This article reports outcomes from a program of experimental research evaluating the risk principle in drug courts. Prior studies revealed that participants who were high risk and had (a) antisocial personality disorder or (b) a prior history of drug abuse treatment performed better in drug court when scheduled to attend biweekly judicial status hearings in court. In contrast, participants who were low risk performed equivalently regardless of the court hearings schedule. This study prospectively matches drug court clients to the optimal schedule of court hearings based on an assessment of their risk status and compares outcomes to clients randomly assigned to the standard hearings schedule. Results confirmed that participants who were high risk and matched to biweekly hearings had better during-treatment outcomes than participants assigned to status hearings as usual. These findings provide confirmation of the risk principle in drug courts and yield practical information for enhancing the efficacy and cost-efficiency of drug courts.

/pdf/matching-judicial-supervision-to-clients-risk-status-in-drug-1tv26yb698.pdf

Matching Judicial Supervision to Clients’ Risk Status in Drug Court

http://www.fedcure.org/information/USSC-Symposium-0708/dir_02/Evidence-Based%20Treatment%20Practices%20for%20Drug-Involved%20Adults%20in%20theCriminal%20Justice%20System.pdf

Evidence-based treatment practices for drug-involved adults in the criminal justice system.

Research Summary
Evidence-based supervision is the newest in a long line of efforts to advance community corrections. This new model adopts a risk-need-responsivity model where the agency uses a risk and need tool to identify appropriate treatment and control services and then assigns offenders to such services. Underscoring this new approach is the creation of a social learning environment that makes supervision officers active in facilitating offender change. The goal is to empower the offender. Maryland's Proactive Community Supervision (PCS) model was one of the first to implement this approach. Controlling for length of time on supervision and prior history, logistic regression results found that offenders who were supervised in this new style were less likely to be rearrested (30% for the PCS and 42% of the non-PCS sample; p < 0.01) and less likely to have a warrant issued for technical violations (34.7% of the PCS group and 40% for the non-PCS group; p < 0.10).

Policy Implications
The study findings indicate that a behavioral management approach can increase the frequency of contacts and obtain positive offender outcomes. More importantly, the PCS model illustrates that supervision agencies can be transformed to achieve public safety goals through focusing on offender change strategies. Providing officers with new behavioral skills to work with offenders and creating an empowering environment can yield positive outcomes. Criminal justice policy should focus on reengineering community supervision to prevent additional penetration into the justice system, to reduce churning, and to reduce incarceration.

No illusions: offender and organizational change in maryland's proactive community supervision efforts*

Target populations have always been a thorny issue for correctional programs, primarily in response to the question “what works for whom?” In this experiment of seamless treatment for probationers in two sites, offenders were randomly assigned to the seamless model (drug treatment incorporated into probation supervision) or traditional referral model to services in the community. The experiment blocked on risk level, using a version of the Wisconsin Risk Tool, to measure the differential effects on rearrest and substance abuse. The seamless system model improved treatment participation with greater gains for the high-risk offenders in both sites. Yet, no main effects were observed on drug use or rearrest, although effect sizes illustrate that small effects can be observed for the high-risk offenders and the direction of the effect size demonstrates negative effects for moderate-risk offenders in one of the sites. Part of the failure to observe main effects may be due to instrumentation and measurement problems, namely that many of the substance abusers in the experiment had low severity substance abuse problems and the majority of the offenders were marijuana users which has a weaker crime-drug linkage. Study findings illustrate the importance of theoretically driven and dynamic risk and need measures. The focus on sound dynamic factors may assist with identifying the appropriate target populations for correctional interventions.

Risk, Need, and Responsivity (RNR): It All Depends

Mandating offenders to attend correctional treatment is a controversial function of the justice system, in part because of the uncertainty about the effectiveness of such practice. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness of mandated, coerced, and voluntary correctional treatment in reducing recidivism. A search of correctional treatment studies resulted in 129 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. In general, mandated treatment was found to be ineffective in several analyses, particularly when the treatment was located in custodial settings, whereas voluntary treatment produced significant treatment effect sizes regardless of setting. Few significant differences in effect sizes were found between levels of coercion. The implications of mandating correctional treatment for offenders are discussed.

Offender Coercion in Treatment: A Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness

Responsivity: the value of providing intensive services to high-risk offenders.

Aims of the study We compared seamless combination of probation and treatment (where the probation officer is co-located with treatment provider or is actively engaged in treatment) to traditional probation where treatment is left to the client's choice Methods Clients were randomly assigned to either seamless or traditional probation We used a decision analytic approach which had two advantages: First it separated estimation of probability of adverse events (eg hospitalization) from the daily cost of the adverse event, thereby allowing use of estimates of daily costs available within the literature Second, the reliance on daily probability of various adverse events also had the benefit of reflecting both length of the event and its intermittent re-occurrence Subjects were 272 clients on probation in Northern Virginia and Maryland in the United States Clients were randomly assigned to seamless and traditional probation and were followed for an average of 275 years (arrest information was only available for 1 year); 77% of clients participated in the follow-up interviews At baseline, there was no statistically significant difference among the clients Results During the follow-up period, clients in the seamless probation had less recidivism but the cost savings from this component (dollar 231 per client per follow-up day) was not sufficient to overcome increased costs due to mental hospitalization of seamless clients (dollar 1350 per client per follow-up day), cost of delivery of seamless probation (dollar 258 per client per follow-up day), more frequent use of jail/prison for clients in the seamless group (dollar 208 per client per follow-up day) and additional treatment costs (dollar 124 per client per follow-up day) The expected cost of seamless probation and its consequences was dollar 3884 per follow-up day The expected cost of traditional probation and its consequences was dollar 2160 per follow-up day Seamless probation was dollar 6,293 more expensive than traditional probation per client per year Discussion Sensitivity analysis suggested that the analysis was not sensitive to small change in any single cost or probability estimate Sensitivity analysis suggested that increased supervision intensity and use of sanctions had contributed to lower cost-effectiveness Implications One possible way of improving seamless probation is to improve the intensity of the substance abuse treatment while reducing the intensity of supervision to its traditional levels This analysis was limited to 275 years follow-up period and does not address cost savings that might occur after this period

Costs and benefits of combining probation and substance abuse treatment.

Background: Since many offenders have drug problems, investigators have proposed that drug testing and treatment should be an integral part of probation. In 1994, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) funded a demonstration project designed to integrate drug treatment with traditional supervision services. As part of this demonstration a new procedure called ‘‘seamless’’ probation was set up in which treatment providers were co-located with probation officers and probation officers coordinated offenders’ participation in treatment. Aims of the Study: This study examines the cost of providing substance abuse treatment coordination through probation agencies. Methods: We used Activity Based Costing (ABC) to examine the cost of probation with and without treatment coordination in one probation agency. Agency budget was analyzed and allocated to various programs. A questionnaire was developed to assess probation officer’s activities. The cost of coordinating treatment for one offender was calculated by dividing the total cost of the program by units of various activities done by the probation officers. Results: Preliminary test of reliability of the instrument showed that it was accurately portraying the probation officers time allocation. Probation officers spent 6.9% of their time in seamless supervision and 83.3% time in traditional supervision (83.83%). The seamless probation officers had more group meetings and more phone contact with their offenders than traditional probation officers. The average cost per offender per day was $12 for seamless probation and $7 for traditional probation. Discussion: This study is limited because it focuses on one agency at one point in time. Results may not be relevant to other agencies or to the same agency as it makes its operation more efficient. This study provides a method of allocating budget cost to per client costs using survey of probation officer’s activities – a tool developed in this study. Comparison of seamless and traditional supervision activities showed major differences in terms of the probation officers’ activities and costs. Implications: There are significant costs associated with asking probation officers to coordinate treatment. Studies should be undertaken to examine the relative benefits that can be derived from this increased cost.

/pdf/activity-based-costing-of-probation-with-and-without-qnm2zq9osc.pdf

Meridith Thanner

Papers

Risk, Need, and Responsivity (RNR): It All Depends

Responsivity: the value of providing intensive services to high-risk offenders.

Costs and benefits of combining probation and substance abuse treatment.

Activity based costing of probation with and without substance abuse treatment: a case study.