Slide 1

Replicating the Concepts Behind Project HOPE Dionne Addison and Stephanie Starr, Grant Administrators Sonya Dunlap, Project Coordinator Slide 2 As of 2012, 1 in 50 adults in the US were under supervision according to US Department of Justice Probationers account for over 80% of people on supervision In 2012, Ohio was one of 4 states that had the largest increase in probation numbers Slide 3 How long does it take to deal with a violation in your court? What type of sanctions are you able to administer without a hearing? Are sanctions consistently administered? Why or Why not? Slide 4 SCF programs differ in some operational details but all share Close monitoring Swift and certain responses Modest sanctions Purpose: to shape behavior by tying consequences to behaviors, clearly and quickly Slide 5 Formal orientation (procedural justice) Clearly articulated rules Rules closely monitored and actually enforced Every violation is met with an immediate sanction What behavioral economics tells us about certainty But the sanction is modest (how low can we go?) Slide 6 No exceptions! If a probationer/inmate takes responsibility, he/she receives less penalty than if he/she denies Not graduated sanctioning Slide 7 Slide 8 DemographicsHOPEControl Sex Male Female 75% 25% 71% 29% Age36.1 avg35.4 avg Most Serious Prior Charges Drug Property Violent Other 35% 30% 22% 14% 33% 34% 22% 11% Slide 9 OutcomeHOPEControl No-shows for probation appointments (average of appointments per probationer) 9%23% Positive urine tests (average of tests per probationer) 13%46% Revocation rate (probationers revoked)7%15% Incarceration (days sentenced)138 days267 days Slide 10 Number of positive drug tests Percentage Slide 11 HOPE subjects had 20% fewer new charges Drug = 50% fewer new charges Property = 4% fewer new charges Violent = 14% fewer new charges Other = 21% fewer new charges HOPE subjects had 14% fewer returns to prison (13 % HOPE vs 27% control) Slide 12 Started 2011 as a pilot in Seattle Higher risk parolees Longer more serious offense April 2012 state legislature passed statewide implementation 117,000 offenders with 113 field offices Slide 13 SCF shows a great deal of promise Evaluations on the mainland show similar results to Hawaii (Texas, Kentucky, Michigan, WA) There are still many unknowns Essential components; Role of sanctions and sanction types; Integrating rewards We are only now starting to learn about in-custody applications of these principles Slide 14 The Role of EBP within SCF RNR Case Planning Programming and Interventions Slide 15 Considerations prior to implementing Can we effectively role this out in our department? If not how can we adapt the model to work for us. Slide 16 Increasing prison population Rates of successful completion of probation remain stable, but not satisfactory New tool for holding offenders accountable Slide 17 Similarities: Increased drug testing Non-graduated sanction for violation behavior Differences: Target population Varied sanctions Slide 18 Community Control offenders (including Judicial Release) Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS) Moderate or higher risk offenders Low risk offenders with a documented substance abuse need Excluding: Arsonists Slide 19 1 county Common Pleas Judge MOU with the Adult Parole Authority Limited resources Comparable number of offenders placed on cc/year; sentenced to prison/year; technical violators resulting in prison sentence/year Approximately 100 participants per county projected for the project Slide 20 Traditional model Jail sanction 180 day suspended jail sentence $87.68/offender per day Slide 21 Sanction varies from traditional HOPE model Electronic monitoring/GPS sanction Active EM/GPS system 24/7 monitoring in live time $9.50/day per active unit $6.75/day per inactive unit Slide 22 Sanction varies from traditional HOPE model Residential placement sanction Direct interventions with trained halfway house staff Assignments completed while at the facility Completed assignments reviewed with supervising officer following release from the facility $45.20/offender per day Slide 23 3 Day Sanction7 Day Sanction14 Day Sanction Positive Urine Screen/AdmitsPositive Urine Screen/DenialAdulterated Urine Sample Failure to Report Self report within 1 business day Whereabouts Unknown/ Violator-at-Large - Self-report Refusal to Submit to Drug Screening Unapproved Change of Residence (Sex Offender only) Self-report Whereabouts Unknown/Violator-at-Large Law enforcement, Court or, Supervising Officer Tampering with EM/GPS Equipment Self-report Unapproved Change of Residence (Sex Offender only) Law enforcement, Court, or Supervising Officer Failure to Charge Equipment Self-report Tampering with EM/GPS Equipment - Denial Unsuccessful Termination from Program Self report Failure to Charge Equipment - Denial Unsuccessful Termination from Program Treatment Provider The following violations must be staffed with the Project Coordinator or Grant Administrators: Chronic violations Contact with victim, violation(s) of protection order, and exclusionary zone violations (EM/GPS) Slide 24 Monitor the implementation of HOPE model Ensure the consistent application of the HOPE model Oversight of the day-to-day operations Collects and maintains data Identify the needs and training opportunities Slide 25 Oversight of policies, contracts, and memorandums of understanding Ensure fidelity of model while maintaining other department priorities Financial oversight of grant Provide support to the Project Coordinator Slide 26 Identify and educate affected stakeholders and concerned parties Implement in a way that allows for adjustments Ensure staff accountability and compliance to model Be informed and share Slide 27 Dionne Addison, Grant Administrator Dionne.Addison@odrc.state.oh.us Stephanie Starr, Grant Administrator Stephanie.Starr@odrc.state.oh.us Sonya Dunlap, Project Coordinator Sonya.Dunlap@odrc.state.oh.us Slide 28