PRESIDENT’S LETTER

ASSOCIATION ACTIVITIES AND INFORMATION

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: DOES TREATMENT WORK?By: Haley Zettler

IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICES: AN EFFECTIVE TOOL IN REDUCING DRIVING

WHILE IMPAIRED RECIDIVISM?By: Haley Zettler

HIDALGO COUNTY’S FIRST MISDEMEANOR DWI COURT PROGRAMBy Claudia V. Lemus

CHANGING LIVES HIDALGO COUNTY DRUG COURT PROGRAM GRADUATE SHARES HER SUCCESS STORY

By Claudia V. Lemus

NEWS FROM THE FIELD

JOURNAL OF THE TEXAS PROBATION ASSOCIATION

Volume XXX Number 2 Summer 2015

TEXAS PROBATIONVolume XXX Number 2 Summer 2015

Board of directors

President:Caroline RickawayP.O. Box 1300Angleton, TX 77515979-864-2145

Vice President:Chris Thomas121 North Austin Rm 301Jasper, TX 75951409-224-7151

Treasurer:Roxane MarekP.O. Box 786Wharton, TX 77488979-532-7474

SecretaryKarma Chambless2200 7th StreetBay City, TX 77414979-245-6512

Parliamentarian:Ed Cockrell5326 Hwy 69 SouthBeaumont, TX 77705409-722-7474

Juvenile Discipline: Lisa Tomlinson1102 East Kilpatrick Cleburne, TX 76031817-556-6880

At Large:Randy Turner2701 Kimbo RdFort Worth, TX 76111817-838-4600

Adult Discipline: Arnold K. PatrickP.O. Box 970Edinburg, TX 78540956-587-6000

Juvenile Discipline:Iris Bonner-Lewis1200 CongressHouston, TX 77002713-394-4340

At Large:Dan Collins2613 N. Guadalupe St.Seguin, TX 78155830-303-1274

Adult Discipline:Steve Henderson701 Main StreetLubbock, TX 79401806-755-1200

Juvenile Discipline:Edeska Barnes Jr.121 North Austin A101Jasper, TX 75951 409-384-9063

At Large:Billie Jean BramP.O. Box 3038Wharton, TX 77488979-532-2465

Adult Discipline:Bradley Wilburn114 Hurst St.Center, TX 75935936-591-4171

Secretariat:Tiaya EllisSam Houston State UniversityHuntsville, TX 77341936-294-3073

Alumni Board Member:Acie Berry512-635-3088

Texas Probation is published quarterly (Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall) by Sam Houston Press and Copy Center in Huntsville, Texas, for the Texas Probation Association. The contents of articles or other materials contained in Texas Probation do not reflect the endorsements, official attitudes, or positions of the Texas Probation Association or the George J. Beto Criminal Justice Center at Sam Houston State University unless so stated. Articles may be reproduced without charge as long as permission is obtained from the editor and credit is given to both the author and Texas Probation.

CONTENTS

PRESIDENT’S LETTER ................................................................................................. 1

ASSOCIATION ACTIVITIES .......................................................................................... 2

ARTICLES

Domestic Violence: Does Treatment Work?By: Haley Zettler. ................................................................................................................5

Ignition Interlock Devices: An Effective Tool in Reducing Driving While Impaired Recidivism?By: Haley Zettler .................................................................................................................8

Hidalgo County’s First Misdemeanor DWI Court ProgramBy Claudia V. Lemus ......................................................................................................... 11

Changing LivesHidalgo County Drug Court Program Graduate Shares Her Success StoryBy Claudia V. Lemus .........................................................................................................12

NEW MEMBERS ............................................................................................................. 13

NEWS FROM THE FIELD ............................................................................................ 14

PROFESSIONAL PROFILES ........................................................................................ 14

Volume XXX, No. 2 TEXAS PROBATION 1

and time in preparing Texas Probation for publication. Please consider contributing an article for publication or information for “News From the Field”. We also welcome your feedback about your journal. By learning from each other, we will strengthen our collective mission of providing effective services and enhancing public safety.

I hope everyone is enjoying their summer and looking forward to the 2015 Legislative Conference in Houston in August. This will be an excellent opportunity to celebrate our accomplishments and learn about the latest developments in the field.

Caroline RickawayTPA President

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

Welcome to the summer issue of Texas Probation. I want to thank you for selecting me as your Texas Probation Association President. I’m honored to represent such a remarkable group of professionals. My thanks are also extended to outgoing President Ed Cockrell, a mentor and friend to me now and during his term.

Looking back, the 2015 Annual Conference in Austin was a success with informative sessions and interesting speakers. I’d like to thank the 2015 Annual Conference Planning Committee Co-Chairs, A. C. Berry, Jr., Williamson County JPD (retired); Delana Lemley, Travis County CSCD; and Reuben Rabsatt, Bell County CSCD for their dedication and initiative in planning and preparing for the conference.

A common theme evident in today’s research is that relationships matter. In this “high tech” world, reaching out to colleagues, defendants, and clients is important. Learning to communicate effectively and establish quality relationships can have a positive effect on the delivery of community supervision services. One of the articles in this journal describes the success story of a Hidalgo County Drug Court Program graduate. This story demonstrates the impact of the probation officer in facilitating positive change for this graduate.

As we continue to attempt implementation of evidence-informed approaches in community supervision, the review and presentation of current research is essential for us to make decisions which will improve outcomes. Two articles in this journal analyze the available research on (1) the effectiveness of ignition interlock devices and (2) the significance of treatment in domestic violence programs. The questions raised by the critical analysis of these bodies of research can assist in framing future research and qualify the application of these tools and practices.

In closing, I want to thank the Co-Editors of the Publications Committee, Billie Jean Bram, Wharton County JPD; and Karla Kutch, Brazoria County CSCD, for their commitment, diligence,

2 TEXAS PROBATION Volume XXX, No.2

ASSOCIATION ACTIVITIES AND INFORMATION

2015 TPA Annual ConferenceWe had a great time in Austin! Hope to see you at the upcoming conferences!

Volume XXX, No. 2 TEXAS PROBATION 3

TPA AWARD RECIPIENTS Charles W. Hawkes Lifetime Achievement Award:

—Toby Ross, Johnson County CSCD (Retired)Brian J. Kelly Award (Adult Administrator):

—Marcy Anthony, Angelina County CSCDJudge Terry L. Jacks Award (Adult Officer):

—Will Hurley, Wharton/Matagorda CSCDAmador R. Rodriguez Award (Juvenile

Administrator): —LaRonda Turner, Jefferson County JPD

Clara Pope Willoughby Award (Juvenile Officer): —Amber Sellers, Tom Green JPD

Lewis “Butch” Amonette Award: —Jason Hickman, Jasper, Newton, Sabine and San Augustine County CSCD

Roy H. Williams, Sr. Award: —Karma Chambless, Wharton/Matagorda CSCD

UPCOMING CONFERENCES2016 Annual Conference April 17-20, 2016 Embassy Suites – San Marcos

2016 Legislative Conference August 14-17, 2016 Embassy Suites - Frisco

2017 Annual Conference April 2017 Austin – Southpark Omni

Volume XXX, No. 2 TEXAS PROBATION 4

ELECTION RESULTS

PRESIDENT—Caroline Rickaway, Brazoria County CSCDVICE PRESIDENT—Christopher B. Thomas, Jasper, Newton, Sabine & San Augustine Counties CSCDTREASURER—Roxane B. Marek, Wharton & Matagorda County CSCDJUVENILE—Edeska Barnes, Jasper, Newton, Sabine & San Augustine County Juvenile ProbationADULT—Bradley Wilburn, Panola/Shelby Counties CSCDAT LARGE—Billie Jean Bram, Wharton County Juvenile Probation Department

IN MEMORIAM

R. Allison Joyce

R. Allison Joyce, the long-time director of the Bell/Lampasas Counties Community Supervision and Corrections Department passed away on October 25, 2014. Allison Joyce served as the director of the Bell/Lampasas Counties CSCD from 1978 to 1997. This was a transitional period in community corrections in the State. During Mr. Joyce’s tenure as director, he saw the creation of the Texas Adult Probation Commission, the transfer of authority over an adult probation department from the county to the District Judges, the great reforms in community corrections in 1989, the consolidation of the state prison, parole and probation system, the establishment of Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facilities, and the creation of state jail felony offenses and state jail felony facilities. Despite all of these changes and challenges, Mr. Joyce successfully steered the Bell/Lampasas Counties CSCD through a sometimes tumultuous period in community corrections.

Allison Joyce was a man of enduring faith. He earned his B. A. at Southwest Texas State Teachers in 1957 and was awarded a Master of Divinity degree at Brice Divinity School at Texas Christian University in 1963. Prior to becoming the director of the Bell/Lampasas Counties CSCD, he served as the minister of several Christian Churches, Disciples of Christ

in the Central Texas area. He also served as the Regional Alcohol Services Director for the Central Texas Council on Alcoholism. He had a deep passion in the treatment of alcohol and substance abuse and was instrumental in establishing several treatment options in Bell and Lampasas Counties. After his retirement from the Bell/Lampasas Counties CSCD, he devoted his time to volunteering at the Mountain View Maximum Women’s Prison Unit in Gatesville, performing marital counselling, and serving as the minister of the Christian Community Church in Buckholts, Texas.

Because of Allison Joyce’s dedication to the field of community corrections and in recognition of his deep faith, the Texas Probation Association established the Allison Joyce Prayer Breakfast held at each of its conferences. The prayer breakfast will henceforth be named the Allison Joyce Memorial Prayer Breakfast. Allison Joyce is survived by his wife of 54 years, Lola, two sons and a daughter, and several grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Several of the officers he hired are still with the Bell/Lampasas Counties CSCD. He served as a mentor to many of the staff of the CSCD and will be sorely missed by those who knew and worked with him.

Volume XXX, No. 2 TEXAS PROBATION 5

Domestic Violence: Does Treatment Work?By: Haley Zettler

Haley Zettler is a third year PhD student in University of Texas at Dallas’s Criminology program. She received her Bachelor’s in Criminology from the University of Oklahoma and her Master’s in Criminal Justice from the University of North Texas. Her primary research interests include community corrections, pretrial release, corrections, and program evalua-tion. She is a former Adult Probation Officer and has several years’ experience supervising probationers, conducting pretrial sentence investigations, and serving as a court officer. She currently teaches at the University of Texas at Dallas and is a research assistant for the Center for Crime and Justice Studies.

ARTICLES

Introduction

Historically little attention was given to domestic violence and the subsequent behavior of batterers. With the passage of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, awareness was given to the problem of domestic violence prompting improvements in both criminal justice and community responses (Reckendwald and Parker, 2012). It is estimated that one in four women will become a victim of domestic abuse sometime in their life time (National Institute of Justice, 1999). This staggering statistic has encouraged both criminal justice officials and the public to demand responses to these offenders.

The sanctions imposed on domestic violence offenders vary, ranging from incarceration, enforcing protective orders, court ordered probation, and treatment. Of these responses, there has been a drastic increase in the use of court-ordered treatment. Since these offenders have assaulted someone that they are intimately involved with, it is important to understand the nature of their actions and prevent further acts of violence. One recent estimate places the proportion of court-mandated treatment programs for domestic violence at eighty percent (Healey et al., 1997). While treatment has become widely used for domestic violence offenders, it is important to evaluate the efficacy of these programs. This paper provides a review of the literature evaluating the effectiveness of court-ordered domestic violence treatment and its impact on preventing recidivism.

Support for Court-Mandated Domestic Violence Treatment

With the increased use of court-ordered treatment for offenders convicted of domestic violence, researchers

have conducted numerous studies evaluating particular programs and their effects on reducing further violence and reoffending. Many of these studies have found support for treatment reducing recidivism.

One evaluation of several studies found consistent support for treatment reducing recidivism (Davis and Taylor, 1999). An experimental evaluation compared a group of offenders who were assigned forty hours of community service to a group that were assigned forty hours of a batterer’s treatment program (Taylor et al., 2001). The results of the study found significantly lower official record recidivism rates for the group who received treatment as well as lower victim self-reports of further violence (Taylor et al., 2001). Similarly, Hendricks and colleagues (2006) found significantly lower rates of recidivism for offenders who completed treatment. This reduced recidivism by about twenty eight percent. Another study compared thirty different batterers’ intervention programs and found a reduction in recidivism ranging between thirty-nine and sixty-one percent (Bennett et al., 2007). Coulter and VandeWeerd (2009) also found support for the hypothesis that treatment can reduce recidivism for all types of criminal offending not only further domestic assaults. Another study found that the completion of all treatment sessions is also related to lower recidivism rates (Gordon and Moriarty, 2003). These findings support the notion that treatment can reduce recidivism.

There have been a number of studies that examine the long-term effects of treatment on recidivism. One study followed offenders for two years, comparing men that were incarcerated to those who participated in court-ordered treatment (Babcock and Steiner, 1999). Babock and Steiner (1999) found that those who attended treatment had lower recidivism rates after two years and those who were

6 TEXAS PROBATION Volume XXX, No.2

incarcerated had the highest rates of reoffending. Another lengthy study followed offenders eleven years after their intervention and found a significantly lower recidivism ratio for those offenders who completed treatment when they were compared to those offenders who did not complete treatment (Dutton et al., 1997). These long-term studies show promising results, suggesting that there can be long-term benefits to mandating treatment for domestic violence offenders.

Failure to Find Support for Domestic Violence Treatment

Although there is a body of literature that lends support for domestic violence treatment reducing recidivism, there are also a number of studies that do not. One study comparing multiple sites of treatment in four cities found no significant difference in re-assault rate, portion of men making threats, and the victims’ quality of life (Gondolf, 1999). However, this study did find that those who completed treatment had lower rates of severe re-assaults (Gondolf, 1999). Another study by Jackson and colleagues (2003) found that a great number of men dropped out of treatment prior to completion and there was no significant difference in the re-offending rate or their attitudes about domestic violence. Likewise, an additional study followed eighty-six men after completion of a domestic violence treatment program and found no significant reduction in re-offending (Bowen et al., 2005). These studies cast doubt on the argument that treatment programs reduce domestic violence recidivism in a significant way.

There are several studies that find mixed support for how treatment affects recidivism. A meta-analysis reviewing twenty-two studies found overall effects due to treatment were small in range, and only have a minimal impact on reducing recidivism beyond the effect of being re-arrested (Babcock et al., 2004). One study attempts to explain why these discrepancies in effectiveness may exist (Sartin et al., 2006). Sartin and colleagues argue that it is difficult to measure effectiveness since many studies rely primarily on legal records, while others focus on convictions as evidence of recidivism; and still others use victim self-report data. Since these studies often employ different ways to measure recidivism, it is often difficult to compare results across studies.

Factors Related to Reducing Recidivism with Domestic Violence Treatment

Some research has focused on the factors related to successful completion of domestic violence treatment as well as prevention of future offending. Shepard (1992) conducted a follow up five years after treatment and found those men who had been abusive for a shorter duration,

who were court ordered to have a chemical dependency evaluation, in chemical dependency treatment, abused as children, or previously convicted for non-assault crimes were more likely to recidivate. Similarly, Tollefson and Gross (2006) found four predictors of recidivism: psychopathology, psychiatric history, substance abuse, and child abuse. The study found that these four factors could predict eighty-four percent of all outcomes of recidivism (Tollefson and Gross, 2006). Another study looked at the psychological effects of treatment, predicting that participants would be more truthful, less violent, and have increased coping abilities (Buttell and Carney, 2004). The results failed to provide support that after twelve months of treatment the participants demonstrated significant changes in the direction of these psychological variables related to recidivism (Buttell and Carney, 2004).

Additionally, one study looked at the factors that explain attrition in domestic violence treatment programs. Jewell and Wormith (2010) conducted a meta-analysis examining the factors that are related to failure to complete court ordered treatment programs and found that several variables were related to completing treatment; these include employment, age, income, education, marital status, race, referral source, previous domestic violence offenses, criminal history, and alcohol and drug use (Jewell and Wormith, 2010). It is important to consider these factors when placing an offender in a treatment program to better ensure completion and prevent further offending.

Conclusions

As domestic violence and abusive offenders become a growing concern, it is important to understand what works in preventing further abuse and offending when they are no longer under the court’s supervision. Domestic violence treatment is now an ordinary part of the offenders’ sentence. The research suggests there is promise to these programs, as many have found empirical support that treatment works to reduce recidivism. Although there is some evidence that there may not be a significant effect, taking into consideration other risk factors for reoffending should be addressed and could potentially increase the overall success rate of these programs.

One limitation of the research reviewed is the majority of the evaluations and studies focus solely on a male offending population. However, the National Family Violence Survey (2000) found nearly equal assault rates by an intimate partner for women and men. Future research should consider female offenders in their evaluations and compare recidivism rates to see if treatment is equally effective for male and female offenders. It is plausible that treatment affects the groups differently and risk factors may also differ between groups.

Volume XXX, No. 2 TEXAS PROBATION 7

References

Babcock, J.C., Green, C.E., and Robie, C. (2004). Does Batterer’s Treatment Work? A Meta-analytic Review of Domestic Vio-lence Treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 1023-1053.

Babcock, J.C., and Steiner, R. (1999). The Relationship Between Treatment, Incarceration, and Recidivism of Battering: A Program Evaluation of Seattle’s Coordinated Community Response to Domestic Violence. Journal of Family Psychol-ogy, 13:1, 46-59.

Bennett, L.W., Stoops, C., Call, C., and Flett, H. Program Completion and Re-Arrest in a Batterer Intervention System. Research on Social Work Practice, 17:1, 42-54.

Bowen, E., Gilchrist, E.A., and Beech, A.R. (2005). An Examina-tion of the Impact of Community-Based Rehabilitation on the Offending Behaviour of Male Domestic Violence Offenders and the Characteristics Associated with Recidivism. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10, 189-209.

Buttell, F.P., and Carney, M.M. (2004). A Multidimensional Assessment of a Batterer Treatment Program: An Alert to a Problem? Research on Social Work, 14:2, 93-101.

Coulter, M., and VandeWeerd, C. (2009). Reducing Domestic Violence and Other Criminal Recidivism: Effectiveness of a Multilevel Batterers Intervention Program. Violence and Victims, 24: 139-152.

Davis, R.C., and Taylor, B.G. (1999). Does Batterer Treatment Reduce Violence? Women and Criminal Justice, 10:2, 69-93.

Gondolf, E.W. (1999). A Comparison of Four Batterer Intervention Systems: Do Court Referral, Program Length, and Services Matter? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14:1, 41-61.

Gordon, J.A., and Moriarty, L.J. (2003). The Effects of Do-mestic Violence Batterer Treatment on Domestic Violence Recidivism: The Chesterfield Experience. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30: 118.

Healey, K., Smith, C., and O’Sullivan, C. (1997) Batterer Interven-tion: Program Approaches and Criminal Justice Strategies. National Institute of Justice.

Hendricks, B., Werner, T., Shipway L., and Turinetti, G.J. (2006). Recidivism Among Spousal Abusers: Predictions and Pro-gram Evaluation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21: 703.

Jackson, S., Feder, L., Forde, D.R., Davis, R.C., Maxwell, C.D., and Taylor, B.G. (2003). Batterer Intervention Programs: Where Do We Go From Here? National Institutes of Justice Report.

Jewell, L.M., and Wormith, J.S. (2010). Variables Associated with Attrition from Domestic Violence Treatment Programs Targeting Male Batterers: A Meta-Analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37: 1086.

National Institute of Justice. (2000). Extent, Nature, and Con-sequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey

Reckenwald, A., and Parker, K.F. (2012). Understanding the Change in Male and Female Intimate Partner Homicide Over Time: A Policy-and Theory-Relevant Investigation. Feminist Criminology, 7: 167.

Sartin, R.M., Hansen, D.J., and Huss, M.T. (2006). Domestic Violence Treatment Response and Recidivism: A Review and Implications for the Study of Family Violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 425-440.

Shepard, Melanie. (1992). Predicting Batterer Recidivism Five Years after Community Intervention. Journal of Family Violence, 7:3.

Taylor, B.G., Davis, R. C., and Maxwell, C.D. (2001). The Ef-fects of a Group Batterer Treatment Program: A Randomized Experiment in Brooklyn. Justice Quarterly, 18:1, 171-201.

Tollefson, D.R., and Gross, E.R. (2006). Predicting Recidivism Following Participation in a Treatment Program for Batterers. Journal of Social Service Research, 32:4, 39-62.

8 TEXAS PROBATION Volume XXX, No.2

The social phenomenon of drinking and driving has grabbed the attention of not only the criminal justice realm, but the general public as well. There has been a renewed focus devoted to making our streets safer and preventing drinking and driving. One alarming statistic demonstrates that approximately one-third of all drivers convicted of a driving while impaired offense are repeat offenders (Fell, 1995). As such, policies have been put in place to reduce recidivism. Among these policies is the development of ignition interlock devices, which prevent the driver from starting their vehicle if alcohol is detected, thus preventing drunk driving. This review summarizes the literature that examines the effect of ignition interlock devices on reducing recidivism rates of impaired driving.

Effects on First Time Offenders and Repeat Offenders

Since preventing continued drinking and driving offenses is a focal concern, it is important to distinguish for whom the ignition interlock device is most effective. Some research has compared the effects of the ignition interlock on first time offenders against repeat offenders. Voas and colleagues (1999) compared recidivism rates for both first time offenders and second time offenders and found that for both groups, recidivism was reduced while the ignition interlock was installed. Similarly, Willis and colleagues (2004) found that while the ignition interlock was installed, recidivism rates for both first time and repeat offenders were lower than the control groups. Likewise, Roth and Marques (2007) found that first time offenders with the ignition interlock installed recidivated at a lower rate than the control group.

In contrast, Fulkerson and colleagues (2003) examined three-year recidivism rates for first time offenders and repeat offenders, and found that repeat offenders who had the ignition interlock installed had significantly lower re-arrest rates, whereas there was virtually no difference for first time offender rates.

When comparing the use of interlock device to other

sanctions imposed, Ahlin and colleagues (2011) looked solely at the effects on first time offenders. The results of the study found that no matter how first time offenders were sanctioned, they were still at a substantial risk of recidivism (Ahlin et al., 2011). These findings suggest that ignition interlock devices may not be as effective on first time offenders.

Roth and Marques (2007) assessed the effect of ignition interlocks on repeat offenders. Comparing second and third time offenders, the study found a significant reduction while the ignition interlock was installed (Roth and Marques, 2007). In a somewhat different approach, Marques and colleagues (2001) looked at the failure rates of those who had the ignition interlock device installed and found that those with greater failure rates coupled with prior offenses were most likely to recidivate.

These findings suggest there may be different effects for first time offenders as compared to repeat offenders. It is difficult to measure the direct impact that the ignition interlock may have on these disparities, since repeat offenders are often punished more severely with additional sanctions.

Effects during the Installation Period and the Removal Period

Considering the logic behind the ignition interlock device is to deter offenders from continuing to drink and drive, it is important to measure the long-term effects. The vast majority of the research supports the argument that ignition interlock devices reduce recidivism while the device is installed on the vehicle, but the effects diminish once the device is removed.

Some of the research has focused only on the effects that the ignition interlock may have while the device is installed. Morse and Elliott (1992) compared offenders whose licenses were suspended as a result of their conviction to those who were sanctioned with the ignition interlock device. The research found that the re-arrest rate was significantly lower

Ignition Interlock Devices: An Effective Tool in Reducing Driving While Impaired Recidivism?

By: Haley Zettler

Volume XXX, No. 2 TEXAS PROBATION 9

while the device was installed when compared to the control group (Morse and Elliott, 1992). Similarly, Weinrath (1997) found that ignition interlock participants were roughly four times less likely to be rearrested than a group that did not have the device installed. Bjerre and Thorsson (2008) compared those who voluntarily installed an interlock device compared to a group that chose license revocation. Bjerre and Thorsson (2008) found that the ignition interlock group not only had lower driving while impaired recidivism rates by about sixty percent, but also reported lower levels of harmful alcohol consumption.

Coben and Larkin (1999) examined six prior studies to evaluate the effectiveness of ignition interlock devices on recidivism. The evaluation found that five of the six studies resulted in a reduction in the arrest rate for the ignition interlock group ranging from between fifteen and sixty-nine percent (Coben and Larkin, 1999). Coben and Larkin (1999) also reviewed one randomized trial, and found a considerable reduction in arrests for the group with the ignition interlock installed.

Although there is overwhelming support for the effectiveness of ignition interlock devices in reducing recidivism while installed, the body of research that has examined the long-term effects found waning effects once the device is removed.

Beck and colleagues (1999) examined offenders who were randomly assigned to ignition interlock programs compared to those who were assigned to traditional license restriction programs during a one year treatment period and a one year post-treatment period. The study found that during the ignition interlock installation period, recidivism was reduced by sixty-five percent (Beck et al., 1999). However, the research found no significant differences during the one-year post-treatment period (Beck et al., 1999). Likewise, several other studies found no significant differences in recidivism rates once the ignition interlock was removed (Voas et al., 1999; Roth et al,. 2007; Roth et al., 2007). These consistent findings raise concern over the long-term effects of the ignition interlock device.

Raub and colleagues (2003) looked at the long-term effect of ignition interlocks on repeat offenders. The research found that the group with the ignition interlock installed was one-fifth as likely to be rearrested during the one-year installation period (Raub, et al., 2003). However, during the post-intervention period, rearrest rates increased to rates similar to those that did not have the ignition interlock installed (Raub et al., 2003). Similarly, Elder and colleagues (2011) evaluated fifteen studies to examine the long-term effects of ignition interlocks in reducing recidivism. The evaluation found large reductions in rearrest rates for alcohol related offenses during the installation of the ignition interlock (Elder et al., 2011). However, the research by Elder and colleagues (2011) suggested that the effects were short

lived, as following the removal of the interlocks, there was no significant difference in rearrest rates.

Conversely, there has been at least one study that has supported the argument that ignition interlock devices have more than just a short-term effect on reducing recidivism. Rauch and colleagues (2011) examined the effects of ignition interlock devices statewide during a two-year intervention and two-year post-intervention period and found that during the two-year intervention period, recidivism rates were reduced by thirty-six percent (Rauch et al., 2011). The study found recidivism rates were reduced by twenty-six percent during the post-intervention period, with an overall reduction of thirty-two percent for the four-year period examined (Rauch et al., 2011). The research of Rauch and colleagues (2011) challenges the earlier findings that there is in not a significant long-term effect of reducing recidivism rates.

Conclusions

Overall, the literature suggests that ignition interlock devices are at least somewhat effective in preventing continued drinking and driving. Although the results are most often short-lived, it is promising to see that while installed, the devices significantly reduce driving while impaired offending. The social problem of drinking and driving has grasped the attention of the public, policy makers, and the criminal justice system. Therefore, it is important to focus on creating policies that utilize the most effective means of preventing future offending. Further research should examine the effects of ignition interlock devices coupled with other sanctions in order to gain a better understanding of the methods that are most successful at reducing recidivism for driving while impaired offenses.

References

Ahlin, E. M., Zador, P. L., Rauch, W. J., Howard, J. M., & Duncan, G. D. (2011). First-time DWI offenders are at risk of recidi-vating regardless of sanctions imposed. Journal of criminal justice, 39(2), 137-142.

Beck, K. H., Rauch, W. J., Baker, E. A., & Williams, A. F. (1999). Effects of ignition interlock license restrictions on drivers with multiple alcohol offenses: a randomized trial in Maryland. American Journal of Public Health, 89(11), 1696- 1700.

Bjerre, B., & Thorsson, U. (2008). Is an alcohol ignition interlock programme a useful tool for changing the alcohol and driv-ing habits of drink-drivers? Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40(1), 267-273.

Coben, J. H., & Larkin, G. L. (1999). Effectiveness of ignition interlock devices in reducing drunk driving recidivism. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 16(1), 81-87.

10 TEXAS PROBATION Volume XXX, No.2

Elder, R. W., Voas, R., Beirness, D., Shults, R. A., Sleet, D. A., Nichols, J. L., & Compton, R. (2011). Effectiveness of igni-tion interlocks for preventing alcohol-impaired driving and alcohol-related crashes: a Community Guide systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40(3), 362-376.

Fell, Jim. “Repeat DWI Offenders in the United States.” Wash-ington, DC: National Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Traffic Tech No. 85, February 1995.)

Fulkerson, J. A. (2003). Blow and go: the breath-analyzed igni-tion interlock device as a technological response to DWI. The American journal of drug and alcohol abuse, 29(1), 219-235.

Marques, P. R., Tippetts, A. S., Voas, R. B., & Beirness, D. J. (2001). Predicting repeat DUI offenses with the alcohol interlock recorder. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 33(5), 609-619.

Morse, B. J., & Elliott, D. S. (1992). Effects of ignition interlock devices on DUI recidivism: findings from a longitudinal study in Hamilton County, Ohio. Crime & Delinquency, 38(2), 131-157.

Raub, R. A., Lucke, R. E., & Wark, R. I. (2003). Breath alcohol ignition interlock devices: controlling the recidivist. Traffic Injury Prevention, 4(3), 199-205.

Rauch, W. J., Ahlin, E. M., Zador, P. L., Howard, J. M., & Dun-can, G. D. (2011). Effects of administrative ignition interlock license restrictions on drivers with multiple alcohol offenses. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7(2), 127-148.

Roth, R., Voas, R., & Marques, P. (2007). Mandating interlocks for fully revoked offenders: the New Mexico experience. Traffic Injury Prevention, 8(1), 20-25.

Roth, R., Voas, R., & Marques, P. (2007). Interlocks for First Of-fenders: Effective? Traffic Injury Prevention, 8(4), 346-352.

Voas, R. B., Marques, P. R., Tippetts, A. S., & Beirness, D. J. (1999). The Alberta Interlock Program: the evaluation of a province-wide program on DUI recidivism. Addiction, 94(12), 1849-1859.

Voas, R. B., DuPont, R. L., Talpins, S. K., & Shea, C. L. (2011). Towards a national model for managing impaired driving offenders. Addiction, 106(7), 1221-1227.

Weinrath, M. (1997). The ignition interlock program for drunk drivers: A multivariate test. Crime & Delinquency, 43(1), 42-59.

Willis, C., Lybrand, S., & Bellamy, N. (2004). Alcohol ignition interlock programs for reducing drink driving recidivism. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 4.

Volume XXX, No. 2 TEXAS PROBATION 11

Hidalgo County’s First Misdemeanor DWI Court Program

By: Claudia V. Lemus

According to statistics by the Texas Department of Transportation, someone is hurt or killed in a tragic car accident involving alcohol every 20 minutes. As a result, awareness of the need to address this dire issue that continues taking so many lives has resulted in the Hidalgo County District Attorney’s Office and Community Supervision & Corrections Department (CSCD) teaming up to create the county’s first Misdemeanor DWI Court Program.

“There are over 5,000 pending DWI’s in Hidalgo County … misdemeanor DWI’s are something that most of the judiciary system feel the need to impact,” said Arnold K. Patrick, the Hidalgo County CSCD Director.

The Misdemeanor DWI Program is set to take place every Monday at 7:15 a.m. starting March 2, 2015 in the Hidalgo County Court at Law #2 with Presiding Judge Jaime “Jay” Palacios. It is a special and alternative court designed to handle cases involving alcohol-related offenders that will benefit from the completion of an intensive, judicially monitored, 12-month period of drug treatment, and rehabilitative services.

Other Hidalgo County officials involved in the planning and implementation of the new DWI Court Program include Faustino Lopez, CSCD Unit Supervisor; Ismael “Kino” Flores, Jr., Misdemeanor DWI Court Prosecutor; Marta Kang PhD, Clinical Director; and Sofia Kamal, Assistant Public Defender.

Although the idea for the program first came about in 2010, officials shared that it finally became a possibility under the visionary leadership of the new District Attorney, Ricardo Rodriguez Jr. He had previous experience with Drug Court programs, and he knew that a DWI Court was a necessity in the county.

“The new DA, who as a former district court judge was part of the Drug Court program, thought that there was a need for us to catch them early,” said Judge Palacios. “We’re very hopeful that this program can be of help to many of the residents who may be professionals or students, who because of their addictions and/or DWI’s have their livelihood affected down the road.”

Like Judge Palacios, District Attorney Rodriguez feels the program will be of help to many individuals and make the community safer. “It benefits everyone. It benefits students, parents, society ... and the innocent people that are out there and are following the law,” said Rodriguez.

GOALS

Some of the goals of the Misdemeanor DWI Court Program include providing early and effective intervention on selected DWI cases; breaking the cycle of alcohol addiction and criminality in the community, and reducing the contact these offenders have with the criminal justice system.

Most importantly, the new evidence-based program will introduce offenders to a rehabilitative process intentionally designed to result in a total abstinence of alcohol and drugs, as well as promote the effective and integrated use of valuable resources available for substance abusers. Through these methods of recovery offenders who successfully complete the program will have a better opportunity to become productive members of the community. Unlike the estimated typical cost of Misdemeanor DWI Convictions, which are about $4,363.00, officials estimate the DWI Court Program will cost $1,793.00.

Although the Misdemeanor DWI Court Program will be like a second chance to the selected alcohol related offenders, the District Attorney emphasized that not every misdemeanor DWI case will qualify. For those that do however, the program will not be an easy one to complete, but it will be worth it!

“The goal is for individuals who are in this program to have their cases dismissed but at the same time they ‘get it’ and (that) they become responsible ... we want to educate these individuals so that we don’t see them in the same situation again,” Rodriguez said.

12 TEXAS PROBATION Volume XXX, No.2

Changing Lives Hidalgo County Drug Court Program Graduate Shares Her Success Story

By: Claudia V. Lemus

Once taking 60 to 80 prescription painkillers a day, today Lisa Soto shares that she has finally walked into the light thanks to the Hidalgo County Drug Court Program.

“At 19, I was having trouble with money so I went to the doctor and got prescription pills,” shared the 30-year-old. “But today, my life has done a 180.”

First started in 2004, the Drug Court Program now takes place in the 139th Hidalgo County District Court with Presiding Judge Bobby Flores. It is a special and alternative program overseen by the Hidalgo County Community Supervision and Corrections Department and handles cases involving first-time drug offenders.

Participants who are selected by prosecutors based on the recommendations of district court judges are forced to go through an intensive, judicially monitored program of drug treatment and rehabilitation services that can take 12 to 18 months.

According to Soto, who first started the program in October 2013 and graduated in November 2014, the first three months were the hardest.

“At the beginning it was intense,” the graduate said. “I was with my probation officer Luis Gonzalez or in a program four days out of the week.”

Known as the Preliminary Recovery, or Phase I, participants must undergo intensive substance abuse outpatient treatment, comply with weekly court appearances and meetings with their probation officers, and are subject to random urinalyses.

To successfully graduate, participants must complete a total of four rigorous treatment phases:

1. Preliminary Recovery Phase;2. Behavioral Adjustment Phase;3. Maintenance and Support Phase; and 4. Transitional PhaseAlthough the program is intensive and takes incredible

commitment, for graduates like Soto, the dismissal of their charges is a second chance.

“If it wasn’t for the program I would probably be in jail doing between 8 to 10 years,” said Soto. “It was a once in a lifetime opportunity that gave me a new life.”

In order to be considered for the program, participants must meet the following requirements:• Must be addicted or habitually using a substance;• Must demonstrate willingness to recover;

• Must not be previously charged or convicted of drug trafficking or a felony;

• Cannot be charged with a felony above a 2nd degree;

• Must enter the program voluntarily;• Cannot be in possession of a firearm at the time of arrest;

and• Must not have substantial health problems

In a letter to Judge Bobby Flores, Soto shared how she felt hopeful when she first heard of the drug court.

“I was looking at jail time,” she wrote. “Then I heard about the program and thought ‘If I just get accepted, maybe I still have a chance?’”

According her probation officer, Luis Gonzalez, she was determined to turn her life around from the start.

“Ms. Soto was a confident, self-motivated young woman determined to continue her sobriety,” he said.

But even though the program is like a “reset button,” Gonzalez admits that going through the process is not easy without family support, a stable job, and the motivation to change.

“It is a difficult program,” Gonzalez said. “But those who progress start seeing that it pays off.”

Based on a 2002 study by the Criminal Justice Policy Council, the recidivism or reoffending rate over three years is 3.4 percent for those who successfully complete a drug court program in comparison to 21.4 percent for those who don’t.

According to Soto, the support she received from her probation officer played a major role in her recovery.

“I knew this was my new life when I got into the program,” she shared. “And Mr. Gonzalez helped me and pushed me to get through.”

Today, six months after her graduation, Soto is a Peer Recovery Coach for the Behavioral Health Solutions of South Texas. Several Hidalgo County officials like Judge Jaime Palacios and parole officers have allowed her to give presentations and share her story.

Although her transformation took a lot of commitment and perseverance on her part, the drug court graduate said that she could not have done it alone.

“Everyone had a part in my recovery,” Soto shared. “I’m very thankful for the opportunity.”

Lisa Soto

Volume XXX, No. 2 TEXAS PROBATION 13

NEW MEMBERS WELCOMED

Elvia Santana, Angelina County CSCD

Rance Nerren and Katherine Patrick, Angelina County JPD

Carol Guevara, Bowie County CSCD

VaLorie Barker, Chelsie Boson, Crystal Garcia, George Johnson, Sandra Jordan, Denise O’Brien, Glenda Pigrenet, Lisa Smith, and Rebecca Suniga, Brazoria County CSCD

Lauren Garmley, Brazos County CSCD

Lupe Mendiola-Washington, Brazos County JPD

Debbie Lapikes, Colorado County CSCD

Lori Howard, Dallas County CSCD

Sarah Fisher, Dallas County JPD

Jesus Venegas and Chase Waterwall, Galveston County CSCD

Leigh Ann Cook, Hardin County CSCD

Susan Davis, Harris County CSCD

Lashunda Law, Harris County JPD

Alberto Gomez, Hidalgo County CSCD

Dawn Kiser, Jasper County CSCD

Tanisha Griffin and Latisha Steele, Jefferson County JPD

Megan Taylor and Jessica Whitaker, Kaufman County CSCD

Thomas Hurt, Kerr County CSCD

Jose Bernal, Nueces County CSCD

Phyllicia Fisher, Orange County JPD

Becky Adams Host and Lara Schweitzer, Parker County CSCD

Melissa Kimbley, Potter/Randall/Armstrong County CSCD

Britney Pridgen, Sabine County CSCD

LaMia Prymus, Smith County CSCD

Michael Laughlin, Bambi Grant, and Cortney Best, Tarrant County CSCD

Alyssa Barton, Valerie Shaffer, and Sherrie Lee-White, Tom Green County CSCD

Todd Winslow, Uvalde County CSCD

Dara Hehman, Teresa Lively, Steven Marquez Jr., and Sarah Miller, Williamson County JPD

Barbara Childress, Winkler County CSCD.

New associate members include:

Rachelle Lescarbeau, Bexar County

Makendra Collier, Brazoria County

Laurel Letourneau and Raven Morris, Galveston County

Marco Rodriguez and Elbia Peña, Hidalgo County

Mark O’Neal, Red Bird Education Programs

Linda Brooke and Allyssa Cayanan, Tarrant County

Alex Quesada and Ann Marie Resendez, Travis County

and Carmen Martinez-Vargas.

Our new Student members include:

Leona McDonald and Sharon Womack, Orange County

Please help us in welcoming the following new members of the Texas Probation Association: .

Volume XXX, No. 2 TEXAS PROBATION 14

NEWS FROM THE FIELD

Ms. Martha Banks celebrated her retirement from Brazos County CSCD on March 2, 2015. She has been with the department for 14 years. We will all miss her and we wish her the best in retirement.

PROFESSIONAL PROFILES

Brenda Garcia, Staff Services Coordinator for the Victoria Regional Juvenile Justice Center, was selected by the Texas Community Service Association Board of Directors to serve as president at the annual conference October 26-29, 2014 in El Paso.

The Texas Community Service Association (TCSA) is a recognized 501(c) (6) non-profit corporation in the State of Texas. It began its operations in 1995 and was incorporated in 2008. TCSA promotes the effective development and administration of community service restitution programs. Each year the organization meets for several days to share vital information as well as new and innovative programming ideas. Historically, TCSA has catered to those individuals employed by Juvenile Probation Departments and CSCDs. As of late, however, the presence of parole officers, educators, law enforcement, and non-profits has become commonplace at the conferences.

Ms. Garcia, a native of Goliad, is a 2001 graduate of Goliad High School and a graduate of University of Houston - Victoria, where she obtained a Bachelors of Science degree in Criminal Justice. In 2010, Garcia began her rewarding career with the Victoria County Juvenile Services Department as a Juvenile Probation Officer. From 2010-2011 she supervised the Deferred Prosecution caseload and Delinquent Conduct caseload. She was also the Community Service Coordinator. In 2012-2013 she supervised the Intensive Supervision caseload and was the Contract Parole Officer for the Department. She also served on the local Gang Task Force. From 2013-2014 she served as the Court Services Coordinator, Victim’s Liaison, supervised the Sex Offender caseload, and was the Interstate Compact officer. She also served on the Community Resource Coordination Group meetings (CRCG).

In addition to being a certified probation officer by the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission, she is also involved in numerous state organizations including a current member of Juvenile Justice Association of Texas, Texas Probation Association, member, board member, and TCSA Newsletter Editor of the Texas Community Service Association, and the Financial Audit Chairperson.

BRENDA GARCIAStaff Services Coordinator for the Victoria Regional Juvenile Justice Center

15 TEXAS PROBATION Volume XXX, No.2

Join the Texas Probation Association, the only professional organization created to exclusively serve the needs of probation and community corrections practitioners.

The Texas Probation Association has four membership classifications – Professional, Associate, Alumni, and Student. Professional Membership is for full-time certified probation officers. Associate Membership is for all other categories of professionals who do not qualify for full membership, including, but not limited to, criminal justice practitioners, counselors, volunteers, treatment center personnel, and professors. Alumni Membership is for professionals

who retire from the field and choose to remain active in the association. Student Membership is for persons enrolled in an institution of higher learning.

Dues paid to the Texas Probation Association are not tax deductible.

All members, whether Professional, Associate, Alumni, or Student receive a subscription to Texas Probation journal, lapel pin, decal, membership card, and registration discounts for Association conferences. All members may serve on committees. Professional and Alumni members may vote, hold office, and chair committees, while Associate members are ineligible for these three activities.

MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION(Please Photocopy)

Professional Membership Fee Associate Membership Fee

One Year $ 35.00 One Year $ 25.00

Two Years $ 60.00 Alumni Membership Fee

Three Years $ 85.00 One Year $ 25.00

Four Years $ 110.00 Student Membership Fee

Life $ 300.00 One Year $ 10.00

Name Title

Organization

Mailing Address

City/State/Zip Code

Telephone Number FAX Number E-Mail

Referred By

Enclose check or money order and mail to:

Texas Probation AssociationAttn: Tiaya Ellis

Correctional Management Institute of TexasGeorge J. Beto Criminal Justice Center

Sam Houston State UniversityHuntsville, Texas 77341-2296

TEXAS PROBATION ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP

TEXAS PROBATION ASSOCIATION

Would like to thank the following exhibitors for Their generous support at the

2015 Texas Probation Association Annual Conference in Austin!

~Event Sponsors~Corrections Software Solutions: “Sunday Night Reception”

RECOVERY Healthcare Corporation: “Golf Tournament Sponsor”Smart Start Interlocks: “Conference Bag Sponsor”

LifeSafer: “Lanyard Sponsor”

~Gold Sponsors~Corrections Software Solutions

LifeSafer InterlockRecovery Healthcare Corporation

Smart StartJPAY

3M Electronic MonitoringPEGASUS SCHOOLS, INC.

NORCHEM

~Silver Sponsors~American Corrections Specialist

G4S Justice Services, LLCGulf Coast Trade Center

Journal TechnologieHamer Enterprise

INTOXIMETERSIntoxalock

Mel Brown and AssociatesONE SOURCE TOXICOLOGY LABORATORY, INC.

Personal Development SeminarsSatellite tracking Micro Distributing

Prairie View A&M-College of Juvenile Justice & Psychology-Justice Studies

~Nonprofit Sponsors~Boys Town

Lighthouse for the Blind of Fort Worth

TEXASPROBATION

ASSOCIATION

17 TEXAS PROBATION Volume XXX, No.2

INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONTRIBUTORS

Texas Probation, the quarterly journal of the Texas Probation Association, publishes articles, reports, book reviews, poems and prose, editorials, commentaries, obituaries, and news items of interest to community corrections professionals.

Texas Probation is published quarterly, in January, April, July, and October. Unless previously discussed with the editor, submissions should be received no later than the 15th day of the month preceding the publication month. Submissions for publication consideration should be typed on 8½ by 11 inch paper, double spaced, with at least one inch margins. Manuscripts exceeding one page in length must be submitted on a computer diskette, or by e-mail, in either MS Word or WordPerfect format. Persons submitting articles, commentaries, or book reviews should enclose a brief biographical sketch or resume and a photograph for possible inclusion. Specific questions concerning this procedure should be directed to Kelli D. Martin at 817-884-1222 or Karla Penate Kutch at 713-844-1724.

All submissions and/or other correspondence regarding Texas Probation should be sent to the following:

Kelli D. Martin, Co-EditorM.A. Research Unit Supervisor, TCCSCD 200 W. Belknap St.Fort Worth, TX 76196Office: 817-884-1222Fax: 817-212-6948KDMartin@TarrantCounty.com

Karla Kutch, Co-EditorTexas ProbationBCCSCD North County Unit713-844-1724 or karlak@brazoria-county.com

The Criminal Justice Center at Sam Houston State University serves as the Secretariat for the Texas Probation Association. Texas Probation is published by Sam Houston Press and Copy Center.

Editor/Co-ChairsKelli MartinKarla Kutch

Associate EditorsDr. Melvin Brown, Jr.

Jim Stott

MembersRodolfo Perez

Stephanie Christopher Priscilla SolisTodd JermstadErnest Perry

Darin Deutsch

COMMITTEE CHAIRS

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Adult LegislativeJaved Syed Dallas CSCDChris Thomas Jasper CSCD

Advanced EducationAngela Dugay Jefferson CSCDTracy Robinson Jefferson CSCD

Awards and ResolutionsLaTricia Coleman Jefferson JPDWill Hurley Wharton/ Matagorda CSCD

Exhibitors Rick Morales Nueces CSCDLaRonda Turner Jefferson JPDKarma Chambless Matagorda CSCDKelly Tootle Jasper CSCD

FinanceJerry Johnson Jefferson CSCD

Juvenile Legislative Lisa Tomlinson Johnson JPDRon Quiros Guadalupe JPD

MembershipIris Bonner-Lewis Harris JPDRicky Trevino Nueces CSCD

NominationsKarma Chambless Matagorda CSCDJason Hickman Jasper CSCD

Political ActionJohn McGuire Fayette CSCDRon Zajac Brazos CSCD

Registration Jerry Faz Tom Green CSCDLupe Washington Brazos JPD

Sales Jenny Hoop Tarrant CSCDBrandi Nelson Johnson CSCD

Silent Auction Ana Rodriguez Cameron CSCDNorma Garcia Hidalgo JPDRita A Mascorro Cameron CSCDAbraham Adriano Hidalgo CSCD

Technology WebsiteJaime Torres Hidalgo CSCDFacebookRick Morales Nueces CSCD

Site Selection Aris Johnson Gregg JPDEd Cockrell Jefferson JPDChris Thomas Jasper CSCD

Organized 1974

Secretariat Since 1994

Sam Houston Press & Copy CenterPublisher Since 1995

Texas Probation AssociationCorrectional Management Institute of TexasGeorge J. Beto Criminal Justice CenterSam Houston State UniversityHuntsville TX 77341-2296