Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:07 pm
Time: 9:07 pm
Results for community based corrections (u.s.)
2 results foundAuthor: Yamatani, Hide Title: The Program For Offenders: Comprehensive Evaluation and Cost/Benefit Analysis of a Community Corrections Facility Summary: Overall evaluation findings show that a community corrections facility located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania called The Program For Offenders (TPFO) is shown to be creating an environment of encouragement and accountability that has provided numerous offenders the opportunity to understand how to rebuild their lives and to become self-empowered and reintegrated members of the community. As a result, TPFO is providing the local region with preferable options as an alternative to prison or jail, and succeeding in achieving the mission of public safety and inmate reintegration. Following list of major findings attest to the fact that TPFO is a cost- efficient and highly effective organization. A. High utility of programs offered by TPFO Nearly all of the in-house programs offered by TPFO were appraised as better appreciated at 6-month post release period than initial ratings at the 30-day period. This positive change (from an average of 75% to 83.1% across 11 major program ratings) is more than likely due to their increased opportunity to incorporate what they gained or learned through the TPFO programs 6-months post release compared to the first 30-days post release period. The programs rated as significantly helpful by 80% or more of the former inmates 6 months post release include: (1) Substance abuse rehabilitation; (2) Parenting skills; (3) GED/Adult basic education; (4) Life skills; (5) HIV/AIDS education; (6) Employment search; and (7) Computer literacy. B. Helpfulness of information and guidance A very similar pattern was also found in the evaluative ratings of various information and guidance they received from TPFO during their stay. The overall average positive rating increased from 73.2% to 81.1% between the 30-day and 6-month post-release periods. The programs rated as significantly helpful by 80% or more of the former inmates at 6 months post release include: (1) Drug or alcohol treatment; (2) Building/maintaining relationship with my child; (3) Accessing physical health care; (4) Counseling for emotional/mental health; (5) Finding means of transportation; (6) Finding legal assistance; and (7) Working on personal relationships. C. Successful community integration The living arrangement at 6 months post release from TPFO is encouraging: -- Six out of ten former inmates were residing in own house or apartment, -- Paying rent or mortgage (78.0%); and -- A majority had resided only in one location (67.1%). An employment related profile of the former inmates at 6-months post release from TPFO were also positive: -- A majority (72.1%) of released inmates secure employment at some point after their release; 2 -- The average work hours per week and wage rate are 34.9 hours and $8.80 per hour, respectively; -- Unemployment rate at the 6-month point in time (not entire 6-month period) was 13.6%; and -- Nearly one out of six inmates enrolled in job- training program (16.3% during some time since release). C. Reduced D&A use A majority (66.3%) of the former inmates indicated that they remained clean and sober since leaving TPFO (down from 82.1% at post-30-days). During the previous 30 days of the 6 months after release, the distribution of individuals remaining abstinent across various drug and alcohol abuse is noticeably high. Most stayed away from drugs at the post-6-month period, except for alcohol use to intoxication, and use of cocaine/crack, and marijuana/hashish. It is a positive sign that some time during the post 6-month period, a majority of the inmates (73%) attended AA or NA programs, and none of the former inmates have reported that they have injected drugs during the previous 30 days of the post-6-month period (improvement from 7.1% at the post 30-day assessment period). D. Positive Health Status Overall health status is rated as good to excellent by a high majority of the former inmates at the 6-month post release period (82.7%). Relatively few were using the inpatient, outpatient, or emergency room treatments for physical health complaints, mental or emotional difficulties or for alcohol or substance abuse (less than 9%). This is an improvement over the data from the post-30-day period in which the usage was higher-- outpatient treatment for mental or emotional difficulties (13.8%) and alcohol or substance abuse (17.8%). E: Accessing community-based services The top three types of services received by the former inmates at the time of 6-month survey mirrors the report at post 30-days, which includes AA or NA (54.3%) and family support (45.7%). There was a noticeable decline in other services, including mental health services (17.3% vs. 25.7% at post-30-days), drug/alcohol treatment programs (17.4% vs. 24.3% at post- 30-days), and faith-based programs/services (17.4% vs. 20.4% at post-30-days). Such a positive pattern indicates that the inmates are successfully becoming self-sufficient. F. Successful Recidivism Reduction The estimated annual recidivism rate achieved by TPFO is a noticeably low 14.5% based on the surveys and DOC based searches of the released inmates. Following five factors are suggested by the former inmates as the most important factors in keeping them out of jail: (1) not using drugs; (2) personal commitment to crime free behavior; (3) seeing and being with children; (4) avoiding certain people/situation; and (5) having a job. 3 G. Total Annual Benefits Generated by TPFO exceeds $6.9 million In reference to the total annual benefits generated by TPFO (cost savings, value added cost by TPFO, and aggregate wage) exceed $6.9 million. The cost-benefit ratio is four fold (4.09) -- for every dollar spent on contracting TPFO service, the average return is approximately $4.09. H. Need to raise the County reimbursement rate The inmate reimbursement rate should be set at $70.77 per day per inmate. This rate includes current county reimbursement rate plus additional costs covered by TPFO, including expenditure of providing social and human services. Based on ACJ's most recent data, the estimated cost per inmate per day is $77.75 (without value added costs of social/human services through ACJ Collaborative) compared to $70.77 per day for TPFO, including the value added costs of social/human services. In conclusion, the former inmates are highly convinced that the TPFO is accomplishing its seven major goals: (1) criminal behavior rehabilitation-- positive attitude about crime free behavior; (2) recidivism rate reduction-- avoiding going back to jail; (3) personal growth/development-- life and social skills development; (4) family relationship enhancement-- family support, parenting skills, reunification, reduction of CYF involvement; (5) economic empowerment-- taking job-training opportunities, actively seeking or keeping employment; (6) self-sufficiency-- minimizing dependence on others’ generosity, self-driven initiatives, willingness to help others; and (7) transition back to the community. Details: Pittsburgh, PA: Excellence Research, Inc., 2012. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 29, 2012 at: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/026637.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/026637.pdf Shelf Number: 127029 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity Based Corrections (U.S.)Cost-Benefit Analysis |
Author: American Probation and Parole Association Title: Effective Responses to Offender Behavior: Lessons Learned for Probation and Parole Supervision Summary: Using effective strategies to keep probationers and parolees crime- and drug-free and curb their revocation rates is among the most important issues facing our community corrections supervision system. From the early 1980s through 2005, there was a sharp decline in the percentage of adult probationers (from 79% to 59%) and parolees (from 60% to 45%) who successfully completed supervision (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1984; Glaze & Bonczar, 2006). While there has been a period of stabilization in more recent years, probation and parole agencies continue to seek alternatives to "business as usual" in community supervision. This is mainly due to the fact that high revocation rates have had a detrimental impact on the criminal justice system, including extensive prison growth (see Pew Center on the States, 2008) and significant increases in costs for both corrections and the judiciary (see Kyckelhahn, 2012). The community corrections field has a responsibility to implement a more effective supervision process that enhances compliance and accountability among probationers and parolees, thereby improving public safety in a cost-effective way. Given these challenges, community corrections agencies are increasingly taking a more comprehensive approach in responding to certain violations and reinforcing compliance among probationers and parolees. Decades of learning in the field and a growing research base has led to a consensus among many corrections professionals about what needs to be done to achieve better results and increase public safety. These strategies include, but are not limited to, assessing criminal risk and need factors, focusing resources on higher risk offenders, tailoring conditions of supervision to the risk and needs most likely to result in new criminal behavior, and balancing surveillance requirements and treatment needs (Solomon, 2007). Based on solid research, two key strategies that many agencies have begun to implement are the use of swift, certain, and proportionate sanctions to respond to violations, and the use of incentives to promote and reinforce compliance among probationers and parolees. These responses can be imposed by the courts, or they may be executed administratively, meaning that the authority to issue sanctions and reward compliance is given to the supervision agency, without returning to the court or releasing authority (e.g., parole board). This administrative response authority can be established by statute or can be delegated by the court. An administrative response strategy can strengthen community supervision services by providing agencies greater autonomy in responding to behaviors in more effective and cost-efficient ways, and thereby avoiding a reliance on the courts or releasing authorities to handle all violations, particularly those that include minor behavioral infractions. In December 2012, The Pew Charitable Trusts' Public Safety Performance Project (Pew), the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA), and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) jointly sponsored a convening of representatives from 14 states to address the use of effective administrative responses in probation and parole supervision. The conference was designed to assist the states by highlighting effective procedures and common performance measures in responses that involve both sanctions and incentives. In addition, it provided an excellent opportunity for individuals to interact with representatives from the legislative, executive and judicial branches in their respective states around this timely public safety issue, and to share their experiences and observations with other policymakers, practitioners and national experts. Several documents were developed for the summit, including legal and research memos, and individual profiles of the states that summarized their policies and practices around effective administrative responses (see Appendix A). This report highlights key lessons learned around planning and implementation of sanctions and incentives, with particular attention to ways in which states and local jurisdictions can improve effective responses in probation and parole supervision. This report first provides an overview of the research and rationale supporting swift and certain sanctions and responses shown to be effective in community supervision. Second, the report provides key lessons learned based on the feedback received by attendees at the conference. Last, the report summarizes practical implications about the use of the effective administrative response approach in community supervision, including directions for future research. Details: Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association, 2013. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed November 23, 2013 at: http://www.appa-net.org/eWeb/docs/APPA/pubs/EROBLLPPS-Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.appa-net.org/eWeb/docs/APPA/pubs/EROBLLPPS-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 131671 Keywords: Community Based Corrections (U.S.)Offender SupervisionParoleProbation |