“Justice System Practices That Work” Travis County Community Corrections and Supervision Department (CSCD) Conference

1. “Justice System Practices That Work”Travis County Community Corrections and Supervision Department (CSCD) Conference June 29, 2006 Stephen F. Austin Hotel Austin, Texas

2. Welcome and Introduction • Dr. Geraldine Nagy • Director of Travis CSCD since January 2005 • Former Deputy Director for the Community Justice Assistance Division (CJAD) of the TDCJ • Prior with the Federal Bureau of Prisons; Deputy Director of Bastrop County CSCD • Ph.D. in Psychology, Kansas State University

3. Purpose of Conference • Bring together Travis justice community to: • Learn about the “Travis Community Impact Supervision” initiative of the department • Hear from national experts about evidence of what works and the challenges of implementing successful policies • Explore how to be more innovative and get feedback from participants

4. Challenges Facing Probation Demands for probation systems to become more effective in reducing recidivism and divert offenders from prison while protecting public safety Evidence Based Practices (EBP) model as a strategy to enhance the effectiveness of probation EBP are practices in which there is general evidence of effectiveness in reducing recidivism Organizational practices Testing in Travis County Probation Department Austin, Texas Diagnosis and supervision strategies Program intervention and accountability

5. Department Assessment Promising for EBP Travis department has qualified personnel, strong processes, supportive judiciary and active Community Justice Council to provide foundation for EBP Department needs to improve assessment and field supervision strategies, program monitoring, and training, and needs to bring balance to a culture in which process is main focus Travis Community Impact Supervision Model (TCIS)

6. Low Risk Offender Social Problem Offender High Risk – “Last Chance” Offender Minimum Supervision Report on time, pay fines and fees Programs and Progressive Sanctions Change behavior Surveillance Approach Quick sanctioning and revocation Differentiated Supervision Strategies Step One: Improve Assessments of Offenders Effective Assessments to Classify Population

7. First Steps in a at Least a Two Year Project

8. First Incubator Report Published an Overview

9. Second Report on Diagnosis Available Today

10. Overview of the Day • Dr. Tony Fabelo • Former Director of the Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council • Served under five governors and ten regular biennial legislative sessions • Now Senior Associate in Austin of The JFA Institute, Washington • Ph.D. from The University of Texas at Austin in Government

11. Improving the Effectiveness of Probation • 9:30 am to 10:45 am • Dr. Edward Latessa • Director, Division of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati • Ph.D. from Ohio State University • Among many studies, two recent studies for Ohio involving over 26,000 probationers and the review of over 100 programs

12. Justice Mapping: Thinking About Location • 11:00 am to 11:45 am • Eric Cadora • Directs The JFA Mapping Center working with the Spatial Information Design Lab, Columbia University • Expert in spatial visualization studies • Works in many states and United Kingdom helping visualize Justice Reinvestment Strategies

13. Better Diagnosis Practices as Key to Success • 11:45 am to 1:15 pm Lunch • 1:15 pm to 2:30 pm • Dr. Nagy and Dr. Fabelo • Review development of new diagnosis practices for probationers in Travis • 2:30 pm to 2:45 pm Break

14. Proficient Justice • 2:45 pm to 4:00 pm • Mark Carey • President, The Carey Group, consulting and training for justice system • Prior Deputy Commissioner, Community and Juvenile Services, Minnesota DOC • President this year of American Probation and Parole Association

15. Bottom Line • Dr. Latessa • Successful probation programs depend on effective assessment of offenders • Treatment programs work but they have to be effectively implemented • Cadora • Geographical concentration of justice populations should be considered in creating more effective probation supervision strategies

16. Bottom Line (continued) • Dr. Nagy and Dr. Fabelo • Travis is implementing a new offender diagnosis process for probationers relying on evidence-based assessment tools • Carey • Research shows what is effective for “proficient justice” but this requires some “culture” and organizational changes

17. Transition

18. Present Assessment and Intake Process….. ….requires offenders to show up in different places ……makes them submit duplicative information…….

19. … And Involve Many Duplicative Forms

20. All felons referred to Central Diagnosis Unit Central Diagnosis Unit Expert staff Quality control policies Main Functions of Unit Assess offenders, make diagnosis, identify supervision strategy and recommend conditions of supervision Present Central Diagnosis Report to the Courts Conditions of supervision set PO develops specific supervision plan and accountability measures PO administers tolerance level for violations based on overall policy for particular strategy PO sets neighborhood/field visit strategy as appropriate for particular supervision strategy We Are Creating a Central Diagnosis Process ….that provides “one stop” for offenders …….uses one set of diagnosis forms …….is backed by an assessment process that uses scientifically validated tools ….and is administered by expert officers subject to centralized quality control

21. Future Diagnosis Report Identifying the offender along risk and behavioral characteristics related to supervision success using proven assessment tools and with short narratives generated from assessment instruments Creating a Diagnosis Report a Key Change Present PSI A “biography” collected using inconsistent interview protocols, with the “story telling” affected by different writing styles and utilizing no proven diagnosis tools to assess offenders

22. Central Diagnosis Report

23. Two Main Assessment Tools Key to Diagnosis Risk Assessment Instrument Identify factors related to re-arrests and revocations Scientifically validated for Travis probation population Supervision Case Strategies (SCS) Interview/assessment protocol Identify most effective supervision strategy for type of offender Validated in research studies and endorsed by CJAD

24. Risk Assessment High Risk Group Medium Risk Group Low Risk Group

25. Risk Assessment Instrument

26. June 06 Study 7,287 offenders placed on probation during this period* Study Group Jan. 2003 to April 2004 16 Months Feb. 2004 – Jan. 2005 12 Months Feb. 2005 – May 2006 15 Months Tracked re-arrests and revocations for at least two years from probation placement * First study of March 3, 2006 tracked 3,907 offenders placed Jan. 03 to Jan. 04 for at least two years up to Jan. 2006 Offenders in Travis Tracked for Two Years to Validate Risk Assessment Instrument

27. Instrument Differentiate Well for Felons Felony Offenders: Percent Arrested/Incarcerated Two Years after Assessment by Risk Level 26% of felons were incarcerated after two years 43% of revocations were for administrative reasons *1, 760 felons tracked

28. Differentiate Also for Misdemeanants Misdemeanor Offenders: Percent Arrested/Incarcerated Two Years after Assessment by Risk Level 12% of misdemeanants were incarcerated after two years 49% of those revoked were for administrative reasons *5,527 misdemeanants tracked

29. Risk Distribution of the Travis Population

30. Behavioral Observation Vocational Residential Feelings Interpersonal relations Objective background Family Attitudes Offense history Plans & Problems School Impressions SCS Interview/Assessment Protocol • Semi structured Interview protocol • Funnel approach to systematically identify key behavioral factors • Rating of 70 items • Cross-validation and other integrity techniques for scoring • Classification of offenders in one of five groups

31. Protocol Examines All Relevant Areas Objective Background Legal Medical School Family Offense Pattern Family Attitude Attitudes about offense Employment Feelings School Adjustment Mental Health Residential Inter-Personal Substance/Alcohol Abuse Plans and Problems

32. Example of One Section of Questionnaire

33. Assessment Leads to SCS Classification SIS – Pro-social, stable lifestyle: offenders who need to get back on track through “Selective Intervention” SIT – Pro-social but with skill deficit and/or substance abuse: offenders who need to get back on track through “Selective Intervention with Treatment” (like outpatient programs) ES – Impulsive, lacks skills, easily led: offenders who need “Environmental Structure” (like job skill classes, role model type of interventions) CC –Destructive thinking, low self esteem and emotional problems: offenders who need “Case Control” (like residential programs and cognitive programs) LS –Criminal thinking, seeks power, thrills, money: offenders who need “Limit Setting” (like electronic monitoring, field contacts)

34. Matrix to Present Results of Diagnosis X

35. Supervision Strategies Related to Matrix

36. SIS – Pro-social, stable lifestyle Supervision: Intervene selectivelyDelegate planning to themUse rational problem solving techniquesOver-supervision counterproductiveMore tolerance for non-compliance Minimal Intervention LS –Criminal thinking, seeks power, thrills, money Supervision: SurveillanceAddress criminal thinkingDetailed precise case plansCarefully documentUse legal leverage/less tolerance for non-compliance More Intrusive Intervention Minimize Contacts for Some, Max for Others

37. 227 felons placed on probation* Study Group Jan. 16, 2006 to February 28, 2006 Distribution of Felony Offenders 24% 27% 49% *Report of 4/13/06

38. Distribution of Misdemeanor Offenders 468 misdemeanants placed on probation* Study Group Jan. 16, 2006 to February 28, 2006 56% 19% 25% *Report of 4/13/06

39. Report to the Court Identifiers/Case Processing Offense/Criminal History Victim Information Narrative of Assessment Highlights Diagnosis Matrix

40. Important Difference in “Culture” Probation department will not make a“recommendation” for or against probation Probation department will say this is a low, medium or high risk “yellow”, “blue” or “red”offender to be supervised under the strategiesand conditions set for that group

41. Thank You