immediate sanction probation pilot project

Immediate Sanction Probation

Pilot Project

Virginia Criminal Sentencing CommissionJune 10, 2013

Overview of HOPE ProgramEvaluation

Pepperdine University, with funding from the National

Institute of Justice, conducted an evaluation of Project

HOPE (published December, 2009)

Evaluation design employed a random assignment of

493 high-risk probationers:

330 (two-thirds) were placed into Project HOPE

163 (one-third) were placed into regular probation

3

Evaluation of HOPE Program

4

HOPE Evaluation Outcomes

HOPE Program Outcomes(One Year Follow-up)

Skipped Appointments

Probation Revoked

Arrested for New Crime

Used Drugs

47%

21%

46%

13%

23%

9% 7%

15%

CONTROLHOPE

Source: Hawken, A. & Kleiman, M. (2009). Managing Drug Involved Probationers with Swift and Certain Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii's HOPE. www.ncjrs.govpdffiles1/nij/grants/229023.pdf

Even though the HOPE group was brought back to court for every violation (more opportunities to be revoked), HOPE participants still had lower revocation rate

http://www.ncjrs.govpdffiles1/nij/grants/229023.pdf

5


HOPE Program Outcomes(One Year Follow-up)

CONTROL

HOPE


A separate study found that, on average, HOPE participants and a control group served about the same amount of time in jail for violations (approx. 20 days).

However, the average prison sentence was significantly lower for HOPE participants.


6



61%

20%

9%5% 2% 2% 1%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

HOPE Program OutcomesNumber of Positive Urinalyses for HOPE Participants in 12 months


HOPE Evaluation Outcomes - Key Components of the Warning Hearing

7

As part of the warning, the judge:

Stresses the importance of the probationer

taking charge of his own life and accepting

accountability for his own actions

Clearly lays out the consequences for violation

in advance, which creates a perception of

fairness on the part of the probationer

Expresses goodwill toward the probationer and

the desire that the probationer succeed

These are also frequently reiterated at violation hearings.

Other key factors described in Hawaii’s evaluation:

Presence of prosecution and defense is key to

reinforcing perception of fairness and emphasizing the

seriousness of the matter

– Attorneys are also important in

Virginia because of the statutory ability to

object to an expedited hearing and the

judge’s ability to remove an offender at any time.

The probation officer reinforces the message

expressed by the court after the probationer is

released from incarceration following a violation.

HOPE Evaluation Outcomes – Other Key Components of the Warning and Violation

Hearings

8

Swift and Certain Sanction ProgramsElsewhere in the U.S.

Interest and Participation in Results First

VT

HI

NH

MA

RI

CT

NJ

DE

MD

MEWA

MT ND

SD

MNOR

ID

WY

COUT

NV

CA

AZ NM

NE

KS

OK

TX

AK

LA

AR

MO

IA

WI

MI

IL INOH

PA

NY

WV

KY

TN

MS AL GA

SC

NC

FL

VA

Evaluation or Preliminary Results Reported

AK

States with Similar Swift and Certain Sanction Programs

Data Collection Phase/Evaluation Pending

Program Created, Evaluation Status Unknown

11

Research on Swift and Certain Sanction Programs

Growing body of research on HOPE-style supervision:

Anchorage Probation Accountability with Certain Enforcement (PACE)

South Dakota 24/7 Sobriety Project

Washington Intensive Supervision Program (WISP)

Arizona Swift Accountable Fair Enforcement (SAFE)

4 Federal Demonstration Field Experiment Sites

– Clackamas County, Oregon

– Essex County, Massachusetts

– Saline County, Arkansas; and

– Tarrant County, Texas

Virginia’s Pilot Project –Status Update

Implementation manual, warning script, and forms

Template court orders in place

Payment process for court-appointed attorneys

working with the program in Henrico

Point-of-contact for each office/agency identified

and contact lists created for each pilot site

− To facilitate swift communication process

13

Completed Tasks

Worked with DOC, Compensation Board, and Clerks

to add new codes, etc., in automated systems

− DOC’s VA-CORIS system

− Local Inmate Data System used in the jails

− Supreme Court’s Case Management System

Prepared and presented information on HOPE and

Virginia's pilot program to all Probation Officers in

Lynchburg and Henrico to encourage the

identification and referral of candidates

14

Completed Tasks

Hold regular meetings in each pilot site to discuss

any issues or questions that arise

− Work together to develop solutions that

are satisfactory to everyone

15

Ongoing Tasks

16

Overview of Henrico Pilot Program

Start date: November 1, 2012

Two judges oversee the hearings (Judge Yoffy and Judge Wallerstein)

DOC has designated a probation officer to supervise the offenders in the program

Six court-appointed attorneys provide defense counsel to offenders in the program

Sheriff and Chief of Police agreed to arrest program violators quickly (currently being handled by HPD’s Fugitive Investigations Team)

Judges conduct expedited hearings on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 1:00pm

17

Overview of Lynchburg Pilot Program

Start date: January 1, 2013

One judge is overseeing the hearings (Judge Yeatts;

backup will be a substitute judge)

DOC designated a probation officer to supervise the

offenders in the program

The Public Defender’s Office provides counsel to

offenders in the program

18

Sheriff and Chief of Police agreed to arrest

program violators quickly

− Initial delays within Police Department

appear to have been resolved

Amherst and Campbell County Sheriffs have

agreed to execute Lynchburg PB-15s quickly,

thereby expanding the pool of potential program

participants to those living outside the city

Originally held as needed, Lynchburg has now

set expedited hearings for Monday,

Wednesday, and Friday at 1:00pm

Overview of Lynchburg Pilot Program

19

On March 5, Commission staff and the Deputy Secretary of Public Safety met with stakeholders in Chesapeake

Second meeting in Chesapeake was held in April

− Stakeholders discussed the potential workload impact for the Probation Office and Clerk’s Office

− Judges expressed concern about the low number of participants in the two existing pilot programs

Wanted eligibility criteria to be expanded to allow offenders with a prior conviction for an offense listed in § 17.1-805 to participate (e.g., prior burglaries)

Requested information on number of eligible offenders in Chesapeake

Update on Third Pilot Site

20

To encourage Chesapeake’s participation in the

pilot, Commission staff pursued expanding the

eligibility criteria to allow offenders with a prior

conviction for an offense listed in § 17.1-805 to

be considered for the program

− This had previously been suggested by

stakeholders in Henrico and Lynchburg

− Secretary of Public Safety’s Office and the

Commonwealth’s Attorneys in all three

jurisdictions were amenable to the

proposed change (implemented April 26)


21

Commission staff requested probation caseload

data from DOC, which indicated that Chesapeake

would have a larger pool of eligible offenders than

either Henrico or Lynchburg


22

Chesapeake’s judges desired to change the pilot program to require offenders to waive their right to counsel in order to participate

Modifying the pilot program in this way raised concern

− § 19.2-303.5 allows parties to object to the expedited hearing, in which case the matter proceeds to a full show cause hearing

− HOPE evaluation found that defense counsel was an important part of the program’s effectiveness

− Evaluation would likely become more challenging if one pilot site were operating differently than the others in regards to a key aspect of the program


23

Due to those circumstances, a pilot program

did not proceed in Chesapeake

Discussions were held with the Secretary of Public

Safety’s Office and DOC administration regarding

options for another site

Arlington was identified as a potential site

− Judge Newman has agreed to convene

the stakeholders on June 19


24

Program-Related Issues Identified at the March Meeting

Number of eligible offenders appears to be less

than expected

− Offenders being supervised in the pilot

sites who are under the jurisdiction of

another court are not eligible

− Offenders with current or prior violent

felonies were not eligible

Probationers were not being referred to the

Immediate Sanction Probation Officer to be

considered for the program at the rate that

was anticipated

25

Program Participants (as of March 14)

5

Program Violations (as of March 14)

1

Henrico

Program Participants (as of March 14)

6

Program Violations (as of March 14)

5

Lynchburg


26

Follow-up on Program-Related Issues

Eligibility criteria has been expanded to allow

offenders with a prior conviction for an offense

listed in § 17.1-805 to be considered for the program

On April 26, 2013, Commission staff accompanied

DOC’s Deputy Director and a Regional Operations

Chief to Henrico and Lynchburg to meet with all

Probation Officers in each district

− Presented information about the HOPE

model and Virginia’s pilot program and

answered questions

− Second meeting was held for officers who

could not attend the April 26 meeting

27


Commission staff participate in weekly

conference calls with each Probation District

to discuss potential candidates for the

program

− Calls also provide opportunity to

address questions from Probation

staff and receive feedback on

the program from Probation Officers

28

Some PB-15s had not been executed as quickly

as desired

− This resulted in delays in getting offenders

in front of the judge to be considered for

placement in the program

− More importantly, participants who violate

must be arrested as quickly as possible so

that sanctions can be imposed swiftly and

the impact of the sanction on the offender

can be maximized


29

Issue was discussed at stakeholder meetings

in March

Delays in executing PB-15s appear to have

been resolved


Recent Activity in Henrico & Lynchburg

30

Locality

# of Participants (as of 6/7/13)

# of Participants who have Violated

# of Violations

Participants Removed

Pending Candidates

Henrico 15 4 6 1 3

Lynchburg 18 6 13 0 1

Total 33 10 19 1 4


31

Violation On or Before 3/8/13 Violation After 3/8/13

Lynchburg Henrico Total Lynchburg Henrico Total

Percent of Violation Hearings held w/in 3 days of a violation

20% N/A 20% 38% 60% 46%

Avg. time between violation and hearing

7 days N/A 7 days 4 days 3 days 3.9 days

Avg. time between violation and arrest

5.4 days N/A 5.4 days 2.9 days 2.4 days 2.7 days

Avg. time between arrest and hearing

1.6 days N/A 1.6 days 2 days 1.6 days 1.9 days

Avg. time between arrest and hearing – business days

Same N/A Same <1 day 2 days 1.5 days

Number of Violations 5 0 5 8 5 13

Measures of Swiftness

Note: Excludes revocations that occurred after a participant’s removal from the program.


32

Lynchburg Henrico Total

Percent of Violations Resulting in a Jail Term 100% 100% 100%

Avg. length of sentence for 1st Violation 3 days 3 days 3 days

Avg. length of sentence for 2nd Violation 6 days 10 days* 6.8 days

Avg. length of sentence for 3rd Violation 9 days N/A 9 days

Avg. length of sentence for 4th Violation 10 days* N/A 10 days*

Measures of Certainty and Sanctions Imposed

* Represents 1 case

Note: Sentence length is in addition to time served awaiting hearing. Excludes revocations that occurred after a participant’s removal from the program.

23

5

2 2 1

0 1 2 3 4


33

Number of Violations for Participants

N=33

* One participant was removed after 3 violations.

*

immediate sanction probation pilot project

Documents

hope participants

hawaiis hope

evaluation of hope program

evaluation of project

hope group

hope evaluation outcomessource

hawaiis evaluation

evaluation design