Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 11:42 pm
Time: 11:42 pm
Results for community corrections
57 results foundAuthor: Crowe, Ann H. Title: Community Corrections Response to Domestic Violence: Guidelines for Practice Summary: This document provides a series of guidelines for community corrections professionals that support a proactive community supervision approach for domestic violence cases. Readers of this document will find a recommended course of action that can be used to achieve the three central goals of this document: 1) increased safety and autonomy for victims of domestice violence; 2) heightened accountability for offenders who commit initmate partner violence, and 3) promoting changes in offender behavior and thinking patterns. Details: Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association, 2009 Source: Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 115376 Keywords: Community CorrectionsDomestic Violence |
Author: Lawlor, Eilis Title: Unlocking Value: How We All Benefit from Investing in Alternatives to Prison for Women Offenders Summary: This report from the New Economics Foundation (nef) highlights how short-term cost control and narrow re-offending targets in a criminal justice system lets down women offenders and costs more in the long term. The authors utilize Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis to examine the costs and long-term benefits associated with support-focused community penalties involving high-quality facilities are a more cost-effective option than imprisonment for non-violent women offenders. Details: London: New Economics Foundation, 2008 Source: Year: 2008 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 116374 Keywords: Community CorrectionsWomen Offenders |
Author: Katz, Joanne Title: Effective Alterntives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities Summary: At a time when one in 100 American adults is confined to prison or jail, the ballooning cost of incarceration - about $29,000 per inmate annually - is strangling state budgets without increasing the safety of our communities. In response, police have collaborated with community corrections officials, others in the criminal justice system, and community members to find safe and effective alternatives to incarceration for the growing number of low-risk offenders who end up behind bars. This report provides concrete examples of some of the most successful and innovative alternative programs that have evolved from these collaborations and that are keeping our community safe at a fraction of the cost of incarceration. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2009. 93p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119257 Keywords: Alternative to IncarcerationCommunity Corrections |
Author: Bourgon, Guy Title: Translating "What Works" into Sustainable Everyday Practice: Program Design, Implementation and Evaluation 2009-05 Summary: "A major challenge for community correctional agencies is yranslating “what works” knowledge into effective everyday practice. Service delivery adherence to the principles of Risk, Need and Responsivity (RNR) is threatened by a variety of design, implementation, and evaluation issues found in the “real world” of community supervision. The Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision (STICS) was designed as a service delivery model and implementation training package, which attempted to translate these principles into the routine practice of probation officers. In this report, we describe the challenges and issues that should be addressed when trying to bring research to the real world of community supervision faced by probation officers and we evaluate our efforts to overcome these challenges through STICS. Firmly rooted in RNR principles, the STICS supervision model emphasizes officers’ interventions that facilitate prosocial attitudinal/cognitive change in moderate to high-risk offenders. In order to maintain service integrity and officers’ skill maintenance, STICS not only provided probation officers with initial three-day training in the model and basic cognitive-behavioural interventions but the model also provided ongoing clinical supervision. Random assignment and direct observation of probation officer behaviour during interactions with their clients are key components of the evaluation of this initiative. Preliminary results suggest that STICS had a significant impact in improving probation officers’ use of effective core correctional practices." Details: Ottawa: Public Safety Canada, 2009. 23p. Source: Internet Resource; Accessed August 14, 2010 at:https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2009-05-pd/index-en.aspx Year: 2009 Country: Canada URL: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2009-05-pd/index-en.aspx Shelf Number: 117120 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCommunity SupervisionOffender SupervisionProbationProbation Officers |
Author: Victorian Auditor-General Title: Managing Offenders on Community Corrections Orders Summary: Managing offenders in the community provides a range of financial and social benefits. It is a cost-effective alternative to imprisonment. It also enables offenders to maintain connection with their community, by retaining employment, social networks and accommodation. Offenders can also undertake programs designed to address their behaviour and reduce the likelihood of them re-offending. Community Correctional Services (CCS), within Corrections Victoria, is responsible for managing offenders on community orders. Its primary purpose is to enhance community safety primarily through a range of offender management processes and services, including risk and need assessments, program referrals and supervision to ensure offenders are complying with the conditions of their orders. This audit found that CCS has established a robust, evidence-based framework for offender management and for implementing a strong quality assurance process to monitor the application of the framework. However, what is missing is a meaningful way to measure the effectiveness of the program. The current outcome measures are not directly relevant. Details: Melbourne: Victorian Government Printer, 2009. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9, 2010 at: http://download.audit.vic.gov.au/files/20091125_CCO_Full_Report.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: http://download.audit.vic.gov.au/files/20091125_CCO_Full_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 119910 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity Corrections |
Author: Bales, William Title: A Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Electronic Monitoring Summary: Research Purposes: The purposes of this research include: (1) determining the effect of electronic monitoring (EM) as a supervision enhancement for offenders in terms of absconding, probation violations, and the commission of new crimes; (2) providing an explanation of the findings; (3) documenting the implementation of EM; (4) identifying and documenting the impact that EM has on offenders' personal relationships, families, employment, and assimilation within the community; and (5) developing evidence-based recommendations to improve public safety and lessen negative consequences for offenders and their families. Research Design and Methodology: Data sources include: (1) administrative data from the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC), which include 5,034 medium- and high-risk offenders on EM and 266,991 offenders not placed on EM over a six year period; and (2) qualitative data collected through face-to-face interviews with 105 offenders, 36 supervising officers, and 20 administrators from fourteen counties in Florida. Random assignment of offenders to the experimental (EM) and control (non-EM) groups was not possible; therefore, propensity score matching was employed to establish the two groups. Propensity score matching, as a statistical procedure, is an effective method of selecting subjects for experimental and control groups whereby selection bias is minimized and the groups closely resemble each other across key variables (Rubin, 2006; Rosenbaum, 2002). One-hundred-twenty-two covariates were used to predict EM participation, which enhanced the predictive accuracy of the matching procedure. Cox's regression techniques were utilized to analyze time-to-failure for various outcome measures. The qualitative data, which included forced-choice and open-ended questions, were systematically analyzed and include descriptive statistics and illustrative quotes from respondents. Research Results and Conclusions: The quantitative analysis demonstrates that EM reduces offenders' risk of failure by 31 percent and that global positioning system (GPS) monitoring results in 6 percent fewer supervision failures compared to radio frequency (RF). All categories of offenders, regardless of offense type, experienced fewer supervision violations as a result of EM; however, the effect was reduced for violent offenders. Offenders of all age groups and those on different forms of community supervision benefited from EM. The findings from the qualitative analysis indicates that: (1) administrators reported that EM goals and objectives were being met; (2) officers' and offenders' opinions of EM's impact on reducing undesirable behavior are consistent with the findings from the quantitative assessment; (3) EM status and equipment does have negative consequences for offenders' families, employment opportunities, and adjustment in the community; (4) there is a need to refine the selection of offenders identified as the most appropriate for EM; (5) EM is used as an alternative to prison in approximately one-third of the cases; (6) EM devices frequently lose the satellite signal resulting in numerous, unnecessary alerts; (7) EM operations may benefit from increasing judges' understanding of the equipment, the most appropriate subjects for EM, and key operational aspects of EM; and (8) the most important, recent enhancement to FDOC's EM program has been the statewide monitoring center that has significantly reduced the number of alerts. This reduction in alerts enables officers to devote more time to essential supervisory responsibilities. Details: Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Center for Criminology and Public Policy Research, 2010. 189p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 2, 2010 at: http://www.criminologycenter.fsu.edu/p/pdf/EM%20Evaluation%20Final%20Report%20for%20NIJ.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.criminologycenter.fsu.edu/p/pdf/EM%20Evaluation%20Final%20Report%20for%20NIJ.pdf Shelf Number: 120159 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsElectronic MonitoringProbationers |
Author: McCoard, Shirley Title: Scoping Study of Interventions for Offenders with Alcohol Problems in Community Justice Settings Summary: This report presents the findings of a scoping study of alcohol problems among offenders in the community justice setting. It is one of three studies that make up the portfolio of the Alcohol and Offenders Criminal Justice Research Programme which is led by NHS Health Scotland and funded by the Scottish Government. The overarching aim of the portfolio is to understand better the extent and nature of alcohol problems in offenders, and which effective interventions can address them, recognising that the criminal justice setting is an opportunity to detect and intervene in an often ‘hard to reach’ population. This research sought specifically to inform policy and practice by mapping plans, arrangements and procedures in place within local areas throughout Scotland to identify and intervene with offenders with alcohol problems, as part of the criminal justice process or otherwise, in community settings, including identifying emerging good practice. It also sought to establish what is known about the effectiveness of interventions for this group. Details: Edinburgh: NHS Health Scotland, 2011. 130p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 18, 2011 at: http://www.healthscotland.com/uploads/documents/15007-Scoping%20Study%20of%20Interventions%20for%20Offenders%20with%20Alcohol%20Problems.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.healthscotland.com/uploads/documents/15007-Scoping%20Study%20of%20Interventions%20for%20Offenders%20with%20Alcohol%20Problems.pdf Shelf Number: 121075 Keywords: Alcohol Abuse (Scotland)Alcohol Related Crime, DisorderCommunity CorrectionsOffender Treatment |
Author: Gelb, Karen Title: Alternatives to Imprisonment: Community Views in Victoria Summary: Public and political debate about the use of imprisonment is vigorous. Over the past three decades Victoria’s prison population has steadily increased from 1,573 prisoners in 1977 to 2,467 prisoners in 1995 to 4,537 in 2010. Taking into account the growth of the general population, the imprisonment rate has increased by 50.9% over the last twenty years, from 69.9 prisoners per 100,000 adults in 1990 to 105.5 in 2010. In the last decade alone the imprisonment rate has grown by 22.1%. Over this same period the community corrections rate has increased by 19.5%. The increase in imprisonment rate may reflect changes in patterns of offending, in police practices or in the characteristics of people coming before the courts. However, it may also indicate that both parliament and the courts have been responding to perceived community concerns and debates about tougher sentencing. Such debates are not uncommon, with an increasing imprisonment rate being seen as a response that aims to reduce crime, deter would-be criminals and punish offenders both appropriately and in line with ‘community expectations’. Yet there is very little published scientific evidence in Victoria that identifies ‘community expectations’ – that reveals community attitudes to imprisonment and its alternatives. This report attempts to redress this dearth of published evidence on community views by examining the results of a survey of public attitudes to imprisonment and the use of alternatives to imprisonment. The evidence shows that community views are more complex and nuanced than is often characterised: Victorians are willing to accept alternatives to imprisonment as useful sentencing options. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2011. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 7, 2011 at: http://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/alternatives_to_imprisonment_community_views_in_victoria.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/alternatives_to_imprisonment_community_views_in_victoria.pdf Shelf Number: 121271 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsIncarceration RatesPublic OpinionSentencing (Australia) |
Author: Cadora, Eric Title: Travis Community Impact Supervision. Thinking About Location: Orienting Probation to Neighborhood Based Supervision Summary: The Travis County Community Supervision and Corrections Department (CSCD) in Austin, Texas (the county’s adult probation department) has teamed up with The JFA Institute in a two-year effort to reengineer the operations of the department to support more effective supervision strategies. The goal is to strengthen probation by using an evidence-based practices (EBP) model. The Travis County CSCD, the Community Justice Assistance Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and the Open Society Institute have provided funds to support the reengineering effort and use the department as an “incubator” site to develop, test and document organization-wide changes directed at improving assessment, supervision, sanctioning, personnel training and quality control policies. The Travis County CSCD is the fifth largest probation system in the state and, as such, has tremendous impact on the state probation system. The total number of offenders under some form of probation supervision in Travis County in FY 2005 was 22,827. This report presents an analysis of the geographical location of the Travis County probation population using mapping technology. The analysis was conducted by Eric Cadora and his team at the JFA Mapping Center in New York City. A great number of the persons entering and exiting the Texas prison system and persons on probation tend to concentrate in specific neighborhoods in our large metropolitan areas. Mapping analysis identifies these concentrations in specific geographical locations. The goal is to provide a visual depiction of the geographical distribution of the probation population to identify high density neighborhoods that can be targeted for a neighborhood based supervision approach. The neighborhood based approach consolidates caseloads with fewer officers specifically assigned to supervising probationers in those locations. This can be done in Travis County in at least three neighborhoods. The research also shows that neighborhoods receiving the most offenders released from prison are also neighborhoods with a high concentration of probationers. Present supervision practices between the probation and parole agencies in these neighborhoods are not coordinated. Collaboration between these agencies may lead to more effective supervision that leverages resources between the agencies and between the agencies and neighborhood partners. The visualization of concentrated parole and probation populations in what we call “high stakes” communities is critical for more effective policy. The notion is that, although we need policies that address the overall issue of criminality and the supervision of justice populations regardless of where persons are committing crimes or where they live, we also need to consider the location of concentrated justice populations. Details: Washington, DC: JFA Institute, 2006. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 18, 2011 at: http://caction.org/research_reports/reports/TravisCommunityImpactSupervision2006.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://caction.org/research_reports/reports/TravisCommunityImpactSupervision2006.pdf Shelf Number: 122085 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsGeographic StudiesMappingNeighborhoodsParoleesProbation (Texas)Probationers |
Author: Levin, Marc Title: The Role of Parole in Texas: Achieving Public Safety and Efficiency Summary: Texas recently earned national acclaim for avoiding what was expected to be a catastrophic prison overcrowding crisis. In 2005, in anticipation of overcrowding, the Legislative Budget Board recommended building more than 17,000 new prison beds. Texas did not build the beds, however, and it still managed to reduce crime throughout the state. Part of the credit for this impressive accomplishment must go to the state’s parole system. In 2009, out of 76,607 parole-eligible cases considered, 23,182 Texas inmates were placed on some kind of parole supervision. More importantly, the number of parolees revoked to prison has sharply declined from 11,311 in 2004 to 6,678 in 2010, reflecting a drop in both new crimes and technical violations serious enough to warrant revocation. The parole system is designed to ensure those leaving prison are under supervision during their initial reentry into society and promote order in prisons by providing inmates with an incentive for good behavior, but it is also the primary means by which the state controls the size and cost of the prison population at the back-end of the system. Some states don’t have parole and instead adhere to “truth-in-sentencing” policies which incarcerate offenders for every day of their sentence. While such policies have some appeal, they don’t allow for an appraisal of the inmate’s behavior in prison and his eff orts at self-improvement through completing rehabilitation programs. As conservative Congressman Howard Coble of North Carolina noted, “I still embrace the theory of locking the cell door if an offender has been convicted of a crime. But I don’t say throw the key away. I say, keep the key handy, so the same key that locked that door can also unlock it.” In a practical sense, parole is also the state’s response to the problematic incentive created by a dual system of locally elected prosecutors and judges and state-funded incarceration. The incentive is for locally elected officials to seek public support and eliminate any risk of crime in their local jurisdictions through the longest sentences possible for every offender at the state’s expense, as opposed to managing risks by balancing incarceration costs with other priorities, such as better policing programs that may prevent more crime for every dollar spent. In Texas, parole revocations have declined in recent years, from 14.8 percent in 2004 to 8.2 percent in 2010. Further parole reforms, if properly targeted, could improve this, staving off prison crowding problems long before they start and contributing to gains in public safety. The recommendations presented in this report stand in stark contrast to the late 1980’s debacle when the state leadership decided to turn the parole system into a gigantic jailbreak rather than incur the cost of building new lockups. At that time, some 750 prisoners were being released early every week, including many murderers and rapists. There are key differences, however, in our situation today: 1) the state has more than three times as many prison beds due to the early 1990s prison building spree triggered in part by the public outrage at these releases in the 1980s; 2) carefully targeted changes have resulted in only a slight increase in the total parole rate from 27 to 31 percent; and 3) the state has far more nonviolent inmates today who are either ineligible for parole or who are being refused parole. By continuing to focus parole changes on this population, the state can avoid building new prisons while also not repeating the mistakes of the past. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2011. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Perspective: Accessed July 22, 2011 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2011-05-PP09-Parole-mlevin-vreddy.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2011-05-PP09-Parole-mlevin-vreddy.pdf Shelf Number: 122151 Keywords: Community CorrectionsParole (Texas)Parole RevocationsParolees |
Author: DeMichele, Matthew Title: Offender Supervision with Electronic Technology: A Community Corrections Resource, Second Edition Summary: Electronic supervision of offenders evokes many images. Some see it as punitive, whereas others see it as lenient. Some view it as a means to improve supervision, whereas others view it as a way of saving correctional dollars by alleviating jail crowding. Some feel it is best used for offender accountability, although others believe it is better used for treatment compliance and adding structure to offenders’ lives. Some are intrigued by such technological tools, others are baffled by them, and still others question such devices as being one part of an emerging surveillance society. Regardless of these perspectives, there are many misperceptions of what electronic supervision technologies can do, how they work, and what it takes to use them. The most well-known types of electronic supervision technologies are radio-frequency devices used to monitor home confinement orders and global positioning systems (GPS). Although these are the most prevalent types in use, electronic supervision technologies include an assortment of devices such as kiosk reporting, remote alcohol detection, biometric analysis, and eye scanning. This book is intended to provide direction to community corrections agencies regarding electronic supervision in a broad sense, but it is specifically intended to provide direction given the recent push for electronic monitoring of high-risk offenders, especially sex offenders, with GPS. Details: Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association, 2009. 243p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 26, 2011 at: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/APPA/pubs/OSET_2.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/APPA/pubs/OSET_2.pdf Shelf Number: 122115 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsCommunity SupervisionElectronic MonitoringGlobal Positioning Systems (GPS)Home Detention |
Author: Lowe, Nathan C. Title: Reentry of Methamphetamine-Using Offenders into the Community: Identifying Key Strategies and Best Practices for Community Corrections Summary: This report discusses issues related to reentry of methamphetamine (MA) users. From 1997 to 2004, MA use increased among both state and federal prison inmates in the month before the convicting offense was committed and at the time of the convicting offense. This increase in MA use among offenders has created significant challenges for the corrections field. Specifically, correctional and treatment professionals have worked together in efforts to implement the most effective strategies to treat MA use and abuse among offenders in the community. The purpose of this report is to highlight the need for a coherent strategy for community corrections professionals to use when supervising MA-using populations in the community. This report offers the community corrections field baseline data to understand some of the obstacles and lessons learned regarding supervision of MA-using offenders. The data were gathered from a focus group and three technical assistance site visits with the underlying intention of identifying key strategies in dealing with MA-using offenders in the community. Policy and practice recommendations are also offered. These recommendations rely on the focus group, site visits, and emerging body of research literature on effective community supervision and successful substance abuse strategies. Details: Alexandria, VA: American Probation and Parole Association, 2010. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 28, 2011 at: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/appa/pubs/RMUOC.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/appa/pubs/RMUOC.pdf Shelf Number: 122114 Keywords: Community CorrectionsDrug Abuse and AddictionDrug OffendersMethamphetamineReentry |
Author: Boyle, Douglas J. Title: Outcomes of a Randomized Trial of an Intensive Community Corrections Program – Day Reporting Centers – For Parolees Summary: The present study is an experimental evaluation of the relative effectiveness of an intensive community corrections program, often referred to as a Day Reporting Center (DRC), versus an intensive supervision parole condition (Phase I). DRC is a program that brings groups of parolees together from throughout a municipality or larger geographic area for supervision, services, and programming, and requires them to spend significant amounts of time together on a daily basis. Alternatively, Phase I is an individual-based intensive supervision with referral to services and with additional conditions imposed. Participants were randomly assigned to either DRC (n = 198) or Phase I (n = 204), and data were collected for 18 months post 90 day study period. Overall, during the 90 day study period, DRC participants were more likely to be arrested for a new offense, whereas Phase I participants were more likely to obtain employment than were DRC participants. During the 6 month period immediately following study participation, DRC participants were more likely to be re-convicted of a new offense. Furthermore, DRC participants were more likely than Phase I participants to produce a positive drug test during this period. Over the 12 and 18 month post completion periods, there was only one difference between the study groups, with Phase I participants more likely to obtain employment at 18 month follow-up. Results of the current investigation showed that DRCs did not produce better outcomes than the control group, and during some time periods treatment effects were significantly worse. The pattern of outcomes favoring Phase I supervision is even more noteworthy given the relative costs of the two programs, since Phase I is significantly less expensive than DRC programming. These findings raise important policy and fiscal concerns regarding the rationale for using the DRC model to supervise medium- and high-risk parolees. However, this should not be construed as saying that individual supervision alone is sufficient, since Phase I parolees were assigned additional conditions at the discretion of their parole officers which could include outpatient drug treatment, mental health treatment, educational training and others. The implications of the present research for policy and practice are significant. The overall finding is that medium- and high-risk parolees can be managed as effectively in the community at far less cost using a Phase-based individual system. Details: Newark, NJ: Violence Institute of New Jersey at the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, 2011. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 20, 2011 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236080.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236080.pdf Shelf Number: 123067 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsDay Reporting CentersParoleParolees |
Author: American Bar Association. Criminal Justice Section Title: Dialogue On Strategies to Save States Money, Reform Criminal Justice & Keep the Public Safe Summary: The American Bar Association has chosen to focus on five key issues where states can implement changes that will promote public safety, reduce recidivism, and save money. These five issues cover a range of criminal justice topics, but the goal is the same: to create an effective, low-cost system that improves our current justice system. Below is a brief description of each policy. PRE-TRIAL RELEASE REFORM According to the United States Department of Justice, over 500,000 men and women sit in jail awaiting trial. Two-thirds of these people are low bail risk, meaning they have been deemed by a magistrate to pose no significant risk to themselves or the community, as well as representing a low risk of flight. Often, these inmates will sit in jail for over a year before standing trial. While these non-violent offenders are in jail, taxpayers provide them with food, clothing, healthcare, and security – last year alone the United States spent $9 billion on services for those who could not afford bail. With the development of better tools, methods, and technologies to supervise non-violent offenders, states will be able to save money on pretrial detention and reduce risk to the community. Those who pose the lowest risk can be identified, released before trial, and then appropriately monitored and supported so they do not become a risk. Under these narrow circumstances, not only do taxpayers save money, but the community is not put in danger. DECRIMINALIZATION OF MINOR OFFENSES State budgets have very limited resources. Because of these limits, police and prosecutors simply cannot bring justice to all culprits. By declassifying certain minor crimes, law enforcement and attorneys can focus on more serious offenders. A large portion of low-level cases in this country go unsolved – declassification would not only direct more resources toward the investigation of serious crimes, but it would also provide states with a steady stream of income in from applicable civil fines. EFFECTIVE REENTRY PROGRAMS Recidivists account for a significant portion of the United States’ prison populations – it is estimated that over half of former inmates are re-arrested and incarcerated within three years following release from prison. A key component to combating these high numbers is to more effectively choose those inmates who are prepared for release and to create programs that provide those released with useful counseling and vocational training. Without guidance, former inmates are often left without necessary support and job training and quickly return to a life of crime. With the costs of incarceration skyrocketing, states simply cannot afford to repeatedly house the same prisoners. At a reduced cost, states can implement programs that provide former inmates with the tools necessary to become successful, productive members of the community. INCREASED USE OF PAROLE & PROBATION Unnecessary inctiaornce irsa a tremendous expense to the taxpayer, and can do more harm than good with regards to an offender’s rehabilitation. Lengthy periods of incarceration should therefore be reserved for offenders who commit the most serious offenses and pose the greatest danger to the community. In contrast, alternatives to incarceration should be provided for those offenders who pose minimal risk to the community and appear likely to benefit from rehabilitation efforts outside a correctional institution. Recognizing that few convicted persons require lengthy incarceration and many require none, the ABA’s Criminal Justice Standards on Sentencing call for sentencing schemes that allow administrative parole boards to decide when individuals incarcerated under inadequately determinate sentences should be released. The Standards also include probation options for the courts, substantial “good time” credit for individuals sentenced to total confinement, and the assertion that violations of parole and probation for non-violent offenders should not automatically result in incarceration. COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PROGRAMS Community corrections consists of any number of sanctions served by an offender within the community where that offender either (a) committed an offense, or (b) currently resides. The objectives of community corrections include punishing an offender in the least restrictive setting consistent with public safety and the gravity of the crime; providing offenders with education, training, and treatment to enable an individual to become a fully functional member of the community upon release from supervision; and making offenders accountable to the community for criminal behavior. Community corrections envisions a wide-range of locally implemented, non-incarcerative sanctions such as probation, day-reporting centers, community service, home confinement with or without electronic monitoring, drug and alcohol treatment, means-based fines, and restitution to both the victim and the community. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2011. 170p. Source: Interent Resource: Accessed November 1, 2011 at: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/criminal_justice/dialogpacket.authcheckdam.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/criminal_justice/dialogpacket.authcheckdam.pdf Shelf Number: 123205 Keywords: BailCommunity CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice Policy (U.S.)Criminal Justice ReformDecriminalizationParolePretrial ReleasePrisoner ReentryProbation |
Author: Clawson, Elyse Title: Putting the Pieces Together: Practical Strategies for Implementing Evidence-Based Practices Summary: This manual describes a generalized process for adopting and implementing principles that underlie evidence-based practice. The evidence-based policies and practices discussed in this manual are derived from high-quality research and have been embraced by criminologists, other social scientists and respected practitioners. The research and the theoretical underpinnings of EBP are described in a companion document, Implementing Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Community Corrections. This manual is intended to offer a practical guide to their application. The principles and the activities for implementation described in this manual are not intended to squelch creative thinking, enthusiasm or innovation. Your innovations will inspire the hypotheses that lead to further research, more effective implementation strategies and perhaps even additional principles. EBP is an evolving body of knowledge and practice. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2010. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2011 at: http://nicic.gov/Library/024394 Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://nicic.gov/Library/024394 Shelf Number: 123317 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCorrectional AdministrationEvidence-Based Practices |
Author: Wyse, Jessica J.B. Title: Rehabilitating Criminal Selves: Gendered Strategies in Community Corrections Summary: Despite sweeping changes to the criminal justice system, scholars have documented that the formation of criminal subjects remains deeply gendered. While women’s criminality is explained as emanating out of psychological disorder and a fractured self, men’s is understood as a rational choice made by a whole self. Drawing upon observational, interview and case note data collected within the probation/parole system of a Northwestern State, I both concur with and challenge this standard narrative. I present a unified concept of the gendered selves that underlie contemporary notions of men and women as criminal subjects and link the particular rehabilitative strategies officers employ to these gendered beliefs. I suggest that officers are critical of the criminal selves of both men and women, positing the male self as flawed or underdeveloped and the female as permeable and amorphous. Responsive to these beliefs, officers attempt to rehabilitate men via encouraging “non-criminal” thought processes and behaviors and modeling a conventional, officious interactional style. For women, offices attempt to solidify women’s boundaries, discourage relationship formation, model a healthy relationship and contain women’s emotions. I focus particularly upon interactions within supervision meetings, as I will argue that it is within this space that officers, facing substantial resource constraints, are able to work towards rehabilitative goals. Details: Ann Arbor, MI: Population Studies Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 2012. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Population Studies Center Research Report 12-751: Accessed January 26, 2012 at: http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/pdf/rr12-751.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/pdf/rr12-751.pdf Shelf Number: 123770 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsOffender Rehabilitation |
Author: Crowe, Ann H. Title: Underage Drinking: Intervention Principles and Practice Guidelines for Community Correction Summary: For more than two decades, the people of the United States have benefited from a uniform minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) of 21. This has been one of the most successful public health regulations ever implemented (Voas, 2006). Many thousands of lives have been saved and tragedies averted. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the MLDA law has saved almost 24,000 lives in traffic crashes alone since 1975, when states began raising the drinking age. This figure does not include the many thousands of other types of injury and death that can result from alcohol use and that have been prevented since the law was changed (Jones, Pieper, & Robertson, 1992). These laws are highly effective, but they do require continued commitment and effort for enforcement. Underage drinking is both a public safety and a public health challenge in the United States. More notably, however, as is brought forth in the Surgeon General’s Call to Action To Prevent and Reduce Underage Drinking (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2007), underage drinking is an issue that our society continues to grapple with and work to overcome for the betterment of our nation’s youth. Many of the strategies to reduce underage drinking have focused on decreasing the availability of alcohol to underage drinkers, reducing opportunities and occasions for underage drinking, and diminishing the demand for alcohol among youth. These strategies have proved to be successful, but young people do continue to engage in illegal alcohol consumption and to be exposed to the many risks it entails. A thoughtful and comprehensive approach to dealing with underage drinkers is clearly needed. Only in recent years has our society begun to truly grapple with this issue, particularly at the federal level. One of the most prominent agencies within the federal government that has taken action to address underage drinking is the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Since its inception in 1974, OJJDP has supported local and state efforts to prevent delinquency and improve the juvenile justice system. In 1998, Congress gave OJJDP the authority to administer the Enforcement of Underage Drinking Laws (EUDL) program. The EUDL program supports and enhances efforts by states and local jurisdictions to reduce the availability of alcohol to minors and to prevent underage drinking by minors. Close partnerships between law enforcement agencies and communitybased groups involved in preventing and intervening in underage drinking are strongly encouraged by the program. As the only federal program devoted exclusively to preventing alcohol consumption by minors, OJJDP offers states and local jurisdictions funding, comprehensive training, and technical assistance to guide them in their efforts (see OJJDP, 2009). The community corrections field, specifically probation and diversion, performs an important role in the EUDL program in both prevention and intervention when dealing with underage drinking offenders.1 Community corrections professionals can work closely with judges, attorneys, and other justice professionals to handle each underage drinking case in the most effective and appropriate fashion. Community corrections professionals can also work with community-based groups in efforts to prevent underage drinking through community-wide initiatives that reach both parents and youth. Appendix A provides some examples of local and state EUDL coalitions in which community corrections agencies have partnered. Details: Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association, 2011. 111p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 6, 2012 at: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/appa/pubs/UDIPPGCC.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/appa/pubs/UDIPPGCC.pdf Shelf Number: 123996 Keywords: Alcohol AbuseCommunity CorrectionsDrunk and DisorderlyDrunk DrivingUnderage Drinking |
Author: Levin, Marc A. Title: Work Release: Con Job or Big Payoff for Texas? Summary: This publication explains how the “promise of work release, as it provides a means for individuals whose criminal activity has imposed costs on victims and taxpayers [effectively acts] to off set some of those expenses while at the same time advancing their own reentry into society as productive taxpayers who support their families” (p. 1). Sections following a summary of recommendations include: introduction; what work release is; how work release is employed in Texas in community corrections facilities, in transitional treatment centers, and other Texas work release-related programs past and present; work release delivers positive results—the Texas experience and the national experience; recommendations in detail; and conclusion. The use of transitional treatment centers saves $15.40 in costs per inmate per day or about $5,600 per inmate per year. Details: Austin, TX: Center for Effective Justice, Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2008. 16p. Source: Policy Perspective: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2012 at http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2008-04-PP11-workrelease-ml.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2008-04-PP11-workrelease-ml.pdf Shelf Number: 124230 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCriminal Justice AdministrationWork Release (Texas) |
Author: Clark, Rebecca Title: Process Evaluation of Manchester and Salford Intensive Alternatives to Custody Pilot Summary: The Intensive Alternatives to Custody (IAC) order was introduced to provide a credible alternative to a short custodial sentence. The order, based on emerging desistance and compliance theories (McNeil, 2009; Bottoms, 2002), was designed to punish and rehabilitate through the application of Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA) order requirements alongside additional services. The Manchester and Salford IAC pilot ran for two years, from April 2009 to March 2011. The order was co-designed and co-commissioned across the public, private and voluntary sectors, and thus offered the opportunity to pilot an innovative approach to local commissioning and integrated service delivery. A co-located, dedicated resource of Offender Managers (OMs) and partner agency staff operated from a site in Manchester City centre. Partner staff included employment focussed mentors (Work Solutions), a family support worker (Partners of Prisoners) and Group 4 Security (G4S) outreach staff to support compliance. The Manchester model was targeted at 18–25 year old men at risk of a short custodial sentence (often due to breach of previous community sentences). Offenders sentenced to an IAC order received a 12 month Community Order with between three and five requirements. During the first three months of the order, contact between the offender and the OM was intensive, with up to four appointments a week. These reduced over the course of the order. The requirements included: Supervision Curfew Community Payback Offending behaviour programmes Attendance centre Activity requirements (to deliver employment and victim awareness interventions, amongst others) The process evaluation of the Manchester and Salford IAC pilot was commissioned by the MoJ in April 2009.1 The key aims were to critically assess: The design and implementation of the IAC order; The process of identifying suitable offenders; The role of pre-sentence reports (PSRs); The views of court stakeholders on the viability of IAC as an alternative to short-term custody; The management and supervision of IAC offenders; The work undertaken to sustain motivation and secure compliance on the IAC order; and, The role of interagency work in the delivery of the IAC order. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2012. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Suimmary 6/12: Accessed July 30, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/process-evaluation-manchester-salford-iac-pilot.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/process-evaluation-manchester-salford-iac-pilot.pdf Shelf Number: 125794 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (U.K.)Community CorrectionsIntensive Supervision |
Author: Wong, Kevin Title: Process Evaluation of Derbyshire Intensive Alternatives to Custody Pilot Summary: The Derbyshire Intensive Alternatives to Custody pilot ran from 2008 to 2011 to test the use of intensive community orders to divert offenders from short-term custodial sentences. The pilot was delivered through dedicated Offender Managers (OMs) in Derby City, and through OMs with wider caseloads in rural Derbyshire county. IAC orders targeted offenders at risk of short-term custody and represented a repackaging of existing and new requirements, which aimed to both punish and rehabilitate. The Derbyshire IAC model consisted of five mandatory requirements: electronic curfew; twice-weekly probation supervision; intensive unpaid work; weekly mentoring contact; and monthly court reviews (for the first three months). In addition, other requirements such as Thinking Skills programmes were sometimes included along with prohibited activity and exclusions requirements.1 Derbyshire was unique among the pilots for including curfews for all IAC offenders and paid mentoring. The order was characterised by three stages, defined by levels of contact and intensity which reduced over the (normally) 12 months order. The process evaluation of the Derbyshire IAC pilot was commissioned by the MoJ in December 2008.2 The key aims were to critically assess: resourcing and staffing; the process of identifying suitable IAC offenders; the role of pre-sentence reports; views of sentencers on the viability of IAC as an alternative to short-term custody; the management and supervision of IAC offenders, including mentors, interventions and activities; and, factors influencing compliance with an IAC order; and the role of inter-agency working in the delivery of the IAC order. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2012. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Summary 7/12: Accessed July 30, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/process-evaluation-derbs-iac-pilot.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/process-evaluation-derbs-iac-pilot.pdf Shelf Number: 125795 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (U.K.)Community CorrectionsIntensive Supervision |
Author: American Probation and Parole Association Title: Hardcore Drunk Driving Community Supervision Guide: A Resource Outlining Probation & Parole Challenges, Effective Strategies and Model Programs Summary: The American Probation and Parole Association and the Century Council convened a group of community supervision and corrections experts to develop the “Hardcore Drunk Driving Community Supervision Guide: A Resource for Outlining Supervision Challenges, Effective Strategies, and Model Programs.” This guide combines the latest in evidenced-based supervision practices with treatment strategies known to work with alcohol involved and DUI/DWI offenders. The advisory group assembled to develop this guide began by identifying what would educate and benefit the community corrections field. To that end, the group identified supervision challenges, and where applicable possible solutions to those challenges, promising practices working in their jurisdictions, and an array of resources for community corrections practitioners and administrators to turn to for additional information and guidance. What is meant by saying that someone is supervised in the community? It means that probation and/or parole officers using a combined approach involving surveillance, treatment, and accountability, enforce the court ordered rules and sentencing meted out to the offenders. Details: Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association; Arlington, VA: Century Council, 2012. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 30, 2012 at: http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/materials/HCDD-Community-Supervision-Guide.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/materials/HCDD-Community-Supervision-Guide.pdf Shelf Number: 125799 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsCommunity-based CorrectionsDriving Under the Influence (U.S.)Drunk DrivingParoleProbation |
Author: Kane, Michael Title: Exploring the Role of Responsivity and Assessment with Hispanic and American Indian Offenders Summary: This report presents findings from an exploration of cultural responsivity in risk and needs assessment in community corrections agencies. As risk and needs assessment becomes more popular in community corrections, more researchers have begun to study issues involving the specific characteristics of offenders and how they interact with assessment and programming to impact outcomes, a concept commonly known as responsivity. In particular, two cultural groups were selected for study: Hispanics and American Indians. Initial plans for the current project involved the development of a new tool or ‘trailer’ for use in assessing Hispanic and American Indian populations. In the early stages of the project, however, the project team and its advisors determined that the creation of a new tool would be premature. Instead, the project focused efforts on: 1) describing current practices in assessing and working with Hispanic and American Indian offenders; 2) determining how well current assessment tools and practices predict recidivism for these offender groups; and 3) suggesting ways to improve tools and practices to make them more culturally competent and responsive. The report that follows will describe assessment and cultural responsivity, describe current practices in culturally responsive assessment, and detail the findings of research activities including data analysis and focus groups. Chapter 1 provides a literature review on the topic of risk assessment and culture. This section will describe the evolution of risk assessment in community corrections, summarize research on evidence-based practices, describe the Hispanic and American Indian populations in the United States and their context in corrections systems nationwide, suggest a model for understanding cultural competency, and describe some popular risk and needs assessment tools. Chapter 2 provides information on a Roundtable of assessment and corrections experts and results from a national survey of probation and parole agencies. The chapter describes the project team’s understanding of the current state of community corrections practice in assessing and supervising American Indian and Hispanic offenders. Chapter 3 summarizes findings from discussions with experts in Hispanic and American Indian culture and focus groups conducted with community corrections staff and Hispanic and American Indian offenders in five sites. Based on this feedback, the project team provides recommendations for improving assessment practices. Focus groups addressed cultural and linguistic barriers in supervision and assessment, specific cultural factors that may impact the scoring of risk and needs assessment, cultural competency during the assessment process, cultural competency training available to officers and supervisors, and suggestions for improving supervision and assessment with Hispanic and American Indian offenders. Chapter 4 presents findings from analysis of assessment and outcome data provided by five community corrections agencies and provides recommendations for improving the effectiveness of assessment tools. Predictive validity analysis was conducted for each site, and a combined analysis examining whether Hispanic and American Indian offenders are scoring differently on risk assessments compared to other offenders, and if agency-level cultural competency practices result in reductions in recidivism. Details: Boston: Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice, 2011. 113p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 27, 2012 at: https://www.bja.gov/Publications/CRJ_Role_of_Responsivity.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://www.bja.gov/Publications/CRJ_Role_of_Responsivity.pdf Shelf Number: 126118 Keywords: American Indian OffendersCommunity CorrectionsHispanic OffendersOffender SupervisionParoleesProbationersRisk Assessment |
Author: DeMichele, Matthew T. Title: Community Supervision Workload Considerations for Public Safety Summary: Supported by a grant awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the American Probation and Parole Association developed the report Community Supervision Workload Considerations for Public Safety discussing the dilemma of managing officer time amidst an array of tasks, constraining resources, and high caseloads. Two tools are provided within the document; 1) workload matrices that provide agencies with estimated time ranges for specific tasks officers complete classified by risk level and case type (e.g., domestic violence, sex offender), and 2) a time study template to assist agencies in conducting their own examination of officer workload. Details: Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association, 2011. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 1, 2013 at: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/APPA/pubs/CSWCFPS.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/APPA/pubs/CSWCFPS.pdf Shelf Number: 127755 Keywords: Caseload ManagementCommunity CorrectionsOffender SupervisionParole OfficersProbation Officers |
Author: West Yorkshire National Probation Services' Cocker, Sarah Title: Using Reconviction Data to Explore the Usefulness of Community Penalties in West Yorkshire Summary: • This study is based on two samples of offenders. The first (Community Penalties) comprised 343 offenders sentenced to a Community Punishment Order, a Community Rehabilitation Order, or a Community Punishment and Rehabilitation Order. The second sample (Comparison) consisted of 215 cases that had a proposal for one of the three community penalties in their Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) but who received a lesser sentence at court (i.e. no period of supervision by the probation service). • The two samples were not found to be well matched in terms of age, risk of reconviction (OGRS), and index offence. The samples were also taken from differing time periods. This makes it difficult to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of West Yorkshire community penalties based on this data alone. • The actual reconviction rate for the Community Penalties sample was 45.2%; this is 0.3% higher than the predicted rate of 44.9%. In contrast, the actual reconviction rate for the Comparison sample was 31.6%; this is 5.5% lower than the predicted rate of 37.1%. • The actual reconviction rate for the Community Penalties group was 8.1% lower than the recent national figures for community sentences (53.3%). The two studies used different counting methods and are therefore not directly comparable. • Those who were reconvicted in both the Community Penalties and Comparison samples tended to be younger and had higher predicted reconviction rates than those who did not re-offend. • Younger offenders were also found to have higher actual reconviction rates than older offenders in both samples. Offenders aged between 16-20 years had actual reconviction rates of 65.4% (Community Penalties sample) and 63.6% (Comparison sample) whilst offenders in the 35+ age bracket had reconviction rates of 19.2% and 20.3% respectively. • Analysis of reconviction rates by risk band (OGRS) showed that the reconviction rate increased with each risk band. For example, cases with an OGRS score between 0-25 had reconviction rates of 14.0% (Community Penalties) and 11.4% (Comparison) compared to reconviction rates of 83.8% and 77.8% respectively for cases with OGRS scores between 76-100. This suggests that OGRS is a useful predictor of risk of reconviction for both samples. • Cases with index offences of an ‘acquisitive’ nature had the highest reconviction rates in both the Community Penalties (68.4%) and Comparison (50%) samples. • Cases with a Community Punishment Order (CPO) had the lowest reconviction rates (33.8%) of those in the Community Penalties sample. Those with a Community Rehabilitation Order (CRO) had the highest rate (57.9%) whilst those with a Community Punishment & Rehabilitation Order (CPRO) had a reconviction rate of 36.4%. This rate is lower than anticipated although this may be due to the small number of cases with a CPRO and should be used with caution. • Reconviction rates for those who did and did not complete their community order were significantly different; the reconviction rate for those who completed was 33.2% (n=76) compared to a reconviction rate of 70.3% (n=71) for those who did not complete. However, those who completed their order had a much lower predicted reconviction rate (38.6%) than those who did not complete (59%). • In terms of first re-offence, a larger proportion (+12.4%) of cases that did not complete their community order committed an offence which was of a more serious nature than those who completed their order (47.9% compared to 35.5% respectively). • By the six month stage, 23% of the Community Penalties sample had been reconvicted of an offence and 52% of those who were reconvicted within the two year period had already done so. By 12 months 35% of the sample had been reconvicted and 77% of those who were reconvicted had already done so. • In contrast, by the six month stage, 16% of the Comparison sample had been reconvicted and 51% of those who were reconvicted in this sample had done so by this stage. By 12 months, 22% of the Comparison sample had been reconvicted and 69% of the Comparison sample who were reconvicted had done so by this stage. These findings suggest that the first few months after sentence are critical in terms of reducing the risk of further reconviction. • A larger proportion of the Comparison sample (52.9%, n=66) were convicted of only one offence within two-years compared to the Community Penalties sample (42.6%, n=36). Similar proportions of offenders in the Community Penalties (40%, n=62) and Comparison samples (38.2%, n=26) had two, three or four reconvictions within two-years. However, a much larger proportion (17.4%, n=27) of offenders in the Community Penalties sample had between 5 & 11 reconvictions compared to the Comparison sample (8.8%, n=6). Details: Wakefield, UK: National Probation Service (West Yorkshire), 2006. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 3, 2013 at: http://www.westyorksprobation.org.uk Year: 2006 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.westyorksprobation.org.uk Shelf Number: 127818 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsCommunity PenaltiesProbationersRecidivismReconviction (U.K.) |
Author: McPhillips, Stuart Title: "I Wanted to Make it Work" - Knowledge and Experience from Probation Practice Changes Summary: The years from 1998 to 2010 were a prolific period for policy initiatives in community corrections. From ‘what works’ initiatives to intensive supervision schemes, performance targets to ‘modernisation’, major policy initiatives sought to reshape practice. What was their real impact on practice? How did probation staff experience those changes? What contributed to success or failure? In this initial study, the team focussed on the experience of three key ‘communities of practice’– practice staff, middle and senior managers in six Probation Trusts. Their accounts, analysed using qualitative research methodology, provide fascinating insights into the real world experience of management and practice. Their learning is relevant to all involved in policy development and implementation in community corrections. Key points from the report include: 1. Successful change strategies engage and mobilise the contribution of positive staff. A devolved approach to national changes enables local leadership and high staff engagement. 2. Tensions for practitioners and managers arose from resource and cost awareness and management which were not well developed. 3. Probation staff who were directly involved with partners were positive about that experience and worked through differences - cultural, ethical or arising from different ‘ways of working’. 4. Performance targets focus attention and priority but sometimes impact negatively on practice. For only a minority of developments were the fundamentals of sound project management in place. 5. Most changes were not subject to research or evaluation, robust monitoring or capture of lessons learned – key features of evidence-informed practice. Many staff did offer positive evidence of the impact of the work and were keen to share learning and experience. Details: Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Hallam University, Hallam Centre for Community Justice, 2012. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 18, 2013 at: http://www.cjp.org.uk/publications/academic/i-wanted-to-make-it-work-knowledge-and-experience-from-probation-practice-changes/ Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cjp.org.uk/publications/academic/i-wanted-to-make-it-work-knowledge-and-experience-from-probation-practice-changes/ Shelf Number: 129027 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCriminal Justice PolicyProbation (U.K.)Probation Officers |
Author: Irish Penal Reform Trust Title: Women in the Criminal Justice System: Towards a Non-Custodial Approach Summary: The IPRT Position Paper 10: Women in the Criminal Justice System - Towards a non-custodial approach includes an account of recent trends in the imprisonment of women in Ireland. It goes on to look at the complex range of needs experienced by many women convicted of an offence and the associated overuse of remand for women offenders. It then discusses the issues faced by women in prison who have caring responsibilities, followed by a section on challenges faced by women leaving prison. Key Messages - The number and proportion of women in the Irish prison population has increased significantly in recent years. Most women are committed to prison for non-violent offences, such as non-payment of fines. Consequences have included overcrowding in women's prisons and an overuse of temporary release. - Women offenders tend to come from a background of social disadvantage and poverty, and often suffer from mental health problems, substance dependency, accommodation problems and poor family relationships. These issues can make it difficult for women to adhere to bail conditions, which has led to an overuse of remand for women offenders. This in turn has negative implications for children of women who are imprisoned on remand and the employment prospects of these women. - A high proportion of women in prison have children. Women also play an important role in caring for dependent relatives. Women who are imprisoned can no longer fulfil their caring responsibilities and the consequences of this can be significant. This is particularly an issue for mothers with babies, due to the absence of a mother and baby unit in either female prison in Ireland. - Women face a range of problems on being released from prison, relating to housing, accommodation and stability, and over half of women prisoners reoffend. - Developments in the UK have reflected a growing acknowledgement of the value of non-custodial alternatives and community-based supports for women offenders. This has also been highlighted by the UN, in the 'Bangkok Rules', which have informed the Irish Inspector of Prisons on the subject of women prisoners. - The 'one-stop-shop' approach to supporting women offenders in the community takes a holistic approach, with a range of supports and services provided in one location. A number of centres in the UK are based on this promising model. In Ireland, the Tus Nua project provides supported housing and other supports to women leaving the Dochas Centre. - This position paper makes two key recommendations: that a non-custodial approach should be adopted for women offenders; and in the few cases where prison is necessary, the negative impact of imprisonment on the women and those they care for should be minimised. The next section details developments in the UK and prison standards that reflect an increasing acknowledgement of the value of a community-based approach to dealing with women offenders. This is followed by an overview of some emerging models of good practice, followed by conclusions and two key recommendations. Details: Dublin: Irish Penal Reform Trust, 2013. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: IPRT Position Paper 10: Accessed March 14, 2014 at: http://www.iprt.ie/files/IPRT_Position_Paper_on_Women_in_the_Criminal_Justice_System.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Ireland URL: http://www.iprt.ie/files/IPRT_Position_Paper_on_Women_in_the_Criminal_Justice_System.pdf Shelf Number: 131924 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationChildren of PrisonersCommunity Based CorrectionsCommunity CorrectionsFemale InmatesFemale OffendersWomen Inmates |
Author: Field-Pimm, Melanie Title: Parenting Status of Community Correctional Clients: Informing Service Planning Summary: No single agency or government department routinely collects data about the parental status of offenders or the characteristics or needs of offenders' families and children. This lack of hard data is partly responsible for difficulties in planning and targeting of services. More broadly, the lack of data prevents rational discussion of this issue. As a result, the population of parents, children and families is 'unmonitored, under-researched and unsupported by the statutory sector' (Murray, 2007:55). In response, this paper recommends a planned approach for informed service delivery aimed at improving the family circumstances of offenders who are also parents in Victoria. The data collected in this project represents a first step towards this planning. The Victorian Correctional System itself already has a number of responses in place for offenders who are parents. These include the Springhill Unit in Marngoneet Correctional Centre (designed to provide a targeted parenting program for fathers), the Mother & Baby Units in the Women's Prisons, and The Family Support Service at Dame Phyllis Frost Centre. Community based organisations offer a myriad of individual services. However these are i) ad hoc and ii) connected to correctional centres rather than the community correctional system. Partly as a result of recent legislative changes to the application of Parole in Victoria coming into effect as of September 2013, the number of parole breaches has increased. It is anticipated that this will significantly impact on families, particularly when the offender is a parent and is moving through or back to a period of incarceration due to the breach. Details: Melbourne: Victorian Association for the Care & Resettlement of Offenders, 2014. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2014 at: http://www.vacro.org.au/Portals/0/PDF/Research/Publications/Parenting%20Status%20of%20Community%20Correctional%20Clients.2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: http://www.vacro.org.au/Portals/0/PDF/Research/Publications/Parenting%20Status%20of%20Community%20Correctional%20Clients.2014.pdf Shelf Number: 132380 Keywords: Children of Prisoners (Australia)Community CorrectionsFamilies of InmatesParolees |
Author: Meredith, Tammy Title: Ramsey County Proxy Tool Norming & Validation Results Summary: A Ramsey County (St. Paul, Minnesota) work team consisting of the Sheriff, City District Attorney, local pretrial services and the Center for Effective Public Policy in collaboration with Applied Research Services (ARS) conducted a Proxy assessment norming and validation study with support from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC). The Proxy is three-question screening instrument used to triage community corrections populations for the purpose of moving those at low risk to minimum supervision without further assessment. The Ramsey County team identified a random sample of 200 misdemeanor cases processed through the city court in 2008 and determined who was subsequently re-arrested in a three-year follow up period. A data collection form was completed on each case by the City District Attorney staff and warrants clerks at the Sheriff's Office (see appendix). That data collection effort relied upon a file review followed by an official criminal history inquiry to answer demographic, offense and criminal history questions, to include the three Proxy assessment questions. The Proxy norming and validation followed the recommended steps of Bogue, Woodward and Joplin (2006). Results indicate that the Proxy as currently scored identifies half of the sample as low risk and does not perform better than chance at predicting re-arrest for those low risk offenders. The normed reclassification allows for more efficient distribution of resources and improved prediction of re-arrest. Details: Atlanta, GA: Applied Research Services, Inc., 2014. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 9, 2014 at https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/028095.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/028095.pdf Shelf Number: 132424 Keywords: Community CorrectionsRecidivismRisk AssessmentRisk Assessment Instruments |
Author: Phelps, Michelle S. Title: Mass Probation: Toward a More Robust Theory of State Variation in Punishment Summary: Scholarship on the expansion of the criminal justice system in the U.S. has almost exclusively focused on imprisonment, investigating why some states lead the world in incarceration rates while others have restrained growth. Yet for most states, the predominant form of punishment is probation, and many seemingly progressive states supervise massive numbers of adults on community supervision. Drawing on Bureau of Justice Statistics data from 1980 and 2010, I analyze this expansion of mass probation and develop a typology of control regimes that theorizes both the scale and type of formal punishment states employ. The results demonstrate that mass probation rearranges scholars' conclusions about the causes and consequences of the penal state. Details: Unpublished paper, 2014. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 1, 2014 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2476051 Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2476051 Shelf Number: 133534 Keywords: Community CorrectionsMass ImprisonmentMass IncarcerationProbation (U.S.)Punishment |
Author: Schaefer, Lacey Title: Environmental Corrections: Making Offender Supervision Work Summary: With nearly five million offenders under community correctional supervision, the time has come to seriously question the efficacy of probation and parole. In terms of resource expenditures, public safety, recidivism reduction, and offender outcomes, there is ample room for improvement. Unfortunately, most current offender supervision practices are of limited value. The balance of treatment and control espoused by most community corrections agencies is ineffective, often resulting in nothing more than bureaucratic case management. Moreover, both of these models of probation and parole as practiced are largely defunct. In the first instance, efforts to reduce offender propensity often fail to adopt the principles of effective correctional intervention. In the second, efforts to deter offenders from misbehaving have produced little more than an increase in technical violations of supervision conditions. Accordingly, a new framework for probation and parole supervision is sorely needed. Determining how to reduce recidivism among community-supervised offenders leads us to consider why criminal acts occur. The answer is that two conditions must be present: An individual must have the propensity to offend and must also have the opportunity to offend. A considerable amount of research has been dedicated to discovering the criminogenic needs that must be targeted for change in order to reduce criminal propensity. By contrast, relatively little is known about what offender supervisors might do to reduce the crime opportunities of probationers and parolees. Notably, Cullen, Eck, and Lowenkamp (2002) propose that environmental criminology can help guide the development of innovative strategies that limit supervisees' chances to offend. They reconceptualize probation and parole supervision as "environmental corrections," a model in which officers would work to enhance the informal social control offenders are subject to, reduce offenders' access to crime opportunities, and restructure offenders' routine activities with prosocial influences. The aim of this dissertation is to elaborate on these ideas, developing a new strategy for offender supervision that is based on opportunity reduction. In so doing, the following roadmap is taken. Chapter 1 outlines the drawbacks of current probation and parole practices, demonstrating the limited effectiveness of existing treatment and control orientations to offender supervision. Chapter 2 introduces the components of environmental criminology, discussing how the advances of crime science have produced practical programs that reduce crime opportunities. Chapter 3 applies these theories to offender supervision, discussing strategies for preventing probationers and parolees from encountering situations where there are high-risk chances to commit crime. Chapter 4 presents assessment technologies for community corrections officers to use in discerning where, when, why, and with whom offenders commit crimes, developing methods for using this information to reduce the actual crime opportunities of supervisees. Chapter 5 demonstrates how cognitive-behavioral techniques can be used to help probationers and parolees recognize, avoid, and resist available chances to offend. Chapter 6 identifies how community corrections authorities can partner with the police to further limit supervisees' crime opportunities. In closing, Chapter 7 features eight lessons learned from the current elaboration of environmental corrections supervision that can help to make probation and parole work Details: Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati, 2013. 293p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed May 6, 2015 at: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap/10?0::NO:10:P10_ACCESSION_NUM:ucin1377875062 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap/10?0::NO:10:P10_ACCESSION_NUM:ucin1377875062 Shelf Number: 135528 Keywords: Community CorrectionsOffender SupervisionParoleParolees (U.S.)ProbationProbationers (U.S.)Recidivism |
Author: Burke, Cynthia Title: Smart Probation: A Study of the San Diego County Probation Department's Application of Evidence-Based Practices Summary: The passage of Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109), also known as Public Safety Realignment California, shifted the supervision, housing, and rehabilitation of certain offenders (whose most recent conviction was for a nonviolent and non-serious offense) from state prison and parole to local jurisdictions. In response to this monumental change in the criminal justice system, San Diego County created a realignment plan that was structured around Evidence-Based Practices (EBP). In support of this commitment to EBP, the San Diego County Probation Department applied for, and was awarded, a Smart Probation grant from the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance in September 2012 to support continued implementation of evidence-based supervision to ensure fidelity to its EBP-based model. The grant funded a supervisor-level EBP peer coach and mentor to work with supervisors and line staff in the Post Release Offender (PRO) division. The following are the four primary project goals implemented through the Smart grant: 1. Support EBP leadership capacity in the PRO Division management team. 2. Implement a supervision model. 3. Provide access to appropriate intervention services. 4. Collaborate with justice partners to improve the criminal justice system. To assist Probation in measuring its adoption of EBP in the PRO Division, the Criminal Justice Research Division of SANDAG was contracted to evaluate how effectively and to what extent Probation implemented the four project goals. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS - Supervising Probation Officers (SPOs) and Deputy Probation Officers (DPOs) in Probation's PRO Division who participated in focus groups viewed Probation's EBP as the standard operating procedure, but noted that IBIS and EBP training have made it more formalized. - EBP was viewed by SPOs and DPOs as effective for supervising most offenders. Offenders with severe mental health issues or criminogenic traits were the exception. - A review of the COMPAS assessments revealed that almost nine in ten offenders had been assessed. On average, there were fewer than three discrepancies per case and even fewer discrepancies in more recent assessments. - An assessment of how well offender case plans were done indicated that information regarding the offender's greatest needs was included and offenders were generally included in the goal-setting process. - Incentives and sanctions most often included verbal accolades, revocation, and verbal warnings. Sixty percent of PRCS offenders received a flash incarceration, a one to ten day custody sanction for a probation violation. - Average ratings of DPO's use of IBIS during interactions with offenders suggest that POs are implementing these skills with proficiency. - Based on survey results, offenders reported positive feelings regarding the relationship with their DPO. Details: San Diego: SANDAG, 2015. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 3, 2015 at: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1951_19203.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1951_19203.pdf Shelf Number: 134249 Keywords: Community CorrectionsEvidence-Based PracticesOffender SupervisionProbationProbation OfficersProbationersPublic Safety Realignment California |
Author: Western Australia. Office of the Auditor General Title: Implementing and Managing Community Based Sentences Summary: Background Community Based Orders and Intensive Supervision Orders are available to the courts for sentencing convicted off enders and are served in the community. They were established as part of a sentencing hierarchy by the Sentencing Act 1995. They are a low cost sentencing option, currently costing the State $12 per day per off ender as compared to $180 per day for imprisonment. They were expected to contribute to reducing imprisonment rates and to enable the punitive and rehabilitative aspects of sentences to be more effective. In 2000 nearly 4000 such sentences were issued to both first time offenders and repeat offenders who had been convicted of a variety of offences from robbery to drink driving offences. What the examination found... Western Australia's imprisonment rate continues to be higher than that of most States and Territories. About 60 per cent of Community Based Orders and about 50 per cent of Intensive Supervision Orders issued each year are completed. These completion rates are lower than those for most other states and territories. Off enders assessed as having a high risk of re-off ending have a lower completion rate (42 per cent) than other off enders (70 per cent). The Ministry of Justice does not have a comprehensive strategy for rehabilitating off enders and the rehabilitative effects of the sentences are not known. The management of treatment programs, the main ingredient for rehabilitating off enders is ad hoc and inconsistent with little or no coordination of the internal and external program providers. Case management is not achieving its objective of being an integrated process for managing offenders. Although the Ministry collects a variety of information about offenders this information is not always analysed and utilized in planning services to enable more targeted service provision. Both the overall number of offenders on these orders, as well as the proportion of high-risk offenders, has increased since the Sentencing Act was implemented without any review of resourcing. Managing offenders is a specialised function that requires considerable experience for effective service provision. Many Community Corrections Officers employed on short-term contracts, are inexperienced and carry heavy caseloads. There is a risk that inexperienced staff can make poor judgements, which could impact negatively on the off ender and the community. While there are a plethora of processes, practices and programs in the management of offenders, the Ministry does not regularly evaluate them. Therefore, it is not known whether these processes, practices and programs benefit or hinder their management. What the examination recommended... Major recommendations made in the report are that: The Ministry of Justice should: Systematically collect and evaluate information about the characteristics of offenders to enable more informed planning. Develop a comprehensive rehabilitation strategy for offenders in the community. Define the aims of rehabilitation and develop and implement appropriate performance indicators to assess the rehabilitative benefits of orders. Regularly review resource allocations in relation to the demands presented by the changing characteristics of offenders. Evaluate their services regularly with a view to ensuring their appropriateness and effectiveness. -- Develop and implement a human resource management plan that ensures a stable and well-trained workforce. Identify and endorse appropriate benchmarks for the workloads of Community Correction Officers and other staff to enable meaningful development performance measures for their work. Details: Perth: Western Australia Auditor General, 2001. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Report No. 3: Accessed August 26, 2015 at: https://audit.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/report2001_03.pdf Year: 2001 Country: Australia URL: https://audit.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/report2001_03.pdf Shelf Number: 136591 Keywords: Community Based CorrectionsCommunity CorrectionsCosts of CorrectionsIntensive SupervisionOffender ManagementOffender Supervision |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: U.S. Parole Commission: Number of Offenders under Its Jurisdiction Has Declined; Transferring Its Jurisdiction for D.C. Offenders Would Pose Challenges Summary: USPC was established in 1976, in part to carry out a national parole policy that would govern the release of offenders to community supervision prior to completing their full custody sentences. USPCs budget is just over $13 million for fiscal year 2015. Over time, changes in laws have abolished parole and introduced supervised release - a new form of post-incarceration supervision. As a result, USPC has been reauthorized and has authority to grant and revoke parole for eligible federal and D.C. offenders and to revoke supervised release for D.C. offenders violating the terms of their release. USPC'[s current authorization is set to expire in 2018. This report addresses (1) changes in the number of offenders under USPC's jurisdiction from fiscal years 2002 through 2014 and (2) the organizational characteristics needed for an entity to feasibly assume jurisdiction of D.C. offenders from USPC, and the feasibility and implications of such a transfer. GAO analyzed USPC data on federal and D.C. offenders from fiscal years 2002-2014 - the most recent years for which reliable data were available - as well as DOJ reports on USPC and USPC policies, and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. GAO also discussed with USPC and some of its criminal justice partners the feasibility of transferring USPC's jurisdiction for D.C. offenders and any related challenges. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2015. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-15-359: Accessed September 21, 2015 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670509.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670509.pdf Shelf Number: 135913 Keywords: Community CorrectionsOffender SupervisionParoleParole RevocationParolees |
Author: Andersen, Signe Hald Title: Serving time or serving the community? Exploiting a policy reform to assess the causal effects of community service on income, social benefit dependency and recidivism Summary: There is a widespread belief among criminologists, judges and the like that criminals are better off serving non-custodial sentences instead of going to prison. However, empirical evidence of the effects of community service is scarce. This paper exploits a policy reform that implemented the use of community service as punishment among specific groups of criminals in order to assess the causal effect of community service on post-sentence income, dependency on social benefits, and crime. Details: Copenhagen, Denmark: Rockwool Foundation Research Unit and University Press of Southern Denmark, 2012. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Study Paper No. 37: Accessed September 21, 2015 at: http://www.rockwoolfonden.dk/publications/law+of+the+land/publication?id=1603 Year: 2012 Country: Denmark URL: http://www.rockwoolfonden.dk/publications/law+of+the+land/publication?id=1603 Shelf Number: 124696 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsCommunity ServiceCommunity-Based CorrectionsRecidivism |
Author: RMIT University Title: Evaluation of the Redevelopment of Community Correctional Services: Final Report Summary: Community corrections in Victoria instigated the Corrections Long Term Management Strategy (CLTMS) in 2001.The Reducing Re-offending Strategy was a component of CLTMS and was designed to guide correctional policy and practice over the next decade. A major feature of the Reducing Re-offending Strategy was the Redevelopment of Community Correctional Services (CCS). Within the available funding, 42.3 million dollars was allocated to the Redevelopment of Community Correctional Services. The Redevelopment was initiated to strengthen the capacity of Community Correctional Services to manage offenders and to reduce the number of prison beds. There were three compelling reasons that this was necessary: - The prison system was under enormous pressure due to a dramatic rise in prison numbers; - There was a financial imperative to expand community corrections as a more cost effective alternative to prison and there was a need for a greater range of sentencing options; - There was a growing evidence base that community correctional services had more potential to assist offender rehabilitation and reduce re-offending than a custodial sentence. A key indicator of success was an increase in substitution from prison to community based correctional services with an anticipated reduction of 350 prison beds over the four year period of implementation. The intended longer term outcome of the implementation of Redevelopment was a reduction in re-offending. Details: Melbourne: RMIT University, 2005. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 25, 2016 at: https://assets.justice.vic.gov.au/corrections/resources/19ef8778-54fe-4660-b203-6dfa1ec7d33e/evaluation_redevelopment_community_correctional_services_final_report.pdf Year: 2005 Country: Australia URL: https://assets.justice.vic.gov.au/corrections/resources/19ef8778-54fe-4660-b203-6dfa1ec7d33e/evaluation_redevelopment_community_correctional_services_final_report.pdf Shelf Number: 137974 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsCommunity-Based CorrectionsOffender RehabilitationRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Manitoba Office of the Auditor General Title: Managing the Province's Adult Offenders Summary: The Department of Justice manages approximately 10,000 adult offenders. About 24% are in provincial correctional centres; the other 76% are supervised in the community. We examined how adequately the Department managed adult correctional centre capacity, adult offenders in the community, adult rehabilitation programs, and related public performance reporting. We found that the Department's management of its adult correctional centre capacity was inadequate for its long-term needs. Although it had increased capacity by 52% since 2008, overcrowding in centres was on-going; offender population forecasts were not always reliable; there was no comprehensive long-term capital plan to address either the forecast bed shortfall or the deterioration in aging correctional centre infrastructure; and initiatives to help reduce bed demand required greater attention. There were also problems in managing adult offenders in the community. While the Department had a number of policies in this area, we found that offenders were not always adequately supervised; their rehabilitation plans needed improvement; supervisors were not regularly reviewing staff's work to ensure it complied with standards; and management had reduced offender supervision standards in 3 regions to resolve workload issues. In addition, there were gaps in planning and monitoring adult rehabilitation programs, and limited public information provided on how well the Department was managing its adult offenders. Taken together, these issues affected the Department's contribution to public safety and reduced the likelihood of successful offender rehabilitation. Details: Winnipeg, MB: Office of the Auditor General, 2014. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 21, 2016 at: http://www.oag.mb.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Chapter-6-Managing-the-Provinces-Adult-Offenders-Web.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Canada URL: http://www.oag.mb.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Chapter-6-Managing-the-Provinces-Adult-Offenders-Web.pdf Shelf Number: 138359 Keywords: Adult OffendersCommunity CorrectionsCorrectional AdministrationInmatesOffender SupervisionPrisonersPrisonsRehabilitation Programs |
Author: Hawken, Angela Title: Washington Intensive Supervision Program: Evaluation Report. Draft. Summary: The Washington Intensive Supervision Program (WISP) is a pilot project designed to determine whether the principles of effective community supervision - clear rules, close monitoring, and swift and certain, but not severe, penalties for each violation - can succeed with a group of parolees of diverse risk levels in Seattle. WISP includes offenders with longer and more serious criminal histories than is typical of HOPE probationers in Honolulu, which provides an opportunity to test HOPE-style sanctioning on higher-risk offenders. Program fidelity to date has been extraordinarily high, and both individual performances and the level of coordination within DOC staff have been exemplary. Parolees appear to have a clear understanding of the program and are, for the most part, successfully adjusting their behavior to the new environment. Non-compliance has been consistently sanctioned. The workload burden, especially on the CCO dedicated to the program, was very high at first, but has begun to ease. While more time and additional data collection will be required before a comprehensive evaluation can be conducted, evidence so far points toward a successfully implemented program and positive outcomes. Key findings from the outcomes evaluation show that, compared with control subjects, WISP subjects experienced: Reduced drug use Reduced incarceration Reduced criminal activity However, WISP subjects were more likely to be the subjects of bench warrants. A longer followup period is needed for a reliable assessment of the costs of WISP compared with routine supervision, but the reductions in incarceration and criminal activity suggest that WISP will likely yield sizable savings. Details: Unpublished report, 2011. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2016 at: http://clerk.seattle.gov/~public/meetingrecords/2011/cbriefing20111212_4a.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://clerk.seattle.gov/~public/meetingrecords/2011/cbriefing20111212_4a.pdf Shelf Number: 138921 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsCommunity SupervisionIntensive Supervision |
Author: Hamilton, Zachary Title: Evaluation of Washington State Department of Corrections (WADOC) Swift and Certain (SAC) Policy: Process, Outcome and Cost-Benefit Evaluation Summary: In 2012, the Washington State Department of Corrections (WADOC) embarked on an ambitious effort to restructure their community supervision model. These changes were driven by the passage of Senate Bill 6204, which created substantial operating changes to the Community Corrections Division (CCD) of the WADOC, including matching the level of supervision to offender's risk level, utilizing evidence-based treatment and implementing swift and certain (yet moderate) jail sanctions for community supervision violations (Washington State Department of Corrections 2008; 2014). The Swift and Certain (SAC) policy was implemented in May of 2012, with the intent of expanding the HOPE model to a much broader community-based criminal justice population. Primarily, SAC was established to reduce confinement time for sanctions following a violation of supervision conditions. While maintaining a substantial focus on public safety, the Washington SAC program also sought to reduce correctional costs associated with short-term confinement for violation sanctioning. Through support by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (LJAF), researchers at Washington State University (WSU) completed a multi-phase project to examine the implementation process and provide an outcome and cost-benefit evaluation of SAC. Process Evaluation: The purpose and intent of this research is to provide a deeper understanding of the implementation, adoption and use of SAC with over 10,000 offenders across the state of Washington. To complete this evaluation, WSU Researchers conducted the following: 1) a careful document review of policies and procedures, 2) focus groups were conducted with community corrections officers and supervisors (CCOs & CCSs), and 3) community corrections offenders. Over 16 hours of interviews were transcribed, and were then coded to search for common themes and patterns in the data. Interviews were also conducted with numerous WADOC Administrators in order to clarify or gain further insight. Details: Pullman, WA: Washington State University, 2015. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2016 at: http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/cj/gray/searchresults.php Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/cj/gray/searchresults.php Shelf Number: 139516 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCommunity SupervisionCost of CorrectionsCost-Benefit AnalysisDrug CourtsDrug OffendersProbation ViolationsProbationers |
Author: American Friends Service Committee Title: Community Cages: Profitizing community corrections and alternatives to incarceration Summary: As states pursue sentencing reform efforts to reduce prison populations and the federal government continues to grapple with comprehensive immigration reform, the private prison industry faces pressure to adapt to a shifting penal landscape that is moving toward alternatives to incarceration. In response to these developments, the private prison industry began rebranding and expanding into subcontracted prisoner health care, forensic mental health treatment, and other "alternative" programming. In 2014, The American Friends Service Committee, Grassroots Leadership, and the Southern Center for Human Rights identified this emerging trend as the Treatment Industrial Complex (TIC). In the present report, we offer an in-depth analysis of the community corrections segment. Community corrections refers to "front-end" alternatives to incarceration, such as probation, home arrest, diversion programs, and "back-end" reentry programs such as parole, halfway houses, and work release centers. Nearly two-thirds of people involved in the criminal justice system are not held in prison or jail, but are instead monitored via community correction programs. At the end of 2014, more than 4.7 million adults were under probation or parole. For prison corporations such as Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and GEO Group, this represents a huge untapped market for privatization. Smaller companies are also springing up to meet the demand for community corrections programs and related services. In this report, we examine four different components of community corrections that are being aggressively privatized: 1. Electronic monitoring through the use of GPS ankle monitors and other mobile surveillance technology 2. Day reporting centers for individuals to "check in" and/or participate in rehabilitative programs and services 3. Intermediate sanctions facilities as an alternative to revocation to prison for technical violations of the terms of probation or parole 4. Residential reentry centers, more commonly known as halfway houses Details: Tucson: American Friends Service Committee, 2016. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2016 at: https://afscarizona.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/communitycages.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://afscarizona.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/communitycages.pdf Shelf Number: 140316 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsDay ReportingElectronic MonitoringHalfway HousesPrivatization |
Author: Bauer, Erin L. Title: Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Corrections Professionals Summary: Automated kiosk reporting systems have gained popularity in recent years as community supervision agencies strive to provide quality supervision services at reduced costs. This guidebook, which provides community supervision agencies with an overview of automated kiosk reporting systems, is based primarily on the findings of a multi-jurisdiction kiosk study on the use of automated kiosk reporting systems to supervise clients placed under community supervision. The multi-jurisdiction kiosk study was conducted by Westat, an employee-owned research firm in Rockville, Maryland, and funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice (NIJ). This research was designed to gather as much information as possible on automated kiosk reporting systems from the field - i.e., community supervision agencies that were currently using, seriously considered using, or formerly used automated kiosk reporting systems to supervise clients - and to compile and disseminate the information collected to community supervision agencies that may be exploring alternatives to traditional officer supervision. Details: Rockville, MD: Westat, 2015. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 8, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250174.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250174.pdf Shelf Number: 145377 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCommunity Supervision Corrections Technology Kiosk Supervision Offender Supervision Parole Supervision Parolees Probationers |
Author: Kellam, Leslie Title: Analysis of Alternative to Incarceration Program Participants Summary: This information was derived from quarterly tracking logs submitted by Alternative to Incarceration programs who are funded by the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS). These reporting logs must be submitted as a condition of funding to allow program performance and outcomes to be monitored. Records from the tracking logs were matched to DCJS Computerized Criminal History (CCH) records to provide demographic and criminal history information on individuals served. Data shown is for individuals who were discharged from these programs between January 2008 and December 2010. The program data is presented in three categories: New York City, IMPACT Counties, and the rest of the state. IMPACT counties include the following counties outside New York City: Albany, Broome, Chautauqua, Dutchess, Erie, Monroe, Nassau, Oneida, Orange, Rensselaer, Rockland, Schenectady, Suffolk, Ulster, and Westchester. Details: Albany, NY: New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance, 2012. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed November 12, 2016 at: http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/opca/ati2008-2010final.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/opca/ati2008-2010final.pdf Shelf Number: 147328 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity Corrections |
Author: Still, Wendy Title: Building Trust and Legitimacy Within Community Corrections Summary: Over the past three decades, the U.S. incarceration rate has increased to historic highs, while crime rates have dropped significantly. Today, the U.S. incarcerates more people than any other nation in the world. In addition to the 2.3 million people incarcerated in our nation’s jails and prisons, 4 million individuals are on probation or parole at any given time. The individuals on probation and parole — who represent the community corrections system in America — are the largest part of the correctional system. Yet, this aspect of corrections has been largely absent from the national conversation surrounding incarceration rates and criminal justice reform — this despite the fact that community corrections presents the most obvious alternative to incarceration for many and perhaps the best opportunity for reforming the criminal justice system in ways that will promote public safety, efficiency and fairness. Similar to the growth of prison populations during the past three decades, the number of individuals on probation in the United States has also grown. While there were 492 people on probation for every 100,000 U.S. residents in 1980, this figure peaked in 2007 at 1,425, and by 2014 had declined slightly to 1,214 (see figure 1). With nearly 4 million people on probation at any given time, this represents the largest correctional population in the nation. Interestingly, long-term trends in crime rates and arrests for serious offenses should have militated toward a smaller probation population. Arrests for serious offenses are at historic lows, especially for the relatively young. Figures 2 and 3 compare the likelihood of being arrested in 1980 and 2012, by age, for violent and property index offenses. While arrests for violent and property offenses are somewhat higher for individuals over 30, we observe pronounced decreases in arrest rates for younger individuals in the highest risk age ranges. However, arrests for drug offenses are up, way up, for all ages (figure 4) as are overall arrests for non-index crimes (figure 5). On net, the aggregate age-arrest profile changes very little as increases in less serious arrests have offset the decrease in arrests for more serious crime (figure 6). With lower crime rates, these higher arrest rates for lesser offenses likely reflect shifts in enforcement. In conjunction with stiffer sentencing and net widening in the application of probation sentences, the proportion of U.S. residents on probation has grown alongside the prison incarceration rate. The authors of this report find that the strength and success of probation and parole agencies must be rooted in trust and legitimacy. They propose six principles to guide agencies and policy makers in strengthening the field: (1) Treat each individual on community corrections with dignity and respect. Recognize our common human capacity both to make mistakes and to make a change for the better. (2) Realign incentives in the criminal justice system. Cost considerations at the local level should not systematically favor incarceration over alternative sanctions. (3) Impose the least restrictive sanctions necessary, and minimize the collateral consequences associated with criminal processing and conviction. (4) Restore communities, and facilitate their health and safety in a holistic way. (5) Reduce institutional bias and work to ensure that all individuals receive fair, equal access to the justice system. (6) Evaluate what we do, invest in practices that work, and abandon practices that do not. Details: Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: New Thinking in Community Corrections Bulletin: Accessed February 11, 2017 at: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/content/download/82224/1844712/version/2/file/building_trust_and_legitimacy_within_community_corrections_rev_final_20161208.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/content/download/82224/1844712/version/2/file/building_trust_and_legitimacy_within_community_corrections_rev_final_20161208.pdf Shelf Number: 144821 Keywords: Community CorrectionsOffender SupervisionParoleProbation |
Author: Victoria. Auditor General Title: Managing Community Correction Orders Summary: A community correction order (CCO) is a sentence imposed by a court that allows offenders to complete their sentences in a community setting. Offenders on CCOs may have to comply with specific conditions imposed by the courts, such as mandatory drug or alcohol treatment, and significant restrictions such as curfews and judicial monitoring. In this audit, we examined how effectively Corrections Victoria (CV) manages CCOs. We also looked at: the Department of Health and Human Services to assess how well it coordinates court-ordered programs with CV Victoria Police, to examine how well it exchanges information with CV about offenders on CCOs. Twelve recommendations are made in this report for CV, and one each for Victoria Police and the Department of Health and Human Services. Details: Melbourne: Auditor-General, 2017. 70p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 4, 2017 at: http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/publications/20170208-Community-Corrections/20170208-Community-Corrections.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/publications/20170208-Community-Corrections/20170208-Community-Corrections.pdf Shelf Number: 141340 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity Based CorrectionsCommunity CorrectionsSentencing |
Author: Sarver, Christian M. Title: Piloting Utah's Response and Incentive Matrix: Results from Staff and Stakeholder Surveys Summary: In 2013, the Utah Sentencing Commission appointed a committee to develop a sanction and incentive matrix for Utah probationers and parolees. Members participating in this committee included representatives of the Utah Sentencing Commission, Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), Utah Department of Corrections (UDC), specifically the Adult Probation and Parole (AP&P) division, and the Board of Pardons and Parole (BP&P). The resulting tool, called the Response and Incentive Matrix (RIM), integrates behavioral principles into a graduated response tool for responding to both compliance with, and violations of, the conditions of supervision. RIM was piloted in AP&P offices in the Northern Region from April through June 2015. At the end of the pilot period, the Utah Criminal Justice Center (UCJC) conducted a survey with AP&P staff, offenders on supervision, and community stakeholders in order to provide feedback on the tool prior to statewide implementation. Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah. 2015. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 12, 2017 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/RIM_Survey_Results.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/RIM_Survey_Results.pdf Shelf Number: 144895 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community CorrectionsOffender Supervision Parole Parolees Probation Probationers |
Author: Rogers, Ashley Title: The First Fifty: A Study of Summary: Assembly Bill 109 ("AB 109") and the subsequent amending legislation (collectively, "The 2011 Realignment Legislation Addressing Public Safety" or "Realignment") seismically shifted the way California structures and manages its criminal justice system. Effective October 1, 2011, AB 109 redefined more than 500 felonies and "realigned" responsibility for the incarceration and supervision of a significant population of specified adult felony offenders from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") to county-based corrections programs. In brief, AB 109 altered both sentencing and post-prison supervision for the newly statutorily classified "non-serious, non-violent, non-sex" offenses and offenders. While the legislation is comprehensive and complex, two major groups are affected by these changes. First, offenders convicted of qualifying felonies are now incarcerated in county jails instead of in state prisons. Second - and perhaps most critically-released prisoners who would have previously been placed on state parole but now qualify as so-called "non-non-non" offenders are diverted to the supervision of county probation departments under "Post Release Community Supervision ("PRCS"). Because of its import and controversial surrounding it, the latter population-prisoners released under PRCS-is the focus of this paper. On October 1, 2011, California counties assumed responsibility for supervising approximately 60,000 offenders from 33 California prisons who qualified for PRCS. While some have remained neutral, responses to the PRCS component of AB 109 have been largely as passionate as they have been mixed. Supporters note that, because the offenders were to be released into counties anyway, PRCS simply shifts who will do the supervising. They assert that the shift is more technical than substantive: because the offenders to be supervised by PRCS were incarcerated for a relatively low-level "non-non-non" felony, probation offers should be equipped to handle the risks and needs of a population nearly identical to those they already supervise. Prior to AB 109's implementation, Governor Brown expressed confidence that counties were prepared to assume the targeted populations, adding, "It's bold, it's difficult and it will continuously change as we learn from experience. But we can't sit still and let the courts release 30,000 serious prisoners. We have to do something, and this is the most-viable plan that I've been able to put together." Critics of AB 109, however, assert with equal confidence that the plan as it relates to PRCS is far from "viable." They emphasize that under AB 109, offenders are classified only by the present committed offense, meaning that it is possible that a person with a history of violent, serious, or sex offenses-or even a lengthy criminal history-may technically qualify as a "non-non-non" offender under AB 109. The shift in supervisory responsibility from parole to probation departments becomes important. Probation officers, critics argue, may be ill-equipped to address the great risks and significant needs of a potentially a dramatically different population than that contemplated by the legislature. Indeed, several counties have asserted that they are unprepared and under-financed, and some are even bracing for a spike in crime. (See "Part II: The Counties' Responses to AB 109" for further discussion.) b. Scope of the Paper What is missing from these charged debates, however, is data. Speculation about the population is insufficient to spur any informed changes, and a lack of data could lead to rash, harmful decisions based on isolated incidents or conjecture alone. Answers to critical questions - Who are these offenders to be supervised by PRCS? What are their risks? What are their needs? - must be answered. This paper examines these questions in the context of one county - Santa Clara County. In this paper, we first provide an overview of the history and legislative rationale of AB 109, the provisions governing the scope of PRCS, and the CDCR's procedures regarding the determination screening process and data provided to the counties ("Part I: The Legislative Intent of AB 109 and Post-Release Community Supervision"). Second, we provide further context on the various responses to AB 109 as depicted in the media ("Part II: The Counties' Responses to AB 109"). Third, we answer the aforementioned questions (Who are these offenders? What are their risks? What are their needs?) by analyzing the demographics, risks, and needs of the first fifty offenders released to Santa Clara County under PRCS ("Part III: Describing the PRCS Population: The First Fifty Released in Santa Clara"). We then compare the results of the study with the legislative intent and the counties' various responses and predictions ("Part IV: Comparing the First Fifty to the Legislative Intent and Counties' Responses"). Finally, we offer an analysis of the limitations of the study ("Part V: Limitations of the Study") and offer conclusions on the implications of the findings ("Conclusion: Implications of the Study"). Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, 2012. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Draft report: Accessed May 13, 2017 at: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/183091/doc/slspublic/The_First_Fifty_Rogers.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/183091/doc/slspublic/The_First_Fifty_Rogers.pdf Shelf Number: 131360 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCommunity SupervisionCriminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice Reform Prison Overcrowding Probation Public Safety Realignment Recidivism |
Author: Cantora, Andrea Title: Perceptions of Community Corrections: Understanding how Women's Needs are met in an Evidence-Based/Gender-Responsive Halfway House Summary: This dissertation presents a qualitative study on how women perceive and experience services at an evidence-based, gender-responsive halfway house. The primary focus was to understand how the halfway house helps women address their needs as they prepare to reenter the community. The secondary focus was to understand how the halfway house implements evidence-based principles and gender-responsive strategies. This study analyzed in-depth qualitative interviews with 33 women. Data from these interviews were triangulated with observations of treatment groups and daily interactions, review of program documents, review of participant case files, and informal conversations with staff. Findings suggest that many positive and negative features of the halfway house - including social context, relationships with staff, and program policies - contribute to women's ability to address their needs and prepare for reentry. Findings also draw attention to the influence of external factors including outside resources, social networks, housing availability, the stigma of a criminal record, systemic policies, geographic boundaries, and program length of stay. The interconnections between ecological systems also influence the transitional process and were highlighted in this study. Recommendations for improving community correctional services for women were discussed. Details: New York: City University of New York, 2011. 286p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed June 10, 2017 at: http://search.proquest.com/docview/876931779?pq-origsite=gscholar Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://search.proquest.com/docview/876931779?pq-origsite=gscholar Shelf Number: 146039 Keywords: Community CorrectionsEvidence-Based ProgramsFemale OffendersGender-Specific ProgrammingHalfway Houses |
Author: Baldwin, Molly Title: From Evidence-Based Practices to a Comprehensive Intervention Model for High-Risk Young Men: The Story of Roca Summary: Researchers of criminal behavior are taking a more data-driven approach to community corrections. Rather than focusing solely on professional experience or anecdotal successes - key factors that often drive public policy in social services - they are identifying evidence-based practices that rely on empirical research and produce measurable outcomes. The challenge for providers is to bridge the gap between theoretical best practices and practicable intervention models that reduce recidivism rates and keep communities safe. One organization that is finding success in bridging this gap is Massachusetts-based Roca, Inc. Established in 1988, Roca has worked with high-risk young people in various communities across Massachusetts. Roca has served thousands of young men and women facing multiple challenges, including young parents, immigrants, youth involved in gangs, and other at-risk young people. Along the way, though, Roca witnessed a troubling reality: Despite its commitment to help youth stay out of harm's way, and the fact that individuals were attending programming in large numbers and the organization was thriving, the same individuals were in trouble again days, weeks, or months later. As a result, Roca leadership grew less confident that it was doing more good than harm. It started searching for a different path. Around this time, meta-analysis of practices in the field, conducted by the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) at Community Resources for Justice and the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) in 2002, identified a set of eight methods proven successful in reducing recidivism. Roca found the move toward evidence-based practices (EBP) refreshing: These practices were based on specific principles that had been proven successful based on data, rather than anecdotes, and the idea that some interventions work significantly better than others was appealing. The challenge, though, was to develop a comprehensive intervention model based on these practices and to transform the organizational culture into one that embraces data and evidence. Over more than a decade, Roca has undergone tremendous changes. The organization has rigorously examined its practices, collected and analyzed data, changed its interactions with other institutions, and incorporated only those practices that were proven effective. The result of these efforts is Roca's High-Risk Young Men Intervention Model - a four-year, non-mandated model dedicated to serving 17- to 24-year-old men at the highest risk of future incarceration. The Model was implemented in 2011 and now operates in four sites, serving 21 communities across Massachusetts. Roca's rigorous data track ing allows the organization to measure its success in reducing recidivism and increasing employment among high-risk young men. Roca's baseline is the existing criminal justice system outcomes pertaining to young adults: In Massachusetts, 76 percent of the 18- to 24-year-olds released from Houses of Corrections are rearraigned within three years (Mosehauer et al., 2016), and nationally, 78 percent of those released from state or federal prison at the ages of 18 to 24 are rearrested within three years (Schiraldi, Western, and Bradner, 2015). Roca's outcomes are dramatically different. Roca retains 84 percent of participants annually, despite the fact that these are high-risk young people who are not ready, willing, or able to participate in programming. After completing the first two years of the program, participants significantly reduce their criminal behaviors: 93 percent are not rearrested, 95 percent are not reincarcerated, and 88 percent of those on probation comply with their conditions. In addition, graduates demonstrate significant employment gains: Although 83 percent of participants come to Roca with no employment history, 84 percent of those enrolled longer than 21 months are placed in a job; 92 percent of them keep the job longer than three months, and 87 percent keep it for six months or more. This paper focuses on the gap between research- and theory-based practices and a fully functioning intervention model, and how Roca has worked to bridge this gap and achieve the above-mentioned outcomes. Part I reviews the eight evidence-based practices in community corrections as identified by CJI and NIC. Part II explores how Roca learned of these principles and how it worked internally to integrate them and develop its Intervention Model. Part III explains Roca's Intervention Model and revisits the eight evidence-based practices, explaining how each one is implemented in the Model. The conclusion draws some lessons from Roca's work with evidence-based practices and suggests that Roca's Model is an alternative to traditional community corrections. Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, 2017. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: New Thinking in Community Corrections: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/wiener/programs/pcj/files/NTCC_Evidence-based_practices_final_laser_8-28-17_508_v2.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/wiener/programs/pcj/files/NTCC_Evidence-based_practices_final_laser_8-28-17_508_v2.pdf Shelf Number: 147679 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsCriminal Justice PolicyEvidence-Based PracticesRecidivismYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: Helmus, L. Maaike Title: Detention past statutory release dates Summary: According to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, federal inmates who are not granted early discretionary release must be released at their Statutory Release Date (SRD) after serving two-thirds of their sentence to serve the remainder of the sentence under community supervision. This policy is designed to facilitate gradual community reintegration. However, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) may detain offenders past their SRD if certain criteria are met. Detention is intended for offenders serving a determinate sentence for a violent offence causing death or serious harm, a sex offence against a child, or a serious drug offence, and who are considered likely to recommit such an offence before their sentence expires. The purpose of the current study was to examine patterns of detention referrals and decisions over a 10 year period. The study examined determinate sentences with a SRD between April 1, 2004 and March 31, 2014 (N = 46,369). Results demonstrated that across the study time period, 4.5% (n = 2,075) of all sentences resulted in a referral to the Parole Board of Canada for detention, and 4.1% of sentences (n = 1,903) resulted in detention. Detention rates were largely stable across the 10-year study period, with a slight decrease in the last three years examined. Most referrals for detention (over 90%) resulted in a Parole Board detention decision, with these concordance rates increasing slightly over time. Detention rates were lowest in the Atlantic region (2.9%) and highest in the Prairie region (4.6%). Sex offenders were most likely to be detained (15%). Approximately 6% of offenders with a current non-sexual violent offence were detained. In contrast, less than 1% of sentences for a serious drug offence resulted in a detention decision. Among detained offenders, 97% had a current violent or sexual offence (nearly half of these had a current sexual offence). Additionally, over 90% also had a prior violent or sexual offence. Offenders with longer sentences were more likely to be detained. Less than 1% of women offenders were detained. Nearly 8% of Aboriginal offenders were detained, which was roughly twice the detention rate of non-Aboriginal offenders. About 14% of detention referrals came from the Commissioner of CSC. These referrals were likely to be for serious drug offenders or for those who did not meet the general detention criteria. Detaining inmates past their Statutory Release Date impedes gradual community reintegration and should therefore be reserved for the highest risk offenders. The current study confirms that detention rates are low and targeted primarily towards violent and sex offenders. Additional research is currently underway to better understand what individual risk factors other than the referral criteria are related to detention decisions, and whether Aboriginal offenders are more likely to be detained after accounting for risk to reoffend. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2015. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report 2015 N- R-375Accessed October 19, 2017 at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-375-eng.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-375-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 147733 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCommunity SupervisionOffender ReintegrationOffender Supervision |
Author: Columbia University. Justice Lab Title: Too big to succeed: The impact of the growth of community corrections and what should be done about it Summary: The recent sentencing of Philadelphia rap artist Meek Mill to two to four years in prison for probation violations committed a decade after his original offense has brought the subject of America's expansive community supervision apparatus and its contribution to mass incarceration into the public spotlight (NBC News 2017; Jay-Z 2017). Founded as either an up-front diversion from incarceration (probation) or a back-end release valve to prison crowding (parole), community corrections in America has grown far beyond what its founders could have imagined with a profound, unintended impact on incarceration. With nearly five million adults under community corrections supervision in America (more than double the number in prison and jail), probation and parole have become a substantial contributor to our nation's mass incarceration dilemma as well as a deprivation of liberty in their own right (Kaeble and Bonczar 2016; Kaeble and Glaze 2016). The almost fourfold expansion of community corrections since 1980 without a concomitant increase in resources has strained many of the nation's thousands of community supervision departments, rendering some of them too big to succeed, often unnecessarily depriving clients of their liberty without improving public safety (Bureau of Justice Statistics 1995; Kaeble and Bonczar 2016; Pew Center on the States 2009; Klingele 2013; Doherty 2016). This paper offers a way out of "mass supervision." Authored by leading representatives of our nation's community corrections field, our conclusion is that the number of people on probation and parole nationally can be cut in half over the next decade and returns to incarceration curbed, with savings focused on providing services for those remaining under supervision. This would reduce unnecessary incarceration and supervision, increase the system's legitimacy, and enhance public safety by allowing probation, parole and community programming to be focused on those more in need of supervision and support. Details: New York: The Justice Lab, 2018. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 29, 2018 at: http://justicelab.iserp.columbia.edu/img/Too_Big_to_Succeed_Report_FINAL.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://justicelab.iserp.columbia.edu/img/Too_Big_to_Succeed_Report_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 149617 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsMass Incarceration |
Author: Matrix Consulting Group Title: Phase 2 Study of the Community Corrections Division: Orange County, Florida Summary: The objective of this study was to evaluate the management, staffing and operations of various alternatives to incarceration programs operating in Orange County's Department of Corrections' Community Corrections Division. The Phase 1 project examined to Home Confinement Program. In this phase of the study the project team examined the other programs in the Division, namely: - Pre-Trial Release - Pre-Trial Division - Alternative Community Service Program - County Probation - Work Release Program - Central Intake Specific objectives of the Phase 2 study of the Community Corrections Division, then, included the following: 1. Evaluate statutes and administrative orders pertinent to the programs. 2. Review of the organizational structures, program policies and procedures, staff authority and supervisory oversight to determine program effectiveness. 3. Conduct a survey of other corrections alternatives' programs in operation in Florida and elsewhere around the country to compare operational and programmatic features which could be utilized in Orange County. 4. Analyze and assess staffing levels and caseloads of the programs. 5. Assess and analyze the programs' use of technology and its effectiveness as well as opportunities to enhance the technology in use. 6. Evaluate the feasibility of privatizing the programs. 7. Analysis of the potential of discontinuing the programs and the impacts of such closure on the criminal justice system within Orange County. The review also included examining electronic monitoring with other Community Corrections Division programs. Details: Mountain View, CA: Matrix, 2013. 130p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 11, 2018 at: https://www.matrixcg.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Orange-County-Phase-2-FR.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.matrixcg.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Orange-County-Phase-2-FR.pdf Shelf Number: 149788 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCommunity ServiceElectronic MonitoringOffender SupervisionPretrial ReleaseProbationWork Release |
Author: Butts, Jeffrey A. Title: Recidivism Reconsidered: Preserving the Community Justice Mission of Community Corrections Summary: Recid iv ism is not a robust measu re of effectiveness for communit y corrections agencies. When used as the sole measure of effectiveness, recidivism misleads policymakers and the public, encourages inappropriate comparisons of dissimilar populations, and focuses policy on negative rather than positive outcomes. Policymakers who focus on recidivism as evidence of justice effectiveness are confusing a complex, bureaucratic indicator of system decision-mak ing w ith a simple measure of individual behavior and rehabilitation. Recidivism is at least in part a gauge of police activ it y and enforcement emphasis and, because of differential policing practices in minority communities, using recidivism as a key measurement may disadvantage communities of color. Relying on recidivism defines the mission of community corrections in law enforcement terms, relieving agencies of their responsibility for other outcomes such as employment, education, and housing. In the following discussion, we describe the logical and practical problems that arise when recidivism is used as the principal outcome measure for community corrections agencies. We recognize that recidivism will always be a feature of justice policy and practice. Recidivism offers a simple and familiar outcome measure for judging the effectiveness of justice interventions. Pointing out the logical flaws of recidivism will not diminish its salience for audiences disinclined to question its utility. Our purpose in this discussion is not to end the use of recidivism as a justice system measure but to illustrate its limits and to encourage the development and use of more suitable measures - namely, positive outcomes related to the complex process of criminal desistance. Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, 2018. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 19, 2018 at: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/wiener/programs/pcj/files/recidivism_reconsidered.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/wiener/programs/pcj/files/recidivism_reconsidered.pdf Shelf Number: 149858 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsCriminal Justice PolicyRecidivism |
Author: Morgan, Anthony Title: How much does prison really cost? Comparing the costs of imprisonment with community corrections Summary: The costs associated with managing offenders in prison and in the community can be significant. Estimated costs are usually derived from the Report on government services, which reports both the operating expenditure and capital costs for prisons and community corrections. However, research has shown that sentencing a person to a period of incarceration can have much wider implications for the individual, their family, government and the broader community. These implications may be positive or negative, and may therefore generate both costs and savings. Understanding the wider costs associated with different sentence options can be helpful in informing effective correctional policy and practice. Yet relatively few studies have attempted to estimate the wider costs or savings associated with pathways through imprisonment or community corrections. The purpose of this research was to calculate the total net cost of pathways through imprisonment and community corrections in Victoria, taking into account a range of direct and indirect costs and savings associated with a matched cohort of prisoners and offenders. This study was undertaken in two stages. The first stage estimated the costs and savings accrued during sentences that began in 2009-10 (the reference episode). The second stage estimated the wider costs and savings for both this reference episode and subsequent pathways through imprisonment and community corrections over a five year period. The methodology used to develop these estimates and the results are presented in this report. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2018. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: AIC Research Report 05: Accessed April 30, 2018 at: http://apo.org.au/system/files/142801/apo-nid142801-725506.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/system/files/142801/apo-nid142801-725506.pdf Shelf Number: 149964 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCorrectional AdministrationCosts of CorrectionsCriminal Justice ExpendituresPrison Administration |
Author: Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission Title: Immediate Sanction Probation Pilot Program Evaluation Summary: The Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) program was established in 2004 with the goal of enhancing public safety and improving compliance with the rules and conditions of probation among offenders being supervised in the community. HOPE targets higher risk probationers and requires that each violation of the conditions of supervision is met with a swift and certain, but mild, sanction. A rigorous evaluation of HOPE completed in 2009 found a significant reduction in technical violations (such as drug use and missed appointments), lower recidivism rates, fewer probation revocations, and reduced use of prison beds among HOPE participants compared to similar offenders supervised on regular probation. Interest in Hawaii's swift-and-certain sanctions model spread. As of July 2015, there were swift-and-certain sanctions programs operating in at least 29 states across the country. The 2010 General Assembly passed legislation which established the basic parameters for swift-and-certain sanctions programs in Virginia (19.2-303.5). In May 2012, the General Assembly adopted budget language to extend the provisions of 19.2-303.5 and to authorize the creation of up to four Immediate Sanction Probation Programs (Item 50 of Chapter 3 of the 2012 Acts of Assembly, Special Session I). This provision charged the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission with selecting the pilot sites, developing guidelines and procedures for the program, administering program activities, and evaluating the results. As no additional funding was appropriated for this purpose, the pilot project was implemented within existing agency budgets and local resources. The General Assembly has since extended the sunset date to July 1, 2017, which enabled the pilot sites to continue the program until the 2017 General Assembly has reviewed the Commission's evaluation and determined whether to continue the program in the future. Since the 2009 HOPE evaluation, a number of programs based on the HOPE model have been evaluated. Results of these studies have been mixed. A longer term evaluation of HOPE completed in 2016, as well as evaluations in Washington State, Arkansas, Michigan, and Kentucky found that the HOPE approach yielded positive results, such as lower recidivism rates and reduced use of incarceration. However, a recent large-scale evaluation of a four-site replication of the HOPE model, funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), did not produce similar results. According to this evaluation, there were no statistically significant differences, overall, between the HOPE and probation-as-usual groups in the likelihood of arrest, new conviction, or probation revocation. Similarly, an evaluation of a Delaware program based on the HOPE model found that the program was not successful in reducing substance use or new crimes among probationers. The Commission designed Virginia's Immediate Sanction Probation Program based on the parameters established by the General Assembly's statutory and budgetary language and the key elements of the swift-and-certain sanctions model pioneered in Hawaii. Implementing Virginia's program with as much fidelity as possible to the swift-and-certain sanctions model provided the best opportunity to determine if the positive results observed in HOPE and other programs would emerge in Virginia. Thus, the Immediate Sanction Program targets offenders who are at risk for recidivating or failing probation. Working with the Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security and the Department of Corrections, the Commission identified four pilot sites (Henrico County, the City of Lynchburg, City of Harrisonburg/Rockingham County, and Arlington County), which became operational between November 2012 and January 2014. The Commission developed policies and procedures to provide a framework for the program, including eligibility criteria and a mechanism for expedited hearings for program violations. In each site, Commission staff organized and participated in multiple meetings to facilitate and support local implementation of the program. As of October 1, 2016, 288 probationers across the four pilot sites had been placed into the Immediate Sanction Probation Program. In order to allow for a sufficient follow-up period to track participants for recidivism, the 200 eligible participants who were placed into the program before July 1, 2015, were selected for the evaluation cohort. The majority (76%) were at medium to high risk of recidivating and all had a history of technical violations prior to program placement. Low risk probationers were only placed in the program after committing at least three violations while on regular supervision, indicating a higher risk for revocation. More than 80% of participants violated at least once after program placement, committing an average of 2.7 violations each. The most common violation during program participation was drug use. As of October 1, 2016, 39% of the evaluation cohort had completed the program. Nearly all of the program completers had been violation-free for 12 months, the measure established by the Commission for "successful completion." Judges allowed seven participants who had not reached the 12-month violation-free mark to complete the program, due to individual circumstances of these participants. The Commission used standards established in the 2016 evaluation of the BJA/NIJ-funded HOPE replication project to measure the swiftness and certainty of sanctions imposed during Virginia's pilot program. For swiftness, pilot sites were assessed based on the percentage of violations heard by the court within three days. Approximately half (47%) of program violations in Virginia's pilot sites were heard by the court within the three-day window. This is below the minimum of 60% established by the evaluators of the HOPE replication project. Regarding the certainty of sanctions, Immediate Sanction judges responded to violations by imposing a jail sanction for 100% of the violations brought to court, per the program's design. Judges utilized jail sanctions as envisioned by the Commission, with more than 94% of sanctions falling within the recommended range. Nearly 93% of the jail sanctions imposed were at or below the maximum sanction of 19 days used by evaluators of the HOPE replication project. The Commission tracked the evaluation cohort for one year following placement into the Immediate Sanction Program. At the one-year mark, 9.7% of the participants in the evaluation cohort had been arrested for a new felony. Only 6.2% had a new felony conviction based on an offense committed during the follow-up period. Participants whose primary drug of use was opiates (including heroin) recidivated at a higher rate than other participants. For the evaluation, the Commission developed a quasi-experimental design, often used in evaluations of criminal justice programs. Quasi-experimental designs identify a comparison group that is as similar as possible to the program or treatment group in terms of baseline (pre-intervention) characteristics. To reduce the risk of bias (i.e., the possibility that participants are systematically different from nonparticipants), the Commission used commonly accepted statistical techniques to create a valid comparison group. Constructing the comparison group for this evaluation was a two-stage process. In the first stage, the Commission identified jurisdictions that were similar to the pilot sites across a number of community-level characteristics, such as crime rates, demographics, and judicial practices in sanctioning technical probation violators. In the second stage, the Commission developed a pool of potential comparison offenders from within the selected comparison jurisdictions. Using tightly controlled matching procedures, the final sample included 63 participants in the evaluation cohort matched to 63 comparison probationers, for a total of 126 subjects. Participants for whom no matched comparison probationer could be found were not included in the subsequent analyses. At one year from program placement or, in the case of the comparison group, one year from the date the probationer would have become eligible for placement, 7.9% of the 63 participants in the matched sample had been rearrested for a felony offense versus 22.2% of the comparison group. Thus, Immediate Sanction participants were less likely than comparison probationers to be rearrested for a felony during the one-year follow-up. Immediate Sanction participants were also less likely than comparison probationers to be reconvicted of a felony following the arrest (6.3% for participants versus 17.5% for the comparison group). The Commission conducted survival analysis, which measures the time until a recidivist event occurs, to determine if these differences were statistically significant. The results of the survival analysis are mixed. This analysis revealed that Immediate Sanction participants were less likely to be rearrested for a felony over time than those in the comparison group and were free of felony arrests for a longer period of time. When controlling for relevant factors, including street time (i.e., the time that the individual was not in jail serving sanctions, etc., and, thus, was in the community with the opportunity to recidivate), this finding remained statistically significant (p<.05). However, when examining the time until rearrest for an offense that resulted in a felony conviction, the differences between participants and the comparison group were not statistically significant after controlling for other factors. Due to the small sample size and relatively low occurrence of recidivism, the results of the Commission's analyses are not generalizable to the population. Details: Richmond: VCSC, 2016. 91p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 30, 2018 at: http://www.vcsc.virginia.gov/Immediate%20Sanction%20Probation%20Pilot%20Program%20Evaluation%20-%20Final%2012-20-2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.vcsc.virginia.gov/Immediate%20Sanction%20Probation%20Pilot%20Program%20Evaluation%20-%20Final%2012-20-2016.pdf Shelf Number: 150381 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsCommunity SupervisionFelony ProbationIntermediate SanctionsProbationersRecidivism |
Author: Victoria. Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Serious Offending by People Serving a Community Correction Order: 2016-17 Summary: This report addresses a requirement in the Corrections Act 1986 (Vic) that: [f]or each financial year commencing on or after 1 July 2016, the Sentencing Advisory Council must report for that year the number of persons convicted during that year of a serious offence committed while subject to a community correction order. Specifically, this report identifies the number of people sentenced in 2016-17 for a serious offence that was committed while the person was serving a community correction order (CCO). This report also examines some important issues relating to people sentenced for a serious offence while serving a CCO, including: - the time people took to commit a serious offence; - the prevalence of different types of offences committed on a CCO; and - the total number of people sentenced in 2016-17 for committing a serious offence. Details: Melbourne: The Council, 2018. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 5, 2018 at: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Serious_Offending_by_People_Serving_a_CCO_2016-17_1.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Serious_Offending_by_People_Serving_a_CCO_2016-17_1.pdf Shelf Number: 150468 Keywords: Community CorrectionsSentencingSerious Offences |
Author: DuPont, Robert L. Title: State of the Art of HOPE Probation Summary: Are you interested in preventing victimization and crime, helping offenders and their families, and saving taxpayers millions of dollars in prison costs? Now there is an answer: HOPE Probation. HOPE Probation was conceived and established first in Honolulu as Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement; however, the HOPE strategy is widely applicable to community corrections populations across the country. From its start in 2004, with research from the Hawaii Attorney General's Office showing dramatic reductions in positive drug tests and missed probation officer appointments, there has been considerable interest in the HOPE strategy across the country. Following the release of results in 2009 from a randomized control trial of Honolulu's HOPE Probation showing dramatically improved outcomes among HOPE probationers compared to offenders on standard probation, new strategies based on HOPE began rapidly spreading across the United States. Additionally, many jurisdictions have sought assistance and guidance in establishing their own HOPE-like supervision strategies in various areas of community corrections (i.e., pretrial, parole, and juvenile justice agencies). To-date there has not been a comprehensive description of the HOPE Probation strategy. This document meets that need. It defines the essential elements of the HOPE strategy and defines additional recommended, but not essential, elements that enhance HOPE and ensure its success. This report also describes in detail how the originating HOPE Probation strategy has evolved over 10 years of innovation and practice in Honolulu, Hawaii. The experience from Honolulu's HOPE Probation provides an example for how other jurisdictions implementing HOPE can adjust and adapt to changing needs and make improvements to their own HOPE strategy over time. This report is written for a broad audience of criminal justice professionals including representatives from the judiciary, probation supervisors and officers, prosecutors, public defenders, defense attorneys, law enforcement (e.g., police, sheriffs, marshals), and substance abuse treatment providers all of whom play important roles in the successful implementation of HOPE. It can also be a valuable resource for legislators and other policymakers who are considering changes to criminal justice systems. Details: Rockville, MD: Institute for Behavior and Health, 2015. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 18, 2018 at: http://www.courts.state.hi.us/docs/news_and_reports_docs/State_of_%20the_Art_of_HOPE_Probation.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.courts.state.hi.us/docs/news_and_reports_docs/State_of_%20the_Art_of_HOPE_Probation.pdf Shelf Number: 150572 Keywords: Community CorrectionsOffender Management Offender Rehabilitation Offender Supervision Probation Project HOPE |
Author: DuPont, Robert L. Title: HOPE-Like Probation and Parole: 2015 Survey Summary Summary: The HOPE strategy was established in 2004 in Honolulu as Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement. After a randomized control trial showed dramatically improved outcomes for HOPE probationers compared to offenders on standard probation, new probation strategies based on HOPE spread rapidly across the United States. Additionally, many jurisdictions established HOPE-like supervision strategies in other areas of criminal justice (i.e., pretrial, parole, prison and juvenile justice agencies). In 2014, the 10thanniversary of HOPE Probation in Honolulu, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation provided a grant to the Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc. (IBH) to work collaboratively with Judge Steven S. Alm, the originator of the HOPE strategy, Probation Section Administrator, Cheryl Inouye, and other court staff from the First Circuit Court in Honolulu to develop a comprehensive description of the HOPE strategy. The resulting report, State of the Art of HOPE Probation, defines the Essential Elements of HOPE and identifies additional Recommended Elements that enhance HOPE and ensure its success. The report also describes how the original HOPE Probation strategy has evolved through 10 years of innovation and practice. In addition to documenting the current state of the art of HOPE Probation in Honolulu, IBH also attempted to identify and contact as many as possible of the courts and probation and parole offices that have implemented the HOPE strategy across the country. Judges and other knowledgeable officials in these sites were invited to participate in a national survey studying the extent to which these HOPE-like community corrections strategies are similar to the strategy now operating in Honolulu. This report summarizes the results of an online survey conducted in spring 2015 of 56 sites in 20 states that have implemented HOPE-like strategies. The focus is on whether sites have incorporated Essential Elements and Recommended Elements of HOPE into their operations. Following a brief description of the survey methodology, results are presented for the 16 Essential Elements and 3 Recommended Elements identified in the State of the Art of HOPE Probation. Details: Rockville, MD: Institute for Behavior and Health,, 2015. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 18, 2018 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/575830e0b09f958d96b6e4df/t/5759ab5a60b5e92468e2fafc/1465494363589/HOPE-Like_Probation_%26_Parole_2015_Survey_Summary.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/575830e0b09f958d96b6e4df/t/5759ab5a60b5e92468e2fafc/1465494363589/HOPE-Like_Probation_%26_Parole_2015_Survey_Summary.pdf Shelf Number: 150573 Keywords: Community CorrectionsOffender Management Offender Rehabilitation Offender Supervision Parole Probation Project HOPE |
Author: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: Probation and Parole Systems Marked by high States, Missed Opportunities Summary: Incarceration has long dominated the national conversation on criminal justice, because the U.S. prison population skyrocketed between the 1980s and late 2000s. Starting in 2007, policymakers seeking to protect public safety, improve accountability, and save taxpayer dollars initiated a wave of bipartisan reforms that has reduced the number of people behind bars in many states. Yet this movement has largely overlooked the largest part of the correctional system: community supervision. Nationwide, 4.5 million people are on probation or parole-twice the incarcerated population, including those in state and federal prisons and local jails. The growth and size of the supervised population has undermined the ability of local and state community corrections agencies to carry out their basic responsibilities to provide the best public safety return on investment as well as a measure of accountability. Although research has identified effective supervision and treatment strategies, the system is too overloaded to implement them, so it sends large numbers of probationers and parolees back to prison for new crimes or for failure to follow the rules. As part of a collaborative effort to improve the nation's community corrections system, The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation analyzed the leading research and identified the most pressing problems and some promising solutions. The available data leave many questions unanswered, but this review reveals key insights and challenges many assumptions about supervision. Among the findings: Community corrections is marked by considerable growth and scale, disproportionate representation of men and people of color, and a majority of people who committed nonviolent offenses. 1 in 55 U.S. adults (nearly 2 percent) was on probation or parole in 2016 (the most recent year for which data are available), a population increase of 239 percent since 1980, though rates vary considerably by state, from 1 in 18 in Georgia to 1 in 168 in New Hampshire. Between 1999 and 2016, the probation population per crime reported to police rose 24 percent and per arrest rose 28 percent. African-Americans make up 30 percent of those on community supervision but just 13 percent of the U.S. adult population. 3.5 times as many men as women are on supervision, but the number of women on parole or probation has almost doubled since 1990 to more than 1 million. More than three-quarters of the 4.5 million Americans on probation or parole were convicted of nonviolent offenses. Improvements in supervision offer opportunities to enhance public safety, decrease drug misuse, and reduce incarceration. Nearly a third of the roughly 2.3 million people who exit probation or parole annually fail to successfully complete their supervision for a wide range of reasons, such as committing new crimes, violating the rules, and absconding. Each year almost 350,000 of those individuals return to jail or prison, often because of rule violations rather than new crimes. About one-fifth of felony defendants were on supervision when they were arrested. Although probationers and parolees make up a minority of arrests, they are disproportionately represented among arrestees compared with the general population, suggesting that improved supervision success rates would lead to greater public safety and reduced taxpayer expense. Rates of substance use among those on supervision are two to three times those of the general population, but many probationers and parolees do not have access to treatment. Policy changes can reduce correctional control and improve public safety. From 2007 to 2016, 37 states experienced simultaneous drops in their community corrections and crime rates. In many cases, these gains followed adoption of evidence-based sentencing and corrections reforms that prioritized scarce supervision and treatment resources for higher-risk individuals, invested in risk-reduction programs, and created incentives for compliance. These findings demonstrate the need for greater scrutiny of the community corrections system by policymakers and the public. They also reinforce an emerging consensus among leading practitioners for a fundamental change in the vision and mission of supervision: from punishing failure to promoting success. Details: Philadelphia: Author, 2018. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 11, 2019 at: https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2018/09/probation_and_parole_systems_marked_by_high_stakes_missed_opportunities_pew.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2018/09/probation_and_parole_systems_marked_by_high_stakes_missed_opportunities_pew.pdf Shelf Number: 155360 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community CorrectionsParole Probation |