Managing drug- involved offenders with HOPE Presented by: Angela Hawken, PhD October 22, 2010 ACJRCA.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Chapter 15 Sentencing Options
Advertisements

Pretrial Release and Diversion
Residential Community Supervision Programs
Measuring 109 In Fresno County
1 17-Year-Old Offenders in the Adult Criminal Justice System Legislative Audit Bureau April 2008.
Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D. Treatment Research Institute at the University of Pennsylvania TRI science addiction Effective Strategies for Drug-Abusing.
SENTENCING FOR CRIME CONTROL Mark Kleiman National Association of Sentencing Commissions Chicago August 7, 2012.
Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative (DOSA): Treatment and Supervision
Bernard Warner, Secretary.  Over 7 million people in the US are under community supervision.  More than 50% of parolees and 37% of probationers fail.
The Implementation and Impact of Drug Courts Drug Courts and the New Technology of Offender Change Nov. 10, 2010 Lecture James M. Byrne, Professor.
Public Safety Realignment Local custody for non-violent, non- serious, non-sex offenders Changes to State Parole Local Post-release Supervision Local.
HOPE Probation H awai`i’s O pportunity P robation with E nforcement July 2008 Judge Steven S. Alm First Circuit Court, Honolulu, Hawai`i
Community Corrections.  Community Corrections are the subfield of corrections in which offenders are supervised and provided services outside jail or.
2 HOPE Probation H awai`i’s H awai`i’s O pportunity O pportunity P robation with P robation with E nforcement E nforcement August 2009 Judge Steven S.
Community Corrections
Introduction to Criminal Justice
Probation A privilege granted by the court to a person convicted of a crime or criminal offense to remain with the community instead of actually going.
WISP Assessing Implementation and Early Outcomes Seattle City Council Presented by: Angela Hawken, PhD December 12, 2011.
HOPE Probation H awaii’s O pportunity P robation with E nforcement October 2012 Judge Steven S. Alm First Circuit Court, Honolulu, Hawai`i
In the Community. Community Corrections Continues after incarceration And it deals with split sentences.
The Implementation and Impact of Drug Courts Drug Courts and the New Technology of Offender Change James M. Byrne, Professor March 26,2015.
O.P.E.N. Opportunity for Probation with Enforcement in Nevada Intermediate Sanction Program Nevada Department of Corrections Re-entry Services.
Basic Supervision Funding We will receive the following amounts in basic supervision: FY 2008 FY 2009 $105,744,392 $107,326,403 Currently we are receiving.
Ohio Justice Alliance for Community Corrections October 13, 2011.
Probation Supervision and Information Gathering Presentence Reports.
Probation and Parole in the United States Your presenter:
CJ © 2011 Cengage Learning Chapter 12 Probation and Community Corrections.
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill Chapter 5 Intermediate Sanctions: Between Probation and Incarceration 1.
Pretrial, Probation and Parole
Drug Courts: Some Answers to Our Burning Questions NADCP May 2008.
PREPARED BY NPC RESEARCH PORTLAND, OR MAY 2013 Florida Adult Felony Drug Courts Evaluation Results.
UCLA’s Statewide Evaluation of Proposition 36 Darren Urada, Ph.D. UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs Association for Criminal Justice Research (California)
Classification and Supervision in Probation and Parole
EXTENDING THE THERAPEUTIC JUSTICE MODEL TO PROBLEM GAMBLERS Mark G. Farrell, JD; Jessica Aungst Weitzel, MPH; Thomas H. Nochajski, PhD, Buffalo Center.
Broken Windows or Broken Logic? Supervising Offenders in the Community.
The Correction of Offenders generally divided into 2 broad categories:
Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections
ANALYSIS OF LOUISIANA PRISON SYSTEM 1 Main Office: 720 Kearney St. Denver, CO Ph Wendy Naro-Ware October2012.
Welcome to unit What’s New? Announcements Questions - Concerns.
Chapter 2 Pretrial Release and Diversion. Pretrial Services Pretrial Services is a department with two overlapping functions: Assisting the court with.
Chapter 4 Probation Goals and ideologies Setting and enforcing conditions Revoking liberty Legal basis and imposing the sentence Agency organization.
Intensive Supervision Probation (or Parole) Initial Rise to Prominence Research on First Gen ISP Programs Finding Something Useful in ISP.
2 3 Texas has one of the largest Probation Populations in the United States (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2007) 4 Selected StatesProbation Population.
OFFENDER REENTRY: A PUBLIC SAFETY STRATEGY Court Support Services Division.
Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D. Treatment Research Institute at the University of Pennsylvania TRI science addiction Effective Programs for Drug Offenders.
Replicating the Concepts Behind Project HOPE Dionne Addison and Stephanie Starr, Grant Administrators Sonya Dunlap, Project Coordinator.
Chapter 12 Probation and Community Corrections. JUSTIFICATION Reintegration Preparing offenders to return to the community unmarred by further criminal.
Immediate Sanction Probation Pilot Project Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission June 8, 2015.
INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND THE ROLE OF GPS Thomas H. Williams, Associate Director Community Supervision Services July 14-15, 2008 United States Sentencing.
Judge Neil Edward Axel District Court of Maryland (retired) Maryland Highway Safety Judicial Conference December 2, 2015 Best Practices & Sentencing Alternatives.
Chapter 4 Community Corrections: Diversion and Probation 1.
Yavapai County Jail Planning Services Presentation to: Yavapai County Board of Supervisors January 6, 2016.
ADULT REDEPLOY ILLINOIS Mary Ann Dyar, Program Administrator National Association of Sentencing Commissions August 7, 2012.
Created by Jonathan Lee and Allen Lim
Kaplan University Online CJ101 Unit 8 Introduction to the Criminal Justice System.
Courts and Corrections. The Youth Court Process After the police lay charges.... –Decision made about pre-trial detention –Decision made about trial setting.
C11: Probation and Corrections  Sean Taylor:  What was his crime?  What was his sentence?  Do you think he received special treatment?
© 2015 Cengage Learning Chapter 12 Probation, Parole and Intermediate Sanctions Chapter 12 Probation, Parole and Intermediate Sanctions © 2015 Cengage.
Corrections Also known as community-based corrections Community corrections: Refers to a wide range of sentences that depend on correctional resources.
Probation and Community Corrections Chapter 12. The Justification for Community Corrections Reintegration – Goal of corrections – Prepares offender for.
Putting an End to the Mass Incarceration of People Living with Mental Illness.
BCJ 3150: Probation and Parole
Probation and Community Justice Program Overview
Using the National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices (NCJTP) Survey
Sentencing Reform in CA
Jail Population Management and Pretrial Practice in California
10 Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections.
Chapter 4 Probation: How Most Offenders Are Punished
Swift, Certain, and Fair: Lessons from HOPE Probation and Beyond
10 Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections.
Presentation transcript:

Managing drug- involved offenders with HOPE Presented by: Angela Hawken, PhD October 22, 2010 ACJRCA

Managing drug offenders Probation departments are on the front lines to reduce drug dependence  Managing high caseloads with limited supervision and drug treatment resources  A large number of non-violent drug offenders will go on to commit non-drug crimes

Important approaches Treatment diversion (e.g., Proposition 36) Drug courts

Managing Drug-involved Offenders: Diversion Programs

Characteristics of diversion programs Mandates treatment for all; even those without a diagnosable substance abuse disorder. Treatment decisions based on self- reported behavior Limited use of sanctions

Treatment diversion – example California’s Proposition 36 Only 25% completed the treatment to which they were mandated. Why? Little enforcement Poorly matched treatment The result?

Increase in Arrests (30 Month follow-up) New drug arrestNew property arrestNew violent arrest Percent of offenders Referred but untreated Comparison Group Entered but did not complete treatment Completed treatment

Treatment provider perceptions of why Prop 36 clients did not complete their planned treatment. Notes: Data are from the 2007 Proposition 36 Treatment Provider Survey. The results reflect responses from randomly selected Proposition 36 Treatment Providers (n = 87).

Providers’ perceptions – would jail sanctions for non-compliance improve treatment outcomes? Notes: Data are from the 2007 Prop 36 Treatment Provider Survey. The results reflect responses from randomly selected Prop 36 Treatment Providers (n = 87).

Managing drug-involved offenders: The Drug Court approach

Drug courts The drug court movement has been very successful and has demonstrated good outcomes Resource intensive =>problems with scale In many jurisdictions – the wrong clients are being served  Prosecutor discretion  Concern with evaluation outcomes

Why Drug Courts face problems with scale Role of the judge: regularly scheduled meetings Role of treatment: all clients are mandated to treatment Typical caseload is probationers $$$

A new alternative model BEHAVIORAL TRIAGE

Behavioral Triage Model Not everyone is mandated to treatment Monitoring and treatment decisions based on probationers’ observed behavior not self-report Allocates treatment resources more efficiently  Many drug-involved probationers do not have a diagnosable substance abuse disorder, wasting scare treatment resources and displacing self-referrals in greater need of care.

Example: Hawaii’s HOPE Probation conditions are actually enforced Regular random drug testing Violations result in swift and certain but modest sanctions No one mandated to treatment if complying (but provided if asked) Three or more violations => treatment mandate

HOPE Two Studies  Integrated Community Sanctions Unit (Specialized Probation Unit) Outcomes compared for HOPE probationers and a comparison group of probationers (TAU). Smaller caseloads (~90:1)  Adult Client Services (General Probation Unit) Intent-to-treat randomized controlled trial Larger caseloads (~180:1)

Eligibility Probationers were indentified as:  Drug-involved  Demonstrated non-compliance  High risk of revocation

FINDINGS

Summary of RCT outcomes OutcomeHOPEControl No-shows for probation appointments (average of appointments per probationer) 9%23% Positive urine tests (average of tests per probationer) 13%46% New arrest rate (probationers rearrested)21%47% Revocation rate (probationers revoked)7% * 15% Incarceration (days sentenced)138 days * 267 days

HOPE AS A BEHAVIORAL TRIAGE MODEL

Distribution of positive drug tests

Process integrity Tenets of HOPE are research based  Sanctions are certain.  Sanctions are swift.  Sanctions are consistent.  Sanctions are modest.

Probationers’ Perceptions (n=211)

Remaining questions HOPE for all?  A minority of probationers do not comply even when faced with repeat sanctions. 30 HOPE probationers were transferred to drug court. Whether HOPE generalizes is an unanswered question Whether HOPE effects persist after probation is complete is an unanswered question (only 1 year follow-up)

Contact information Please address questions or comments to Angela Hawken at: