Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:59 pm
Time: 8:59 pm
Results for case management
22 results foundAuthor: Kazimirski, Anne Title: Forced marriage: prevalence and service response Summary: This research sought to improve the understanding of the prevalence of forced marriage and to examine the way services are currently responding to such cases. The methodology comprised a literature review; a mapping study; a data sourcing and analysis exercise; and a qualitative case study element. Details: London, UK: Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2009, 64p. Source: Internet Source Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 117708 Keywords: Case ManagementDetectionForced MarriagePrevention |
Author: British Columbia. Ministry of Attorney General, Justice Services Branch Title: Downtown Community Court in Vancouver: Interim Evaluation Report Summary: Vancouver’s Downtown Community Court (DCC) was launched in September 2008. The DCC was created as a pilot project in response to a recommendation of the B.C. Justice Review Task Force and its Street Crime Working Group. The DCC was established as a partnership of 14 agencies to integrate services and supports: the Ministry of Attorney General, the Ministry Public Safety and Solicitor General, the Provincial Court of B.C., and a number of health and social services agencies. The justice ministries, and other partner agencies, have made significant financial contributions to develop and operate the DCC. The DCC partner agencies work together in an integrated manner, facilitated by staff and services that are co‐located in the courthouse, to support victims and offenders. This level of integration was possible due to considerable organizational and staff commitment and dedication. The DCC also creates relationships with neighbourhoods and community groups, and seeks opportunities for the public to connect with the court. The DCC takes a problem‐solving approach to deal with offending behaviours of individuals and the health and social circumstances that often lead to crime. The DCC has a number of goals: improve outcomes for offenders; implement innovative criminal case management to improve justice efficiencies; and provide new opportunities for community participation in the justice system. Ultimately, the DCC aims to reduce crime in Vancouver’s downtown area, reduce offender recidivism, improve public safety, and increase public confidence in the justice system. Evaluation is a fundamental component of the project. It will ultimately determine if the DCC model results in more successful outcomes for victims, offenders and the community, and whether it helps the justice system operate more efficiently. Interest in the DCC is broad and many B.C. communities are looking to establish community courts as possible solutions to crime. The DCC full evaluation, due for release in 2012, will inform these discussions. Details: Vancouver, BC: Ministry of Attorney General, 2010. 81p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 17, 2011 at: http://www.criminaljusticereform.gov.bc.ca/en/reports/pdf/interimevaluation.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Canada URL: http://www.criminaljusticereform.gov.bc.ca/en/reports/pdf/interimevaluation.pdf Shelf Number: 122765 Keywords: Case ManagementCommunity CourtsProblem-Solving Courts (Vancouver, BC) |
Author: Beliski, Matthew Title: State Criminal History Records Improvement: Arizona Felony Case Processing Summary: In 2009, the Arizona Statistical Analysis Center (AZSAC) of the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) received a grant award1 from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) through the Justice Research & Statistics Association (JRSA) to investigate, collect, and analyze data available throughout Arizona related to felony case processing. Per the original grant proposal and subsequent project meetings, each state grant recipient is expected to give special attention to the data readily available within each state’s criminal history record repository. Project analysts are also encouraged to utilize data from other sources in order to meet the project requirements. In order to better understand the felony case processing data supplied in this report, it is important to briefly review the structure of Arizona’s criminal history record repository. The Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) is the state repository for all arrest and disposition criminal history record information collected across all criminal justice state agencies. Housed at the Arizona Department of Public Safety (AZDPS), the ACCH repository is an electronic warehouse of criminal justice information for all felony, DUI, aggravated domestic violence, and sexual offenses, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute §41-1750. Although these are the mandatory ACCH offenses, other offenses are voluntarily deposited in the ACCH repository as well. The ACCH is initially populated by information collected at the time of arrest. An arrest entry does not process without fingerprints being taken; thus, any citation arrest (i.e. cite and release for DUI, etc.) requires that the alleged offender submit to fingerprinting at a later date. Once the prosecutor or the court disposes a case, the data from the final disposition is linked to the arrest data already in the ACCH. If for any reason an arrest leading to fingerprinting has not taken place, the subsequent disposition data will not be entered into the repository, and AZDPS renders the disposition back to the disposition agency for follow-up with law enforcement. Originating disposition agencies also have the ability to amend their dispositions, and as a result, override the disposition data previously available through the original disposition. The felony case processing project is the latest installment in a number of AZSAC projects employing the use of ACCH data provided by the AZDPS. AZSAC staff received multiple ACCH extracts to assess the timeliness, completeness, and overall quality of criminal history records throughout the state. The AZSAC published several reports and fact sheets addressing the quality of state criminal history records, and staff continues to work directly with the Access Integrity Unit at the AZDPS to provide valuable records quality data and information to the records auditors. In the past, AZSAC staff requested additional data extracts to investigate sexual offender recidivism as well as to enhance existing data for the 2004 Arizona Homicide Study. In collaboration with researchers at Arizona State University, AZSAC staff merged data from the Arizona Department of Corrections with ACCH data from the AZDPS to conduct rearrest and reconviction recidivism analyses of sexual offenders released from the Arizona correctional system in 2001. A comprehensive sexual offender recidivism report was published in 2009 and is available on the ACJC web site. Staff at AZDPS recently provided the AZSAC with available criminal history record data for all offenders and victims of homicide in 2004. AZSAC staff continued to work with the data for a later supplement to the report, titled “Homicide in Arizona, 2004.” Finally, Arizona Revised Statute §41-2406 mandates that the ACJC use criminal history record data to examine the reporting of sexual assault throughout Arizona. AZSAC staff established a data sharing agreement with the AZDPS to provide AZSAC with the appropriate annual extract for this reporting requirement. Staff at the ACJC has since institutionalized this report on an annual basis, and continuing improvements to the report add to the report’s value to stakeholders. As a result of the annual data agreement with the AZDPS, the AZSAC requested a full “snapshot” of ACCH arrest and disposition data for the previous 10 years back in January 2009. Because of the relative proximity of the data request to the BJS/JRSA request for proposals, AZSAC staff proceeded with a proposal to investigate and analyze ACCH data as it pertains to felony case processing from the initial arrest through the sentencing/appeals process. More definitively, the felony case processing project assists the AZSAC in joining with the BJS and the JRSA to accomplish the following initiatives: 1) Exploring the feasibility of utilizing statistical analysis centers to provide criminal history data and analyses to produce national studies of felony case processing; 2) Analyze felony case processing in Arizona; and 3) Continue our identification and reporting of critical data quality issues in Arizona’s criminal history record repository. With these goals in mind, the AZSAC will provide equal emphasis on the methodology of the felony case processing project as on the data results within the report. In addition to the following project report, the BJS and the JRSA are requesting the dataset containing all individuals indicted for a felony in 2006 as a project deliverable. After the initial project meeting in Washington, D.C., both BJS and JRSA project officials provided the state grantees with a codebook of variables to be included in the project dataset. The codebook of variables is modeled after the data elements captured through the State Court Processing Statistics (SCPS) program and the National Judicial Reporting Program (NJRP). After discussions in July among project officials and grantees regarding the lack of available indictment data, all parties agreed that the dataset should consist of all felony offenders (both arrested for a felony and/or later accused of a felony offense) who were subsequently arrested in 2006. Details: Phoenix: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, Statistical Analysis Center Report, 2010. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 20, 2011 at: http://www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/Pubs/Home/2010_Felony_Processing_Report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/Pubs/Home/2010_Felony_Processing_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 122793 Keywords: Case ManagementCase Processing (Arizona)Criminal History RecordsFelony CourtsFelony Offenders |
Author: Kim, KiDeuk Title: A Case Study on the Practice of Pretrial Services and Risk Assessment in Three Cities Summary: This report compares three pretrial agencies—Washington, D.C., New York City, and Baltimore—and discusses their practice of pretrial services and programs, with a particular focus on risk assessment. DCPI researchers identify several unique attributes of the District of Columbia’s Pretrial Service Agency, including its focus on public safety, implementation of formal assessments of flight risk, and lack of reliance on monetary bail. They conclude that PSA’s pretrial risk assessment is more comprehensive than in the other two agencies because it is both designed to inform the use of a broad range of pretrial treatment and supervision options and is focused on helping to reduce and manage the risk to public safety posed by pretrial defendants. Details: Washington, DC: District of Columbia Crime Policy Institute, The Urban Institute, 2011. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 12, 2012 at http://www.dccrimepolicy.org/images/Pretrial-Comparative-Final-Report_1.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.dccrimepolicy.org/images/Pretrial-Comparative-Final-Report_1.pdf Shelf Number: 124103 Keywords: Case ManagementCase ProcessingPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Petrosino, Anthony Title: Formal System Processing of Juveniles: Effects on Delinquency Summary: Justice practitioners have tremendous discretion when handling juvenile offenders who have committed minor crimes. Police officers, district attorneys, juvenile court intake officers, juvenile and family court judges and other officials decide whether the youth should be "officially processed" by the juvenile justice system of diverted from the system to a program, counseling, other services - or simply released. An important policy question is which strategy leads to the best outcome for juveniles. When examining the impact of juvenile system processing and whether it reduces subsequent delinquency, the authors reviewed studies that included more than 7,300 juveniles across 29 experiments reported over a 35-year period. Based on the evidence presented, not only does formal processing of juveniles appear not to control crime, it actually seems to increase delinquency. Details: Oslo: Campbell Collaboration, 2010. 88p. Source: Cambell Systematic Reviews 2010:1, Internet Resource: Accessed February 14, 2012 at www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/download/761/ Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118215 Keywords: Administration of JusticeCase ManagementCase ProcessingJuvenile DelinquecyJuvenile DiversionJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Orbis Partners, Inc. Title: Outcome Evaluation of the Women Offender Case Management Model in Connecticut Probation Summary: This outcome report on the Women Offender Case Management Model (WOCMM) implemented in Connecticut probation represents the first formal examination of outcomes. The reporting period for this outcome report includes data collected from the introduction of WOCMM in July 2007 until November 2008. The outcome evaluation focuses on determining whether participation in the project reduces future involvement in the criminal justice system as measured by recidivism over a fixed length follow-up period. The outcome evaluation employs a comparison group to determine if participants have more positive outcomes than a group of women with similar characteristics who were not exposed to the model. Details: Ottawa: Orbis Partners, Inc., 2009. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 10, 2012 at: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/025927.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/025927.pdf Shelf Number: 125234 Keywords: Case ManagementFemale Offenders (Connecticut)ProbationRecidivism |
Author: Vincent, Gina M. Title: Using Risk Assessment to Meet Needs and Reduce Recidivism Summary: A growing number of juvenile justice experts are suggesting that an effective approach to reducing recidivism is to evaluate a youth’s risk of reoffending, then match services to his or her specific risk factors. With support from the Models for Change initiative, most of the county-based juvenile probation offices in Pennsylvania have adopted the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS) for this purpose. The near-statewide adoption was a significant accomplishment in a state without a centralized juvenile probation system. A study of the impact of YLS in the probation offices of three counties showed it improved their ability to assign appropriate community-based services and levels of monitoring to individual offenders, and significantly decreased reoffense rates in one county. The study also showed that success requires buy-in from key stakeholders. Pennsylvania’s experience provides a model for how states with decentralized juvenile justice systems can implement statewide innovations. Details: Philadelphia, PA: Models for Change, 2012. 4p. Source: Innovation Brief: Internet Resource: Accessed January 13, 2013 at http://www.modelsforchange.net/publications/356/Innovation_Brief_Using_Risk_Assessment_to_Meet_Needs_and_Reduce_Recidivism.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.modelsforchange.net/publications/356/Innovation_Brief_Using_Risk_Assessment_to_Meet_Needs_and_Reduce_Recidivism.pdf Shelf Number: 127273 Keywords: Case ManagementJuvenile JusticeJuvenile ProbationRecidivismRisk Assessment |
Author: Duwe, Grant Title: An Evaluation of the Minnesota Comprehensive Offender Reentry Plan (MCORP) Pilot Project: Final Report Summary: Using a randomized experimental design, this study evaluated the effectiveness of the Minnesota Comprehensive Offender Reentry Plan (MCORP), a prisoner reentry pilot project implemented in 2008. In an effort to reduce recidivism, the MCORP pilot project attempted to increase offender access to community services and programming by producing greater case management collaboration between caseworkers in prison and supervision agents in the community. Results from Cox regression models showed that MCORP significantly reduced four of the five recidivism measures examined, although the size of the reduction in hazard ratios was relatively modest (20-25 percent). The findings further suggested that MCORP reduced costs. Sensitivity analyses showed, however, that the cost avoidance estimates were not robust across all assumptions that were examined. Details: St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2013. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 31, 2014 at: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/pages/files/8913/8142/3580/MCORP_Evaluation_Final_DOC_Website.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/pages/files/8913/8142/3580/MCORP_Evaluation_Final_DOC_Website.pdf Shelf Number: 132030 Keywords: Case ManagementOffender SupervisionPrisoner ReentryRecidivism |
Author: Turner, Shelley Title: Case Management with Women Offenders: Literature Review Summary: This literature review relates to case management in community corrections with women offenders. The review summarises research outcomes about best practice principles for the management of women offenders under community corrections supervision. The review also examines the outcomes of evaluations of case management as a supervisory and rehabilitative mechanism. The central purpose of the review is to inform a Dedicated Women's Case Management pilot project conducted by Corrections Victoria, which involves using specialist case managers for women offenders, assessed as being at medium to high risk of re-offending or with multiple and complex needs. The review examines international and Australian literature on effective practice and 'what works' with offenders and, in particular women offenders, to reduce recidivism, as well as international and Australian literature on case management approaches in community corrections, with particular reference to those designed for women offenders. Details: Melbourne: Department of Justice - Corrections Victoria, 2010. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 19, 2014 at: http://www.corrections.vic.gov.au/utility/publications+manuals+and+statistics/literature+review+on+case+management+with+women+offenders Year: 2010 Country: International URL: http://www.corrections.vic.gov.au/utility/publications+manuals+and+statistics/literature+review+on+case+management+with+women+offenders Shelf Number: 132510 Keywords: Case ManagementCommunity Based CorrectionsCommunity SupervisionFemale OffendersOffender Rehabilitation |
Author: D'Amico, Ron Title: Evaluation of the Second Chance Act (SCA) Demonstration 2009 Grantees: Interim Report Summary: This report presents the results from an implementation study of 10 grantees awarded Second Chance Act (SCA) adult demonstration grants to improve reentry services for adult offenders. The implementation study was designed to learn how the 10 grantees operated their SCA projects. During site visits to each grantee lasting two to three days each, study team members interviewed program administrators, case managers, probation and parole officers (POs), fiscal and MIS staff members, and SCA service providers, asking questions about project management and service delivery. They also conducted focus groups with program participants, observed project services, and reviewed selected case files. These site visits largely took place in the spring and summer of 2012. The grantees included state departments of corrections, county sheriff's offices, county health agencies, and other public agencies. Each SCA project targeted medium to high-risk adult offenders and enrolled participants, variously, well before release, just before release, or just after release. Case management, involving needs-based service planning and service coordination, was the focal point of project services across all 10 sites. Depending on the site, case managers were (specialized) POs or employees of municipal departments or nonprofit organizations. Other SCA services included education and training, employment assistance, substance abuse treatment, mental health services, cognitive behavioral therapy, pro-social services, housing assistance, and other supportive services. These services were provided either directly by the case managers, through formal agreements with service providers (often including payment for services rendered), or through unfunded informal referrals to community agencies. The direct service model provided tailored services to participants, but required case managers to have specialized expertise and, for this reason, was used sparingly. The formal partnership model ensured priority access to services that participants needed but was costly. The informal partnership model provided participants with access to a wide array of community services but often without close coordination with the SCA project itself. Each grantee used all three of these service delivery models. The grantees faced numerous challenges in developing strong projects, stemming partly from the intrinsic difficulty in serving offenders and partly due to the challenge of designing and implementing evidence-based reentry programming. These challenges included: - needing substantial ramp-up time to operate smoothly, - needing to train case managers (especially those without a social service background) on needs-based service planning, and - coordinating partner services. The SCA projects that overcame these challenges created strong foundations for sustainable systems change. They: - gained considerable experience in needs-based service planning and in coordinating pre-release and post-release services, - strengthened partnerships between various government and community-based agencies, and - came to embrace a rehabilitative philosophy to reentry that, in some cases, represented an important cultural shift. An impact study that uses a random assignment design is separately underway, and results from it will be provided in a separate report. Details: Oakland, CA: Social Policy Research Associates, 2013. 113p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 2, 2014 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/243294.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/243294.pdf Shelf Number: 129915 Keywords: Case ManagementParoleesPrisoner Reentry (U.S.)ProbationersRecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Solomon, Freda F. Title: CJA's Queens County Supervised Release Program: Impact on Court Processing and Outcomes Summary: This report by the New York City Criminal Justice Agency (CJA) presents the results of an examination of CJA's Queens County (NY) Supervised Release Program. The supervised release program is offered by judges at arraignment to selected offenders arrested for certain non-violent felonies who have satisfied a number of conditions during a rigorous pre-arraignment screening process. This report provides an overview of the program as well as data on completed program cases, case and defendant characteristics, court outcomes in completed program cases, comparison of exited program and pre-program groups of cases, and comparison of baseline and program cases arraigned on felony drug and property crime charges. The evaluation found that to date, the majority of the program's clients (87.4 percent) have left the program under successful conditions of participation. The evaluation also found that defendants sentenced to pretrial release were less likely to receive a conditional discharge sentence compared to defendants not released before trial. In addition, those defendants that were received pretrial release were more likely to have shorter case processing times with prosecutors still able to successfully obtain convictions in these cases. Program limitations are discussed. Details: New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, 2013. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 26, 2015 at: http://www.pretrial.org/download/research/Queens%20County%20Supervised%20Release%20Program-%20Impact%20on%20Court%20Processing%20ad%20Outcomes%20-%20CJA%202013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/download/research/Queens%20County%20Supervised%20Release%20Program-%20Impact%20on%20Court%20Processing%20ad%20Outcomes%20-%20CJA%202013.pdf Shelf Number: 129686 Keywords: Case ManagementCommunity SupervisionPretrial ReleaseSupervised Release |
Author: Wiegand, Andrew Title: Evaluation of the Re-Integration of Ex-Offenders (RExO) Program: Two-Year Impact Report Summary: The Reintegration of Ex-Offenders (RExO) project began in 2005 as a joint initiative of the Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and several other federal agencies. RExO aimed to capitalize on the strengths of faith-based and community organizations (FBCOs) and their ability to serve prisoners seeking to reenter their communities following the completion of their sentences. In June 2009, ETA contracted with Social Policy Research Associates (SPR) and its subcontractors MDRC and NORC at the University of Chicago to conduct an impact evaluation of 24 RExO grantees. The programs funded under RExO primarily provided three main types of services: mentoring, which most often took the form of group mentoring, but also included one-on-one mentoring and other activities; employment services, including work readiness training, job training, job placement, job clubs, transitional employment, and post-placement follow-up; and case management and supportive services. This report summarizes the impacts of the RExO program on offender outcomes in four areas: service receipt, labor market success, recidivism, and other outcomes. Using a random assignment (RA) design, the evaluation created two essentially equivalent groups: a program group that was eligible to enroll in RExO and a control group that was prevented from enrolling in RExO but could enroll in other services. Key findings can be summarized as follows: - RExO significantly increased the number and types of services received. Program group members reported having received, on average, a wider array of services than control group members. Program group members were more likely to participate in job clubs or job readiness classes and to receive vocational training, job search assistance, referrals to job openings, and help with resume development and filling out job applications. Program group members were also more likely to report participating in mentoring sessions and to declare that there was someone from a program who went out of their way to help them and to whom they could turn for advice on personal or family issues. Despite these differences, it is important to note that the program primarily provided work readiness training and support services; fewer than one in five RExO participants (and one in seven control group members) received any form of vocational or other forms of training designed to enhance their skills in in-demand industries. - The economic downturn placed additional pressures on ex-offenders. Unemployment rates in grantee communities were high. Data gathered as part of the evaluation's implementation study indicated that employers that previously hired ex-offenders subsequently had an abundant and overqualified pool of candidates vying for fewer jobs and were less willing to hire individuals with criminal backgrounds, potentially affecting study participants' ability to find and retain employment. In addition, cuts to state and local budgets as a result of the economic downturn reduced other services that could help ex-offenders smoothly re-enter society. - RExO significantly increased self-reported employment, within both the first and second years after RA. These increases were small (between 2.6 and 3.5 percentage points), but statistically significant. In addition, RExO significantly reduced the length of time between RA and self-reported first employment. At any given point following random assignment, program group members who had not yet found work were about 11 percent more likely to do so in the next time period than were control group members who had also not yet found work. However, there were no differences between the study groups in the total number of days employed in the two-year period following RA. - RExO had no effect on reported hourly wages, but did increase total reported income from all sources. There were no differences between the study groups in their reported hourly wages at either the first job obtained after RA or at their current or most recent job, but program group members reported higher average total income from all sources. It is not clear whether this higher average income is due to program group members working more total hours than control group members, obtaining more non-wage income, or some other reason, but program group members reported receiving approximately eight percent more income than control group members. - RExO had no effect on recidivism. Using both administrative data and survey data, program group members were no less likely to have been convicted of a crime or incarcerated than control group members. While results from the survey indicate that RExO reduced the arrest rate (in the first and second years after RA) among program group members, the administrative data found no such effect. Analyses of this discrepancy suggest this difference is driven by either recall bias or otherwise inaccurate reporting on the part of program group members. There was little evidence that RExO affected an array of other outcomes. RExO had no effect on self-reported mental health, substance abuse, housing, and child support. There was some evidence that RExO may have affected health outcomes, as program group members were less likely to report having made any visits to the emergency room (a difference of 4.2 percentage points) or that their physical health limited their work or activities in the most recent month (a difference of 4.7 percentages points). Given that RExO grantees only rarely provided services directly to address these issues, it is perhaps not surprising that there are no clear effects in these areas. Taken together, these findings present a mixed picture of the impact of RExO. On the one hand, it is clear that RExO increased the number and types of services received by program group members, and that it improved the self-reported labor market outcomes of participants as well. But there is little evidence this translated into any impacts on recidivism. Further, the impacts on employment, while statistically significant, are quite small in practical terms. Details: Oakland, CA: Social Policy Research Associates, 2015. 163p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2015 at: http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/ETAOP_2015-04.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/ETAOP_2015-04.pdf Shelf Number: 136625 Keywords: Case ManagementEx-Offender EmploymentEx-Offenders Job TrainingMentoringPrisoner ReentryRecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: New Mexico Sentencing Commission Title: Assessment Of The Second Judicial District Court Pretrial Services Office Summary: According to the American Probation and Parole Association and the Pretrial Justice Institute, in perhaps no more than 15% (460) of the nation's 3,065 counties, judicial officers are aided by pretrial services programs in the balancing act between the presumption of innocence and public safety (APPA, 2010). At midyear 2011, about 6 in 10 jail inmates were not convicted, but were in jail awaiting court action on a current charge - a rate unchanged since 2005 (Minton, 2012). U.S. jails over the past two decades have become largely occupied by individuals awaiting trial, with only a minority of inmates serving out convictions. Before the mid-1990s, jail populations historically were evenly split between pretrial and sentenced prisoners. Since 1996, however, pretrial inmates have grown in numbers and at a faster rate than sentenced inmates, even though crime rates have been falling (Bechtel, et al, 2012). During the 2012 regular session of the New Mexico State Legislative session, the Legislature passed House Joint Memorial 20 (HJM 20) "Bernalillo Case Management Pilot Project." HJM 20 lists a series of conditions justifying the passage of the memorial; a shortage of incarceration options; $30 million to house felony arrestees; the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) has exceeded its design capacity for years; opportunities to alleviate burdens on county jails, but the opportunities were too difficult to implement; and the old Bernalillo County Detention Center could be renovated into a treatment center. HJM 20 resolves that the Bernalillo County Commissioners create a pilot project that will streamline case management, evaluate and expand treatment and diversion programs, create an alternative incarceration facility, as well as start new mental health and substance abuse treatment options, alternative incarceration, transitional living, and reintegration programs. The major stakeholders of the Bernalillo County criminal justice system should be represented in the pilot project. Additionally, HJM20 requests the NM Sentencing Commission (NMSC) collect jail population data, research case management practices, and evaluate the viability and effectiveness of the proposed pilot project. In response to HJM 20, NMSC entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Bernalillo County. The scope of work was, "evaluate the effectiveness of the expanded pretrial services program operated by the [Second Judicial District Court (SJDC)] - [also evaluate] new or expanded treatment programs and diversionary programs [if time and budget allow]." Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Sentencing Commission, 2014. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2015 at: http://nmsc.unm.edu/reports/2014/assessment-of-the-second-judicial-district-court-pretrial-services-office.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://nmsc.unm.edu/reports/2014/assessment-of-the-second-judicial-district-court-pretrial-services-office.pdf Shelf Number: 137239 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCase ManagementDiversionJail InmatesMental Health ServicesPretrial ServicesSubstance Abuse TreatmentTreatment Programs |
Author: Keown, Leslie-Anne Title: Aboriginal Social History Factors in Case Management Summary: Why we did this study Aboriginal Canadians are over-represented in correctional populations. The Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged this over-representation in a landmark 1999 ruling where they interpreted the Criminal Code of Canada to require that judges consider the years of systemic disadvantage of Aboriginal peoples in reaching sentencing decisions. Following this ruling, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) incorporated this principle into its policy. CSC has implemented policy requiring that Aboriginal social history is reflected in correctional case management decision-making and offered all parole officers two days of related training in 2013-14. What we did This study was undertaken to examine the extent to which Aboriginal social history factors were considered in assessments for decision relating to both security classification and discretionary release. A total of 618 assessments for decision were coded to examine the extent to which these factors were incorporated in recommendation rationales. In addition, a matched sample of assessments for decision corresponding to non-Aboriginal offenders was included. Comparisons allowed for an examination of whether Aboriginal social history factors were associated with recommendations after accounting for the variables on which the groups were matched. What we found Aboriginal social history was documented in 98% of assessments reviewed. That said, there may be room for improvement in the extent to which these factors were explicitly linked to the resulting recommendations. Recommendations for Metis offenders were slightly less likely to be linked to Aboriginal social history factors. Overall, it did not appear that Aboriginal social history factors influenced decisional recommendations. There was no evidence that, as some have worried, Aboriginal social history factors were misperceived as risk factors. The lack of association between these factors and recommendations may be partly explained by the broader context in which parole officers formulate recommendations; it was impossible to disentangle the relative effects of Aboriginal social history factors and other priorities, such as public safety. What it means Clearly, CSC's parole officers are complying with policy with respect to the inclusion of Aboriginal social history factors in assessments for decision relating to security classification and discretionary release. Future iterations of training on Aboriginal social history factors may benefit from a focus on how to ensure these factors are explicitly linked to recommendations, as well as on certain domains that seem to be less well understood. In addition, training could also perhaps be enhanced by including further direction on how to consider both Aboriginal social history factors and other priorities - in particular, public safety - concurrently. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2015. 23p. To obtain a PDF version of the full report, or for other inquiries, please e-mail the Research Branch or contact us by phone at (613) 995-3975. Source: Internet Resource: 2015 No. R-356: Accessed March 4, 2016 at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/005/008/092/r356-eng.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/005/008/092/r356-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 138040 Keywords: AboriginalsCase managementIndigenous PeoplesParoleParole Officers |
Author: Atella, Julie Title: Evaluation of RADIUS: A Program for Justice-Involved Girls in the Twin Cities Summary: Operating continuously since 2000, Radius serves approximately 90 girls in Hennepin County, Minnesota each year. The program has three regions, North Minneapolis, South Minneapolis, and Hennepin County suburbs. Justice-involved girls ages 12 through 18 can be referred to Radius by probation officers or courts. The program combines multiple best practice approaches for working with girls including focusing on strengths, including families, offering a safe space to share experiences, hiring trained and effective staff, and conducting girls-only groups to encourage sharing. The Radius model involves four main components: weekly girls groups, individual counseling and case management, restorative justice talking circles, and resource referrals. Methods From October 2011 through December 2014, Wilder Research collected multiple types of data including: - Key informant interviews with Radius clients and their family members - Annual key informant interviews with Radius staff and county probation - Radius client pre- and post-program surveys - Comparison analysis using data from the Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department (HSPHD) and the Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation (DOCCR) The results from these data collection activities were synthesized to produce the key findings and recommendations included in this report. Details: St. Paul, MN: Wilder Research, 2015. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 22, 2016 at: http://www.wilder.org/Wilder-Research/Publications/Studies/Radius/Evaluation%20of%20Radius%20-%20A%20Program%20for%20Justice-Involved%20Girls%20in%20the%20Twin%20Cities.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.wilder.org/Wilder-Research/Publications/Studies/Radius/Evaluation%20of%20Radius%20-%20A%20Program%20for%20Justice-Involved%20Girls%20in%20the%20Twin%20Cities.pdf Shelf Number: 138371 Keywords: Case ManagementCounselingDelinquent GirlsGender Specific ResponsesJustice-Involved GirlsRestorative Justice |
Author: Guy, Laura S. Title: Advancing Use of Risk Assessment in Juvenile Probation Summary: Juvenile probation officers at three sites in two States (Mississippi and Connecticut) were trained to use the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY; Borum, Bartel & Forth, 2006) and the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-Second Version (MAYSI-2; Grisso & Barnum, 2000, 2006). Also included in the use of these instruments was a decisionmaking model for case planning that integrated information about behavioral health variables and risk for reoffending. A standardized implementation process was used to assist sites in the selection of tools, development of policies, categorization of available services and interventions, as well as the development or modification of existing case plans. Results indicate that probation staff can be trained to complete violence risk assessment using the structured professional judgment approach. This produced a high degree of inter-rater agreement, and case management decisions can take into account a youth's risk for future offending. The study advises that in order for risk assessment to impact youths' cases and individual outcomes, risk assessment must occur early in the judicial process. Risk assessment should be conducted before making decisions about disposition, placement, and the services to be provided. It is also recommended that States use a structured, empirically validated approach to risk assessment. A variety of inconsistencies were found in probation staffs' use of the MAYSI-2, despite efforts to train staff to use this assessment tool. Reasons for this inconsistent use of MAYSI-2 are suggested, and recommendations are offered to address it. Study limitations and future research are discussed. Details: Boston: University of Massachusetts Medical School Department of Psychiatry, 2015.202p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 29, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/249155.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/249155.pdf Shelf Number: 138470 Keywords: Case ManagementJuvenile Offender ClassificationJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationReoffendingRisk Assessment |
Author: American Probation and Parole Association Title: Functional Standards Development for Automated Case Management Systems for Probation Summary: The American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) developed these functional standards to assist adult probation (probation) agencies in implementing effective automated case management systems (CMS). APPA recommends these as national functional standards. These standards are designed to address probation agency processes while also providing the capacity for sharing information with the courts, court support units, criminal justice (CJ) agencies, and non-criminal justice (Non-CJ) agencies. The goals of this process were to create a standardized framework for probation CMS and to set higher standards of performance and functionality for probation agency automated systems. These functional standards are written specifically for adult probation CMS; however, other community supervision agencies (e.g., parole and juvenile probation) may find all or part of these standards useful in developing or enhancing their CMS. The increased availability of electronically maintained and shared information has placed new demands for standardization on organizations that wish to share and use client and agency information. Prior to this document, there were no guidelines or standards to assist probation agencies in the development, implementation, maintenance, or enhancement of CMS. Each agency faced the daunting and expensive task of identifying its organizational needs, translating those needs into functional requirements for a CMS, and communicating those needs appropriately. These standards will enable probation agencies to achieve more useful, efficient, and effective automation products, whether through in-house development or procurement from outside vendors. It is critical that an automated CMS take advantage of state-of-the-art technology and thinking to reduce the time needed to design and implement new systems. A CMS will improve the probation work process, accommodate both electronic transfer of and access to information, and allow existing staff more time to spend on the organizational mission. These functional standards were produced by APPA in collaboration with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), and were funded under a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Office of Justice Programs. The process included the review of existing probation CMS, identification of common elements and innovative practices, and development of draft functional standards. The draft document was reviewed, edited, and enhanced by the Standards Development Team composed of probation practitioners, probation information technology professionals, and vendors of case management software. The Standards Development Team met three times over a period of six months to review and modify the Standards document to specifically reflect and meet the needs of probation agencies. These functional standards are the result of intense scrutiny and meticulous examination from knowledgeable individuals who have field experience with probation CMS and should serve as a valuable resource for those in all stages of the CMS process. Details: Lexington, KY: APPA, 2003. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 3, 2017 at: https://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/appa/pubs/FSDACMS.pdf Year: 2003 Country: United States URL: https://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/appa/pubs/FSDACMS.pdf Shelf Number: 140801 Keywords: Case ManagementCommunity Corrections Probation |
Author: Rossman, Shelli B. Title: Second Chance Act Adult Offender Reentry Demonstration Projects, Evidence-Based Practices: Case Management Summary: This report from RTI International and the Urban Institute is one in a series from the Cross-Site Evaluation of the Bureau of Justice Assistance fiscal year 2011 Second Chance Act Adult Offender Reentry Demonstration Projects (AORDPs). The report describes the use of case-management practices among seven grantees that implemented adult reentry programs using Second Chance Act funding. Findings are based on information collected in 2014 through semi-structured interviews with AORDP staff and organizational partners, as well as through a web-based survey administered in spring 2014 to key reentry stakeholders at each site. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute; Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, 2016. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250470.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250470.pdf Shelf Number: 141146 Keywords: Case ManagementEvidence-Based PracticesPrisoner ReentrySecond Chance Act |
Author: Clifasefi, Seema L. Title: LEAD Program Evaluation: Describing LEAD Case Management in Participants' Own Words Summary: This report documents participants' experiences with and perceptions of LEAD case management in their own words. Participants characterized LEAD case management as a positive change from other social services they had experienced. They appreciated its client-centered, advocacy-oriented, harm reduction approach. Participants reported their engagement in the program had helped them meet their basic needs, improve their lives, and rectify their relationships with and perceptions of law enforcement. The client-provider relationship was cited as key to the case management program's success. Details: Seattle: Harm Reduction Research and Treatment Lab University of Washington - Harborview Medical Center, 2016. 20. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 14, 2017 at: http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1185392/27320150/1478294794537/Specific-Aim-4-FINAL_UW-LEAD-Evaluation-Qualitative-Report-11.1.16_updated.pdf?token=HCVfVDzSFEB1CV3SCKVg6NAwH8A%3D Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1185392/27320150/1478294794537/Specific-Aim-4-FINAL_UW-LEAD-Evaluation-Qualitative-Report-11.1.16_updated.pdf?token=HCVfVDzSFEB1CV3SCKVg6NAwH8A%3D Shelf Number: 146089 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Case ManagementDrug Offenders Offender Diversion Programs ProstitutesTreatment Programs |
Author: Haas, Stephen M. Title: Preparing Prisoners for Returning Home: A Process Evaluation of West Virginia's Offender Reentry Initiative Summary: The U.S. prison population continues to grow at startling rates each year. Over the past decade, the number of persons incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails rose from 1.6 million in 1995 to over 2.1 million persons by midyear 2005 (Harris and Beck, 2006). According to a recent publication released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the number of persons incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails reached a record high of 2,186,230 inmates by midyear 2005 (Harrison and Beck, 2006). This record number of persons in our nation's prisons and jails has resulted in more prisoners than ever before being released from incarceration. In 2004, 672,202 sentenced inmates were released from state prisons in the U.S., resulting in an increase of 11.1% since 2000 (Harrison and Beck, 2006). West Virginia's prison population also continues to grow at high rate. In fact, WV had one of the fastest growing prison populations in the nation in recent years. According to a recent report published by the BJS, WV was ranked third in the nation with an average annual growth rate of 8.2% between 1995 and 2004 (Harrison and Beck, 2005; 2006). As a result, WV's state prison population reached 5,312 inmates at the end of 2005. Moreover, the state's prison population is forecasted to continue growing at a rate of 3.3% per a year on average, reaching 6,192 inmates in 2010. Such increases in the number of released inmates has coincided with a record number of offenders being released from our state correctional facilities. In 2005, the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) estimated that 2,157 inmates were released from West Virginia Division of Corrections (WVDOC ) custody, up from 1,278 in 2000. As a result, the state of WV experienced a 68.8% increase in the number of prisoners released from WVDOC custody between 2000 and 2005 (Lester and Haas, 2006). Moreover, both parole grant rates and the number of prisoners being released from state prisons in WV have increased in recent years. In a single year, the number of offenders released from WVDOC custody to parole services increased by 35.6%. Between 2004 and 2005, the number of inmates paroled in WV increased from 773 to 1,048 inmates. Thus, nearly one-half of the 2,157 inmates released from WVDOC custody in 2005 were released on parole (48.6%) (Lester and Haas, 2005). The West Virginia Offender Reentry Initiative (WVORI) The sheer number of offenders released from correctional institutions each year has underscored the need for effective offender programs and transitional services. As a result, the WVDOC developed a comprehensive offender reentry program with the anticipation that it would significantly reduce the number of barriers that offenders will have to face upon release and thereby increase their chances for successful reintegration. Thus, the primary goal of the WVORI is to develop a case management system that ensures the continuity of services and programming from the time the offender enters secure confinement until the offender is ultimately reintegrated back into society. The West Virginia Offender Reentry Initiative (WVORI) became fully operational in July 2005. The WVORI is comprised of two core components and three general phases. The core components provide a foundation for all of the activities that take place in each of the three WVORI phases. These core components include the establishment of a prescriptive case management systems (PCMS) and the use of the Level of Service InventoryRevised (LSI-R) to assess inmates risk and need levels. The PCMS was developed and implemented to structure reentry planning. Services provided via the PCMS include assessment, reentry program plans, substance abuse programs, primary treatment services, transition preparation, parole services, and a parole release plan (WVDOC, 2006). The LSI-R was adopted by the WVDOC to serve as a foundation for the PCMS. Based on the accurate assessment of an inmates level of risk and needs, the LSI-R can help correctional staff identify appropriate institutional programs and services and assist in the development of reentry case plans. In addition, the WVORI is comprised of three primary phases-an institutional phase, a transitional phase, and a community reintegration phase. These three phases are characterized by extensive institution-based programs, enhanced relationships between institution staff and parole personnel, and strong offender ties with community support systems. The primary objective for the institutional phase, or Phase 1 of the WVORI, is to gain greater consistency in the application of initial diagnostic and classification systems across WVDOC facilities. In addition, this phase includes efforts to revise case management practices in a manner that allow for the appropriate matching of offenders to specific programs based their needs. Phase II, or the transitional programming phase, focuses on preparing offenders for making the transition from the institutional setting to parole supervision in the community. As such, this phase includes an array of pre-release services to assist offenders with reentry. These services include reassessment and development of an aftercare plan, an infectious disease course, a parole orientation course, and the scheduling of regular contacts with case managers and parole officers. In addition, this phase serves to link the offender to various community programs such as educational and/or vocational training programs, substance abuse treatment, employment services, and religious or faith-based services. All WVDOC inmates participate in transitional planning prior to release. Phase III of the WVORI, or the community reintegration phase, emphasizes assisting offenders in achieving and maintaining stability in their life situations (including housing and employment) while sufficiently monitoring ex-offenders in order to protect public safety. This phase is characterized by efforts to increase the autonomy of offenders prior to release from parole while assisting the offender in building relationships with community agencies and establishing a strong social support system. Key components of this phase include monitoring and supervision of parole officers and ensuring ex-offenders adhere to the individual reentry program and aftercare plans developed prior to release. Monitoring progress on aftercare plans and conducting post-release follow-ups is a primary function of parole officers during this phase. Details: Charleston, WV: Mountain State Criminal Justice Research Services, 2007. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 8, 2017 at: https://www.bja.gov/evaluation/program-corrections/haas-offender-reentry-initiative.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: https://www.bja.gov/evaluation/program-corrections/haas-offender-reentry-initiative.pdf Shelf Number: 110491 Keywords: Case ManagementOffender Rehabilitation Parolees Prisoner Reentry Substance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Enforcement and Recall: A thematic inspection Summary: Introduction -- Good-quality case management should underpin effective decisions on enforcement and recall. We expect responsible officers to be able to assess risk of harm, risk of reoffending and individuals' needs. They should be able to plan work, implement or facilitate structured programmes of work and review the progress of that work. This should all be done in a way that is sensitive to the diverse backgrounds and needs of those under probation supervision, and that builds on identified strengths in a person's life. Evidence from effective practice and desistance theories suggests that these approaches provide the best platform for successful rehabilitation7 Our findings - Community Rehabilitation Companies Community orders and suspended sentence supervision orders Overall, the quality of offender management and consequent enforcement decision-making in our sample of community orders and suspended sentence orders was poor. Assessment was too often deficient. Plans, though timely, were not of good quality. Engagement with the individual in constructive work was insufficient in too many cases. Planned levels of contact were not always adequate to meet the individual's needs. Consequently, CRCs did not always know when enforcement was appropriate. The task of building a competent workforce was constrained by the level of resourcing, with dwindling front-line resources to manage the work. Licence recall We found better work in licence cases. We cannot be definitive about why that is, but we noted that the majority of the individuals were assessed as posing a medium risk of harm to others, and so were more likely to be allocated to an experienced member of staff at probation officer grade. We found that staff were clearer about the process for recall than for community enforcement. Overall, the quality of assessment and planning was sufficient. The programmes of work then delivered should have been better tailored to reducing the risk posed to the public and the likelihood of reoffending, but in almost all cases the level of contact met the requirements of the licence. Recall decision-making was good. Judgements about the acceptability of absences or individual behaviour were generally appropriate. Post-sentence supervision We looked at a small sample of post-sentence supervision cases. Overall, the quality of case management and consequent enforcement decision-making in the sample of post-sentence supervision was poor. We found that CRCs were struggling to provide adequate services for the range of complex needs of this group of individuals. In particular, responsible officers struggled to find ways to engage with them. Enforcement had the effect of compounding rather than lessening the sense of a revolving door between prison and the community. Our findings - National Probation Service Community order and suspended sentence supervision orders Overall, the quality of assessment, supervision planning and consequent enforcement decision-making was good. At the beginning of the community sentence, responsible officers outlined to individuals the consequences of non-compliance, including a return to court. Judgements about the acceptability of absences or individual behaviour were appropriate in most cases. However, better attention should have been paid to engaging individuals in the process of supervision. While staff had a heightened sensitivity to issues of risk, the level of contact set was based on considerations of the risk of harm posed to others in just under two-thirds of cases. Overall, we found a good balance struck between purposeful work and the use of enforcement to re-engage individuals or to apply controls on behaviour when necessary. Licence recall Overall, the quality of case management and consequent enforcement decisionmaking was good. The NPS had an organisation-wide process for managing these cases. This supported engagement and promoted compliance, and enabled staff to take recall action when necessary and appropriate. More needed to be done to ensure that relevant information from the prison is incorporated into the plan of work undertaken in the community. Nevertheless, we considered that judgements about the acceptability of absences or behaviour were appropriate in all but one case. We also found that senior managers had applied sufficient checks and balances to ensure that recall was viewed as a last resort, with action only taken when the risks of continued supervision in the community were unmanageable. Post-sentence supervision We looked at a small sample of post-sentence supervision cases. Overall, the quality of case management and consequent enforcement decision-making was good. Are women treated differently? Within CRCs we found some evidence that staff responded positively to women's needs, but this was far from consistent. The identification of women-specific issues was better at the NPS. However, both had very limited access to appropriate womenonly provision. Details: Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2018. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 14, 2018 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/02/Enforcement-and-Recall-report.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/02/Enforcement-and-Recall-report.pdf Shelf Number: 149480 Keywords: Case ManagementCommunity OrdersCommunity-Based CorrectionsOffender SupervisionProbation OfficersProbationers |
Author: Olsen, Robin Title: Collecting and Using Data for Prosecutorial Decisionmaking: Findings from 2018 National Survey of State Prosecutors' Offices Summary: Prosecutorial data collection, data use, and data-driven decisionmaking are subjects of emerging interest among prosecutors, other criminal justice stakeholders, advocates, and policymakers. How much data are prosecutors collecting? How are they using data (if at all), and how has that helped decisionmaking? What resources and infrastructure do prosecutors use, and what barriers prevent effective uses of data? In early 2018, the Urban Institute surveyed prosecutors' offices across the country to seek answers to these questions. Elected prosecutors and staff members responded from 158 offices representing jurisdictions of all sizes, from sparsely populated rural parts of the country to urban areas with more than a million residents. Data can help prosecutors manage their offices efficiently and measure progress toward goals. Data can also help increase transparency about prosecutorial decisionmaking, the constraints prosecutors navigate, and how their decisions link to broader justice and public safety outcomes (Frederick and Stemen 2012 a, 2012b). Urban's survey asked respondents about seven foundational measures of prosecutorial case flow: the volume of cases coming into an office, the number of charges (at arrest and final charges), and what happens to the case (whether it is declined, dismissed, resolved by guilty plea, or resolved by trial). Survey results reveal that many prosecutors have an interest in collecting and using data and that many offices are using data to inform critical operational and case decisions. But barriers often stand in the way of widespread and systematic incorporation of data in prosecutorial decisionmaking. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2018. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 4, 2018 at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99044/collecting_and_using_data_for_prosecutorial_decisionmaking.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99044/collecting_and_using_data_for_prosecutorial_decisionmaking.pdf Shelf Number: 152829 Keywords: Case ManagementProsecutorial Decisionmaking Prosecutors |