Student Resources (5th Edition)

Leaders at the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) set out to develop national Performance­based Standards (PbS), setting the highest goals for facilities and providing outcome measures (numbers such as rates or percentages) to monitor progress meeting the standards. In addition, they, along with the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators, created a system for juvenile agencies to demonstrate improvement and success in treating confined youths through national standards and performance outcome measures.

The Council of Correctional Administrators, along with OJJDP, assembled an Advisory Board with members representing national organizations and relevant government entities to define and guide the development of PbS in order to create widely accepted and supported national standards and encourage voluntary participation.

PbS ask facilities to report data twice a year on 106 outcomes that indicate performance towards meeting 30 standards derived from seven goals—one goal for each of the following components of facility operations: safety, security, order, programming (including education), health/mental health, justice, and reintegration. In this case, standards are objectives that are defined in terms of the values of the system and best practices among facilities nationally. Facilities collect the data from administrative records, youth records, youth exit interviews, incident reports, and climate surveys of youths and staff. The information is entered into the web portal and is reported back in easy­to­read bar graph reports. Each outcome is reported for the current data collection period as well as any past data collections, allowing for comparison over time. The reports also include the average outcome of the field, which provides a quick analysis of whether the facility is doing better or worse than other PbS facilities. The outcomes include critical rates such as injuries, suicidal behavior, assaults, time in isolation, percentages of youths receiving suicide and mental health screenings, changes in academic achievement from admission to release, and percentages of youths completing educational, life skills, behavior management, and other programming curricula.

• The marital status of the suspect and the victim.
• Whether the suspect lives on the premises with the victim (except as may be necessary to qualify the parties as “members of an unmarried couple”).
• Whether or not the victim has obtained a protective order against the perpetrator.
• The potential financial consequences of arrest.
• Whether there have been previous law enforcement responses to domestic calls at this address.
• Verbal assurances that the violence will cease.
• The victim’s emotional status.
• Whether physical injuries suffered by the victim can be personally observed at the time of the law enforcement response.
• The location of the incident (i.e., public or private).
• Speculation that the victim may not follow through with the prosecution, or that the arrest may not lead to a conviction.
• The victim’s initial reluctance regarding an officer-initiated arrest.
• The fact that the victim and suspect are of the same gender.
• The use of alcohol or other drugs by either or both parties.

• Establish control.
• Assess the situation for risks to all parties, including children.
• Attend to the emergency medical needs of those involved.
• Interview parties/witnesses separately and away from the line of sight and hearing of the perpetrator (use direct quotes of witnesses about their fears and concerns).
• Effect an arrest of the perpetrator as the preferred response, if legally possible.
• Seize any weapons used in the incident.
• Inform the victim of their rights.
• Provide the victim with information on legal remedies and community services available for protection and safety planning.
• Assist the victim in securing medical attention, which shall include arranging for the transporting of the victim to obtain medical attention.
• Assist the victim in securing legal protection (warrant, protective order), which may include transporting the victim to obtain legal protection, if appropriate.
• Report all actual and suspected incidents of abuse to the Cabinet for Families and Children, Department for Social Services, using the “Child Abuse, Adult Abuse, and Domestic Abuse Standard Report” form (JC3).
• If the exigent circumstances have ceased, obtain consent to search or obtain a search warrant when appropriate.
• Collect and photograph all relevant evidence required for successful prosecution (use a body map with checklist to document injuries).
• Arrange for follow-up photographs of the victim in order to demonstrate the extent of the injuries that may later become more obvious.
• Attend to any children or dependent adults.
• Check LINK and NCIC for outstanding warrants, history file on protective orders, and whether there are any active “EPOs,” “DVOs,” or Foreign Protective Orders (“FPOs”).

Anyone who:

• is under indictment for, or has been convicted of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year
• is a fugitive from justice
• is an unlawful user of, or is addicted to, any controlled substance
• has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
• is an illegal alien or has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa
• was discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
• has renounced U.S. citizenship
• is subject to a court order restraining him or her from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child
• has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

Presale inquiries are to be made through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The background check will determine, based on available records, if an individual was prohibited under the Federal Gun Control Act or state law from receiving or possessing firearms.

(a) Under the FBI’s NICS program, state criminal history records are provided through each state’s central repository and the Interstate Identification Index. The Index, maintained by the FBI, points instantly to criminal records that states hold. In addition, the FBI provides records of federal offenses, federally maintained state data, and federal data on nonfelony disqualifications. States responding to NICS inquiries for nonfelony prohibitions provide their records directly.

(b) Problems: many state criminal record systems are notorious for their incomplete and missing data; data on some categories of persons prohibited from owning a firearm (e.g., mentally ill persons; drug addicts) are rarely available in public records.

Target Population: Although the original program was developed with drug-involved offenders, target populations can also include other types of probationers, such as felony sex offenders and felony domestic violence offenders. Modifications, however, may be needed for different target populations. It is also not clear whether the program’s effectiveness may vary for low-, moderate-, or high-risk offenders.

Program Components: Essential features include a coordinated effort by all parties, increased efforts to detect probation violations, and consistency in responding to violations with swift and certain—but proportionate—responses. It is important that the rules are clear and the program is perceived as fair. A jurisdiction considering a HOPE-style court might want to think about a system-wide approach that provides a continuum of supervision, reducing the intensity of supervision for probationers who demonstrate a willingness to comply and ratcheting up intensity for those who continue to violate.

Program Staff: No jurisdiction should plan to launch a HOPE program without first ensuring that all of the key players are on board. This includes local law enforcement partners, jails, prosecutors, public defenders, treatment providers, and, importantly, judges and probation officers. It is essential that the HOPE court and probation office work well together. This is a judge- and probation-centered model.

• Engagement matters. Ensure that all of the key players are on board: the designated HOPE judge, the probation department overseeing the HOPE caseload, local law enforcement partners, jails, prosecutors, public defenders, and treatment providers.
• Atmosphere matters. Ensure that key players are enthusiastic about the principles underlying the program and want to try something new.
• Relationships matter. Foster mutual respect between the probation officer and the judge. Bring other key criminal justice partners—prosecutors, public defenders, and law enforcement officers—into the conversation early on.
• Communication matters. Learn from experience and modify the program accordingly. Be sure to inform all partners of any changes and give them a chance to weigh in.
• Discipline matters. Implement HOPE’s key features with fidelity: swift, certain, and proportionate sanctions. Inconsistency in discipline can lead to resentment among practitioners and probationers.

• Do probation and other criminal justice personnel perceive effective communication across agencies about probationers? Surveys and interviews may address this question.
• Are sanctions swift, certain, and proportionate to the offense? Are graduated sanctions used over time, as the model requires? Probation officers might be required to enter essential information into official records within 24 hours. Critical information might include the date and time of any detection of probationers’ problematic behavior as well as all responses taken.
• Do probationers perceive that the program rules are clear, consistent, and fair? Surveys and interviews may help to address this question.

Such a policy does not lend itself to random selection. Nor would there be adequate comparison groups within the county. The solution, then, was to compare results with adjacent counties.

UCR data on adjacent counties, crime data from the (Washington) Metropolitan Council of Governments, a two-wave survey of all uniformed police officers in Prince William County, a county­wide community telephone survey, and U.S. Census data, some of which were available in the form of micro­samples.

The qualitative data employed for this study included police officer focus groups, key informant interviews with government agency leaders and community stakeholders, interviews with small samples of Hispanic residents identified through community organizations, and observations of how police officers implemented the policy.

The evaluators concluded that the policy reduced the illegal immigrant population in the county and leveled off growth of the Hispanic population in the county. Except for aggravated assaults, crime rates were not affected by the new policy, largely because Hispanic residents were relatively small in number and were arrested primarily for public order crimes. In addition, the reduction in aggravated assaults appears to have occurred in reaction to the announcement of the policy, not gradually in response to its implementation.

Although the RSAT RFP emphasized the need for aftercare services, RSAT funds could only be used for that portion of the program offered within residential facilities. No funding was provided for aftercare services. Some states were unable or unwilling to create and fund these services.

Since the RSAT program never included funding for aftercare services, the problem is not one of implementation. It may, however, be seen as a problem of design. Involvement of state correctional agencies in the planning of the RFP would have revealed obstacles to funding aftercare services before issuing the RFP.