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

2.  As of 2012, 1 in 50 adults in the US were under supervision according to US Department of Justice Probationers account for over 80% of people on supervision In 2012, Ohio was one of 4 states that had the largest increase in probation numbers

3.  How long does it take to deal with a violation in your court?  What type of sanctions are you able to administer without a hearing?  Are sanctions consistently administered?  Why or Why not?

4.  SCF programs differ in some operational details but all share… Close monitoring Swift and certain responses Modest sanctions  Purpose: to shape behavior by tying consequences to behaviors, clearly and quickly

5.  Formal orientation (procedural justice)  Clearly articulated rules  Rules closely monitored and actually enforced  Every violation is met with an immediate sanction What behavioral economics tells us about certainty  But the sanction is modest (how low can we go?)

6.  No exceptions!  If a probationer/inmate takes responsibility, he/she receives less penalty than if he/she denies  Not graduated sanctioning

8. DemographicsHOPEControl Sex Male Female 75% 25% 71% 29% Age36.1 avg35.4 avg Most Serious Prior Charges Drug Property Violent Other 35% 30% 22% 14% 33% 34% 22% 11%

9. OutcomeHOPEControl 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 days267 days

10. Number of positive drug tests Percentage

11.  HOPE subjects had 20% fewer new charges Drug = 50% fewer new charges Property = 4% fewer new charges Violent = 14% fewer new charges Other = 21% fewer new charges  HOPE subjects had 14% fewer returns to prison (13 % HOPE vs 27% control)

12.  Started 2011 as a pilot in Seattle Higher risk parolees Longer more serious offense  April 2012 state legislature passed statewide implementation 117,000 offenders with 113 field offices

13.  SCF shows a great deal of promise Evaluations on the mainland show similar results to Hawaii (Texas, Kentucky, Michigan, WA)  There are still many unknowns Essential components; Role of sanctions and sanction types; Integrating rewards  We are only now starting to learn about in-custody applications of these principles

14. The Role of EBP within SCF  RNR  Case Planning  Programming and Interventions

15. Considerations prior to implementing  Can we effectively role this out in our department?  If not how can we adapt the model to work for us.

16.  Increasing prison population  Rates of successful completion of probation remain stable, but not satisfactory  New tool for holding offenders accountable

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

18.  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

19.  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 100 participants per county projected for the project

20.  Traditional model Jail sanction  180 day suspended jail sentence  $87.68/offender per day

21.  Sanction varies from traditional HOPE model  Electronic monitoring/GPS sanction Active EM/GPS system 24/7 monitoring in live time $9.50/day per active unit $6.75/day per inactive unit

22.  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 $45.20/offender per day

23. 3 Day Sanction7 Day Sanction14 Day Sanction Positive Urine Screen/AdmitsPositive Urine Screen/DenialAdulterated 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)

24.  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

25.  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

26.  Identify and educate affected stakeholders and concerned parties  Implement in a way that allows for adjustments  Ensure staff accountability and compliance to model  Be informed and share

27. Dionne Addison, Grant Administrator Dionne.Addison@odrc.state.oh.us Stephanie Starr, Grant Administrator Stephanie.Starr@odrc.state.oh.us Sonya Dunlap, Project Coordinator Sonya.Dunlap@odrc.state.oh.us