< Previous31 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION JUSTICE COUNTS: CLOSING THE DATA GAP by Gwyn Kaitis C riminal justice data is sparse, with only small amounts of timely and useful criminal justice statistics available publicly. Moreover, even when such information is available it tends to be scattered across multiple systems, with information released by numerous disparate offices and departments. It is rarely consolidated in a way that is useful for the public or for people working to improve how the system functions. Additionally, published information is often out of date by the time it reaches decision-makers, and this is particularly true in regard to community supervision. As a result, decision-makers are too often put in the unacceptable position of working in the dark, lacking the information necessary to make effective decisions regarding policies that will impact public safety and the people who are on community supervision in the long term. Law enforcement, prosecution, defense, courts and pretrial operations, jails, prisons, and community supervision agencies all enter information into databases that serve as federal, state, and local repositories for information. However, no system has been put in place to reconcile all of this information in a way that makes sense and is easy to extract to ensure data-informed decisions and development of effective policies. An analysis of FBI crime figures shows dramatic declines in U.S. violent and property crime rates since the early 1990s, when crime spiked across much of the nation. However, recent statistics tell a grim story. Despite violent crime rates falling 49% between 1993 and 2022 (Gramlich, 2024), the number of people in prison or jail has risen by 700% since 1972 (Carson, 2012, 2022). According to the World Prison Brief, in 2023 the U.S. had the sixth highest incarceration rate in the world at 531 prisoners per 100,000 people, down from the first highest rate in 2021 (Fair & Walmsley, 2021, 2023). That is obviously some progress, but more is needed. In response to these concerning statistics about incarceration rates, many communities and organizations are working on criminal justice reform to create a more fair and equitable system. The information gaps described above enter the picture here, as decision-makers, communities, and organizations require good quality data, including local data, to responsibly address these issues, to assess and allocate budgets, and—importantly—to determine whether criminal justice reform efforts are working. As long as this badly needed information continues to be spread across 50 states, 3,000 counties, and tens of thousands of local agencies, it will continue to be difficult or impossible to gain the meaningful knowledge that is needed to make informed decisions. Local and state community supervision data is particularly difficult to acquire. Little is available beyond federal data included in the Probation and Parole Annual Surveys that are published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), and that information may not even be accurate. The Michigan Justice Advocacy set out to determine parole/probation population sizes, state budget expenditures on these programs, and the relationship between them for each state, but datapoints on the probation and parole population were “elusive” and definitely inadequate for their purposes. Even when numbers were available, they differed greatly from the federal count of the same population (Fulmer et al., 2021). The BJS Annual Survey provides a picture of key demographics and numbers of people entering and exiting the system each year. However, the BJS depends on the voluntary participation of separate state, county, and court agencies for these data. Of the 501 probation agencies asked to participate in the most recent survey in 2022, 132 agencies either did not respond or provided incomplete data (Kaeble, 2023). Additional datapoints to those provided by the Annual Survey are clearly needed for determining when reforms are working (or not). Clearly, greater efforts must be made to obtain and disseminate data that advances knowledge of the field— and that means information that is current, comprehensive, geographically relevant, and accessible. Researchers need this, staff need this, policy makers need this, and those who are trying to write bills and approve budgets related to the PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 48, NUMBER 4 Professional Development Networkand MakeaDifference Member-Only Discounts www.appa-net.org JOINNOW BUYONEGETONEFREE JOINAPPANOW TheAmericanProbationandParoleAssociation(APPA)isexcitedtoofferprofessionalswhoarenewtotheassociationspecial2 for1Membershippricingduringits50thAnniversaryyear.TwopeoplewhohaveneverpreviouslybeenAPPAmemberscan purchasetwoone-yearmembershipsfor$50total. criminal justice system need this. Indeed, many community supervision administrators are familiar with calls from their local and state legislators requesting information on various aspects of the system. The problem is clear, and the need to take action has come to the forefront. NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR COMMUNITY SUPERVISION The American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) recently published National Standards for Community Supervision. Included within the Standards is guidance to agencies regarding the collecting and reporting of data as well as the importance of offering data for research that can help in identifying more effective supervision policies and practices: Standard 11.6 Agencies should report recidivism data by risk level, offense type, time on community supervision, gender, race/ethnicity, geographic region, and other relevant criteria. Commentary: Agencies should develop quality control procedures to ensure that CSOs (community supervision officers) are correctly entering the aforementioned data points, as well as other data points deemed significant by that jurisdiction. Agencies may choose to record this demographic data upon intake. Agencies should also develop and maintain the ability to conduct data analysis of their supervision population, including but not limited to these descriptive statistics, and create regular reports that are accessible to the public as well as to lawmakers and other local justice system stakeholders. Creating and maintaining this robust data entry and analysis process will supplement the agency’s other efforts to build trust with the public, educate members of the public on supervision processes and practices, and substantiate budget requests. Standard 11.9 Agencies should support and engage in internal research relevant to their programs as well as research conducted by outside professionals. Commentary: The data gathering, analysis, and reporting processes described in this Standard are likely to require the creation of a quality assurance department, either WINTER 2024-2025 within the community supervision agency or elsewhere in the agency’s parent organization. In addition to compiling and reporting accurate statistics, agency leaders should empower staff and fund the quality assurance department to engage in internal research projects. Building up the agency’s ability to research trends within the community supervision population will enable the agency to adjust its policies, practices, and procedures to deliver better and more effective supervision. It will also enable the agency to work with external researchers, such as university partners, which can benefit agencies through the introduction of outside perspectives, resources, and expertise. Agency engagement in this data tracking and research will help fill in research gaps and will provide more diverse data points across differently funded supervision agencies. (APPA, 2024). These two standards are an implicit call for agency engagement in data collection, with a focus on ensuring complete and accurate recidivism data, establishment of quality assurance departments, and facilitation of internal research. The key to all is data collection. JUSTICE COUNTS: A NATIONAL INITIATIVE Justice Counts is a national effort to close the data gap and fill the need for current and geographically relevant information collected from the various components of the criminal justice system, including law enforcement, prosecution, defense, courts and pretrial operations, jails, prisons, and community supervision. It is an initiative of the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), a division within the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs, to collect data from throughout the diverse parts of the criminal justice system into a cohesive whole that can provide a better understanding of what is happening, what is working, and what is not. Led by the BJS and The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center, Justice Counts is founded on the belief that sharing criminal justice data should be easy. Justice Counts is directed by a national steering committee and supported by 21 national partner organizations (including the APPA) and 14 working committees with more than 100 contributing members. Together, these collaborators work to address persistent challenges with criminal justice data.PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 48, NUMBER 4 WINTER 2024-2025 Drawing from the efforts of its committees as well as public comments, Justice Counts has been making progress in the task of identifying and developing a consensus of definitions of key datapoints. These partners helped to design the three core components of Justice Counts: (1) consensus-driven metrics for the entire system that help agencies focus on sharing the most critical data that policymakers need to make effective decisions: (2) a set of tools to empower agencies to easily publish the metrics; and (3) technical assistance to help agencies effectively and efficiently share data that answer decision-makers frequently asked questions. THE DATA DASHBOARD The outcome of this initiative is a data dashboard accessible to the public that will make it easier to access current and geographically relevant data across all sectors of the criminal justice system. A data dashboard is an information management tool that presents real- time data and pulls together key metrics into a visual format. Dashboards connect large amounts of data in the form of tables, charts, and graphs, and they provide a central location for hosting key information about a system. Data visualization simplifies complex datasets to help users better comprehend what the data mean in practice, trends in the data, and outcomes. Snapshots of the data from participating states can be viewed at https:// justicereinvestmentinitiative.org/justice-data-snapshots. HOW CAN COMMUNITY SUPERVISION AGENCIES PARTICIPATE IN JUSTICE COUNTS? Justice Counts is recruiting departments and agencies nationwide to participate in these efforts. Staff are available to assist with implementation in your department. Agencies can customize their involvement in this project through selecting the metrics that they are able and willing to collect and contribute. The Justice Counts team meets agencies where they are. The following table from Justice Counts shows the Tier 1 metrics (Tier 2 metrics are coming soon) that were developed through work with stakeholders and that are currently being collected. Community Supervision metrics are located on the bottom line: Table, Tier 1 Metrics. https://justicecounts.csgjusticecenter.org/ AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION WINTER 2024-2025 Agencies can enter data using these Tier 1 metrics. The data are aggregated, so no data-sharing agreement is required. In addition, most of the data points are already collected by agencies, and agencies can decide for themselves how frequently they share their data. The information can be uploaded manually or through automatic means. To participate in Justice Counts or to learn more about it, go to https://justicecounts.csgjusticecenter.org/participate-in- justice-counts. CONCLUSION The decades-long frustration over the lack of accurate and comprehensive data pertaining to the criminal justice field— and community supervision--does not have to continue, but considerable effort will be needed. Professionals in the field need to continue assessing how data is collected, how it is reported, and—importantly—what barriers stand in the way of building a better system. The work of Justice Counts is a major step forward, and widespread participation is encouraged and appreciated. REFERENCES American Probation and Parole Association, June 2024. National Standards for Community Supervision. https:// www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/APPA/APPAs_National_ Standards_for_Community_Corrections.pdf. Carson, E. A. (2012). Prisoners in 2012, Trends in admissions and releases, 1991–2012, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Carson, E. A. (2022). Prisoners in 2021 – Statistical tables. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Fair, H. & Walmsley, R. (2021). World prison population list, 13th edition. Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research. Fair, H. & Walmsley, R., 2023. World Prison Brief, 2023. World Prison Population List, 14th ed. Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research, Birkbeck University of London. https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/ downloads/world_prison_population_list_14th_edition.pdf Fulmer, C., Yurt, K., Bauer, M., Matlapudi, R., & Haskell, S. (2021). Research brief on parole and probation across the nation. Michigan Justice Advocacy, June 7, 2021. https:// mijustice.org/2021/06/07/research-brief-on-parole-and- probation-across-the-nation Gramlich, J., 2024. What the data says about crime in the U.S. Pew Research Center, April 24, 2024. https://www. pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/24/what-the-data- says-about-crime-in-the-us/ Kaeble, D., 2023. Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp. gov/document/ppus22.pdf. AUTHOR BIO Gwyn Kaitis has been with the American Probation and Parole Association for three years as a Program Analyst, working on a variety of grant funded projects. She has a master’s degree in counseling and has worked extensively with adults and children who have been exposed to violence. She has been a child and adolescent counselor, Executive Director of a domestic violence agency, and Policy Director for the New Mexico Coalition Against Domestic Violence. She has served as Chair of the New Mexico Intimate Partner Violence Death Review Team and served on the Board of Directors for the Mescalero Apache Violence Against Women Office. She also served as Vice President of the National Association of Crisis Center Directors.Next >