Immediate Sanction Probation Pilot Project Virginia Criminal Sentencing

Immediate Sanction Probation Pilot Project Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission June 10, 2013

Overview of HOPE Program Evaluation

Evaluation of HOPE Program Pepperdine University, with funding from the National Institute of Justice, conducted an evaluation of Project HOPE (published December, 2009) Evaluation design employed a random assignment of 493 high-risk probationers: 330 (two-thirds) were placed into Project HOPE 163 (one-third) were placed into regular probation 3

HOPE Evaluation Outcomes HOPE Program Outcomes (One Year Follow-up) 47% CONTROL HOPE 46% 23% 21% 13% Arrested for New Crime Used Drugs 15% 9% 7% Probation Skipped Appointments Revoked Source: Hawken, A. & Kleiman, M. (2009). Managing Drug Involved Probationers with Swift and Certain Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii's HOPE. www. ncjrs. govpdffiles 1/nij/grants/229023. pdf Even though the HOPE group was brought back to court for every violation (more opportunities to be revoked), HOPE participants still had lower revocation rate 4

HOPE Evaluation Outcomes HOPE Program Outcomes (One Year Follow-up) CONTROL HOPE A separate study found that, on average, HOPE participants and a control group served about the same amount of time in jail for violations (approx. 20 days). However, the average prison sentence was significantly lower for HOPE participants. Source: Hawken, A. & Kleiman, M. (2009). Managing Drug Involved Probationers with Swift and Certain Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii's HOPE. www. ncjrs. govpdffiles 1/nij/grants/229023. pdf 5

HOPE Evaluation Outcomes HOPE Program Outcomes Number of Positive Urinalyses for HOPE Participants in 12 months Source: Hawken, A. & Kleiman, M. (2009). Managing Drug Involved Probationers with Swift and Certain Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii's HOPE. www. ncjrs. govpdffiles 1/nij/grants/229023. pdf 6

HOPE Evaluation Outcomes Key Components of the Warning Hearing As part of the warning, the judge: Stresses the importance of the probationer taking charge of his own life and accepting accountability for his own actions Clearly lays out the consequences for violation in advance, which creates a perception of fairness on the part of the probationer Expresses goodwill toward the probationer and the desire that the probationer succeed These are also frequently reiterated at violation hearings. 7

HOPE Evaluation Outcomes – Other Key Components of the Warning and Violation Hearings Other key factors described in Hawaii’s evaluation: Presence of prosecution and defense is key to reinforcing perception of fairness and emphasizing the seriousness of the matter – Attorneys are also important in Virginia because of the statutory ability to object to an expedited hearing and the judge’s ability to remove an offender at any time. The probation officer reinforces the message expressed by the court after the probationer is released from incarceration following a violation. 8

Swift and Certain Sanction Programs Elsewhere in the U. S.

Interest and Participation in Sanction Programs States with Similar Swift and Certain Results First ME WA MT ND MN OR NY WI SD ID MI WY PA IA NE NV IL UT CA OH IN NH WV CO KS MO OK NM SC AL MA RI NC AR MS TX VA KY TN AZ VT CT NJ GA DE MD LA FL AK AK HI Evaluation or Preliminary Results Reported Data Collection Phase/Evaluation Pending Program Created, Evaluation Status Unknown

Research on Swift and Certain Sanction Programs Growing body of research on HOPE-style supervision: l Anchorage Probation Accountability with Certain Enforcement (PACE) l South Dakota 24/7 Sobriety Project l Washington Intensive Supervision Program (WISP) l Arizona Swift Accountable Fair Enforcement (SAFE) l 4 Federal Demonstration Field Experiment Sites – Clackamas County, Oregon – Essex County, Massachusetts – Saline County, Arkansas; and – Tarrant County, Texas 11

Virginia’s Pilot Project – Status Update

Completed Tasks Implementation manual, warning script, and forms Template court orders in place Payment process for court-appointed attorneys working with the program in Henrico Point-of-contact for each office/agency identified and contact lists created for each pilot site − To facilitate swift communication process 13

Completed Tasks Worked with DOC, Compensation Board, and Clerks to add new codes, etc. , in automated systems − − − DOC’s VA-CORIS system Local Inmate Data System used in the jails Supreme Court’s Case Management System Prepared and presented information on HOPE and Virginia's pilot program to all Probation Officers in Lynchburg and Henrico to encourage the identification and referral of candidates 14

Ongoing Tasks Hold regular meetings in each pilot site to discuss any issues or questions that arise − Work together to develop solutions that are satisfactory to everyone 15

Overview of Henrico Pilot Program Start date: November 1, 2012 Two judges oversee the hearings (Judge Yoffy and Judge Wallerstein) DOC has designated a probation officer to supervise the offenders in the program Six court-appointed attorneys provide defense counsel to offenders in the program Sheriff and Chief of Police agreed to arrest program violators quickly (currently being handled by HPD’s Fugitive Investigations Team) Judges conduct expedited hearings on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 1: 00 pm 16

Overview of Lynchburg Pilot Program Start date: January 1, 2013 One judge is overseeing the hearings (Judge Yeatts; backup will be a substitute judge) DOC designated a probation officer to supervise the offenders in the program The Public Defender’s Office provides counsel to offenders in the program 17

Overview of Lynchburg Pilot Program Sheriff and Chief of Police agreed to arrest program violators quickly − Initial delays within Police Department appear to have been resolved Amherst and Campbell County Sheriffs have agreed to execute Lynchburg PB-15 s quickly, thereby expanding the pool of potential program participants to those living outside the city Originally held as needed, Lynchburg has now set expedited hearings for Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 1: 00 pm 18

Update on Third Pilot Site On March 5, Commission staff and the Deputy Secretary of Public Safety met with stakeholders in Chesapeake Second meeting in Chesapeake was held in April − Stakeholders discussed the potential workload impact for the Probation Office and Clerk’s Office − Judges expressed concern about the low number of participants in the two existing pilot programs Wanted eligibility criteria to be expanded to allow offenders with a prior conviction for an offense listed in § 17. 1 -805 to participate (e. g. , prior burglaries) Requested information on number of eligible offenders in Chesapeake 19

Update on Third Pilot Site To encourage Chesapeake’s participation in the pilot, Commission staff pursued expanding the eligibility criteria to allow offenders with a prior conviction for an offense listed in § 17. 1 -805 to be considered for the program − This had previously been suggested by stakeholders in Henrico and Lynchburg − Secretary of Public Safety’s Office and the Commonwealth’s Attorneys in all three jurisdictions were amenable to the proposed change (implemented April 26) 20

Update on Third Pilot Site Commission staff requested probation caseload data from DOC, which indicated that Chesapeake would have a larger pool of eligible offenders than either Henrico or Lynchburg 21

Update on Third Pilot Site Chesapeake’s judges desired to change the pilot program to require offenders to waive their right to counsel in order to participate Modifying the pilot program in this way raised concern − § 19. 2 -303. 5 allows parties to object to the expedited hearing, in which case the matter proceeds to a full show cause hearing − HOPE evaluation found that defense counsel was an important part of the program’s effectiveness − Evaluation would likely become more challenging if one pilot site were operating differently than the others in regards to a key aspect of the program 22

Update on Third Pilot Site Due to those circumstances, a pilot program did not proceed in Chesapeake Discussions were held with the Secretary of Public Safety’s Office and DOC administration regarding options for another site Arlington was identified as a potential site − Judge Newman has agreed to convene the stakeholders on June 19 23

Program-Related Issues Identified at the March Meeting Number of eligible offenders appears to be less than expected − Offenders being supervised in the pilot sites who are under the jurisdiction of another court are not eligible − Offenders with current or prior violent felonies were not eligible Probationers were not being referred to the Immediate Sanction Probation Officer to be considered for the program at the rate that was anticipated 24

Program-Related Issues Identified at the March Meeting Henrico Program Participants (as of March 14) Program Violations (as of March 14) 5 1 Lynchburg Program Participants (as of March 14) Program Violations (as of March 14) 6 5 25

Follow-up on Program-Related Issues Eligibility criteria has been expanded to allow offenders with a prior conviction for an offense listed in § 17. 1 -805 to be considered for the program On April 26, 2013, Commission staff accompanied DOC’s Deputy Director and a Regional Operations Chief to Henrico and Lynchburg to meet with all Probation Officers in each district − Presented information about the HOPE model and Virginia’s pilot program and answered questions − Second meeting was held for officers who could not attend the April 26 meeting 26

Follow-up on Program-Related Issues Commission staff participate in weekly conference calls with each Probation District to discuss potential candidates for the program − Calls also provide opportunity to address questions from Probation staff and receive feedback on the program from Probation Officers 27

Program-Related Issues Identified at the March Meeting Some PB-15 s had not been executed as quickly as desired − This resulted in delays in getting offenders in front of the judge to be considered for placement in the program − More importantly, participants who violate must be arrested as quickly as possible so that sanctions can be imposed swiftly and the impact of the sanction on the offender can be maximized 28

Follow-up on Program-Related Issues Issue was discussed at stakeholder meetings in March Delays in executing PB-15 s appear to have been resolved 29

Recent Activity in Henrico & Lynchburg Locality # of Participants who have # of Participants Pending (as of 6/7/13) Violated Violations Removed Candidates Henrico 15 4 6 1 3 Lynchburg 18 6 13 0 1 Total 33 10 19 1 4 30

Recent Activity in Henrico & Lynchburg Measures of Swiftness Violation On or Before 3/8/13 Lynchburg Henrico Percent of Violation Hearings held w/in 3 days of a violation Violation After 3/8/13 Total Lynchburg Henrico Total 20% N/A 20% 38% 60% 46% Avg. time between violation and hearing 7 days N/A 7 days 4 days 3. 9 days Avg. time between violation and arrest 5. 4 days N/A 5. 4 days 2. 9 days 2. 4 days 2. 7 days Avg. time between arrest and hearing 1. 6 days N/A 1. 6 days 2 days 1. 6 days 1. 9 days Avg. time between arrest and hearing – business days Same N/A Same <1 day 2 days 1. 5 days 5 0 5 8 5 13 Number of Violations Note: Excludes revocations that occurred after a participant’s removal from the program. 31

Recent Activity in Henrico & Lynchburg Measures of Certainty and Sanctions Imposed Lynchburg Henrico Total Percent of Violations Resulting in a Jail Term 100% Avg. length of sentence for 1 st Violation 3 days Avg. length of sentence for 2 nd Violation 6 days 10 days* 6. 8 days Avg. length of sentence for 3 rd Violation 9 days N/A 9 days Avg. length of sentence for 4 th Violation 10 days* N/A 10 days* * Represents 1 case Note: Sentence length is in addition to time served awaiting hearing. Excludes revocations that occurred after a participant’s removal from the program. 32

Recent Activity in Henrico & Lynchburg Number of Violations for Participants * N=33 * One participant was removed after 3 violations. 33