 |
|||
| A
publication of the Justice Center |
Alaska Justice Statistical Analysis Center |
||
 |
|||
|
The Alaska Judicial Council has released a report which contains a description and evaluation of the fifteen-month pilot probation program for misdemeanor domestic violence offenders recently completed in Palmer. The report describes the nature of the program, the characteristics of supervised offenders and outcomes for these offenders. It also presents the results of an evaluation which compared outcomes for offenders in the program with those from a set of cases in which the offenders did not receive supervision. The evaluation also included an interview component which elicited reactions to the program from its participants.
The Palmer Project
The project in Palmer, which
ran from 1998 through the first part of 1999, was conceived as
a pilot project which would provide probation supervision to
a selected group of offenders convicted of misdemeanor domestic
violence violations. The majority—about 95 per cent—of
Alaska offenders convicted of domestic abuse are convicted of
misdemeanors and ordinarily receive no formal supervision once
released from custody. This absence of supervision has been perceived
as a weak link in the criminal justice system. The pilot project
was funded by a $131,000 grant under the federal Violence Against
Women Act. It had two goals: to develop offender accountability
and to increase victim safety. It comprised a collaborative effort
among various branches of the justice system serving Palmer:
local law enforcement; the district attorney’s office; district
and superior court judges; the Valley Women’s Resource Center;
and the Palmer probation office.
Those planning the program decided
to target more serious domestic violence offenders for inclusion
in the program, on the theory that supervision resources should
not be expended on less serious offenders who might be likely
to succeed without extra attention.
Over the fifteen months a total
of 47 offenders were supervised. Most often, the district attorney’s
office made the request that an offender be admitted to the program,
although judges also ordered supervised probation sua sponte.
Defense attorneys typically did not ask for their clients to
be admitted to the program.
One probation officer supervised
all the domestic violence misdemeanants in the program. The caseload
averaged about 40 offenders per month early in the program and
30 per month later. (This contrasts with an average active felony
probation caseload of about 100 offenders per officer in the
Palmer probation office.)
A review of the probation officer’s
contact log showed the intense level of supervision permitted
by the small caseload. The officer averaged 42 contacts with
each offender and met face-to-face with all but three offenders.
During these contacts, she inquired about employment, residence
and compliance with treatment requirements and initiated discussions
about the offender’s perspective on what had happened and
the nature of domestic violence.
The probation officer also contacted
most of the supervised offenders’ victims—a practice
not normally associated with probation supervision —to ask
about the victim’s sense of safety and the offender’s
behavior.
Characteristics of Offenders
The Judicial Council report
presents a list of characteristics of offenders in the supervised
group and a similar list for offenders in the set of cases which
was used as a control group for purposes of statistical comparison.
The report details how the control group was chosen from 1997
and 1998 filings in the Palmer court system.
Almost all offenders, in both the
program group (47) and in the set of cases selected as a control
group (123) for the purposes of the evaluation, had been charged
with assault in the fourth degree, which is a misdemeanor. A
few had originally been charged with Assault III, a felony. All
had been convicted of a misdemeanor offense against an intimate
partner—most commonly assault or interfering with a domestic
violence report. Most offenders were married to or living with
the victims at the time of the offense. Sentences imposed by
judges typically included incarceration for several days or weeks;
conditions of probation requiring offenders to complete a batterer
intervention program and substance abuse assessment or treatment;
and, in some cases, a suspended fine. Judges seldom ordered restitution
or community work service.
The majority of offenders had at
least one prior misdemeanor conviction—89 per cent of the
supervised group and 62 per cent of the unsupervised. About 60
per cent of the supervised offenders were under the influence
of alcohol or drugs at the time of the offense. Because of the
way information is maintained in criminal history records and
court files, data on substance abuse for the control group was
less reliable, although for a little over half (54%) there was
some indication in the records of a history of substance abuse.
The supervised offenders and those
in the control group were mostly Caucasian, although minorities
were slightly overrepresented in both groups compared to the
general population of the Mat-Su valley. Women were 2 per cent
of the supervised group and 17 per cent of the control group.
The average age of supervised offenders was 34 years. In the
control group the average age was 35.5 years.
All but two of the supervised offenders
(4%) possessed at least a high school degree or GED. No educational
information was available for the control group. Over half of
the offenders in both groups reported full or part-time employment.
Outcomes
Five (11%) of the supervised
offenders were alleged to have committed a new domestic violence
offense against the same victim and two (4%) against another
victim. A new offense against the same victim was alleged for
eleven of the control group (9%) and a new offense against a
different victim for two (2%).
The probation officer filed one
or more petitions to revoke probation against 72% of the supervised
offenders (34). Petitions to revoke were filed against only half
(60) of the control group.
For those with treatment programs
ordered as a condition of probation, about a third of both the
supervised offenders and the other group successfully completed
court-ordered batterer-intervention programs. Thirty-seven per
cent of the supervised group partially completed their programs,
as did 21 per cent of the control group.
Thirty-five per cent of the supervised
offenders completed substance abuse programs and 42 per cent
partially completed the required treatment programs. Thirty-two
per cent of the control completed their programs and 34 per cent
partially completed the programs.
Evaluation
The Judicial Council evaluation
used both quantitative and qualitative data to understand the
effects of the program. The quantitative data, some of which
is detailed above, was obtained from court and probation files,
from the Alaska Public Safety Information Network (APSIN) and
from treatment providers. It became the basis for a statistical
comparison. In addition, both structured and informal interviews
were conducted with judicial officers, police, attorneys and
victim service providers. One offender and one victim were also
interviewed. (Attempts to contact more victims and offenders
were hampered by time and scheduling constraints.)
As the discussion in the previous
section indicates, the supervised offenders resembled the control
group in many variables including ethnicity, age, employment,
relationship to victims and charges. The groups differed on several
important variables including gender, prior record, and conditions
of probation.
After discussing the problems which
undercut precise comparability, the report presents the results
of the statistical comparison between the two groups. The comparison
found: the difference between the supervised group and the control
group in complying with conditions on completing treatment program
was not statistically significant; no statistically significant
difference in the rates at which the two groups re-offended appeared;
a statistical difference did exist in the percentages of probation
revocation between the groups, with the supervised offenders
more likely than those in the control group to have their probation
revoked.
(Another quantitative finding which
emerges from the study as it is reported is that women were named
as defendants in almost a quarter (23%) of all the Palmer intimate-partner
assault cases examined for the study. They accounted for 17 per
cent of those ultimately convicted. This was true even though
Palmer prosecutors dismissed cases against women at a much higher
rate than they did for men.)
The other component of the Council
evaluation was based on interviews conducted with those involved
in the program. (Those who were interviewed were not aware of
the results of the quantitative evaluation at the time of the
interview.) With the exception of defense attorneys, the people
interviewed were satisfied with the project and asked that it
be continued. Judges, prosecutors, law enforcement and victim
service providers perceived the program as a helpful resource.
They relied on the probation officer to keep track of offenders
they regarded as being at high risk of re-offending or violating
probation. They also believed that the probation officer played
an important coordination role among all players in the justice
system. Defense attorneys argued that the program was ineffective
in helping their clients to complete court-ordered conditions
of probation, with their supervised clients more likely to be
charged with offenses or violations unrelated to the original
crime – in their opinion, a consequence that did not help
clients complete treatment or stay out of jail.
The program provided an important
resource to victims, many of whom kept in close touch with the
probation officer. This level of victim service is not normally
available for misdemeanor cases in the criminal justice system.
Observations
Based on the findings of the
evaluation the Judicial Council made three observations. First,
since this evaluation suggests that probation supervision did
not help offenders complete court-ordered treatment, more research
should be done before deciding to start any future monitoring
programs. Research should examine other models of post-release
monitoring which might be more effective.
Second, since the program provided
a valuable resource to victims and a level of victim service
not regularly available for misdemeanor cases, future research
could focus on how to replicate this level of service in a cost-effective
way.
Finally, the evaluation points
to three other areas for possible research. Victims, offenders,
prosecutors, defense attorneys, and probation officers might
together design a post-release monitoring program aimed toward
helping offenders complete court-ordered treatment. Another research
project could re-examine the offenders studied in this report
at a later date. Finally, additional research is needed to illuminate
how often and under what circumstances women are involved as
the offender in domestic violence cases.
Copies of the report, “Evaluation of Pilot Probation Program for Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Offenders”, which is discussed in this article, may be obtained from the Alaska Judicial Council or through its web site at http://www.ajc.state.ak.us/.