Sakhiikan Consortium Overview

Sakhiikan Construction Inc. operates as Sakhiikan Consortium, a partnership comprising local Mistissini entrepreneurs with expertise in construction, electrical works, and project management. The consortium was formed to enhance competitiveness in the construction industry and undertake major projects within and outside the Cree Territory. Learn about the history, partners, and projects undertaken by Sakhiikan Consortium.

• Construction
• Partnership
• Entrepreneurs
• Project Management
• Sakhiikan

ftim Follow

Uploaded on Mar 01, 2025 | 0 Views

Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.

Presentation Transcript

1. ALAMEDA COUNTY AB 109 EVALUATION: CLIENT OVERVIEW AND OUTCOMES REPORT PRELIMINARY FINDINGS May 6, 2020 Ardavan Davaran, Ph.D. Nicole Liner-Jigamian, MPH MSW

2. Agenda 2 Project Overview Methodology Jail and Probation Populations and Service Trends Probation Violations and Recidivism Outcomes

3. 3 Project Overview

4. Key Components of Report 4 Population Overviews Jail Population Probation Population Service Overview Number of Individuals Receiving AB 109-Funded Services, by Service Type Recidivism Outcomes Revocations New Convictions Service Receipt and New Convictions

5. Methodology 5

6. Methodology 6 Data Sources Analysis Descriptive Statistics to measure probation population type (e.g. PRCS, county realigned, felony, and mandatory supervision), demographic and criminal history information, sentencing outcomes, jail populations, service receipt, and recidivism and revocation outcomes. Behavioral Health Department Contracted Service Providers District Attorney s Office Housing and Community Development Information Technology Department Logistics Regression & Predicted Probabilities to compare the probability of recidivism for individuals who did and did not receive services. Probation Department Public Defender s Office Sheriff s Office Survival Analysis to examine the time to recidivism and compare the risk of recidivating for individuals who did and did not receive services.

7. Jail and Probation Populations and Service Trends 7

8. Jail Population 8 Jail Bookings, by Charge Severity Key Findings The average daily jail population has declined since October 2011. 8,963 10,199 5,189 A greater proportion of bookings are for misdemeanor than felony offenses, and the average length of stay has declined over time. 6,399 Misdemeanor Felony Average Daily Jail Population by FQ Average Length of Stay in Days, by Charge Severity 3,317 51 50 45 39 39 36 32 31 11 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 Misdemeanor Felony

9. Pre-Sentencing and In-Custody Services 9 Early Intervention Court Between April 2016 and April 2020: 154 individuals participated in the program 70 successfully graduated and had their cases dropped 18 were removed from the program to face traditional sentencing 66 are currently enrolled Key Findings The County continues to invest in programs and resources to support individuals prior to and at sentencing. *Service data for FY 19/20 is through December 2019. AB 109-Funded Social Workers Between FYs 2015/2016 and 2018/2019: 255 individualized case plans were submitted to the court and 85% were accepted In fiscal year 2018/2019: 41 individualized case plans were submitted and 90% were accepted Number of Individuals Served Annually by OMHT 299 218 182 168 141 132 86 80 58 54 30 29 AC Justice Restoration Project 154 individuals participated in the program (program started September 2017) FY FY FY FY FY FY 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20* PRCS & 1170(h) Sentenced Felony Probation/Other

10. Probation Populations 10 Average Daily Number of Individuals on Probation by FQ Key Findings Since October 2011, the number of individuals under Probation supervision has declined, from almost 10,000 individuals at the end of 2011 to just over 8,000 at the end of 2018. 5,179 4,665 4,552 2,909 631 31 86 2 During that same period, the number of new probation cases declined by almost half, from almost 900 to just over 450. CR Felony PRCS MS Number of New Probation Supervision Case Starts by FQ 349 319 214 234 145 84 1 0 CR Felony MS PRCS

11. AB 109-Funded Services 11 Key Findings Available Services Beginning in 2015, a greater variety of AB 109-funded services were available to individuals under Probation supervision. Housing Realignment Housing Project (RHP) Abode & East Oakland Community Program (EOCP) Bay Area Community Services (BACS) and Building Opportunities for Self- Sufficiency (BOSS) Men of Valor Academy (MOVA) Shelter Employment Transition Day Reporting Center (T/DRC) Mentoring and Reengagement: For Us By Us (FUBU) Education: Five Keys Charter School In Alameda County, AB 109-funded services tend to target higher risk populations, as evidenced by the large proportion of individuals with PRCS cases who receive services. Percentage of Supervised Population Receiving One or More Services Between 2015 and 2019 38% 17% 13% 7% PRCS County Realigned (n = 4,159) Felony (n = 2,876) Mandatory Supervision (n = 30) (n = 1,472)

12. Housing Services 12 Number of RHP Abode and ECOP Clients Served by FY Key Findings 502 Across the study period, RHP Abode and EOCP have served the most individuals because they have been the main AB 109- funded housing service providers. 442 405 342 317 270 122 26 FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY The number of individuals served by MOVA Shelter declined between 2016 and 2019. 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20* *Service data for FY 19/20 is through November/December 2019. Number of MOVA Shelter Clients Served by FY Number of RHP BACS and BOSS Clients Served by FY 109 100 47 71 58 55 22 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20* FY 18/19 FY 19/20*

13. Employment, T/DRC, FUBU, and Education Services 13 Number of FUBU Clients Served by FY Key Findings 138 125 Since coming online, AB 109-funded programs and services have consistently served individuals on probation. 66 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20* Number of T/DRC Clients Served by FY *Service data for FY 19/20 is through November/December 2019. 226 198 195 182 160 52 FY FY FY FY FY FY Number of Employment Clients Enrolled by FY 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20* 479 467 433 Number of Education Clients Served by FY 243 223 103 204 74 59 51 FY FY FY FY FY FY 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20* FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20*

14. Probation Violations and Recidivism Outcomes 14

15. Overview 15 Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Started Probation October 1, 2011 December 31, 2014 Started Probation January 1, 2015 December 31, 2018 Population Size 9,485 Population Size 8,537

16. Demographic Profile 16 Key Findings Across demographic and criminal justice characteristics, the two cohorts are quite similar. 19% of people who started probation between 2015 and 2018 received services,compared to only 4% who started between October 2011 and December 2014. Demographic Characteristics Cohort 1 (N= 9,485) N Cohort 2 (N=8,537) N Service & Criminal Justice Characteristics Cohort 1 (N= 9,485) N Cohort 2 (N=8,537) N % % % % Age Group 18-24 25-44 45-64 65+ Unknown Race/Ethnicity Black Hispanic/Latino White Asian/Pacific Islander Unknown/Other Gender Male Female Services Received Services Did not Received Services Probation Type Felony County Realigned PRCS Mandatory Supervision Criminal History No Priors Misdemeanor Only 1 Felony 2 or More Felonies 2,332 5,197 1,885 71 21 25% 55% 20% 1% <1% 1,900 4,844 1,690 82 21 22% 57% 20% 1% <1% 344 9,141 4% 96% 1,607 6,930 19% 81% 4,267 3,785 1,388 45 45% 40% 15% <1% 2,876 4,159 1,472 30 34% 49% 17% <1% 4,693 2,021 1,902 563 306 50% 21% 20% 6% 3% 4,180 1,967 1,693 579 172 49% 23% 19% 7% 2% 3,071 2,086 1,562 2,766 32% 22% 17% 29% 2,908 1,756 1,313 2,560 34% 21% 15% 30% 8,008 1,477 84% 16% 7,282 1,255 85% 15%

17. Revocation Outcomes 17 Key Findings Jail Bookings by Violation Type 41% of individuals who started probation between 2015 and 2018 were revoked, compared to 28% who started between October 2011 and December 2014. 6,356 5,666 5,650 5,229 4,183 3,792 3,431 2,375 919 816 736 682 246 FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY Jail bookings for probation violations have increased over time, however the average length of stay in jail has decreased. 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 Probation & MS Parole & PRCS Three-Year Revocation Rates, by Population Type Average Days in Jail by Violation Type 56 42% 42% 40% 51 41% 47 38% 37 36 35 28% 27% 31 30 26% 30 29 28 27 24 18% 0% FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY PRCS County Realigned Felony MS Overall 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 Probation & MS Parole & PRCS Cohort 1 (N=8,537) Cohort 2, 3 Year Period (N=4,684)

18. Recidivism Outcomes 18 One, Two, and Three-Year Recidivism Rates Key Findings Cohort 1 (N=9,485) Cohort 2 38% of individuals who started probation between 2015 and 2018 recidivated, compared to 40% who started between October 2011 and December 2014 All Individuals (N=8,537) 3 Year Period (N=4,684) Recidivism Timeline % Recidivated % Recidivated % Recidivated 1 Year 21% 2 Years 33% 3 Years 40% 18% 28% 32% 20% 32% 38% Between 2015 and 2018, one-year recidivism rates dropped from 21% to 14%. One-Year Recidivism Rates Between 2015 and 2018 Probation Start Year Population Size % Recidivated 2015 2,408 2016 2,276 2017 2,099 2018 1,754 21% 19% 18% 14%

19. Recidivism Outcomes Continued 19 Key Findings Individuals with PRCS cases had higher recidivism rates than other probation types, as did individuals with more extensive and serious criminal histories and those who were younger. Men and women had similar recidivism rates. Demographic Characteristics Cohort 1 (N=9,485) Cohort 2 3 Year Period (N=4,684) Criminal Justice Characteristics Cohort 1 (N=9,485) Cohort 2 3 Year Period (N=4,684) % Recidivated % Recidivated % Recidivated % Recidivated Age Group 18-24 25-44 45-64 65+ Race/Ethnicity Black Hispanic/Latino White Asian/Pacific Islander Unknown/Other Gender Male Female Probation Type Felony County Realigned PRCS Mandatory Supervision Criminal History No Priors Misdemeanor Only 1 Felony 2 or More Felonies 44% 42% 34% 24% 42% 39% 35% 11% 41% 33% 58% 62% 36% 34% 52% 88% 42% 38% 41% 36% 35% 40% 35% 37% 43% 40% 29% 38% 45% 53% 27% 36% 44% 49% 41% 36% 39% 34%

20. Service Receipt and Recidivism 20 Recidivism Outcomes for Individuals who Received AB109-Funded Services Descriptive Key Findings Overall, recidivism rates are similar for those who did and did not receive services. Cohort 2 3 Year Period (N=4,684) Pop. Size % Recid. Services Status Received Services Did Not Receive Services Women (n=696) Received Services Did Not Receive Services Men (n=3,988) Received Services Did Not Receive Services 21% of women who received services recidivated compared to 41% of men. 790 3,894 39% 38% 89 607 21% 36% 701 3,287 41% 39%

21. Service Receipt and Recidivism 21 Inferential Analysis Key Findings All else equal, those who received services were 29% less likely to recidivate than those who did not. The predicted probability of recidivism for those receiving services was 32%, compared to 40% for those who did not receive services. All else equal, individuals who received any type of service recidivated at a slower rate than those who did not receive services, and overall had a ~23% lower risk of recidivating than individuals who did not receive services. Predicted Probability of Recidivating 1 40% .9 32% .8 Risk of Recidivating Survival .7 .6 .5 180 365 545 730 910 1095 Received Services Did Not Receive Services Analysis Time in Days Received Services Did Not Received Services

22. Contact Us 22 David Onek, JD Project Director donek@resourcedevelopment.net Ardavan Davaran, PhD Project Manager adavaran@resourcedevelopment.net Nicole Liner-Jigamian, MSW MPH Research Associate nliner@resourcedevelopment.net