1. The Prosecutors 45 Minute Guide to Community Supervision Jane Seigel, Executive Director, IJC

2. Objectives:  1. EBP Overview– learn about the principles of effective interventions  2. Risk Assessment– learn about Indiana’s risk assessment systems (IRAS & IYAS)  3. Incentives and Sanctions– learn about Indiana’s project to implement incentives and sanctions in probation supervision  4. Problem-Solving Courts– learn about Indiana’s problem- solving court model and statutes/rules  5. Interstate Compacts– learn about the adult and juvenile Interstate Compacts for offender supervision

3. Overview of Evidence-Based Practices  What is EBP?   Evidence-based practice is a significant trend through all human services that emphasizes outcomes   Interventions within community corrections are considered effective when they reduce offender risk and subsequent recidivism and therefore make a positive contribution to public safety  -from “Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in Community Corrections: The Principles of Effective Interventions”

4. There are 8 Principles of Effective Offender Interventions  1. Assess actuarial risk/needs  2. Enhance intrinsic motivation  3. Target interventions– risk, need, responsivity, dosage  4. Skill train w/ directed practice (CBT methods)  5. Increase positive reinforcement  6. Engage ongoing support in natural communities  7. Measure relevant processes/practices  8. Provide measurement feedback

5. Additional resources on EBP  National Institute of Corrections website www.nicic.gov/ReducingRiskResearchSources  “Using Research to Promote Public Safety: A Prosecutor’s Primer on Evidence-Based Practice”, by Jennifer Fahey 2008  “Evidence-Based Practice to Reduce Recidivism: Implications for State Judiciaries”, by Roger Warren 2007

6. Assess Risk & Need  Risk assessment is the cornerstone of EBP  What is risk?  Risk of recidivism (re-offense)  High risk offender populations are more likely to recidivate  Low risk offender populations are less likely to recidivate  Higher risk offenders should receive more intense services, treatment and supervision  Targeting lower risk offenders for intensive services, treatment and supervision can increase their risk and failure rates

7.  What is need?  Need refers to “criminogenic needs”– dynamic risk factors, that when addressed or changed, affect the offender’s risk for recidivism  Criminogenic needs are characterized as “primary” and “secondary”  Primary: antisocial attitudes, values, beliefs; pro-criminal peers and associates; antisocial personality  Secondary: family and marital relationships; education and employment; substance abuse; leisure and recreation

8. Indiana’s Risk Assessment Systems  Creates a system that expands as the offender moves deeper into the system at different decision points  For adults (IRAS) and juveniles (IYAS)  Provides quick review of risk upfront, with case planning capacity for longer assessments  Public Domain  Normed/validated on Ohio/Indiana samples

9. Benefits and Goals of Assessment  Benefits Helps guide decision making Helps reduce bias Improves placement of offenders Helps better utilize resources Helps you know if offender has improved Can lead to enhanced public safety  Goals To identify risk of recidivism To identify criminogenic needs To identify appropriate offenders for programs To provide risk and need levels for case planning To facilitate reassessment to determine offender change

10. Assessments conducted by community supervision officers Assessments consist of:  File review  Self-report  Interview with offender  Collateral information

11. Certification Process All community supervision officers must:  Complete a two-day training  Pass an assessment exam  Pass a written exam

12. Important considerations in risk assessment  Offender assessment drives effective programs ………helps you know who & what to target  Design programs around empirical research ………helps you know how to target offenders  Program Integrity makes a difference

13. Incentives and Sanctions  Relates to Effective Intervention #5– Increase positive reinforcement  Research indicates that a ratio of 4 positive to every 1 negative reinforcement is optimal for promoting behavior changes  incentives are used to encourage pro-social behaviors (including compliance with court-ordered conditions and case management plans)  sanctions are used to discourage problematic/anti-social behaviors

14. Incentives and Sanctions  Reinforcement is used in conjunction with swift and certain sanctions for negative behaviors or violations  Reinforcement teaches offenders what to do; sanctions teach offenders what not to do  Behaviors that have been reinforced are more likely to be repeated in future  Behaviors that have been punished are less likely to be repeated in future

15. Indiana Incentives & Sanctions Project  IC 11-13-1-8 requires the Judicial Conference Board of Directors to set minimum standards for a “schedule of progressive probation incentives and violation sanctions”  IJC convened a workgroup to help develop the standards  Workgroup members included judges, prosecutors, public defenders and probation officers  Consultant for the project is the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute

16.  UCCI developed a “contingency management system” for probation officers to deliver incentives and sanctions to offenders on supervision  Officers administer the incentives and sanctions within the context of evidence-based risk/need assessment, integrated case plans, and service delivery  Identification of target behaviors is critical to effective implementation  Target behavior is a narrow, discrete behavioral problem that will be the focus of the intervention

17. Incentives & Sanctions pilot project  3 probation departments used the contingency management system to test the feasibility of its use  Allen adult, Lawrence and Pulaski  Each location developed their own list of reinforcers and sanctions  Feedback from both officers and offenders was positive regarding use of both incentives and sanctions  Next step for the project is a formal process and outcome evaluation

18. Problem-Solving Courts  The term “problem-solving court” generally refers to an alternative approach to traditional case processing that focuses on outcomes related to victims, offenders and society (Center for Court Innovation, 2001).  The goals of problem-solving courts are:  reduce recidivism and criminal justice costs  improve access to services and quality of life  Increase public confidence in criminal justice system

19. Problem-Solving Courts  Began in the 1990s to accommodate offenders with specific needs and problems that were not or could not be adequately addressed in traditional courts  Seek to promote outcomes that will benefit not only the offender, but the victim and society as well  Developed as an innovative response to deal with offenders' problems, including drug abuse, mental illness, and domestic violence

20. Problem-Solving Court Elements  1. Focus on Outcomes– reducing recidivism or creating safer communities  2. System Change– promote reform in how the government responds to problems such as drug addiction and mental illness  3. Judicial Involvement– judges take more hands-on approach  4. Collaboration– work with external parties to achieve certain goals (treatment providers)  5. Non-traditional roles– some problem-solving courts are less adversarial than traditional criminal justice processing

21. Indiana Problem-Solving Courts  Guided by IC 33-23-16  Problem-Solving Court Rules adopted by Judicial Conference of Indiana  Indiana Judicial Center provides training, technical assistance and certification

22. Types of PSC in Indiana  Drug courts  Re-entry courts  Mental health courts  Family drug courts (CHINS)  Veterans courts  Community court  Domestic violence court

23. Interstate Compacts  The Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision (ICAOS) governs the transfer of supervision for adult offenders across state lines  The Interstate Compact for Juveniles (ICJ) governs the transfer of supervision for juvenile delinquents across state lines and the return of runaways

24. ICAOS & ICJ  Promote public safety  Protect the rights of victims  Promote effective supervision and rehabilitation  Control the movement of offenders  Provide effective tracking

25. National Governing Bodies  All 50 states, the District of Columbia and US Virgin Islands are members of ICAOS and ICJ  The national commissions have rule-making authority and compliance enforcement authority  Each state’s commissioner sits on the national commission

26. Indiana Compact Legislation  Indiana’s compact legislation is IC 11-13-4.5  Adopts model legislation  Sets membership of State Council  Creates application fee for transfer

27. Indiana State Council  Meets at least once per year; oversees compact activities  Members:  Executive Director of Indiana Judicial Center  Commissioner of DOC  Legislative appointment  Executive Director of IPAC  Executive Director of IPDC  Executive Director of DCS  Executive Director of ICJI  Victim advocate  Chair of Indiana Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges  Executive Director of Sheriffs Association

28. ICAOS Considerations for Sentencing  ICAOS impacts how offenders are:  transferred to another state  supervised over state lines  returned to a sending state when offender violates supervision  Applies to all offenders convicted of a felony offense and some misdemeanor offenses

29. What triggers ICAOS? An eligible offender subject to supervision requests to relocate to another state ~there is no right of convicted persons to travel across state lines A transfer of an offender is within the sole discretion of the sending state

30. Compact Tidbits  No travel prior to transfer reply  Sending state determines the length of supervision, the receiving state determines the degree of supervision (must be consistent with own offenders)  Victim notification and right to be heard  Offenders agree to waive extradition rights when apply for transfer  Warrants issued by sending or receiving states shall be entered in NCIC with national pick-up radius

31.  Thanks to IJC staff members Michelle Goodman, Jenny Bauer and Mary Kay Hudson for their help putting together this presentation  Thanks to David Powell for the invitation to speak to you today  Thank you for your attention!