Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:50 pm
Time: 10:50 pm
Results for intermediate sanctions
3 results foundAuthor: Mair, George Title: Doing Justice Locally: The North Liverpool Community Justice Centre Summary: This research project examines the changes brought about at the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre - the first and the most ambitious site of community justice in the UK. Opened in 2005 and inspired by the Red Hook Community Justice Centre in Brooklyn, the North Liverpool Centre is implementing key aspects of community justice in the UK. This includes a problem-solving approach, greater partnership working, local community engagement, and having a single judge with the capacity to review the progress of those sentenced to a community-based order. This report draws on data collected by the Centre as well as interviews with Centre staff, representatives of the agencies working at the Centre, defendants, and members of the local community to examine the innovations which have taken place. Details: London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2011. 105p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 8, 2011 at: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1828/Doing_justice_locally.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1828/Doing_justice_locally.pdf Shelf Number: 120910 Keywords: Alternative to IncarcerationCommunity Based CorrectionsCommunity Justice Centers (U.K.)Interagency CooperationIntermediate SanctionsSentencing |
Author: Phillips, Michael R. Title: Intermediate Sanctions for Juvenile Offenders: A Utah Juvenile Court Case Study Summary: In an effort to reduce juvenile recidivism - the return to criminal behavior after leaving the juvenile court - authorities in Utah adopted a new statewide intermediate sanction system in which each district could choose a treatment component. Noting the high rate of substance abuse among juvenile offenders, the Fourth District Juvenile Court chose to implement the Narconon drug rehabilitation program through a Utah licensed not-for-profit called NewLife, integrating it within court-directed probation services. The Narconon program, an outpatient service based on secular materials developed by L. Ron Hubbard, consists of a series of modules to address physical aspects of substance abuse as well as underlying social and life skills that may be deficient in young abusers. Participants complete a detoxification program designed to eliminate drug cravings by improving nutritional status and reducing body stores of drug residues. The detoxification regimen includes exercise, sauna and vitamin-mineral supplementation. The Narconon program also includes self-paced training in study habits and communication (oral and written). Additional training materials address the subjects of moral and ethical standards, how to set and achieve goals, and personal responsibility. This program was implemented in partnership with court officials and probation officers in the Fourth District Juvenile Court, in the context of implementing new juvenile sentencing guidelines for State Supervision. The court hoped to reduce the rate at which these youths penetrated deeper into the justice system, and to achieve a reduction in placement costs. It should be noted that the District had saved "the worst of the worst" for this trial program (knowing in advance it was coming several months prior to its implementation). More than half were candidates for confinement or community placement (removal from their homes) rather than state supervision, the new sentencing guideline's last-chance sanction. This tracking report examines the extent to which the court's goals were achieved. It does not attempt to identify or explore positive or negative factors outside of the Narconon program that might have contributed to the outcome. Participants in the Narconon program, whether they completed the program or not, showed a 77.7 percent reduction in criminal activity. Program completion intensified the desired change of behavior. Seventy-four of the 100 juveniles completed the intervention. Of these, 63.5 percent remained completely misdemeanor and felony free for the remainder of their juvenile history. Based on a combined analysis of juvenile and adult records, 32.4 percent retained this crime-free state for four years post-treatment. A placement analysis revealed that the goal of reducing placement and related costs was also achieved. The success of this partnership suggests new possibilities for treatment and intervention and for reducing costs associated with juvenile crime. Details: Los Angeles: Foundation for Advancement, 2015. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed october 15, 2016 at: http://www.criminon.org/studies/fase.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.criminon.org/studies/fase.pdf Shelf Number: 147288 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationIntermediate SanctionsJuvenile CourtJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: 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 |