Program Profile: Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program (Michigan)

This is an alternative-to-incarceration program designed to respond swiftly with sanctions to probation violations of those at high-risk of re-offending. The overall goal is to reduce participants’ recidivism rates. The program is rated Promising. Participants had statistically significant reduction in recidivism rates (overall, misdemeanor, felony, property, drug/alcohol, and other) compared with the comparison group, but there was no statistically significant effects on violent recidivism.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes either 1) one study conducted in multiple sites; or 2) two or three studies, each conducted at a different site. Learn about how we make the multisite determination.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes either 1) one study conducted in multiple sites; or 2) two or three studies, each conducted at a different site. Learn about how we make the multisite determination.

Program Goals

Michigan's Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program is an alternative-to-incarceration program designed to respond swiftly to probation violations of those at high risk of re-offending. At the individual level, the program is designed to increase their compliance with the terms of probation and reduce substance use; at the programmatic level, the program is designed to reduce the time between probation violations and imposed sanctions, the number of probation violations, the number of probation revocations, and the number of reincarcerations. The overall goal of the Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program is to reduce recidivism among program participants.

Target Population/Eligibility

The target population is high-risk persons on probation. High-risk was defined by the Michigan State Court Administrative Office as scoring an 8 or higher on the Correctional Offender Management Profile for Alternative Sanctions (known as COMPAS) risk/needs assessment and having a history of noncompliance with probation. The assessment is conducted by a Michigan Department of Corrections agent to determine eligibility for the program.

Program Components

Michigan's Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program was first initiated in 2011 as a pilot program modeled after Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement program. In 2012, Michigan’s Public Act 616 expanded the Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program to additional sites and outlined mandatory elements for all programs. These elements are a) clearly established eligibility criteria, b) the initial warning hearing, c) regular probation meetings, d) violation hearings within 72 hours, e) possible sanctions (e.g., confinement in jail, additional reporting requirements) and remedies (e.g., counseling for mental health and/or substance use, increased drug/alcohol testing), f) the need to create a sanctions grid, and g) the need to establish criteria for deviating from established sanctions/remedies in special circumstances. Outside of those required program elements, county officials can structure their program at their discretion. There are now approximately 25 programs in operation in Michigan (DeVall et al. 2017).

Participation in the Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program is not voluntary, and persons on probation are not offered any legal incentives to participate (such as time off their sentence). The court determines the length of the program and the conditions for program completion (i.e., entirety of probation, step down to regular probation after time of successful participation, and/or discharged from probation after period of successful participation). Participants are informed of their probation terms in an initial warning hearing. During this hearing, they are notified of the purpose of the program, the specific probation conditions, the expectations for participants of the Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program, and the consequences for failing to comply with those expectations. Participants are given a sanctions document that describes probation violations and the subsequent sanctions. Participants are required to meet with their probation agent and the Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program staff and to submit to drug testing as needed. Probation agents and court staff are responsible for monitoring participants. Participants appear before the judge only at the initial warning hearing and for probation violations (MSCAO 2016).

Violations to probation requirements are formally addressed by the court in sanctions hearings, typically held within 72 hours of reporting the violation to the court. Violations are met swiftly with sanctions that are proportional to the magnitude of the violation and the accountability of the participant. For example, a positive drug test where the participant admitted use may result in less time in jail than someone who will not accept accountability despite a confirmed positive drug test result. Sanctions imposed by the court can include temporary incarceration, extension of supervision, additional reporting or compliance requirements, drug and/or alcohol testing, counseling and treatment for behavioral or mental health problems including substance use, and probation revocation (MSCAO 2016).

Study

DeVall and colleagues (2017) conducted a quasi-experimental study to evaluate the effectiveness of Michigan’s Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program on recidivism rates of high-risk persons on probation. A total of 379 persons on probation from 11 Michigan counties were enrolled in the Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program during the study period of October 2011 through September 2013. Propensity score matching was used to create a comparison group of 379 persons on probation sentenced to probation-as-usual from counties without a Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program during the study period.

Owing to data limitations, the propensity score matching was conducted using demographic measures (i.e., age, race, and sex), precipitating offense, and Correctional Offender Management Profile for Alternative Sanctions risk/need scores for the Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program participants and the probation-as-usual comparison group. Specific demographic characteristics for the overall study sample (the Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program participants and the comparison group) were not provided in the study.

The outcomes of interest was recidivism, which was defined in this study as any charge after enrollment in the Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program or after the probation start date (for the comparison group). The charging incidents were categorized into violent, property, alcohol/drug, traffic, or “other” based on the offense categories provided by the Judicial Data Warehouse. Data on the Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program participants (including recidivism data) were obtained from a statewide electronic database and included age at program entry, race, sex, education level at entry, employment status at entry, and marital status at entry. Data on comparison group participants were obtained from the Michigan Department of Corrections and included date of birth, race, and sex. Bivariate analysis (chi-square test) and logistic regression analysis were conducted on the recidivism data.

This study conducted subgroup analyses on the Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program completers (successfully discharged, n = 68) compared with noncompleters (unsuccessfully discharged, n = 103). Both samples (the Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program completers and noncompleters) were predominately male, not married, and the average age was 27.8. The Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program noncompleters were less educated (52.4 percent less than high school education of noncompleters, compared with 33.8 percent of completers) and had higher unemployment (85.4 percent unemployed/not working of noncompleters, compared with 67.6 percent of completers) than the Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program completers. These differences were statistically significant. Results of the subgroup analysis can be found in Other Information.

Subgroup Analysis

DeVall and colleagues (2017) conducted subgroup analysis to assess the differences between Michigan’s Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program completers (successfully discharged, n = 68) compared with the Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program noncompleters (unsuccessfully discharged, n = 103). Researchers used bivariate analysis (chi-square test and t-test) to assess in-program measures. 

The analysis indicated statistically significant differences in several areas. 

• The Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program noncompleters had a higher average of probation violations (2.87 average) than the Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program completers (1.04 average) while enrolled in the program. 
• The Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program noncompleters had a higher average number of felonies (0.29 average) compared with the Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program completers (0.03 average) while enrolled in the program. 
• The Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program completers had a higher average of drug/alcohol tests administered (64.84 average) than the Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program noncompleters (33.18 average). 
• The Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program noncompleters had a higher average of positive drug/alcohol tests (10.1 average) compared with the Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program completers (1.3 average). 
• The Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program completers had a statistically significantly higher average number of days in the program than the Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program noncompleters (267.8 days compared with 159.5 days, respectively).

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

DeVall, Kristen E., Christina Lanier, and David J. Hartmann. 2013. Evaluation of Michigan’s Sure Sanctions Probation Program. Final Report.

Hawken, Angela, and Mark Kleiman. 2009. Managing Drug-Involved Probationers With Swift and Certain Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Michigan State Court Administrative Office (MSCAO). 2016. Developing and Implementing a Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program in Michigan. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Supreme Court.

Michigan Supreme Court. 2018. FY 2018 Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program Annual Report. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Supreme Court Office of Public Information.

Michigan Supreme Court. 2019. FY 2019 Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program Annual Report. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Supreme Court Office of Public Information.

Palumbo, Dennis J, Michael Musheno, and Michael Hallett. 1994. “The Political Construction of Alternative Dispute Resolution and Alternatives to Incarceration.” Evaluation and Program Planning 17:197–203.