1 / 25

Presented by: Angela Hawken, PhD October 22, 2010 ACJRCA

Presented by: Angela Hawken, PhD October 22, 2010 ACJRCA. Managing drug-involved offenders with HOPE. Managing drug offenders. Probation departments are on the front lines to reduce drug dependence Managing high caseloads with limited supervision and drug treatment resources

media
Télécharger la présentation

Presented by: Angela Hawken, PhD October 22, 2010 ACJRCA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Presented by:Angela Hawken, PhDOctober 22, 2010ACJRCA Managing drug-involved offenders with HOPE

  2. Managing drug offenders • Probation departments are on the front lines to reduce drug dependence • Managing high caseloads with limited supervision and drug treatment resources • A large number of non-violent drug offenders will go on to commit non-drug crimes

  3. Important approaches Treatment diversion (e.g., Proposition 36) Drug courts

  4. Managing Drug-involved Offenders: Diversion Programs

  5. Characteristics of diversion programs Mandates treatment for all; even those without a diagnosable substance abuse disorder. Treatment decisions based on self-reported behavior Limited use of sanctions

  6. Treatment diversion – example California’s Proposition 36 • Only 25% completed the treatment to which they were mandated. • Why? • Little enforcement • Poorly matched treatment • The result?

  7. Increase in Arrests (30 Month follow-up) 100 80 61 60 56 Percent of offenders 43 40 40 17 17 20 10 11 6 5 4 4 0 New drug arrest New property arrest New violent arrest Referred but untreated Comparison Group Entered but did not complete treatment Completed treatment

  8. Treatment provider perceptions of why Prop 36 clients did not complete their planned treatment. Notes: Data are from the 2007 Proposition 36 Treatment Provider Survey. The results reflect responses from randomly selected Proposition 36 Treatment Providers (n = 87).

  9. Providers’ perceptions – would jail sanctions for non-compliance improve treatment outcomes? Notes: Data are from the 2007 Prop 36 Treatment Provider Survey. The results reflect responses from randomly selected Prop 36 Treatment Providers (n = 87).

  10. Managing drug-involved offenders: The Drug Court approach

  11. Drug courts • The drug court movement has been very successful and has demonstrated good outcomes • Resource intensive =>problems with scale • In many jurisdictions – the wrong clients are being served • Prosecutor discretion • Concern with evaluation outcomes

  12. Why Drug Courts face problems with scale Role of the judge: regularly scheduled meetings Role of treatment: all clients are mandated to treatment Typical caseload is 50-100 probationers $$$

  13. A new alternative model BEHAVIORAL TRIAGE

  14. Behavioral Triage Model • Not everyone is mandated to treatment • Monitoring and treatment decisions based on probationers’ observedbehavior not self-report • Allocates treatment resources more efficiently • Many drug-involved probationers do not have a diagnosable substance abuse disorder, wasting scare treatment resources and displacing self-referrals in greater need of care.

  15. Example: Hawaii’s HOPE Probation conditions are actually enforced Regular random drug testing Violations result in swift and certain but modest sanctions No one mandated to treatment if complying (but provided if asked) Three or more violations => treatment mandate

  16. HOPE • Two Studies • Integrated Community Sanctions Unit (Specialized Probation Unit) • Outcomes compared for HOPE probationers and a comparison group of probationers (TAU). • Smaller caseloads (~90:1) • Adult Client Services (General Probation Unit) • Intent-to-treat randomized controlled trial • Larger caseloads (~180:1)

  17. Eligibility • Probationers were indentified as: • Drug-involved • Demonstrated non-compliance • High risk of revocation

  18. FINDINGS

  19. Summary of RCT outcomes

  20. HOPE as a behavioral triage model

  21. Distribution of positive drug tests

  22. Process integrity • Tenets of HOPE are research based • Sanctions are certain. • Sanctions are swift. • Sanctions are consistent. • Sanctions are modest.

  23. Probationers’ Perceptions (n=211)

  24. Remaining questions • HOPE for all? • A minority of probationers do not comply even when faced with repeat sanctions. 30 HOPE probationers were transferred to drug court. • Whether HOPE generalizes is an unanswered question • Whether HOPE effects persist after probation is complete is an unanswered question (only 1 year follow-up)

  25. Contact information • Please address questions or comments to Angela Hawken at: ahawken@pepperdine.edu

More Related