Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:44 am
Time: 11:44 am
Results for community supervision
66 results foundAuthor: Hawken, Angela Title: Managing Drug Involved Probationers with Swift and Certain Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii's HOPE Summary: This report describes an evaluation of a community supervision strategy called HOPE (Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement) for substance-abusing probationers. HOPE began as a pilot program in October 2004 and has expanded to more than 1500 participants, about one of six felony probabtioners on Oahu. Details: S.I.: s.n., 2009 Source: National Institute of Justice Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117401 Keywords: Community SupervisionDrug Abuse and AddictionDrug OffendersProbationProbation ViolationsProbationersRecidivism |
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: Drake, Elizabeth K. Title: Washington's Offender Accountability Act: Final Report on Recidivism Outcomes Summary: The 1999 Offender Accountability Act (OAA) directs the Department of Corrections (DOC) to perform a formal assessment of each offender’s risk for recidivism and then to allocate agency resources accordingly. The law also requires the Institute to evaluate the OAA and provide results by 2010. This report presents our findings on whether the OAA has had an effect on recidivism. On average, offenders today have a greater risk for recidivism than historically; the general rise in recidivism over the last 20 years is largely explained by the increased underlying risk of DOC’s offender population. Since the OAA was implemented, however, something favorable has happened to cause recidivism rates to be lower than expected. Unfortunately, our statistical analysis does not allow us to identify whether this beneficial change can be attributed specifically to the OAA or other policies, or other unknown factors that occurred during the same time period. Regardless, the good news from our evaluation is that, after at least a decade of increasing recidivism, Washington is now beginning to observe improvements in adult felony recidivism. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2010. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 7, 2010 at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/10-01-1201.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/10-01-1201.pdf Shelf Number: 119879 Keywords: Adult Felony OffendersCommunity SupervisionRecidivism |
Author: Olotu, Michael Title: Evaluation Report: Electronic Monitoring Program Pilot Summary: This evaluation was initiated in response to a request for an analysis of CSC’s Electronic Monitoring Program Pilot (EMPP) and constituted an implementation evaluation intended to examine the progress of EMPP to date and establish a foundation upon which the design and delivery of EMPP could be realigned. Treasury Board standards for evaluation were used to examine the project’s continued relevancy, implementation, success, and cost-effectiveness. On August 11th, 2008, the Minister of Public Safety Canada announced the launch of the pilot to electronically monitor offenders on conditional release in the community. Electronic monitoring was piloted within CSC in order to assess its potential as an additional tool for managing federal offenders in the community, thereby contributing to the safety of Canadians. More specifically, EMPP was intended to provide parole officers with additional offender supervision and monitoring tools in the community, increase offender accountability, encourage positive offender behaviour, and augment staff safety. Furthermore, the specific purposes of EMPP were to: Test CSC’s capacity to manage information received through GPS technology; Ensure that an appropriate policy framework and response protocols were in place; Assess staff readiness to use EM as a tool to assist in monitoring offenders in the community; Identify appropriate response protocols when an EM alert was received; and Identify future needs and requirements in relation to a potential larger scale, national EM program. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada, Evaluation Branch, Policy Sector, 2009. 98p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9, 2010 at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pa/empp/empp-eng.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Canada URL: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pa/empp/empp-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 119908 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SupervisionElectronic MonitoringParole |
Author: Great Britain. Criminal Justice Joint Inspection Title: Restriction and Rehabilitation: Getting the Right Mix. An Inspection of the Management of Sexual Offenders in the Community Summary: The proportion of sexual offenders who are reconvicted of further offending is known to be low. Nevertheless, their subsequent crimes understandably cause considerable public concern. In taking this inspection forward, we wanted to see how far the police and probation services were able to fulfil their different roles in controlling and restricting the offender, whilst at the same time offering them help to change their behaviour. In other words, whether they were able to maintain the right mix, so necessary for public protection, between Restriction and Rehabilitation in work with registered sexual offenders. We were aware, from our Offender Management Inspections of all probation trusts, that work with offenders assessed as an increased Risk of Harm to others was generally of a higher standard than that with other offenders. We were therefore not surprised to find many examples of good practice by both police and probation. These related particularly to the restrictive elements of work with sexual offenders and included: consolidating practice relating to the notification requirements for registered sex offenders; use of the sexual offences prevention order; monitoring licence conditions; and the multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) with more serious cases. The inspection, nevertheless, revealed a number of areas where practice by both police and probation could be improved. In our opinion the three main issues, all key to public protection, threatened to undermine the efficacy of work with registered sexual offenders by both the police and probation services. These were: engagement: some probation offender managers did not engage well with those sexual offenders who were not required to attend a Sexual Offender Treatment Programme communication: formal channels of communication, both within and between police and probation services, needed to be improved MAPPA: specifically the identification and management of level 1 cases, i.e. those subject to ‘ordinary agency management’. Details: London: Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2010. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 3, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-probation/docs/Sex_Offenders_Report-rps.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-probation/docs/Sex_Offenders_Report-rps.pdf Shelf Number: 120682 Keywords: Community SupervisionPolicingProbationRecidivismRehabilitationSex Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Park, Graham Title: Through the Gates: Improving the Effectiveness of Prison Discharge - First Half Year Evaluation August 2008 to January 2009. Summary: Through The Gates describes itself as a scheme to reduce re-offending by prisoners by ensuring they are supported before release, on the day of release and for some weeks after release if necessary by engaging them with housing, benefits, specialist agencies and pobation. It aims to fill the gap between prison-based and community-based support services, carrying peole through the difficult post release period and linking them to support and supervision in the community before closing the case. Tis report covers the first six months of the St.Giles Through The Gates 2008/2009 expanded service. It follows a 2007/2008 pilot service in Lambeth and Southwark only. The purpose of the report is to ascertain whether the service might reasonably be recommissioned by London Probation or be funded in another way, and to inform St.Giles on their own performance and amendments they might wish to make to various aspects of their practice. Both quantitative (numbers) and qualitative (experiences and opinions) data are presented. Details: London: Graham Park Consulting; London: St. Giles Trust, 2009. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 22, 2011 at: http://hlg.org.uk/home/resources/Criminal-Justice---Offending/Homelessness-Code-of-Guidance-(2).aspx Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://hlg.org.uk/home/resources/Criminal-Justice---Offending/Homelessness-Code-of-Guidance-(2).aspx Shelf Number: 122148 Keywords: Community SupervisionPrisoner Reentry (U.K.)Probation |
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: Burke, Cynthia Title: Adult Offenders in Local Custody and Under Community Supervision in San Diego County: Current Capacities and Future Needs Summary: Over the years, the Criminal Justice Clearinghouse at the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has periodically produced a report entitled “Local Detention Facilities in the San Diego Region.” Historically, this report has examined the number and characteristics of adults and juveniles detained locally in jails and other facilities by either the San Diego County Sheriff’s or Probation Departments. However, with crime and arrest rates steadily declining and jail populations also going down, the most recent report was published over a decade ago, in 1999. As such, despite the fact that crime remains at 30-year lows, it seemed timely to update this report, especially given the upcoming changes across the state that will significantly impact who is detained and supervised locally, as opposed to at the state level through Assembly Bill 109 (Segerblom) (AB 109). Since this realignment currently applies solely to adult offenders, this bulletin is likewise focused on adults who have been detained and under community supervision in 2006, 2009, and 2010. These data are summarized and presented to serve as a baseline for 2011 and future years when these significant shifts in public policy have been made and the local justice system has responded. The information presented here will be useful to regional stakeholders as a tool to prepare and plan for the new populations that will be supervised locally, document the effects of various policy changes, and determine where additional resources may be needed. Details: San Diego: SANDAG, Criminal Justice Research Division, 2011. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: CJ Bulletin: Accessed November 4, 2011 at: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1612_13431.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1612_13431.pdf Shelf Number: 123226 Keywords: Adult Offenders (California)Community SupervisionInmatesJails |
Author: Glaze, Lauren E. Title: Probation and Parole in the United States, 2010 Summary: Presents statistics about adult offenders under community supervision while on probation or parole during 2010. It examines changes in community supervision populations during 2010 and prior years. The report documents a slowing of growth in these populations over time and declines in recent years. The report also provides statistics on the number of offenders entering and exiting probation and parole and the turnover of these populations. It describes the outcomes of supervision, including the rate at which probationers or parolees completed the terms of their supervision or were incarcerated for violating the conditions of supervision. Appendix tables in the report include detailed information by jurisdiction, such as entries and exits by type; sex, race, and Hispanic origin of offenders; offense type; supervision status; and Global Positioning System (GPS) offender tracking, including sex offenders. Highlights include the following: The number of adult offenders under community supervision declined by 66,700 during 2010 to reach 4,887,900 offenders at yearend 2010. At yearend 2010, about 4,055,500 adults were on probation, and during 2010 more than 4.4 million adults moved onto or off probation. At yearend 2010, an estimated 840,700 adults were on parole, and about 1.1 million offenders moved onto or off parole during the year. Both parole entries (down 0.5%) and exits (down 1.8%) declined during 2010. Details: Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 21, 2012 at http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus10.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus10.pdf Shelf Number: 123711 Keywords: Adult OffendersCommunity SupervisionOffender SupervisionParoleProbation |
Author: Khan, Sabena Title: Initial Analysis of the Impact of the Intensive Alternatives to Custody Pilots on Re-offending Rates Summary: The Intensive Alternatives to Custody (IAC) pilot programme ran from April 2008 to March 2011 to test the use of intensive community orders in diverting offenders from short-term custodial sentences. The Ministry of Justice have undertaken initial analysis to compare re-offending rates for offenders receiving IAC with a well-matched control group receiving short custodial sentences and a well-matched control group receiving court orders. This paper summarises the key findings. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2012. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Summary 5/12: Accessed July 17, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/iac-impact-evaluation-research-summary.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/iac-impact-evaluation-research-summary.pdf Shelf Number: 125658 Keywords: Alternative to Incarceration (U.K.)Community SupervisionIntensive Community OrdersRe-OffendingRecidivism |
Author: Wong, Kevin Title: Intensive Alternatives to Custody Process Evaluation of Pilots in Five Areas Summary: A qualitative process evaluation of five Intensive Alternative to Custody (IAC) pioneer areas was undertaken to assess implementation of IAC, identify approaches to implementation and capture the lessons learnt. The findings indicated that many of the persistent offenders (those with at least 29 prior convictions) targeted by pilots were positive about the IAC order. Although intensive, it provided order and stability, allowing them to move away from a criminal lifestyle. Sentencers welcomed the order as a viable alternative to custody. Probation staff and partners were equally positive about its efficacy. Only one in four IAC orders were revoked because requirements were breached, which suggests that the pilots had managed to engage many of the offenders. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2012. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Research Series 12/12: Accessed July 30, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/iac-process-evaluation-pilots-five-areas.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/iac-process-evaluation-pilots-five-areas.pdf Shelf Number: 125793 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (U.K.)Community SupervisionIntensive Community Orders |
Author: Aungst, Sharon, ed. Title: Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision: Best Practices and Resources for California Counties Summary: California Forward launched the Partnership for Community Excellence (Partnership) in December 2011 to assist counties to envision, design and implement their own strategies to effectively implement new responsibilities related to the adult criminal justice Realignment under Assembly Bill 109 and related legislation. The Partnership’s goal is to provide actionable information to local leaders and agencies so they can make smart decisions in building capacity, choosing evidence-based programs, and measuring and improving results. Realignment also creates an opportunity for counties to examine new governance models that will help them achieve better outcomes in other areas of local government. Good governance is centered on collaborative planning, using models and services shown to work, and measuring and improving results. Given the diversity of California, these good governance practices can be expected to result in different strategies. There is no “one right way,” yet government must be accountable to Californians for results. Adopting effective governance models will assist counties to improve transparency, accountability and results. Public leaders need accurate and up-to-date information in order to make good decisions and drive system change. Effective pretrial practices are important to the success of Realignment and improving public safety, given that 71 percent of jail beds currently are occupied by pretrial detainees. Making pretrial release decisions based on a detainee’s risk and needs, versus their ability to post bail, is key to improving public safety and offender outcomes. The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of best practices and practical information to assist county leaders in determining how pretrial programs could assist their local jurisdiction. The report includes the following: • Summary of national pretrial best practices; • Summary of five California counties’ experiences in effectively implementing pretrial programs; • Suggestions related to offender tracking and data collection and analysis; • Issues for consideration in implementing a pretrial program; and, • Resources including technical assistance available to counties. Details: Sacramento: Partnership for Community Excellence, 2012. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 11, 2012 at: http://caforward.3cdn.net/7a60c47c7329a4abd7_2am6iyh9s.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://caforward.3cdn.net/7a60c47c7329a4abd7_2am6iyh9s.pdf Shelf Number: 126675 Keywords: BailCommunity SupervisionPretrial Detention (California)Risk Assessment |
Author: Cobb, Kimberly A. Title: Tribal Probation: An Overview for Tribal Court Judges Summary: More effective ways of addressing the misdemeanor offenses of tribal members is needed since incarceration does not play a great part in many tribal cultures. “This article is designed to provide tribal court judges with a general understanding of community supervision and how it can benefit tribal justice systems, as well as provide some insight into the role of community supervision officers” (p. 4). Topics discussed include: what community supervision is; benefits to the tribal justice system; benefits to communities and victims; benefits to offenders; how judges can utilize community supervision officers; the role of a tribal probation officer; and ways a tribal court judge can support community supervision of offenders. Details: Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, 2010. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 14, 2012 at http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/appa/pubs/TPOTCJ.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/appa/pubs/TPOTCJ.pdf Shelf Number: 126706 Keywords: Community SupervisionNative AmericansProbationTribal CourtsTribal Justice |
Author: Bewley, Helen Title: The Effectiveness of Different Community Order Requirements for Offenders Who Received an OASys Assessment Summary: The study used propensity score matching to explore the impact of different community order requirements on the re-offending rate and frequency of re-offending within two years of the initial offence. The analysis used data from the Offender Assessment System, probation and re-offending records and administrative data on employment and benefit receipt. The study found no evidence to suggest that increasing the punitive element of community orders would have a detrimental effect on re-offending, for the combinations of requirements considered. However, combining other types of requirement, such as supervision, with a punitive element, can increase the effectiveness of the community order. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2012. 135p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Research Series 17/12: Accessed October 24, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/niesr-report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/niesr-report.pdf Shelf Number: 126796 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SentencingCommunity SupervisionOffenders (U.K.)ProbationersRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Hanes, Melodee Title: Community Supervision of Underage Drinkers Summary: Underage drinking is a widespread offense that can have serious physical, neurological, and legal consequences. Problematically, it has become quite commonplace. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) works to eliminate underage consumption of alcohol and provide guidance for communities developing prevention and treatment programs. OJJDP created the underage drinking bulletin series to educate practitioners and policymakers about the problems youth face when they abuse alcohol and to provide evidence-based guidelines. The series presents findings from a study on preventing underage drinking in the Air Force as well as a literature review of the effects and consequences of underage drinking, best practices for community supervision of underage drinkers and legal issues surrounding underage drinking, and practice guidelines for working with underage drinkers. The series highlights the dangers of underage drinking. Hopefully, the information it provides will support communities in their efforts to reduce alcohol use by minors through the use of evidence based strategies and practices. In this bulletin, the authors provide a theoretical overview upon which to base policies, procedures, and practices that will help professionals—and their corresponding agencies—effectively supervise underage drinkers in the community. They also discuss the legal issues that professionals may encounter when working with these youth. Details: Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, 2012. Source: OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2012 at Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 126874 Keywords: Alcohol Related Crime, DisorderCommunity SupervisionJuvenile OffendersUnderage Drinking |
Author: Drake, E.K. Title: Confinement for Technical Violations of Community Supervision: Is There an Effect on Felony Recidivism? Summary: The Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) has jurisdiction over offenders when a superior court orders community supervision. While on supervision, offenders must adhere to conditions such as reporting regularly to their Community Corrections Officer (CCO). If conditions are violated, DOC may impose sanctions ranging from reprimands to confinement. Between fiscal years 2002 and 2008, approximately 72 percent of all offenders who had a violation received confinement as a sanction. We investigate whether the use of confinement—as a sanction for a violation—has an impact on recidivism. We rely on a “natural experiment” to analyze this question. We discovered that some CCOs use confinement as a sanction more than others, and that DOC attempts to evenly distribute offenders to CCO caseloads by risk for reoffense. These two factors allow us to test whether recidivism is affected by confining offenders who violate the conditions of their community supervision. We employed numerous tests, all of which demonstrate that recidivism is not lowered for offenders who are confined for a violation of supervision. Limitations and possible extensions of this research are discussed. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2012. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2013 at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/12-07-1201.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/12-07-1201.pdf Shelf Number: 127573 Keywords: Community Based Corrections (Washington State)Community SupervisionProbationProbationersRecidivism |
Author: Northern Ireland. Criminal Justice Inspection Title: An Inspection of Community Supervision by the Probation Board for Northern Ireland Summary: Supervising offenders in the community represents a significant proportion of the overall work of the probation service, and is carried out by probation officers and probation service officers across the whole of Northern Ireland. A small number of these offenders when released from prison continue to pose a significant risk to the community, and it is essential that they are being supervised effectively to support their rehabilitation. This inspection assessed the performance of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI) in supervising offenders in the community. The inspection also sought to ensure that there was a legacy of both personal and organisational learning by involving probation managers and probation officers/probation service officers in the review of case files, together with the assessors from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMI Probation). We also sought to benchmark the performance of the PBNI in comparison with other probation services and practice in England and Wales. The inspection shows the PBNI to be an effective organisation which delivers its services against challenging standards which compare to, and on many occasions exceed, those being delivered in England and Wales. The results of the case file reviews, feedback from stakeholders from within the criminal justice system and third sector, as well as offenders and victims, reflects the approach of an organisation which understands and accepts its role in delivering public safety and reducing offending. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, 2013. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 9, 2013 at: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/78/78040759-0c4f-449b-b36b-647dd986eb51.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/78/78040759-0c4f-449b-b36b-647dd986eb51.pdf Shelf Number: 128691 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SupervisionProbation (Northern Ireland)Probationers |
Author: Reddy, Vikrant P. Title: Cutting Edge Corrections: Using Technology to Improve Community Supervision in Texas Summary: Over the last three decades, the United States has seen an extraordinary burst of technological innovation. Desktop computing, mobile communication, and mapping are just a few aspects of daily life that are completely different than they were only thirty years ago. For Texas legislators, these innovations have provided exciting new opportunities throughout public policy. In education policy, for example, digital learning could lead to a revolution in student outcomes. Criminal justice policy in Texas is one area that could especially benefit from innovation. In particular, technology has the potential to completely revolutionize community supervision. The fundamental needs of community supervision are technologies for monitoring offenders, for communicating with them, and for analyzing data about them. In all of these areas, technology has grown leaps and bounds. Key Points - Use risk assessments to match probationers and parolees with the most appropriate level of supervision. - Explore use of including voice recognition reporting for the lowest-risk offenders, thus reallocating supervision resources to frequent home visits as well as GPS monitoring for high-risk offenders. - Given that many of those under supervision with technical probation revocations become absconders, consider using enhanced monitoring in order to reduce technical revocations. - While continuing to use ignition interlock devices where appropriate, also consider expanding the use of other alcohol detection devices that are directed at stopping alcohol abuse, not just drunk driving. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2014. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Perspective: Accessed May 5, 2014 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2014-04-PP17-CuttingEdgeCorrections-CEJ-ReddyLevin_0.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2014-04-PP17-CuttingEdgeCorrections-CEJ-ReddyLevin_0.pdf Shelf Number: 132239 Keywords: Alcohol Interlock DevicesCommunity SupervisionCriminal Justice PolicyOffender MonitoringOffender SupervisionProbationersTechnology and Crime |
Author: Gyateng, Tracey Title: Key Predictors of Compliance with Community Supervision in London Summary: Non-compliance with court orders and subsequent breach proceedings are important factors fuelling a rising prison population: one in seven (14%) receptions into English and Welsh prison establishments during 2008 were for breach of a court order. The London Criminal Justice Partnership (LCJP) has established a Compliance and Enforcement Strategy for 2008/2011 which seeks to reduce re-offending and prison overcrowding, and lower the considerable costs of enforcement activities in the capital. This independent research study by the Institute for Criminal Policy Research (ICPR), King's College London, sought to support and inform the delivery of that strategy in achieving these aims. This study aimed to meet the LCJP's need for strategic information that would: - help probation staff target their proposals to sentencers more precisely; - identify gaps in provision which could be addressed by using packages of requirements attached to orders more creatively; - identify the key predictors of breach and compliance; and - identify the sub-groups of offenders for whom other disposals, such as fines, are the most sensible PSR proposal. Details: London: London Criminal Justice Partnership, 2010. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2014 at: http://www.icpr.org.uk/media/10306/Key%20predictors%20in%20compliance%20mcsweeney%20gyateng%20hough.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.icpr.org.uk/media/10306/Key%20predictors%20in%20compliance%20mcsweeney%20gyateng%20hough.pdf Shelf Number: 132392 Keywords: Community SupervisionOffender SupervisionProbation OfficersProbationers |
Author: Turner, Shelley Title: Case Management with Women Offenders: Literature Review Summary: This literature review relates to case management in community corrections with women offenders. The review summarises research outcomes about best practice principles for the management of women offenders under community corrections supervision. The review also examines the outcomes of evaluations of case management as a supervisory and rehabilitative mechanism. The central purpose of the review is to inform a Dedicated Women's Case Management pilot project conducted by Corrections Victoria, which involves using specialist case managers for women offenders, assessed as being at medium to high risk of re-offending or with multiple and complex needs. The review examines international and Australian literature on effective practice and 'what works' with offenders and, in particular women offenders, to reduce recidivism, as well as international and Australian literature on case management approaches in community corrections, with particular reference to those designed for women offenders. Details: Melbourne: Department of Justice - Corrections Victoria, 2010. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 19, 2014 at: http://www.corrections.vic.gov.au/utility/publications+manuals+and+statistics/literature+review+on+case+management+with+women+offenders Year: 2010 Country: International URL: http://www.corrections.vic.gov.au/utility/publications+manuals+and+statistics/literature+review+on+case+management+with+women+offenders Shelf Number: 132510 Keywords: Case ManagementCommunity Based CorrectionsCommunity SupervisionFemale OffendersOffender Rehabilitation |
Author: Gobeil, Renee Title: Offenders with Long Term Supervision Orders Assigned Residency Conditions at Release Summary: Why we did this study A very small number of offenders present a high risk of re-offence even after the end of their sentence. Legislation exists to allow for these offenders to be imposed a long term supervision order (LTSO), a period of additional community supervision of up to 10 years at the end of their sentence. In addition, many offenders with LTSOs are given a residency condition at release - that is, are required to live in a halfway house. In the last decade, the number of offenders with LTSOs has increased, as has the proportion who receive residency conditions. What we did We therefore conducted a study to better understand if and how residency conditions contribute to the management of the risk presented by offenders with LTSOs. We examined all offenders with LTSOs released to the community by August 2011. The 347 with a residency condition were compared to the 120 without one in areas such as demographics, risk and need, and both suspensions and returns to custody (that is, revocation of conditional release as well as breach of LTSO and other new offences). What we found In general, offenders with and without a residency condition were very similar. This was true for demographic characteristics, victim information patterns, and mental health. However, those assigned a residency condition were judged by their parole officers to present higher levels of risk and of need, though the two groups returned to custody (due to revocations of conditional release or breaches of LTSO and other new offences) at the same rates. After statistically controlling for differences in reintegration potential, offenders with LTSOs with a residency condition may be less likely to be suspended. Nonetheless, the overall pattern of findings suggests that residency conditions are not contributing to managing the risk presented by offenders with LTSOs. Notably, two factors which were peripheral to the offender - the region where release occurred and how recently the offender was released - were both also related to whether residency was imposed. What it means Findings suggest that decisions to impose residency conditions may not be sufficiently rooted in risk. From a correctional theory perspective, imposition of restrictive conditions should be based on sound principles and research, and there may be room for improvement in this area with respect to the imposition of residency conditions on offenders with LTSOs. The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) has undertaken relevant initiatives in this domain (specifically, education programs) that may lead to improvements if they are expanded. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2012. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report No. R-285: Accessed August 23, 2014 at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/005/008/092/005008-0285-eng.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Canada URL: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/005/008/092/005008-0285-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 133126 Keywords: Community SupervisionHigh-Risk OffendersHousing RestrictionsOffender Supervision (Canada)ParoleesRecidivismResidency Restrictions |
Author: Cobb, Kimberly Title: Going Beyond Compliance Monitoring of Drug/Alcohol-Involved Tribal Probationers Summary: It is no secret that alcohol and substance abuse are common problems in Indian Country. While official data on crime in Indian Country is hard to come by, anecdotal data alludes to the fact that many tribal communities face overwhelming numbers of crimes either directly related to or associated with drugs/alcohol. Alcohol abuse has been associated with numerous negative consequences including crime, domestic violence, sexual assault and rape, suicide, morbidity, and ultimately mortality (Aguirre & Watts, 2010; Kovas, McFarland, Landen, Lopez, & May, 2008). However, alcohol is far from the only substance abused on tribal land. Marijuana, methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, and various pharmaceutical drugs are also regularly abused (NDIC, 2008). Although there has been great emphasis lately on the building or renovation of detention facilities in Indian Country, many tribal communities hold fast to the belief that they do not want to imprison their members. In fact, alternatives to incarceration, which includes probation and community supervision programs, are professed as a more "culturally compatible approach to punishment for crime" in Indian Country (Luna-Firebaugh, 2003, p. 63). Therefore, unless something tragic has occurred, those charged with drug/alcohol-related offenses will more than likely be placed on community supervision. That is where you come in as the tribal probation officer. Working with probationers is more than just identifying and controlling their risk to re-offend. As a tribal probation officer, you are "charged with ensuring public safety; holding offenders accountable for their actions; and, facilitating behavioral change in offenders" (The Century Council, 2010, pg. 8). In order to fulfill this charge, you often have to take on many roles associated with law enforcement, social work, counselor and court servant - which, at times, can have conflicting goals (Cobb, Mowatt, Matz, & Mullins, 2011). To be effective, you have to blend your duties of being an officer of the court (focused on compliance) and a probationer motivator (focused on facilitating behavior change) - both of which are necessary to fulfill the mandate of protecting public safety. In order to be effective and protect public safety over the long-term, as a tribal probation officer, you must move beyond compliance monitoring of the probation conditions ordered by the court to working with individuals on your caseload to identifying the root cause of the issues behind their drug/alcohol-related problems and intervene as necessary to put them on a better path. Details: Lexington, KY: American Probation & Parole Association, 2014. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 25, 2014 at: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/APPA/pubs/GBAITP.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/APPA/pubs/GBCMDAITP.pdf Shelf Number: 133133 Keywords: Alcohol AbuseAlternatives To IncarcerationCommunity Based CorrectionsCommunity SupervisionDrug Abuse and AddictionDrug OffendersIndians of North AmericaProbation Officers (U.S.)ProbationersRisk AssessmentSubstance Abuse |
Author: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Office of Research Title: Female Realignment Report: An Examination of Female Offenders Released from State Prison in the First Year of Public Safety Realignment Summary: California's Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011 transferred jurisdiction and funding for managing lower-level criminal offenders from the State to the counties. Under Realignment, for example, certain lower level felons now serve their felony sentences in jail rather than prison. Realignment also changed California's system of community corrections. Prior to Realignment, State parole agents supervised every female inmate released from prison, and parole violators could be revoked to State prison for up to one year. Since October 1, 2011, probation departments have administered a system of post-release community supervision (PRCS) to complement State parole. State parole agents continue to supervise high-risk sex offenders, lifers, and any other female offenders who are released from prison after having been incarcerated for a current/prior serious or violent crime. All other female inmates released from prison are placed on PRCS. No offenders received an early release from prison under Realignment. If offenders violate the terms of PRCS or State parole supervision, a range of sanctions may be used by counties, including a revocation term in jail. Only certain offenders are eligible for revocation to State prison. Prior Realignment research conducted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) evaluated all offenders. This report examines arrest, convictions, and returns to prison for female offenders pre- and post-Realignment. Female offenders have "distinct rehabilitative and health care needs, and are more likely to have suffered trauma and abuse prior to incarceration" (California Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2012). As such, CDCR is committed to providing gender-responsive programs and services to meet those needs and, ultimately, increase successful return to society for our female population. CDCR now has one year of releases and one full year of follow-up data to evaluate how female offenders released from prison during the first year after implementation have fared. Note that a more complete examination of Realignment's impact on female offenders would require a three-year follow-up period. Methodology For this study, we identified two cohorts of female offenders: 1) the Pre-Realignment cohort of female offenders released between October 1, 2010 and September 30, 2011; and, 2) the Post-Realignment cohort of female offenders released between October 1, 2011 and September 30, 2012. One-year post-release recidivism rates were tracked for both cohorts to see if they were re-arrested, convicted of a new crime, or returned to State prison. Sound methodology and procedures were followed for this study; however, the study focuses on only one year of releases, representing an early stage of post-Realignment activity and implementation. Therefore, caution should be used when interpreting the findings. Details: Sacramento: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2014. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 10, 2014 at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/adult_research_branch/Research_Documents/Female%20One%20Yr%20Pre-Post-Realignment%20Recidivism%20Report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/adult_research_branch/Research_Documents/Female%20One%20Yr%20Pre-Post-Realignment%20Recidivism%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 134014 Keywords: California Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011Community SupervisionFemale OffendersGender Specific ResponsesProbationRecidivismRevocation |
Author: Victoria. Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Exploring the Relationship between Community-Based Order Conditions and Reoffending Summary: 1.1 This report examines the relationship between conditions imposed on offenders as part of a community-based sentence and subsequent reoffending. Specifically, the report considers community-based orders (CBOs) imposed by the Magistrates' Court of Victoria between 1 July 2007 and 30 June 2009, with a focus on (a) how magistrates used different combinations of conditions and (b) how offender and offence characteristics, including reoffending rates, differed between offenders who did and did not receive 'supervision' as a condition of their order. The analysis provides an insight into the interaction between decisions made by sentencers in relation to community-based sentencing and subsequent reoffending within the Victorian criminal justice system. 1.2 Although the CBO was abolished in January 2012, this report is highly relevant to the CBO's replacement: the community correction order (CCO). Despite an increased range of conditions available under the latter order, recent research suggests that magistrates are using CCOs in a very similar manner to how they were using CBOs. Thus, the report is still likely to provide an insight into the expected reoffending patterns for CCOs. 1.3 The Council defines reoffending as any offending that followed the imposition of the index sentence and was sentenced in any Victorian court to 30 June 2012. Defined this way, the overall reoffending rate for offenders who received a CBO is 42.6%. 1.4 There are multiple methods for examining reoffending. The methodology used in this report is consistent with the approach taken by the New South Wales (NSW) Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) in their analysis of reoffending in NSW. This method differs from the Productivity Commission's analysis in a number of significant ways, including: - focusing on reoffending that follows the imposition (as opposed to completion) of a community order; - counting reoffending that results in fines; and - including reoffending that occurs between three and five years post-sentence (as opposed to two years). 1.5 Unpaid community work, assessment/treatment, and supervision were the main conditions attached to CBOs. At least one of these three conditions was included in 97.2% (n = 6,177) of the CBOs imposed during the index period. The focus of this report is on the supervision condition. Of the sample of 6,177 offenders, 45% (n = 2,791) received supervision as at least one of the conditions of a CBO (the 'Supervision CBO' group) while the remaining 55% (n = 3,386) did not (the 'No Supervision CBO' group). The Supervision CBO group had a significantly higher reoffending rate than the No Supervision CBO group (49.5% compared with 36.9%). Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2014. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 20, 2014 at: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Exploring%20the%20Relationship%20between%20Community-Based%20Order%20Conditions%20and%20Reoffending.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Exploring%20the%20Relationship%20between%20Community-Based%20Order%20Conditions%20and%20Reoffending.pdf Shelf Number: 134174 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SupervisionCommunity-Based Corrections (Australia)RecidivismReoffendingSentencing |
Author: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: Reducing Incarceration for Technical Violations in Louisiana: Evaluation of revocation cap shows cost savings, less crime Summary: In 2007, Louisiana lawmakers unanimously approved legislation that set a 90-day limit on the incarceration in jail or prison of those whose probation or parole has been revoked for the first time for violating the rules of their community supervision. Lawmakers passed the legislation, Act 402 (House Bill 423), to prioritize jail and prison beds for serious offenders and steer lower-level offenders to less expensive and potentially more effective alternatives. An independent evaluation of the policy commissioned by The Pew Charitable Trusts, supplemented by additional research conducted by Pew, concluded that Louisiana's 90-day revocation limit has: -- Reduced the average length of incarceration for first-time technical revocations in Louisiana by 281 days, or 9.2 months. -- Maintained public safety, with returns to custody for new crimes declining from 7.9 percent to 6.2 percent, a 22 percent decrease. -- Resulted in a net savings of approximately 2,034 jail and prison beds a year. -- Saved taxpayers an average of $17.6 million in annual corrections costs. This brief summarizes these findings and looks ahead to the longer-term implications of Act 402 for Louisiana. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2014. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed February 5, 2015 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2014/11/PSPPReducingIncarcerationforTechnicalViolationsinLouisiana.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2014/11/PSPPReducingIncarcerationforTechnicalViolationsinLouisiana.pdf Shelf Number: 134546 Keywords: Community SupervisionCost-Benefit AnalysisParole Revocation (Louisiana)ParoleesProbation RevocationProbationers |
Author: Skorek, Rebecca Title: Influence of court-ordered forensic evaluations on juvenile justice system-involved youth Summary: This evaluation measured implementation and impact of the Detention to Probation Continuum of Care (DPCC) program administered through a collaboration of River Valley Detention Center (RVDC) mental health staff, and Will and Kankakee county juvenile court judges and probation officers. In 2011, RVDC had 667 youth admissions between the ages of 10 and 17, with an estimated 50 percent released into the community under court supervision monitored by a probation officer. The DPCC program has three phases: 1. Institutional phase, in which youth receive mental health screening while in detention. The mental health screening is administered by RVDC mental health staff to identify factors among detained youth that may be leading to delinquency, ascertain if there are any mental health disorders present, and establish appropriate in-detention care, including prescription of psychotropic medications. A mental health screening can only be completed if RVDC mental health staff were able to meet with the detained youth prior to their release. 2. Structured phase, which is the completion of a court-ordered forensic evaluation by RVDC mental health staff. This evaluation is ordered by the juvenile court judge during a youth's detention hearing occurring within 40 hours of detention admission. The forensic evaluation is conducted for the purpose of developing a rehabilitative plan to guide sentencing conditions and supervision in the least restrictive manner. The mental health screen provides a foundation for the court-ordered forensic evaluation. 3. Reintegration phase, which begins when the judge receives the forensic evaluation report at the youth's adjudication hearing and ends at completion of the probation supervision. The forensic evaluation report includes a rehabilitative plan that describes appropriate community-based treatment services, such as counseling or psychiatric treatment, to be judicially imposed through conditions of probation. Completion of community-based care is monitored by a Will or Kankakee county probation officer. ICJIA researchers used two methods to conduct this evaluation. One method was interviews with stakeholders to gain a better understanding of DPCC program activities and the utility of court-ordered forensic evaluations. The second method was analysis of detention and probation data on a sample of 211 youth who were detained at RVDC between 2003 and 2009 and discharged from Will and Kankakee probation between 2007 and 2009. These data allowed ICJIA researchers to assess the extent to which these youth progressed through the DPCC program phases and to track their compliance with sentencing conditions, and subsequent detention admissions and arrests. Research questions to measure program implementation included: - Institutional phaseXTo what extent did those juvenile detainees who were ultimately eligible for probation-based mental health treatment receive a mental health screen? - Structured phaseXTo what extent did those juvenile detainees who were ultimately eligible for probation-based mental health treatment receive a court-ordered forensic evaluation (were DPCC program enrolled/participants)? - Reintegration phaseXTo what extent did conditions of probation regarding community-based treatment services reflect the rehabilitative plan developed through the court-ordered forensic evaluation? Research questions to measure program impact included: - To what extent did receiving a court-ordered forensic evaluation influence conditions of probation regarding community-based treatment services? - To what extent did those receiving a court-ordered forensic evaluation receive indicated treatment services and subsequently have higher rates of compliance with judicially imposed conditions of probation, and fewer detention admissions and arrests? - To what extent did moderate/high risk juvenile probationers with mental health needs receive a mental health screen and/or court-ordered forensic evaluation - To what extent did moderate/high risk juvenile probationers with mental health needs complete appropriate community-based treatment services? Details: Chicago: Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2014. 119p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2015 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/RVDCMHP_122014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/RVDCMHP_122014.pdf Shelf Number: 135073 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SupervisionCommunity-Based TreatmentJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (Illinois)Juvenile ProbationersMental Health Services |
Author: Keaton, Sandy Title: Seeking Alternatives: Understanding the Pathways to Incarceration of High-Risk Juvenile Offenders February 2015 Summary: In 2003, San Diego County's juvenile justice system formed a committee to address the issue of Disproportionate Minority Contact of youth, now referred to as Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparity (RED). This committee, which is comprised of key juvenile justice decision makers1 in San Diego County has spent years conducting research and internal reviews to identify and reduce disparities throughout the juvenile justice system. As part of this process, the committee sought to learn more about those youth most deeply entrenched in the system. Research has shown that the trajectory for most (e.g., 90%) juvenile offenders is away from offending and delinquent behaviors. However, for chronic offenders, their adolescent years are spent in and out of school, custody, and under the scrutiny of the court and the rules of probation. Recent research in the field has shown that long-term incarceration of youth does not reduce recidivism and in some cases, for lower-level offenders, it can actually increase criminal recidivism. This information, combined with the overrepresentation of youth of color in parts of the system, and the belief that more could be done to redirect these entrenched youth, provided the impetus for the RED committee to seek out the support of The California Wellness Foundation (CWF) to learn more about this population. RED members approached CWF to fund a study designed to examine factors contributing to youth becoming deeply entrenched in the juvenile justice system with the purpose to inform California juvenile justice systems. Of particular interest was capturing the youths' perspective on their experiences prior to and during their involvement in the justice system. In partnership with San Diego County Probation and The Children's Initiative, SANDAG's Applied Research Division designed and conducted a qualitative study of 40 high-risk youth either sentenced to the Youthful Offender Unit (YOU) or to the Community Transition Unit (CTU) to learn more about their paths deeper into the system and what interventions could have altered that course, and when those interventions could have been implemented to the greatest advantage. YOU is a graduated sanctions program in which youth are in custody locally for up to 9 months and supervised in their communities for the remaining 3 months, for a total of 12 months. CTU is a community-based supervision program for youth who are returning to their communities after completing a sentence in a Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) facility. A mixed-model design was used with data gathered from a structured interview with the youth, validated assessments, and official Probation records. The goal of the research was to capture information on all the systems the youth had come in contact with, including education and Child Welfare Services (CWS). Details: San Diego: SANDAG, 2015. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 1, 2015 at: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1925_18816.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1925_18816.pdf Shelf Number: 135079 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SupervisionDisproportionate Minority ContactJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Reentry |
Author: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Title: Profiles in Probation Revocation: Examining the Legal Framework in 21 States Summary: This report compiles - in a convenient format - the results of a yearlong research project on the laws relating to probation revocation in 21 American states. By leafing through the four-page "legal profiles" presented in this volume, readers can easily see how much variation exists in statewide laws of probation and probation revocation, while zeroing in on issues of greatest interest. Whether a reader's jurisdiction is included in the report's 21 states or not, the legal profiles contain a wealth of information that will allow for comparison with one's own system. We think every reader - no matter how experienced in the field - will come across practices or ideas in this study that they never heard of before. The report assumes that American states have much to learn from one another. Justice Louis Brandeis famously believed that the states can serve as "laboratories" for innovations in law and policy, so that best practices can emerge and be brought to the attention of other states for possible adoption or adaptation. In order for Brandeis's laboratory to be a reality, however, the states must have some way of learning about the practices of other jurisdictions. In an increasingly complex and specialized world, this is a daunting task - and one that often requires a heavy investment in research. The Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice has made such an investment in this report. We hope it will allow readers to see their home jurisdictions in new perspective, and will further the nationwide process of dialogue and improvement that Justice Brandeis envisioned. Details: Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota Law School, 2014. 104p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 16, 2015 at: http://www.robinainstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/Robina-Report-2015-WEB.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.robinainstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/Robina-Report-2015-WEB.pdf Shelf Number: 135677 Keywords: Community SupervisionProbationProbation RevocationProbation SupervisionProbationers |
Author: Solomon, Freda F. Title: CJA's Queens County Supervised Release Program: Impact on Court Processing and Outcomes Summary: This report by the New York City Criminal Justice Agency (CJA) presents the results of an examination of CJA's Queens County (NY) Supervised Release Program. The supervised release program is offered by judges at arraignment to selected offenders arrested for certain non-violent felonies who have satisfied a number of conditions during a rigorous pre-arraignment screening process. This report provides an overview of the program as well as data on completed program cases, case and defendant characteristics, court outcomes in completed program cases, comparison of exited program and pre-program groups of cases, and comparison of baseline and program cases arraigned on felony drug and property crime charges. The evaluation found that to date, the majority of the program's clients (87.4 percent) have left the program under successful conditions of participation. The evaluation also found that defendants sentenced to pretrial release were less likely to receive a conditional discharge sentence compared to defendants not released before trial. In addition, those defendants that were received pretrial release were more likely to have shorter case processing times with prosecutors still able to successfully obtain convictions in these cases. Program limitations are discussed. Details: New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, 2013. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 26, 2015 at: http://www.pretrial.org/download/research/Queens%20County%20Supervised%20Release%20Program-%20Impact%20on%20Court%20Processing%20ad%20Outcomes%20-%20CJA%202013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/download/research/Queens%20County%20Supervised%20Release%20Program-%20Impact%20on%20Court%20Processing%20ad%20Outcomes%20-%20CJA%202013.pdf Shelf Number: 129686 Keywords: Case ManagementCommunity SupervisionPretrial ReleaseSupervised Release |
Author: Council of State Governments, Justice Center Title: Juvenile Reinvestment in Alabama: Analysis and Policy Framework Summary: This report summarizes comprehensive analyses of sentencing, corrections, probation, and parole data presented to Alabama's Prison Reform Task Force. It outlines strategies and policy options to reduce the prison population and recidivism in the state by strengthening community-based supervision and treatment, prioritizing prison space for violent and dangerous offenders, and providing supervision to every person released from prison. The report also offers strategies for supporting victims of crime through improved victim notification. If implemented, the report's suggested policies would reinvest $26 million in recidivism reduction strategies in FY2016 and avert $407 million in prison construction and operations costs by FY2021 Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2015. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 30, 2015 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/JRinAlabamaPoliciesandFramework.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/JRinAlabamaPoliciesandFramework.pdf Shelf Number: 135832 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity Based CorrectionsCommunity SupervisionCorrectional InstitutionsJustice ReinvestmentParolePrisonsProbation |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Transitions Arrangements: A follow-up inspection Summary: The objectives of the inspection were to seek to establish how far the recommendations in the 2012 joint report Transitions: An inspection of the transitions arrangements from youth to adult services in the criminal justice system had been implemented and whether improvements to practice had resulted. The previous inspection had been a multi-agency inspection; whereas this inspection was a single agency inspection and, therefore, we did not interview other providers such as health or education, nor did we visit the custodial estate during this inspection. We visited six areas and spoke to strategic and operational staff from three organisations, Youth Offending Teams, Community Rehabilitation Companies and the National Probation Service. We conducted interviews relating to 50 cases using a case assessment tool we had devised, partly consistent with the previous tool. What can or cannot be transferred? There are a variety of orders which can be imposed on a young person. At the 'lower' end, there are orders which do not get transferred to the adult world, such as referral orders, reparation orders and some youth rehabilitation orders with a specific activity requirement. At the more 'serious' end of sentencing, a detention and training order generally is not transferred. Other youth rehabilitation orders have specific activity requirements such as intensive fostering (pilot areas only), intensive supervision and surveillance or programme requirement, which can be transferred when the requirement has been completed and the young person has reached their 18th birthday. Other orders should be transferred to the adult services, for example, youth rehabilitation orders with a stand-alone unpaid work requirement or a long-term custodial sentence (under sections 90/91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000; sections 226/228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003). A solid principle is, therefore, that it is for the Youth Offending Team, in conjunction with the National Probation Service, to consider whether a case should be transferred based on the assessed needs of the young person and the legal requirements of the order. Overall findings In our original thematic report in 2012, we noted that although we found examples of individual effective practice, work to promote the smooth transition of young people from youth based to adult based services did not always receive sufficient attention. In the community, some young people were not identified as eligible for transfer and, in those cases which were identified; transfer was often undertaken as a purely procedural task. Young people were not as informed or involved as they should have been. Overall, there was insufficient timely sharing of information between the youth based and adult based services to enable sentence plans to be delivered without interruption. The situation was similar in custody, where insufficient forward planning and communication led to an interruption in sentence planning and delivery of interventions after young people had transferred to an over-18 Young Offender Institute/prison. Positively, there were examples of local written arrangements for transition in the community although they needed to be better understood and used by practitioners. We made eight specific recommendations in the original report, and have assessed through this reinspection the progress made in addressing them by the Youth Offending Team/Youth Offending Service Management Boards, the National Probation Service and the Community Rehabilitation Companies in the areas we visited. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2016. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 14, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/01/Transitions-arrangements-follow-up-report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/01/Transitions-arrangements-follow-up-report.pdf Shelf Number: 138225 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Based Corrections Community SupervisionProbation Probationers Rehabilitation |
Author: Rios, Nestor Title: Reducing Recidivism: A Review of Effective State Initiatives Summary: The Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition commissioned this report that documents how retraining staff in behavioral intervention methods, implementing system-wide organizational improvements, and restructuring probation and parole supervision around the crime related behaviors allowed Maryland's PCS program to achieve an amazing 42 percent lower rate of re-arrests for people under supervision. Crime related behaviors were described under Maryland's PCS program as violence, drug entrepreneurship, drug abuse, domestic abuse, etc. In addition, the report introduces the concept of Justice Reinvestment to Colorado policymakers, profiling efforts in Arizona, Connecticut and Kansas to improve parole and probation supervision outcomes while reducing state correctional costs. Details: New York: Justice Strategies, 2009. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2016 at: http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/publications/CO_Reducing_Recidivism_Report.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/publications/CO_Reducing_Recidivism_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 130061 Keywords: Community SupervisionCosts of CorrectionsJustice ReinvestmentParole SupervisionProbation SupervisionRecidivism |
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: Solomon, Freda F. Title: Community Supervision as a Money Bail Alternative: The Impact of CJA's Manhattan Supervised Release Program On Legal Outcomes and Pretrial Misconduct Summary: The New York City Criminal Justice Agency (CJA), Inc., is a non-profit organization, working under a contract with the City of New York to provide pretrial services to defendants prosecuted in the City's Criminal Court system. The Agency's primary mission is to reduce unnecessary pretrial detention in New York City. As part of that mission, CJA has advocated for community supervision as an alternative to money bail for defendants posing a medium risk of failure to appear (FTA) if released on unsupervised personal recognizance. CJA created a pilot program after extensive consultation with, and the support of, the New York City Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator (since renamed the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice). The program was designed to offer judges at Criminal Court arraignment the option of supervised release as a bail alternative in selected non-violent felony cases with a high likelihood of having bail set. In August 2009, CJA introduced its first Supervised Release (SR) program in the Queens Criminal Court. Based on the success of that program, the City contracted with CJA to develop a similar three-year demonstration project in the New York County (Manhattan) Criminal Court, which was implemented in April 2013. Owing to the success of the CJA programs the City, through the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice, developed a proposal to introduce a more expansive program of pretrial release under supervision citywide. In March 2016, CJA's program was replaced in Manhattan by this new City initiative. CJA's Manhattan Supervised Release (MSR) program, like its Queens counterpart, offered judges a pretrial community-based supervision program as an alternative to setting bail at the Criminal Court arraignment in cases arraigned on selected non-violent felony charges. In Manhattan, these have been felony charges involving drug, property, or fraud/theft crimes, plus a comparatively small number of other types of non-Violent Felony Offense (VFO) crimes (e.g., D-felony robbery). Cases involving domestic violence, or where the defendant was scheduled for a hospital arraignment, were excluded even if charge eligible. Beyond the charge criteria, the program had additional restrictions used to screen potentially eligible cases and defendants that could be actively pursued by program staff. These included a review of adult criminal conviction histories, factors affecting risk of pretrial failure to appear (FTA) based on criteria used in CJA's release recommendation system, and supplemental criminal history information. Program court staff also was required to collect and verify community ties information necessary to maintain contact with defendants if released to the program. This has been an essential program component for ensuring that clients released under supervision in lieu of bail and pretrial detention would appear at all regularly scheduled court dates and comply with program requirements. In this research study we analyze case processing and court outcomes, and investigate the pretrial misconduct - failure to appear and in-program re-arrests - of MSR clients. We also examine the jail displacement effect of community supervision as an alternative to money bail and pretrial detention. In order to assess the potential impact of the MSR program on these activities, we create for comparison purposes a data set of felony cases arraigned in the downtown Manhattan Criminal Court during the first twenty-one months of the MSR program (April 2013 - December 2014) in which defendants appeared to be eligible for MSR, to the extent that could be determined, but were not screened by MSR court staff. Details: New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, 2016. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 18, 2016 at: http://www.nycja.org/ Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.nycja.org/ Shelf Number: 139073 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationBailCommunity SupervisionPretrial ReleaseSupervised Release |
Author: Andersen, Lars Hojsgaard Title: Decomposing Recidivism Variance into Probation and Parole Officers and their Clients Summary: Existing empirical literature on probation and parole shows that individual client characteristics matter for recidivism, but also characteristics of their assigned probation or parole officer have been shown to matter. And although theoretical accounts of probation and parole debate the relative importance of these client and officer characteristics, no study has provided an empirical benchmark of the total effects of officers and clients (i.e., their characteristics) on recidivism. In this paper I decompose the total variance in recidivism into components attributable to probationers and parolees and their assigned probation or parole officers, respectively, using register data that merges all probationers and parolees in 2002-2009 in Denmark with their assigned officer. Results show that although substantial variance components are attributable to both officers and clients, the component attributable to clients is around twice the size of the component attributable to officers. These estimates provide new evidence on the most common types of noncustodial alternatives to imprisonment, probation and parole, which affect millions of people each day. Details: Copenhagen: Rockwool Foundation Research Unit, 2015. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Study Paper No. 92: Accessed May 18, 2016 at: http://www.rockwoolfonden.dk/app/uploads/2015/12/Study-paper-92_WEB.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Denmark URL: http://www.rockwoolfonden.dk/app/uploads/2015/12/Study-paper-92_WEB.pdf Shelf Number: 139276 Keywords: Community SupervisionParole OfficersParoleesProbation OfficersProbationersRecidivism |
Author: Fallesen, Peter Title: Explaining the Consequences of Imprisonment for Union Formation and Dissolution in Denmark Summary: Imprisonment reduces men's chances on the marriage market and increases their divorce risk, but existing research is, with a few notable exceptions, silent about the underlying mechanisms driving these effects. Serving a prison sentence at home under electronic monitoring could mitigate the negative effects of imprisonment on union formation and dissolution, as serving a sentence at home does not separate spouses and does not impair human capital to the same degree as imprisonment. This article studies the effect of electronic monitoring as a noncustodial alternative to imprisonment on the risk of relationship dissolution and being single, and analyzes the mechanisms through which imprisonment could affect these outcomes. We exploit a penal reform that expanded the use of electronic monitoring to address nonrandom selection into electronic monitoring instead of in prison. Results from a sample of 2,664 men show that electronic monitoring significantly and persistently lowers the risk both of being single and of becoming single during the first four years following conviction. We further show that electronic monitoring lowers these risks because offenders who serve their prison sentence at home under electronic monitoring do not experience the same degree of human capital depletion and the strain of spousal separation as imprisoned offenders do. We find no evidence of a social stigma effect of imprisonment on union formation and dissolution once we control for the stigma of a criminal conviction. The results show that a tool used to promote decarceration trends also secure better relationship outcomes of convicted men. Details: Copenhagen: Rockwool Foundation Research Unit, 2015. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Study Paper No. 91: Accessed May 18, 2016 at: http://www.rockwoolfonden.dk/app/uploads/2015/12/Study-paper-91_WEB.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Denmark URL: http://www.rockwoolfonden.dk/app/uploads/2015/12/Study-paper-91_WEB.pdf Shelf Number: 139083 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community SupervisionDivorce Electronic Monitoring Marriage |
Author: Alper, Mariel Title: Probation Revocation and Its Causes: Profiles of State and Local Jurisdictions, Bell County, Texas Summary: The Bell County Community Supervision and Corrections Department (CSCD or "Department") services Bell County and Lampasas County, Texas. The CSCD had 87 employees in 2014, including 45 probation officers and technicians, dispersed over four units. The Department's annual budget was about four million dollars, about half of which came from state funding. Roughly 50 percent of the Department's FY2014 budget was funded by supervision fees paid by probationers under the terms of their sentences, which is not unusual for probation departments statewide. In June 2015, 3,126 individuals were under direct probation supervision in Bell County. Over the past four years, the overall size of Bell County's probation population has not substantially changed, but the number of probationers under supervision for a felony has decreased while the number under supervision for a misdemeanor has increased. The county's probation supervision rate was an estimated 1,314 per 100,000 adult residents as of November 2014, which is 64 percent lower than the average rate for the entire state. In 2013, the statewide probation supervision rate in Texas was 2,043 per 100,000 adult residents, the 9th highest rate among all states. Statewide, the probation supervision rate has been falling over the past 10 years, from 2,698 at yearend 20034 to 2,043 at yearend 2013. The index crime rate in Bell County is slightly higher than the statewide average in 2014: 3,420.6 versus 3,349.6 per 100,000 residents. In 2014, the average length of probation sentences pronounced for misdemeanor cases was 14 months; for felonies it was 74 months or approximately 6 years. Details: Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota Law School, 2016. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 19, 2016 at: http://www.robinainstitute.org/publications/probation-revocation-and-its-causes-profiles-of-state-and-local-jurisdictions-bell-county-texas/ Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.robinainstitute.org/publications/probation-revocation-and-its-causes-profiles-of-state-and-local-jurisdictions-bell-county-texas/ Shelf Number: 139114 Keywords: Community SupervisionProbationProbation RevocationProbation SupervisionProbationers |
Author: Alper, Mariel Title: Probation Revocation and its Causes: Profiles of State and Local Jurisdictions. Wharton and Matagorda Counties, Texas Summary: The Matagorda County Community Supervision and Corrections Department (CSCD, or "Department") services Wharton County and Matagorda County, Texas. In 2014, the CSCD had 22 employees, 18 of whom supervised cases in some capacity, dispersed over two units. One unit is located in Wharton and one in Bay City, Matagorda. The Department's annual budget was about $1.5 million, $1.3 million of which is for basic supervision, and which funds the majority of departmental functions and salaries. The remaining budget is devoted to the high risk caseload (which is grant funded by the state) and a substance abuse caseload (which is funded by the state and community correction funds). The primary sources of funding are supervision fees paid by probationers (65%) and state funding (35%). The high reliance on supervision fees is not unusual for probation departments statewide. On August 31st, 2014, 473 individuals were under direct probation supervision in Wharton County and 720 were under direct probation supervision in Matagorda County. The probation supervision rate was an estimated 1,551 per 100,000 adult residents in Wharton County and 2,646 in Matagorda County as of August 2014. The combined supervision rate is 2,067, which is near the average rate for the entire state. In 2013, the statewide probation supervision rate in Texas was 2,043 per 100,000 adult residents, the ninth highest rate among all states. Statewide, the probation supervision rate has been falling over the past 10 years, from 2,698 at yearend 20033 to 2,043 at yearend 2013. Details: Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 2016. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 24, 2016 at: http://www.robinainstitute.org/publications/probation-revocation-causes-profiles-state-local-jurisdictions-wharton-matagorda-counties-texas/ Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.robinainstitute.org/publications/probation-revocation-causes-profiles-state-local-jurisdictions-wharton-matagorda-counties-texas/ Shelf Number: 139141 Keywords: Community Supervision Probation Probation Revocation Probation SupervisionProbationers |
Author: Caudill, Jonathan W. Title: Navigating the Storm: An Empirical Assessment of the Local Effects of California's Criminal Justice Realignment Summary: October 1st of 2014 marked the third-year implementation anniversary of California's Criminal Justice Realignment (AB 109) legislation. California's AB 109 realigned sentencing options for certain non-violent, non-sexual, and non-serious felony offenses, precluding incarceration in state prison. This less punishment, more rehabilitation sentencing structure shifted correctional supervision to county criminal justice systems (namely, county jails and probation departments) across the State. Along with this widespread jurisdictional decentralization, came many concerns regarding the impact of such a dramatic shift in correctional supervision. Reported here are the results of a three-year evaluation that uniquely included both quantitative and qualitative research methods to assess the impact of AB 109 on Butte County criminal justice organizations. First examined is the change in workload for the District Attorney's Office, focusing on outcomes such as the number of case filings by specific offense categories, failure to appear charge accumulation, and total number of charges over time. Second, this report demonstrates through comparison of recidivism outcomes of pre-AB 109 offenders to recidivism outcomes of post-AB 109 offenders a continuity of supervision during the implementation of Realignment. Results here also highlight factors that increased the likelihood of new arrests and/or probation violations for probation offenders. The empirical work then turns to a small cohort of Post-Release Community Supervision (PCS) offenders. These PCS offenders were tracked for three years to better understand their recidivism outcomes and impact on the local criminal justice system. Their cumulative impact on the jail and overall recidivism was assessed through exploring their total number of times entering the county jail, the proportion of those bookings that turned into formalized charges, and the proportion of those charges that ultimately became convictions. Finally, the report presents findings from two qualitative studies: the level of service orientation across supervision organizations and offenders' perceptions of the utility of home visits' Details: Chico, CA: California State University, Chico, 2015. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 8, 2016 at: https://www.csuchico.edu/pols/documents/Navigating%20the%20storm%20three%20years%20after%20109.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.csuchico.edu/pols/documents/Navigating%20the%20storm%20three%20years%20after%20109.pdf Shelf Number: 139318 Keywords: Community SupervisionCommunity-Based CorrectionsCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformProbationersPublic Safety RealignmentRecidivism |
Author: Latessa, Edward J. Title: The Ohio Risk Assessment System Misdemeanor Assessment Tool (ORAS-MAT) and Misdemeanor Screening Tool (ORAS-MST) Summary: In 2006, the University of Cincinnati (UC) Center for Criminal Justice Research (CCJR), in partnership with the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC), developed the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS), a system designed to assess risk, need, and responsivity factors of offenders at each stage in the criminal justice system (see Latessa, Smith, Lemke, Makarios, & Lowenkamp, 2009). The ORAS is comprised of five validated risk assessment instruments: 1) Pretrial Tool (PAT), 2) Community Supervision Tool (CST), 3) Prison Intake Tool (PIT), 4) Reentry Tool (RT), and 5) Supplemental Reentry Tool (SRT)1, as well as two screening tools: 1) Community Supervision Screening Tool (CSST) and 2) Prison Intake Screening Tool (PST). Since its' inception, the ORAS has been implemented across the state and is used in municipal and common pleas courts, community based correctional facilities (CBCFs), and ODRC institutions. Details: Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research, 2014. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 11, 2016 at: https://ext.dps.state.oh.us/OCCS/Pages/Public/Reports/ORAS%20MAT%20report%20%20occs%20version.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://ext.dps.state.oh.us/OCCS/Pages/Public/Reports/ORAS%20MAT%20report%20%20occs%20version.pdf Shelf Number: 139392 Keywords: Community SupervisionMisdemeanorsOffender Risk AssessmentPretrial DetentionPretrial SupervisionPrisoner ReentryRisk Assessment |
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: DeLong, Caitlin Title: Learning about probation from client perspectives: Feedback from probationers served by Adult Redeploy Illinois-funded program models Summary: Satisfaction with the criminal justice system often reflects the opinions of the public, rather than that of the offender (DeLude, Mitchell, & Barber, 2012). Research in the medical and behavioral sciences indicate, however, that client satisfaction is associated with compliance and treatment outcomes (Barbosa, Balp, Kulich, Germain, & Rofail; Levenson, Prescott, & D'Amora, 2010; Zhang, Gerstein, & Friedmann, 2008). Beyond the increased adherence that is expected when probation clients are engaged in services they consider worthwhile, satisfaction data offers providers valuable insight into the specific needs of their target population, while potentially increasing perceptions of procedural justice. When participants are unable to provide feedback in a meaningful way, they are further marginalized and alienated from a process that hinges on a change in their behavior and attitudes. Since 2010, the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority has administered the state's Adult Redeploy Illinois (ARI) program, offering grant funding to jurisdictions to implement local evidence-based programs that reduce the number of non-violent offenders sentenced to prison. In this study, researchers interviewed program clients for insight into program implementation and operations that could strengthen program outcomes. Interviewed were 108 clients enrolled in 10 prison diversion programs using three program models - drug courts, intensive supervision probation with services (ISP-S), and Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE). Drug courts refer clients to court-supervised substance abuse treatment in lieu of incarceration, and staff work in interdisciplinary teams of probation officers, substance abuse treatment providers, prosecutors, law enforcement, defense attorneys, and judges to manage the cases (Carey, Mackin, & Finigan, 2012). ISP-S features specially trained probation officers who use risk/needs assessment tools to provide individualized case management, heightened supervision, and responsive referrals to social services (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). The HOPE model focuses on behavior modification through swift, certain, and fair sanctions, and offers drug treatment to those in need (Hawken & Kleiman, 2009). Data were collected after 18 months of pilot program implementation ending in mid- to late-2012. The following are key findings from the probationer interviews, during which researchers asked questions about demographics, program staff, program operations, and services. Conditions of probation Most interviewees thought the conditions of their probation were very clear (81 percent). Almost all clients (97 percent) were drug tested. Most were required to pay court costs (75 percent) and attend drug treatment (69 percent). Of 64 probationers who received a sanction for noncompliance, 89 percent (n=51) said it was very likely that they would be caught if they violated probation conditions, 75 percent (n=48) said the sanctions were fair, and 72 percent (n=46) said they were immediate. Sanctions and incentives that are swift, certain, and fair are crucial to all three models of supervision. Seventy-eight percent of interviewed clients said they had developed a case plan with clear goals with their probation officers. Clearly outlined case plans have been shown to reduce recidivism in evidence-based practice (Carey, 2010). This study revealed a statistical relationship between having a case plan and offering positive feedback on the program. On average, each client needed assistance in obtaining four different types of services (out of 22 listed); the most common were transportation, employment, or housing. Clients reported that, of the 490 total service requests, 329 (67 percent) were fulfilled by their probation officer. Compliance and incentives Sixty-six percent of respondents reported violating the conditions of their supervision (n=72); however, only 60 (83 percent) of those respondents were sanctioned. Those violations included 57 failed drug/alcohol tests, 12 arrests for new crimes, and 14 missed appointments. Four clients reported having three or more violations, 18 had two violations, but the majority (n=49; 69 percent) of those who broke the terms of their probation agreements did so only once. A total of 25 clients (23 percent) indicated they had been arrested either for new crimes or as sanctions for violations while on probation. Forty-eight (75 percent) of 64 probationers who received a sanction for noncompliance said the sanctions were fair and 46 (72 percent) said they were immediate. Seventy-five percent (n=81) of interviewees said they received rewards for program compliance, such as gift cards, certificates, praise from staff, and food. Of those, 88 percent (n=71) said these rewards were good program motivators. Client assessments Overall, clients agreed with positive statements about probation - that the program helped them, it positively impacted their future, and it made them better off than other court sanctions. A majority of clients thought probation was a better alternative to prison (100 percent), offered a better lifestyle than prison (99 percent), and was easier to complete than a prison term (66 percent). Overall, clients agreed with positive statements about their probation officers and disagreed that their officers expected too much of them. Implications for policy and practice Further address client service needs Many probationers sampled reported needing, but not receiving, housing, identification, healthcare services, public assistance, and job support. In order to address this, probation officers should be operating under reduced caseloads and be trained in evidence-based practices (for example, actuarial risk assessment and cognitive behavioral techniques) in order to provide necessary services and reduce recidivism most effectively (Jalbert, Rhodes, Flygare, & Kane, 2010). Probation officers should advocate for clients with local housing assistance agencies and assist them with obtaining subsidized or low-income housing (Family Justice, 2009). Clients must have proper identification to secure housing and half of the clients sampled requested assistance in obtaining a state ID or driver's license, birth certificate, and social security card. Probation officers should be prepared to help guide clients through the process of obtaining these documents as they are necessary to meet other needs. Thirty-eight percent of clients reported chronic medical conditions, but 59 percent of these respondents did not have health insurance. Access to healthcare and preventive health services saves lives and money (Currie, 2010). Probation officers can screen clients for Medicaid eligibility and help them apply and enroll. Research has found that public assistance alleviates financial stress leading to criminal behavior (Gartner, 1990; LaFree, 1999). Probation officers can assist clients in navigating complex public assistance regulations. Collateral legal consequences affecting clients can interfere with probation officers' efforts to meet their needs. Probationers can be barred from voting, public housing, educational grants, and employment because of their convictions. Without social supports, offenders are more likely to recidivate (Mock, in press). While there should be a balance within probation providing surveillance and social supports, jurisdictional commitments to hiring more probation officers, providing more officer training, and advocating for the removal of barriers to services are system-level changes that will address service provision problems for the long term. Increase client accountability Of 72 probationers who reported violating supervision conditions, 60 respondents (83 percent) received subsequent sanctions. While sanctions and surveillance alone may not be effective at reducing recidivism (Taxman, 2002), their presence enforces offender accountability (National Institute of Corrections, 2004). Prison diversion programs must focus on swift, certain, and fair responses to non-compliant actions while using positive reinforcement and incentives to modify behavior (U.S. Department of Justice, 2015). Develop clear case plans Probationers with clear case plans were significantly more likely to understand their conditions, probation's phase system and levels of supervision, and more likely to receive incentives. They also rated their probation officers higher in areas of respectfulness and fairness. All model probation programs are advised to develop comprehensive case plans to appropriately assess risk levels, provide individualized support to overcome criminogenic needs, and use evidence-based practices to rehabilitate probationers (National Institute of Corrections, 2004). It is also important that probationers fully understand these plans. In addition, probation officers demonstrating use of their "dual role" - surveillance with case management - increases the likelihood for offender success (Skeem, Eno Louden, Polaschek, & Camp, 2007; Trotter, 2006). Comprehension of goals and heightened perceptions of probation officer legitimacy are research-supported goals for effective probation (Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice, 2009). Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2016. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 15, 2016 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/Client%20feedback%20FINAL%2008-18-16.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/Client%20feedback%20FINAL%2008-18-16.pdf Shelf Number: 147880 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SupervisionProbationProbation OfficersProbationers |
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: Caudill, Jonathan W. Title: Considering the life-course of crime: contextualizing California's AB109 offender under correctional supervision Summary: In January 2012, the California State University, Chico, Consortium for Public Safety Research (CPSR) established a long-term collaborative relationship with the Butte County Sheriff's Office (BCSO) some three and a half months after the State of California started the process of transferring non-serious, non-violent, and non-sexual felony offender supervision to the counties. The significance of this transfer of supervision responsibilities cannot be overstated given the additional resources required to serve this population. As a part of a collaboration agreement, the CPSR has conducted a long-term assessment of the impact of AB 109 on the BCSO. Specifically, the CPSR has focused on the changing correctional client population for this report. As evidenced by the findings presented in the Findings section, the BCSO experienced a substantial shift in correctional client demographics and, thus, was required to reformulate their correctional mission. In the CPSR's first report, Breaking Ground: Preliminary Report of Butte County Sheriff's Alternative Custody Supervision Program, the authors made five results-based recommendations to improve correctional supervision and treatment. These recommendations focused on a clearer understanding of the new correctional client population as well as developing mechanisms to increase efficiencies in supervision and treatment strategies. Specifically, the CPSR made the following recommendations to the BCSO: 1. have the staff conduct a supervision and treatment plan for all potential ACS eligible inmates; 2. support their continued search for an appropriate offender management system that has the capacity to store historical data and network with other county systems; 3. further formalize the ACS program, to include additional officer training and a comprehensive, evidence-based supervision strategy; 4. explore a population-validated risk assessment tool, and; 5. work proactively to prioritize research projects promoting public safety and resource management. The BCSO has made significant strides toward full realization of these recommendations. For instance, the BCSO selected an offender management system and is now engaged in implementation. Further, the Alternative Custody Supervision (ACS) Program has conducted several community supervision trainings, implemented a caseload management system, and, is in the process of solidifying a comprehensive and scientifically validated training protocol for all ACS Deputies. These two recommendations aside, the BCSO requested the CPSR provide specific consultation to explore a population-validated risk assessment tool as the basis for individualized offender supervision and treatment plans. Thus, this report focuses on Life-course persistence in and desistance from crime. The Introduction section provides a general understanding of the Lifecourse framework and the Discussion section uses this framework to: (1) provide a clearer understanding of the correctional population shift in the BCSO via an inmate needs survey; (2) present results from a program exit predictive model; (3) introduce the findings from, and recommendations based on, a population-validated risk assessment instrument pilot study, and; (4) explore the ACS program supervision strategies. In short, this report contains evidence supporting three new recommendations to further the connectivity between service provision and public safety. The first recommendation, the BCSO expand therapeutic services in the jail, is the product of viewing inmate survey results through the Life-course lens. This orientation suggests the BCSO has an opportunity to harness the turning point of incarceration and, therefore, early incarceration programming may encourage desistance from crime. Details: Chico, CA: Consortium for Public Safety Research, California State University, Chico, 2013. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 19, 2016 at: http://www.buttecounty.net/Portals/24/Brochures/2013%20Caudill%20et%20al%20Considering%20the%20Life%20course%20of%20Crime.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.buttecounty.net/Portals/24/Brochures/2013%20Caudill%20et%20al%20Considering%20the%20Life%20course%20of%20Crime.pdf Shelf Number: 145886 Keywords: Community SupervisionInmate SupervisionLife-Course CriminologyOffender SupervisionPublic SafetyRisk Assessment |
Author: Irwin-Rogers, Keir Title: Beyond the Prison Gate: Licencees' Perceptions of the Legitimacy of Power Holders Summary: In England & Wales, the number of people leaving prison subject to a period of supervision in the community has almost doubled in the last decade. The significant and consistent upward trend in the number of people 'on licence' has been accompanied by another notable trend: an increasing number of people being recalled to prison for breaching the terms and conditions of their licence. Yet, despite these two important trends, there has been a dearth of research on postcustodial supervision. This thesis explores post-custodial supervision from the perspective of those on licence. In particular, it explores licencees' perceptions of the legitimacy of probation and hostel workers, and considers how these perceptions were shaped. Understanding licencees' perceptions of the legitimacy of power holders is important, since previous research has consistently identified a relationship between people's perceptions of power holder legitimacy and their willingness to comply with rules and cooperate with those in power. Empirical fieldwork was conducted in three Approved Premises in England, including periods of observation and interviews with hostel residents and members of hostel staff. Based on this fieldwork, I identified two fundamental sources of power holder legitimacy: procedure-based and outcome-based legitimacy. Overall, I argue that licencees' perceptions of procedure-based legitimacy were pivotal, since they formed the basis of constructive relationships between licencees and power holders (e.g. probation and hostel workers). In turn, these relationships could play a significant role in helping licencees to reintegrate into their communities, thus contributing to licencees' perceptions of power holder outcome-based legitimacy. The thesis rides on a tide of legitimacy research that has already served to illuminate the fields of policing and other forms of penal sanction. While research to date has primarily utilised quantitative data to explore perceptions of legitimacy, the current research highlights the role that qualitative data can play in this regard. The thesis aims not only to increase our understanding of a neglected area of penology, but also to contribute to the development of theories of legitimacy Details: Sheffield, UK: University of Sheffield, 2015. 249p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed December 21, 2016 at: http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/9179/1/KIR%20Thesis%20Beyond%20the%20Prison%20Gate.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/9179/1/KIR%20Thesis%20Beyond%20the%20Prison%20Gate.pdf Shelf Number: 147793 Keywords: Community SupervisionProbationProbation OfficersProbationers |
Author: Meredith, Tammy Title: Assessing the Influence of Home Visit Themes and Temporal Ordering on High-Risk Parolee Outcomes Summary: Over 4.7 million adults were under community supervision in the United States at the end of 2014, of which 856,900 (18%) were on parole (Kaeble, Maruschak, & Bonczar, 2015). Over a quarter of the adults entering prisons nationwide in 2014 were admitted due to failure on parole (Carson, 2015). Thus, successful reentry is of urgent importance as states grapple with the effects of severe fiscal challenges squeezing correctional budgets. While participating in evidence-based programming significantly lowers revocation rates (Andrews & Bonta, 1998), the general question of how supervision influences parole outcomes remains unanswered. Advancing the development and management of comprehensive strategies for improving successful offender outcomes is quintessential to successful reentry. Parole officer fieldwork is integral to community supervision, whether it is home visits, employment verification, or collateral contacts made with a treatment program provider or law enforcement official. Home visits, in particular, provide an opportunity for purposeful face-to-face encounters between officer and offender that may be distinct from other fieldwork. Unfortunately information on what constitutes a home visit, its use as a tool of supervision, and its influence on offender outcomes is largely absent in the literature. Given the time, expense, and potential risk home visits pose for officers, there is a critical need to understand their influence on supervision outcomes. This understanding must include measures of their quality. Parole officers are charged with the dual role of assuring felony offender compliance with sentence and prison release conditions while assisting with community reentry. The natural home environment is a key locale for promoting and monitoring behavior change. Likewise, interactions during home visits yield ideal conditions to understand if and how therapeutic jurisprudence unfolds. Knowledge about what occurs during home visits is important to both researchers and practitioners seeking to develop best practices across all supervision components (DiMichele, 2007, DeMichele, Payne, & Matz, 2011). Further, home visit interactions occur with people in the parolee’s life who often provide emotional, residential, financial and/or social support. Understanding how socio-cultural bonds and social influence are developed among parole officers, parolees, and their support networks during home visits may inform ways to blend surveillance and rehabilitation goals and decrease supervision failures (Braswell, 1989). Details: Atlanta, GA: Applied Research Services, Inc., 2016. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250380.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250380.pdf Shelf Number: 145012 Keywords: Community SupervisionHome VisitsOffender SupervisionParole OfficersParolees |
Author: Glod, Greg Title: Incentivizing Results: Lessons From Other States' Probation Funding Formula Reforms and Recommendations to Texas Lawmakers Summary: Prison is an important and necessary component of the criminal justice system. It is, in many cases, necessary to incarcerate offenders who pose a danger to society even with strict and modern monitoring. That being said, the state should supervise offenders outside the prison walls if the interests of public safety and liberty are best served by forgoing incarceration. When implemented effectively, probation keeps neighborhoods safer, saves money, and produces more successful outcomes for nondangerous offenders. When taking into account risk level, recidivism rates for individuals who are sentenced to community supervision (also known as probation) are lower than for those who are incarcerated. Key Points • Most probation funding to counties comes from the state based upon the amount of offenders being directly supervised. • This funding formula does not incentivize counties to implement strategies that maximize results but may cost counties more on the front-end. • Several states have altered their probation funding formulas to incentivize counties to reduce the amount of offenders going to state correctional facilities and to get a portion of the savings back.. • Texas could make minor changes to its current funding formula to achieve better probation results and save millions on incarceration costs Details: Austin, TX: Texas Public policy Foundation, 2017. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2017 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/2016-11-PP27-IncentivizingResults-CEJ-GregGlod.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/2016-11-PP27-IncentivizingResults-CEJ-GregGlod.pdf Shelf Number: 144934 Keywords: Community SupervisionCosts of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice SystemsOffender SupervisionProbation |
Author: Ford, Matt Title: Profile of Provision for Armed Forces Veterans under Probation Supervision Summary: This report builds on the Phillips Review into ex-armed forces personnel in the criminal justice system. Announced in January 2014 and published in November the same year, the Phillips Review aimed to 'identify properly the reasons for ex-service personnel ending up in the criminal justice system, to look at the support provided to them and how that support could be improved.' It covered both custody and the community, and made a series of recommendations. With respect to probation, these included: routine identification of veterans, as well as collection of data on offences convicted for and the factors and characteristics associated with their conviction; for the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) to publish guidance on how to address the needs of convicted veterans on probation within twelve months of the release of the Review; that NOMS work with service charities and other bodies to better coordinate support for veterans in criminal justice; and, that a senior civil servant within the Ministry of Justice should be appointed to have responsibility for ex-armed forces personnel involved with the criminal justice system, aiming to implement an identifiable national strategy in England and Wales for best practice in working with this group. The Phillips Review is underpinned by the Armed Forces Covenant, which states that no-one who has served in HM armed forces should face disadvantage in public or commercial services, and in some cases should receive special consideration. With respect to involvement with the criminal justice system, this would refer to how military service may relate to their conviction. Reforms to the probation service under the Government’s Transforming Rehabilitation agenda began during the period of Phillips. Under this programme the 35 old Probation Trusts were replaced by a single National Probation Service responsible for supervising 'high risk' convicted offenders, and 21 privately owned Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) which would supervise ‘medium’ to 'low risk' convicted offenders. Contracts to run these CRCs were awarded in December 2014, and these providers have since been building supply chains made up of public, private, and voluntary sector organisations which are subcontracted to supply services. Details: London: Forces in Mind Trust, Probation Institute and Centre for Crime and Justice Studies 2016. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2017 at: http://probation-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Veterans-Probation-Report-Final-PDF1.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://probation-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Veterans-Probation-Report-Final-PDF1.pdf Shelf Number: 144822 Keywords: Armed Forces Community SupervisionPost-traumatic Stress Syndrome ProbationProbationersRehabilitationVeterans |
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: San Francisco. Office of the Controller. City Services Auditor Title: Adult Probation Department Reentry Division CASC Program Analysis Summary: In preparation for the San Francisco Adult Probation Department's (APD) upcoming Request for Proposal (RFP) for reentry services, APD requested that the Controller's Office, City Performance Unit, conduct a program assessment of services provided at the Community Assessment and Services Center (CASC). The CASC, which opened in June 2013, is a one-stop reentry center that bridges APD probation supervision with comprehensive services including case management, cognitive behavioral interventions, employment, education, barrier removal, health care enrollment and income benefits acquisition assistance. City Performance developed an analytical approach to assess reentry services at the CASC. The approach consisted of the following four elements: 1. Research on evidence-based practices in the field of reentry services and other related fields. 2. Benchmarking and best practice interviews with peer probation systems that share a commitment to implementing evidence-based practices. 3. Interviews and focus groups with key stakeholders from APD, the current CASC vendor - Leaders in Community Alternatives (LCA), the Department of Public Health (DPH), the Human Services Agency (HSA) and partner organizations that provide on-site and off-site support. 4. Interviews with CASC clients. Based on this assessment, City Performance found several areas where CASC service provision could be enhanced to strengthen adherence to evidence-based practices and improve client outcomes. The recommendations included in this report reflect findings based on research done from July to September of 2016. New information gathered outside of the original time period can be found in footnotes throughout the report. Stakeholders report that San Francisco has a challenging reentry environment due to a large number of high risk probationers with high rates of homelessness, mental health issues and drug addiction. In this environment, the CASC has struggled to motivate clients to maintain the necessary attendance levels that allow for many evidence-based practices to have an impact on recidivism rates. Furthermore, City Performance found other areas where the CASC could improve adherence to best practices in the field including during case planning, client tracking, and mental health and substance abuse support. Finally, the CASC has struggled to maintain a consistent and effective data tracking system across programs which has affected its ability to monitor program performance and measure impact. The first three years of the CASC focused on initiating a wide array of new community services while aligning law enforcement and support services. The recommendations in this report can serve as a guide for Adult Probation Department to deepen the work of the CASC as it matures as the cornerstone of reentry services in San Francisco. This report provides six high level recommendations based on findings from City Performance research, interviews, and focus groups that APD can incorporate into the upcoming RFP for reentry services. City Performance recommends that the CASC adopt the following practices: 1. Increase client engagement hours. a. Enhance intrinsic motivation through using the therapeutic community model. b. Require case managers to spend more time with clients outside of the CASC. c. Increase case manager engagement for clients in custody. d. Require case managers to assume intake responsibilities at the CASC. e. Choose dosage targets and use in probation plans. 2. Ensure that CASC case planning and services address the criminogenic needs of clients. a. Require alignment between Individual Treatment and Rehabilitation Plan (ITRP), Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) assessment and all other client reentry planning. b. Host joint training sessions for CASC case managers, APD staff and subcontractors to ensure that all parties have a uniform understanding of program goals. c. Provide CASC case managers with greater access to the client's COMPAS assessment. d. Provide greater access for subcontractors to the criminogenic and mental health needs of their clients before the client accesses their services. e. Require case managers to attend all collaborative meetings about clients, including case conferences and bi-weekly client case management meetings. 3. Enhance the CASC's capacity to handle clients with mental health and substance abuse issues. a. Expand and streamline CASC capacity for handling clients with mental health issues. b. Hire case managers that have more experience handling mental health cases. c. Train current case managers in de-escalation tactics and mental health awareness. d. Collaborate with county jails, APD Probation Officers, and CASC case management to develop a standard process for transferring clients with mental health issues to ensure continuous care. 4. Develop and implement an effective data reporting system. a. Create and maintain a data dictionary. b. Track and analyze client level dosage data. c. Track data points that give information on program performance. 5. Conduct annual fidelity assessments of the CASC. 6. Long Term: Create specialized client tracks for service provision. a. Create client tracks based on criminogenic risk level. b. Pursue programming by gender as outlined in the Women's Community Justice Reform Blueprint and consider creating client tracks by gender. c. Create client tracks by age. Details: San Francisco: Office of the Controller, 2017. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2017 at: http://sfcontroller.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Auditing/Adult%20Probation%20Department%20Reentry%20Division%20CASC%20Program%20Analysis.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://sfcontroller.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Auditing/Adult%20Probation%20Department%20Reentry%20Division%20CASC%20Program%20Analysis.pdf Shelf Number: 147432 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SupervisionOffender SupervisionPrisoner ReentryProbationProbationers |
Author: Braithwaite, Helen Title: Parole Agent Workload Study Summary: This workload study was completed under a research contract between the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the Center for Evidence-Based Corrections (CEBC) at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). CDCR's Office of Research and the Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) collaborated with UCI research staff to design the study, develop data capture instruments that were then pilot tested in the field, identify parole agents to participate in the study, and provide agent training. DAPO was responsible for coordinating the study with parole administrators, unit supervisors and agents in the field. UCI collaborated on instrument development, collected and analyzed data, and provided reports to CDCR and DAPO. The need for a workload study was identified during DAPO training on gender-responsivity (GR). During several two-day training sessions, parole agents expressed concern over the amount of time involved in the supervision of female offenders. Agents reported that, as a consequence of female offenders being more relational and having a broader range of criminogenic needs than males, females took more time. Agents perceived that face-to-face contacts with female parolees were longer, and that additional time was spent on activities such as speaking with females on the telephone and liaising with programs. Under the California Parole Supervision and Reintegration Model (CPSRM), parole caseloads in California are funded at a ratio of 53:1. Due to the perceived additional workload involved in supervising female parolees, some agents attending training were concerned that the introduction of female-only, GR caseloads would be too much work unless the number of females on a GR caseload was lower than 53 parolees. Sixteen GR female-only caseloads (operating at a 53:1 ratio) had been implemented in California at the time of this study. Certain specialized caseloads with reduced caseload sizes are employed in California for Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP) offenders with mental health issues and non-high risk sex offenders (operating at 40:1), in addition to Global Positioning System (GPS) specialized caseloads for gang members and high risk sex offenders (operating at approximately 20:1). Other states have implemented smaller, specialized caseloads for offenders with drug and alcohol problems, mentally ill offenders, domestic violence offenders, and female offenders. Research has shown that these specialized caseloads may result in recidivism reductions (Jalbert & Rhodes, 2012; Jalbert , et al., 2011; Klein, Wilson, Crowe & DeMichele, 2005; Gies, et al., 2012; Wolff, et al., 2014). The purpose of the workload study was to collect data to examine whether female parolees are more work or different work than male parolees. That is, do contacts with females take longer or are they different in nature than contacts with males? For this study, agents reported their daily contacts and the time they allocated to various work activities using a Daily Activity Log instrument over a five week data capture period. Agents supervising the sixteen GR caseloads comprised the experimental group (GR group). Approximately 30 agents supervising regular mixed-gender CPSRM caseloads were selected by DAPO to comprise a control group, used for comparison purposes. Workload that is too high leads to job stress and burnout. Burnout has been linked to decreased work performance, withdrawal from others, substance abuse, employee health problems, an increase in absenteeism, and employee turnover (Griffin, Hogan, & Lambert, 2012; Lambert & Paoline, 2008; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986). Agent burnout is thus costly to both employees, DAPO, and potentially has public safety impacts for society. This study measured the level of agent burnout, job stress, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and perceived workload using an agent survey. The study concludes that female parolees are both more work and different work than male parolees. Female contacts are longer overall, certain tasks are performed more often with female parolees, and certain tasks were shown to take longer with female than male parolees. Other jurisdictions in the United States have adopted a specialized caseloads approach to female offenders by reducing caseload sizes; the findings of this study support such an approach. Details: Irvine: Center for Evidence-Based Corrections University of California, Irvine, 2016. 111p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 29, 2017 at: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/2017/04/Parole-Agent-Workload-Study.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/2017/04/Parole-Agent-Workload-Study.pdf Shelf Number: 147508 Keywords: Community SupervisionParole CaseloadParole OfficersParolees |
Author: National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) Title: Agent Workload Study Findings Summary: The nature of parole services is changing as a result of new legislation and the implementation of evidence-based practices. As changes occur in staff caseloads as well as in parole practices, it is essential to make sure staffing levels are appropriate to maintain strong performance and achieve the mission of protecting public safety. In response to these changes, the South Dakota Department of Corrections (SDDOC) contracted with the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) to conduct a workload study of parole agents in the spring of 2015. The primary objective of this workload study is to determine the number of parole agents needed to supervise offenders in a manner that meets agency standards. NCCD uses a prescriptive, case-based methodology for conducting correctional workload studies. This approach estimates the time needed by parole agents to not only manage their cases, but to do so in a way that meets state standards and expectations. Workload demand is calculated using time estimates from only those cases that met standards. Additionally, the study measures how much time agents realistically have available for their caseloads after making deductions for non-case-based activities. Together, these results are used to estimate the staff resources needed for SDDOC to effectively carry out its mission. All 39 agents in the state participated in the study. The agents tracked time for a sampled portion of their caseload over a two-month period. A two-tiered approach was used to determine which cases met standards. First, supervisors reviewed forms and indicated whether the case met standards. Researchers at NCCD then used compiled data to count the number of contacts and determine whether quantitative contact standards were met. A case had to pass both reviews in order to be included in the calculation of workload values. Agents also tracked time spent on case support and administrative activities in order to help determine the average time spent per month on activities that detract from time they have available for their caseloads. The results of the study indicate that agents have, on average, 111.6 hours available per month to supervise offenders on their caseload. In order to determine the available agent time per month, NCCD deducted estimates of the average number of hours that agents spend on other work activities from the total number of full-time equivalent (FTE) hours per month. These deductions include 22.1 hours of case support and administrative tasks (which were measured during the study), 31.8 hours of leave time, and 7.8 hours of mandatory training. Based on the monthly workload values and the average monthly case counts, NCCD calculated the total monthly workload demand for each type of parole case. The monthly workload demand reflects the number of cases multiplied by the average number of hours required per case. At the time of the workload study, SDDOC did not have specific standards outlined for offenders in the community transition program (CTP). Since then, new standards have been developed for these cases that are similar to the number of contacts required for cases at the intensive-supervision level (i.e., weekly contacts). In order to account for these new standards NCCD applied the workload value for intensive supervision cases to the CTP cases. Results show that an estimated 4,286.8 hours are needed each month to complete all of SDDOC's Parole Services casework according to standards. When divided by the amount of agent time available (111.6 hours per month), this corresponds to an estimated 38.4 full-time agents needed to meet workload demand in the state of South Dakota (Table ES). Currently, the state is allocated 39 parole agents. Using the workload values that reflect current policy standards, SDDOC is sufficiently staffed with parole agents, assuming vacant positions are filled. However, the evolving practice improvement efforts engaged in by SDDOC are likely to increase workload expectations, and therefore also increase the number of workload hours per month necessary to complete all casework according to standards. NCCD recommends that SDDOC reassess staffing needs on a regular basis, particularly as changes in policy impact the parole population. Measuring workload and ensuring the agency has adequate staffing to meet standards for all cases is the first step toward improving outcomes. In addition to addressing staffing and workload demand, agencies can take a number of actions to meet their mission to protect public safety. Strong implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs), which promote the success of parolees living in the community and reduce their risk of recidivism, has great potential to make a positive impact. Details: Aberdeen, SD: South Dakota Department of Corrections, Parole Services, 2016. 81p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2017 at: https://doc.sd.gov/documents/ParoleAgentWorkloadStudyReport.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://doc.sd.gov/documents/ParoleAgentWorkloadStudyReport.pdf Shelf Number: 147511 Keywords: Community SupervisionParoleParole CaseloadParole OfficersParolees |
Author: Cotten, P. Ann Title: Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services: Parole and Probation Agent Workload Study. Final Report Summary: The Maryland General Assembly required the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) to conduct a workload study of the department's parole and probation agents. The Office of Community Supervision Support (CSS), in turn, contracted with the Schaefer Center for Public Policy at the University of Baltimore's College of Public Affairs (Schaefer Center) to conduct a study that included a review of the literature relating to parole and probation agent staffing, an analysis of agents' workload including a time study of agents, an analysis of the supervision caseload, and the collection of comparative caseload data from other states. From the research, the Schaefer Center team was charged with producing staffing recommendations, average caseload counts, and recommendations for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of parole and probation supervision. The primary focus of the research is agents who directly supervise offenders on parole and probation. As part of the research, the team also produced an analysis of how Court Liaison Unit (CLU) agents, Liaison Waiver (LAW) agents, and Warrant Apprehension Unit (WAU) officers spend their work time, and solicited input into recommendations for improving the effectiveness of their work. To fulfill its charge, the research team employed a mix of quantitative and qualitative strategies listed below. A comprehensive literature review of all known English language articles on community supervision and staffing. A four-week time study with 114 parole/probation agents and Warrant Apprehension Officers. Participants recorded 25,743 hours of work activity. Time observations were reported for work relating to 6,388 offenders. A caseload analysis that included all offenders under supervision on September 29, 2014. A review of agent case notes for a 12-month period for 215 randomly selected offenders. Fifteen focus groups with 137 participants including: 71 supervising agents, 42 supervisors, 5 agents and 1 supervisor from the Court Liaison Unit, 9 agents and 1 supervisor from the Liaison Waiver Unit, and 9 Warrant Apprehension Officers. A national survey of state parole and probation agencies. Details: Baltimore, MD: Schaefer Center for Public Policy University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs, 2015. 149p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 3, 2017 at: http://dlslibrary.state.md.us/publications/JCR/2014/2014_116(v3).pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://dlslibrary.state.md.us/publications/JCR/2014/2014_116(v3).pdf Shelf Number: 147534 Keywords: Community SupervisionOffender SupervisionParole CaseloadParole OfficersParoleesProbation CaseloadProbation OfficersProbationers |
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: MacDonald, Shanna Farrell Title: Patterns of Suspension Warrants Summary: The successful reintegration of offenders into the community and public safety remain top priorities for correctional staff, researchers, and policy makers alike. Currently, there is a large amount of research that has focused on the identification of offender characteristics related to success or failure within the community. However, little research has examined the temporary suspension of community supervision and why some supervision periods are reinstated while others are revoked. The present study aims to contribute to an improved understanding of the reasons behind suspensions, as well as their final outcomes. This study included all supervision suspension warrants for federal offenders that occurred between April 1, 2009 and March 31, 2014. In total, 29,388 suspension warrants were identified, representing 16,032 distinct offenders. The rate of suspension was 1.3 suspensions per offender. Most suspension warrants were issued for men while one-quarter were issued for Aboriginal offenders. All data were obtained from the Correctional Service of Canada's (CSC) administrative database - the Offender Management System. Information concerning the final outcome of the suspension, the reasons for issuing the suspension warrant, the frequency of contact between the offender and the community parole officer at the time of the suspension, and the types of parole conditions in place at the time of the suspension were explored. In addition, patterns across fiscal years and regions were examined, and findings were disaggregated by gender and Aboriginal ancestry. During the study period, the rate of suspension was 755 suspensions per 1,000 offenders under supervision (CSC, 2015). Almost half (48%) of suspension warrants resulted in a revocation of the offender's release, while 29% were cancelled by CSC and 22% were cancelled by the PBC.1 On average, suspension warrants were resolved in 68 days, although there was variation by suspension outcome (18 days to 97 days). Overall, almost two-thirds (59%) of warrants were issued due to the breach of the terms of the offender's supervision period; about half were due to a breach of specific release conditions (26%) or failing to report (23%). Distinct patterns across fiscal year and by region, gender, and Aboriginal ancestry were evident. The current study provides an examination of the patterns and outcomes of supervision period suspensions among federal offenders. A better understanding of the current patterns of suspension warrants may inform case management and community planning strategies as well as inform population management initiatives both in custody and in the community. Future research could examine the characteristics of offenders and behavioural indicators that lead to suspensions and the various suspension outcomes. As well, future research examining the use of alternatives to suspensions would be beneficial. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2015. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: 2015 No. R-368: Accessed November 17, 2017 at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-368-eng.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-368-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 148209 Keywords: Community SupervisionConditional ReleaseOffender ManagementOffender SupervisionRevocationSuspension Warrants |
Author: Hannon, Catherine Title: Managing a risky business: developing the professional practice of police and probation officers in the supervision of high risk offenders Summary: Discussions about risk are central to the formulation of criminal justice and penal policies. They shape ways of perceiving and responding to what is deemed risky behavior. This thesis builds upon research about the application and effects of "the new penology", with its emphasis on "actuarialism", which promotes quantitative methods used in accountancy as an analytical method for risk assessment. This thesis goes beyond policy texts and theories providing original contribution that explores how the police and the probation services actually interpret and implement policy and manage mutual institutional pressures and biases. It does so by using interviews and debriefing process with police and probation practitioners, as well as by drawing upon the author's own professional experience. This thesis identifies some of the effects of implementing actuarial practices within police and probation working, looking at convergent and divergent views. It aims at a clearer understanding of the partnership working between police and probation services arising from different perspectives and response to risk. The findings support the notion that actuarial practices permeate this arena of public protection; influencing intra and inter-service partnerships and the implementation of MAPPA aims. Actuarial analysis accentuates a tendency to prioritise police crime control policies but not without resistance from probation officers. A number of MAPPA deficiencies including ineffective information sharing processes exist between critical partners impeding partnership working. Disagreements formed from differences in organisational aims of rehabilitation and crime control, accentuated by the actuarial risk assessment methodology. Repeated working together of personnel and development of collaborative initiatives helped alleviate misunderstandings. Conflict between the two services was most acute in relation to the transfer process, breach of licence conditions and recall to custody of offenders. Gaps in knowledge and experience created significant issues particularly for those new to risk management and the responsibilities associated to this arena of public protection work. Activities to aid communal development were identified through organisational learning founded in communities of practice and isomorphic learning encouraging the growth of networks of learning. Crisis causation models and the systemic lessons learned knowledge model (Syllk) provided diverse perspectives to assess people, learning, culture, social values, technology, process and infrastructure. Improvements in any combination of these factors supported the development of trust and learning between agencies. The Transforming Rehabilitation agenda transformed the public protection world and amplified the negative aspects of the findings in this thesis. Anxieties about data, information sharing and the effectiveness of the framework to transfer cases between agencies are a contemporary problem for the National Probation Service and Community Rehabilitation Companies to tackle. Failure to do so will place the public at greater risk. Details: London: London Metropolitan University, 2016. 232p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed April 19, 2018 at: http://repository.londonmet.ac.uk/1137/ Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://repository.londonmet.ac.uk/1137/ Shelf Number: 149861 Keywords: Community Supervision High Risk OffendersOffender SupervisionPolice OfficersProbation Officers |
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: VanDenBerg, Abby Title: Does Parole Make a Difference? The Effect of Community Supervision on Post-Discharge Recidivism Summary: This dissertation examines post-discharge outcomes among ex-prisoners in Nebraska. Specifically, it assesses whether a lower proportion of people who finished their sentence while on parole were re-incarcerated, relative to inmates who discharged from prison. It also considers whether the total amount of time inmates spend in the community during their sentences impacts their chances of future re-incarceration. Although a number of scholars have studied the relationship between parole and recidivism rates, this study is one of the first to examine this relationship by using propensity score matching. Findings indicate that a lower proportion of men who discharged from the community were returned to prison, relative to men who finished their sentences behind bars. Furthermore, men who served six months or more on parole had lower odds of reincarceration than men who served less, or no, time on parole. With regard to females, however, neither discharging from parole, nor the total amount of time spent in the community, affected re-incarceration outcomes Details: Omaha: University of Nebraska, 2013. 183p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed June 7, 2018 at: https://corrections.nebraska.gov/sites/default/files/files/46/vandenberg_dissertation_pdf_1.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://corrections.nebraska.gov/sites/default/files/files/46/vandenberg_dissertation_pdf_1.pdf Shelf Number: 150503 Keywords: Community SupervisionParole Parolees Recidivism |
Author: Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections Title: Louisiana's Justice Reinvestment Reform First Annual Performance Report Summary: In June 2017, the Louisiana Legislature passed, and Governor John Bel Edwards signed into law, a package of ten Justice Reinvestment bills. Prior to the passage of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) legislation, Louisiana was leading the nation in imprisonment, with a rate nearly double the national average. The state was also sending people to prison for nonviolent offenses at 1.5 to 3 times the rate of other Southern states with similar crime rates. The policy choices that led to this situation were costing the state nearly $700 million annually on corrections, but one in three inmates released from prison returned there within three years. Following lessons learned from successful criminal justice reform efforts in other Southern states as well as the best available research, Louisiana developed a comprehensive, data-driven and bipartisan plan designed to steer people convicted of less serious crimes away from prison, strengthen alternatives to incarceration, reduce prison terms for those who can be safely supervised in the community, and remove barriers to successful reentry. This is the Executive Summary for the first annual report to the Legislature from the Department of Public Safety & Corrections (DPS&C) and the Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement (LCLE) on results stemming from the Justice Reinvestment legislation. Additional data and information about implementation and reinvestment are included in the full report. Details: Baton Rouge: LA:The Department, 2018.. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 29, 2018 at: http://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/JRI/LA_JRI_Annual_Report_FINAL.PDF Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/JRI/LA_JRI_Annual_Report_FINAL.PDF Shelf Number: 150742 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarcerations Community SupervisionCosts of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Report Justice Reinvestment |
Author: Howard, Flora Fitzalan Title: The experience of electronic monitoring and implications for practice: A qualitative research synthesis Summary: The aims of the study were to understand the experience of electronic monitoring (EM) in the Criminal Justice System (CJS), and how this sanction can be implemented most effectively to achieve best outcomes, including compliance with legal requirements, rehabilitation and desistance. The findings of six qualitative studies of the experience of EM were synthesised using Thematic Synthesis (Thomas and Harden, 2008). Key findings - Six studies of sufficient quality and focus were included, examining the experience of EM in England, Belgium, New Zealand, Canada and the US. EM was used as an alternative sanction, or as part of an early release scheme (none looked at EM for people on bail). The findings may be limited by the small number of primary studies available, and variations in how EM is used in different countries. - EM appeared to offer a range of potential benefits. These included the opportunity for 'headspace', reflection and to disengage from antisocial aspects of life. Additionally, EM could facilitate access to employment and training opportunities, and allow for relationships and social capital to be developed. - Individuals are not guaranteed these benefits. They appeared to be influenced by the individual's circumstances and their response. For some people, EM could lead to a deterioration of relationships, and act as a barrier to employment opportunities. - The nature of EM and the consequences of non-compliance meant that monitored life could be stressful and pressured for some. Individuals' private lives felt intruded on and people living in the same household could be negatively affected. - For many people, EM offered valued freedom, despite life still feeling controlled. For some, autonomy and self-sufficiency improved, but others appeared to experience a lack of control and choice, and may have become overly reliant on others. - From the perspectives of people that are reflected in the research literature, the advantages of EM usually outweighed the disadvantages, and those sentenced to EM tended to readily accept this, particularly if the alternative was to spend time in prison. - People appeared to comply with EM mainly through fear of punishment for non-compliance. Behaviour change may be maintained while EM was active. However, people felt their reoffending and longer-term outcomes may be less affected by EM, and identified additional critical support needed, for example interventions that helped them to think differently or provided them with necessary risk management skills. - From the perspective of monitored people, and the wider evidence base, people's compliance may potentially be enhanced by making EM feel procedurally just. Compliance with EM and rehabilitative outcomes may also be improved by including structured interventions and support to target criminogenic needs (facilitating changes in thinking and skill development), access to employment, hope, self-efficacy and positive relationships. These may also prevent people's future chances of desistance being diminished. Details: London: HM Prison & Probation Service, 2018. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Analytical Summary 2018: Accessed July 12, 2018 at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/723218/The_experience_of_electronic_monitoring_and_implications_for_practice__a_qualitative_research_synthesis.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/723218/The_experience_of_electronic_monitoring_and_implications_for_practice__a_qualitative_research_synthesis.pdf Shelf Number: 150832 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SupervisionElectronic MonitoringOffender RehabilitationOffender SupervisionRecidivismTagging |
Author: McIvor, Gill Title: Electronic Monitoring in Scotland Summary: This research report examines the current uses of electronic monitoring (EM) tagging technology in the Scottish criminal justice system. The themes and findings presented here form one part of an EU-funded comparative research project involving five jurisdictions: England and Wales, Scotland, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. Significantly, this is the first comparative study of its kind in Europe. Criminologists Professor Gill McIvor and Dr Hannah Graham conducted the Scottish component of the research project, which spans a period of two years from May 2014 - April 2016. A range of key actors in the Scottish criminal justice field have been involved in this study as research participants, and details about the methods used in this study are outlined in Section 2 of this report. Electronic monitoring (EM) has been a feature of Scottish criminal justice for 15 years, based around the use of one type of technology - radio frequency (RF) tags - and home curfews and other place-based restrictions. EM is used in its own right as a stand-alone community penalty called a Restriction of Liberty Order, as well as with other groups like prisoners with early release through a Home Detention Curfew or as a condition of a parole licence. Scotland has one of the highest prison population rates in Western Europe, and the current and potential uses of electronic monitoring have featured in wider discussions of the need to pursue diversion and decarceration. To date, the uses of electronic monitoring in Scotland can be characterised as relatively simple but stable in approach. Most decision-makers (e.g., the judiciary, prison staff) tend to impose relatively standardised curfew regimes restricting people to their home for up to 12 hours a day. A large majority of these orders made by courts and prisons currently do not involve supervision by criminal justice social workers or requirements to participate in rehabilitation programmes or paid or unpaid work. The restriction of liberty in making people be restricted to a place (home) or away from a place acts as a punishment. However, within the current approach to EM, this study highlights the missing links of the options of supervision and supports for rehabilitation and desistance from crime. Key research findings - From 2002-2015, electronic monitoring (EM) in Scotland has operated using a simple but relatively stable approach. It has relied on the use of only one type of tagging technology. - Electronic monitoring is currently used for a range of objectives and penological purposes in Scotland. There are positive benefits associated with using electronic monitoring as a community penalty, as well as challenges and limitations, some of which are outlined in Section 3. - Access to electronic monitoring appears to depend on the decision-maker involved, with geographical and institutional differences observed across Scotland. Some judicial officers and courts across Scotland use Restriction of Liberty Orders (EM court orders) frequently, whereas others use them rarely. In 2015, the rate of Restriction of Liberty Orders imposed by sheriffs in Glasgow was 256 per cent higher than that of their Edinburgh counterparts, with 314 RLOs imposed in Glasgow compared to 88 RLOs in Edinburgh (G4S, 2016). Some court areas had a marked rise in the use of EM orders, for example, in Kilmarnock 60 RLOs were imposed in 2014, and 196 RLOs in 2015, which signals a 226 per cent increase in one year (G4S, 2016; 2015). - EM orders in Scotland require people's consent; people are not tagged against their will. There is extensive consensus across participants in this study that consent is, and should continue to be required from the monitored person and the premises holder (if this is not the monitored person) for equipment installation and homebased curfew restrictions. Only a few participants explicitly express the view that cohabitants should be asked for their consent. - EM order completion rates are fairly high in Scotland, with approximately 8 out of 10 EM orders completed in 2015 (G4S, 2016). - Being responsive to issues of diversity and vulnerability (gender, age, language, education and low literacy, disability, poverty, victimisation) matters to Scottish practitioners and policymakers. Interviewees speak extensively about tailoring EM to the needs of offenders and victims. - Monitoring of mostly 'stand-alone' EM orders (i.e. no supervision) by a private EM service provider is associated with limited integration and multi-agency work with criminal justice social workers (Scottish equivalent of probation officers) and charitable organisations. Yet, many of those interviewed wanted greater integration of EM with multi-agency supervision and support. - There is moderate support among participants for the (re)introduction of the option of electronic monitoring as a pre-sentence modality for the purpose of reducing the use of remand in custody. - There is moderate support for the introduction of GPS tagging and tracking with location-based exclusion zones in cases where this may reduce risk of re-offending and promote victim safety. - It is time for more strategic development. The key findings and recommendations of this report encourage more creative and strategic uses of tagging technologies, while not losing sight of the importance of proportionality and consistency in such uses. Details: Stirling, UK: Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research, University of Stirling, 2016. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 12, 2018 at: http://28uzqb445tcn4c24864ahmel.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2016/06/EMEU-Electronic-monitoring-in-Scotland.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://28uzqb445tcn4c24864ahmel.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2016/06/EMEU-Electronic-monitoring-in-Scotland.pdf Shelf Number: 150835 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community SupervisionElectronic Monitoring Offender Supervision Tagging |
Author: Boone, Miranda Title: Electronic Monitoring in the Netherlands Summary: This report describes in detail the current use of electronic monitoring (EM) in the Netherlands. The research forms part of an EU-funded comparative research study involving five jurisdictions, namely: Belgium, England and Wales, Germany, the Netherlands and Scotland. The research involved a partnership between academics in five universities: University of Leeds (England and Wales), University of Stirling (Scotland), University of Greifswald (Germany), Free University Bruxelles (Belgium) and Utrecht University (the Netherlands). This comparative research focuses on the potential of electronic monitoring to provide a credible and workable alternative to imprisonment. As such, the empirical findings from the five jurisdictions will fill a significant knowledge gap about the capacity of EM to operate as an alternative to imprisonment and inform on best practices to enhance its effectiveness and ensure its legal, ethical and humane use across Europe. The report is based on observations within the organisations involved in the implementation of EM and 36 interviews with practitioners. The structure of this research report and the way in which headings are organized is a replication of a format adopted consistently across the five country reports. Before describing the results of our own research, we start with a short overview of the history of EM in the Netherlands. Van Gestel (1998) describes how the debate on electronic monitoring started in the Netherlands and how eventually the first pilot was initiated. The first Dutch media publication on the use of electronic monitoring in the United States, where it originated, came in 1987. In this period, the Dutch government was looking for solutions to ease prison overcrowding and cell shortage. Against this background, it was no surprise that the possibility of electronic monitoring was quickly picked up by politicians. In 1988, a working group was installed to explore the potential of electronic house arrest for providing an alternative to imprisonment. This working group came to be known as the 'Schalken Committee' (Shalken Committee, 1988). In its report, the committee suggested that electronic house arrest could be valuable in terms of rehabilitation, provided that it would be combined with an intensive support program and 'meaningful activities' such as schooling or work. It also stated that electronic house arrest could have an economizing effect, with the sidenote that this effect could be reduced by effects of 'net-widening', which means including people in the penal system that otherwise would have been kept out. The committee further advised giving judges the exclusive authority for imposing electronic house arrest in order to prevent arbitrariness. Some other concerns were expressed regarding the intrusiveness of the modality and how continuous control may be interpreted as a sign of distrust towards the monitored person. All in all, the committee did not take a clear position but instead pointed at the importance of a broad debate on the desirability of electronic house arrest. This debate started across a wide range of organizations and culminated in a symposium in 1990. The majority of the persons present were not enthusiastic about the implementation of electronic house arrest either in the context of custody, as an alternative to detention or towards the end of a prison sentence (Van Gestel, 1998). Following this symposium, the advice was formulated to refrain from electronic house arrest while other alternatives were being explored. Two years later, however, a new report was published in which electronic monitoring was again presented as a potential economizing instrument. Eventually, in 1994, a newly formed project group sent a recommendation to the Minister of Justice, in which it advised starting a pilot with electronic house arrest in two forms: in combination with a community service order and as an alternative to the last phase of a prison sentence in the context of detention phasing. This plan was approved and in 1995 a two-year experiment started in the north of the Netherlands. From the start, the probation service has been the responsible organization for the implementation of EM, despite the earlier resistance within the organisation (Van Gestel 1998). In 2000, an experiment started with electronic house arrest as an alternative to remand for juvenile offenders. This experiment took place in the Rotterdam region and 23 youngsters participated, which was a lot less than the expected 48. Terlouw and Kamphorst (2002) evaluated the experiment and concluded that the electronic house arrest decreased the youngster's contact with fellow offenders. Other reported benefits were the increased feeling of responsibility and the benefit of being in a trusted environment. On the other hand, the researchers state that the house arrest placed a heavy burden on the household and was labor intensive for the youth probation services (Terlouw and Kamphorst, 2002). In 2003, facing a pressing cell shortage, the modality of electronic detention or 'home detention' was introduced. Electronic detention could be imposed as a means of executing an unconditional prison sentence of up to 90 days for offenders without a 'security risk' who report themselves to the prison without coercion, so-called self reporters. As opposed to the electronic supervision modalities as described above, the sole objective of electronic detention was to reduce the shortage of prison cells. It was announced in the 2000 Green Paper 'Sanction in perspective' as an alternative for short prison sentences that could annually save the Dutch tax-payer 115 million guilders, but that did not have a rehabilitative function. Between 2003 and 2005, 2145 offenders were placed under electronic detention, of which 1998 successfully finished the detention. Contrary to the rehabilitative forms of electronic monitoring, it was not the Dutch Probation Service that was made responsible for the execution of electronic detention, but the Prison Service of the Department of Justice (DJI). The Inspection for Sentencing Implementation was rather positive about the use of the electronic dentention modality. Despite the fact that the offenders involved usually belonged to the medium risk category of offenders, actual recidivism was relatively low. It concluded in its inspection report that electronic detention was an effective alternative for a short prison sentence. However, the implementation could be improved. The Inspection observed considerable differences between the five regions and noted that, contrary to the regulations, home visits and work inspections were not always made (Inspectie voor de sanctietoepassing, 2007). With respect to the experiences of the detainees, one evaluative study found that those who had been in prison before were much more positive about electronic detention than about imprisonment (Post, Tielemans and Woldringh, 2005). Electronic detention was also heavily criticized. The Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and the Protection of Juveniles (RSJ) emphasized that home detention should always be combined with some form of support or assistance and that the prisoner should have the opportunity to work. Furthermore, the Council stated that the principal goals of home detention in terms of retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation would have to be made explicit (RSJ, 2007). This point is also emphasized by Van Swaaningen and Uit Beijerse, who are concerned that the main rationale behind any form of electronic monitoring simply tends to be cost reduction (Van Swaaningen and Uit Beijerse, 2013). In June 2010, the Minister of Justice decided to end the practice of electronic detention awaiting new legislation that would codify EM as a principal punishment and as a condition to suspend remand (Van Swaaningen and Uit Beijerse 2013: 181). However, this bill never came into force, because the need for home detention as a substitute for prison declined in the context of a cell surplus and the new State Secretary of Security and Justice was personally a strong opponent of EM. In 2013, the master plan of the Dutch Prison Service for 2013-2018 was published. It describes the intended changes in the prison system aimed at reducing the expenditures of the Prison Service with up to 340 million euros in 2018 (DJI, 2013). Electronic detention is presented as one of the important instruments for realizing these cuts and a new Bill on Electronic Detention was proposed in the same period as the Masterplan DJI. Two modalities are mentioned. The first is the 'backdoor modality' to be applied after half of the prison sentence has been served but before conditional release. The second is the 'front-door modality' which is meant to be a substitution for any prison sentence shorter than six months, unless the possibility for electronic detention is explicitly ruled out in the verdict. It is estimated that the implementation of electronic detention will facilitate the reduction of existing prison capacity by 2033 places. For juvenile offenders, the aim is to increase the imposition of electronic monitoring as an alternative to remand (DJI, 2013). The second proposal caused a wave of criticism. In the political arena the dominant opinion was that EM was a far too mild alternative for detention. Therefore EM was not acceptable as an alternative for short prison sentences. Most Advice Committees that commented on the Bill were positive on EM as an alternative for short prison sentences, but only if it would become an autonomous sentence that could be imposed by the judge (courts). More enthusiasm existed for the 'back door modality', although several concerns were expressed in relation to this modality as well, in particular concerning the replacement of the existing system of detention phasing by electronic detention and the exclusion of certain groups of prisoners of electronic detention as a result of contraindications and conditions that would be required (Boone and Van Hattum 2014; RSJ, 2013). In September 2014, the electronic detention bill was rejected by the Upper House. Only the Labour Party (PVDA) and the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) supported the bill, which was not sufficient for a majority in the senate. To the senate, abolishing the existing system of detention phasing was unacceptable and electronic detention did not provide a workable and legally substantiated alternative. There were concerns about the risk of recidivism for prisoners who would not qualify for electronic detention. Also, the fact that the judge would not be involved in the allocation of electronic detention was criticized (Reclassering Nederland, 2014). To summarize, EM in the Netherlands has had a bit of a slow start and has not yet been accepted as an autonomous alternative for a prison sentence in the sentencing stage. It is used, however, as an instrument to supervise the requirements added to several conditional sentences and measures, as will be described in the first section below. Details: Utrecht: Utrecht University, 2016. 108p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 12, 2018 at: http://28uzqb445tcn4c24864ahmel.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2016/06/EMEU-Electronic-monitoring-in-the-Netherlands.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Netherlands URL: http://28uzqb445tcn4c24864ahmel.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2016/06/EMEU-Electronic-monitoring-in-the-Netherlands.pdf Shelf Number: 150836 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SupervisionElectronic MonitoringHouse ArrestOffender SupervisionTagging |
Author: Dunkel, Frieder Title: Electronic Monitoring in Germany Summary: The German sanctions system distinguishes between criminal sanctions based on the guilt of the offender, and measures for rehabilitation and security based on the dangerousness of the offender on the other. In Germany, electronic monitoring (EM) is not an independent criminal sanction or measure by these means. Nevertheless, there are several legal bases in the German sanctions system for the use of EM: - As a directive for dangerous offenders in the context of the measure of supervision of conduct ("Fuhrungsaufsicht") (see s. 68b (1) No. 12 Criminal Code) - As a directive in combination with a suspended sentence (s. 56c Criminal Code) - As a directive for offenders who are released early (s. 57, 57a Criminal Code) - As a directive for an accused to avoid pre-trial detention (s. 116 Criminal Procedure Act) - During the execution of prison sentences for preparing release from prison by so-called relaxations of the prison regime ("Vollzugslockerungen", prison leaves) or as an alternative form of the execution of prison sentences for fine defaulters. The legislative competence for prison law is held by the sixteen federal states. Although there are several legal bases for its implementation in federal law the German sanction practice is very reluctant towards EM as an option. First of all, these legal possibilities for the use of EM are highly controversial. Furthermore, the modelprojects, in which EM was used as an alternative to imprisonment, in two federal states have been evaluated rather sceptically, especially in regard to "net-widening effects". While prison overcrowding was a driver for the implementation of EM in some European countries. Prison overcrowding both in the past and currently is not a major issue in Germany. The need for EM became "urgent" with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (M. vs. Germany, no. 19359/04), which stated that the instrument of preventive detention was a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, with the consequence that several "dangerous" offenders had to be released from preventive detention. 1.2 Types of electronic monitoring and their popularity Overall, electronic monitoring of offenders in Germany can be divided into two fields of application: The only form of EM that is accepted in all German federal states is so-called electronic location monitoring (Elektronische Aufenthaltsuberwachung, EAU). EAU comes into play as a directive in the context of the measure of supervision of conduct. The purpose of EAU is to minimise the risk that offenders, who have committed serious sexual or violent offences (dangerous offenders), reoffend after their release from prison or from a forensic institution. EAU uses GPS-technology and thus allows the location of the person under EM to be continuously monitored. When the total population is taken into account, the highest rate of EAU-monitored persons can be found in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. In other federal states with similar population sizes, like Baden-Wurttemberg and Lower Saxony, the use of EAU is limited to only a small handful of cases. EAU is primarily used with offenders who are released from prison after having served their full sentence. Around 75 per cent are sexual offenders, while the remaining 25% are persons who had been sentenced for violent offences. According to our interview partners, EAU has only once been applied in a case involving a female offender. Overall, notwithstanding the observed variations between the different federal states, it is apparent that the EAU-EM directive is used only in select cases in which the offender poses a significant risk. While the EM-directive, applicable in the context of the measure of supervision of conduct, is the only field of application of EM that is explicitly foreseen as an option in federal law, with fewer than 100 cases nationwide, EAU plays only a peripheral role in German sentencing practice. EAU is not the only manifestation of EM in Germany. In the federal state of Hessen, a pilot project has been underway since the year 2000 involving so-called electronic presence monitoring (Elektronische Prasenzkontrolle, EPK). EA and EPK are vastly different from one another, as shall be discussed in closer detail in the course of this report. Unlike EAU, the use of EPK in this pilot is not limited to one particular field of application (EA: as a directive attached to supervision of conduct). Instead, EPK can be applied in a number of different contexts and thus latches onto a number of different statutory provisions. Specifically, EM can be used as a directive in combination with a suspended sentence (probation support), as a means for avoiding pretrial detention/custodial remands, as a directive in combination with a pardon or as a directive in the context of prison-regime "relaxations" used as means for release preparation. EPK thus primarily serves as a means for keeping people out of detention and imprisonment. In contrast to EAU, the target group that EPK caters to is not restricted to serious violent and sexual offenders who have been released from prison after having served their sentence in full. Instead, EPK focuses on offenders who are on the threshold between custody and probation (or between pre-trial detention and alternative (non-)remand options), and who also show a lack of discipline. The EM-directive is intended to monitor the offender's compliance with any court orders, conditions and directives to which he/she has been subjected, thus supporting him/her in finding and adhering to structured daily routines. This form of EM uses radio frequency technology to monitor whether or not the monitored person is at home. Unlike EAU, EPK does not allow for the location of the offender to be precisely pinpointed at any time. On 3rd April 2013 a total of 83 persons were subject to EPK-EM - 41 in the context of probationary directives, the remaining 42 under directives for avoiding pre-trial detention. From the initiation of the pilot project up until that date, EPK was applied in a total of 1,141 cases (up until 31st March 2015: 1,310). That amounts to an average of roughly 80-90 cases per year. In comparison with the total number of 15,977 probationers in Hessen for the year 2014 the practical significance of this instrument becomes clear (even more clearly in comparison with the total number of about 180,000 probationers in whole of Germany). The supervising authorities have reported a significant reduction in the use of EPK in practice over last two years in particular, with a current caseload of only 48. About two thirds of these cases involved directives made in the context of probation or conditional release, while one third were directives for avoiding pre-trial detention. The law also allows for radio frequency monitoring to be applied as a means of "sentence relaxation" in prisons, especially youth prisons. This alternative has not been met with much approval from prison administrators, and accordingly there have only ever been two such cases Details: Greifswald: University of Greifswald, Germany, 2016. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 12, 2018 at: http://28uzqb445tcn4c24864ahmel.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2016/06/EMEU-Electronic-monitoring-in-Germany.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Germany URL: http://28uzqb445tcn4c24864ahmel.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2016/06/EMEU-Electronic-monitoring-in-Germany.pdf Shelf Number: 150837 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SupervisionElectronic MonitoringOffender SupervisionTagging |
Author: Florida. Senate. Committee on Criminal Justice Title: Examine Technological Advances and Other Issues in Electronic Monitoring or Probationers Summary: Electronic monitoring by location tracking devices can be used as an aid in supervising pre-trial releasees and sentenced offenders who are not incarcerated. In Florida, electronic monitoring is primarily used by the Department of Corrections (department) to provide an extra measure of security for high-risk offenders - particularly sex offenders - who are under some form of community supervision. In recent years there have been calls to reduce corrections costs by replacing all or part of a term of incarceration of low-risk offenders with less expensive community supervision that includes electronic monitoring. In addition to reducing costs, some believe that use of electronic monitoring in lieu of the last part of a period of incarceration would support successful reentry into the community by providing for a period of supervision before release from custody. This report describes the current and historical use of electronic monitoring in the state correctional system and examines the potential for cost savings through increasing its use. The description of technology and support systems also illustrates the capabilities and limitations of using electronic monitoring to enhance public safety. Details: Tallahassee: Florida Senate, 2011. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Interim Report 2012-117: Accessed August 24, 2018 at: https://www.flsenate.gov/PublishedContent/Session/2012/InterimReports/CJ1172012-117cj1.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://www.flsenate.gov/PublishedContent/Session/2012/InterimReports/CJ1172012-117cj1.pdf Shelf Number: 151256 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community SupervisionElectronic Monitoring Probationers |
Author: Cuddy, Joshua Title: Young Adults and Community Supervision: The Need for Developmentally Appropriate Approach to Probation Summary: While community supervision (probation) is widely accepted to be an effective strategy for diverting people from prison and offering rehabilitative programming, the truth is that young adults placed on adult probation for felony offenses are far more likely to be revoked and sent to prison than older adults. Young adults are less likely than older adults to have remained on probation for the full term by the two-year point, and the majority of cases terminated by the two-year point were due to revocation rather than successful completion. In fact, only 18 percent of 17- to 21-year-olds successfully completed and were terminated from felony probation in FY 2017. The rate was slightly better for 22-to 25-year-olds, with 41 percent successfully completing and being terminated from probation, compared to 60 percent of felony probationers over age 25. Sadly, nearly 7,400 young men and women had their probation revoked in FY 2017, with 7,000 young people committed to prison or jail. Traditional probation practices are not effective with 17-to 25-year-olds on felony probation. Courts continue to discount important developmental factors when setting probation conditions. This is heartbreaking when one considers the missed opportunities to alter the course for a generation of young adults who might otherwise have moved beyond criminal justice system involvement and led productive lives. New approaches are critical, as people aged 17-25 are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system overall, both in Texas and nationally. At a national level, young adults aged 18-25 make up less than 10 percent of the total population but represent approximately 29 percent of all arrests, 26 percent of people on probation, and 21 percent of all people admitted into adult prison. Young people of color, more so than any other age group, are disproportionately involved in the justice system. Nationally, for every white man sentenced to prison in 2012, there were six African American men and three Hispanic/Latino men imprisoned. Similarly, for every white man aged 18 to 19 sent to prison, nine African American men and three Hispanic/Latino men of the same age were imprisoned. Upon release from prison, young adults are significantly more likely to be re-arrested and/or return to prison compared to other age groups, a factor that underscores the essential role that community supervision can play in keeping young adults out of prison. Incarceration fundamentally derails a young adult's transition into adulthood, and it diminishes the likelihood of finishing school, establishing a career, and starting a family. Probation can be an effective tool for rehabilitation, and it is the primary means by which felony defendants are diverted from prison in Texas. According to data from the Harris County Community Supervision and Corrections Department, adults who successfully completed a term of probation were less likely (regardless of risk level) to be re-arrested within 16 months of release than those with the same risk level who were sentenced to state jail. The same results are seen at the juvenile level, where youth who successfully complete community supervision in the juvenile system are 21 percent less likely to be re-arrested within a year than those who are incarcerated. Also importantly, community supervision is significantly less expensive than incarceration. At the adult level, community supervision costs the state $1.78 per person per day as opposed to $51.72 for incarceration in state jail. At the juvenile level, basic supervision cost $5.93 per youth per day as opposed to $37.62 for placement in a post-adjudication residential program or $441.92 for placement in a state residential facility. The benefits of community supervision - both in public safety and taxpayer savings - are only realized when the completion rates improve for all demographics, especially young adults on felony probation. The purpose of this report is to highlight evidence-based practices that improve outcomes, strengthening public safety and changing the life trajectory of young adults who might otherwise spend years in prison. Details: Austin, Texas: Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 2018. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 8, 2018 at: https://www.texascjc.org/node/8645/download/4681e2359b4d1e06f47d3cbe79e99940 Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.texascjc.org/system/files/publications/Young%20Adults%20and%20Community%20Supervision%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 151442 Keywords: Community SupervisionFelony ProbationJuvenile IncarcerationProbationRehabilitationYoung Adults |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: The quality of public protection work (probation services) Summary: This bulletin focuses upon the quality of public protection work by probation services. Public protection work depends upon accurate assessment of the risk of harm presented by service users and the skillful management of and engagement with those who pose risks to individuals or the community in general. Public protection work also requires strong partnerships between probation services, the police, childrens services and health (especially mental health) services. The findings presented in this bulletin are based upon case assessment data from two of our previous inspection programmes: Offender Management Inspection 2 (n=1,815 cases) and Quality and Impact (n=1,034 cases). In each case, our inspectors considered key questions relating to public protection work, recording rationales for their judgements alongside notable instances of good or poor practice. Key findings and implications - The quality of public protection work was found to have deteriorated since OMI2. This decline was most marked in cases now allocated to Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). Many serious further offences are committed by those who are judged to present a low or medium risk of serious harm, and CRCs thus need to give greater attention to public protection work, encompassing assessment, planning, reviewing and management oversight. - It is of particular concern that the assessment of risk of harm to both known adults and to children and young people had deteriorated in cases now allocated to CRCs. All these providers need to ensure that any issues relating to domestic abuse and child safeguarding/protection are fully identified and analysed. - There was the greatest scope for improvement across the National Probation Service (NPS) and CRC cases in terms of reviewing progress and in responding appropriately to changing circumstances. Risks, needs, protective factors and circumstances can change over time, and any new behaviours that might be linked to risk of harm must be identified, analysed, and taken into account when reviewing planned activities and the required constructive and restrictive interventions. Details: Manchester, UK: The Inspectorate, 2018. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Research & Analysis Bulletin 2018/02: Accessed October 15, 2018 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/10/2018-02-The-quality-of-public-protection-work-probation-services.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/10/2018-02-The-quality-of-public-protection-work-probation-services.pdf Shelf Number: 152935 Keywords: Community SupervisionOffender Supervision Probation Probation Officers Public Safety |