Examining Kansas SB 123: Mandatory Probation and Treatment Don Stemen, Loyola University Chicago

1. Examining Kansas SB 123: Mandatory Probation and Treatment Don Stemen, Loyola University Chicago The Honorable Richard Smith, Kansas Sentencing Commission Kelly Goodwin, Johnson County Public Defender’s Officer Thomas J. Drees,Ellis County Attorney’s Office National Association of Sentencing Commissions Conference Chicago, August 6, 2012 This research is funded by NIJ grant # 2006-IJ-CX-4032

2. State-wide approaches to community-based drug treatment Mandatory Treatment Initiatives Increased Treatment Initiatives

3. General goals of probation/treatment laws targeting drug offenders System-Level Goals Change sentencing practices to divert drug offenders from prison at sentencing. Increase the availability of treatment for drug offenders. Reduce the number of drug offenders in prison. Individual-Level Goals Improve outcomes for drug offenders by reducing recidivism and substance abuse.

4. General problems encountered in implementation of probation/treatment laws Small or narrowly-defined target populations Front-end and back-end net-widening Traditional focus on supervision/enforcement rather than treatment

5. Content of SB 123 Creates mandatory sentence of up to 18 months of community corrections supervision and treatment. Eligibility restricted to 1st- or 2nd- offense drug possession w/out a prior conviction for a person, drug sale, or drug manufacture offense. Relies on a network of existing community-based drug treatment providers. Seeks to create a treatment focused approach to community-based sentences for drug possessors.

6. Implementation Issue I:Front-End Net-Widening

7. Sentences for SB 123-eligible cases, pre- and post implementation

8. Sentences for SB 123-eligible cases, pre- and post implementation

9. Sentences for SB 123-eligible cases, pre- and post implementation

10. Mean sentence lengths for SB 123-eligible cases, pre- and post implementation

11. Implementation Issue II: Circumvention

12. Sentences for SB 123-eligible cases, pre- and post implementation Implementation of SB 123

13. 3+ property offenses No criminal history Some SB 123-eligible cases do not receive treatment

14. 3+ violent offenses 3+ property offenses No criminal history Some SB 123-ineligible cases receive treatment

15. Implementation Issue III: Concentration of Treatment

16. SB 123 cases concentrated in just a few counties

17. SB 123 treatment concentrated in just a few providers

18. Implications and Recommendations

19. Some conclusions about SB 123 SB 123 increased the provision of treatment to target population of drug possessors SB 123 helped achieve a shift in perspective within probation SB 123 helped achieve a shift in perspective among courtroom actors SB 123 encouraged innovation among local communities

20. Some implications that may be common to statewide initiatives Disagreement about program goals across system actors Gatekeepers emphasized system-level goals; administrators emphasized individual-level goals “One size fits all” approach has both benefits and drawbacks Geographic diversity necessitated flexibility in implementation; but it also affected fidelity

21. Some recommendations for mandatory probation/treatment programs Maintain mandatory probation without mandating a particular form of probation Allow traditional judicial discretion to determine type of probation based on risk/needs assessment; preserve intensive supervision for those with higher levels of risk Preserve mandatory treatment only for those assessed to need treatment Allow probation discretion to determine mandatory treatment based on substance abuse assessment; preserve mandatory treatment only for those with high needs

22. SB 123 Structure and Practice

27. Changes in prison admissions due to SB 123

28. Estimated savings due to SB 123