IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v49y2015icp50-62.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Implementation of an enhanced probation program: Evaluating process and preliminary outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Shannon, Lisa M.
  • Hulbig, Shelia K.
  • Birdwhistell, Shira
  • Newell, Jennifer
  • Neal, Connie

Abstract

Supervision, Monitoring, Accountability, Responsibility, and Treatment (SMART) is Kentucky's enhanced probation pilot program modeled after Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE). SMART is proposed to decrease substance use, new violations, and incarceration-related costs for high-risk probationers by increasing and randomizing drug testing, intensifying supervision, and creating linkages with needed resources (i.e., mental health and substance use). SMART adopts a holistic approach to rehabilitation by addressing mental health and substance abuse needs as well as life skills for fostering deterrence of criminal behavior vs. punitive action only. A mixed methods evaluation was implemented to assess program implementation and effectiveness. Qualitative interviews with key stakeholders (i.e., administration, judges, attorneys, and law enforcement/corrections) suggested successful implementation and collaboration to facilitate the pilot program. Quantitative analyses of secondary Kentucky Offender Management System (KOMS) data (grant Year 1: 07/01/2012–06/30/2013) also suggested program effectiveness. Specifically, SMART probationers showed significantly fewer: violations of probation (1.2 vs. 2.3), positive drug screens (8.6% vs. 29.4%), and days incarcerated (32.5 vs. 118.1) than comparison probationers. Kentucky's SMART enhanced probation shows preliminary success in reducing violations, substance use, and incarceration. Implications for practice and policy will be discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Shannon, Lisa M. & Hulbig, Shelia K. & Birdwhistell, Shira & Newell, Jennifer & Neal, Connie, 2015. "Implementation of an enhanced probation program: Evaluating process and preliminary outcomes," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 50-62.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:49:y:2015:i:c:p:50-62
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.11.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718914001268
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.11.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shannon, Lisa M. & Birdwhistell, Shira & Hulbig, Shelia K. & Jones, Afton Jackson & Newell, Jennifer & Payne, Connie, 2017. "Examining implementation and preliminary performance indicators of veterans treatment courts: The Kentucky experience," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 54-66.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:49:y:2015:i:c:p:50-62. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.