This study compared outcomes for drug-involved women offenders who were assigned to probation case-management services (n=65) with those who were given traditional probation (n=44) under the jurisdiction of the City and County of San Francisco Adult Probation Department.
Under the condition of standard probation, officers supervised caseloads of 100 to 150 clients. Officers' tasks included enforcing court-ordered conditions and assisting offenders in finding treatment and other services. Under the probation case management (PCM) model, probation officers acted as case managers who were clinically supervised by an outside consultant, and they had lower caseloads (approximately 50 clients) than officers performing standard probation. There was increased contact with clients, uniform client screening and assessment procedures, therapeutic and advocacy orientation, and referrals to health and human services. Therapeutic and advocacy activities included gender-specific client education about addiction, more counseling with clients, and accessibility to clients by phone and in person. Case management activities included attending treatment planning meetings at the client's treatment program, going to court or to the housing authority with the client, and making home visits or attending medical appointments. Participants were interviewed at program entry and at 6-month and 12-month follow-up, using measures of substance abuse, psychiatric symptoms, and social support. Findings showed modest change over time under both standard probation and PCM; however, PCM did not result in more services or treatment or in better outcomes than standard probation. It is possible that the women on traditional probation received services similar to case-managed participants, but through usual community referrals under mandated probation conditions. It is also possible that the evaluation was conducted too early in the course of the project to determine its full impact compared with traditional probation. 5 tables and 60 references