1. Immediate Sanction Probation Pilot Project Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission June 10, 2013

2. Overview of HOPE Program Evaluation

3. Pepperdine University, with funding from the National Institute of Justice, conducted an evaluation of Project HOPE (published December, 2009) Evaluation design employed a random assignment of 493 high-risk probationers: 330 (two-thirds) were placed into Project HOPE 163 (one-third) were placed into regular probation 3 Evaluation of HOPE Program

4. 4 HOPE Evaluation Outcomes HOPE Program Outcomes (One Year Follow-up) Skipped Appointments Probation Revoked Arrested for New Crime Used Drugs 47% 21% 46% 13% 23% 9% 7% 15% CONTROL HOPE Source: Hawken, A. & Kleiman, M. (2009). Managing Drug Involved Probationers with Swift and Certain Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii's HOPE. www.ncjrs.govpdffiles1/nij/grants/229023.pdfwww.ncjrs.govpdffiles1/nij/grants/229023.pdf Even though the HOPE group was brought back to court for every violation (more opportunities to be revoked), HOPE participants still had lower revocation rate

5. 5 HOPE Evaluation Outcomes HOPE Program Outcomes (One Year Follow-up) CONTROL HOPE Source: Hawken, A. & Kleiman, M. (2009). Managing Drug Involved Probationers with Swift and Certain Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii's HOPE. www.ncjrs.govpdffiles1/nij/grants/229023.pdfwww.ncjrs.govpdffiles1/nij/grants/229023.pdf A separate study found that, on average, HOPE participants and a control group served about the same amount of time in jail for violations (approx. 20 days). However, the average prison sentence was significantly lower for HOPE participants.

6. 6 HOPE Evaluation Outcomes Source: Hawken, A. & Kleiman, M. (2009). Managing Drug Involved Probationers with Swift and Certain Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii's HOPE. www.ncjrs.govpdffiles1/nij/grants/229023.pdfwww.ncjrs.govpdffiles1/nij/grants/229023.pdf HOPE Program Outcomes Number of Positive Urinalyses for HOPE Participants in 12 months

7. HOPE Evaluation Outcomes - Key Components of the Warning Hearing 7 As part of the warning, the judge: Stresses the importance of the probationer taking charge of his own life and accepting accountability for his own actions Clearly lays out the consequences for violation in advance, which creates a perception of fairness on the part of the probationer Expresses goodwill toward the probationer and the desire that the probationer succeed These are also frequently reiterated at violation hearings.

8. Other key factors described in Hawaii’s evaluation: Presence of prosecution and defense is key to reinforcing perception of fairness and emphasizing the seriousness of the matter – Attorneys are also important in Virginia because of the statutory ability to object to an expedited hearing and the judge’s ability to remove an offender at any time. The probation officer reinforces the message expressed by the court after the probationer is released from incarceration following a violation. HOPE Evaluation Outcomes – Other Key Components of the Warning and Violation Hearings 8

9. Swift and Certain Sanction Programs Elsewhere in the U.S.

10. Interest and Participation in Results First VT HI NH MA RI CT NJ DE MD ME WA MT ND SD MN OR ID WY CO UT NV CA AZ NM NE KS OK TX AK LA AR MO IA WI MI IL IN OH PA NY WV KY TN MS AL GA SC NC FL VA Evaluation or Preliminary Results Reported AK States with Similar Swift and Certain Sanction Programs Data Collection Phase/Evaluation Pending Program Created, Evaluation Status Unknown

11. 11 Research on Swift and Certain Sanction Programs Growing body of research on HOPE-style supervision: Anchorage Probation Accountability with Certain Enforcement (PACE) South Dakota 24/7 Sobriety Project Washington Intensive Supervision Program (WISP) Arizona Swift Accountable Fair Enforcement (SAFE) 4 Federal Demonstration Field Experiment Sites –Clackamas County, Oregon –Essex County, Massachusetts –Saline County, Arkansas; and –Tarrant County, Texas

12. Virginia’s Pilot Project – Status Update

13. Implementation manual, warning script, and forms Template court orders in place Payment process for court-appointed attorneys working with the program in Henrico Point-of-contact for each office/agency identified and contact lists created for each pilot site − To facilitate swift communication process 13 Completed Tasks

14. Worked with DOC, Compensation Board, and Clerks to add new codes, etc., in automated systems − DOC’s VA-CORIS system − Local Inmate Data System used in the jails − Supreme Court’s Case Management System Prepared and presented information on HOPE and Virginia's pilot program to all Probation Officers in Lynchburg and Henrico to encourage the identification and referral of candidates 14 Completed Tasks

15. Hold regular meetings in each pilot site to discuss any issues or questions that arise − Work together to develop solutions that are satisfactory to everyone 15 Ongoing Tasks

16. 16 Overview of Henrico Pilot Program Start date: November 1, 2012 Two judges oversee the hearings (Judge Yoffy and Judge Wallerstein) DOC has designated a probation officer to supervise the offenders in the program Six court-appointed attorneys provide defense counsel to offenders in the program Sheriff and Chief of Police agreed to arrest program violators quickly (currently being handled by HPD’s Fugitive Investigations Team) Judges conduct expedited hearings on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 1:00pm

17. 17 Overview of Lynchburg Pilot Program Start date: January 1, 2013 One judge is overseeing the hearings (Judge Yeatts; backup will be a substitute judge) DOC designated a probation officer to supervise the offenders in the program The Public Defender’s Office provides counsel to offenders in the program

18. 18 Sheriff and Chief of Police agreed to arrest program violators quickly − Initial delays within Police Department appear to have been resolved Amherst and Campbell County Sheriffs have agreed to execute Lynchburg PB-15s quickly, thereby expanding the pool of potential program participants to those living outside the city Originally held as needed, Lynchburg has now set expedited hearings for Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 1:00pm Overview of Lynchburg Pilot Program

19. 19 On March 5, Commission staff and the Deputy Secretary of Public Safety met with stakeholders in Chesapeake Second meeting in Chesapeake was held in April − Stakeholders discussed the potential workload impact for the Probation Office and Clerk’s Office − Judges expressed concern about the low number of participants in the two existing pilot programs  Wanted eligibility criteria to be expanded to allow offenders with a prior conviction for an offense listed in § 17.1-805 to participate (e.g., prior burglaries)  Requested information on number of eligible offenders in Chesapeake Update on Third Pilot Site

20. 20 To encourage Chesapeake’s participation in the pilot, Commission staff pursued expanding the eligibility criteria to allow offenders with a prior conviction for an offense listed in § 17.1-805 to be considered for the program − This had previously been suggested by stakeholders in Henrico and Lynchburg − Secretary of Public Safety’s Office and the Commonwealth’s Attorneys in all three jurisdictions were amenable to the proposed change (implemented April 26) Update on Third Pilot Site

21. 21 Commission staff requested probation caseload data from DOC, which indicated that Chesapeake would have a larger pool of eligible offenders than either Henrico or Lynchburg Update on Third Pilot Site

22. 22 Chesapeake’s judges desired to change the pilot program to require offenders to waive their right to counsel in order to participate Modifying the pilot program in this way raised concern − § 19.2-303.5 allows parties to object to the expedited hearing, in which case the matter proceeds to a full show cause hearing − HOPE evaluation found that defense counsel was an important part of the program’s effectiveness − Evaluation would likely become more challenging if one pilot site were operating differently than the others in regards to a key aspect of the program Update on Third Pilot Site

23. 23 Due to those circumstances, a pilot program did not proceed in Chesapeake Discussions were held with the Secretary of Public Safety’s Office and DOC administration regarding options for another site Arlington was identified as a potential site −Judge Newman has agreed to convene the stakeholders on June 19 Update on Third Pilot Site

24. 24 Program-Related Issues Identified at the March Meeting Number of eligible offenders appears to be less than expected − Offenders being supervised in the pilot sites who are under the jurisdiction of another court are not eligible − Offenders with current or prior violent felonies were not eligible Probationers were not being referred to the Immediate Sanction Probation Officer to be considered for the program at the rate that was anticipated

25. 25 Program Participants (as of March 14) 5 Program Violations (as of March 14) 1 Henrico Program Participants (as of March 14) 6 Program Violations (as of March 14) 5 Lynchburg Program-Related Issues Identified at the March Meeting

26. 26 Follow-up on Program-Related Issues Eligibility criteria has been expanded to allow offenders with a prior conviction for an offense listed in § 17.1-805 to be considered for the program On April 26, 2013, Commission staff accompanied DOC’s Deputy Director and a Regional Operations Chief to Henrico and Lynchburg to meet with all Probation Officers in each district − Presented information about the HOPE model and Virginia’s pilot program and answered questions − Second meeting was held for officers who could not attend the April 26 meeting

27. 27 Follow-up on Program-Related Issues Commission staff participate in weekly conference calls with each Probation District to discuss potential candidates for the program − Calls also provide opportunity to address questions from Probation staff and receive feedback on the program from Probation Officers

28. 28 Some PB-15s had not been executed as quickly as desired − This resulted in delays in getting offenders in front of the judge to be considered for placement in the program − More importantly, participants who violate must be arrested as quickly as possible so that sanctions can be imposed swiftly and the impact of the sanction on the offender can be maximized Program-Related Issues Identified at the March Meeting

29. 29 Issue was discussed at stakeholder meetings in March Delays in executing PB-15s appear to have been resolved Follow-up on Program-Related Issues

30. Recent Activity in Henrico & Lynchburg 30 Locality # of Participants (as of 6/7/13) # of Participants who have Violated # of Violations Participants Removed Pending Candidates Henrico154613 Lynchburg1861301 Total33101914

31. Recent Activity in Henrico & Lynchburg 31 Violation On or Before 3/8/13Violation After 3/8/13 LynchburgHenricoTotalLynchburgHenricoTotal Percent of Violation Hearings held w/in 3 days of a violation 20%N/A20%38%60%46% Avg. time between violation and hearing 7 daysN/A7 days4 days3 days3.9 days Avg. time between violation and arrest 5.4 daysN/A5.4 days2.9 days2.4 days2.7 days Avg. time between arrest and hearing 1.6 daysN/A1.6 days2 days1.6 days1.9 days Avg. time between arrest and hearing – business days SameN/ASame<1 day2 days1.5 days Number of Violations5058513 Measures of Swiftness Note: Excludes revocations that occurred after a participant’s removal from the program.

32. Recent Activity in Henrico & Lynchburg 32 LynchburgHenricoTotal Percent of Violations Resulting in a Jail Term100% Avg. length of sentence for 1st Violation3 days Avg. length of sentence for 2nd Violation6 days10 days*6.8 days Avg. length of sentence for 3rd Violation9 daysN/A9 days Avg. length of sentence for 4th Violation10 days*N/A10 days* Measures of Certainty and Sanctions Imposed * Represents 1 case Note: Sentence length is in addition to time served awaiting hearing. Excludes revocations that occurred after a participant’s removal from the program.

33. Recent Activity in Henrico & Lynchburg 33 Number of Violations for Participants N=33 * One participant was removed after 3 violations. *