Research on the Impacts of Swift, Certain, and Fair (SCF) Programs
Reducing Crime and Recidivism
The Arkansas SWIFT (Supervision With Intensive Enforcement) program, modeled after Hawaii’s HOPE initiative, used swift, certain, and fair sanctions to improve compliance among felony probationers. Targeting high-risk probationers in five counties, the program led to a 26% reduction in misdemeanor arrests and a 56% reduction in felony arrests compared to standard probation (Kunkel & White, 2013).
In Fort Bend County, Texas, the Special Sanctions Court Program applied SCF principles to adult felony probationers. The target population included people already under supervision. SCF participants were 21% less likely to incur new charges and, if charged, were 50% less likely to be convicted (Snell, 2007).
Funded by BJA, the Hidalgo County Emerging Adult Strategy (HCEAS) was a developmentally responsive SCF probation program designed for people aged 18 to 25. It combined cognitive-based programming and incentives to reduce risk. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed HCEAS participants were less than half as likely to be re-arrested within 12 months (Clark et al., 2023).
South Dakota’s 24/7 Sobriety Program targeted people arrested for or convicted of alcohol-related offenses, especially repeat DUI cases. The intervention required twice-daily breath tests or continuous alcohol monitoring, with swift jail sanctions for violations. Participants were 49% less likely to be rearrested or revoked within 12 months (Kilmer & Midgette, 2018). A follow-up study of the same program used a natural experiment to assess outcomes for repeat DUI offenders. Participants under 24/7 SCF supervision had half the DUI recidivism rate at 12 months (Kilmer & Midgette, 2020).
Virginia’s Immediate Sanction Probation (ISP) pilot applied SCF methods to nonviolent felony probationers across four counties. The program aimed to improve accountability through prompt responses to violations. At one year, ISP participants were 65% less likely to be rearrested for a felony, although revocation and incarceration rates were higher (Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission, 2016).
Hawaii’s HOPE program used SCF strategies with high-risk felony probationers in Honolulu, emphasizing clear expectations and immediate sanctions. The RCT showed a 55% reduction in new arrests, 72% fewer positive drug tests, and fewer missed appointments and revocations (Hawken & Kleiman, 2009). The RCT design was funded by NIJ.
An NIJ-funded six-year follow-up of the HOPE program found the following: 56% fewer new drug charges and 52% lower return-to-prison rates. The program served felony probationers identified as high-risk, with consistent effects across racial groups (Hawken et al., 2016).
Michigan’s Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program (SSSPP) targeted high-risk felony probationers in 11 counties. It used immediate sanctions for violations, with a quasi-experimental evaluation showing 36% fewer rearrests and 37% fewer jail sentences, along with cost savings (DeVall et al., 2015). Program development and implementation was supported by BJA-funded training and technical assistance.
Vermont’s Integrated Domestic Violence Docket (IDVD) applied SCF supervision to domestic violence offenders in Bennington County. The program offered coordinated enforcement of court orders. Participants were 31% less likely to be convicted of a new offense, and case processing was significantly faster (Suntag, 2013). A separate evaluation of IDVD, also targeting domestic violence cases, found a 25% drop in post-program recidivism and fewer new convictions compared to standard dockets (Schlueter et al., 2011).
Washington’s Swift and Certain (SAC) program involved felony probationers under community supervision. SCF sanctions were paired with treatment referrals. SAC participants had 20% fewer new convictions and 30% fewer violent felonies, with fewer incarceration days and a 16:1 benefit-cost ratio (Hamilton et al., 2015; Hamilton et al., 2016). Program development and implementation was supported by BJA-funded training and technical assistance.
Manitoba’s COHROU program used intensive supervision and SCF sanctions with high-risk offenders. A retrospective pre/post analysis showed reductions in violent reoffenses and overall crime severity, as well as 24% fewer days in custody (Weinrath et al., 2015).
Another SAC study in Washington used a quasi-experimental design to compare SCF probationers to controls. Participants had lower overall and felony recidivism and greater engagement in treatment (Campbell et al., 2021).
Pennsylvania’s SIP-HOPE pilot applied SCF supervision to high-risk individuals on post-prison release. Conducted in two counties, the program showed a 13% drop in rearrests and a 49% increase in prison returns(Hyatt & Barnes, 2017; Hyatt & DeWitt, 2017).
South Dakota’s 24/7 Sobriety Project required twice-daily alcohol tests for repeat DUI and domestic violence offenders. A natural experiment found counties using the program saw a 12% reduction in DUI arrests and a 9% drop in domestic violence arrests (Kilmer et al., 2013).
North Dakota’s version of 24/7 Sobriety was studied through staggered county implementation. Targeting individuals arrested for alcohol-related offenses, the program was linked to a 9% drop in impaired-driving arrests (Midgette et al., 2021).
Maryland adopted a graduated response model for juvenile probation, guided by SCF principles. The target group included youth on community supervision. Participants were less likely to commit adjudication-eligible offenses than those supervised under previous models (Farrell et al., 2020).
Delaware’s Decide Your Time (DYT) program served high-risk felony probationers with histories of substance use. A reanalysis of the RCT found that, even after removing endogenous controls, SCF participation still correlated with reduced recidivism (Doleac et al., 2020).
San Diego’s Breaking Cycles initiative was an SCF-inspired juvenile probation model with graduated sanctions. Despite efforts to structure sanctions and incentives, an RCT found no difference in recidivism at the two-year mark (Burke et al., 2002).
The JSTEPS program used contingency management in four federal probation offices, targeting general federal probationers. No difference in arrest rates was found between SCF and control groups, though early-reward participants recidivated more slowly (Sloas et al., 2019).
The HOPE DFE trial tested SCF supervision across four counties using an RCT. Participants included felony probationers. After 650 days, results showed no consistent reductions in recidivism, though drug use declined and fidelity was strong (Lattimore et al., 2016; Lattimore, 2017; Lattimore et al., 2018). The BJA-funded programs were supported by training and technical assistance, also funded by BJA. The evaluation was funded by NIJ.
A follow-up review of the HOPE DFE concluded that SCF showed no reliable impact on recidivism across sites and offered insufficient evidence of effectiveness (Lattimore, 2021).
Washington, D.C.’s Drug Intervention Program (DIP) was an early SCF pilot for felony drug defendants. A three-arm RCT found no differences in rearrests between SCF, standard, and treatment dockets (Harrell et al., 1998).
Meta-analyses:
A meta-analysis of 24 SCF evaluations reported a small average drop in recidivism (r = –0.058), but no effect in RCT-only analyses (r = 0.014), indicating weak empirical support (Pattavina et al., 2024).
Drake’s (2018) meta-analysis reviewed SCF alongside three other supervision strategies. SCF reduced recidivism by 4%, less than intensive treatment-based models or RNR approaches (Drake, 2018).
Reducing Drug Use
Hawaii’s HOPE program applied SCF supervision to high-risk felony probationers, enforcing drug abstinence through frequent testing and swift sanctions. An outcomes and process evaluation using an RCT design found that participants were 72% less likely to have a positive drug test after one year compared to those on standard probation (Hawken & Kleiman, 2009).
Kentucky’s SCF probation model emphasized regular drug testing and immediate sanctions for violations. A quasi-experimental outcomes and process evaluation found participants had 71% fewer positive drug tests, and a later mixed-methods analysis confirmed these reductions (Shannon, 2013; Shannon et al., 2015).
Alaska implemented SCF supervision in Anchorage and Palmer for felony probationers. A retrospective pre/post outcomes evaluation found a 69% reduction in positive drug tests during the post-SCF period (Carns & Martin, 2011).
Seattle’s SCF parole pilot used frequent drug testing and swift responses with high-risk parolees. An outcomes and process evaluation using an RCT design found a 67% reduction in positive drug tests at six-month follow-up (Hawken & Kleiman, 2011).
A BJA-funded program in Chester County, Pennsylvania, used SCF probation with individuals managing substance use. An outcomes evaluation found that at six months, participants were 57% less likely to be using illegal drugs than at intake (Steber, 2017).
An NIJ-funded six-year follow-up RCT evaluation of Hawaii’s HOPE program found that SCF probationers had 56% fewer new drug charges than those on standard probation, reflecting sustained reductions in drug-related offending (Hawken et al., 2016).
In a southwestern county, an outcomes and process evaluation of SCF probation for substance use found that 45% of voluntary participants completed the program with zero missed or positive drug tests (Hunter et al., 2020).
Arkansas’s SCF program for felony probationers in five counties was evaluated using a quasi-experimental design. The study found that SCF participants had 35% fewer positive drug tests than the matched comparison group (Kunkel & White, 2013).
Tarrant County, Texas, implemented SCF supervision for felony probationers. A retrospective pre/post outcomes evaluation found a 24% reduction in positive drug tests following program implementation (Martin, 2013; Martin, 2014).
South Dakota’s 24/7 Sobriety Program for DUI offenders used twice-daily alcohol testing and swift sanctions. A quasi-experimental outcomes evaluation found that comparison-group members were 84% more likely to test positive for alcohol in a 30-day period, with differences persisting over 90 and 180 days (Midgette et al., 2021).
North Dakota’s 24/7 Sobriety Program was evaluated using a natural-experiment design. An outcomes evaluation showed that participants passed over 95% of alcohol-intoxication tests, demonstrating high compliance (Midgette et al., 2021).
A three-arm RCT outcomes evaluation in a Midwestern state compared SCF parole to two control conditions: frequent testing with treatment referrals, and parole as usual. SCF participants had lower levels of drug use than both comparison groups (Grommon et al., 2013).
The HOPE DFE NIJ-funded study was a four-site outcomes and process evaluation using an RCT design in Oregon, Massachusetts, Arkansas, and Texas. While recidivism results were mixed, reductions in drug use were consistently observed among SCF participants, especially at the Texas site which had strong fidelity to the HOPE model (Lattimore et al., 2016; Lattimore, 2017; Lattimore et al., 2018; Humphreys & Kilmer, 2020).
San Diego’s Breaking Cycles program used graduated and immediate sanctions with juveniles. An outcomes and process evaluation using an RCT design found that SCF participants had fewer positive drug tests at two-year follow-up than youth under standard supervision (Burke et al., 2002).
Honolulu’s HOPE Pretrial program applied SCF principles to individuals awaiting trial. An outcomes evaluation using an RCT design found participants were less likely to fail drug screenings compared to those under standard pretrial supervision (Davidson et al., 2019).
Successful Completion of Supervision & Reducing Probation Violations and Revocations
Hawaii’s HOPE program applied SCF supervision to high-risk felony probationers through immediate sanctions for violations and close monitoring. An RCT design found that at one-year follow-up, participants were 61% less likely to miss an office visit and 53% less likely to be revoked compared to those on standard probation (Hawken & Kleiman, 2009).
An NIJ-funded six-year follow-up RCT evaluation of Hawaii’s HOPE program found SCF participants were 52% less likely to return to prison than those on traditional probation (Hawken et al., 2016).
Pennsylvania’s SCF program for post-prison supervision was evaluated using a quasi-experimental design. At one-year follow-up, participants were 73% less likely to have been returned to prison than those under standard supervision (Bucklen et al., 2015).
South Dakota’s 24/7 Sobriety Program targeted individuals arrested for DUI offenses, using frequent alcohol testing and swift sanctions for violations. A quasi-experimental outcomes evaluation using program availability as an instrument estimated that participants were half as likely to have their probation revoked within 12 months (Kilmer & Midgette, 2018).
In Fort Bend County, Texas, SCF supervision for felony probationers emphasized prompt responses to technical violations. A quasi-experimental outcomes evaluation found that SCF participants were 23% less likely to have a technical violation and 48% less likely to be revoked (Snell, 2007).
Kentucky’s SCF probation program involved frequent monitoring and swift sanctions for noncompliance. A quasi-experimental outcomes and process evaluation found participants had 48% fewer technical violations. A later mixed-methods study confirmed that SCF participants had fewer overall violations than their counterparts (Shannon, 2013; Shannon et al., 2015).
North Carolina implemented SCF supervision for probationers receiving sanctions. A quasi-experimental outcomes evaluation found that probationers who received an SCF sanction were 32% less likely to be revoked, and at one-year follow-up were 27% more likely to still be under supervision or to have successfully completed it (Division of Adult Correction & Juvenile Justice, 2016).
A BJA-funded program in Hidalgo County, Texas, SCF supervision was adapted for young-adult probationers aged 18–25. An RCT outcomes evaluation found that only 8% of SCF participants missed a probation officer meeting compared to 26% in the control group, and just 6% faced a motion to revoke probation compared to 31% of controls (Clark et al., 2023).
Tarrant County, Texas, applied SCF supervision for felony probationers, emphasizing rapid sanctions for noncompliance. A retrospective pre/post outcomes evaluation found that SCF participants had 20% fewer technical violations following program implementation (Martin, 2013; Martin, 2014).
Washington State’s Swift and Certain (SAC) probation program targeted felony probationers with high needs and supervision risk. An outcomes, process, and benefit-cost evaluation using a quasi-experimental design found that participants under SCF were less likely to commit technical violations than those in the comparison group (Hamilton et al., 2015; Hamilton et al., 2016). Program development and implementation supported by BJA-funded training and technical assistance.
Maryland implemented a graduated-response model aligned with SCF principles for juveniles on probation. A quasi-experimental process and outcomes evaluation found that youth assigned to SCF were less likely to violate probation terms than those under traditional supervision (Farrell et al., 2020).
San Diego’s Breaking Cycles program used graduated and immediate sanctions with juveniles. An RCT-based process and outcomes evaluation found that at two-year follow-up, SCF participants had higher completion rates of court-ordered obligations, such as community service and restitution (Burke et al., 2002).
Improving Reentry: Employment, Housing, and Education
Chester County, Pennsylvania, implemented SCF probation for individuals with substance use issues, incorporating frequent monitoring and immediate sanctions. An outcomes and process evaluation found that at six-month follow-up, participants were 84% more likely to be renting their own home and 83% more likely to be employed compared to intake (Steber, 2017).
San Diego’s Breaking Cycles program applied SCF-style graduated and immediate sanctions to juveniles on probation. An RCT-based process and outcomes evaluation found that at two-year follow-up, SCF participants demonstrated better school performance than youth in the comparison group (Burke et al., 2002).
The Delaware Department of Corrections implemented SCF felony probation with close supervision and swift sanctions the Wilmington, Delaware. An extended analysis of the original RCT suggested meaningful improvements in employment outcomes among SCF participants, even after adjusting for methodological concerns (Doleac et al., 2020).
In Hidalgo County, Texas, SCF probation was adapted for young adults aged 18–25. An RCT outcomes evaluation found no significant differences between SCF and control participants in employment, housing, education, or attitudes toward probation officers over a nine-month period (Clark et al., 2023).
Other Outcomes (e.g., Use of Treatment, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Disposition Time)
Washington State implemented SCF probation to improve compliance and reduce recidivism among felony probationers. A quasi-experimental outcomes, process, and benefit-cost evaluation found that SCF participants were more likely to engage in treatment programs than those on standard supervision (Hamilton et al., 2015; Hamilton et al., 2016).
North Dakota’s 24/7 Sobriety Program, an SCF-based supervision model for repeat DUI offenders, required twice-daily alcohol testing and swift consequences for violations. A retrospective pre/post outcomes evaluation found that post-implementation, participants were involved in fewer motor vehicle accidents (Kubas et al., 2015).
Vermont’s Integrated Domestic Violence Docket (IDVD) applied SCF principles to probation for domestic violence offenders, emphasizing immediate and predictable court responses. A quasi-experimental outcomes evaluation found that IDVD participants had significantly shorter case disposition times compared to standard docket cases (Schlueter et al., 2011).
Endnotes
Bucklen, K.B., Bell, N., & Lategan, D. (2015). “State Intermediate Punishment program: 2015 performance report,” Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
Burke, C., Howard, L., Misch, G., & Pennell, S. (2002). “San Diego County Probation Department’s Repeat Offender Prevention Program final evaluation report,” San Diego: San Diego Association of Governments.
Campbell, C.M., van Wormer, J., & Hamilton, Z.K. (2021). “A supervision policy with scope: Revisiting Washington State’s Swift-and-Certain initiative,” in B. M. Huebner, F. S. Taxman, & P. K. Lattimore (Eds.), Handbook On Moving Corrections And Sentencing Forward: Building on the Record (pp. 124–142). New York: Routledge.
Carns, T.W. & Martin, S. (2011). “Anchorage PACE: Probation Accountability with Certain Enforcement. A preliminary evaluation of the Anchorage pilot PACE project,” Anchorage: Alaska Judicial Council.
Clark, K.J., Lerch, J., Lopez, F., & Taxman, F.S. (2023). “Improving probation outcomes for emerging adults: An experiment evaluating a specialized caseload in Texas,” Corrections, 9(5):618–640. [paywalled]
Davidson, J., King, G., Ludwig, J., & Raphael, S. (2019). “Managing pretrial misconduct: An experimental evaluation of HOPE pretrial,” UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy.
DeVall, K., Lanier, C., & Hartmann, D. (2015). “Evaluation of Michigan’s Swift & Sure Sanctions Probation Program,” Lansing: Michigan Supreme Court Administrative Office.
Doleac, J.L., Temple, C., Pritchard, D., & Roberts, A. (2020). “Which prisoner reentry programs work? Replicating and extending analyses of three RCTs,” International Review of Law and Economics, 62 :105902. [paywalled]
Drake, E.K. (2018). “The monetary benefits and costs of community supervision,” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 34(1):47–68. ; Drake, E.K. (2018). “Benefits and costs of ‘Swift, Certain, and Fair’ supervision: Is a bottom-line estimate really the bottom line?” Criminology & Public Policy, 17(4):865–874. [paywalled]
Farrell, J.L., Betsinger, S.A., Flath, N., & Irvine, J. (2020). “Assessing the impact of a graduated response approach for youth in the Maryland juvenile justice system.” Washington: Office of Justice Programs.
Grommon, E., Cox, S.M., Davidson, W.S., II, & Bynum, T.S. (2013). “Alternative models of instant drug testing: Evidence from an experimental trial,” Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9(2):145–168. [paywalled]
Hamilton, Z., van Wormer, J., Kigerl, A., Campbell, C., & Posey, B. (2015). “Evaluation of Washington State Department of Corrections (WADOC) Swift and Certain (SAC) policy process, outcome and cost-benefit evaluation,” Pullman, Wash.: Washington State University.
Hamilton, Z., Campbell, C., van Wormer, J., Kigerl, A., & Posey, B. (2016). “Impact of Swift and Certain sanctions: Evaluation of Washington State’s policy for offenders on community supervision,” Criminology & Public Policy, 15(4):1009–1072. [paywalled]
Harrell, A., Cavanagh, S., & Roman, J. (1998). “Findings from the evaluation of the D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Program,” Washington: The Urban Institute.
Harrell, A., Roman, J., Bhati, A., & Parhasarathy, B. (2003). “The impact evaluation of the Maryland Break the Cycle Initiative,” Washington: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.
Hawken, A. (2016). “All implementation is local,” Criminology & Public Policy, 15(4):1229–1239.
Hawken, A. (2018). (2018) “Economic implications of HOPE from the Demonstration Field Experiment,” Criminology & Public Policy, 17(4):901–906.
Hawken, A., Davenport, S., & Kleiman, M.A.R. (2014). “Managing drug-involved offenders: Evaluation report,” NCJ 247315, Washington: National Institute of Justice.
Hawken, A. & Kleiman, M. (2009). “Managing drug-involved probationers with swift and certain sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE. Evaluation report,” NCJ 229023. Washington: National Institute of Justice.
Hawken, A. & Kleiman, M. (2011). “Washington Intensive Supervision Program evaluation report,” Seattle: Seattle City Council.
Hawken, A., Kulick, J., Smith, K., Mei, J., Zhang, Y., Jarman, S., Yu, T., Carson, C., & Vial, T. (2016). “HOPE II: A follow-up to Hawaiʻi’s HOPE evaluation,” NCJ 249912. Washington: National Institute of Justice.
Humphreys, K., & Kilmer, B. (2020). “Still HOPEful: Reconsidering a ‘failed’ replication of a swift, certain, and fair approach to reducing substance use among individuals under criminal justice supervision,” Addiction, 115(10):1973–1977. [paywalled]
Hunter, S.B., Tebeka, M., & Kilmer, B. (2020). “Implementing frequent substance use testing with swift-certain-fair sanctions: Stakeholder insights from a pilot program with volunteer probationers,” Journal of Drug Policy Analysis, 13(1):20190009. [paywalled]
Hyatt, J.M., & Barnes, G.C. (2017). “An experimental evaluation of the impact of intensive supervision on the recidivism of high-risk probationers,” Crime & Delinquency, 63(1):3–38. [paywalled]; Hyatt, J.M. & DeWitt, S., III. (2017). “Bringing H.O.P.E. to Pennsylvania: Summary of key findings from the SIP-HOPE pilot evaluation,” Philadelphia: Drexel University.
Kilmer, B. & Midgette, G. (2018). “Using certainty and celerity to deter crime: Insights from an individual-level analysis of 24/7 Sobriety,” Santa Monica: RAND.
Kilmer, B., & Midgette, G. (2020). “Criminal deterrence: Evidence from an individual-level analysis of 24/7 Sobriety.” [paywalled]
Kilmer, B., Nicosia, N., Heaton, P., & Midgette, G. (2013). “Efficacy of frequent monitoring with swift, certain, and modest sanctions for violations: Insights from South Dakota’s 24/7 Sobriety project,” American Journal of Public Health, 103(1):e37–43. [paywalled]
Kubas, A., Kayabas, P., & Vachal, K. (2015). “Assessment of the 24/7 Sobriety program in North Dakota: Participant behavior during enrollment,” Fargo: Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, North Dakota State University.
Kunkel, T.L. & White, M.T. (2013). “Arkansas SWIFT courts: Implementation assessment and long-term evaluation plan,” Williamsburg: National Center for State Courts.
Lattimore, P.K., MacKenzie, D.L., Zajac, G., Dawes, D., Arsenault, E., & Tueller, S. (2016). “Outcome findings from the HOPE Demonstration Field Experiment: Is swift, certain, and fair an effective supervision strategy?” Criminology & Public Policy, 15(4):1103–1141. [paywalled]
Lattimore, P. (2017). “Summary findings from the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment (HOPE DFE),” Perspectives, 41(3):22–33.
Lattimore, P.K., Dawes, D., MacKenzie, D.L., & Zajac, G. (2018). “Evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment (HOPE DFE), final report,” NCJ 251758.
Martin, K.D. (2013). “Supervision with Immediate Enforcement (SWIFT) court program: An overview of outcomes for the initial pilot program,” Fort Worth: Tarrant County CSCD.
Martin, K.D. (2014). “The Supervision with Immediate Enforcement (SWIFT) Court: Tackling the issue of high-risk offenders and chronic probation violators,” Corrections Today, September/October:74–77.
Midgette, G., Kilmer, B., Nicosia, N., & Heaton, P. (2021). “A natural experiment to test the effect of sanction certainty and celerity on substance-impaired driving: North Dakota’s 24/7 Sobriety Program,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 37(3):647–670. [paywalled]
Midgette, G., Loughran, T.A., & Tahamont, S. (2021). “The impact of ambiguity-induced error in offender decision-making: Evidence from the field,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 58(6):635–665. [paywalled]
Pattavina, A., Long, J.S., Petrich, D.M., Byrne, J.M., Cullen, F.T., & Taxman, F.S. (2024). “Revisiting the effectiveness of HOPE/swift‐certain‐fair supervision programs: A meta‐analytic review,” Criminology & Public Policy, 23(1):45–76.
Schlueter, M., Wicklund, P., Adler, R., Owen, J., & Halvorsen, T. (2011). “Bennington County Integrated Domestic Violence Docket Project: Outcome evaluation final report,” The Vermont Center for Justice Research.
Shannon, L.M. (2013). “Kentucky SMART probation program: Year one report,” Frankfort: Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts; Shannon, L.M., Hulbig, S.K., Birdwhistell, S., Newell, J., & Neal, C. (2015). “Implementation of an enhanced probation program: Evaluating process and preliminary outcomes,” Evaluation and Program Planning, 49 :50–62. [paywalled]
Sloas, L., Murphy, A., Wooditch, A., & Taxman, F.S. (2019). “Assessing the use and impact of points and rewards across four federal probation districts: A contingency management approach,” Victims & Offenders, 14(7):811–831. [paywalled]
Snell, C. (2007). “Fort Bend County Community Supervision and Corrections Special Sanctions Court Program: Evaluation report,” Houston: University of Houston.
Steber, S.A. (2017). “Chester County, PA: Adult Probation and Parole Department evaluation of SAVE.” Chester Co., Penn.: Adult Probation and Parole Dept.
Suntag, D. (2013). “Procedural fairness, swift and certain sanctions: Integrating the domestic violence docket,” Williamsburg: National Center for State Courts.
Weinrath, M., Doerksen, M., & Watts, J. (2015). “The impact of an intensive supervision program on high-risk offenders: Manitoba’s COHROU program,” Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 57:(2):253–288. [paywalled]
