Handbook on Moving Corrections and Sentencing Forward: Building on the Record 9780367443177, 9781003008941

Citation preview

“This is a timely and thought-provoking book that focuses on the results of landmark evaluation research on courts, sentencing, and corrections. The authors’ recommendations for improving this research will move us closer to defnitive answers regarding ‘what works’ in courts and corrections.” Cassia Spohn, Regents Professor, Foundation Professor, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University “This remarkable handbook documents the major contributions of a three-decades movement in evidence-based corrections. In so doing, it ofers an invaluable education to a new generation of scholars, takes stock of knowledge on intervention efectiveness, and maps out key directions for future research and practice. Comprehensive and erudite, this volume is an essential resource for all those wishing to understand and improve the quality of American corrections.” Francis T. Cullen, Distinguished Research Professor Emeritus, University of Cincinnati (Past President, American Society of Criminology) “Policy and practice in sentencing and corrections is often far from objective; instead of being based on evidence the agenda is frequently driven by political ideology, anecdotal evidence, and the fad of the month instead of research evidence. By comprehensively and rigorously examining landmark studies, this distinguished group of scholars examines what works and what doesn’t and where new methods or approaches are needed. A must read for policymakers, practitioners and academics; this book will be invaluable in providing guidance to decision makers as they consider critical questions in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic.” Doris Layton MacKenzie, Professor, Pennsylvania State University, ret., University of Maryland, ret. “The First Step Act was a minimum efort to make the criminal justice system more efective in reducing crime, increasing fairness, and facilitating rehabilitation. This volume presents evaluations of a rich variety of approaches and evaluations for doing that and for pursuing research to achieve those ends.” Alfred Blumstein, J. Erik Jonsson University Professor of Urban Systems and Operations Research, Emeritus Carnegie Mellon University, Past President of the Operations Research Society of America, The Institute of Management Sciences, and the American Society of Criminology, Fellow of the AAAS and ASC

“The Covid-19 pandemic has brought into sharp relief the urgent need for large reductions in jail and prison populations. This volume is a must read for policy makers looking for practical steps forward for achieving this goal.” Daniel Nagin, Teresa and H. John Heinz III University Professor of Public Policy and Statistics, Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University “This important new book by major scholars brings together seminal empirical research in one place. It also comes at an important time. Recent declines in crime and widespread uncertainty by elected public ofcials across the United States about the efectiveness of costly imprisonment provide a window for signifcant changes in criminal justice policy and practice. This change is already happening in many places, but the science reviewed in this volume provides a solid empirical foundation on which policy makers can rely to move our country forward toward more peaceful communities and a more efective and humane system of justice.” Sally T. Hillsman, Former Executive Ofcer, American Sociological Association; former Deputy Director, National Institute of Justice; former Director of Research, the Vera Institute of Justice; former Vice President for Research and Technology, National Center for State Courts; Elected Fellow, AAAS, NAPA “What a treasure of important landmark studies in the feld of sentencing and corrections. Scholars and policymakers will fnd this volume invaluable for documenting prior work, but also clearly pointing the way for a productive future.” Susan F. Turner, Professor, Department of Criminology, Law and Society; Director, Center for Evidence-Based Corrections; Director, Online Graduate Program in Criminology, Law & Society, University of California, Irvine “Identifying successful or even ‘promising’ practices in criminal justice is like catching lightning in a bottle, fashes of insight that help illuminate, if only for a moment, the next step along the path. In this new version of the Handbook, Lattimore, Huebner, and Taxman have done remarkable work in capturing and distilling key knowledge in a broad range of criminal justice topics that will make the work of criminal justice professionals more productive, and the lives of millions of American citizens involved in the criminal justice system, better and easier. All those working in this critical public policy feld are greatly indebted to them.” Brent Orrell, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute

HANDBOOK ON MOVING CORRECTIONS AND SENTENCING FORWARD

This volume addresses major issues and research in corrections and sentencing with the goal of using previous research and fndings as a platform for recommendations about future research, evaluation, and policy. The last several decades witnessed major policy changes in sentencing and corrections in the United States, as well as considerable research to identify the most efective strategies for addressing criminal behavior. These eforts, driven in part by drug epidemics and increases in crime in the late 20th century, included changes in sentencing led by the federal government that eliminated parole and imposed draconian sentences for violent and drug crimes. The federal government, followed by most states, implemented sentencing guidelines that greatly reduced the discretion of the courts to impose sentences. The results were a multifold increase in the numbers of individuals in jails and prisons and on community supervision—increases that have only recently crested. In addition to changes in sentencing practices, there were eforts to engage prosecutors and the courts in diversion and oversight. These eforts included the development of prosecutorial diversion programs, as well as a variety of specialty courts including those addressing ofenders with drug or mental health issues and those focused on individuals with other types of special needs such as youths or veterans. Penal reform has included eforts to understand the transitions from prison to the community, including a variety of federal-led eforts focused on reentry programming. Community corrections reforms have ranged from increased surveillance through drug testing, electronic monitoring, and in some cases, judicial oversight, to rehabilitative eforts driven by risk and needs assessment. More recently, the focus has included pretrial reform to reduce the number of people held in jail pending trial, eforts that have brought attention to the use of bail and its disproportionate impact on people of color and the poor. Other parts of the justice system have also increasingly turned to fees—for supervision, for drug testing, for “lodging” in jail—and fnes to cover the agency costs and, in some cases, general fund expenditures. Inability to pay these fees and fnes can lead to a cycle of incarceration that is difcult for an individual to break. This collection of chapters from leading researchers addresses a wide array of the latest research in the feld, covering the broader areas of courts and sentencing; community supervision; and prisons, jails, and reentry. A unique approach featuring responses to the original essays by active researchers spurs discussion and provides a foundation for developing directions for future research and policymaking.

Pamela K. Lattimore, Ph.D., is Senior Director for Research Development for RTI’s Division for Applied Justice Research with responsibility for leading multidisciplinary research focused on improving understanding of crime and the criminal justice system. She has more than 30 years of experience evaluating interventions, investigating the causes and correlates of criminal behavior, and developing approaches to improve criminal justice operations. Dr. Lattimore has led multiple multisite, multimodal evaluations, including the NIJ-funded evaluations of the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment, a multisite randomized controlled trial to study the effectiveness of swift and certain sanctions to improve probationer outcomes, and the Multisite Evaluation of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, a quasi-experimental evaluation of 16 adult and juvenile prisoner reentry programs. Dr. Lattimore is principal investigator for the research for the Arnold Ventures-funded Advancing Pretrial Policy and Research, which focuses on improving pretrial risk assessment and outcomes, and is leading an NIJ-funded project to develop, test, and implement the Integrated Dynamic Risk Assessment for Community Supervision (IDRACS), an artificial intelligence (AI) tool that will incorporate dynamic risk factors and indicators of supervision practice to more effectively model the risk posed by people under community supervision. She is a past Chair of the American Society of Criminology Division on Corrections and Sentencing, a Fellow of the Academy of Experimental Criminology, and a recipient of the American Correctional Association Peter P. Lejins Researcher Award, the American Society of Criminology Division on Corrections and Sentencing Distinguished Scholar Award, and the Academy of Experimental Criminology Joan McCord Award for distinguished experimental contributions to criminology and criminal justice. Beth M. Huebner, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Missouri–St. Louis. Her principal research interests include the collateral consequences of incarceration, racial and gender disparities in the criminal justice system, and public policy. She is currently serving as co-principal investigator for the St. Louis County MacArthur Safety + Justice Challenge and collaborating on a study of monetary sanctions in Missouri with funding from Arnold Ventures. She is the past chair of the Division on Corrections and Sentencing for the American Society of Criminology and Vice-President Elect of the American Society of Criminology. Faye S. Taxman, Ph.D., is a university professor at George Mason University. She is a health service criminologist recognized for her work in the development of seamless systems-of-care models that link the criminal justice system with health care and other service delivery systems and reengineering probation and parole supervision services. She has conducted experiments to examine different processes to improve treatment access and retention, to assess new models of probation supervision consistent with RNR frameworks, and to test new interventions. She has active “laboratories” with numerous agencies including Virginia Department of Corrections, Alameda County Probation Department (CA), Hidalgo County Community Corrections Department (TX), North Carolina Department of Corrections, and Delaware Department of Corrections. She developed the translational RNR Simulation Tool (www.gmuace.org/tools) to assist agencies to advance practice. Dr. Taxman has published more than 200 articles. She is author of several books, including Implementing Evidence-Based Community Corrections and Addiction Treatment (2012, with Steven Belenko). She is Co-Editor of Health & Justice. In 2018, she was appointed a fellow of the American Society of Criminology (ASC). In 2019, she received the Lifetime Achievement award from the American Society of Criminology’s Division of Sentencing and Corrections, which has recognized her as Distinguished Scholar twice as well as conferred

on her the Rita Warren and Ted Palmer Differential Intervention Treatment Award. She received the Joan McCord Award in 2017 from ASC’s Division of Experimental Criminology. She has also received numerous awards from practitioner organizations such as the American Probation and Parole Association and Caron Foundation. Dr. Taxman earned her Ph.D. from Rutgers University’s School of Criminal Justice.

THE ASC DIVISION ON CORRECTIONS & SENTENCING HANDBOOK SERIES Edited by Pamela K. Lattimore and John R. Hepburn.

The American Society of Criminology’s Division on Corrections & Sentencing sponsors a series of volumes published by Routledge on seminal and topical issues that span the felds of sentencing and corrections. The critical essays, reviews, and original research in each volume provide a comprehensive assessment of the current state of knowledge, contribute to public policy discussions, and identify future research directions. Each thematic volume focuses on a single topical issue that intersects with corrections and sentencing research. The contents are eclectic in regard to disciplinary foci, theoretical frameworks and perspectives, and research methodologies.

EDITORIAL BOARD Gaylene Armstrong, University of Nebraska, Omaha Todd Clear, Rutgers University Francis T. Cullen, University of Cincinnati Jodi Lane, University of Florida Dan Mears, Florida State University Joan Petersilia, Stanford University Cassia Spohn, Arizona State University Jefery Ulmer, Pennsylvania State University Steve Van Dine, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Christy Visher, University of Delaware

2. Handbook on Punishment Decisions Locations of Disparity Ulmer and Bradley 3. Handbook on the Consequences of Sentencing and Punishment Decisions Huebner and Frost 4. Handbook on Sentencing Policies and Practices in the 21st Century Spohn and Brennan 5. Handbook on Moving Corrections and Sentencing Forward Building on the Record Lattimore, Huebner, and Taxman

HANDBOOK ON MOVING CORRECTIONS AND SENTENCING FORWARD Building on the Record

Edited by Pamela K. Lattimore, Beth M. Huebner, and Faye S. Taxman

First published 2021 by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 selection and editorial matter, Pamela K. Lattimore, Beth M. Huebner, and Faye S. Taxman; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Pamela K. Lattimore, Beth M. Huebner, and Faye S. Taxman to be identifed as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identifcation and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Lattimore, Pamela K., editor. | Huebner, Beth M., editor. | Taxman, Faye S., editor. Title: Handbook on moving corrections and sentencing forward : building on the record / edited by Pamela K. Lattimore, Beth M. Huebner, and Faye S. Taxman. Description: New York, NY : Routledge, 2021. | Series: The ASC Division on Corrections & Sentencing handbook series ; volume 5 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifers: LCCN 2020020694 (print) | LCCN 2020020695 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367443177 (hbk) | ISBN 9781003008941 (ebk) Subjects: LCSH: Prison sentences—United States. | Corrections— United States. | Criminal justice, Administration of—United States. | Criminal behavior—United States. Classifcation: LCC HV8708 .H36 2021 (print) | LCC HV8708 (ebook) | DDC 345.73/0772—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020020694 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020020695 ISBN: 978-0-367-44317-7 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-00894-1 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Apex CoVantage, LLC

Jodi Lane University of Florida This handbook is dedicated to Joan Petersilia, who left us in September 2019 at the relatively young age of 68 after more than 45 years working in policy-oriented corrections and sentencing research and trying to move the feld “forward.” Joan worked for the RAND Corporation beginning in 1974, eventually becoming the Director of the Criminal Justice Program. She moved to the University of California, Irvine in 1992 as a professor and ended her career in the Stanford Law School as Co-Director of its Criminal Justice Center. She has been honored by the criminology feld in many ways over the years, including receiving the 2014 Stockholm Prize in Criminology, the 1994 American Society of Criminology (ASC) Vollmer Award, and the 2002 ASC Division on Corrections and Sentencing Senior Scholar Award. In November 2019, the ASC memorialized her by naming the Outstanding Paper Award in her honor. As the 1990 President of the American Society of Criminology and new Academy fellow, Joan lamented the weakening impact of criminology on policy. She blamed this in part on researcher focus on what was wrong rather than on what to do, lack of direct engagement with practitioners and policymakers, complicated scientifc rather than plain writing, and lack of academic rewards for policy-related activities (Petersilia, 1991). Her life was dedicated to closing that gap between rigorous research and practice and policy, as this handbook series and the Division on Corrections and Sentencing more broadly are. Over the years, Joan conducted research on many of the topics on which the scholars in this volume refect but is probably most well-known for her work in ix

community corrections and reentry. One of her most unique and groundbreaking studies was the national randomized feld experiment of intensive supervision probation and parole (ISP) programs, which illustrated that rigorous experimental methods could be used in the feld. It also showed that while recidivism between routine and intensive probationers was not much diferent, those on ISP were watched more closely, caught more, and received more technical violations (Petersilia & Turner, 1993a, 1993b), fndings that are similar to those of the more recent HOPE Demonstration Project discussed in this volume. Before conducting this landmark ISP study, however, she also was instrumental in the frst research eforts to follow repeat ofenders over their life course by measuring their individual crime rates (lambdas) through self-report surveys and to study recidivism of felony probationers (Petersilia et al., 1977, 1985). These topics have been examined by many others in the decades since she published these early studies. In the latter part of her career, Joan was focused on prisoner reentry and corrections reform. She published her infuential book, When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry, in 2003 and quickly took to the feld again to afect policies towards inmates and those being released from prison. Joan became an “embedded criminologist,” working closely with the state of California as they undertook a major reform of their correctional system (Petersilia, 2008). She initially worked as a consultant for the California Parole & Community Services Division and as the Special Advisor for Policy and Research for the then Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, became the Co-Chair for the California Expert Panel on Ofender Programs, and eventually chaired Governor Schwarzenegger’s Rehabilitation Strike Team (2007–2008). She agreed to this work after the governor vowed to fx the broken correctional system and put some support behind rehabilitation as part of the eforts. In these roles, Joan was able to truly work in collaboration with policymakers and practitioners on the ground to efect real change. She said, “I think I made a diference. I believe that there are programs and policies that are in place today that would not be there except for my contributions” (Petersilia, 2008, p. 339). Many of the members of the Division—scholars and practitioners both—hope to continue to work together in a similar way as we move forward. Joan’s work and mentorship led to many lessons for current and future scholars on how to do evaluation research, some of which I shared to memorialize her at the DCS Annual Breakfast at the ASC meetings in November 2019. I share them again here. First, working in the feld matters a lot. Criminologists work on real-world problems that afect a lot of people. We have an obligation to help if we can. Second, it is possible to be a rigorous scholar and work in the feld with practitioners, policymakers, and people involved in or afected by crime. These eforts are not mutually exclusive. Third, in evaluation work, practitioners need

to be sitting at the table, as partners and not as “students.” They have many of the answers we seek. Theory can come from non-academics, not just books or people with Ph.D.’s. Often, practitioners use the same theoretical ideas in their daily work, simply without the academic jargon. Working locally also helps build an academic reputation with these partners, and a good reputation will lead to more research opportunities. Relationships really matter. Fourth, strong methods and good instruments are critical to producing important fndings. Take great care at the front end of a project developing the evaluation design and the instrumentation. Show instruments to the people who are delivering and experiencing the program to make sure they are valid. Remember, garbage in, garbage out. Good statistics cannot fx bad design. Fifth, academic institutions will not reward much of the scholarly work resulting from evaluation research. Researchers conducting evaluation studies must do “double duty”—writing for academics and then writing separately for practitioners and sometimes grant agencies. Sixth, because these scholars need to write more, efciency and organization are critically important to success. Use time efciently to be productive. Evaluators must write at times when they are most focused and able to think. Do other activities related to teaching and service the rest of the day. Write almost every day. Seventh, a lot of programs have good intentions but do not make much diference. The devil is in the details. If the design is good, you can publish it anyway. Eighth, learn from the masters. Joan was my graduate mentor, but Susan Turner, Terry Fain, and Peter Greenwood at RAND and Chuck Frazier and Lonn Lanza-Kaduce at the University of Florida also mentored me, as did many others that were not at my institutions of work. Practitioners have also taught me a lot. Ninth, because projects are time-intensive, often for years, work on projects that fascinate and excite you. Finally, if you do, this work and your career will be so much fun! References Petersilia, J. (1991). Policy relevance and the future of criminology: The American Society of Criminology 1990 presidential address. Criminology, 29(1), 1–15. Petersilia, J. (2008). Infuencing public policy: An embedded criminologist refects on California prison reform. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 4, 335–356. Petersilia, J., Greenwood, P., & Lavin, M. (1977). Criminal careers of habitual felons (R-2144-DOJ). Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1993a). Evaluating intensive supervision probation and parole: Results of a nationwide experiment. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1993b). Intensive probation and parole. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (pp. 281–335). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Petersilia, J., Turner, S., Kahan, J., & Peterson, J. (1985). Granting felons probation: Public risks and alternatives (R3186-NIJ). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

CONTENTS

Foreword by Jeremy Travis Preface by Pamela K. Lattimore, Beth M. Huebner, and Faye S. Taxman List of Contributors Introduction Pamela K. Lattimore, Beth M. Huebner, and Faye S. Taxman PART I

Courts and Sentencing

xvi xix xxi 1

9

1 Refections on the Multi-Site Drug Court Evaluation: What Did We Learn and What Does It Mean? Janine Zweig, Janeen Buck Willison, Shelli B. Rossman, and John K. Roman

11

2 At the Crossroads: Large-Scale Studies of Behavioral Health Treatment Interventions for People in the Criminal Justice System Alexander J. Cowell and Michael S. Shafer

26

3 What Comes Next? On the Evolution of Community Courts Greg Berman, Julian Adler, Joseph Barrett, and Kate Penrose PART II

Community Corrections

46

59

4 From Mean to Meaningful Probation: The Legacy of Intensive Supervision Programs Faye S. Taxman, Lindsay Smith, and Danielle S. Rudes

xiii

61

Contents

5 Research Considerations for Using Electronic Technologies With Community Supervision Matthew DeMichele

79

6 Fines, Fees, and Debt in Community Corrections: Past, Present, and Future Ebony L. Ruhland and Nathan W. Link

90

7 Thoughts From the Multi-Site Evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation With Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment Pamela K. Lattimore

99

8 A Supervision Policy With Scope: Revisiting Washington State’s Swift-and-Certain Initiative Christopher M. Campbell, Jacqueline van Wormer, and Zachary K. Hamilton

124

9 Parole Decision-Making: Moving Towards Evidence-Based Practice Ralph C. Serin, Kaitlyn Wardrop, Laura Gamwell, and Jennifer Shafer 10 Back-End Sentencing and Opting Out of the Parole Process: Two Areas for Further Study in Corrections and Reentry Research Michael Ostermann, Jordan Costa, and Bernadette C. Hohl

143

158

11 Family Work in Corrections: Trends From Eforts in Youth Justice Chris Trotter

167

12 Understanding Rapport in Supervision Settings C.J. Appleton

174

PART III

Prisons and Jails

185

13 Lessons From the Multi-Site Family Study of Incarceration, Parenting, and Partnering Christine H. Lindquist, Tasseli McKay, and Anupa Bir

187

14 Putting a Square Into a Circle: The Story of Boot Camps—A Tribute to Doris MacKenzie’s Work Faye S. Taxman, Lindsay Smith, and Danielle S. Rudes

216

15 Supermax Incarceration: Current Evidence and Next Steps in Improving Research and Policy Daniel P. Mears

233

xiv

Contents

16 Advances in Corrections Research: Understanding How Prisons Continue to Infuence Maladjustment H. Daniel Butler, Jonathan R. Brauer, and Jacob C. Day 17 Criminal Justice Reform in California: A Lesson for the Nation? Charis E. Kubrin PART IV

Reentry

246 253

259

18 Examining the Field’s First Multisite Reentry Experiment: Lessons Learned From the Evaluation of the Opportunity to Succeed (OPTS) Aftercare Program Janeen Buck Willison, Shelli B. Rossman, and Caterina Roman

261

19 Returning Home: A Pathbreaking Study of Prisoner Reentry and Its Challenges Christy A. Visher and Nancy La Vigne

278

20 Considerations on the Multi-Site Evaluation of the Serious and Violent Ofender Reentry Initiative Pamela K. Lattimore and Christy A. Visher

312

21 Key Findings and Implications of the Cross-Site Evaluation of the Bureau of Justice Assistance FY 2011 Second Chance Act Adult Ofender Reentry Demonstration Projects Christine H. Lindquist, Janeen Buck Willison, and Pamela K. Lattimore 22 A Time for Mercy Veronica Horowitz

336 359

23 Building on Reentry Research: A New Conceptual Framework and Approach to Reentry Services and Research Carrie Pettus-Davis and Stephanie C. Kennedy

367

Afterword: Intensive Non-Intervention Todd R. Clear

379

Index

384

xv

FOREWORD

Our national discourse on the future of criminal justice policy appears to be at an infection point. There is a broad consensus that the era of mass incarceration represents a tragic policy failure. Over the past four decades, as we built more and more prisons, we have paid an enormous price. We have wasted human lives and squandered scarce fnancial resources, with little public beneft and incalculable sufering for those incarcerated, their families and communities. Yet in more recent years, the country has witnessed a political phenomenon unimaginable during the buildup of the prison population: a left-right coalition devoted to reducing the footprint of the criminal justice system in America. This coalition has registered impressive wins, particularly at the state level. How remarkable that some of the pioneers in this movement were conservative southern states, led by Republican governors and legislatures, who had previously embodied the values of the tough-on-crime era. The reform coalition has also achieved historic reforms at the federal level, including the Prison Rape Elimination Act and the Justice Reinvestment Act. The coalition held frm following the election of Donald Trump as President. Notwithstanding his embrace of a law-and-order platform, he supported enactment of the First Step Act, which has led to the release of thousands of individuals from federal prisons. An early forerunner of this pragmatic, left-right consensus was the national focus on prisoner reentry. First launched under Attorney General Janet Reno in the waning days of the Clinton Administration, then expanded under the Bush Administration, and strengthened under the Obama Administration, the federal focus on supporting successful return from prison for the hundreds of thousands of people leaving prison each year has served to ignite similar reform initiatives at the state and local levels. The pioneering work of the Reno Justice Department set the stage for the bipartisan Second Chance Act championed by President George W. Bush. Congress has appropriated substantial funding for programmatic innovation designed to improve reentry outcomes in all ffty states. On a parallel track, the explosion of policy focus on prisoner reentry has been accompanied by a burst of scholarly activity. A remarkable wave of studies, books, dissertations, journalistic accounts and documentary flms have informed the public discourse on the impact of incarceration and the challenges of reintegration. While quickly acknowledging my bias as a contributor to this literature, I would argue that the emergence of the “reentry movement” over the past quarter-century has played a pivotal role in promoting a more humane approach to the challenges of incarceration and reintegration. In this pregnant moment, we are fortunate to celebrate the publication of this handbook on corrections and sentencing. Taken together, the chapters in this book provide an informed look back on our history, and a grounded look forward on the future of justice policy. The look back xvi

Foreword

is timely—and simultaneously sobering and inspirational. The book’s subtitle is “Building on the Record”, and what an impressive record it is. We have learned so much about the efectiveness of a wide variety of programmatic interventions. This volume covers an impressive array of reform eforts—admittedly only a small subset of the modern innovation portfolio—from drug courts to community courts, from probation reform to reentry reform, from innovative sanctions to electronic monitoring. The volume also presents research on structural elements of the modern penal state such as supermax prisons, in addition to research on the role of strong families in promoting positive outcomes. Finally, the book contains a chapter presenting fndings from an ambitious longitudinal study of the experience of leaving prison, which should set the stage for the next generation of innovation. How far we have come from the era of the 1974 article by Martinson et al. concluding that “nothing works.” But the book title also compels a look to the future: “Moving Corrections and Sentencing Forward.” A reader might fnish the book and conclude that the path forward is highly uncertain. This is true, in part, because so many of the interventions that have been rigorously evaluated have proven disappointing. This is ironic, given that the state of knowledge about program efectiveness has advanced exponentially. But the better analysis would focus more on how little we know, rather than how much, more on how little has been invested in learning “what works”, rather than on how much. We should applaud the expectation—from governments and private funders—for “evidencebased” programs and policies. We should support the preference for more rigorous research methods to determine costs and benefts. We should encourage those scholars who are developing new theories of human behavior to shape the research agenda of the future. Most of all, we should call upon the same government that has funded the expansion of the nation’s prisons (with little attention to assessing the impact of this policy choice) to provide commensurate funding for innovation and research to reduce the prison population, improve the lives of those held in those prisons, and provide them a safe return home. But the unease about the way forward is more than a dispute over methodology or yet another statement that more research is required. The deepest challenge posed by this book is whether the criminal justice paradigm that has become the orthodoxy of criminal justice policy is promoting safety and justice in ways consistent with the nation’s democratic values. Are we asking the right questions? Do we have the right expectations of our policies? How do we reconcile our aspirations for justice with the deep racial disparities in the operations of our justice system? Are we wedded to an orthodoxy that does not comport with our understanding of the human experience and communal life? At a very deep level, this book should prompt critical inquiry about the purposes of the criminal sanction. When we speak of corrections policy, for example, do we simply embrace certain assumptions about the legitimate use of the state’s power to deprive a person of their liberty? When we speak of sentencing policy, do we uncritically invoke age-old beliefs about the appropriate response to a breach of the social contract? In addressing these questions, we quickly encounter the limitations of traditional research methods, and the inherent biases of our systems of data collection. Measuring recidivism without simultaneously accounting for positive life course developments seems not only inadequate but dismissive of the human power to change. Relying on administrative data without asking questions of the individuals and communities at the center of the inquiry seems to value systems over human experience. Limiting the evaluation framework to those outcomes that can be measured in a randomized trial seems to prioritize methodological purity over the inherent messiness of eforts to change the world. As we refect on the fndings presented in these chapters, we should look beyond their pages to ask questions about the meaning of justice. We are fortunately living in a moment of enormous promise. The strong consensus that the American criminal justice policy has gone of track should give us hope that the next generation will bring those policies into closer alignment with democratic principles, human rights values, notions xvii

Foreword

of racial equity and a more limited vision of state power. To move in that direction requires deep refection on how we arrived at this moment. That, in turn, will call upon all of us to take a critical step back to engage in sustained, perhaps painful, introspection about the journey we have traveled. This volume provides a strong platform for that introspection. This refection, combined with the rigorous pursuit of evidence brilliantly demonstrated in this volume, might well set the stage for the emergence of a new vision of justice, well suited to the demands and opportunities presented in the next half-century. Jeremy Travis

xviii

PREFACE

The last several decades witnessed major policy changes in adult sentencing and corrections in the United States, as well as considerable research to identify the most efective strategies for addressing criminal behavior. These eforts, driven in part by drug epidemics and increases in crime in the late 20th century, included changes in sentencing led by the federal and state governments that eliminated parole and imposed draconian sentences for violent and drug crimes. The federal government and most states implemented sentencing guidelines that greatly reduced the discretion of courts to impose sentences. The results were a multifold increase in the numbers of individuals in jails and prisons and on community supervision—increases that have only recently crested. Besides changes in sentencing practices, there were eforts to engage prosecutors and the courts in diversion and oversight. These eforts included the development of prosecutorial diversion programs, as well as a variety of specialty courts including those addressing ofenders with drug or mental health issues and those focused on individuals with other types of special needs such as youth or veterans. Penal reform has included eforts to rehabilitate individuals who are incarcerated or on community supervision, including a variety of federal-led eforts focused on reentry programming, such as the Serious and Violent Ofender Reentry Initiative, the Marriage and Family Strengthening Program, and the Second Chance Act. Community corrections reforms have ranged from increased surveillance through drug testing, electronic monitoring, and in some cases, judicial oversight, to rehabilitative eforts driven by risk and need assessment. More recently, the focus has included pretrial reform to reduce the number of people held in jail pending trial. These pretrial eforts have brought attention to the use of money bail and its disproportionate impacts on the poor. But other parts of the justice system have also increasingly turned to fees—for supervision, for drug testing, for “lodging” in jail—and fnes to cover agency costs and, in many cases, general fund expenditures. The inability to pay these fees and fnes can lead to a cycle of incarceration that is difcult for an individual to break. This volume, with its summations and refections on landmark research, focused on the impact of these changes, is particularly timely as the criminal justice system faces shocks associated with the Covid-19 pandemic and its aftermath. Even during the initial response to the pandemic, jurisdictions across the United States started to change policies and practices with respect to who is being held in our jails and prisons and for how long, courts have been closed delaying justice, probation agencies are using telephone and other technologies to monitor individuals to avoid contact, stay-at-home orders have temporarily reduced many types of crime while leading to increases in interpersonal violence, and changes in police practices have reduced the number of individuals xix

Preface

arrested. If the public health crisis is followed by a severe and lasting economic downturn, local and state agencies strapped for resources may have to innovate to secure and maintain public safety and justice. It is hoped that the learned lessons presented herein will provide future policymakers and scholars with helpful guidance as they continue the quest to understand what really works in corrections and sentencing. Pamela K. Lattimore, Beth M. Huebner, and Faye S. Taxman

xx

CONTRIBUTORS

Julian Adler is the director of policy and research at the Center for Court Innovation. He leads the Center’s work on a range of national criminal justice reform initiatives, including the MacArthur Foundation’s Safety and Justice Challenge. Julian is the co-author of Start Here: A Road Map to Reducing Mass Incarceration (The New Press), as well as assorted book chapters, articles, and opinion pieces. A New York State Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) and attorney, he was previously the director of the Red Hook Community Justice Center in Brooklyn, New York, the lead planner for Brooklyn Justice Initiatives, and part of a small planning team that launched Newark Community Solutions in New Jersey. C.J. Appleton is a doctoral candidate in the Criminology Law and Society program at George Mason University. His research interests include reentry, community corrections, identity, and desistance. His M.S. thesis research investigates the role that identity verifcation plays in the success of the probation ofcer (PO)–client relationship. Using the same data, he is also looking at gendered diferences between clients in desired relationship with PO and how they experience the processing aspects of supervision. Further, he is working on a project that focuses on PO perceptions of usefulness and barriers of the Efective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS) supervision model when developing a working relationship with clients. Currently, he is a graduate research assistant for Dr. Danielle S. Rudes at George Mason’s Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence! (ACE!), where he is working on a solitary confnement project focused on punishment. Finally, he is a part of a project with Dr. Faye S. Taxman and Dr. JoAnn Lee merging scientifc evidence with practical knowledge to create a set of best practices for specialized caseloads in community supervision. Joseph Barrett is Deputy Project Director of Manhattan Justice Opportunities, a project of the Center for Court Innovation. At Manhattan Justice, he helps lead an interdisciplinary team that provides social services as alternatives to incarceration for misdemeanor and felony cases. Prior to joining the Center for Court Innovation, he worked for the Petey Greene Program—a nonproft that trains and coordinates volunteers to serve as tutors in correctional facilities—where he was responsible for expanding the program to Massachusetts and Rhode Island. He holds a bachelor’s degree in history from Princeton University and an MPhil in economic and social history from the University of Oxford, where he was Rhodes Scholar.

xxi

Contributors

Greg Berman is a senior fellow at the Center for Court Innovation. Part of the founding team responsible for creating the Center, Greg served as director of the organization from 2002–2020, helping to guide the Center from start-up to an annual budget of more than $80 million. Under his leadership, the Center won numerous national awards, including the Peter F. Drucker Award for Non-proft Innovation. He is the author/co-author of Start Here: A Road Map to Reducing Mass Incarceration (The New Press, 2018), Reducing Crime, Reducing Incarceration: Essays on Criminal Justice Innovation (Quid Pro Books, 2014), Trial & Error in Criminal Justice Reform: Learning from Failure (Urban Institute Press, 2010), and Good Courts: The Case for Problem-Solving Justice (The New Press, 2005). Prior to being named Director of the Center for Court Innovation in 2002, he served as Deputy Director of the Center and as the Lead Planner of the Red Hook Community Justice Center. He has served on numerous boards and task forces including: New York City Board of Correction (appointed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg), New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Wesleyan Center for Prison Education, Coro New York, Centre for Justice Innovation UK (chair), Sloan Public Service Awards, Poets House, Police Foundation, Mayor Bill de Blasio public safety transition team, Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance transition team, and the Independent Commission on New York City Criminal Justice and Incarceration Reform. He is a graduate of Wesleyan University and a former Coro Fellow in Public Afairs. Anupa Bir is a division vice president at RTI International and leads the Center for Advancing Methods Development. She led the 10-year Multisite Study of Incarceration, Parenting and Partnering which evaluated 12 programs spanning 12 states, utilized both quantitative and qualitative techniques, and evaluated innovative interventions to support families afected by incarceration. With Tasseli McKay, Christine Lindquist, and Megan Comfort, she authored Holding On: Family and Fatherhood During Incarceration and Reentry. With Steven Sheingold, she edited Evaluation for Health Policy and Health Care: A Contemporary Data-Driven Approach. Much of her work has focused on the well-being of vulnerable populations and aligning incentives within various systems including the justice, welfare, and health systems, to improve well-being. Being able to work with all constituencies and understand the intricacies of the interventions, implementation and the impact evaluation designs allows her to contribute to innovative and rigorous evaluations that generate information relevant to practice, policy, and research communities. Jonathan R. Brauer is an associate professor of criminal justice at Indiana University Bloomington. He tests theories of criminal behavior, explores causes of confict and discrimination, and examines consequences of coercive and supportive social environments. His research is published in various interdisciplinary journal outlets such as Sociological Methods & Research, Journal of Research on Adolescence, Criminology, and Justice Quarterly. Janeen Buck Willison is a senior research fellow in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute, where she conducts research, evaluation, and technical assistance aimed at improving the justice system. Her research portfolio spans prison and jail reentry, specialized courts, corrections and community supervision and juvenile justice, and includes numerous multisite mixed methods studies for local, state, and federal government and private foundations. Notable projects in her portfolio include the Opportunity to Succeed (OPTS) Program study, the frst multisite evaluation of prisoner reentry featuring an experimental design, the Multisite Adult Drug Court Evaluation, the Evaluability Assessment of the FY2011 Second Chance Act (SCA) Adult Ofender Reentry Demonstration Projects (AORDP) and the resulting seven-site evaluation, and the Transition from Jail to Community (TJC) reentry initiative for which she served as Evaluation Director. The Prison Research and Innovation Initiative, which seeks to build evidence and spur innovation to make prisons more humane, safe, and rehabilitative, and an assessment of BJA’s Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Program are among her current projects. Ms. Buck Willison chairs

xxii

Contributors

the Institute’s Institutional Review Board and holds a master’s degree in Law and Justice from American University. H. Daniel Butler is an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology at Iowa State University. His research examines how the prison environment infuences individuals’ institutional and postrelease behaviors in addition to understanding the experiences and well-being of correctional staf. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Christopher M. Campbell, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Portland State University. He earned his Ph.D. from Washington State University in Criminal Justice and Criminology, and Master of Arts in Sociology from Ohio University. He has held research positions for the Vera Institute of Justice and the Washington State Institute for Criminal Justice, and provided consultation for nonproft, state, and federal criminal justice agencies. Dr. Campbell’s research focuses on pretrial detention, sentencing, ofender rehabilitation, community supervision, and criminological theory, and his recent work has been published in Criminology & Public Policy, Justice Quarterly, and Criminal Justice and Behavior. Most recently, Campbell’s work was used in consultation with the state of Oregon in an efort to reform pretrial detention practices as well as re-examine the efects of sentences to prison. His recent achievements include a young scholar award granted by Portland State University and his recent paper on pretrial detention received the William L. Simon/Routledge Outstanding Paper Award for the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. Todd R. Clear is University Professor at the Law School of Rutgers University. He has served previously as Provost of Rutgers University-Newark, and before that Dean of the School of Criminal Justice. Clear has also held professorships at John Jay College of Criminal Justice (where he held the rank of Distinguished Professor) and Florida State University (where he was also Associate Dean of the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice). The author of 13 books and over 100 articles and book chapters, Clear’s most recent book is The Punishment Imperative, (with Natasha Frost). Clear has written on community justice, correctional classifcation, prediction methods, community-based correctional methods, intermediate sanctions, and sentencing policy. He is currently involved in studies of mass incarceration, prison reform, and college for people who are incarcerated. Clear has served as president of The American Society of Criminology, The Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and The Association of Doctoral Programs in Criminology and Criminal Justice. His work has been recognized through awards given by the American Society of Criminology, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, the Rockefeller School of Public Policy, the American Probation and Parole Association, the American Correctional Association, and the International Community Corrections Association. He was the founding editor of the journal Criminology & Public Policy, published by the American Society of Criminology. Jordan Costa is a doctoral student at Rutgers University, Newark in the School of Criminal Justice. She also serves as a research assistant for New Jersey’s Center on Gun Violence Research. Her research interests primarily center on the intersection of public health and public safety, with a particular focus on structural violence, wrongful convictions, and violence intervention. Alexander J. Cowell directs the Behavioral Health Financing, Economics, and Evaluation program at RTI International. His expertise pertains to vulnerable populations who interact with the justice system. He led the economic component of a Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration evaluation of criminal justice diversion programs for people with mental illness and substance use and directed a study of Bexar County, Texas, to assess the benefts and costs of the county’s jail diversion program for people with mental illness. He has contributed to numerous other evaluations of programs, including substance abuse treatment for state prison inmates,

xxiii

Contributors

a juvenile breaking the cycle program, the Serious and Violent Ofender Reentry Initiative, and the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement program. Dr. Cowell is also a recognized expert in Screening and Brief Intervention for harmful alcohol/drug use and has additionally contributed to evaluations of programs for people with behavioral health needs who are experiencing homelessness, in student populations, and in military populations. Finally, Dr. Cowell leads work assessing policies on the fnancing of mental health and substance use treatment. He has published in journals such as Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Psychiatric Services, Addiction, Medical Care, and Criminology & Public Policy. Jacob C. Day is an associate professor in the Department of Sociology and Criminology at the University of North Carolina Wilmington. His research focuses on criminal and juvenile justice policy and criminological theory as well as social capital, segregation, and race inequality in labor markets. His work has appeared in a variety of outlets including Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Criminal Justice and Behavior, and Sociological Methods & Research. Matthew DeMichele is a senior research sociologist in RTI’s Applied Justice Research Division. He is the Director of the Center for Courts and Corrections Research and has conducted criminal justice research on correctional population trends, risk prediction, terrorism/extremism prevention, and program evaluation. He has worked with local, state, and federal agencies and philanthropic partners to conduct research to address complex policy issues. His research has recently been published in Crime & Delinquency, American Sociological Review, and Criminology & Public Policy. Laura Gamwell is a Ph.D. candidate at Carleton University, studying forensic psychology in the Criminal Justice Decision-Making Laboratory. She holds an MA in political science and in psychology. Her research interests include parole decision-making and criminal justice and parole policies. Zachary K. Hamilton, Ph.D., is an associate professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justices at the University of Nebraska Omaha. He received his Ph.D. from Rutgers University and was previously employed as a Senior Research Associate at the Center for Court Innovation (CCI) and at the National Development and Research Institutes (NDRI). He also served as the Director of the Washington State Institute for Criminal Justice and was employed as an associate professor at Washington State University. He has developed the STRONG-R assessment for correctional populations, the M-PACT for juvenile justice populations, as well as pretrial and prison classifcation assessments implemented in both state and local jurisdictions. He has published over 50 peer-reviewed journal articles, chapters, and books on risk and needs assessment, evidencebased practices, and program efcacy. Dr. Hamilton was recently tapped by the National Institute of Justice to create the risk assessment for the First Step Act (the PATTERN), which is part of the federal government’s, recently passed, Criminal Justice Reform. His achievements were recently recognized by the American Society of Criminology, awarding him the Distinguished New Scholar Award in 2018. Bernadette C. Hohl, Ph.D., MPH is an assistant professor in the Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology at Rutgers University School of Public Health. She also has an appointment in the School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University–Newark. Her research employs mixed methods, community-based participatory research approaches, and epidemiological study designs to examine the infuence of neighborhood factors on community well-being, youth development, and violence. Current studies focus on identifying modifable community-level risk factors for violence and in turn developing and testing place-based interventions, such as urban greening, to address those factors. She recently secured state funding to establish the New Jersey Center

xxiv

Contributors

on Gun Violence Research and serves as one of the Co-Directors. She is an active part of several community and academic partnerships focused on addressing health and safety issues facing urban, minority, and disadvantaged communities, including two CDC-funded Youth Violence Prevention Centers. Veronica Horowitz, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology at the University at Bufalo, SUNY. Her research focuses on American criminal punishment, with a subfocus on gender. Her current work uses a mixed-methods approach to investigate an underutilized form of mercy in US criminal justice, executive clemency. She is also involved in many other research projects, including a multistate study of monetary sanctions, dual debtors (persons with both criminal justice and child support debt), drug courts, domestic assault no-contact orders, Evangelical attitudes towards prisoners and prison reform, and a new international project investigating the adoption Norwegian principles in an American prison. Stephanie C. Kennedy, PhD, is the Director of Research Dissemination for the Institute for Justice Research and Development (IJRD) at Florida State University. She leads a team dedicated to rapidly disseminating research fndings to academic audiences, policymakers, practitioners, key correctional and community stakeholders, and members of the general public. She also directs all outward facing communication and increasing accessibility of IJRD’s data-driven solutions to criminal justice reform for a range of audiences. Kennedy holds a doctorate in social work from the Florida State University. Charis E. Kubrin is Professor of Criminology, Law and Society and (by courtesy) Sociology at the University of California, Irvine. She is also a member of the Racial Democracy, Crime and Justice Network. Her research focuses on neighborhood correlates of crime, with an emphasis on race and violent crime. Recent work in this area examines the immigration-crime nexus across neighborhoods and cities, as well as assesses the impact of criminal justice reform on crime rates. Professor Kubrin has received several national awards including the Ruth Shonle Cavan Young Scholar Award from the American Society of Criminology (for outstanding scholarly contributions to the discipline of criminology); the Coramae Richey Mann Award from the Division on People of Color and Crime, the American Society of Criminology (for outstanding contributions of scholarship on race/ethnicity, crime, and justice); and the W.E.B. DuBois Award from the Western Society of Criminology (for signifcant contributions to racial and ethnic issues in the feld of criminology). Most recently, she received the Paul Tappan Award from the Western Society of Criminology (for outstanding contributions to the feld of criminology). In 2019, she was named a fellow of the American Society of Criminology. Jodi Lane is Professor of Criminology in the Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law at the University of Florida. She earned her Ph.D. in 1998 from the University of California, Irvine, under the direction of Joan Petersilia. She is interested in reactions to crime from both an individual and policy perspective. Her primary research areas include the causes and consequences of fear of crime and juvenile justice and corrections policy. She and colleagues recently authored Fear of Crime in the United States: Causes, Consequences and Contradictions (2014) and Encountering Correctional Populations: A Practical Guide for Researchers (2018). Pamela K. Lattimore is Senior Director for Research Development for RTI’s Division for Applied Justice Research with responsibility for leading multidisciplinary research focused on improving understanding of crime and the criminal justice system. She has more than 30 years of experience evaluating interventions, investigating the causes and correlates of criminal behavior and developing approaches to improve criminal justice operations. Dr. Lattimore has led multiple multisite, multimodal evaluations, including the NIJ-funded evaluations of the Honest Opportunity

xxv

Contributors

Probation with Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment, a multisite randomized controlled trial to study the efectiveness of swift and certain sanctions to improve probationer outcomes, and the Multisite Evaluation of the Serious and Violent Ofender Reentry Initiative, a quasiexperimental evaluation of 16 adult and juvenile prisoner reentry programs. Dr. Lattimore is principal investigator for the research for the Arnold Ventures’ funded Advancing Pretrial Policy and Research, which focuses on improving pretrial risk assessment and outcomes, and is leading an NIJ-funded project to develop, test, and implement the Integrated Dynamic Risk Assessment for Community Supervision (IDRACS), an artifcial intelligence (AI) tool that will incorporate dynamic risk factors and indicators of supervision practice to more efectively model the risk posed by people under community supervision. She is a past Chair of the American Society of Criminology Division on Corrections and Sentencing, a Fellow of the Academy of Experimental Criminology, and a recipient of the American Correctional Association Peter P. Lejins Researcher Award, the American Society of Criminology Division on Corrections and Sentencing Distinguished Scholar Award, and the Academy of Experimental Criminology Joan McCord Award for distinguished experimental contributions to criminology and criminal justice. Nancy La Vigne is Vice President for Justice Policy at the Urban Institute. She publishes research on prison reentry, criminal justice technologies, crime prevention, policing, and the spatial analysis of crime and criminal behavior. Her work appears in scholarly journals and practitioner publications and has made her a sought-after spokesperson on related subjects. Before being appointed vice president, La Vigne was a senior research associate at Urban, directing groundbreaking research on prisoner reentry. Before joining Urban, La Vigne was founding director of the Crime Mapping Research Center at the National Institute of Justice. She later was Special Assistant to the Assistant Attorney General for the Ofce of Justice Programs within the US Department of Justice. She has also been Research Director for the Texas sentencing commission, Research Fellow at the Police Executive Research Forum, and Consultant to the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. La Vigne was Executive Director for the bipartisan Charles Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections Reform and was Founding Chair of the Crime and Justice Research Alliance. She served on the board of directors for the Consortium of Social Science Associations from 2015 through 2018. She has testifed before Congress and has been featured on NPR and in the Atlantic, New York Times, Washington Post, and Chicago Tribune. Christine H. Lindquist directs the Corrections and Reentry Research Program in RTI’s Division for Applied Justice Research. Dr. Lindquist’s research interests and areas of expertise include victimization and ofending, prisoner reentry, families and incarceration, and the use of technology in the criminal justice system, with a particular focus on evaluating the efectiveness of interventions in these areas. She has substantial methodological expertise (including multisite evaluation design and qualitative and quantitative methods), along with a focus on translating research to improve policy and practice. Dr. Lindquist has an extensive publication record in peer-reviewed journals and has disseminated her research through a number of policy- and practitioner-focused briefs, factsheets, op-eds, trainings, presentations, and media interviews. She is a co-author of the book Holding On: Fatherhood and Family During and After Incarceration, which was recently published by the University of California Press. Nathan W. Link is an assistant professor at Rutgers University–Camden. He primarily researches issues in corrections and sentencing, including fnancial sanctions and debt, prisoner reentry and desistance from crime, mental/physical health, and crime/recidivism control strategies. Nate’s research has been funded by the National Institute of Justice and Arnold Ventures. His work appears in a variety of refereed outlets, including Criminology, Justice Quarterly, Social Science & Medicine, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Journal of Experimental Criminology, Journal of Ofender xxvi

Contributors

Rehabilitation, UCLA Criminal Justice Law Review, and Health & Justice. In 2018, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences recognized one of his papers with the Donal MacNamara Award for “outstanding journal publication.” Tasseli McKay is a social science researcher in RTI’s Youth, Violence & Community Justice Program and lead author of Holding On: Fatherhood and Family During Incarceration and Reentry. Daniel P. Mears, Ph.D., is the Mark C. Staford Professor of Criminology at Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice. He conducts research on crime and policy. His work has appeared in such journals as Criminology and Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency and in American Criminal Justice Policy (Cambridge University Press), Prisoner Reentry in the Era of Mass Incarceration (Sage), Out-of-Control Criminal Justice (Cambridge University Press), and Fundamentals of Criminological and Criminal Justice Inquiry (Cambridge University Press). Michael Ostermann is an associate professor at the Rutgers University School of Criminal Justice and Co-Director of the New Jersey Center on Gun Violence Research. His research interests primarily lie within the felds of corrections and reentry and how they intersect with public policy. His work has recently been published in Law and Social Inquiry, Justice Quarterly, Journal of Crime and Delinquency, and Criminal Justice and Behavior. Kate Penrose is an associate director with the Data Analytics and Applied Research team at the Center for Court Innovation, overseeing research and evaluation of the Center’s alternative sentencing programs. She has worked closely with Brooklyn Justice Initiatives, the Brownsville Community Justice Center, and the Red Hook Community Justice Center. Before joining the Center, she worked with health departments in New York City and Massachusetts on the implementation and evaluation of programs for vulnerable populations. Carrie Pettus-Davis is Associate Professor of Social Work at Florida State University and Founding Executive Director of the Institute for Justice Research and Development. She is Co-Founder of the Smart Decarceration Initiative and co-leads the Promote Smart Decarceration grand challenge network. Pettus-Davis conducts applied research on smart decarceration of prisons and jails through policy and practice intervention development. Pettus-Davis generates research on ameliorating racial, economic, and behavioral health disproportionality. She works with community partners to develop interventions that enhance positive social support, treat trauma experiences and behavioral health disorders, and generate well-being for those impacted by criminal justice involvement. Dr. Pettus-Davis completed her doctorate in social work from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She holds a master of social work administration and bachelor’s degrees in social work and psychology, all from the University of Kansas. Caterina Roman is an Associate Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at Temple University. She joined the faculty in fall 2008 after nearly two decades with the Urban Institute in Washington, DC. Her research interests include policy and programming related to prisoner and jail reentry; the relationship between neighborhood characteristics, fear, and violence; and public health approaches to preventing violence. Dr. Roman has been evaluating prisoner reentry programs and other crime reduction programs for almost three decades. She is the author of 2 books and over 40 journal articles and book chapters spanning the substantive felds of criminology, sociology, and public health. She has served as principal investigator or co-principal investigator on projects totaling more than $10 million dollars in external funding from a variety of government and private funders including the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Aspen Institute, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the City of Philadelphia. Her most recent work in reentry sought to uncover how fnancial debt and legal obligations afect xxvii

Contributors

the community reintegration of formerly incarcerated citizens. She received a Ph.D. in sociology and justice, law, and society from American University. John K. Roman, Ph.D., is a senior fellow in the Economics, Justice and Society Department at NORC at the University of Chicago. His research focuses on the economics of innovative crime and justice policies and programs, cost-beneft methodology, public-private partnerships and systems reforms, including justice system interactions with substance abuse, public health, adolescent development, housing, workforce development, and education. Dr. Roman has conducted research on behalf of numerous federal agencies, state and local governments, and private foundations. He has served as the Executive Director with the District of Columbia Crime Policy Institute and as Visiting Science Director at the New York City Mayor’s Ofce of Criminal Justice. Dr. Roman is the author of What is the Price of Crime? New Estimates of the Cost of Criminal Victimization and the co-editor of two books, Cost-Beneft Analysis and Crime Control and Juvenile Drug Courts and Teen Substance Abuse, and the author of dozens of scholarly articles and book chapters. Dr. Roman is an elected fellow of the Academy of Experimental Criminology, is the Co-Chair of the National Prevention Science Coalition, served as Associate Editor at the Journal of Experimental Criminology, and taught at the University of Pennsylvania and Georgetown University. Shelli B. Rossman is a former senior fellow in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute. She has more than 25 years of research and management experience in the areas of criminal justice, public health, and safety. Her work includes the design and conduct of public policy research, program evaluation, and performance measurement. She served as Principal Investigator for such seminal studies as the Opportunity to Succeed (OPTS) multisite reentry evaluation, which featured an experimental design, and the Multisite Adult Drug Court Evaluation, the most comprehensive examination of adult drug courts to date. Danielle S. Rudes, Ph.D., is an associate professor of criminology, law, and society and the Deputy Director of the Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence! (ACE!) at George Mason University. Dr. Rudes is an expert qualitative researcher whose methods include ethnographic observation, interviews, and focus groups with over 19 years of experience working with corrections agencies at the federal, state, and local county levels, including prisons, jails, probation/parole agencies and problem-solving courts. She is recognized for her work examining how social control organizations and their middle management and street-level workers understand, negotiate, and, at times, resist change. Dr. Rudes’ experience includes working with community corrections agencies during adoption, adaptation, and implementation of various workplace reforms. She also works with institutional corrections (both general population and solitary confnement) to examine key areas of living and working in these carceral spaces including decision-making, perceptions of risk/punishment, and negotiating change/reform. Dr. Rudes received funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and the National Institute of Justice. She serves on the Editorial Board of the journal Victims & Ofenders and the journal Law & Policy. Dr. Rudes received the American Society of Criminology’s Teaching Award in 2018. Ebony L. Ruhland is an assistant professor at the University of Cincinnati. Her research focuses on how criminal justice policies and practices infuence individuals, families, and communities. Dr. Ruhland is currently working on a multistate research project that is examining fees and fnes in community corrections. Through her research, Dr. Ruhland hopes to fnd ways to improve criminal justice and corrections policies to reduce mass incarceration, racial disparities, and collateral consequences. Ralph C. Serin is Professor of Forensic Psychology and Director of the Criminal Justice DecisionMaking Laboratory at Carleton University. He completed his Ph.D. at Queen’s University. xxviii

Contributors

Following a 27-year career in federal corrections as a parole ofcer, psychologist, and researcher, he joined Carleton in 2003, where his responsibilities include teaching graduate and undergraduate courses and research supervision. Since 2003, he has provided consultation and training to various parole and corrections agencies in Asia, Australia, New Zealand, North America, and the United Kingdom. He received research awards from Carleton in 2011 and 2014 and service-tothe-profession awards from the International Community Corrections Association in 2013 and the Association of Paroling Authorities International in 2015. His research has been funded by agencies in Canada, the US, and New Zealand. Current research topics include correctional programming (evaluation, measurement of ofender change); risk assessment (dynamic risk, sentinel events); crime desistance (trajectories, protective factors); violent ofenders (acute dynamic risks, typologies, management); and parole and case management decision-making (strategies, competencies, and factors infuencing accuracy). Michael S. Shafer is a professor in the School of Social Work at Arizona State University’s College of Public Service and Community Solutions, where he also holds afliate appointments in the Center for Health Information Research and the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Shafer is the founding director of the Center for Applied Behavioral Health Policy, which has, for the past 25 years, conducted cutting-edge research on the adoption and implementation of innovative practices in behavioral health care. Shafer has authored more than 40 peer-reviewed research articles and generated more than $45 million in grants and contracts that target capacity building and innovation in behavioral health services. Shafer earned his doctorate in education in 1988 from Virginia Commonwealth University. He has received numerous awards and citations, including recognition from the US Department of Justice for the development of crisis intervention training for law enforcement personnel. Shafer is a frequent contributor to professional literature, and he consults with behavioral health agencies throughout the country. Jennifer Shafer has served as the executive ofcer for the California Board of Parole Hearings since 2011, where she oversees 17 commissioners and a staf of 200 employees. She previously served as the Board’s Chief of Hearing Operations for the Northern Region. From 2008 to 2011, she served with the California Ofce of the Inspector General, as both a special assistant inspector general and a senior assistant inspector general. From 2004 to 2006, Ms. Shafer was Assistant Secretary for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, where she was responsible for victim and survivor rights and services. She also previously served as Staf Counsel and Deputy Executive Ofcer for the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board from 1997 to 2004, Counsel to the Assembly Committee on Public Safety for the California State Legislature in 1996, and Graduate Legal Assistant for the California Ofce of the Attorney General. She received her bachelor of arts in economics from the University of California, Davis and her juris doctorate from Lincoln Law School of Sacramento. Lindsay Smith received her bachelor of arts in psychology and sociology from the University of Missouri–Columbia in 2018. She is currently a graduate research assistant at the Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence! at George Mason University. She is a doctoral student in the Criminology, Law and Society department at George Mason University. Her research interests focus on the gendered aspects of corrections and reentry, mental and public health initiatives, and gender issues within higher education more generally. Faye S. Taxman is a university professor at George Mason University. She is a health service criminologist. She is recognized for her work in the development of seamless systems-of-care models that link the criminal justice system with other health care and other service delivery systems and reengineering probation and parole supervision services. She has conducted experiments to examine diferent processes to improve treatment access and retention, to assess new models of probation xxix

Contributors

supervision consistent with RNR frameworks, and to test new interventions. She has active “laboratories” with numerous agencies including Virginia Department of Corrections, Alameda County Probation Department (CA), Hidalgo County Community Corrections Department (TX), North Carolina Department of Corrections, and Delaware Department of Corrections. She developed the translational RNR Simulation Tool (www.gmuace.org/tools) to assist agencies to advance practice. Dr. Taxman has published more than 200 articles. She is author of numerous books including Implementing Evidence-Based Community Corrections and Addiction Treatment (Springer, 2012 with Steven Belenko). She is Co-Editor of Health & Justice. The American Society of Criminology’s Division of Sentencing and Corrections has recognized her as Distinguished Scholar twice as well as with the Rita Warren and Ted Palmer Diferential Intervention Treatment award. She received the Joan McCord Award in 2017 from the Division of Experimental Criminology. In 2018, she was appointed a fellow of the American Society of Criminology. In 2019, she received the Lifetime Achievement award from the American Society of Criminology’s Division of Sentencing and Corrections. She has received numerous awards from practitioner organizations such as the American Probation and Parole Association and Caron Foundation. She has a Ph.D. from Rutgers University’s School of Criminal Justice. Jeremy Travis is Executive Vice President of Criminal Justice at Arnold Ventures. He served as president of John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York (CUNY) prior to his appointment to Arnold Ventures. Prior to his time at John Jay, Jeremy was a senior fellow with the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute. There, he launched a national research program focused on prisoner reentry into society and initiated research agendas on crime in a community context, sentencing, and international crime. Before that, Jeremy served as director of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), where he managed the growth of the organization’s annual budget from $25 million to $120 million. At NIJ, he established major initiatives to assess crime trends; evaluate federal anti-crime eforts; foster community policing and new law enforcement technologies; advance forensic sciences; and bolster research on counter-terrorism strategies. Jeremy’s career also includes his role as deputy commissioner for legal matters for the New York City Police Department (NYPD); chief counsel to the US House Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Justice; special adviser to New York City Mayor Edward I. Koch; and assistant director for law enforcement services for the Mayor’s Ofce of Operations. In addition, he was special counsel to the police commissioner of the NYPD. Jeremy clerked for then-US Court of Appeals Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg and was the Marden and Marshall Fellow in Criminal Law at New York University. He served as executive director of the New York City Criminal Justice Agency. In addition, he worked at the Vera Institute of Justice, where he managed demonstration programs on bail reform, judicial decision-making, and victim-witness assistance. Jeremy began his career in criminal justice as a legal services assistant for the Legal Aid Society. He is the author of But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry, and co-editor of both Prisoner Reentry and Crime in America and Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families, and Communities. He chaired the panel of the National Research Council that produced the landmark report The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences, which he co-edited. He has written extensively about constitutional law, criminal law, and criminal justice policy. Jeremy is a member of the Committee on Law and Justice for the National Research Council and serves on the Board of Trustees of the Urban Institute. He earned his JD and MPA from New York University and his bachelor’s degree from Yale College. Chris Trotter is Emeritus Professor and Director of the Monash Criminal Justice Research Consortium at Monash University, Australia. Prior to his university appointment, he worked for 20 years in child protection and youth and adult corrections. He has undertaken more than 30 funded research projects and has more than 100 publications, including three sole-authored and xxx

Contributors

eight edited books. His book Working with Involuntary Clients, now in its third edition, is published in English, Chinese, Japanese, French, and German. He has a strong international reputation, particularly for his work on pro-social modelling, and he has been invited to more than 15 different countries, including many visits to the USA, to present conference plenary sessions and workshops. The family work model developed in his book Collaborative Family Work is increasingly being utilized in Australia and overseas and has been evaluated in projects with youth justice, schools, child protection, and family welfare. The research indicates that use of the model is associated with high levels of satisfaction from families, high completion rates, and improved family communication. Christy A. Visher is Professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice at the University of Delaware and Director of the Center for Drug & Health Studies—a research center afliated with the Department focused on substance abuse, health risk behaviors, and justice system evaluation and policy. Over the past three decades, her research has focused broadly on crime and justice topics, including prisoner reentry, crime prevention strategies, and substance use disorders. As Principal Research Associate at the Urban Institute in Washington, DC from 2000–2008, Dr. Visher was Co-Principal Investigator for the Evaluation of the Serious and Violent Ofender Reentry Initiative. Her most recent funded research projects examine strategies to curtail substance abuse among probationers, health challenges facing probationers, and implementation approaches to improve evidence-based practices for assisting men and women exiting prison with histories of substance abuse. Dr. Visher has an MA and Ph.D. in sociology from Indiana University Bloomington. Kaitlyn Wardrop is a senior doctoral candidate at Carleton University studying forensic psychology. Throughout her graduate career, she has been involved in research and initiatives aimed at better understanding the complex decisions faced by paroling authorities. Her research in the areas of risk assessment and parole decision-making have been published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences. Broadly, her research interests involve efective ofender case management practices, parole decision-making, and gender issues. Jacqueline van Wormer, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at Whitworth University in the Department of Sociology. Prior to this appointment, she was an assistant professor at Washington State University. Dr. van Wormer has held various positions in the criminal justice feld, including serving as the Spokane Regional Criminal Justice Administrator, and Coordinator for both the Adult and Juvenile Drug Court programs in Washington and Montana. Dr. van Wormer has trained and lectured extensively nationally and internationally on issues related to drug courts, pretrial reform, and risk/need/responsivity. Dr. van Wormer has taught courses in program evaluation; criminal courts; juvenile justice; drugs, alcohol, and crime; ethics; corrections; and violence against women. Dr. van Wormer has 18 peer-reviewed published articles, three book chapters, and dozens of technical reports focused on juvenile drug courts, risk/need/responsivity, and collaboration among social service agencies. She has successfully secured and served as Principal or Co-Principal Investigator on over $10.8 million in grants and contracts, all focused on criminal justice systems improvements. Dr. van Wormer received her Ph.D. in 2010 from Washington State University. She was recently awarded the 2017 WSU Woman of Distinction (alumna category) for her work in juvenile justice reform. Janine Zweig, Ph.D., is Associate Vice President and Senior Research Fellow in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute. She has over 25 years of experience conducting research and evaluation about the criminal justice and victim service systems, with a focus on substance use and interpersonal violence. She was part of a team of researchers who conducted the National Institute of Justice-funded Multi-site Adult Drug Court Evaluation including 23 courts across xxxi

Contributors

the country, for which her focus was specifc to understanding which elements of the drug court model mattered most in preventing relapse and recidivism. Dr. Zweig also has tested General Strain Theory by examining the links between violent victimization experiences and substance use for adult populations, including drug court populations. Other work has examined several provisions of the Violence Against Women Act and the Prison Rape Elimination Act. She holds a doctorate in human development and family from the Pennsylvania State University.

xxxii

INTRODUCTION Pamela K. Lattimore, Beth M. Huebner, and Faye S. Taxman

Over the last several decades, landmark studies have been conducted in the felds of sentencing and corrections that have infuenced current practices, and provide insight into contemporary research questions. This body of research includes notable “frsts,” including the use of randomized controlled trials in community corrections settings to reliance on administrative data as a means to understand program efects to organizational studies to assess the role of key actors and the impact of the milieu on diferent individual-level outcomes. Other contributions included new approaches to services, programs, and/or interventions. These landmark studies are classics in our feld, informing our current state of knowledge and setting the stage for future research studies. The results of these classic studies are found in reports, journal articles, and edited books— scattered throughout our literature. The opportunity to assemble many of them in this ffth volume of the Handbook on Corrections and Sentencing, with new thoughts and commentary on the knowledge built and implications for future policy, practice, and research methods, has been a real pleasure. The Handbook on Moving Corrections and Sentencing Forward: Building on the Record, as with any such volume, necessarily omits some important work, but we believe the included chapters provide a good overview of past eforts, importantly updated with current refections on the implications of these eforts as we move forward in constructing new policy, practice, and research. Sadly, but appropriately, the volume is dedicated to the lifetime of groundbreaking work by Joan Petersilia, who set the highest standard for research- and evaluation-informed criminal justice policy. We lost Joan too soon and must carry on her eforts as we move into the future. Jodi Lane writes a tribute to Joan Petersilia to highlight her contributions, particularly her belief in science. Jeremy Travis provides a ftting foreword, refecting on the past challenges and successes and pointing toward the need for innovation but, more importantly, reform in terms of our approach to justice, sentencing, and corrections. As he notes, “The deepest challenge posed by this book is whether the criminal justice paradigm that has become the orthodoxy of criminal justice policy is promoting safety and justice in ways consistent with the nation’s democratic values” (Travis, this volume, p. xvii).

Collective Knowledge-Building Eforts In this volume, top scholars in the feld demonstrate and provide insights into the design and execution of prominent research studies. Many of these studies are multi-site studies that allow the potential to replicate an intervention in more than one site, which helps us grow the science faster and determine the efcacy of an approach. Conducting multi-site experiments in the real world, however, is 1

Pamela K. Lattimore et al.

difcult. Implementing an intervention in many sites means accommodating local culture, traditions, stafng, and resources. The study protocols have to align with the capacity and requirements of each site. Data collection in multiple locations requires overseeing interviewers from afar and dealing with the requirements of acquiring and the nuances of using administrative data from multiple agencies. Often the results in multi-site studies are combined to show the impact across sites, but given the local adaptations and implementation, these pooled results may not illustrate the diferences among sites or why a particular site generated a certain fnding. Also, if fndings vary across sites, it may be difcult to assess whether the diferences are due to diferences in implementation, context, population, or some other factor. Further, as many of our writers observe, even when this process identifes programming that produces positive recidivism-related outcomes, the study may not identify the mechanisms of action that result in changes. The authors of our chapters recommend new research activities that will help to fll the gaps in what we know about what works (and what doesn’t) and where we need to look for new methods or approaches to address the critical questions that remain. The recommendations are plentiful, and readers are encouraged to discover them for themselves, but here we identify a few. First, mixedmethod studies are needed to understand the efectiveness (quantitative analyses) and the context of the study fndings (qualitative studies). Second, although reducing recidivism will always be of paramount importance, given how little is known about the mechanisms that promote criminal behavior or desistance from such behavior, there is a need to move away from a singular focus on measuring recidivism outcomes. We should move towards a concerted efort to measure a host of other outcomes that will inform our awareness and understanding of proximal gains that show progress in functionality that may result in longer-term impacts, cost savings, and efectiveness. Third, the questions about dosage and program fdelity remain unaddressed in many studies. Dosage is important to ascertain what levels of programming produce what type of outcomes. Fidelity refers to whether the main ingredients in a program, service, and/or policy have been adequately implemented and yield positive outcomes. Finally, more organizational studies are needed to consider how to change institutions to implement sound programming and how to deliver diferent outcomes. This includes an understanding of the workings of the carceral institutions, how to do reform within these institutions, and the perceptions of staf and clients. The studies also confrm a few known shortcomings. Most of the evaluations of grant-funded demonstration projects have been of too short duration, providing insufcient time for implementation and insufcient time to measure long-term outcomes. Assuring that agencies have sufcient time to implement all program components with fdelity before outcome evaluations begin will prevent “premature evaluation” and conclusions suggesting the intervention doesn’t work when, in fact, implementation failed and the efectiveness of the intervention remains unknown. Longitudinal research, including follow-ups that span fve or more years, are rare but sorely needed as the impact of an intervention may require a longer period to produce positive impacts while individuals struggle to achieve more prosocial lifestyles. The researchers also suggest that, in addition to broadening the set of outcomes that are measured, much more consideration must be given to the nuances of recidivism—acknowledging the importance of the nature and frequency of ofending and accepting that an intervention may “work” if it “only” reduces the seriousness and the frequency of the criminal behavior. And, fnally, multiple authors underscore the importance of some tools of the trade that can facilitate more knowledge about a program design such as program logic models, an emphasis on mechanisms of action underlying the program design, and an emphasis on organizational factors that facilitate or impede implementation. The authors of this volume provide a path forward in a body of work that is best classifed as “glass half full.” Many of the studies found “null efects” but generated signifcant fndings that have had substantial implications for policy, practice, and research. As shown in this collection, these classical studies lay a foundation for future work that will help us better understand the world of sentencing and corrections. 2

Introduction

In Tis Edition Courts and Sentencing Drug treatment courts emerged in the 1990s as a court-based solution to handle the large volume of drug-involved ofenders—incorporating an emphasis on treatment, testing, and sanctions with the important diference that a person’s progress is overseen by a collaborative court workgroup. This workgroup, including the judge, a prosecutor, defense attorney, treatment provider, and case manager or probation ofcer, acts as a team, guided by the judge. Drug treatment courts have been transformative as they move the justice system away from an adversarial approach to a clientcentered response to further individual progress. Zweig, Buck-Willison, Rossman, and Roman’s article, “Refections on the Multi-Site Drug Court Evaluation: What Did We Learn and What Does It Mean?” overviews a large multi-site study that found drug treatment courts reduce recidivism, that the judge is a mechanism of change, that procedural justice is important in achieving positive outcomes, and that most individuals can beneft from the model. The authors elicit lessons from the study including how to create counterfactual comparison groups and the difculty of achieving the ideal features of a drug treatment court. Cowell and Schafer detail several studies devoted to providing behavioral health interventions for individuals with substance use and mental health disorders (co-occurring disorders) in their chapter “At the Crossroads: Criminal Justice Interventions for Ofenders with Co-Occurring Disorders.” One study was funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) between 1997 and 2000, Knowledge and Development Application [KDA]) (n=1,966 study subjects) for jail and criminal justice diversion programs. Three studies that were part of the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies 2 [CJDATS2]) between 2008 and 2013 were devoted to providing interventions for those with behavioral health disorders. Collectively, the studies span various phases of the justice system. The KDA found increased service utilization at three months except for substance use counseling, increased likelihood of mental health hospitalization at 12 months, increased use of ER services by 12 months, and continued substance use by three months. No impact was found on recidivism. The CJ-DATS studies used clustered randomized trials to test the value of change teams to fostering organizations implementing better services including HIV testing and the use of medications for those who are opioid-involved. One study found increased odds of individuals receiving HIV services as a result of the intervention, while the other study found improvements in treatment providers’ (but not justice actors’) perceptions of medications that generated higher rates of access to medications. Together, the studies demonstrate diferent organizational approaches to making changes in correctional, probation, treatment, and other agencies involved in enhancing services. Berman, Adler, Barrett, and Penrose provide an examination of another emerging model of the courts in “What Comes Next? On the Evolution of Community Courts.” The authors detail the changing nature of how criminal courts operate with the emergence of a community court model that positions the court as a problem solver and a provider of services for individuals with substance use disorders, mental health conditions, and housing stability issues. While studies on the efcacy of the model are not available, preliminary evidence suggests that a non-adversarial court model to address social problems may be worthwhile. Further, the paper illustrates how the expanding role of the court can be advantageous to improve the quality of life for individuals who are involved with the criminal courts.

Community Supervision In “From Mean to Meaningful Probation: Legacy from ISP,” Taxman, Smith, and Rudes explore the evolution of probation/community supervision anchored in their review of the landmark study of intensive supervision probation (ISP) by Joan Petersilia and her colleagues. In this chapter, the 3

Pamela K. Lattimore et al.

authors summarize the 14-site randomized control trial that included site variation in the intensity and conditions of ISP (e.g., frequency of drug testing, number of contacts, employment requirements, graduated sanctions, treatment referrals, and community service) and in the control supervision conditions. Overall, the study found that ISP does not reduce recidivism, although subsequent investigation suggested that individuals who took part in treatment services, along with the intensive controls, did better than those who did not. Taxman and colleagues then examine how these fndings, which also included more technical violations for ISP participants in many study sites, contributed to the emergence of probation as a means of punishment (e.g., in response to increased violations) and community control. The implications of the study’s methodological challenges for research and the fndings for policy and practice are discussed. The use of technology to enhance control in community supervision is explored by DeMichele in his “Research Considerations for Using Electronic Technologies with Community Supervision.” The chapter summarizes the adoption of electronic monitoring and other surveillance technologies and highlights the lack of research to substantiate the value and impacts of these technologies, in particular calling out the need to understand the relationship of these technologies to humans—both those under surveillance and those who oversee their use. His conclusions call for policy-relevant research that confronts “the complexities of operating in real-world settings such that it is essential to understand potential concerns including unintended negative consequences, proft motives from companies, and misuse of these technologies more generally.” In their chapter “Fines, Fees, and Debt in Community Corrections: Past, Present, and Future,” Ruhland and Link explore the implications and impacts of fnes and fees owed to the state by those on community supervision and describe their multi-method, multi-site investigation into critical, todate unanswered research questions related to these supervision-related debts. After summarizing the limited research on this topic, they detail the questions their current research is addressing, including characterizing the nature and amounts of debt owed, the contributions of the payment of fees and fnes to operational budgets, and the impact of fees and fnes on supervision outcomes, those supervised, and their families. They conclude by identifying additional research including, importantly, a thorough cost-beneft analysis of the imposition, administration, and consequences of fees and fnes. Surveillance and control in probation reemerges in “Thoughts from the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment” in which Lattimore summarizes this ambitious four-site randomized control trial to investigate whether positive fndings from an earlier study of probationers in Hawaii could be replicated on the United States mainland. Although posited in terms of deterrence (or learning) theory in which individual behavior will be changed if there are “swift, certain, and fair” responses to violations of strict conditions of probation supervision, including frequent random drug testing, as implemented Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement—or HOPE—included many of the same elements as the earlier ISP experiment. Findings were also similar. Those assigned to HOPE had more probation violations but did not have better recidivism outcomes. Despite these fndings, support for HOPE-like programs remains strong, and the implications of this for policy and practice are discussed. Campbell, van Wormer, and Hamilton summarize the impetus for and the results of their quasiexperiment that examined the statewide adaptation of swift and certain principles in “A Supervision Policy with Scope: Revisiting Washington State’s Swift-and-Certain Initiative.” A primary goal of the policy change in the Washington Department of Correction was to reduce costs associated with community corrections while maintaining public safety. In conjunction with a strategy to move low-risk probationers to minimal supervision, adopting “swift and certain” (SAC) strategies was undertaken to reduce the costs of confnement in response to supervision violations by higher-risk probationers. After a small pilot study, SAC was implemented statewide with largely positive results. Campbell and colleagues conclude their chapter with numerous insights gained from continuing to follow indicators of SAC implementation that suggest degradation of results over time. 4

Introduction

An examination of current eforts to inform parole with evidence-based practice is ofered by Serin, Wardrop, Gamwell, and Shafer in their chapter, “Parole Decision-Making: Moving Towards Evidence-Based Practice.” After reviewing the history of parole, the chapter examines the implementation of the Structured Parole Decision-Making Framework, which has demonstrated success in reducing the recidivism rates of paroled populations, and discusses how the practice of parole supervision impacts outcomes. The chapter concludes with a call for more research to address parole from a variety of perspectives including decision factors, decision processes or models, and parole supervision and efectiveness. Ostermann, Costa, and Hohl provide another look at parole practice in “Back-End Sentencing and Opting out of the Parole Process: Two Areas for Further Study in Corrections and Reentry.” Their chapter summarizes the status and research on back-end sentencing—the process by which parole violators are returned to prison—and the potentially related phenomenon in which paroleeligible individuals opt out of early release and community supervision in favor of remaining in prison to complete their sentences. They conclude with a call for future research to further understanding of the extent, nature, variation, and causes across jurisdictions in these phenomena. Chris Trotter’s “Family Work in Corrections” chapter has implications for rethinking how supervision ofcers work with clients. Typically, the work is done at the individual level, working oneon-one with a probationer. Yet individuals are infuenced by their support systems, and these support systems are seldom developed in the current practices as a protective factor against criminal behavior and/or substance use. Trotter highlights a case study in Australia of an efort to have ofcers work with families. He discusses how “family work” performed by ofcers can have a lasting efect on individual probationers, and the challenges of training ofcers to work with family. The benefts of including the family (and/or support system) are outlined as well as the challenges of transforming the feld. C.J. Appleton’s chapter, “Understanding Rapport in Supervision Settings,” addresses the need to prioritize human service principles in justice settings with a focus on community supervision. In his exploratory study, he documents the attitudes, needs, and goals of gleaned-through interviews with probation ofcers and probation clients. The chapter documents how assessment and sanctions label and group clients, which often necessitates specifc and often punitive responses from correctional staf. He argues that further research on correctional ofcers and related training is needed, particularly in an era of risk-centered correctional control.

Prisons and Jails Lindquist, McKay, and Bir document the outcomes of the Multi-site Family Study of Incarceration, Parenting, and Partnering (MFS-IP) that explored demonstration programs to support healthy family relationships among incarcerated and reentering fathers, their partners, and children. In “Lessons From the Multi-Site Family Study of Incarceration, Parenting, and Partnering,” they summarize mixed fndings. In one of the four sites participation in a one-time, weekend healthy relationship retreat was associated with sustained positive efects on relationship and parenting outcomes. The results highlight the need for diferent types of family programming during prison and after release. The authors also denote the utility of qualitative data in evaluations of this type and the import of collecting outcome data from family and friends of incarcerated persons. Boot camps emerged as innovative correctional programming in the late 1980s. The boot camp model borrowed from the military and included an intensive orientation program designed to facilitate a change in behavior and adherence to law-abiding norms. Taxman, Smith, and Rudes’s chapter is “Putting a Square Into a Circle: The Story of Boot Camps—A Tribute to Doris MacKenzie’s Work.” In reviewing three of the most prominent studies led by correctional researcher Doris Layton MacKenzie, the authors illustrate how Dr. MacKenzie’s research methods infuenced future studies. 5

Pamela K. Lattimore et al.

The studies documented the diferent pathways for eligibility to entering a boot camp program, the diferent structures of the boot camps, and diferential outcomes with greater support for boot camps helping individuals perceive their incarceration experience more positively, although overall the boot camp model did not impact recidivism. The comprehensive inquiry in these studies lays a foundation for high-quality studies for the next generation of studies. Dan Mears provides an excellent primer on supermax incarceration in “Supermax Incarceration: Current Evidence and Next Steps in Improving Research and Policy.” He describes the many gaps in the study of supermax incarceration and provides suggestions for future research, arguing that there has not been a systematic evaluation of the need or the efcacy of supermax detention. He calls for more data on the conditions of supermax facilities and argues for the need for more research on the efcacy of these types of programs for diferent populations. He also encourages scholars to spend time in correctional facilities if they want to understand the true context of correctional control. Butler, Brauer, and Day provide a framework for understanding and studying crime in correctional institutions in “Advances in Corrections Research: Understanding How Prisons Continue to Infuence Maladjustment.” While most recent correctional work has focused on the period of reentry, Butler and colleagues encourage scholars to return to the institutional environment. In particular, they describe how the aging prison population may infuence prison management and the behavior of incarcerated persons. Their chapter reminds scholars to continue to update and revise research on institutions during historical and population shifts. Charis Kubrin provides an engaging frst-person description of her evaluation of California AB 109, Public Safety Realignment Initiative, and Proposition 47, and the related controversy that can surround policy evaluations of this type. In “Criminal Justice Reform in California: A Lesson for the Nation?” she suggests that her team fnds that decarceration policies did not have a deleterious efect on crime. She also shares details from her in-depth analyses of these policies and provides insight for those doing similar work.

Reentry An expanded version of case management for individuals in community corrections is described by Buck Willison Rossman, and Roman in “Examining the Field’s First Multisite Reentry Experiment: Lessons Learned From the Evaluation of the Opportunity to Succeed (OPTS) Aftercare Program.” The study included fve communities and paired a probation/parole ofcer with a case manager to refer those returning to the community after a period of incarceration to community-based services. OPTS was designed for those with a substance use disorder and/or who had received treatment in the community. This randomized controlled trial examined a holistic reentry model, and fndings generally found that the results increased access to a broad array of services with specifc improvements in the area of housing and other basic social needs. But increased services did not generate commensurate reductions in recidivism or drug use. And like other models that focus on increased attention by ofcers and managers, there was an increase in technical violations. The study expanded the understanding of cross-system initiatives and implementation challenges. As reentry, or the return to the community after a period of incarceration, became a focus of policy, Visher and La Vigne conducted a landmark study, “Returning Home: A Pathbreaking Study of Prisoner Reentry and its Challenges,” to examine the pathways to reintegration in the areas of individual characteristics of reentry individuals, the perspectives of peers and family members of returning citizens, and community and state policies and practices. Their chapter describes the methods of this detailed inquiry and the general study fndings for this four-state study. More than 2,600 people were surveyed, many twice during nine months. Findings confrmed individuals were dedicated to reducing crime-prone behavior and that families and support systems were instrumental in helping individuals achieve this goal. But a major challenge was that families and support systems are 6

Introduction

under-resourced. The chapter concludes by noting the challenges in conducting longitudinal interviews and stressing the advantages that can attain through a comprehensive, large-scale efort that generates a tremendous amount of information. Lattimore and Visher provide additional insight into the transition from prison to the community in their chapter on a 16-site study of prisoner reentry in “Considerations on the Multi-Site Evaluation of the Serious and Violent Ofender Reentry Initiative.” This chapter focuses on methods and fndings for the study of 12 adult programs, including the original evaluation and a subsequent minimum of about fve-year follow-up using administrative data. The mixed methods for this longitudinal study are described, and results, based on pre-release and three waves of post-release interviews and administrative data, are summarized. Results indicate that SVORI participants tended to receive more services than the comparison/control groups, while rearrest and reincarceration rates were similar for men in SVORI or the control/comparison groups. Women in SVORI had lower rearrest rates but higher reincarceration rates than those in control/comparison groups. Longer-term recidivism fndings were more positive than fndings from the original evaluation, which was limited to about two years of follow-up. Special analyses found that individuals who participated in practical programs (e.g., life skills, etc.) did not fare any better than others, but individuals that participated in individual-change services (such as therapy, education) had more positive results. The authors conclude with recommendations for future research, policy, and practice. Lindquist, Buck Willison, and Lattimore discuss the efcacy of the Second Chance Act Adult Ofender Reentry Demonstration Projects funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance in “Key Findings and Implications of the Cross-Site Evaluation of the Bureau of Justice Assistance FY 2011 Second Chance Act Adult Ofender Reentry Demonstration Projects.” They describe their methods and summarize fndings that were largely consistent with those of the SVORI multi-site evaluation. Although enrollment in AORDP increased access to services, the treatment group did not have lower recidivism rates than the comparison group, and the null efects were consistent across demonstration sites. The authors contend that additional measures, apart from criminal justice contact, should be used to measure programmatic success. They also suggest that more research into programming dosage is needed, particularly with the goal of understanding long-term behavioral change. Veronica Horowitz’s chapter, “A Time for Mercy,” calls for a broader understanding and study of mercy in correctional research. She focuses on the origins of clemency and current trends in its use. She contends that clemency has the potential to ameliorate some of the consequences of a criminal sanction. She ends the chapter with clear steps to enhance and extend extant clemency procedures. In the penultimate chapter, “Building on Reentry Research: A New Conceptual Framework and Approach to Reentry Services and Research,” Carrie Pettus-Davis and Stephanie Kennedy point to the future of correctional intervention and research with her discussion of the ambitious multi-phase, multimodal reentry undertaking currently underway. Pettus-Davis and her colleagues, having found no defnitive continuum-of-care model for those reentering the community from incarceration, have embarked on developing a new plan for reentry that is focused on the Well-Being Development Model with the goal of psychosocial well-being. In this chapter, she describes the program’s evolution, eforts to date to implement and test the model, and preliminary fndings, and ofers a series of important policy insights based on her work thus far. She calls for scholars to translate research into policy more quickly and to be nimble in changing and adapting policy as implemented.

Afterword and Final Thoughts The volume concludes with Todd Clear’s chapter on “Intensive Non-Intervention,” which calls for an innovative rethinking of the approach to sentencing and corrections. Thought-provoking, the chapter asks that we step outside the box and consider a radical change in our thoughts about punishment and rehabilitation. 7

Pamela K. Lattimore et al.

Our Concluding Toughts From the editors, we believe this volume not only summarizes important work and refective recommendations but provides overarching themes that can guide future research studies. First, there needs to be more identifcation and consideration of the program elements and mechanisms that are expected to lead to improved outcomes. Second, although the ultimate goal of much of the focus of sentencing and corrections is to reduce recidivism, administrative measures of criminal outcomes should not be the sole determinant of program success as there are other important measures such as reduced substance abuse, improved mental health functionality, employment, and other indicators of quality-of-life issues. Third, more attention must be paid to the individuals and organizations charged with implementing programs and understanding what can improve their efectiveness. Fourth, qualitative data gathered through interviews or observations can provide insight into the nature of problems and the potential for interventions to make a diference. Finally, attention needs to be given on understanding and addressing the institutions that have led to and sustained mass incarceration—true reform cannot be achieved solely on the backs of criminal justice–involved individuals but can only be accomplished when we question the workings of the correctional intuitions and carceral-generating policies themselves.

8

PART I

Courts and Sentencing

1 REFLECTIONS ON THE MULTISITE DRUG COURT EVALUATION What Did We Learn and What Does It Mean? Janine Zweig, Janeen Buck Willison, Shelli B. Rossman, and John K. Roman Purpose of the Study The last decade of the 20th century saw the initiation of and rapid growth in drug courts across the nation. Literally hundreds of drug courts sprang up nationwide beginning in the 1990s to address the unprecedented number of drug arrests and prosecutions resulting from the war on drugs and the proliferation of “tough on crime” policies (Rossman, 2011). Adult drug courts are partnerships between community-based organizations (such as substance abuse treatment and social service providers) and justice system actors (such as court administrators, prosecutors, and judges) that implement deferred prosecution or post-adjudication case-processing approaches to address both criminal case processing and service needs of clients with the goal of reducing substance use and future crimes. The need for drug courts was not only born out of the number of drug cases, but also on research literature linking drug use and crime and desistence from drug use and reductions and crime through deterrence and substance abuse treatment (see, for example, Roman, Rossman, & Rempel, 2011 for a full review). Drug court models were largely predicated on three theoretical foundations: therapeutic jurisprudence, deterrence theory, and procedural justice. Therapeutic jurisprudence linked improvements in outcomes through legal processes, and research evidence that grew alongside the growth in drug courts began to demonstrate that coerced treatment is as efective as voluntary treatment (e.g., Belenko, 1999; Trone & Young, 1996). Deterrence theory says that actual or threatened sanctions should dissuade crime, and that the perceived certainty, severity, and celerity of the possible sanctions would factor into a person’s decision as to whether to commit a crime (Andenaes, 1974; Gibbs, 1975). Procedural justice theory argues that individuals who believe that they have been treated fairly by the system can have better procedural outcomes (such as compliance with court mandates), regardless of the outcome of their case, and research shows that people’s perceptions of procedural fairness afect their perceptions of the legitimacy of legal authorities, and their satisfaction regarding interactions with those authorities (Tyler, 2003). Taken together, these translate into a combination of practices that are refected in the drug court model. Unlike traditional criminal case processing that relies more squarely on deterrence theory alone, drug courts combine practices that engage individuals in their case processing with system actors in meaningful ways that increase the legitimacy of these actors, with a goal of compliance with drug court conditions, and engage individuals in substance abuse treatment and other social supports with a goal of addressing underlying mechanisms driving criminal behavior.

11

Janine Zweig et al.

In 1997, the Ofce for Justice Programs and the National Association for Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) developed and promoted a drug court model outlining ten key components to these courts, which combine the elements of therapeutic jurisprudence, deterrence, and procedural justice, along with operational features to support the intervention framework. These ten elements include: (1) integration of alcohol and drug treatment with criminal case processing; (2) use of non-adversarial approaches between prosecution and defense; (3) early identifcation of someone’s eligibility for the program and prompt participation; (4) access to a continuum of treatment and rehabilitation services; (5) frequent and regular alcohol and drug testing; (6) coordinated approaches to oversee program compliance between judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and treatment providers; (7) ongoing and regular judicial-participant interaction through status hearings; (8) monitoring and evaluation of program progress; (9) ongoing interdisciplinary training and education among program providers; and (10) partnerships between public and community-based organizations. Drug courts across the nation incorporated these elements to varying degrees, such that not all drug courts were implementing the same practices in the same ways for the same type of participant profle (Rossman, 2011). Instead, variation existed in the combination of policies and practices drug courts embraced (e.g., around sanctioning policy, frequency of status hearings, drug tests) and around the eligibility criteria to be included in a program. At the time when this study was conceived, several researchers evaluated drug courts—with many focused on single sites and biased toward inclusion of larger courts, while at the same time limited by small sample sizes (Rossman, 2011)—providing the feld with promising information about the efcacy of the program model in reducing recidivism (e.g., Finigan, 1998; Goldkamp & Weiland, 1993; Gottfredson & Exum, 2002; Harrell & Roman, 2001; Wilson, Mitchell, & MacKenzie, 2006). Marlowe, Festinger, Foltz, Lee, and Patapis (2005) showed that drug court clients with elevated perceptions of deterrence had better outcomes than those with lower levels of perceived deterrence, and Gottfredson, Kearley, Najaka, and Rocha (2007) demonstrated that both procedural justice and deterrence contributed to better drug court participant outcomes. In 2002, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the Drug Court Program Ofce determined to build on the contemporaneous research evidence on the efcacy of drug courts. The intent was for a large-scale study that might be national in scope—or with at least multiple sites—with the hope of including variation in sites across implementation practices, court size, and geography. They collaborated to issue a request-for-proposals to conduct a nationally focused evaluation of drug courts, with a particular focus on adult drug courts (as the model also had been adopted and implemented in juvenile and family court contexts). The Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center, RTI International (RTI), and the Center for Court Innovation (CCI) teamed to conduct NIJ’s Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE). MADCE was a multi-year process, impact, and cost-beneft evaluation, and the objectives were to evaluate the efects of drug courts on substance use, crime, and other outcomes, and to illuminate which policies and practices and participant perceptions were responsible for any positive efects that may have been detected. The study’s conceptual model included testing elements of therapeutic jurisprudence, deterrence, and procedural justice. More specifcally, the main objectives were to test whether drug courts reduce drug use, crime, and multiple other problems associated with drug abuse; address how drug courts work and for whom; explain how participant attitudes and behaviors change when they are exposed to drug courts; and examine whether drug courts generate cost savings (Rossman, Roman, Zweig, Rempel, & Lindquist, 2011a). The current paper summarizes MADCE. First, we describe the evaluation methods, including the design, data collection strategies, and analytic strategies (for a full detailing of the study methods, see Rossman, Roman, Zweig, Rempel, & Lindquist, 2011c). Next, we summarize some MADCE fndings (for a full detailing of the study fndings, see Rossman, Roman, Zweig, Rempel, & Lindquist,

12

Refections

2011b). We conclude with refections on the implications MADCE fndings had on drug court policies and practices, and research methods and future directions.

Methods Design The project began with a national web-based survey of drug courts that had been in operation for at least one year and primarily serving adults (n=593), conducted between February through June 2004. The purposes of this survey were to use the fndings to guide the selection of drug courts for the multi-site impact evaluation and to provide the feld with a portrait of adult drug court characteristics and operations throughout the United States. A total of 380 courts (64 percent) completed the survey, and a full set of fndings can be found in Zweig, Rossman, and Roman (2011). Table 1.1 summarizes a selection of the survey highlights. Next, the team employed a quasi-experimental, longitudinal evaluation design to examine drug court operations and impacts (Zweig, Lindquist, Buck Willison, Rempel, & Downey, 2011). The design was planned to maximize the number of courts and individual clients included in the study, while minimizing the costs of survey data collection. The evaluation team, along with advisors and NIJ, identifed court-level components for which we wanted variation across courts, while at the same time including geographically clustered courts. Using data from the web-based survey of drug courts, we conducted a site selection court process in two stages. First, we required courts provided substance abuse treatment, and, second, scored courts to purposively sample for variation in the leverage the courts had in monitoring clients and the predictability of sanctioning policies of the courts. We then used a combination of HotSpot mapping and subjective criteria about geographic proximity to

Table 1.1 Selected Key Findings from the National Survey of Adult Drug Courts Nearly half of drug courts had less than 50 active participants; 10 percent had 200 or more active participants at one time. More than one-third of courts only served those who are diagnosed as addicted to or dependent on drugs; a third served regular users of drugs or alcohol; and just under one-third served anyone who uses. On average, courts required 13.1 months in programming before graduation, with most requiring between 12 and 18 months. The most commonly cited points of program entry for the majority of drug court participants entered programs after a plea was entered but before the fnal disposition of the case; after case disposition as a condition of the sentence; and before a plea is entered. Older courts, more often than younger courts, allowed the majority of their participants into the program using a diversion model, whereby participants enrolled in the program before entering pleas. During phase one of the program: • more than half of the programs saw their participants more than once per week • nearly all courts tested participants for drug use more than once weekly, and two-thirds of courts received test results within 24 hours • participants appeared for courtroom hearings one time per week or more in two-thirds of the courts Just under half of courts had written schedules of sanctions for non-compliant participants, and only twothirds of those that did provided their written schedules to the participants. Nearly half of the adult drug courts dismissed charges after participants graduated; for slightly more than oneffth of courts, charges and convictions stood with a reduced sentence.

13

Janine Zweig et al.

courts. We prioritized clusters of programs and comparison sites by 1) examining proximity of drug courts, client case fow in drug courts, and potential for identifying nearby comparison jurisdictions; and 2) identifying geographically diverse drug court clusters. Comparison sites were recruited within or nearby drug court jurisdictions. The comparison group sample represented the diverse set of activities in jurisdictions that do not implement drug courts (including several ways communities provide treatment to justice-involved people who use drugs), and some portion came from counties that did indeed have drug courts but either had more drug-involved cases than could be enrolled in drug court or cases with people who would be ineligible for drug court in that specifc jurisdiction, but met criteria for other drug courts in the country. The fnal design included 29 sites in eight states, with 23 drug courts (geographically clustered— see Figure 1.1—two courts in Florida, two courts in Illinois, two courts in Georgia, eight courts in New York, two courts in Pennsylvania, one court in South Carolina, and six courts in Washington) and six comparison sites (two sites in Florida, one site in Illinois, two sites in North Carolina, and one site in Washington). This clustered approach to the design allowed us to intentionally include small-, medium-, and large-sized courts, because we did not require courts to be large enough to generate enough eligible drug court participants to create both treatment and control samples. Eleven courts had high leverage and high predictability of sanctions, one court had low leverage and high predictability of sanctions, six courts had high leverage and low predictability of sanctions, and fve courts had low leverage and low predictability of sanctions (Zweig, 2011a).

Figure 1.1 MADCE Drug Court Clusters and Comparison Sites Source: Rossman, S.B., Roman, J., Zweig, J.M., Rempel, M., & Lindquist, C. The Multisite Evaluation of Adult Drug Courts: Executive Summary. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. 2011.

14

Refections Table 1.2 Survey and Oral Sample Data Collection and Response Rates

Baseline Interviews Six-Month Interviews 18-Month Interview 18-Month Oral Fluids Samples

Dates of Survey Administration

Drug Court Group

Comparison Group

Total Number

March 2005– June 2006 August 2005–December 2006

1,157

627

1,784

1,012

528

September 2006–January 2008

952

525

September 2006–January 2008

764

383

1,540 (86% of baseline sample) 1,477 (83% of baseline sample) 1,147 (95% of non-incarcerated, 18- month sample)

Source: Rossman, S.B., Roman, J., Zweig, J.M., Rempel, M., & Lindquist, C. The Multisite Evaluation of Adult Drug Courts: Volume 1. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. 2011.

Process-evaluation data collection activities included two rounds of site visits to each site to conduct interviews with key stakeholders (including program coordinators, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, treatment liaisons, research staf, probation ofcers, and law enforcement ofcers) and observations of court monitoring hearings and team stafngs (Zweig, Lindquist, Buck Willison, et al., 2011). The frst site visit was primarily about site inclusion in the study and ability to identify and recruit participants into the evaluation. The second visit was conducted for the purpose of obtaining information on program operations to characterize the courts practices and quantify sitelevel variables for use in the impact analyses and assist in the interpretation of evaluation fndings. The interviews gathered information about case management and supervision, treatment resources, program operations, decision-making strategies, and team collaboration. Observations of team stafngs (if applicable) and court monitoring hearings documented level of participation of the stakeholders in attendance, decision-making processes, courtroom dynamics, and the demeanor and behaviors of the judge. Impact-evaluation data collection included longitudinal interviews with participants in drug courts and comparison site processes. Using computer-assisted personal interviewing techniques (Zweig, Lindquist, Buck Willison, et al., 2011), study participants were assessed at baseline (either enrollment into the drug court or comparison condition), six months post-baseline, and 18 months post-baseline (see Table 1.2 for the timing for these data collection activities). The baseline interview was administered within six weeks of the date when individuals entered either the drug court or the comparison condition, so for some participants may not represent a baseline that came before exposure to any programming. At the 18-month baseline, participants also participated in drug tests via buccal swab of oral fuids.

Sample Study participants were recruited based on their entry into drug court or comparison conditions on a rolling basis from March 2005 through June 2006, including 1,784 study participants at baseline (drug court=1157; comparison=627). About 86 percent of study participants were retained at the six-month follow-up and 83 percent at the 18-month follow-up (see Table 1.2). We also collected administrative data on criminal justice markers (arrest, convictions, and incarcerations) via ofcial records from the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and from relevant state-level criminal justice agencies. 15

Janine Zweig et al.

The majority of the sample was male (70 percent), and the average age of study participants at baseline was 33.7 years, with the drug court group signifcantly younger than the comparison group (27 percent of the sample was 18 to 25 and 22 percent was 26 to 33; Zweig, 2011b). More than half of the sample was White (55 percent), one-third was Black/African American (33 percent), 6 percent was Hispanic/Latino, and 6 percent fell into other categories, including those identifying as multiracial. Just over one-third (35 percent) of the sample reported having a high school diploma or GED, one-quarter (25 percent) reported having some college level education, and 41 percent had less than a high school education level. All study participants reported having used some type of drugs in their lifetime, and 93 percent reported using drugs on a regular basis at some point (with more drug court participants—95 percent— reporting this than did comparison participants—93 percent). The drugs that most participants used include alcohol, marijuana, cocaine (crack and/or powder cocaine), and hallucinogens or designer drugs; fewer—about one-third—reported using heroin or amphetamines or illegally using prescription drugs. Eighty-one percent of respondents used drugs in the six months before enrolling in the study, with more drug court participants reporting this than did the comparison group participants. Though there were some minor diferences between drug court and comparison groups in drug use before program entry, when considering the time of arrest, the proportion of each sample that was using alcohol or drugs was the same (that is, two-thirds of study members were under the infuence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the arrest that initiated their program enrollment). Based on study respondents’ self-report of their criminal history, signifcantly more of the comparison group had prior arrests before the one that brought them into the study, and a higher number of prior arrests (about 11 prior arrests for the comparison group compared to eight for the drug court group). Also, more than three-quarters of the comparison group had been convicted and incarcerated in jail or prison in the past, compared to the drug court group (68 percent). For the six months before study enrollment, there were no diferences between groups on criminal history patterns (46 percent of the total sample was arrested during that time frame, with most arrests for drug crimes—including possession, sales, and other drug crimes).

Measures Baseline, six-month, and 18-month interviews were similar across waves of data collection. The interview tools were comprehensive, covering a variety of experiences and behaviors (such as criminal behavior, compliance with supervision, substance use, mental health, employment, income, victimization experiences, street time before baseline and between each interview wave, and family functioning), background characteristics, program experience (such as supervision intensity, court experiences, substance abuse treatment, support services), and attitudes and perceptions (such as treatment motivations, procedural justice, attitudes toward drug court and criminal justice stakeholders— judges, case managers, supervision ofcers, etc.). More information about measures used can be found in Zweig, Lindquist, Buck Willison, et al., 2011.

Analytic Strategy Our analytic strategies varied based on the data being used and the questions being posed to those data (see Rossman et al., 2011b for full documentation of analytic approaches). To answer questions about whether drug courts efectively prevented recidivism and relapse to substance use (and for whom drug courts work best and by what mechanisms drug courts work), we used relatively standard modeling techniques, as well as innovations. For example, to balance the drug court comparison samples, we used interview data and innovated a two-stage propensity score 16

Refections

procedure (we called it “super weighting”) to address two important threats to validity facing the study: selection bias and attrition bias. We also addressed the clustering of outcomes within sites through hierarchical modeling. Longitudinal models employed appropriate analytic modeling, such as structural equation modeling, to assess outcomes over time, as well as assess moderation and mediation. In addition, we also developed an innovative approach that ranks courts in levels of efectiveness in preventing recidivism and relapse to substance use to examine which particular court processes were related to greater reductions in drug use and crime. To do this, we created a counterfactual for each individual in our dataset that was the diference between a person’s expected outcome for drug use and expected outcome for criminal behavior (based on modeling of characteristics across the sample) to their observed outcomes in drug court. Thus, we predict what participants’ drug use and criminal activity would have been without drug court, conditional on their particular characteristics, and subtract observed outcomes from this predicted expected outcome (Zweig, Lindquist, Downey, Roman, & Rossman, 2011; Zweig, Lindquist, Downey, Roman, & Rossman, 2012). We then ranked courts using the average performance of each court’s participants for substance use and criminal activity, and coded every court’s particular policies and practices to identify patterns among them for the efective courts. By doing so, we were able to identify patterns of implemented policies and practices among top-performing courts as compared to lower-performing courts. This innovation used data from the program survey, the three waves of participant interviews, and our process evaluation contacts with sites (phone and in-person stakeholder interviews and court observations).

Findings The bottom line from this evaluation is that drug courts appear to work to prevent future criminal activities (recidivism) and substance use (relapse), and afect other relevant health and lifestyle outcomes for those who participate in the program compared to those who do not (Rempel et al., 2011). Later, we highlight some of these core fndings. A complete detailing of the project fndings can be found in Rossman et al. (2011b). When interpreting the study fndings, it is important to note that our assessment does not represent long-term outcomes, which is one limitation of this study. Because of the length of time required to successfully complete (or graduate) from a drug court program (which, on average, is 13.1 months), some of the sample were still actively participating in programs at the 18-month interview. But for nearly three-quarters of the sample (72 percent), the 18-month interview included at least some post-program time.

What Did We Learn About the Impact of Drug Courts? Recidivism. Drug court participants reported a signifcant reduction in criminal activity relative to comparison group participants (see Figure 1.2; Rempel & Green, 2011). This improved outcome was nearly identical at the 6- and 18-month interviews. Substance Use. Drug court participants reported a significant reduction in substance use relapse relative to comparison group participants, and these improvements also were nearly identical at both the 6- and 18-month interviews (see Figure 1.3; Rossman, Green, Rempel, & Downey, 2011). Social Stability. Drug court participants were signifcantly less likely than comparison group members to report a need for employment, educational, and fnancial services at 18 months, and reported signifcantly less family confict than did comparison group members. 17

Janine Zweig et al. 100% 90% 80%

75%

75%

Drug Count (N = 877) Comparison Group (N = 472)

70% 60% 50%

43%

41%

40%

31%**

29%*

30% 20% 10% 0%

Baseline

6-Month

18-Month

+ p < .10, * p < 0.5, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Note: Results weew only computed for offenders who were surveyed at all three waves.

Figure 1.2 Criminal Activity in Prior Six Months: Baseline vs. Six-Month vs. 18-Month Surveys Source: Rempel, M., & Green M. (2011). Chapter 4. Do drug courts reduce crime and incarceration. In S. B. Rossman, J. K. Roman, J. M. Zweig, M. Rempel, & C. H. Lindquist (Eds.), Volume 4. The multi-site adult drug court evaluation: The impact of drug courts. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Drug Court (N = 877) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Comparison Group (N = 472)

84% 82% 68%

62% 41%*

Baseline

Six-Month

46%**

18-Month

+ p < .10, * p < .05, ** p .01, *** p < .001.

Figure 1.3 Percent Used Drugs in Prior Six Months: Baseline vs. Six-Month vs. 18-Month Surveys Source: Rossman, S. B., Green, M., Rempel, M., & Downey, P. M. (2011). Chapter 3. Do adult drug courts reduce drug use. In S. B. Rossman, J. K. Roman, J. M. Zweig, M. Rempel, & C. H. Lindquist (Eds.), Volume 4. The multi-site adult drug court evaluation: The impact of drug courts. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

For Whom Do Drug Courts Work? Drug courts vary in their eligibility requirements, but many exclude people with certain types of histories, such as having committed violent ofenses or having a co-occurring mental health disorder. Despite restrictive policies about who is eligible to participate in a drug court program, particularly around relevant charges and past criminal histories, we found little diference in drug court efectiveness across subgroups of participants. That is, drug courts appear to work for most types of individuals. 18

Refections

We tested for the moderating efects of drug courts across multiple categories of people involved in the criminal justice system (e.g., variation in drug use patterns, criminality, mental health issues, presence of community ties, and subcategories based on demographics). Of the 14 that we tested, there were very few diferences in the magnitude of the impact of drug court participation. In the models predicting days of drug use per month, we found that the drug court produced a greater reduction in drug use among those who used drugs more days per month at baseline (prior to starting drug court) (p < .05; Rossman et al., 2011). Drug courts were especially likely to produce a reduction in criminal behavior among participants with a history of violence—indicated by a self-reported prior violent conviction, reported by 15 percent of the sample (p < .001; Rempel & Green, 2011).

How Do Drug Courts Work? The fndings from this study indicated support for elements of both procedural justice and deterrence theories (Rossman, 2011). Specifcally, the mechanisms that drove the outcomes centered on the role of the judge and legal leverage. Courtroom dynamics and interactions with judges were posited as important factors of the drug court experience for participants (Rossman, 2011). The hypothesis was that building participantjudge relationships, and perceiving these relationships as constructive, contributed to participant success. MADCE found that the judge was the primary mechanism that facilitated drug courts to reduce substance use and criminal activity; the importance of the role of the judge was identifed both through participant self-reported attitudes and court observations gathered during stakeholder interviews. Using data from the drug court and comparison group participant survey, drug court participants reported believing that their judge treated them more fairly than those in the comparison group, using a measure asking about perceptions of respectful treatment by the judge, judicial interest in the drug court participants as individuals, and greater opportunities for participants to express themselves during the proceedings. When study participants had more positive attitudes toward the judge, they had better outcomes. Individuals who reported having more court appearances, receiving more weeks of drug treatment, and being subjected to more drug tests had better attitudes toward their judges (Roman, Yahner, & Zweig, 2011). Another technique the MADCE study used to capture the judicial role and interactions was through a measure of positive judicial attributes measured during observations of drug court hearings. The measure refected the site visit team’s impressions of the judges’ actions and demeanor toward the clients. Teams assigned drug court judges a value of one to fve on each of the following dimensions: respectful, fair, attentive, enthusiastic, consistent/predictable, caring, and knowledgeable. Based on the court ranking analysis, courts with high and medium scores on positive judicial attributes were more likely to be among top performing courts (when it came to preventing criminal activity and substance use relapse) than among inefective courts. As described earlier, we created a counterfactual for each individual in our dataset that was the diference between a person’s expected outcome for drug use and expected outcome for criminal behavior (based on modeling of characteristics across the sample) to their observed outcomes in drug court (Zweig, Lindquist, Downey, et al., 2011; Zweig et al., 2012). An average of the scores for each drug court’s participants was then calculated. Based on these average calculations (not a standard metric), The average number of crimes prevented per month for courts with high scores on positive judicial attributes was 3.6, the average number of crimes prevented for courts with medium scores on positive judicial attributes was 4.2, and the average number of crimes prevented for courts with low scores on positive judicial attributes was 0.7. The average number of days of drug use prevented per month for courts with high scores on positive judicial attributes was 3.2, compared to 1.9 for courts with low scores on positive judicial attributes. The average number of days of drug use prevented per month for courts with medium scores on positive judicial attributes was 2.6. 19

Janine Zweig et al.

Leverage was hypothesized as being important to drug court efectiveness such that the more leverage the court had over an individual, the more likely that person would be to comply with the drug court requirements and succeed in the program (Rossman, 2011; Zweig, Lindquist, Buck Willison, et al., 2011; Zweig, Lindquist, Downey, et al., 2011; Zweig et al., 2012). The role of legal leverage contributing to substance use outcomes was identifed via participant self-reported attitudes. When drug court participants rated the expected legal sentence for drug court failure as extremely serious, they reported signifcantly fewer days of drug use at 18 months (estimated at 2.3 fewer days) than those who thought the expected legal sentence would be “not bad at all.” A second set of data on legal leverage was through stakeholder interviews with drug court staf and partners (Zweig, Lindquist, Buck Willison, et  al., 2011; Zweig, Lindquist, Downey, et  al., 2011; Zweig et al., 2012). Using data from the stakeholder interviews, we operationalized leverage based on fve factors: (1) case management was conducted by someone who was an employee of the drug courts; (2) drug court participants regularly participated in court hearings; (3) the court had explicit consequences for dropping or failing out, (4) the client was told about these consequences, and (5) the clients signed a contract with the consequences explicitly stated. Based on court rankings, we found that nearly all of the high-leverage courts were efective courts, and that the highest-performing courts had high leverage and lower-performing courts had either low or medium leverage. Further, high-leverage courts were signifcantly more efective at preventing crime—the average number of crimes prevented per month for high-leverage courts was 4.1, compared to 1.4 for low-leverage courts (based on average number of crimes per court, not a standard metric).

What Did We Learn About Our Methods? MADCE’s geographic cluster design allowed the project to produce more generalizable fndings to ensure that the study covered various geographic regions (and states) and sizes, including small-, medium-, and large-sized courts. The results of this diverse range of contexts likely yielded more generalizable results than those from evaluations of courts in only the largest urban centers. Including a large number of courts of varying sizes also allowed us to examine greater variation in drug court practices. Narrower randomized experiments—even with more than one site—cannot explore the breadth of court practices in a single study. Given one of our major goals was to examine the relative impact of various court practices, this variation was critical to our design. In addition, the methodology allowed us to open the metaphorical black box. Because we were able to pair court practices (both as reported by participants and as observed by researchers) with participant outcomes, we were able to advance the feld’s knowledge about “what works for whom?” through multi-level analyses. The size of the pooled sample across sites and the collection of both participant and process evaluation data from courts generated fndings about drug court practices and their impact on individuals.

Implications for Policy, Practice, Methods, and Future Research Implications for Policy and Practice—Peering into the Black Box A major goal of the MADCE project was to peer into the black box of drug courts and move beyond answering the basic question of whether they work to reduce substance use relapse and criminal activity. The resulting fndings have direct implications for very specifc drug court policies and practices, both around who should be included in drug courts (meaning for whom does this intervention help) and how they should be implemented. Yet, it seems these learnings are still in the process of being accepted and adopted throughout the feld. 20

Refections

Contrary to historically narrow eligibility requirements to enter drug courts, MADCE fndings indicate that nearly all categories of people involved in the criminal justice system that could be enrolled in drug courts beneft from participating, including those with histories of violent ofenses. This suggests that long-held drug court policies to restrict eligibility to narrow subpopulations are counterproductive. As recently as 2019, funding through the Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program expressly prohibits using money under this program for people who commit violent ofenses.1 Yet, this belies the NADCP (2013, 2018) guidance on drug court eligibility and its stated intentions on equity and inclusion in drug courts. NADCP states “current or prior ofenses may disqualify candidates from participation in the Drug Court if empirical evidence demonstrates ofenders with such records cannot be managed safely or efectively [emphasis added] in a Drug Court” (p. 6). MADCE fndings reinforce that drug court efectiveness is comparable across categories of justice-involved populations. Research on mental health courts further substantiate these fndings; Fisler (2015) also advocates for widening eligibility requirements for specialty courts. Another major MADCE fnding points to the role of the judge as a primary mechanism by which drug courts work. This is evidenced both by judicial behavior (based on observations) and participant attitudes toward judges (based on self-report). Since MADCE, there has been some limited progress toward advancing these fndings in practice. The National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP, 2013, 2018) provides clear instruction as to the role of judges in adult drug court best practice standards, including their professional training, the frequency of status hearings, the length of court interactions, judicial demeanor, and judicial decision-making. The recent 2019 request for proposals for the Ofce of Justice Program’s Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program does not specify particular expectations around judicial role, except to instruct grantees to include judges as part of the drug court team. The closest the solicitation comes to referencing NADCP-promulgated best practices is to acknowledge that the OJP/Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) supports courts that integrate drug court standards into their services. OJP/BJA does not track judicial behaviors in their performance metrics. They track a category called “Program Completion and Judicial Interaction,” but there is no corresponding performance metric to track the number or length of interactions between judges and participants, or other judicial behaviors or demeanor during such interactions.2 The MADCE conceptual model emphasized (Rossman, 2011), and NADCP specifcally points to, procedural justice as a primary mechanism through which drug courts work. Leaning on fndings from MADCE and other research, NADCP (2013, 2018) promulgates specifc practices around the role of the judge, as noted earlier. It states that treating participants such that they perceive the judge to be unbiased, fair, and acting with good intentions does not prevent the judge from holding them accountable. How drug courts participants are treated, and their perception of that treatment (particularly by the judge), matters for their success in the program. Several implications for practice around judges are important to recognize (Rossman & Zweig, 2011). There seems to be an increased focus on the role of the judge through NADCP guidance and the National Drug Court Institute’s judicial training, which includes judicial interactions as a topic.3 It isn’t clear if other practice suggestions have been taken up in the feld, for example, allowing drug court judges to stay in the role for lengthy time periods rather than rotating them of the drug court bench annually or every couple years. This practical suggestion seems to stand the test of time as one hands-on way to improve judges’ roles and perhaps contribute to a more efective drug court program. It is still the case that it may take time for judges to develop efective approaches to the drug court bench and perfect their style when interacting with participants. As such, we argued that routinely rotating judges on and of drug court benches will likely decrease both the judges’ ability to be successful in her/his role and negatively afect participants outcomes (Rossman & Zweig, 2011). 21

Janine Zweig et al.

Implications for Methods and Future Research As researchers, we typically fnd ourselves in a position to call for more research to replicate specifc fndings or to ferret out additional nuances about programs or policies. And replicating the fndings produced through MADCE is important to continue to build the body of evidence around what works for whom when it comes to drug courts. This replication research could have a particular focus on the role of the judge and research on other specialty courts or dockets should similarly examine the role of the judge. Further, it could consist of a multisite, geographically diverse set of jurisdictions, varying on important components (such as leverage and predictability of sanctions), each conducting random assignment to drug court and business-as-usual court dockets. By doing so, this design would maximize both internal and external validity considerations. Though our approach to super weighting eliminated selection bias for this evaluation, implementing random assignment methods would eliminate any selection bias issues an evaluation would face. Several suggestions for future research made at MADCE’s conclusion (Rossman & Zweig, 2011) have yet to be implemented but could shed further light on how drug courts work and give practitioners much needed information in order to narrow their programming eforts. Questions we posed that have yet to be answered include: •

• •

Do participant attitudes toward other drug court stakeholders (e.g., program coordinators, treatment providers, probation/supervision ofcers) matter as much as their attitudes toward the judge? Do participant attitudes toward the judge afect the amount of drug court program dosage they receive? Does the way in which treatment is implemented matter? •

One limitation of the MADCE study was that we did not measure alignment of treatment practices with best practice guidance—that is, there was no real measure of treatment quality, and we did not have much variation across the amount of treatment provided or the types of treatment ofered. By not including this, we were not able to assess an important element of program fdelity when it comes to drug courts. Variation in treatment might contribute new knowledge around what level of treatment is necessary (though not suffcient) to be an efective drug court. Additional research to understand these aspects of drug court programs would further illuminate ways in which drug courts might be more or less efective. In addition, treatment quality could be examined for the synergistic efects between it and judicial interactions.

Traditional research and evaluation methods could be employed to answer these questions, yet it also seems fruitful to employ similar methodologies to that employed by MADCE, with an eye toward including several courts representing a variety of programming practices. This variation seems critical to understanding the relative efectiveness of diferent approaches. We believe we are long past the idea of learning whether drug courts work—that question has been answered with a frm “yes.” MADCE began to open the black box to answer how drug courts work and for whom, but additional research along these lines would greatly beneft policy and practice, particularly given that large commitments to funding continue to be made for drug courts and many communities across the country embrace these programs. But, beyond these suggestions for more traditional research and evaluation to gather new insight and replicate fndings, drug courts and specialty dockets could lean on MADCE fndings and conduct more simplistic data analysis to examine their own efectiveness. We suggested before that courts could monitor judicial interaction through periodic client satisfaction surveys (Rossman & Zweig, 2011). It still stands to reason that regular participant surveys to assess clients’ attitudes about the judge 22

Refections

would beneft a drug court program and allow stakeholders to identify specifc areas for corrective action (such as targeted training) around the judge’s interactions and role, as well as strengths on which to capitalize. The straightforward nine items used in the MADCE survey to measure attitudes toward the judge could easily be used (or adapted) so participants could rate the judge. This suggestion doesn’t necessarily advance criminal justice research methodologies. It does, however, promote a way that local practitioners could introduce relatively straightforward performance management approaches to monitor their own progress. Perhaps innovation around data analysis and methods doesn’t always need to advance traditional research and evaluation. Perhaps the next steps can be about programs using their own data, and collecting additional performance metrics, to monitor their own success. This is perhaps a role that a drug court coordinators or court administrators could pay. Performance metrics to date have rarely amounted to more than just bean-counting to demonstrate numbers of participants served and/or services provided, numbers of referrals to other community networks, etc. However, with some straightforward guidance and consultation, individual drug court programs might be able to make enhancements to the data that they likely already track, to assess their own performance and outcomes and drive necessary improvements. Drug court performance management can monitor exposure to program elements, such as frequency of judicial interactions, and can add to data collection activities that are not burdensome, like short and tothe-point client satisfaction surveys. Straightforward analytics can pave the way to clear guidance for specifc drug court improvements and serve to fll a gap around measuring service provision and use. And, who knows, maybe it will set up a court for more rigorous evaluation down the road if that is something they are interested in doing.

Conclusions The MADCE fndings showed that drug courts can work when implementing specifc practices to prevent future criminal activities (recidivism), substance use (relapse), and other relevant health and lifestyle outcomes for those who participate in the program. This study worked to open the black box of drug court efcacy to not only ask if drug courts work, but also to answer questions around for whom and how drug courts work. Drug court impacts were basically similar across subgroups of those involved in the criminal justice system, with people with greater levels of substance use and those with violent histories experiencing the most gains. The mechanisms that drove drug court outcomes centered around the role of the judge, participant attitudes, and particular court policies and practices. While there is more to learn about the mechanisms by which drug courts work, and which combinations of practices are most efcacious, going forward, advancements around performance metrics may be most helpful to individual courts for improving implementation to drive outcomes.

Acknowledgments This project was supported by Award No. 2003-DC-BX-1001, awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Ofce of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice. The opinions, fndings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily refect those of the Department of Justice, or the Urban Institute and its trustees. In particular, we thank the Ofce of Justice Programs for its support through the Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program, and for other support from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and all the staf that worked on this project through the years from the Urban Institute, RTI International, and Center for Court Innovation. We also are deeply indebted to the judges, drug court coordinators, and staf of drug courts, as well as the administrators and staf of the comparison jurisdictions, whose eforts form the foundation without which this research would not have been possible. 23

Janine Zweig et al.

Notes 1. www.bja.gov/funding/ADC19.pdf 2. https://bjapmt.ojp.gov/help/ImplementationDrugCourtMeasures.pdf 3. www.ndci.org/resource/training/discipline/judicial/

References Andenaes, J. (1974). Punishment and deterrence. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Belenko, S. (1999). Research on drug courts: A critical review 1999 update. National Drug Court Institute Review, II(2), 1–58. Finigan, M. (1998). An outcome program evaluation of the Multnomah county S.T.O.P. drug diversion program. West Linn, OR: Northwest Professional Consortium. Fisler, C. (2015). When research challenges policy and practice: Toward a new understanding of mental health courts. Judges Journal, 54(2), 8–13. Gibbs, J. P. (1975). Crime, punishment, and deterrence. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Scientifc Publishing Co. Goldkamp, J. S., & Weiland, D. (1993). Assessing the impact of Dade county’s felony drug court. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Ofce of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Gottfredson, D. C., & Exum, M. L. (2002). The Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court: One-year results from a randomized study of efectiveness. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39(3). Gottfredson, D. C., Kearley, B. W., Najaka, S. S., & Rocha, C. M. (2007). How drug treatment courts work: An analysis of mediators. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44(1), 3–35. Harrell, A. V., & Roman, J. K. (2001). Reducing drug use and crime among ofenders: The impact of graduated sanctions. Journal of Drug Issues, 31(1), 207–232. Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., Foltz, C., Lee, P. A., & Patapis, N. S. (2005). Perceived deterrrence and outcomes in drug court. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23(2), 183–198. National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (2013, 2018). Adult drug court best practice standards: Volume 1. Alexandria, VA: National Association of Drug Court Professionals. Ofce of Justice Programs and National Association of Drug Court Professionals (OJP/NADCP) (1997). Defning drug courts: The key components. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Rempel, M., & Green, M. (2011). Chapter 4. Do drug courts reduce crime and incarceration. In S. B. Rossman, J. K. Roman, J. M. Zweig, M. Rempel, & C. H. Lindquist (Eds.), Volume 4. The multi-site adult drug court evaluation: The impact of drug courts. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Rempel, M., Zweig, J. M., Lindquist, C. H., Roman, J. K., Rossman, S. B., & Kralstein, D. (2012). Multi-site evaluation demonstrates efectiveness of adult drug courts. Judicature,95(4), 154–157. Roman, J. K., Rossman, S. B., & Rempel, M. (2011). Chapter 2. Review of the literature. In S. B. Rossman, J. K. Roman, J. M. Zweig, M. Rempel, & C. H. Lindquist (Eds.), Volume 1. The multi-site adult drug court evaluation: Study design and overview. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Roman, J. K., Yahner, J., & Zweig, J. M. (2011). Chapter 6. How do drug courts work? In S. B. Rossman, J. K. Roman, J. M. Zweig, M. Rempel, & C. H. Lindquist (Eds.), Volume 4. The multi-site adult drug court evaluation: The impact of drug courts. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Rossman, S. B. (2011). Chapter 1. Introduction: Study context and objectives. In S. B. Rossman, J. K. Roman, J. M. Zweig, M. Rempel, & C. H. Lindquist (Eds.), Volume 1. The multi-site adult drug court evaluation: Study design and overview. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Rossman, S. B., Green, M., Rempel, M., & Downey, P. M. (2011). Chapter 3. Do adult drug courts reduce drug use. In S. B. Rossman, J. K. Roman, J. M. Zweig, M. Rempel, & C. H. Lindquist (Eds.), Volume 4. The multi-site adult drug court evaluation: The impact of drug courts. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Rossman, S. B., Roman, J., Zweig, J. M., Rempel, M., & Lindquist, C. H. (2011a). The multisite evaluation of adult drug courts: Executive summary. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Rossman, S. B., Roman, J., Zweig, J. M., Rempel, M., & Lindquist, C. H. (Eds.). (2011b). Volume 4. The multisite evaluation of adult drug courts. The impact of drug courts. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Rossman, S. B., Roman, J. K., Zweig, J. M., Rempel, M., & Lindquist, C. H. (Eds.). (2011c). Volume 1. The multi-site adult drug court evaluation: Study design and overview. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Rossman, S. B., & Zweig, J. M. (2011). Chapter 10. Research brief. What have we learned from the multi-site adult drug court evaluation? Implications for policy, practice, and future research. In S. B. Rossman, J. K. Roman, J. M. Zweig, M. Rempel, & C. H. Lindquist (Eds.), Volume 4. The multi-site adult drug court evaluation: The impact of drug courts. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

24

Refections Trone, J., & Young, D. (1996). Bridging drug treatment and criminal justice. Vera Institute Program Brief. New York: Vera Institute of Justice. Tyler, T. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the efective rule of law. Crime and Justice, 30, 283–357. Wilson, D. V., Mitchell, O., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). A systematic review of drug court efects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 459–487. Zweig, J. M. (2011a). Chapter 2. Research brief: Description of the drug court sites in the multi-site adult drug court evaluation. In S. B. Rossman, J. K. Roman, J. M. Zweig, M. Rempel, & C. H. Lindquist (Eds.), Volume 3. The multi-site adult drug court evaluation: The drug court experience. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Zweig, J. M. (2011b). Chapter 6. Research brief: The multi-site adult drug court evaluation—Baseline characteristics of study participants. In S. B. Rossman, J. K. Roman, J. M. Zweig, M. Rempel, & C. H. Lindquist (Eds.), Volume 1. The multi-site adult drug court evaluation: Study design and overview. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Zweig, J. M., Lindquist, C. H., Buck Willison, J., Rempel, M., & Downey, P. M. (2011). Chapter 3: Research design and data collection and analysis strategy. In S. B. Rossman, J. K. Roman, J. M. Zweig, M. Rempel, & C. H. Lindquist (Eds.), Volume 1. The multi-site adult drug court evaluation: Study design and overview. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Zweig, J. M., Lindquist, C. H., Downey, P. M., Roman, J. K., & Rossman, S. B. (2011). Chapter 7. Impacts of court policies and practices. In S. B. Rossman, J. K. Roman, J. M. Zweig, M. Rempel, & C. H. Lindquist (Eds.), Volume 4. The multi-site adult drug court evaluation: The impact of drug courts. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Zweig, J. M., Lindquist, C. H., Downey, P. M., Roman, J. K., & Rossman, S. B. (2012). Drug courts policies and practices: How program implementation afects ofender substance use and criminal behavior. Drug Court Review, 8(1), 43–79. Zweig, J. M., Rossman, S. B., & Roman, J. K. (with Markman, J., Lagerson, E., & Shafer, C.) (2011). What’s happening with drug courts? A portrait of adult drug courts in 2004. In S. B. Rossman, J. K. Roman, J. M. Zweig, M. Rempel, & C. H. Lindquist (Eds.), Volume 2. The multi-site adult drug court evaluation. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

25

2 AT THE CROSSROADS Large-Scale Studies of Behavioral Health Treatment Interventions for People in the Criminal Justice System Alexander J. Cowell and Michael S. Shafer Overview A disproportionate number of people in the criminal justice system have been diagnosed with psychiatric disorders, Substance Use Disorders (SUD), or both. The prevalence of impairing mental health problems among people incarcerated is between four and seven times greater than in the nonincarcerated population and the prevalence of SUD among those incarcerated is over 6 times greater than the general population (Bronson & Berzofsky, 2017; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2013; Weissman, 2015). People with behavioral health conditions consume signifcant criminal justice system resources at every point in the system: policing, sentencing, incarceration, and supervision. As a result, governmental policy and funding systems at the local, state, and federal levels have had a growing focus on the prevalence, outcomes, and solutions related to serving individuals with co-occurring disorders who engage in the criminal justice system. Two large-scale federally funded multi-site studies evaluated diferent interventions targeting individuals with co-occurring disorders who were involved in the criminal justice system. The frst study (Knowledge and Development Application [KDA]) evaluated jail and criminal justice diversion programs and was funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) between 1997 and 2000. Nearly ten years later, the Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies 2 (CJDATS2) was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) between 2008 and 2013. CJDATS2 comprised three separate studies that evaluated organizational and systems-level interventions for behavioral health services in criminal justice systems. The KDA and CJDATS2 studies illustrate the evolution in the criminal justice and the health care systems service delivery and funding approaches to serving this population. The chapter is organized as follows. It frst reviews the key trends and advances that contextualize the projects and then summarizes exemplar publications from the KDA and CJDATS2. The chapter concludes with a set of methodological and policy considerations and next steps in advancing the quality and availability of services to individuals with co-occurring disorders engaged in the criminal justice system.

Trends and Innovations The KDA and the CJDATS2 projects span a period of over ten years, and the focus of each refects trends and advances in serving people with behavioral health needs who are involved in the criminal justice system. Trends include those relating to the number of people incarcerated 26

At the Crossroads

and supervised in the community (see text box), as well as the proportion with behavioral health needs. Advances refer to the policies, service models, and research approaches that the studies in this chapter address.

Key Trends and Drivers of Criminal Justice Interventions for Ofenders with Co-Occurring Disorders Trend

Advances

• • •

• • •

Incarceration Trends Supervision Trends Ofenders With Behavioral Health Needs

Health Care and Criminal Justice Reform Sequential Intercept Model Implementation Science

Source: Text box for “Trends and Advances” subsection.

Trend: Te Number of People Incarcerated and on Community Supervision Although the rate of incarceration in the United States is higher than in most other countries in the world (The Sentencing Project, 2015), in recent years it has been declining (Bronson & Carson, 2019). The peak of the rate of incarceration among state and federal ofenders was in 2007 at 506 ofenders per 100,000 population and over the ten years from 2007 to 2017, the prison incarceration rate has fallen by 2% and the jail incarceration rate by 12% (Bronson & Carson, 2019). The broader context of this downward trend is that society is correcting a tremendous growth in incarceration from the 1980s through the early 2000s, with much of that growth fueled by nonviolent ofenders for drug ofenses. The rate of incarceration in 2007 was over three times greater that of 1980, and the rate of incarceration in 2017 is at about the same level as that in 1997. The number of people on community supervision—probation and parole—in the United States is also high relative to other countries. In 2016, nearly one in 50 adults in this country were on community supervision. The rate in 2016 was approximately the same as it was in 2000, with the trend increasing to a peak in 2008 and then decreasing (Kable & Cowhig, 2018). Part of the reason for these trends in criminal justice involved populations is the advent of recent criminal justice reforms designed to reduce prison populations in many states. California Assembly Bill 109 (in 2011) and Propositions 47 and 57 (in 2014 and 2016), for example, moved large numbers of people convicted of nonviolent ofenses from state prison into county jails and on to community supervision. Examples of the many reforms in other states include Mississippi adopting presumptive parole. Additionally, since the turn of the century, problem-solving courts such as drug courts have proliferated. A consequence of these trends in the incarcerated population has shifted the responsibility for providing services to ofenders who would have otherwise been incarcerated on county and local entities.

Trend: Ofenders With Behavioral Health Needs People involved in the criminal justice system have disproportionately high rates of psychiatric disorders and substance use. The prevalence of serious psychological distress (SPD)—having a mental health problem that causes impairment in functioning in everyday life and that requires treatment— among incarcerated ofenders is between four and seven times greater than in the non-incarcerated population (Bronson & Berzofsky, 2017; Weissman, 2015). Prevalence of Substance Use Disorders is also extremely high among inmates: at 58% and 63% among state prison and jail inmates respectively. By comparison, in 2009 the prevalence of SUD among the non-institutionalized adults was 9.2% (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2013). 27

Alexander J. Cowell and Michael S. Shafer

Services in the community for ofenders with behavioral health needs often involve interaction between criminal justice systems (courts, police, or detention facilities) and health care sub-systems (outpatient substance abuse/Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT) provider, residential treatment, community health center). The emergence of Crisis Intervention Teams (Peterson & Densley, 2018), problem solving courts (Dollar, Ray, Hudson, & Hood, 2018), risk-responsivity programming (Taxman, Thanner, & Weisburd, 2006), and ofender re-entry programming (Solomon, Osborne, LoBuglio, Mellow, & Mukamal, 2008; Vogel, Noether, & Steadman, 2007) are innovative, evidenceinformed criminal justice system responses that enhance behavioral health capacity within public safety systems (police, courts, jails, prisons) and enhance the ofender service capacity of the health and behavioral health systems  (e.g.,  FQHCs, behavioral health case management/outpatient) and associated social service systems (e.g., housing assistance).

Innovation: Sequential Intercept Model Since its introduction, the Sequential Intercept Model (SIM) was an evolutionary innovation in the provision of criminal justice interventions to persons with co-occurring disorders (Grifn, Heilbrun, Mulvey, DeMatteo, & Schubert, 2015; Munetz & Grifn, 2006, 2006). Fundamental to the SIM is the concept of diversion, in which qualifying ofenders with mental health and/or substance use disorders are redirected away from further prosecution and/or incarceration and redirected toward mental health and/or substance abuse treatment, often in conjunction with continuing court supervision. The SIM identifes fve intercepts, including police, booking/initial appearance court, jails/courts, reentry, and community corrections (Figure 2.1). Each of these interception points provide an inter-agency/multi-system opportunity to divert ofenders from further engagement with/systems penetration into the criminal justice system. At intercept 1, a call to service engages a frst responder with a person with mental illness. The responder has an opportunity to assess whether to divert the person from custody and toward mental health and other services (known as pre-booking diversion). The police ofcer may be specially trained to recognize and appropriately manage someone with mental illness or may be accompanied by trained mental health staf. Diversion is at the discretion of the police ofcer, who determines whether to arrest the individual or take him/her to a treatment center or other centralized treatment intake without further criminal justice involvement. At intercepts 2 and 3, people who have been arrested are screened and assessed for potential opportunities for post-booking diversion. Diversion at these points is negotiated with criminal

Figure 2.1 How the Two Projects Discussed Map to the Sequential Intercept Model Source: Adapted from (Munetz & Grifn, 2006).

28

At the Crossroads

justice stakeholders. If an ofender is released, attending treatment or other services might be ofered as a condition of release (Steadman, Barbera, & Dennis, 1994). At either intercept point, there may be jail-based diversion or court-based diversion. For jail-based diversion, pre-trial services or specialized jail personnel identify people for diversion, and release is determined by the judge and prosecutor with the agreement of defense. Court-based diversion occurs anywhere from arrest through to sentencing. At these intercept points, criminal justice–operated programs such as mental health court or drug court may also provide access to community treatment among eligible ofenders (Sarteschi, Vaughn, & Kim, 2011; Wilson, Mitchell, & MacKenzie, 2006). Intercept 4, reentry to the community, may be a particularly critical point, as ofenders move from a highly controlled environment to the community. Among users of heroin and opiates, incarceration greatly reduces tolerance, and resuming use again in the community can be fatal. Within the frst two weeks of release, the risk of death among former state inmates in one study was over 12 times that of other state residents (Binswanger et al., 2007; Merrall et al., 2010). Intercept 5 may have signifcant impact simply through the sheer number—4.5 million—of adults on probation or parole. The SIM provides a multi-systems heuristic to organize services and research related to criminal justice interventions for persons with co-occurring disorders. First introduced in 2006, subsequent to the SAMHSA-KDA, the SIM has been widely adopted and adapted by behavioral health and criminal justice systems, with communities across the country contextualizing the SIM to identify the systems and agencies at each intercept in their community. Figure 2.2 was created by stakeholders in Maricopa County, Arizona, and shows local specifcity for each of the intercept points in the model.

Figure 2.2 Sequential Intercept Model for Maricopa County, Arizona

29

Alexander J. Cowell and Michael S. Shafer

Innovation: Implementation Science The recognition of implementation science, as a distinct feld of study, began to emerge in 2004–2010 in response to the growing awareness of the delays and challenges in the adoption and utilization of evidence-based practices among real-world, community-based agencies (Lamb, Greenlick, & McCarty, 1998). One of the earliest defnitions describe implementation as “a specifed set of activities designed to put into practice an activity or program of known dimensions” (Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005). Likewise, implementation research has been defned as “the scientifc study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of research fndings and other evidence-based strategies to improve service delivery in routine care” (Eccles & Mittman, 2006). Powell and colleagues, in a systematic review of implementation-related research, identifed 68 distinct implementation strategies that were grouped into six key implementation processes including planning, educating, fnancing, restructuring, managing quality, and attending to context (Powell et al., 2015). Implementation involves a mixture of organizational and management theory, public policy analysis, adult learning strategies, and systems theory to design interventions and strategies that facilitate the uptake, penetration, and institutionalization of evidence-based practices in realworld, community-based settings.

Innovation: Health Care Reform The policy landscape for behavioral health care and health care more generally has changed greatly over the past two decades. Health care policy changes include the expansion of community health centers, federal health care reform that expanded access, and state and federal protections for behavioral health care coverage. Community health centers are a key locus for obtaining health care for lower-income populations in particular—or those with incomes below 200% of the Federal Poverty Line—and ofenders have a low mean income. Over 20 years of increasing funding to Federally Qualifed Health Centers (FQHCs) has thus meant increased access to primary care for ofender populations in the community—those on parole, probation, or recently discharged from incarceration. From 2000 to 2014, the FQHC patient volume increased from just below 10 million to over 24 million (Rosenbaum et al., 2017). The Patient Protection and Afordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 further increased access to care among ofender populations in the community by increasing insurance coverage and establishing protections for coverage. Thirty-seven (37) states have expanded their Medicaid programs as a result of the ACA (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2019), with expansion plans targeting people with low incomes, including the working poor, and certain qualifying circumstances. Most signifcantly, Medicaid expansion allowed states to expand access to low income, single adult men without children, who had largely been denied access, particularly in the wake of the great recession, as many states modifed the Medicaid-waiver plans to restrict enrollment and coverage. Other features of the ACA included the establishment of the health exchanges as state-level insurance marketplaces and the highly controversial but largely unenforceable individual mandate. The ACA also strengthened previously enacted regulations regarding behavioral health parity, ensuring equity in spending limits between medical/surgical procedures and behavioral health procedures while including behavioral health as one of ten Essential Health Benefts (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2015).

Summary In summary, the 20-year time span book-ended by these two large-scaled studies (1997–2017) was a time of signifcant change and innovation in the criminal justice system (including policing, incarceration, and court systems); health care, including treatment of patients with mental illness and 30

At the Crossroads

Substance Use Disorders; the emergence of evidence-based practice and implementation science; and a growing awareness of the expanding prevalence of individuals with unmet behavioral health conditions caught up in the criminal justice system. Informed by the lessons of the Jail Diversion SAMHSA-KDA and other large-scale, multi-site service studies funded by SAMHSA during this period (such as its supported housing program), a number of federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Institute of Justice, began prioritizing dissemination and implementation strategies for comparative efectiveness research. Launched in 2011, CJDATS2 represented the frst major multi-site efort by the NIH, in conjunction with NIJ and SAMHSA, to address implementation issues in the context of criminal justice interventions for persons with mental health and/or Substance Use Disorders.

A Comparison of the SAMHSA-KDA and the CJDATS2 Multi-Site Studies The SAMHSA-KDA and CJDATS studies targeted interventions at diferent intercept points of the SIM. In 1997 SAMHSA awarded funding for services under the KDA for criminal justice diversion programs in eight states for people with co-occurring mental illness and SUD. The program aligns with the early intercept points, from pre-booking diversion initiated by specially trained police ofcers (intercept 1) to post-adjudication diversion (intercept 4). This study generated several published manuscripts, many of which focused on specifc sites (Franczak & Shafer, 2002) or subgroups of sites (Cowell, Broner, & Dupont, 2004; Shafer, Arthur, & Franczak, 2004). The publications reviewed in the current chapter were the main cross-site fndings (Broner, Lattimore, Cowell, & Schlenger, 2004) and a comparison of pre-booking (intercept 1) and post-booking (intercepts 2 through 3) sites (Lattimore, Broner, Sherman, Frisman, & Shafer, 2003). Funding of the NIDA Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJDATS2) began in 2008. This study was a multi-site cooperative among nine research centers that engaged in three interconnected studies focused on strategies of implementing and sustaining evidence-based drug abuse treatment services for persons with Substance Use Disorders involved with the criminal justice system (Pearson et al., 2014). These studies included the HIV Services and Treatment Implementation in Corrections (HIV-STIC—intercept 4; (Swan et  al., 2015)); Organizational Process Improvement Intervention (OPII—intercept 5; (Shafer et al., 2014)); and Medication Assisted Treatment in Community Correctional Environments (MATICCE—intercept 5; (Friedmann et al., 2013)). All three of these studies systematically used facilitators or coaches to support a change team, comprising representatives from at least two agencies or systems/departments, to develop and carry out a set of activities resulting in the implementation or improvement in performance of a specifc clinically related practice. In contrast to the SAMHSA-KDA, in which the level of analysis was the individual ofender/patient, the level of analysis for the CJDATS2 was the staf and the organizational units associated with the respective agencies or systems/departments. Drawing heavily upon the aforementioned implementation framework, the CJDATS2 tested specifc models’ change facilitation and process improvement to enhance substance abuse delivery in criminal justice correctional settings. To date, these three studies have generated numerous publications, which address a number of patient-provider and systems-level variables associated with eforts to improve delivery of specifc substance abuse–related treatment services to criminal justice–involved populations. The two publications reviewed in the current chapter were primary fndings publications from the MATTICE study (Welsh et al., 2016) and the HIV-STIC study (Pearson et al., 2014) and provide both contrasts and similarities in study foci, methods, and challenges relative to those of the SAMHSA-KDA. 31

Alexander J. Cowell and Michael S. Shafer

SAMHSA-KDA Context and Study Objectives The SAMHSA-KDA was a fve-year, multi-site study funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The purpose of the KDA was to evaluate the outcomes and processes of pre- and/or post-booking jail diversion services upon adults with co-occurring disorders (mental illness and Substance Use Disorders). There, three main study hypotheses to help meet the objective were that, relative to non-diverted participants, diverted participants: 1. 2. 3.

were more likely to receive services and treatment (hypothesis 1), experienced better mental health and substance use outcomes (hypothesis 2), and experienced better criminal justice outcomes (hypothesis 3).

Participating program sites were in eight states. Three of the program sites evaluated pre-booking diversion programs, and fve sites evaluated post-booking diversion services (Table 2.1). In all sites, diversion was initiated subsequent to an encounter between a police ofcer and the study participant, where the encounter either did, or likely would have, led to an arrest. Sites varied in many other aspects of programming, such as the intercept point of diversion and the degree to which linkages to treatment services were integrated with the court-based diversion program. Variation in treatment linkage ranged from staf referral to services in the community (e.g., a phone call to a provider across town) to provision of colocated behavioral health services (e.g., individual counseling on site). In addition to treatment variation, post-booking sites also varied as to whether the diversion point occurred at booking/initial appearance court, arraignment court, or in a specialty (mental health/drug) court.

Methods A total of 1,966 potential participants were enrolled in the study during the intake period of October 1998 through May 2000. Each site created two exclusive groups of participants: the diverted (971 participants) and the non-diverted comparison group (995). Given randomization was not performed, the comparison groups were identifed to be as similar as possible in key characteristics to those diverted. Study participants had a current diagnosis of a psychotic or major afective disorder and substance abuse or dependence, as determined by a clinician at the emergency room or treatment center (pre-booking sites) or the jails or court for the post-booking sites. In the pre-booking sites, law enforcement personnel identifed diverted participants, and in the post-booking sites, jail personnel or local project team members identifed potential participants for diversion. In pre-booking sites, diverted subjects were taken to emergency departments or to some other form of health or social service, as opposed to being arrested and booked into jail. In postbooking sites, participants typically received treatment in jail while awaiting diversion and then were referred or linked to services. Table 2.1 SAMHSA-KDA Program Locations Pre-Booking Sites

Post-Booking Sites

Oregon (frst location) Pennsylvania Tennessee

Arizona Connecticut Hawaii

32

Maryland New York Oregon (second location)

At the Crossroads Table 2.2 SAMHSA-KDA Study Outcomes Mental Health Symptom (Colorado Symptom Inventory [CSI (Shern et al., 1994)] & Mental Health Score [MCS-12] from the SF-12 (Ware, Kosinski, & Keller, 1996) Alcohol and Other Substance Use (Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (MAST; (Storgaard, Nielsen, & Gluud, 1994)) and the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST (Skinner, 1982) Physical Health (PCS-12) Homelessness Employment Victimization Quality of Life (Russo et al., 1997) Service Utilization Notes: CSI—Colorado Symptom Index; MCS—Mental Health Component Summary; SF—Short-Form; PCS—Physical Component Summary

Participants were interviewed three times—baseline/intake (n=1,966), three months (n=1,497), and 12 months (n=1,393)—using a structured interview battery that captured data on participant characteristics and 20 outcome measures, summarized in Table 2.2. Analyses used multivariate regression that controlled for demographic characteristics, time indicators for the interview point (3 or 12 month), and assignment to diversion or non-diversion. Interaction terms between the indicator for jail diversion and follow-up point identifed the efect of diversion. Correction for multiple confounders—accomplished by multivariate regression—was needed because the diverted and non-diverted difered in baseline characteristics. For example, a far greater proportion of those in the diverted group (39%) had a diagnosis of schizophrenia or mood disorder with psychotic features than did the non-diverted group (27%). Most dependent variables were binary variables and were modeled with logistic regression. The remaining multi-valued dependent variables were modeled with Ordinary Least Squares regression. Estimates were computed both for individual sites and for all sites pooled. The number of observations for the full pooled sample was 4,069, and the number included in each regression varied because item missingness varied by outcome and follow-up period. At baseline, about 70% of the study participants were taking mental health medication and 30% had been recently hospitalized for mental health symptoms. Despite having been diagnosed with substance abuse or Substance Use Disorder, substance use treatment was rare: fewer than 30% reported having had more than two substance use counseling sessions in the past 30 days. As shown in Table 2.3, diversion was associated with statistically signifcant increases across all program sites in the following patient-level outcomes: • • • •

service utilization at three months (with the exception of substance use counseling); probability of mental health hospitalization at 12 months; probability of ER use at 12 months; and, probability of substance use at three months.

No other pooled estimates at 3 or 12 months were statistically signifcant, including those for criminal activity and victimization. The estimate for probability of alcohol use at three months was close to conventional levels of signifcance (OR=1.08; p=0.06). Although the pooled estimates provide evidence of the positive impact of diversion programming on service use, these estimates also mask critical site-specifc variation. There were six dependent variables for which site-specifc estimates were both statistically signifcant and difered from the 33

Alexander J. Cowell and Michael S. Shafer Table 2.3 SAMHSA-KDA Pooled Site Findings at 3 and 12 Months After Baseline  

Three-Month

 

Estimate

P Value

Estimate

P Value

1.26 1.51 1.7 2.32 1.43 3.04

.15 .001 .000 .000 .04 .02

N/A 1.12 1.18 1.94 1.72 2.65

.05 .29 .02 .02 .06

1.08 1.34

.06 .05

.93 1.14

.66 .42

.37 –.7

.52 .25

1.01 1.45

.12 .03

1.19 .02

.4 .52

1.25 .04

.4 .27

1.2 1.19

.26 .31

1.27 1.08

.2 .72

Service Utilization Substance abuse counselinga Mental health counselinga Mental health medicationsa Mental health hospitalizationsa ER Visit(s)a Total # counseling sessions Substance Abuse Recent alcohol usea Recent drug usea Mental Health Status CSI MCS (SF-12) Criminal Activity Any arrest past 30 daysa # of arrests past 30 days Quality of Life Violent Victimization (past 30 days)a Nonviolent Victimization (past 30 days)a

12-Month

Notes: Dependent variables are binary variables unless otherwise indicated. a—Odds ratio.

pooled estimates in their direction of relationship: receiving psychotropic medication (two sites), recent alcohol use (two sites), recent substance use (one site), mental health status (one site), and the two victimization measures (one site). Although there were many instances of site estimates having a diferent sign from the pooled estimates, most were not statistically signifcantly diferent from zero. None of the sites demonstrated statistically signifcant associations between diversion and either of the two criminal justice outcomes (probability of arrest and the number of arrests).

Summary The multi-site SAMHSA-KDA used a quasi-experimental design across nine sites and nearly 2,000 participants to determine the association between community-based programs of jail diversion services and several measures of health, criminal justice recidivism, and recovery. Pooled data across study sites demonstrated statistically insignifcant changes over the 12-month study period for many outcomes. Based on measures of change over time (baseline to 3 or 12 months) for diverted versus comparison groups, the pooled results showed both that health outcomes did not improve at standard levels of signifcance and statistically signifcant increases in behavioral health service use, mental health hospitalization, and ER use. Sites varied in key practice and population characteristics—other than the pre-booking/post-booking diferences—and these likely led to considerable variation across sites in fndings. 34

At the Crossroads

CJDATS2 Context and Study Objectives The MATICCE and the HIV-STIC studies represented two of the three multi-site studies conducted under the auspices of the NIDA-funded CJDATS2 initiative (Belenko, Visher, et al., 2013; Friedmann et al., 2013). These studies shared key intervention elements and methodological strategies (Table 2.4). In contrast to the SAMHSA-KDA, the CJDATS2 portfolio of studies was informed signifcantly by implementation science, and accordingly the primary level of analysis was the organization(s) and systems, and secondarily patients. Provider, staf, and managerial practice behaviors, knowledge, and perceptions were primary outcomes of interest in the CJDATS2 studies. Measures on patients were typically at the aggregate (clinic, prison) rather than individual level. This shift from patient-level to population-level focus is one of the more signifcant diferences between the SAMHSA-KDA and the CJDATS2 studies. The MATTICE study was informed by a brief national pilot survey that the researchers conducted (Friedmann et al., 2012). This survey identifed lack of community correctional staf familiarity with MAT and underdeveloped inter-organizational linkages between community correctional agencies and substance abuse treatment providers as two of the more signifcant barriers to MAT availability for correctional system involved individuals. As such, the primary research objectives of the MATICCE study was to evaluate the efectiveness of provider/staf education about MAT for correctional populations relative to the additive efects of a well-structured inter-organizational intervention that involved forming and sustaining a change team. These change teams, comprised of representatives from both a probation/parole agency and a MAT agency, were empowered by their respective executive leaders to improve interagency coordination between their agencies. The HIV-STIC study made use of change teams as well, but the teams launched as part of this project made use of process improvement strategies, adapting the Plan-Do-Study-Act (P-D-S-A) rapid cycle changes, to stimulate improvements in HIV service availability. In contrast to the MATICCE study, the HIV-STIC study targeted institutional correctional systems (e.g., jails & prisons) rather than community correctional systems (probation & parole). Similar to the MATICCE study, the HIV-STIC

Table 2.4 CJDATS 2 Program Locations HIV-STIC (Identifed at Regional Level Only)

MATICCE

New England (four jails) Mid-Atlantic (four work-release facilities linking with contracted service providers) East North Central (two state correctional facilities) East South Central (two state correctional facilities and two community health providers) Mountain (two county detention facilities and two state correctional facilities) Pacifc (four state correction centers) Commonwealth Territory (two prisons and two community HIV treatment providers)

Arizona

Missouri

Connecticut

New Mexico

Delaware

Pennsylvania

Illinois

Rhode Island

Kentucky

Puerto Rico

35

Maryland

Alexander J. Cowell and Michael S. Shafer

primary hypothesis was that correctional units that were provided with change team facilitation and process improvement would make HIV services available to more ofenders than could correctional units that were providing staf/provider training only, without the change team facilitation. Unique to the HIV-STIC study was the allowance of correctional units to self-select one or more targets for HIV service availability (prevention, testing, linkage to anti-retroviral therapy [ART] medications).

Methods and Approach The MATICCE and HIV-STIC studies used clustered randomized trials to randomly assign correctional units (e.g., individual jails, prison, probation agencies or ofces) to experimental or control conditions. In these studies, the control conditions consisted of staf training and awareness raising only. The experimental conditions added the change team intervention to the staf training. A total of 14 cluster-randomized trials were conducted in the HIV-STIC study; the MATICCE study consisted of 20 cluster-randomized trials.

Local Change Teams Both studies incorporated in their experimental condition a local change team and change team leaders. In both studies, change teams consisted of fve to ten individuals representing varying organizational levels and operational responsibilities of the selected clinical practice target. These change teams met on a regular basis (e.g., at least monthly) for a period of 10–12 months. Slight variations in the application of these change teams existed in the two studies. The HIV-STIC study incorporated process improvement/PDSA cycles, adapting the Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx) (Fields, Knudsen, & Roman, 2016; Hofman et al., 2012) model for application in institutional correctional settings. The MATICCE study also incorporated a boundary spanner (Connections Coordinator) whose role was to facilitate the group’s activities and problem solve in the area of inter-organizational coordination. While a focus on inter-organizational coordination was also an element of the HIV-STIC teams, it was not as pronounced or formalized to the same degree as MATICCE. Both studies’ change teams included representation from both correctional agencies and community-based MAT or HIV-service providers. Across protocols, change teams followed a four-phase process, consisting of Assessment, Strategic Planning, Implementation, and Follow-up/ Sustainability over a period of 8–14 months.

Data Collection The CJDATS2 study, like the SAMHSA-KDA, involved a common data collection protocol, supplemented by study-specifc data collection strategies. In contrast to the SAMHSA-KDA, the CJDATS 2 concentrated on data collection from staf, not service recipients, and included parallel quantitative surveys of correctional agency and community treatment agency staf and managers. The common data collection protocol, the Brief Survey of Organizational Capacity (BSOC) was derived from the TCU Organizational Readiness to Change (ORC) and Survey of Organizational Functioning instruments (Lehman, Greener, Rowan-Szal, & Flynn, 2012). This instrument included 29 scales organized into fve sections: (a) Needs/Pressures for Change; (b) Resources; (c) Staf Attributes; (d) Organizational Climate; and (e) Other (e.g., Support for Evidence-Based Practices). Demographic information (e.g., age, race, ethnicity, gender, work experience, job characteristics) was also gathered through the BSOC survey. BSOCs were collected once, at baseline, prior to randomization. In the HIV-STIC study, supplemental data collection involved the collection of HIV service records from each experimental and control agency (n=28). HIV service record data began in January 2011 and concluded July 2013. Correctional agencies joined the study at varying points in time, such that the start 36

At the Crossroads

and end of each phase varied considerably across the 14 study sites. Across these 14 sites, aggregate-level HIV service information was collected for 19,529 inmates of the participating correctional agencies. The MATICCE study utilized a staf survey of inter-organizational relationships (IOR), adapting a well-validated instrument used to assess dyadic relations between human service organizations (Van de Ven & Ferry, 1980). The IOR consisted of 20 forced-choice, Likert-scaled items, assessing fve dimensions: Resource Dependence (fve items); Perceived Efectiveness of Relationship (four items), Agency and Personal Awareness (three items), Quality of Communications (three items), and Frequency of Communications (fve items). The IOR was collected at baseline, along with the BSOC prior to randomization and again 12 months after start-up, at the conclusion of the change team intervention. The survey response rate across all sites was 80.1%, with 439 probation/ parole personnel and 270 treatment personnel completing a baseline and/or follow-up IOR survey. The MATICCE study also conducted qualitative interviews with four members from probation/ parole and treatment agency at each experimental and control agency. Qualitative interviews were conducted at baseline and following the intervention.

Main Findings of CJDATS2 The main fnding of HIV-STIC study was that the odds of ofenders receiving HIV services more than doubled when the correctional institution had launched a change team using the NIATx process improvement approaches. Within those correctional institutions with change teams, 26% of the targeted inmates received HIV services in comparison to 16% of the inmates within correctional agencies exposed to staf training only. These fndings were found to be statistically signifcant with an efect size (Cohen d of .42) conventionally considered between small and medium. Table 2.5 provides site specifc Log ORs and their associated confdence interval bands for each program site.

Table 2.5 Findings by Program Site and HIV Service Focus  

Log OR

95% CI Bands

Prevention 5.1 3.1 8.1 5.2 8.2 Testing 9.2 9.1 Treatment 4.1 10.1AB 10.2AB 6.1AB 7.1 11.1AB 4.2

1.13 4.15 2.09 .99 .48 –.30 .16 .37 –.04 .70 3.04 1.83 .60 .37 .34 .18 0.00

.05 1.35 1.83 .57 –.13 –.78 –0.24 .23 –.18 –.24 –.92 –1.25 –3.51 –.99 –3.35 –3.74 –5.54

Notes: OR—Odds Ratio; CI—Confdence Interval

37

2.21 6.95 2.34 1.40 1.09 .18 0.57 .51 .09 .57 7.01 4.91 4.71 1.74 4.03 4.11 5.54

Alexander J. Cowell and Michael S. Shafer

In the MATTICE study, implementation of the change team intervention yielded diferential results for community correctional and treatment provider personnel. Personnel associated with treatment providers were found to perceive signifcant improvement in just two of the fve IOR dimensions, Agency and Personnel Awareness along with Frequency of Communications, while personnel associated with correctional agencies did not demonstrate any changes in their perceptions of inter-organizational relationships.

Overarching Findings and Conclusions The shared focus of the KDA and CJDATS2 was to link people in the criminal justice systems to behavioral health systems services and programs that operate outside and independently from the criminal justice system. The focus on multi-sector, inter-agency collaboration between criminal justice systems and behavioral health systems was a signifcant achievement. The KDA demonstrated elevated rates of mental health services and medications for ofenders that had been diverted regardless of the point at which diversion occurred (pre- or post-booking). The CJDATS2-HIV-STIC study demonstrated that using process improvement strategies like NIATx can lead to higher rates of HIV service availability. CJDATS2-MATTICE demonstrated that interagency change teams can lead to higher rates of MAT service availability, even though changes in interagency collaboration between criminal justice and behavioral health may go undetected by staf. Considering the signifcantly diferent organizational values, culture, and structures of criminal justice and behavioral health care systems, these studies provide great examples and procedures for establishing multi-sector, inter-agency teams to enhance collaboration and service availability across these systems. Another common fnding is the high degree of variability and heterogeneity represented by the study sites. Despite the fndings from pooled results, the studies have limited external validity. Each study site is a unique and largely unmeasured and unmodelled constellation of state, community, systems, program, and family/individual variables afecting myriad issues and decisions about eligibility, judicial proceedings, treatment requirements, reporting requirements, and violations. The precision of implementing models of criminal justice interventions (such as diversion) is moderated by a plethora of known and unknown, uncontrolled, and largely unmeasured local customs, traditions, values, and characteristics. Consequently, it is not surprising that the studies yielded modest to mild impacts in terms of both patient-level and program-/systems-level variables. In the KDA study, people who were diverted enjoyed better access to treatment than those who had not. The same study also revealed that very few individuals actually got behavioral health services to begin with, with the exception of mental health medication. While MATTICE demonstrated the viability of inter-agency change teams to enhance access to MAT, provider staf, especially correctional systems staf, did not report any improvements in inter-organizational relationships. The HIV-STIC study demonstrated enhancements to only prevention HIV services; testing and ART access remained unchanged as a result of the process improvement change team. The modest results may be a consequence of several programmatic and methodological issues. Was the intervention implemented with the right intensity and fdelity? Was adequate spread of the intervention achieved? Were the selected measures sensitive enough to detect the change created by the intervention? Were the studies sufciently powered? These and other considerations refect the crossroads at which the feld of research on criminal justice interventions for persons with cooccurring disorders fnds itself as we approach the end of the frst quarter of the 21st century. We ofer some concluding considerations for both researchers and policymakers seeking to enhance criminal justice interventions for persons with co-occurring disorders.

38

At the Crossroads

Implications for Future Research The SAMHSA-KDA and the NIDA CJDATS2 studies provide some critical insight at a time when communities are seeking humane and efcient ways through enhancing behavioral health care access to divert individuals from entering the criminal justice system. The implications from these studies for future research can be categorized as conceptual and methodological. The conceptual implication of facilitation grows from the idea of ‘boundary spanning’ (Steadman, 1992). The concept can be thought of as a process or a role and bridges between organizational entities—the health care sector and the criminal justice sector—that have altogether diferent missions and thus diferent working cultures, protocols, and staf responsibilities. The methodological implications stem from some fundamental challenges in performing similarly scaled multi-site studies. In addition to ensuring efects can be detected, there are key considerations about measures, the unit of analysis, and the appropriate design. 1. Conceptualize and measure inter-organizational facilitation. At the heart of this chapter is the interplay between diferent branches of government (executive and judicial), governmental agencies (health, corrections), levels of government (city, county, state), and organizational mission (public sector and private corporations). In light of this interplay, the studies refect the emerging use of facilitation as a boundary-spanning function to stimulate and sustain multi-sector, inter-agency engagement. Facilitation is an organizational change strategy by which “one person makes things easier for others.” It can be thought of as both a process and a role. As a process, facilitation has been described as a “concerted, social process that focuses on evidence-informed practice-change and incorporates aspects of project management, leadership, relationship building, and communication” (Burns, 1995). Funding requirements for both the KDA and the CJDATS2 supported a boundary-spanning structure by which researchers facilitated a concerted, social process with state and local criminal justice and behavioral health agencies. The research team provided multi-sector facilitation support in the form of leadership, relationship-building, communication, and project management among and between the project stakeholders. The three CJDATS2 studies explicitly conceptualized and measured the use of facilitators, whereas the KDA did not. Facilitators were individuals who operated as organizational-level interventionists to cultivate and sustain the formation of local inter-agency or multi-sector change teams. This use of facilitators takes the concept of boundary spanner up a notch, moving from facilitating processes at the patient/ofender level to facilitating processes at the mezzo and macro levels of programs, agencies, and systems. Research on the structure and impact of organizational change facilitation to drive multi-sector alignment and process improvement is in its infancy and is an important area for future research. 2. Ensure there is sufcient statistical power to test the hypotheses. A common acknowledgement of implementation and dissemination research is that there are fewer observations—agencies, facilities, sites—than in clinical trials where the person is the unit of observation. The SAMHSA-KDA, with nearly 2,000 study participants, thus had the potential advantage over CJDATS2 of having potentially greater statistical power to detect diferences. However, sites varied greatly in implementation and relevant characteristics to such a degree that it remains unknown whether the absence of evidence that jail diversion improved outcomes—mental health and substance use symptoms, quality of life, or criminal justice recidivism—refects evidence of absence. The number of sites in the MATICCE study (20) limited the degree to which analyses could control for site-level covariates. Thus, it could be that diferences in community capacity or inter-organizational relationships refected site-level covariates—such as those that capture prevailing staf culture—and not just the infuence of local change teams.

39

Alexander J. Cowell and Michael S. Shafer

Although it is easy to recommend that researchers ensure the sample size is sufciently large to detect diferences in key measures, executing the recommendation requires resources and faces other challenges. Observational studies of jurisdictions with high ofender fow may say little about efects among jurisdictions with small populations and low ofender fow if these jurisdictions difer in other related ways. Careful study design will also need to account for the fact that participants in the comparison or control group would likely receive some behavioral health services, and this may limit the degree to which impact on health outcomes can be detected. Large-scale randomized trials are rare in the criminal justice arena and more common in health care settings. There are several examples of multi-site hybrid designs with sufciently high participant fow among populations with behavioral health needs. One implements a stepped wedge cluster design among primary care treatment programs for veterans experiencing homelessness (Simmons et  al., 2017). The study involves seven intervention teams across three sites, and the stepped wedge design means that site implementation is staggered, and this staggering allows for additional identifcation of intervention efects. Other examples in medical settings include eforts to screen and provide brief interventions for alcohol misuse in pediatric trauma centers (Mello et al., 2018) and screening and intervention for post-traumatic stress disorder and comorbid conditions (Zatzick et al., 2016). 3. Measure at multiple levels. One of the sharper contrasts between the KDA and CJDATS2 was what they measured. The KDA conducted at three time points structured, 90–120-minute interviews of ofenders with little additional data capture or collection beyond the person level. In contrast, CJDATS2 collected little person-level data for assessing treatment impact but cast a much broader net in data gathering at other levels. Measures included organizational-level profles, staf surveys and interviews, and aggregate patient characteristics. Relative to the CJDATS2, KDA collected very little provider- or organizational-level data that provided insight into the heterogeneity observed across communities. Future research into criminal justice behavioral health interventions needs to balance issues of how wide, how long, and how granular data collection processes are developed that allow for socially meaningful and theoretically constructive research to continue. These data collection decisions are also informed by balancing priorities between treatment efectiveness and treatment adoption. Again, research in health care settings may lead the way in examples of how to balance among these considerations. Efectiveness-implementation hybrid designs in particular are instructive (Curran, Bauer, Mittman, Pyne, & Stetler, 2012). As the name of the study type suggests, these studies link efectiveness research (such as the SAMHSA-KDA) and implementation research (such as the CJDATS2 studies). In addition to the examples given earlier for health care settings (Mello et al., 2018; Simmons et al., 2017; Zatzick et al., 2016), an increasing number of studies of this type have now been conducted in justice settings (e.g., (Aalsma et al., 2019)). 4. Consider alternative designs. Although random assignment of the individual is considered the gold standard to infer intervention efectiveness, it is very difcult to implement a study with random assignment at the individual level in the criminal justice system. Aside from meeting the requirements of human subjects’ protections, studies must convince key stakeholders in the system to agree to randomization (e.g., the judge in post-booking diversion). Randomization at a sub-organizational unit level may be easier to achieve than individual randomization. Whereas the KDA relied on quasiexperimental design without randomization, both studies in the CJDATS2 used randomization at levels other than at the person level. These studies used a cluster-randomized design, whereby pairs of correctional institutions/units within a jurisdiction were randomly assigned to alternative conditions. Future research should consider diferent levels of randomization and burgeoning examples of within- and between-groups design (Brown et  al., 2017). For example, the earlier-mentioned stepped wedge or dynamic wait-list design assigns people to an intervention at diferent time periods, and this allows the researcher to use the within-person cross-time comparison as well as the

40

At the Crossroads

between-group comparison to draw inference to roll out designs, and sequential multiple-assignment randomization implementation trials are among some of the newer class of research designs that provide great promise for conducting research in real-world settings such as those used in the KDA and CJDATS2 studies.

Implications for Policy Current evidence from the SAMHSA-KDA and CDATS2, along with other research, suggests that multi-sector, inter-agency initiatives to link individuals at various points in the criminal justice system to behavioral health care results in modest but desirable outcomes for individuals, communities, and society in general. Even if criminal recidivism is not signifcantly afected, the improved linkage to health and social services means these programs are likely worthwhile in moderating recidivism. Continued eforts to expand availability of behavioral health care services, such as those studied by the KDA and CJDATS2, will require a focus on multi-sector drivers. The backdrop for this chapter includes signifcant expansion and innovation in health care–behavioral health availability and integration, a growing attendance to the social determinants of health, and a broad re-examination of criminal justice policies that range from drug policy to sentencing reform and the emergence of the risk-responsivity model (Beckett, Reosti, & Knaphus, 2016). These studies ofer at least two important considerations for policy and practice. 1. Diversion of ofenders with co-occurring disorders does not necessarily result in increased criminal justice recidivism nor does it necessarily result in those ofenders getting their behavioral health needs met. People with behavioral health concerns who are diverted from jail typically display signifcant physical health, mental health, Substance Use Disorder, social service/safety net, and criminogenic needs. These individuals tend to engage in multiple, disconnected, and uncoordinated service sectors and are among the higher utilizers in one or more sectors. Jail diversion and other forms of criminal justice behavioral health services ensure access to critical health care and social services and continuity of care. The KDA and CJDATS2 studies documented limited service availability. Although pre-booking diversion (intercept point 1) means participants avoid arrest, securing access to services can be challenging. Even if there is a crisis care center to which custody is transferred, intensive case management may be needed to secure services for the client. However, resource-poor environments may not ofer case management. Post-booking programs (intercept points 2 and 3) may have the advantage over pre-booking programs of more consistent oversight and case management for diversion clients through ongoing pretrial and/or probation supervisory requirements, including frequent court appearances. 2. Multi-sector, inter-agency collaboration structures and processes are essential. A key policy implication of these studies is the importance of establishing the governance structures and processes that ensure communication and collaboration between criminal justice and health care systems policy makers and program managers at the state and local level. In every community participating in the KDA and CJDATS2, interagency agreements, including transmittal of protected health and judicial data, between criminal justice and behavioral health systems needed to be negotiated and approved. Such agreements take time but lead to substantive discussions and shared decisions that become codifed in memorandums of understanding and explicit procedures for relevant issues. These processes precede shared service delivery and serve a boundary-spanning function as systems representatives negotiate the terms and conditions of such agreements.

41

Alexander J. Cowell and Michael S. Shafer

Decisions about the nature, intensity, and quality of community-based behavioral health services are outside the policy scope of criminal justice systems. These policy decisions may be driven by how states use their SAMHSA mental health or substance abuse block grants or their Medicaid funding. Coordination between state health departments, correctional departments, and state Medicaid agencies are essential to enhancing discharge planning and ofender reentry services. Coordination between state, county, and jurisdictional courts and health and behavioral health systems is essential as courts manage the plethora of behavioral health client issues associated with problem-solving courts, competency considerations, and involuntary evaluation and treatment standards. Creating and sustaining multi-sector, inter-agency processes at the federal, state, and local/county levels are essential in spanning the boundaries needed to enhance care for ofenders with co-occurring disorders.

Conclusion The SAMHSA-KDA and the CJDATS2 studies provide important lessons in conducting large-scale, multi-site studies. These studies provide contrasting perspectives in theoretical models and methodological approaches for creating new knowledge about what works in serving people with behavioral health conditions involved in the criminal justice system. The studies also highlight some innovations, lessons learned, and continuing challenges in conducting health services research with criminal justice systems, settings, populations, and programs. Methodological recommendations from these studies include the use of multi-level measurement and hybrid designs. The signifcant policy implications of this work include the modesty of recidivism outcomes and services engagement reported by these studies and the importance of multi-sector alignment and inter-agency collaboration in serving justice regarding individuals with co-occurring disorders.

References Aalsma, M. C., Dir, A. L., Zapolski, T. C. B., Hulvershorn, L. A., Monahan, P. O., Saldana, L., & Adams, Z. W. (2019). Implementing risk stratifcation to the treatment of adolescent substance use among youth involved in the juvenile justice system: Protocol of a hybrid type I trial. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 14(1), 36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13722-019-0161-5. Beckett, K., Reosti, A., & Knaphus, E. (2016). The end of an era? Understanding the contradictions of criminal justice reform. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 664(1), 238–259. https://doi. org/10.1177/0002716215598973. Belenko, S., Visher, C., Copenhaver, M., Hiller, M., Melnick, G., O’Connell, D., . . . the HIV-STIC Workgroup of CJDATS. (2013). A cluster randomized trial of utilizing a local change team approach to improve the delivery of HIV services in correctional settings: Study protocol. Health & Justice, 1(1), 8. https://doi. org/10.1186/2194-7899-1-8. Binswanger, I. A., Stern, M. F., Deyo, R. A., Heagerty, P. J., Cheadle, A., Elmore, J. G., & Koepsell, T. D. (2007). Release from prison: A high risk of death for former inmates. New England Journal of Medicine, 356(2), 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa064115. Broner, N., Lattimore, P. K., Cowell, A. J., & Schlenger, W. E. (2004). Efects of diversion on adults with cooccurring mental illness and substance use: Outcomes from a national multi-site study. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 22(4), 519–541. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.605. Bronson, J., & Berzofsky, M. (2017). Indicators of mental health problems reported by prisoners and jail inmates, 2011– 12. U. S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Bronson, J., & Carson, E. A. (2019). Prisoners in 2017. U. S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Brown, C. H., Curran, G., Palinkas, L. A., Aarons, G. A., Wells, K. B., Jones, L., . . . Cruden, G. (2017). An overview of research and evaluation designs for dissemination and implementation. Annual Review of Public Health, 38(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044215. Burns, G. (1995). The secrets of team facilitation. Training & Development, 49(6), 46–53. Cowell, A. J., Broner, N., & Dupont, R. (2004). The cost-efectiveness of criminal justice diversion programs for people with serious mental illness co-occurring with substance abuse: Four case studies. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 20(3), 292–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986204266892.

42

At the Crossroads Curran, G. M., Bauer, M., Mittman, B., Pyne, J. M., & Stetler, C. (2012). Efectiveness-implementation hybrid designs. Medical Care, 50(3), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812. Dollar, C. B., Ray, B., Hudson, M. K., & Hood, B. J. (2018). Examining changes in procedural justice and their infuence on problem-solving court outcomes. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36(1), 32–45. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=128090604&site=ehost-live. Eccles, M. P., & Mittman, B. S. (2006). Welcome to implementation science. Implementation Science, 1, 1–3. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=30093566&site=eh ost-live. Fields, D., Knudsen, H. K., & Roman, P. M. (2016). Implementation of Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx) processes in substance use disorder treatment centers. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 43(3), 354–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-015-9466-7. Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de le Parte Mental Health Institute. Franczak, M., & Shafer, M. S. (2002). Jail diversion in a managed care environment: The Arizona experience. In G. Landsberg, M. Rock, & L. K. W. Berg (Eds.), Serving mentally ill ofenders and their victims: Challenges and opportunities for mental health professionals (pp. 107–119). Springer Publishing Company. Friedmann, P. D., Ducharme, L. J., Welsh, W., Frisman, L., Knight, K., Kinlock, T., . . . for the CJ-DATS MATICCE Workgroup. (2013). A cluster randomized trial of an organizational linkage intervention for ofenders with substance use disorders: Study protocol. Health & Justice, 1(1), 6. https://doi. org/10.1186/2194-7899-1-6. Friedmann, P. D., Hoskinson, R., Gordon, M., Schwartz, R., Kinlock, T., Knight, K., . . . for the MAT Working Group of CJ-DATS. (2012). Medication-assisted treatment in criminal justice agencies afliated with the Criminal Justice-Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): Availability, barriers, and intentions. Substance Abuse, 33(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/08897077.2011.611460. Grifn, P. A., Heilbrun, K., Mulvey, E. P., DeMatteo, D., & Schubert, C. A. (2015). The Sequential intercept model and criminal justice: Promoting community alternatives for individuals with serious mental illness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hofman, K. A., Green, C. A., Ford II, J. H., Wisdom, J. P., Gustafson, D. H., & McCarty, D. (2012). Improving quality of care in substance abuse treatment using fve key process improvement principles. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 39(3), 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-011-9270-y. Kable, D., & Cowhig, M. (2018). Correctional populations in the United States, 2016. Retrieved November 6, 2019, from www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6226. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2015). Behavioral health parity and medicaid. Retrieved June 8, 2019, from The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation website: www.kf.org/medicaid/issue-brief/behavioral-health-parityand-medicaid/. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2019, May 13). Status of state action on the medicaid expansion decision. Retrieved June 8, 2019, from The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation website: www.kf.org/health-reform/state-indicator/ state-activity-around-expanding-medicaid-under-the-afordable-care-act/. Lamb, S., Greenlick, M. R., & McCarty, D. (Eds.). (1998). Bridging the gap between practice and research: Forging partnerships with community-based drug and aocohol treatment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Lattimore, P. K., Broner, N., Sherman, R., Frisman, L., & Shafer, M. S. (2003). A comparison of prebooking and postbooking diversion programs for mentally ill substance-using individuals with justice involvement. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 19(1), 30–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986202239741. Lehman, W. E. K., Greener, J. M., Rowan-Szal, G. A., & Flynn, P. M. (2012). Organizational readiness for change in correctional and community substance abuse programs. Journal of Ofender Rehabilitation, 51(1–2), 96–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2012.633022. Mello, M. J., Becker, S. J., Bromberg, J., Baird, J., Zonfrillo, M. R., & Spirito, A. (2018). Implementing alcohol misuse SBIRT in a National Cohort of Pediatric Trauma Centers—A type III hybrid efectivenessimplementation trial. Implementation Science, 13(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0725-x. Merrall, E. L. C., Kariminia, A., Binswanger, I. A., Hobbs, M. S., Farrell, M., Marsden, J., . . . Bird, S. M. (2010). Meta-analysis of drug-related deaths soon after release from prison. Addiction, 105(9), 1545–1554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.02990.x. Munetz, M. R., & Grifn, P. A. (2006). Use of the sequential intercept model as an approach to decriminalization of people with serious mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 57(4), 544–549. https://doi.org/10.1176/ ps.2006.57.4.544. Pearson, F. S., Shafer, M. S., Dembo, R., del Mar Vega-Debién, G., Pankow, J., Duvall, J. L., . . . Pich, M. (2014). Efcacy of a process improvement intervention on delivery of HIV services to ofenders: A multisite trial. American Journal of Public Health, 104(12), 2385–2391.

43

Alexander J. Cowell and Michael S. Shafer Peterson, J., & Densley, J. (2018). Is Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training evidence-based practice? A systematic review. Journal of Crime & Justice, 41(5), 521–534. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp x?direct=true&db=aph&AN=133399564&site=ehost-live. Powell, B. J., Waltz, T. J., Chinman, M. J., Damschroder, L. J., Smith, J. L., Matthieu, M. M., . . . Kirchner, J. E. (2015). A refned compilation of implementation strategies: Results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implementation Science, 10(1), 1–14. Retrieved from http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=101977734&site=ehost-live. Rosenbaum, S., Paradise, J., Markus, A. R., Sharac, J., Tran, C., Reynolds, D., & Shin, P. (2017). Community health centers: recent growth and the role of the ACA. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved from http://www. nationaldisabilitynavigator.org/wp-content/uploads/news-items/KFF_Community-Health-CentersGrowth-and-ACA_Jan-2017.pdf. Russo, J., Roy-Byrne, P., Reeder, D., Alexander, M., Dwyer-O’Connor, E. D., Dagadakis, C., . . . Patrick, D. (1997). Longitudinal assessment of quality of life in acute psychiatric inpatients: Reliability and validity. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 185(3), 166–175. Sarteschi, C. M., Vaughn, M. G., & Kim, K. (2011). Assessing the efectiveness of mental health courts: A quantitative review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(1), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.11.003. The Sentencing Project. (2015). Trends in US corrections. Retrieved from www.sentencingproject.org/ publications/trends-in-u-s-corrections/. Shafer, M. S., Arthur, B., & Franczak, M. J. (2004). An analysis of post-booking jail diversion programming for persons with co-occurring disorders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 22(6), 771–785. https://doi.org/10.1002/ bsl.603. Shafer, M. S., Prendergast, M., Melnick, G., Stein, L. A., Welsh, W. N., & the CJDATS Assessment Workgroup. (2014). A cluster randomized trial of an organizational process improvement intervention for improving the assessment and case planning of ofenders: A study protocol. Health & Justice, 2(1), 1. https://doi. org/10.1186/2194-7899-2-1. Shern, D. L., Wilson, N. Z., Coen, A. S., Patrick, D. C., Foster, M., Bartsch, D. A., & Demmler, J. (1994). Client outcomes II: Longitudinal client data from the Colorado treatment outcome study. The Milbank Quarterly, 123–148. Simmons, M. M., Gabrielian, S., Byrne, T., McCullough, M. B., Smith, J. L., Taylor, T. J., . . . Smelson, D. A. (2017). A hybrid III stepped wedge cluster randomized trial testing an implementation strategy to facilitate the use of an evidence-based practice in VA Homeless Primary Care Treatment Programs. Implementation Science, 12(1), 46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0563-2. Skinner, H. A. (1982). The drug abuse screening test. Addictive Behaviors, 7(4), 363–371. https://doi. org/10.1016/0306-4603(82)90005-3. Solomon, A. L., Osborne, J. W., LoBuglio, S. F., Mellow, J., & Mukamal, D. A. (2008). Life after lockup: Improving reentry from jail to the community. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Steadman, H. J. (1992). Boundary spanners: A key component for the efective interactions of the justice and mental health systems. Law and Human Behavior, 16(1), 75–87. Steadman, H. J., Barbera, S. S., & Dennis, D. L. (1994). A National Survey of Jail Diversion Programs for mentally ill detainees. Psychiatric Services, 45(11), 1109–1113. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.45.11.1109. Storgaard, H., Nielsen, S. D., & Gluud, C. (1994). The validity of the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST). Alcohol and Alcoholism, 29(5), 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.alcalc.a045578. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2013). Behavioral Health, United States, 2012 (p. 416). Retrieved from https://store.samhsa.gov/sites/default/fles/d7/priv/sma13-4797.pdf. Swan, H., O’Connell, D. J., Visher, C. A., Martin, S. S., Swanson, K. R., & Hernandez, K. (2015). Improvements in correctional HIV services: A case study in Delaware. Journal of Correctional Health Care: The Ofcial Journal of the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, 21(2), 164–176. https://doi. org/10.1177/1078345815574572. Taxman, F. S., Thanner, M., & Weisburd, D. (2006). Risk, need, and responsivity (RNR): It all depends. Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 28–51. Van de Ven, A. H., & Ferry, D. L. (1980). Measuring and assessing organizations. In The interorganizational feld (pp. 296–346). New York: Wiley. Vogel, W. M., Noether, C. O., & Steadman, H. J. (2007). Preparing communities for re-entry of ofenders with mental illness: The action approach. Journal of Ofender Rehabilitation, 45(1/2), 167–188. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=31385800&site=ehost-live. Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1996). A 12-item short-form health survey: Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care, 34(3), 220.

44

At the Crossroads Weissman, J. (2015). Serious psychological distress among adults: United States, 2009–2013. NCHS Data Brief, 203, 1–8. Welsh, W. N., Knudsen, H. K., Knight, K., Ducharme, L., Pankow, J., Urbine, T., . . . Friedmann, P. D. (2016). Efects of an organizational linkage intervention on inter-organizational service coordination between probation/parole agencies and community treatment providers. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 43(1), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-014-0623-8. Wilson, D. B., Mitchell, O., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). A systematic review of drug court efects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2(4), 459–487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-006-9019-4. Zatzick, D. F., Russo, J., Darnell, D., Chambers, D. A., Palinkas, L., Van Eaton, E., . . . Jurkovich, G. (2016). An efectiveness-implementation hybrid trial study protocol targeting posttraumatic stress disorder and comorbidity. Implementation Science, 11(1), 58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0424-4.

45

3 WHAT COMES NEXT? ON THE EVOLUTION OF COMMUNITY COURTS Greg Berman, Julian Adler, Joseph Barrett, and Kate Penrose1

Introduction Since the founding of the Midtown Community Court in 1993, community courts, with their emphasis on problem-solving and community engagement, have provided a model to justice reforms across the world. While the research on these initiatives is still emerging, fndings thus far indicate their potential to reduce recidivism and increase confdence in the justice system. In this chapter, we survey the existing research and highlight recent innovative adaptions of the model. We argue that community courts’ underlying principles provide a frm foundation for responses to contemporary justice challenges, including over-incarceration and racial disparities in the justice system. We believe that community courts ofer lessons for justice system professionals seeking rapprochement and actionable partnership with the community. Moreover, we argue that community courts can inform a range of corrections and sentencing reform eforts in the United States. Noting a gap in the empirical literature, we also underscore the urgent need to better understand and evaluate the efcacy (and pitfalls) of community engagement practices within the justice system context. Further analysis of the impact of community courts on communities and public safety could illuminate how criminal justice agencies, nonprofts, and communities can collaborate to create safer and healthier neighborhoods.

What Is a Community Court? Community courts can trace their origins to reform eforts in policing and the emergence of specialized problem-solving courts. In the 1980s, the overlapping theories of problem-oriented policing, community policing, and broken-windows policing encouraged policymakers and practitioners to use data to target local issues rather than simply reacting after crimes occurred. In particular, problem-oriented policing emphasized proactively identifying and analyzing underlying problems and measuring the efectiveness of responses (Goldstein, 1979). Broken-windows policing, which posited that disorder negatively impacted the public’s perception of public safety and led to higher rates of serious crimes, prompted a renewed focus on low-level ofenses (Kelling & Wilson, 1982). At the end of the decade, a parallel problem-solving justice movement developed within state courts. This movement was a response to exponential increases in caseloads and a recognition that high rates of recidivism undermined public confdence and indicated that traditional approaches were inefective at addressing the causes of crime (Belenko, 2000; Fulton Hora, Schma, & Rosenthal, 46

What Comes Next?

1999). These courts were “problem-solving” in that they defned a specifc goal (e.g., reducing substance use among participating defendants) and then adjusted practice to achieve this outcome. Beginning with the Miami-Dade County Drug Court in 1989, the use of problem-solving courts expanded to address other issues including mental health, domestic violence, and human trafcking. Despite diferent focus areas, these courts shared several key features: redefning the roles of legal parties and encouraging collaboration; enhancing court stakeholders’ access to information; expanding sentencing options beyond incarceration and fnes; using judicial authority to compel engagement in social services; forming partnerships with government agencies and nonproft organizations; and attempting to produce better outcomes for defendants, victims, and communities (Berman & Feinblatt, 2001). Unlike other problem-solving courts, community courts do not focus on one particular issue or population, but rather on enhancing public safety and addressing community concerns in a specifc geographic area. The frst generation of community courts were neighborhood-based courthouses that applied a problem-solving approach to the specifc issues of their time and place, seeking to address both the needs of individual defendants (e.g., substance use), and neighborhood conditions related to crime (e.g., public disorder). The frst court opened in Midtown Manhattan in 1993. It focused on quality-of-life crimes (such as prostitution, vandalism, and minor drug possession) within the central business district around Times Square. The court coupled punishment with help, ensuring that defendants completed community service mandates and connecting them with individualized social services such as drug treatment and job training. Since the launch of the Midtown Community Court, there have been nearly 60 replications of the model across the United States and more than 30 internationally (National Institute of Justice, 2013; Henry & Kralstein, 2011). Community courts have demonstrated success at reducing recidivism, as well as improving community perceptions of the justice system. They have gained supporters at all levels of government. In the words of former United States Attorney General Eric Holder, “Community courts have been essential in guiding eforts to reduce crime, empower communities, and create opportunities” (Holder, 2010). Three decades and dozens of replications later, there remains no single, defning community court model. Each adaptation is based on a jurisdiction’s unique needs. For example, while some community courts focus on criminal ofenses, others, like the Red Hook Community Justice Center in Brooklyn, also handle housing and juvenile cases (Lee et al., 2013). Despite these diferences, all share a commitment to fve key principles: individualized justice, accountability, procedural justice, community engagement, and collaboration (Berman, 2010). Community courts link participants with individually tailored social services, which may be provided in-house or through partnerships with local nonprofts, and may also be available to victims and the community at large. They work to hold defendants accountable to their communities through participation in visible community service projects, or through other activities, like restorative justice circles that seek to repair community relationships (Hynynen Lambson, 2015; Kunichof, 2017). Community courts place a special emphasis on treating communities and participants with dignity and respect, by promoting dialogue between judges and participants and prioritizing the user experience in their physical design. Community courts engage residents in the process of identifying (and solving) issues in their neighborhood. They play a crucial intermediary role, bringing together government and nongovernment actors (community-based organizations, business leaders, resident groups, etc.); in doing so, they seek to build social capital and improve public trust in government. They create community advisory boards that meet with judges and court staf, convene regular community meetings, and conduct resident surveys and focus groups (Lee, 2000; Lang, 2011). Community courts may also, as in Spokane, WA, meet in a public library or other community setting to increase accessibility and decrease the stigma of accessing services. 47

Greg Berman et al.

Measuring Impact In comparison to other problem-solving courts, such as drug courts, community courts are relatively understudied. This is partly because they are more difcult to evaluate. While drug courts tend to have straightforward goals—e.g., reducing recidivism and substance use—and can be evaluated using readily accessible justice system data, community courts are tailored to meet the needs of their neighborhoods and seek to impact community life beyond case outcomes. This inherent variability makes the model and its goals harder to defne (and reduces the generalizability of the fndings of any single evaluation). The focus on both individual- and community-level outcomes necessitates challenging methodological questions (e.g., how to defne community) and new data sources (e.g., community perceptions of the justice system). So far, there have been more than 20 evaluations of community court practices, analyzing 11 courts in the US, two in the United Kingdom, and one in Australia (Henry & Kralstein, 2011; Booth, Altoft, Dubourg, Gonçalves, & Mirrlees-Black, 2012; Lee et al., 2013; Westat, 2012; Kilmer & Sussell, 2014; Ross, 2015; Hamilton, Abboud Holbrook, & Kigerl, 2019). These evaluations have largely focused on court processes, individual and community outcomes, cost, and participant and community perceptions.

Court Processes Community courts have consistently been found to expand the use of social services and to change sentencing practices. A 2008 study of 25 community courts worldwide found that 92% used alternative sanctions, of which 84% used a combination of community and social service mandates, with drug treatment, individual counseling, and job training being the most common services (Karafn, 2008). Community courts have been shown to reduce reliance on traditional sentences (fnes, incarceration, and convictions) and expand the use of alternative sanctions, both in pre- and postimplementation comparisons in Philadelphia and the Bronx (Cheesman et al., 2010; Henry & Kralstein, 2011), and in more rigorous comparisons of sentencing practices in community courts and neighboring traditional criminal courts in Manhattan and Brooklyn (Hakuta, Souroushian, & Kralstein, 2008; Lee et al., 2013). For example, the Red Hook Community Justice Center used alternative sanctions in 78% of cases, compared to 22% in the conventional court process, and jail sentences in 11% of cases, as opposed to 17% at Brooklyn’s Criminal Court.2 Evaluations have also highlighted an increased emphasis on defendant accountability. Community courts have typically reduced the usage of sentences with no ongoing obligations. For example, far fewer defendants at Red Hook were sentenced to “time served” than at Brooklyn Criminal Court (5% vs. 32%). Community courts have also consistently fostered higher rates of compliance with community and social service sanctions than have traditional criminal courts (Eckberg, 2001; Sviridof, Rottman, Ostram, & Curtis, 2000). At the Neighbourhood Justice Centre in Melbourne, Australia, 77% of participants successfully completed their court mandates, compared to 66% of individuals sentenced at four similar urban court locations. This diference was even starker for participants considered to have a moderate to high probability of reofending (Ross, 2015).

Individual and Community Outcomes Although results have been mixed, researchers have found that community courts can reduce the likelihood that defendants will be rearrested for new ofenses. For example, a comparison between cases served by the San Francisco Community Justice Center and cases from neighboring areas processed through a traditional criminal court found an 8.9 to 10.3% reduction in the probability of rearrest within one year (Kilmer & Sussell, 2014). Similar results have been found using similar 48

What Comes Next?

approaches at the Red Hook Community Justice Center, the East of the River Community Court, the Spokane Community Court, and the Neighbourhood Justice Center in Melbourne, Australia. (Lee et al., 2013; Westat, 2012; Hamilton et al., 2019; Ross, 2015).3 Studies of other courts, however, have shown no signifcant diference in rates of recidivism (Sviridof et al., 2001; Booth et al., 2012; Nugent-Borakove, 2009). Although several studies have noted drops in crime rates in community courts’ catchment areas that exceeded those occurring in comparable or neighboring communities (Ross, 2015; Lee et al., 2013; Booth et al., 2012), researchers have struggled to attribute these changes to the presence of a community court. For example, although street prostitution and illegal vending decreased by 56% and 24% respectively in the 18 months after the establishment of the Midtown Community Court, researchers could not disentangle the court’s impact from that of increased economic development and enforcement of quality-of-life crimes (Sviridof et al., 2001).

Cost Cost-beneft analyses of community courts have generally found cost savings when compared to standard court processes. While community courts typically require a greater expenditure per case due to increased monitoring and personnel costs, they have been shown to achieve savings through improved case processing, reduced incarceration, victimization, and recidivism, and the value of community service projects (Sviridof et  al., 2001; Mahoney & Carlson, 2007; Lee at al., 2013). A study of the Neighbourhood Justice Centre in Melbourne found that for every Aus$1 invested in community court activities, the return on investment would range from Aus$1.09 to Aus$2.23 (Ross, Halsey, Bamford, Cameron, & King, 2009).

Defendant and Community Perceptions Researchers have also documented community courts’ success at improving perceptions of the court process. For example, defendants at Red Hook Community Justice Center had a higher perception of procedural justice and court legitimacy than those at Brooklyn’s centralized criminal court (Lee et al., 2013), a diference potentially attributable to a more positive perception of Red Hook’s judge (Frazer, 2006). (Despite this positive perception of court actors, defendants at Red Hook were not signifcantly more likely to report that they had received a fair decision.) (Lee et al., 2013). Researchers have generally found that local residents have favorable perceptions of community courts. For example, in randomized telephone surveys of community members in Minneapolis and Midtown Manhattan, a majority of respondents were willing to pay higher taxes or transfer money from other criminal justice agencies in order to fund a community court (Eckberg, 2001; Sviridof et al., 2001). Awareness of specifc court activities, however, varies among residents and from court to court, and may not impact broader opinions of the justice system. In a survey of Red Hook residents, awareness of the Justice Center was particularly high among public housing residents, likely due to the court’s assistance with housing disputes (Lee et al., 2013). An evaluation of the Neighbourhood Justice Centre in Melbourne found that individuals who lived or worked nearby were most aware of the Centre’s activities (Ross, 2009). In Liverpool, increasing awareness of the North Liverpool Community Justice Center was not found to translate into a signifcant increase in public confdence in the justice system (McKenna, 2007). Researchers have not thoroughly examined community courts’ impact on public safety and have instead relied on comparisons of community perceptions over time. When asked to assess neighborhood safety in a pre- and post-survey, Red Hook residents reported feeling safer in public at night after the court’s implementation (Moore, 2004). In North Liverpool, the percentage of residents surveyed who felt that the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre had reduced quality-of-life 49

Greg Berman et al.

crimes increased slightly (from 15% to 21%) in the frst two years of implementation (LlewellynThomas & Prior, 2007).

Broadening the Model Over the past 30 years, practitioners across the country have adapted the central concepts of the community court model to address new issues in their jurisdictions. This chapter highlights initiatives that apply community justice to some of the most vexing issues facing criminal justice reformers and the communities they serve. These programs respond to the criminalization of poverty in Jersey City, New Jersey; chronic homelessness, substance use, and mental illness in Los Angeles, California; and violence in Brooklyn, New York. While these initiatives do not involve neighborhood-based courts, they all draw upon the core principles of community justice, particularly the fundamental commitment to coupling alternatives to traditional punishment (incarceration, fees and fnes, and criminal convictions) with vigorous community engagement. Together, they illustrate the evolution of the community court model over decades of implementation and its enduring relevance to justice reformers.

Beyond Fees and Fines In 2014, street protests in Ferguson, Missouri (and a subsequent Department of Justice report) focused national attention on the widespread use of fnes by local courts, their disparate impact on poor and minority communities, and their role in driving up local incarceration rates (Shaw & United States, 2015). According to former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, fees and fnes “contribute to an erosion in our faith in government” (“Justice Department Announces Resources to Assist State and Local Reform of Fine and Fee Practices”, 2016). Yet regressive fnes remain one of the default responses to lower-level crime across the United States. As Georgetown law professor Peter Edelman (2017) observes, “Ferguson is everywhere” (pp. 3–11). Located just across the Hudson River from Manhattan, Jersey City Municipal Court is piloting an innovative way to reduce the use of fnes and fees. Like most municipal courts across the country, the court is primarily focused on lower-level ofenses. Of the 10,000 cases on the court’s docket each year, 75 percent are minor crimes like shoplifting, possession and sale of small amounts of drugs, and unpaid fnes (Jackson & Dix-Kielbiowski, 2019). The Municipal Court’s responses to these cases were limited: criminal convictions, fnes, and jail. In 2015, 93 percent of sentences involved a fne and 46 percent involved jail. These sentences did little to address underlying issues in defendants’ lives or reduce future ofending. Many people returned to court within a few months, either on new charges or on warrants for failing to pay fnes from a previous case. To break this cycle, Jersey City has launched a community court initiative, known as Jersey City Community Solutions, within its municipal court. The initiative enables participants to engage in community service or social services, ranging from job training and adult education to substance use and mental health treatment, in lieu of incarceration and fnes. Defendants charged with ofenses such as drug possession, disorderly conduct, shoplifting, and trespassing are ofered the opportunity to opt in to the program or stay in the conventional court process. They can engage in service mandates pre-plea in return for a dismissal or, less commonly, post-plea as an alternative sentence. The average mandate lasts between seven and eight days. Successful completion enables participants to avoid any fnes or court fees. A key element of this work is eliminating criminal justice debt. Through Jersey City Community Solutions, participants can avoid fnes on their current case and convert historical fnes to community service. Similarly, the court helps participants resolve other outstanding legal issues, such as suspended driver’s licenses. According to presiding community court Judge Cynthia Jackson, “When 50

What Comes Next?

participants fnish their engagement with our court, all of their issues are resolved. It defeats the purpose if people leave with fnes” (Jackson & Dix-Kielbiowski, 2019). The court also advances an innovative approach to community engagement. Judges and court staf attended community meetings throughout the planning process and continue to do so to stay apprised of community concerns. In the coming year, Judge Jackson and staf are planning to “ride circuit,” holding court sessions in several local libraries or community centers. The idea is to diminish the discomfort of coming to the courthouse and to increase the likelihood that court users will take advantage of the resources available. It is also to provide tangible evidence that the court is part of, and working for, the community. Inspired by the court’s eforts to solve local issues and engage the community, the Jersey City Police Department has launched a pilot community policing initiative. In the city’s West District, Community Outreach ofcers are building relationships with local nonprofts, conducting proactive street outreach to people experiencing homelessness, and seeking to engage them in voluntary social services. When the police encounter people with an outstanding warrant or criminal justice debt, they seek not to make an arrest, but encourage people to voluntarily go to the community court to resolve the case. Although this efort is still in its infancy, it gestures at a signifcant new trend: moving upstream to address community issues before they escalate into court actions.

Moving Upstream Over the past decade, police and prosecutors in King County, Washington have largely stopped arresting and charging people for low-level ofenses such as drug possession. Instead, they have collaborated with social service providers to launch LEAD (Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion), a pre-booking diversion program that steers people into treatment. An evaluation found that LEAD participants are signifcantly less likely than a control group to be rearrested within six months (Collins, Lonczak, & Clifasef, 2017). They are also signifcantly more likely to obtain housing or employment after their contact with LEAD than before (Clifasef, Lonczak, & Collins, 2017). Based on this evidence, the LEAD model has spread to 37 other jurisdictions. Larry Krasner, Philadelphia’s District Attorney, plans to implement a version, and Rachel Rollins, the newly elected prosecutor in Boston, included it in her campaign platform (Jouvenal, 2019). In Los Angeles, the City Attorney’s Ofce has taken even more radical steps, moving beyond diversion and into preventative street outreach. In 2014, a California statewide ballot initiative reclassifed some low-level drug and property ofenses from felonies to misdemeanors. This created both an opportunity and a challenge for the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Ofce, the agency responsible for prosecuting misdemeanors: they suddenly had many new cases. The challenges were compounded by another local problem: over the past decade, homelessness in Los Angeles has increased by almost 50 percent (Oreskes & Smith, 2019). Consequently, prosecutors were seeing more defendants with complex histories of homelessness, substance dependence, and mental health needs. Inspired by LEAD, the City Attorney’s Ofce decided to launch LA DOOR (Diversion, Outreach, and Opportunities for Recovery), a hybrid initiative that couples pre-booking diversion with street outreach to people with substance use, mental health, and housing needs. Community courts have typically responded after a case has been fled—essentially seeking to rethink sentencing. LEAD had moved the intervention earlier in the process, redirecting cases away from court during an arrest. Both models rely on traditional justice actors: police and court stakeholders. LA DOOR goes one step further, aiming to preempt contact with the justice system entirely. It draws on the principles of community justice, particularly the emphasis on individualized outcomes, procedural justice, and community engagement, but substitutes clinician and peer-led engagement for court- or ofcerled diversion. As Jamie Larson, Director of the City Attorney’s Recidivism Reduction and Drug 51

Greg Berman et al.

Diversion Unit, observed, LA DOOR tests the hypothesis that the most efective way to serve highneed populations is to “move upstream,” applying the principles of community justice before an issue reaches the courts. (Larson, 2019). Rather than waiting for an arrest to occur, LA DOOR delivers peer-led services to fve “hotspot” locations in South LA (one for each day of the work week). At 7:00 a.m. each morning, LA DOOR’s mobile service team arrives at one of the hotspots. The team, which includes clinicians as well as case managers with lived experience of justice involvement or recovery, ofers crisis support and services. The work focuses on building trust and relationships with potential participants. The team addresses immediate needs frst, providing food, water, and personal care items. They also help with obtaining identifcation and accessing public benefts. As Larson describes, “there’s a lot of driving people where they need to go” (Larson, 2019). LA DOOR’s model emphasizes motivational interviewing techniques and building bonds with participants. By establishing trust, LA DOOR increases the likelihood that people will access services like residential treatment, shelter placement, or primary care. When participants are ready, the outreach team steers them toward one of LA DOOR’s transitional housing beds and long-term clinical services, including case management, counseling, and treatment. In many cases, preventing future contact with the system also requires resolving past contact. In an unusual partnership, the City Attorney’s Ofce connects LA DOOR participants to the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s ofce, whose attorneys help them clear old warrants, reduce past charges, and apply for expungement of past convictions. LA DOOR also connects participants with another City Attorney initiative that enables people to resolve old fnes and fees by participating in community service or social services. By clearing past records and resolving old debts—often amounting to thousands of dollars—the program helps remove obstacles to education, employment, housing, and public benefts. While LA DOOR has not yet undergone a formal evaluation, early results are promising. In a little over a year, it has engaged about 450 people, 60 percent of whom voluntarily enrolled in case management services and participated for at least two months. Over 25 percent of participants continue to access services, and several have moved out of LA DOOR housing into their own homes and jobs. Through LA DOOR, the LA City Attorney’s Ofce is attempting to reconcile the fundamental tension between communities’ interest in addressing quality-of-life issues and their dissatisfaction with the conventional justice system. Across the country, residents seek relief from lower-level ofenses. It is also true that many community advocates condemn over-enforcement of low-level crime (particularly in Black communities) and the resulting negative impacts on those who are arrested, convicted, and sentenced. LA DOOR is a way out of this box. It takes quality-of-life concerns seriously while also seeking to avoid or reduce the harms of conventional case processing.

Focusing on Violence Signifcant decarceration in the United States will inevitably require a new approach to violence.4 Fifty-three percent of people incarcerated in state prisons have been convicted of violent ofenses (Berman & Adler, 2018). According to James Austin, “Violence is contextual—emerging in families, neighborhoods, and institutions in which informal bonds of guardianship are weak” (Austin, Schiraldi, Western, & Dwivedi, 2019). In other words, violence is most common in communities in which informal social connections and the institutions that foster them (churches, businesses, schools, community-based organizations, etc.), are weak. It is also deeply related to past experiences of victimization. One potential path to addressing violent crime is therefore to invest in strengthening social ties and healing past trauma. This hypothesis is being tested in Brownsville, Brooklyn. 52

What Comes Next?

Brownsville is characterized by poverty, high rates of violence, and low levels of trust in law enforcement. The neighborhood, which is more than 95 percent nonwhite, is home to more than a dozen public housing developments, the highest concentration in New York City. Thirty-six percent of residents live below the federal poverty line, a rate nearly double the city average, and 44 percent of working-age residents are unemployed. While crime rates in Brownsville have declined signifcantly over the past two decades, its rate of violent crime continues to be one of the city’s highest. The criminal justice system is a daily fact of life in Brownsville. The neighborhood is heavily policed. In the age of “stop and frisk”, Brownsville led New York in stops, with a few blocks experiencing nearly one stop per resident each year (Rivera, Baker, & Roberts, 2010). Thousands of residents are on probation or parole. The incarceration rate for young men is the highest in the city. Regular interactions with the justice system have produced neither afection or trust. For example, in 2010, only 16 percent of residents described their relationship with the police as positive (Hynynen, 2011). Brownsville is a place in need of a new approach to criminal justice and a place in which there is little confdence that the justice system can be part of the solution. To address these issues, the Center for Court Innovation sought to adapt the model of the Red Hook Community Justice Center, a nearby community court that has been documented to reduce recidivism and improve local trust in justice. But, concerned about an overabundance of criminal justice agencies in the neighborhood, some local stakeholders argued that a justice center in Brownsville should not include a criminal court. As a result, the Brownsville Community Justice Center does not have a courtroom. Instead it is a hub for community-based crime prevention eforts and alternative-to-incarceration services. In its storefront ofce, there are no magnetometers, no court ofcers, and no judge. There is a team of social workers, case managers, and community organizers, many of whom have deep ties to the neighborhood, who are working to strengthen Brownsville’s social infrastructure, expand opportunities for Brownsville’s young people, and activate its public spaces. The Brownsville Community Justice Center’s approach to public safety is simple: ask residents where and why they feel unsafe and involve them in addressing these issues. Each of its projects follows the same development process. Residents, often youth, identify an issue, and then study, design, and implement a solution. Justice Center staf help guide this process—gathering data to inform decisions, identifying partners, and coordinating the intervention. This approach ensures that initiatives are highly responsive to community needs. It empowers residents who are often marginalized by criminal justice agencies, giving them a stake in implementation and outcomes. Recognizing that victims and perpetrators are overlapping categories, the Justice Center does not make hard and fast distinctions among the young people it serves. Some have been mandated by courts or probation and are working to resolve their cases without jail time. Some are walk-ins looking for an after-school activity. For both mandated and voluntary participants, the Justice Center ofers services that address past harms, build on strengths, and prepare them to become community leaders. Counseling sessions and restorative justice groups help young people process their trauma. Paid internships in technology and the arts excite their passions and provide a pathway to potential careers. The Justice Center has helped launch several youth-led social enterprises, such as a virtual reality incubator space that ofers training in cutting-edge technologies. The Justice Center also works to change Brownsville’s physical landscape, revitalizing vacant lots and underutilized spaces that encourage crime. For example, the program has made a signifcant commitment to improving Belmont Avenue, a struggling shopping corridor. Working with a range of city agencies and local partners—and hundreds of young people—the Justice Center has removed trash and grafti, installed public art and plantings, improved lighting, created a pedestrian plaza, and attracted new, resident-owned businesses. These placemaking initiatives aim to create a virtuous feedback loop. Inclusive public spaces bring people onto the street. Vibrant public life and strong 53

Greg Berman et al.

social ties reduce crime. And declines in crime drive the cycle onwards by further increasing trust and solidarity and encouraging more people to use public spaces.

Future Research The next generation of community court research must move beyond analyzing participant outcomes and community perceptions. As the case studies of from New Jersey, Los Angeles, and New York suggest, community justice programs continue to mutate and adapt to changing conditions. Research needs to keep pace with these new developments. In particular, there is a need to explore community-level impacts, asking how safe and healthy neighborhoods are created and whether community justice programs can help facilitate this process. New research suggests that Brownsville-like initiatives may have an important role to play in reducing violence and improving neighborhood safety. Analyzing data from 264 US cities over 20 years, Patrick Sharkey and his collaborators found a 9 percent decline in the murder rate and a 6 percent decline in the violent crime rate per 100,000 residents for every 10 additional nonprofts that focused on violence prevention and community building (Sharkey, Torrats-Espinosa, & Takyar, 2017).5 This study did not, however, identify the specifc mechanisms that create safety at the neighborhood level. Researchers and policymakers have struggled to understand the community-level impacts of community justice programs for two reasons. First, it is difcult to isolate the efects of any one intervention on a given neighborhood. Second, it is not clear what changes to look for. Which aspects of a safe and healthy neighborhood are most important? Is it the “eyes on the street” identifed by Jane Jacobs, the trust among residents highlighted by Robert Sampson, or some other variable? Eforts to measure and analyze the impact of community justice should start by defning the community to be served. For example, is the target community a specifc neighborhood, a police precinct, or a group of people, e.g., young adults? Before attempting to measure impact, a thorough process evaluation can help document the community’s role in the development and implementation of a community justice intervention, including residents’ contribution to planning and their role in the daily provision of services. It can also focus on access and equity, analyzing which community members use services and what factors seem to facilitate or limit participation. A process evaluation can also investigate if and how community justice programs work with neighborhood-level organizations, including whether they increase other organizations’ capacity. The next step is to determine if and how community justice initiatives create safer and more vibrant communities. To do so, researchers could journey out into the neighborhoods and, in the process, amplify the voices and experiences of residents and community leaders themselves. They could apply ethnographic methods, interviewing residents, attending community events, and observing sociocultural dynamics. They could also embrace participatory research, incorporating residents into research teams and empowering them to set research questions and gather data. Through these methods, researchers could address fundamental questions about the impact of community justice programs on civic infrastructure and collective efcacy and identify the factors that are most important in building trust and strengthening ties among residents.

Conclusion In 1993, at the genesis of the community court model, policymakers and practitioners were responding to urban neighborhoods that seemed ungovernable. Today, many of our major cities are thriving, and crime, particularly violent crime, has declined dramatically. In this moment, reformers’ goals have shifted. Many now seek to reduce the use of incarceration, fnes, and other punitive practices, and to eliminate racial and ethnic disparities. The goal is to bring down crime even further and ensure that safety is experienced widely and equally across our cities. 54

What Comes Next?

Community justice continues to provide an expansive framework and set of potential strategies for achieving these goals. By treating people who encounter the justice system with respect, and ofering innovative solutions to individuals’ and communities’ issues, the original community courts demonstrated how to reduce crime and build legitimacy one case and one street at a time. The community justice initiatives highlighted in this article are pushing the model further. They are changing practices in a high-volume municipal court, connecting high-need individuals with preventive health care and social services before they reach the court system, and developing community-based responses to violent crime. In the days ahead, we expect to see more and more varied applications of community justice principles across the country.

Notes 1. The authors wish to acknowledge Joy Ming King for research support and assistance with the manuscript and Rachel Swaner for comments on an earlier draft of this chapter. 2. When defendants did receive a jail sentence—typically as a secondary sanction after noncompliance with an initial alternative sanction—their sentences tended to be longer (81 days vs. 40 days on average) (Lee et al., 2013). 3. The Yarra Neighborhood Justice Center defned recidivism as a conviction for a new ofense, not a new arrest. 4. “Violence” here refers to both those crimes that involve physical violence, and those that may not involve a physically violent act, but are legally classifed as violent ofenses, such as burglary and gun possession. 5. The researchers defned these nonprofts to include fve specifc focuses: crime prevention, neighborhood development, substance abuse prevention, job training and workforce development, and recreational and social activities for children and youth.

References Austin, J., Schiraldi, V., Western, B., & Dwivedi, A. (2019). Reconsidering the “violent ofender”. New York: The Square One Project: Executive Session on the Future of Justice Policy. Belenko, S. (2000). The challenges of integrating drug treatment into the criminal justice process. Albany Law Review, 63(3), 833. Berman, G. (2010). Principles of community justice. New York: Center for Court Innovation and the Bureau of Justice Assistance. Retrieved from www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/fles/Communitycourtprinciples. pdf. Berman, G., & Adler, J. (2018). Start here: A roadmap to reducing mass incarceration. New York: The New Press. Berman, G., & Feinblatt, J. (2001). Problem-solving courts: A brief primer. Law and Policy, 23(2), 125–140. Booth, L., Altoft, A., Dubourg, R., Gonçalves, M., & Mirrlees-Black, C. (2012, July). North Liverpool Community Justice Centre: Analysis of re-ofending rates and efciency of court processes. London: Ministry of Justice. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_ data/fle/217393/liverpool-community-centre.pdf. Cheesman, F., Rottman, D., Gibson, S., Durkin, M., Maggard, S., Sohoni, T., & Curtis, R. (2010). Philadelphia Community Court evaluation fnal report: Outcome/impact analysis and update on process evaluation. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts. Retrieved from http://ndcrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ philadelphia_community_court_fnal_report.pdf. Clifasef, S. L., Lonczak, H. S., & Collins, S. E. (2017). Seattle’s Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program: Within-subjects changes on housing, employment, and income/benefts outcomes and associations with recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 63(4), 429–445. Collins, S. E., Lonczak, H. S., & Clifasef, S. L. (2017). Seattle’s Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD): Program efects on recidivism outcomes. Evaluation and Program Planning, 64, 49–56, Eckberg, D. (2001). Hennepin County community justice project: Summary report of short-term evaluation. Minneapolis, MN: Hennepin County District Court Research Department. Retrieved from www.mncourts.gov/ Documents/4/Public/Research/Community_Evaluation_(2001).pdf. Edelman, P. B. (2017). Not a crime to be poor: The criminalization of poverty in America. New York: The New Press. Frazer, M. S. (2006). The impact of the community court model on defendant perceptions of fairness: A case study at the Red Hook Community Justice Center. New York: Center for Court Innovation. Retrieved from www. courtinnovation.org/sites/default/fles/Procedural_Fairness.pdf.

55

Greg Berman et al. Fulton Hora, P., Schma, W. G., & Rosenthal, J. T. A. (1999). Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug treatment court movement: Revolutionizing the criminal justice system’s response to drug abuse and crime in America. Notre Dame Law Review, 74(2), 439–538. Goldstein, H. (1979). Improving policing: A problem-oriented approach. Crime and Delinquency, 25, 236; Univ. of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 133. Hakuta, J., Souroushian, V., & Kralstein, D. (2008). Testing the impact of the Midtown Community Court: Updating outcomes a decade later. New York: Center for Court Innovation. Hamilton, Z. K., Abboud Holbrook, M., & Kigerl, A. (2019, August). City of Spokane Municipal Community Court: Process and outcome evaluation. Spokane, WA: Washington State Institute for Criminal Justice. Retrieved from https://static.spokanecity.org/documents/municipalcourt/therapeutic/smcc-evaluation-report-2019. pdf. Henry, K., & Kralstein, D. (2011). Community courts: The research literature. New York: Center for Court Innovation and the Bureau of Justice Assistance. Retrieved from www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/fles/ documents/Community%20Courts%20Research%20Lit.pdf. Holder, E. H., Jr. (2010, October 19). Speech presented at Community Justice 2010: International Conference of Community Courts. Dallas, TX. Retrieved July from www.courtinnovation.org/articles/ community-justice-2010-international-conference-community-courts. Hynynen, S. (2011). Community perceptions of Brownsville: A Survey of neighborhood quality of life, safety and services. New York: Center for Court Innovation. Retrieved from www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/fles/ documents/Brownsville Op Data FINAL.pdf. Hynynen Lambson, S. (2015, January). Peacemaking circles: Evaluating a Native American restorative justice practice in a state criminal court setting in Brooklyn. New York: Center for Court Innovation. Retrieved from www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/fles/documents/Peacemaking%20Circles%20Final.pdf. Jackson, C., & Dix-Kielbiowski, S. (2019, June 10). Interview with authors. Jouvenal, J. (2019, June 11). No charges for personal drug possession: Seattle’s bold gamble to bring ‘peace’ after the war on drugs. The Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/. Karafn, D. L. (2008, January). Community courts across the globe: A survey of goals, performance measures and operations. Newlands, South Africa: Open Society Foundation for South Africa. Retrieved from www.courtinnovation. org/sites/default/fles/community_court_world.pdf. Kelling, G. L., & Wilson, J. Q. (1982, March). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Monthly, 249(3), 29–38. Kilmer, B., & Sussell, J. (2014). Does San Francisco’s Community Justice Center reduce criminal recidivism? San Francisco, CA: RAND Corporation and the Superior Court of California. Retrieved from www.rand.org/pubs/ research_reports/RR735.html. Kunichof, Y. (2017, May 2). Should communities have a say in how residents are punished for crime? The Atlantic. Retrieved from www.theatlantic.com. Lang, J. (2011). What is a community court?: How the model is being adapted across the United States. New York: Center for Court Innovation and the Bureau of Justice Assistance. Retrieved from www.courtinnovation.org/ sites/default/fles/documents/What%20is%20a%20Community%20Court.pdf. Larson, J. (2019, May 5). Interview with authors. Lee, C. G., Cheesman, F. L., Rottman, D. B., Swaner, R., Lambson, S., Rempel, M., & Curtis, R. (2013). A community court grows in Brooklyn: A comprehensive evaluation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts. Retrieved from www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/ fles/documents/RH%20Evaluation%20Final%20Report.pdf. Lee, E. (2000). Community courts: An evolving model. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from www.ncjrs.gov/pdfles1/bja/183452.pdf. Llewellyn-Thomas, S., & Prior, G. (2007). North Liverpool Community Justice Centre: Survey of local residents. London, United Kingdom: Ministry of Justice. Mahoney, B., & Carlson, A. (2007). The Seattle Community Court: Start-up, initial implementation and recommendations concerning future development. Denver, CO: The Justice Management Institute. McKenna, K. (2007). Evaluation of the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre. London, United Kingdom: Ministry of Justice. Moore, K. (2004). Op Data, 2001: Red Hook, Brooklyn. New York: Center for Court Innovation. National Institute of Justice. (2013, March 13). Specialized courts. Retrieved October 1, 2019 from https://nij. ojp.gov/topics/articles/specialized-courts. Nugent-Borakove, E. (2009). Seattle Municipal Community Court: Outcome evaluation fnal report. Denver, CO: The Justice Management Institute. Oreskes, B., & Smith, D. (2019, June 4). Homelessness jumps 12% in L.A. County and 16% in the city; ofcials ‘stunned’. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from www.latimes.com/.

56

What Comes Next? Rivera, R., Baker, A., & Roberts, J. (2010, July 11). A few blocks, 4 years, 52,000 police stops. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/. Ross, S. (2015). Evaluating neighbourhood justice: Measuring and attributing outcomes for a community justice program. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 499, 1–7. Ross, S., Halsey, M., Bamford, D., Cameron, N., & King, A. (2009). Evaluation of the Neighbourhood Justice Centre, city of Yarra: Final report. Melbourne: Department of Justice. Sharkey, P., Torrats-Espinosa, G., & Takyar, D. (2017). Community and the crime decline: The causal efect of local nonprofts on violent crime. American Sociological Review, 82(6), 1214–1240. Shaw, T. M., & United States. (2015). The Ferguson report: Department of Justice investigation of the Ferguson Police Department. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/fles/opa/press-releases/attachments/ 2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf. Sviridof, M., Rottman, D., Ostram, B., & Curtis, R. (2000). Dispensing justice locally: The implementation and efects of the Midtown Community Court. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers. Sviridof, M., Rottman, D., Weidner, R., Cheesman, F., Curtis, R., Hansen, R., & Ostrom, B. (2001). Dispensing justice locally: The impact, costs and benefts of the Midtown Community Court. New York: Center for Court Innovation. The United States Department of Justice, Ofce of Public Afairs. (2016, April 28). Justice Department announces resources to assist state and local reform of fne and fee practices [Press release]. Retrieved from www.justice.gov/ opa/pr/justice-department-announces-resources-assist-state-and-local-reform-fne-and-fee-practices. Westat. (2012, July). East of the River Community Court (ERCC) evaluation: Final report. Rockville, MD: Westat. Retrieved from www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/fles/matters-docs/ERCC-Evaluation-Report.pdf.

57

PART II

Community Corrections

4 FROM MEAN TO MEANINGFUL PROBATION Te Legacy of Intensive Supervision Programs Faye S. Taxman, Lindsay Smith, and Danielle S. Rudes Introduction The largest arm of the U.S. correctional system, probation, now supervises over six million individuals (Kaeble, Glaze, Tsoutis, & Minton, 2016). Although the form and function of probation has experienced important shifts over the last several decades, probation, both initially and presently, constitutes a period of community-based restrictions on justice-involved individuals’ liberties and activities. Probation is designed to broadly serve the sentencing goals of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation and specifcally provide surveillance for justice-involved individuals outside of a carceral (prison or jail) environment. While much of probation supervision emphasizes assessing and mitigating individuals’ likelihood of re-ofending (i.e., risk), shifts in probation supervision now include an emphasis on responding to and assisting probationers with their dynamic needs (i.e., treatment, programs, services, employment). In a growing number of probation jurisdictions, the focus on risk and needs assessment now goes a step beyond just acknowledging risk and brokering services to include responsivity (matching particular individual needs with the most efective programs/services for addressing them). While these all sound like good steps forward, probation is complex. Researchers are a long way from fully understanding its goals, techniques, delivery mechanisms, links between individual ofcers’ discretion and organizational systems (including judicial, legal, and community), and the impact probation has and/or may have on supervision outcomes. As may now be obvious, the story of probation is long and multifaceted. We will not tell that story in its entirety here. Instead, we begin with one of the most infuential studies in the feld of community corrections: Petersilia and Turner’s Intensive Supervision Probation randomized controlled trial (RCT) (Petersilia, 1989; Petersilia & Turner, 1993a, 1993b). This chapter focuses on what we learned, thought we learned, and did not learn from this important work. To do this, we outline some of what we know about probation today with specifc emphasis on what remains unknown. We then review the Petersilia & Turner intensive supervision probation (ISP) study. We fnish the chapter with some promising practices for continued or future consideration to advance probation, perhaps improve both processes and outcomes from probation supervision, and continue the legacy Petersilia and Turner began over 27 years ago.

61

Faye S. Taxman et al.

Probation Supervision and Goals Despite its human/social service origins (Taxman, 2002; Taxman, 2008), probation in the late 1970s through the early to mid-1990s followed societal trends and undertook a tough-on-crime stance where probation ofcers became the “eyes and ears of local court” (Rothman, 2002). In the late 1980s and early 1990s (as part of national eforts such as the War on Drugs, intensifed and longer sentencing, mandatory minimums, etc.), probation became a vehicle for imposing community-based supervision nested squarely in rhetoric around sanctions and punishment (see (Morris & Tonry, 1991). Probation used psychological, physical, and fnancial forms to constrain behavior through a series of requirements commonly called conditions and requirements. The most common supervision conditions included substance abuse (urine) testing; psychological evaluation and/or treatment; non-association with criminal peers; not possessing a weapon; gaining and/or maintaining employment; paying fnes, fees, and restitution; adhering to reporting requirements; and maintaining a stable residence. In the 1990s, fnes, restitution, and fees became more predominate as supervision agencies searched for means to pay for basic services. In fact, the fnancial burden of being on supervision is now being discussed as a collateral consequence given the lengthy periods of supervision (see chapter by Ruhland this edition). Throughout the 1980s and 90s, the number and type of conditions steadily increased, with an average of 17 conditions for general probation (Taxman, 2012). While tough-on-crime advocates suggest these conditions are a necessary part of community safety, they increase the supervision burden for both probation ofcers and probationers. Ofcers now have many more things to hold probationers accountable for. Individuals on probation now have many more goals to achieve and rules to follow. The numerous conditions are challenging for probationers supervised on a generalized caseload. For higher-risk individuals supervised more closely, the number of conditions expands and the supervision strategies intensify. Intensive supervision probation focuses on adding conditions and increasing supervision to increase the punitiveness of the sanction and ensure individuals feel the punishment via heavy surveillance. However, it remains unclear if by increasing supervision intensity, we improve supervision outcomes.

Petersilia and Turner’s Intensive Supervision Probation Study Petersilia and Turner’s RCT of intensive supervision examined both the processes and outcomes associated with ISP in 14 U.S. jurisdictions (Petersilia & Turner, 1993b). This noteworthy study is one of the largest RCTs in probation, examining the efcacy of intensive supervision probation (ISP) for drug-involved probationers. Each study site received 18 to 24 months of demonstration grant funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) to implement their version of an intensive supervision program (Petersilia, 1989). Each agency developed their own ISP while accounting for organizational culture and local priorities. All ISPs consisted of smaller caseload sizes (client-to-ofcer ratios ranged from 11:1 to 40:1 depending on the site) compared to 200:1 to 300:1 for standard probation at that time. Coupled with smaller caseloads, ISP included enhanced contacts between the ofcer and the probationer (ranging from 4 to 16 contacts per month) and frequent drug testing (ranging from four to eight per month), as shown in Table 4.1. Since sites determined their own concept of ISP, the intensity and conditions (including drug testing, number of contacts, employment, graduated sanctions, surveillance, electronic monitoring, treatment referrals, and community service) varied greatly. Table 4.1 details the implementation of the ISP model on: 1) mean number of contacts; 2) mean number of drug testing results per month; 3) percentage of ISP clients who received counseling; and 4) percentage of ISP clients with employment. 62

63

30:2 40:2

166 50 50

50

58

115

53

221

458

25 72

Ventura CA Atlanta GA Macon GA

Waycross GA

Santa Fe NM

Des Moines IA

Winchester VA

Dallas TX

Houston TX

Marion OR Milwaukee WI

*p