exploring barriers in a day reporting program

Exploring Barriers in a Day Reporting Program

Introductions

Alex Dorman, MA • Research & Program Evaluation Specialist

• Grant Project Evaluator

• Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence

• 4+ years in the field

Stephen Rader, BA • Summit County CBCF

• Summit County Day Reporting

• EPICS II & BMS

• Cognitive Skills Background

• 10+ years in the field

Presentation Outline

▣ Background ▣ History ▣ Current Research

• OHI Day Reporting Programs ▣ Three Locations – Similar but different ▣ The Concern

• Research Project ▣ Research Questions ▣ Methodology

• Results ▣ Key Findings

• Conclusion

Oriana House

▣ Mission Statement ▣ “Oriana House provides quality and human chemical dependency treatment and community

corrections services to clients while contributing to safer communities.”

• Scope

• Research/CQI Department

1. Background

• Components • History • Current Research

A One-Stop Shop

Components of Day Reporting Programs

▣ Always Non-residential ▣ Serve a wide array of populations ▣ Case Management ▣ Chemical Dependency Treatment ▣ Cognitive Behavioral Programming ▣ Employment Assistance ▣ Education Assistance ▣ Assistance with probation/parole commitments ▣ Community linkages and other programming

Components of Day Reporting Programs

▣ An important role in community corrections

▣ Alternative to incarceration

▣ Money saving potential

History of Day Reporting Programs

▣ Intensive Supervision Probation/Parole Programs ▣ Overcrowding in prisons and a poor regional economy ▣ Save money

▣ Meant to serve a particular population; Intermediate Sanctions

▣ Components ▣ Boot camps

▣ Electronic monitoring

▣ Increased Probation/Parole contacts

▣ Increased Drug Testing

▣ Strict employment requirements

▣ Community service requirements

‘’

“The 10 years between 1985

and 1995 could best be described as the period of ISP

implementation and evaluation. Hundreds of

programs were started, often with a great deal of

ceremony… Virtually every large probation and parole

agency developed programs.”

-Petersilia 1999


▣ Did they actually work? • Very effective at increasing surveillance ▣ Face to Face contacts ▣ Telephone contacts ▣ Law enforcement checks ▣ Employment Monitoring ▣ Drug and Alcohol Monitoring

▣ Original Goals ▣ Reduce prison crowding ▣ Save money ▣ Decrease recidivism

‘’

“An even more apperant lesson

learned over the last decade and a half is that many offenders, placed in scenarios that have

increasing conditions and requirements, demonstrate an

increase risk of technical violation that adds to the prison

recycling problem.”

-Taxman 2004

What did we learn?

The Causes: ▣ Drug Abuse led to

violating probation/ parole

▣ Increased supervision led to quicker identification of infractions

▣ More individuals being sent to prison

The Solution: ▣ When ISP programs

offered: □ Drug and alcohol

treatment □ Community service

programs □ Employment programs

▣ Individuals were more successful □ Recidivism rates 10-20% lower


What does this mean for Day Reporting Programs?

Research

▣ Reduce Recidivism

▣ Cost Saving

• However… ▣ Huge variance in success rates ▣ Some have found no statistically significant

difference in reduced recidivism rates ▣ More costly

▣ One study indicated worse recidivism rates than parole as usual

‘’

“There is no single definition of what constitutes a Day

Reporting Program, although they all share certain similar

core components. These programs also differ in that

they can serve many offender populations, and offenders can be sentenced to day reporting

for a variety of reasons.”

-Boyle et al., 2013

‘’

“Failure to deliver evidence-based treatment could result in

higher odds of recidivism for participants relative to other

offenders. Day reporting programs that do not provide effective treatment amount to

little more than intensive, control-oriented intermediate

sanctions [ISPs]” Steiner & Butler, 2013

Background Summary

Roots in ISPs ▣ Starting in the 1980s ▣Often Supervision >

Services

Typically a better alternative ▣ Reduced recidivism ▣ Cost-saving

Great Variability in Programs ▣ Variability in success rate ▣ Different offered services ▣ Different populations served

Importance of Evidence Based Practices ▣ Theorized to be the difference between effective

and ineffective programs ▣ Validated Risk Assessments ▣ Responsive Treatments

Risk of being “modern ISPs” ▣ If programs prioritize

supervision over services

2. OHI Day

Reporting Programs

• Three Locations • The Concern

Three Locations

OHI Day Reporting Programs

• Referrals ▣ Municipal Court/Probation

▣ Felony Probation

▣ Step down from residential OHI program

• ORAS ▣ 6 Tracks

1. UDS/Alcohol Monitoring

2. Driving Privileges

3. Employment

4. Substance Use Treatment

5. Cognitive Programming

6. All Programming

OHI Day Reporting Programs

▣ Treatment Services with Level of Care ▣ Detox/Ambulatory Detox ▣ Treatment readiness ▣ IOP/Opiate Specific IOP ▣ Aftercare

• Education/Employment □ Employment Readiness Workshops/Individuals □ GED Prep / Adult Literacy Classes

• Cognitive Skills Classes □ Thinking for a Change □ Thinking Errors □ Good Intentions Bad Choices □ Distorted Thinking

Concerns

Concerns

▣ Anecdotally…

3. Research Project

• Research Questions

• Methodology

The Research Questions

▣ What kinds of clients were entering our programs?

▣ Why do some clients never

attend their first appointment? ▣ Why do some clients stop

reporting? ▣ What worked for successful

clients?

Methodology

• Caseworkers • New Clients • “No-Shows” • “Never-Shows”

• Recent Graduates

Individual Structured Interviews

Surveys – Self Administered/Interview

Focus Groups

Structured Interviews (Phone)

Structured Interviews (Phone)

Methodology

• Caseworkers • New Clients • “No-Shows” • “Never-Shows”

• Recent Graduates

n = 12

n = 93

n = 15

n = 10

n = 9

Methodology

• Demographic Information • Barriers

□ Anticipated □ Experienced

■ Overcome?

• Referral Source Information • Caseworker relationship • Recent Substance Use • Program Outcomes

4. Results

• Key Findings

• Conclusion

Demographics

Results – Demographics

• Some significant difference by location □ Fremont had significantly more participants

Identifying as “White” than Cleveland □ Fremont had significantly more participants

identifying as Hispanic than Cleveland and Akron

• No Correlation with Program Outcome

‘’

“The older ones can be the harder ones, old, stuck in their ways kind of a

thing”

“The younger people tend to be worse in the program from my experience.”

“It’s the older ones that have been in the system, especially if they’ve been

through prison or something, they think this is a complete joke.”

-OHI Day Reporting Caseworkers

Barriers

How could we use this information?

Results – Barriers

Transportation

Akron (n=28) 1. 68% Did not

have a license

2. 40% Could not afford public transit

3. 36% Did not have access to private transport

Cleveland (n=41) 1. 68% Did not

have a license


3. 49% Did not have access to private transport

Fremont (n=24) 1. 60% Did not have

a license


3. 40% Were unwilling to take public transit



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

I don't have alicense

No access toprivate

transportation

No access topublic

transportation

Unable toaffford publictransportation

Not willing totake public

transportation

Akron (n=28)

Cleveland (n=41)

Fremont (n=24)


• No valid driver’s license

• No access to private transportation

• Unable to afford public transportation


“Transportation was hard because my car was messed up, and I didn’t have a job so

I couldn’t afford bus fare.” “Transportation was a problem, and I don’t want

to use the bus passes I need for school.”

"They good, but I didn't have childcare when I had to take care of my grandkids. I had a car but stil l I had problems getting there.

I wanted to stay! Getting there was a problem, sometimes I missed because of it . I was doing so much throughout the week, meeting three

times plus seeing my PO plus classes.

Transportation. Plus I had a job without a set schedule, and I had to prioritize work.


25% 25% 24%

26%

33%

21%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

I don't have time in my schedule togo to day reporting

I have a work schedule thatconflicts with day reporting


▣ Successful clients □ Same Barriers

■ Childcare ■ Maintaining employment ■ Scheduling Problems ■ Transportation

▣ Overcoming barriers □ Many solutions □ The Importance of Family/Social Support

Childcare

□Children living with other family members

□Family functioned as

babysitters

Transportation

□Family providing consistent rides

□Friends providing consistent rides


Employment □Working for family

□Flexible Supervisors

□Supportive of day

reporting commitments

Childcare □“My two baby mamas I

got took care of them.”

□“My father helped me.” □“Sometimes it was

rough on the family sitter, but I’d manage. I got through it.”

□“Family, they’re the ones that charge you less.”

□My ex-wife has custody of my kids so she went with the schedules so I could see my kids based on my schedule here so nothing really clashed.

Transportation □“The only day I

couldn’t make it was because my dad was sick my mom was in the hospital.”

□ I didn’t have a

problem with transportation, just listening to my boyfriend complain about it .

Employment □“My father set up the

job for me when I got out to work with him as long as I stayed clean. […]I mean I would miss an hour here or an hour here at work but I’d make that up.”

□“My employer was my

grandfather. So, he was real flexible, so if I told him if I got to do this if I got to do that, he’d say like ‘okay do your thing see you tomorrow.’”


Not Barriers

• Drug use did not predict outcome □ Contrary to Conventional Wisdom □ Contrary to Caseworker Opinion

Results – Not Barriers

Total n = 93 Percentage of Positive UDSs at Placement Start

Successful Unsuccessful

Akron (n=28) 36% 29%

Cleveland (n=43) 21% 23%

Fremont (n=24) 33% 67%


“Some of the more common reasons they’re not successful here is their substance use could be more

than what we know about”

“Most of them are addicting to some sort of substance. They relapse, and then they stop showing”

“If they have an opiate addiction, we’re finding they’re not really being successful on a non-residential program

without the extra sanctions backed by the court”

If a client is using every drug under the sun, it’s going to be hard to get them to remember their appointments. And then the

type of treatment that we offer here is not as intensive as they need like if they were in a facility it would be different.

“I think you have to know drug history, because that is huge here. If there is a huge addiction, then it’s (day

reporting) not going to work”


▣ Caseworker relationship □ My caseworker treated me with respect

□ My caseworker acknowledged my concerns opinions and feelings

□ My caseworker tried to be flexible with scheduling and create a reporting schedule that worked for me

Why Some Never Came (The Never Shows)

🏃

Why some never came

• Varied Reasons □ Unclear about when it started

■ Not bothering to follow through □ Worried about testing dirty the first day □ Confused because on house arrest □ No transportation □ Family emergency □ Medical concerns

• Consequences □ 8 out of 10 participants reported facing no consequences

Perception of the Program

29% 23% 32%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Akron

Cleveland

Fremont

• “I heard that there are no serious consequences to not completing day reporting”

Referral Sources

Referral Sources

Did your referring Judge or referring Probation Officer…

Clearly explain what was expected of me while in

the day reporting program?

Clearly explain my time commitments to the day

reporting program

Clearly explain the consequences of failing

to complete the day reporting program

Referral Sources

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Clearly explain what was expected of me while in

the day reporting program?

Clearly explain my time commitments to the day

reporting program

Clearly explain the consequences of failing

to complete the day reporting program

5. Conclusion

• Moving Forward • Limitations • Wrapping up

Moving Forward

▣ Sharing the information □ Team meeting □ Program Coordinators

▣ Change in attitude

▣ Change in services ▣ Transportation

□ Further Research □ Grant Priorities

▣ Effective Practices in a Correctional Setting

▣ Problem Solving Barriers

How could we use this information?

Limitations

• Small sample size □ Specific to some sample populations

• Unvalidated survey measures

Wrapping up

• Review □ Purpose of the Project □ Sample Populations

• Key takeaways

□ Transportation concerns ■ Specific to region

□ Importance of family/peer support □ Lack of consequences perception

Wrapping up

• Dorman, Boros, & Ault. The Barriers to Success: An Analysis of Three Day Reporting Programs

• Journal of Community Corrections 2018

Questions? Thank you!

Alex Dorman [email protected]

Stephen Rader [email protected]

▣ Presentation template and icons by SlidesCarnival

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.slidescarnival.com/

exploring barriers in a day reporting program

Documents