Evaluation of a Day Reporting Center for Re peat DWI Offenders

Transcription

1 1. Report No. 2. Govermet ccessio No. 3. ec piets Catalog No. DOT HS Techical Report Documetatio Page 4. Tide ad Subtitle Report Date Evaluatio of a Day Reportig Ceter for Re peat DWI Offeders August a ormtg Orgaizatio Code 7. Author(s) S.- Performig Orgaizatio Report No. Joes, R. K.; ad Lacey, J. H. 9. Performig orgaizatio Name ad Address 10. Work it No. (TRAIS) Mid-America Research Istitute 611 Mai Street 11. Cotract or rat o. Wichester, MA DTNH22-95-C Sposorig Agecy Name ad Address 13. Type of Report ad Period Covered Natioal Highway Traffic Safety Admiistratio Office of Research ad Traffic Records Street, S.W. Washigto, DC Fial Report 14, Sposorig Agecy Code 15. Supplemetary Notes Amy Bemig was the Cotractig Officer's Techical Represetative (COTR) for this project. 16. Abstract Describes ad evaluates the effectiveess of a Day Reportig Ceter (DRC) i reducig the DWI recidivism of repeat DWI offeders. Also examies the effect of the DRC program i reducig the cost of post-covictio sactioig operatios, ad i relievig the pressures o jail facilities i carryig out the court-imposed sactios. Foud that the DRC program was o more effective i reducig recidivism tha was a compariso stadard probatio program i use by the study jurisdictio. However, the DRC program was more cost-effective ad helped reduce pressure o a already over-taxed couty jail system. 17. Key Words 18. Distributio Statemet DWI, impaired drivers, sactios, setecig, This report is available from the Natioal Techical probatio, recidivism, court procedures, program Iformatio Service, Sprigfield, Virgiia evaluatio, day reportig ceter (703) Security asst. (of this report) my Class if. o is page) 21. No. of ages 22. Price Form DOT F (8-72) Reproductio of completed page authorized

2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to ackowledge the assistace we received from our may collaborators i Maricopa Couty, Arizoa. The Day Reportig Ceter (DRC) is a program of the Maricopa Couty Adult Probatio Departmet. We wish to thak Norma Helber, Chief Probatio Officer ad Dorothy Faust, former Deputy Chief Probatio Officer for Programs for their willigess to subject their program to evaluatio ad for facilitatig the research project. Lee Brikmoeller, Probatio Officer Supervisor, was i charge of the DRC durig the period evaluated ad was istrumetal to the coduct of the study. His opeess ad isight were istrumetal to the success of the project. The Arizoa Motor Vehicles Divisio provided the driver record data used i the recidivism aalysis. Russell K. Pearce, Divisio Director, ad F. William (Rick) Griffeth, Assistat Director, were most helpful i approvig our request ad steerig it through the ecessary reviews. Hilto Ishimoto performed the computer programmig which was ecessary to fulfillig our request. Alberto Gutier, Director of the Arizoa Goveror's Office of Commuity ad Highway Safety ad Tila Redo of his staff were most helpful i supportig the project ad facilitatig appropriate cotacts. To the persos metioed above ad may others who helped, we exted our sicere thaks. i

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS... i TABLE OF CONTENTS... ii FIGURES...iv TABLES... iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... v 1- INTRODUCTION... I BACKGROUND... 1 PROJECT SCOPE AND APPROACH... 3 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT DESCRIPTION... 7 SITE DESCRIPTION... 7 Populatio ad Socio-Ecoomic Factors... 7 DWI Eforcemet System... 7 Laws... 7 Eforcemet... 8 Adjudicatio... 8 Sactioig... 8 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION... 9 Overview... 9 Offeder Case Flow ad Processig Screeig Acceptace, Cacellatio, ad Placemet Orietatio Cliet Assessmet Cliet Cotact Employmet ad Collectios Procedure Discipliary Actio Case Trasfers STANDARD PROBATION DESCRIPTION EVALUATION APPROACH PROGRAM OPERATION ii

4 PROGRAM IMPACT Experimet Desig Data Sources Aalysis Techiques Results Recidivism Offeder Characteristics SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES APPENDIX A - Stadards for DRC Caseload Documetatio iii

5 FIGURES Figure 3-1: Raw Recidivism Curves for the DRC Group ad the Compariso Group Figure 3-2: Percet of Combied Group Recidivatig After Two Years By Number of Prior DWIs TABLES Table 1-1: Oe-Year Recidivism Rates for First Offeders ad Repeat Offeders, Statewide Data from Various Sources... 2 Table 3-1: Number of Study DWIs Eterig the DRC Program by Year.. 20 Table 3-2: Mea Moths Seteced to Probatio ad Mea Moths Served by DRC Subjects Studied iv

6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report summarizes the results of a project desiged to describe ad evaluate a selected alterative sactio program for repeat DWI offeders who had bee arrested for ad charged with a feloy DWI offese. The selected coutermeasure, a Day Reportig Ceter (DRC) is a highly structured o-residetial facility that provides supervisio, reportig, employmet, couselig, educatio ad commuity resource referrals to probatioers. The DRC studied was operated by the Adult Probatio Departmet ofthe Maricopa Couty, Arizoa Superior Court ad provided a cotiuum of correctioal services to augmet itesive supervisio, residetial programs (e.g., halfway houses, work release ceters, etc.), ad regular supervisio. The evaluatio addressed the effectiveess of the Maricopa Couty DRC i reducig DWI recidivism, i reducig the cost of post-covictio sactioig operatios, ad i relievig the pressures o jail facilities i carryig out the court-imposed sactios. The study foud that the DRC program was o more effective i reducig recidivism tha was a stadard probatio program i use by the study jurisdictio. Both programs had a recidivism rate of about 8% after two years, quite low for this group of offeders. However, other measures of effectiveess yielded more positive results. The goal of the DRC program is ot oly related to recidivism, but rather is iteded to assist i the reitegratio of these offeders ito society. This icludes isistece o employmet, demostratio of resposibility through at least partial paymet of fees, ad participatio i educatioal programs as appropriate. Further, the cost ofprovidig correctioal services through DRC is sigificatly less thajail. I Maricopa Couty it costs $36.79 per day per idividual to keep a offeder i jail versus $19.69 per day for DRC. The DRC offeder typically is icarcerated for sixty fewer days tha compariso group members who completed their period of icarceratio followed by stadard probatio. This $17.10 per day savigs traslates ito $1,026 per offeder if they are i DRC rather tha jail. Aother beefit is that participats become employed ad thus provide support for themselves ad their families. Udereducated adults beefit from additioal educatioal services. Treatmet eeds are addressed. Cosequeces for ucooperative or o-compliat behaviors are immediately imposed. This study also sought to determie whether DWI offeders were appropriate for a DRC-type program, which is iteded for offeders thought to be of low risk of committig violet crimes. Iterviews with program staff idicated that DWI offeders did participate i the DRC program ad were appropriate participats. Oe area where the program might be modified to more effectively deal with DWI offeders is i the treatmet aspect of the program. The vast majority of these severe DWI offeders are alcohol abusers rather tha abusers of other drugs. The program studied i this project icluded a geeral substace abuse treatmet compoet. If v

7 EVALUATION OF A DAY REPORTING CENTER FOR DWI OFFENDERS the DWI caseload i DRC were expaded, the it would be appropriate to scree for problem drikig ad implemet treatmet modalities specifically tailored to alcohol abuse ad drikig drivig. The study foud that there had bee some reluctace to use DRC for DWI offeders because, though by traditioal measures they met the criteria of low-risk offeders, they were believed to pose a risk to society because of potetial drikig ad drivig while they were participatig i the program. However, this study idicates that DWI offeders pose o greater risk tha those who serve their full jail or priso terms, ad that it costs society less to deal with them i DRC tha i jail or priso. We recommed that cosideratio be give to referrig more DWI offeders to DRC-type programs ad that the DRC treatmet program be modified to iclude a treatmet regime which is structured to deal specifically with alcohol abuse ad drivig. vi

8 1 - INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the results of a project desiged to describe ad evaluate a selected alterative sactio programs for repeat DWI offeders. The project was coducted for the Natioal Highway Traffic Safety Admiistratio uder Cotract Number DTNH22-95-C etitled "Develop ad Test Coutermeasures for Repeat DWI Offeders." The objective of this project was to idetify, test, ad evaluate a promisig coutermeasure for drikig after drivig by repeat DWI' offeders. BACKGROUND There is a cosiderable body of research poitig to repeat DWI offeders as a sigificat compoet of the drikig-drivig problem i this coutry. For example, a study by Doova et a1. (1990) examied the driver records of 39,011 Washigto State drivers ad foud that early 20% of the drivers with prior DWIs were arrested agai durig a three-year follow-up period, compared to oly 2% of the drivers with o priors. Other studies of statewide data have also foud DWI offeders with prior DWI offeses ted to have higher recidivism rates tha do DWI offeders with o priors, although the ratio of the recidivism rate for those with priors to the rate for those with o priors is ot early so dramatic as the 10 to I ratio foud by Doova ad associates (Table 1-1). Studies of DWIs at the local level are i geeral agreemet with these statewide studies. For example, as a part of our NHTSA-sposored study of alterative sactios for repeat DWI offeders (Joes, Wiliszowski, ad Lacey, 1997), we examied the recidivism rates of drivers with ad without prior DWIs i two jurisdictios. We foud that i oe jurisdictio (Milwaukee, Wiscosi), ot oly were the oe-year recidivism rate of drivers with priors cosiderably higher tha those without priors, but that the recidivism rate icreased as the umber of priors icreased. For example, the adjusted oe-year recidivism rate of a group of DWIs with two priors receivig traditioal sactios for their idex offese was early twice that of such DWIs with oe prior (15.2% versus 8.0%). There is also evidece that drivers with prior DWIs are more likely to be ivolved i severe traffic crashes tha are other drivers. Data from FARS (Fell, 1991) show that, i 1988, 3.3% of all licesed drivers had bee arrested for DWI i the past three ' I this report, the term "DWI" is used geerically to describe drivig with a illegally high blood alcohol cocetratio (BAC). Other terms that are used by some jurisdictios iclude DUI (drivig uder the ifluece) ad OMVI (operatig a motor vehicle while itoxicated), amog others. 1

9 EVALUATION OF A DAY REPORTING CENTER FOR DWI OFFENDERS Table 1-1: Oe-Year Recidivism Rates for First Offeders ad Repeat Offeders, Statewide Data from Various Sources Locatio Group Subsequet Priors No Priors Ratio Evet (%) (%) Califoria' BAC test refusers DWI who also were covicted of DWI Illiois' BAC test refusers DWI or re fusal Teessee2 DWIs DWI Califoria3 DWIs Composite Notes: 1. Joes, Joksch, ad Wiliszowski, Joes, et at, Arstei-Kerslake ad Peck, Composite recidivism icludes at least oe of the followig: ighttime accidet, alcohol-related accidet (from police report), ad major traffic covictio (DUI, reckless, hit ad ru). years, but 5.7% of all fatally ijured drivers had bee arrested for DWI i the past three years. This idicates that drivers with prior DWIs were over-represeted i fatal crashes by a factor of about 1.8. Clearly, the, there is a eed for coutermeasures targeted specifically at repeat DWI offeders. We have coducted three recet NHTSA-sposored projects aimed at idetifyig promisig coutermeasures for such idividuals. The first of these projects, "Evaluatio of Alterative Programs For Repeat DWI Offeders" (cited above), ivolved a examiatio of programmatic ad evaluative literature o the effectiveess of coutermeasures for repeat DWIs, the selectio for evaluatio of two promisig coutermeasures employig alteratives to j ail, ad the evaluatio ofthese two coutermeasures. The secod recet project "Determie Reasos for Repeat Drikig ad Drivig," (Wiliszowski et al., 1996) was aimed at determiig whe, where, how ad why idividuals covicted of druk drivig repeat the offese; ascertaiig what coutermeasures these idividuals have ecoutered ad the extet oftheir effectiveess agaist recidivism; ad idetifyig promisig coutermeasures to reduce DWI recidivism amog repeat offeders. The third recetly completed project, "Evaluatio of a Idividualized Sactioig Program for DWI Offeders," (Joes ad Lacey, 1998) examied coutermeasures for both first offeders ad repeat offeders ad idetified a promisig program of idividualized sactios for both groups of DWI offeders. We are also curretly ivolved i a third project 2

10 INTRODUCTION (uder NHTSA's Parters i Progress program) that is implemetig ad evaluatig a DUI court program for drivers covicted of a repeat DWI offese. This project is a cotiuatio of this research, which will together provide additioal kowledge for use by jurisdictios i developig coutermeasures suitable to their ow operatioal eviromets. PROJECT SCOPE AND APPROACH This project sought to select ad test the effectiveess of a coutermeasure that appeared to have potetial for reducig the icidece of drikig-drivig by repeat DWI offeders. The site selectio criteria icluded the followig elemets ad were tailored ad expaded to accommodate the specific requiremets for the coutermeasure to be studied. 1. Adequate sample size of repeat offeders to istitute a viable coutermeasure program ad to allow for detectio of a program effect, if preset. 2. Willigess of appropriate agecies withi the commuity to implemet the coutermeasure ad subject the program to evaluatio. 3. Availability of resources ecessary to competetly implemet the coutermeasure ad maitai it throughout the period of evaluatio. 4. Availability of useable data which would permit coutermeasure impact evaluatio, ad willigess ad ability to provide those data i a appropriate format. 5. Absece of plas to begi implemetatio of other coutermeasure activity, legislative ad legal chages, special programs, additioal eforcemet programs or other measures which would compoud coutermeasure evaluatio or mask the effect of the coutermeasure uder study. 6. Willigess to collect ad provide additioal process data which will eable a full descriptio of the implemetatio process ad allow for what amouts to a process evaluatio. Based o these criteria, we selected Maricopa Couty, Arizoa as the site ad the Adult Probatio Departmet of the Maricopa Couty Superior Court (APD) as the implemetig agecy. The APD has a log history of developig ad evaluatig iovative programs for persos with alcohol- ad drug-related offeses. The APD had bee operatig a Day Reportig Ceter (DRC) for several years, but had ot had the opportuity to evaluate the program's effectiveess i dealig with DWI offeders. Past operatio of the program made available data that could be used i trackig program participats for several years after their etry ito the program, thus allowig a stroger experimetal desig for evaluatig the program. Day Reportig Ceters (DRC) have bee used i several jurisdictios as a alterative for jail for low-risk offeders covicted of a variety of offeses (Morris ad Tory, 1990; U.S. Departmet of Justice, 1990). I geeral, a DRC is a highly 3

11 EVALUATION OFA DAY REPORTING CENTER FOR DWI OFFENDERS structured o-residetial facility that provides programs cosistig of supervisio, reportig, employmet, couselig, educatio ad commuity resource referrals to probatioers. DRCs ca be developed ito a cotiuum of correctioal services to augmet itesive supervisio, residetial programs (e.g., halfway houses, work release ceters, etc.), ad regular supervisio. We had idetified the DRC approach as a cadidate for evaluatio i the Alterative Sactios project, but it was dropped from cosideratio i that project because of a lack of data for performig a scietific evaluatio ad because of a lack widespread use of the approach at that time. The particular form of DRC program that we studied i this project was desiged to serve two purposes: (1) reitegrate the offeders ito society ad thereby reduce the likelihood of future DWI icidets, ad (2) reduce the cost of maitaiig offeders i jail for the full period of their setece. The part of the study that was cocered with recidivism used a research desig that compared the recidivism rates of a group of offeders who were assiged to the DRC program to the rates of a group of offeders who were assiged to a stadard probatio program used by the APD for offeders i a geeral. Offeders i both groups had bee charged ad covicted of a serious DWI offese, ad had iitially bee seteced to a period of icarceratio, usually four moths. The DRC group of offeders was assiged to the DRC program at the begiig of their probatioary period. They were assessed for treatmet, job skills ad educatioal eeds at the begiig of DRC, ad the placed ito specific programs as appropriate. While i the DRC program, the offeders received very frequet cotact from their probatio officer (a miimum of two cotacts a week durig most of the program) ad had to seek ad obtai employmet. Participatio i DRC geerally lasted oe to two moths ad was give i lieu of a similar period of icarceratio. For example, a DRC participat who received a jail setece of four moths might serve two moths i jail followed by two moths i the DRC program. After completio of DRC, participats were placed o stadard probatio for the remaider of their period of probatio, averagig about four years. The compariso group of offeders assiged to stadard probatio served their full period of icarceratio, usually four moths, followed by about four years o stadard probatio. Stadard probatio usually icluded some form of treatmet or couselig at the outset ad mothly visits with the probatio officer. The probatio officer also attempted to visit probatioers at their home about four times per year. Thus, the evaluatio reported here addresses the effectiveess of the selected DRC i reducig DWI recidivism, i reducig the cost of post-covictio sactioig operatios, ad i relievig the pressures o jail facilities i carryig out the court-imposed sactios. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT A detailed descriptio of the program site ad the DRC program is preseted i Chapter 2. Chapter 3 describes the desig ad results of the evaluatio, ad Chapter 4

12 INTRODUCTION 4 presets the overall coclusios of the project. A listig of pertiet referece material follows i Chapter 5. A Appedix describig the stadards used by the APD for documetig the DRC caseload is also icluded. 5

13 6 EVALUATION OFA DAY REPORTING CENTER FOR DWI OFFENDERS

14 2 - DESCRIPTION SITE DESCRIPTION Populatio ad Socio-Ecoomic Factors Maricopa Couty has the largest populatio of ay couty i Arizoa, 2.7 millio, amoutig to some 57% of the populatio of the etire state i The couty ecompasses a area of 9,226 square miles ad cotais a umber of muicipalities. The largest of these is the city of Phoeix with a populatio of 1.2 millio, also the largest city i the state. Other cities i the couty with a populatio over 100,000 are Scottsdale, Mesa, ad Tempe. Maricopa Couty is oe of the fastest growig couties i the U.S., icreasig 24% sice 1990 ad 3% sice The media age is 31.1 years with 61 % of the populatio fallig betwee the ages of 18 ad 64. Twety-six percet (26%) of the Couty's populatio is uder 18, while 13% is over 65. The 1990 U.S. Cesus reports that 84% of this populatio is white, 4% is black ad 12% other races. The Couty has a large populatio ofpersos ofhispaic origi, estimated at about 16%. Media household icome i Maricopa Couty was $37,583 i 1995, with 13.8% of the populatio was estimated to be i poverty as July The Couty has had low uemploymet over the past te years ad is i the 3% rage as of this writig. DWI Eforcemet System Laws. The populatio targeted i this study is drivers who have bee charged with a feloy DWI offese ad bee covicted i Superior Court i Maricopa Couty. Though all were origially charged with a feloy, they may have bee covicted of a feloy DWI, more precisely defied as a Class 4 feloy i the state statutes, or of a serious misdemeaor DWI i cases where they plead guilty to a lesser offese. Drivers covicted of the feloy charge who have two or more prior DWI covictios withi a six-year period may be seteced to 2'/2 to 12 years i priso (ot jail) ad a fie of ot more tha $150,000. Drivers with three or more prior feloy covictios may be seteced to eight to 12 years i priso. Drivers with two prior DWIs must serve a miimum of four moths i priso, ad drivers with three or more DWIs must serve a miimum priso term of eight moths. Some defedats, though charged with a feloy or multiple offeses, may plead guilty ad receive four moths i jail ad probatio rather tha serve their time i priso. A limited "furlough" from priso or jail may be grated (for example, to participate i a work release program or a DRC-type program) for those covicted of a feloy DWI. Offeders will be placed o probatio durig the furlough period (see the discussio i the Program Descriptio sectio below). 7

15 EVALUATION OF A DAY REPORTING CENTER FOR DWI OFFENDERS Driver licese sactios are imposed by the Motor Vehicle Departmet for both the DWI offese ad various other admiistrative ifractios that may be coicidet with the DWI. However, statutes exclude feloy DWIs from assigmet to commuity service i lieu of jail. Eforcemet. DWI laws are eforced by officers from the various muicipal agecies ad also by the Maricopa Couty Sheriffs Departmet ad the Arizoa Highway Patrol. The Uiform Crime Report (UCR) for 1995 reports that there were 2,183 officers i the city of Phoeix aloe as of October 31, Mesa, Tempe, ad Scottsdale together had aother 1,061, ad the Sheriffs Departmet had 445. Altogether, we estimate that some 4,000 officers were egaged i eforcig laws of all kids i Maricopa Couty durig the years covered by this evaluatio. The 1995 UCR also lists 27,708 DWI arrests statewide for reportig jurisdictios havig a populatio of 3,869,000. This amouts to 7.71 arrests per 1,000 populatio. So, a rough estimate of the umber of DWI arrests for Maricopa Couty (populatio 2.4 millio i 1996) is 7.71 x 2,400 = 17,400. This amouts to about four DWI arrests per swor officer. Adjudicatio. Feloy DWI cases are prosecuted i Maricopa Couty by prosecutors from the Maricopa Couty Attorey's Office. The cases are heard i the Maricopa Couty divisio of the Superior Court of Arizoa. Cases origially charged as misdemeaor DWIs are geerally heard i a lower court which does ot have probatio services. Thus, all of the cases uder cosideratio i this study are DWI cases which were heard i Superior Court which is served by the Adult Probatio Departmet (APD). Sactioig. Feloy DWI cases are heard i the Superior Court of Maricopa Couty. Madatory priso or jail seteces idicated above are imposed. Additioal discretioary compoets of the seteces vary accordig to idividual judges subject to setecig guidelies provided by the state court system. Drivers covicted of a feloy DWI are icarcerated i oe of four priso facilities i Arizoa. Oe of these facilities is i Maricopa Couty, but Maricopa Couty offeders may also be set oe of the other three facilities. Persos who have plea-bargaied their offese dow to a misdemeaor are icarcerated i the Maricopa Couty Jail. This facility is plagued by a lack of space for its populatio, reportedly ow crowdig some 7,000 adult offeders ito space desiged for about 3,000. "Tet Cities" have bee costructed to help relieve some of the pressure, ad the issue of jail overcrowdig is a major issue i the Couty. 8

16 DESCRIPTION PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Overview The DRC program is a ogoig program. Its stated purpose is to furlough targeted defedats from icarceratio to a program of strict supervisio ad structured reitegratio services. The program provides supervisio of furlough-selected defedats from icarceratio who have bee grated probatio by the Maricopa Couty Superior Court. I cotrast to other offeders, DRC program participats are selected from those origially charged with feloy DWI, but have plea-bargaied dow their offese to a misdemeaor DWI. Thus, their icarceratio is spet i the Maricopa Couty jail, rather tha a State priso as required of those who were actually covicted of a feloy. The DRC program is desiged to provide for the protectio of the commuity with strict commuity supervisio ad structured reitegratio services. The DRC staff is resposible for the eforcemet of terms of probatio as well as developmet of a treatmet strategy which is desiged to facilitate high eed defedats i a variety of areas that will assist i their effective reitegratio ito society after their lives have bee disrupted from icarceratio, loss of employmet, loss of residece, etc. The DRC program provides for high supervisio (daily cotact with probatio officers, house arrest, icreased umber of drug ad alcohol tests, roud the clock supervisio) as well as madatory "programmig" for substace abuse, educatio, employmet or other specialized eeds. Youthful offeder (18-25 years of age) treatmet ad residetial facilities are also utilized. Defedats are screeed before ad after setecig for possible participatio i the DRC. If a icarcerated, furlough-eligible defedat appears motivated to chage egative behavior, is a oviolet defedat, ad has a residece that ca be verified, the defedat is eligible to participate i the program. I cases where a defedat has a uhealthy or trasiet residece, adult males ca be brought directly from jail ito the DRC Garfield residetial facility. Typically, this occurs durig the fial 30 to 60 days of the jail setece. While i the program, defedats are expected to follow structured daily schedules ad are cosidered uder house arrest. Durig the day, defedats follow a hour-by-hour schedule of courses offered at the DRC ad other commuity-based agecies ad/or participate i a job search program util employed. All defedats follow daily schedules. These schedules are based upo the idividual eeds of each defedat. Uemployed defedats are give five to te days to obtai employmet or are immediately put back ito custody. Courses offered at the DRC address a variety of eeds, icludig drug ad alcohol couselig, literacy ad GED classes, family ad health issues ad behavioral health couselig. These courses focus o assistig the defedat i the developmet of skills eeded to successfully itegrate ito the commuity. The most efficiet ad cost-effective meas to offer these services is through the use of private, 9

17 EVALUATION OFA DAY REPORTING CENTER FOR DWI OFFENDERS oprofit vedors. I order to attract these agecies, space is provided at the DRC to coduct group ad idividual couselig services. Providers are allowed to offer these services to o-probatio cliets as well. I retur, the providers are required to offer DRC defedats: priority to services, deferred paymets for services, reduced paymets for services, ad scholarships for the most eedy cliets. Probatio officer/surveillace officer teams moitor defedats participatig i the DRC program. These teams are resposible for developig treatmet plas, coductig idividual ad group couselig sessios ad formulatig the defedats' daily schedules. Itake screeers, job developers, literacy teachers, ad commuity service coordiators assist these case maagers. Defedats are moitored by surveillace ad probatio officers durig the day, ight ad o weekeds. The behavior of the defedats is also scrutiized through collateral cotacts, as well as regular urie ad breath testig. Defedats remai i the DRC program util the completio of their origial jail setece but may cotiue to be supervised i the program if the defedat eeds to complete Youthful Offeder Program (YOP) treatmet or has had problems at the ed of the jail phase of DRC. Upo successful completio of the program, the defedats cotiue uder stadard or itesive probatio supervisio. If a defedat fails to complete the program, the defedat is retured to jail to complete the origial jail setece or retured to court for violatio proceedigs. The target populatio for DRC programs iclude those idividuals servig jail as a term of probatio with sixty days or less remaiig o the jail term (defedats may participate loger if ordered by the Court). Defedats also must be idividuals who would beefit from a structured reitegratio service ad who do ot pose a serious risk to the commuity. No sex offeders are ever admitted to the program. Offeder Case Flow ad Processig Screeig. Oce a defedat is determied to be a member of DRC target populatio, a screeig process begis to assess the idividual's eligibility. The Furlough Screeig Uit screes all defedats give a jail term who are furlougheligible. Each defedat's eligibility for DRC is the reviewed. I order to be eligible for DRC programs, all idividuals must meet the followig guidelies: be furlough-eligible per terms ad coditios of probatio, have a acceptable, verifiable address, display a o-violet patter of behavior, have access to trasportatio, be willig to participate i the program per the Compliace Agreemet, ot have charges pedig or outstadig warrats that would iterfere with participatio i the program, ot have ay history of sex offese covictios, ad 10

18 DESCRIPTION have approval from the prosecutig attorey i those cases where jail is stipulated i the plea agreemet. If a defedat meets the above criteria for DRC participatio, the screeer coducts a iterview ad completes a DRC Screeig Packet. The packet is the forwarded to DRC Admiistratio. The DRC supervisor, or desigate, the reviews each case for acceptace ito the program. A screeig officer may reject a applicatio for oe or more of the followig coditios: the defedat has bee covicted of escape or ay uauthorized absece from ay correctioal istitutio or release program i the past, the defedat has charges pedig ad caot be released from jail. (Exceptios are possible if extraditio for a pedig charge has bee declied by the filig/chargig jurisdictio or the defedat has bee released o ow recogizace), the ature ad extet of the defedat's crimial history reflects a high probability to re-offed i the commuity, the defedat has ot received a favorable recommedatio from the field or presetece officer most kowledgeable about the case, reliable iformatio idicates that the defedat has a patter of violet behavior or weapos use, the defedat has bee formally charged with a crimial act subsequet to commissio of the preset offese, the defedat's preset offese ivolved the use, exhibitio, or presece of a firearm, explosive, or other weapo, the factual circumstaces of the preset offese idicate severe violet tedecies, Maricopa Couty Sheriffs office bookig iformatio which suggests the defedat's iability to successfully complete the program. This could iclude discipliary write-ups by detetio persoel, the defedat is a illegal alie with a hold by the Immigratio ad Naturalizatio Service, the defedat is ot residig i Maricopa Couty followig release from icarceratio, or the defedat committed a work furlough program violatio. The DRC must otify the prosecutig attoreys of ay defedats servig jail terms as a stipulatio of their plea agreemet. The DRC support staff seds otice to the assiged prosecutig attorey at least te days prior to the defedat beig placed i the DRC. If there is a objectio by the Couty Attorey, the defedat is cosidered ieligible for the program. 11

19 EVALUATION OFA DAYREPORTING CENTER FOR DWI OFFENDERS Acceptace, Cacellatio, ad Placemet. If all the above coditios are satisfied, a DRC supervisor, or desigate, approves the defedat for participatio i the program ad assigs a supervisio team. The screeig packet is give to the assiged support staff, ad the Order of Release, icludig a arrative for the Court's cosideratio, is completed. The Order of Release is completed seve days prior to the scheduled release date of the defedat. Oce the Order of Release is completed, a copy is set to the assiged furlough screeer for the Judge's sigature. Work Furlough, Accout Services, the Day Reportig Ceter staff ad the Buildig Admiistrator of Garfield Residetial Ceter also receive copies. Oce the Judge sigs the Order of Release, the order is set to DRC Admiistratio. DRC Admiistratio seds copies of the Order of Release to the Maricopa Couty Sheriffs Office Work Box ad the Victim Notificatio Uit. Copies of the siged Order of Release ad screeig packets are delivered to the assiged supervisio team withi twety-four hours of the Judge's sigature. The supervisio team the verifies appropriateess of the defedat's residece. If the defedat has o residece, but is otherwise appropriate for the program, the supervisio team makes every effort to secure a residece or refers the defedat for participatio i the Garfield Residetial Treatmet Program. Oce accepted, the DRC probatio officer makes arragemets to obtai the defedat's file. For Work Furlough cases, the files are available at the time of the defedat's release. Cacellatios or postpoemets for etry ito the DRC program ca result from oe or more of the followig: residece caot be verified or is cosidered to be iappropriate, Couty Attorey objects whe plea stipulates jail, ew iformatio, ot available at the time of screeig, makes the defedat ieligible, o-compliace with Work Furlough rules ad regulatios, or violatios of jail rules ad regulatios that require a cacellatio. Before a cacellatio is made, a DRC supervisor reviews the case. If it is determied that cacellatio is ecessary ad a Judge has already siged the Order of Release, immediate otificatio is set to the Maricopa Couty Jail, the assiged field probatio officer, the DRC team assiged to the case, Admiistratio Accout Services ad Work Furlough. If the Court orders the defedat ito the program per the terms ofprobatio ad the defedat is uable to participate, the setecig Court is immediately otified. After a cacellatio has bee approved, DRC Admiistratio support staff is otified, ad the assiged DRC team returs the origial screeig packet to the Garfield Ceter. After otificatio, the Maricopa Couty Sheriffs Office trasports DRC defedats to the desigated facility for pick-up. Whe this is ot possible, pick-up takes place at the facility where the defedat is housed. The Sheriffs office has the 12

20 DESCRIPTION defedat's Order of Cofiemet available for the DRC supervisio team at the time of pickup. The surveillace officer is resposible for the pick-up of the idividual. The supervisio teams at each DRC site coordiate pick-ups to esure that orietatio begis o time. Orietatio. All defedats complete orietatio o the first day they are i the program. The DRC staff explais the program to defedats, aswers questios, ad addresses ay issues that could coflict with a idividual successfully completig the DRC. Orietatio icludes discussio of the program's directive(s), the DRC Compliace Agreemet, each idividual's terms of probatio, educatioal assessmet ad weekly schedule. The DRC also uses this opportuity to review the defedat's livig coditios, verify employmet or curret job search, ad determie the idividual's paymet ability. The DRC staff completes a Letter of Uderstadig with the defedat. The letter is to be siged by the defedat's employer withi 5 workig days of receipt. Formal staffigs are held every week at a desigated time ad day of the week. At least oe member of the supervisio team ad oe perso from each of the treatmet compoets participate. Normally, by the ed of the defedat's first week i the program, a priority staffig is held. This helps determie which programs the defedats will participate i ad i what sequece. After the priority staffig, progress staffigs are held weekly. The priority staffig is the corerstoe of the Case Maagemet Supervisio (CMS) pla. Whe a case reaches the mid-poit i the program the defedat's performace is reviewed. At this time, ay chages i treatmet, sactios or termiatio, as well as the goals to be met for completio of the program, are discussed. Cliet Assessmet. Cliet assessmet is a ogoig process ad is critical durig the first days the defedat is i the program. Needs of the defedat are determied by iput from the supervisio team, applicable commuity-based programs, collateral sources ad the defedats themselves. The defedat's eeds are idetified, prioritized, ad addressed with a clearly defied supervisio strategy. Assessmet criteria cosidered iclude educatio/vocatio, substace abuse, metal health, family issues, employmet, physical health, legal or fiacial matters, religious eeds ad reitegratio ito the commuity. Cliet Cotact. Three differet levels of cliet cotact are provided, oe level for each of the followig three program phases: Phase I - Orietatio. This phase lasts approximately oe to two weeks, depedig o the defedat's eeds. Program work ad scheduled daily cotact with DRC staff begi. A miimum of two field cotacts per week are made. By the ed of this phase, the Case Maagemet Supervisio pla is complete. Daily reportig 13