Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:10 pm
Time: 8:10 pm
Results for conditional release
7 results foundAuthor: Brown, Tracy M.L. Title: Global Positioning System (GPS) Technology for Community Supervision: Lessons Learned Summary: This report identifies the current practices of agencies that have been using global positioning system (GPS) to supervise offenders on community supervision — probation, parole, or supervised release. The study reports on interviews with seven community supervision agencies about their experiences using GPS to manage their populations. Details: Falls Church, VA: Noblis, 2007. 142p. Source: Internet Resource; Accessed August 16, 2010 at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219376.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219376.pdf Shelf Number: 113264 Keywords: Community Based CorrectionsComputer MappingConditional ReleaseElectronic Monitoring, OffendersGlobal Positioning SystemParoleesProbationers |
Author: Hedlund, Jennifer Title: Development and Validation of an Assessment for Pretrial Conditional Release Summary: The intent of pretrial decision making is to determine if an individual who is been arrested can be released back into the community prior to his or her court date without posing a risk of failing to appear for court, of committing a new offense or harming someone. The role of pretrial staff (bail commissioners and intake, assessment and referral [IAR] specialists) is to provide an independent assessment of the client’s risk and to recommend to the court whether the client should be considered for a financial bond or a non-financial form of release. A point scale currently provides pretrial staff with guidance in determining the level of risk posed by a client and thus what type of recommendation (financial bond or non-financial release) should be made. Pretrial staff also may add certain conditions to this recommendation, which are intended to minimize the risk posed by a client who may be released on a promise to appear or on a low bond. Until now there has been no tool to assist pretrial staff in determining the type of conditional release that best addresses a client’s needs. The main objectives of the current project were to develop and pilot a decision aid to guide conditional release recommendations, and to evaluate recent modifications to the risk assessment point scale. Details: Hartford, CT: Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut, 2005. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 21, 2011 at: http://www.jud.ct.gov/CSSD/research/Dev_Val_Assess_PCR.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://www.jud.ct.gov/CSSD/research/Dev_Val_Assess_PCR.pdf Shelf Number: 122131 Keywords: BailConditional ReleasePretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Hedlund, Jennifer Title: Development and Validation of an Assessment for Pretrial Conditional Release Summary: The intent of pretrial decision making is to determine if an individual who is been arrested can be released back into the community prior to his or her court date without posing a risk of failing to appear for court, of committing a new offense or harming someone. The role of pretrial staff (bail commissioners and intake, assessment and referral [IAR] specialists) is to provide an independent assessment of the client’s risk and to recommend to the court whether the client should be considered for a financial bond or a non-financial form of release. A point scale currently provides pretrial staff with guidance in determining the level of risk posed by a client and thus what type of recommendation (financial bond or non-financial release) should be made. Pretrial staff also may add certain conditions to this recommendation, which are intended to minimize the risk posed by a client who may be released on a promise to appear or on a low bond. Until now there has been no tool to assist pretrial staff in determining the type of conditional release that best addresses a client’s needs. The main objectives of the current project were to develop and pilot a decision aid to guide conditional release recommendations, and to evaluate recent modifications to the risk assessment point scale. Details: Hartford, CT: Judicial Branch, 2005. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 31, 2011 at: http://www.jud.ct.gov/CSSD/research/Dev_Val_Assess_PCR.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://www.jud.ct.gov/CSSD/research/Dev_Val_Assess_PCR.pdf Shelf Number: 122131 Keywords: BailConditional ReleasePretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Spencer, Sonya Title: Day Reporting Centres: A Service Delivery Model Summary: The following report documents the findings of a review of Day Reporting Centres (DRCs) currently operating in Canada, how they are similar or differ from those that research has proven to be effective, and recommendations for further consideration. For the purpose of this report all Day Reporting Centres included in this review are providing services to federal offenders on conditional or legislated release in the community. All programs are delivered by the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) under contract with Correctional Service of Canada (CSC). In gathering information for this report, input was solicited from the following groups; NGOs CSC Parole Board of Canada Police Community Members/Volunteers International Experts Community Stakeholders Roundtable discussions were held in Vancouver, British Columbia, Calgary, Alberta, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Toronto, Ontario, Montreal, Quebec and Moncton, New Brunswick between January 10, 2011 and January 27, 2011. In total 129 people participated and contributed to the findings within this report. Based on a literature review, the consultation process and the service delivery experience of the author, the following observations we noted in relation to Canadian CDRCs; There are a total of 21 DRCs currently operating, in various stages of implementation, in 5 Provinces. In the remaining Provinces and Territories programs are delivering similar services, however for the purposes of this report they were not included. It should be noted that these programs may have promising practices that could be explored in a broader review of community based programming for offenders. When reviewing the operating practices of the DRCs it became apparent that although all shared the same name and overarching goal of the safe reintegration of offenders, there were few similarities in the models of service delivery, funding models, program utilization or data collection. This appears consistent with the models in both the UK and in the United States. Generally DRCs seem to be more of an accepted concept rather than a model for direct replication. This report attempts to provide a guide for further implementation of DRCs based on the principles of effective correctional interventions. During roundtable discussions it was unanimous that DRCs could be an effective tool within the continuum of community correctional interventions. It was agreed that principles of practice would support current and future program implementation yet there must be the flexibility within the model to allow for customization based on unique demographics and specialized populations. Details: Toronto: St. Leonard’s Society of Toronto, 2011. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 12, 2013 at: http://www.stleonardstoronto.com/pdf/Day%20Reporting%20Centres.A%20Service%20Delivery%20Model.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Canada URL: http://www.stleonardstoronto.com/pdf/Day%20Reporting%20Centres.A%20Service%20Delivery%20Model.pdf Shelf Number: 128343 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (Canada)Conditional ReleaseDay Reporting Centers |
Author: Nolan, Amanda Title: Community Employment Characteristics and Conditional Release Outcome among Federal Offenders Summary: What it means Results revealed that maintenance of a community job, but not skill level of the job, was related to a reduced likelihood of recidivism. This demonstrates the importance of a focus on assisting offenders in obtaining employment they can maintain. Furthermore, offenders identified as having the potential for difficulties with maintaining stable employment should be targeted for additional employment intervention to further help them with their reintegration efforts. What we found After controlling for other factors related to recidivism, offenders who were not employed with a stable job were 3.6 times more likely to return to custody for any reason and 2.5 times more likely to return to custody with a new offence than offenders who were employed with a stable job. Skill level of community employment, however, was not found to be significantly related to conditional release outcomes. In examining characteristics that best predicted an offender's likelihood of job stability, results revealed that being of Aboriginal ancestry, having a medium or high level of risk, a low level of motivation, and a moderate or high level of need in the areas of substance abuse and community functioning were meaningfully associated with a lower likelihood of having stable employment in the community. Why we did this study The role employment plays in reintegration and in reducing recidivism has been widely acknowledged. Much remains to be known, however, regarding what underlies this relationship and what variables are most likely to affect success. The purpose of the present study was to explore the relationship between characteristics of jobs obtained by recently released federal offenders and conditional release outcomes. What we did Participants were taken from all federal offenders released into the community on conditional release between April 1st, 2010 and March 31st, 2011. To be included, offenders had to be on the first term of their current sentence, have a follow-up time in the community of a minimum of 180 days, and be employed at least once during the follow-up period. Two community employment characteristics were examined: job stability (maintained at least one job in the community for 90 days or more) and employment skill level (had at least one job in the community that was rated as high-skilled). The total number of participants was 1,741; 94% were men and 13% were of Aboriginal ancestry. In terms of employment characteristics, 81% had at least one job that was considered stable, while 55% had at least one job that was considered high-skilled. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2014. 1p., (Full report available upon request) Source: Internet Resource: 2014 No. R-316: Accessed March 4, 2015 at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/005/008/092/005008-0316-eng.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Canada URL: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/005/008/092/005008-0316-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 134752 Keywords: Community Corrections (Canada)Conditional ReleaseEx-offender EmploymentPrisoner ReentryRecidivismReintegration |
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: Padfield, Nicola Title: Parole Board oral hearings 2016 - exploring the barriers to release. Avoiding or managing risks? Report of a Pilot Study Summary: This is the report of a pilot study into oral hearings of the Parole Board carried out in the summer of 2016. It was an observational study of 19 cases listed for hearing by video-link at the Parole Board's headquarters in the summer of 2016, alongside interviews with Parole Board members. The report discusses these cases in the context of the academic and legal literature. It reaches no clear conclusions, but identifies areas for future research. A more 'independent' and 'court-like' Parole Board might focus more on releasing post-tariff prisoners, and create a culture of urgency which penalises delays. (It should be read in conjunction with the Stage Two Report, submitted in May 2017. Both reports were originally confidential to the Parole Board but the Board agreed in November 2017 that they could be put in the public domain.) Details: Cambridge, UK: Institute of Criminology; University of Cambridge - Faculty of Law, 2017. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 62/2017: Accessed June 20, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3081035 Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3081035 Shelf Number: 150617 Keywords: Conditional ReleaseOffender Management Parole Boards Parolees Probation Risk Assessment |