Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:03 pm
Time: 12:03 pm
Results for felony probation
2 results foundAuthor: Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission Title: Immediate Sanction Probation Pilot Program Evaluation Summary: The Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) program was established in 2004 with the goal of enhancing public safety and improving compliance with the rules and conditions of probation among offenders being supervised in the community. HOPE targets higher risk probationers and requires that each violation of the conditions of supervision is met with a swift and certain, but mild, sanction. A rigorous evaluation of HOPE completed in 2009 found a significant reduction in technical violations (such as drug use and missed appointments), lower recidivism rates, fewer probation revocations, and reduced use of prison beds among HOPE participants compared to similar offenders supervised on regular probation. Interest in Hawaii's swift-and-certain sanctions model spread. As of July 2015, there were swift-and-certain sanctions programs operating in at least 29 states across the country. The 2010 General Assembly passed legislation which established the basic parameters for swift-and-certain sanctions programs in Virginia (19.2-303.5). In May 2012, the General Assembly adopted budget language to extend the provisions of 19.2-303.5 and to authorize the creation of up to four Immediate Sanction Probation Programs (Item 50 of Chapter 3 of the 2012 Acts of Assembly, Special Session I). This provision charged the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission with selecting the pilot sites, developing guidelines and procedures for the program, administering program activities, and evaluating the results. As no additional funding was appropriated for this purpose, the pilot project was implemented within existing agency budgets and local resources. The General Assembly has since extended the sunset date to July 1, 2017, which enabled the pilot sites to continue the program until the 2017 General Assembly has reviewed the Commission's evaluation and determined whether to continue the program in the future. Since the 2009 HOPE evaluation, a number of programs based on the HOPE model have been evaluated. Results of these studies have been mixed. A longer term evaluation of HOPE completed in 2016, as well as evaluations in Washington State, Arkansas, Michigan, and Kentucky found that the HOPE approach yielded positive results, such as lower recidivism rates and reduced use of incarceration. However, a recent large-scale evaluation of a four-site replication of the HOPE model, funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), did not produce similar results. According to this evaluation, there were no statistically significant differences, overall, between the HOPE and probation-as-usual groups in the likelihood of arrest, new conviction, or probation revocation. Similarly, an evaluation of a Delaware program based on the HOPE model found that the program was not successful in reducing substance use or new crimes among probationers. The Commission designed Virginia's Immediate Sanction Probation Program based on the parameters established by the General Assembly's statutory and budgetary language and the key elements of the swift-and-certain sanctions model pioneered in Hawaii. Implementing Virginia's program with as much fidelity as possible to the swift-and-certain sanctions model provided the best opportunity to determine if the positive results observed in HOPE and other programs would emerge in Virginia. Thus, the Immediate Sanction Program targets offenders who are at risk for recidivating or failing probation. Working with the Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security and the Department of Corrections, the Commission identified four pilot sites (Henrico County, the City of Lynchburg, City of Harrisonburg/Rockingham County, and Arlington County), which became operational between November 2012 and January 2014. The Commission developed policies and procedures to provide a framework for the program, including eligibility criteria and a mechanism for expedited hearings for program violations. In each site, Commission staff organized and participated in multiple meetings to facilitate and support local implementation of the program. As of October 1, 2016, 288 probationers across the four pilot sites had been placed into the Immediate Sanction Probation Program. In order to allow for a sufficient follow-up period to track participants for recidivism, the 200 eligible participants who were placed into the program before July 1, 2015, were selected for the evaluation cohort. The majority (76%) were at medium to high risk of recidivating and all had a history of technical violations prior to program placement. Low risk probationers were only placed in the program after committing at least three violations while on regular supervision, indicating a higher risk for revocation. More than 80% of participants violated at least once after program placement, committing an average of 2.7 violations each. The most common violation during program participation was drug use. As of October 1, 2016, 39% of the evaluation cohort had completed the program. Nearly all of the program completers had been violation-free for 12 months, the measure established by the Commission for "successful completion." Judges allowed seven participants who had not reached the 12-month violation-free mark to complete the program, due to individual circumstances of these participants. The Commission used standards established in the 2016 evaluation of the BJA/NIJ-funded HOPE replication project to measure the swiftness and certainty of sanctions imposed during Virginia's pilot program. For swiftness, pilot sites were assessed based on the percentage of violations heard by the court within three days. Approximately half (47%) of program violations in Virginia's pilot sites were heard by the court within the three-day window. This is below the minimum of 60% established by the evaluators of the HOPE replication project. Regarding the certainty of sanctions, Immediate Sanction judges responded to violations by imposing a jail sanction for 100% of the violations brought to court, per the program's design. Judges utilized jail sanctions as envisioned by the Commission, with more than 94% of sanctions falling within the recommended range. Nearly 93% of the jail sanctions imposed were at or below the maximum sanction of 19 days used by evaluators of the HOPE replication project. The Commission tracked the evaluation cohort for one year following placement into the Immediate Sanction Program. At the one-year mark, 9.7% of the participants in the evaluation cohort had been arrested for a new felony. Only 6.2% had a new felony conviction based on an offense committed during the follow-up period. Participants whose primary drug of use was opiates (including heroin) recidivated at a higher rate than other participants. For the evaluation, the Commission developed a quasi-experimental design, often used in evaluations of criminal justice programs. Quasi-experimental designs identify a comparison group that is as similar as possible to the program or treatment group in terms of baseline (pre-intervention) characteristics. To reduce the risk of bias (i.e., the possibility that participants are systematically different from nonparticipants), the Commission used commonly accepted statistical techniques to create a valid comparison group. Constructing the comparison group for this evaluation was a two-stage process. In the first stage, the Commission identified jurisdictions that were similar to the pilot sites across a number of community-level characteristics, such as crime rates, demographics, and judicial practices in sanctioning technical probation violators. In the second stage, the Commission developed a pool of potential comparison offenders from within the selected comparison jurisdictions. Using tightly controlled matching procedures, the final sample included 63 participants in the evaluation cohort matched to 63 comparison probationers, for a total of 126 subjects. Participants for whom no matched comparison probationer could be found were not included in the subsequent analyses. At one year from program placement or, in the case of the comparison group, one year from the date the probationer would have become eligible for placement, 7.9% of the 63 participants in the matched sample had been rearrested for a felony offense versus 22.2% of the comparison group. Thus, Immediate Sanction participants were less likely than comparison probationers to be rearrested for a felony during the one-year follow-up. Immediate Sanction participants were also less likely than comparison probationers to be reconvicted of a felony following the arrest (6.3% for participants versus 17.5% for the comparison group). The Commission conducted survival analysis, which measures the time until a recidivist event occurs, to determine if these differences were statistically significant. The results of the survival analysis are mixed. This analysis revealed that Immediate Sanction participants were less likely to be rearrested for a felony over time than those in the comparison group and were free of felony arrests for a longer period of time. When controlling for relevant factors, including street time (i.e., the time that the individual was not in jail serving sanctions, etc., and, thus, was in the community with the opportunity to recidivate), this finding remained statistically significant (p<.05). However, when examining the time until rearrest for an offense that resulted in a felony conviction, the differences between participants and the comparison group were not statistically significant after controlling for other factors. Due to the small sample size and relatively low occurrence of recidivism, the results of the Commission's analyses are not generalizable to the population. Details: Richmond: VCSC, 2016. 91p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 30, 2018 at: http://www.vcsc.virginia.gov/Immediate%20Sanction%20Probation%20Pilot%20Program%20Evaluation%20-%20Final%2012-20-2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.vcsc.virginia.gov/Immediate%20Sanction%20Probation%20Pilot%20Program%20Evaluation%20-%20Final%2012-20-2016.pdf Shelf Number: 150381 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsCommunity SupervisionFelony ProbationIntermediate SanctionsProbationersRecidivism |
Author: Cuddy, Joshua Title: Young Adults and Community Supervision: The Need for Developmentally Appropriate Approach to Probation Summary: While community supervision (probation) is widely accepted to be an effective strategy for diverting people from prison and offering rehabilitative programming, the truth is that young adults placed on adult probation for felony offenses are far more likely to be revoked and sent to prison than older adults. Young adults are less likely than older adults to have remained on probation for the full term by the two-year point, and the majority of cases terminated by the two-year point were due to revocation rather than successful completion. In fact, only 18 percent of 17- to 21-year-olds successfully completed and were terminated from felony probation in FY 2017. The rate was slightly better for 22-to 25-year-olds, with 41 percent successfully completing and being terminated from probation, compared to 60 percent of felony probationers over age 25. Sadly, nearly 7,400 young men and women had their probation revoked in FY 2017, with 7,000 young people committed to prison or jail. Traditional probation practices are not effective with 17-to 25-year-olds on felony probation. Courts continue to discount important developmental factors when setting probation conditions. This is heartbreaking when one considers the missed opportunities to alter the course for a generation of young adults who might otherwise have moved beyond criminal justice system involvement and led productive lives. New approaches are critical, as people aged 17-25 are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system overall, both in Texas and nationally. At a national level, young adults aged 18-25 make up less than 10 percent of the total population but represent approximately 29 percent of all arrests, 26 percent of people on probation, and 21 percent of all people admitted into adult prison. Young people of color, more so than any other age group, are disproportionately involved in the justice system. Nationally, for every white man sentenced to prison in 2012, there were six African American men and three Hispanic/Latino men imprisoned. Similarly, for every white man aged 18 to 19 sent to prison, nine African American men and three Hispanic/Latino men of the same age were imprisoned. Upon release from prison, young adults are significantly more likely to be re-arrested and/or return to prison compared to other age groups, a factor that underscores the essential role that community supervision can play in keeping young adults out of prison. Incarceration fundamentally derails a young adult's transition into adulthood, and it diminishes the likelihood of finishing school, establishing a career, and starting a family. Probation can be an effective tool for rehabilitation, and it is the primary means by which felony defendants are diverted from prison in Texas. According to data from the Harris County Community Supervision and Corrections Department, adults who successfully completed a term of probation were less likely (regardless of risk level) to be re-arrested within 16 months of release than those with the same risk level who were sentenced to state jail. The same results are seen at the juvenile level, where youth who successfully complete community supervision in the juvenile system are 21 percent less likely to be re-arrested within a year than those who are incarcerated. Also importantly, community supervision is significantly less expensive than incarceration. At the adult level, community supervision costs the state $1.78 per person per day as opposed to $51.72 for incarceration in state jail. At the juvenile level, basic supervision cost $5.93 per youth per day as opposed to $37.62 for placement in a post-adjudication residential program or $441.92 for placement in a state residential facility. The benefits of community supervision - both in public safety and taxpayer savings - are only realized when the completion rates improve for all demographics, especially young adults on felony probation. The purpose of this report is to highlight evidence-based practices that improve outcomes, strengthening public safety and changing the life trajectory of young adults who might otherwise spend years in prison. Details: Austin, Texas: Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 2018. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 8, 2018 at: https://www.texascjc.org/node/8645/download/4681e2359b4d1e06f47d3cbe79e99940 Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.texascjc.org/system/files/publications/Young%20Adults%20and%20Community%20Supervision%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 151442 Keywords: Community SupervisionFelony ProbationJuvenile IncarcerationProbationRehabilitationYoung Adults |