Upload
oleg-garcia
View
17
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Immediate Sanction Probation Pilot Project. Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission June 10, 2013. Overview of HOPE Program Evaluation. Evaluation of HOPE Program. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
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
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%
CONTROLHOPE
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.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
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.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
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.pdf
61%
20%
9%5% 2% 2% 1%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
HOPE Program OutcomesNumber of Positive Urinalyses for HOPE Participants in 12 months
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.
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
Interest and Participation in Results First
VT
HI
NH
MA
RI
CT
NJ
DE
MD
MEWA
MT ND
SD
MNOR
ID
WY
COUT
NV
CA
AZ NM
NE
KS
OK
TX
AK
LA
AR
MO
IA
WI
MI
IL INOH
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Issue was discussed at stakeholder meetings
in March
Delays in executing PB-15s appear to have
been resolved
Follow-up on Program-Related Issues
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
Henrico 15 4 6 1 3
Lynchburg 18 6 13 0 1
Total 33 10 19 1 4
Recent Activity in Henrico & Lynchburg
31
Violation On or Before 3/8/13 Violation After 3/8/13
Lynchburg Henrico Total Lynchburg Henrico Total
Percent of Violation Hearings held w/in 3 days of a violation
20% N/A 20% 38% 60% 46%
Avg. time between violation and hearing
7 days N/A 7 days 4 days 3 days 3.9 days
Avg. time between violation and arrest
5.4 days N/A 5.4 days 2.9 days 2.4 days 2.7 days
Avg. time between arrest and hearing
1.6 days N/A 1.6 days 2 days 1.6 days 1.9 days
Avg. time between arrest and hearing – business days
Same N/A Same <1 day 2 days 1.5 days
Number of Violations 5 0 5 8 5 13
Measures of Swiftness
Note: Excludes revocations that occurred after a participant’s removal from the program.
Recent Activity in Henrico & Lynchburg
32
Lynchburg Henrico Total
Percent of Violations Resulting in a Jail Term 100% 100% 100%
Avg. length of sentence for 1st Violation 3 days 3 days 3 days
Avg. length of sentence for 2nd Violation 6 days 10 days* 6.8 days
Avg. length of sentence for 3rd Violation 9 days N/A 9 days
Avg. length of sentence for 4th Violation 10 days* N/A 10 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.
23
5
2 2 1
0 1 2 3 4
Recent Activity in Henrico & Lynchburg
33
Number of Violations for Participants
N=33
* One participant was removed after 3 violations.
*