A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION OF THE MULTNOMAH COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS' STRUCTURED SANCTIONING PROCESS
Prepared for the Multnomah County Department of Community Corrections
December 12, 1994
BOTEC Analysis COR
P
0
RATION
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION OF THE MULTNOMAH COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS' STRUCTURED SANCTIONING PROCESS
By: David P. Cavanagh Assistants: Kim Godfrey Stephen Harney
Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....•.....•••............•......••.••................•.•••.........••...............•...•.................................. i INTRODUCTION ...•...............•........•......••...•.......••.......••.............•••.•.....•.•.............................................•...... 1 METHODOLOGY ..•.....••.....•.............••..•.•........•..•........••........•.•.•.......••.•............•........•.........•...............•...... 2 FORMATIVE EV ALUATION .................................................................................................................... 3 HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STRUCTURED SANCTIONS PROCESS [SSP] AT THE STATE LEVEL ..... 3
Parole Guidelines .... ....... ..... ... .. ......... ..... ..... .... ........... .. .. ... ...... ..... ..... ..... ......... ...... .. .... ... ... ... ..... .... ......... .... 3 The Probation SSP Program ............ ....... .. ..... .. ... .. .... ..... ... ........... ........ .. ............ ... .... ........ ..... ... ....... ..... ... .. 4 Senate Bill 139 ..... ................... ............. ................................ ... ............ .. .................. ............. ... ......... ... ..... ... 5
A FORMA nVE EVALUATION OF THE STRUCTURED SANCTIONING PROCESS IN MULTNOMAH COUNTy ........... 7 Why SSP Was Late to Come On-line in Multnomah County ......... ....... ................ .. ...... ............. .... .. ... .... .. .. 8 The Important Role PO Supervisors Play in Multnomah County's SSP ............ .... ............................. ..... 10 Hearing Officer Review 0/ Probation and Parole Officers' Probation SSP..... ....... .... ............ ........... ...... II Use o/One Judge To Process Administrative Warrants ... ........ ....................... .. ....... ...... ........ .. ....... ......... 13 Summary ................ ........... .................. ..... ................... ......... .... .............. ............. .. ... .. ........................ ...... . 13
PROCESS EVALUATION .....•....•.•..•..••.•••..••.......•••.........••••••.....••.........••••........•••......•........•................•.... 15 IMPLEMENTATION OF SSP IN MULTNOMAH COUNTY ... ........ ..... ..... ...... ........ ......... ..... .... ...................... .... ... .. 15
Initial SSP Training Programs ............ ... ........... .... ............. .... ................. ........... .... ............. ..... ......... ..... .. 15 Creation 0/ New Sanction and Treatment Programs ...... ... ......... .................. ............... ........... .. .. ... ... .. .... .. 16 Some Additional Issues Surrounding the Implementation o/SSP ........ .. ........ ......... .... .... .. ........ .. .... ...... ... 17 OPERATION OF SSP IN MULTNOMAH COUNTY ......... .. ............... ............•..... ........... .. ................... ............. ... ... 18
Introduction .... .......... ............................ .. ........... ..................................................... .......... .............. ... ... ... . 18 Signing up Offenders ...... ...... ..... ...... ......... ................. ....... .. .... .... ..... ...... ... ... ..... .. ...... ... ..... .. ......... ..... .... ... . 19 Choosing Appropriate Interventions ...... ......... ...... ............. .................................. ............. ..... ........... ...... . 22 Imposing Sanctions, Treatment, and Other Interventions ..... ........................................... .. ...... ........ ....... . 28 Coordination o/SSP Activities ..... ..... .... .. .... .......... ... ... .......... ... ..... ... .. ..... ... ..... .. ...... .... ... .. ...... .... .. ..... .... ... 34 Impacts o/SSP .............. .... ....... .. ...... .... ................. ..... ...... ..... ........ .... ............... .... .... ... ..... ... .................... .. 35 RECAPITULA nON WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF SSP's ORIGINAL GOALS ................. .. ............................ .. .... 36
Unintended Consequences a/SSP's Operation ... ...... ... ........ .. ... ......... ... ... .... .......... ........ .... ........ .. ......... .. . 40
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................•........................................... 41 INTRODUCTION ......... .. ... ............... ...... .... ... ..... ........ .... .. ... ... ...... ... ... .......... ... .... ...... ... ........... .. ....... ... .......... .. ... 41 RECOMMENDATIONS .. .. .. .. ..... ......... .. ............ ... .... ........ .. . .... ... ..... .. .. ........ .. ..• .. .... ........ ..... ... ........ . .... ... ... ....... ... 42
Executive Summary This formative and process evaluation of the Structured Sanctions Process (SSP) in Multnomah County, Oregon is based on a qualitative analysis of documentary materials and interviews which were conducted by employees of BOTEC Analysis Corporation and Applied Social Research during a site visit to Multnomah County in August 1994. Although the SSP is being evaluated statewide, a separate evaluation of Multnomah County's SSP program is in order because of the uniquely metropolitan character of Multnomah County compared with other Oregon counties. SSP is a program of structured sanctions for violations of probation. All Oregon offenders who are on probation for crimes committed after 1 September 1993 are automatically on SSP. Under SSP probation officers use a "sanctioning grid" to calculate intervention units for violations of parole. They then use their discretion to convert these units into appropriate custodial and treatment sanctions. Unless the offender formally asks for a hearing, these sanctions are imposed immediately without a court hearing. The intent of SSP is to: •
change offender behavior by ensuring swift, certain, and appropriate responses to probation violations,
•
standardize sanctioning, treatment and other interventions by providing similar sanctions for similar violations,
•
create a clear relation in the offenders' minds between actions and consequences for those actions, thus establishing the psychological foundations for rehabilitation and deterrence,
•
ease the expense and burden which probation hearings impose upon the criminal justice system (CJS) by economizing and rationalizing of the probation process,
•
put more emphasis on treating offenders within the community rather than sanctioning them with extended periods of incarceration outside the community; thus aiding reintegration of offenders into the community,
•
give POs greater authority and responsibility in dealing with offenders under their supervision, thus passing control of offenders to those knowing best how to deal with them, decentralizing authority and responsibility within the probation process, and shifting this
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
authority and responsibility from the courts to the probation and parole administration, and •
make POs more responsible for changing offenders' behavior and give them the tools to do this.
During the implementation of SSP in Multnomah County, the Department of Community Corrections (DCC) made four design changes in SSP: (1) SSP and the new sanction programs that were intended to support SSP started later in Multnomah County than was planned in the Senate Bill authorizing SSP-Senate Bill 139 (SB 139); (2) in Multnomah County all jail custody units which POs wish to impose must be approved by their supervisors; (3) during the early stages of SSP in Multnomah County Hearings Officers (HOs) reviewed all PO sanctioning forms; and (4) in Multnomah County, one judge's office processes all SSP administrative warrants. Each of these changes appears to be either an unavoidable response to unusual circumstances or a reasonable attempt to adapt SSP to the special circumstances of Multnomah County. The intentional changes adapted SSP to Multnomah County's large, metropolitan criminal justice system. Unavoidable design changes did not negatively impact the program in a serious manner. The early operations of SSP in Multnomah County have experienced some problems. These have included: (1) increased workloads for PO supervisors and possibly increased workloads for probation officers, (2) a definite need to work out operational and communication issues between POs and other sections of DCC which were less prominent prior to Structured Sanctions, and (3) considerable difficulties among POs in getting used to SSP and coping with the new forms and procedures it has introduced. Most of these problems are either transitory or can be corrected with appropriate action. SSP has clearly reduced court hearings for violations and revocations. It is also clearly forcing probation officers to assume more responsibility for dealing appropriately with violations of probation. We recommend the following changes to Improve the operation of SSP m Multnomah County: 1.
Provide SSP with a staffed, full-time central administrative center.
2.
Expand Intensive Case Management as a replacement for revoca-
tions. 3.
Provide additional and ongoing SSP training for all DCC staff.
4.
Communicate SSP's purposes and successes to persons and agencies inside and outside of DCC.
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
ii
5.
Include in POs' formal job performance reviews an evaluation of how adequately they perform the new responsibilities imposed on them by SSP.
6.
Use computer automation to assist POs in completing the various SSP forms.
7.
Ease Dee's past communication problems and friction with the Sheriffs Office.
8. Allow sanctions providing both custody and treatment to be considered as either under SSP.l 9.
Regularly publish and circulate to POs, supervisors, and treatment and custody program directors a list of all available beds and/or slots in all custody and treatment programs.
10. Eliminate certain classes of offenders--e.g., "career criminals" and repeatedly violent offenders-from the pool of SSP eligible offenders. 11. Define and foster a common, core Dee departmental culture that all staff can agree to and that will be supportive of all Dee goals and all programs.
I
This would require action by the Oregon Criminal Justice Council and appropriate changes in the law.
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
iii
Introduction Responding to the increasing numbers and needs of offenders entering the corrections system and the limited correctional resources available to serve these offenders' needs, Oregon enacted new legislation in August 1993. Included in that legislative package was the Structured Sanctioning Process (SSP), which provides probation and parole officers with the authority and the tools to handle violations of probation without formal court hearings. The legislation also required an evaluation of the program within one year. The Multnomah County Department of Community Corrections (DCC) is conducting an additional, separate evaluation of the County's implementation of SSP in light of the Multnomah County DCC's unique situation as Oregon's largest community corrections agency, containing Oregon's largest city (Portland), serving more than one-fifth of the state's population, handling a disproportionate 27 percent of the state's total reported crime, and employing about 125 probation/parole officers-many more than any other Department of Community Corrections in Oregon (Harkaway and Holden, 1993). The DCC also operates as part of the state's largest county criminal justice system-the judges, prosecutors, attorneys, sanction and treatment programs and Multnomah COUIity Sheriffs Office (MCSO). Multnomah County took over full local control of Community Corrections from the State in 1991, as allowed by the Oregon Community Corrections Act of 1977, after recognizing that its situation and problems are unique within Oregon. The following formative and process evaluations provide insight to the implementation, development and current use of structured sanctioning in Multnomah County. A later, separate report will provide an impact evaluation of the County's SSP.
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
1
Methodology This evaluation of the Structured Sanctioning Process (SSP) in Multnomah County is based on an analysis of the literature, documents, and forms which participating agencies and individuals produced during the period prior to the implementation of SSP, as well as interviews with personnel of participating agencies and persons who played a role in planning the implementation of Multnomah County's SSP. During the Summer of 1994 BOTEC Analysis Corporation worked closely with M. Tamara Holden, Director, and Cary W. Harkaway, Deputy Director of the Multnomah County Department of Community Corrections, to collect documentary materials (which were as complete as possible) relating to SSP and its implementation in Multnomah County. Mr. Harkaway also provided BOTEC with a list of all personnel and agencies in Multnomah County who were involved in any way with SSP. Based on this list BOTEC drew up a list of all persons and agencies in Multnomah County whom we wished to interview for this evaluation. We also constructed detailed interview protocols for each individual and agency on this list. Ms. Karen Rhein of DCC then constructed a site-visit and interview schedule for BOTEC.2 During the week beginning 15 August 1994 BOTEC completed a site-visit to Multnomah County based on Ms. Rhein's schedule. This evaluation is based on a subsequent analysis of all documents which BOTEC collected and all interviews which BOTEC conducted prior to, during, and following that site-visit. This evaluation is highly qualitative. It is intended to give a holistic picture of how SSP was implemented and how SSP operated during its first year in Multnomah County. A subsequent impact evaluation will provide a quantitative analysis of SSP's operations, including how SSP has changed patterns and numbers of probation violations, probation hearings, and the imposition of custodial and treatment sanctions for violations of probation.
[t is literally true that without the work of Ms. Rhein this evaluation would never have been completed. She completed for us one of the more difficult, and certainly the most critical tasks in this evaluation effort. We would also like to take this opportunity to thank the many members of the Multnomah County Department of Community Corrections who assisted us in this evaluation. We would like to particularly single out Susan Kaeser, Cary Harkaway, and DCC's Director, Tamara Holden.
2
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
2
Formative Evaluation Some of the problems Multnomah County Department of Community Corrections [DCC] has had implementing SSP and some of the design changes Multnomah County DCC made in SSP prior to implementing SSP can be related back to the legislation and implementation of SSP in Senate Bill 139 [SB 139] and the promulgation of SB 139 in Chapter 680 of the state laws. Therefore this formative evaluation will begin with a brief historical review of the development of SB 139 and Chapter 680
History of the Development of the Structured Sanctions Process [SSP] at the State Level Parole Guidelines The first SSP type program was for parole. During 1988 and 1989 parole revocation guidelines were developed in Multnomah County as a pilot project in response to high revocation rates for parole offenders. Other counties did not adopt these guidelines nor did the guidelines alter the role of the Parole Board as the sole authority for imposing sanctions. Partly as a result of this experiment, Elyse Clawson, Assistant Director for Community Corrections/Oregon Department of Corrections, Vern Faatz, Chair, Board of Parole and Post Prison Supervision, and others in the corrections system began considering an administrative sanctioning process that would shift some authority from the Parole Board to community corrections departments. These corrections professionals noted that probation and parole officers (POs) were not sanctioning clients, just issuing verbal warnings and then, at some point, revoking clients and returning them to prison. Subsequent study showed that the parole sanctioning process was inconsistent from case to case. The issue in parole violation hearings, after substantiation of facts in the case, was what to do, and the Parole Board usually followed the POs' recommendations which were more a function of each particular PO's attitudes and practices than they were a function of the circumstances surrounding a particular violation. Clearly a policy to standardize sanctions and allow POs to impose sanctions directly would improve the situation. In 1991 Mr. Faatz secured a grant and supervised the development of Parole Guidelines utilizing a matrix that cross-referenced offender risk, type of violation, and other considerations to determine the appropriate sanction for particular violations of parole. Five counties, not including Multnomah County, agreed to pilot the use of these guidelines. Subsequently, in 1992,
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
3
the pragram was adapted statewide. Multnamah Caunty adapted parale guidelines at this time, in 1992, as mandated by the Parale Baard, despite the fact that, in a sense, the pragram had its genesis in Multnamah Caunty. After this experience with structuring parale sanctians, prabatian was targeted far a pragram based an a similar philasaphy. The gaals af structured sanctianing far prabatian were to.: (1) reduce casts by eliminating hearings and assaciated casts far judges, DAs, witnesses, defense attarneys, and pas' time, (2) create quick and certain respanses to violations within a definite respanse time, and (3) establish consistency in the manner with which violatians were sanctianed by making pas more consistent in the way they sanctianed similar behaviars by similar clients. It is worth noting here that neither reducing revocatians nor prison papulatian management were amang the ariginal gaals af structured sanctioning for probation. It is also. worth nating that same pas rep art that the differences and similarities between the Parale Guidelines and Prabatian SSP created some confusion when SSP began. The Probation SSP Program The seeds for SSP were laid when James R. Ellis, Oregon Circuit Court Judge in Multnamah County, met with Multnomah County District Attorney Michael Schrunk and members af the parale board to discuss intermediate sanctians. One autcame of this meeting was Judge Ellis' realizatian that no attorneys were needed to impase intermediate sanctions for violations of probatian. At a later time, Judge Ellis met with a small county judge who. explained that he could deal mare easily and promptly with violators by holding hearings in jail. These separate conversations convinced Judge Ellis that farmal hearings were nat an absolutely necessary part of imposing sanctions far parole vialatians. Meanwhile in Multnamah Caunty, Judge Ellis observed that there was great incansistency from judge to judge in sanctioning violatars af prabatian. As a result af these abservations Judge Ellis became convinced that a more direct and immediate response to probation violations was needed-a respanse that would be efficient, quick, apprapriate, and consistent. Such a system-the seed cancept behind probation SSP-would allaw pas to impase apprapriate intermediate sanctions for probatian violations without the necessity af a caurt hearing. The advantages of such a system should be manifald: 1. It shauld help change affender behavior by ensuring a quicker re-
spanse to. vialations, ensuring no vialation is unsanctioned, and giving affenders a sense that they are being punished appropriately rather than arbitrarily and by chance.
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
. 4
2. It should standardize sanctioning, treatment and other interventions, provide similar sanctions for similar violations, and lead to greater justice. 3. It should ensure swift and certain responses to violations of probation, thus creating a clear relation in the offenders' minds between actions and consequences for those actions-a necessary psychological foundation for rehabilitation and deterrence. 4. It should ease the expense and burden which probation hearings impose upon the criminal justice system (CJS) and economize and rationalize the probation process. 5. It should put more emphasis on treating offenders within the community rather than sanctioning them with extended periods of incarceration outside the community, thus enhancing community policing and corrections and assisting the reintegration of offenders into the community. 6. It should give POs greater responsibility and authority in dealing with offenders under their supervision, pass control of offenders to those knowing best how to deal with them-their POs, and decentralize authority and responsibility within the probation processshifting this authority and responsibility from the courts to probation and parole administration. 7. It should make POs more responsible for changing offenders behavior and give them the tools to do this. It is clear from the foregoing list that several different corrections "philosophies" drove those who envisioned SSP and these "philosophies" led to different reasons for the involvement of these persons. However, as the above list shows, none of the persons involved in envisioning SSP and starting the legislative process envisioned SSP as a prison resources management program. As will be seen below, this is an important consideration to keep in mind when evaluating SSP's implementation. Senate Bill 139
As a result of presentations by Judge Ellis, Elyse Clawson, and other proponents of SSP, the Governor had the Attorney General convene a committee consisting of representatives from DAs' offices, defense attorneys, the Department of Corrections, and other interested parties. The purpose of this committee was to develop a probation SSP process. A separate committee, chaired by Vern Faatz and consisting of Elyse Clawson, Joanne Fuller, a
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
5
Multnomah County District Manager, and representatives of county and state corrections-including corrections managers, POs, parole hearings officers (HOs), sheriffs' offices, DAs, Public Defenders, and judges-was formed to devise a sanctioning grid on violations like that which existed for parole violations. The two groups worked together, the first creating compromises on SSP process to satisfy all committee members and the second modifying the sanction grid to accommodate all such compromises. Among the committee compromises which lead to the final product introduced for legislation were the following: (1) due to defense attorneys concerns about due process the committee developed a "Notice of Rights" which notifies probationers that they do not have to accept SSP or any individual sanction under SSP, (2) due to sheriffs' concerns about their jails filling with probation violators who were not being dealt with promptly by POs, the committee added a rule requiring imposition of a structured sanction within 36 hours, (3) due to judges and DAs wanting to keep notorious cases off SSP, the committee established a process for notifying the court and DA of an administrative sanction and allowing the court to hold a hearing in lieu of executing that sanction, and (4) due to defense attorneys' concerns about expost facto sentencing of pre-1 September 1993 offenders, the committee developed an SSP sign up process that built in requirements for judicial and defendant consent for enrollment in SSP. Mter the committee presented its work to the legislature, the legislative process resulted in two serious problems with SB 139. First, although passage of the bill was delayed, the original timetable for SSP implementation and evaluation that was built into the bill remained unchanged-this caused later problems for Multnomah County DCC but no major ones for other counties due to some special circumstances in Multnomah County, which we will discuss later in this evaluation. Second, SB 139 became linked with the issue of prison population management. Oregon is currently suffering from the same correctional problem that afflicts much of the rest of the country. In the past Oregon neglected building new prison cells even when the prison population began growing. When the problem was perceived and funding for new prison cell construction was approved, this was almost immediately followed by tax reductions that led to across the board cuts in program funding, which also slowed prison construction. Projections clearly show that Oregon prisons will be overwhelmed by inmate populations. Since parole and probation revocations account for the majority of new prison admissions, this problem can be delayed without building new prison cells by reducing revocations. 3 3 There is not room here for a detailed discussion of prison population management, which could fill several volumes. Briefly, the number of prisoners a prison will need space for is a function of the number of
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
6
The potential for SSP to impact prison population was emphasized in the legislative discussion of SB 139 to encourage the support of legislators. Coincidentally there was a similar emphasis on prison population management and reduction in the rate of prison bed-day use in the Governor's budget package. Furthermore, reduction in the rate of prison bed-day use has become adopted as a state and county performance benchmark. Consequently SSP and reduction in the rate of prison bed-day use became conceptually linked, although prison population management was not a consideration among the committee who originally framed SB 139. This linkage has had consequences for the implementation of SSP. There is feeling on the part of some POs, DAs, and judges that the state is using SSP to take away their autonomy, interfere with the corrections system, and/or endanger the public by promulgating a policy of prison population management through "revocation reduction."
A Formative Evaluation of the Structured Sanctioning Process in Multnomah County There are four major differences between the design of SSP as expressed in Chapter 680 and the design for SSP which the Multnomah County Department of Community Corrections (DCC) adopted and implemented. First, the program as a whole got off to a slower start in Multnomah County than in the rest of Oregon and new sanction programs that were intended to support Multnomah County's SSP also started up late. Second, The Multnomah County SSP design requires that all custody units which POs wish to impose must be approved by their supervisors, while the state SSP is designed to give POs complete autonomy-within SSP guidelines-in deciding sanctions and interventions. Third, in Multnomah County during early stages of SSP Hearings Officers (HOs) reviewed all PO sanctioning forms. Fourth, in Multnomah County, one judge's office processes all SSP administrative warrants-no other county in Oregon has any administrative warrant process. Our formative evaluation suggests that each of these changes in the design of SSP was either an unavoidable response to unusual circumstances or a reasonable attempt to adapt SSP to the special circumstances of Multnomah County. Generally, the intentional design changes adapted SSP to work better in the Multnomah County's large, metropolitan criminal justice system.
new prisoners entering per unit time and the sentences they can expect to serve, and the current population of prisoners and the remaining sentences they can expect to serve. Reducing in-flows of prisoners or average lengths of sentences will reduce projected populations, increasing these quantities will increase projected populations. To the extent SSP substitutes other sanctions for revocation and return to prison it will reduce the in-flow of prisoners and hence projected prison populations.
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
7
Unavoidable design changes usually did not negatively impact the program in a serious manner. But, in those situations where they did, the negative impacts appear to be transient and unavoidable. Why SSP Was Late to Come On-line in Multnomah County There are several reasons why SSP came on-line later in Multnomah County than was anticipated in the state statute. First, SB 139 was meant to be law by 30 June 1994 but was not approved until 4 August 1994. However, the original implementation date of 1 September was retained in the bill. Under the best of circumstances this would have required the Multnomah Board of County Commissioners and DCC to react in an extraordinarily rapid fashion to implement SSP. Such rapid reaction is easier-although still difficult- in a smaller county where few personnel are involved in SSP and details can be worked out face to face, but Multnomah County is large enough that working out the details of SSP implementation, management, and structure within the County took considerably more time than it would have in a smaller county. The Multnomah County DCC had to allow more preparation time for SSP than was the case in smaller counties. To do otherwise would have been managerially unsound and might have led to a programmatic disaster. But other factors also ·ensured that SSP implementation would occur later in Multnomah County than other Oregon counties. A second such factor was that a large County like Multnomah County needed SSP implementation to begin at the supervisory level rather than at the POs' level. This was because a main goal of SSP was ensuring consistency of PO responses to identical violation situations. Such consistency would have been impossible to maintain if approximately 100 POs with varying backgrounds, caseloads, and correctional philosophies had been allowed to begin applying SSP without superVISlOn. In this regard it is worth remembering that in Multnomah County the DCC field offices are often larger than the entire county community corrections departments of most other Oregon counties. Therefore Multnomah County had to implement SSP by training staff in several waves, starting with supervisors and working down to POs. This required more time than the direct training of POs by the State that most counties used to implement SSP Partly because the task of training staff was so large relative to other counties, Multnomah County trained its people in SSP later than other counties. There was a half day of state training in September 1993, but it wasn't as useful in Multnomah County as in other counties. Multnomah County staff went to other counties and observed that the state training was inadequate to Multnomah County's needs. So Multnomah County developed its own training program with foundation support and the assistance of the state DOC. Beginning in November the county conducted three one-day training A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
8
sessions with follow-ups, a special booklet, referral resources, etc. The booklet was actually a complete training package. 4 A third factor delaying SSP in Multnomah County was that Multnomah County also required time to establish new sanctioning programs that would support the SSP concept of appropriate intermediate sanctions. In the early part of 1994 the new SSP programs began coming on line. These included an Intensive Case Management program (ICM), a Day Reporting Center (DRC), and a Work Release/Probation Violation Center (WRC). The primary reason for the delayed start of these programs was that the department's state allocation was not finalized until August and after this new program development took several months. SSP, however, was implemented before these new programs were on line. A fourth factor delaying implementation of SSP in Multnomah County had to do with Multnomah County's relative lack of experience with pilot SSP programs. Most of the larger counties of Oregon-Marion, Deschutes, and Washington in particular-had pilot parole SSP programs in place a year ahead of SSP's inception in Multnomah County and had worked out potential programmatic bugs ahead of time. But Robert Jackson, the previous director of DCC, was overly cautious about signing up on the concept of SSP and would not start such a pilot project in Multnomah County. A fifth factor delaying implementation of SSP in Multnomah County was a result of turnover in Multnomah County's Board of County Commissioners. While the legislation was being approved, major alterations occurred in the Board. Two new Commissioners took office in January 1993 and a new Chair took office in August 1993. The new Commission staff changes included a new Fiscal Analyst in the Budget and Planning Office. Multnomah County's state allocation was not finalized until August 1993. The County then had a new County Chair and associated staff. Their desire to thoroughly understand DCC operations delayed final approval of the County budget, and hence the SSP budget, until October 4, 1993. Besides these larger factors, there were a variety of smaller problems that dogged the early implementation of SSP in Multnomah County. These included: changes in the state and county computer systems and ongoing development of the County's integrated service plan, which required DCC to restructure in a way that would support the six County service districts. The delays in bringing SSP on-line in Multnomah County have had several operational consequences. First the delays have caused some friction with the state government. This might have affected future state funding of SSP 4
Multnomah County DCC is currently revising its SSP training manual.
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
9
and Multnomah County DCC's ability to affect state SSP policy except for the fact that ongoing processes appear to be mitigating the state's views of Multnomah County's implementation. It seems to be the case that other counties which implemented SSP more quickly than Multnomah County are now experiencing difficulties achieving SSP goals. At the same time, as Multnomah County's SSP program develops, Multnomah County DCC's commitment to SSP is becoming clearer on the state level. Thus the delays in SSP implementation should ultimately have little impact on state-county relations. However, delays in SSP implementation may have had more persistent local impacts. The slow coming on-line of some sanction programs has added to the feelings of some Multnomah County POs that SSP is primarily a bed reduction policy and there is little concern with issues of control, rehabilitation, and public safety.
The Important Role PO Supervisors Play in Multnomah County's SSP In the Multnomah County DCC, unlike other community corrections departments in Oregon, the PO supervisors review POs' SSP activities and forms and must approve POs use of SSP custody units. Fundamentally this is because the Multnomah County DCC has over 100 POs spread out in six branch offices, each of which is. larger than a typical Oregon community corrections department. Furthermore, the history of Multnomah County's DCC has ensured that these POs have widely differing correctional philosophies, attitudes, and practices. 5 If POs were not supervised in their use of SSP, it is likely that different subcultures of POs would use it in very different ways. Furthermore, in a department as large as Multnomah County's DCC, it is hard to believe that there will not be a few POs who will have a great deal of difficulty adapting to SSP. Such POs will need a great deal of close assistance and on-the-job training in the use of SSP beyond that provided in the state and county training sessions. For all these reasons, Multnomah County DCC had to supervise POs in their use of SSP to ensure the consistency of sanctioning that is one of SSP's most fundamental goals. The natural source of such PO supervision was the PO supervisors. Such supervision has had operational consequences, however. SSP has definitely increased the friction between supervisors and POs. Supervisors are often put in the position of telling POs that within SSP guidelines the POs 5 Multnomah County's adoption of Option I merged state and local pas and put them all under the control of the Multnomah County DCC. In addition there have been several changes of administration in DeC over the past five years. This has allowed the development of several corrections subcultures within DCC. Different subsets of pas have recognizably different attitudes towards their jobs and conduct their work in very different styles. For example, staff represent a continuum of orientations along two axes measuring respectively preference for surveillance versus counseling and ability to accept and adapt to change.
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
10
cannot impose as strong a sanction as the POs would like. As a result POs see supervisors as enforcing a policy-imposed from above--of "revocation reduction" which in turn supports a state policy of prison population management. This friction may decrease over time as POs become accustomed to SSP. As we will suggest in our conclusions, this friction might be avoided if the ultimate responsibility for SSP operations was solidly established in a central DCC office.
Hearing Officer Review of Probation and Parole Officers Probation SSP During the early stages of SSP implementation in Multnomah County, Hearings Officers (HOs) reviewed POs probation sanction decisions. They also assisted in the SSP process for probation cases by taking care of the paperwork and offender contact when an offender is in custody. Currently HOs no longer review POs SSP decisions, but they still assist with paperwork and offender contact when offenders are in custody. By contrast, in other Oregon counties, from the inception of SSP, POs have been responsible for all SSP paperwork, offender contact, and probation sanction decisions. In the early stages of SSP implementation, Multnomah County DeC decided to use HOs as an additional resource for monitoring PO compliance with SSP procedures, for providing instruction regarding those procedures, and for managing the interviews and paperwork associated with incarcerated clients-since HOs are located in close proximity to the jail. There were several good reasons for doing this. First, from their experience with SSP parole, the HOs were already experienced in SSP operations and procedures. They could monitor the implementation of probation SSP and based on their experience help ensure that SSP procedures were being properly followed. They could educate POs, PO supervisors, and other persons new to using SSP in SSP procedures. .And they could provide DCC with data and other feedback on the progress of SSP implementation. This filled an information vacuum while the state DOC procedures for collecting and disseminating SSP data were coming on-line. Secondly, by using HOs in this way it was Multnomah County DCC's intention to, as quickly as possible, make probation and parole SSP procedures as similar as possible. Finally, in other counties, state administrators monitor SSP operations, but Multnomah County wanted local persons, familiar with the conditions and philosophy of Multnomah County corrections to do this; hence the use of HOs. As POs have become more familiar with SSP, and as monitoring of SSP operations has become more formalized, Multnomah County has eliminated HO review of POs' SSP sanctioning decisions.
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
11
While Has did review sanctioning decisions, their authority was more informal than formal. As the Has themselves noted, Chapter 680 specifically states that Has have no means to change the sanctions which pas impose. The main power of Has was to bring SSP errors by POs to the attention of the pas and the pas' supervisors. In addition, the Has' knowledge of SSP and SSP procedures and forms gives them an informal "moral" control over pas use of SSP. However, the extent to which the pas whom we interviewed complained about how Has had changed their SSP sanctions suggests that Has did indeed exercise considerable control over pas with regard to sanctions and procedures during the early stages of SSP implementation in Multnomah County. 6 Currently Has still complete much of the SSP paperwork and the necessary offender contacts for offenders in custody. This is to reduce the work load of pas. In SSP the offender must consent to an administratively imposed sanction before it can be imposed, and the Has are located in the same building as the jail where offenders are held in custody. It thus makes good sense, and saves the pas much travel and work, to have the Has conduct these SSP procedures. pas are generally grateful that this use of Has by Multnomah County DCC has relieved them of a great burden of paperwork and travel and contact time. There is no question, based on the site visit observations, that Has are much more knowledgeable of SSP procedures than any other persons in the system. The Has reported that pas were making constant errors in the use of SSP when SSP began, so without HO corrections SSP would not have functioned well at startup in Multnomah County. During startup, Has informally trained both pas and PO supervisors about SSP. This ultimately reduced PO and supervisor errors and hence the need for HO involvement. However, Has, pas, and PO supervisors all report that the early monitoring and approving roles of Has created a great deal of tension and friction between Has, pas, and PO supervisors. Has were perceived as "gatekeepers" imposing state imposed quotas on revocations to push state mandates on prison population management. The Has became upset at this view of themselves as it alienated them from their fellow pas. In addition, SSP has greatly increased the paperwork and other work requirements of Has. Multnomah County has responded to this last problem by increasing the number of Hearing Officers from two to three.
is likely that many POs complaints were actually about Hearing Officers not following PO recommendations in parole cases. Many offenders are on both probation and parole. Sanctions are more often applied in parole cases. [n parole cases Hearings Officers must follow certain rules regarding evidence and findings and are not bound to follow PO recommendations.
6 It
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
12
Use of One Judge To Process Administrative Warrants The final change made to adapt SSP to the circumstances of Multnomah County was the decision to process all administrative warrants through the office of one judge-Judge Philip T. Abraham, the chief criminal court judge. Administrative warrants allow POs to request an offender be arrested without going to court. A PO fills out a motion and affidavit requesting the warrant, checking the appropriate box on the form to indicate it is an intermediate sanction probation and forwards the motion and affidavit to the Diagnostic Center, which, in turn, forwards these materials to Judge Abraham's office. The goal was to avoid confusion in determining which judge should receive which forms and to reduce imposing a heavily time-consuming task on all judges. However the consolidation has created so much work for Judge Abraham's assistant that he is recommending the POs instead send requests for administrative warrants directly to each judge. In addition, Judge Abraham's judicial assistant is frustrated by the many mistakes in the warrant requests. The other judges are receiving reduced numbers of probation cases and in these cases the judges' involvement is limited to situations when an offender comes before the court for a revocation. Some judges did not immediately realize that under Oregon Laws Chapter 680, they can specifically order that the court will retain all sanctioning authority. Most judges now have a better understanding of the process and authority that they delegate in Structured Sanctions. Two judges have made it clear they feel they do a better job than POs and DCC in handling probationers and refuse to use structured sanctionmg.
Summary The design changes that Multnomah County DCC has made in probation SSP prior to implementation were undertaken primarily because of the unique character of Multnomah County. Delays in bringing SSP on-line in Multnomah County were due to a mixture of historical circumstances, the need to implement a major training program for a very large staff, and the political exigencies of establishing new and controversial programs in a large and diverse metropolitan area. PO supervision by PO supervisors is needed to ensure that SSP does truly operate in a uniform manner despite the large number of POs in Multnomah County and the diversity of their beliefs and values about corrections policy. Providing one particular judge to handle all administrative warrants enormously simplifies paper flow and prevents potentially enormous logistical and legal problems. But these design changes have created some temporary problems. The late start in Multnomah County evidently created some initial concern at the
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
13
state level about Multnomah County's commitment to SSP7. The supervision of pas' SSP operations by supervisors and-at least initially-by Has has created friction and some loss of po morale. In addition, this supervision goes against the SSP philosophy of providing pas with greater autonomy. The use of one judge to oversee all administrative warrants has placed a heavy burden on this judge. On the other hand, Multnomah County's "deliberate speed" in establishing SSP has helped the County establish SSP firmly. There seems to be evidence that SSP is not working as well in some other counties that implemented it more quickly. State confidence in Multnomah County's commitment to SSP is being restored as that commitment becomes clearer. The effectiveness of SSP in Multnomah County, which is partly a function of the deliberateness with which SSP was implemented in the county has helped reassure the state. pas are just beginning to understand the SSP process. 8 Without the startup HO review of pas' use of SSP and Has' reporting of errors to pas' supervisors for correction, SSP would not be working properly in Multnomah County. The continuing role of PO supervisors in SSP has been more problematic since at the inception of SSP many of them appeared to be uncomfortable with some details of SSP-just like the pas they were supervising, but to a lesser degree. However, as time passes, both pas and their supervisors should become comfortably familiar with SSP procedures.
7 It is worth noting here that the expectations which the state had for SSP start-up time in Multnomah County were unrealistic. The State's time lines did not take into account the need for program development, training, and signing up the existing "stock" probation population. Even excluding these considerations, the speed with which Multnomah implemented the SSP program is impressive: The county received its state allocation in August 1993. The county budget was approved in October. Meanwhile, supervisor training in SSP procedures began in September and staff training occurred in early November. Immediately after staff training the County began its SSP program.
8 At the time of our interviews-August 1994.
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
14
Process Evaluation
Implementation of SSP in Multnomah County Initial SSP Training Programs Unfortunately this process evaluation must focus on early efforts to train DCC personnel in SSP philosophy and procedures. The Multnomah County DCC has clearly recognized that early SSP training procedures were provisional and is currently developing new training procedures and manuals to respond to shortcomings in the early SSP training programs. We evaluate the first SSP training program here in the hopes that our evaluation may provide useful input into DCC's ongoing revision of SSP training materials. In addition to the SSP training program developed by the Oregon DOC, Multnomah County DCC developed its own training program. There was some agreement among those we interviewed that both of these early training programs need improvement. 9 At the time of our evaluation POs still did not understand how to use SSP and needed more training in SSP procedures, particularly how to properly use and complete SSP forms. The pas we interviewed thought the training they received was useful, but all said there was not enough of it. Many said that the training was quickly outdated by changes in forms and procedures. Most of the pas we interviewed thought that follow-up training was needed. Other DCC staff also felt that early training programs should be improved and that SSP required continuous, ongoing training for pas and their supervisors. Despite DCC efforts to get others besides DCC staff to attend SSP training, this did not always work. Deputy DAs did not attend the training and do not understand the philosophy and operation of SSP. Their opposition has made SSP emotionally difficult for some pas. Judges received information on SSP through the Court administration. Some judges report that they heard of SSP only through the grapevine and not through any formal procedure. On the other hand, public defenders were satisfied with the SSP training they received, seemed to have a solid enough grasp of SSP to deal with it in their work, and provisionally accepted SSP-albeit with a concern that POs may eventually abuse the quasi-judicial role SSP allows them. There is a general It is worth noting here that we interviewed a non-random sample of POs for this evaluation. Dee staff purposely selected a sample of POs for our interviews who were likely to be more critical of SSP than POs in general, on the theory that their criticisms might prove more useful in pinpointing problems with SSP than would the comments of POs who were more accepting of SSP.
9
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
15
feeling that DAs and judges need to know more about the program and understand it better if their hostility to SSP is to be eliminated. The original state SSP training program took one-half day, was intended primarily for POs, included hand-outs and a manual, and allowed time for questions and answers and follow-up. Multnomah County DCC officials decided that the unsupplemented state SSP training did not totally suit the unique needs of Multnomah County's DCC staff. As a result, Multnomah County DCC decided to develop its own training program, which incorporated the state training but supplemented it with additional material, e.g. the inclusion of speakers from other states discussing SSP-like programs operating in their states. The county training was developed with a grant from the Center for Effective Public Policy. It comprised three one-day sessions of staff training held at the Forestry Center for everyone on DCC staff. Judges, DAs, and representatives of the Sheriffs Office were also invited to attend. One follow-up session was held. All attendees were provided with a locally focused booklet including treatment and other referral information. The county training required a full day and included a discussion of the philosophical background to SSP-obtaining better corrections outcomes by responding to probation violations with flexible and appropriate community-based sanctions. Unfortunately the development of this county training took time. Ultimately the county training occurred after the state had finished conducting its SSP training in other counties. Thus the total SSP training program in Multnomah County was not completed until after other counties had already begun their SSP programs. In addition, at the time of our evaluation-August 1994-no concerted followup training had occurred, although some refresher training had been provided by supervisors in individual work units ..
Creation of New Sanction and Treatment Programs An important part of SSP is the creation of new sanctioning and treatment programs so that POs truly do have the ability to flexibly respond to probation violations with a range of community-based sanctioning and treatment options. Multnomah County DCC has done quite well in this regard. The Intensive Case Management Unit (ICM) began operations in March 1994. Alternative Community Service (ACS) added a new work crew for SSP sanctions. The Day Reporting Center (DRC) began accepting SSP probation violators at the end of January 1994. The Forest Project, which existed before SSP, prepared for an expected increase in demand for its services due to SSP-which has not yet occurred. Multnomah County started a Work Release program in May 1994, but at the time of our site visit, in August 1994, this program was only available to prison inmates transitioning back into the
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
16
community; it was not yet available to SSP offenders. At the time of our evaluation, treatment providers did not appear to have been affected by SSP.
Some Additional Issues Surrounding the Implementation of SSP The operation of SSP in Multnomah County may be hampered by the absence of two components which are often crucial to the success of programs within a formal organization: (1) an administrative unit with responsibility and authority to run the program, and (2) a reward structure for employees which is partly based on how well they support program goals. Currently there is no administrator or administrative unit within Multnomah County's DCC with constant overall responsibility and authority for implementing and operating SSP. When the Multnomah County DCC first began planning the implementation of SSP, an SSP Committee was established. This is a standing committee, composed of POs, program managers, supervisors, and DCC administrators, which acts as a problem solving group. They organized the original county SSP training and are in the process of revising the SSP manual. However, the SSP Committee is not in continuous operation, nor does its existence provide for accountability. This absence of central authority means disagreements must be decided on the lowest levels of management leading to friction between, e.g. POs and their supervisors. Likewise, the formal civil service reward system for POs, supervisors, and other DCC and County staff does not yet appear to take account of their proper performance of SSP related tasks. Another issue involving the implementation of SSP is that this implementation occurred at the same time as many other new programs, procedures, and operational philosophies were being adopted at the county and state level. Many of these became confused in the minds of staff with aspects of SSP to the possible detriment both of these other new programs and SSP. Examples of such new programs include: the ISIS system; prison population control, the use of performance indicators to monitor organizational functioning at the state and county levels, and some POs still continue to mention the County adoption of Option I-although we believe this is quite a stretch. In summary, the early SSP training was insufficient and needs to be supplemented with regular retraining of POs and their supervisors if necessary. Also some person or office at DCC must assume overall responsibility and authority for the daily operations of SSP. Certainly the SSP Committee should continue to set policy, but defining this policy on an ongoing basis, solving immediate problems, and facilitating communication among those using SSP and the committee are tasks that must be performed continuously. Finally, more effort should be made on the state and the county level to en-
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
17
sure that staff are not overwhelmed by changes occurring in different parts of the system. More coordination is needed. Currently different components of the corrections system see that changes which they are implementing or propose to implement can be implemented without too much trouble, but fail to realize that other components are thinking the same way. The result has been a cascade of innovations that appear to have overwhelmed many DCC employees.
Operation of SSP in Multnomah County Introduction For the purposes of this evaluation we will analyze the operation SSP as comprising six functions: 1.
signing up offenders for SSP,
2.
choosing appropriate interventions for offenders' violations under SSP,
3.
imposing sanctions, treatment, and other interventions upon violating offenders under SSP,
4.
coordinating SSP activities within DCC and among DCC and other criminal justice system (CJS) agencies,
5.
the impacts of SSP upon DCC and other CJS agencies,
6.
The actual sanctions, treatments, and other interventions imposed under SSP, which we will deal with in a subsequent impact evaluation.
For each of the five functions we will discuss how thirteen different actors are performing or affected by this function: 1.
Probation Officers
2.
Probation Officer Supervisors
3.
District Managers
4.
Hearing Officers
5.
DCC administration
6.
Judges and the courts
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
18
7.
Prosecutors
8.
Defense attorneys
9.
Treatment programs
10.
The Sheriffs Office
II.
Probationers
12.
County government
13.
State Department of Corrections
We will discuss the problems these actors are facing, and how these problems might be corrected. In some cases, where the analysis is irrelevant to particular actors we will exclude these actors from the discussion.
Signing up Offenders All probationers who are being sentenced for felonies committed on or after September 1, 1993 are automatically on SSP. Probationers sentenced for earlier crimes are enrolled in SSP if the sentencing judge orders it and the probationer consents or the probationer's PO presents the probationer with the SSP option, the probationer accepts, and the sentencing court approves. An important point is that many offenders may be supervised for multiple, separate probation and/or parole sentences. For example, an offender may be completing two separate probation sentences while he is on parole for a third sentence which sent him to prison. This offender is automatically on SSP for parole, may automatically be on SSP for one probation sentence, and may have been told by a judge that he is not going to be put on SSP for the other probation sentence. Situations like this appear to have caused some confusion among offenders under the supervision of DCC about what SSP is and when it applies. It is unclear what effects, if any, this has had upon the SSP program implementation. Currently Multnomah County DCC's total caseload consists of about 12,000 offenders, 30% of whom are on parole.l o All of the parole caseload is currently on SSP under the Parole Guidelines. Twenty six percent of the proba-
10 It should be noted that some offenders are on probation for one offense and parole for another. If the percentage of all offenders on probation and the percentage of all offenders on parole were added together, the total would exceed 100%.
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
19
tion caseload is on SSP.ll And, of course, this proportion will continue to grow as pre September 1, 1994 cases become fewer. Probation Officers
One of the aspects of SSP that POs understand best is the rule governing who goes into SSP-basically because the rule and the sign-up procedures are so simple. However, there are considerable complaints about the time that must be spent explaining SSP to clients, getting their agreement, and filling out appropriate forms. In fact, a major complaint about SSP among the POs whom we interviewed is the amount of time and paperwork it entails. This is unfortunate because SSP was intended to reduce some of these burdens. In addition, many POs, judges, and DAs agree that either there should be discretion to not sign up some offenders for SSP-POs believe that pas should have this discretion, judges believe judges should, etc.-or that SSP ought to be restrictive enough to automatically exclude certain classes of offenders, e.g., violent offenders and career criminals. Some pas said that certain offenders just have an "attitude" that makes SSP inappropriate for them. Probation Officer Supervisors
One area where SSP has not forced supervisors into the position of having to over-ride PO decisions is the signing up of offenders for SSP. This is an issue about which supervisors expressed no specific complaints. However, like pas, supervisors feel certain populations of offenders should either not be automatically included in SSP or automatically excluded, e.g. repeat violent offenders. Hearing Officers
For offenses prior to September 1, 1993, if an offender is in custody, the HO can advise the offender of his rights and sign him up on probation SSP, if the offender's PO or judge sends the HO the paperwork. The effect of this on pas is unclear--on one hand it reduces work, but on the other they may see it as a trespass on their authority over the offender. Has can also sign up on SSP non-SSP probationers that they process because of a judicial warrant, a detainer, or a new charge with the approval of the judge-Pas have no role in these sign-ups. II
It is worth noting that this is the highest percentage of probationers on SSP of any county in Oregon.
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
20
Judges and the Courts Most judges in Multnomah County support the philosophy and procedures of SSP. However, a few judges in Multnomah County have slowed the process of putting all probationers on SSP. These judges believe that assigning offenders to SSP is an abdication of judicial responsibility. For these judges non-Structured Sanctions supervision is a way of ensuring that they can supervise and intervene in offender behavior. They believe that PO supervised structured sanctions-like those provided by SSP-actually result in too little supervision of offenders. These judges would probably utilize SSP more if they could be guaranteed suitable supervision and intervention for violating clients-particularly appropriate drug treatment. Since these judges believe that DCC does not currently have the resources to provide the level of supervision and offender services that they desire, it is likely that these few judges will continue to supervise from the bench. By the very nature of Chapter 680, however, this is a "rearguard action"-it only slows the conversion of the pool of probationers to being 100% on SSP, since all new probationers automatically go on SSP.
Prosecutors The District Attorney's- office is sympathetic to the concept of SSP, but believes the system needs fine-tuning. However, several of the assistant DAs whom we interviewed share the idea that SSP is primarily a strategy for prison population management. They are natural allies of the judges who are slowing SSP sign-ups. Senior DAs have a better picture of SSP as a programmatic tool but they are dubious about its application to certain types of probation offenders-especially inappropriate for the program, they feel, are offenders who commit new crimes. Some DAs are also concerned that SSP removes criminal justice proceedings from the public forum of the courts.
Defense Attorneys Attorneys from the Public Defenders Office whom we interviewed understood and were sympathetic with the SSP philosophy and procedures and were comfortable with the way SSP has been operating in Multnomah County. More than most players in the Multnomah County criminal justice system, they seemed aware of the power pas could wield if pas ever become fully aware of SSP's potential. These attorneys told us that if they ever sense a tendency for pas to overstep their quasi-judicial powers under SSP they will sabotage the system by advising clients to not agree to SSP and/or challenging all SSP sanctions in the courts. This situation bears monitoring. It behooves DCC to maintain constant contact with public defenders, DAs, and judges to ensure that situations do not arise where members of anyone of A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
21
these groups feels compelled to use the judicial process to sabotage SSP operations.
Probationers Our interviews with offenders made it clear that Multnomah County's probationers are aware of SSP, yet probationers are more confused about the details of SSP than any other group we interviewed. Information about the program seems to have come to them largely through inaccurate and misleading rumors before a PO or other DCC representative could explain it correctly. Many of the probationers whom we interviewed during our site visit had no idea whether or not they were in the program, which suggests the idea of informed consent is not a reality. Certainly the offenders we talked to had widely varying understanding of SSP, and even the best informed offenders were not entirely clear about how offenders were signed up under SSP. There is a clear need to provide a formal SSP "training program" for probation offenders. Choosing Appropriate Interventions SSP provides POs with specific procedures and materials to deal with violations. Upon detecting a violation, the PO uses the SSP sanctioning grid to calculate the units he has available with which to intervene in an offender's behavior, either with a custody sanction, imposed treatment, or some other combination of interventions. The PO converts these units into an appropriate number of days of an appropriate treatment or sanction. The PO then presents the intervention he has selected to the offender and allows the offender the right to contest the imposed treatment and/or sanction in a hearing or accept it. If the offender accepts the PO's intervention, the offender is immediately treated and/or sanctioned-we will discuss sanctioning more fully in the following section which deals with the imposition of sanctions.
Probation Officers At the time of our interviews many POs still did not clearly understand how to calculate SSP units and convert them to appropriate levels of treatment and/or sanctioning. This seems to be the result of insufficient training and the recurring changes in forms, definitions, and calculations that occurred when SSP was beginning. Many of the POs whom we interviewed also felt that when they were converting units to actual sanctions and treatments they were constrained by available resources rather than being always able to deal with clients appropriately. These POs had the incorrect perception
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
22
that jail space is limited in such a way that offenders are released early.12 They also reported that frequently when they wanted to assign a client to a particular program either the program would be full or would not accept their client. Common problems were the unavailability of immediate residential drug treatment, the unwillingness of many programs to accept clients with histories of violent behavior, and the unwillingness of programs to accept clients who are not drug free at time of admission. Some of the POs we interviewed felt that DCC management is using SSP as an excuse for reducing revocations. These POs went so far as to state that their supervisors are constantly "second-guessing" their SSP decisions and reducing their sanctions. We found, in fact, that many PO supervisors did confirm that they frequently disagree with POs grid calculations and SSP sanctioning decisions, and usually reduce the PO sanctions. Many of the POs whom we interviewed felt that the constraints imposed by SSP and the time it takes filling out SSP forms and completing SSP procedures detract from their ability to impose informal, but appropriate punishment on violating offenders. They believed SSP reduced their autonomy and increased their work load.
Probation Officer Supervisors In Multnomah County supervisors are supposed to oversee POs use of SSP and approve all custodial sanctions. At the time of our evaluation some supervisors-like the POs they supervised-were unclear on some of the technicalities of SSP .13 During the early stages of SSP in Multnomah County some POs have noticed that some supervisors had preliminary confusions about SSP procedures. This made these POs more cynical about SSP. It is also clear from what both POs and supervisors have told us, that generally supervisors reduce the sanctions which POs impose under SSP. This has confirmed the fears of some POs that supervisors are supporting a state imposed revocation reduction policy. At the time of our evaluation, SSP had created an enormous amount of friction between POs and supervisors and an enormous amount of strain for supervisors. Much of this resulted from deciding the appropriate level of sanctioning for offenders' violations.
12
This misperception is a result of poor communication with the Sheriffs office as we will discuss later.
13 At the time of our evaluation supervisors were clearly becoming more comfortable with SSP procedures at a quicker pace than POs. More recently a member of the Structured Sanctions Committee in Multnomah County developed and delivered special SSP training for supervisors. So Multnomah County DCC has clearly been acting decisively to alleviate any difficulties which PO supervisors may have had with SSP procedures during the program's inception.
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
23
District Managers and DCC Administration Senior management at Dee is much more united in their view of departmental goals and philosophy than are pas and PO supervisors.14 Dee management is committed to community treatment and the increased use of sanctions that are alternatives to probation revocation and imprisonment. Supervisors are united with management to the extent that they appear to be pressuring pas to reduce jail time and eliminate revocations. Dee management feels that SSP gives them an opportunity to encourage pas to rely more on treatment than punishment when intervening in client behavior and they are availing themselves of this opportunity. As one District Manager stated, "For me this is the first time I felt I could get up in front of my staff and say, 'This is how we do our business', and keep it in the community!" Senior management is much more aware of system constraints and much more accepting that supervisors frequently reduce revocations than, generally speaking, are pas.
Hearing Officers Officially Has affect SSP sanctions only when a PO, with his supervisor's approval and within 36 hours, establishes a sanction for offenders in jail for a warrant, detainer, or apprehension for a new crime. In these cases, the HO gives a copy of the Offender Violation Report to the offender and informs him of his option for a hearing before a judge. The HO also arranges for a hearing and further detention if the offender wants this. Informally Has have more input into the SSP sanctioning process. Has review forms to make sure supervisors have signed approval for pas actions. They use this opportunity to informally notify supervisors and pas of errors 14 This difference in perspective between senior management and some pas and supervisors in the Multnomah County DCC is representative of the existence of two alternative viewpoints/philosophies of corrections which co-exist in most corrections departments. One viewpoint is more commonly found among lower level staff. This viewpoint is: (1) oriented towards case management, (2) concerned with treating individual offenders, and (3) not concerned with system resource constraints. It is a natural viewpoint for those who are dealing one-on-one with individual offenders. The other viewpoint is commonest at the management end of corrections. This viewpoint is: (1) system oriented, (2) concerned with general principles for allocating treatment resources among offenders considered as an aggregate, and (3) concerned with resource constraints. This is a natural viewpoint for corrections managers who must optimally allocate scarce system resources.
SSP should appeal to both these philosophies. On the one hand it allows pas great latitude in tailoring interventions to individual clients, on the other it should relieve pressure on tightly constrained system resources such as court time and prison bed space. Unfortunately, all parties in Multnomah County DCC seem to be focusing on the systemic aspects of SSP, e.g., reduction in the use of sanctioning resources and increased consistency in sanctioning procedures through greater supervision of pas.
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
24
in sanctioning, completing forms, etc. This has had enough effect upon sanctioning decisions that some POs think HOs are "second guessing" them on sanctions and are, in effect, changing the sanctioning decisions of POs. However, this PO complaint pre-dates SSP, and has existed since Multnomah County has had Hearings Officers. Judges and the Courts Revocations and other strong sanctions for probation violations gave judges an opportunity to show they were tough on crime and were an important form of symbolic bonding among conservative POs, judges, and DAs. In SSP cases judges retain sole authority to revoke probation, but their role in imposing lesser sanctions is diminished unless (1) they or the DA, upon receiving required notice from the PO, disagree with the proposed sanction and move for a formal hearing within four days; or (2) the offender rejects the PO's proposed sanction and opts for a court hearing. Offender appeals are going to be very uncommon because: (1) offenders fear judges far more than their POs, (2) they are likely to get more severe sanctions from the court than those provided by the SSP sanctioning grid, and (3) they may be detained in jail while awaiting a hearing.l 5 Judges who are uncomfortable with an SSP sanction can increase the sanction by scheduling a hearing within four days of receiving notification of the SSP sanction. Some POs who are opposed to SSP have used such hearings to collude with judges and DAs by not defending the SSP sanction and stating that the SSP sanction is required under applicable procedures or administrative rules. Such a statement often results in the DA or judge asking the PO to provide his or her recommendation for a sanction. The judge in these cases then imposes the revocation which the PO wanted in the first place but could not get because of the SSP guidelines to which his supervisor forced him to adhere. In these cases, the judge, the PO, and the DA achieve their goal of revocation. SSP procedures, DCC goals, and system resource constraints are ignored. The confused offender sees his revocation as another random act of the criminal justice system. Although everyone we interviewed mentioned situations like this it is unclear whether this happens very often. The Multnomah County DA estimates that DAs appeal about 5%-10% of PO SSP sanctions, but this seems high.
15 It is worth noting that these practical considerations really "stack the deck" against offenders who would like to appeal SSP imposed sanctions.
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
25
Prosecutors Under SSP DAs have four days to request a hearing on PO imposed SSP sanctions. Such requests may happen in 5%-10% of PO imposed sanctions. At the time of our interviews the assistant DAs whom we interviewed did not feel this was an adequate time to prepare a protest hearing. One assistant DA suggested that eight to ten days would be more appropriate. Since our interviews, senior Dee staff have met with representatives of the DA's office to discuss ways of lessening the temporal pressure imposed upon DAs who want to appeal SSP sanctions. Among the reasons for this temporal pressure were: (1) the fact that brief sanctions may have been served before an appeal can be lodged-particularly if time-served is credited, (2) a Dee staff member had not realized that the DA must be faxed notification of all SSP sanctions, and (3) faxes received by the DAs office were not always distributed to the appropriate prosecutor as expeditiously as possible. With the exception of the problems raised by very brief sentences, the Dee and DA's office have addressed and resolved these issues. Some of the Assistant DAs whom we interviewed feel that the SSP sanction grid imposes overly lenient punishments. The quick release of drug using clients "to the street" particularly bothers some of these DAs. On the other hand, a number of Assistant DAs see the advantages of SSP from a system perspective and generally prefer to avoid getting involved in the sanctioning process. Not having to attend probation hearings is generally a time saver for the DA's office. However, some pre-SSP cases gave the DAs an opportunity to stand up for victims rights and publicize what they saw as miscarriages of justice. SSP reduces the possibility of DAs doing this. Assistant DAs who actually try cases feel the loss of this public forum much more strongly than senior DA staff. Part of the problem for Assistant DAs is they do not know what SSP is really doing about sanctioning clients. They hear anecdotal stories about offenders getting away with serious violations and little sanctioning. These DAs would like statistics on punishments imposed so they can know that POs are punishing misbehavior and protecting the public under SSP.
Defense Attorneys Generally defense attorneys appear happy with the interventions imposed by SSP. They are concerned that if POs become fully aware of the powers SSP gives them they may take advantage to impose heavier sanctions. In this case, some attorneys explicitly threatened to tie up the system by advising their clients to ask for a hearing on every SSP sanction.
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
26
Treatment Programs Treatment programs indirectly impact POs' decisions about what interventions to impose on clients. Program requirements may prevent a PO from referring a client to particular programs even when POs think those programs are the most appropriate interventions. For example, certain programs will not accept violent offenders while others require clients to be drug free. POs are also aware that some programs have waiting lists and they avoid trying to get offenders into these programs when they feel immediate intervention is required. SSP is probably improving this situation by providing more interventions that have been designed by DCC personnel for DCC needs.
The Multnomah County Sheriff's Office Some POs whom we interviewed expressed concern that jail sanctions are frequently cut short because the Multnomah County Sheriffs Office releases jail inmates serving time for violations early in order to comply with a federally imposed cap on inmates. Some went so far as to list a maximum time they feel they can impose without being certain an offender will be released early. Others said that jail commitments stretching into Friday are particularly likely to be released to allow for the weekend influx of jail detainments. Data from the MCSO suggest that these perceptions are completely false and based on a very small number of early releases of jail inmates held for violations-no more than a couple a month out of hundreds of jailings. However, these perceptions do appear to affect POs choices of punishment and should be corrected. If these perceptions are altered, and jailing is more commonly used by POs as a sanction, then jail overcrowding due to SSP jail sanctions might become a problem for the Sheriffs Office. DCC and the Sheriffs Office should jointly consider this issue.l 6
Probationers The probationers we interviewed believe that SSP has put rather low upper limits on the jail time they can serve for violations and severely restricted the possibility of revocation. They are obviously pleased with this but not just because it reduces punishment. They felt long sentences ripped them out of 161n a sense, the situation is the reverse of Robert Merton's "self-fulfilling prophecy". In Merton's scenario peoples' belief in a certain situation causes them to act in a way that brings about that situation. In Multnomah County, the POs false belief in the effects of jail overcrowding causes them to act in a way that continues to prevent jail overcrowding. If POs did not believe jail overcrowding was a problem, they might sanction more offenders with jail. The end result of eliminating the PO belief that the jails are overcrowded might be to make that belief come true.
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
27
the community and reduced their chances of rehabilitation.!7 There was a clear feeling among offenders that the long sanctions and revocations they received in the past were usually arbitrary and that SSP would reduce this arbitrariness in the future. Offenders did not mention anything about the improved opportunities for treatment which SSP should bring. We are concerned that offenders may have some misapprehensions about how much SSP has reduced the possibility of their being appropriately punished for severe infractions. There is as much need for educating offenders about SSP as there is need for educating DCC staff.
County Government and the State Department of Corrections The perception that both County government and the State Department of Corrections are concerned primarily with bed reduction and that this has put undue pressure on DCC, and through DCC upon supervisors and POs to limit jail and prison sanctioning has created friction and morale problems in DCC. SSP is not going to be accepted by the rank and file in DCC if it is seen as a program imposed by external organizations to meet the goals of those external organizations. Both the Oregon DOC and DCC should put more emphasis on explaining SSP as a tool to provide POs with authority and responsibility over clients and to provide a wider range of more appropriate, communitybased interventions for offenders under correctional supervision.
Imposing Sanctions, Treatment, and Other Interventions SSP distinguishes three circumstances where POs may impose interventions: (1) the offender is not already detained and the PO directs the offender into an appropriate non-custodial intervention, (2) the offender is not already detained and the PO, with supervisor's approval, imposes a custodial sanction calculated from the sanctions grid on the offender, and (3) the offender is detained. In this last case the PO has 36 judicial hours to impose a structured sanction approved by his supervisor unless an extension of up to 5 judicial days is granted by a supervisor or Hearings Officer under appropriate circumstances. If the extension is not granted the PO must notify the jail to remove the detainer. If the offender does not accept the structured sanction the HO must notify the court of the detainer and the circumstances leading to it within one judicial day. In the first two situations the PO is essentially responsible for ensuring that either the offender enters and responds appropriately to the specified non17 The responses we got strongly suggested this was a sincerely felt response and not just a parroting of community corrections rhetoric by system-wise offenders.
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
28
custodial intervention or that the offender is put into custody. In the third situation the Hearings Officer will assist with paperwork and an in-custody interview to inform the offender of his or her rights, but the PO retains the responsibility of ensuring that the offender completes the sanction. Probation Officers The main complaints of pas about ensuring the imposition of sanctions under SSP seem to be that: (1) they must work harder to establish a paper trail and show they are conducting an appropriate intervention for all reported violations, (2) this reduces the time they have for carrying out informal sanctioning techniques like home visits, and (3) SSP sanctioning procedures reduce their autonomy by making revocations more difficult, forcing them to calculate sanctions within the grid, and requiring them to justify their interventions to supervisors. It is worth noting that these complaints are essentially that the system has been tightened up to require pas to be responsible for their interventions and to accept this responsibility by documenting their activities. SSP has neither increased nor decreased the efforts a PO must make to get a client into custody or treatment, but it has required pas to take action more frequently, consistent with the theory that swift and sure sanctions are more likely to result in behavioral change. The inability to revoke offenders unless permitted by the sanctioning grid irked some pas. These pas felt that revocation was sometimes necessary to get an offender's attention or to convince an offender that a PO meant business. Probation Officer Supervisors The main role of supervisors at this point in the SSP process appears to be as gatekeepers. They review PO recommendations to ensure consistency with SSP guidelines and they spend time with pas discussing sanction and intervention options. However, some pas perceive their supervisors' activities in this regard as being arbitrary and in support of a system level attempt at prison and jail resource management. In fact, supervisors are just requiring pas to abide by SSP guidelines, but still this has created friction between POs and their supervisors. Intervention programs There are an enormous variety of treatments and interventions available to pas in Multnomah County. The pas' problem is: (1) to choose from among these the appropriate intervention for an individual offender, (2) to carry out
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
29
the necessary work to see if the offender is eligible for the program and if room is available in the program for the offender, (3) to conduct the work necessary to enroll the offender in the program, and (4) to follow up to ensure that the offender participates in the program. From the pas' perspective: (1) appropriate treatment programs should be available for all offenders, (2) slots in appropriate programs should always be available immediately, (3) these slots should not have eligibility requirements that interfere with getting whatever offender the PO wants immediately into any particular program, and (4) treatment programs should have built-in procedures that ensure clients show up and follow program rules without need for further PO follow up. The ideal model program from some pas' perspective is in-patient drug treatment. From a system perspective there will never be enough resources to supply all the intervention resources pas want. The system cannot support too many different specialized programs. I8 If there were enough slots available in every program so that no PO ever had to wait for a slot, then a large number of slots would be empty. The system level goal is to keep queues short and waiting times down while ensuring there is not too large a surplus of unused slots; it is not to have a large and expensive surplus of treatment slots so that no PO ever has to wait to get an offender into the appropriate slot. But pas see only that they have to wait for slots, they do not always recognize the system logic behind this. More information and education for pas about system level issues might help defuse this situation. The Multnomah County DCC operates five sanction programs: Intensive Case Management (ICM), the Day Reporting Center (DRC), the Work Release Center (WRC) , Alternative Community Service (ACS), and the Forest Project (FP), a work camp. In addition, the Sheriffs Office runs the Restitution Center (RC). Intensive Case Management (ICM) is an intermediate sanction funded by State Services and Sanctions Funds. ICM is essentially a re-establishment of the discontinued Intensive Supervision Program (ISP). ICM started operations in mid March 1994 and as of August 1994 served 193 clients. The program is designed to serve the most difficult probation/parole cases with intensive supervision. In a sense ICM provides the new SSP alternative to revocation, since it can give pas a break from their worst clients. ICM is currently operating under some severe constraints. The program has not yet staffed all budgeted positions, but current staff caseloads are capped so as not to overwhelm existing staff. ICM must also share office space with pas at
18 Although Multnomah County does appear to need more specialized treatment programs for Hispanics, more dual diagnosis programs, and more treatment for violent and/or actively substance-abusing offenders.
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
30
each District Office. Unfortunately, this latter problem may be unavoidable, since rCM has to deal with offenders at all DCC branch offices. The Forest Project (FP) is an intermediate sanction for non-violent clients that pre-dates SSP. It is a four to ten week residential program-weekdays only-including work on trails, shelters, and other projects, counseling, and random drug testing. The program has approximately thirty slots. POs, judges, and defense attorneys all make FP referrals. The Program Administrator of the FP expected that SSP would lead to a large increase in referrals but this has not happened. There is room in the FP for more SSP referrals. The Day Reporting Center (DRC) is an intermediate sanction which was developed for SSP and which began operating in January 1994. The DRC can handle 60 offenders at a time and a total of 300 per year. It is a nonresidential, but highly structured program with needs assessment and assignments to as many appropriate treatments as needed for each client, including cognitive restructuring, life skills, and substance abuse treatment. Alternative Community Service (ACS) is another community-based sanction in Multnomah County. ACS clients must do day work in unpaid details and may receive some limited support services. SSP violators spend eighty to one hundred hours on work details in ACS. ACS has streamlined the referral/intake process for SSP offenders down to one day. ACS serves about 4,000 clients per year; about 400 at anyone time. One third of recent clients have been SSP offenders. To cope with SSP offenders, ACS established a special SSP work crew. SSP has created confusion about ACS's role: is ACS a tough rehabilitation program-80 or more hours of service to the community- or a soft punishment-a substitute for jail? The Work Release Center (WRC) is another intermediate sanction that was established to support SSP. The WRC came on-line May 1, 1994. Currently the WRC accepts only state prison releasees transitioning back to Multnomah County. The WRC was operating at ninety percent of capacity in July 1994 with 34 beds and about 30 clients. POs have been inquiring about SSP referrals to the WRC and the program expects to start accepting SSP referrals soon. The D.R.O.P. Program is an intermediate sanction involving drug testing with immediate tourniquet sanctioning for positive tests. Twenty eight jail beds are available for sanctioning offenders in the D.R.O.P. program. Some of the judges we interviewed preferred D.R.O.P. to SSP. Some POs said they liked D.R.O.P. but had trouble getting clients into the program-telephone calls were not returned. The MCSO Restitution Center (RC) serves about 120 offenders at a time and about 700 annually. Offenders are screened by the danger they pose to the A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
31
community and their general suitability for the program. Criteria include being employed full-time or employable and looking for work. (Sixty percent leave with a full-time job.) As part of the arrangement, the offender works with the center's bookkeeper to maintain a budget paying for room and board, court fees and fines, clothes and other needs. While this program may be ideal for structured sanctioning clients, the referrals come mostly from the courts. pas say it is difficult to get the offenders into the program but the Sheriffs Office explains this difficulty arises because the pas don't know how it WQI'ks. This disagreement highlights both the problems communicating between DCC and the Sheriffs Office, as well as the philosophical issues structured sanctioning raises for those within DCC. The issues that are causing problems here include the referral process, sanctioning for positive drug tests, and the length of stay in the RC. The Restitution Center complains its employees need a lot of information about the offenders to determine suitability, but pas do not cooperate when asked to provide the material. If accepted, the offender is subject to drug tests and a positive result requires jailing according to Restitution Center rules. When an offender tests positive, the Restitution Center employee calls the PO and requests a detainer, but pas say they cannot give detainers for those circumstances.1 9 This appears to be a three-way breakdown in communications that can, and should, be clarified. Remaining issues surrounding the Restitution Center focus on the 30-day maximum stay in the program, which staff say is too short to be effective, and the center's service providing custody and treatment - two separate functions under the structured sanctioning format . During our site visit we also met with two of DCC's contract service providers-ASAP and the Volunteers of America Men's Resource Center (VOA)-to determine what impact SSP had had on their programs. Neither reported any significant changes since SSP's inception. Most notable were both programs' unmet expectations for more referrals from SSP ASAP is nearly 25-years old and provides intensive outpatient substance abuse treatment for an average of about 1,200 felony offenders annually. At one time, ASAP staff worked directly and exclusively with pas from DCC's former Intensive Supervision Unit (ISU)-the predecessor of ICM-to treat and help offenders stay out of jail. ICU pas knew the program, its criteria for intake and overall operation. The close relationships between DCC POs and ASAP staff has continued as ISU has been reintroduced as ICM. These informal relationships help offenders get fast-tracked into the programbypassing potentially lengthy interviewing and orientation-and create good 191t is worth noting, however, that circumstances.
Dee officials have informed us that a detainer may be granted
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
in these
32
communication between POs and ASAP staff. Most ASAP referrals are from rCM and DRC. ASAP fast-tracks referrals from the DRC just like those from rCM. Again, such fast-tracking is due mostly to the good working relationships between POs and program staff. The DRC helped ASAP design part of ASAP's alcohol and drug program and shares facilities and goals VOA offers treatment programs for men and women. Forty beds are available for each sex. VOA primarily serves non-violent offenders and receives referrals from POs, defense attorneys and judges. If an offender is accepted, his/her participation is "voluntary" as VOA is an open door program. The VOA program includes six months of residential treatment and aftercare. Structured sanctioning has had little impact on referrals to VOA. The POs who have referred offenders to the program in the past continue to do so. Not many POs have used the program for the first time since SSP. However, SSP may have affected offenders' attitudes towards full program participation. SSP probationers who are VOA clients believe that POs cannot revoke them, and this may have negatively affected their attitudes The Multnomah County Sheriff's Office The MCSO, besides running the Restitution Center, is ultimately responsible for carrying out the jail sanctions that POs recommend under SSP. The major problem here is the mistaken impression of POs that the federally imposed cap on jail population causes early releases of offenders whom they sanction for violations. POs and MCSO employees both complain about a lack of respect on the part of the other, and an inability to make timely contact with appropriate staff. Much of this misunderstanding and friction appears to be the result of long-standing communication problems rather than SSP. At management levels the working relationship between DCC and the MCSO has been very productive. This should eventually improve communication and cooperation at the line level. State Department of Corrections The state is providing funding for new SSP sanction programs as promised. The state is also requiring counties to make good faith efforts to meet probation revocation targets. These targets and the need to manage prison population growth have become linked with SSP operationally and philosophically.
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
33
Coordination of SSP Activities Probation Officers SSP has forced POs to be more responsive to system level issues but at the expense of a great deal of friction and a feeling that PO autonomy is being reduced, their ability to protect the public compromised, and their relations with other elements of the CJS, particularly judges and DAs, damaged. Some POs we interviewed also expressed feelings that SSP was being forced on them by the state and the highest levels of DCC management.
Probation Officer Supervisors Supervisors have become a major link between POs and DCC higher management, and also between DCC and the Sheriff's Office because of their role in controlling PO sanctions under SSP. This has increased the work load of supervisors and caused some friction with some POs.
DCC Administration DCC, primarily through its SSP training program, has attempted some coordination of SSP activities with other elements of Multnomah County's CJS and among elements within DeC. However, further efforts in this direction are necessary. Within DCe some POs are distrustful of SSP and not yet fully trained in its procedures and goals. PO supervisors have been strained by the paperwork and management burdens of SSP. Sanctioning and treatment programs need to be more fully coordinated with SSP. POs must feel it is easy to get clients into these programs under SSP and become accustomed to doing so. At the same time the programs must be more prepared for the new demands SSP should be creating. Some judges and DAs are unhappy with SSP partly because they are not fully understanding SSP's basic purposes. Some long-standing communications problems with the Sheriffs Office may have been aggravated by SSP. On the County government level, coordination appears more successful because Dee appears to have linked SSP goals of revocation reduction and community treatment with County measures of community progress and government performance as outlined in the document "Portland-Multnomah County Benchmarks".
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
34
Impacts of SSP Probation Officers SSP has increased PO paperwork and may have reduced the time and resources pas could expend on traditional activities, such as court appearances, home visits, close supervision etc.
Probation Officer Supervisors SSP has definitely increased the workloads of PO supervisors and increased friction with pas. But it has provided supervisors with an increased sense that they can encourage pas to operate more consistently with departmental policy.
District Managers District Managers, likewise, have a sense that SSP improves corrections management by allowing pas to assume responsibility for dealing appropriately with offender misbehavior and to document properly the interventions they use with offenders, and by standardizing PO interventions with violating offenders in line with Dee philosophy and needs.
Hearing Officers SSP has increased friction between Has and some POs, but for the Has this may be offset by the morale boosting feeling that they are important to the successful operation of SSP. SSP has also imposed on HOs some additional work associated with helping pas and their supervisors deal with SSP. The Dee is dealing with this latter problem by increasing HO staffing.
Judges and the Courts SSP has significantly reduced probation violation hearings in the courts.
Prosecutors While SSP has engendered feelings of reduced control over the sanctioning of violations among prosecutors, it has also reduced the prosecutorial workload associated with probation hearings.
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
35
Probationers Probationers believe that the power of the criminal justice system to punish them heavily for violations has been reduced. They do yet not realize that SSP has actually given POs a great deal more latitude in dealing with violations. Some of the DCC personnel we interviewed reported that as a result of probationers misunderstanding of SSP, some probationers have developed an "attitude". Educating probationers in more detail about the consequences of SSP for them will probably resolve this issue.
Recapitulation Within the Framework of SSP's Original Goals In this section we will recapitulate our findings about the current operation of SSP in Multnomah County organized around each of the original goals of SSP's developers. For each goal, we will discuss whether our evaluation suggests that SSP's operations have achieved or failed to achieve that goal in Multnomah County. We will also attempt to provide possible reasons why or why not goals were achieved and suggest methods for better achieving SSP goals. In this section we will also consider consequences of SSP's operation that were not intended as goals but which we feel have become important. SSP's original goals were: 1.
to change offender behavior by ensuring swift, certain, and appropriate responses to probation violations,
2.
to standardize sanctioning, treatment and other interventions by providing similar sanctions for similar violations,
3.
to create a clear relation in the offenders' minds between actions and consequences for those actions, thus establishing the psychological foundations for rehabilitation and deterrence,
4.
to ease the expense and burden which probation hearings impose upon the criminal justice system (CJS) by economizing and rationalizing of the probation process,
5.
to put more emphasis on treating offenders within the community rather than sanctioning them with extended periods of incarcerationoutside the community; community thus aiding reintegration of offenders into the community,
6.
to give POs greater authority and responsibility in dealing with offenders under their supervision thus passing control of offenders to those knowing best how to deal with them thus decentraliz-
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
36
ing authority and responsibility within the probation process, and shifting this authority and responsibility from the courts to probation and parole administration, 7.
to make POs more responsible for changing offenders behavior and give them the tools to do this.
Goal 1: To change offender behavior by ensuring swift, certain, and appropriate responses to probation violations
There is no question that POs are more likely to institute some immediate action against violations, and especially in response to technical violations, under SSP now than they were before. Before SSP, many POs were likely to let violations pass with the idea that if an offender persisted they could "slam him" with a court hearing and the potential of revocation. Since SSP has made revocation a less likely possibility, immediate action is a better option for POs The sanctioning grid alone, if properly used, would ensure consistent sanctioning and treatment responses. Because of concerns about POs' complete understanding of SSP and POs' willingness to abide by SSP's philosophy, DeC tries to ensure consistency by supervisor review. At SSP's inception this procedure may have been somewhat compromised by some initial supervisor confusion about SSP procedures, although further supervisor traiIiing has probably now resolved this problem. Goal 2: To standardize sanctioning, treatment and other interventions by providing similar sanctions for similar violations
Besides the sanctioning grid's impact on standardizing sanctions, SSP has reduced the ability of POs to .perform the kinds of informal sanctioning of clients that used to be common-for example, unannounced home visits, required extra office visits, and the like. This reduction in informal sanctioning has occurred both as a result of increased supervision of PO activities and the reduction in time available to POs because of the increased paperwork which SSP has created. Goal 3: To create a clear relation in the offenders' minds between actions and consequences for those actions, thus establishing the psychological foundations for rehabilitation and deterrence
Swift and certain response to technical violations appears to be increasing as a result of SSP. Unfortunately, among offenders there is a perception that
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
37
one of the biggest aspects of SSP is its restriction on the ability of POs to start revocation proceedings. Offenders need to be educated in the philosophy and operation of SSP. In particular offenders must understand that SSP gives POs more power to react immediately and forcefully to misbehavior and that although the maximum severity of punishment they can receive has probably been diminished under SSP, the likelihood they will be punished for any individual offense has increased enormously. Offenders need to be reminded that, as they themselves have told us, a succession of short sanctions can be much more unpleasant than a long stay in prison or jail. Goal 4: To ease the expense and burden which probation hearings impose upon the criminal justice system (CJS) by economizing and rationalizing of the probation process Preliminary data show that SSP has definitely reduced probation violation hearings and revocations for probation violations in Multnomah County. However, these data understate the impact of SSP, since this impact is just beginning to be felt. Revocations and court hearings will decrease even more as the proportion of probationers on SSP increases. Goal 5: To put more' emphasis on treating offenders within the community rather than sanctioning them with extended periods of incarceration outside the community, thus aiding reintegration of offenders into the community By greatly reducing the possibility of revocation and reducing the average time offenders will be incarcerated in jail, SSP ensures that only very rarely will offenders be removed from the community in ways that are disruptive of their potential rehabilitation and reintegration. The offenders we interviewed in Multnomah County suggested that the short terms of incarceration that were likely under SSP were far less disruptive of their community ties than either revocation or a long jail term, and in a way far more punishing. 20
20 This observation by the offenders we interviewed deserves further consideration. Joan Petersilia and
others have pointed out that jailing and imprisonment are not necessarily as punishing for persons living a criminal lifestyle as they may appear from a middle class perspective. First, there is little stigma attached to incarceration among those in criminal subcultures. In fact, imprisonment frequently enhances one's stature. Second, life in jail or prison is often not much more uncomfortable than life on the street for many criminals. Incarcerated persons are guaranteed food, a place to sleep, clothes, some medical care, some entertainment, a certain degree of safety-murders are far less common in prison than on the street, for example-and other such amenities. Third, incarceration provides "freedom," "status," and "comfort" to criminals. To criminals freedom means no job, no responsibilities, and lots of time to spare-prison provides these in abundance; status means respect in the eyes of one's peers-imprisonment leads to respect from other criminals; comfort may mean as little as being out with cronies and being fed regularly-prison
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
38
POs still need to become more familiar with the community treatments and the other interventions which are available to them, and comfortable with the processes needed to get clients into the appropriate programs.
Goal 6: To give POs greater authority and responsibility in dealing with offenders under their supervision thus passing control of offenders to those knowing best how to deal with them, decentralizing authority and responsibility within the probation process, and shifting this authority and responsibility from the courts to probation and parole administration This is happening. SSP is forcing POs to deal with clients' violations and document their interventions to show that they are appropriate and within SSP guidelines. However, the perception of many POs, at the time of our evaluation, was that SSP had constrained them by removing long-term incarceration as an option for dealing with many offenders, and by increasing the monitoring and control of their actions by PO supervisors. An important task for DCC's administration will be to give POs a broader perspective on SSP and help POs to realize the new powers SSP has given them and the responsibility that those powers entail. The DCC administration must also focus on mitigating some of the factors that currently increase PO workloads. Among these are the large amount of paperwork associated with case management and the recent large number of rapidly imposed op-
brings together street friends and provides them with minimal amenities and lots of opportunities to socialize. Finally, as one offender pointed out to us, from the criminal's perspective, long terms of incarceration make problems go away. The lives of these offenders are unsettled. After a stretch in prison the job that looked frighteningly permanent, the girl friend nagging about marriage, and the threatening associate who was making crime less appetizing are all likely to be gone. From the offender's perspective this is good. But from the correctional perspective, a whole series of community ties that were leading towards reintegration and rehabilitation are shattered and must be reconstructed from scratch. On the other hand, from the offender's perspective, short terms of incarceration like those provided by SSP can be irritating enough to be true punishment. Probationers whom we interviewed suggested that short terms in jail are very discomforting. They do not allow time to establish one's place in the institutional setting. The first week or two of jail is a period of intense anxiety while offenders watch their backs and try to establish allies and their place within the institutional hierarchy. If other inmates know they will be there only a short time this reduces the likelihood of accomplishing these tasks. Furthermore, offenders who are serving short terms know that their community ties will not be broken when they leave jail and that any problems their lifestyle has created for them on the outside will still be waiting when their short sentence is served. Many offenders regard long terms of incarceration the way most members of the middle class regard a permanent relocation-it is temporarily disruptive and anxiety provoking but ultimately something one becomes accustomed to. Short terms of incarceration are like business trips-punishing disruptions of ordinary activity that require extensive amounts of annoying catch-up work when they are over.
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
39
erational changes with which POs have had to contend. Improvements in ISIS, the automated case 10 ad management system, should help relieve the first burden.
Goal 7: To make POs more responsible for changing offenders behavior and giving them the tools to do this Many of Multnomah County's POs still do not understand that SSP has given them the authority and responsibility for intervening with probation offenders who commit violations and working to change their behavior. They are also not yet aware of all the tools with which SSP provides them in order to facilitate appropriate and effective interventions.
Unintended Consequences of SSP's Operation SSP has caused an increase in friction between POs and other elements of DCC. It has certainly increased PO supervisors' workloads considerably and may also have increased the workloads of POs themselves. On the other hand, by highlighting some pre-existing problems in Multnomah County's criminal justice system, SSP has actually spurred the solution of these problems. For example, there has historically been a communication problem between DCC and the Multnomah County Sheriffs Office. This communication problem impacted and was impacted by SSP to a great enough degree, that, apparently as a result, both DCC management and the Sheriff expedited a resolution of these problems.
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
40
Conclusions and Recommendations
Introduction Our evaluation of SSP occurred less than one year after the program's inception in Multnomah County. Experience teaches that most new corrections programs experience difficulties in their earliest stages as minor operational problems are ironed out and staff familiarize themselves with a new program's procedures and potential. Most of the more critical observations of SSP which we have provided in this evaluation are of transient phenomena which are not intrinsic to the program. These problems can easily be corrected without major alterations in SSP, and in many cases the Multnomah County DCC is already taking appropriate action to correct these problems now. Our goal in this evaluation is to point out situations which are interfering with SSP so that these can be corrected and SSP can operate efficiently in Multnomah County. Most importantly, despite SSP's novelty, many measures show that it is already working successfully: violation hearings and revocations for technical violations in Multnomah County have been reduced; the proportion of cases on structured sanctioning is increasing; new sanction and treatment programs are in place offering more options for community-based intervention; pas and supervisors are operating within the DCC system philosophy, and everyone involved in SSP in Multnomah County~xcept offenders-are aware of structured sanctioning, its intended goals and basic operating procedures. Some of the problems SSP has faced in Multnomah County and which we have discussed in this evaluation are a result of pre-existing issues within the Multnomah County criminal justice system, e.g. the long-standing communication problems between DCC and the Sheriff's Office and the continued dissatisfaction of some pas with Option 1 and other major system changes. Others are transient problems created by and within SSP, e.g. the difficulty pas have had learning to take advantage of SSP and the new options it gives them for controlling offender behavior. Becoming familiar with SSP and adapting it into the Multnomah County criminal justice system require much work on the part of POs, other DCC staff, and other members of the criminal justice system. As the program grows, so will its success.
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
41
Recommendations •
Structured sanctioning needs a central office, staffed full-time with a person able to make decisions regarding the program. The central office should be organized to take direction from the Structured Sanctioning Committee and implement the committee's mandates. However, it should have full authority to handle day-to-day operations and resolve disputes, e.g., between supervisors and POs. The requirement of supervisor monitoring and approval has created many problems for supervisors as well as POs. The office also needs to be away from the districts, to avoid any appearance of favoritism and to be accessible to DCC administrators.
•
Expand ICM as a replacement for revocations. The ICM staff are experienced dealing with the most difficult, hard core offenders. ICM can serve as a last resort for POs who are totally exasperated with an offender and are tempted to revoke him or her. ICM needs more staffing and permanent office space in the DCC district offices as well as the central office. We understand that DCC is negotiating for a facility that would allow some expansion. We applaud this effort.
•
Additional a"nd ongoing training is needed. This could be accomplished through a variety of means including regular workshops, a DCC newsletter focusing on structured sanctioning issues, and occasional contests or other ways of drawing attention to the program. As part of DCC's organizational development process this training should include a discussion of system level goals and case management level goals and ways of resolving apparent conflicts. Regardless of the training method chosen, details of the program must be explained correctly and clearly-particularly the sanctioning grid calculation forms and supplements.
•
In general, DCC needs to better communicate the program's purposes and successes to date - inside and outside of the agency. The District Attorney's office and judges, in particular need evidence of SSP's ongoing successes.
•
Include in POs' formal job performance reviews an evaluation of how adequately they perform the new responsibilities imposed on them by SSP, so that POs' merit- and performance-based wage increases and civil service promotions will be linked to their support of SSP goals. Measures of performance might include ratios of alternative sanctions imposed to revocations and jailings imposed, total custody days imposed broken down by type of custody, and numbers and variety of treatment interventions imposed. Of
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
42
course, any such system would have to control for the case-mix of offenders a PO is serving. •
Use computer automation to assist in the completion of as many SSP forms as possible. This would save POs time and prevent much confusion. ISIS provides a perfect framework within which to incorporate this types of computer automation.
•
Ease friction with the Sheriffs Office. POs who are delivering offenders to the county jails and the Sheriffs officers whom they deal with should be familiar with and respectful of one another. A formal, ongoing system of communication between high level managers in DCC and the Sheriff's Office would facilitate this process. We understand such a system is being developed now. In addition, DCC might establish one squad of POs who are responsible for jail deliveries and pickups. This would relieve other POs of the burden imposed by overseeing the jailing of individual offenders. It would also assure that the jail staff would quickly become familiar with this squad of POs. The Sheriff might also consider establishing a central jail intake for probation violators and manned by a special squad of deputies. The MCSO already has a central booking unit at the Multnomah County Detention Center.
•
Allow sanctions providing both custody and treatment to be considered as either under SSP. Many programs like the Restitution Center, ACS, and the Forest Project provide custody as well as treatment. Because they are custodial SSP allows offenders to be assigned to them for only a limited time. Frequently this is less than the assignment which these programs' administrators feel is optimal for treatment purposes.
•
Regularly publish and circulate to POs, supervisors, and treatment and custody program administrators a list of all available beds and/or slots in all custody and treatment programs. This would save POs the time they spend researching what interventions are available, would educate POs on available programs, and should end some POs' complaints about the lack of suitable interventions . for offenders. It would also help some treatment and custody programs like the Forest Project which have unused capacity, or capacity which might be reserved for SSP cases.
•
Eliminate certain classes of offenders--e.g., "career criminals" and repeatedly violent offenders-from the pool of SSP eligible offenders. Many professionals in Multnomah County's criminal justice
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
43
system are concerned that SSP is not a proper program for these offenders. •
The Multnomah County Department of Community Corrections is committed to Total Quality Management (TQM) and is currently considering organizational development issues. During the course of this evaluation we discovered that over the course of DCC's past history several cross-cutting departmental sub-cultures have arisen: those POs who yearn for a pre-Option 1 system versus those who prefer County management, staff with a "police" orientation towards probation and parole versus those with a "social work" orientation, staff with a case management versus system management orientation towards corrections, and so on. The existence of these subcultures has impacted SSP and is likely to impact attempts at TQM and organizational development. Over the longer term DCC should define and foster a common, core departmental culture that all staff can agree to and that will be supportive of all DCC goals and all programs.
44
A FORMATIVE AND PROCESS EVALUATION
".
