Just enough work to save it.   See where Sidney is taking it. Pretty, so pretty.  You got an addition to that. Watch the record. Do you do that again? I don't know. I don't know. It's a fact that I was good at that. I was good at that. Last night, the front desk was doing this best. It was the kind of attitude to be with triggers. And it's not good when you're collaborating with my wife and wife, so... I have a nice house, and Texas has good staff, and I get some... Well, I started... All of this is good. And it sounds like...  Right. Right. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Yeah.  Yeah yeah... Why don't I do it? Hello? I was going to say this is the only one where anyone grows up. No. Um, but, um... Good morning, of course. You know, we have such a thing for everyone. We're here even like... Um, if you want to explain, you know, where your presentation is, and I understand you're there to stand, Let's go to see what it's like. All right, let me just let R.B.B. talk to you. I'll give you this, just forward and back. Yeah, that's enough. You're going to call me now. Yeah. Yeah, there we go. Good morning, sir. Hi, George. Hi, George. Good to see you. Good to meet you. Hi. Hi. Hi. David Young. Yeah, thank you. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Welcome to the United States Institute of Peace, and welcome to today's JustTrack Symposium on Exploring Alternatives to Incarceration Abroad. I'm David Young. I serve as USIP's Vice President for Applied Conflict Transformation. I know it's a wonky title, maybe one of the wonkiest in Washington, the capital of wonk, but I wear this wonkiness as a badge of honor because this concept of applied conflict transformation lies at the heart of USIP's work. Let me take a minute to explain what I mean. Let me start with the compound noun, conflict transformation. Our vision at USIP is a world without violent conflict. Accordingly, our mission is to prevent, mitigate, and resolve violent conflicts around the world. We try to do so by doing two things. First, we engage directly in conflict zones in partnership with local peace builders to link analysis, training, and field programming. Second, we partner with these local peace builders not simply to stop violent conflict, but to transform it, to transform it through the building of new social contracts between state and society. That's why we call our work Conflict Transformation. Next, I'll explain the adjective applied. In 1984, as many of you know, Congress and President Reagan teamed up to establish the US Institute of Peace. They did so because they believed that while the United States had great military academies, it also deserved a great peace academy. The lead authors of the legislation were two senators, Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon and Senator Spark Matsunaga of Hawaii. Both had served with great valor in World War II. Senator Hatfield in the Pacific Theater and Senator Matsunaga in North Africa and Italy. So in the 1984 United States Institute of Peace Law, the senators wrote that the institute would, quote, strengthen and symbolize the fruitful relation between the world of learning and the world of public affairs. USIP was thus established to bridge theory and practice, to bridge the world of the researcher and the world of the practitioner in the field of peace building. My colleagues and I, in partnership with all of you, seek to build such bridges. We seek to create knowledge with you and to apply that knowledge to policies and programs. So you take one adjective and one compound noun and that equals applied conflict transformation. That's what we proudly do at USIP and applied conflict transformation is what brings us together today. We assemble this morning in partnership with the University of South Carolina's Rule of Law Collaborative and the State Department's Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. For several years now, the INL Bureau and the Rule of Law Collaborative have worked on this important JustTrack project. JustTrack stands for Justice Sector Training, Research and Coordination and they do a great job in all three of those nouns. USIP has been proud to co-convene several symposia with our JustTrack colleagues. So I want to thank now the leadership of the Rule of Law Collaborative, Professor Hamid Khan, Professor Joel Samuels. I want to thank also the leadership of the INL Bureau and I want to thank Senator Lindsey Graham who for many years on the Hill first he initiated the idea of the Rule of Law Collaborative in his home state of South Carolina and then for many years has provided support for peace building human rights democratic governance and the Rule of Law in his capacity as a senator. I'm also grateful for the contributions of USIP's governance justice and security team which is led by my colleague Philippe LaRue-Martin. I want to thank Philippe and his team member Chelsea Dreher for supporting JustTrack in today's activities. Given the importance of governance, justice and security to the transformation of conflicts we're very happy at USIP to be part of today's symposium. We meet today to exchange ideas on exploring alternatives to incarceration even in the toughest environments. Over 11 million people around the world are held in penal institutions. In many countries the rate of incarceration is rising. Overburdened facilities can accommodate neither the needs of the general prison population nor those of vulnerable populations such as women, children and the disabled. Mass incarceration also impacts heavily the families and communities of prisoners. Under these conditions, prisons often foster recidivism and wider networks of criminality especially for such for nonviolent offenders alternatives to incarceration offer a solution to this complex of problems. We also meet today because mass incarceration in many countries may contribute to the radicalization of certain groups and when perpetrators of violent extremism are themselves incarcerated penal institutions must devise ways to prevent the radicalization of fellow inmates. For those who have subsequently renounced terrorism have served their prison sentences justice and security actors across the board must work with community leaders and families to help rehabilitate and reintegrate those individuals. So the more lessons we learn in this regard and the more lessons we can apply the safer and more reconciled these communities may become. In sum the problem stemming from mass incarceration and the possible solutions offered by alternatives to incarceration are key topics in our current discourse on applied conflict transformation. Within this inspiring monument to the American people's commitment to global peace I wish you today a fruitful discussion. I encourage you to build new bridges new links between theory and practice in the worlds of learning and public affairs. I now like to introduce Hamid Khan. Hamid is the deputy director of the rule of law collaborative. He's also a non resident senior fellow at the King Faisal Center for Research in Islamic Studies in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Hamid is best known all around the world as a leading expert on Islamic law and he has also served at USIP. He's also a national security fellow at the Truman National Security Project and he's very involved with the World Justice World Justice Project's rule of law consortium on Islamic law and he's also very involved in one of our networks that USIP leads the international network to promote the rule of law. So with much gratitude I now introduce Hamid Khan. Thank you David for that very embarrassing introduction. Good morning everyone. Welcome to the US Institute of Peace. Welcome to one of our offerings under the JustTrack program which today promises to delve into important questions that deal with incarceration and the alternatives that we intend on exploring today. As already mentioned the JustTrack program is a cooperative agreement between the University of South Carolina particularly the rule of law collaborative and our partners at the State Department and as already mentioned this is one of our constant deliverables which composes of experts from around the world to tackle and discuss issues of great political and legal concern to the rule of law community. In addition to our symposia which are typically two symposia that are offered publicly in a closed door invitation only symposium in which we travel to various parts of the world with various issues of concern. We also offer various trainings. We extend our gratitude not only to USIP for their willingness to host our event today but only two weeks ago they were willing to also roll up their sleeves and co-host an event that dealt with civil law legal systems around the world. In a few short weeks we also intend to offer a training that will be led by myself that will look at Islamic legal systems and that will also be an opportune time for individuals both in this room as well as individuals in the broader policy community to delve into some particularly interesting subject matter. In addition to our symposia and our trainings which we offer on a quarterly basis JustTrack also provides research opportunities and we will continue this work with the benefit of INL in the coming years with the aim of trying to benefit practitioners in the rule of law and those who work in the justice sector with additional offerings of both training and symposia in which hopefully all of you will be willing participants. To today's event, as you will undoubtedly notice this is a rather novel topic especially in the realm of justice sector issues abroad. However it is not a novel issue for those of us in this room and those of us who are aware of the issues pertinent to the United States. So today we will bring together a collage of different experts, those both here domestically empowered as well as those abroad to talk about some of the most important and salient issues that one can cover in one day. So it is with that both extending the gratitude to USIP, to the staff of the rule of law collaborative who have been assisting. Let me just note a couple of minor logistical details before we begin today. First and foremost, restrooms are at the end of the corridor. You are welcome to bring in your coffee at various times during the day. Lunch, the keynote address which will be offered by the State Department will actually be down in the lower part of the atrium and then it will return up here for the concluding sessions during this afternoon. In addition, because we are of course always trying to better and improve our deliverables you will notice that in the packets that you were given there is a very colorful evaluation form. So I am duty bound and honor bound to remind you that if you have any complaints, concerns, but high praise to please include them. So with that, let me introduce both an innovator in her own right, someone who has worked in the policy community on these salient issues to introduce the topic of alternatives to incarceration and to lay the foundation both for the challenging issues as well as the work that they have done. Ms. Pan-Rum for you guys. Thank you. And advanced slides, I'll be fumbling forever. So good morning everybody. Thank you. I want to thank Hamid and Dr. Yang and the Institute of Peace, INL and JustTrack for convening this and for honoring the work that we have done by asking us to open up the day for you all today. As Hamid said, my name is Pam Rodriguez. I am the president and CEO of TASC, Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities. We're based in Illinois. We are an independent NGO. We are providing case management statewide to justice-involved populations, and we work at all points in the continuum related to people with substance use and mental health disorders. So in Illinois, that means we work in both very urban places, such as Chicago, but also very rural communities, and the services we provide are available to everybody in the justice system, whether you're in prison or in the courts and on probation. As I said, our core service is case management. We are focused on reducing incarceration, on reducing recidivism and increasing health and wellness and recovery for people who come in contact with the justice system. We have, in addition to being a service provider, though, we view our responsibility and our role to really change systems and to advocate for change in systems nationally and internationally. So in addition to the direct service work, a piece of our work has always been about policy, advocacy, and systems change throughout the world, really. And that's, I think, what that experience is also what brings us here today. We have been in business doing this work and doing advocacy since the 70s pre-war on drugs and have been doing international work for about 10 or 15 years. And so my comments today will be based on a combination of those experiences. Okay, so why are we talking about diversion and alternatives to incarceration today? Why does that matter? We have, I want to just start by accepting the fact that, yes, incarceration punishes people. So what you want to do is punish people. That works. And that's a given, and that's usually what people throw out is the reason for doing this. But what I want to say to you is what it does, as well, is it makes people worse. We think that we're increasing public safety by incarcerating folks, and in fact, there's a ton of evidence that suggests that we are making an increase in their criminality. 95%, 98% of people who go to prison come home, and when they do, they bring risks back to communities. And we see that, we see that here today in the U.S., and we see it around the world. It increases the risk of recidivism, disconnects people from the supports that they have locally. It disconnects them from families. It makes them unemployable. It makes them hard to house. It makes them hard to reintegrate in families, and so the cycle of criminality and recidivism continues. So instead, we would argue that if we want to increase safety and increase safety in communities, we should really be focusing on alternatives to incarceration, that there are things that we know about how to serve and treat people in community that increase safety, increase health, and reduce recidivism, and that is not in question. There is a ton of research that supports that. So what we're really talking about is implementing what we know in the face of pressure to do the opposite, right, in the face of pressure to continue to incarcerate folks. The thing that often gets overlooked is that this also increases victim satisfaction when we do this the right way, and victim safety. And a lot of times people leave the victim voice out of these conversations when we talk about alternatives to incarceration, but in fact, victims have a voice in what happens to the people who have offended them. They frequently want restitution, they frequently want an apology, and they are happier with the outcome than when people are just simply sent away and they don't know what happens and they're not involved in the process or the decision-making. So it's also palatable in the victim community when done right. And by the way, we haven't always done that right, so I'm not suggesting that's an easy thing to do, but it's an important voice to remember. So the thing that we advocate for here and across the world is that every decision point in the justice system presents an opportunity to divert people. In the past, we have looked at diversion as something that is a diversion from prison, and that really is sort of the last opportunity we have to make that decision. In fact, we make many decisions about what's going to happen to people and with cases and charges at many points along the system. So at the point of arrest, police make a decision on whether to arrest or not and exert tons of discretion at that point in the process touching the most people of anybody in the justice system. So law enforcement represents a huge opportunity to make a different decision about what's going to happen to this person and with this case. And so in this diagram, you see that's sort of the widest swath of people and the first opportunity we have to really make a different decision about diversion and alternatives. At the point of deciding whether or not to hold somebody in jail, pretrial is another point at which we can make a different decision about what to do with folks. And a subsequent slide we'll talk to you will show evidence about even the smallest amount of time spent in jail increases a person's risk of recidivism. At the point of charging and making prosecutorial decisions about what to charge, how much to charge, we can make a different decision at that point. There's discretion all the way through the system that enables people to make different decisions about alternatives and not wait until the very end of a case and the very end of processing and the very final decision about prison or no prison. And you will hear system actors saying that they are limited in that discretion. But they are by law to some extent but not as much as they pretend to be. I was trying to come up with a different word but I'm just going to say pretend. Because it's convenient to hide behind that as opposed to actually admitting that they have tons of discretion on what they're going to do. And so the point of this diagram is really to visually depict how small in fact our system would be if we diverted folks at every point along the continuum. And what you will be hearing about today are things to do at these various points that make this a safe and viable strategy, reducing incarceration, reducing recidivism, and increasing health and recovery in community. Okay. So what have we learned about who we incarcerate and who's incarcerated around the world? Right? The people that we incarcerate by and large have substance abuse and mental health disorders. They're not all violent. They're not all murderers and rapists. They are people with substance use disorders who cycle through the system over and over until we get tired of them and then we throw them in prison. And that's what we would argue again is that that's true in so many places. We can do something different with those folks before we give up on them, before we get tired of them and throw them away and lock them in prison. So if you look at these numbers and they're kind of hard to see, but you have PowerPoints in your packet as well, that in the United States the first bar, the first light gray bar shows the general population rate of mental health disorders and substance use. Let me just say one thing quickly about mental health. SMI stands for Serious Mental Illness and that is bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorders, things that tend to involve hallucinations, delusions and things like that. And then mental health writ large includes other things as well like depression. You compare that to the jail population where 50% of the population instead of 18% have diagnosable conditions or 64%, I'm sorry, and 50% of prison populations. If you look at the substance use disorder one, it's even more stark in the sense the rate of diagnosable substance use disorders in the community is around maybe 7% of the general population has a substance use disorder. When you look in prisons and jails, they are overwhelmed by people with those same conditions. And jails and prisons, are they treatment centers? Are they designed to provide treatment? Are they designed to provide rehabilitation and services that prevent this disorder from reoccurring when people leave prisons? Generally not. There may be some AA, there may be some there, but those are self-help groups. Those are not treatment. They don't get medications for the disorders that they have. And when they are released from prisons and jails, they are also incredibly likely to return to use even after forced detox. So what are some of the lasting problems associated with it? So we've removed people from our communities. We think we're safer. We think we're happy to not see them anymore. And this is true internationally. People are mad at you. People are afraid of you and they want you away from them.  And when you come home, what happens to you? We used to have this notion here in the United States anyway, that if you did the crime and you did your time, you were done. And you could come home, reintegrate, get a job. Whoa, I see this is why I needed two hands free.  And in fact, that does happen for a few people. But the reality is that a criminal conviction today lasts a lifetime. The internet has really helped with that.  So you can't get housing. You can't get employment.  And so whole communities end up being destabilized. And this is true everywhere, right? The people who are impacted by substance use and mental health, the people who are impacted by justice involvement come from concentrated communities of poverty, concentrated communities of deprivation, communities where resources have been either pulled never there or pulled out of those communities and those communities have been decimated. And so that's what people are, that's who's incarcerated. The poor people of color in other countries, it's people of darker color or people of different religions, etc. that are targeted for incarceration. They're parents. One of the things that frustrates me immensely is that while 80% of the people involved in the justice system tend to be male, we don't talk about men as parents. We don't talk about them as dads. We talk about the moms and the women who are incarcerated. But the reality is 60 plus percent of the men all have children as well. So we're taking parents and incarcerating parents. People who have lots of health conditions these are people who are coming from communities without a lot of good health care. So they've got chronic health conditions. They've got COPD. They've got diabetes. They've got high blood pressure in addition to substance use and mental health disorders. So our prison system not designed to treat substance abuse from mental health is also not really designed to be a primary health care provider. And so for example if you need kidney dialysis and you're in prison you will have a security guard drive you back and forth for your dialysis every day. And that takes up two or three people and they're gone for the entire day for one person in dialysis. So the people in prisons get Alzheimer's and have dementia and prisons end up managing that. Prisons often trigger mental health episodes and psychotic breaks. Additionally people do get drugs and alcohol in prisons here and around the world. And so if you have an active substance use disorder going in, odds are pretty good that you'll be able to sustain that while you're in some prisons at least.  We have learned that even three days in prison increases the risk of not prisons, jail excuse me big difference in the U.S. The difference in the U.S. is that jails are state and count or they're local, they're county run and prisons are state run. Prisons you tend to serve a longer sentence at least be sentenced there for more than a year jails tend to do shorter sentences but in reality jails are mostly pre-trial settings where people cycle through and wait for court even three days while you get arrested and wait for your bond hearing or whatever it is you're waiting for to make bond increases the risk of recidivism. So again doing what we think is a public safety strategy in fact escalates the risk of continued criminal behavior. What happens when you get incarcerated in jail for three days or more you miss work if you're there 10 days you might miss your rent payment your employer might find out where you are and you lose your job all kinds of consequences just associated with those few days in jail and it costs a lot of money it costs a lot of money and doing the right thing costs less so it's not just that it costs a lot of money but providing adequate care in community costs less so if you're not motivated by the human condition and the risk to community associated with incarceration maybe you're a person who's going to be motivated by the financial trade-offs right so if a person is less risky when maintained in community and if the community is safer and healthier and it costs less there's got to be an argument in there that pleases just about anybody else it is why I said though in the beginning if you want to punish them prison does it so that argument we can't defeat with cost and and outcome kinds of information okay so when we think about then designing systems that understand this address these issues we have we think we start with thinking about each system each country each state wherever you're at with some kind of an assessment why because one size does not fit all one size does not fit all one size does not fit all and so you end we want to encourage you to think about the local context right whether it's a local context in where so we've done stuff in South Africa we've done stuff in Jamaica and Guyana and a bunch of countries right that local context is going to be different so you start with a system assessment you want to start where the country is at not where you're at and not with what we think we know what the end is okay so I want to be clear that we have a vision for what the end outcome should be but we got to start where the country and the system is at and we want to know what kind of political will they have and that will vary and where does it come from we want to know what kind of capacity and that capacity comes in the context of the capacity of the justice system the capacity of law enforcement the capacity of service communities the capacity of community generally to think about responding to these issues and integrating people and doing something different than what is currently being done which is incarcerating folks who with low level nonviolent probably substance related issues and when I say you build to a system strategy or a system response that's the vision that we all kind of have in mind and that's the vision that I laid out earlier where we make decisions at every point in the continuum to divert people right that's sort of the end goal that's the vision that we're working toward but you don't start with that you can't just build that right so I mentioned the vision diverting people at every point in the continuum you have to have a systemic strategy or a system strategy building the justice systems capacity to respond and building the service delivery community's capacity to respond and that usually starts with a program or two right you don't want to stop at a program a lot of people are very familiar with drug courts we do a lot on recovery communities and case management but you have start somewhere with something that the country and the communities that can tolerate and can handle and can support building to the broad range of systemic responses to people who come in contact with the justice system it's it's my experience of that trying it having some success breeds more success right have some success it breeds motivation to try additional stuff if you start with a specialty court you figure out oh you want to do something you start with reentry you realize you want to do something to stop the flow of people coming into the system but the players and actors in the system kind of have to come to those realizations themselves you help them you build motivation and you build their understanding and the solutions the strategies are all pretty clear and are all pretty well researched and laid out it's just a question of building the systems capacity and by that I mean ability politically as well as programmatically to respond to the opportunities that are there to do something different so you start somewhere start anywhere start where they're willing to start right and then build on that so one of the things not up here but that I did want to that I think is important when you think about substance use and substance use disorders it tends to be a good and easy way to get into systems and talk about alternatives and diversion people are willing to talk about that people with substance use disorders and mental health conditions are usually the primary targets that people are willing to work on I want to confront or clarify a couple of myths or misconceptions one is the myth that you if you have a substance use disorder you need to hit rock bottom before treatment works that is not true that would be like saying we're going to wait until you have stage 4 cancer right or we're going to wait until the bridge falls down before we repair the bridge whatever metaphor matters to you whether you're an infrastructure guy or a treatment guy or a doc you have to wait until somebody hits that rock bottom to intervene in a substance use disorder the other myth or the other conflict that exists in this field that I think is relevant here is that coercion doesn't work that people have to want to go to treatment they have to want to become drug free they have to want what you're offering them that's not true either there's a lot of research that says using the leverage of the justice system to get people into treatment and keep them there is very effective now the effectiveness part is that the justice system keeps you there long enough for treatment to work treatment still has to do its thing it still has to motivate you it still has to teach you new behaviors and attitudes and help you develop new friends and social supports but coercion works to keep you there long enough for treatment to work most folks without justice supervision walk out the door of treatment within days of starting it and we need them to stay long enough for treatment to work so coercion on the part of keeping people in treatment long enough for treatment to work is very effective and you don't need to hit rock bottom and beg for it and be at the end of your rope for treatment to work so some key principles I already talked about treatment needing to be long enough to produce behavior change the the other thing I would say is that treatment should be individualized now that's a hard thing to do in programs so what we mean when we say that in reality is that an assessment should drive the treatment goals so just because I show up with a needle in my arm does not mean you know enough about me to work with me to figure out what my treatment goals need to be so you start with assessment in order to develop appropriate goals one size does not fit all cookie cutter programs are not the best idea now you have to have programs so I'm not saying they're not structured and organized but Pam something different than David is and then Hamid is we're all going to be working on different issues one of the things specific for justice and these principles come from the national institute on drug abuse and I want to highlight a couple of things, number four treatment should target factors associated with criminal behavior that tends to be peers and antisocial attitudes as well obviously as substance use disorders but that tends, in addition to substance use treatment generally for the health condition for justice involved we really need to deal with peers attitudes criminal lifestyles the other thing that is very important when providing treatment to a justice involved person is that the treatment team, the treatment staff somebody is coordinating that effort with the justice system the justice system has a vested interest in what happens with this person they're under supervision they need to know what's going on that often presents problems for treatment because they don't feel like they want to cooperate with the justice system and so at least in our case we have a solution for that and that is the independent case management that task provides and I'll talk a little bit about that later whether you have that infrastructure or not the treatment system does need to cooperate, collaborate and organize itself with the justice system in order to be effective one of the easiest I guess two easy obvious examples would be when the person leaves treatment against advice the justice system needs to know that if they disappear, if they walk away they're AWOL you need to tell the justice system the other thing that happens is that the justice system often layers tons of obligations and requirements on people and deadlines and those are almost always impossible to meet you've got the conditions of a justice system involvement can be pages pages and pages of requirements that you and I would have an incredibly hard time doing let alone also going to treatment so in that case treatment needs to be an advocate for more realistic timelines expectations and staging of all of those obligations and requirements but again the partnership is really important another thing that's super important three minutes I've got three minutes okay here's a picture of what recovery over time needs to look like or looks like in reality not needs to look like so having realistic expectations regarding what recovery looks like and what can happen when is really important people are not magically changed overnight and oftentimes our frustration and disappointment is related to that expectation the other thing that's really important in if you remember who I said gets incarcerated here and abroad it is the poor it is people with chronic health conditions so it's really important if we're going to be effective in dealing with the population and helping them stay out of prisons and jails and out of the justice system is that we deal with other social determinants of health it's really hard to maintain a crime free lifestyle if you're homeless period it just is so we have to deal with all of those other challenges that the population presents this is not just a medical model that enables us to see the person four times a week and we're done with it so if we have all of these obligations and all of these responsibilities and expectations how do we help this all stay together and make sense and flow what ties the justice system, the treatment system, the housing system, the education system, the employment system the family and the community together what we advocate for is case management is the function for that and more and more people are understanding the real value of case management and care coordination for complex populations and problems so if you look at this picture is designed to just sort of convey all of the pressures, all of the obligations all of the responsibilities that people who are touching the justice system need to deal with and it is that chaotic and overwhelming and hard to navigate this still shows all of the complicated and extensive obligations and requirements but then also starts to make it look a little more organized and a little more manageable and a little more doable and so this reflects a case management model and organization to the whole system and the whole process independent of the courts independent of treatment independent of housing aligned with the person involved in the process aligned with the client or the patient or the person in the justice system and there are the challenges and the benefits of that case management are listed here but if you just think about for yourself the challenges in navigating complex systems let's say the healthcare system is a complex health problem you know how complicated it can be to get through that system that system has case managers that help you through it we're advocating for the same kind of strategy to help justice involved folks this model streamlines it a little more makes it look a little clearer about the steps in the process from assessment to service planning to linkage just here's a here are four housing providers go find one here's a list of six docs go find one no case manager helps you get to and through each step in that process it's also really useful in environments that are low resourced because a lot of times a case manager sort of compensates for lack of resources in certain areas and in certain communities and it almost doubles the retention in treatment and time in treatment is what's necessary for people to succeed and while I do believe that some of that is related to the relationship that is built between the case manager and the participant I really think it's because of the case manager also holds a system accountable for delivering what it has promised to deliver and helps the person navigate those very complex systems I'm wrapping up okay to I guess in a pre-conversation this morning one of the things that one of your future speakers and I agreed on was the fact that we know what to do these are not mysteries that need to be solved we have evidence about what works in treatment evidence about works in the justice system even more importantly we know what doesn't work and yet we continue to do it and what you're going to hear about today is examples of and people who have stopped doing what doesn't work and have started doing what does work and that's what we're here to advocate for did I make it we'll go ahead and ask the members of our first panel to come up and begin the remarks and then we'll have a brief coffee break at 11 o'clock so we'll try to stay on schedule good morning well thank you so much Hamid thank you for the organizers for this wonderful event I'm very pleased to have this wonderful and knowledge people in the panel this morning and I'm very pleased Pam that you were the one introducing the topic very pleased about that and there are many many things that you mentioned that I'm sure we'll be covering and we I work at the OAS the Organization of American States and we are particularly interested in hearing the whole range of alternatives to incarceration that we're going to be hearing to and experiences but this particular panel that is about obstacles is something that we are confronting every day and I'm sure you are in your daily work as well right now in this hemisphere in the Americas there are 15 member states 15 countries that are either exploring or implementing monitoring different alternatives to incarceration most of them are on the pre-trial stage most of them they will love to do some more diversion programs etc but most of them they're focused on the models that we know however from restorative justice approaches to therapeutic justice in general terms or drug courts reentry models community courts etc etc so I know you have a lot of experience on these topics and some of the so what I would like just to keep this a little bit more active and dynamic we all agree that we will have kind of an interaction let's see how it goes so we will do some kind of internal questions it's not that we are not seeing you all but we're going to be asking each other things and then we will let the floor follow the questions from you but if you I mean you have the bios of everyone I'm not going to introduce them but if we're going to do a short presentation about what we do in our everyday life in relation to this panel and then we'll go into those questions so George, Jeremy if you want to start from that end please how many of you started work in criminal justice before May of 1966 can I see your hands how many of you weren't born in May of 1966 alright in 1966 I'm a student at Iowa State University and we were the big 12 champions not NCAA champions I had a psych professor who said I understand you're interested in corrections would you like to go for an interview I'm taking my son down we're going to interview with men's reformatory in the men's prison for people to be counselor trainees during the summer I had such an admiration for this guy if he had said do you want to go clean hog houses on Saturday I'd have shown up and so I started work in corrections in 1966 I arrived at the penitentiary short of money everything in my car said I am here to be a counselor trainee and the women in the personal office smiled just as you are right now and said we don't pay counselor trainees but because you're 21 years of age you can become a correctional officer you can work the 2 to 10 shift and in the mornings you can come in and volunteer to work with the counselors where do I get a uniform I share this with you in that community corrections having worked in five correctional institutions starting as a correctional officer in a maximum security prison working a cell house I've worked from minimum security to maximum security I've worked in men's institutions women's institutions I worked in a mental health JCAH accredited at hospital run by I have seen corrections I have seen corrections from the institutional side before helping to design a community side as was suggested by Pam institutions are artificial communities the warden is the mayor they operate the best institutions in the country will still be artificial communities they are not the real community and so as you look at can we manage populations within the community and how do we do that toward deliberate ends that's the key issue from my point of view we are where we are today not by accident not by deliberate design but we're not here by accident if you look at institution populations from World War II to the early 1960s the population grew gradually from the 60s until the mid 70s institution populations actually went down when I went to work at the men's reformatory in 1971 after I came back out of the service we had a cell block that was shut down there was discussion of a decade later they were putting another floor in across the middle of that institution and double decking because the population was growing if you look at the climb of the institution population and if you look at some of the policy initiatives that we've taken you will find that it's not an accident that the growth curve from the mid 1970s to the end of the decade is a rapid climb and that we couldn't build institutions fast enough to satisfy the population that people in Texas who were sentenced to prison never got to prison because they fulfilled their sentence in the county jail before they could get transferred to a state prison that the federal government in the 1990s subsidized the building of prisons not the operating which is the true cost but subsidized the building of prison so that there would be more physical space and that people could serve longer sentences not because it produced a particular outcome that you wanted but because it satisfied a sense of these people have done a crime they ought to do a time so my argument would be look at this need to be very clear about what the outcomes are that we want for people who come through the criminal justice system and whether that's the system that makes the most sense whether those outcomes are achievable or not see we have accidentally as Pam suggests we have backed into the idea that if you're indigent, homeless and mentally ill the service delivery system for you will be county jail or state prison that's not a deliberate decision but it is a real decision it is a real de facto policy so I would conclude Antonio by saying I am opposed to using the term alternatives to incarceration is it working? thank you and I forgot that we are recording so this is the whole thing being recorded so just for the record and this isn't the paper but it's live? well hello to all even better for those who don't have the papers with them in front of them George Casey is the chief executive officer Casey and associates and the former chief of community corrections National Institute of Corrections thank you so much for that introduction we will go into that later on about the term of alternative incarceration and it is a discussion as well next it will be Fred Patrick director of the Center for Sentencing and Corrections the Vera Institute of Justice thank you so good morning all, it's a pleasure to be here honored to be here so I'm Fred Patrick I work at the Vera Institute of Justice which is a national non-profit and research and technical assistance and policy organization and our three core priorities include for purposes of today importantly one closing the front door to mass incarceration often when people think about mass incarceration we sort of immediately shift to prisons and don't think about the overuse and misuse of jails in the first instance and I'll talk a little bit more about why that matters later a second core priority for us is the notion of ensuring that we have sort of safe and fair and inclusive justice system in this diverse America and that's dealing with everything from how we police diverse communities and how we the role of prosecutors in the justice system and then our third key priority which also very much connects to our discussion here today is transforming conditions of confinement and that is for those who are in the system for those who are in jails and prisons how do we treat them what do we expect to accomplish when we lock someone up and that's very important because as as others noted today 95% of all folks are coming home and so if you think of jail and prison operations and programs as also part and parcel to alternatives and incarceration because if you provide the right opportunities and do the right thing there those folks maybe come home and never reoffend so they don't come back through the system so our overall mission at Vera is to drive change and to urgently build and improve our systems of justice that are based on fairness and primal safety and that also strengthen communities and again I think as we think about alternatives to incarceration or whatever you may want to call them it's important that you think about things such as human dignity and how do we situate safety and strengthening of communities and we think about individuals as our fellow members of the society as loved ones as neighbors as fellow members of that community and if you sort of think about it that way instead of otherizing people and seeing them as something different or someone different I think we could get to a much more humanistic approach to how we see justice across the nation at Vera we work in partnership with government we believe that if you work closely with like-minded government officials at the state, local and national levels you can drive change from within and you can sort of use your presence as a national organization the way Vera is in partnership with communities and diverse perspectives to really drive change and importantly make that change sustainable. So our work I should add began in 1961 Vera's very first project was called the Manhattan Bail project again very important for us here today and that is the two founders of the Vera Institute of Justice realized that they realized the injustice of the New York City cash bail system in which people were being detained in jail simply because they were poor and the injustice of that and so they actually piloted a program which proved that if you allowed individuals who did not have the monetary resources but had strong community ties if you release those individuals they were going to show up at future court appearances and so it's interesting because as a certainly here in America as we deal with the whole notion of cash bail which is now this sort of new reform movement think about it in 1961 my organization the founders had identified that then as an injustice and proved through empirical evidence that again people with strong community ties who could not afford bail could be released and they would return so it's interesting because that story kind of suggests that a lot of the sort of movement towards justice reform and alternatives it's not a new thing it goes to show how much you got to really sort of lean in and stick with it because that was 1961 and here we are in 2019 and that's there's a whole new wave of reform around the overuse of cash bail and rather not it has a place in a society that believes in justice thank you so much it's funny that we are thinking that we are reinventing the wheel again in many ways the next person in the panel is a person that I've been very pleased to work with lately a lot in some countries is Michel and I never pronounce your last name very well even though we know each other is a chief council of three minutes for safe communities task in Chicago please the floor thanks Antonio I have the fortunate opportunity to follow Pam who described quite a bit about what task does so what I will say is task is a social justice organization and as chief council I have an opportunity to work within our operations and case management delivery also with the policy and legislative work we do statewide and also nationally and then our consulting which is now or has been a global effort a little bit about my path to task I see George and I have something in common which is psychology my bachelor's degree is in psychology and learned a lot about behavior modification and actually one of the jobs I applied for after I had my bachelor's degree and I was deciding what I wanted to do when I grew up was to work in a half way house and I did not get that job they said I was too nice so I figured out my path in life and much to the chagrin of my psychology professors I went to law school I wanted to know the roles of society and how we can work within these systems I went to law school practice law I was on the bench for seven years and I think I started to regain faith of my psychology professors because I worked in a municipal court which is high volume so a lot of the nonviolent offenders and just a lot of people that are struggling and now they're in the court system we started a poverty initiative I've heard a lot of talk about poverty we're not directly talking about that today but we felt that if we address some of the poverty issues in the community that that would alleviate some of the people coming into a legal system and that's where they belonged in the first place we formed a drug court we formed a mental health court and also a veterans court and it's amazing to see the transformation of lives within those models so being the person that I was I realized when you were forming these programs at the ground level there's a lot of work that needs to be done upstream at the policy level to support them realizing that there was way too much lifting for one small community to make things happen that needed to have some statewide effort so I moved on to the supreme court I was policy council there and it gave me a chance to really look at departments and the coordination that needed to happen to have a multi-system approach it was at that point that I meant task because one of the things that we pondered was opioid use disorder and the drug crisis does not respect boundaries or jurisdictions it does not limit itself neatly to your city or your county or your state and quite frankly or our country and that's one of the things that is I've been able to do some traveling with Antonio and some of my colleagues in the audience we're seeing how we are all tied together in this issue and so I'm really thrilled to be a part of today's discussion because I think we're taking some of what we're learning here at home and we don't have it all figured out either and we're sharing it abroad and we're seeing some of the unique adaptations that we need to do out of curiosity how many of you are lawyers? oh my goodness well then most of you will know this and I may see some head nods for those of you that aren't lawyers I want to give you a little insight as to maybe why our system ended up where it is I told you when I went to last school I promptly unlearned everything I knew about behavior modification and that's true I hear tuckles from my panelists really when you look at our criminal code and the court system it's pretty simple when you do something wrong the idea is if you're punished enough you will get the idea that you weren't supposed to have that behavior and you will be deterred from any future conduct like that because you don't want the punishment again and we see how well that's not working right you look at our jails you look at our prisons we talk about a lot to courts is that really the purpose of courts is not to incarcerate it's to rehabilitate it's to make communities safe it's to reduce recidivism and crime and my colleagues and my staff at task will also point out when I have the 10 purposes of the courts one is to avoid the arbitrary use of government power and so I don't tell that to the courts so I will deny it don't tweet that comment but it's something really important to think about and it has relevance here and relevance abroad and I'm really looking forward to the conversation well that was a great intro thank you the three of you let's go back in terms of implementing these alternatives and go back to the name the issue of the name I'm sure those that have kids know that whenever you name the kid there's one of the big problems I don't know if you experienced that but I did with one name or the other in the international arena this is something that we've seen is amazing but we didn't expect that to happen but every single time we go to a country we dedicate a huge amount of time in how the kid is going to be named and it's just and sometimes that name really blocks the whole project which is something that we didn't expect and I'm glad that Jamie Lee from UNODC is here because in Europe at least on that side they're talking about alternatives to punishment and not to incarceration which is something that we at the OAS would like to take but it's kind of difficult to change the wording now once you already accepted it so changing the name is difficult anyway why George did you emphasize on the name thing and it's a great place well again I had the good fortune of the state wanted to pay some of us to go to graduate school obviously times have changed that would not happen today and so as I went to graduate school I was introduced to some really great mentors who were involved in a movement in the early 1970s to mid 1970s called the development of community corrections and so one of the guys a guy by the name of Bernie Vogelgesang started the first LEA recognized criminal justice community corrections program in the United States and again the focus was very much keep in mind the time we were post Richard Nixon we were post Vietnam there was a great deal of mistrust of the federal government was mistrust of state government the closer you could get the decision making to the local area the better there were riots in the cities and so during this turbulent time there was a movement that started to shift and to say we can manage this population in the community but quite frankly we did not have the bodies of knowledge we didn't have the research we really operated very much by faith and so I spent a lot of time marketing community corrections as an alternative to prisons and jails particularly alternatives to prison and I would try it out the fact that I worked in five or four by then four institutions and so I knew what the prison side was like and was offering what the community side could be like by the time I got to the National Institute of Corrections and spent 28 years promoting community corrections there a couple of things had become a reality to me and that was what Michelle has just shared with you it's not about just improving a particular agency or developing a particular program but it's really when you can get the system the actors who make decisions that impact each other the prosecutors as Fred said the law enforcement people as Pam said the judges the other system actors to come together and to agree on what the outcome is supposed to be policy, public policy not agency policy, public policy ought to tell you what and why what do you want as an outcome why do you want it if you do that and now based on the strategies and the tools that we have available to us we can disaggregate this big large population that we say goes through criminal justice and we can begin to ask the questions do we want law enforcement when they pick somebody up who's obviously demonstrating behavior through delusional behavior that is not a criminal justice issue but a mental health issue do we want them to be able to deliver that individual to an agency that can meet that need as opposed to booking them in the county jail that's a public policy issue that's a systems decision it impacts the economy it means that county commissioners who are making decisions about how to spend tax dollars ought to be looking at that and deciding which option makes the most business sense and so I would argue that instead of alternatives to incarceration we're really talking about dispositional decisions whether it's sentencing decisions release decisions we're talking about decisions and decision makers needing to be looking for what's the outcome and what's the body of bodies of knowledge that best informs getting that outcome whether it's at pre-arrest pre-conviction or post-conviction the last thing I would say to you about using the word alternatives as you're driving down the highway and you see this road sign that says alternative to route 462 have you ever taken that alternative route 462 it's full of trucks and buses the road needs repair it typically is not the primary highway I would say to you for some individuals going through the criminal justice system prison should be the primary highway we do not know how to manage their behavior in a way that keeps them safe and keeps the community safe that is a very small portion of the population the vast majority of people we can manage in the community but the outcome in that same line of thought taking the alternative route would you Fred think that alternative incarceration is disrupt the status quo in that sense or is it something that helps the result well it depends I think too often what we call alternatives I believe are simply repackaging of the carceral state still heavily focus on surveillance and control still bedded in the belief that people of color and low income people and people with disabilities are incapable of living free lives and are incapable of thriving and so often what we do is we fool ourselves into thinking that we are doing other dispositional options when in reality we are taking the thrust of the carceral state against surveillance control and simply moving it to other places sometimes that's the home with electronic monitoring unfortunately sometimes that's drug treatment facilities how we are very quick for instance to default to inpatient treatment as opposed to outpatient treatment which can be effective for the right individuals with the right level of care so I think we have to as you think about expanding or developing alternatives it's important that you take a step back and say are we really doing something that's different or are we sort of repackaging the same harm and the same dysfunction and I would argue that more often than not we are repackaging a lot of the carceral state from location as opposed to radically transforming how we approach justice we talk a lot about outcomes and I would argue that a part of what we don't do enough of is think about who and what are the right inputs to what degree do we involve the community in thinking about what true justice looks like it was mentioned earlier that when you actually look at data the polling of crime victims and crime survivors many disagree with the system that we have they think it's too harmful it's too retributed and not focused enough on rehabilitation and by the way the victim's voice is often missing from it I mean think about it we have a system in this country at least where the state the prosecutor takes over and so it's the state versus Fred Patrick you the victim don't really get a voice by the prosecutor's office and so I think what we need to think about is as we think about alternatives and other things of that nature trying to find a better way to frame it what are we doing that's radically different how are we being transformative or are we simply moving it to a prettier box if you will thanks so much it's interesting the end of Montenegro is here from Chile and knows that some countries are taking restorative justice as the way to go forward and Costa Rica for example in Chile they do take the victim into account in the whole conversation on offensive incarceration interesting you mentioned that you've been talking about that end the prison and the post-education in a way there is a however and you mentioned that in your introductory words the whole thing of a drug court that you had in touch that you supported in the beginning and you being part of a package that you have or a county has in most of the countries in this hemisphere we've seen that the most demanded model that it is is the drug court with any names and there's a lot of discussion about that yesterday we presented a monitoring evaluation manual for impact evaluation the interesting thing is that those models are taken because the legal landscape is there most of the countries have an easy way to go through that all the ways is they need to change a lot of things if they need to go to diversion and if you go into treatment in prison system that's even another story who wants to deal with treatment in prison whenever you see how prisons are in some places your experience on that particular model and I know you work in many others but what are the main challenges that you see that that you see in the United States or even abroad in your experience sure for those of you that I'm assuming a lot of you are familiar with the drug court model a couple things I want to point out about it and we've heard from Pam one size does not fit all and so I think that's a really good phrase when you're talking about drug courts when you need a drug court when you're at high risk for recidivism when you have a high need for treatment this is kind of your last chance and it's all hands on deck it's a wonderful model and it's transformative there are drug court and problem solving court graduations where you look at the picture at the point where they were arrested and you look at graduation and it's unrecognizable and I will tell you that the judicial decision makers implement that model and do it well it's been transformative for them and a little bit to the does ATI I'm not even going to say the words does ATI disrupt or maintain the status quo I think when done well it does disrupt because it gives a voice to the person associated with the charges we're not marching you through a legal system just based upon charges so when drug courts are needed they're wonderful but it's not the only approach to take the drug court system and PM showed the full range of opportunities all the way from pre-arrest deflection through the prosecutor through post-conviction but even with that court process there are individuals that come into the court that are low risk for recidivism they have low need for treatment but they need something and I've heard people time and time again comment do we need to catch a felony to go into drug court do we have to wait until things are that bad before the court will move us into treatment rather than kind of the traditional disposition of a court case so a low risk, low need case is one commonly seen in prosecutorial diversion where there's a need for education it's more prevention based there are some light touches there and that's all the person needs if you want to help that individual and you make them do drug court for 18 months to 2 years with all the weekly court appearances treatment appearances all the things that are mandated it's really disruptive to the social determinants that are actually helping them to be successful there are also models within the court system where you don't have high risk and high need but you have one or the other so if someone's high need for treatment I think Pam mentioned the role of the court system is to make sure that the person is engaged in treatment long enough to complete successfully if you have someone that's not as high of a need for treatment, maybe a low need it's going to be more of a corrections based where you're going to look at the factors that place someone at risk for recidivism that are dynamic or changeable and that's what you want to address so drug courts are fabulous as well as all of the other problem solving courts when they're needed I would also say that when you look at developing countries it's a heavy lift my goodness even if you look at rural areas in the United States it's a heavy lift and so if you don't have everything that gives you fidelity to the model and if you don't treat person with the intervention that they need you can actually make them worse so what I would advocate for is to understand that and Pam made a great point wherever your entry is into ATI it helps communities and systems a treatment system the judicial system or justice system as well as community systems start working together so you start where you are what you can do and what you can do well you address the target population that can be effectively helped through that system collaboration and then you start building upon that to fill the gaps in that sense that we've seen that which is very interesting what you just mentioned but the thing of the everyone understands the high risk high need is the profile but it took like over 20 years in the United States to realize that so there's a lot of time in between when you go to a country where there is no prior communication between health and justice there's nothing at all this is the first time that you go into these kind of programs it is kind of a challenging to tell a judge to really or even the system itself to take a high risk high need to start with because they are not going to take that risk institutional risk of having that kind of a profile it takes so often we go to countries and say that and they say well we cannot go and implement the best model as you have seen in the U.S. after 20 years or 30 years of research sorry about that we need some time and it's kind of a yeah but that profile we've seen that a lot as well Fred there is why do you think alternative incarceration are important during the pre-trial and pre-adjudication phase so if we walk out here today at the end of the day and we see someone in handcuffs right out front you're not likely to be asking what did the police do why is that person in handcuffs you're more likely to ask what did that person do there's an assumption there that policing or a bad arrest but that that person must have done something wrong think about the notion of individuals adjudicating their case while being detained in jail so they're going to court in handcuffs often in uniforms and so when you see individuals showing up that way to adjudicate their case where presumably they are still innocent until proven guilty you have that that perception that's pretty powerful and by the way the research not only do you have that perceptual issue but the research is very clear that a short stay in pre-trial detention as opposed to being adjudicating your case from the community is more likely to result in a conviction your sentence once convicted will be longer than had you been fighting the case pre-trial from home to serve your time assuming you get an impartial sentence you're more likely to recidivate so in every way being in pre-trial detention is a bad thing and produces bad outcomes and so it's important that as we think about ATIs I didn't say alternatives this time about that I'm learning here from my fellow panelists so it's important as we think about it that we don't just automatically skip the whole jail apparatus and go straight to prisons and think about alternative dispositions for prison sentence but even as relates to jail why disrupt a person's ability to still support his or her family while they adjudicate a case disrupt their supporting the community disrupt their employment again if in most cases we're saying an individual still has a standing of being presumed innocent and so it's very important that as you think about developing and improving and expanding these alternatives that you don't just think about that prison setting so I think they matter a whole lot in the jail setting again the research is clear in terms of all the bad outcomes likely to be found guilty likely to get a longer sentence and more likely to recidivate that alone I think is power for evidence as to why alternatives in the jail place matters just as much as on the post-conviction side in that same line George if we can establish a clear concise public policy targeted at reducing reliance on confinement pre and post adjudication what do you think are some of the most common impediments to accomplishing in terms of that policy I can't believe Antonio I did it that you said a clear and concise policy statement see I think that's one of the starting points is can we articulate a clear and concise policy statement part of what leads me to say that is a British colleague Steven Pitts and I had the good fortune of working in Armenia in the U.S. Wall and unfortunately there wasn't enough money in the budget to go on site and get a feel for the jurisdiction and understand the culture understand strengths weaknesses within the process and instead they said we'll we'll send you everything you need to know well yeah so we received first we received the law and the law clearly was obviously written by committee it was written by advocates for restorative justice it was written by advocates for punishment it was written by advocates for the use of what now has become evidence based practice because they required an assessment tool of the current generation risk and needs so you had a policy statement that was not clear and concise it didn't speak specifically to what was this new state probation department supposed to be producing as an outcome so we could measure whether or not we're just repackaging or whether or not we're actually producing the desired outcome so even if you can get the concise statement there are three things that I would share with you this morning that I think are important to keep in mind for implementation first is the vision of the creator of the public policy statement frequently is not the person or persons that have to implement the policy and the vision of the creator is frequently not the vision of the implementer and so in Armenia there were some very smart people who came together to write this law and so very smart people who frankly came out of the ministry of justice and out of the prison system of Armenia who now had to take a reduced salary lose part of their retirement lose their uniform, use their recognition lose their status in life to implement something that they had no background for and had no vision for and so keep in mind if you are creating a better universe and you know that what you're doing is the right thing to do keep in mind who's going to make it happen the second would be the issue of new staff versus old staff about every decade in the United States from 1970 up to the end of that century about every 10 years we had to shift in public policy or values within the community side of things we went from quote rehabilitation in the 70s to probation departments that wanted to look like law enforcement in the 1980s right down to getting uniforms that look like law enforcement getting cars with bar lights on the top one state even went so far probation system classified as a Class A law enforcement agency you hire people at a point in time if they stay with your agency they were brought in on a set of values now 20 years lady you're saying Fred the values of the organization have changed we have a new mission and you who have been doing something for 20 years you'll have to do it differently and then Fred goes back to his staff and he says you should have heard the goofy stuff I heard this morning so keep in mind even if you write a new policy in a new direction if you bring new tools and tactics new strategies you've got to bring staff along behavior change for the people going through the system comes second behavior change of the people who are working the system and frequently that's easier done with new people than people who you're trying to retrain in that process finally expectations of implementation frequently outsiders who are trying to change the system have expectations that things need to change immediately we ought to see at least within the first year dramatic shifts in the number of people who are going to prison we ought to see dramatic shifts in the number of people re-arrested going back through the courts what have you as Michelle shared with you behavior change is a long process it takes time it is hard work it is a heavy lift it has to be very disciplined if you take the model for which there's a great deal of research and don't implement it correctly there's no reason to expect good results and so there needs to be attention so that we continue to make progress and we get pushed and we're held accountable but by the same token expectations need to have reality built into them so that we can celebrate together those accomplishments last piece I would share with you and it ties to what Fred is saying is and also Pam shared with us before it's not just about keeping people out of prison or out of jail and keeping them in the community we have people who would prefer to avoid some of the alternatives we've created in the past because it takes them longer to satisfy their legal requirements that if I just did time in the 1980s there were a lot of people who said just give me my sentence I'll do my time I don't want probation because I'll have all of the rules that Pam talked about and I'll get trapped in those rules and a year later you'll still make me do all of the sentence that I would have done before so I'll just do it up front those conditions need to be tailored to what puts the person at risk needs to take into consideration what strengths the person brings to the system that takes advantage of the healthy things in the person's life but also honestly recognizes the unhealthy things we used to think we just need to keep everybody close to their family well no we don't there are some families that are pretty darn unhealthy and keeping that person connected to them is probably a risk factor and so we need to be very smart about how we do that case management and how we apply that those kinds of knowledges what we don't want to do as Fred says is just restructure all of that confinement to the community we want to get people to be able to focus on the behavior change that allows them to live their life in the community independent of the system and not coming back to the system last anecdote I got to share with you because we do things with the best of intentions we work a systems project working on reducing the incarceration of women offenders in Cook County, Illinois with a great systems group prosecutors and judges and probation and all kinds of good folks at the table and I was going in for a visit and I had been told that one of the judges had created a parenting class and was requiring women who had children to go to this parenting class as a condition of probation and and the probation department was having real problems with this so as I'm visiting with a judge and I said I understand you have a new parenting class and she said yes we do do you have time to go take a look at it and I said well I don't this trip but maybe in the future and I said by the way do you make that a condition of probation and she says yes I do and I said so if a woman doesn't show up for parenting classes is that a violation of her probation agreement well yes it is would you expect the probation department to file a revocation report yes would you consider returning her to jail well yes I would now there's child abuse in the original charge there's no indication that this is a bad parent and like me we could all use improved parenting skills but so I said just a hypothetical so what if she had a codependent and the codependent happened to be a man okay and the man happened to be the father of those children she said okay I said do you she said stop I see where you're going with this or you go any further I'll hold you in contempt of court and she said so creating these conditions could mean that we would be incarcerating more women rather than seeing fewer women that ceased to be a probation requirement that day so we need to be even when we think we're doing what are those unintended consequences well that was even the anecdote itself was very clear and concise thank you not concise well the last thing you mentioned with the anecdote it has to do with with training as well and resources and how you train those resources and I'm very glad that you highlighted those two elements in the beginning about rotation or people changing and that is I mean any of you and you mentioned case management I want to ask you a question about case management now Michelle but there is one of the things that we've been seeing country after country is and even ourselves I mean our own institutions is the rotation of people people you train people they really know what they're doing and then three months later one year later then these people move to another place and you have new people you didn't train these people and they do the best they could at one point one time I talked to a gypsy justice and said well why don't you keep the same person for three years in this particular pilot and he said well if I do that you know I will be punishing this judge because then that judge will not be able to go up in the so it's kind of any any comments on that that you've had and on that kind of institutional the capacity obstacle in terms of rotation or the turnover so I worked for many years in city government in New York City Deputy Commissioner of Department of Correction Director of the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice and other things and one of the things I think you have to think about is you build structures and how do you incentivize what you want and so how do you avoid the notion of someone being punished for doing a good job by moving them on to something else or keeping them there because they're doing a good job you have to think it through as an example when I worked in NYPD New York City Police Department the police commissioner there was very focused on building community affairs and building police community relations and I sort of said have you ever given someone a gold shield a detective shield for doing great work around community relations because I know that everyone who gets a detective shield a gold shield which is every cop's desire you know if you had a lot of arrest particularly felony arrest in New York City there was a clear route to that gold shield again the thing that suggested you are doing a great job but if you want to go into community affairs and you want to build it there was no route to a gold shield so think about what you've incentivized you've incentivized the notion of go out and make felony arrest all the time but if you want to spend your time as a youth officer working on community affairs in terms of working with the community to build that relationship and that trust there was no route to a gold shield so there unintentionally maybe but look at the incentive structure you've built and so I would urge you all to think about how do you in every aspect of your system how do you reward promotions how do you reward merit and pay increases how do you incentivize good training all throughout those things you know we kind of take them as secondary we're so focused on you know these other outcomes we don't think about the basic implementation things which is the training the incentives around promotions what do you get rewarded for what do you get demerit for those are the kind of things that you have to really spend a lot of intentional effort focused on it doesn't come easily and naturally and then you're trying to retrofit it after the fact but that's a good example by the way I was able to convince that commissioner police commissioner to begin rewarding gold detective shields to police officers who were focused on community affairs and youth services but it was very important that he had this wonderful institution NYPD with lots of smart people just hadn't thought it through so that's an example I think how you have to push institutions and constantly ask yourselves and your systems and your institutions are we incentivizing and prioritizing all the things we really want do we take our mission and ensure that it's infiltrated through all aspects of operations thanks so much I'm going to ask the last question and then we go to any questions that are on the floor these you mentioned yours about the case management and Pam dedicated some time in her presentation about case management we've done in CECARO we've just did seven six country evaluations on process evaluation how they're implementing some of these alternatives with the cooperation of IC Arnold from Center for Co-innovation in New York one of the things that you can highlight across countries when they implement a model is the lack or weak link of how do you follow the whole process as a case when you talk to a judge case management is one thing then that name again back to the names case management means many other things from the other end of social integration etc Michelle what do you think the role of case management is in the whole concept of ATI and the next panel gets to decide what ATI now stands for we are not using alternatives to incarceration well when we consider dispositions of legal cases you need a lot of information so we keep talking about you need to know who's in front of you right to Arraignment Day I can tell you there were lots and lots of complaints and you call it the name and you advise or charges against you and maximum fines and penalties and review rights but at that point in time when I made my first judicial decision I didn't really know what I needed to know about that individual does this individual do justice as usual or does this individual need something different so case management plays a lot of roles Pam did a great job of talking about it there are materials in your folders so I'm just going to pull out some examples of case management without trying to answer everything but if you have case management in your court it allows you to get some clinical information some screening do we need to spend time with this individual and learn more about them what do we need to know a full blown assessment what is there a substance use disorder what are the primary substances what are the implications of that how severe is a substance use disorder what is the ASAM level of care that is huge and I think we heard a conversation about are we putting people in residential treatment and that's kind of another form of keeping them away from society I'll tell you as a mom a substance use disorder I would want to gently hand my child over to a treatment provider have them encircled in bubble wrap I would want them to promise that nothing bad will happen until they're all better and I can go ahead and parent them at home when you're on the bench the community is asking you please keep this person safe and keep us safe from any of the activity that we don't want to have happen so we can't use that as our default reaction there's not enough treatment we don't pay for it very well if you're uninsured or have medicaid there's no financial way of sustaining that and for many of the individuals coming into the justice system it's just not the right level of care so the case management can help share that information with the justice system make sure the person has proper treatment monitor their progress but it's not all about treatment it's about the social determinants that promote and sustain recovery we talked about maybe initially being with your family is not such a good idea and it's challenging to find good housing we have lack of treatment we have lack of housing we have transportation challenges a number of individuals don't have full education they may have limited employment opportunities and if we have a post-conviction model now they are settled with all the collateral consequences that go along with that so case managers understand how to navigate the legal system they understand the information the legal system needs sometimes we have a little bit of treatment that we provide and the treatment providers love to give a really long narrative of what you would expect to hand off to another treatment provider so they fully understand the case you give all of those details to a judge as smart as judges are as well meaning as judges are they don't know what to do with that information but the judge does know that the law requires me to make these five findings of fact and depending on which way those facts go I have perhaps some expansive but perhaps some really limited options of what I'm even allowed to do even if I feel that I want to do the right thing so case management helps translate information between treatment into the justice system between the community and the justice system and not only do they translate the information but they can serve as a resource to make sure that information is used appropriately in a way that advocates for the client so if there is a relatively minor program violation the knee jerk reaction should not be jail and so they are the ones that are equipped with the information and the resources to have a clinically and therapeutically appropriate response to whatever the deviation is there are all kinds of theories about that but I wanted to just give you some examples that are touching upon the themes that were developed case management is much more than that and when you hear the term case management in a court it's probably what probation is doing are the fines and costs and fees all paid are you showing up for your probation appointments are you doing clean drops okay that's what probation departments initially look at some of them are getting more into this other model but not always and we can't make that assumption if you look at case management from a treatment perspective many of them will say we do case management they're primarily looking at within their organization what is the appropriate level of care how is my client progressing through this treatment level of care and do we need to adjust it upward downward or do we need to have other services on board if the patient, if the client does not show up for treatment today they're probably not going to find a ride next Tuesday right and so this is where case management makes sure that none of this falls to the cracks they keep the systems engaged with one another and sometimes if you have a problem solving court the court can help do that it's a pretty robust model for these other models you may not have the point in person that's making sure that everyone is on tap and I think PMU is a word accountable and that's exactly what happens you have someone tying all this together but also note that research has shown it makes a difference PM gave some data from TASC it is a best practice standard the TASC model specifically is cited for adult drug courts and SAMHSA has shown that this kind of specialized case management that we're describing here is a promising practice for both mental health and substance use disorder thank you so much we will need days and days to talk about all these topics I know we have five more minutes before closing of two minutes I was going to open the floor to either if we can get like one question and then do we have a second just to say one word of closing just one word each of the panels or very one word message a strong message there you go and there's caffeine that we are standing between everyone and their caffeine and we won't even touch that addiction there's a question over there what we've really focused on what we're capable of here but in exploring the approaches to alternatives abroad it seems to me that the wise exercise of discretion police prosecutor judge at an early stage in the proceeding is so critical to at least get more people out of this pre-trial detention let alone going on to serving the sentence that's imposed but in societies where all those actors in the system are suspected of and perhaps even appropriately suspected of being corrupt where even good people are afraid to exercise discretion otherwise discretion will be assumed to be a corrupt release or diversion of a person out of the system what do we do about that most fundamental barrier to being able to move in this direction at all take that Frank so I mean I think a part of it is how do you sort of get beyond the punishment lens of justice systems in most places I was overseeing a project at Vera called reimagining prison and we realized it was very difficult for a bunch of adults to get around we had all these round table discussions and we wanted to kind of do blue sky thinking around how you reimagine it was interesting but most of us were so baked into this system as we know it we really weren't reimagining we were sort of tinkering at the edge and it took some doing and someone I'll never forget from one of the focus groups said you know we should probably just get a bunch of 8 to 10 year olds in a room and have them think about what you should do for individuals who you feel sort of broke with the norms of community and they without all of the trappings of this punitive system would probably do a better job of building from scratch what a radically different approach would be and so I say that not in just in reality I think one way you kind of get beyond all of the troubles and impediments of the current system including corruption is to go outside that as you think about what an alternative approach might look like and it may be that it's the youth that can kind of do a better job of building from scratch this different approach any comment on closing as well yeah um brief brief brief I want to shift that comment a little bit and give an observation I will use law enforcement as a way to show just the lack of system capacity in country so you can imagine treatment and levels of treatment lack of capacity but I want to use a law enforcement example because I think there are some good takeaways in terms of just starting where systems and countries and people are right so we're traveling and we're talking about alternative incarceration the opportunity for pre-arrest and certainly corruption was one of the challenges but then we looked at even why is use of resources we've talked a lot about how individuals benefit from alternatives to incarceration the systems benefit too so we were in a country and we were divided invited to a meeting and there were a lot of cases that were filed in the courts and being dismissed and that was a challenge for public safety and justice and law enforcement and so they were having a meeting to kind of walk through this we learned that the law enforcement officers are not paid there's high turnover by the time you have a case involving law enforcement they're not working there anymore they don't have a way to be paid and they're expected to put on their uniform and carry a gun and get on the bus with the people that they are in the community with to get to court and so it's not surprising that they don't often show up there were also cases being dismissed because the evidence wasn't fully developed by law and they decided that you would no longer need a warrant to gather evidence and now that the crisis has subsided the warrants are now required but for the past 14 years and we talked about high turnover for the past 14 years you didn't have to go get a warrant and dot the i's and cross the t's for evidence and so the burden for law enforcement to prepare the court files in a way that would be appropriate for the justice system was huge when you look at alternatives to incarceration especially as early in the system as possible if you have someone with a nonviolent crime they're not a danger to the community and they need treatment we can have a better use of resources by letting law enforcement and courts focus on beheadings and some of the really violent crimes that they have again meeting the country where they are and realizing that we alternatives to incarceration can actually promote better and more effective use of the limited resources again meeting the countries right where they are briefly briefly content without context equals chaos content plus context can equal creativity because no one size fits all what you've got to look at in each of those individual countries is is there any credibility any place within society and how do you then reinvent or restructure or invite people to the process that by their presence they give some hope of credibility to what you then begin to build just that question is the question in many ways and we are sick when we go to countries and deal with you know, attention to incarceration that is a big issue and I don't want to be simplistic but in the opening remarks of Joel Samuels he said we are about public transformation and I think this is a cultural transformation and the very simple start point that we have is just half you know, cultures and sectors that do not normally talk together, talked for the first time and just talk the same language and have justice talking health and health talking justice that is something that we started it takes a long time, it takes forever as you all know but that is even simplistically but that is the answer that I would give to that and I think we have no more time I just wanted to ask for a big round of applause for these wonderful three panelists thank you so much thanks for the opportunity we will have a brief coffee break and reassemble here in about 15 minutes so please be mindful of time thank you very much you want to check the seat? sure hi everybody okay now the mic is on I am the government affairs director at the Vera Institute of Justice and welcome back and we are ready to go with our second panel we are going to be talking about looking at alternatives to incarceration at each stage of the criminal justice process I know the last panel talked about a different word we are going to stick with that word for purposes of this panel so I am going to turn it over to our panelists to start their presentations and we are going to start first with Janine Buck-Willison who is a senior research fellow at the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute great thank you so much and I am going to kick off the panel by providing a high level overview of the array of alternatives to incarceration that are used across the US and across key criminal justice programs so taking a very broad approach to this, looking at decision point spanning arrests through to post disposition and I will do that by briefly highlighting the various decision points and opportunities at which to appropriately use an alternative to incarceration highlighting some examples of common ATIs as well as sharing some examples of innovative alternatives to investigations implemented by selected communities in the United States under the auspices of the MacArthur Foundation's Innovation Fund which is an initiative that seeds criminal justice innovation and reform specifically measures designed to reduce the over reliance on jail through small implementation grants and Urban is actually administering the Innovation Fund which is part of the reason that I am highlighting some of the work in these and make sure we define what we mean by alternatives to incarceration. I'm defining this very broadly today. I think that's consistent with the panel in the symposium to really mean or discuss any option or alternative to custodial time so the use of jail, prison and again taking this very broad approach looking at where there are options to avoid the use of incarceration at arrest all the way through to post disposition and I think we'll be considering for whom we're using appropriately alternatives to incarceration so I'll highlight a few different mechanisms I think it's also here just important to highlight a couple things in terms of understanding what alternatives to incarceration are designed to advance they're designed to advance a number of different objectives from increasing system efficiency to reducing system costs as well as I think promoting equity in the system we know that in this country we tend to hold people pre-trial based on their economic status or ability to pay alternatives to incarceration can be one way to try and reduce the reliance on fees and fines as well as enhance outcomes for individuals by providing greater flexibility for some criminal justice actors in terms of being able to respond accordingly to the particulars of the incident and the individual that's involved in it here is just meant to really convey in a very simple way reflect the complexity the many stages and many variations of alternatives to incarceration across the justice system and so thinking about the first point of decision making we have arrest and pre-booking and really this is thinking about highlighting alternatives to incarceration really alternatives to custodial arrest so the opportunity to divert somebody at arrest the criminal justice system entirely or from pre-trial confinement we have common mechanisms you may be aware of these that range from police being able to issue a warning so they may have contact with somebody and it doesn't go any farther than a warning to issuing a citation or a summons in which they're actually issuing a written citation with a court date for someone to appear and really here the key actor in the justice system authority is really often law enforcement here and depending on the nature of what's going on with the individual there's also the opportunity for police to for example if a person is in crisis for police to divert from jail or an emergency room to a crisis stabilization unit where an individual could be assessed and receive medical assistance as well as behavioral assistance and assistance you may be familiar there are a number of other mechanisms and approaches at this particular stage one that's received a lot of attention is the Seattle's law enforcement assisted diversion program which I believe Angela is going to be talking a little bit about a little bit later and that really was the first pre-booking intervention in the United States it targeted individuals with low level drug abuse and also prostitution charges and so there instead of being booked and a custodial arrest time in jail an officer could actually see if they qualified for diversion if they did divert that individual to a case manager who would do an assessment and link that individual to services and depending on the position of the prosecutor they could also could truly be a diversion from further entrance into the justice system diversion from further entrance into the justice system diversion. I also wanted to draw attention to Summit County, Ohio as a situation or a site with some innovation so lead targets of individuals that have particular needs including drug offenders. Summit County actually was used or developed its felony summons program to reduce the jail population and the jail was increasingly overcrowded one strategy that they had already taken prior to becoming an innovation fund site was to not presume that misdemeanor offenses would be taken into custody that left them with a jail population that was 70% of their pre-trial jail population were facing felony charges so with an overcrowding situation in hand and budget cuts they could have a felony summons program in which low level individuals facing low level felony charges could be diverted not taken into custody and into jail and remain in the community. They had participation from 43% of the arresting agencies in the county there during it's actually was a 16 month period of time that we were looking at not for. They issued 749 felony summons that was upwards of 70% of those individuals stayed in the community without an incident came back to court for the processing of their case which means that about 509 individuals who would have spent a considerable amount of time in the local jail actually were able to remain in the community, maintain jobs, maintain housing and other critical structures that we know are important to their success in the community. In terms of pre-trial post-charging decision making here we have the opportunity to avoid jail during the adjudication process and possibly defer prosecution as well through common mechanisms like electronic monitoring which provides an element of accountability for someone who's facing a charge as well as pre-trial supervision which is an even provides a little bit more accountability in terms of linking people to some supervision and possibly notification, holistic defense models and then specialty courts which have been studied quite a bit, things like drug courts, mental health courts, veterans courts. Here I just wanted to highlight two innovative approaches in terms of Tulsa County and Deschutes County, Oregon and what they're doing around this. Tulsa County is interesting and relatively somewhat unique in terms of using a two-way text message system up trust in order to reduce the rates there. They knew that again they had a number of people who were being held pre-trial as a result of a failure to appear using resources, these people could probably be productively in the community so they implemented through the leadership of the public defender there a two-way text messaging app as well as part of their holistic defense model which features a social worker. What it does is it sends out notifications to people who have upcoming court dates but it also allows for individuals to interact with the public defender's office and the social worker there to indicate if they have their need of assistance so it's really designed to remove barriers to somebody interacting with the system in a productive way. So far launched in late February there were reaching about 3700 senior clients on their caseload. The initial appearance rate is quite high which suggests that when people are provided with the additional assistance that they need in order to get to court that they will get to court and be there and so again there individuals who may have spent a fair amount of time pre-trial in their jail are actually able to stay in the community and some of the common requests so far including for assistance include rides, child care and just clarification when they have multiple court dates because they have multiple cases and just making sure they understand which one they're showing up for so that they don't miss one. And another innovative approach is a program that Deschutes County, Oregon collaboratively designed it's the clean slate program for again individuals who are facing low level drug charges, possession of a control and they found there that looking at data, it was a data driven process but there they found that the target packetation was defined after analysis indicated that approximately 400 people a year were being arrested annually on possession of controlled substance charges and nearly 50% were recidivating or coming back into the system so they felt like they needed to do something a little different. And this particular program was designed from jail time as well as a true diversion from processing in the system as a three tiered strategy that was led by the prosecutor again the prosecutor brought together county law enforcement as well as the county behavioral health and primary care providers to design this program. It provides again people who are whose primary issue is really drug use opportunities to link with drug use. And this is the first level allows people who are facing low level possession charges to avoid formal charges by attending an orientation, admitting to their law breaking behavior and then they can be diverted from any formal processing going forward. Level two is for people who have a really significant drug use issue and treatment need and they can have their charges compliant with treatment over a year. And then level three is for folks who may have been at level one or level two had a little bit of an issue there provides yet another opportunity for them to divert considerable time in jail by interacting with or engaging with the family drug court and successful participation there can avoid jail time altogether. And so it's hard to see but at the very bottom of this discussion, we're looking at it was only active for about five months prior to our work ending there, but they served 121 people. And for those who were diverted on level one and level two, they had upwards of 80% who were reporting. So it was actually quite suggest it was quite successful. And again, people who otherwise may be spending time in a custodial setting that don't need to be. So there's a number of opportunities here and probably those that you may be much more familiar with to employ dispositional alternatives and sentencing options to confinement things like using. So there's the opportunity to be engaged in services through something like specialty courts as well as intensive treatment programs. Another program I would highlight that is a true alternative to incarceration is the Tulsa's women in recovery program who are convicted of low level felony charges and would be facing significant time in state prison. But that is diverted for a period of time, depending on their successful interaction with and completion of services through an intensive community based case management program. And then you have other options like reentry programs and aftercare as well as graduate sanctions that you may be able to apply to prison. And then there's the electronic monitoring and again those can be used toward the back end for people who may have served a period of time in confinement or out in the community but may have misbehaved and it's a way to give them a continuum of options before sending them perhaps back to prison. So a way to avoid incarceration there. And then there's the process of incarceration across key decision making points. I would say though that, you know, the discussion around alternatives to incarceration are also part of a larger conversation that we're having these days really regarding the negative consequences of any justice involvement but also thinking about what it means for people who are justice involved to make sure we have I think very specific mechanisms for alternatives to incarceration that there is a movement in many communities to think about changes to penalties that require significant or any kind of incarceration time and also thinking about who to charge or rather to charge somebody so we know that the many communities are rethinking that and while I haven't touched on that I want to make sure that I acknowledge that as well. And research that we're having. So I would say that what I would say and what that importantly suggests that alternatives to incarceration like LEED and specialty courts and drug courts have extensive research that they are more effective than incarceration. But yet we must be mindful that there are also potentially unintended consequences in terms of net widening sometimes when we develop a new ushering people unintentionally deeper into the system. And again, I thank you for the opportunity to highlight a couple innovative and promising strategies that communities are testing, the ones that I mentioned. I think that part of what those underscore very quickly is just the need for collaboration across and a multidisciplinary approach. Each of the innovations that I highlighted were really the result of a multi-agency approach in people coming together to troubleshoot in their community to think about alternatives to incarceration. Great. Thanks so much, Janine. And that was an information-packed presentation. We're going to get more into some of the substance during the Q&A portion. So also, to the audience, get your questions ready. Next up is Angela Hawken. She's the director of the Litmus program and a professor of public policy at the Morone Institute of Urban Management at New York University. Angela? Thank you. And thank you for the opportunity to be here today. So at New York University, I also direct Beta Hub, which is an action research center. And I'll be talking about some of the work that we're doing here today. As part of that, I also direct New York University's opioid collaborative, which is really focused on working with primarily police and prosecutors on diversion strategies for people who are opioid-involved. Just a plug for federal funding on that line. It's amazing when federal funding is available, how creative people are willing to be. This is funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and we have sites across the country who are clamoring to test alternatives to incarceration through that solicitation. So that's a plug for more resources, inspire more action. The work I want to do is primarily under our Beta Gov initiative, which is really kind of rapidly learning what's working and what isn't working with jurisdictions across the country. And I want to just acknowledge the practitioners who have been amazing to let us into their jurisdictions and learn with them and also fail with them. We just finished a beautiful fail-forward study with Seattle Police Department. And for those of you who don't follow us, our newsletter pushes out these studies very quickly to share both what's working and, most importantly, also what is not working. I'll briefly mention some of the work in our domestic portfolio, but then pivot to some of the work we're doing in international settings. Our team is really interested in those points within the criminal justice system that provide opportunities for doing something differently. We're very interested in the heavy utilizers, the people who are cycling in and out of prisons and jails and our emergency departments, looking for opportunities for what we call in-reach, often the people who are most vulnerable never see a service provider. They just don't make it to that door. So bringing the service providers into the correction settings, into the community supervision settings to reach out to them and help to drag them to feel more comfortable about entering their institutions to begin with. Often there's a fear of the unknown, and we can take that fear away. One of our more intense programs we're running right now is in Illinois called Graduated Reintegration Illinois. And I'm a recovering economist. What I noticed is that the resource allocation system is really messed up when it comes to corrections.  And then expect you to succeed. And when you don't, just get really mad at you rather than mad at our system. So prison release for a lot of people and most people in the United States is $20 in a bus ticket. And for people who have been locked down for a really long time, $20 in a bus ticket just doesn't cut it. So what we managed to get the state of Illinois to do, which is quite remarkable, was to allow us to try something radically different in terms of resource allocation. So rather than release somebody with $20 in a bus ticket on release day, they allowed us to start off with a men's facility, receive these incarcerated individuals six months prior to their release date. So they were still in status of prisoner. But we got to receive them in the community, but the money followed them. So what can you do when you actually have resources to help people reacclimate into the community? Powerful things can happen. So stay tuned on that project. We've been really interested in the role of new technology and we do lots of rapid cycle testing around the role of new technology. This is often focused on staff, so we do this with law enforcement or corrections officers. How do you interact when you're encountering somebody who's in substance use crisis or mental health crisis? What are the appropriate interactions to have? And then also for our participants, how do you ready people, for example, transitioning to a treatment provider in the community? If they've been down for a long time, they can experience that virtually. They can go visit their treatment provider and that really lays the concerns of the unknown and helps get people into the front door. This is our juvenile life of population. Can you imagine someone who went into corrections as a juvenile, right? These are 16, 17-year-olds coming out as 50-year-olds while being able to experience the world virtually prior to actually doing it, made for a lot of reassurance along the way. You can do job training programs. People can learn how to go to the bank or shop at a supermarket. Buying cereal is really complicated if you've been down for a long time. You just aren't used to exercising your choice muscle. Rapid cycle testing, we heard before this idea of sending messages, getting people to show up, not just for court appearances or probation appearances, but also for service situations. And we've been doing a lot of this with people who are unhoused, as well as encouraging people to take their medication. You can really ratchet up medication adherence with antipsychotics even, with those small nudges. We have a body of work in Ohio on looking at alternatives to incarceration. And I wanna give a shout out to Fred's comment earlier on, are these meaningful alternatives, or are these just a different way of getting people trapped up in the system? What's been interesting about this work, not only are we keeping data on outcomes, we're keeping data on the perspectives of the participants. And it's fascinating under the umbrella of fairness to really hear from them about how they feel about these alternatives to incarceration. And I don't wanna blow our research study, but you'd be surprised to find out which one of these lists was considered the most awful. It's not what you think it is. I wanna pivot to our international portfolio. This used to be one of my favorite projects until we had a murder on our team. We were doing crime prevention through environmental design in Mexico. And the issue with the community we were working with, I love this project, because of how collaborative it was. It involves the federal government, the mayor of the city in Iroboata, Mexico, as well as the private sector that was helping with data analytics. And they really approached us in a very problem-driven way. The best way to avoid incarceration is for there not to be a criminal offense in the beginning. So they noticed that the challenge in that community was an increase in business robberies. These were, think, 7-Eleven. It's 7-Eleven, right? I'm so foreign right now. And a lot of these crimes were involving weapons. So these were quite serious. And it was a big issue for economic development for the town. It was a priority for the mayor. And we stepped in and started just understanding the nature of these criminal offenses in a more detailed way. And started to notice the stores that were victimized often had many characteristics in common. They were kind of visual obstruction. So all the beer commercials and the cigarette commercials were really obscuring visibility. There was lots of litter, lots of graffiti, and alleyways were a huge predictor. So the crime prevention through environmental design was really just engaging with the business owners, getting police to think of their roles differently, engaging with the community, being in and out of those stores, helping those stores understand how they themselves could avoid victimization. So look at this tiny intervention. It's called line of sight. Around all they had to do was take away those cigarette ads that were in the way of the cashier, direct line of sight. We stole this from what we were learning in another site of ours in Canada. And if you can just create more visibility, you create fewer victims. Well, fewer victims, fewer crimes happening, and less incarceration. That project, unfortunately, has had a bit of a substantial setback. The person who was running our data intelligence was murdered. And our primary person had to be reallocated for safety reasons for a temporary. We're about to restart and reengage with that project. So we are not going to be kept down for long. In Lagos, Nigeria, we were working in maximum security prison in Lagos. And if you've been to maximum security prison in the United States, you can know how horrible they can be. It's really, even in the US, it's often like walking into a Dickens novel. No human, they talk about themes of humanity. You cannot believe what goes on behind bars. It's much worse in some very resource-strained countries. And in Lagos, what we were really interested in was just this idea of, can we get programming in custody settings to help prevent recidivism on the return? Also to really reinforce the nature of themes of humanity in custody settings. But also in Lagos, and this is true in the United States too, people go missing. People go into custody and get lost. And I was actually in a big well-functioning state in the US recently where someone had just gotten lost in a jail for a very long time. Well, this happens more so in international settings. So the goal was, in some developing countries, the goal was, could we just start to breed an appreciation for data? A very great pushback to corruption is the transparency that comes with data being collected around a situation. So if anybody's on an anti-corruption campaign, cannot impress upon you more. It's not fun-sounding. It's not sexy. But data can be your best friend. So we worked with a nonprofit called the Joy Bringers Program. And we just really started programming in custody and really learned very quickly how difficult it was to do more traditional research in that sort of setting. And we'd worked in international settings, so it wasn't surprising to us. But there was really no data infrastructure. We had to put data infrastructure into place. And there was constant churn, which made it really difficult to keep participation going in the programming that we were offering. We really had to get staff to rethink what they were doing. But it also really gave us a strong sense of the opportunities here. The staff were really willing to let us come in. They were actually really enthusiastic for it. There was like the thirst to do the right thing and to demonstrate that they were doing the right thing. And that enthusiasm, I think, has become quite infectious. We did, in the meantime, find nice improvements and at least self-reported outcomes from our program participants. But of course, we'd love to get that into harder data on the reentry experiences. Another program I'd like to plug very quickly, and I'm going to be mindful of time, so I only have a few more minutes, is, and this is something I'm really desperately trying to bring into the United States. But it's a little complicated in some of the settings we work. Some of you might be familiar with this. They're called Situation Tables in Canada. And we're about to launch. We're working with several Situation Tables in Canada. But we're about to launch the first randomized control trial test of Situation Tables in Barry, Canada. And really what a Situation Table is, it's a strategic alliance of all of the kinds of organizations you'd think they would have to work together to really improve the outcomes of someone who is in crisis. So these are really short-term but immediate responses for people who are at acute critical need right now. So the target population for a Situation Table is these kind of frequent users of the system. They're in and out of multiple government systems all the time. They meet the definition of an acutely elevated risk, imminent harm to self or others. And the level of need is so high that the people at the Situation Table deem it appropriate to share information on that individual. And that's the key that makes this complicated, is the sharing of this person's personal information. So how it works really is they have weekly meetings and up to 32 agencies can come together without identifying the person just as a case. No one even knows if it's a male or a female necessarily. They discuss the specific need of this individual. And together as a team they decide whether this elevates to dire need that justifies the sharing of that information. If that determination is made only the need to know agency personnel are involved in that case, they open the veil and know who it is. And within 24 hours they're swooping in with really an emergency response that's collaborative. In our sites where we're working 95% of the cases coming to the Situation Table are referred by police. And 90% of the cases are responded to by public health. So this really is a way for them to redirect traffic in terms of individuals experiencing crisis in the community. We really have seen a taste for trying to rethink how we do both corrections and community supervision. This is a group of what we call them, Precademics. We have 400 people across the US right now working with us to try something differently. And we're learning so much along the way and we'll push out that information to all of you that are interested. And very importantly, we've been learning again how to fail forward because so much of what we're doing just isn't working. Whether it's a big idea or a small idea, we're taking it on and trying to move the dial. Thank you. Thanks so much, Angela. And a little bit later during our discussion, I want to talk more with both you and the other panelists about you mentioned what your center does is look at what works and what doesn't. So I want to talk more about both best practices and also evidence about what is working most effectively and perhaps decision points that are least effective. But we're going to turn now to our third panelist, Jamie Jia Li. She is the Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Officer in the Justice Section Division for Operations at the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Thanks, Hain. As she mentioned, my name is Jamie Li. I work at the UN of DC in Vienna, Austria, where we focus on criminal justice reform. And we help member states of the United Nations with a focus on developing countries and post-conflict countries on achieving criminal justice reform. And today, I want to share with you some of the good practices and also some promising practices that can have a good impact on these countries, if done right, with appropriate safeguards. So my office, Justice Section, we work on three distinct levels. One is normative development, where we develop standards, the standard minimum rules that should be followed when a country is undergoing criminal justice reform. And in the area of alternative still imprisonment, that applicable rule is the Tokyo rules, the United Nations standard minimum rules and non-custodial measures. And this is the international community's agreement on what should be the bare minimum when you're trying to do alternative still imprisonment. This was adopted unanimously in 1990. And our office has been widely implementing and all around the world. And that rule had been supplemented in 2006 through the Bangkok rules, which is the standard minimum rules for non-custodial measures for women offenders and suspects.  That's the normative level. And this is supplemented by our section's development of technical guidance materials, where we develop publications and training curriculums that helps criminal justice professionals around the world in implementing those rules, because where we unpack the minimum rules that are contained in the normative development and try to make it more understandable and accessible by countries. And the third level is technical assistance, where we use both normative guidance materials and technical assistance materials to actually provide concrete and tangible help to the countries by conducting legislative review or capacity building exercises, training workshops, et cetera. That's our office. And today I would like to share with me first go through the different stages of the criminal justice process to share the different good practices. First in the pretrial stage, so in England and Wales, at the pretrial stage, it's really important that the imprisonment is used as a last resort, because suspects should be presumed innocent under international law. And pretrial, any precondition measure that imposes an obligation on the offense or the accused, the consent is required. So that's the most important thing to remember when you're using non-custodial measures at the pretrial stage. And one good practice that I would like to mention is the practice of the police bail or pre-charge bail that's used extensively in England and Wales. In England and Wales, at the time of arrest, the law enforcement officers have the power to release them without being charged or with detaining them and also impose a certain condition, such as remating at a certain address or not contacting certain people, forfeiting their passports or other identity documents and reporting regularly to the police station. And if these conditions are not met, they can, of course, be arrested again. But practice shows that it is a good practice because it reduces unnecessary pretrial detention by a lot. In one year, the available statistics show that in one year, there was a reduction of 86% in RSDs being held in pretrial detention through this measure of police bail. But it's very important that police bail not be used in an indefinite period of time because there is the risk of the accused being held in legal limbo for months or even years. And to combat this unintended consequence, two years ago in April 2017, England and Wales, they imposed a 28-day limit on the pre-charge bail so that they're not just waiting forever and not really moving on with their lives. So this really goes to show that any alternative to imprisonment, it's really not a one-size-fits-all. It must be applied taking care, taking the nature and gravity of the offense in question. And it also can't be used for every offense, every accused. For instance, if the offender of the accused is accused of a severe domestic violence, obviously returning them to their domestic home is not a good idea. Second good practice is the use of non-monetary bail, also called personal cognizance in many countries. In many countries and through numerous studies, it's been shown just as effective as monetary bail. For example, in Costa Rica, legislation had always included the possibility of being released on personal c