Download Slide 1

yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts

Law enforcement agency wikipedia, lookup

Counter-terrorism wikipedia, lookup

Prison reform wikipedia, lookup

Felony disenfranchisement wikipedia, lookup

Recidivism wikipedia, lookup

U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services System wikipedia, lookup

Created by Jonathan Lee and Allen Lim
In this Presentation:
• An Overview of the Current System
• 2 Different Programs, 2 Success Stories
• Recommendations for Probation’s Future
Today’s Probation
• The current probation model
• 3 types of caseloads:
– Regular Caseload
– Banked Caseload
– Specialized Caseload
Probation Officer Opinions
• Goal ambiguity
– Is there a clear departmental goal?
– Lack of funding = increased rates of recidivism
2 Different Approaches;
2 Success Stories
• Rehabilitative
– Travis County (TX) 10-Step Program
• Punitive
– Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement
Travis County (TX) 10-Step:
A Rehabilitative Process
• Program followed 4 core practices:
– Effectively assess probationers’ criminogenic risks
and strengths
– Employ smart and tailored supervision tactics
– Use incentives and graduated sanctions, and
respond promptly to probationers’ behaviors
– Implement performance-driven personnel that
reward reduced recidivism
Travis County (TX) 10-Step:
A Rehabilitative Process
• Results:
– Reductions in probation revocation hearings saved
$400,000 in local jail costs per year ($24 per day,
per person)
– One year re-arrest rate fell 17%
– Re-arrest rates for low-risk offenders fell 77%
Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with
Enforcement (HOPE):
The Punitive Approach
• Probationers are required to phone in every
• Probation violations result in immediate stay
in jail
• Probation can be modified for probationer to
resume normal life
Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with
Enforcement (HOPE):
• Results:
– Missed appointment rate fell from 13.3% to 2.6%
– “Dirty” drug tests fell from 49.3% to 6.5%
– Provided a fiscal saving of $6000 per participant,
per year
– About 80% probationers on HOPE stopped using
– Abbreviated probation modification hearings
economized court time
Different Successful Approaches with
Similar Successful Characteristics
• Success through use of:
– Cognitive-Behavioral Methods (CBM)
– Proven Evidence-Based Practices (EBP)
– Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR)
What Other Members of the Criminal
Justice Field have Recommended
• Reduced Caseload Size
• Placeload Probation
Is there a Proven Solution?
• No. Not one program has been proven to work
in every jurisdiction
Our Recommendations
• Start with a more sociological approach to
understanding people within the jurisdiction
• Based on findings, determine which
enforcement approach (rehabilitative or
punitive), and set that as a departmental goal
• Train officers to use new methods of
interacting with probationers such as
Motivational Interviewing (MI)
Our Recommendations
• Use already successful screening process, such
as Static Risk and Offender Needs Guide
(STRONG-R), Risk Need Responsivity (RNR),
and Strategic Training Initiative in Community
Supervision (STICS) for each offender
• Enforce and patrol based on results of survey
and new departmental standards
• Tinker and tailor program to fit needs
• There is no proven solution to effective
probation enforcement
– Overall
• No one program is applicable for every jurisdiction
• The only proven way to reduce recidivism is to tailor
programs specifically for a certain
• The most important thing for probation departments:
The End
Thank you for your time!
Slide Title