Overview of Adult Overview of Adult Community CorrectionsCommunity Corrections

OutlineOutline

Organizational StructureOrganizational Structure Probation population breakdownProbation population breakdown Evidence Based Practices in Evidence Based Practices in

ProbationProbation Probation RevocationsProbation Revocations Specialized Caseloads and Problem Specialized Caseloads and Problem

Solving CourtsSolving Courts

Organizational StructureOrganizational Structure

Harold “Bud” DoughtyAssociate Commissioner for

Adult Services

Probation Region I

Lisa Nash, Regional Corrections Administrator

Probation Region II

Nancy Downs, RegionalCorrections Administrator

Probation Region IV

Charles O’Roake, Regional Corrections Administrator

Probation Region III

Dan Ouelette, Regional Corrections Administrator

Adult Community Services

Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4

Bangor

*

Auburn

*

RegionalRegional OrganizationOrganization

Regional Corrections Administrator (RCA)

Probation Officer Probation Officer Probation Officer Probation Officer

Asst. Regional CorrectionsAdministrator

Corrections Resource Coordinator

(Regions I & III)

74 Probation Officers Statewide

Caseload & Offender DataCaseload & Offender Data

74 Probation Officers74 Probation Officers Average caseload size is 97 total / Average caseload size is 97 total /

84 Active*84 Active* 7628 offenders total; 6324 active7628 offenders total; 6324 active

* * *Average includes smaller specialized caseloads *Average includes smaller specialized caseloads and assumes no vacanciesand assumes no vacancies

Active Probation Population (6324 Active Probation Population (6324 total)total)

4993

11

535

159612 14

Probation

Parole

Pending ViolationIncarcerated

Interstate In

Pending ViolationCommunity

SCCP

Statewide Gender BreakdownStatewide Gender Breakdown

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Region I(19%)

Region II(16%)

Region III(18%)

Region IV(20%)

Percent of Female Offenders

Total

Female

Evidence Based Practices in Evidence Based Practices in ProbationProbation

Changing Strategies/Practices to Changing Strategies/Practices to Achieve Same Goal… Public SafetyAchieve Same Goal… Public Safety

Still pursuing Public Safety but a wide body Still pursuing Public Safety but a wide body of research/evidence now supports different of research/evidence now supports different approach to achieve public safety.approach to achieve public safety.

Doing “What Works” and supported by Doing “What Works” and supported by research to achieve public safety by research to achieve public safety by reducing recidivism)reducing recidivism)

Small reductions of risk across a broadscale Small reductions of risk across a broadscale of offenders. of offenders.

Examples of Evidence Based Examples of Evidence Based Practices in ProbationPractices in Probation

Identification of Risk by AssessmentIdentification of Risk by Assessment Vary supervision intensity, Vary supervision intensity,

programming, and strategy by programming, and strategy by identify risks and needsidentify risks and needs

Use Motivational InterviewingUse Motivational Interviewing Formalized case planningFormalized case planning Quality AssuranceQuality Assurance

Identification of Risk by AssessmentIdentification of Risk by Assessment

Level of Service Inventory –Revised(LSI-R)Level of Service Inventory –Revised(LSI-R) (Andrew,Bonta)(Andrew,Bonta)

Perhaps the most widely used offender Perhaps the most widely used offender assessment instrument:assessment instrument:

A 1999 national study found that 14% of agencies surveyed A 1999 national study found that 14% of agencies surveyed were using the LSI-R and another 6% had plans to were using the LSI-R and another 6% had plans to implement its use. implement its use.

Jones, D.A., Johnson, S., Latessa, E.J., and Travis, L.F. (1999). Case classification Jones, D.A., Johnson, S., Latessa, E.J., and Travis, L.F. (1999). Case classification in community corrections: Preliminary findings from a national survey. in community corrections: Preliminary findings from a national survey. Topics in Community Corrections. Washington D.C.: National Institute of Topics in Community Corrections. Washington D.C.: National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Dept. of Justice.Corrections, U.S. Dept. of Justice.

LSI-RLSI-R

Perhaps the most researched correctional Perhaps the most researched correctional risk/needs assessmentrisk/needs assessment

Since the first validation in 1982 it has Since the first validation in 1982 it has continued to show predictive validity. continued to show predictive validity.

Andrews, D.A. (1982). The Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI): the Andrews, D.A. (1982). The Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI): the first follow-up: Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Correctional Servicesfirst follow-up: Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services

Andrews, D.A., Dowden, C. and Gendreau, P. (1999). Clinically Andrews, D.A., Dowden, C. and Gendreau, P. (1999). Clinically relevant and psychologically informed approaches to reduced re-relevant and psychologically informed approaches to reduced re-offending: A meta-analytic study of human service, risk, need, offending: A meta-analytic study of human service, risk, need, responsivity and other concerns in justice contexts. Ottawa: responsivity and other concerns in justice contexts. Ottawa: Carleton UniversityCarleton University

Probation Population Risk Probation Population Risk LevelsLevels

Population Breakdown by RiskPopulation Breakdown by Risk

Risk: Defined as likelihood of recidivating as Risk: Defined as likelihood of recidivating as defined by the Level of Service Inventory –defined by the Level of Service Inventory –Revised(LSI-R)Revised(LSI-R)

Categories:Categories:Administrative (0-13)Administrative (0-13)Low (14-20)Low (14-20)Moderate (21-25)Moderate (21-25)HighHigh (26-34)(26-34)Maximum (35-50)Maximum (35-50)

Statewide Risk BreakdownStatewide Risk Breakdown

Statewide Risk Breakdown13%

26%

37%

12%

2%10%

Admin 13% Low 26%Mod 37% High 12%Max 2% Unassessed 10%

Population Breakdown by RiskPopulation Breakdown by Risk

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Reg I Reg II Reg III Reg IV StateAvg

Populations by LSI-R Risk

Admin Low Mod High Max Unassessed

Probation RevocationsProbation Revocations

Account for a significant percentage Account for a significant percentage of DOC and County Jail incarcerationsof DOC and County Jail incarcerations

A significant percentage of probation A significant percentage of probation revocations are the result of revocations are the result of technical violationstechnical violations

What influences revocation What influences revocation decisions?decisions?

RiskRisk Probation OfficersProbation Officers District AttorneysDistrict Attorneys JudgesJudges Severity and/or number of violationsSeverity and/or number of violations Victim impactVictim impact

Revocation Reduction MeasuresRevocation Reduction Measures

Directive requiring supervisory review of cases Directive requiring supervisory review of cases with pending violations where revocations in with pending violations where revocations in excess of 90 days being sought. excess of 90 days being sought.

Pilot program in York County where LSI-R risk level Pilot program in York County where LSI-R risk level and case history is being provided directly to the and case history is being provided directly to the court for all probation violations. court for all probation violations.

Plans for the creation of a “Technical Violations Plans for the creation of a “Technical Violations Unit” and/or a “Probation Re-entry Program” Unit” and/or a “Probation Re-entry Program” modeled after successful programs in Connecticut.modeled after successful programs in Connecticut.

Problem Solving CourtsProblem Solving Courts

Problem-Solving CourtsProblem-Solving Courts

Courts taking innovative approaches with specific Courts taking innovative approaches with specific problems that cause criminal behavior such as problems that cause criminal behavior such as substance abuse, mental health, and domestic substance abuse, mental health, and domestic violence. Problem solving courts in Maine include:violence. Problem solving courts in Maine include:

Drug CourtDrug CourtMental Health CourtMental Health Court

Judicial Monitoring for Domestic Judicial Monitoring for Domestic Violence OffendersViolence Offenders

Specialist CaseloadsSpecialist Caseloads

Domestic Violence Specialist Caseloads Domestic Violence Specialist Caseloads (York and Cumberland Counties)(York and Cumberland Counties)

Sex Offender Specialist Caseloads – in Sex Offender Specialist Caseloads – in all 4 probation regionsall 4 probation regions

Supervised Community Confinement*Supervised Community Confinement**specialist caseloads in some areas*specialist caseloads in some areas