Dosage Probation

Dosage Probation web_admin Tue, 12/21/2021 - 15:39
Dosage Probation
A prescription based on two pilot sites' experience
Image
Dosage Probation, a prescription based on two pilot sites' experiences
Dosage Probation
Rethinking the structure of probation sentences
Image
Dosage Probation Rethinking the structure of probation sentences
Image
Dosage Probation Power

Dosage Probation suggests that the length of supervision should be determined by the number of hours of intervention necessary to reduce risk, as opposed to a standard probation term of three, four or five years. It motivates behavior change by providing an opportunity for the individual under supervision to receive early termination from probation if they successfully engage in risk-reduction interventions tailored to their criminogenic needs, in a "dose" matched to their risk level. For the supervising agency, it provides an opportunity to manage scarce resources more efficiently.

Click Here to Read More

“Dosage probation has dramatically increased our clients’ motivation to work with the criminal justice system. Probation officers report experiencing little or no resistance while working one on one with probationers. Our program providers report they are seeing our clients enter the first day of programming motivated and engaged."

Terry Thomas, Deputy Director, Washington County Community Corrections, Minnesota

About Dosage Probation

About Dosage Probation web_admin Tue, 12/21/2021 - 16:23

The dosage probation model suggests that the length of supervision should be determined by the number of hours of intervention necessary to reduce risk as opposed to a standard probation term, such as 3, 4, or 5 years. Dosage probation is designed to incentivize behavior change by providing an opportunity for the individual under supervision to receive early termination from probation if they successfully engage in risk reduction interventions tailored to their criminogenic needs, in a “dose” matched to their risk level.

The Benefits of Dosage Probation

  • For the supervising agency, it positions officers to focus their work on risk reduction activities and to manage scarce resources more efficiently.
  • For community service providers, the dosage model establishes a method to effectively match probationers to services and to encourage individuals’ active participation in treatment.
  • For external stakeholders, the dosage probation model offers transparency around the case management process and clear criteria for the granting of early termination from supervision.
  • For probationers, the dosage model provides a compelling incentive for engaging in risk reducing interventions and enhances the meaningfulness and impact of probation supervision.

Preliminary Outcomes from Pilot Sites

  • Experiences from the dosage probation pilot sites demonstrate that:
  • Justice system decision makers (particularly prosecutors and judges) can embrace the approach;
  • Many justice-involved individuals demonstrate significantly higher levels of motivation to engage in risk reduction services;
  • Supervision officers are more directed in their case planning efforts and one-on-one interactions;
  • Treatment providers willingly modify practices to more closely align with evidence-based practices; and
  • Probation terms can be dramatically reduced.

Core Elements of the Dosage Probation Implementation Model

The following outlines the anticipated elements necessary to support the implementation of the

Dosage Probation Model:

  1. The legal/statutory authority to formally discharge offenders from probation early based upon successful accomplishment of dosage probation requirements.
  2. The use of an empirically based risk/needs instrument.
    1. The jurisdiction must have the capacity to assess offenders’ risk level prior to sentencing and share this information with decision makers (e.g., court, DA, PD) or otherwise have the ability to determine offenders’ eligibility and secure judicial agreement to dosage probation.
  3. An engaged, committed, knowledgeable Policy Team interested in and willing to implement the
  4. Dosage Probation Model. Support from the following policy leaders is necessary:
    1. The local Chief Judge
    2. The local Chief Public Defender
    3. The local elected District Attorney
    4. The local Chief Probation Officer
    5. The chief law enforcement officer (Chief of Police and/or Sheriff).

Where state officials have authority over local jurisdictions, support from state leadership is also necessary.

  1. A judiciary willing to sentence eligible and appropriate offenders to dosage probation and willing to set supervision conditions supportive of the Dosage Probation Model.
  2. A Probation Department that has:
    1. Staff skilled and knowledgeable in evidence-­‐based practices, including Motivational Interviewing and the core correctional practices
    2. The ability to cap dosage probation caseloads at requisite levels (approximately 45–60 medium/high risk offenders, depending on other non-­‐casework responsibilities)
    3. A currently operating evidence-­‐based supervision model. Such a model includes, for example:
      1. Use of risk/needs assessments to guide interventions
      2. Application of professional alliance techniques to engage offenders in the change process
      3. One-on-one sessions of 20+ minutes
      4. Focus on offenders’ top criminogenic needs, with priority given to the most influential four
      5. 2–4 contacts per month (depending upon whether medium or high risk) in circumstances that allow for one-on-one skill-building sessions
      6. Skill practice sessions conducted by probation staff to address offenders’ skill deficits
      7. Use of specific tools to structure and direct one-on-one sessions
      8. Use of case plans to establish specific goals and SMART action steps
      9. Use of structured responses to antisocial/noncompliant behavior
      10. Use of structured responses to prosocial attitudes/behavior
      11. Methods to record dosage
      12. Methods to objectively assess offender behavioral changes
      13. In‐house continuous quality improvement strategies.
    4. The availability of evidence-­‐based programming for the target population such as:
      1. An array of cognitive behavioral programs b. Services targeting criminogenic needs
      2. Services provided by probation (e.g., Thinking for a Change), governmental organizations
      3. (e.g., Behavioral Health), community-­‐based providers, or a combination d. A service delivery system with sufficient capacity to avoid waiting lists
      4. Sufficient funding available to ensure offenders’ ability to participate in programming
      5. Service providers who are willing to participate in a collaborative relationship with justice system partners and to share specified information about offenders’ program participation (e.g., attendance, level of engagement, progress, amount of “dosage” delivered in each session)
      6. Service providers who have been or are willing to be assessed using the Correctional
      7. Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI) or the Correctional Program Checklist (CPC)
      8. Service providers who have been or are willing to participate in corrective action planning if deficiencies are identified through the CPAI/CPC evaluation process.
    5. Sufficient capacity to engage in the Dosage Probation Project, Sufficient number of offenders assessed as medium/high risk according to the jurisdiction’s risk assessment instrument sentenced to probation terms within any given year.
    6. Identification of a target population within the medium/high risk probation-­‐eligible population
      1. Identification of exclusionary charges (e.g., malicious homicide, 1st degree sexual assault)
      2. Identification of other exclusionary conditions (e.g., ICE hold, non-­‐resident of the County, diagnosed serious mental illness)
      3. Minimum probation terms of 1+ years
    7. Number of probation staff who would work with offenders participating in the Dosage Probation Project.
  3. Ability to collect and analyze performance measurement and outcome data
    1. Availability of staff knowledgeable about data collection and analysis
      1. At the offender level
      2. At the program level
    2. Availability of manual/automated systems to capture and analyze performance and outcome data
    3. Adaptability of manual/automated systems to capture new data elements.

    The implementation is presented throughout this website in four phases and 13 discreet steps.

Projects

Projects web_admin Tue, 12/21/2021 - 16:27
Monograph
Image
Dosage Probation Rethinking the structure of probation sentences

This is a great introduction to a new probation strategy which links “the duration of probation supervision to the optimal amount of intervention an offender needs in order to reduce risk of reoffense”. This monograph “provides a policy and practice framework upon which this new model of supervision can be constructed. It offers a review of evidence-based approaches to reducing recidivism in our communities, the most recent research on dosage, and its applicability to sentencing and community supervision practices. It describes the model’s promise for increasing community safety through recidivism reduction, as well as achieving fiscal savings by reducing periods of supervision. Finally, the monograph offers a summary of the work of Milwaukee County’s criminal justice stakeholders as they design and conduct the nation’s first dosage probation experiment.” Sections of this publication include: introduction to the dosage model of probation; the principles of effective intervention—who we target for intervention matters (the risk principle), what we target for intervention matters (the need principle), how we intervene and interact matters (the responsivity principle), how well interventions are implemented matters, fidelity and integrity of corrections professionals’ interventions, and the relationship between early termination of supervision and recidivism; adding dosage to the equation—how much dosage is delivered matters, and further study needed; implications—the dosage probation model of supervision; and dosage probation in Milwaukee County.

White Paper
Image
Dosage Probation, a prescription based on two pilot sites' experiences

The dosage probation model suggests that the length of supervision should be determined by the number of hours of intervention necessary to reduce risk as opposed to a standard probation term, such as 3, 4, 5, etc., years. Dosage probation is designed to incentivize behavior change by providing an opportunity for the individual under supervision to receive early termination from probation if they successfully engage in risk reduction interventions tailored to their criminogenic needs, in a "dose" matched to their risk level. For the supervising agency, it positions officers to focus their work on risk reduction activities and to manage scarce resources more efficiently. For community service providers, the dosage model establishes a method to effectively match probationers to services and to encourage individuals’ active participation in treatment. For external stakeholders, the dosage probation model offers transparency around the case management process and clear criteria for the granting of early termination from supervision. Indeed, the pilots have demonstrated that justice system decision makers (particularly prosecutors and judges) can embrace the approach; many justice-involved individuals demonstrate significantly higher levels of motivation to engage in risk reduction services; supervision officers are more directed in their case planning efforts and one-on-one interactions; treatment providers willingly undergo an independent evaluation of their services and modify practices to more closely align with evidence-based practices; and, importantly, probation terms can be dramatically reduced. This document, the second in a series, provides background information on the dosage probation project; a summary of the literature pertinent to dosage; and information about the dosage pilot sites, including key lessons that emerged from the pilot project. It also lays the foundation for a forthcoming set of resources on this topic: The Dosage Probation Toolkit.

Technical Assistance

Toolkit

Toolkit web_admin Tue, 12/21/2021 - 16:40

Phase 1 - Access Readiness

Phase 1 - Access Readiness web_admin Tue, 12/21/2021 - 16:41

Phase 1: Access Readiness

  1. Determine if legal/statutory authority permits early termination
    Part 1 of the assess­ment is intended to determine if state/local legal/statutory provisions allow the probation department, court, and/or another entity such authority.
     
  2. Assess Probation Department’s Readiness to Implement the Dosage Probation Model
    Part 2 of the assessment is intended to determine if the probation department is well positioned to effectively implement and sustain the dosage probation model.
     
  3. Assess Stakeholder Interest in the Dosage Probation Model
    Part 3 of the assessment is intended to determine if the key stakeholders are positioned to work together to design and test the dosage probation model.
     
  4. Assess Service Provider Capacity to Deliver Evidence-Based Dosage Hours
    Part 4 of the assessment is intended to assess support for the dosage model among selected service providers, and their capacity to deliver dosage-qualifying intervention hours.

Step 1 - Determine if Legal/Statutory Authority Permits Early Termination

Step 1 - Determine if Legal/Statutory Authority Permits Early Termination web_admin Wed, 12/22/2021 - 11:25

The dosage probation model is predicated on clients’ ability to earn early termination from supervision through earnest engagement in risk-reducing interventions. Part 1 of the assess­ment is intended to determine if state/local legal/statutory provisions allow the probation department, court, and/or another entity such authority.

Legal Authority

  1. Does the jurisdiction/probation department have the legal/statutory authority to formally grant early discharge from probation?
  2. What is the authority? Is it presently exercised? If so, under what circumstances?
  3. If the authority exists but is not currently exercised, what needs to be done to make early discharge from probation possible?

Step 2 - Assess Probation Department’s Readiness to Implement the Dosage Probation Model

Step 2 - Assess Probation Department’s Readiness to Implement the Dosage Probation Model web_admin Wed, 12/22/2021 - 11:26

The dosage probation model necessitates a probation department with deep knowledge and skill in the implementation of evidence-based practices. However, previous pilot efforts suggest that exposure to EBP is insufficient. Strong, active leadership and an infrastructure designed to ensure fidelity and continuous quality assurance are also critical. Part 2 of the assessment is intended to determine if the probation department is well positioned to effectively implement and sustain the dosage probation model.

Leadership Commitment

  1. Why is leadership interested in adopting the dosage model? Given the amount of effort required to successfully implement this initiative, what is the motivation of leadership to take this on?
  2. Which executive team member(s) would lead the effort? Define what “leading this effort” means in practical, operational terms.
  3. What role does executive leadership envision taking during the planning process? During the implementation process? Describe that role in operational terms, such as how leader­ship would exercise that role day to day.
  4. What, if any, current and/or previous EBP efforts or initiatives speak to leadership’s ability to dedicate themselves to a long-term, collaborative project such as dosage?
  5. How would leadership stay focused on dosage probation when pressures such as legisla­tive changes, grant opportunities, and so on compete for time and attention?

Mid-Level Management

  1. What role do mid-level supervisors play in coaching and mentoring staff around EBP inter­actions? Describe that role in operational terms, especially as it would relate to interactions between supervisors and dosage POs.
  2. If supervisors currently exercise a coaching and mentoring role, to what extent are they comfortable with it? How are they held accountable around it? To what extent are super­visors comfortable with staff coaching other staff in EBP skills?
  3. To what degree are supervisors comfortable with their anticipated role as dosage supervisors?
  4. Is management unionized and, if it is, how might this impact the ability of the department to expand supervisors’ responsibilities, especially around coaching?

Departmental Morale and Organizational Culture

  1. How ready are case management (dosage) staff for a change process? Is there any indica­tion of change fatigue within the department at this time?
  2. What initiatives/efforts has the department undertaken to suggest that the dosage model is appropriate at this time? To what degree would the dosage model represent a significant departure from the way staff currently do their work?
  3. What other initiatives/efforts are underway that would support (or distract from) implemen­tation of the dosage model?
  4. In what ways does the department currently enhance and/or support staff well-being? What policies or practices are in place to reduce fatigue, celebrate/recognize the successes of the department and individual staff, provide staff with a voice in operational matters and policymaking, and so on?
  5. Are non-managerial staff unionized? If they are, how might this impact the ability of the department to expand line staff responsibilities?
  6. Who holds informal leadership among the staff? How can informal leadership be leveraged to support the successful implementation of the dosage model?

Continuous Quality Improvement

  1. Who within the department is responsible for quality assurance (QA) and fidelity of imple­mentation? How is this responsibility carried out? Is this responsibility part of a larger group of tasks or is someone dedicated to QA?
  2. What EBP training do staff routinely receive (e.g., risk assessment, motivational interview­ing, core correctional practices, case planning, cognitive behavioral interventions)? Who provides this training? With what frequency? Are booster courses provided?
  3. Does the department have a coaching infrastructure? Who provides the coaching, with what frequency, and how?
  4. How comfortable are coaches in the performance of their continuous quality improvement (CQI) duties?
  5. How is coaching received by line staff?
  6. How are coaches supported in their efforts? To what degree does an outside expert ensure the integrity of the coaching process?

Data

  1. What data is collected to determine the impact of probation on long-term behavior change? Who uses this data, how, and with what frequency? How is the data shared? What feedback is received about data that is shared?
  2. Is the department able to determine the number of clients who would qualify for dosage proba­tion if a set of parameters was provided (e.g., In CY2018, what were the total number of new intake client cases that (1) were moderate or high risk; and (2) had sentences of 12 months or more; and (3) were non-transient (county residents); and (4) had no prior Class A felonies; and (5) were not diagnosed with a serious mental disorder; and (6) had current charges for some­thing other than DUI, sexual assault, and use of a weapon in the commission of a violent felony)?
  3. Does the department have the capacity to collect and analyze data to determine the effect­iveness of dosage probation?
  4. How has the department historically used data to guide and improve policy and practice? Has a model of data collection, analysis, and sharing been successfully applied in the past that has practical application to the work that would be conducted under this effort?

External Stakeholders

  1. The dosage model anticipates that probation leadership interacts with stakeholders through a policy team process. To what extent does this represent the current way of doing business in the jurisdiction?
  2. What strengths and challenges are associated with establishing a dosage probation stake­holder policy team (or utilizing an existing policy team)?
  3. In what ways and with what frequency does executive leadership interact with system stake­holders (individually and collectively)?
  4. What kind of support or resistance is expected from the stakeholders who are essential to the dosage model (i.e., judges, prosecutors/deputies, public and private defense, law enforcement, victim advocates, local legislators, service providers)?

Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices

Assessment

  1. Does the department use empirically based risk/needs assessments? Which assessments? When and how were the assessments implemented? Have they been locally validated? By whom?
  2. How is risk/need assessment data used?
  3. When in the criminal justice process are the risk/needs assessments used (i.e., pre- sentence/post-sentence)? Are assessment results shared with external stakeholders? With whom/when/how?

Caseload/Workload

  1. How are clients assigned to staff? Are caseloads differentiated by risk (“low risk” case­loads, “moderate–high risk” caseloads, etc.)?
  2. Are caseloads capped? What is the average caseload size (by caseload type)? If caseloads are not capped, could they be?
  3. With what frequency do staff have contact with moderate risk clients? High risk clients?

Case Planning and Management

  1. Do staff use case plans? What is their purpose? How are case plans developed? What do they contain? How frequently are they reviewed with clients?
  2. Describe a “typical” staff–client appointment in terms of its:
    1. Length
    2. Structure and flow
    3. Use of skill practice
    4. Use of take-home assignments/skill practice.
  3. Do staff have available to them cognitive behavioral tools/worksheets? Which ones? How often are they used? What kind of training/feedback do staff receive on the use of these tools?
  4. How is client overall progress assessed, and by whom?
  5. Does the department use a system of incentives and rewards? What is it? How consistently is it used across staff? What are the most common prosocial behaviors? What are the most common responses to these behaviors?
  6. Does the department use a structured process for responding to noncompliant behavior? What is it? How consistently is it used across staff? What are the most common noncompliant behaviors? What are the most common responses to these behaviors?
  7. How do staff make referrals to risk-reducing interventions (either inhouse or community based)? What process is in place to ensure that clients are placed with service providers well positioned to successfully address clients’ risk reduction needs?
  8. How do supervising officers currently communicate with service providers? How often do supervising officers and service providers discuss client progress? Do staff typically initiate communication or do providers? How does communication take place (e.g., phone, email, fax, onsite visits)? Are there specific circumstances under which communication routinely occurs?

Step 3 - Assess Stakeholder Interest in the Dosage Probation Model

Step 3 - Assess Stakeholder Interest in the Dosage Probation Model web_admin Wed, 12/22/2021 - 11:28

One of the purposes of dosage probation is to more closely align policymakers’ decisions with risk reduction research and outcomes. The dosage model can represent a significant shift in the way that case settlements are negotiated and probation sentences are crafted, and/or in the expectations stakeholders hold regarding the outcomes of probation supervision. Creating alignment around these matters necessitates a willingness to engage with system partners around a policy development process and to test this approach to sentencing and probation supervision. Part 3 of the assessment is intended to determine if the key stakeholders are positioned to work together to design and test the dosage probation model.

Interest in the Dosage Probation Model

  1. 1. What are the goals of probation supervision? To what extent is there agreement/consensus among stakeholders regarding these goals?
  2. 2. To what degree are these goals currently being met? What data or information is available to help answer this question? If data is available to inform this answer, are stakeholders familiar with this data?
  3. 3. How familiar are stakeholders with the dosage probation model?
  4. 4. Why is this model of interest to stakeholders? Can they articulate its perceived benefits?
  5. 5. What concerns do stakeholders have about the model? Can those concerns be mitigated?
  6. 6. What individuals and organizations would have to be supportive of dosage probation for this to be a viable policy alternative in this community? What are their anticipated responses to the possibility of implementing dosage in this community?

Experience with Collaborative Policymaking

  1. The dosage probation model includes the formation of a project steering committee. At a minimum, the steering committee should include:
    1. a. the local chief judge;
    2. b. the local chief public defender;
    3. c. the local elected district attorney;
    4. d. the local chief probation officer; and
    5. e. the local chief law enforcement officer (chief of police and/or sheriff).
    Are each of the above stakeholders willing to serve on a dosage probation steering committee?
  2. Are there state-level agency representatives who would have to be involved in a project such as this (e.g., such as in the case where probation is a state-level function)? If so, who are these representatives? Is there a track record of working in this way with such parties? How likely are they to support an effort such as this?
  3. Are there other parties who should be consulted before this effort is further considered?
  4. Is there an existing policy team that meets on a routine basis to collaboratively address criminal justice policy matters? What is the name of this body? When was it instituted? Who are its members? How often does it meet? How well does it function? Who coordi­nates it? What are some examples of its efforts?
  5. If such a policy team exists, is it possible to imagine that this team—or a subset of this team—would form a steering committee to guide and implement this project? What steps would need to be taken for this to occur?
  6. If an existing policy team does not exist, is it possible to imagine forming one around this project, to serve as a steering committee? Is it likely that this group could meet on a routine basis (e.g., monthly for 2 hours) during the 12-month planning phase of this project and then on an ongoing basis (but likely less frequently) during the implementation phase? Who would initiate such a step? How would it be staffed? What portion of an FTE could be dedicated to this coordination work?
  7. Who are the specific persons you would recommend for such a team? Who would or should initiate and lead the steering committee?

Stakeholder Commitment

  1. How knowledgeable are system stakeholders around EBP and the values underlying the dosage model?
  2. Would key decision makers (i.e., prosecution, defense, judiciary) agree to sentences that would result in eligible and appropriate individuals being placed on dosage probation? Would they agree to supervision conditions that are supportive of (and not antithetical to) the dosage probation model?
  3. How would leadership stay focused on dosage probation when pressures such as legisla­tive changes, grant opportunities, and so on compete for time and attention?
  4. To what extent would the steering committee be available and willing to educate and engage, on an ongoing basis, superiors, colleagues, subordinates, and others about the dosage model, the dosage implementation plan, and implementation progress?
  5. Is it possible to imagine leadership standing together if an unexpected, negative outcome occurs with a dosage probation client? What history exists to suggest that leadership would demonstrate a united front under such circumstances?

Step 4 - Assess Service Provider Capacity to Deliver Evidence-Based Dosage Hours

Step 4 - Assess Service Provider Capacity to Deliver Evidence-Based Dosage Hours web_admin Wed, 12/22/2021 - 11:29

Under the dosage probation model, clients accumulate dosage-eligible hours through (1) staff–client interactions, (2) take-home assignments that address criminogenic needs/build proso­cial attitudes and skills, (3) risk reduction services provided within the probation department, and (4) risk reduction services provided by agencies other than the probation department. It is expected that, in the majority of jurisdictions, the fourth source—community-based programming—will contribute the most significant portion of clients’ dosage hours. For this reason, the quality of community-based services—and a high degree of communication and collaboration between service providers and probation staff—is considered essential to the success of the dosage model. Part 4 of the assessment is intended to assess support for the dosage model among selected service providers, and their capacity to deliver dosage-qualifying intervention hours.

Availability of Evidence-Based Services

  1. What risk-reducing, evidence-based treatment programs (i.e., cognitive behavioral programs) are available for the target population?
  2. Do service providers have sufficient capacity to address the volume of clients, or are wait­ing lists commonplace? Would they be willing to expand their services should it be deter­mined that an increase in capacity is needed in order to fully implement the dosage model?
  3. How are services funded? Are funding mechanisms available to ensure that a lack of ability to pay does not interfere with clients’ access to services?
  4. Do providers specify the criminogenic needs their programs are designed to address?
  5. When considering the array of services available, are sufficient program slots available to meet the needs of dosage clients’ top 5 criminogenic needs?
  6. Do providers match services to clients’ risk level? To their criminogenic needs?
  7. To what degree do circumstances limit clients’ ability to access available programs and services (e.g., transportation, fee for service, limited evening/weekend hours)?

Fidelity

  1. What quality assurance/continuous quality assurance protocols do service providers utilize?
  2. Have providers’ services been independently assessed using the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI), the Correctional Program Checklist (CPC), or a similar fidelity assessment tool? If yes, when was the assessment conducted and by whom? What were the findings?
  3. If providers have not been independently assessed, how does the probation department determine if service providers are delivering evidence-based services?
  4. If providers have not been independently assessed, are they willing to undergo such an assessment?
  5. If providers are willing to undergo an independent assessment, are they also willing to participate in corrective action planning if program/service deficiencies are identified?

Partnership

  1. Are identified service providers willing to participate in a collaborative relationship with justice system partners to implement and evaluate the dosage model (including but not limited to participating in knowledge and skill development trainings and planning meetings, sharing program-level data, etc.)?
  2. Are identified service providers willing to share specified information about clients’ pro­gram participation (e.g., attendance, level of engagement, progress, amount of “dosage” delivered in each session) with probation staff? Through what mechanisms and with what frequency might this occur?
  3. Are service providers willing to apportion dosage hours based upon identified criteria (e.g., active engagement in sessions)?

Phase 2 - Preparation

Phase 2 - Preparation web_admin Wed, 12/22/2021 - 11:36
  1. Convene stakeholder group; establish Dosage Probation Policy Team

     
  2. Establish Dosage Probation Workgroup

     
  3. Identify Community Service Provider Partners

     

Step 5 - Convene stakeholder group; establish Dosage Probation Policy Team

Step 5 - Convene stakeholder group; establish Dosage Probation Policy Team web_admin Wed, 12/22/2021 - 11:39

Dosage probation represents a significant shift from traditional sentencing practices in the way that case settlements are negotiated and probation sentences are crafted, and/or in the expectations that are held regarding the outcomes of probation supervision. Dosage probation involves sentencing, supervision, programming, and violation decision-making practices that are informed by assessed level of risk, criminogenic needs, and optimal dosage; probation terms and conditions that target criminogenic needs through risk-reducing interventions; and links the completion of probation to achievement of a dosage target rather than to a fixed period of time, thereby incentivizing client engagement in interventions.

Such a shift in traditional sentencing practices necessitates the engagement of a multi-disciplinary group of system stakeholders who come together as a Dosage Probation Policy Team. The recommended Dosage Probation Policy Team includes, potentially among others:

  1. The local chief judge
  2. The local chief public defender
  3. The local elected district attorney
  4. The local chief probation officer
  5. The chief law enforcement officer (chief of police and/or sheriff).

Throughout the course of the planning and implementation process, the stakeholder team will consider and agree upon key policy decisions, oversee and evaluate implementation, and identify methods to continuously improve outcomes.

Where state officials have authority over local jurisdictions, support from state leadership is also necessary.

Step 6 - Establish Dosage Probation Workgroup

Step 6 - Establish Dosage Probation Workgroup web_admin Wed, 12/22/2021 - 11:45

In addition to a multi-disciplinary stakeholder team that will steer, guide, and agree upon the key policy decisions that will determine how dosage will be implemented locally, jurisdictions are encouraged to form a probation-based workgroup to collaboratively craft the departmental policies and day-to-day operations that will be impacted by the dosage model, and strategically consider how best to transition from present-day practice to practice under the dosage model. This workgroup will ideally be led by a member of the department’s executive team and include a “diagonal slice” of staff representing the varying levels of authority within the organization as well as key divisions or units that will be impacted by the model.

Step 7 - Identify Community Service Provider Partners

Step 7 - Identify Community Service Provider Partners web_admin Wed, 12/22/2021 - 11:48

Central to the dosage probation model is the delivery of effective, risk-reducing treatment services—in the necessary amount. In many jurisdictions, community service providers will contribute a significant portion of clients’ dosage hours. Therefore, forming partnerships with service providers whose programming is evidence-based is crucial.

While virtually every community in the country has some, if not many, resources available to serve the justice-involved population, much work must be done to understand the effectiveness of those services, ensure that they are evidence-based, and thoughtfully integrate them into a strategically designed and administered case plan.

Phase 3 - Planning

Phase 3 - Planning web_admin Wed, 12/22/2021 - 11:49
  1. Develop Dosage Probation Logic Model
  2. Train and Coach Staff in Evidence-Based Supervision Skills
  3. Develop Dosage Probation Policies and Procedures
  4. Align Community-Based Services Model with Dosage Probation Model

Step 8 - Develop Dosage Probation Logic Model

Step 8 - Develop Dosage Probation Logic Model web_admin Wed, 12/22/2021 - 11:53

The development of a logic model is a key step in articulating the components and expected outcomes of the dosage probation effort. It is built upon—and in service of—a new vision for probation services, and is informed by a careful analysis of current policy and practice in the context of evidence-based research. The logic model describes currently available resources, activities that will be retained and those that will be changed or added, the outputs that these activities and changes will produce, and their intended long-term impacts.

The result of building a logic model is a picture that describes a theory of change—as well as a tool for strategically managing the processes of implementation and evaluation.

Step 9 - Train and Coach Staff in Evidence-Based Supervision Skills

Step 9 - Train and Coach Staff in Evidence-Based Supervision Skills web_admin Wed, 12/22/2021 - 11:54

The research underpinning the dosage probation model suggests that the following practices are core to the dosage probation model:

  • Research-based, structured assessments are conducted to reliably differentiate higher- from lower-risk clients.
  • Probation officers and clients collaborate to develop case management plans; interventions are designed to address the most influential criminogenic needs; dosage targets are set.
  • Clients are referred to programs and services that demonstrate the capacity to effectively address their criminogenic needs.
  • The amount of dosage received is tabulated over time, and objective behavioral measures are used to gauge change.
  • Probation officers are trained in core correctional practices and provided ongoing coaching; and caseloads and workloads are “right-sized” so that officers have sufficient time to meaningfully engage clients face to face.
  • Quality assurance and continuous quality improvement strategies are implemented to ensure the integrity of evidence-based practices.
  • For those who meet their dosage target and achieve objective behavioral indicators, probation is terminated, as opposed to terminating supervision at some point further down the road when supervision time “runs out.”

These practices require a high degree of skill among dosage officers and diligent continuous quality improvement efforts.

Step 10 - Develop Dosage Probation Policies and Procedures

Step 10 - Develop Dosage Probation Policies and Procedures web_admin Wed, 12/22/2021 - 11:56

Experience demonstrates that implementation of the dosage probation model, by its very nature, results in a host of probation policy and practice changes. With endorsement from the Dosage Probation Policy Team, the Dosage Probation Workgroup will evaluate and, where necessary, modify or develop new policies and procedures to ensure high fidelity implementation of the model.

Step 11 - Align Community-Based Services Model with Dosage Probation Model

Step 11 - Align Community-Based Services Model with Dosage Probation Model web_admin Wed, 12/22/2021 - 11:57

The dosage probation model may result in significant changes in the way clients are referred to risk-reducing treatment services; the relationship between service providers and clients; and the relationship between providers and probation staff. This modified model of service delivery can result in greater alignment between probation, provider, and client; increased client motivation; and enhanced likelihood that client dosage targets will be attained.

Phase 4 - Implementation and Evaluation

Phase 4 - Implementation and Evaluation web_admin Wed, 12/22/2021 - 11:59
  1. Implement Dosage Probation Model
     
  2. Collect Data; Evaluate; Adjust
     

Step 12 - Implement Dosage Probation Model

Step 12 - Implement Dosage Probation Model web_admin Wed, 12/22/2021 - 12:01

Having followed the steps in the dosage probation model—with careful deliberation and planning among stakeholders (the Dosage Probation Policy Team), probation staff (the Dosage Probation Workgroup), and service providers—the jurisdiction will be ready for implementation.

Step 13 - Collect Data; Evaluate; Adjust

Step 13 - Collect Data; Evaluate; Adjust web_admin Wed, 12/22/2021 - 12:02

All change efforts require careful analysis of the intended and unintended impacts that result from implementation. In this final step of the dosage probation implementation process, stakeholders, service providers, and probation staff ongoingly collect data, analyze results, and make mid-course corrections as needed.

Media

Media web_admin Wed, 12/22/2021 - 12:04

Videos

Webinars

Resources

Resources web_admin Wed, 12/22/2021 - 12:05

Content goes here

Evidence-Based Practices (EBP

Evidence-Based Practices (EBP web_admin Wed, 12/22/2021 - 12:09

Abracen, J., Gallow, A., Looman, J., & Goodwill, A. (2015). Individual community-based treatment of offenders with mental illness: Relationship to recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 1842–1858. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25731931/

Andrews, D. A. (2007). Principles of effective correctional programs. In L. L. Motiuk & R. C. Serin (Eds.), Compendium 2000 on effective correctional programming. Correctional Service Canada.

Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369–401. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264637995_Does_Correctional_Treatment_Work_A_Clinically_Relevant_and_Psychologically_Informed_Meta-Analysis

Baber, L. M., & Johnson, J. L. (2013). Early termination of supervision: No compromise to community safety. Federal Probation, 77(2). https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/77_2_2_0.pdf

Bechtel, K. (2016). Adherence to the risk, need, and fidelity principles: Examining the impact of dosage in correctional programming (Doctoral dissertation). University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=ucin1470044131&disposition=inline

Bonta, J., Bourgon, G., Rugge, T., Scott, T.-L., Yessine, A. K., & Gutierrez, L. (2011). An experimental demonstration of training probation officers in evidence-based community supervision. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1127–1148. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0093854811420678?journalCode=cjbb

Bonta, J., Rugge, T., Scott, T.-L., Bourgon, G., & Yessine, A. K. (2008). Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47, 248–270. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10509670802134085

Bourgon, G., & Armstrong, B. (2005). Transferring the principles of effective treatment into a "real world" prison setting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 3–25. https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=208464

Bourgon, G., & Gutierrez, L. (2012). The general responsivity principle in community supervision: The importance of probation officers using cognitive intervention techniques and its influence on recidivism. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35, 149–166. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233213033_The_general_responsivity_principle_in_community_supervision_The_importance_of_probation_officers_using_cognitive_intervention_techniques_and_its_influence_on_recidivism

Bourgon, G., Gutierrez, L., & Ashton, J. (2011). The evolution of community supervision practice: The transformation from case manager to change agent. Irish Probation Journal, 8, 28–48. https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/76_2_6_0.pdf

Campbell, M. A., French, S., & Gendreau, P. (2009). The prediction of violence in adult offenders: A meta-analytic comparison of instruments and methods of assessment. Criminal Justice, 36, 567–590. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242132227_The_Prediction_of_Violence_in_Adult_OffendersA_Meta-Analytic_Comparison_of_Instruments_and_Methods_of_Assessment

Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects. Criminal Justice, 3, 109–175. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d232/863893171b4022e0bf69076e83a70e01a524.pdf

Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2004). The importance of staff practice in delivering effective correctional treatment: A meta-analytic review of core correctional practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 203–214. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0306624X03257765

Drake, E. K., Aos, S., & Miller, M. G. (2009). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce crime and criminal justice costs: Implications in Washington State. Victims and Offenders, 4, 170–196. http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1033/Wsipp_Evidence-Based-Public-Policy-Options-to-Reduce-Crime-and-Criminal-Justice-Costs-Implications-in-Washington-State_Full-Report.pdf

Gendreau, P., French, S., & Taylor, A. (2002). What works (what doesn’t) revised 2002: The principles of effective correctional treatment. Unpublished manuscript, University of New Brunswick, Saint John, Canada. https://b.3cdn.net/crjustice/b5bfc9db83b7d2559f_kkm6b1ddn.pdf

Gendreau, P., & Goggin, C. (1996). Principles of effective programming with offenders. Forum on Corrections Research, 8(3), 38–40.

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., Cullen, F. T., & Andrews, D. A. (2000). The effects of community sanctions and incarceration on recidivism. Forum on Corrections Research, 12(2), 10–13. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237744305_The_effects_of_community_sanctions_and_incarceration_on_recidivism

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (1999). The forgotten issue in effective correctional treatment: Program implementation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, 180–187. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0306624X99432005?journalCode=ijoe

Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575–608.

Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, S., Snitz, B. E., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12, 19–30. http://zaldlab.psy.vanderbilt.edu/resources/wmg00pa.pdf

Jalbert, S. K., Rhodes, W., Kane, M., Clawson, E., Bogue, B., Flygare, C., Kling, R., & Guevara, M. (2011). A multi-site evaluation of reduced probation caseload size in an evidence-based program setting. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Kennealy, P. J., Skeem, J. L., Manchak, S. M., & Eno Louden, J. (2012). Offender-officer relationships matter: Firm, fair and caring officer-offender relationships protect against supervision failure. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 496–505.

Kroner, D. G., & Takahashi, M. (2012). Every session counts: The differential impact on previous programmes and current programme dosage on offender recidivism. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17, 136–150. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-02622-010

Lipsey, M. W. (1999). Can intervention rehabilitate serious delinquents? The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 564, 142–166. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/000271629956400109?journalCode=anna

Lipsey, M. W., Landenberger, N. A., & Wilson, S. J. (2007). Effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 6, 1–27.

Lowenkamp, C. T., Flores, A. W., Holsinger, A. M., Makarios, M. D., & Latessa, E. J. (2010). Intensive supervision programs: Does program philosophy and the principles of effective intervention matter? Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 368–375. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235210000590

Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A., Robinson, C. R., & Alexander, M. (2012). Diminishing or durable treatment effects of STARR? A research note on 24-month re-arrest rates. Journal of Crime and Justice. doi: 10.1080/0735648X.2012.753849 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0735648X.2012.753849

Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 cases and 97 correctional programs? Crime & Delinquency, 52, 77–93. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0011128705281747

Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Smith, P. (2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 575–594. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2006.00388.x

Lowenkamp, C. T., Pealer, J., Smith, P., & Latessa, E. J. (2006). Adhering to the risk and need principles: Does it matter for supervision-based programs? Federal Probation, 70, 3–8. https://www.uscourts.gov/federal-probation-journal/2006/12/adhering-risk-and-need-principles-does-it-matter-supervision-based

Luong, D., & Wormith, J. S. (2011). Applying risk/need assessment to probation practice and its impact on the recidivism of young offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1177–1199. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0093854811421596 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0093854811421596

Makarios, M., Sperber, K. G., & Latessa, E. J. (2014). Treatment dosage and the risk principle: A refinement and extension. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53, 334–350. https://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/ccjr/docs/articles/Treatment%20Dosage%20and%20Risk%20Principle_A%20Refinement%20and%20Extension%20-%20JOR%20article.pdf

Paparozzi, M. A., & Gendreau, P. (2005). An intensive supervision program that worked: Service delivery, professional orientation, and organizational supportiveness. The Prison Journal, 85, 445–466. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/AN-INTENSIVE-SUPERVISION-PROGRAM-THAT-WORKED%3A-AND-Paparozzi-Gendreau/f0f2e13181c029b65a1543c9eb722771364160f4

Robinson, C. R., Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A. M., VanBenschoten, S., Alexander, M., & Oleson, J. C. (2012). A random study of staff training aimed at reducing re-arrest (STARR): Using core correctional practices in probation interactions. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35, 167–188. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0735648X.2012.674823

Skeem, J. L., Eno Louden, J., Polaschek, D., & Camp, D. (2007). Assessing relationship quality in mandated community treatment: Blending care with control. Psychological Assessment, 19, 397–410. https://content.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F1040-3590.19.4.397

Smith, P., Schweitzer, M., Labreque, R. M., & Latessa, E. J. (2012). Improving probation officers' supervision skills: An evaluation of the EPICS model. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35, 189–199. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232994722_Improving_probation_officers'_supervision_skills_an_evaluation_of_the_EPICS_model

Sperber, K. G., Latessa, E. J., & Makarios, M. D. (2013a). Establishing a risk-dosage research agenda: Implications for policy and practice. Justice Research and Policy, 15(1), 123–142. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3818/JRP.15.1.2013.123

Sperber, K. G., Latessa, E. J., & Makarios, M. D. (2013b). Examining the interaction between level of risk and dosage of treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 338–348. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258129271_Examining_the_Interaction_between_Level_of_Risk_and_Dosage_of_Treatment

Sperber, K. G., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2017). Dosage is more than just counting program hours: The importance of role-playing in treatment outcomes. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 56, 433–451. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10509674.2017.1359222?journalCode=wjor20

Taxman, F. S., Yancey, C., & Bilanin, J. E. (2006). Proactive community supervision in Maryland: Changing offender outcomes. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Bureau of Governmental Research. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241222778_Proactive_Community_Supervision_in_Maryland_Changing_Offender_Outcomes

Travers, R., Mann, R. E., & Hollin, C. R. (2014). Who benefits from cognitive skills programs?: Differential impact by risk and offense type. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 1103–1129. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/crmjusbhv41&div=65&id=&page=

 

Dosage Probation Resources List

Dosage Probation Resources List web_admin Wed, 12/22/2021 - 12:17

Abracen, J., Gallow, A., Looman, J., & Goodwill, A. (2015). Individual community-based treatment of offenders with mental illness: Relationship to recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 1842–1858. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515570745

Andrews, D. A. (2007). Principles of effective correctional programs. In L. L. Motiuk & R. C. Serin (Eds.), Compendium 2000 on effective correctional programming. Correctional Service Canada. http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/005/008/compendium/2000/chap_2-eng.shtml

Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1990.tb01330.x

Baber, L. M., & Johnson, J. L. (2013). Early termination of supervision: No compromise to community safety. Federal Probation, 77(2). https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/77_2_2_0.pdf

Bechtel, K. (2016). Adherence to the risk, need, and fidelity principles: Examining the impact of dosage in correctional programming (Doctoral dissertation). University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=ucin1470044131&disposition=inline

Bonta, J., Bourgon, G., Rugge, T., Scott, T.-L., Yessine, A. K., & Gutierrez, L. (2011). An experimental demonstration of training probation officers in evidence-based community supervision. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1127–1148.

Bonta, J., Rugge, T., Scott, T.-L., Bourgon, G., & Yessine, A. K. (2008). Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47, 248–270.

Bourgon, G., & Armstrong, B. (2005). Transferring the principles of effective treatment into a "real world" prison setting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 3–25.

Bourgon, G., & Gutierrez, L. (2012). The general responsivity principle in community supervision: The importance of probation officers using cognitive intervention techniques and its influence on recidivism. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35, 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648x.2012.674816

Bourgon, G., Gutierrez, L., & Ashton, J. (2011). The evolution of community supervision practice: The transformation from case manager to change agent. Irish Probation Journal, 8, 28–48.

Campbell, M. A., French, S., & Gendreau, P. (2009). The prediction of violence in adult offenders: A meta-analytic comparison of instruments and methods of assessment. Criminal Justice, 36, 567–590.

Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects. Criminal Justice, 3, 109–175.

Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2004). The importance of staff practice in delivering effective correctional treatment: A meta-analytic review of core correctional practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48 , 203–214.

Drake, E. K., Aos, S., & Miller, M. G. (2009). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce crime and criminal justice costs: Implications in Washington State. Victims and Offenders, 4, 170–196.

Gendreau, P., French, S., & Taylor, A. (2002). What works (what doesn’t) revised 2002: The principles of effective correctional treatment. Unpublished manuscript, University of New Brunswick, Saint John, Canada.

Gendreau, P., & Goggin, C. (1996). Principles of effective programming with offenders. Forum on Corrections Research, 8(3), 38–40.

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., Cullen, F. T., & Andrews, D. A. (2000). The effects of community sanctions and incarceration on recidivism. Forum on Corrections Research, 12(2), 10–13.

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (1999). The forgotten issue in effective correctional treatment: Program implementation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43 , 180–187.

Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575–608.

Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, S., Snitz, B. E., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12, 19–30.

Jalbert, S. K., Rhodes, W., Kane, M., Clawson, E., Bogue, B., Flygare, C., Kling, R., & Guevara, M. (2011). A multi-site evaluation of reduced probation caseload size in an evidence-based program setting. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Kennealy, P. J., Skeem, J. L., Manchak, S. M., & Eno Louden, J. (2012). Offender-officer relationships matter: Firm, fair and caring officer-offender relationships protect against supervision failure. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 496–505.

Kroner, D. G., & Takahashi, M. (2012). Every session counts: The differential impact on previous programmes and current programme dosage on offender recidivism. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17, 136–150.

Lipsey, M. W. (1999). Can intervention rehabilitate serious delinquents? The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 564 , 142–166.

Lipsey, M. W., Landenberger, N. A., & Wilson, S. J. (2007). Effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 6, 1–27.

Lowenkamp, C. T., Flores, A. W., Holsinger, A. M., Makarios, M. D., & Latessa, E. J. (2010). Intensive supervision programs: Does program philosophy and the principles of effective intervention matter? Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 368–375.

Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A., Robinson, C. R., & Alexander, M. (2012). Diminishing or durable treatment effects of STARR? A research note on 24-month re-arrest rates. Journal of Crime and Justice. doi: 10.1080/0735648X.2012.753849

Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 cases and 97 correctional programs? Crime & Delinquency, 52, 77–93.

Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Smith, P. (2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 575–594.

Lowenkamp, C. T., Pealer, J., Smith, P., & Latessa, E. J. (2006). Adhering to the risk and need principles: Does it matter for supervision-based programs? Federal Probation, 70, 3–8.

Luong, D., & Wormith, J. S. (2011). Applying risk/need assessment to probation practice and its impact on the recidivism of young offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1177–1199. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0093854811421596

Makarios, M., Sperber, K. G., & Latessa, E. J. (2014). Treatment dosage and the risk principle: A refinement and extension. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53, 334–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2014. 922157

Paparozzi, M. A., & Gendreau, P. (2005). An intensive supervision program that worked: Service delivery, professional orientation, and organizational supportiveness. The Prison Journal, 85, 445–466.

Robinson, C. R., Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A. M., VanBenschoten, S., Alexander, M., & Oleson, J. C. (2012). A random study of staff training aimed at reducing re-arrest (STARR): Using core correctional practices in probation interactions. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35, 167–188.

Skeem, J. L., Eno Louden, J., Polaschek, D., & Camp, D. (2007). Assessing relationship quality in mandated community treatment: Blending care with control. Psychological Assessment, 19, 397–410.

Smith, P., Schweitzer, M., Labreque, R. M., & Latessa, E. J. (2012). Improving probation officers' supervision skills: An evaluation of the EPICS model. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35, 189–199.

Sperber, K. G., Latessa, E. J., & Makarios, M. D. (2013a). Establishing a risk-dosage research agenda: Implications for policy and practice. Justice Research and Policy, 15(1), 123–142.

Sperber, K. G., Latessa, E. J., & Makarios, M. D. (2013b). Examining the interaction between level of risk and dosage of treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 338–348.

Sperber, K. G., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2017). Dosage is more than just counting program hours: The importance of role-playing in treatment outcomes. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 56, 433–451. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10509674.2017.1359222

Taxman, F. S., Yancey, C., & Bilanin, J. E. (2006). Proactive community supervision in Maryland: Changing offender outcomes. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Bureau of Governmental Research.

Travers, R., Mann, R. E., & Hollin, C. R. (2014). Who benefits from cognitive skills programs?: Differential impact by risk and offense type. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 1103–1129. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0093854814543826

Pilot Sites

Pilot Sites web_admin Wed, 12/22/2021 - 12:22

Washington County, MN

Our Mission: Providing quality services through responsible leadership, innovation and the cooperation of dedicated people

Date: July 23, 2019
Contact: Yvonne Klinnert, Public Information Manager
Phone: 651-430-6026, after hours 952-807-3723
E-mail: yvonne.klinnert@co.washington.mn.us

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The following actions were taken at the July 23, 2019, Washington County Board of Commissioners meeting at the Government Center in Stillwater, Minnesota

Washington County will be part of Gold Line Joint Powers Board

Washington County will be part of a Gold Line Joint Powers Board, along with Ramsey County and the respective regional rail authorities from each county, after the Washington County Board of Commissioners, sitting as the county’s Regional Rail Authority, agreed to form the board July 23.

The Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project, which will create a bus rapid transit route from downtown St. Paul to Woodbury along Interstate 94, is nearing the end of the project development phase of work.

As Gold Line BRT prepares to apply to the Federal Transit Administration to enter the engineering phase of work in 2020, and the construction phase of work in 2022, a new organizational structure is needed to streamline financial oversight and the management of contingency funds. The proposed Gold Line Joint Powers Board brings all local funding partners together in this role. It also limits liability claims to a single party, streamlines public access to funding-related decisions, and creates a forum for county collaboration.

The joint powers board may contract for supporting services, such as audit, insurance, financial management, and legal counsel.

It is anticipated that the Gold Line Joint Powers Board will enter into an agreement with the Metropolitan Council for the engineering phase of work near the end of 2019. Engineering for the line is expected to take one to two years, and construction will take two to three years, with completion anticipated in 2024.

Contact: Jan Lucke, Public Works Planning Division Director, 651-430-4316

County Board makes 2 appointments to citizen committees

The Washington County Board of Commissioners made appointments to two citizen advisory committees July 23.

Ann Siess will serve as a commissioner District 3 representative to the Parks and Open Space Commission during a partial term expiring Dec. 31, 2021.

The purpose of the commission is to bring citizen perspective to the operation of Washington County Parks. It reviews current operation policies, capital improvement programs, parkland preservation, park development projects, and long-range planning efforts for parkland and facilities for county parks. The commission also provides citizens’ perspectives on the administration of the Land and Water Legacy Program.

Rachel Perez will serve as a business representative to the Workforce Development Board, in a partial term expiring Dec. 31, 2021.

It is the responsibility of the Workforce Development Board to determine the most effective designation of administrative entities, grant recipients, and program operators for the Workforce Service Area. It also jointly plans for collaboration, and provides for on-site review and oversight of program performance.

Contact: Yvonne Klinnert, Public Information Manager, 651-430-6026

Washington County will work with Solid Ground to help families experiencing homelessness

Washington County will work with Solid Ground to serve 28 families experiencing homelessness, after the County Board approved an agreement with the agency July 23.

The county will provide $141,399 in Family Homelessness Prevention and Assistance program funds to the agency for the service.

The program was established by the Legislature in 1993 to assist families with children, youth/unaccompanied youth, and single adults who are experiencing barriers to housing. The program is conducted through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency with funds awarded on a biennial basis.

The money will be used to serve 28 households, or families experiencing homelessness, with support services and rent payment assistance through the Home Again program. The outcomes of the program are to ensure households will be permanently housed and not re-enter shelter or become homeless within six months of program exit.

Contact: Dana Dumbacher, Community Services Policy Analyst, 651-430-8363

Newport Transit Station will continue as state fair park-and-ride lot

Metro Transit will continue to use the Newport Transit Station parking lot as a Minnesota State Fair park-and-ride lot after the Washington County Board of Commissioners agreed to the use July 23. The license allows the use of the paved parking area and the existing vacant lot amounting to 400 parking spaces. Newport Transit Station has served as a State Fair Park-and-Ride for the past three years.

In 2017, more than 15,000 transit riders used the Newport Transit Station park-and-ride lot express service to go to the fair. In 2018, despite service being cut to only weekends and Labor Day, the Newport Transit Station had almost 6,000 state fair riders.

Contact: Jan Lucke, Public Works Planning Division Director, 651-430-4316

County will purchase land along Highway 36 to add to Government Center campus

Washington County will purchase a parcel of land on 60th Street North that is between the county Government Center and jail and Highway 36.

The County Board approved the purchase of the .34 acres of land with a house for $300,000 to include in the Government Center campus July 23. The purchase will complete the campus on the southern side and provide necessary space for any future expansion. An appraisal was completed and reviewed by the County Board previous to the purchase.

Contact: Don Theisen, Public Works Director, 651-430-4304

Sheriff’s Office receives gift, grant money

The Washington County Sheriff’s Office will receive a donation from Target Corporation and a grant from the state’s Department of Labor and Industry.

The County Board accepted both on behalf of the Sheriff’s Office July 23.

Target Corporation donated $1,500 to the Sheriff's Office to support the Back to School - Shop with a Cop event in Forest Lake put on by the Sheriff's Office.

The state’s Department of Labor and Industry, Occupational Safety and Health Consultation Unit, has awarded the Sheriff's Office a $1,000 grant to replace several life jackets and flotation devices that have reached the end of their service life. The grant does require a 100-percent match, which will be covered by revenue received from the sale of outdated dive equipment.

Contact: Sheriff Dan Starry, 651-430-7601

McGee re-appointed Washington County medical examiner

Dr. Michael B. McGee was designated the Washington County medical examiner by the County Board July 23, for a four-year term beginning Aug. 4.

In 2011, Washington County entered into an agreement with Ramsey County for medical examiner services. In that agreement, McGee was named the Washington County Medical Examiner.

Contact: Sheriff Dan Starry, 651-430-7601

County will continue reciprocity for use of household hazardous waste facilities

The Washington County Board of Commissioners agreed July 23 to continue an agreement with Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, and Scott counties for reciprocity for use of household hazardous waste services, through 2024.

The agreement allows residents of those counties to use the household hazardous waste program services of any of the counties, and establishes a mechanism for payment of costs incurred by a county receiving household hazardous waste from the county where the resident lives. Washington County has a separate agreement with Chisago County.

The Washington County Environmental Center, 4039 Cottage Grove Drive in Woodbury, provides residents with a free and convenient disposal option for household hazardous waste, electronics, and recyclables year round. It is open Tuesday 11 a.m. to 7 p.m., Thursday 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Friday 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Saturday 8 a.m. to 2 p.m.

The center also has a Free Product Room, in which residents may browse the shelves and take home previously-owned products such as paint, stain, automotive supplies, household cleaners, and other products. All items taken to the Environmental Center are inspected to determine if they are usable products.

Contact: Adam Frederick, Environmental Program Coordinator, 651-430-6702

Sheriff’s Office will receive grant for occupational resources for employees

The Washington County Sheriff’s Office will receive a $7,500 grant from the state Department of Labor and Industry, Occupational Safety and Health Consultation Unit, to fund wellness initiatives in the Sheriff’s Office.

The County Board accepted the grant July 23.

The money will provide training for peer support programs, clinician support for the peer support team, and resiliency training for the Sheriff's Office staff and their families. It also helps fund Breach Point Training for Sheriff’s Office staff.

The grant requires a 100-percent match, which will come from $2,280 of revenue received from the sale of abandoned property, and local public health grant funds already budgeted for $5,220.

Compared to the general population, law enforcement officers report much higher rates of depression, PTSD, burnout, and other anxiety-related mental health conditions; one in four law enforcement officers have thoughts of suicide at some point in their lives. In 2017, there were 140 law enforcement suicides, which was more than in-the-line of duty deaths.

Contact: Sheriff Dan Starry, 651-430-7601

County Board accepts gifts received in second quarter of 2019

The Washington County Board of Commissioners accepted cash and in-kind donations July 23 made to the county in the first quarter of 2019, totaling $7,859.43.

The Library received general donations and memorials, as well as donations to pay for Alcoholic Anonymous materials for the library, all totaling $1,395.72.

Donations to the Parks, including exhibit donations to the Historic Courthouse, totaled $856.

The Sheriff’s Office received donations for the Explorer’s Unit National Competition, and for community events, totaling $2,400.

Business people from throughout the county contributed gift cards, vouchers, and tickets for a variety of services that were given to foster care providers at the county’s annual Foster Care Appreciation event in May, totaling $3,117.71 of in-kind donations.

Contact: Stephanie Kammerud, Administrative Assistant, 651-430-6014

Washington County receives 4 National Association of Counties awards

Washington County was named an award recipient four times in three categories at the recent National Association of Counties conference in Las Vegas, Nev., July 14.

The county won awards in the areas of:

  • County Resiliency: Infrastructure, Energy and Sustainability, with “BizRecycling,” a program of Ramsey/Washington Recycling and Energy, started in 2013 to help businesses enhance or start recycling and organics/food waste collection to increase commercial waste diversion rates in the two counties. BizRecycling connects businesses with recycling experts who can help identify recycling and waste reduction opportunities. Businesses receive free onsite consultations, technical assistance, and grants to implement best practices in waste management, with the goal of reaching 40 percent of business establishments in the two counties by the end of 2020.
  • Criminal Justice and Public Safety, with “Dosage Probation Program,” which relies on an offender’s internal motivation to change behavior. The offender can shorten the time they are under probation supervision by actively participating and completing programming to reduce the likelihood of future criminal behavior. The model is far more efficient and cost-effective than the traditional model of supervision in which probationers are sentenced to years of supervision with or without behavior change conditions.
  • Criminal Justice and Public Safety, “East Metro Human Trafficking Task Force,” comprised of the Washington County Attorney’s Office, Washington County Sheriff’s Office, Woodbury Police Department, Oakdale Police Department, and Homeland Security Investigations. These agencies are collaborating to proactively investigate sex trafficking cases to prosecute sex traffickers, protect and rehabilitate victims of sex trafficking, and decrease demand for the commercial exploitation of victims of sex trafficking.
  • Children and Youth, “Read to Me: Babies Need Words Every Day,” in which Washington County Library partnered with Washington County Public Health and Environment to offer literacy-rich educational opportunities for families by providing parents of at-risk newborns with Read to Me totes during WIC (Women, Infant, and Child) clinic and public health nurse home visits. Parents left with information about the importance of reading and armed with books and encouraging tips to keep reading, singing, and talking with their child at home. Mini “pop-up libraries” at three WIC clinics around the county allowed families to read together while waiting.

Contact: Yvonne Klinnert, Public Information Manager, 651-430-6026

Napa County, CA

Wisconsin DOC

Contact Us

Contact Us web_admin Wed, 12/22/2021 - 13:07
Gregory Crawford
Correctional Program Specialist Community Services Division, NIC
Image
Gregory Crawford