Program Profile: Supervision with Immediate Enforcement (SWIFT) Court for Gang-Involved Individuals (Texas)

This is a specialized court program that targets high-risk gang-affiliated individuals with felony convictions for intensive supervision, with the goal of reducing recidivism. The program is rated Promising. Gang members who participated in the program had a statistically significant lower likelihood of probation revocation than gang members who did not participate. But there were no statistically significant differences in new arrests between the groups.

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

Program Goals

The Supervision with Immediate Enforcement (SWIFT) Court in Tarrant County, Texas, is a specialized court program that targets high-risk individuals with felony convictions, some of whom are gang members. The program seeks to increase accountability while supporting individuals’ unique needs, helping them to be successful in the program. The program was developed to provide intensive supervision to individuals on probation, with the overall goal of reducing recidivism.

Target Population

The SWIFT Court program targets medium- or high-risk individuals charged with first-, second-, and third-degree felonies. Risk is determined by an assessment, or after an individual has committed multiple technical violations during the course of their supervision. In addition, individuals must meet the following criteria: 1) must not have state jail felonies (the lowest classification of a felony in Texas), with the exception of youthful, gang-involved individuals; 2) must not be receiving disability benefits; 3) must never have been convicted of a sex offense; 4) must not have a diagnosed mental impairment that would hinder their ability to meet supervision requirements; 5) must reside in Tarrant County; 6) must have a least 30 days of jail time remaining for the court to use as sanctions for violations; and 7) must have at least one year of supervision remaining. Although these requirements are set by the program, the judge has the discretion to include an individual who does not meet the eligibility requirements of the program (Stevens-Martin 2014).

Program Components/Program Theory

The SWIFT Court, which was launched in 2011, was modeled after the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) program. Like the HOPE program, the SWIFT Court’s theoretical foundation is deterrence theory; specifically, that swift and certain sanctions deter crime (Boots et al. 2018). Further, as a type of problem-solving court, the program incorporates many drug court principles, including collaboration, judicial interactions, risk and needs assessments, treatment, monitoring and supervision, and graduated sanctions and incentives.

Once enrolled in the program, individuals are placed on the docket the day after a technical violation occurs; thus, emphasizing the swift aspect of the program. Supervision includes three monthly face-to-face contacts with their probation officer and one monthly contact with a treatment provider. Additionally, individuals must adhere to a drug-testing protocol that requires them to call an automated number Monday–Friday. Individuals must also submit six random drug tests during the first two months in the program, two random drug tests during the following four months, and a minimum of one random drug test for the next six months. Violations result in immediate sanctions as well as therapeutic responses, including short jail stays, increases in community service/restitution, weekly reporting to court and/or probation officer, day treatment, substance use treatment, 90-day placement in a residential facility, cognitive–behavioral therapy classes, writing assignments, theft intervention programs, or parenting classes (Boots et al. 2018; Stevens-Martin 2014).

Study

Boots and colleagues (2018) used a quasi-experimental design to compare outcomes of gang members who participated in Supervision with Immediate Enforcement (SWIFT) Court with two matched comparison groups on measures of revocations and reoffending.

Data for this study were provided by the Tarrant County (Texas) Supervision and Corrections Department and included individuals who were supervised on the specialized Gang/High Risk Offender (G/HRO) caseloads, as well as individuals supervised on a specialized high-risk caseload. The overall sample of 232 individuals included the treatment group and two comparison groups. The treatment group included gang-involved individuals, supervised on the G/HRO caseload, who participated in SWIFT (n = 72).

The first comparison group (n = 108) included young adults who were gang-affiliated but not assigned to SWIFT and were supervised on G/HRO caseloads. To be eligible for G/HRO assignment, individuals had to be 1) between 17 and 25 years old, 2) placed on felony supervision (case-by-case for misdemeanors) for a minimum of 24 months, or had a minimum of 24 months remaining on supervision; 3) identified as an active gang member by self-report, tattoos, official gang identification system, and/or police reports; and 4) considered high-risk for probation because of other risk factors such as no high school education, gang associations, violations of probation, unemployment, and instability. The second comparison group (n = 52) included young adults who were not gang-affiliated but were considered high-risk for recidivism. These individuals were not supervised under SWIFT or G/HRO but under a specialized caseload for high-risk individuals. This comparison group was included to understand the differences in outcomes that may be a result of gang involvement. The CrimeSolutions review of this study focused on the differences in outcomes between the SWIFT Court treatment group and the gang-affiliated, non-SWIFT Court, first comparison group.

Supervision for individuals in the two comparison groups differed from individuals in the SWIFT Court treatment group. For example, the comparison groups only had two monthly face-to-face contacts; one contact per month with a family member, friend or employer; and one contact with a treatment provider. Though individuals in the comparison condition had a curfew, had to participate in a cognitive–behavioral therapy class, and had to call into the daily drug-testing automated line, they were not subject to the same drug-testing protocol. Most important, the main difference between the treatment and comparison groups was that the treatment group received immediate sanctions in response to violations.

To determine group differences, the study authors conducted comparisons across the three groups in terms of sociodemographics and prior criminal history. The results suggested that the groups were similar in terms of sociodemographic and criminal history characteristics. Across all groups, individuals were 19.68 years old, had a 10th grade education, and were approximately 15.96 years old at their first arrest. Additionally, individuals had 3.54 arrests, 0.95 placements on probation, and 0.41 jail sentences prior to their current placement on probation. About half of the sample comprised persons or color and/or who were Hispanic, and half of the sample was unemployed. Bivariate group comparisons for the supervision variables also showed no statistically significant differences across the three groups in terms of the most serious offense category for which the individuals were placed on supervision, or differences in the length of supervision. The average length of the supervision across the three groups was 4.62 years.

The outcomes of interest were probation revocation, technical violations, and new arrests (however, the CrimeSolutions review of this study focused on the impact of the program on probation revocation and new arrests). The authors used logistic regression analyses to determine the influence of the SWIFT Court on the outcomes. No subgroup analysis was conducted.

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

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

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Rehabilitation Programs for Adults Convicted of a Crime

This practice includes programs that are designed to reduce recidivism among adults by improving their behaviors, skills, mental health, social functioning, and access to education and employment. They may become participants in rehabilitation programs during multiple points in their involvement with the criminal justice system. This practice is rated Promising for reducing recidivism among adults who have been convicted of an offense.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?