Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 2:12 am
Time: 2:12 am
Results for intensive parole
1 results foundAuthor: Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. Division of Community Programs, Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration Title: Intensive Parole Model for : Chapter 338, Laws of 1997, Section 34 RCW 13.40.2129(2) Summary: The 1997 Washington State Legislature recognized that traditional parole services for high-risk juvenile offenders were insufficient to provide adequate rehabilitation and public safety. As a result, they mandated (Chapter 338, Laws of 1997, Section 34) the implementation of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) model with the top 25 percent highest risk to re-offend youth in the Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration (JRA). The legislation requires JRA to report annually to the Legislature on process and outcome findings. The key elements of the JRA Intensive Parole supervision model are: Information management and program evaluation; Assessment and selection criteria; Individual case planning; A mixture of intensive surveillance and services; A balance of incentives and graduated consequences; Service brokerage with community resources and linkage with social networks; and Transition services. The key changes in the program as the model has developed over time are: Phase 1 (10/98 – 10/99): Community Supervision/Traditional Community Linkages; Phase 2 (10/99 – 10/00): Residential/Transitional/Community Supervision/Traditional Community Linkages; Phase 3 (10/00 – 1/03): Evidence-Based Services; Phase 4 (1/03 – Present): Functional Family Parole (FFP) services; Phase 5 (Future): Regionalization of JRA Community Residential Programs. In December 2002, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) published a report that found the first two Intensive Parole (IP) cohorts did not have significantly different recidivism from the comparison group. They did find that the Basic Training Camp (BTC) second and third year cohorts had significantly lower recidivism. Based on the initial finding of IP in whole, funds for IP were significantly reduced increasing caseloads from 12 to 20:1 leading to a 40% increase in caseload size and reduced ability to perform community safety related activities, e.g., field surveillance, high levels of parole counselor contact, community justice work crews, day reporting programs, and electronic home monitoring. At this time, JRA continues to implement intensive parole as part of the overarching FFP model. Past budgetary reductions in intensive parole funding, with resulting increased caseloads and reduced staffing, can pose significant challenges to the implementation of this complex, promising model of FFP with the highest risk/highest need offenders. Details: Olympia, WA: Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration, 2009. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 3, 2011 at: http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/main/legrep/Leg1209/Intensive%20Parole%20Model%20for%20High%20Risk%20Juvenile%20Offenders.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/main/legrep/Leg1209/Intensive%20Parole%20Model%20for%20High%20Risk%20Juvenile%20Offenders.pdf Shelf Number: 121585 Keywords: Intensive ParoleJuvenile AftercareJuvenile Offenders (Washington State)Juvenile ParoleRecidivismRehabilitation |