Justice Reinvestment In Pennsylvania

1y ago
716.31 KB
20 Pages
Last View : 1m ago
Last Download : 5m ago
Upload by : Jamie Paz

Justice Reinvestment in PennsylvaniaPolicy FrameworkJUNE 2017OverviewPennsylvania has the highest incarceration rate in theNortheast; there are approximately 50,000 peopleincarcerated in state prisons, which cost the state about 2.4 billion in FY2015.1 People on supervision whorecidivate account for a portion of this cost, with nearlyone-third of prison beds occupied by people who haveviolated the conditions of their probation or parole.2Insufficient county probation resources and inefficient useof parole resources limit the effectiveness of supervision andexacerbate recidivism.In 2012, Pennsylvania employed a data-driven justicereinvestment approach to reduce corrections spendingand reinvest savings in strategies to improve publicsafety. Following this effort, the General Assembly votedunanimously to enact legislation based on a justicereinvestment policy framework (Act 122 and Act 196),3and as a result of these and other policy reforms,Pennsylvania has experienced a decrease in its state prisonpopulation and averted significant corrections costs.4To build on prior efforts and address current challengesrelated to costs, supervision, and recidivism, state leadershave again embarked on a justice reinvestment approachto develop policies that will increase the state’s return oninvestment in corrections. By adopting these proposedpolicies, Pennsylvania is projected to reduce the stateprison population by 1,032 people and avert at least 108million in corrections costs between FY2018 and FY2022.This will enable the state to reinvest savings in strategiesto improve public safety, including strengtheningprobation and parole supervision and increasing fundingfor alternatives to incarceration that have been shown toreduce recidivism.In October 2015, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf, Chief Justice Thomas Saylor, Senate President Pro Tempore JosephScarnati, House Speaker Mike Turzai, Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD) Chairman JoshShapiro, and Department of Corrections (DOC) Secretary John Wetzel requested support from the U.S. Departmentof Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and The Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew) to employ a justice reinvestmentapproach to build on prior efforts in the state. As public-private partners in the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI),BJA and Pew approved the state’s request and asked The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center to provideintensive technical assistance.To study the state’s criminal justice system, Pennsylvania established the bipartisan, interbranch Justice ReinvestmentWorking Group under PCCD. The 37-member working group included state lawmakers and agency leaders, judiciarymembers, probation and county government officials, district attorneys and public defenders, and law enforcementrepresentatives. The group met five times between March and December 2016 to review analyses conducted by the CSGJustice Center and discuss policy options.On December 14, 2016, the group voted unanimously to support the policies detailed in this report and to includethem in legislation. In addition to the policy framework presented in this report, members of the working grouprepeatedly discussed two issues that did not lead to the development of concrete policy options: (1) the impact ofreinstating mandatory minimum punishments and (2) the lack of state funding for indigent defense. Discussion of bothissues was prompted by recent decisions by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.5JUSTICE REINVESTMENT IN PENNSYLVANIAThe Justice Reinvestment Working Group

WORKING GROUP MEMBERSChairmanJosh Shapiro, Chairman, Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and DelinquencyVice ChairmanJohn Wetzel, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of CorrectionsMembersRandy Albright, Secretary, Office of the BudgetSally Barry, Chief Probation Officer, Lebanon CountyThe Honorable Bruce R. Beemer, Pennsylvania Attorney GeneralMark Bergstrom, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Commission on SentencingTyree Blocker, Commissioner, Pennsylvania State PoliceTheodore Dallas, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Human ServicesWilliam Danowski, Secretary of Legislative Affairs, Governor’s OfficeTom Darr, Court Administrator, Administrative Office of Pennsylvania CourtsLeo Dunn, Chairman, Pennsylvania Board of Probation and ParoleSarah E. Galbally, Secretary of Policy and Planning, Governor’s OfficeThe Honorable Stewart Greenleaf, State Senator, 12th Senatorial DistrictEllen Greenlee, Retired Chief, Defender Association of PhiladelphiaThe Honorable Jolene Grubb Kopriva, President Judge, Blair CountyMichael Hanna, Jr., Deputy Secretary of Legislative Affairs, Governor’s OfficeElliot Howsie, Esq., Director and Chief Public Defender, Allegheny CountyMary Isenhour, Chief of Staff, Governor’s OfficeRobert G. Jolley, President, Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police AssociationLinda Kelly, Court Administrator, Allegheny CountyThe Honorable Daylin Leach, State Senator, 17th Senatorial DistrictThe Honorable Ron Marsico, State Representative, 105th Legislative DistrictThe Honorable Edward Marsico, Jr., District Attorney, Dauphin CountyDerin Myers, Acting Executive Director, Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and DelinquencyLes Neri, President, Fraternal Order of Police—Pennsylvania State LodgeMavis Nimoh, Secretary, Pennsylvania Board of PardonsBrinda Carroll Penyak, Deputy Director of Government Relations, CountyCommissioners Association of PennsylvaniaThe Honorable Joseph Petrarca, State Representative, 55th Legislative DistrictLinda Rosenberg, Parole Board Member, Pennsylvania Board of Probation and ParoleDenise Smyler, General Counsel, Office of General CounselRichard E. Steele, Executive Director, Juvenile Court Judges’ CommissionJennifer Storm, Victim Advocate, Office of the Victim AdvocateEdward Sweeney, Director of Corrections, Lehigh CountyGary Tennis, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Drug and Alcohol ProgramsSeth Williams, District Attorney, Philadelphia CountyThe Honorable Sheila Woods-Skipper, President Judge, Philadelphia County2Justice Reinvestment in Pennsylvania

Data CollectionAn extensive amount of data was provided to theCSG Justice Center by the Administrative Officeof Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC), the PennsylvaniaCommission on Sentencing (PCS), DOC, and thePennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (PBPP). Intotal, more than seven million individual data recordswere analyzed across these agencies’ databases to studysupervision and prison population trends; the length oftime served in prison and on supervision; and recidivism.6To understand the context behind the numbers, theCSG Justice Center conducted more than 200 in-personmeetings and conference calls with district attorneys,public defenders, judges, law enforcement executives,supervision officers, behavioral health care providers,victims and their advocates, local officials, and others.7Summary of Challenges and FindingsThrough its comprehensive review of state data, the Justice Reinvestment Working Group identified three keychallenges and related findings.KEY CHALLENGES1. High corrections spending. State spending onbut only 6 percent of state criminal justice spending wascorrections increased 50 percent between FY2006 andallocated to counties.10 Without sufficient support at theFY2015, from 1.6 billion to 2.4 billion, and some of thiscounty level, people on probation often fail to meet themoney is spent inefficiently.8 For example, a substantialconditions of their supervision and are revoked to prisonamount of money— 73 million in FY2014—is spentat a cost to the state of almost 200 million per year.11to incarcerate people with short sentences to state prison3. Inadequate pretrial and sentencing guidance. Bailwho stay beyond their minimum sentence,9 even thoughdecisions vary widely by county and by judge, in partthe additional confinement time does not have a positivebecause the Rules of Criminal Procedure provideimpact on recidivism. Most people who receive these shortlimited guidance, and most bail decisions are notsentences are convicted of property and drug offenses.informed by the results of a risk assessment. Sentencing2. Insufficient support for county probation. In 2014,statutes are unnecessarily complex, and sentencing66 percent of people in the state’s criminal justiceguidelines provide limited information and guidance.12system were receiving supervision at the county level,KEY FINDINGSn Overall, reported crime in Pennsylvania hasfallen substantially in recent years, but arrestsfor property and drug offenses have increased.Between 2005 and 2014, the number of serious violentand property crimes reported in the state dropped13 percent. During the same period, however, arrestsfor serious property offenses, including theft, wentup 13 percent, and arrests for drug and DUI offensesincreased 9 and 7 percent, respectively.13n Some victims do not have adequate access toinformation about their rights and the services(including financial assistance) that are available tothem. Focus groups with victim advocates revealed thatvictims are often unaware of the resources available tothem, and some victims who seek services and supportare unable to access them during the limited timeframe allowed to apply for this assistance.14Policy Framework3

n Pretrial risk assessments are seldom used. OfPennsylvania’s 67 counties, only 37 have countypretrial services programs, and just 12 of those userisk assessments to inform decisions about bail,diversion, release, and pretrial supervision.15n In 2015, 36 percent of cases filed—bothmisdemeanors and felonies—resulted in monetarybail decisions.16 More than half of the people whoare required to pay monetary bail are unable to doso—a total of almost 43,000 people.17 There is widevariation by county regarding the use of monetarybail, the amount of that bail, and the portion ofthe bail amount that is actually required to deposit.Across all offense types, black defendants are far morelikely than white defendants to receive a monetarybail decision, especially when charged with a felonyinvolving a weapon.18 In 2015, 33 percent of whitedefendants and 78 percent of black defendants whowere charged with a felony involving a weaponreceived a monetary bail decision.19n Pennsylvania’s sentencing guidelines grid doesnot provide enough guidance on how to chooseamong sentencing options. In 2014, 75 percent ofsentences fell into cells on the sentencing grid withmultiple sentencing options—probation, CountyIntermediate Punishment (CIP), county prison, StateIntermediate Punishment (SIP), or state prison—but the grid provides limited guidance on how tochoose among them.20 Judges and prosecutors alsodo not have enough information on the relative costand recidivism-reduction potential of one optioncompared to another. As a result, some people receiveincarceration sentences, instead of probation or CIPsentences, even though there is no difference inrecidivism outcomes between the sentencing choices.21n The sentencing guidelines do not provide guidanceon the lengths of probation terms, maximumsentences, and split sentences. The guidelines onlyprovide information on the minimum sentencelength, eligibility for motivational boot camp, andsome of the available dispositions.4Justice Reinvestment in Pennsylvanian The majority of people sentenced in Pennsylvaniahave committed misdemeanors. In 2014, 69 percentof all sentences were for misdemeanor offenses andonly 31 percent were for felonies.22 The most commondispositions overall were sentences to probation (40percent), county prison (35 percent), and state prison(12 percent).23n In Pennsylvania, approximately half of all sentencesto county and state prison are for property and drugoffenses. Between 2005 and 2014, the total numberof sentences increased 13 percent, and increases inproperty and drug offenses constituted 73 percent ofthis growth.24 In 2014, 45 percent of sentences to stateprison and 63 percent of sentences to county prisonwere for property and drug offenses.25 Incarceratingpeople for these offenses costs the state almost 550 million per year.26 These people tend to beassessed as being at a high risk of reoffending,27 andparticipation in most recidivism-reduction programswhile incarcerated is not as effective as participationin comparable community-based programs.28n Pennsylvania’s incarceration rate is the highest inthe Northeast.29 In 2015, Pennsylvania’s incarcerationrate was the region’s highest, with 387 peopleimprisoned per 100,000 adult residents.30 Between2005 and 2014, Pennsylvania’s incarceration rateincreased 16 percent, in contrast to other states inthe region such as New York and New Jersey, whoseincarceration rates fell 18 percent and 24 percent,respectively.31n The state’s total incarcerated population in countyand state prisons has increased significantly inrecent years. Between 2005 and 2014, the totalnumber of people incarcerated in Pennsylvania’scounty and state prisons increased 16 percent.32n The state prison population has declined inrecent years. The state prison population peaked at51,638 people in 2011.33 Since the previous justicereinvestment effort and passage of legislation in 2012,the state prison population declined by 3 percent(1,598 people) between 2013 and 2015.34

n Many people receive short minimum sentencesto state prison but stay months beyond theirminimum.35 In 2014, 58 percent of people sent toprison received a minimum sentence of two years orless.36 People with a minimum sentence of two yearsor less who were released from prison in 2014 wereheld an average of 5.3 months beyond their minimumsentence, which cost the state 73 million.37n Despite a decline in the state prison populationsince 2013, Pennsylvania’s spending on correctionshas increased substantially in recent years. BetweenFY2006 and FY2015 annual general fund expenditureson corrections increased 50 percent, from 1.6 to 2.4billion.38 This percentage increase was almost threetimes greater than the percentage increase in totalgeneral fund expenditures during this period.39n People under county probation and parolesupervision account for 66 percent of the totalcorrectional population, but only 6 percent ofcorrections expenditures are allocated for countysupervision. The state and counties together spend atotal of 3.1 billion on corrections annually but only 223 million on county supervision.40 For probationspecifically, Pennsylvania spends 830 per probationerper year, and the state covers about 100 of that cost,while the counties cover the remainder. In comparison,Texas spends about 1,250 per probationer per year, ofwhich the state covers about 800.41n State funding for county probation has declined,and counties must fund most of the cost of localsupervision. The counties’ proportion of the costof probation has risen steadily over the last 10 yearsdue to the state’s declining contribution; countiescurrently fund about 76 percent of the cost ofprobation. State Grant-In-Aid (GIA) funds provided20 percent of total probation and parole funding in2000 but only 8 percent of this funding in 2014.42reoffending, yet the majority of probation officershave mixed caseloads composed of people of varyingrisk levels, which means they are unable to focus amajority of their efforts on the people who are atthe highest risk of reoffending.44 Further, 59 percentof officers reported spending less than half of theirtime in direct contact with the people they supervise,partially due to administrative responsibilities.45n The total state parole supervision population andthe number of parole violators have increased, butthe number of people returning to state prison forviolations has decreased since justice reinvestmentin 2012. The total state parole supervision populationgrew by 10 percent from FY2012 to FY2014,46 andthe total number of parole violators rose 28 percent,from 7,278 in FY2012 to 9,320 in FY2014.47 Justicereinvestment policy changes in 2012 prioritized theuse of community corrections beds for parole violatorsand reduced the length of stay in state prison fortechnical parole violators.48 As more people weresanctioned using community corrections facilities, thenumber of people returning to state prison for paroleviolations fell 20 percent, from 7,278 in FY2012 to5,854 in FY2014.49n Supervision violations in Pennsylvania are a keydriver of incarceration. People who have violated theterms of their probation or parole occupy nearly onethird of prison beds.50 Incarcerating these people costsPennsylvania taxpayers an estimated 420 million peryear.51n Responses to parole violations are not informedby a person’s risk and needs. Parole violators whoreceive non-incarceration sanctions are not matched toprograms based on their individual risk of reoffendingand criminogenic needs, which contributes to thelikelihood that they will fail again on supervision.52n Probation officers have high caseloads compared toparole officers in Pennsylvania. In 2014, the averageactive probation caseload size was 109 cases perofficer, compared to an average state parole caseloadof 66 cases per officer.43 In a 2016 survey, probationofficers indicated that more than half of the peoplethey supervise are assessed as being at a high risk ofPolicy Framework5

Summary of Policy Options and ImpactsThe policy options listed below are designed to achieve the following goals:n Reduce release delays and incarceration costs for people serving short sentences to state prison.n Focus state attention on improving county probation supervision.n Increase notifications, provide greater access to compensation, and increase financial assistance forvictims of crime.n Improve the pretrial process to increase public safety and decrease county prison costs.n Refine sentencing policies and guidelines to reduce recidivism and increase the state’s return on itsinvestment in corrections.n Improve the use of parole supervision resources.Icons appear in the policy options section of this report to indicate which options will reduce the prison population,provide tools to reduce the county prison population, and increase public safety and reduce recidivism.POLICY OPTIONS1.Make time served for short sentences to stateprison more predictable.2.Improve the state’s approach to funding andsupporting county probation.3.Increase support for victims of crime.4.Improve pretrial decision making.5.Increase guidance provided by sentencingguidelines.6.Improve parole supervision.PROJECTED IMPACTAs a package, the policies described in this report have thepotential to result in averted costs and lower recidivism forPennsylvania. The effective implementation of the policiesis projected to reduce the amount of time people servingshort sentences spend in state prison, increase the use of SIP,and result in the more efficient use of resources for technicalparole violations. These changes will help the state reducethe prison population by an estimated 1,032 people andavert 108 million in associated operating costs betweenFY2018 and FY2022. (See Figure 1)Operating cost estimates are based on 2016 DOC graduated per diem rates that increase from 16 to 100 per daybased on the number of beds saved. The five-year impact projection utilizes historical sentencing and DOC admissionand release data to simulate the status quo trajectories of specific subpopulations and compares them against assumedchanges if the entire policy package was implemented as described in this report. Prison bed savings realized underthe justice reinvestment policy package are additional beds saved, separate from the projected bed reductions alreadyanticipated by the current DOC population forecast. Without the justice reinvestment policies, DOC projects adecline in the prison population of 2,232 people (Current Forecast in Figure 1). With the justice reinvestment policies,the population will be reduced by an additional 1,032 people, bringing the total reduction to 3,264 people (ImpactProjection with Policy Options in Figure 1). The effective date for most of the impact model was assumed to be January1, 2018. Impact assumptions, drivers, and results were vetted with the DOC, PCS, PBPP, and the Office of the Budget.6Justice Reinvestment in Pennsylvania

FIGURE 1. PROJECTED IMPACT OF THE JUSTICE REINVESTMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK ON PENNSYLVANIA’SSTATE PRISON POPULATIONCurrent Forecast-2,232 (-4%)55,00051,75749,91350,000Five-YearAverted Costs47,681Actual StatePrison Population 108 M46,64945,000Five-year total based onincremental prison costsper day avoided below thecurrent forecast ( 95M) aswell as the cost of avertedcommunity correctionsbeds ( 13M).Impact Projection withPolicy Options-3,264 (-7%)40,000Projected State Prison Beds Saved at FY-end35,000FY18FY19FY200-291-1,040 -1,036 Y18FY19FY20FY21FY22REINVESTMENTAfter legislation is implemented, annual averted costsare expected to grow each year, peaking at about 42million in FY2021 and FY2022. The state is projectedto avert a total of 108 million in corrections costsby FY2022. A portion of the expected averted costsachieved by decreasing the state prison populationshould be reinvested in evidence-based strategies toreduce recidivism. In FY2019, an initial investmentof 3 million for county probation and parole isrecommended, increasing to 10 million in FY2021,and 20 million in both FY2022 and FY2023.In total, roughly 56 million of the projected avertedcosts should be reinvested in county probation andparole to improve supervision. The state should alsoinvest 1.25 million in compensation for crime victims,as improvements to public safety should include everypossible effort to aid people after they are victimized.Averted costs and proposed levels of reinvestmentare based on projected impacts to the state prisonpopulation as calculated by the CSG Justice Centerin comparison to the DOC population forecast (SeeFigure 2).FIGURE 2. SUMMARY OF AVERTED COSTS AND REINVESTMENTS FOR THE JUSTICE REINVESTMENT POLICY FRAMEWORKFY2018Averted CostsReinvestments 2019) 3.7M 21.2M 41.6M 41.5M 108MProbation Reinvestment 0M 3M 3M 10M 20M 20M 56MVictim Compensation 0K 250K 250K 250K 250K 250K 1.25MTotal Reinvestment 0M 3.25M 3.25M 10.25M 20.25M 20.25M 57.25MAverted Costs Saved 0M- 3.25M 0.45M 10.95M 21.35M 21.25M 50.75M(from previous FY) 0MFY2019(FY2020)(FY2021)(FY2022)Policy Framework7

Policy OptionsPOLICY OPTION 1:Reduce the state prisonpopulationMake time served for short sentences to state prisonmore predictable.In Pennsylvania, people who receive a minimum sentenceof two years or less may serve that time in either countyor state prison. In 2014, 58 percent of people committedto state prison, or about 6,000 people, had a minimumsentence of two years or less.53On average, people who are sentenced to county prisonserve close to the minimum length of time requiredfor their sentences, then are released to county parolesupervision. In contrast, people sentenced to state prisonstay beyond their minimum sentence and experiencemonths of delay before their release to state parolesupervision. For example, people with a minimumsentence of two years or less who were released fromstate prison in 2014 were held an average of 5.3 monthsbeyond their minimum sentence, which cost the state 73 million and occupied about 2,000 prison beds onany given day.54 Thus, two people who receive the sameshort minimum sentence may end up being incarceratedfor markedly different lengths of time depending onwhether they are sentenced to county or state prison.Stakeholders indicate that people are often sentenced tostate prison because every local alternative to incarcerationhas been exhausted, and the sentence is imposed in orderto ensure that people receive the programming they need(e.g., substance use or cognitive behavioral treatment)Increase public safety andreduce recidivismwhile incarcerated. Research shows, however, that greaterimpacts on recidivism are consistently achieved throughappropriate interventions and programs delivered in thecommunity, rather than while incarcerated.55 Further,research conducted in Pennsylvania as part of justicereinvestment showed that recidivism results are no betterfor people sentenced to short state prison sentences thanthey are for similar people sentenced to comparablecounty prison sentences.56This policy option requires people serving short stateprison sentences to be released to parole supervisionafter serving the minimum sentence. Presumptiveparole would be granted to people serving state prisonsentences of a minimum of two years or less, unless theyare excluded from this policy by statute.By requiring people to be released to parole after servingtheir minimum sentence, the state will save the moneyit typically spends to hold these people beyond theirminimum sentence and will ensure that people receivesupervision and programming in the community, whereit has the greatest likelihood of reducing recidivism. Thispolicy will also ensure that sentences to state prison andcounty prison are equitable because people will serveclose to their minimum sentence regardless of which typeof facility they are in.POLICY OPTION 2:Improve the state’s approach to funding and supportingcounty probation.A. Increase state funding for county probation.The state provides inadequate funding for countyprobation and uses an outdated formula to determinefunding. These practices contribute to high probationcaseloads, insufficient supervision to reduce recidivism,and a large number of people whose supervision isrevoked, resulting in high incarceration costs for bothcounty and state prisons.8Justice Reinvestment in PennsylvaniaIncrease public safety andreduce recidivismIn 2014, approximately 244,000 people in Pennsylvaniawere supervised by county probation and paroledepartments at an average cost of about 830 per personper year, with about 76 percent of this cost funded bycounties,57 12 percent covered by grants and other revenue,and 12 percent covered by the state. By comparison,in Texas—which also has a large probation populationsupervised at the county level—the annual cost of

supervision is about 1,250 per person per year, of whichthe state covers about 64 percent.58 In Pennsylvania, thestate’s share of the cost has decreased significantly in thelast 10 years due to reductions in state GIA funding.59Pennsylvania’s current funding structure for countyprobation includes funding from the PBPP for GIA andfunding from PCCD for CIP. The GIA formula was lastamended in 1986 with the intention of covering 80 percentof salaries for county probation personnel, but the fundingcurrently covers only about 18 percent of those salaries andhas never come close to covering the intended 80 percent.60PCCD uses the CIP funding to target more intensiveservices to people who are at a high risk of reoffending andprovide grant funding for counties that use CIP to divertpeople from incarceration.Insufficient funding and inefficient funding practices makeit challenging for local departments to focus resources onhigh-risk populations and reduce recidivism. In 2014, itcost the state approximately 200 million to incarceratepeople who were revoked for violating the conditions oftheir supervision. This group represented an estimated 17percent of the state prison population that year.61Because probation officers are overburdened and arenot always able to effectively supervise people, judgesand prosecutors in some counties have reported thatthey are not confident that people who are sentenced toprobation will receive sufficient supervision or participatein appropriate recidivism-reduction programs. The lesscertain these decision makers are about the effectiveness ofprobation, the more likely they are to sentence someone toincarceration instead.This policy option requires Pennsylvania to increasefunding for county probation, update the state’s fundingformula for probation, and change the GIA mechanism.The new funding formula should be based on the numberof people under supervision and the resources neededto improve their behavior. People who fall into higherlevels on the sentencing grid tend to be at a high risk ofreoffending or have committed a more serious offense.People in higher grid levels also tend to have greatertreatment and programming needs, so increased resourcesfor these people would, in turn, help to reduce thelikelihood of recidivism. More funding for people who fallinto the higher levels on the grid would provide judges andprosecutors with greater assurance that these people arereceiving effective monitoring and interventions.To ensure that state funding for each county does notdecline due to the funding formula change, the amount ofGIA funding each county received for FY2016 would bethe minimum amount each county would receive annuallymoving forward, even after the transition to the newfunding formula. The funding allocated to counties wouldbe based largely on the number of people sentenced toprobation in the previous fiscal year.B. Provide state support for local probationdepartments.Currently in Pennsylvania, 65 separate county probationdepartments—which oversee both probation andparole at the county level—provide supervision forapproximately 244,000 people.62 At the state level, PBPPprovides GIA funding, as well as auditing and training,to these departments. Local departments also receivefunding from PCCD, which administers funding forCIP. Neither agency provides sufficient constructiveoversight or support to help improve adult probation andparole supervision practices.This policy option creates a state-level governing bodyto provide oversight and support for county probationdepartments. This governing body would be operated bya board that includes criminal court judges as well as otherstakeholders, such as chief probation officers. This bodywould not take over the responsibilities of t

The Honorable Bruce R. Beemer, Pennsylvania Attorney General Mark Bergstrom, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing Tyree Blocker, Commissioner, Pennsylvania State Police . Leo Dunn, Chairman, Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole Sarah E. Galbally, Secretary of Policy and Planning, Governor’s Office .

Related Documents:

Mr.Justice Sh.Riaz Ahmed, HCJ Mr.Justice Munir A.Sheikh Mr.Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry Mr.Justice Qazi Muhammad Farooq Mr.Justice Mian Muhammad Ajmal Mr.Justice Syed Deedar Hussain Shah Mr.Justice Hamid Ali Mirza Mr.Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar Mr.Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi CONSTITUTION PETITION NO.15 OF 2002

Community Reinvestment Act Strategic Plan 2020-2024 . I. LETTER FROM THE CEO The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (“CRA”), was created to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low - and moderate-income neighborhoods.

1 WEST TOWN BANK & TRUST Community Reinvestment Act Strategic Plan AUGUST 10, 2018 – AMENDED FOR SALE OF NC BRANCHES DECEMBER 7, 2018 – RESUBMITTED AMENDMENT FEBRUARY 26, 2019 – RESUBMITTED AMENDMENT This is the Community Reinvestment Act Strategic Plan (“Strategic Plan” or “Plan”))

Reinvestment Act Projects -"Facility Energy Improvements" and "Wind Turbine and Photovoltaic Panels" at Fort Wainwright, Alaska . What We Did . Our overall objective was to evaluate DoD's implementation of the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009," February 17, 2009 (Recovery Act). Specifically, we reviewed the planning,

1 WEST TOWN BANK & TRUST Community Reinvestment Act Strategic Plan DECEMBER 7, 2016 RESUBMITTED FEBRUARY 7, 2017 RESUBMITTED FEBRUARY 27, 2017 RESUBMITTED MARCH 14, 2017 RESUBMITTED APRIL 10, 2017 This is the Community Reinvestment Act Strategic Plan ("Strategic Plan") adopted by

Working Harbor Reinvestment Strategy: Business Interview Results 1 December 2006 INTRODUCTION The Working Harbor Reinvestment Strategy will be a 10-year program of coordinated public investments by the City of Portland, Portland Development Commission (PDC), and Port of Portland in the economic vitality of the harbor industrial districts.

Criminal Justice Information Project Catherine Plummer, SEARCH Pamela Scanlon, Automated Regional Justice Information System Laurie Smith, Kalamazoo Criminal Justice Council Integrated Justice Information System Institute (Integrated Justice Information Systems): Susan Bates, Justice Management Inc. Steve Mednick, Law Offices of Steven G.

RTS performs tree risk assessment in accordance with ANSI A300 (Part 9) - Tree Risk Assessment. Not only because we must as ISA Certified Arborists who are Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ), but also because it ensures consistency by providing a standardized and systematic process for assessing tree risk. Risk assessment via TRAQ methodology takes one of three levels, depending on the .