Random Slides

1. Section II

2.  Pretrial supervision provides an
alternative for individuals who have
been arrested and charged with a
minor or first-time offense to remain in
the community under supervision.

3.  First pretrial release program began in 1961
with the Manhattan Bail Project
 Interviewed people to determine community ties
 Designed to assist with Release on Recognizance
(ROR)
 Pretrial Services Act of 1982 (18 US.C. 3152)
called for the creation of a separate federal
agency designed to oversee the prerelease
and detention of the accused as well as
other pretrial services.

4.  Different Release Mechanisms:
 Unsecured Bond
 ROR
 Surety Bond
 Deposit/Collateral
 Conditional Release

5.  Process whereby someone—either
adult or child—is referred to a program
(usually external to the official system)
for counseling or care of some form in
lieu of referral to the official court.
 Avoid entrance of person into system
 Avoid stigma of the system
 What are some stigma of a criminal
arrest/record?

6.  Suspended Sentence:
 A court order, entered after A verdict, finding, or
guilty plea, that suspends or postpones the
sentence contingent on the offender’s good
behavior
 Revoked or terminated if the offender committed
A new crime
 Suspension Of Imposition Of Sentence
 Suspension Of Execution Of Sentence

8.  None
 Release with Services
 Phone Checks
 Electronic monitoring and “Hot zones” or
exclusion zones
 House arrest
 Intensive pretrial release
 Client Meetings
 Drug Treatment Shelters
 Drug Testing

9.  Diversion Occurs at 4 Points in
System:
1. From arrest
1. Civil citation programs
2. Crisis Intervention Teams
3. IPV cases
2. From prosecution
3. From jail
4. From imprisonment

12.  Therapeutic Jurisprudence is used to
classify the two more commonly used
programs:
 Drug Courts
 Mental Health Courts

13. 1. Immediate Intervention
2. Non-adversarial adjudication
3. Hands-on judicial involvement
4. Treatment programs with clear rules
and structured goals
5. A team approach that brings together
the judge, prosecutors, defense
counsel, treatment provider, and
correctional staff

14.  Non-adversarial approach to integrating
substance abuse treatment with criminal
case processing
 First drug court established in 1989 in
Miami
 Established as a result of court and prison
overcrowding.
 Required one or more years of drug court
treatment
 Successful completion results in case being
dismissed.

15. 1. Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment
services with justice system case processing.
2. Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense
counsel promote public safety while protecting participants’
due process rights.
3. Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed
in the drug court program.
4. Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug,
and other related treatment and rehabilitation services.
5. Abstinence is monitored by frequent alcohol and other drug
testing.
6. A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to
participants’ compliance.
7. Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant
is essential.
8. Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of
program goals and gauge effectiveness.

16.  Program lasts 9-12 months
 Offender placed on probation one year
following completion
 Criminal record may be expunged if all
court treatment requirements satisfied

17.  Judges are free to openly praise or chastise
clients/offenders during hearing
 May issue court orders to attend treatment
submit to urinalysis, seek employment, meet
with a probation officer, avoid associations
with drug-abusing friends
 Failure to comply may place offender in
contempt of court or in jail
 May be transferred to regular criminal court
 Judges provide continuous feedback

18.  Iowa Drug Court Funding

19.  Drug Courts
 Antabuse
 Acupuncture
 Level Systems
 Lower recidivism, works best for drug users and not
OWI
 May not cost less (Iowa: Save $16,000-$56,000)
 Mental Health Courts
 Axis I Disorders - Anxiety Disorders, Mood Disorders,
Eating Disorders, Psychotic Disorders, Dissociative
Disorders, Substance Use Disorders
 Transition Planning
 Fewer rearrests and higher rate of services
 Veterans Courts
 Not well evaluated yet
 Dual Diagnosis

20.  Designed to keep nonviolent mentally ill
offenders out of prison
 Goal of courts is to ensure that these offenders
are not a nuisance in the community
 Mentally ill offenders often commit petty
crimes and are homeless
 Work with local agencies to address offender
needs and protect society
 Reflective of an integrative casework model of
intervention

21.  Created to address the issues of release
for offenders
 Provide comprehensive services to
offenders who return from prison to
the community
 Offenders are held strictly accountable
 Used as a tool to ensure public safety
and ensure offenders receive case
management services

22. 1. Assessment and Planning
2. Active Oversight
3. Management of Supportive Services
4. Accountability to Community
5. Graduated and Parsimonious
Sanctions
6. Rewards for Success

23.  Specialized courts provide for options
other than incarceration
 These courts recognize the need for
agency and community partnerships
 Provide a range of essential reentry
support services for offenders
 Volunteers and other collaborators can fill
the gaps by assisting with transportation
and other informal services

24.  Studies have been limited
 Most focus on local assessments
 Lowenkamp and Whetzel (2009) found:
 Static and dynamic factors could predict
success
 Static factors include:
▪ criminal history and current offense
 Dynamic factors include:
▪ substance use; home ownership; educational
attainment; employment status

25.  Most studies focus on effectiveness with
juveniles
 Steadman et al. (1999)
 Studied diversionary programs for mentally ill
 Found no significant difference between
those processed through diversion and those
not processed.
 Those not processed through diversion
tended to not get released

26.  Demuth and Steffensmeier (2004) found:
 White females most likely to be released on
pretrial
 Hispanic males least likely to be released
 National Pretrial Service Institute found:
 49% serve mixture of rural and urban
communities
 Average staff size is 22
 50% of programs have less than 5 staff

27.  Program participation does reduce
recidivism
 Increased treatment retention
 Cost-effective alternative to incarceration
 High failure rate
 Programs may be effective for violent
offenders, even though they are typically
excluded
 Those placed in programs are typically
lowest risk at reoffending.

28. Community-Based Corrections: A Text/Reader © 2012 SAGE
Publications, Inc.