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

Managing drug-involved offenders

with HOPE

Presented by:Angela Hawken, PhD

October 22, 2010ACJRCA

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 self-reported 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)

56

17

6

61

17

5

43

10 4

0

20

40

60

80

100

New drug arrest New property arrest New violent arrest

Perc

ent o

f off

ende

rs

Referred but untreated Comparison GroupEntered but did not complete treatmentCompleted treatment

40

11 4

Treatment provider perceptions of why Prop 36 clients did not complete their planned treatment.

63%

74%

18%

30%

17%19%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Transportation Work schedule Housing Familyresponsibilities

Unwilling tocomply

Motivation

Perc

ent

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?

19%

1%

80%

0

20

40

60

80

100

No Maybe Yes

Perc

ent

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 servedProsecutor discretionConcern 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 efficientlyMany 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-involvedDemonstrated non-complianceHigh risk of revocation

FINDINGS

Summary of RCT outcomes

Outcome HOPE Control

No-shows for probation appointments (average

of appointments per probationer)

9% 23%

Positive urine tests (average of tests per

probationer)

13% 46%

New arrest rate (probationers rearrested) 21% 47%

Revocation rate (probationers revoked) 7%* 15%

Incarceration (days sentenced) 138 days* 267 days

HOPE AS A BEHAVIORAL TRIAGE MODEL

Distribution of positive drug tests

0 1 or more 2 or more 3 or more 4 or more 5 or more0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

51%49%

21%

9%

5%1%

Perc

enta

ge

Process integrity

Tenets of HOPE are research basedSanctions are certain.Sanctions are swift.Sanctions are consistent.Sanctions are modest.

Probationers’ Perceptions (n=211)

In Treatment In Jail Specialised Unit General Unit0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Positive Neutral Negative

Perc

enta

ge

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:

ahawken@pepperdine.edu