Upload
emil-patterson
View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Prosecutors 45 Minute Guide to Community Supervision
Jane Seigel, Executive Director, IJC
Objectives: 1. EBP Overview– learn about the principles of
effective interventions
2. Risk Assessment– learn about Indiana’s risk assessment systems (IRAS & IYAS)
3. Incentives and Sanctions– learn about Indiana’s project to implement incentives and sanctions in probation supervision
4. Problem-Solving Courts– learn about Indiana’s problem-solving court model and statutes/rules
5. Interstate Compacts– learn about the adult and juvenile Interstate Compacts for offender supervision
Overview of Evidence-Based Practices What is EBP?
Evidence-based practice is a significant trend through all human services that emphasizes outcomes
Interventions within community corrections are considered effective when they reduce offender risk and subsequent recidivism and therefore make a positive contribution to public safety
-from “Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in Community Corrections: The Principles of Effective Interventions”
There are 8 Principles of Effective Offender Interventions
1. Assess actuarial risk/needs 2. Enhance intrinsic motivation 3. Target interventions– risk, need,
responsivity, dosage 4. Skill train w/ directed practice (CBT methods) 5. Increase positive reinforcement 6. Engage ongoing support in natural
communities 7. Measure relevant processes/practices 8. Provide measurement feedback
Additional resources on EBP
National Institute of Corrections websitewww.nicic.gov/ReducingRiskResearchSources
“Using Research to Promote Public Safety: A Prosecutor’s Primer on Evidence-Based Practice”, by Jennifer Fahey 2008
“Evidence-Based Practice to Reduce Recidivism: Implications for State Judiciaries”, by Roger Warren 2007
Assess Risk & Need Risk assessment is the cornerstone of EBP What is risk?
Risk of recidivism (re-offense) High risk offender populations are more likely to
recidivate Low risk offender populations are less likely to recidivate
Higher risk offenders should receive more intense services, treatment and supervision
Targeting lower risk offenders for intensive services, treatment and supervision can increase their risk and failure rates
What is need?
Need refers to “criminogenic needs”– dynamic risk factors, that when addressed or changed, affect the offender’s risk for recidivism
Criminogenic needs are characterized as “primary” and “secondary” Primary: antisocial attitudes, values, beliefs; pro-
criminal peers and associates; antisocial personality Secondary: family and marital relationships;
education and employment; substance abuse; leisure and recreation
Indiana’s Risk Assessment Systems Creates a system that expands as the
offender moves deeper into the system at different decision points For adults (IRAS) and juveniles (IYAS)
Provides quick review of risk upfront, with case planning capacity for longer assessments
Public Domain
Normed/validated on Ohio/Indiana samples
Benefits and Goals of Assessment
Benefits Helps guide decision
making Helps reduce bias Improves placement of
offenders Helps better utilize
resources Helps you know if
offender has improved Can lead to enhanced
public safety
Goals To identify risk of
recidivism To identify criminogenic
needs To identify appropriate
offenders for programs To provide risk and
need levels for case planning
To facilitate reassessment to determine offender change
Assessments conducted by community supervision officers
Assessments consist of:
File review
Self-report
Interview with offender
Collateral information
Certification Process
All community supervision officers must:
Complete a two-day training
Pass an assessment exam
Pass a written exam
Important considerations in risk assessment
Offender assessment drives effective programs ………helps you know who & what to target
Design programs around empirical research ………helps you know how to target offenders
Program Integrity makes a difference
Incentives and Sanctions
Relates to Effective Intervention #5– Increase positive reinforcement
Research indicates that a ratio of 4 positive to every 1 negative reinforcement is optimal for promoting behavior changes incentives are used to encourage pro-social
behaviors (including compliance with court-ordered conditions and case management plans)
sanctions are used to discourage problematic/anti-social behaviors
Incentives and Sanctions Reinforcement is used in conjunction with swift
and certain sanctions for negative behaviors or violations
Reinforcement teaches offenders what to do; sanctions teach offenders what not to do
Behaviors that have been reinforced are more likely to be repeated in future
Behaviors that have been punished are less likely to be repeated in future
Indiana Incentives & Sanctions Project
IC 11-13-1-8 requires the Judicial Conference Board of Directors to set minimum standards for a “schedule of progressive probation incentives and violation sanctions”
IJC convened a workgroup to help develop the standards
Workgroup members included judges, prosecutors, public defenders and probation officers
Consultant for the project is the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute
UCCI developed a “contingency management system” for probation officers to deliver incentives and sanctions to offenders on supervision
Officers administer the incentives and sanctions within the context of evidence-based risk/need assessment, integrated case plans, and service delivery Identification of target behaviors is critical to
effective implementation Target behavior is a narrow, discrete behavioral
problem that will be the focus of the intervention
Incentives & Sanctions pilot project 3 probation departments used the
contingency management system to test the feasibility of its use Allen adult, Lawrence and Pulaski
Each location developed their own list of reinforcers and sanctions
Feedback from both officers and offenders was positive regarding use of both incentives and sanctions
Next step for the project is a formal process and outcome evaluation
Problem-Solving Courts
The term “problem-solving court” generally refers to an alternative approach to traditional case processing that focuses on outcomes related to victims, offenders and society (Center for Court Innovation, 2001).
The goals of problem-solving courts are: reduce recidivism and criminal justice costs improve access to services and quality of life Increase public confidence in criminal justice
system
Problem-Solving Courts
Began in the 1990s to accommodate offenders with specific needs and problems that were not or could not be adequately addressed in traditional courts
Seek to promote outcomes that will benefit not only the offender, but the victim and society as well
Developed as an innovative response to deal with offenders' problems, including drug abuse, mental illness, and domestic violence
Problem-Solving Court Elements 1. Focus on Outcomes– reducing recidivism or
creating safer communities 2. System Change– promote reform in how the
government responds to problems such as drug addiction and mental illness
3. Judicial Involvement– judges take more hands-on approach
4. Collaboration– work with external parties to achieve certain goals (treatment providers)
5. Non-traditional roles– some problem-solving courts are less adversarial than traditional criminal justice processing
Indiana Problem-Solving Courts
Guided by IC 33-23-16
Problem-Solving Court Rules adopted by Judicial Conference of Indiana
Indiana Judicial Center provides training, technical assistance and certification
Types of PSC in Indiana
Drug courtsRe-entry courtsMental health courtsFamily drug courts (CHINS)Veterans courtsCommunity courtDomestic violence court
Interstate Compacts
The Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision (ICAOS) governs the transfer of supervision for adult offenders across state lines
The Interstate Compact for Juveniles (ICJ) governs the transfer of supervision for juvenile delinquents across state lines and the return of runaways
ICAOS & ICJ
Promote public safety
Protect the rights of victims
Promote effective supervision and rehabilitation
Control the movement of offenders
Provide effective tracking
National Governing Bodies
All 50 states, the District of Columbia and US Virgin Islands are members of ICAOS and ICJ
The national commissions have rule-making authority and compliance enforcement authority Each state’s commissioner sits on the national
commission
Indiana Compact Legislation
Indiana’s compact legislation is IC 11-13-4.5
Adopts model legislation
Sets membership of State Council
Creates application fee for transfer
Indiana State Council Meets at least once per year; oversees compact
activities Members:
Executive Director of Indiana Judicial Center Commissioner of DOC Legislative appointment Executive Director of IPAC Executive Director of IPDC Executive Director of DCS Executive Director of ICJI Victim advocate Chair of Indiana Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges Executive Director of Sheriffs Association
ICAOS Considerations for Sentencing
ICAOS impacts how offenders are: transferred to another state supervised over state lines returned to a sending state when offender violates
supervision
Applies to all offenders convicted of a felony offense and some misdemeanor offenses
What triggers ICAOS?
An eligible offender subject to supervision requests to relocate to another state
~there is no right of convicted persons to travel across state lines
A transfer of an offender is within the sole discretion of the sending state
Compact Tidbits
No travel prior to transfer reply Sending state determines the length of
supervision, the receiving state determines the degree of supervision (must be consistent with own offenders)
Victim notification and right to be heard Offenders agree to waive extradition rights
when apply for transfer Warrants issued by sending or receiving states
shall be entered in NCIC with national pick-up radius
Thanks to IJC staff members Michelle Goodman, Jenny Bauer and Mary Kay Hudson for their help putting together this presentation
Thanks to David Powell for the invitation to speak to you today
Thank you for your attention!