WWW.DISSERTATION.XLIBX.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Dissertations, online materials
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 35 | 36 ||

«From Inception to Implementation: How SACPA has affected the Case Processing and Sentencing of Drug Offenders in One California County DISSERTATION ...»

-- [ Page 37 ] --

17e. If an offender is removed from P36 probation, is that considered a “failure”?

17f. If so, what percentage of offenders “fail” Proposition 36?

17g. How many months/years are most Prop 36 offenders followed for?

18. Is the average drug offender in Proposition 36 court typical of most drug offenders in Orange County? If not, how are Prop. 36 defendants dissimilar from other drug offenders?

19. Has Proposition 36 impacted the other drug offender sentencing/diversion programs in use in the county? How?

19a. For example, is Drug Treatment Court at full-capacity?

19b. Are there different types of offenders in the other drug programs since Proposition 36 went into effect?

20. How is it decided whether an offender will be offered Drug Treatment Court, PC1000, or Proposition 36? Is there a standard set of criteria that the decision based on?

20a. Who makes the ultimate decision in cases of disagreement?

21. Has Proposition 36 affected your caseload or workload? How? Which aspects affect your workload the most?

21a. What proportion of your time is devoted to working on probation violation cases? In a typical week, how many hours do you spend working on probation violation cases?

21b. Has Proposition 36 changed the number of court cases for drug crimes?

How?

21c. Has Proposition 36 changed the number of trials for drug crimes?

In/Decrease?

22. Do you think your approach; your ways of processing cases is similar to other Public Defenders? Or different? How?

23. How did most PD’s feel about the law when it was on the ballot?

24. Do most PD’s think the law is working?

25. If you could make changes to Proposition 36 to make it more effective, what changes would you make?

–  –  –

Describe respondent’s background, job title, experience… Other notes or comments

1. Can you please describe your current job?

1a. In your current capacity, do you deal ONLY with PC1210 probationers or a mix of probationers?

2. Are you familiar with the PC1210 when it was initially started? If so, please describe the initial impact of Proposition 36 on the probation department. What were the expected major issues you found yourself having to deal with?

2a. What were the unexpected major issues you found yourself having to deal with?

2b. What were the unexpected minor issues you found yourself having to deal with?

2c. What were the expected minor issues you found yourself having to deal with?

3. How did the probation department adjust to the changes?

3a. Were new operating procedures adopted? If so, what were they and what issue was each intended to address?

4. Describe how the probation department currently handles PC1210 probationers and how this has changed since inception.

5. Are PC1210 offenders generally banked or on regular probation? What are the guidelines for whether an offender is banked or on regular probation?

5a. Can you please describe how a “banked” offender would experience probation?

5b. Can you please describe how a typical PC1210 drug offender would experience probation? Ie how often does this offender see their probation officer? Are they generally drug tested?

5c. Can you please describe how a typical drug offender (not on PC1210 probation) would experience probation? Ie how often does this offender see their probation officer? Are they generally drug tested?

6. How often do you have a probationer who was granted PC1210 probation but did not technically qualify? Can you give me an example?

7. Can you give me an example of the typical drug offender on probation before PC1210 went into effect? What makes this person typical?

7a. Can you give me an example of an atypical drug offender, placed on probation before PC1210 went into effect? What makes this person atypical?

7b.Can you give me an example of the typical drug offender on probation now (after PC1210 went into effect)? What makes this person typical?

8. Has PC1210 changed the type of offender on probation? If so, how do PC1210 offenders differ from other offenders

9. How did you feel about Proposition 36/PC1210 when it was on the ballot?

–  –  –

10. What is your personal opinion on Proposition 36/PC1210 as a policy now?

11. Do you think PC1210 is working? Why or why not?

12. If you could make changes to PC1210 to make it more effective, what changes would you make?

13. Do you think your approach, your views and the way you do your job is similar to other probation officers? Or different? How?

–  –  –

Can you please tell me about your background, job title, experience? Other notes or comments

1. Has PC1210 affected your caseload or workload? How?

2. Has PC1210 changed the type of offender on parole? If so, how do PC1210 offenders differ from other offenders?

3. How does Proposition 36/PC1210 apply to parolees?

4. Can you describe how a parolee on PC1210 probation would experience parole?

Ie how often does this offender see their parole officer? Are they generally drug tested?





4b. Can you please describe how a typical drug offender (not on PC1210 probation) would experience parole?

5. Can you take me through the process that a parolee would go through now if they had a dirty urine test? How is this different than before PC1210?

5a. Would the process be different if the parolee was charged with “under the influence,” “possession” or another drug offense by law enforcement? If yes, how?

6. Who determines whether a parole violation will result in PC1210 probation?

6a. What criteria is the decision based on?

7. How often do you have a parolee who was granted PC1210 probation but did not technically qualify? Can you give me an example?

8. Can you give me an example of the typical drug offender on parole before PC1210 went into effect? What makes this person typical?

8a. Can you give me an example of an atypical drug offender, placed on parole before PC1210 went into effect? What makes this person atypical?

9. Can you give me an example of the typical drug offender on parole now (after PC1210 went into effect)? What makes this person typical?

9a. Can you give me an example of an atypical drug offender on parole now (after PC1210 went into effect)? What makes this person atypical?

10. For parolees who are granted PC1210 probation, who is the primary supervising/ corrections agent – the probation officer or the parole officer? Or is responsibility shared?

11. How did you feel about Proposition 36 when it was on the ballot?

–  –  –

12. What is your personal opinion on Proposition 36/PC1210 as a policy now?

13. Do you think PC1210 is working? Why or why not?

14. If you could make changes to PC1210 to make it more effective, what changes would you make?

15. Do you think your approach, your views and the way you do you job is similar to other probation officers? Or different? How?

–  –  –

Describe respondent’s background, job title, experience… Other notes or comments

1. Tell me a little about the intake and classification process at OC Jail. What are OCJ’s rules as to the offenders it will accept (ie misdemeanants, warrants…)? Are drug offenders separated from violent or property offenders?

1a. Has there been any change in how drug offenders are processed in the jail as a result of Proposition 36?

2. How much of a problem is overcrowding in OCJ? Has OCJ had to take special measures to reduce overcrowding (ie early release, not accepting some warrants…)?

3. Drug offenders represent what percentage of the pre-conviction jail population?

What about post-adjudication? Has this changed since Proposition 36?

4. What was the typical sentence for offenders convicted of following offenses prior to P36?

Felony “under the influence” (11550), Felony possession (11377) Felony Possession (11350) Other typical offenses (11364 para; 4140 syr.?

5. Please tell me what you know about Proposition 36. What it is, who it applies to, etc… How do you learn this?

6. Did the department provide any training on the law (ie a training video during briefing)? If so, when did this training occur? (before implementation, 2001/2002, just recently) Can you tell me about the topics which were covered or what you learned?

7. How often do deputies (or other agency personnel) discuss the law? When it is discussed, what do deputies typically talk about? What types of comments are usually made? (i.e. regarding the offenders, the law itself, effects of the law…)

8. Before Proposition 36 became effective, did you give much thought as to how it might affect your job? If so, what kinds of expectations did you have?

9. What has the actual impact of the law been on your job? How is this different from your expectations?

10. One of the things P36 was supposed to do was decrease the # of drug offenders in jail. Do you think it achieved this goal? Why or why not? How do you know whether it did?

10a. Other than Prop36, what other influences have affected jail operations in the past 6 yrs? CDCR overcrowding-what policies have had the largest impact on OCJ operations?

10b. How many more/fewer occupied beds do you have on a typical night now, as compared to before Prop 36? Has this fluctuated much in the past 6 years? Or has it been a steady decrease or increase?

10c. If there are more beds available, how is OCJ using these beds? (a) Filling them with more arrestees (ie accepting misdemeanants, low bail warrants now)?

(b) Keeping sentenced offenders for a larger proportion of their sentence? (c) Keeping offenders sentenced to CDCR for longer periods to help relieve pressure on CDCR (does OCJ get paid for this)? Other – such as reducing overcrowding in OCJ (decreasing # of offenders per cell)?

11. What has been the effect on the inmate population? Is the jail accommodating more serious/violent offenders now? Or is the mix of inmates the same as before?

11a. Are some offenders serving a larger portion of their sentence now? Which?

11b. Has it changed how offenders interact with deputies? For example, is there less tension now (b/c more space, fewer inmates)? Or more tension (b/c more serious, serving longer sentences…)?

11c. Has it changed how offenders interact with one another? For example, tension; inmate hierarchy, special housing, economy, privileges… 11d. Has it changed the supply of drugs in jail? Are drugs in jail a huge problem or a minor problem? Can you tell me a bit about who has access to drugs? What proportion of the pop.?

12. Has Proposition 36 changed the way you do your job? If so, how?

13. Have you noticed any changes in the charges that drug offenders are booked on (ie seriousness), or # of offenses drug offenders are booked on? Fewer arrests for certain crimes?

14. Have you noticed any changes on the back end in sentencing? For example, fewer or more sentenced to jail – changes in sentences?

15. How has the law impacted jail operations? For example, has there been an impact on the arraignment time (shorter/longer) that has affected how long offenders are spending in jail?

15a. Fewer drug offenders are exercising their right to trial. How has this impacted jail operations? Moving inmates around on court days? Frees up beds sooner?

16. Please describe how most drug offenders look when booked into jail. Do they look the same at the end of their 30/60/90+ sentence? If no, how do they look different?

How long does it usually take for an offender’s appearance to change? Do you think serving time in jail has an impact on addiction?

17. Is there a department/agency policy written about the law? If yes, can you tell me what the policy states? May I have a copy?

18. Unlike drug courts and other diversion programs, Proposition 36 applies universally to all non-violent drug offenders who aren’t disqualified by a current contemporaneous offense or past criminal history. Do you think this impacts what other law enforcement officers feel about the law? Do you think it impacts the actions of other law enforcement officers?

15a. Do you think law enforcement officers would be more favorable to P36 if they saw that treatment was working?

19. Do you recall how you felt about Proposition 36 when it was on the ballot? Did you vote for it, or against it?

20. What do you think of Proposition 36 as a policy now?

21. Do you think Proposition 36 is working? Why or why not?

22. If you could make changes to Proposition 36 to make it more effective, what changes would you make?

23. Do you know which offenses qualify for Proposition 36 sentencing in Orange County?

23a. Do you know if a drug offender’s past criminal history can disqualify him/her for Prop36 sentencing in Orange County? If yes, any idea what would disqualify a person?

23b. Can a drug offender in Orange County be sentenced under Proposition 36 if s/he has had past drug program failures (PC1000, P36, DTC)? If yes, how many past failures are tolerated?

24. Arrests for felony dangerous drugs (11377(a), 11378, 11379(a), 11375(b)) skyrocketed from 2000-2002, and 2003-2004. Has this affected the jail? How?

Staffing, available beds, proportion of sentence served…

–  –  –

Describe respondent’s background, job title, experience… Other notes or comments

1. Regarding the strategic planning that took place before/immediately after Proposition 36 was passed into law. How did OC criminal justice agencies come together to strategize the implementation of Proposition 36? How was the first meeting established?

2. Which agencies were involved in the planning stages in Orange County?

2a. Was every criminal justice agency in Orange County involved in these planning meetings? If not, which agencies did not participate? Why? (ie. choice) 2b. What roles did each agency in Orange County take on? How were responsibilities delegated? Did one agency assume the leadership role? If so, how was it decided which agency would be the lead agency?

3. Can you please tell me about these Orange County strategy meetings that took place? When did the meetings start? What were the major issues that the planning team was concerned about?

3a. How often did the meetings occur? Was there one main meeting or multiple “committee-type” meetings?

3b. What was the spirit of the meetings? Cooperative? Territorial?

Collaborative?

3c.What types of disagreements/questions came up during the planning stages?

How were these resolved?

3d. How well did OC criminal justice agencies come together to create an implementation plan? Did involved agencies feel it was important to have a unified strategic plan – or was it more each agency for itself?

4. Regarding the strategic planning that took place before/immediately after Proposition 36 was passed into law. Can you please tell me about the conversations that took place between OCPD and other probation departments & criminal justice agencies in the state?

4a. What was the primary purpose of these meetings (information or fact-finding sessions, collaborative planning meetings or something else)?

4b. How often did such meetings take place?

4c. Who attended the meetings (agencies and rank of individuals within agencies)?

4d. Were the meetings beneficial to you or the OCPD in planning or implementing Proposition 36? If so, how?

5. Proposition 36 represented a huge philosophical shift, what types of comments were most often heard/expressed by individuals in these various meetings?

(excitement, disdain…)

6. How was OCPD’s initial approach to implementation and supervision similar or dissimilar to other counties?

7. What was Orange County’s original implementation plan?

7a.Was there a preliminary estimate of how many additional probationers there would be as a result of PC1210? If so, what was it and how was it determined?

How accurate was this estimate?

8. Describe the initial impact of Proposition 36 on your department. What were the expected major issues you found yourself having to deal with?

8a. What were the unexpected major issues you found yourself having to deal with?

8b. What were the unexpected minor issues you found yourself having to deal with?

8c. What were the expected minor issues you found yourself having to deal with?

9. How did your department adjust to the changes?

9a. Were new operating procedures adopted? If so, what were they and what issue was each intended to address?

10. Describe how your department currently handles PC1210 clients and how this has changed since inception.

11. Has PC1210 changed the type of offender on probation? If so, how do PC1210 offenders differ from other offenders

12. How did you feel about Proposition 36/PC1210 when it was on the ballot?

12a. Did you vote for it, or against it?

13. What is your personal opinion on Proposition 36/PC1210 as a policy now?

14. Do you think PC1210 is working? Why or why not?

15. If you could make changes to PC1210 to make it more effective, what changes would you make?

16. Do you think your approach, your views and the way you do your job is similar to other in your department? Or different? How?

–  –  –

Based on discussions with Orange County District Attorney’s Office Research Unit and Orange County Probation Department Research Unit, SACPA-eligible drug offenses include the following California Violations: HS11350(a); HS11364; HS11377(a), HS11550, HS11550(a); BP4140

–  –  –

I identified, estimated, and diagnosed ARIMA models for each of the eight time series in the study according to the methods described by Box and Jenkins (1976). Each of the series was plotted over the time period to visualize the date, evaluate the series for trending, and identify any possible data issues likely to arise.

Because ARIMA time series analysis requires the estimated disturbance term (shocks) to be normally distributed (not subject to skewness or kurtosis), a one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (KS test) was performed on each series to determine whether the series met the assumption of Normality. Series that did not meet this assumption were transformed using the natural logarithm (under the influence arrests, jail, and probation with jail). In some of the cases, none of the standard transformation techniques (natural log, square root) were successful. In each of these cases (cases filed, prison, possession arrests, and probation and other) the intervention changed the nature of the series so dramatically that it skewed the entire series. The KS test was re-run using only the pre-intervention data and confirmed that all but one

–  –  –

“probation and other” could not be transformed into a normally distributed series because the impact of the legislation was so significant it defined the series. I was unable to transform the pre-intervention series because there were so few offenders sentenced to “probation and other” prior to Prop36 that the variance was large, due to Only 1/1/2000-12/31/2000 and 7/1/2001-6/30/2002 are used in analysis for reasons explained in chapter 2.

low power and large month to month fluctuations in the number of observations per month.

Next, appropriate ARIMA models for each series were identified using the ACF and PACF. Series that were non-stationary were made stationary using firstorder differencing (and in some cases, seasonal differencing). Some series also required autoregressive and/or moving average components. Each model was then estimated using the model’s parameter estimates. If the parameter estimate/s was/were within the bounds of stationarity and/or invertability, the model was accepted. The residuals of each acceptable model were then diagnosed using the Q statistic. If the Q statistic was less than the degrees of freedom and the probability of Q was.05, the model was accepted. This process was repeated numerous times for each series in order to identify the best fit, most parsimonious model for each individual series.

Finally, an intervention impact analysis was conducted on each series. For arrest series (under the influence arrests, possession arrests), July 2001 was used as the intervention date because that is when the law officially went into effect and there was no indication that officers began changing their arrest practices in anticipation of the law (as judges did). For the case processing series (cases filed, cases dismissed, prison, jail, probation with jail, probation and other), March 2001 was used as the intervention date. March 2001 was chosen as the most appropriate intervention date because this is when the pilot study began in Orange County and because data analysis revealed that practitioner behavior in the courthouse changed starting in January (as was described in interviews).

Table K.1 shows the results of the impact analyses. Unfortunately, several of the series were complicated by multiple data issues, including moderate to severe fluctuations in the number of observations from month to month, monthly intervals that were not equivalent, and in some cases a small number of observations in the preintervention period. Only two of the series showed a statistically significant impact.

In several cases, time series analysis was unable to detect the effect of the legislation because the change instigated by Proposition 36 was so significant it appeared as noise in the models.

Table K.1: ARIMA Models and Level of Significance for Each Variable

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 35 | 36 ||


Similar works:

«SPATIAL SUPPRESSION IN AGING THE EFFECT OF AGING ON SPATIAL SUPPRESSION By LINDSAY E. FARBER, H.B.Sc. A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy McMaster University c Copyright by Lindsay E. Farber, December 2015 DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (2015) McMaster University (Neuroscience Graduate Program) Hamilton, Ontario TITLE: The effect of aging on spatial suppression AUTHOR: Lindsay E. Farber, H.B.Sc. (Western...»

«John Howard Yoder on Christian Nonviolence and the Haustafeln by In-Yong Lee Graduate Program in Religion Duke University Date: _Approved: _ Stanley Hauerwas, Supervisor _ Amy Laura Hall _ Allen Verhey _ Susan Eastman _ Douglas Campbell Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate Program in Religion in the Graduate School of Duke University ABSTRACT John Howard Yoder on Christian Nonviolence and the Haustafeln by...»

«Abstract Title of Dissertation: Novel Extracellular Signal-Regulated Kinase (ERK) Targeted Inhibitors Effects on Apoptotic Signaling: A Potential Cancer Therapy Sarice R. Boston, Doctor of Philosophy, 2011 Dissertation directed by: Paul Shapiro, Ph.D. Associate Professor Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Education Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences University of Maryland, Baltimore The extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK 1/2) proteins potently mediate cell proliferation...»

«Humanities 2015, 4, 885–904; doi:10.3390/h4040885 OPEN ACCESS humanities ISSN 2076-0787 www.mdpi.com/journal/humanities Article The Ubiquity of Humanity and Textuality in Human Experience Daihyun Chung Department of Philosophy, Ewha Womans University, Seoul 120-750, South Korea; E-Mail: chungdhn@ehwa.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-10-6286-9233 Academic Editor: Albrecht Classen Received: 16 June 2015 / Accepted: 19 November 2015 / Published: 27 November 2015 Abstract: The so-called “crisis of the...»

«Reserva un curso para, al precio más bajo en todo el Mundo y lee los comentarios de, de los ex-alumnos en http://www.languagecourse.net/escuela.php3 Nuestros expertos en viajes de idiomas estarán encantados de poder ayudarte. +34-93 220 38 75 support-es2@languagecourse.net Academia Columbus – Activities & Excursions Activities & Excursions Activities As an important part of our philosophy ´Living and Learning Spanish´ we offer an extensive social and cultural program in all our schools,...»

«ART IN BETWEEN EMPIRES: VISUAL CULTURE & ARTISTIC KNOWLEDGE IN LATE MUGHAL DELHI 1748-1857 Yuthika Sharma Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2013 © 2013 Yuthika Sharma All rights reserved ABSTRACT Art in between Empires: Visual Culture & Artistic Knowledge in Late Mughal Delhi 1748 -1857 Yuthika Sharma This dissertation focuses on the artistic culture of late Mughal Delhi...»

«A BEAM STEERING, BROADBAND MICROSTRIP ANTENNA FOR NON-CONTACT VITAL SIGN RADAR DETECTION By ZIVIN PARK A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011 1 © 2011 Zivin Park 2 To my father, mother, and grandmother, for their support and encouragement 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Dr. Jenshan Lin for his advice,...»

«ABSTRACT DESIGN TOOLS FOR DYNAMIC, Title of dissertation: DATA-DRIVEN, STREAM MINING SYSTEMS Kishan Palintha Sudusinghe, Doctor of Philosophy, 2015 Professor Shuvra S. Bhattacharyya Dissertation directed by: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Institute for Advanced Computer Studies The proliferation of sensing devices and costand energy-efficient embedded processors has contributed to an increasing interest in adaptive stream mining (ASM) systems. In this class of signal...»

«ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: COMMUNICATION INTERFACE PROXIMITY AND USER ANXIETY: COMPARING DESKTOP, LAPTOP, AND HAND-HELD DEVICES AS MEDIA PLATFORMS FOR EMERGENCY ALERTS Wenjing Xie, Doctor of Philosophy, 2009 Directed By: Professor John E. Newhagen Philip Merrill College of Journalism This study is an experiment investigating the effects of communication interface proximity on college students’ anxiety when they receive the alerts about on-campus crimes via e-mails and text messages. It...»

«A Quality-aware Cloud Selection Service for Computational Modellers Shahzad Ahmed Nizamani Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Doctorate of Philosophy The University of Leeds School of Computing July, 2012 ii The candidate confirms that the work submitted is his own, except where work which has formed part of jointly-authored publications has been included. The contribution of the candidate and the other authors to this work has been explicitly indicated below. The...»

«Miller on Art, Altruism and Sexual Selection 1 The Bowerbirds and the Bees: Miller on Art, Altruism and Sexual Selection Catherine Driscoll*† Dept. of Philosophy North Carolina State University *Many thanks to Stephen Stich and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong for many comments on earlier drafts of this paper; and to Iris Oved and the participants in the Rutgers graduate seminar on the Evolution of Cognition for their feedback on some earlier versions of ideas I discuss here. †Address for...»

«Instructions for use Numerical Simulation of Gas Flow with Electrochemical Reaction in a Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cell by K. M. Salah Uddin A dissertation presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in the Division of Mechanical and Space Engineering Hokkaido University, Japan September 2013 ABSTRACT The aim of this dissertation was to investigate the performance of Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cell (PEFC). The investigation involved...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.dissertation.xlibx.info - Dissertations, online materials

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.