Overall IDOC Populations

• From July 2022 - June 2023 there was an overall decrease of 2.7% (1,000) of total offenders in the IDOC population.
• For SFY23, the monthly average for the total offender population decreased by 1.2% from the previous year.
• On average, 92% of offenders are housed in a state facility or with a third-party contractor.

Adult Admissions and Releases

• New commitments to IDOC made up 55% of all admissions for SFY23.
• Technical violations accounted for 34% and violations resulting in new commitments made up 11%.
• The monthly average rate for admissions increased by 14.8% compared to SFY22.
• The monthly average rate for releases increased 12.3% compared to SFY22.

Juvenile Admissions and Releases

• Overall, the monthly average admissions rate for juvenile offenders is 32 and the monthly average release rate is 28. This is a decrease from SFY22, which had an average of 35 juvenile admissions and 32 released.
• On average, 27 male juvenile offenders are admitted to IDOC monthly and 24 male juvenile offenders are released.
• On average, the female monthly admission rate is 4.8 offenders versus the 3.75 offenders release rate.

IDOC Recidivism

• For offenders released in 2019, 29.8% were recommitted to IDOC by 2022.
• Recidivism rates for all offense levels decreased from the previous year. The average recidivism rate decreased by 1.7% from SFY22 to SFY23.

Adult Facility Capacity

Male

• Medium-security facilities operated at an average capacity of 93% from July 2022 to June 2023, a 3% increase from last year.
• The monthly average capacity rate for maximum-security facilities increased from 96% in SFY22 to 97% in SFY23.
• Male minimum-security facilities showed a significant increase in capacity from December 2022 to January 2023. The facility capacity jumped from 63% to 78%.

Female

• The monthly average capacity rate for medium-security facilities is 80%, which is a 15% decrease from the previous year.
• Minimum-security and reentry facilities’ operational capacity averaged 69% capacity per month, a 9% increase from last year.

Juvenile Facility Capacity

• Males are housed at a much higher rate than females. On average, there is 1 female for every 15 males.
• On average, the operational capacity for males is 59%. This is a 13% increase compared to last year.
• For females, the average operational capacity per month is 71%. This is a 10% increase from last year.  Female capacity rates are higher than males because there is only one facility, thus fewer beds, and accommodations for females.

Community Corrections

• The number of felony offenders in Community Corrections averaged 11,461 offenders for SFY23.
• Electronic monitoring is the most common form of supervision (54%). 21% of all participants are involved in community service supervision, 12% are in work release, and 11% are supervised through day reporting.

• In 2022, 42% of county jails were at or exceeded 80% capacity, up from 37% in 2021.  This is based on annual jail inspection reports, representing a snapshot of one day only, when the inspection occurred.
• 14 jails were over 100% capacity.
• The total state jail population for 2022 was 19,173, or a 77% capacity rate. This is roughly an 18% increase over the 2021 state population.
• The F6 offender population made up 11% of the total statewide jail population. This is consistent with previous years, where the F6 population comprised 9% to 12% of the jail population.

• 86 of the 92 (93.5%) county jails in Indiana report having substance use programs in their facility.
• Recovery Works, which provides recovery-related services to individuals currently in the criminal justice system with a current or prior felony conviction, reported serving 4,300 new participants last year and has served 71,139 total participants since the program’s inception.
• The Integrated Reentry and Correctional Support Program (IRACS), which provides resources and support to individuals in jails to navigate the criminal justice system, reported serving 2,004 participants and having a 75% success rate for reentry.¹
• Indiana received nearly 4,000 calls per month to the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, with 90% of calls being answered in-state through five 988 call centers.

• Jails were asked how many pretrial detainees they had at the time of the survey. The average number was 146, which is slightly higher than 2021 in which the average number given was 142. In 2021, 28 jails responded to this question, and 11 responded in 2023.
• Respondents were asked if they saw a change in the amount of F6 offenders they handled since July 1^st, 2022. Jails, judges, and public defenders mostly responded that they saw an increase in F6 offenders handled by their organizations. Probation, community corrections, and prosecution mostly responded they saw no change.
• When asked if respondents have seen a change in the number of defendants or clients in need of mental health/substance use services, all organization types most frequently responded that they saw an increase.
• Organizations were asked what mental health and substance use programs were available to individuals seeking access or treatment. Among mental health programs, the most commonly available were therapy, counseling, and mental health screenings and/or assessments. The most commonly available substance use programs reported were substance use education classes, alcoholics anonymous or narcotics anonymous, and substance use counseling.
• When asked if their county had one or more problem-solving courts, judges overwhelmingly responded (96%) that their county did. The majority of judges, prosecutors, and public defenders responded that their counties had a drug court. Conversely, the majority (except prosecutors) responded that their counties did not have mental health courts.

An abstract of judgment is a living document completed for offenders convicted of a felony that involves a sentence to the IDOC; this also includes F6s sentenced to jail. Figure 2 shows the total number of abstracts monthly in SFY23. Total abstracts fluctuated from month to month, with the lowest number of abstracts in December 2022, and the highest number of abstracts in August 2022 and March 2023, respectively. The largest single-month declines occurred from August to September 2022 and from November to December 2022, each with about an 18% decrease in abstracts from month to month. The largest month-to-month increase occurred from July to August 2022 with an increase of 33%. Original abstracts account for 73.7% of all abstracts, revocations account for 23.6%, sentence modifications account for 2.6%, and appeals account for the remaining 0.03% (16 cases).

Figure 2. Monthly Abstracts of Judgment, SFY23

COVID-19 disrupted and delayed many processes within the criminal justice system for a significant amount of time, including the number of abstracts of judgment completed each month. This is reflected in Figure 3, which shows the number of total abstracts of judgment monthly across five years. The largest impacts of COVID-19 can be seen beginning in March through June of 2020 with the lowest numbers of abstracts; however, for more than a year after the beginning of the pandemic, the number of abstracts remained low. The duration of decreased abstracts of judgment over this time contributes to the lingering cases and backlogs in courts that remain months and years after the pandemic.

Figure 3. Total Abstracts of Judgment SFY19 – SFY 23

Table 5 shows the number and percentage of total abstracts by abstract type. The total number of abstracts across all categories has fluctuated over the years with the lowest number of original abstracts in SFY20 and ’21, which were the years most affected by COVID-19. The numbers across all categories have increased since SFY21, but have not returned to pre-COVID levels. The percentage of total abstracts for sentence modifications, revocations, and appeals have all decreased gradually over time, except for a slight increase in the percentage for sentence modifications and appeals in SFY20.

Table 5. Breakdown by Abstract Type, SFY 2019 – SFY 2023

Table 6 shows the total number of original abstracts for SFY23. F6s constitute over 73% of all abstracts or convictions. F5s are the second most common felony level at 15%.

Table 6. Original Abstracts by Felony-Level, SFY23

A sentence modification motion is a request to the court to suspend or reduce the sentence of a felony conviction, or a request to change the placement or terms imposed by the court during the issuance of the sentence. Offenders may request a sentence modification at any point while serving their sentence. IC § 35-38-1-17 specifies the eligibility and requirements to request a sentence modification. During SFY23, 3,613 sentence modifications were filed. Of those, 26.7% were denied, 25.7% were granted, and the remaining 47.6% are still pending. Requests for sentence modification increased slightly (0.6%) in SFY23 compared to the previous year. The percentage of both requests being denied, and requests being granted decreased from last year by 8.4% and 5.8% respectively, meaning that the percentage of sentence modification requests that are pending has increased by 10.6% compared to SFY22.

Figure 4. Percent of Motions Granted and Denied

Figure 4 shows the percentage of motions denied compared to the percentage of motions granted per SFY for the last five years. After a large increase from SFY19 to SFY20, the percentage granted has been gradually rising each year from 44.2% granted in SFY20 to 49.1% granted in SFY23.

Placement refers to the type of sentence (jail, probation, IDOC, or community corrections) an offender received following conviction. Table 7 shows that a combination of jail and probation is the most frequently ordered sentence at 23.2%, followed by jail only at 20.3%, and probation only at 18%. Overall, 75.4% of the sentences did not include an IDOC placement. This is a decrease from 79.6% in SFY22 and 80.4% in SFY21.

Table 7. Placement Type Monthly, SFY23

Before the enactment of HEA 1006, FDs were commonly sentenced to IDOC. Now, F6s (the equivalent of FD under the new code) are only sentenced to IDOC in limited circumstances. FDs and F6s make up 71.5% of the placements and are most often sentenced to jail, jail, and probation, or just probation. Out of all the placements for SFY23, FDs and F6s constitute 92.7% of the jail-only placements. Table 8 shows where FDs and F6s were placed during SFY23. These data demonstrate that 26.3% of FDs and F6s were placed in jail, 28.1% in jail and probation, 21.0% in probation only, and 7.4% in community corrections. About 10.8% of these offenders received a placement that included an IDOC facility, which is higher than the 7.6% that received a placement that included an IDOC facility in SFY22. The increase in placements in IDOC may be due to HEA 1004, which passed in the 2022 legislative session. HEA 1004 provides that a court may commit a person convicted of a Level 6 felony for an offense committed after June 30, 2022, to the IDOC.⁵

Table 8. Placement Type for F6s and FDs, SFY23

Level 6 felonies are the level with the greatest number of placements each year. Table 10 shows the percent of total placements that were Level 6 felony or a Class D felony, the percent of jail only placements that were F6 or FD, and the percent of placements that included IDOC placements that were F6 or FD⁶. Between 73% and 75.8% of all placements each year are for Level 6 or Class D felonies, most of which are placed in jail, jail and probation, or probation only. Of the jail only placements, between 92.7% and 95% were Level 6 or Class D felonies each year from SFY19 to SFY23.

There has been a slight variation in the percentage of placements that include an IDOC facility for F6/FD over the years, but the range across all years was between 7.3% to 10.8%. The increase in this percentage of placements in IDOC for SFY23 may be due to HEA 1004, which passed last year. This was intended, in part, to both ease the overcrowding in jails and to provide individuals with better access to resources at an IDOC facility rather than a county jail.

Table 10. Placements of Level 6 Felonies from SFY19 to SFY23

Probation is a court-imposed sentence that releases a convicted person into the community, subject to certain conditions. As shown in Table 11, the total number of adult offenders on probation fluctuated over SFY23, with the highest number of offenders on probation in quarter four of 2022 and the lowest number of offenders in quarter two of 2023. The number of new felony supervisions received saw a decrease throughout SFY23 with an overall decrease of 11.9% over the fiscal year, but a slight increase of 6.9% compared to SFY22. For new felony supervisions, substance use offenses made up 45.5% of offenders on probation.

Table 11. Adult Felony Supervisions, Quarterly SFY23

There are different methods of release from probation, including discharged (completed probation), revoked for a new offense, revoked for a technical violation (e.g., repeated failure to report to probation officials), absconded (whereabouts are currently unknown), and other. As shown in Table 12, 47.4% of offenders released from probation during SFY23 completed their probation sentence. Nearly 15% of probationers had their sentence revoked due to committing a new offense prior to completing their probation sentence, and 12.7% had their probation revoked due to a technical violation. Of the remaining probationers, 12% absconded prior to probation completion, and 13.1% of offenders were discharged for other reasons.

Table 12. Adult Felony Offenders Released from Probation by Type, Quarterly SFY23

Over the years, the most common reason by far for release from probation supervision is completion of probation conditions (Figure 5). Revocations for both technical violations and new offenses are close in number, but revocations for new offenses have become more common over the last three state fiscal years. Releases for “Other” reasons were more common in SFY20 through SFY22, which may be due in part to COVID-19. Finally, absconding from probation was typically the least common reason for “release” from probation, except for when it exceeded revocations for technical violations in SFY21 and SFY22.

Many counties implemented problem-solving courts to not only help with increased caseloads and resolution of cases but also to provide alternative sentencing options to offenders. Problem-solving courts address specific offenses or needs and often, upon successful completion, the offender will have the conviction dropped to a misdemeanor or dismissed. Research conducted by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has shown that offenders who complete a problem-solving court program often have a lower rate of recidivism, a reduction in drug relapse, and report less criminal activity. Additionally, NIJ’s research found that drug courts are most effective when serving offenders who are assessed as high risk to re-offend and in high need of services⁷.

Table 13. Total Problem-Solving Courts

In Indiana, 37.8% of all certified problem-solving courts are adult drug courts. However, many problem-solving courts also address substance use concerns because problem-solving courts address the needs of the individual, including needs involving drug abuse and mental illness.⁸ Of the problem-solving courts in the planning stages, 58% are adult or juvenile mental health courts. As of October 2023, there are 132 active problem-solving courts and 19 problem-solving courts in planning stages in 59 counties. The problem-solving courts reported serving 4,339 participants, and 31% of these participants had Level 6 felony cases. Table 13 shows the total number of each type of problem-solving court in the state.

The scope and number of problem-solving courts have increased over the past two decades. Over that time, the most common type of problem-solving court has been and continues to be Adult Drug Courts. Family Recovery Courts have also been one of the most common types of problem-solving courts and have increased in number steadily over the years. Family Recovery Courts are courts that target cases of abuse or neglect in which the parent or caregiver suffers from substance use disorder. Veterans problem-solving courts have increased in prevalence and surpassed Family Recovery Courts in number over the past decade. Mental Health Courts and Reentry Courts have also increased in number across the state over the past 10 years, though not as much as the previous three types of problem-solving courts. Finally, there are a few problem-solving courts throughout the state for Juveniles (Problem-Solving, Drug, and Mental Health), Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated (OVWI), Domestic Violence, and Truancy. To see more about the types of problem-solving courts available in different counties throughout Indiana, see the interactive dashboard on the ICJI website.

Figure 6. Total Problem-Solving Courts per Year

Figure 9 illustrates monthly admission and release rates for adult offenders in prisons and IDOC-contracted facilities. An admission is when an offender enters the custody or jurisdiction of the IDOC. A release is when an offender leaves the custody or jurisdiction of the IDOC. The average monthly rate for admissions is 735 offenders, an increase of 14.8% in monthly admissions relative to last year’s rates. The average monthly rate for releases is 845 offenders, an increase of 12.3% in monthly releases compared to last year’s rates.

Figure 9. Average, Monthly Admissions & Releases, SFY23

Figure 10 is a 4-year analysis of average monthly admissions and releases from SFY20-SFY23. SFY20 shows the largest number of admissions and releases. SFY21 data shows the largest gap between admissions and releases by a difference of 239 offenders. The other years averaged a difference of 136 offenders.

Figure 10. Average, Monthly Admissions & Releases, SFY20-SFY23

Figure 11 shows admissions by type of commitment. New commitments are offenders who are being committed to the IDOC on a new sentence. Violation-new commitments are those offenders who were under community supervision including probation, parole, and the community transition program (CTP), and violated the terms of their community supervision by committing a new offense. These individuals are returning to the IDOC to serve a new sentence and may also have concurrent and/or consecutive sentences to serve. Technical violations show offenders who were returned to the IDOC for violating the terms of community supervision, including probation, parole, or CTP. New commitments were the most common type of admission and made up 55% of all admissions for a total of 4,704 offenders, an increase of 26% compared to last year. Technical violations make up 34% of admission types, and the number of offenders increased by 15% from the previous year. Violation – new commitments made up 11% of all admissions. The number of offenders decreased from 1,109 offenders in SFY22 to 902 offenders in SFY23, which shows a decrease of 19%. Each of the commitment types combined for a total of 8,555 individual admissions, which is 1,131 more than last year, indicating a 15%increase in total admissions.

Figure 11. Average Admission by Commitment Type

Releases by type are shown in Figure 12. The discharged category represents offenders released from the IDOC without any further commitment or supervision on any sentence. The parole, probation, and CTP categories represent offenders who are being released from an IDOC facility to community supervision as part of their release agreement. The total number of released offenders decreased by 408 (-4.6%) offenders compared to last year. The number of offenders released in 2022 was 8,856 and in 2023, the releases totaled 8,448.

Figure 12. Release by Type, SFY23

The number of offenders released on parole increased by 10% from 3,836 offenders last year to 4,221 this year. The number of offenders released on probation decreased by 8.9% from 3,110 offenders last year to 2,832 offenders this year. The number of offenders discharged dropped by 10.1% from 992 offenders last year to 892 offenders this year. The number of offenders released on a community transition program (CTP) dropped from 918 last year to 503 this year.

Figure 13 shows average admissions by type (new commitments, violation-new commitments, and technical violation) from SFY19-SFY23. The data appears to be relatively consistent over the years. Overall, the largest increase in admission type, new commitments, comes from SFY22 to SFY23 where there was a 5% increase. The previous years in new commitments show a 1% increase each year. The data shows a 5% decrease from SFY22 to SFY23 in violation-new commitments.

Figure 13. Admissions by Type, SFY19-SFY23

Figure 14 shows average releases by type (parole, probation, discharged, and CTP) from SFY19-SFY23. SFY19 data shows vastly different percentages compared to the other years, except for the CTP category. It is unclear why parole, probation, and discharged release types are significantly different. Overall, the data appears to show consistency over the years. The most notable increase takes place from SFY22 to SFY23, where parole released 7% more offenders. Another notable change is from SFY22 to SFY23, when the number of CTP releases decreased by 4%.

Figure 14. Releases by Type, SFY19-SFY23

The figures below illustrate monthly admission and release rates for juvenile offenders in detention facilities. The monthly average rate for admissions is 32 juvenile offenders. The monthly average rate for releases is 28 offenders. The data shows males comprise the majority of the monthly average.

Figure 15 shows the monthly admission and release rates for male juvenile offenders.  March and April 2023 had the most admissions at 35, whereas June 2023 had the least admissions at 21. Overall, there are commonly more admissions each month than there are releases. Over the 12 months, there are five months where more juvenile offenders were released than were admitted: July 2022, October 2022, January 2023, February 2023, and June 2023. On average, the monthly admission rate for male, juvenile offenders is 27 offenders and the release rate is 24 for male, juvenile offenders.

Figure 15. Male, Monthly Admissions and Releases, SFY23

Figure 16 illustrates the monthly admission and release rates of female juvenile offenders. Much like the male juvenile data, the admission rate is higher than the release rate. However, the data shows females, on average, are released at a higher rate than males. The following months had more releases than admissions: July 2022, August 2022, November 2022, and January 2023. June 2023 had the same number of admissions and releases. Figure 16 shows the highest recorded admissions occurred in May 2023, with 10 females admitted to a juvenile facility. On average, the female monthly admission rate is 4.8 offenders versus the 3.75 offenders release rate.

Figure 16. Female, Monthly Admissions and Releases, SFY23

Figures 17 and 18 show the total number of male and female juveniles’ monthly admissions and releases for SFY22 and SFY23. In Figure 17, the most notable months are March and June. March of 2022 shows the highest number of admissions, with 51 juveniles. The month of June shows the largest decrease in admissions. Admissions in June of 2023 decreased by 21 juveniles from the previous year.

Figure 17. Juvenile Monthly Admissions, SFY22-SFY23

In Figure 18, the month that stands out the most is June of 2022. Forty-five juveniles were released, which is the highest number of juveniles released in a single month over a two-year period. The month of May is notable as well. In May of 2022, 38 juveniles were released, whereas a year later only 16 juveniles were released. That is almost a 60% decrease in releases in one year. Notably, SFY23 had more monthly releases than admissions of juveniles. In SFY23, the following months had more releases than admissions: July, October, January, February, May, and June. In SFY22, August, October, and November had more releases than admissions. In October, more juveniles were released than were admitted in SFY22 and SFY23.

Figure 18. Juvenile Monthly Releases, SFY22-SFY23

The IDOC defines recidivism as any offender who returns to IDOC custody within three years of release from an IDOC facility.¹⁰ Table 14 shows recidivism for offenders released in 2019 that were reincarcerated by 2022. According to the IDOC, adult recidivism rates for 2022 (offenders released in 2019) show that approximately 30% were recommitted to IDOC for either a new conviction or a violation of post-release supervision. Of the 30%, approximately 35% returned to IDOC for a new offense and 65% returned due to a technical rule violation. IDOC reports the younger the offender is at the time of release the more likely they are to return to IDOC. Lastly, it is reported that offenders serving less than five years represent nearly 62% of all recidivists.¹¹

Overall, recidivism rates for all offense levels decreased from the previous year. The average recidivism rate decreased by 1.7% from SFY22 to SFY23. The most notable change falls under the Misdemeanor offense category. The previous year showed a 25% recidivism rate. In 2023, the rate of recidivism decreased to 16.7%. This is the second year in a row the recidivism rate for Misdemeanor offenses has decreased. Following closely behind Misdemeanors is Felony D. In SFY23, of the 279 offenders that were released, 17.2% ended up back in prison within three years. Within a year, the recidivism rate for Felony D dropped 8% from the previous year. Felony 5 shows the most released offenders. Of those 3,269 offenders, 919 (28.1%) re-offended.

Table 14. Recidivism by Offense Level, SFY23

Table 15 shows data for recidivism rates by offense level from SFY20-SFY23. Felony 4 decreased in recidivism from 2021 to 2023. Another category that stands out is Felony 1 in 2021. Out of the four years listed, 2021 is the only year that released two Felony 1 offenders. Within three years, one offender returned to IDOC, which means the recidivism rate for 2021 was 50%. Misdemeanors have the highest average recidivism rate at 41.7%. However, in 2021, four misdemeanor offenders were released and within three years they were committed back to IDOC, showing a 100% recidivism rate. If this outlier is removed from the equation, the average recidivism rate for misdemeanors is 22.2%. Lastly, 2021 shows the highest recidivism rate total at 38.2%. Overall, the data showed a relatively consistent recidivism rate.

Table 15. Recidivism Rate by Offense Level, SFY20-SFY23

Male medium-security facilities operated at an average capacity of 93% from July 2022 to June 2023, a 3% increase from last year. Male maximum-security facilities operated just below full capacity, fluctuating between 96-98%. The monthly average capacity rate for maximum-security facilities increased from 96% in SFY22 to 97%. In December 2022, male minimum-security facilities jumped from 63% to 78%. In January 2023, reentry/work release displayed the same fluctuation patterns as minimum-security facility capacity. However, in April 2023, facility capacity decreased dramatically from 71% to 46% in May 2023. The following month the facility capacity increased to 75%.

Figure 19. IDOC Adult Male Facility Operational Capacity by Month and Security Level, SFY23

Figure 20 shows the operational capacity for adult female IDOC facilities by month from July 2022 to June 2023. The monthly average capacity rate for medium-security facilities is 80%, which is a 15% decrease from the previous year. Minimum-security and reentry facilities’ operational capacity averaged 69% capacity per month. This figure shows a 9% increase from the previous year. Maximum-security facility capacity began trending upward from November 2022 to June 2023. However, from January 2023 to May 2023, facility capacity was at 91% for five continuous months. Minimum and reentry facility capacity reached its peak in March 2023 at 77%.

Figure 20. IDOC Adult Female Facility Operational Capacity by Month and Security Level, SFY23

Figure 21 is a five-year analysis of the operational capacity in adult male facilities. Data for each year was collected using the monthly average operational capacity. Maximum-security, on average, has maintained the highest operational capacity rate at 97%, whereas reentry and work release has maintained the lowest rate of capacity at 70%. Maximum and medium security appear to be steady over the years, with minor fluctuations. For both categories, the percent change was between 1-3%. The most notable change was the decrease in capacity for minimum-security from SFY19 to SFY20. In SFY19, operational capacity was at 92% and dropped to 75%. Since then, minimum-security facilities have maintained an operational capacity below 75%.

Figure 21. IDOC Adult Male Facility Operational Capacity, SFY19-SFY23

Figure 22 is a five-year analysis of the operational capacity in adult female facilities. Data for each year was collected using the monthly average operational capacity. Beginning in 2019, each facility operated between 87-97%. From SFY19 to SFY21, the minimum/reentry capacity rate decreased dramatically. The capacity rate went from 97% in SFY19 to 60% in SFY21. The medium-security capacity rate increased significantly from SFY20 to SFY21. In SFY20, the capacity rate was 72% and increased to 96% in SFY21.

Figure 22. IDOC Adult Female Facility Operational Capacity, SFY19-SFY23

Operational capacity considers the following factors: the number of inmates that can safely be held at one time, the design of the institution, the number of staff, and programs offered.¹² Figure 23 shows the operational capacity for male and female juvenile detention facilities from July 2022 to June 2023.

There are two juvenile detention facilities in the state of Indiana that house males: North Central Juvenile Correctional Facility and Pendleton Juvenile Correctional Facility. These facilities have between 535-547¹³ beds.  Males are housed at a much higher rate than females. The data shows, on average, for every 1 female, 15 males are housed in a juvenile facility. On average, the operational capacity for males is 59%. This is a 13% increase compared to last year. In June 2023, operational capacity for males peaked at 78%. Operational capacity increased by 18% from April 2023 to June 2023, before slowly decreasing until February 2023, when capacity increased to 60%.  May and June showed the highest capacity rates at 77% and 78%.

There is one female juvenile detention facility in the state of Indiana, LaPorte Juvenile Correctional Facility. This facility can house between 62¹⁴ offenders before reaching facility capacity. Figure 23 shows the capacity rate for females is much higher than for males. However, compared to male facilities, there are fewer beds, number of facilities, and accommodations because females are detained at a significantly lower rate than males. The average operational capacity per month is 71%. This is a 10% increase from last year. Beginning February 2023, the operational capacity continued to increase throughout April 2023, before decreasing into June 2023. In April of 2023, operational capacity reached its peak at 80%.

Figure 23. Juvenile Detention Facility Operational Capacity by Month, SFY23

Figure 24 is a two-year analysis of facility capacity for juveniles. The two-year analysis shows data from SFY22 and SFY23. Beginning in July 2022, operational capacity trends upward before reaching its peak in April 2023. For females, there is a 12% decrease in capacity beginning in May 2022 until July 2022. For male facilities, data appears to trend upward beginning in February 2022. The lowest capacity rate for males is observed in August 2021 at 41%. The capacity rate for males reaches its peak at 78% in June 2023.

Figure 24. Juvenile Detention Facility Operational Capacity, SFY22-SFY23

The Community Corrections Division is a unit under the IDOC that was established in 1979. The Community Corrections Division provides state aid through the Community Corrections and Justice Reinvestment Funding and administers the Community Transition Program. The division assists the IDOC by establishing and operating community corrections programs by partnering with state and local criminal justice agencies and Community Corrections Advisory Boards. Community Corrections programs are community-based programs that provide preventive services to divert offenders from IDOC and provide services to sentenced offenders and/or persons ordered to participate in community corrections as a condition of probation or as a direct placement per IC § 35-38-2. There are 77 community corrections agencies at the local level, serving all counties except for Benton, Franklin, and Newton. Each agency is governed by a local or regional Community Corrections Advisory Board which establishes and approves a Community Corrections Plan to prioritize the needs and services applicable to their communities.

The community corrections population is composed of offenders with felony and misdemeanor convictions, in addition to individuals who are under pretrial supervision. Pretrial individuals have yet to be convicted or sentenced for the crime for which they are being supervised. Individuals are placed into a community corrections program as an alternative to incarceration, as a condition of a probation sentence, as a condition of parole, through the Community Transition Program (CTP), or through IDOC’s work release program. Levels of supervision provided by community corrections programs vary by county and may include community service, day reporting, electronic monitoring, forensic diversion, problem-solving courts, and work release. Figure 25 illustrates the monthly number of self-reported felony offenders in community corrections for all levels of supervision. As of January 2023, all pretrial participants have been transferred from Marion County Probation to Marion County Community Corrections for supervision, resulting in a significant increase in the population. Much of the population increase is reflected in the Dec-22 numbers in the figures below.  Due to this, it is difficult to provide an analysis for the year.  However, prior to transfers in Marion County, the felony offender population in community corrections was decreasing slightly. From December 2022 through June 2023, the population changed little.

Figure 25. Community Corrections Monthly Felony Offender Population, SFY23

The community corrections felony offender population has fluctuated over the past five years but started SFY19 with 11,673 offenders and ended SFY23 with 11,828 offenders. SFY19 saw the highest overall number of felony offenders and averaged 12,207 for the year, compared to 11,461 for SFY23.  The highest number of offenders (12,998) was recorded in November 2019. Many of the noticeable changes in the population can be attributed to COVID-19 and Marion County. During March 2020, as COVID-19 began affecting the criminal justice system, the community corrections felony population began to decrease throughout the year. Then, in January 2021, Marion County Community Corrections transferred approximately 2,000 individuals to Marion County Probation, which resulted in the most dramatic decrease of the five-year period. The lowest number of offenders was recorded in August 2021 with 8,883 individuals. As of January 2023, Marion County pretrial participants were transferred back to Marion County Community Corrections, accounting for a large increase in the total population.

Figure 26. Community Corrections Monthly Felony Offender Population, SFY19-23

Once again, an analysis of the entire year is not feasible due to the large increase of pretrial participants from Marion County.  From July 2022 to November 2022, the pretrial population remained consistent with very few changes over the months.  The pretrial population in community corrections fluctuated slightly from December 2022 through June 2023.

Figure 27. Community Corrections Monthly Pretrial Population, SFY23

The pretrial population under community corrections supervision varied throughout the past five years and saw an overall 34.4% decrease in participants from July 2018 to June 2023.  The pretrial population began to steadily decrease in the months leading up to COVID-19. From November 2019 to February 2020, there was a 17% decrease in the number of participants.  Throughout COVID-19 the number of individuals on pretrial supervision steadily increased from March 2020 through December 2020, peaking at 3,554 participants.  This could be due in part to the passage of Indiana Criminal Rule 26¹⁵, which went into effect on January 1, 2020.  The rule was intended to improve pretrial practices in the state by encouraging trial court judges to use the results of an evidence-based risk assessment, or other relevant information, to determine if an individual presented as a flight risk, a danger to themselves, or a danger to the public. If individuals met the established criteria, they could be granted pretrial release, which in some cases included supervision by community corrections programs. The increase in participants could also be due to COVID-19 and the desire to keep the jail populations low to avoid spreading the virus. By January 2021, Marion County Community Corrections transferred their pretrial clients to Marion County Probation, which accounts for the noticeable decrease in the population. In the following months, the pretrial population in community corrections mostly decreased, seeing a 34% decrease from January 2021 to November 2022. By January 2023, Marion County Probation transferred the pretrial population back to Marion County Community Corrections, as noted in the December 2022 numbers. Since January 2023, the pretrial population has been declining.

Figure 28. Community Corrections Monthly Pretrial Population, SFY19-23

The IDOC Community Corrections Division administers the Community Transition Program (CTP). CTP allows offenders committed to the IDOC, and nearing the end of their prison sentence, to serve their remaining time through their county’s community corrections program, probation, or a court program. This allows offenders to transition back into the community while receiving case management services and links to available resources to assist with their return. Levels of supervision are determined by the county programs but generally include work release or home detention/electronic monitoring. Eligibility for CTP is determined by statute, and whether an offender is released to CTP is determined by the sentencing court. The length of supervision ranges from 60 to 180 days and is based on the most serious offense the individual was convicted of. Once the offender completes CTP, they will be released to parole or probation, or be discharged based on the terms of the original sentence.

Figure 29 shows CTP utilization by offense level from July 2022 to June 2023. The top three offense levels that utilize CTP were Level 5, 4, and 3 felonies. From highest to lowest, Felony 5 offenders made up 31% of the total CTP utilizations, Felony 4 offenders comprised 20%, and Felony 3 offenders made up 14% of the total. The two offense levels with the lowest CTP utilization were Felony D offenders (1 out of 559), and those convicted of murder (9 out of 559). No one with a Felony 1 utilized CTP during the timeframe of this report.

Figure 29. CTP Utilization by Offense Level, SFY23

CTP utilization has been decreasing over the past five years.  The yearly average number of CTP participants decreased by 60% from SFY19 to SFY23. From SFY22 to SFY23, CTP utilization was down 42%, the largest year-to-year decline. Over the five-year period, Felony 5 offenders accounted for the highest percent of utilization at 33%. Felony 4 made up the second highest number of offenders at 16.8% followed closely by Class B Felony at 16.5%. Only one Felony 1 offender utilized CTP during the five-year period.

Figure 30. CTP Utilization by Offense Level, SFY19-SFY23

Community Corrections uses many methods to supervise offenders. Figure 31 shows the average percentage of participants enrolled in each supervision type for SFY23. Electronic monitoring is the most common form of supervision (54%). 21% of all participants are involved in community service supervision, 12% are in work release, and 11% are supervised through day reporting.

Figure 31. Community Correction by Supervision Type, SFY23

Figure 32 shows that the makeup of the types of supervisions has remained consistent over the previous five years. The use of electronic monitoring saw the highest growth, increasing by 10% from SFY19 to SFY23. SFY21 saw decreases in levels of supervision due to COVID-19 and the shifting of clients between Marion County Community Corrections and Marion County Probation. Problem-solving courts also saw a decline in numbers due to the way data is collected.  Beginning in January 2020, most problem-solving courts previously funded under community corrections were funded separately and are no longer included in the community corrections monthly snapshot. Excluding problem-solving courts, work release participants saw the largest decrease at 19% during the five years.

Figure 32. Community Correction Supervision Type yearly average, SFY19- SFY23

The Local JRAC Workgroup, chaired by Justice Christopher Goff, developed the second Local JRAC annual report with a focus on Local JRAC functioning to inform the need for technical assistance.  Based on Local JRACs’ report responses, the Workgroup partnered with CEPP to provide opportunities for intensive technical assistance, online workspace access with limited technical assistance, and limited on-demand technical assistance on a specific topic. The Workgroup invited all Local JRACs to submit applications for technical assistance and received nine applications; JRAC approved all nine counties for technical assistance (Daviess, Dearborn, Henry, Jasper, Jennings, Lake, Owen, Tippecanoe, and Wayne).  The counties will work with representatives from CEPP to develop plans to move forward with the assistance. JRAC will provide technical assistance to additional counties upon request and as resources permit.

The JRAC Reports Workgroup, also chaired by Justice Goff, created a sub-committee to work on quarterly electronic monitoring reporting requirements as required under SEA 9-2022. The sub-committee developed data elements for the report and the content of the quarterly reporting form.  Community supervision agencies submitted the Q1 and Q2 reports to their Local JRACs, and the Local JRACs submitted the reports to the State JRAC in late May and late August, respectively.  The review and receipt of Q3 reports are currently in process.  The sub-committee continues to work with the Indiana Office of Court Services and the Indiana Office of Court Technology on the reporting instructions and questions from agencies. Based on this work, the sub-committee updated the supervising agency instructions to incorporate clarifications and tips for compiling the reports. JRAC discussed the need to study electronic monitoring as a supervision strategy alongside other evidence-based practices and noted that the recent legislation did not include funding for a study.

The JRAC continued its oversight of the IDOC community supervision grant awards and the DMHA Recovery Works program.

IDOC awarded $72.5M in community supervision grants for CY24.  Funding was awarded to 78 community corrections agencies ($58.6M), 51 problem-solving courts/court recidivism reduction programs ($6M), 33 probation departments ($3.6M), 16 pretrial services programs ($2.1M), 20 jail treatment programs ($1.7M), and 6 prosecutor’s diversion programs ($495K). The grant awards cover 204 programs.

According to the 2022 jail inspection reports, 86 (93.5%) county jails offer substance use services. This is one more additional jail with substance use services than last year and three more than in 2020. One of the services offered in five jails in 2022 and 2023 was a mental health and substance use pilot program that was also supported by Recovery Works through the DMHA, the Integrated Reentry and Correctional Support (IRACS) program.

The Integrated Reentry and Correctional Support (IRACS) program is a pilot program that was launched in 2022 and ended in June 2023. Thus far, IRACS and Recovery Works have not yet published the outcomes or plans for continuing or expanding this program, but this may be temporary while the program is being reviewed since it is a pilot program. The goal of this program is to support incarcerated individuals impacted by substance use disorder or mental health challenges through peer-driven, Sequential Intercept Model interventions.

The Sequential Intercept Model refers to the paths through which “individuals with mental and substance use disorders come into contact with and move through the criminal justice system”.²¹ The intercepts are points of contact with the justice system, such as calling 911 at Intercept 1, initial detention in Intercept 2, jails and courts at Intercept 3, etc. Using the Sequential Intercept Model helps to identify the resources, services, and gaps for an individual’s path through contacts with the justice system to plan how best to assist them.

The IRACS program intends to increase peer and community support, reduce overdoses and recidivism, and decrease addiction and mental health stigma for inmates awaiting sentencing or release. To achieve these goals, IRACS teams, which include certified coordinators, peer professionals, health navigators, and correctional care providers, partner with community organizations, corrections, law enforcement, medical and addiction providers, and other local support partners. This pilot program was implemented in five county jails in Blackford, Daviess, Dearborn, Delaware, and Scott County, and each jail received $500,000 to implement the program’s infrastructure and personnel.²²

As of August 2023, the website for IRACS reports that the program has been provided to 2,004 participants, provided 13,788 engagements with IRACS participants, and participants of the program have a 75% success rate for reentry.²³ The DMHA reports that an expansion of services is expected at two or three new locations in SFY24.²⁴

Due to changes in data management systems, IDOC and ICJI were not able to compare the data in the same way as in previous years for mental health and substance use program utilization by incarcerated individuals.

In the most recent fact cards²⁵ on the demographics of the IDOC population in January 2023, 28.9% of the adult population in the IDOC had one or more drug offenses, and in July 2023, 27.1% of the adult population in the IDOC had one or more drug offenses. This is roughly the same prevalence as in July of 2022 (28.5%) and a decrease from the 42.5% reported in 2021.

Upon entry into the IDOC, an offender is given an accountability plan that lays out which programs would aid in that individual’s successful reentry into the community. There are a variety of substance use, mental health, cognitive, and social programs (among others) that may be encouraged.²⁶ Moreover, the “Recovery While Incarcerated” (RWI) treatment programs continue to help offenders develop a continuum of care throughout their incarceration and provide a recovery-based environment and individualized treatment curriculums for those committed to the IDOC with a history of substance use.²⁷ Additionally, mental health treatment is made available to all offenders as part of the IDOC’s medical contract and can be requested by the offender or a staff member if they notice aberrant behavior.²⁸

As of July 2022, HEA 1004 allows judicial discretion to sentence Level 6 felony offenders to prisons rather than jails. Ideally, this change will allow incarcerated individuals sentenced for Level 6 felonies, such as drug offenses for substances like methamphetamines, to gain better access to other substance use resources and recovery programs that are available in prison that they may not have access to in local jails.

Among the respondents to our HEA 1006 survey (discussed more in the survey section of this report below), opinions were divided regarding the effectiveness of mental health and substance use treatment programs for reducing recidivism. The most common response (41) of the ninety-six (96) responses to this question either had a neutral response or thought that the programs were both ineffective and effective. Essentially, they said that ‘it depends’ on a variety of factors whether mental health and substance use programs were effective at reducing recidivism. Respondents said that the effectiveness of these programs varies depending on the clients’ willingness to put in the effort to change and to continue working on it after the program or their incarceration has been completed. Respondents also said that success depends on the resources available at the facility or the service providers, specifically their client capacity and staffing, both of which were frequently noted to be limited. Similarly, another fifteen (15) respondents felt that the programs can be effective, if or when certain criteria are met, such as if: the client successfully completes the program, evidence-based models are used, staffing needs are met, and clients can access the services.

Aside from neutral and conditional responses, about 25 respondents felt these programs were effective, or at least “much more effective than incarceration or standard probation terms”. Another explained, “They are effective in that it is a percentages thing. If we are able to help 10% of the people stay out of the system, that is a win and worth the costs.” On the other hand, another 15 respondents felt that the programs were categorically ineffective as they currently exist because they are not long enough, there is not enough follow-through after program completion, spaces are too limited, or the services are inaccessible to clients.

Last year the Indiana Behavioral Health Commission (INBHC) released a report detailing the state’s behavioral health services and the steps needed to meet the state’s increasing needs. They discussed several recommendations, including increasing overall behavioral health funding by at least 60% over four years, investing in 988 infrastructure, and utilizing Medicaid waivers for mental healthcare, among other suggestions.

They also highlighted the importance of the shift from Indiana’s Community Mental Health Center (CMHC) system to the Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic (CCBHC) model. The main difference between the service provider systems is that CMHC is funded by the state and the financial structure “does not allow behavioral health providers to cover their costs for providing evidence-based, integrated, and whole person care”.[1] Meanwhile, the CCBHC model is federally funded and does allow providers to cover the costs of these mental healthcare treatments.

In addition to addressing some of the concerns raised by the Indiana Behavioral Health Commission, House Enrolled Act 1222 passed in 2022 tasked the DMHA with establishing a plan to expand CCBHCs in Indiana.[2] In November 2022, the DMHA released a plan for expanding the use of CCBHCs in the state.[3] According to their timeline, the next step after establishing goals and stakeholders is to apply for the CCBHC Demonstration, which is a longer-term funding source for CCBHCs than grants.[4] Increasing access to behavioral healthcare at CCBHC’s is an important step for helping individuals at-risk of becoming involved in the criminal justice system to seek treatment for mental health issues and substance use disorders.

The 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline launched nationwide in July of 2022. Nationally, 988 has reportedly received almost 5 million contacts (calls, texts, ad and online chats), nearly 1 million of which were to the Veterans Crisis Line.[1] Indiana alone receives nearly 4,000 calls per month and leads the nation for most calls answered in-state, with more than 90% of calls answered in-state since November 2022.[2] Since last year, Indiana has increased the number of call centers by two, bringing the total 988 call centers in Indiana to five: Crisis Center Inc., A Better Way, Mental Health America Wabash Valley Region, Mental Health America of Indiana-Indianapolis, and RemedyLIVE.[3]

The FSSA’s DMHA[4] website explains that they plan to continue expanding and developing the 988 and mental health infrastructure over several years by further developing the 988 system, establishing mobile crisis teams, and improving community support and crisis networks. Funding for these projects comes from a variety of sources, such as the Community Catalyst Grants, as well as from financial support in the biennial budget and additional funds designated by Senate Enrolled Act 1, which will provide over $100 million toward mental health services in state fiscal years 2024 and 2025.[5][6] The funding will go towards the continued development of the state’s crisis system and the expansion of the Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics. The launch of 988, mobile crisis teams, and other community resources to assist people experiencing mental health and substance use crises are, in part, intended to divert people away from the criminal justice system and towards resources that can better assist them.

Last year, four organizations were selected to provide Mobile Crisis Services for the FSSA-DMHA Mobile Crisis pilot program: Anthony Wayne Rehabilitation Center, Choices Coordinated Care Solutions, Four County Comprehensive Mental Health Center (also known as 4C Health), and Porter-Starke Services.

These organizations serve an estimated 18 counties (roughly 20% of the state): Carroll, Cass, Clinton, DeKalb, Fulton, Howard, La Porte, Lagrange, Lake, Marshall, Miami, Porter, Pulaski, Starke, Steuben, Tipton, Wabash, White, and other (non-specific counties). The service area is primarily in the North and North Central regions of the state. At least one of the organizations offers virtual or hybrid services, and another organization, Choices Coordinated Care Solutions, does not specify service areas but offers services across Indiana and other states for youth.

It is unclear if the service areas described by these organizations are being served by the mobile crisis teams or if the service area is across all services from these organizations because few statistics are available at this time on only the mobile crisis teams. The only statistics that are publicly available as of fall 2023 are from the 4C Health’s Annual Report from 2022, which cites 2,349 mobile crisis deployments, 1,141 crisis risk assessments completed, 425 inpatient psychiatric admissions (2,418 bed days), and 164 crisis stabilization unit admissions.³⁹

The purpose of Mobile Crisis Services is to better serve people in a mental health or substance use crisis while also diverting them away from jails and hospitals, when appropriate. The mobile crisis teams consist of several multidiscipline members of varying specialties, such as a social worker, law enforcement officer, medical professional, and behavioral health professional who are monitored by an experienced psychiatrist or specialist medical professional. The team self-deploys and can provide a variety of services depending on the individual’s need, such as triaging/screening, assessments, counseling, case management or care coordination, crisis intervention, follow-up stabilization services, safety planning, peer recovery support, and medication management.

To better understand the impact of the criminal code reform, agencies were asked about individuals with Level 6 felonies and their effect on caseloads. The jails reported the total number of individuals convicted of Level 6 felonies. Of the 12 jails that responded to this question, the average number of individuals convicted of Level 6 felonies housed in county jails was 26. The total number reported was 316 individuals. In 2021, there were 30 responses to this question, the average number was 23, and the total reported individuals was 677. When asked if their jail has experienced a change in the number of individuals serving time for Level 6 felonies, 14 jails responded. Seventy-one percent (10) stated they have seen an increase, and 29% (4) stated they have seen a decrease.

All agency types, excluding community service providers, were asked if they have seen a change in the number of Level 6 felony offenders handled by their office. Of the jails that responded, 71% (10) stated they saw an increase, and 29% (4) stated they saw a decrease. Twenty-nine percent (7) of probation departments stated they saw an increase, 13% (3) saw a decrease, and 42% (10) saw no change. Of the community corrections organizations that responded, 8% (1) stated they saw an increase, 38% (5) saw a decrease, and 46% (6) saw no change. Of the judicial respondents, 46% (11) stated they saw an increase, 13% (3) saw a decrease, and 29% (7) saw no change. Twenty percent (3) of prosecutors stated they saw an increase, and 53% (8) saw no change. Of the public defense agencies, 46% (6) stated they saw an increase, and 15% (2) saw no change. Figure 35 displays the responses from all agency types asked if they saw a change in the number of level 6 felony offenders handled by their office.

Figure 35. Changes in the Number of Level 6 Felony Offenders

Additionally, probation departments, community corrections, prosecutors, and public defenders were asked what percent of their caseload they attributed to Level 6 felony offenders. Of the responding probation departments (24), the average percentage of Level 6 felony offenders they attributed to their caseload was 44%. Of the responding community corrections organizations (13), the average percentage of Level 6 felony offenders they attributed to their caseload was 50%.  Of the prosecutors that responded (15) the average percentage of Level 6 felony offenders they attributed to their caseload was 45%. Of the public defenders (13) that responded, the average percentage of Level 6 felony offenders they attributed to their caseload was 46%.

Organizations were asked if there has been a change in the past year in the number of defendants who require services, such as substance use and/or mental health treatment. Universally, organizations reported an increase in the number of individuals who require services. Eighty-one percent (18) of judiciary respondents, 79% (11) of jails, 74% (17) of probation, 75% (9) of public defenders, 62% (8) of community corrections, and 53% (8) of prosecutors reported an increase in individuals in need of services in the past year. Figure 36 displays additional information on the responses.

Figure 36. Change in Number of Defendants Requiring Substance Use or Mental Health Services

Mental health and substance use continue to be significant factors that justice-involved organizations face when ensuring the needs of defendants and inmates are met. Justice-involved organizations report that these needs often struggle to be fully met given constraints on time and resources. Of the 13 jails that responded, an average of 49% of all inmates were reported to have mental health issues. Eleven jails responded to an additional question and stated that only about 22% of all inmates enroll in mental health treatment programs, and only about 27% enroll in substance use treatment programs.

Organizations were also asked whether most individuals have time to complete mental health and substance use treatment programs while involved with their organization. Jails generally indicated they did not feel inmates had enough time to finish treatment programs. Of the jails that responded, 29% (4) stated that inmates did have enough time to complete mental health treatment, and 36% (5) stated inmates had enough time to complete substance use treatment. However, 36% (5) of jails stated inmates did not have enough time to complete mental health treatment, and 50% (7) stated inmates did not have enough time to complete substance use treatment. Probation departments had differing responses that indicated probation generally had better rates of individuals completing treatment options. Of those who responded, 61% (14) stated individuals did have enough time to complete mental health treatment, and 79% (18) stated individuals had enough time to complete substance abuse treatment. Community corrections organizations had the most responses indicating they did not believe individuals had time to complete treatment for mental health or substance use. Of those who responded, 77% (10) stated that individuals did not have time to complete mental health treatment, and 54% (7) stated individuals did not have time to complete substance use programs. Additional response information for these questions is shown in Figure 37.

Figure 37. Time to Complete Treatment Programs

Additionally, organizations were asked what mental health and substance use programs or services they provided or were available in their county. Of the jails that responded, 93% (13) stated that mental health screenings or assessments were provided, and 79% (11) stated they offered counseling. These were the two most common services provided by jails respectively. For the top substance use programs or services, 65% (9) of jails responded that substance use counseling was provided, and 57% (8) responded that Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or Narcotics Anonymous (NA) was provided. Probation departments also provided responses on mental health and substance use services they offered, and 100% (23) of responding probation departments stated that they offered counseling. Ninety-six percent responded they offered mental health screenings or assessments. These were the top mental health programs offered by probation departments respectively. Of substance use programs offered, 96% (22) of responding probation departments stated they provided substance use counseling and AA or NA. When asked what mental health programs were available in their county, 67% (8) of public defenders responded that mental health screenings were available, and 50% (6) responded that therapy was the second most commonly available. Responding to what substance use programs were available, 83% (10) of public defenders stated AA/NA and substance use education classes were most common. Seventy-five percent (9) responded that substance use counseling was the second most common. Of prosecutors who responded to what mental health programs were available, 100% (15) stated that counseling was provided, making it the most common. Ninety-three percent (14) of prosecutors stated that mental health screenings or assessments were available, making it second most common. One hundred percent (14) of prosecutors stated that substance use counseling was the most commonly available substance use program, and 93% (13) stated that substance use education classes were second most common. One hundred percent of judges stated that mental health screenings or assessments and counseling were the most common programs available in their county. Ninety-one percent (20) stated that therapy was provided, making it the second most common.  Lastly, community corrections organizations responded to what programs or services they offered for mental health or substance use treatment. Ninety-two percent (12) responded that both counseling and therapy were offered, making these the most common services provided for mental health treatment by community corrections. For substance use treatment, 85% (11) responded that they provided substance use counseling, AA or NA, and substance use education classes. Figure 38 shows commonly available mental health programs for all organization types.

Figure 38. Top Three Most Commonly Available Mental Health Programs

Figure 39 shows commonly available substance use programs for all organization types.

Figure 39. Top Three Most Commonly Available Substance Use Programs

Organizations were then asked what kind of feedback they received from individuals who participated in substance use or mental health programs. They responded that individuals most commonly gave feedback indicating they found services for mental health or substance use treatment at least somewhat helpful. Of jails that responded, 43% (6) stated individuals found the mental health treatment programs somewhat helpful, and 50% (7) said individuals found the substance use treatment programs somewhat helpful. Of probation departments that responded, 57% (13) stated individuals found the mental health treatment programs somewhat helpful, and 53% (12) said individuals found the substance use treatment programs somewhat helpful. Thirty-one percent (4) of community corrections organizations responded that individuals provided feedback indicating they found mental health programs offered extremely helpful, and 31% (4) also found substance use programs extremely helpful.

Responses to questions relating to mental health and substance use indicate that justice-involved organizations perceive an increase in inmates, defendants, and clients in need of services. These needs, however, are not being met due to a variety of factors. Even though there are significant numbers of individuals in need of services, not all of these individuals are seeking treatment or services while in contact with various justice-involved organizations. Moreover, even those who do seek services often do not have time to complete treatment due to the length of programming being longer than the individual’s incarceration, probation, or contact with the justice system. Despite issues with individuals completing treatment programs or services, they have provided feedback to organizations that they usually find the treatment at least somewhat helpful.

Community service providers were asked a series of questions about their organization’s ability to meet the needs of clients. Fifty-seven percent (4) said their organization has forensic programming that specifically addresses the needs of criminal justice-involved clients. Twenty-nine percent (2) said they do not have specific forensic programming. When asked how the organization funds its forensic programs, 75% (3) responded “other,” specifying such things as fundraising and private scholarships. Fifty percent (2) said client’s public or private insurance, Recovery Works, and local funds. Twenty-five percent (1) said client out-of-pocket fees and Department of Child Services funding. One hundred percent (4) said funding has not been sufficient to carry out the mission of their organizations’ forensic programming over the last year, and when asked if the organization has enough staff to meet the needs of the criminal justice-involved clients, 57% (4) said yes and 43% (3) said no. In terms of the intensity of services, three (43%%) reported an increase in the overall intensity (e.g., the level of need, frequency of contact, and number of services required to meet the needs of the client) of services for criminal justice-involved clients. Three (43%) said there has been no change and one (14%) said they did not know.

Community service providers offer a wide range of substance use, mental health, and social services. The table below reports the types of services directly offered, with substance use treatment (86%) and mental health treatment (86%) tied for the most common service. These were followed by life skills curriculums (57%) and linkages to community resources (57%), which tied for the second most common service.

Table 22. Types of Services Offered

When asked which services justice-involved clients have difficulty obtaining due to lack of availability or affordability, multiple services are tied for the most common with 57% (4) of respondents stating clients have difficulty accessing substance use treatment, mental health treatment, transportation assistance, and housing/homelessness services. Multiple services also tied for the second most common service which clients have difficulty accessing due to funding or availability. Twenty-nine percent (2) of respondents stated clients have difficulty accessing employment assistance/job skills training, education, food and clothing assistance, medical services, and linkages to community resources.

Table 23. Services Difficult to Obtain

Organizations were asked if they had alternatives to traditional courts, such as problem-solving courts, mental health courts, and drug courts. Such courts are similar to traditional courts, but defendants are often referred to as clients and the judge has more involvement and discretion with clients. These courts often serve to expedite case processing and reduce caseload to increase trial capacity for more serious crimes, and they allow for therapeutic jurisprudence to reduce criminal offending through interdisciplinary approaches. They aim to provide a more holistic and rehabilitative approach to criminal justice. Judges can place clients into treatment programs, assess their progress, and order them into jail while in treatment if they deem it necessary.⁴¹

Judges responded to whether their county had one or more problem-solving courts, and 96% (23) said yes. Four percent (1) said no. As to whether their county has mental health courts, 68% (15) of judges said no, and 32% (7) said yes. Of prosecutors that responded, 80% (12) said no, and 20% (3) said yes. Eighty-three percent (10) of public defenders responded no, and 17% (2) responded yes. On whether their county had a drug court, 82% (18) of judges said yes, and 18% (4) said no. Of prosecutors that responded, 79% (11) said yes, and 21% (3) said no. Fifty-eight percent (7) of public defenders responded yes, and 42% (5) said no.

Figure 40. Problem-Solving Courts

Organizations that stated their county had a drug court were also asked how long, on average, it takes to complete. All judges (18) that indicated their county had a drug court responded to this question, and they stated that it takes individuals an average of 21 months to complete the requirements of the drug court. Eighty-one percent (9) of prosecutors that stated their county had a drug court responded and said it takes an average of 23 months for individuals to complete the requirements of drug court. All public defenders (7) with a drug court responded and stated it takes individuals an average of 23 months to complete drug court.

Lastly, respondents were asked two open-ended questions related to the effectiveness of mental health and substance use treatment programs at reducing recidivism and whether they had any additional information they wished to share about how the criminal code reform has impacted their community.

On how effective mental health or substance use treatment programs are at reducing recidivism, there were 96 responses. Twenty-five percent (24) of respondents stated that such programs are effective, with responses mentioning that these programs help stabilize individuals and are more effective at reducing recidivism than incarceration or probation alone. Sixteen percent (15) stated these programs were effective under certain circumstances, such as when programs are fully funded and staffed, individuals are cooperative and motivated to engage with programming, clients have access, or the programs are carried out with fidelity and the collaboration of appropriate stakeholders. Forty-three percent (41) of respondents provided more neutral responses indicating such programming is both effective and ineffective at reducing recidivism. Responses included information indicating they felt these programs were sometimes effective, but program structure, funding, and client motivation are major factors. They stated that these programs alone are often not enough to meet the needs of clients and additional system change is needed. Sixteen percent (15) stated that such programs are not effective at reducing recidivism, providing responses that mention funding difficulties, lack of ability to follow-up with clients that are released, clients not having long enough to complete treatment before release, and lack of client motivation.

One response indicating that mental health or substance use treatment was, under the right circumstances, effective at reducing recidivism stated, “They are very effective when performed in conjunction with other services involving social determinants of health. Without a comprehensive and integrated approach, many (if not most) efforts fail.” Another respondent provided a more neutral response and stated, “Mental health programs are effective when combined with accountability provided by the criminal justice system. Rarely will an individual decide on their own to seek mental health treatment and such services are hard to obtain because they are put on a wait list.” The same respondent, however, went on to say, “The manner in which we address these issues is counterintuitive and makes mental health issues and criminal thinking harder to address.”, and “…all the legal reforms have only made it hard to effect change, not easier.”

On whether respondents had any additional information the survey did not address that they wished to share about the impacts of the criminal code reform on their community, there were 59 responses. 14% (8) of responses were miscellaneous, with responses pointing out things such as the fact the survey mentions Level 6 felonies but not higher-level felonies which require more intensive work, or referencing wider problems outside the scope of the survey like the war on drugs. Thirty-two percent (19) stated they did not have any additional information to provide. Fifty-four percent (32) of respondents provided information or suggestions on items that they felt were not addressed in the survey. Such responses include information like lack of mental health resources and staff, increases in violent crimes, unique struggles in rural areas accessing services, and that the criminal code reform caused increases in jail populations.

One respondent who provided information on what they felt was not addressed in the survey stated, “There is so much gun violence and violent crime, we are literally treading water. It was a huge mistake to remove minimum mandatory sentences and to lower the penalties for drug dealing cases.” Another respondent went on to say, "The 2014 reform had a significant negative impact on the community. The jails were overcrowded with level 6 felons, which led to increased jail violence and an inability to maintain corrections officers.”

Jail populations are beginning to increase following declines due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Changes to local policies and implementation of evidence-based practices, such as citation in lieu of arrest for non-violent offenders, bail reform, and strategies to prevent failures to appear led to decreases in some jails during the pandemic. These practices should continue to be supported and implemented statewide. JRAC recommends continued support for the recommendations outlined in the Jail Overcrowding Task Force Report and the JRAC Pretrial and Bail Reform Report⁴². Additionally, research on bail reform and pretrial release strategies should continue to determine best practices for types of supervision and release that are most effective for varying types of risk for reoffending.

Many criminal justice-involved individuals have mental health and/or substance use disorders. Therefore, it is necessary to continue efforts to enhance the accessibility of community-based mental health and substance use treatment programs that support the full range of needs for the criminal justice population, including recovery residences, medication-assisted treatment, and psychiatric services. It is recommended that these services be offered during and after incarceration, as both impact recidivism. Based on our survey of criminal justice stakeholders, prioritizing program capacity, staffing, and follow-up services would be most beneficial for substance use and mental health programs to increase program accessibility and success. Recent budgetary and legislative actions, as well as the long-term plans to improve mental health and substance use infrastructure in the state, are all steps in the right direction. However, continued attention, funding, and evaluation of existing mental health and substance use programs is needed to provide these services to individuals currently, formerly, and at risk of being involved in the justice system.

With the progress of programs like Recovery Works, the reentry of offenders back into society is improving. However, reentry continues to be an area needing enhancement in Indiana. Additional and/or improved reentry programs are needed in areas such as employment, housing, transportation, life skills training after incarceration and reintegration, and improving staffing issues and participant capacity limitations for existing programs. The Integrated Reentry and Correctional Support program provides adaptive support for individuals in the criminal justice system for reentry, and the IDOC has implemented job and life skills training for some offenders, but more work is needed, especially at the local level. Steady and gainful employment combined with secure housing and transportation are key factors that will impact Indiana’s recidivism rates. Another aspect of reentry that should be an area of focus in the future is looking at other social determinants of health both prior to and following reentry. Areas of focus should include but may not be limited to familial involvement, continued education (if applicable), employment, housing, access to food, and routine medical care.

The Local JRAC Statute (Ind. Code § 33-38-9.5-4) provides the framework for local stakeholders to convene regular meetings and review systemic practices to implement needed improvements within the local criminal justice system.  Therefore, it is necessary to support efforts to enhance technical assistance and funding opportunities for Local JRACs. The Local JRAC review process is critical to comprehensively address issues facing the criminal justice system, including jail data and jail overcrowding, mental health crisis responses, community supervision, and reentry. This process allows Local JRACs to work with JRAC and the General Assembly to inform state policy.