1. Swift, Certain, and Fair Sanctions
Replicating the Concepts Behind
Project HOPE
Dionne Addison and Stephanie Starr, Grant Administrators
Sonya Dunlap, Project Coordinator

2. What is “Swift and Certain” Sanctions?
HOPE has the most name recognition
Implemented under many other names, including SAC (swift and certain), and SCF (swift, certain, fair)
SCF programs differ in some operational details but all share…
Close monitoring
Swift and certain responses
Modest sanctions
Increasing attention on procedural justice and legitimacy (“atmosphere”)
Purpose: to shape behavior by tying consequences to behaviors, clearly and quickly

3. SCF Formal orientation (procedural justice) Clearly articulated rules
Rules closely monitored and actually enforced
Every violation is met with an immediate sanction
But the sanction is modest (how low can we go?)

4. Principles for Sanctioning
No exceptions! (predictability matters…)
If a probationer/inmate takes responsibility, he/she receives less penalty than if he/she denies
Create a response that makes honesty pay
Always make it worthwhile for the offender to do the “next right thing”

5. What is the evidence behind SCF-type programs?

6. Experiment Outcomes (RCT Hawaii)
HOPE
Control
No-shows for probation appointments (average of appointments per probationer) 9%
23%
Positive urine tests (average of tests per probationer)
13%
46%
Revocation rate (probationers revoked) 7%
15%
Incarceration (days sentenced)
138 days
267 days

7. Distribution of Positive Drug Tests
Percentage
Number of positive drug tests

8. HOPE 2016 Follow Up Study

10. General Observations SCF shows a great deal of promise
Evaluations on the mainland show similar results to Hawaii (Texas, Kentucky, Michigan, Washington)
There are still many unknowns
Essential components; Role of sanctions and sanction types; Integrating rewards
Ohio is implementing SCF in 4 counties: Auglaize, Pike, Jackson, and Stark
We are only now starting to learn about in-custody applications of these principles

11. What works?
Most of our public policies—how we educate our children, rehabilitate convicted offenders, or house the homeless—have one thing in common: they have never been rigorously tested.
Rigorous evaluations traditionally involve professional researchers, extramural funders, yards of red tape, and long timelines.
As a result, many commonplace policies intended to make us smarter, safer, or healthier are based more on intuition (“feels right”) than on data.

12. The state of EBPs in CJ
Some good programs. Many less good. Hard for practitioners to recognize which is which.
Challenge of transferability. An EBP (even if based on good data) that works well in place A might not work well in place B.
We need a new approach for creating knowledge.
HOME-grown EBPs --- YOUR EVIDENCE!

13. Why replicate the HOPE model?
Increasing prison population
Rates of successful completion of probation remain stable, but not satisfactory
New tool for holding offenders accountable

14. Similarities and Differences
Increased drug testing
Non-graduated sanction for violation behavior
Differences:
Target population
Varied sanctions

15. 2014 Pilot Sites: Auglaize, Pike, and Jackson Counties
1 county Common Pleas Judge
MOU with the Adult Parole Authority
Limited resources
Comparable number of offenders placed on cc/year; sentenced to prison/year; technical violators resulting in prison sentence/year
Approximately 50 to 100 participants per county projected for the project

16. Target Population
Community Control offenders (including Judicial Release)
Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS)
Moderate or higher risk offenders
Low risk offenders with a documented substance abuse need
Excluding: Arsonists

17. Violations/Sanctions
3 Day Sanction
7 Day Sanction
14 Day Sanction
Positive Urine Screen/Admits
Positive Urine Screen/Denial
Adulterated Urine Sample
Failure to Report – Self report within 1 business day
Whereabouts Unknown/ Violator-at-Large - Self-report
Refusal to Submit to Drug Screening
Unapproved Change of Residence (Sex Offender only) – Self-report
Whereabouts Unknown/Violator-at-Large – Law enforcement, Court or, Supervising Officer
Tampering with EM/GPS Equipment – Self-report
Unapproved Change of Residence (Sex Offender only) – Law enforcement, Court, or Supervising Officer
Failure to Charge Equipment – Self-report
Tampering with EM/GPS Equipment - Denial
Unsuccessful Termination from Program – Self report
Failure to Charge Equipment - Denial
Unsuccessful Termination from Program – Treatment Provider
The following violations must be staffed with the Project Coordinator or Grant Administrators:
Chronic violations
Contact with victim, violation(s) of protection order, and exclusionary zone violations (EM/GPS)

18. Auglaize County Traditional model Jail sanction
180 day suspended jail sentence

19. Auglaize County Preliminary Results
Enrolled in SCF:
# Warning Meetings Held:
# Supervised UAs:
# Sanctionable UAs:
% of Sanctionable UAs: %
# Lab Confirmations Requested:
# Offenders Sanctioned:
# of Sanctioned Violations:
# violation positive contacts within 3 days of the violation: 28
% within 3 days of violation: %

20. Preliminary Results Continued
70% of offenders received their orientation meeting within a week of being determined eligible
82% were contacted within 3 days of a violation
There were no sanctionable UAs that were not sanctioned
Average total custodial days over the caseload is 3
17 offenders (36%) have had a total of 34 sanctions for a total of 158 days

21. Sanctions (Preliminary Results)

22. Drug Testing (Preliminary Results)
# of Supervised UAs:
# of Sanctionable UAs: 19
Positive Test Rate: 5%
11 offenders (23%) have had at least one positive drug test

23. Drug Testing (Preliminary Results)

24. Drug Description (Preliminary Results)

25. Pike County Sanction varies from traditional HOPE model
Residential placement sanction
Direct interventions with trained halfway house staff
Assignments completed while at the facility
Completed assignments reviewed with supervising officer following release from the facility

26. Pike County Preliminary Results
Enrolled in SCF:
Number of warning meetings held:
Number of supervised UAs: ,023
Number of sanctionable UAs:
Percentage of sanctionable UAs: %
# of lab confirmations required:
Number sanctioned:
# violation positive contacts held within 3 days of violation: 186
% of violation contacts held within 3 days of violation: 81%

27. Preliminary Results Continued
87% received their orientation within one week of being determined eligible.
32 offenders (28%) had at least one bench warrant issued.
No offender had more than 3 warrants issued.
Average time to arrest was 78 days.
The “typical” offender was arrested within 29 days and 75% arrested within 89 days
Average absconder has been wanted for 218 days

28. Swiftness of Response (Preliminary Results)
The time between a detected violation and a response was the same day of the violation occurrence
81% of offenders were contacted within 3 days of knowledge of violation
40% of sanctions included time in detox (jail)
Pike County appears to be acting swiftly overall

29. Proportional Sanctions (Preliminary Results)
Each violation should receive a sanction commensurate with the severity of the violation.
When an offender makes the decision to take the “next right step” either by admission or voluntary surrender, they should be rewarded with a shorter sanction than one who continues to do the wrong thing
The average days spent in custody was 5
73 offenders (65%) have had a total of 232 custodial sanctions for a total of 1,132 days

30. Sanctions(Preliminary Results)

31. Drug Testing (Preliminary Results)
Number of Supervised UAs:
Number of Sanctionable UAs:
Positive Test Rate: %
74 offenders (65%) have had at least one positive drug test.
Pike County caseload struggles with desistance in the face of certain consequences.

32. Drug Testing (Preliminary Results)

33. Drug Description (Preliminary Results)

34. Jackson County Sanction varies from traditional HOPE model
Electronic monitoring/GPS sanction
Active EM/GPS system
24/7 monitoring in live time

35. Jackson County Preliminary Results
Enrolled in SCF:
# Warning Hearings Held:
# Supervised UAs:
# Sanctionable UAs:
Percentage Sanctionable UAs: 8%
# Lab Confirmations Requested: 5
# Sanctioned:
# Sanctioned Violations:

36. Preliminary Results Continued
89% of offenders received their orientation to SCF within a week of being determined eligible
5 offenders (10%) had one bench warrant issued
No offender had more than one warrant issued
Average time to arrest was 63 days (heavily influenced by long-term absconders)
75% were arrested within 95 days
94% of violators were contacted within 3 days and therefore Jackson County appears to be acting swiftly overall
The average days spent in custody was 5
16 offenders (33%) have had a total of 34 custodial sanctions for a total of 169 days

37. Sanctions (Preliminary Results)

38. Drug Testing (Preliminary Results)
Number of Supervised UAs:
Number of Sanctionable UAs: 36
Positive Test Rate: %
15 offenders (31%) have had at least one positive drug test

39. Drug Testing (Preliminary Results)

40. Drug Description (Preliminary Results)

41. 2015 Pilot Site Stark County Random Control Trial 5 County Judges
Larger area
More staff involved
More offenders placed on supervision

42. 2015 Pilot Site Sanction being utilized: Day Jail
Spend the day in the center and complete various homework assignments based on need
10 of 20 seats assigned to SCF pilot offenders
Convenient location to APA office
Introduced use of oral swabs for drug testing purposes

43. Lessons Learned Solid implementation team is critical Follow the model
Make adjustments early on in the pilot/implementation and then allow it some time
Open lines of communication with all parties involved
Listen to those during the work
Adjust policies to match current practices

44. Limitations / Considerations
Apprehension of absconders
Courtesy supervision
Sentencing laws
Availability of sanctions
Geographical/regional trends
Data tracking

45. Survey
In order to be able to listen to staff, key stakeholders, and offender population….conduct pre and post surveys
What is working, what isn’t working?
What do they like about SCF? What changes should be made?
Are sanctions and length of sanctions appropriate?

46. Project Coordinator Monitor the implementation of HOPE model
Ensure the consistent application of the HOPE model
Oversight of the day-to-day operations
Collects and maintains data
Identify the needs and training opportunities

47. Grant Administrators
Oversight of policies, contracts, and memorandums of understanding
Ensure fidelity of model while maintaining other department priorities
Financial oversight of grant
Provide support to the Project Coordinator

48. Contact Information:
Dionne Addison, Grant Administrator
Stephanie Starr, Grant Administrator
Swift Certain and Fair Resource Center

49. Questions?