Transcript California's Prop 36 and Hawaii's HOPE Probation

Managing druginvolved offenders
with HOPE
Presented by:
Angela Hawken, PhD
October 22, 2010
ACJRCA
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
Important approaches
Treatment diversion (e.g., Proposition 36)
 Drug courts

Managing Drug-involved
Offenders:
Diversion Programs
Characteristics of diversion
programs
Mandates treatment for all; even those
without a diagnosable substance abuse
disorder.
 Treatment decisions based on selfreported behavior
 Limited use of sanctions

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?
Increase in Arrests (30 Month follow-up)
Percent of offenders
100
80
60
61
56
43
40
40
17
20
17
10
11
6
5
4
4
0
New drug arrest
New property arrest
Referred but untreated
Entered but did not complete treatment
Completed treatment
New violent arrest
Comparison Group
Treatment provider perceptions of
why Prop 36 clients did not complete
their planned treatment.
80
74%
70
63%
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
30%
19%
17%
Transportation
Work schedule
18%
10
0
Housing
Family
responsibilities
Unwilling to
comply
Motivation
Notes: Data are from the 2007 Proposition 36 Treatment Provider Survey. The results
reflect responses from randomly selected Proposition 36 Treatment Providers (n = 87).
Providers’ perceptions – would jail
sanctions for non-compliance improve
treatment outcomes?
100
80%
Percent
80
60
40
20
19%
1%
0
No
Maybe
Yes
Notes: Data are from the 2007 Prop 36 Treatment Provider Survey. The results
reflect responses from randomly selected Prop 36 Treatment Providers (n = 87).
Managing drug-involved
offenders:
The Drug Court approach
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
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

$$$
A new alternative model
BEHAVIORAL TRIAGE
Behavioral Triage Model
Not everyone is mandated to treatment
 Monitoring and treatment decisions based
on probationers’ observed behavior 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.
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

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)

Eligibility

Probationers were indentified as:
 Drug-involved
 Demonstrated
non-compliance
 High risk of revocation
FINDINGS
Summary of RCT outcomes
Outcome
HOPE
Control
9%
23%
13%
46%
New arrest rate (probationers rearrested)
21%
47%
Revocation rate (probationers revoked)
7%*
15%
138 days*
267 days
No-shows for probation appointments (average
of appointments per probationer)
Positive urine tests (average of tests per
probationer)
Incarceration (days sentenced)
HOPE AS A BEHAVIORAL
TRIAGE MODEL
Distribution of positive drug tests
60%
51%
49%
50%
Percentage
40%
30%
21%
20%
9%
10%
5%
1%
0%
0
1 or more
2 or more
3 or more
4 or more
5 or more
Process integrity

Tenets of HOPE are research based
 Sanctions
are certain.
 Sanctions are swift.
 Sanctions are consistent.
 Sanctions are modest.
Probationers’ Perceptions (n=211)
80%
70%
60%
Percentage
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
In Treatment
In Jail
Positive
Specialised Unit
Neutral
Negative
General Unit
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)

Contact information

Please address questions or comments to
Angela Hawken at:
[email protected]