US Codex
Bill
Notes

Title II — Creating a Performance-Incentive Funding Program

H.R. 4261 · 115th Congress · Nov 6, 2017 · Lineage

II Creating a Performance-Incentive Funding Program

Sec. 201 Calculation of savings

(a)
Calculation of revocation baseline—
(1)
General rule— The Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, in consultation with the Director of the Bureau of Prisons and the United States Sentencing Commission, shall calculate for each Federal judicial district a baseline revocation rate.
(2)
Method of calculation— The baseline revocation rate for a judicial district is the percentage equivalent of the ratio of the total number of adult supervisees sent to prison from that district during the baseline period to the total number of adult supervisees sent to prison nationally during the same period.
(3)
Definitions— In this subsection—
(A)
the term “sent to prison” means sent to Federal or State prison—
(i)
for a revocation of probation or supervised release; or
(ii)
for a conviction of a new felony offense.
(B)
The term “baseline period” means the period beginning January 1, 2012, and ending December 31, 2014.
(b)
Annual revocation calculations— At the conclusion of the calendar year following the implementation of subsection (a), and every calendar year thereafter, the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, in consultation with the Director of the Bureau of Prisons and the United States Sentencing Commission shall calculate the following measures:
(1)
Average revocation cost— The average revocation cost, which is the average cost to incarcerate a supervisee revoked to prison in the previous year, including average length of stay times average marginal cost per day.
(2)
Nationwide revocation rate— The nationwide revocation rate, which is calculated as the number of supervisees nationwide sent to prison in the previous year as a percentage of the nationwide supervision population as of June 30th of that year.
(3)
District revocation rates— For each judicial district, the district’s revocation rate, which is calculated as the number of supervisees from that district sent to prison in the previous year as a percentage of the district’s supervision population as of June 30th of that year.
(4)
Reduction in revocation rate— For each judicial district, the reduction in revocation rate is the number of adult supervisees from each district not revoked to prison, which is calculated based on the reduction in the district’s revocation rate as calculated under paragraph (3) from the district’s baseline revocation rate as calculated under subsection (a). In making this estimate, the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, in consultation with the Director of the Bureau of Prisons and the Judicial Conference of the United States, may adjust the calculation to account for changes in each district’s caseload in the most recent completed year as compared to the district’s adult supervision population during the years 2012 through 2014.
(c)
Categorization of judicial districts— Annually, at the conclusion of each calendar year, the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, in consultation with the Director of the Bureau of Prisons and the United States Sentencing Commission, shall assign the appropriate supervision revocation tier to each judicial district for which it was estimated that the judicial district successfully reduced its revocation rate, as provided by subsection (b)(4). The tiers are defined for the purposes of this subtitle as follows:
(1)
Tier 1— A tier 1 district is one which has a district revocation rate, as defined in subsection (b)(3), that is no more than 25 percent higher than the nationwide revocation rate, as defined in subsection (b)(2).
(2)
Tier 2— A tier 2 district is one which has a district revocation rate, as defined in subsection (b)(3), that is more than 25 percent above the nationwide revocation rate, as defined in subsection (b)(2).

Sec. 202 Distribution of performance incentive funding

(a)
Distribution of revocation reduction incentive payments— Annually, the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, in consultation with the Director of the Bureau of Prisons and the United States Sentencing Commission, shall calculate a revocation reduction incentive payment for each eligible judicial district, pursuant to section 201, for the most recently completed calendar year, as follows:
(1)
Revocation reduction incentive payments for tier 1 districts— For a tier 1 district, the district’s revocation reduction incentive payment is equal to the estimated number of supervisees successfully prevented from being sent to prison, as defined by section 201(b)(4) multiplied by 45 percent of the costs to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to incarcerate a supervisee who is revoked to prison, as defined in section 201(b)(1).
(2)
Revocation reduction incentive payments for tier 2 districts— For a tier 2 judicial district, its revocation rate shall equal the estimated number of supervisees successfully prevented from being sent to prison, as defined by section 201(b)(4) multiplied by 40 percent of the costs to the Bureau of Prisons to incarcerate in prison a supervisee whose supervision is revoked.
(b)
Distribution of grants for high-Performing districts—
(1)
Funding reserved for high-performing districts— Annually, the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, in consultation with the Director of the Bureau of Prisons and the United States Sentencing Commission, shall calculate 5 percent of the total savings attributed to those districts that successfully reduce the number of supervisees revoked to prison for the purposes of providing high-performance grants.
(2)
Eligibility— A judicial district is eligible for a high-performance grant if it is a district—
(A)
with supervisee revocation rates more than 50 percent below the nationwide average in the most recently completed calendar year; and
(B)
that has not exceeded the national revocation rate for the past three calendar years.
(3)
Administration of grants for high-performing districts—
(A)
The Administrative Office of the United States Courts may make a high performance grant to a district in a year in which that district does not also receive a supervision revocation reduction payment under subsection (a).
(B)
The chief probation officer, in consultation with the chief judge, in a judicial district that qualifies for both a high performance grant and a supervision revocation reduction payment shall inform the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, by a date designated by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, whether the judicial district should receive the high performance grant or the supervision failure reduction incentive payment.
(C)
The Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall seek to ensure that each qualifying judicial district that submits a qualifying application for a high performance grant receives a proportionate share of the grant funding available, based on the population of adults age 18 to 25, inclusive, in that judicial district.
(c)
Payments— The Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall disburse the revocation reduction incentive payments and high performance grants calculated for any calendar year to judicial districts in the following fiscal year.

Sec. 203 Use of performance incentive funding

(a)
Establishment of a supervision performance incentive fund— Each district probation office is hereby authorized to establish a Supervision Performance Incentive Fund (hereinafter in this section referred to as the “Fund”), to receive all amounts allocated to the judicial district for the purposes of implementing this section. In any fiscal year for which a district probation office receives sums to be expended for the implementation of this section, those sums, including any interest, shall be made available to the chief probation officer of that district probation office, not later than 30 days after the deposit of those moneys into the fund.
(b)
Authorized use of funds— Funds received through appropriations for the purposes of this subtitle shall be used by the chief probation officer or his designee to provide supervision and rehabilitative services for Federal supervisees, and shall be spent on implementing or enhancing evidence-based community corrections practices and programs, which may include the following:
(1)
Implementing and expanding evidence-based risk and needs assessments.
(2)
Implementing and expanding the use of graduated sanctions pursuant to section 3609.
(3)
Implementing and expanding treatment and services associated with problem-solving courts that are proven to reduce recidivism among the targeted population.
(4)
Expanding the availability of evidence-based rehabilitation programs, including drug and alcohol treatment, mental health treatment, employment programs, services for victims of domestic violence, services for veterans, and cognitive behavioral therapy.
(5)
Expanding the availability, in terms of hours and geographic locations, of day reporting centers and the reporting hours of existing probation offices to accommodate supervisees’ work, education, and/or child care schedules.
(6)
Hiring social workers to assist supervisees in applications for social services and programs on the local, State, and Federal level.
(7)
Evaluating the effectiveness of rehabilitation and supervision programs and ensuring program fidelity.
(c)
Mandatory evaluation—
(1)
In general— Except as provided in paragraph (2), the chief probation officer, in consultation with the chief judge of the judicial district, shall devote at least 5 percent of all funding received through the Fund to evaluate the effectiveness of those programs and practices implemented or expanded with the funds provided pursuant to this section.
(2)
Waiver of requirement— A chief probation officer may petition the Administrative Office of the United States Courts for waiver of this restriction, and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall have the authority to grant such a petition, if the Chief Probation Officer can demonstrate that the department is already devoting sufficient funds to the evaluation of these programs and practices.
(d)
Accounting— The head of each district probation office receiving amounts from the Fund shall provide for a separate accounting of those amounts sufficient to evaluate the effectiveness of each program.

Sec. 204 Definitions

In this subtitle:
(1)
Chief judge— The term “chief judge” with respect to a district court means the chief judge of that court, or the judge of that court if there is only one judge.
(2)
Chief probation officer— The term “chief probation officer” means the probation officer designated by the court to direct the work of all probation officers serving in the judicial district.
(3)
Community corrections program— The term “community corrections program” means an evidence-based recidivism reduction program established pursuant to this subtitle, consisting of a system of services dedicated to all of the following goals:
(A)
Enhancing public safety through the management and reduction of a supervisee’s risk of recidivism while under supervision.
(B)
Supporting supervisees’ achievement of stability of employment and housing by using a range of supervision tools, sanctions, and services applied to supervisees for the purpose of reducing criminal conduct and promoting behavioral change that reduces recidivism and promotes the successful reintegration of offenders into the community.
(C)
Holding offenders accountable for their criminal behaviors and for successful compliance with applicable court orders and conditions of supervision.
(D)
Improving public safety outcomes for persons placed on supervision, as measured by their successful completion of supervision and commensurate reduction in the rate of supervisees sent to prison as a result of a revocation or conviction for a new crime.
(4)
Evidence-based practices— The term “evidence-based practices” means supervision policies, procedures, programs, and practices that scientific research demonstrates reduce recidivism among people on probation or supervised release.
(5)
Supervisee— The term “supervisee” has the meaning given that term in section 3609 of title 18, United States Code.
(6)
Supervision— The term “supervision” has the meaning given that term in section 3609 of title 18, United States Code.
(7)
Revocation— The term “revocation” means a judicial process to revoke supervision that imposes confinement.