvaluation for Crime Prevention, Ed. Nick Tilley. , Ed. Nick Tilley. Monsey, N.J.: Willow Tree Press.Monsey, N.J.: Willow Tree Press.

• Sherman et al. (1997)Sherman et al. (1997) Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising. A Report to the Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising. A Report to the United States CongressUnited States Congress

• Rosenfeld, R., Fornango, R., Baumer, E. (2005). Did CEASEFIRE, COMPSTAT, and EXILE Reduce Rosenfeld, R., Fornango, R., Baumer, E. (2005). Did CEASEFIRE, COMPSTAT, and EXILE Reduce Homicide? Homicide? Criminology and Public PolicyCriminology and Public Policy, 4, 419-450. Retrieved February 22, 2007 from EBSCO Database., 4, 419-450. Retrieved February 22, 2007 from EBSCO Database.

• Welsh, Brandon C. and David P. Farrington. (2005). Evidence-Based Crime Prevention: Conclusions and Welsh, Brandon C. and David P. Farrington. (2005). Evidence-Based Crime Prevention: Conclusions and Directions for a Safer Society. Directions for a Safer Society. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal JusticeCanadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice , 47 (2), 337-354., 47 (2), 337-354.