Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:08 am
Time: 3:08 am
Results for offender supervision
125 results foundAuthor: McNeill, Fergus Title: Towards Effective Practice in Offender Supervision Summary: This paper provides an overview of evidence and argument about reoffending and about the kinds of practices of offender supervision in the community that might by most effective in reducing it. This report focuses more specifically on the effectiveness of rehabilitative programs. The concern of this report is not so much the merits of particular programs or interventions but rather broader practices and processes of supervision in which they are, or should be, embedded. Details: Glasgow: Scottish Centre for Crime & Justice Research, 2009 Source: Report 01/09 University of Glasgow Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 115542 Keywords: Offender SupervisionRehabilitationReoffending |
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: Omand, David Title: Omand Review: Independent Serious Further Offence Review: The Case of Jon Venables Summary: Following the conviction of Jon Venables on 23 July this year for possessing and distributing indecent images of children, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice commissioned Sir David Omand GCB to undertake an independent review into the management of Jon Venables, from his release from local authority detention in June 2001 until his recall to custody on 24 February in 2010. This reviews examines the supervision of Jon Venables who was accused in the murder of James Bulger. Details: London: Sir David Omand GCB, 2010. 115p. Source: Internet Resource: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/omand-review-web.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/omand-review-web.pdf Shelf Number: 120371 Keywords: Child PornographyOffender SupervisionProbation |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Probation Title: Core Case Inspections of Youth Offending Work: Aggregate Findings Across Four English Regions and Wales, Including Findings by Diversity Summary: This report provides aggregate findings across four English regions and Wales from HMI Probation’s Core Case Inspections (CCI) of key aspects of Youth Offending work by Youth Offending Teams, which are covering all 157 YOTs over a three year period from April 2009. The findings in this report cover the 79 YOT areas inspected so far. • Overall, these findings indicate that much sound work is being undertaken with young people who have offended, but that there is scope for further improvement, among other things in Public Protection work, in a number of YOTs. • On the main elements of work inspected in the CCI – Safeguarding and Public Protection: - the overall average percentage of Safeguarding work, that HMI Probation judged to have met a sufficiently high level of quality, was 67% - the overall average percentage of work to keep to a minimum each young person’s Risk of Harm to others, that HMI Probation judged to have met a sufficiently high level of quality, was 62% - the overall average percentage of work to make it less likely that the individual young person would reoffend, that HMI Probation judged to have met a sufficiently high level of quality, was 70% • In 88% of the cases the YOT worker actively motivated and supported the young person throughout the sentence. • In 73% of cases delivered interventions in the community were of good quality. In only 55% of all cases were they reviewed appropriately. • In 64% of cases where the young person did not comply with the supervision the authority took enforcement action sufficiently well. • When analysed by diversity characteristics, for the main elements of work overall, and for the majority of key specific aspects of work, there were no statistically significant differences. However, where there were differences, work was done sufficiently well: - with girls and young women somewhat more often than with boys and young men - on some aspects of work, including some on Risk of Harm, a little more often with white young people compared to black and minority ethnic (BME) young people - with individuals under 16 years of age somewhat more often than with the older age group - with individuals with no identified disability somewhat more often than those with an identified disability • Overall, there were no major differences in the quality of work between children and young people of different diversity characteristics, but the figures indicate that certain specific matters may require attention. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2011. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed March 28, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-probation/docs/CCI_aggregate_report_March_2011-rps.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-probation/docs/CCI_aggregate_report_March_2011-rps.pdf Shelf Number: 121146 Keywords: DisabilityDiversityJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile ProbationOffender SupervisionRecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Probation and HM Inspectorate of Prisons Title: A Joined-Up Sentence? Offender Management in Prisons in 2009/2010 Summary: The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) aims to provide a structure to manage certain more serious or prolific offenders through their custodial sentence with probation staff in the community acting as offender managers. An offender manager’s role is to assess the risk of harm to others each offender poses and the likelihood of them reoffending, and then to produce a sentence plan accordingly. By the end of 2006, offender management units had been created in prisons to manage those arrangements in custody. This report, A Joined-Up Sentence?, reflects findings from the first 13 prison establishments inspected. Inspectors found that, even taking account of the different nature of the 13 establishments, some common themes emerged: despite considerable progress, there is still too much variation in the way in which prisoners are managed by the Prison and Probation Services; NOMS envisaged that offender managers in the community (probation officers) would be responsible for assessing the prisoner and for driving the management of the case, but this was rarely happening, and some offender supervisors (prison officers) were expected to take on this role, often without appropriate training or guidance, and sometimes with competing operational duties; some prisons had worked hard to ensure that all relevant prisoners had an OASys assessment, even where these should have been prepared by the offender manager, but the quality of these assessments varied, and they were rarely seen as a key document within the establishment; sentence planning was often driven more by the availability of activities than by the assessment; few establishments made strategic use of the OASys database to identify and provide for key areas of need in the prisoner population, which was disappointing; and information about prisoners was held in different locations within the establishment and, worryingly, public protection information was sometimes kept separate from offender management, which impeded the safe and effective management of prisoners. Despite these criticisms, the inspection found some Offender Management Units which were well integrated into the establishment and where core custodial functions sat effectively alongside offender management. However, there needs to be considerable progress across the custodial estate before the NOMS vision of a ‘joined up sentence’ is realised and Offender Management Units operate as a hub within the establishment. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Probation and HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2011. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Prison Offender Management Inspection 2: Accessed May 5, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-probation/docs/A_Joined_Up_Sentence-rps.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-probation/docs/A_Joined_Up_Sentence-rps.pdf Shelf Number: 121653 Keywords: Offender SupervisionOffendersPrisoners (U.K.)ProbationSentencing |
Author: Jalbert, Sarah Kuck Title: A Multi-Site Evaluation of Reduced Probation Caseload Size in an Evidence-Based Practice Setting Summary: Criminal justice researchers have studied caseload size to determine whether smaller caseloads improve probation outcomes. With exceptions, the findings have been disappointing: Reduced probation officer caseloads have not reduced criminal recidivism for high risk probationers and have increased revocation rates. One explanation is that officers with reduced caseloads do not materially change their supervision practices when caseloads are reduced—they either fail to achieve increased supervision intensity (control) or fail to improve treatment intervention (correction), or both. This raises the question: Would reduced caseloads improve supervision outcomes for medium to high risk offenders in a probation agency that trains its officers to apply a balance of controlling and correctional/rehabilitative measures? The logic is that the reduced caseload would allow probation officers to better deliver correctional interventions, thereby reducing recidivism without unduly increasing revocations. Our research answered this question in three purposefully selected probation agencies: Oklahoma City, where we implemented a randomized controlled trial (RCT) experiment; Polk County, Iowa, where we implemented a regression discontinuity design study (RDD), and four judicial districts in Colorado, where we implemented a RDD. In Oklahoma City the RCT degenerated and the study team turned to a difference in differences (DD) estimator. The results showed that reducing probation officer caseloads can reduce criminal recidivism when delivered in a setting where probation officers apply EBP. The two agencies (Oklahoma and Polk County, Iowa) that fully implemented EBP showed improved outcomes for probationers supervised by officers with smaller caseloads. The districts in Colorado had not fully implemented EBP and showed no reduced criminal recidivism attributable to smaller caseloads. Our results suggest that reduced caseloads, in combination with EBP, can lead to improved recidivism outcomes. The DD estimator in Oklahoma showed a statistically significant decrease in criminal recidivism and a modest increase in technical revocation rates for probationers supervised by officers who had reduced caseloads. Apparently officers with reduced caseloads were better able to identify treatment needs among their clientele, and thus better able to direct resources to those most in need. Consequently, reduced caseloads result in more efficient distribution of resources, and improved average probation outcomes. In Polk County, we found that intensive supervision with a small caseload reduces the likelihood of criminal recidivism by 26% percent (p=.037) for all offenses, 39% (p=.037) for drugs, property and violent offenses, and 45% (p=.023) for property and violent offenses (drug offenses excluded). For longer periods of time, recidivism is reduced significantly for property and violent crimes, 37% at eighteen months and 30 months respectively. We found little evidence that caseload size and resource allocation practices in Colorado’s four largest districts (excluding Denver) reduced the risk of recidivism for the highest risk probationers on general supervision. We speculate that the lack of treatment effect is related to the low frequency of correctional intervention for medium to high risk probationers, and that some core elements of EBP were not implemented until the end of the ten year study period (2007), contributing to the relative lack of treatment provision. The Department of Probation Services has since made considerable efforts to train or retrain officers and add elements of responsivity to Districts’ operations. It may be that similar analysis in two years will yield different findings. This study did not demonstrate the efficacy of the full complement of evidence based practices. Probation officers received equivalent training, so there was no counterfactual to use to evaluate EBP. Nevertheless, the implication is that EBP mattered: the literature demonstrates that without EBP (or similar supervision strategies) reduced caseloads do not reduce recidivism. Details: Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, 2011. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 2, 2011 at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/234596.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/234596.pdf Shelf Number: 121962 Keywords: CaseloadsOffender SupervisionProbation (U.S.)Probation OfficersRecidivism |
Author: Janetta, Jesse Title: Promoting Partnerships between Police and Community Supervision Agencies: How Coordination Can Reduce Crime and Improve Public Safety Summary: The past two decades have witnessed a period of revitalization for the field of law enforcement, marked by the emergence of a new paradigm of policing that embraces data-driven decision-making, emphasizes partnerships with the community, and underscores the belief that policing can be effective in making neighborhoods safer. During the same period, community supervision agencies have experienced a parallel shift in focus and philosophy, suggesting the potential for such agencies to enhance their role in improving public safety. The reenergizing of community supervision could not come at a more opportune time because it is needed to meet the challenges of the tremendous volume of people sentenced to probation or returning from prison. At any given time, 4.2 million adults are on probation supervision in the United States. Approximately 735,000 prisoners are released from state and federal prisons annually, and more than 500,000 are released to parole supervision. Adjudicated juveniles place an additional strain on community supervision agencies because approximately 42 percent of all petitioned cases result in an order of probation supervision. Moreover, 47,000 individuals (39,100 probationers and 7,900 parolees) were under community supervision in tribal areas in 2008, equaling a 7.9 percent increase from 2007. The potential impact that these supervisees have on public safety is undeniable: over two-thirds of released adult prisoners are arrested for a new crime within three years of release. While supervised populations may pose significant challenges for police and community supervision agencies, a partnership between the two can help them improve public safety. A community policing orientation, with a focus on building partnerships and engaging in problem-solving efforts to address crime, social disorder, and the fear of crime proactively, provides a strong foundation for collaboration between police and community supervision agencies. The two are allies and partners in the work of reintegrating parolees into their communities and managing probationers so that they refrain from criminal activity. Each agency can bring its skills, competencies, resources, and knowledge to a partnership. Police understand crime prevention and neighborhood dynamics; this knowledge can be valuable to community supervision agencies as they shift their focus toward preventing supervisees from committing a violation of their probation or parole conditions (as opposed to simply responding to violations once they occur). In turn, community supervision agencies know their supervisees, including the risks they present, potential triggers to reoffending, and interventions necessary to keep them in compliance. Building on the distinct strengths of both police and community supervision agencies, such partnerships can aid in the prevention of crime and enhance public safety. This guidebook is intended for all levels of police and community supervision personnel, as agency executives, supervisors, and line officers all have an opportunity to contribute to and benefit from partnering. The first section of this guidebook discusses why police and community supervision agencies should be interested in developing partnerships and what each partner can contribute to them. The second section discusses the key elements of partnership, specifically intelligence and information sharing, case planning and supporting behavior change, problem-solving approaches, targeted interventions for special populations, and focused deterrence efforts. Throughout the guidebook, examples of partnerships in the field are provided to offer tangible illustrations of how police/community supervision collaboration can be structured. While many of these examples focus on urban areas, the principles discussed throughout this guidebook are equally relevant for police and supervision agencies in rural areas where large agency boundaries can pose significant challenges for supervising probationers and parolees. These challenges only increase the need for interagency coordination and partnerships. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2011. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2011 at: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412362-promoting-partnerships-police-community-supervision-agencies.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412362-promoting-partnerships-police-community-supervision-agencies.pdf Shelf Number: 122113 Keywords: CollaborationCommunity Corrections (U.S.)Community-Oriented PolicingLaw EnforcementOffender SupervisionParoleesPrisoner ReentryProbationersPublic Safety |
Author: Barbour, Emily C. Title: DNA Databanking: Selected Fourth Amendment Issues and Analysis Summary: Over the past few decades, state and federal lawmakers have promoted the development of databases containing DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) profiles for individuals who are under the supervision of the criminal justice system due to their known or suspected involvement in a felony or other qualifying crime. Congress has demonstrated concern toward some aspects of DNA databanking by requiring expungement of a DNA profile in certain circumstances, prohibiting most non-forensic uses of DNA profiles and databases, and restricting familial searching. However, in general, Congress has taken a supportive attitude toward DNA databanking and has incentivized the development, expansion, and integration of DNA databases. As DNA database programs have widened in scope and grown in numbers, their consistency with the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures has increasingly been challenged. In the context of compulsory DNA collection, courts have widely upheld laws mandating the collection of DNA from persons who were convicted and are subject to the penal system’s custody or supervision. However, no judicial consensus has emerged regarding the constitutionality of mandating DNA collection from arrestees who have been criminally indicted. Instead, courts have split over the existence and scope of an arrestee’s reasonable expectation of privacy and the degree of privacy intrusion caused by DNA sampling. The limited number of court decisions in this area also suggests that there are conflicting opinions about the analogousness of DNA collection and fingerprinting. Courts have generally upheld the indefinite use and storage of a lawfully databanked DNA profile after its source’s conviction. However, not all courts agree that any post-conviction use of those profiles is constitutionally acceptable. In particular, observers are now raising questions about the Fourth Amendment consistency of using databases for non-forensic purposes and for familial searching — that is, using the DNA databases to locate potential relatives of an unidentified suspect. Currently, these concerns are largely confined to the scholarly literature — they have not come before a federal court — and are primarily centered on state database programs. Unlike some state DNA databases, the National DNA Index System (NDIS) and the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) can not be used for either non-forensic research or intentional familial searching. However, the increase in states that authorize familial searching suggests that it may not be long before the constitutionality of familial searching comes before a federal court. As these issues percolate up to the courts, new advances and revelations in the science of forensic analysis and databanking may have potentially significant legal implications. Several courts have suggested that new forensic techniques and scientific findings would require them to reevaluate their legal conclusions and analysis. In particular, research into the scope and nature of the information revealed by the “junk” DNA used in forensic analysis may alter how courts measure the intrusiveness of DNA profiling if it suggests that “junk” DNA reveals more sensitive information about its source than scientists previously thought. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2011. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: R41847: Accessed July 21, 2011 at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41847.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41847.pdf Shelf Number: 122139 Keywords: DNA FingerprintingDNA Typing (U.S.)Fourth AmendmentOffender Supervision |
Author: Senior, Paul Title: Process Evaluation of Five Integrated Offender Management Pioneer Areas Summary: A qualitative process evaluation of five Integrated Offender Management (IOM) pioneer areas was undertaken to assess implementation of IOM, identify approaches to implementation and capture the lessons learnt. The findings indicated that IOM enabled structural changes, transforming the delivery of offender management. There was considerable commitment and enthusiasm for IOM at the sites, whilst acknowledging barriers to development such as definition, resourcing, governance and clarity of agency roles. Since the evaluation took place, the political and criminal justice landscape has changed somewhat, supporting a more locally driven approach which can draw on the learning directly from the pioneers which were shaped and delivered locally. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2011. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Series 4/11: Accessed August 8, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/evaluation-integrated-offender-mgt-pioneer-areas.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/evaluation-integrated-offender-mgt-pioneer-areas.pdf Shelf Number: 122322 Keywords: CollaborationOffender SupervisionPrisoner RehabilitationRepeat Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Campbell, Nancy M. Title: Comprehensive Framework for Paroling Authorities in an Era of Evidence-Based Practices Summary: Parole can be defined as both a procedure by which a board administratively releases inmates from prison as well as a provision for post-release supervision. The Comprehensive Framework for Paroling Authorities in an Era of Evidence-Based Practices focuses on procedures relative to how and when to make the release decision and why and when to revoke a release. Parole is defined in this document as the release of an offender from imprisonment to the community by a releasing authority (parole board or paroling authority) prior to the expiration of the offender’s sentence subject to conditions imposed by the releasing authority. Revocation is the action of a releasing authority removing a person from parole status in response to a violation of conditions. Since eligibility for release on parole is a matter of state law, there is considerable variation in the location, administration, and organization of paroling authorities in the United States. All states have parole boards, and these boards may be independent agencies that have responsibility for release decisions or a branch of a department of corrections or a community corrections agency. In these organizational structures, boards may also have responsibility for staff who monitor the supervision of parolees in the community. Regardless of the structure, governors/governments are usually ill-equipped to select, hire, and train the caliber of individuals needed to do this important work that has a significant impact on public safety and the economy of a state. The Comprehensive Framework for Paroling Authorities in an Era of Evidence-Based Practices is the overarching visionary plan that paroling authorities need to lead them to a desired future of well-trained board members, using evidence-based practices within agencies that have sufficient staff and other resources to effectively support the release and, when necessary, revocation of offenders. The document describes what governors (appointing authorities) and paroling authorities need to do to improve the parole process while decreasing offender recidivism and increasing public safety. This document provides an outline of how NIC will lead the implementation of The Comprehensive Framework for Paroling Authorities in an Era of Evidence-Based Practices so that parole boards have the system components, organizational structure, and other resources to be a more vital part of the correctional system. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2008. 114p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 8, 2011 at: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/022906.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/022906.pdf Shelf Number: 122325 Keywords: Offender SupervisionParole (U.S.)Parole OfficersParolees |
Author: Great Britain: HMI Probation Title: Thematic Inspection Report: Putting the Pieces Together An Inspection of Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements Summary: This inspection of the of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) was agreed by the Criminal Justice Chief Inspectors Group and formed part of the Joint Inspection Business Plan 2011-2013. It was led by HM Inspectorate of Probation, supported by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary. Its purpose was to assess the effectiveness of MAPPA in reducing the potential risk of harm to others presented by identified offenders in the community through joint working and the exchange of relevant information. We visited six areas and looked at a sample of cases managed through MAPPA. We examined the referral process and the plans to manage these offenders in the community drawn up at the MAPPA meetings. We then assessed the extent to which the agencies involved with the offenders took action and coordinated activity in response to the decisions made at the meetings. We also carried out a separate audit of the Violent and Sexual Offender Register (ViSOR), the database that contains information about most MAPPA eligible offenders. Overall findings -- The introduction of MAPPA placed, on a statutory basis, what previously had been a series of ad hoc arrangements for criminal justice agencies and other organisations to manage offenders deemed to present a risk of harm to others. It meant that staff in all agencies had, over time, to learn to share information and work collaboratively in order to assess and manage offenders who posed a risk of harm to the public. The subsequent development of MAPPA improved the assessment and management of these offenders. Despite the significant challenges in dealing with such individuals, the level of cooperation amongst criminal justice and other agencies, as shown by this inspection, was impressive. We found a culture of trust and openness in the agencies involved that encouraged the thoughtful exchange of information between staff working with the offenders. We also saw much good practice in the way in which staff tried to balance the needs of communities and victims with those of the offender. Given the nature of the offenders within MAPPA, it could be argued that all the cases should have been managed to the highest possible standard. Although, our findings were broadly positive, the inspection revealed a number of key areas for improvement which, in our opinion are crucial if MAPPA are to ensure that all reasonable action is taken to manage the risk of harm presented by an offender to others in the community. Lead Agency -- The national guidance, that sets out the way in which MAPPA are to operate, requires that a lead agency should be identified for each MAPPA eligible offender. We found that, despite this clear guidance, the concept of one agency taking the lead for an offender within MAPPA, whilst acknowledged by staff, was underdeveloped and did not impact on the way in which cases were managed. In practice, each agency involved with a case tended to act in isolation from one another other and used the MAPPA meetings mainly to update partners and exchange information. A clearer focus on a specified lead agency would promote a more coordinated approach to the management of each offender. Risk Management Planning -- We found that MAPPA rarely produced a comprehensive risk management plan. In accordance with the national guidance, MAPPA should agree a risk management plan for each offender subject to multi-agency management. We found that this very rarely happened in a comprehensive way. In some cases, a list of short-term actions was identified; in others, actions were too vague or simply not identified at all. We did not see any examples of a jointly agreed MAPPA risk management plan, specifying how all the relevant agencies would work together to manage the individual’s risk of harm to others, including contingency arrangements. Furthermore, actions for agencies identified by MAPPA were not always well integrated into the records of the relevant agency. Most of the cases we saw were managed through a range of restrictive interventions, including curfews, approved premises, exclusion zones and surveillance. There was little question that these interventions were necessary, but they needed to be balanced by a focus on protective factors such as involvement in positive activities and constructive interventions designed to reduce the level of risk presented by the offender in the longer term. Offender managers and MAPPA as a whole paid little attention to what would happen to the offender at the end of supervision. Active Management -- Emphasis was too often placed on information exchange within MAPPA, rather than on the active management of an offender. MAPPA meetings to review and plan work with offenders were well attended and held at the right frequency. The chairs of the meetings worked hard to ensure that all the participants were able to make a contribution. However, in many meetings, the emphasis was more on the exchange of information between agencies rather than on the development of strategies actively to manage the risk of harm presented by the offender. As a result, the chair did not always hold agencies sufficiently to account for their actions. In order to do this, chairs of meetings not only needed to be knowledgable about process and procedures, they also needed to be assertive and have well developed skills in chairing and managing meetings. Documentation Minutes of MAPPA meetings were often not fit for purpose. Minutes recording the details of MAPPA meetings were generally poorly written and presented. In many instances, there were delays in distribution and we found numerous examples of minutes that contained out of date information, or information that was wrong. Some were lengthy and difficult to read because discussions had been transcribed verbatim. In one area, the minutes contained pages of action points, whilst in others, there were almost none. As a result, the minutes were rarely used as a working tool and staff tended to develop their own recording systems. The poor quality of the minutes meant that the agencies within MAPPA would not always be able demonstrate that they had made defensible decisions in the event of a challenge. ViSOR -- We also undertook a detailed audit of the ViSOR records held on the offenders in the inspection sample. Our findings were disappointing. We found that ViSOR was not used as a shared working tool by police and probation staff, mainly because, whilst ViSOR was reasonably accessable to police staff, access by probation staff was severly constrained. In addition, the quality of the information held on the system was not always of a high standard. Conclusion -- In order to work well, all the participants in MAPPA need to work together to develop a shared view about the nature of the risk presented by an individual offender to the public, draw up a plan to manage that risk and then ensure that the plan is implemented, reviewed and updated in response to events. In this report, we identify a number of areas where these elements of MAPPA work can be improved and we make a range of recommendations to address these findings. Details: London: Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2011. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 19, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprob/mappa-thematic-report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprob/mappa-thematic-report.pdf Shelf Number: 123404 Keywords: Agency Collaboration (U.K.)Community Based CorrectionsOffender SupervisionPartnershipsProbationRisk Management |
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: Fabelo, Tony Title: A Ten-Step Guide to Transforming Probation Departments to Reduce Recidivism Summary: This guide draws extensively on the experience of a multi-year effort in Travis County, Texas (Austin), to implement each of the four recidivism reduction practices. The fieldwork in Travis County emerged from an on-the-ground reality: Although much had been written about evidence-based practices in parole agencies, little or no research had been conducted on how the individual elements of effective probation practices can be used together to produce positive agency-wide outcomes. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2011. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 22, 2012 at http://nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/documents/0000/1150/A_Ten-Step_Guide_to_Transforming_Probation_Departments_to_Reduce_Recidivism.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/documents/0000/1150/A_Ten-Step_Guide_to_Transforming_Probation_Departments_to_Reduce_Recidivism.pdf Shelf Number: 123732 Keywords: Offender SupervisionProbationRecidivism (Texas) |
Author: Solomon, Amy L. Title: Putting Public Safety First: 13 Parole Supervision Strategies to Enhance Reentry Outcomes Summary: In 2007, the Urban Institute convened two meetings with national experts on the topic of parole supervision. The goal of the meetings was to articulate participants’ collective best thinking on parole supervision, violation, and revocation practices and to identify policies and strategies that would help policymakers and practitioners improve public safety and make the best use of taxpayer dollars. This paper, the result of those meetings and a review of the research literature, describes 13 key strategies to enhance reentry outcomes along with examples from the field. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Center, The Urban Institute, 2008. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 28, 2012 at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411791_public_safety_first.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411791_public_safety_first.pdf Shelf Number: 123851 Keywords: Offender SupervisionParoleParole SupervisionParoleesPrisoner ReentryPublic Safety |
Author: Kevin, Maria Title: Evaluation of the Drug and Alcohol Addiction and Relapse Prevention Programs in Community Offender Services: One Year Out Summary: Community Offender Services (COS), NSW Department of Corrective Services (NSW DCS) is responsible for the management of offenders serving community-based sentences across 60 offices in NSW. The Drug and Alcohol Addiction (DAAP) and Relapse Prevention (RPP) programs were designed to be delivered by Probation and Parole Officers (PPOs) who supervise the offenders. These new programs formed part of a Drug and Alcohol Intervention strategy that aimed to enhance the range of options that PPOs may use to assist community-based offenders under supervision in breaking the cycle of drug1 dependency and crime. COS received NSW Drug Summit funding to develop and implement these programs and to evaluate their effectiveness in terms of program outputs and participant outcomes. This report covers the first year of the program to end September 2006. Details: Sydney: Corporate Research, Evaluation & Statistics, NSW Department of Corrective Services, 2008. 24p. Source: Research Bulletin No. 24: Internet Resource: Accessed March 20, 2012 at Year: 2008 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 124619 Keywords: Drug Abuse and Crime (Australia)Drug Addiction and Abuse (Australia) - Alcohol AbuIntervention Programs (Australia)Offender SupervisionParoleProbation |
Author: Wilson, Carole Title: Supervised Bail in Scotland: Research on Use and Impact Summary: This report outlines findings on the use and impact of supervised bail in Scotland from a research project which included analysis of operational data, economic analysis, a workshop with bail workers, surveys of the judiciary and Procurators Fiscal, and interviews with people who have been on supervised bail. The research found that, when used in ‘borderline’ remand cases, supervised bail can support accused to comply with bail conditions, and can assist them in the process of desistance, as well as having positive impact in terms of family relationships, mental health and employability. Successful completion of supervised bail was also found to encourage members of the judiciary to impose a community sentence rather than a prison sentence. The number of bail supervision orders in Scotland has declined in recent years. The research suggests that two things could increase use of supervised bail: increased awareness of, and buy-in to, supervised bail amongst police, defence agent, PFs and the judiciary; and the embedding of good processes for suitability screening of individuals for supervised bail in courts across the country. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research, 2012. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 29, 2012 at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0039/00390604.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0039/00390604.pdf Shelf Number: 124756 Keywords: Bail (Scotland)Offender Supervision |
Author: California. Department of Corrections. Office of the Inspector General Title: Special Report: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Supervision of Parolee Phillip Garrido Summary: On June 10, 1991, federal parolee Phillip Garrido and his wife Nancy allegedly kidnapped 11-year-old Jaycee Dugard from South Lake Tahoe, California. Over the course of the following 18 years, Garrido reportedly sexually assaulted Jaycee–fathering two children–while holding her captive on the grounds of his residence in Antioch, California. For many of those years, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (department) parole division supervised Garrido. Despite numerous clues and opportunities, the department, as well as federal and local law enforcement, failed to detect Garrido’s criminal conduct, and victimization of Jaycee and her two daughters. On August 26, 2009, Garrido heinous crimes, and Jaycee was reunited with her family. In 1977, Garrido was convicted in state and federal court for kidnapping and repeatedly raping a 25-year-old female victim. The federal court sentenced him to 50 years for kidnapping while Nevada imposed a five years to life term for forcible rape. In January 1988, after serving 11 years of his federal sentence, the federal government paroled Garrido and released him to Nevada authorities to serve his state sentence. Seven months later, Nevada paroled Garrido, returning him to the jurisdiction of federal parole authorities to serve the remainder of his federal parole term. He resided at his mother’s house in Antioch, California throughout the terms of his federal and state paroles. In March 1999, the federal government discharged Garrido from federal parole, returning him to the jurisdiction of Nevada parole authorities. In June 1999, under the terms of an interstate parole compact, the department assumed parole supervision of Garrido on Nevada’s behalf because Garrido resided in California. On August 27, 2009, the day after the arrest of Garrido and his wife, the department held a press conference in which an official hailed the diligence of parole agents who had supervised Garrido. The official also proclaimed that Garrido had complied with his parole conditions, never receiving a violation. Other department officials have made similar public statements. While it is true that Garrido’s California parole was never officially violated, our review shows that Garrido committed numerous parole violations and that the department failed to properly supervise Garrido and missed numerous opportunities to discover his victims. The focus of this special report is limited to the department’s parole supervision of Garrido. However, it should be noted that Garrido was on parole under the jurisdiction of federal parole authorities from August 1988 to January 1999. During that time, Garrido allegedly kidnapped Jaycee Dugard and sexually assaulted her, fathering two children. Federal parole authorities also failed to detect Garrido’s criminal conduct and his victims. Details: Sacramento: Office of the Inspector General, 2009. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2012 at: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/BOI/Special%20Report%20on%20CDCRs%20Supervision%20of%20Parolee%20Phillip%20Garrido.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/BOI/Special%20Report%20on%20CDCRs%20Supervision%20of%20Parolee%20Phillip%20Garrido.pdf Shelf Number: 125318 Keywords: Offender SupervisionParolees (California)Sex Offenders |
Author: California. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Office of Inspector General Title: Special Report: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Supervision of John Gardner Summary: On May 14, 2010, John Gardner was sentenced to state prison for life without the possibility of parole for the rapes and murders of 14-year-old Amber Dubois and 17-year-old Chelsea King, and for the assault on 23-year-old Candice Moncayo with the intent to commit rape. Each of these heinous crimes occurred subsequent to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (department) September 2008 discharge of Gardner after he completed a three-year parole term for sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl in 2000. Our review revealed that during Gardner’s parole supervision, the department did not identify his aberrant behavior, including unlawfully entering the grounds of a state prison—a felony—as well as numerous instances of violating the conditions of his parole. Had the department aggressively monitored Gardner’s GPS data during parole, it would have identified his criminal act and parole violations, enabling the department to refer them for appropriate action. Successful prosecution of Gardner’s crime and administrative action in response to his parole violations would have sent Gardner back to prison, making it impossible for him to murder the two young girls and commit the attempted sexual assault. Indeed, the San Diego District Attorney advised us that had the department brought to her attention Gardner’s criminal act of entering the grounds of a state prison, she would have charged Gardner with a third-strike felony, which, if Gardner were convicted, could have resulted in his serving a 25-years-to-life sentence. The department did not identify Gardner’s crime and parole violations because even though it placed a GPS monitoring device on Gardner in September 2007, it did not require parole agents to review the GPS data associated with the device. We identified this weakness in our November 2009 special report titled The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Supervision of Parolee Phillip Garrido. In March 2010, the department issued a GPS monitoring policy that requires parole agents to periodically review GPS data for parolees such as Gardner. Nonetheless, the new passive GPS policy, although improved, remains deficient in meeting the department’s goal of aggressively monitoring all sex offender parolees. Under its provisions, the department remains unlikely to have detected crimes such as Gardner’s felony or many of his parole violations. The department’s current policy still ignores 87 percent of the GPS data collected for parolees such as Gardner. The policy also limits the time that parole agents spend in the field by imposing on parole agents laborious GPS data review techniques. However, by using Criminal Intelligence Specialists and better review techniques, the department could free up parole agents’ time, thereby enhancing public safety through effective parole supervision. These specialists could forward to parole agents any GPS data that requires further review and action. Finally, the department could also be more effective if it used the GPS system’s zonemonitoring capacity to a greater extent and realigned some of the responsibilities for reviewing the alerts that the zones produce. Details: Sacramento: Office of the Inspector General, 2010. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2012 at: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/BOI/Special%20Report%20on%20CDCRs%20Supervision%20of%20John%20Gardner.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/BOI/Special%20Report%20on%20CDCRs%20Supervision%20of%20John%20Gardner.pdf Shelf Number: 125320 Keywords: Offender MonitoringOffender SupervisionParolees (California)Violent Offenders |
Author: Kane, Michael Title: Exploring the Role of Responsivity and Assessment with Hispanic and American Indian Offenders Summary: This report presents findings from an exploration of cultural responsivity in risk and needs assessment in community corrections agencies. As risk and needs assessment becomes more popular in community corrections, more researchers have begun to study issues involving the specific characteristics of offenders and how they interact with assessment and programming to impact outcomes, a concept commonly known as responsivity. In particular, two cultural groups were selected for study: Hispanics and American Indians. Initial plans for the current project involved the development of a new tool or ‘trailer’ for use in assessing Hispanic and American Indian populations. In the early stages of the project, however, the project team and its advisors determined that the creation of a new tool would be premature. Instead, the project focused efforts on: 1) describing current practices in assessing and working with Hispanic and American Indian offenders; 2) determining how well current assessment tools and practices predict recidivism for these offender groups; and 3) suggesting ways to improve tools and practices to make them more culturally competent and responsive. The report that follows will describe assessment and cultural responsivity, describe current practices in culturally responsive assessment, and detail the findings of research activities including data analysis and focus groups. Chapter 1 provides a literature review on the topic of risk assessment and culture. This section will describe the evolution of risk assessment in community corrections, summarize research on evidence-based practices, describe the Hispanic and American Indian populations in the United States and their context in corrections systems nationwide, suggest a model for understanding cultural competency, and describe some popular risk and needs assessment tools. Chapter 2 provides information on a Roundtable of assessment and corrections experts and results from a national survey of probation and parole agencies. The chapter describes the project team’s understanding of the current state of community corrections practice in assessing and supervising American Indian and Hispanic offenders. Chapter 3 summarizes findings from discussions with experts in Hispanic and American Indian culture and focus groups conducted with community corrections staff and Hispanic and American Indian offenders in five sites. Based on this feedback, the project team provides recommendations for improving assessment practices. Focus groups addressed cultural and linguistic barriers in supervision and assessment, specific cultural factors that may impact the scoring of risk and needs assessment, cultural competency during the assessment process, cultural competency training available to officers and supervisors, and suggestions for improving supervision and assessment with Hispanic and American Indian offenders. Chapter 4 presents findings from analysis of assessment and outcome data provided by five community corrections agencies and provides recommendations for improving the effectiveness of assessment tools. Predictive validity analysis was conducted for each site, and a combined analysis examining whether Hispanic and American Indian offenders are scoring differently on risk assessments compared to other offenders, and if agency-level cultural competency practices result in reductions in recidivism. Details: Boston: Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice, 2011. 113p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 27, 2012 at: https://www.bja.gov/Publications/CRJ_Role_of_Responsivity.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://www.bja.gov/Publications/CRJ_Role_of_Responsivity.pdf Shelf Number: 126118 Keywords: American Indian OffendersCommunity CorrectionsHispanic OffendersOffender SupervisionParoleesProbationersRisk Assessment |
Author: Geoghegan, Rory Title: Future of Corrections: Exploring the Use of Electronic Monitoring Summary: Future of Corrections shows that the current system of tagging is in desperate need of reform. A more effective use of tagging, where police and probation officers are directly involved in keeping track of offenders and recommending to prison governors and the courts which criminals should be tagged, could save hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayer money and help the Coalition achieve its goal of stabilising the prison population by 2015. The current procurement system is outdated and offers poor value for money to the taxpayer. Since tagging was first introduced in the UK in 1989, there have been three private sector suppliers each enjoying a monopoly position with little competitive pressure. This has led to a lack of innovation in technology and programmes with the majority of criminals wearing tags confined to night time curfews which do little to prevent them from reoffending during the day. The report notes that in other countries, in particular the US, ankle bracelets have become smaller, smarter and more durable. The most advanced forms of tags are now GPS-enabled allowing the police to pin point someone’s exact location at all times. However, the lack of competition and the current nature of the contracts in the UK market means the taxpayer is losing out. If England and Wales replicated the US system, where providers simply hand over the technology to the police and probation officers to monitor and fit the tags, £883million could have been freed up over the past 13 years. This money could have created 2,000 probation or more than 1,200 police officers. The report makes a number of recommendations including: Creating a real market by giving suppliers and customers the freedom to design, develop and contracts services that work for and address local priorities and needs. Devolving powers to locally elected Police and Crime Commissioners to decide on how much money, if any, should be spent on tagging and who should provide the services. Give the police a much greater say by asking officers to recommend the most effective use of tagging to prevent and detect crime. Details: London: Policy Exchange, 2012. 89p., app. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 26, 2012 at: http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/category/item/future-of-corrections-exploring-the-use-of-electronic-monitoring Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/category/item/future-of-corrections-exploring-the-use-of-electronic-monitoring Shelf Number: 126455 Keywords: Alternative to IncarcerationElectronic Monitoring (U.K.)Electronic TaggingOffender Supervision |
Author: Shapland, Joanna Title: The Quality of Probation Supervision -- A Literature Review Summary: This review focuses on what research has revealed is seen as ‘quality’ in probation supervision. It is written to assist the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) and to link into their Offender Engagement Programme, so it is principally concerned with England and Wales, but literature from other countries has also been searched and is included to compare and contrast with the experience in England and Wales. Ideas as to what is ‘quality’ depend of course on what the key purposes for probation and for supervision within probation are thought to be. These have changed over time and with ideas of what the criminal justice system as a whole is intended to do, and they are also affected by the deep-seated legal cultural traditions of that country and the history of its probation service. As we shall see, research has only rarely addressed ‘quality’ per se, whether from the perspective of those managing the service, those supervising or those being supervised. However, ideas of ‘quality’ are intrinsically tied up with ideas of ‘effectiveness’, ‘best practice’ and the often deeply felt, but rarely articulated views about ‘what we are really here to do’. We have, therefore, cast our net wide in terms of what to include, though we try to bring the discussion back to ‘quality’ and what it is at each point. The review follows on from the review by McNeill and Weaver (2010), also for NOMS, which looked at the literature on desistance, or what affects offenders1 stopping offending, and so we have not repeated those lessons here. This review is though very much influenced by the desistance literature, because current views about quality in probation generally are strongly influenced by what is linked to helping to stop offenders offending. The research indicates that desistance is affected by offenders’ own agency (decisions on desistance and offending), their personal and social context, and being able to surmount practical obstacles to successfully leading a non-offending life in the community (obtaining money legitimately, having somewhere to live, growing social ties to prosocial others). Some of the literature on surmounting practical obstacles stems from areas outside criminology, such as dealing with people with multiple social problems, what helps in getting people generally into work or housing the homeless, or referring people to other agencies. We have deliberately sought to bring together these studies into the review, even if they have not been used in probation previously, but have tried to link them into what may be helpful in probation practice at the end of each section. Details: Sheffield, UK: University of Sheffield, Centre for Criminological Research, 2012. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: Occasional Paper 3; Accessed October 19, 2012 at: http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.159010!/file/QualityofProbationSupervision.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.159010!/file/QualityofProbationSupervision.pdf Shelf Number: 126761 Keywords: Offender SupervisionProbation (U.K.) |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Probation Title: Core Case Inspection of Youth Offending Work in England and Wales: Report on Youth Offending Work in Lewisham Summary: This Core Case Inspection of youth offending work in Lewisham took place as part of the Inspection of Youth Offending programme. We have examined a representative sample of youth offending cases from the area, and have judged how often the Public Protection and the Safeguarding aspects of the work were done to a sufficiently high level of quality. We judged that the Safeguarding aspects of the work were done well enough 75% of the time. With the Public Protection aspects, work to keep to a minimum each individual’s Risk of Harm to others was done well enough 68% of the time, and the work to make each individual less likely to reoffend was done well enough 80% of the time. A more detailed analysis of our findings is provided in the main body of this report, and summarised in a table in Appendix 1. These figures can be viewed in the context of our findings from Wales and the regions of England inspected so far. We also found against a difficult backdrop that included gang rivalry, drugs and knife crime, the staff in Lewisham worked constructively with children and young people. Improvements were needed, however, to improve the quality of work related to the Risk of Harm to others and to some aspects of how the vulnerability of those children and young people known to the service could be reduced. Overall, we consider this a creditable set of findings. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2012. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 20, 2012 at http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprobation/youth-inspection-reports/core-case/lewisham-cci-2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprobation/youth-inspection-reports/core-case/lewisham-cci-2012.pdf Shelf Number: 127241 Keywords: DisabilityDiversityJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile ProbationOffender SupervisionRecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Turner, Susan Title: Implementation and Outcomes for California’s GPS pilot for High Risk Sex Offender Parolees Summary: In November 2006, California passed Proposition 83 mandating that all sex offenders be monitored by GPS for life. The law was passed without sufficient evidence regarding the effectiveness of GPS monitoring on sex offenders, and lacked a clear plan for how these new provisions would be implemented. This study provides a much needed test addressing the effectiveness of GPS monitoring for high risk sex offenders supervised in the community. Using data from a GPS pilot program in San Diego California in 2005, 94 high risk sex offenders monitored by GPS and 91 high risk sex offenders were followed for 18 months. The results showed that there were no significant differences between groups with respect to overall recidivism rates, although GPS offenders were less likely to abscond or fail to register as a sex offender. Additionally, we found that GPS offenders were less likely to be charged of committing a new crime, but more likely to violate a special condition of GPS supervision. Overall, GPS monitoring appeared to prevent parolees only from committing lower level offenses, which calls into question the utility of this particular supervision tool as a deterrent for the sex offender population. Details: Irvine, CA: UC Irvine, Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, 2010. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: Accessed January 29, 2013 at: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/HRSO%20GPS%20Pilot%20Working%20Paper.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/HRSO%20GPS%20Pilot%20Working%20Paper.pdf Shelf Number: 127423 Keywords: GPS (Global Positioning Systems)Offender MonitoringOffender SupervisionParoleesSex Offenders (California) |
Author: Ireland. Probation Service Title: Probation Service Recidivism Study 2011 Summary: The Probation Service and Central Statistics Office have established a partnership to conduct research on recidivism and related issues among offenders on supervision in the community. This first study report is based on anonymised offender and offence information on a 2007 cohort of offenders from the Probation Service supervision database. The study reports on recidivism within two years among that cohort using four years follow up of recorded crime and Court Service data held by the Central Statistics Office. The study also examines variations in recidivism relating to type of original order, gender and age of the offender, category of original offence and of the subsequent offence. This recidivism study, in partnership with the Central Statistics Office, provides a clear overview of community sanctions and their outcomes; informing the Service in the development and support of effective interventions in working to make our communities safer. Details: Dublin: Probation Service, 2012. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Probation Service Research Report 2; Accessed January 29, 2012 at: http://www.probation.ie/pws/websitepublishingdec09.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/The+Probation+Service+Recidivism+Study+2007-2011/$FILE/The+Probation+Service+Recidivism+Study+2007-2011.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Ireland URL: http://www.probation.ie/pws/websitepublishingdec09.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/The+Probation+Service+Recidivism+Study+2007-2011/$FILE/The+Probation+Service+Recidivism+Study+2007-2011.pdf Shelf Number: 127427 Keywords: Offender SupervisionProbation (Ireland)ProbationersRecidivism |
Author: Rhodes, William Title: Recidivism of Offenders on Federal Community Supervision Summary: The Office of Probation and Pretrial Services (OPPS) of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) provides community supervision for offenders convicted of federal crimes and conditionally released to the community. Between October 1, 2004 and September 30, 2010 245,362 offenders commenced a term of federal community supervision – 56,361 began a term of probation following a conviction for a federal offense and 189,001 began a term of supervised release following a prison sentence. This report examines criminal recidivism, defined as an arrest for a new crime or a revocation, for these 245,362 offenders. Specifically this report examines: The rates of recidivism among offenders who entered federal community supervision between October 1, 2004 and September 30, 2010. How recidivism rates vary with risk and protective factors and the accuracy of using risk and protective factors to predict recidivism. How contextual factors (i.e., district, offender’s environment, and probation officer characteristics) affect recidivism rates. Highlights 38% of offenders received for supervision between October 1, 2004 and September 30, 2005 recidivated within five years of commencing supervision. 24 percent were re-arrested and almost 13 percent were revoked. Most were re-arrested for drug (30%), property (25%) and violent (23%) offenses. 30% of offenders received for supervision between October 1, 2004 and September 30, 2007 recidivated during their term of supervision (within three years of commencing supervision). 16 percent were re-arrested for a new crime and almost 14 percent were revoked. They were most often arrested for drug (28%), violent (25%) and property (24%) offenses. Several risk factors increase offenders’ risks of committing new offenses or being revoked during their period of supervision including a history of criminal behavior, gender, race, drug abuse problems, mental health issues, unemployment, and basic needs (e.g., financial assistance, temporary housing, and/or transportation assistance). Several protective factors can decrease offenders’ risks of committing new offenses or being revoked including having a strong social support system, marketable skills (i.e., strong educational foundation or life skills), motivation to change, and age. These risk and protective factors distinguish between offenders who will and will not recidivate during their term of supervision and the seriousness of future offenses. Arrest and revocations rates vary significantly across the 90 federal districts studied, after taking risk and protective factors into account. Several district-level variables explain variation in arrest and revocation rates across the districts including the population size, proportion of American Indians, and average household income in a district. Offenders who return to neighborhoods that are seen as impoverished and transient have higher failure rates. Arrest and revocation rates increase with officer experience in the federal probation system. Similarly, arrest and revocations rates increase when an officer has an advanced degree. Details: Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, Inc., 2012. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 30, 2013 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/241018.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/241018.pdf Shelf Number: 127455 Keywords: Offender SupervisionParole SupervisionParoleesRecidivism |
Author: Trotter, Chris Title: Effective Community-Based Supervision of Young Offenders Summary: An increasing body of research suggests that some interventions with offenders can reduce reoffending. While little of this research has focused on the impact of routine supervision of offenders on probation, parole or other community-based orders, a few studies have found that when supervisors make use of a number of specific practice skills, there is a reduced rate of recidivism for those under their supervision. Having first described the effective practice skills, the extent to which these are applied to a population of young offenders is assessed, along with the resultant effect on recidivism. The study involved the direct observation of 117 worker/client interviews conducted by juvenile justice workers in New South Wales. It was found, as with earlier studies generally done with adults, that when workers used particular practice skills, the young people under their supervision had lower reoffending rates. It also found that workers who provided a counselling role made more use of the effective practice skills than workers who did not. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2012. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice no. 448: Accessed February 8, 2013 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/441-460/tandi448.html Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/441-460/tandi448.html Shelf Number: 127548 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity-based CorrectionsInterventionsJuvenile Offenders (Australia)Offender Supervision |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Probation Title: Aggregate Report: Offender Management Inspection 2009-2012 Summary: • This report provides aggregate findings across the nine English Regions and Wales from HMI Probation’s second round of Offender Management Inspections (OMI 2) which was completed in November 2012. The findings in this report cover the 36 Probation Trust areas1 inspected in the programme and are based on close scrutiny of representative samples of cases in each area. • Overall, these findings indicate that a great deal of good work is being undertaken with adult offenders, but that there remains scope for further improvement in specific aspects. • On the main “headline” elements of work inspected in OMI 2: o on average, HMI Probation judged that 75% of work to keep each offender’s risk of harm to others to a minimum was of a sufficiently high level of quality o on average, HMI Probation judged that 74% of work to make each individual less likely to reoffend was of a sufficiently high level of quality o on average, HMI Probation judged that 79% of compliance and enforcement work (aimed at ensuring that each individual offender serves their sentence) was of a sufficiently high level of quality For each of these elements there were considerable gaps between the highest and lowest scores between individual Trust areas, but no Trust received a score which required a reinspection. • In 74% of all cases (and in 79% of high risk of harm cases) all reasonable action was taken to keep risk of harm to others to a minimum. • In 66% of all cases (but in 79% of high risk of harm cases), risk of harm to identifiable, or potentially identifiable, victims was effectively managed. • In only 51% of all cases (but in 71% of high risk of harm cases) was there management involvement in child safeguarding issues. • In 81% of all cases, interventions were delivered according to the requirements of the sentence. • In 76% of all cases, constructive interventions encouraged and challenged the offender to take responsibility for their actions and decisions related to offending, while in the community. • In 85% of all cases, effective action had, where necessary, been taken to secure compliance with all interventions. • In 76% of all cases (and in 84% of high risk of harm cases), breach action or recall was instigated on all occasions when required. • In general, the quality of work with cases assessed as high risk of harm was better than that for all cases as a whole. • When analysed by diversity characteristics, there was no evidence of any major difference in quality of work by gender, ethnicity, or reported disability. However, where there were differences, in respect of age, there was evidence that some aspects of work were done sufficiently well with older offenders somewhat more often than with younger adult offenders. Details: London: HM IOnspectorate of Probation, 2013. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 26, 2013 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprobation/adult-inspection-reports/omi2/omi2-aggregate-findings-feb-2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprobation/adult-inspection-reports/omi2/omi2-aggregate-findings-feb-2013.pdf Shelf Number: 127718 Keywords: Offender ManagementOffender SupervisionProbation Supervision (U.K.)Probationers |
Author: DeMichele, Matthew T. Title: Community Supervision Workload Considerations for Public Safety Summary: Supported by a grant awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the American Probation and Parole Association developed the report Community Supervision Workload Considerations for Public Safety discussing the dilemma of managing officer time amidst an array of tasks, constraining resources, and high caseloads. Two tools are provided within the document; 1) workload matrices that provide agencies with estimated time ranges for specific tasks officers complete classified by risk level and case type (e.g., domestic violence, sex offender), and 2) a time study template to assist agencies in conducting their own examination of officer workload. Details: Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association, 2011. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 1, 2013 at: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/APPA/pubs/CSWCFPS.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/APPA/pubs/CSWCFPS.pdf Shelf Number: 127755 Keywords: Caseload ManagementCommunity CorrectionsOffender SupervisionParole OfficersProbation Officers |
Author: American Probation and Parole Association Title: Effective Responses to Offender Behavior: Lessons Learned for Probation and Parole Supervision Summary: Using effective strategies to keep probationers and parolees crime- and drug-free and curb their revocation rates is among the most important issues facing our community corrections supervision system. From the early 1980s through 2005, there was a sharp decline in the percentage of adult probationers (from 79% to 59%) and parolees (from 60% to 45%) who successfully completed supervision (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1984; Glaze & Bonczar, 2006). While there has been a period of stabilization in more recent years, probation and parole agencies continue to seek alternatives to "business as usual" in community supervision. This is mainly due to the fact that high revocation rates have had a detrimental impact on the criminal justice system, including extensive prison growth (see Pew Center on the States, 2008) and significant increases in costs for both corrections and the judiciary (see Kyckelhahn, 2012). The community corrections field has a responsibility to implement a more effective supervision process that enhances compliance and accountability among probationers and parolees, thereby improving public safety in a cost-effective way. Given these challenges, community corrections agencies are increasingly taking a more comprehensive approach in responding to certain violations and reinforcing compliance among probationers and parolees. Decades of learning in the field and a growing research base has led to a consensus among many corrections professionals about what needs to be done to achieve better results and increase public safety. These strategies include, but are not limited to, assessing criminal risk and need factors, focusing resources on higher risk offenders, tailoring conditions of supervision to the risk and needs most likely to result in new criminal behavior, and balancing surveillance requirements and treatment needs (Solomon, 2007). Based on solid research, two key strategies that many agencies have begun to implement are the use of swift, certain, and proportionate sanctions to respond to violations, and the use of incentives to promote and reinforce compliance among probationers and parolees. These responses can be imposed by the courts, or they may be executed administratively, meaning that the authority to issue sanctions and reward compliance is given to the supervision agency, without returning to the court or releasing authority (e.g., parole board). This administrative response authority can be established by statute or can be delegated by the court. An administrative response strategy can strengthen community supervision services by providing agencies greater autonomy in responding to behaviors in more effective and cost-efficient ways, and thereby avoiding a reliance on the courts or releasing authorities to handle all violations, particularly those that include minor behavioral infractions. In December 2012, The Pew Charitable Trusts' Public Safety Performance Project (Pew), the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA), and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) jointly sponsored a convening of representatives from 14 states to address the use of effective administrative responses in probation and parole supervision. The conference was designed to assist the states by highlighting effective procedures and common performance measures in responses that involve both sanctions and incentives. In addition, it provided an excellent opportunity for individuals to interact with representatives from the legislative, executive and judicial branches in their respective states around this timely public safety issue, and to share their experiences and observations with other policymakers, practitioners and national experts. Several documents were developed for the summit, including legal and research memos, and individual profiles of the states that summarized their policies and practices around effective administrative responses (see Appendix A). This report highlights key lessons learned around planning and implementation of sanctions and incentives, with particular attention to ways in which states and local jurisdictions can improve effective responses in probation and parole supervision. This report first provides an overview of the research and rationale supporting swift and certain sanctions and responses shown to be effective in community supervision. Second, the report provides key lessons learned based on the feedback received by attendees at the conference. Last, the report summarizes practical implications about the use of the effective administrative response approach in community supervision, including directions for future research. Details: Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association, 2013. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed November 23, 2013 at: http://www.appa-net.org/eWeb/docs/APPA/pubs/EROBLLPPS-Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.appa-net.org/eWeb/docs/APPA/pubs/EROBLLPPS-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 131671 Keywords: Community Based Corrections (U.S.)Offender SupervisionParoleProbation |
Author: Mews, Aidan Title: Updated 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 updated analysis to compare re-offending rates for offenders receiving IAC orders in 2009 and 2010, with matched offenders receiving short custodial sentences and court orders. The analysis assesses the effectiveness of Intensive Alternatives to Custody (IAC) orders in reducing re-offending compared with a) short-term custodial sentences and b) court orders. Offenders starting an Intensive Alternative to Custody (IAC) order in 2009 or 2010 were matched to similar offenders receiving these disposals and their re-offending was compared. This report updates previous analysis published in July 2012 by including a larger sample (due to 2010 re-offending rates becoming available), using Propensity Score Matching (PSM) methodology as opposed to variable by variable matching, and by including additional offender information from Offender Assessment System (OASys), Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) data sources. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2014. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Analytical Summary: Accessed March 20, 2014 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/289369/updated-analysis-impact-of-intensive-alternatives-to-custody-pilots-on-re-offending-rates.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/289369/updated-analysis-impact-of-intensive-alternatives-to-custody-pilots-on-re-offending-rates.pdf Shelf Number: 131989 Keywords: Alternative to IncarcerationIntensive SupervisionOffender SupervisionRe-OffendingRecidivism |
Author: Duwe, Grant Title: An Evaluation of the Minnesota Comprehensive Offender Reentry Plan (MCORP) Pilot Project: Final Report Summary: Using a randomized experimental design, this study evaluated the effectiveness of the Minnesota Comprehensive Offender Reentry Plan (MCORP), a prisoner reentry pilot project implemented in 2008. In an effort to reduce recidivism, the MCORP pilot project attempted to increase offender access to community services and programming by producing greater case management collaboration between caseworkers in prison and supervision agents in the community. Results from Cox regression models showed that MCORP significantly reduced four of the five recidivism measures examined, although the size of the reduction in hazard ratios was relatively modest (20-25 percent). The findings further suggested that MCORP reduced costs. Sensitivity analyses showed, however, that the cost avoidance estimates were not robust across all assumptions that were examined. Details: St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2013. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 31, 2014 at: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/pages/files/8913/8142/3580/MCORP_Evaluation_Final_DOC_Website.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/pages/files/8913/8142/3580/MCORP_Evaluation_Final_DOC_Website.pdf Shelf Number: 132030 Keywords: Case ManagementOffender SupervisionPrisoner ReentryRecidivism |
Author: Great Britain. Ministry of Justice Title: Transforming Rehabilitation: A Summary of Evidence on Reducing Reoffending (Second Edition) Summary: This evidence review has been produced to support policy makers, practitioners and others who work with offenders. It summarises key evidence on approaches to offender management and how to work effectively with offenders, and then considers the evidence on specific interventions such as drug and alcohol treatment, offender behaviour programmes, mentoring and restorative justice. The first version of this review, published in September 2013, has been updated by a second edition, published in April 2014, in order to include recently published and emerging evaluation evidence. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2014. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Analytical Series: Accessed April 23, 2014 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243718/evidence-reduce-reoffending.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243718/evidence-reduce-reoffending.pdf Shelf Number: 132150 Keywords: Crime PreventionInterventionsOffender SupervisionRecidivismRehabilitationReoffending |
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: Lord, Chris Title: The Role of Offender Managers in Community Orders: Results from the Offender Manager Community Cohort Study Summary: This OMCCS report looks at the role of Offender Managers in Community Orders, the relationship between offenders and Offender Managers and the impact on sentence outcomes. This report found that the majority of offenders reported having a good or excellent relationship with Offender Managers, which other research has shown is an important factor in offender rehabilitation. Additional OMCCS reports including reports looking at the implementation of Community Orders, and Community Orders with punitive requirements are also available. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2014. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series: Accessed May 8, 2014 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/295676/role-of-offender-managers-in-community-orders.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/295676/role-of-offender-managers-in-community-orders.pdf Shelf Number: 132307 Keywords: Community Orders Community Sentences Offender Management (U.K.) Offender SupervisionProbation Recidivism Sentencing |
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: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: Mandatory Reentry Supervision: Evaluating the Kentucky Experience Summary: In 2011, the Kentucky Legislature passed the Public Safety and Offender Accountability Act (HB 463), which sought to earn a greater public safety return on the state's corrections spending. The historic measure included a mandatory reentry supervision policy that required every inmate to undergo a period of post-release supervision so that no inmates would be released from prison to communities without monitoring or support. This brief summarizes recent state corrections data and an independent evaluation of the policy commissioned by The Pew Charitable Trusts, which found that mandatory reentry supervision: - improved public safety by helping reduce new offense rates by 30 percent. - resulted in a net savings of approximately 872 prison beds per year. - saved more than $29 million in the 27 months after the policy took effect. Details: Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2014. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 9, 2014 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2014/06/PSPP_Kentucky_brief.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2014/06/PSPP_Kentucky_brief.pdf Shelf Number: 132635 Keywords: Offender SupervisionParole SupervisionParoleePrisoner Reentry |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Pathways Through Youth Justice Supervision Summary: Pathways through youth justice supervision explores the types of youth justice supervision experienced by particular cohorts of young people based on data available from the Juvenile Justice National Minimum Data Set (JJ NMDS) from 2000-01 to 2012-13. The report found that the top 10 pathways accounted for nearly three quarters (71%) of young people who experienced supervision. It also found that young males, young Indigenous people, those aged 10-14 at first supervision and those experiencing sentenced detention at some point were more likely than their counterparts to have more complex and varied pathways through supervision. Details: Canberra, AUS: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2014. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile justice series no. 15: Accessed August 12, 2014 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129548158 Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129548158 Shelf Number: 133005 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice (Australia)Juvenile OffendersOffender Supervision |
Author: Martyn, Michelle Title: Drug and Alcohol Misuse Among Adult Offenders on Probation Supervision in Ireland. Findings from the Drugs and Alcohol Survey 2011 Summary: This report presents the findings from the Drugs and Alcohol Survey 2011 conducted by the Probation Service. The report and its findings are based on the first large-scale, nationwide survey conducted by the Service in Ireland on drug and alcohol misuse among the adult offender population on probation supervision. The overall report comprises four separate sub-reports which are detailed in section 3. The survey involved a representative sample of 2,963 adult offenders on Probation Officers' caseloads on the 1st April 2011. A questionnaire was developed specifically for the purpose of the study. The questionnaires were completed by the supervising Probation Officers based on their knowledge of the offenders on their caseloads. The main objectives of the study were as follows: - Ascertain the number of adult offenders on probation supervision who misused drugs and/or alcohol - Examine the nature and frequency of drug and alcohol misuse - Establish if there is a correlation between drug and/or alcohol misuse and offending and offending behaviour - Identify the level and nature of engagement with drug and alcohol treatment services The report provides the key findings of the survey. The sub-reports in chapters 3-6 present specific findings in detail. The report concludes with a discussion of issues arising in the study which merit particular attention and consideration in the management of drug and alcohol misuse policy and practice in the Probation Service. Key Findings - 89% of the adult offender population on probation supervision had misused drugs or alcohol either 'currently' (at the time of the survey) or in the 'past'. - Of the 89% of those who misused either alcohol/drugs, 27% misused drugs only, 20% misused alcohol only and 42% misused both drugs and alcohol. - While females comprised only 12% of the adult offender population both male and female adult offenders exhibit similar drug and alcohol misuse levels. - The Dublin probation regions exhibited the highest levels of overall misuse among their offender populations at 91%. - Almost 21% of offenders were currently misusing two or more substances and over 9% were misusing at least 3 substances. This includes misuse of alcohol. - This study identified a considerable link between drug misuse and the current index offence committed. Based on the Probation Officers' professional judgment, for 74% of drug-misusing offenders on supervision misuse was linked to their current offending. - In previous research carried out by the Probation Service in the Dublin Metropolitan Area in 1998, 55-60% of offenders were drug abusers. This research highlights that drug misuse is prevalent among more than 75% of offenders on supervision nationwide. - Almost 36% of offenders in the 35+ age group misused drugs only. - The majority of current opiate misusers were male and between the ages of 18-34 at 63.8%. The majority of misusers of prescribed drugs were also males in the 18-34 age-group at 72.6%. However, notably 10% of the misusers were female in the 25-34 age-group. - The Dublin regions are proportionally highest for current opiate misuse, current prescription drugs and also current stimulant misuse. - Alcohol is the individual substance that is most commonly misused by offenders on probation supervision nationally. The misuse of 'alcohol only' is highest in the South West and the West, North West and Westmeath regions. - 33.5% of offenders identified as alcohol misusers were described as problematic at the time the survey was conducted. 79.7% were described as misusers in the past only. 27.1% were described as problematic misusers both currently and in the past. - 71% of alcohol-misusing offenders had their misuse linked to the current offence committed. - Drug-misuse linked to the offence is more pronounced in the younger age categories in this survey. Each of the age categories 18-24, 25-34 and 35-44 have in excess of 70% link to offending while the 45-54 and 55-64 age groups have a 50% or less link to offending. - The majority of drug-related offences were either for Drug Offences (31.8%) or acquisitive crimes such as Theft (32.8%). - The majority of alcohol related offences were crimes against the person and public order offences at almost 40%. - 41.7% of the total drug-misusing population was currently engaged in drug treatment services. - Half of the offenders within this survey had undergone drug treatment, in its various forms, in the past. - 72% of drug misusers were on methadone maintenance programmes Details: Meath: Irish Probation Service, 2012. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Probation Service Research Report: Accessed August 14, 2014 at: http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/18746/1/Drug%2Band%2BAlcohol%2BMisuse%2Bamong%2BAdult%2BOffenders%2Bon%2BProbation%2BSupervision%2Bin%2BIreland.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Ireland URL: http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/18746/1/Drug%2Band%2BAlcohol%2BMisuse%2Bamong%2BAdult%2BOffenders%2Bon%2BProbation%2BSupervision%2Bin%2BIreland.pdf Shelf Number: 133054 Keywords: Alcohol AbuseDrug AbuseDrug OffendersOffender SupervisionProbationers (Ireland) |
Author: Ireland. Probation Service Title: Probation Service Recidivism Study 2008-2013 Summary: The Probation Service and Central Statistics Office (CSO) have established a partnership to conduct research on recidivism and related issues among offenders on supervision in the community. This second study report is based on anonymised offender and offence information on a 2008 cohort of offenders from the Probation Service supervision database. The study reports on recidivism within three years among that cohort using five years follow up of recorded crime and Court Service data held by the CSO. The study also examines variations in recidivism relating to type of original order, gender and age of the offender, category of original offence and of the subsequent offence. This recidivism study provides a clear overview of community sanctions and their outcomes; informing the Service in the development and support of effective interventions in working to make our communities safer. Key Findings - Almost 60% of offenders on Probation Service supervision had no conviction for a further offence committed within three years of the imposition of a Probation or Community Service order. - The overall recidivism rate of offenders in the study was 41% over a three year period. - There is a higher level of re-offending in the first year after the making of the supervision order in comparison with subsequent years within the 2008 cohort. The reduction between first and second year was more significant in the 2007 cohort. - The recidivism rate decreased as the offender age increased. - Male offenders represented 87% of the total population and had a higher recidivism rate than female offenders. - Public Order was the most common original offence. - The three most common offences for which offenders were reconvicted were the same as with the 2007 cohort: Public Order, Theft and Controlled Drugs Offences. Details: Dublin: The Probation Service, 2013. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Probation Service Research Report 4: Accessed August 14, 2014 at: http://www.probation.ie/website/probationservice/websitepublishingdec09.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/Probation+Service+Recidivism+Study+2008-2013/$FILE/Probation+Service+Recidivism+Study+2008-2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Ireland URL: http://www.probation.ie/website/probationservice/websitepublishingdec09.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/Probation+Service+Recidivism+Study+2008-2013/$FILE/Probation+Service+Recidivism+Study+2008-2013.pdf Shelf Number: 133059 Keywords: Offender SupervisionProbationers (Ireland)Re-OffendingRecidivism |
Author: Gies, Stephen V. Title: Monitoring High-Risk Gang Offenders with GPS Technology: An Evaluation of the California Supervision Program: Final Report Summary: Despite the overall decline in violent crime nationally, gang violence rates throughout the country have continued at exceptional levels over the past decade. Therefore, it is vital for parole departments to have effective tools for maintaining public safety. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine the effectiveness of global positioning system (GPS) monitoring of high-risk gang offenders (HRGOs) who are released onto parole. This study integrates outcome, cost, and process evaluation components. The outcome component assesses the impact of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) GPS supervision program by employing a nonequivalent-group quasi-experimental design, with a multilevel discrete-time survival model. A propensity score matching procedure is used to account for differences between the treatment and comparison groups. The study population is drawn from all HRGOs released from prison between March 2006 and October 2009 in six specialized gang parole units in the State of California. The final sample includes 784 subjects equally divided between the treatment and control groups. The treatment group consists of HRGOs who were placed on GPS monitoring, and the control group consists of matched gang offenders with a similar background. The resulting sample shows no significant differences between the groups in any of the propensity score matching variables. The effectiveness of the program is assessed using an intent-to-treat (known as ITT) approach, with two main outcomes of interest: compliance and recidivism. Compliance is measured through parole violations; recidivism is assessed using rearrests and rearrests for violent offenses. Each outcome is assessed with a survival analysis of discrete-time recidivism data, using a random intercept complementary log-log model. In addition, frailty modeling is used to account for the clustering of parolees within parole districts. The findings indicate that during the two-year study period, subjects in the GPS group, while less likely than their control counterparts to be arrested in general or for a violent offense, were much more likely to violate their parole with technical and nontechnical violations. Descriptive statistics and summary analysis revealed more GPS parolees were returned to custody during the study period. These results will be studied further in a forthcoming follow-up report. The cost analysis indicates the GPS program costs approximately $21.20 per day per parolee, while the cost of traditional supervision is $7.20 per day per parolee - a difference of $14. However, while the results favor the GPS group in terms of recidivism, GPS monitoring also significantly increased parole violations. In other words, the GPS monitoring program is more expensive, but may be more effective in detecting parole violations. Finally, the process evaluation reveals the GPS program was implemented with a high degree of fidelity across the four dimensions examined: adherence, exposure, quality of program delivery, and program differentiation. Details: Bethesda, MD: Development Services Group, 2013. 112p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 23, 2014 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/244164.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/244164.pdf Shelf Number: 133120 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisElectronic MonitoringGangsGlobal Positioning Systems (GPS)Offender SupervisionParole SupervisionParolees |
Author: Dunbar, Laura Title: Unlawfully at large: A profile of federal offenders who breach conditional release Summary: Why we did this study In Canada, conditional release is an important strategy for offender management. However, concerns have been raised regarding offenders who have difficulty transitioning to the community and go unlawfully at large (UAL). There is a paucity of empirical research in this area and a need to better understand the characteristics of this group. What we did The characteristics of 18,321 offenders released from the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) between April 2006 and March 2009 were examined, and conditional release outcomes were recorded until March 2010. Of this group, a total of 3,990 offenders (22%) went unlawfully at large by the end of the follow-up period. UAL features including length of time to UAL, as well as revocations with and without offence were explored. Further, UAL offenders were compared to those who did not go UAL to identify factors related to UAL status. What we found Offenders who went UAL tended to do so soon after release (50% within two months). Once UAL, 50% of offenders returned (or were apprehended) within about one week. Eighty percent of this group had their release revoked. The overwhelming majority (84%) were revoked without being charged with a new offence - only 16% were revoked with an offence. UAL offenders were more likely to be single, younger, Aboriginal, have lower levels of education, unstable job histories, longer periods of unemployment, and more problematic substance use than non-UAL offenders. Greater proportions of UAL offenders were also convicted of violent, property, and escape/UAL offence types and had more extensive criminal histories. Although UAL offenders were more likely to be enrolled in institutional correctional programs, they were less likely to complete programming. They were also more likely to have institutional charges (both serious and minor) than non-UAL offenders and, when they were released, were more likely to have a residency condition. Overall, a variety of static and dynamic risk factors predicted UAL status. Predictors of UAL status were largely consistent for non-Aboriginal male offenders, Aboriginal male offenders, and female offenders. Additionally, the predictors demonstrated marked similarity to risk factors for general criminal behaviour and going UAL from an institutional setting. What it means Though some different predictors of UAL status emerged across gender and ethnicity, there were many commonalities (e.g., unemployment / job instability and a history of drug use) suggesting that a focus on correctional interventions to address these issues may be areas to pursue to reduce UALs in the future. Moreover, this study demonstrated that the first two months on release in the community appear to be critical risk periods for going UAL. The findings also suggest that it may be possible to develop a tool to assess risk of going UAL. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2014. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report No. R-271: Accessed August 23, 2014 at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/005/008/092/005008-0271-eng.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Canada URL: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/005/008/092/005008-0271-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 133129 Keywords: Conditional Release (Canada)Offender SupervisionRevocation |
Author: Centre for Social Justice Title: Sentences in the Community: Reforms to restore credibility, protect the public and cut crime Summary: Community sentences have a particularly important role in ensuring social justice. They are the most commonly used sentence for serious crimes and have the potential to be the most powerful tool for addressing the root causes of offending behaviour. By carrying out sentences in the community, rather than prison, it is far easier and cheaper to provide support that addresses underlying issues, such as drug and alcohol addiction. Yet despite community sentences' potential, they are proving largely ineffective at changing lives. A third of offenders are caught reoffending within a year of being sentenced, committing around 150,000 further crimes. Instead of stopping offending in its tracks, community sentences have become a stepping stone on the path to prison. This was highlighted by shocking Ministry of Justice figures which showed that 37,019 (35 per cent) of those sentenced to custody in 2012 had received at least five previous community sentences. It is not difficult to see why they are failing. Offenders are not held properly to account for complying with their sentence, and our main weapon against drug addiction - the drug rehabilitation requirement (DRR) - is more likely to sanction people for whether they attend meetings than whether they come off drugs. Despite clear evidence of the importance of a positive family influence in persuading offenders to leave a life of crime, families are too often shut out from the rehabilitative process. Our proposals come at a time of significant change to the way offenders are managed in the community. The probation service has drifted from providing innovative, bespoke support for offenders to a risk-adverse, box-ticking approach. Up to three-quarters of their time is spent on work not directly engaging with offenders.8 In response the Coalition Government is implementing the Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) Programme to tackle bureaucracy and introduce innovation to the delivery of probation services. This paper seeks to contribute towards the success of these reforms by setting out the current challenges facing community sentences, and presenting ideas on how to make them more effectively at reducing reoffending. The research was informed by a large number of interviews with magistrates and judges, probation staff, private and voluntary organisations delivering community sentences, and offenders themselves. The CSJ also held a roundtable of expert witnesses in late 2013, analysed official data and conducted a number of Freedom of Information requests. Community sentences need to improve if they are to have any meaningful impact on reoffending rates. The reforms set out in this paper are a roadmap for how we can make community sentences a powerful crime-fighting tool that stops offending behaviour in its tracks and keeps communities safe. Details: London: Centre for Social Justice, 2014. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 25, 2014 at: http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/UserStorage/pdf/Pdf%20reports/CSJ_Community_Sentencing_Report_WEB-final.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/UserStorage/pdf/Pdf%20reports/CSJ_Community_Sentencing_Report_WEB-final.pdf Shelf Number: 133131 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (U.K.)Community Based CorrectionsCommunity SentencesOffender Supervision |
Author: Larkin, Paul J., Jr. Title: The Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Project: A Potentially Worthwhile Correctional Reform Summary: Probation is a long-standing feature of the criminal justice system and is found in every state. Unfortunately, however, probation has not been as successful as its original proponents hoped that it would be: Approximately one-third of offenders placed on probation wind up in prison or abscond. In 2004, a Hawaii state court judge developed a new way of managing probationers that has shown the promise of reforming offenders and reducing costs borne by the criminal justice system and the public. That project - known as Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement, or HOPE - uses a fundamentally different approach to traditional probation supervision. The federal and state governments should look to this program as a potentially valuable criminal justice reform. Details: Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation, 2014. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: legal Memorandum, No. 116: Accessed October 22, 2014 at: http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2014/pdf/LM116.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2014/pdf/LM116.pdf Shelf Number: 133789 Keywords: Offender SupervisionProbation (Hawaii)Probation SupervisionProbationersRecidivism |
Author: Title: Indiana Workload Evaluation: A Multi-Methods Investigation of Probation Supervision Summary: Virtually everyone agrees that probation has grown as a sanction over the past few decades. When considering this growth in the probation sanction, it is common for commentators to discuss the number of probationers or the size of probation officer caseloads. Less frequently, however, is attention given to the actual workload of probation officers and the way these workloads have changed over time. Indeed, it is not enough to say that probation officer caseloads have grown. Instead, it is necessary to focus on the changes in workload that have accompanied this increased reliance on the probation sanction. In this project, the research team used a variety of techniques to examine issues related to workload in probation agencies across Indiana. Methods utilized included interviews with probation chiefs, conversations with members of the advisory board, and a sophisticated time study. The majority of data for this evaluation come from a time and motion study completed by 338 officers across 24 probation departments from October 1, 2012 through November 14, 2012. The researchers gathered data about sixty-nine different types of tasks. In total, the data provided information about more than two million minutes of workload performed by the officers over the five week time period. Officers recorded 74,239 tasks, with 80 percent (n = 59,746) supervision activities, 10 percent (n = 7,649) reporting activities, 4.4 percent (n = 3,299) non-case related, 1.3 percent (n = 989) juvenile intake activities, .5 percent (n = 390) equipment management activities, and 3 percent (n = 2,256) administration activities. Key findings from this study included the following: - The average time per task was 28.22 minutes. - Of the activities in which an officer spent time with an offender, about 23 percent of the time the offender was high or very high risk. - On average, adult probation officers spent about 23 minutes per task, adult pre-trial spent about 30 minutes, juvenile probation officers spent about 24 minutes, and alcohol and drug officers spent about 23 minutes per activity. - The two most frequent activities were face-to-face meetings with offenders and generating and responding to emails, phone calls, or letters. - Non-case and administrative time accounted for nearly 8 percent of all tasks recorded. - Face-to-face meetings with offenders are slightly longer (26.9 minutes) than are meetings with others (20.9 minutes). - It is estimated that juvenile intake averaged about 4.5 hours to complete. - On average, officers spent more than seven hours on each pre-sentence investigation. - Officers spent just over two hours per offender dealing with equipment issues related to electronic monitoring and global position satellite systems over the five week period. - Comparisons between sex offenders, domestic violence offenders, and other offenders revealed that the amount of time spent on activities was similar for the different offender groups. - Supervision activities are the most frequent type (n = 59,730, 80 percent) of activities that officers completed during the data collection period and while they took less time to complete than many other activities (averaging 23 minutes), they still accounted for nearly two-thirds of all the time officers spent working during the five week time period. Details: University Park, PA: Justice Center for Research, Penn State University, 2014. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 30, 2014 at: http://justicecenter.psu.edu/research/projects/indiana-workload-evaluation-a-multi-methods-investigation-of-probation-supervision/IndianaFinalReport.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://justicecenter.psu.edu/research/projects/indiana-workload-evaluation-a-multi-methods-investigation-of-probation-supervision/IndianaFinalReport.pdf Shelf Number: 133874 Keywords: Offender SupervisionProbation CaseloadProbation Officers (Indiana)Probationers |
Author: Fawcett, Jo Title: Development of Electronic Monitoring in Scotland - Analysis of Consultation Responses Summary: Background 1.1 The consultation paper 'Development of Electronic Monitoring in Scotland: A Consultation on the Future Direction of the Electronic Monitoring Service' was launched in September 2013, seeking views on the operation of the current electronic monitoring service in Scotland as well as options for future development of the service which could include satellite tracking and remote alcohol monitoring. 1.2 The consultation response form comprised 21 open questions covering the broad themes of radio frequency monitoring, GPS, and other electronic monitoring issues. The final question asked for any other comments that had not been covered elsewhere. 1.3 Forty-eight responses were received from organisations in the public, private and third sectors as well as other independent and professional bodies and academic institutions. Overview of responses 1.4 A majority of the organisations responding to the consultation were broadly supportive of the development of electronic monitoring to be integrated better into the rehabilitative journey. The key themes in responses related to the need for electronic monitoring to be part of a rehabilitative, person-centred 'package' of support, the need for interaction and integration between statutory services and the service provider and the need for effective information sharing between organisations. 1.5 Whilst the current system for handling breach of orders was broadly supported by some organisations responding to the consultation, there were more widespread suggestions for improvements. The main suggestions for improvements focused on further improving speed of response, simplification of the system, the need for greater clarity regarding consequences of breach and improved communication and information sharing. 1.6 The main barriers to greater use of electronic monitoring related to a perceived lack of understanding and awareness generally, public perceptions of electronic monitoring as a 'soft' punishment, the need for evidence on the effectiveness of electronic monitoring in terms of reducing reoffending and concerns about the appropriateness of offenders' living arrangements when under electronic monitoring. A small number of respondents also cited privacy and human rights issues as an area of potential concern. 1.7 Responses to the consultation indicate a degree of positive support, notably from but not limited to CJAs, for the concept of developing the scope of electronic monitoring. Many of the suggested areas for development and improvement reaffirmed the themes identified above. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research, 2014. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 8, 2014 at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0046/00462137.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0046/00462137.pdf Shelf Number: 134275 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationElectronic Monitoring (Scotland)Offender RehabilitationOffender Supervision |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Probation Title: An Inspection of the work of Probation Trusts and Youth Offending Teams to protect children and young people Summary: This inspection was undertaken by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation in response to the findings from our mainstream inspection programmes of probation and youth offending work practice which suggested that work to protect children and young people carried out by Probation Trusts and Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) was not being consistently delivered well enough. The inspection focused on the work to identify those children and young people at risk of harm and to take appropriate action where necessary. We visited six Probation Trusts and YOTs to assess the quality of the work by inspecting cases and interviewing offender/case managers. In all we inspected: - 58 orders held by Probation Trusts and 83 orders held by YOTs which had commenced in the three month period prior to the inspection - 42 cases in Probation Trusts and 36 cases in YOTs where a child protection plan was or had been in place at some point during the course of the order - 48 referrals to children's social care services made by Probation Trusts and 37 made by YOTs. We also interviewed key managers, staff and partners at local and national level involved in work to protect children. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2014. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 26, 2015 at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/08/Protecting-Children-Thematic-Report1.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/08/Protecting-Children-Thematic-Report1.pdf Shelf Number: 134708 Keywords: Offender SupervisionProbation (U.K.)ProbationersYouthful Offenders |
Author: Callinan, Ian Title: Review of the Parole System in Victoria Summary: Parole is the conditional release of an offender from custody. When an offender is granted parole, they serve the unexpired portion of their prison sentence in the community. Offenders who do not obtain parole and are released at the end of their sentence are not subject to the supervision, support and ongoing rehabilitation that parole provides. If the prospect of parole is removed from a prisoner, there is less incentive to undertake steps designed to reduce the risk of reoffending. The Adult Parole Board decides whether an offender will be released on parole. When deciding whether to release an offender on parole, the Boards most important consideration is community safety. Parole is served under the supervision of a Community Corrections Officer and on conditions fixed by the Adult Parole Board. While on parole, an offender is still considered to be under sentence. The purpose of parole is to supervise and support the reintegration of offenders into the community. This supervision and support benefits the wider community by reducing the risk that offenders will commit further offences when released into the community. Review of the Parole System in Victoria In May 2013, the Victorian Government commissioned former High Court Justice Ian Callinan AC to carry out a review of the Adult Parole Boards operations. Details: Melbourne: Department of Justice - Corrections Victoria, 2013. 122p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 1, 2015 at: http://assets.justice.vic.gov.au/corrections/resources/11ee85a1-67c5-4493-9d81-1ce49941cce5/reviewadultparoleboardv1.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://assets.justice.vic.gov.au/corrections/resources/11ee85a1-67c5-4493-9d81-1ce49941cce5/reviewadultparoleboardv1.pdf Shelf Number: 135119 Keywords: Community Based CorrectionsOffender SupervisionParole (Australia)Sentencing |
Author: Schaefer, Lacey Title: Environmental Corrections: Making Offender Supervision Work Summary: With nearly five million offenders under community correctional supervision, the time has come to seriously question the efficacy of probation and parole. In terms of resource expenditures, public safety, recidivism reduction, and offender outcomes, there is ample room for improvement. Unfortunately, most current offender supervision practices are of limited value. The balance of treatment and control espoused by most community corrections agencies is ineffective, often resulting in nothing more than bureaucratic case management. Moreover, both of these models of probation and parole as practiced are largely defunct. In the first instance, efforts to reduce offender propensity often fail to adopt the principles of effective correctional intervention. In the second, efforts to deter offenders from misbehaving have produced little more than an increase in technical violations of supervision conditions. Accordingly, a new framework for probation and parole supervision is sorely needed. Determining how to reduce recidivism among community-supervised offenders leads us to consider why criminal acts occur. The answer is that two conditions must be present: An individual must have the propensity to offend and must also have the opportunity to offend. A considerable amount of research has been dedicated to discovering the criminogenic needs that must be targeted for change in order to reduce criminal propensity. By contrast, relatively little is known about what offender supervisors might do to reduce the crime opportunities of probationers and parolees. Notably, Cullen, Eck, and Lowenkamp (2002) propose that environmental criminology can help guide the development of innovative strategies that limit supervisees' chances to offend. They reconceptualize probation and parole supervision as "environmental corrections," a model in which officers would work to enhance the informal social control offenders are subject to, reduce offenders' access to crime opportunities, and restructure offenders' routine activities with prosocial influences. The aim of this dissertation is to elaborate on these ideas, developing a new strategy for offender supervision that is based on opportunity reduction. In so doing, the following roadmap is taken. Chapter 1 outlines the drawbacks of current probation and parole practices, demonstrating the limited effectiveness of existing treatment and control orientations to offender supervision. Chapter 2 introduces the components of environmental criminology, discussing how the advances of crime science have produced practical programs that reduce crime opportunities. Chapter 3 applies these theories to offender supervision, discussing strategies for preventing probationers and parolees from encountering situations where there are high-risk chances to commit crime. Chapter 4 presents assessment technologies for community corrections officers to use in discerning where, when, why, and with whom offenders commit crimes, developing methods for using this information to reduce the actual crime opportunities of supervisees. Chapter 5 demonstrates how cognitive-behavioral techniques can be used to help probationers and parolees recognize, avoid, and resist available chances to offend. Chapter 6 identifies how community corrections authorities can partner with the police to further limit supervisees' crime opportunities. In closing, Chapter 7 features eight lessons learned from the current elaboration of environmental corrections supervision that can help to make probation and parole work Details: Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati, 2013. 293p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed May 6, 2015 at: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap/10?0::NO:10:P10_ACCESSION_NUM:ucin1377875062 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap/10?0::NO:10:P10_ACCESSION_NUM:ucin1377875062 Shelf Number: 135528 Keywords: Community CorrectionsOffender SupervisionParoleParolees (U.S.)ProbationProbationers (U.S.)Recidivism |
Author: Burke, Cynthia Title: Smart Probation: A Study of the San Diego County Probation Department's Application of Evidence-Based Practices Summary: The passage of Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109), also known as Public Safety Realignment California, shifted the supervision, housing, and rehabilitation of certain offenders (whose most recent conviction was for a nonviolent and non-serious offense) from state prison and parole to local jurisdictions. In response to this monumental change in the criminal justice system, San Diego County created a realignment plan that was structured around Evidence-Based Practices (EBP). In support of this commitment to EBP, the San Diego County Probation Department applied for, and was awarded, a Smart Probation grant from the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance in September 2012 to support continued implementation of evidence-based supervision to ensure fidelity to its EBP-based model. The grant funded a supervisor-level EBP peer coach and mentor to work with supervisors and line staff in the Post Release Offender (PRO) division. The following are the four primary project goals implemented through the Smart grant: 1. Support EBP leadership capacity in the PRO Division management team. 2. Implement a supervision model. 3. Provide access to appropriate intervention services. 4. Collaborate with justice partners to improve the criminal justice system. To assist Probation in measuring its adoption of EBP in the PRO Division, the Criminal Justice Research Division of SANDAG was contracted to evaluate how effectively and to what extent Probation implemented the four project goals. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS - Supervising Probation Officers (SPOs) and Deputy Probation Officers (DPOs) in Probation's PRO Division who participated in focus groups viewed Probation's EBP as the standard operating procedure, but noted that IBIS and EBP training have made it more formalized. - EBP was viewed by SPOs and DPOs as effective for supervising most offenders. Offenders with severe mental health issues or criminogenic traits were the exception. - A review of the COMPAS assessments revealed that almost nine in ten offenders had been assessed. On average, there were fewer than three discrepancies per case and even fewer discrepancies in more recent assessments. - An assessment of how well offender case plans were done indicated that information regarding the offender's greatest needs was included and offenders were generally included in the goal-setting process. - Incentives and sanctions most often included verbal accolades, revocation, and verbal warnings. Sixty percent of PRCS offenders received a flash incarceration, a one to ten day custody sanction for a probation violation. - Average ratings of DPO's use of IBIS during interactions with offenders suggest that POs are implementing these skills with proficiency. - Based on survey results, offenders reported positive feelings regarding the relationship with their DPO. Details: San Diego: SANDAG, 2015. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 3, 2015 at: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1951_19203.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1951_19203.pdf Shelf Number: 134249 Keywords: Community CorrectionsEvidence-Based PracticesOffender SupervisionProbationProbation OfficersProbationersPublic Safety Realignment California |
Author: Ortiz, Natalie Rose Title: County Jails at a Crossroads: An Examination of the Jail Population and Pretrial Release Summary: County governments provide essential services to create healthy, safe, vibrant and economically resilient communities. Maintaining safe and secure communities is one of the most important functions of county governments. Most counties are involved in almost every aspect of law enforcement and crime prevention, including policing, judicial and legal services and corrections. Counties own 87 percent of all jails in the United States through which they provide supervision, detention and other correctional services to more than 700,000 persons in an effort to protect public safety and reduce recidivism. Effective jail management along with fair justice system policies and practices results in strategic management of the jail population and prudent county spending on the corrections system. One way to effectively manage the jail population is to improve the pretrial release process. Pretrial policies and practices involve defendants awaiting resolution to their case. Using the results of a 2015 NACo survey of county jails, an examination of the pretrial population in jail and policies impacting pretrial release in county jails finds: THE MAJORITY OF THE CONFINED COUNTY JAIL POPULATION IS PRETRIAL AND LOW RISK. Two-thirds of the confined population in county jails is pretrial and the proportion reaches three-quarters in almost half of county jails. This trend is more pronounced in jails located in small counties - with less than 50,000 residents - and medium-sized counties - with populations between 50,000 and 250,000 residents. Forty (40) percent of responding county jails use a validated risk assessment at booking. Most often, these jails identify a majority of their confined jail population as low risk. Because these tools are used at booking, when defendants are admitted to jail after arrest, jails are identifying most of their pretrial population as low risk. COUNTY JAILS ARE CAUGHT BETWEEN COURTS' DECISION-MAKING AND INCREASES IN THE JAIL POPULATION AND JAIL COSTS. Pretrial release decision-making is a product of the court. Understanding the impact of courts' decision-making, especially during pretrial, on the jail population is important for counties with rapidly rising jail populations and costs. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the jail population increased by 20 percent between 2000 and 2012 with the pretrial population comprising a rising share, while county corrections costs soared by 74 percent. Forty-four (44) percent of responding county jails to the 2015 NACo survey report that managing jail costs is one of their top challenges. Reducing the jail population - especially the number of people with mental illnesses - is a priority for almost three quarters of responding jails. More than 65 percent of county jails report that their county boards are willing to collaborate on reducing the jail population and jail costs. Counties can act as conveners, bringing together the court and jail to discuss and implement strategies that may effectively address the pretrial population in jail. SOME COUNTY JAILS SUPERVISE PRETRIAL DETAINEES OUTSIDE OF CONFINEMENT. A third of responding county jails to the 2015 NACo survey release pretrial detainees from custody and supervise them in the community through different types of community based programs, depending on the needs of the detainees. These programs may be focused specifically on pretrial supervision - where the type of supervision used varies on a case-by-case basis - or deal with both pretrial and convicted populations through health treatment, electronic monitoring, home arrest and work release. Most county jails have more than one type of program. Pretrial supervision programs focus overwhelmingly on the pretrial population (95 percent of their population), followed by physical health care and behavioral health treatment programs in which close to half of the supervised population is pretrial. Overall, few pretrial detainees are placed in these programs. Only 28 percent of the detainees released by respondent jails in 2014 were pretrial. The county jail programs that supervise pretrial persons are just one part of the larger county pretrial system that includes formal pretrial services agencies that provide information on defendants to judges for the pretrial release decision; policies that force release pretrial detainees when the jail population reaches a certain capacity; and bond review practices. County jails are at a crossroads, confronting increasing pressure on their physical capacity and rising jail costs, while lacking the decision-making for pretrial release. The courts decide who is released pretrial, affecting the size of county jail population and, consequently, jail costs. Reducing the jail population and costs is a priority for jail administrators and county boards. Some counties fund programs that would release pretrial detainees from confinement and supervise them in the community, but the pretrial population accounts for a small share of who is released and supervised in the community. Through coordination and collaboration across the county justice system, counties are in a strong position to lead the way in pretrial release, developing strategies and leveraging resources that assist in managing the county jail population and safeguarding public safety. Details: Washington, DC: National Association of Counties, 2015. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 23, 2015 at: http://www.naco.org/resources/county-jails-crossroads Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.naco.org/resources/county-jails-crossroads Shelf Number: 136139 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCosts of CorrectionsJail AdministrationJail PopulationJailsOffender SupervisionPretrial DetentionPretrial Release |
Author: Sarver, Christian M. Title: Utah Cost of Crime. Intensive Supervision (Adults): Technical Report (includes Electronic Monitoring) Summary: Intensive supervision is an intermediate sanction intended to reduce the costs of incarceration, by decreasing the time that offenders spend in jail or prison, while protecting public safety through increased monitoring (Gendreau, Goggin, Cullen, Andrews, 2000; MacKenzie, 2006). Offenders who receive intensive supervision are sentenced to community-based sanctions with increased supervision rather than incarceration. Traditionally, the defining feature of intensive supervision is the increased allocation of resources to surveillance, which can include a range of strategies for monitoring and controlling offenders in the community: increased contact with probation/parole officers, reduced caseload for probation/parole officers, home confinement, Day Reporting Centers, electronic monitoring, and random drug testing (Tonry, 1990). Surveillance-oriented intensive supervision programs (ISP) are designed to reduce recidivism via increased monitoring of offenders' location and activities, which is intended to have a deterrent effect on criminal behavior. In contrast, treatment-oriented ISPs intended to reduce recidivism via the use of monitoring to enforce compliance with treatment and supervision goals, which is believed to result in long-term behavioral change (Brown, 2007). Prior Research Research on intensive supervision suggests that surveillance alone is not an effective strategy for deterring criminal behavior. Results from an extensive study that used random assignment to evaluate the effects of ISP at 14 sites in nine states demonstrated that increased surveillance had no impact on rearrest rates when compared to regular supervision or incarceration (Petersilia & Turner, 1993). Similarly, MacKenzie (2006) combined 31 effect sizes, from 13 studies, and found a non-significant increase in recidivism for offenders who participated in ISP when compared to other forms of supervision (probation/parole or incarceration). In fact, in some cases, ISPs have been associated with higher rates of incarceration due to increased detection of technical violations (GAO, 1993; Gendreau et al., 2000). This latter finding suggests that surveillance-oriented ISPs are ineffective-from both a cost and public safety perspective-because they do not reduce the incidence of new crimes but do increase the likelihood that offenders will be returned to jail or prison on technical violations. A separate analysis of intermediate sanction programs that included a treatment component found that those programs were associated with a 10% reduction in recidivism (Gendreau et al., 2000). Increasingly, research indicates that ISPs are more effective when structured in accordance with the principles of effective rehabilitation, combining treatment and rehabilitation programming with intensive monitoring (Andrews, Bonta, & Hodge, 1990; Bonta, 2001). In a series of cost-benefit analyses, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) consistently found significant reductions in recidivism for treatment-oriented ISPs when compared to regular supervision (Aos, Phipps, Barnoski, & Lieb, 2001; Aos et al., 2011; Drake, 2009). Surveillance-oriented ISPs were not associated with any statistically significant difference in reoffending when compared to regular supervision. The WSIPP analyses found no difference in recidivism when comparing ISP to incarceration; however, given cost differences between community-based supervision and a secure placement, the authors concluded that ISP was cost effective when compared to prison (Aos et al., 2001). In a meta-analysis of 58 ISPs, Lowenkamp, Flores, Holsinger, Makarios, and Latessa (2010) found a relationship between the impact of ISPs and program philosophy: treatment-oriented ISPs were associated with statistically significant reductions in recidivism while deterrence-oriented programs were not. Further emphasizing the importance of treatment as a component of ISPs, the authors found that even programs that included well-implemented treatment did not significantly reduce recidivism when it was provided in the context of a surveillanc--oriented ISP. Electronic monitoring. Electronic monitoring (EM) is also an intermediate sanction, often implemented within the context of home confinement or a curfew order. Offenders are monitored by probation/parole staff via a range of devices, which include wrist and ankle bracelets, global positioning systems, and voice verification systems (U. S. Department of Justice (USDOJ), 2009). While many EM programs are administered as part of an ISP, the WSIPP studies evaluated electronic monitoring (EM) separately and found no difference in recidivism rates for offenders sentenced to EM when compared to incarceration (Drake, 2009) or regular probation (Aos et al., 2001). These findings are confirmed in MacKenzie's (2006) analysis of eight EM studies and in Renzema and May-Wilson's (2007) systematic review. Renzema and May-Wilson only identified three studies that met inclusion criteria in terms of methodological rigor. Their meta-analysis of those studies showed no effect on reoffending as a result of EM; combining the results of this analysis with the systematic review, the authors concluded that no empirical proof exists to show that EM reduces recidivism. The U.S. Department of Justice (2009), however, argues that the lack of difference in recidivism rates for EM-supervised offenders when compared to incarcerated offenders is justification for the use of EM, because EM is less expensive than prison. Renzema's (2007) analysis supports this assessment, to some degree, as the authors conclude that EM can be appropriate when used "to accomplish realistic goals" rather than as a "knee-jerk reaction to crime, overcrowding, and high costs of running correctional systems" (p. 232). Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2012. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 26, 2015 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/ISP_Adult_Tech_updateformat.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/ISP_Adult_Tech_updateformat.pdf Shelf Number: 136590 Keywords: Costs of crimeCosts of Criminal JusticeElectronic MonitoringIntensive SupervisionOffender SupervisionProbationProbationers |
Author: Western Australia. Office of the Auditor General Title: Implementing and Managing Community Based Sentences Summary: Background Community Based Orders and Intensive Supervision Orders are available to the courts for sentencing convicted off enders and are served in the community. They were established as part of a sentencing hierarchy by the Sentencing Act 1995. They are a low cost sentencing option, currently costing the State $12 per day per off ender as compared to $180 per day for imprisonment. They were expected to contribute to reducing imprisonment rates and to enable the punitive and rehabilitative aspects of sentences to be more effective. In 2000 nearly 4000 such sentences were issued to both first time offenders and repeat offenders who had been convicted of a variety of offences from robbery to drink driving offences. What the examination found... Western Australia's imprisonment rate continues to be higher than that of most States and Territories. About 60 per cent of Community Based Orders and about 50 per cent of Intensive Supervision Orders issued each year are completed. These completion rates are lower than those for most other states and territories. Off enders assessed as having a high risk of re-off ending have a lower completion rate (42 per cent) than other off enders (70 per cent). The Ministry of Justice does not have a comprehensive strategy for rehabilitating off enders and the rehabilitative effects of the sentences are not known. The management of treatment programs, the main ingredient for rehabilitating off enders is ad hoc and inconsistent with little or no coordination of the internal and external program providers. Case management is not achieving its objective of being an integrated process for managing offenders. Although the Ministry collects a variety of information about offenders this information is not always analysed and utilized in planning services to enable more targeted service provision. Both the overall number of offenders on these orders, as well as the proportion of high-risk offenders, has increased since the Sentencing Act was implemented without any review of resourcing. Managing offenders is a specialised function that requires considerable experience for effective service provision. Many Community Corrections Officers employed on short-term contracts, are inexperienced and carry heavy caseloads. There is a risk that inexperienced staff can make poor judgements, which could impact negatively on the off ender and the community. While there are a plethora of processes, practices and programs in the management of offenders, the Ministry does not regularly evaluate them. Therefore, it is not known whether these processes, practices and programs benefit or hinder their management. What the examination recommended... Major recommendations made in the report are that: The Ministry of Justice should: Systematically collect and evaluate information about the characteristics of offenders to enable more informed planning. Develop a comprehensive rehabilitation strategy for offenders in the community. Define the aims of rehabilitation and develop and implement appropriate performance indicators to assess the rehabilitative benefits of orders. Regularly review resource allocations in relation to the demands presented by the changing characteristics of offenders. Evaluate their services regularly with a view to ensuring their appropriateness and effectiveness. -- Develop and implement a human resource management plan that ensures a stable and well-trained workforce. Identify and endorse appropriate benchmarks for the workloads of Community Correction Officers and other staff to enable meaningful development performance measures for their work. Details: Perth: Western Australia Auditor General, 2001. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Report No. 3: Accessed August 26, 2015 at: https://audit.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/report2001_03.pdf Year: 2001 Country: Australia URL: https://audit.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/report2001_03.pdf Shelf Number: 136591 Keywords: Community Based CorrectionsCommunity CorrectionsCosts of CorrectionsIntensive SupervisionOffender ManagementOffender Supervision |
Author: Vaswani, Nina Title: ISMS: Experiences from the first two years of operation in Glasgow: Full Report Summary: The Antisocial Behaviour (Scotland) Act 2004 gave the Children's Hearings System the power to impose a Movement Restriction Condition (MRC) as part of a supervision requirement on young people aged 12 or over. This meant that from Monday 4th April 2005 a young person subject to this condition could be required to remain at home, or some other specified location, for a period of up to 12 hours per day. Compliance with this condition is monitored by an electronic tag. In addition to this monitoring, and in accordance with the welfare approach of the Hearing's System, any young person subject to a 'tag' also receives an intensive package of support that is tailored to address their individual needs and 'deeds'. The resultant combination of both monitoring and support is known as an Intensive Support and Monitoring Service, herein known as 'ISMS'. This report follows the interim report published in June 2006, and as such should be read in conjunction with that report. Readers who are interested in the policy context, literature review and details of the structure, processes and operations of the Glasgow ISMS service in particular should refer to the interim report, available on the Glasgow City Council website www.glasgow.gov.uk. The purpose of this report is to: a. Assess the effectiveness of ISMS across the first two years, by answering some important questions, b. Review progress against the recommendations for the future from the interim 2006 report c. Discuss the implications of the findings d. Make further recommendations for the future, both for local development and national policy decisions. Details: Glasgow: Glasgow Social Work Services, 2007. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 5, 2015 at: https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=29412&p=0 Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=29412&p=0 Shelf Number: 136661 Keywords: Antisocial BehaviorElectronic MonitoringElectronic TagOffender SupervisionYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: Great Britain. Ministry of Justice Title: Transforming Rehabilitation: A revolution in the way we manage offenders Summary: 'Transforming Rehabilitation - a revolution in the way we manage offenders' describes the Government's proposals for reforming the delivery of offender services in the community to reduce reoffending rates whilst delivering improved value for money for the tax payer. The proposals set out in the consultation paper include: - opening the majority of probation services to competition, with contracts to be awarded to providers who can deliver efficient, high quality services and improve value for money; - commissioning to be managed centrally, with specifications informed by local delivery requirements within 16 regional contract package areas, to generate economies of scale and deliver efficiencies, whilst responding to local needs; - contract package areas to align closely with other public service boundaries, to support more integrated commissioning in the future; - more scope for providers to innovate, with payment by results as an incentive to focus on rehabilitating offenders - we expect to see increased use of mentors and an emphasis on addressing offenders' 'life management' issues; - key functions to remain within the public sector, including the direct management of offenders who pose the highest risk of serious harm. We have already consulted on the principles behind many of the proposals in the consultation paper through the 'Punishment and Reform: effective probation services' consultation. We now wish to undertake a shorter, focused consultation exercise, as although many of the underlying themes and issues are the same, our latest proposals contain some significant differences. In Part B of the paper ('Extending our reform programme'), we are seeking a wide range of views on further proposals which could support our reforms. In Part C ('System specification questions'), we set out some detailed issues on which we particularly want the views of current practitioners, sentencers and potential providers, as we finalise the operational design of the new system. Details: London: The Stationery Office Limited, 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Consultation Paper CP1/2013: Accessed September 18, 2015 at: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-rehabilitation/supporting_documents/transformingrehabilitation.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-rehabilitation/supporting_documents/transformingrehabilitation.pdf Shelf Number: 136818 Keywords: Offender RehabilitationOffender SupervisionProbationReoffending |
Author: Turner, Susan Title: Public Safety Realignment in Twelve California Counties Summary: Following long bouts of litigation among inmates, prison guards, and state officials, in May 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of a three-judge panel that imposed a cap on California's prison population and ordered the state to reduce its prison population to 137.5 percent of "design capacity" within two years. The primary basis for the court ruling was that the overcrowded prison system violated inmates' constitutional right to adequate health care. In response to the 2011 Supreme Court decision, California adopted two measures, Assembly Bill (AB) 109 and AB 117, collectively known as realignment. These measures shift responsibility for certain low-level offenders, parole violators, and parolees, previously the state's responsibility, to California counties. Realignment gives counties a great deal of flexibility in how they treat these offenders and allows them to choose alternatives to custody for realignment offenders. As time has passed since realignment began in October 2011, several studies have evaluated various aspects of the planning and implementation of realignment. The study reported here focused on the flexibility that the state granted counties in implementing realignment. In particular, the authors wanted to determine whether counties essentially continued and expanded what they were already doing in county corrections or whether they used realignment as an opportunity to change from "business as usual." Key Findings Counties Encounter Unanticipated Challenges and Find That There Are Many Unknowns About Strategies' Effects - Realignment appears to have shifted the responsibility for, but not the total numbers of, offenders in the system (at least those under the primary forms of supervision and incarceration). Many Things That Are Being Implemented Are Enhancements of Existing Programs or Policies - Both probation and sheriff's department representatives mentioned a focus on providing services and expanding evidence-based practices, although clearly sheriff's departments often focused on adding jail capacity. Every county voiced concern about realigned offenders' increased risk levels and need profiles: They required more mental and other health services, and high proportions were rated as high risk on assessment instruments. There Is Evidence of Movement Toward Co-locating Service Provision - A movement toward the delivery of services in a one-stop location was evident in both probation and sheriff's departments. Reentry units - specialized areas in the jails - are gaining momentum for inmates near the ends of their sentences in an effort to provide them with the skills, services, and connections to outside agencies. Recommendations - Longer-term follow-up will be able to provide a more comprehensive analysis of system changes. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2015. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 21, 2015 at: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR800/RR872/RAND_RR872.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR800/RR872/RAND_RR872.pdf Shelf Number: 136837 Keywords: Criminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice ReformOffender SupervisionParole Supervision Parolees Prison Overcrowding Public Safety Realignment |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: U.S. Parole Commission: Number of Offenders under Its Jurisdiction Has Declined; Transferring Its Jurisdiction for D.C. Offenders Would Pose Challenges Summary: USPC was established in 1976, in part to carry out a national parole policy that would govern the release of offenders to community supervision prior to completing their full custody sentences. USPCs budget is just over $13 million for fiscal year 2015. Over time, changes in laws have abolished parole and introduced supervised release - a new form of post-incarceration supervision. As a result, USPC has been reauthorized and has authority to grant and revoke parole for eligible federal and D.C. offenders and to revoke supervised release for D.C. offenders violating the terms of their release. USPC'[s current authorization is set to expire in 2018. This report addresses (1) changes in the number of offenders under USPC's jurisdiction from fiscal years 2002 through 2014 and (2) the organizational characteristics needed for an entity to feasibly assume jurisdiction of D.C. offenders from USPC, and the feasibility and implications of such a transfer. GAO analyzed USPC data on federal and D.C. offenders from fiscal years 2002-2014 - the most recent years for which reliable data were available - as well as DOJ reports on USPC and USPC policies, and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. GAO also discussed with USPC and some of its criminal justice partners the feasibility of transferring USPC's jurisdiction for D.C. offenders and any related challenges. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2015. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-15-359: Accessed September 21, 2015 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670509.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670509.pdf Shelf Number: 135913 Keywords: Community CorrectionsOffender SupervisionParoleParole RevocationParolees |
Author: Braithwaite, Helen Title: Impact of the California Parole Supervision and Reintegration Model (CPSRM) on parolee perceptions of supervision Summary: In 2009, the California Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) convened a Parole Reform Task Force (PRTF) to recommend new supervision policies and procedures in light of recent evidence-based research findings and supervision methods being introduced in jurisdictions across the country. The Task Force developed a package of parole reforms called the California Parole Supervision and Reintegration Model (CPSRM). CPSRM represented a significant change to the way that DAPO supervised offenders. Caseloads were reduced from a funding ratio of 70:1 down to 48:1. With fewer parolees to supervise, agents would have more time to get to know the particular needs of parolees and be able to manage these needs more effectively. Agents were given extensive training over a 6-month period in evidence-based practices and the new procedures relating to pre-release planning, case management, quality of supervision, programming, and parolee rewards and incentives. The goal was to shift parole from a 'surveillance' or a 'contact-driven' model of supervision toward an approach that emphasized case management, with parole agents spending more time both understanding the criminogenic risk factors of parolees, and addressing these needs through referrals to programming. Supervision under a CPSRM model was quite different from routine parole supervision. For example, agents conducted an in-depth interview with parolees at the time of their release from prison and arrival into the parole system to gather detailed information about issues such as their relationships with their family and friends, triggers that caused them to get into trouble, their drug and alcohol use, participation in programs, their perceived challenges in reentering the community, and their plans or goals. Parolees collaborated in developing an individualized case plan and were invited to attend a periodic review of this case plan in a Case Conference Review. Parolees worked with their agents to develop monthly goals, specifying the small steps they agreed to work on in the coming month toward a bigger goal (for example, spending 20 hours looking for a job and attending school for 100 hours). These monthly goals were a tool for the parolee to receive the 'dosage' (i.e. number of hours) required to impact their criminogenic risk factors, and were also a mechanism for the parolee to be part of their supervision rather than supervision being something that happened to them. Working towards achieving these goals provided evidence of progress that could be used by the parolee during the discharge consideration process. Agents were trained in the use of Motivational Interviewing techniques to improve the quality of the relationship with the parolee and to recognize the importance of the parolee's willingness to change. Taken together, these and the other policy changes implemented with CPSRM represented a dramatic change in the way that DAPO supervised offenders. CPSRM was introduced at four pilot parole units across the state - one in each of the four parole regions - in August, 2010. Since early 2010, the Center for Evidence-Based Corrections (CEBC) at the University of California, Irvine (UCI) has been involved in evaluating CPSRM implementation. This CEBC process evaluation has used a variety of methods - including surveys, interviews, and a behavioral study - to examine agent perceptions of CPSRM, and change in agent attitudes or behavior brought about by parole reform policies. CEBC has disseminated several reports presenting the findings from these studies. In addition to the process evaluation, CEBC is conducting an outcome evaluation to examine the impact of CPSRM on parolee recidivism. This outcome evaluation will compare the rates of parole violations, arrests, convictions and return to custody of parolees supervised at the four CPSRM pilot sites with (a) a control group of parolees supervised under routine parole supervision at four comparable non-CPSRM parole units, and (b) parolees supervised at the four CPSRM pilot sites prior to the introduction of CPSRM. Details: Irvine, CA: Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, University of California, Irvine, 2012. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 21, 2015 at: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/2014/08/Impact-of-the-California-Parole-Supervision-and-Reintegration-Model-CPSRM-on-parolee-perceptions-of-supervision.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/2014/08/Impact-of-the-California-Parole-Supervision-and-Reintegration-Model-CPSRM-on-parolee-perceptions-of-supervision.pdf Shelf Number: 136843 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationEvidence-Based PracticesOffender SupervisionParoleParolees |
Author: Andersen, Lars Hojsgaard Title: Losing the stigma of incarceration: Does serving a sentence with electronic monitoring causally improve post-release labor market outcomes? Summary: Many Western countries now use electronic monitoring (EM) of some offenders as an alternative to more traditional forms of punishments such as imprisonment. While the main reason for introducing EM is the growing prison population, politicians and administrators also believe that this type of punishment achieves a positive effect by reducing recidivism and the probability of post-release marginalization. The small existing empirical literature on the effect of EM finds mixed support for this belief, but is, however, based on very small sample sizes. We expand this literature by studying the causal effect of EM on social benefit dependency after the sentence has been served. We use administrative data from Statistics Denmark that include information on all Danish offenders who have served their sentence under EM rather than in prison. We compare post-release dependency rates for this group with outcomes for a historical control group of convicted offenders who would have served their sentences with EM had the option been available - i.e. who are identical to the EM group on all observed and unobserved characteristics. We find that serving a sentence with EM significantly decreases the dependency rates after release. Details: Copenhagen, Denmark: The Rockwool Foundation Research Unit and University Press of Southern Denmark, 2012. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Study paper No. 40: Accessed September 21, 2015 at: http://www.rockwoolfonden.dk/files/RFF-site/Publikations%20upload/Arbejdspapirer/Losing%20the%20stigma%20of%20incarceration_40.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Denmark URL: http://www.rockwoolfonden.dk/files/RFF-site/Publikations%20upload/Arbejdspapirer/Losing%20the%20stigma%20of%20incarceration_40.pdf Shelf Number: 124697 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationElectronic MonitoringEx-offender EmploymentOffender SupervisionRecidivism |
Author: Justice Policy Institute Title: Parole Perspectives in Maryland: A Survey of People Who Returned to Prison from Parole and Community Supervision Agents Summary: A new analysis from the Justice Policy Institute (JPI) shows the connection between efforts to reduce prison populations, connect people to work, and address the challenges of Baltimore's distressed communities. In Parole Perspectives in Maryland: A survey of people who returned to prison from parole and community supervision agents, JPI heard from the people most directly impacted by and involved with Maryland's parole practices. JPI surveyed people who returned to prison from parole and their community supervision agents to get a clearer picture of the barriers to successfully transitioning to the community from prison. About half of the people surveyed were from Baltimore City and most of the parole agents surveyed were responsible for a caseload that includes people from Baltimore City. Forty-six percent of the people who left prison and were on parole that were surveyed were from Baltimore City, and 12 percent were from Baltimore County. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2015. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2015 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/paroleperspectivesinmaryland.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/paroleperspectivesinmaryland.pdf Shelf Number: 136854 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity-Based CorrectionsCosts of CorrectionsOffender SupervisionParoleParole RevocationsParolees |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in Kansas: Strengthening Probation Supervision and Promoting Successful Reentry Summary: Facing a projected 23-percent growth in the state prison population by FY2021, policymakers from across the political spectrum in Kansas enacted House Bill (HB) 2170 in April 2013. The law implements policy recommendations developed through "justice reinvestment," a data-driven approach designed to reduce corrections spending and reinvest savings in strategies that can reduce recidivism and improve public safety. Throughout the process, the state received intensive technical assistance from the Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center, in partnership with The Pew Charitable Trusts and the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). With continued support, Kansas leaders have been working to implement this legislation and track the impact of the new policies. This report reflects on the progress Kansas has made to date and the continued efforts that are necessary to meet the state's goals. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2015. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 25, 2015 at: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/JusticeReinvestmentInKansas.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/JusticeReinvestmentInKansas.pdf Shelf Number: 136877 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentOffender SupervisionPrisoner ReentryProbationProbationers |
Author: Kilgore, James Title: Electronic Monitoring Is Not the Answer: Critical reflections on a flawed alternative Summary: This report offers a critical assessment of electronic monitoring (EM) in the criminal justice system. The author, who spent a year on an ankle bracelet as a condition of his own parole, draws on his in-depth study of legislation, policies, contracts, and academic literature related to electronic monitoring. In addition to this research, he interviewed people directly impacted by EM in four states. Interviewees included those who had been on the monitor, their family members, corrections officials, and the CEO of a monitoring company. The report rejects any simplistic rush to deploy electronic monitors as an alternative to incarceration. Instead, the document sets out two critical conditions for EM to be a genuine alternative: (1) it must be used instead of incarceration in prison or jail, not as an additional condition of parole, probation, or pre-trial release; (2) it must be implemented with an alternative mindset that rejects the punitive philosophy that has dominated criminal justice since the rise of mass incarceration. A genuine alternative mindset as applied to EM must ensure the person on the monitor has a full set of rights and guarantees, including the rights to seek and attend work, to access education and medical treatment, and to participate in community, family and religious activities. Without these rights, the person on the monitor remains less than a full human being, a captive of the punitive, "tough on crime" mentality that has been at the heart of more than three decades of mass incarceration. Moreover, the author asserts that electronic monitoring is more than just a tool of the criminal justice system. With the rise of GPS-based electronic monitors capable of tracking location, EM devices have become part of the arsenal of surveillance, a technology that enables both the state and business to profile people's movements and behavior. In the present situation, this surveillance component of EM has completely escaped the view of policy makers and even social justice advocates. EM as a tool of surveillance requires regulation. Details: Urbana-Champaign, IL: Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center, 2015. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 14, 2015 at: http://centerformediajustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/EM-Report-Kilgore-final-draft-10-4-15.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://centerformediajustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/EM-Report-Kilgore-final-draft-10-4-15.pdf Shelf Number: 137765 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationElectronic MonitoringOffender Supervision |
Author: Utah Judicial Council. Pretrial Release Committee Title: Report to the Utah Judicial Council on Pretrial Release and Supervision Practices Summary: In fall 2014, the Judicial Council chose pretrial release practices and alternatives as its 2015 study item. A committee was formed and was charged with conducting a thorough assessment of existing pretrial release practices used in Utah's courts and determining if there are alternatives that should be considered. Specifically, the committee was asked to: (i) determine what constitutes "best practices" in the field of pretrial release; (ii) conduct an inventory of current practices and assess both their effectiveness and the extent to which they are consistent with best practices in this field; (iii) determine how best to improve the information needed by judges when making a release decision, including evaluating evidence-based assessment tools and instruments; (iv) review the statutory history of release and bail legislation; and, (v) evaluate pretrial release alternatives in terms of public protection, the integrity of the court process, the ability to guard against punishment prior to conviction, and cost implications or savings potential. The Council asked the committee to complete its work and report its findings at the November 2015 Council meeting. The Committee met monthly from March through October and heard from local and national experts on pretrial release issues. These included presentations from, among others, Professor Shima Baradaran of the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah, Rob Butters of the Utah Criminal Justice Center at the University of Utah, David Litvak and Pat Kimball from Salt Lake County Pretrial Services, national experts Timothy Schnacke, Executive Director of the Center on Legal and Evidence-Based Practices, and Michael R. Jones, Director of Implementation at the Pretrial Justice Institute, as well as committee members Brett Barrett, Deputy Insurance Commissioner at the Utah Department of Insurance, Judge James Brady of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Judge Brendan McCullagh of the West Valley City Justice Court, Brent Johnson, General Counsel for the Utah State Courts, and Gary Walton, owner of Beehive Bail Bonds. In addition to gathering data from court databases, the committee surveyed district and justice court judges and compiled data from county jails. The committee divided its work into three parts and formed subcommittees to address the following: (i) legal frameworks as they currently exist both nationally and locally and possible changes to local frameworks; (ii) monetary bail or financial conditions to pretrial release; and (iii) non-financial conditions to pretrial release. These subcommittees met between committee meetings to gather information and prepare recommendations. As part of this process, the committee conferred with representatives from Arizona and Colorado concerning pretrial reform efforts underway in those states, and with the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (Arnold Foundation), a non-profit foundation that has funded research and developed tools to improve pretrial release systems. Committee members also spent many hours researching their assigned topics and reviewing the substantial literature in this area. Although this report is intended to be comprehensive, due to the volume of research done, only a fraction of the information members gathered and considered is included in this report. Many of the materials cited in this report have been compiled in an electronic database, which will be made available upon request. Details: Salt Lake City: Utah State Courts, 2015. 104p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 28, 2015 at: https://www.utcourts.gov/resources/reports/docs/Pretrial%20Release%20and%20Supervision%20Practices%20Final%20Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.utcourts.gov/resources/reports/docs/Pretrial%20Release%20and%20Supervision%20Practices%20Final%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 137355 Keywords: BailOffender SupervisionPretrial Release |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Electronic Monitoring: Draft National Standard for Offender Tracking Systems Addresses Common Stakeholder Needs Summary: OTS is an electronic monitoring technology consisting of hardware, such as an ankle bracelet, used for collecting Global Positioning System (GPS) signals to determine an individual's location, and software for analyzing data collected from the hardware device. While demand for GPS-based electronic monitoring devices has increased, there are currently no standards that OTS devices are required to meet. In 2009, NIJ initiated development of a voluntary OTS standard and companion guide, which is expected to be published no later than March 2016. GAO was asked to review NIJ's approach for developing the OTS standard. This report examines the extent to which (1) NIJ collaborated with stakeholders in developing the standard, and (2) the standard and guide address stakeholder needs and challenges. GAO analyzed NIJ's draft OTS standard, companion guide, and standard development process. To obtain perspectives on the standard development process and OTS needs and challenges, GAO interviewed stakeholders including NIJ officials, practitioners and experts who developed the standard, criminal justice and victims' associations, manufacturers, and officials from a non-generalizable sample of 10 criminal justice agencies that employ OTS. GAO selected the 10 criminal justice agencies based upon a combination of factors, including ensuring a range of federal, state, and local jurisdictions, among other things. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2015. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 2, 2015 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/673325.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/673325.pdf Shelf Number: 137417 Keywords: Electronic MonitoringGlobal Positioning SystemOffender Supervision |
Author: Siegel, Jonah Aaron Title: Prisoner Reentry, Parole Violations, and the Persistence of the Surveillance State Summary: The revolving door of the state and federal prison system may be the most persistent challenge faced by criminological practitioners and scholars. Following release from custody, the majority of former prisoners end up back in the system within three years, suggesting that correctional involvement is not an isolated incident for most offenders. Through its analysis of parole violations and sanctions, the current dissertation project offers important new insights on this "revolving door" between prisons and high-risk communities. To do so, each of three empirical chapters looks at a different phase in the cycle of recidivism: offending behavior, institutional responses to offending behavior, and the consequences of institutional sanctions for offenders' well-being. The first analytic chapter examines how geographical proximity to social service providers is related to the risk of recidivism. The findings suggest that the observed impact of contextual conditions on recidivism depends on how expansively one defines the "community" in which parolees are embedded and further demonstrates the importance of capturing the effect of service accessibility on offending behavior within the larger ecological context of where parolees live. The second analytic chapter explores how "supervision regimes," the legal, political, and cultural factors that shape the way supervision is practiced across jurisdictions, influence the risk of recidivism. The analysis demonstrates that regional and county-level attributes shape local templates for decision-making among parole officers in ways that affect not only whether parolees are revoked to prison, but also the use of alternative sanctions, such as stricter community supervision and incarceration in short-term correctional facilities such as jails or detention centers. The final analytic chapter offers a rigorous assessment of the causal impact of incarceration on labor market outcomes through an examination of whether return to short-term custody interferes with the ability of parolees to find and maintain work. Findings indicate that the experience of short-term re-incarceration dramatically increases the risk of unemployment among parolees in the months during and following their incarceration. Taken as a whole, the analyses shed light on how offending behavior, institutional decision-making, and the experience of incarceration combine to perpetuate the cycle of recidivism. Details: Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, 2014. 147p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed February 9, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248412.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248412.pdf Shelf Number: 137815 Keywords: Decision-MakingEx-Offender EmploymentOffender SupervisionParole OfficersParole ViolationsParoleePrisoner ReentryRecidivism |
Author: Schafer, N.E. Title: Evaluation of a JAIBG-Funded Project: Voice and Location Telephone Monitoring of Juveniles Summary: Direct supervision of juvenile probationers is seldom possible in many communities in Alaska due to their remoteness, so alternative supervision strategies are desirable. Electronic monitoring or voice recognition systems can substitute for institutionalization or face-to-face supervision by a probation officer. This report describes and evaluates the use of a voice and location telephone monitoring system for the supervision of juvenile probationers through the Mat-Su Youth Corrections Office in Palmer. In practice, VALUE - Voice And Location Update Evaluation - was used primarily as a transitional tool for clients "stepping down" from traditional electronic monitoring to release from supervision. Details: Anchorage: Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2001. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 15, 2016 at: http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/research/2000/0010.kap/0010.kap.pdf Year: 2001 Country: United States URL: http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/research/2000/0010.kap/0010.kap.pdf Shelf Number: 138245 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationElectronic MonitoringJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationOffender SupervisionVoice Recognition Systems |
Author: Manitoba Office of the Auditor General Title: Managing the Province's Adult Offenders Summary: The Department of Justice manages approximately 10,000 adult offenders. About 24% are in provincial correctional centres; the other 76% are supervised in the community. We examined how adequately the Department managed adult correctional centre capacity, adult offenders in the community, adult rehabilitation programs, and related public performance reporting. We found that the Department's management of its adult correctional centre capacity was inadequate for its long-term needs. Although it had increased capacity by 52% since 2008, overcrowding in centres was on-going; offender population forecasts were not always reliable; there was no comprehensive long-term capital plan to address either the forecast bed shortfall or the deterioration in aging correctional centre infrastructure; and initiatives to help reduce bed demand required greater attention. There were also problems in managing adult offenders in the community. While the Department had a number of policies in this area, we found that offenders were not always adequately supervised; their rehabilitation plans needed improvement; supervisors were not regularly reviewing staff's work to ensure it complied with standards; and management had reduced offender supervision standards in 3 regions to resolve workload issues. In addition, there were gaps in planning and monitoring adult rehabilitation programs, and limited public information provided on how well the Department was managing its adult offenders. Taken together, these issues affected the Department's contribution to public safety and reduced the likelihood of successful offender rehabilitation. Details: Winnipeg, MB: Office of the Auditor General, 2014. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 21, 2016 at: http://www.oag.mb.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Chapter-6-Managing-the-Provinces-Adult-Offenders-Web.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Canada URL: http://www.oag.mb.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Chapter-6-Managing-the-Provinces-Adult-Offenders-Web.pdf Shelf Number: 138359 Keywords: Adult OffendersCommunity CorrectionsCorrectional AdministrationInmatesOffender SupervisionPrisonersPrisonsRehabilitation Programs |
Author: Disley, Emma Title: Using Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements to manage and supervise terrorist offenders: Findings from an exploratory study Summary: Since 2000 Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) have been used to manage violent and sexual offenders on release from prison. Under these arrangements, offenders are identified, assessed and subject to supervision and monitoring in order to protect the public. Central to MAPPA is that key agencies - including police, probation, housing, social services, education and health - are under a statutory duty to share information and cooperate. In 2009 these arrangements were extended to cover those convicted of terrorist offenders. RAND Europe conducted an exploratory study in 2011 to examine potential challenges in applying MAPPA to terrorist offenders and the readiness of those involved to do so. The research aimed to identify priorities for further attention by policymakers and researchers looking at the effectiveness of post-release supervision of terrorist offenders. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2016. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2016 at: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR400/RR441/RAND_RR441.pdf Year: 2016 Country: International URL: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR400/RR441/RAND_RR441.pdf Shelf Number: 138705 Keywords: Offender SupervisionPrisoner ReentryTerrorismTerrorists |
Author: Sarver, Christian M. Title: Utah Cost of Crime. Intensive Supervision (Juveniles): Technical Report Summary: While originally designed as a cost-saving mechanism for diverting adult offenders from institutional placements, intensive supervision programs (ISP) have also been implemented with juveniles. With juvenile offenders, ISPs explicitly attend to both the rehabilitative- and surveillance-oriented goals of the juvenile justice system (Armstrong, 1991). These programs typically provide treatment and services for both offenders and their families, target offenders' interactions in peer- and school-environments, and provide structure to monitor the goals of the court (Altschuler & Armstrong, 1991; Wiebush, Wagner, McNulty, Wang, & Le, 2005). In the 1990s, the United States Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) created an intensive aftercare research and demonstration program to provide best practice guidelines for reintegrating high-risk, juvenile parolees into the community. Known as intensive aftercare programs (IAP), this model used increased supervision as one component of a structured, multi-dimensional intervention that included assessment, transition planning, case management, and graduated sanctions (Wiebush et al., 2005). Prior Research Research on juvenile offenders provides inconclusive results on the effectiveness of intensive supervision as a strategy for deterring criminal and delinquent behavior (Drake, Aos, & Miller, 2009; Henggeler & Schoenwald, 2011; Lipsey, 2009; MacKenzie, 2006). In an analysis of intensive supervision for juveniles, MacKenzie (2006) combined nine (9) effect sizes and found no difference in recidivism rates for juveniles placed in ISPs when compared to regular supervision or secure placement. Drake, Aos, and Miller (2009) also found no difference in recidivism rates between juveniles in ISPs when compared to regular supervision (three (3) studies) or secure placements (five (5) studies). In contrast, an earlier study by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) found that juvenile offenders on intensive supervision had significantly lower rates of recidivism than offenders on regular supervision (Aos et al., 2001). The WSIPP analyses found no difference in recidivism when comparing ISP to incarceration; however, given cost differences between community-based supervision and a secure placement, the authors concluded that intensive supervision was cost effective when compared to incarceration (Aos et al., 2001). Increasingly, research indicates that ISPs are effective despite, rather than because of, intensive surveillance strategies (Henngeler & Schoenwald, 2011). In a meta-analysis of more than 500 studies of interventions for juvenile offenders, Lipsey (2009) found that program effectiveness-in both community and secure settings-was primarily a function of program philosophy and treatment quality. Regardless of setting, programs that were grounded in therapeutic treatment philosophies were more effective than programs that were grounded in surveillance- and control-oriented philosophies. These findings suggest that disparities in the research on juvenile ISPs might be a function of differences in treatment and service delivery rather than the nature and intensity of supervision strategies (Lipsey, Howell, Kelly, Chapman, & Carver, 2010). Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2012. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 23, 2016 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/ISP_Juv_Tech_updateformat.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/ISP_Juv_Tech_updateformat.pdf Shelf Number: 138779 Keywords: Costs of crimeCosts of Criminal Justice Electronic Monitoring Intensive Supervision Juvenile AftercareJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationOffender Supervision |
Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office Title: Transforming Rehabilitation Summary: The Ministry of Justice (the Ministry) is responsible for protecting the public, reducing reoffending and providing a more effective criminal justice system. It is supported by 37 agencies and public bodies, including the National Offender Management Service (NOMS). NOMS is an executive agency of the Ministry, responsible for making sure that people serve the sentences and orders handed out by courts, both in prisons and through probation in the community. Probation is the means through which offenders are supervised and their rehabilitation is pursued. Probation services exist to: protect the public; reduce reoffending and rehabilitate offenders; carry out the proper punishment of offenders; and ensure offenders are aware of the impact of crime on victims and the public. Previously, probation services were delivered by 35 self-governing probation trusts working under the direction of NOMS. From late 2013, arrangements for delivering probation and rehabilitation services to offenders underwent concurrent changes, including: - in June 2014 probation services were divided into a National Probation Service (NPS) across seven regions and 21 new community rehabilitation companies (CRCs): - The public sector NPS advises courts on sentencing all offenders and manages those offenders presenting higher risks of serious harm or with prior history of domestic violence and sexual offences. Around 20% of all cases are allocated to the NPS. - CRCs supervise offenders presenting low- and medium-risk of harm. CRCs operated as companies in public ownership until 1 February 2015 when they transferred to eight, mainly private sector, providers. Around 80% of cases are allocated to the CRCs. - As at July 2015, some 243,000 offenders were supervised by the NPS and CRCs; - supervision was extended to offenders released from prison sentences of under 12 months, as part of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014; and - reorganisation of the prison system to provide 'Through the Gate' services. Since May 2015 CRCs have provided offenders with resettlement services while imprisoned. Our report This report builds on our 2014 Probation: landscape review and our reports on commercial and contracting issues, particularly Transforming contract management in the Home Office and Ministry of Justice. It explores ongoing probation reforms and the extent to which changes are being managed in a way likely to promote value for money. We recognise that these changes have barely started and that it will take two years before prospects for success are clearer. In particular, success depends on achieving economic benefits to society estimated at more than L12 billion of economic benefits from reduced reoffending over the next seven years. This report has four parts: - Part One provides an overview of probation reforms and assesses the procurement for the CRC contracts. - Part Two focuses on the performance management of the 21 CRCs and the NPS. - Part Three identifies important operational issues in CRCs and the NPS. ' Part Four examines progress by CRCs and the NPS in transforming probation services, and the main challenges they face in achieving the necessary transformation. Details: London: NAO, 2016. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: HC 951 SESSION 2015-16 28 APRIL 2016: Accessed April 29, 2016 at: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Transforming-rehabilitation.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Transforming-rehabilitation.pdf Shelf Number: 138842 Keywords: Offender SupervisionProbationProbationersRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Skardhamar, Torbjorn Title: Straffegjennomforing med elektronisk kontroll i Norge - Execution of sentence with electronic monitoring in Norway Summary: Since September 2008 there has been a pilot project on execution of sentences using electronic monitoring (EM) in six Norwegian counties. This form of execution of sentence is a form of home detention under certain conditions, where a tag is attached to the offender's ankle which reports his or hers geographical position. Execution of a sentence using EM is meant to be an alternative to serving time in prison, and who is found eligible is an administrative decision by the prison authorities. Persons who are sentenced to less than four months in prison can apply for EM. A second group who can apply is those who have served a long sentence and have less than four months left, and these can serve the remaining time with EM. One main purpose of EM in Norway is to avoid that the offenders loose contact with the labour market and the society at large. This report describes some Norwegian experiences with this form of execution of a sentence. The first part of the report describes who get to serve their sentence with EM, compared to those who serve a short sentence in prison. These groups are compared on a number of socioeconomic variables. This part of the analysis shed light on social inequality in execution of sentences. We show that those who serve time with EM is generally better off on a number of characteristics. They have higher educational level, larger proportion was employed before the sentence, lower proportion on social benefits, and they have higher average incomes from work. Nevertheless, those who serve time with EM are not a particularly privileged group, and only about half were employed prior to serving their sentence. The second part of the report describes changes in employment situation on a monthly basis from 24 months before serving their sentence until 24 months after. This analysis focuses only on those who serve their entire sentence with EM, which is the majority. The outcome is compared with a matched comparison group of offenders who serve their time in prison. It is shown that there are very little changes in the employment rate among those who serve time with EM. As a main purpose of EM is to prevent the convicts of dropping out of the labour market, this indicates that this goal is achieved. However, this applies to a large extent to the comparison group as well, although they have a somewhat reduction in employment rates, which is temporary. Neither are there much changes in the proportion receiving social benefits among those who serve time with EM, while there is a somewhat increase after having served their sentence in the comparison group. In conclusion, those who serve time with EM do not seem to get noticeable increased problems on the labour market after execution of the sentence, and it is possible that EK has up to a moderate positive effect compared to a matched comparison group. Details: Oslo: Statistics Norway, 2013. 38p. This publication is in Norwegian Only Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 2, 2016 at: https://www.ssb.no/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/artikler-og-publikasjoner/_attachment/105969?_ts=13e36fbcdc0 Year: 2013 Country: Norway URL: https://www.ssb.no/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/artikler-og-publikasjoner/_attachment/105969?_ts=13e36fbcdc0 Shelf Number: 138885 Keywords: Electronic MonitoringOffender SupervisionSentencing |
Author: Morse, Amyas Title: Probation: Landscape Review Summary: This report summarises the arrangements for probation that were in place during the first year of the C&AG's audit. It also summarises the main elements of the reform currently under way and identifies the key issues now facing those involved in probation. The report is a landscape review, intended to inform Parliament about developments and advance its understanding of them. It is not an evaluation of progress in implementing the Transforming Rehabilitation policy. It is based on our audit of probation trusts, analysis of documents published by the Ministry of Justice (the Ministry) and other relevant bodies, and our ongoing contacts with the sector. The report covers: - the current probation system (Part One); and - proposals for reforming probation (Part Two). Details: London: National Audit Office, 2014. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2016 at: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Probation-landscape-review.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Probation-landscape-review.pdf Shelf Number: 138917 Keywords: Offender SupervisionProbationProbationers |
Author: Strickland, Pat Title: Contracting out probation services, 2013-2016. Summary: This briefing paper charts the implementation controversial reforms to the probation service. Most offenders are now supervised by Community Rehabilitation Companies, which are mostly privately led. A new public sector National Probation Service manages high risk offenders. So what's the verdict so far? Under the Transforming Rehabilitation programme, the Coalition Government introduced major controversial reforms. These included: - Abolishing Probation Trusts - Contracting out the majority of probation work to private and voluntary sector providers in 21 new Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) - Introducing a new public sector National Probation Service (NPS)to manage high risk offenders and service the courts In addition, an extra 45,000 offenders are being brought into the probation system. This is because, for the first time, those sentenced to less than 12 months in prison are going to be supervised in the community upon release. Details: London: Parliament, House of Commons Library, 2016. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Briefing Paper No. 06894: Accessed May 16, 2016 at: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06894/SN06894.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06894/SN06894.pdf Shelf Number: 139056 Keywords: Offender SupervisionPrivatizationProbationProbation Reform |
Author: Caudill, Jonathan W. Title: Breaking Ground: Preliminary Report of Butte County Sheriff's Alternative Custody Supervision Program Summary: In January 2012, Sally Parker organized, at the request of Jon Caudill, a meeting between them, Undersheriff Kory Honea, Captain Andy Duch, Lt. Brian Flicker, and Ryan Patten. Recent AB 109 developments, including creation of the Butte County Sheriff's Office Alternative Custody Supervision (ACS) Program, led the legislated shift of prisoners from the state prison system to the county jail systems to the center stage across the state. From the meeting originated a research agreement between the Principle Investigator, Jonathan Caudill, and the Butte County Sheriff's Office (BCSO) including three specific projects: a) identify county prisoner inmate needs, b) establish a recidivism measure, and c) evaluate implementation of the ACS Program. These specific projects, however, also relate to a general philosophy of managing the jail population and improving public safety, while providing offenders with appropriate tools for success. The balance between public safety, managing jail resources, and offender treatment has been the focus of many discussions and the focal point of the BCSO Executive Command. The key to balancing these foci is understanding their interconnectedness. The overarching goals of these projects have been to understand this interconnectedness and identify specific adjustments. As explained in the findings section, we found some anticipated and some unexpected results. First and as expected, we found that many of the surveyed inmates expressed a desire for services while incarcerated and continued assistance during reentry. Several theoretical frameworks may explain these findings; however, the underlying desire for a continuum of services remains. While these are preliminary findings and should be interpreted as such, these findings are commonsensical as we know that approximately two-thirds of inmates were unemployed when arrested. If an individual is unemployed prior to a new felony conviction and incarceration, they are even less employable afterwards. Given these findings, we recommend the BCSO staff conduct a supervision and treatment plan for all potential ACS eligible inmates. Implemented correctly, this strategy will increase treatment accuracy and gauge supervision needs. Our second expected finding was the limitations of the current data collection strategy and offender management system. We knew at the onset that intensive community supervision was a new concept for the BCSO and, therefore, they lacked appropriate software. The BCSO, at the time of this report, has an active jail information management system request for proposal and requested that this study's PI consult in the proposal scoring process. We recommend that the BCSO continue their search for an appropriate offender management system that has the capacity to store historical data and network with other county systems. Third, we discovered that the BCSO implemented the ACS Program in an efficient manner and is now prepared to proceed to the formalization phase. In fact, the projected one-year recidivism estimation suggested the ACS program has a lower recidivism rate than the most recent California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) one-year recidivism rate. Our analyses revealed the current ACS six-month recidivism rate just below 20 percent (0.19). Based on this number and previous time-to-recidivism research, we estimated the ACS program one-year recidivism rate at 0.327, while the most recent CDCR recidivism estimate for property and drug offenders was 0.492. Additionally, the data suggest that officers are maintaining a service orientation (67 percent of all officer-participant encounters were service, as opposed to enforcement). This trend, however, has the potential to wane once the program newness expires. New programs produce excitement and enthusiasm, but the natural conflict accompanying offender management can generate "burnout" and depersonalization. Depersonalization can hinder service provision and supervision strategies. To protect ACS officers from unnecessary occupational stress, we recommend that the BCSO further formalize the ACS program, to include additional officer training and a comprehensive, evidence-based supervision strategy. Beyond the anticipated preliminary findings, we also discovered two unanticipated findings. First, both the logistic regression model and survival analysis revealed an opportunity to make the ACS risk assessment tool more efficient. Although the estimated coefficients were in the appropriate direction (positive correlation between risk scores and recidivism), the unadjusted risk scores lacked consistency across time (see Graph 1 for a visual representation of risk scores regressed on time to failure). These findings suggest that the BCSO can use proper data, a comprehensive understanding of crime and its correlates, and advanced statistics to improve public safety through recidivism reduction and resource management. To improve the risk assessment tool, we recommend that the BCSO explore a population-validated risk assessment tool. Our last two findings are of methodological concerns. We discovered during the preliminary analysis that the inmate needs survey design and delivery required adjustment. Specifically, the results suggest two previous treatment questions produced poor response rates and at least one current needs question confused interview sessions. The research team is considering both of these issues and they anticipate a new version of the inmate needs survey. Related to survey delivery, there remains confusion among jail staff and inmates as to the project goals, thereby making this process somewhat inefficient. The research team implemented an alternative survey strategy and, after evaluation of the response rates, they may recommend further data collection adjustments. The second methodological concern focuses mainly on evaluation resources. The preliminary results provide several interesting outcomes and important corollary projects. The additional pressures of county prison on the BCSO jail have generated further interest in resource management strategies and efficient alternative custody programs. For example, the BCSO administrative staff approved an experimental research design assessing the efficiencies of flash incarceration as an intermediate sanction. Unfortunately, the research team lacks resources beyond the current evaluation plan to conduct this study given their other professional demands. Based on the gravity and complexity of AB 109 legislation and the innovative strategy spearheaded by the BCSO in response to resource re-alignment, we recommend the BCSO work proactively to prioritize research projects promoting public safety and resource management. Related, the BCSO has the potential to move from a state best-practices model6 to a national model of best practices, but this may require additional evaluation resources. Based on this logic, the BCSO should continue external funding activities that include evaluation resources. Collectively, the preliminary findings are positive for BCSO's goal of balancing public safety, jail resources, and offender treatment. The American Civil Liberties Union of California recently released a county-level analysis of best practices, Public Safety Realignment: California at a Crossroads. The terminology "at a crossroads" suggests what occurs now will have a profound influence on the future of offender management. We find value in this idea, but also assert that offender management is dynamic and requires recursive evidence-based program models. The BCSO is breaking ground with an unparalleled, innovative approach to public safety, jail resource management, and offender treatment. For the BCSO, the next logical step is to utilize these preliminary findings as a guidepost for program development. Details: Chico, CA: California State University, Chico, 2012. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 3, 2016 at: https://www.csuchico.edu/pols/documents/breaking-ground-final-report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.csuchico.edu/pols/documents/breaking-ground-final-report.pdf Shelf Number: 139275 Keywords: Corrections OfficersCriminal Justice ReformJail InmatesJailsOffender SupervisionPublic Safety RealignmentRecidivismUnemployment and Crime |
Author: Hawken, Angela Title: HOPE II: A Follow-up to Hawaii's HOPE Evaluation Summary: Hawai'i's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Hawai'i's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement probation relies on a regimen of regular, random drug testing tied to swift and certain, but modest, sanctions to motivate probationer compliance. In two 2007 studies in Hawai'i, a comparison-group quasi-experiment and a randomized controlled trial, HOPE was demonstrated to improve compliance with terms of probation at 12-month follow-up, with large reductions in drug use, recidivism, and overall incarceration for offenders assigned to the program. Following the original evaluations, HOPE expanded from 34 participants in 2004 to approximately 2200 participants in Hawai'i in 2014, with many replications on the mainland. Several important questions remained. The primary impact of drug treatment is felt during exposure to the treatment program; over half of treatment subjects relapse within a year of ending treatment. The original evaluations of HOPE relied on a relatively short follow-up period, and it is not clear whether its effects would persist over a longer period. And it is not clear whether implementation would maintain fidelity to the model when no longer being evaluated. This study extends the original HOPE evaluations to an almost ten-year follow-up, addressing whether the improvements in criminal-justice outcomes observed during the active HOPE intervention persist after the term of probation. The study also documents changes in HOPE practices and ongoing implementation fidelity to the model. Administrative data from several sources were collected on HOPE and probation-as-usual (PAU) subjects. These records data were supplemented with in-person surveys with probationers, a probation-officer survey, and interviews with key officials. Interpretations of outcomes data reported here should take changes in implementation practices into consideration. Tracking and contacting subjects after nearly a decade proved more challenging than anticipated. Consequently, this study relies more heavily on administrative data, and less on in-person surveys and bio-specimen collection, than initially planned. The principal findings were: 1. HOPE probationers performed better than those supervised under routine supervision. They were less likely to be revoked and returned to prison. They were more likely to be free in the community and therefore at higher risk of committing new offenses; even so, they were less likely to commit new crimes during the follow-up period, although the difference in reoffending rate was smaller at long-term follow-up than at 12-month, and the reductions in drug crimes accounted for most of the difference (differences in property crimes were smaller than anticipated). HOPE was also found to economize on supervision resources, as HOPE probationers were more likely to receive successful early terminations from probation. 2. Probationers' perception of risk of punishment given a violation (estimated from the probationer survey) was higher than probation officers' estimates, which in turn were higher than our estimates of the true risk. As the deterrent value depends on perceived risk rather than actual risk, HOPE appears to benefit from a reputation effect that exceeds the certainty delivered in practice. 3. Probation-officer surveys suggest that POs support HOPE: It makes them more effective at their job and their probationers are more likely to succeed on HOPE. POs reported deviation from how HOPE is implemented compared with how it is described in policies and procedures. They agree that positive drug tests are referred to the court, but believe that their colleagues exercise discretion in deciding how to respond to missed appointments (including missed random drug tests). As HOPE relies on swift and certain sanctions, this argues for closer monitoring of implementation fidelity. Details: Malibu, CA: School of Public Policy, Pepperdine University, 2016. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249912.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249912.pdf Shelf Number: 139508 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDrug CourtsDrug OffendersDrug Treatment ProgramsOffender SupervisionProbationProbationersRecidivism |
Author: Heaton, Harold I. Title: GPS Monitoring Practices in Community Supervision and the Potential Impact of Advanced Analytics, Version 1.0 Summary: The first electronic monitoring (EM) devices were developed in the 1960s with the intent of providing feedback to young-adult-offender volunteers to facilitate their rehabilitation, but that approach was not widely accepted. Following their reemergence in the 1980s in support of a more punitive model of offender treatment, such devices were used principally for home detention applications. By 1990 radio-frequency (RF)2 technologies were in-use in all 50 states. ( The utility of EM increased considerably in 2000 when the military began permitting civilian Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers to attain much greater accuracy , and the offender tracking market expanded quickly. At least 44,000 tracking devices were estimated to be in-use in the United States by 2009 , and the more compact and affordable devices available today can be better tailored to specific needs. Modern features include voice communication, and audible and vibratory alerts to warn participants of schedule violations. These devices also include improved case management software and better mapping technology, with playback capabilities and mobile restriction zones that can be used to keep tracked participants from congregating and separated from former victims. Much of the exigency for enhanced usage of offender monitoring systems has resulted from legislative mandates to track sex offenders, but other applications have emerged such as intensively supervising high-risk parolees, developing confinement alternatives for low-risk criminals to facilitate their re-entry into society and alleviate jail overcrowding, or monitoring pre-trial defendants. "By 2010, 33 states had enacted legislation requiring that this technology be used on sex offenders," although many had not yet implemented those programs. Some states and jurisdictions had also begun using EM to track gang members and domestic abusers, monitor habitual burglars, or alert former victims when offenders were released from custody. Nevertheless, GPS-based systems generate a plethora of data. Without analytical aids to interpret those data, supervising agents can quickly become overwhelmed and unable to take advantage of these tools as they manage their daily caseloads. The temporal sequences of locations gathered by GPS monitoring systems provide unprecedented opportunities to explore patterns of activity through the application of space-time analytics to individual movements and stops. Automated processing and alerting algorithms developed to more fully exploit gathered data could focus an agent's attention on only those events requiring investigation, and provide the basis for conducting social network analyses to gain intelligence on offender habits. While analytical capabilities do not appear to have strongly influenced correctional agency selection of their EM vendors and products to date, tools comprising various combinations of statistical analysis procedures, data and text mining, and predictive modeling can be mission enabling through the discovery of hidden behavioral patterns and the prediction of future outcomes. This paper briefly reviews research on the usage of location-based tracking to motivate an assessment of the potential role of advanced analytics in more strongly leveraging the capabilities of such systems. Relying in part on the results from a recent market survey of commercially-available analytics products suitable for use in correctional applications, it presents several recommendations for deriving actionable information from GPS tracking data as an aid to managing community-released offender populations. Nevertheless, "there has been little rigorous research evaluating the impacts of electronic monitoring," and questions remain about the efficacy of this approach in community supervision. "Policy-relevant research" is needed that is "focused toward understanding the potential for supervision with electronic monitoring to improve long-term outcomes". Details: Laurel, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, 2016. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249888.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249888.pdf Shelf Number: 139510 Keywords: Electronic MonitoringGlobal Positioning SystemsOffender MonitoringOffender Supervision |
Author: Taylor, Steven R. Title: Market Survey of Location-Based Offender Tracking Technologies, Version 1.1 Summary: In September of 2013, the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL) was selected by the Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to establish the National Institute of Justice Technology Research, Test, and Evaluation (NIJ RT&E) Center within the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) System. The purpose of the NIJ RT&E Center is to provide in-depth technical reports and support for NIJ's non-forensic research and development efforts. The Center will inform the criminal justice field concerning offender tracking and monitoring technologies, systems, products, services and related issues in a more innovative, sustainable, efficient, and effective manner. Under NIJ Cooperative Agreement, Award No. 2013-MU-CX-K111, the NIJ RT&E Center was commissioned to conduct a market survey of offender tracking systems (OTS)-hardware and software-to assist public safety and criminal justice practitioners who may be considering the acquisition and implementation of this type of technology in their community. To collect market survey data on OTS products, a request for information (RFI) was created; data was solicited directly from OTS product vendors and it was posted as a Notice in the Federal Register. This paper provides background context for OTS, the NIJ RT&E Center's methodology for developing the market survey, and results from the market survey. This market survey presents a view of the technologies available at the time of publication. When considering an acquisition of OTS equipment, additional information should be sought from the specific vendors of interest. Contact information for the manufacturers is provided in Section 5- Market Survey Data Analysis. Details: Laurel, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, 2016. 166p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249889.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249889.pdf Shelf Number: 139511 Keywords: ComputersCorrections TechnologyOffender MonitoringOffender Supervision |
Author: Reichert, Jessica Title: Fidelity to the intensive supervision probation with services model: An examination of Adult Redeploy Illinois programs Summary: Prison populations in America are the highest per capita of any country in the world (International Centre for Prison Studies, 2014). Illinois houses about 49,000 prisoners daily, spending $1.1 billion on corrections in 2014 (Illinois Department of Corrections, 2015; Illinois State Commission on Criminal Justice and Sentencing Reform, 2014). Growing public support for prison reform has brought attention to incarceration alternatives, including intensive supervision probation (ISP). ISP programs include increased surveillance, increased surveillance with treatment, and increased surveillance with evidence-based practices (Drake, 2011). The ISP programs examined for this study were a hybrid of the three, using increased surveillance with treatment services and evidence-based practices. For the purposes of this report, these programs will be referred to as intensive supervision probation with services (ISP-S). ISP-S programs have better outcomes than deterrence-based, surveillance-only ISP (Aos, Miller, & Drake, 2006; Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice, 2009; Paparozzi & Gendreau, 2005). Research has shown ISP-S programs reduce recidivism by 17 percent, saving approximately $20,000 per offender (Drake, Aos, & Miller, 2009). Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (Authority) researchers examined ISP-S programs operating in four counties supported by Adult Redeploy Illinois (ARI). ARI applies evidence-based, data-driven, and result-oriented strategies to reduce reliance on incarceration, increase community capacity for diversion, and enhance public safety. Since 2010, the Authority has administered grant funding for ARI and offered research, evaluation, and technical assistance to the program. In exchange for ARI grant funding, jurisdictions agree to implement evidence-based prison-diversion programs, such as ISP-S, and reduce by 25 percent the number of non-violent offenders sentenced to prison from a target population. Researchers examined ISP-S programs in DuPage, Macon, McLean, and St. Clair counties and used staff and stakeholder interviews, client interviews, and program data to evaluate fidelity to key components of evidence-based ISP-S. Researchers developed a list of nine key components of ISP-S drawing from Petersilia and Turner's ISP literature and the National Institute for Corrections (NIC) recommendations for evidence-based practices, shaped largely by Andrews and Bonta's Risk-Need-Responsivity model (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; NIC, 2004; Petersilia & Turner, 1993; Petersilia & Turner, 1991; Petersilia & Turner, 1990). Researchers used data collected during the 18-month pilot phases of DuPage, Macon, McLean and St. Clair county programs, beginning in 2011. However, not all programs started at the same time and McLean did not start accepting clients until January 2012. Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2016. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 21, 2016 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/ISP%20FIDELITY%20FINAL%2006-16-16.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/ISP%20FIDELITY%20FINAL%2006-16-16.pdf Shelf Number: 139784 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationIntensive SupervisionOffender SupervisionProbation |
Author: Johnson, Jennifer E. Title: Adult Felon Workload Study: Summary Report 2013 Summary: Minnesota Department of Corrections (MN DOC) felon community supervision agents last participated in a workload study in 2006. Because districts, technology, evidence based practices, policies, etc. continually change how we do business; there is a need to continually study agent workloads every few years. A total of 48 agents from 14 MN DOC districts tracked over 1,000 adult felons to develop an accurate picture of each supervision level. There were also tasks that were tracked, including pre-sentence investigations; new clients; pre-plea bail bond and worksheets/sentencing memos; incoming transfer investigations; and supervised release investigations. Offenders were tracked for up to three months. Agents logged their time spent on the selected offenders. As expected, changes over the last few years impacted the time it takes an agent to supervise an offender. Details: St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2013. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 22, 2016 at: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/pages/files/4313/9084/6228/Adult_Felon_Workload_Study_2013_.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/pages/files/4313/9084/6228/Adult_Felon_Workload_Study_2013_.pdf Shelf Number: 146041 Keywords: Felony OffendersOffender SupervisionWorkloads |
Author: Crosse, Scott Title: Multi-jurisdiction Research on Automated Reporting Systems: Kiosk Supervision Summary: The Multi-jurisdiction Kiosk Study was designed to expand and strengthen the evidence base on kiosk reporting used to supervise probationers and parolees. The research study collected and analyzed information on the prevalence of kiosk reporting, implementation experiences of adopters of this approach, and outcomes and costs associated with its use. In addition to enhancing the evidence base, the research findings informed the development of a practical guidebook on adoption and implementation that will help community supervision agencies make knowledgeable decisions about kiosk reporting. This mixed method study involved multiple components including: 1) a brief telephone screener and in-depth telephone interviews, 2) an implementation and cost study, and 3) an outcome study. The research methods and findings from each component are described in the remainder of this overview. Details: Rockville, MD: Westat, 2015. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 8, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250173.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250173.pdf Shelf Number: 145376 Keywords: Corrections TechnologyKiosk SupervisionOffender SupervisionParole SupervisionParoleesProbationers |
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: Bartels, Lorana Title: Literature Review on Intensive Supervision Orders: A Report Prepared for the Act Justice and Community Safety Directorate Summary: This report presents a literature review in relation to intensive supervision orders (variously defined) in six countries, as follows: - Intensive Supervision Orders in New Zealand; - Conditional Sentences of Imprisonment in Canada; - Various forms of Intensive Supervision Probation in the United States; - Intensive Alternatives to Custody in England/Wales; - Intensive Supervision with Electronic Monitoring in Sweden; and - Correctional Supervision in South Africa. Each section presents an overview of the sentencing option, including the conditions to which it is subject (eg, electronic monitoring, substance abuse treatment, curfews, community service) and whether these are imposed on a mandatory or optional basis. Information on limits on the availability of the option (eg, by sentence length or offence type) is also considered. The report then presents evidence on the 'effectiveness' of each sentencing option. Due to the variety of information available, evidence of effectiveness is considered to include: - data on the use of the order, including the conditions imposed, and any impacts on the use of imprisonment; - reconviction and breach analyses; - cost-benefit analyses; - evidence of decreases in anti-social behaviour (eg, drug use) and/or increases in prosocial behaviour (eg, engagement with employment); and - research on the attitudes of a range of stakeholders, including offenders, victims, correctional officers, judicial officers and members of the public. The report presents a brief description of the electronic monitoring technology used, before examining the evidence on cost-effectiveness, reductions in reoffending and the perceptions of offenders and others affected by electronic monitoring, especially victims and those living with the offender. This section then explores some of the key practical and ethical challenges that may arise from this technology, including: workload implications; false reports; risk to the public; the challenges of involving the private sector in the delivery of community corrections; the risk of net-widening; and the offender's loss of privacy and risk of stigmatisation. The limitations of the research are acknowledged and future directions in research, technological advances and good practice principles are considered. The report concludes with summary of key findings and some observations on future directions. Details: Canberra: University of Canberra, 2014. 89p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 11, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2669069 Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2669069 Shelf Number: 145087 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationAntisocial BehaviorCost-Benefit AnalysisElectronic MonitoringIntensive SupervisionOffender Supervision |
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: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: Use of Electronic Offender-Tracking Devices Expands Sharply Summary: The number of accused and convicted criminal offenders in the United States who are monitored with ankle bracelets and other electronic tracking devices rose nearly 140 percent over 10 years, according to a survey conducted in December 2015 by The Pew Charitable Trusts. More than 125,000 people were supervised with the devices in 2015, up from 53,000 in 2005. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government use electronic devices to monitor the movements and activities of pretrial defendants or convicted offenders on probation or parole. The survey counted the number of active GPS and radio-frequency (RF) units reported by the companies that manufacture and operate them, providing the most complete picture to date of the prevalence of these technologies in the nation's criminal justice system. Details: Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2016. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 24, 2016 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2016/10/use_of_electronic_offender_tracking_devices_expands_sharply.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2016/10/use_of_electronic_offender_tracking_devices_expands_sharply.pdf Shelf Number: 145997 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationElectronic Monitoring Electronic TaggingGlobal Positioning SystemsOffender Supervision |
Author: Lai, Keith Title: Does Supervision After Release From Prison Reduce Re-offending? Summary: Currently, in England and Wales, adult prisoners serving a sentence of 12 months or more are supervised by the Probation Service "on licence" upon release from custody, whilst those serving a sentence of less than 12 months are not. This paper summarises work exploring the use of a Regression Discontinuity Design to assess the impact of this supervision on re-offending rates. The analysis compares the re-offending rates of offenders either side of the 12 month licence supervision threshold. It is based on offenders with one or no previous convictions and sentenced to around a year in custody. © Crown copyright 2013 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives. gov.uk/doc/open-governmentlicence/ or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi. gov.uk Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. First published July 2013 ISBN 978-1-84099-606-7 Contact info: mojanalyticalservices@ justice.gsi.gov.uk Key findings For offenders with one or no previous convictions, the one-year re-offending rate is between 14 and 17 percentage points lower for offenders on licence than similar offenders not on licence. Extending the analysis to a two-year re-offending rate increased the difference between the offenders on licence and offenders not on licence to between 16 and 20 percentage points. These estimates are statistically significant at the 5% level. Whilst none of the results relating to the three-year re-offending rate were statistically significant at the 5% level, the size of the re-offending reductions are only a little smaller in absolute terms than for the one and two year re-offending reductions. More generally, the estimates are less reliable and subject to more uncertainty the longer the time period from release. The analysis suggests that a period of probation supervision after release from custody reduces the re-offending rate of offenders sentenced to around one year in custody and with one or no previous convictions. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2013. 3p. Source: Internet Resource: Analytical Summary: Accessed November 11, 2016 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224557/supervision-after-release.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224557/supervision-after-release.pdf Shelf Number: 130133 Keywords: Offender SupervisionPrisoner ReentryProbationRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Morehead State University. Sociology, Social Work, and Criminology Title: Kentucky Smart Probation Program: Year One Report Summary: The Kentucky Supervision, Monitoring, Accountability, Responsibility, and Treatment (SMART) Probation Program grant was awarded in July 2012 to the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Department of Corrections for the purpose of providing enhanced probation services for eligible participants in six pilot jurisdictions throughout the state of Kentucky. Funding was used to support a call-in system to inform defendants in each jurisdiction when they were to drug test, to purchase drug testing supplies, to provide for testing of abused drugs not typically detected on traditional drug screens, and to contract with an independent evaluator to conduct an unbiased program evaluation. This evaluation report was prepared by Morehead State University to highlight program activities during the first grant year. An overview of applicable data elements (i.e., process evaluation and outcome evaluation) for grant year one (July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013) is highlighted below. Process Evaluation Summary Overall themes emerging from the process evaluation suggest that a majority of administrators, judges, attorneys, and law enforcement/corrections officials are satisfied with the services provided through the SMART Probation Program during the first grant year. There were a minority of individuals interviewed that wished they had more inclusion and knowledge about the program during the implementation process. Many reported they were uncertain, at this point, what the data will show in terms of program success, because it is relatively new, but hope results reveal reduced recidivism and incarceration costs. Overall, despite some initial barriers and problems, most felt the program was beneficial for probationers and would like to see the program expand in the future. Outcome Data Summary Outcome data was reported for 307 participants who entered the SMART Probation Program (between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013). Individuals in the SMART Probation Program were compared with 300 similarly matched probationers. All outcome data was retrieved from the Department of Corrections Kentucky Offender Management System (KOMS). The evaluation for the first grant year focused on examining: the level of service/case management inventory (LS/CMI), drug screening/results, violations/responses, and movements/alterations of sentencing. The target number of individuals to be served was 600. During the first grant year, approximately 51% of the target number was served. Almost two-thirds of probationers served were from two SMART project sites: the combined site of Lincoln/Pulaski/Rockcastle (30.6%) and Jefferson (30.3%). Based on data provided, the average time on probation was 8 months (mean = 7.9 months). When examining raw scores for all of the domains on the LS/CMI, the SMART Probationers were rated as significantly higher on all domains measured by this risk assessment instrument. When examining the categorization of need as measured by the LS/CMI for each domain (i.e., low, medium, and high), the SMART and comparison group had comparable categorization of needs, with the exception of the drug and alcohol problem domain and total score. For the alcohol and drug problem domain, the SMART participants were categorized as having medium needs, whereas the comparison group was categorized as having low needs. Second, when assessing the total LS/CMI score, the SMART participants were rated as medium risk whereas the comparison group was rated as low risk. These differences match the scope of the SMART program, which targets individuals with substance use and related needs who are at-risk of failing on traditional probation. These data suggest the SMART group is a higher risk group – thus, comparisons with a traditional probation group should be interpreted with some caution as the two groups had some inherent differences. In terms of drug testing, the SMART probationers were drug tested 2,529 times; of these, there were 218 positive drug screens, which equates to approximately 11.6% of the total tests. In contrast, the comparison probationers were drug tested 1,149 times; of these, there were 338 positive drug screens, which equates to approximately 29% of the total tests. Further, there were significantly more positive drug screens, on average, for the comparison group (mean = 1.1) compared with the SMART group (mean = 0.6). More specifically, there were significantly more comparison group probationers with positive drug screens for marijuana (48.7% vs. 29.0%) while more SMART probationers tested positive for Oxycontin (14.0% vs. 4.2%). Program violations, as reported in KOMS, were also examined. In general, the comparison probationers had a significantly higher average number of violations (2.3) compared to the SMART probationers (1.2). Almost one third of probationers in the comparison group (32.7%) had a substance use violation compared to 24.0% for the SMART probationers. Further, a significantly greater number of probationers in the comparison group also had probation/parole violations (29.7%) compared to the SMART probationers (21.2%). In addition, a significantly greater percentage of probationers in the comparison group had new charges (33.0% vs. 10.6%). Finally, there was a significant difference between the percentage of probationers in the comparison group (8.7%) and the SMART probationers (3.5%) that had fees and services violations. The most common responses to all violations involved the discretion of the court and a recommendation for probation revocation. In some instances, the responses were more tailored to the violation type. For example, for substance use related violations, the response from the court included referrals to the Social Service Clinician (SSC) and other treatment options. At the time of this report, approximately 14% of the SMART probation participants had probation conditions which had been revoked. A comparable statistic was unable to be calculated for the comparison group, given a criteria for selecting this group was actively on probation. In future evaluation reports, the evaluation team, in partnership with the Department of Corrections will strive to select a comparison group which more accurately reflects a contemporary group of individuals referred to probation that may/may not be active at the time of the reporting. While a significantly greater percentage of SMART probationers (15.1%) were moved into an incarceration placement compared to the comparison group (9.3%), probationers in the comparison group spent a significantly greater average time incarcerated (118.1 days compared to 32.5 days for the SMART probationers). Details: Morehead, KY: Morehead State University, 2013. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 22, 2016 at:http://www.scfcenter.org/resources/Research/201311%20Kentucky%20SMART%20Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.scfcenter.org/resources/Research/201311%20Kentucky%20SMART%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 147311 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationOffender SupervisionProbationProbationersRecidivism |
Author: Heaton, Harold I. Title: Geospatial Monitoring of Community-Released Offenders: An Analytics Market Survey, Version 2. Summary: With the growing need for deriving actionable information from the burgeoning volume of offender tracking data, it is becoming progressively more essential to leverage analytics to enable Probation and Parole Officers to help manage their caseloads. This report summarizes information gathered from the responses provided by six companies to a Request for Information issued by the National Institute of Justice regarding the analytics features of their commercially available offender-tracking software. It also describes some of the capabilities of a seventh vendor’s product, which were derived by synthesizing information from its Web site and insights provided by correctional departments that use that firm’s services. These businesses include companies that currently provide integrated offender-monitoring services to correctional customers (BI Incorporated, Satellite Tracking of People, Track Group, 3M), an industry leader in big data predictive analytics (SAS Institute, Inc.), and vendors interested in adapting current products to community corrections that have been applied successfully to criminal justice and other applications (FMS, Uncharted Software). As such, it comprises a near-term resource for assisting correctional agencies that may be considering establishing or upgrading an analytics capability in support of their location-based monitoring mission prior to making purchasing decisions. The report is structured topically to summarize and compare the analytics capabilities of these products in each of seven areas, and a separate chapter is devoted to each topic: (1) Demographic information for the company and point-of-contact; (2) Product purpose and installation; (3) Performance characteristics and validation approach; (4) Analyses performed by the product; (5) Data formatting and information exchange; (6) Requirements for host-agency computing systems; and (7) Operator/analyst education and training requirements. Subsequently, an initial view of end-user needs is captured based on information provided by a small sample of state and county-level correctional departments comprising the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; Oklahoma, Michigan, and Colorado Departments of Corrections; Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; and Pretrial Services, City and County of Denver. These agencies also offered their current views on the most significant roles that analytics could play in enabling the effectiveness of each organization’s mission. The departments selected and the questions posed regarding the analytics currently in use were not chosen to provide statistically meaningful results, but the knowledge acquired helped guide interpretations of the vendor responses. Although the analytics capabilities of offender monitoring products do not appear to have been a strong motivator for vendor selection to date, analytical tools comprising various combinations of statistical analysis procedures (including crime scene analysis), data and text mining, social network analysis, and predictive modeling can enable the discovery of hidden behavioral patterns and the prediction of future outcomes. As analysis technology progresses and becomes more user friendly, the correctional agencies queried during this study indicated that analytics would become more of a consideration in any replacement systems that are contemplated in the future. Details: Laurel, MD: The National Criminal Justice Technology Research, Test, and Evaluation Center, The Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory, 2016. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 14, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250371.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250371.pdf Shelf Number: 14889 Keywords: Electronic SurveillanceGeospatial TechnologyOffender MonitoringOffender SupervisionParole SupervisionParolees |
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: Still, Wendy Title: Building Trust and Legitimacy Within Community Corrections Summary: Over the past three decades, the U.S. incarceration rate has increased to historic highs, while crime rates have dropped significantly. Today, the U.S. incarcerates more people than any other nation in the world. In addition to the 2.3 million people incarcerated in our nation’s jails and prisons, 4 million individuals are on probation or parole at any given time. The individuals on probation and parole — who represent the community corrections system in America — are the largest part of the correctional system. Yet, this aspect of corrections has been largely absent from the national conversation surrounding incarceration rates and criminal justice reform — this despite the fact that community corrections presents the most obvious alternative to incarceration for many and perhaps the best opportunity for reforming the criminal justice system in ways that will promote public safety, efficiency and fairness. Similar to the growth of prison populations during the past three decades, the number of individuals on probation in the United States has also grown. While there were 492 people on probation for every 100,000 U.S. residents in 1980, this figure peaked in 2007 at 1,425, and by 2014 had declined slightly to 1,214 (see figure 1). With nearly 4 million people on probation at any given time, this represents the largest correctional population in the nation. Interestingly, long-term trends in crime rates and arrests for serious offenses should have militated toward a smaller probation population. Arrests for serious offenses are at historic lows, especially for the relatively young. Figures 2 and 3 compare the likelihood of being arrested in 1980 and 2012, by age, for violent and property index offenses. While arrests for violent and property offenses are somewhat higher for individuals over 30, we observe pronounced decreases in arrest rates for younger individuals in the highest risk age ranges. However, arrests for drug offenses are up, way up, for all ages (figure 4) as are overall arrests for non-index crimes (figure 5). On net, the aggregate age-arrest profile changes very little as increases in less serious arrests have offset the decrease in arrests for more serious crime (figure 6). With lower crime rates, these higher arrest rates for lesser offenses likely reflect shifts in enforcement. In conjunction with stiffer sentencing and net widening in the application of probation sentences, the proportion of U.S. residents on probation has grown alongside the prison incarceration rate. The authors of this report find that the strength and success of probation and parole agencies must be rooted in trust and legitimacy. They propose six principles to guide agencies and policy makers in strengthening the field: (1) Treat each individual on community corrections with dignity and respect. Recognize our common human capacity both to make mistakes and to make a change for the better. (2) Realign incentives in the criminal justice system. Cost considerations at the local level should not systematically favor incarceration over alternative sanctions. (3) Impose the least restrictive sanctions necessary, and minimize the collateral consequences associated with criminal processing and conviction. (4) Restore communities, and facilitate their health and safety in a holistic way. (5) Reduce institutional bias and work to ensure that all individuals receive fair, equal access to the justice system. (6) Evaluate what we do, invest in practices that work, and abandon practices that do not. Details: Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: New Thinking in Community Corrections Bulletin: Accessed February 11, 2017 at: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/content/download/82224/1844712/version/2/file/building_trust_and_legitimacy_within_community_corrections_rev_final_20161208.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/content/download/82224/1844712/version/2/file/building_trust_and_legitimacy_within_community_corrections_rev_final_20161208.pdf Shelf Number: 144821 Keywords: Community CorrectionsOffender SupervisionParoleProbation |
Author: Andersen, Synove N. Title: Electronic Monitoring and Recidivism: Quasi-experimental evidence from Norway Summary: The replacement of custodial with non-custodial sanctions holds the potential to reduce recidivism as well as other costs associated with imprisonment. However, the causal impacts on recidivism of noncustodial sanctions in general, and electronic monitoring (EM) programs in particular, remain unclear. We estimate the effect of EM on recidivism by exploiting an EM program that was gradually introduced in Norwegian counties from 2008, using difference-in-differences and instrumental variable designs. Results show that introducing EM reduced 2-year recidivism rates by about 10 percent, which corresponds to about 19 percent for those actually serving on EM. We find no effects on recidivism intensity or severity. Subsample analyses show that the effect estimates are strongest among offenders without previous imprisonment or recent unemployment spells, and although between-groups differences are statistically non-significant, this suggest that avoiding prison stigma and maintaining workplace relations can be important to reduce recidivism and promote desistance. The reliability of our results is somewhat challenged by unstable pre-implementation trends and signs that more people are convicted to EM-qualifying sentences when EM is introduced. Details: Oslo: Statistics Norway, Research Department, 2016. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Discussion Papers, No. 844: Accessed February 13, 2017 at: https://www.ssb.no/en/forskning/discussion-papers/_attachment/276183?_ts=156fa403880 Year: 2016 Country: Norway URL: https://www.ssb.no/en/forskning/discussion-papers/_attachment/276183?_ts=156fa403880 Shelf Number: 145120 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationElectronic MonitoringOffender SupervisionRecidivism |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in Massachusetts: Policy Framework Summary: Massachusetts has achieved the second-lowest incarceration rate in the nation, and state leaders now wish to address the challenge of recidivism in their state's criminal justice system. People with prior convictions were responsible for three-quarters of new sentences in 2013. Two-thirds of people leaving Houses of Correction (HOCs) and more than half of those leaving Department of Correction (DOC) facilities in 2011 were rearraigned within three years of their release. To break this cycle of recidivism, in January 2016, the state embarked on a data-driven justice reinvestment approach to reduce reoffending, contain corrections spending, and invest in strategies to increase public safety. To that end, key stakeholders have worked together to develop policies that will (1) better align probation and parole supervision with best practices to reduce recidivism; (2) improve access to treatment for people in the criminal justice system who have serious behavioral health needs and are also at a high risk of reoffending; (3) make the parole release process more efficient; and (4) reduce the DOC population and increase the number of people who receive post-release supervision. Details: New York: The Justice Center, 2017. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 24, 2017 at: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/JR-in-Massachusetts_Policy-Framework1.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/JR-in-Massachusetts_Policy-Framework1.pdf Shelf Number: 114208 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Criminal Justice Systems Evidence-Based Practices Justice Reinvestment Offender SupervisionRecidivism |
Author: Sorsby, Angela Title: Probation Staff Views of the Skills for Effective Engagement Development (SEED) Project Summary: The aim of the SEED project implemented by the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) is to provide training and continuous professional development for probation staff in relation to skills which could be used in supervising offenders, particularly in one-to-one supervisions. The SEED training package, which has been influenced by the STICS project in Canada (Bourgon et al. 2008) and the aims of the broader Offender Engagement Programme, includes relationship building, prosocial modelling, motivational interviewing, risk-need-responsivity, cognitive behavioural techniques and structuring of one-to-one supervision. The training package consists of an initial three day training programme, and three one day and one half-day follow-up training events at three monthly intervals. The initial three day training programme took place in March to April 2011 and the final follow-up events took place in February 2012. The SEED project also includes action learning sets (regular meetings of offender managers (OMs) to discuss cases) and observation and feedback on one-to-one supervision sessions from team leaders. The training package was delivered within eight Probation Trusts in total, three of which are included in this external evaluation. The three externally evaluated Trusts are London, Merseyside and Thames Valley. Within these three Trusts training was delivered to six teams: in London, Merton and Sutton OMT3 and Barking, Dagenham and Havering OMT3; in Merseyside, two teams based in the St Helens office and in Thames Valley, Milton Keynes PPU and Reading OMUB. The evaluation was designed as action research, so this progress report provides a detailed look at how practitioners viewed the training and the SEED model, which it is hoped will be helpful to those implementing and developing the training. This progress report focuses on practitioners' views of the training, and of the SEED model, as assessed by evaluation questionnaires completed by participants at the conclusion of each of the training events.. Details: Sheffield, UK: University of Sheffield, Centre for Criminological Research, 2013. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 27, 2017 at: https://www.shef.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.293093!/file/probation-staff-views-seed.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.shef.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.293093!/file/probation-staff-views-seed.pdf Shelf Number: 141221 Keywords: Offender SupervisionProbationProbation Officers |
Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office Title: Investigation into the Parole Board Summary: The National Audit Office has today published the findings from its investigation into the Parole Board (The Board). The Board is responsible for deciding whether prisoners can be safely released from prison and advising on movement between closed and open prisons across England and Wales. The NAO examined the Board in 2008 and made a number of recommendations to improve efficiency, in particular to address a backlog of outstanding cases. A Supreme Court ruling in 2013 (The Osborn ruling) broadened the circumstances in which the law requires the Board to hold an oral hearing. This led to an increase demand for oral hearings by the Board. The number of outstanding parole cases increased sharply, leading to increased delays and additional costs. The key findings of the investigation are as follows: The Osborn ruling in October 2013 had an immediate impact on the demand for oral hearings conducted by the Board. There were 6,872 oral hearings conducted by the Board in 2014-15, an increase of 48% in comparison to 4,628 in 2012-13. Hearings increased to a high of 7,148 in 2015-16. The number of outstanding cases increased by more than 140% following the Osborn ruling. The Board had a backlog of cases for several years, but the number of outstanding cases increased by 143% from October 2013 to a peak of 3,163 in January 2015. Of the 2,117 oral cases outstanding in September 2016, 13% were more than a year past their target date for a hearing. A further 16% were more than six months past their target date. The Board's ability to reduce the number of outstanding cases is limited by the number of cases it is able to list in any month. For example, the Board listed 701 cases for oral hearings in September 2016, while the queue of cases waiting for a hearing date was 1,257. Once listed, 34% oral hearings were deferred, and more than half of these (21%) were deferred or adjourned on the day of the hearing. The increase in demand for oral hearings has meant that older and more complex cases have been less likely to be heard. In 2015-16, 64% of cases were provided with an oral hearing date within 90 days of being ready to list, against a 90% target. The oldest of the outstanding cases in September 2016 had an original target date in 2009, with another 404 cases having target dates in 2015 or earlier. At December 2016, 3,081 prisoners on indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPPs) were in prison beyond their tariff expiry date. IPP prisoners make up around half of the cases waiting more than 90 days for a hearing. Of the 3,683 IPP prisoners still in custody in December 2016, 84% (3,081) were beyond their tariff expiry date. Of these, 48% had been in prison five or more years beyond their tariff and 11% were eight years or more beyond their tariff. In July 2016, the Board announced its intention to reduce the number of IPP prisoners in prison to 1,500 by 2020. The Board has paid £1.1 million in compensation claims to prisoners since 2011-12 as a result of delayed hearings, with £554,000 paid out in 2015-16. The backlog means some prisoners may have spent longer in prison than needed. Spending on member fees increased by 43% from £4.7 million in 2010-11 to £6.7 million in 2015-16. In October 2015, the Board set a target to reduce outstanding cases to 1,200 by April 2017, but this level of outstanding cases does not reflect efficiencies it has made since 2013. In June 2016, the Board moved the date to achieve this target to the end of 2017, and has so far not set out what it expects the level of outstanding cases to be after this. Under its new chair and chief executive, the Board launched a strategy to tackle the backlog in September 2016. The strategy includes aims to prioritise the safe release of IPP prisoners and to improve workflow by listing as many cases as possible and reducing unnecessary deferrals and adjournments. In 2016, the Ministry of Justice, on behalf of the Board, launched a major member recruitment exercise for the first time in four years. The Ministry did not recruit new members between 2012 and 2016, and member numbers fell 23% between 2010-11 (284) and 2015-16 (218). In 2016 it recruited 104 members, around half starting in 2016-17 and the remainder in 2017-18. Details: London: NAO, 2017. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: HC 1013; Session 2016-17: Accessed February 28, 2017 at: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Investigation-into-the-Parole-Board.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Investigation-into-the-Parole-Board.pdf Shelf Number: 141248 Keywords: Offender SupervisionParole BoardParole OfficersParolees |
Author: Wigzell, Alexandra Title: The NOMS RJ Capacity Building Programme: A study of the quality of participant and implementation experiences Summary: This report presents the findings of a 27-month study of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) Restorative Justice (RJ) Capacity Building Programme. The initiative aimed to develop capacity within probation and prisons to deliver RJ conferencing. The package included training, comprising a three-day event and follow-up mentoring days delivered by Restorative Solutions and implementation support provided by Thames Valley Partnership. The programme was rolled out in eight phases to probation and prisons, including partnerships with the police and voluntary sector organisations, with successful expression of interest bids across England and Wales. The first phase started in June 2012. The programme was premised on an offender-led RJ model, whereby the focus for generating cases was on agencies and organisations working with offenders. Restorative Solutions commissioned ICPR to conduct an evaluation of the programme, which examined: the quality of the training; the volume of RJ activity flowing from the training; perceptions of RJ conference participants; and sites' implementation experience. The research did not aim to look at longer term RJ outcomes. Details: London: Institute for Criminal Policy Research, University of London, 2015. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 13, 2017 at: http://www.icpr.org.uk/media/39384/Final%20RJ%20Report%20-%2026%2003%202015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.icpr.org.uk/media/39384/Final%20RJ%20Report%20-%2026%2003%202015.pdf Shelf Number: 144468 Keywords: Offender SupervisionProbation Probationers Restorative Justice |
Author: John Howard Association of Illinois Title: Reforming Illinois' Prison System from the Inside-Out: A Blueprint for the Implementation of Risk Assets Needs Assessment and System Change in the Illinois Department of Corrections Summary: Illinois has two public safety problems. It has one of the most crowded adult prison systems in the United States, and despite spending $1.3 billion annually on the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), there are not enough resources to effectively house, supervise, and provide rehabilitative programming to the approximately 49,000 men and women who are in state prisons or the additional 25,000 who are on Mandatory Supervised Release under IDOC's Parole Division. These problems have led to an increasingly dangerous situation for inmates and correctional staff, with prisoners being housed in prison gymnasiums and reports of increased violence inside facilities. This makes for hazardous conditions not only inside prisons, but also for Illinois' communities. Every year, Illinois releases more than 30,000 people from its prisons. While there is no evidence to suggest that exposure to harsh and overcrowded conditions makes inmates less likely to commit new crimes, research has shown that these kinds of environments can make inmates worse and more likely to reoffend when they are released. Given these conditions, coupled with the Parole Division's chronically low resources and the multiple barriers former prisoners face returning home, it should come as no surprise that almost half of the inmates who leave the IDOC return to prison within three years of their release, creating a vicious and costly cycle. To address these problems, Illinois needs to safely decrease the number of people under state correctional supervision. This will require an on-going commitment to comprehensive criminal justice reform, including investing in crime prevention programming to strengthen communities, expanding alternatives to incarceration for low-level offenders, reforming overly punitive criminal sentences, and removing unfair obstacles to reentry. Just as importantly, Illinois must ensure that IDOC has the capacity it needs to make the most effective use possible of its limited resources both inside and outside of its facilities, so that when inmates are released they are less likely to return to custody because they are re-integrated safely and successfully back into their communities. Inside the IDOC, the most important initiative to reduce Illinois' over-reliance on incarceration is the implementation of a new and more effective inmate assessment tool called RANA, which stands for Risk Assets Needs Assessment. The problem with the IDOC's current assessment system is that it relies primarily on offenders' committing offenses to make security and programming decisions. So, for instance, if a person is convicted of a low-level offense, he or she will more than likely be treated the same as all other low-level offenders, be housed in a minimum-security facility, and be paroled under the same conditions of release. This kind of assessment system is based on the false assumption that offenders convicted of similar kinds of crimes need the same kind of treatment and supervision. It is also limited in that it ignores the importance of evaluating and developing positive vocational, social, and psychological strengths and assets that lead offenders to turn away from crime. While the IDOC's current approach to inmate assessment may make a certain amount of intuitive sense, it does not provide the agency with a reliable means to provide rehabilitative programming targeted to address the precise needs of individual prisoners that will discourage future criminal activity or encourage pro-social behaviors and attitudes. Using its current assessment system, the IDOC ends up spending its limited security and programming resources on inmates without any certainty that its actions will reduce recidivism. The implementation of RANA will improve upon the IDOC's current assessment system by enabling the agency to focus on the factors that lead people under correctional supervision to return to prison. As mandated, RANA requires the IDOC to adopt an evidence-based assessment tool that will evaluate risks, assets, and needs that are proven to influence recidivism and to create individual case plans that address these factors inside and outside facilities. The benefits of reform are not speculative. Research and the experience of other states indicate that the implementation of a RANA-like system can lead to more efficient use of programming and security resources, reduce recidivism, and ultimately decrease the costly number of people under state correctional supervision. Details: Chicago: The Association, 20113. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 16, 2017 at: http://www.thejha.org/sites/default/files/JHA%20Blueprint%20Reforming%20IL%20Prison%20System%20from%20the%20Inside%20Out.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.thejha.org/sites/default/files/JHA%20Blueprint%20Reforming%20IL%20Prison%20System%20from%20the%20Inside%20Out.pdf Shelf Number: 131202 Keywords: Correctional ReformCorrectional SupervisionOffender SupervisionPrison OvercrowdingPrison Reform |
Author: Prell, Lettie Title: Iowa Recidivism Report: Prison Return Rates. FY2007 Releases Tracked for 3 Years Summary: Over the past several years, The Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) has developed standard definitions of performance measures of importance to corrections. States adopting these standard measures will eventually be able to compare their performance with similar states, and set benchmarks for improvement. ASCA has defined a measure of recidivism -- the return rate to prison - which describes the percent of offenders released from prison who return within three years. The measure includes offenders released to parole supervision as well as those who discharge due to expiration of sentence. Prison releases also include exits from work release per ASCA definitions. In addition to reporting the overall return rate to prison, returns due to new convictions versus technical violations are also compiled. While Iowa has periodically conducted recidivism studies in this area for decades, some adjustments had to be made in order to conform to the ASCA counting rules. The Iowa Department of Corrections made these adjustments in the FY2000 and FY2004 data sets in order to respond to a PEW Trusts survey on this topic. Their report on FY2000 and FY2004 recidivism may be found at http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Pew_State_of_Recidivism.pdf. This report documents that Iowa's recidivism rates are consistently well below the average for all states. Justice Data Warehouse programming has now been completed that enables calculation of the return rate to prison on a regular basis. This report provides comparison of recidivism for FY2007 releases with the prior two years, and then provides more detail regarding the FY2007 recidivism findings. Highlights include the following: - Recidivism rates declined as prison releases increased. The FY2007 return rate to prison was 31.8%, the lowest among the three years studied - and was achieved despite a 37% increase in prison releases since FY2000. - Larger drops in recidivism for some offender sub-groups. Recidivism rates and particularly returns to prison for new convictions dropped markedly for women and African-Americans. There was also a very large drop in recidivism for offenders with chronic mental illnesses. - Decline in returns to prison due to new convictions. In FY2007, 31 fewer offenders were returned for new convictions compared with FY2004 returnees-despite 511 more offenders being released. Parole supervision may reduce reoffending, Although more research is needed, analysis suggests that new convictions among prison releases could be further reduced if more offenders received post-release supervision, rather being left to discharge their sentences. This is especially important because there has been an increase in discharges from prison compared with paroles. Reversing this trend would entail earlier releases for some offenders, but potentially achieve greater public safety. Details: Des Moines: Iowa Department of Corrections, 2011. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2017 at: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/SD/24677.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/SD/24677.pdf Shelf Number: 131209 Keywords: Offender SupervisionRecidivismReoffending |
Author: American Probation and Parole Association Title: Issue Paper on The Use of Social Media in Community Corrections Summary: This paper was developed to elevate the awareness of the potential of social media, also known as social networking, in the field of community corrections. Monitoring client activity on social media can be an important component of the investigation or supervision process, however with opportunities come challenges. This paper will highlight the importance of establishing policies around social media use and identify some of the issues community corrections agencies may encounter as they incorporate social media in their investigation and supervision practices. Specifically, the paper addresses four areas of interest with social media usage in community corrections: (1) client investigations and intelligence gathering; (2) policy development (3) available tools to assist agencies monitor social media; and (4) training resources. Details: Lexington, KY: APPA, 2014. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 4, 2017 at: https://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/APPA/stances/ip_USMCC.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/APPA/stances/ip_USMCC.pdf Shelf Number: 146724 Keywords: Community Corrections Offender SupervisionParole Probation Social Media |
Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office Title: The New Generation Electronic Monitoring Programme Summary: The Ministry of Justice (the Ministry) has so far failed to achieve value for money with its management of the new generation electronic monitoring programme, which is estimated to cost L130 million by 2024-25, according to the latest report from the National Audit Office. The service itself is expected to cost L470 million between 2017-18 and 2024-25. The Ministry pursued an overly ambitious strategy which was not grounded in evidence, and failed to deliver against its vision. It has learned from its previous failings, and has begun to make necessary improvements. But major risks remain. The electronic monitoring of offenders has an important role in supporting rehabilitation in the community and as an alternative to prison. In 2011, the Ministry launched a programme to develop a new 'world-leading' ankle tag that combined radio frequency and GPS technology. It set out to procure the service using a new 'tower' delivery model, which incorporated contracts with four separate suppliers who would provide four different elements of the service, with their work pulled together by a contracted integrator. The NAO's report finds that the Ministry did not do enough to establish the case for a major expansion of location monitoring using GPS, and that the Ministry's bespoke requirements for new world-leading tags proved too ambitious. Furthermore, the planned timescale for the programme was unachievable. The Ministry initially allowed 15 months after signing the contract for the tags in August 2012 to develop, test, manufacture and deploy the new tags. Contracts, however, were not signed until July 2014 due to the discovery of overbilling by G4S and Serco, followed by two failed procurements for the tags. The Ministry has now appointed G4S as preferred bidder for the tags. It expects the new tags to be deployed from the end of 2018, completing roll-out six months later. This represents a total delay to the programme of five years. Five years after initiation, the programme has not delivered the intended benefits. The Ministry had expected the programme to reduce annual monitoring costs by at least 9% (L9 million) and potentially up to 30% (L30 million). The Ministry has so far spent around $60 million and remains reliant on the legacy services. However it has reported savings of 10.6% by negotiating with Capita, the new monitoring supplier, which has streamlined the existing operation over time. The NAO finds that the Ministry adopted a new high-risk and unfamiliar approach to the procurement, and failed to manage the implications. Furthermore, the Ministry also failed to anticipate and resolve the implications of its delivery model, which led to disputes with Capita and other suppliers. The Ministry's governance arrangements were weak, causing slow decision making and allowing internal disagreements to persist. External reviews noted a lack of accountability to Senior Responsible Owners and unhelpful disunity between operational, technical, commercial and programme staff. This was compounded by a lack of capacity and capability in the context of high competing demand from other projects. Following internal and external reviews of the programme in 2015 and 2016, the Ministry has taken action to address many of the issues. This includes changing approach to buying available off-the-shelf tags and bringing the integration function back in house. Leadership is now more stable and cohesive. In March 2017 the Infrastructure and Projects Authority assessed that the programme team had been reinvigorated following key staffing changes and that delivery confidence had improved. However significant risk remains. Achieving an effective new monitoring service without relying on a contracted integrator will require the Ministry to be much more closely involved than before in integrating the end-to-end service. It will have to build and sustain its technical and programme management capabilities to effectively perform this expanded role. Details: London: NAO, 2017. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 7, 2017 at: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/The-new-generation-electronic-monitoring-programme.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/The-new-generation-electronic-monitoring-programme.pdf Shelf Number: 146759 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCost-Benefit AnalysisElectronic MonitoringOffender Supervision |
Author: Great Britain. National Offender Management Service Title: Electronic Monitoring Global Position System: Toolkit for partner agencies Summary: Electronic Monitoring with a Global Positioning System (GPS) tag is a versatile offender management tool offering a choice of capabilities that can support decision makers to manage risk more effectively, and get the right balance between punishment, crime prevention and rehabilitation. It allows for a more bespoke approach to be tailored to an individual. It can be punitive, but also help to support rehabilitative interventions or programmes, improve compliance, help prevent reoffending, and improve enforcement and crime detection as well as providing improved outcomes for victims. A GPS tag can be used with offenders or defendants who may otherwise be in custody, and can mitigate some of the risks these offenders might pose if given an opportunity to remain in the community. A GPS tag can be used by decision makers to monitor a range of conditions or requirements, through providing flexibility to set a range of restrictions including keeping a given distance from a particular place or address or mapping out areas on a map that cannot be entered. Up to 50 different zones can be created if required, and can be can be limited to certain days, dates or times of day. Buffer zones can also be included around restricted zones to alert a subject they are approaching an area they are not to enter. GPS tagging can also be used to monitor a subject's whereabouts and to monitor attendance to support rehabilitate interventions. Through initial feedback from our presentations to stakeholders, 96% of the 260 feedback responses received, agreed that GPS monitoring will be a useful tool for managing offenders in the community. Wearing a GPS tag can potentially support a subject in a number of ways, for example by: - restricting their ability to fall into bad habits, or mix with the wrong crowd; - incentivising them to not reoffend through the knowledge that their movements are being monitored; - eliminating them from a police enquiry by showing they were not present when a crime was committed; - helping them to demonstrate their commitment to change to justice services as well as to family, friends and employees. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service, 2017. 35p., app. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2017 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/591822/EM-GPS-toolkit-V2.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/591822/EM-GPS-toolkit-V2.pdf Shelf Number: 146959 Keywords: Electronic MonitoringElectronic TaggingGlobal Positioning SystemsOffender MonitoringOffender Supervision |
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: 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: Bennett, Patricia Marrone Title: LA Probation Governance Study: Review of Best Practices in Probation Summary: American Probation was originally invented by Boston shoemaker John Augustus in 1841, a court volunteer who took errant neighbors under his wing, helped them pay off their debt to society, and reported back to the court on their progress to help them to avoid being detained. At that time no one could have envisioned the current system, where almost 4 million people on probation are supervised by 2,000 departments around the country. As the above numbers indicate, probation agencies, including Los Angeles County Probation, have grown to impact the lives of U.S. residents far beyond anything anticipated by the original designers. In large jurisdictions like Los Angeles County, where 6,500 staff operate under an $820 million budget to supervise approximately 50,000 system-involved adults and juveniles, the imperative for well-designed and well-operated organizational systems and practices is paramount. Driven by a large body of research, probation departments across the country are under transformation, implementing new strategies and processes including evidence-based practices and community-based services, and placing increased emphasis on rehabilitation and youth development as a means for promoting public safety. Within this landscape, probation agencies should focus on harm reduction by supervising only those who need to be supervised, for only the amount of time they need to be under supervision, and by relying more on incentives like shortening probation terms for good behavior, rather than sanctions like revocation and incarceration. For individuals under community supervision, probation should focus on improving supervision practices by implementing evidence-based and best practices identified in the field, couched within a community-involved approach, as research indicates that cohesive communities and informal controls are more effective at reducing crime than government interventions. With the probation profession being transformed throughout the nation, there is great need for guidance around identifying and implementing evidence-based and best practices to promote public safety, affect positive behavior change, and minimize the risk of reoffending. In order to develop the following review of best practices in probation, RDA synthesized research across a number of subject areas, including criminal and juvenile justice as well as organizational development and leadership, developed by government and professional Probation agencies; non-profit and private organizations; and, independent researchers published in peer reviewed journals. Details: Oakland, CA: Resource Development Associates, 2017. 101p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 3, 2017 at: http://resourcedevelopment.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/LAPGS_Best-Practice.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 147536 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Supervision Offender SupervisionProbation Probation Officers Probationers |
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: Shames, Alison Title: Remote Access: Using Video Technology to Treat Substance Users on Probation and Parole in South Dakota Summary: The challenges of accessing services for alcohol and other drug use in South Dakota may have contributed to the state's high percentage of people convicted of low-level nonviolent offenses, particularly for drug or alcohol related offenses. To minimize these challenges, especially for parolees and probationers residing in the state's vast rural areas, the state worked with local providers to pilot a teleconferencing program aimed at connecting people to community-based services without the cost and barrier of transportation or other access issues. This brief describes the issues people on parole or probation encounter and the solutions the state developed to address them. It is the second brief in a series of three that focuses on the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) - an initiative funded by the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), in partnership with the Pew Charitable Trusts. JRI is a data-driven approach to improve public safety, examine corrections and related criminal justice spending, manage and allocate criminal justice populations in a more cost-effective manner, and reinvest savings in strategies that can hold system-involved people accountable, decrease crime, and strengthen neighborhoods. At least 30 states have engaged in this process. Key Takeaway How South Dakota overcame the challenge of delivering treatment services across vast distances may serve as a guide for interested jurisdictions facing similar issues and hoping to start a similar program. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2016. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Brief: Accessed November 7, 2017 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/remote-access-video-technology-probation-parole-substance-users-south-dakota/legacy_downloads/Remote-access-using-video-technology-to-treat-substance-users-south-dakota-web-v2.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/remote-access-video-technology-probation-parole-substance-users-south-dakota/legacy_downloads/Remote-access-using-video-technology-to-treat-substance-users Shelf Number: 148070 Keywords: Community-Based CorrectionsOffender SupervisionParoleesProbationersSubstance Abuse TreatmentVideo Technology |
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: Keown, Leslie-Anne Title: Ethnocultural Offenders: An Initial Investigation of Social History Variables at Intake Summary: Little research specific to federally-sentenced ethnocultural offenders exists and, of what does exist, none has focused on offenders' social history. Social history - which refers to experiences of the individual, family, or community, and can also include intergenerational impacts of earlier experiences - has been recognized as important in judicial and correctional decision-making and offender management. The current study aimed to begin to explore the issue of social history among ethnocultural offenders by leveraging readily-available data on life experiences and pre-incarceration background collected as part of the offender intake process. Data were available for 725 ethnocultural offenders in eight areas: criminal history, community functioning, education and employment, attitudes, associates, substance use, marital and family, and personal/emotional. Of the ethnocultural offenders, about half were Black and the remainder were categorized as East / South East Asian, Arab / West Asian, Hispanic / Latin, South Asian, and "other". In order to contextualize findings specific to ethnocultural offenders, results were also provided for 2,643 White and 945 Aboriginal offenders. Results were also presented by ethnocultural subgroup. In situating findings, it is important to note that there was as much variability within the ethnocultural population as across groups. That said, differences did emerge between the groups. In particular, ethnocultural offenders had less extensive prior criminal histories and were much less likely to be identified as having problematic substance use patterns than White and Aboriginal offenders. Taken together with results from previous research that ethnocultural offenders tend to be assessed as presenting lower levels of risk and criminogenic need, these results suggest that ethnocultural offenders may have less established criminality than their White and Aboriginal counterparts. Results also suggested that the areas where ethnocultural offenders might most benefit from intervention may differ from those most pertinent for White and Aboriginal offenders. For instance, the rate of suspected gang affiliation among ethnocultural offenders was about twice that of White offenders while, as mentioned, rates of problematic substance were much lower among ethnocultural offenders. Overall, the present study was among only a handful to-date to examine ethnocultural federally-sentenced offenders, and was perhaps the first to comprehensively examine previous life experiences and pre-incarceration background. As such, it contributes importantly to our understanding of this population and to our understanding of the possible role of social history factors in ethnocultural offenders' criminal offending. In addition to simply increasing knowledge, the study may also act as a spring-board in eliciting discussions and information sharing regarding both individual offenders' life experiences and possible reasons for the differences between ethnocultural, White, and Aboriginal offenders. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2015. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: 2015 No. R-362: Accessed November 17, 2017 at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-362-eng.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-362-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 148212 Keywords: Aboriginal OffendersEthnic MinoritiesLife HistoriesMinority OffendersOffender ManagementOffender Supervision |
Author: Denman, Kristine Title: Absconding and Other Supervision Violations: A Study of Probationers, Parolees, and Dual Supervision in New Mexico Summary: This study examined violations of supervision among a cohort of individuals under state supervision in New Mexico. We included probationers, who comprise the vast majority of those under state supervision, parolees, and those supervised under dual supervision (both probation and parole). We focused on several key questions, intended to improve our understanding of violations of supervision and revocations. Additionally, we built on our prior study of parole violations where we found that absconding was one of the most common violations of parole, and the most salient predictor of revocation. The key differences between the prior study and the current one are that we expanded the study population to include probationers, and added variables that may help to explain absconding behavior. Our overall objectives for this part of the study were to explore the risk and protective factors associated with absconding, and to understand whether these differed by supervision type. Details: Albuquerque: New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center, 2017. 111p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 8, 2017 at: http://isr.unm.edu/reports/2017/absconding-and-other-supervision-violations--a-study-of-probationers,-parolees,-and-dual-supervision-in-new-mexico.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://isr.unm.edu/reports/2017/absconding-and-other-supervision-violations--a-study-of-probationers,-parolees,-and-dual-supervision-in-new-mexico.pdf Shelf Number: 148781 Keywords: AbscondingOffender SupervisionParole RevocationParole ViolationsProbation RevocationProbationer ViolationsSupervision Violations |
Author: Great Britain. House of Commons. Committee of Public Accounts Title: Offender-monitoring tags Summary: Electronic monitoring of prisoners-known informally as 'tagging'-plays an important role in supporting prisoner rehabilitation in the community. In 2011 the Ministry of Justice launched a programme to develop a new, world-leading tag that would incorporate GPS technology. However, a National Audit Office report found that developing the tags has been beset with problems and cost increases as a result of high-risk approach and weak governance. The Ministry planned to procure parts of the service from four providers, with a fifth provider integrating all the parts but contracts for procurement were signed two years later than planned. G4S has now been appointed to complete the work by mid-2019, a total delay of five years. The programme intended to save between $9 million and $30 million, but instead the Ministry has spent an additional $60 million. The tagging service is expected to cost L470 million between 2017 and 2025. The Committee will ask the Ministry of Justice about its attitude to risk, why it contracted the project in the manner they did and why that went wrong, and what it is doing to assure the success of the tagging programme in the years ahead. Details: London: House of Commons, 2018. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: HC 458:Fifteenth report of Session 2017-19: Accessed February 12, 2018 at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubacc/458/458.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubacc/458/458.pdf Shelf Number: 149093 Keywords: Electronic MonitoringOffender MonitoringOffender SupervisionTagging |
Author: Beard, Jacqueline Title: Contracting out probation services Summary: This briefing paper charts the progress of recent reforms to probation services in England and Wales. It also brings together some of the commentary. Background In the 2010 Coalition agreement, the Government said it would introduce a "rehabilitation revolution that will pay independent providers to reduce reoffending". On 9 May 2013, the MoJ published Transforming Rehabilitation: A Strategy for Reform, announcing its plans to invite providers from the voluntary and private sectors to bid for rehabilitation services. One of the main new changes was splitting the probation service in two, with the public sector managing high risk offenders and providing services to the courts, and the new Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRC) managing low and medium risk offenders. In September 2013, the MoJ invited bids to run 21 CRCs across England and Wales, worth a combined $450 million. The list of new owners of CRCs was released on 18 December 2014. Only one of the CRCs was won by an organisation outside the private sector. Implementation Payment by Results (PbR) is an outcome-based payment scheme central to the Government's reforms. Under the contracts, a proportion of a provider's payment is determined by the reductions in reoffending they achieve. The Transforming Rehabilitation strategy document said this would create an incentive for providers to "focus relentlessly on driving down reoffending". Transforming Rehabilitation introduced a nationwide "Through the Gate" resettlement service. The intent was to give most offenders continuous support, usually by the CRC, from custody into the community. CRCs began providing "Through the Gate" services from 1 May 2015. Inspections Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) produced five reports evaluating the reforms as they progressed. The final report, published in May 2016, found improvements in joint working and communication between the CRCs and the NPS, particularly in dealing with breaches or increased risk of harm However, there were problems with court work, staff training and morale. In its thematic inspections, HMIP said that the 'Through the Gate' services were so poor that if they were removed the impact would be "negligible". HMIP also found in a separate report that the reforms had meant services for women offenders were less focused. In a further report, HMIP found that CRC enforcement decision making in relation to community orders, suspended sentence supervision orders and post-sentence supervision was poor. HMIP began individual area inspections in summer 2016. They have found overall that CRCs are performing below expectations, with particular criticism for some CRCs monitoring offenders by telephone. Reactions to the reforms There has been widespread comment on the reforms in Parliament, and by charities, inspectors and directors of prisons and probation. Transforming Rehabilitation has primarily attracted criticism since the reforms were announced. Initial concerns focused on the speed of the reforms, the splitting of the probation service into two, and the possible ideological reasons behind the changes. During the reforms, criticism focused on the performance of CRCs, with lower than expected workloads causing financial difficulties. The Public Accounts Committee found that the MoJ had yet to bring about a "rehabilitation revolution" and questioned the effectiveness of the reforms. More recently, in 2017, both the Chief Executive of the National Offender Management Service and the Chief Inspector of Probation have said the new system is not working well. The Justice Select Committee is conducting an inquiry into Transforming Rehabilitation, seeking to find out how current Government measures are effectively addressing the challenges facing the probation services and what more needs to be done in the shortterm to improve the probation system. The Government's position In July 2017, Sam Gyimah, then Minister for Prisons and Probation, accepted that there had been problems with the delivery of the reform programme, blaming in part the reduction in the number of low or medium risk offenders. He said the Government acted urgently to adjust the payment mechanism to make CRC income "less sensitive to changes in demand". The Government hopes that this will provide CRCs with more certainty of their future income, allowing them to invest in delivering the necessary services. The Government also set out plans to develop a joint protocol with the health authorities, as well as funding a new inspection framework for probation. The Government set up a dedicated unit in Her Majesty's Prisons and Probation Service in the summer of 2017 to coordinate implementation of all recommendations made by inspectorates and other bodies in relation to offender services. Details: London: Parliament, House of Commons Library, 2018. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Briefing Paper no. 06894: accessed March 6, 2018 at: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06894#fullreport Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06894#fullreport Shelf Number: 149319 Keywords: Offender SupervisionPrivatizationProbationProbation Reform |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Enforcement and Recall: A thematic inspection Summary: Introduction -- Good-quality case management should underpin effective decisions on enforcement and recall. We expect responsible officers to be able to assess risk of harm, risk of reoffending and individuals' needs. They should be able to plan work, implement or facilitate structured programmes of work and review the progress of that work. This should all be done in a way that is sensitive to the diverse backgrounds and needs of those under probation supervision, and that builds on identified strengths in a person's life. Evidence from effective practice and desistance theories suggests that these approaches provide the best platform for successful rehabilitation7 Our findings - Community Rehabilitation Companies Community orders and suspended sentence supervision orders Overall, the quality of offender management and consequent enforcement decision-making in our sample of community orders and suspended sentence orders was poor. Assessment was too often deficient. Plans, though timely, were not of good quality. Engagement with the individual in constructive work was insufficient in too many cases. Planned levels of contact were not always adequate to meet the individual's needs. Consequently, CRCs did not always know when enforcement was appropriate. The task of building a competent workforce was constrained by the level of resourcing, with dwindling front-line resources to manage the work. Licence recall We found better work in licence cases. We cannot be definitive about why that is, but we noted that the majority of the individuals were assessed as posing a medium risk of harm to others, and so were more likely to be allocated to an experienced member of staff at probation officer grade. We found that staff were clearer about the process for recall than for community enforcement. Overall, the quality of assessment and planning was sufficient. The programmes of work then delivered should have been better tailored to reducing the risk posed to the public and the likelihood of reoffending, but in almost all cases the level of contact met the requirements of the licence. Recall decision-making was good. Judgements about the acceptability of absences or individual behaviour were generally appropriate. Post-sentence supervision We looked at a small sample of post-sentence supervision cases. Overall, the quality of case management and consequent enforcement decision-making in the sample of post-sentence supervision was poor. We found that CRCs were struggling to provide adequate services for the range of complex needs of this group of individuals. In particular, responsible officers struggled to find ways to engage with them. Enforcement had the effect of compounding rather than lessening the sense of a revolving door between prison and the community. Our findings - National Probation Service Community order and suspended sentence supervision orders Overall, the quality of assessment, supervision planning and consequent enforcement decision-making was good. At the beginning of the community sentence, responsible officers outlined to individuals the consequences of non-compliance, including a return to court. Judgements about the acceptability of absences or individual behaviour were appropriate in most cases. However, better attention should have been paid to engaging individuals in the process of supervision. While staff had a heightened sensitivity to issues of risk, the level of contact set was based on considerations of the risk of harm posed to others in just under two-thirds of cases. Overall, we found a good balance struck between purposeful work and the use of enforcement to re-engage individuals or to apply controls on behaviour when necessary. Licence recall Overall, the quality of case management and consequent enforcement decisionmaking was good. The NPS had an organisation-wide process for managing these cases. This supported engagement and promoted compliance, and enabled staff to take recall action when necessary and appropriate. More needed to be done to ensure that relevant information from the prison is incorporated into the plan of work undertaken in the community. Nevertheless, we considered that judgements about the acceptability of absences or behaviour were appropriate in all but one case. We also found that senior managers had applied sufficient checks and balances to ensure that recall was viewed as a last resort, with action only taken when the risks of continued supervision in the community were unmanageable. Post-sentence supervision We looked at a small sample of post-sentence supervision cases. Overall, the quality of case management and consequent enforcement decision-making was good. Are women treated differently? Within CRCs we found some evidence that staff responded positively to women's needs, but this was far from consistent. The identification of women-specific issues was better at the NPS. However, both had very limited access to appropriate womenonly provision. Details: Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2018. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 14, 2018 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/02/Enforcement-and-Recall-report.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/02/Enforcement-and-Recall-report.pdf Shelf Number: 149480 Keywords: Case ManagementCommunity OrdersCommunity-Based CorrectionsOffender SupervisionProbation OfficersProbationers |
Author: Robey, Jason P. Title: New York City Department of Probation Probation Officer Survey Report Summary: The Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice (Robina) created this survey specifically for the New York City Department of Probation (DOP). The survey was designed for probation officers and questions asked about their experiences and opinions. The survey covered numerous topics, including: Executive Policies and Procedures (EPAPs), sanctions, incentives, restorative principles, and violations of probation (VOPs). With the help of the Department of Probation, the online survey link was distributed by email to all 240 line probation officers in the five boroughs of New York City: Brooklyn, Bronx, Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island. In total we received 167 complete responses, which is a response rate of 70%. As a result of its wide scope, this survey only speaks to the practice of the department generally. There are undoubtedly marked differences across the department in supervision practices, protocols, experiences, beliefs, and opinions. However, the data and results in Chart 1 provide a useful descriptive overview of the 167 officers' experiences, beliefs, and opinions regarding probation supervision in New York City. Details: Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota Law School, 2018. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 29, 2018 at: https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/new-york-city-department-probation-probation-officer-survey-report Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/new-york-city-department-probation-probation-officer-survey-report Shelf Number: 149614 Keywords: Job Satisfaction Offender SupervisionProbation Probation Officers |
Author: Matrix Consulting Group Title: Phase 2 Study of the Community Corrections Division: Orange County, Florida Summary: The objective of this study was to evaluate the management, staffing and operations of various alternatives to incarceration programs operating in Orange County's Department of Corrections' Community Corrections Division. The Phase 1 project examined to Home Confinement Program. In this phase of the study the project team examined the other programs in the Division, namely: - Pre-Trial Release - Pre-Trial Division - Alternative Community Service Program - County Probation - Work Release Program - Central Intake Specific objectives of the Phase 2 study of the Community Corrections Division, then, included the following: 1. Evaluate statutes and administrative orders pertinent to the programs. 2. Review of the organizational structures, program policies and procedures, staff authority and supervisory oversight to determine program effectiveness. 3. Conduct a survey of other corrections alternatives' programs in operation in Florida and elsewhere around the country to compare operational and programmatic features which could be utilized in Orange County. 4. Analyze and assess staffing levels and caseloads of the programs. 5. Assess and analyze the programs' use of technology and its effectiveness as well as opportunities to enhance the technology in use. 6. Evaluate the feasibility of privatizing the programs. 7. Analysis of the potential of discontinuing the programs and the impacts of such closure on the criminal justice system within Orange County. The review also included examining electronic monitoring with other Community Corrections Division programs. Details: Mountain View, CA: Matrix, 2013. 130p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 11, 2018 at: https://www.matrixcg.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Orange-County-Phase-2-FR.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.matrixcg.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Orange-County-Phase-2-FR.pdf Shelf Number: 149788 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCommunity ServiceElectronic MonitoringOffender SupervisionPretrial ReleaseProbationWork Release |
Author: 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: Harbinson, Erin Title: Is Corrections "Collar" Blind?: Examining the Predictive Validity of a Risk/Needs Assessment Tool on White-Collar Offenders Summary: Risk/needs assessment tools are essential to implementing supervision and interventions that reduce recidivism in correctional populations (Bonta, 2002). A substantial amount of research exists supporting the use of risk, need, and responsivity principles to reduce recidivism among correctional populations (Smith et al., 2009). However research thus far has not examined whether or how these principles or risk/needs assessment generalize to white-collar offenders (Gendreau et al., 1996). The primary goal of this dissertation is to validate a risk/needs assessment instrument, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC)'s Post Conviction Risk Assessment (PCRA), on a sample of white-collar offenders. To accomplish this goal, a sample of 31,306 white-collar offenders who started supervision under the AOUSC between October 2006 and October 2014 were used to examine the validity of the PCRA in predicting revocation. Results from binary logistic regression identified that PCRA risk levels create statistically significant groups that are associated with a white-collar offender's likelihood of being revoked while on supervision. Results from analyzing the predictive validity of the overall PCRA risk score with revocation supported the use of the PCRA as a strong predictor, showing that white-collar offenders are more likely to be revoked as their scores on the PCRA increase. Additionally, binary logistic regression identified both similarities and differences in significant items from the PCRA for white-collar offenders compared to other types of offenders, suggesting that there may be some unique aspects of risk for white-collar offenders. However, when white-collar offender specific scoring was generated for the PCRA, there were no significant improvements in prediction of revocation within the sample. The results of this study demonstrate that white-collar offenders share similar criminogenic needs to "street" offenders, but sometimes they manifest differently. The study concludes by discussing the overall contributions of this research to the fields of corrections and white-collar crime, and suggests future areas of research. Details: Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati, 2017. 164p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed April 30, 2018 at: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/pg_10?0::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:153797#abstract-files Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/pg_10?0::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:153797#abstract-files Shelf Number: 149965 Keywords: Offender RehabilitationOffender Risk AssessmentOffender SupervisionWhite Collar CrimeWhite-Collar Offenders |
Author: Bartels, Lorana Title: Swift, Certain and Fair: Does Project HOPE Provide a Therapeutic Paradigm for Managing Offenders? Summary: This book presents a detailed analysis of Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) program. Developed by Judge Steven Alm in Hawaii in 2004, this model of 'swift, certain and fair' justice has been widely adopted across the United States. The book argues that although HOPE has principally been viewed in terms of its deterrent impact, it is in fact best understood through the lens of therapeutic jurisprudence and solution-focused courts, especially drug courts. Bartels presents a detailed overview of HOPE's operation, as well as a critical assessment of the evaluation findings of HOPE and other programs based on this model. Crucially, the book draws on observational research to demonstrate that much of the commentary on HOPE has been based on misunderstandings about the program, and Bartels ultimately provides much-needed in-depth analysis of critiques of the HOPE model. A rigorous study which concludes by identifying key issues for jurisdictions considering implementing the model and areas for future research, this book will be of special interest to scholars of criminal justice, recidivism and drug-related issues. Details: Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.237p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3125644 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3125644 Shelf Number: 150250 Keywords: Offender ManagementOffender RehabilitationOffender SupervisionProbationProject HOPE |
Author: Laskorunsky, Julia A. Title: Kansas Prisoner Review Board: Parole and Post-Release Supervision and Revocation Technical Assistance Report Summary: In February 2017, the Kansas Prisoner Review Board ("Board") answered a Request for Proposals (RFP) for technical assistance from the Robina Institute on Criminal Law and Criminal Justice ("Institute"). The Board requested assistance with improving its parole and post-release supervision revocation process in two main areas. First, the Board sought to reduce the number of offenders who are revoked each year by identifying those requiring revocation due to the seriousness of their violation. Second, it sought to streamline the processing time between initial and final revocation to reduce the amount of time revoked offenders spend incarcerated. This report provides an account of the technical assistance request, a description of the research findings, and a summary of procedural and policy recommendations for the Board's consideration. The overall project is designed to address a broad set of issues targeting multiple dimensions associated with the decision to revoke post-release supervision. First, Institute staff interviewed Board members and parole agency staff to develop an understanding of the revocation process and to help explain how Board members decide to revoke post-release supervision. Second, online survey data were collected from 87 parole officers focusing on their supervision practices, particularly those related to the decision to recommend post-release supervision revocation. Third, Institute staff reviewed available administrative data, agency reports, and policy and practice manuals providing a statistical snapshot of the revocation process in the state. What follows summarizes the results of these combined efforts, supplemented by a series of recommendations Details: Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota Law School, 2018. 40p. Source: internet Resource: Accessed May 19, 2018 at: https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/kansas-prisoner-review-board-parole-and-post-release-supervision-and-revocation Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/kansas-prisoner-review-board-parole-and-post-release-supervision-and-revocation Shelf Number: 150278 Keywords: Offender SupervisionParole RevocationParole SupervisionParolees |
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: 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: Lattimore, Pamela K. Title: Evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation With Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment (HOPE DFE): Final Report Summary: Purpose: The multi-site evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment (HOPE DFE) was a four-site, randomized controlled trial replicating a Hawaii probation program widely touted as successful in reducing drug use, violations, and reincarceration. HOPE is based on "swift, certain, and fair" principles-beginning with a warning hearing from a judge and requiring strict adherance to supervision requirements, including random drug testing, with all violations followed by hearings and jail sanctions; treatment is for those who repeatedly fail random tests. Grants and technical assistance were provided to the sites (Saline County, Arkansas; Essex County, Massachusetts; Clackamas County, Oregon; Tarrant County, Texas) by the Bureau of Justice Assistance to facilitate implementation. The evaluation documented implementation and fidelity; tested outcomes, primarily recidivism; and estimated costs. Research Subjects: 1,504 HOPE-eligible individuals were randomly assigned to HOPE or to probation as usual (PAU) between August 2012 and September 2014. Most were male (81%), white (69%), and high risk (55%). On average, they were 31 years at study enrollment, with 7 prior arrests and 3.5 prior convictions. Subject characteristics varied across the sites. For example, study participants were younger at first arrest in Texas than Massachusetts (19 versus 27 years) and had more prior convictions in Massachusetts than in Arkansas and Texas (6 versus about 2). Methods: The evaluation team established procedures with each site for identifying HOPE-eligible probationers and implementing random assignment. Data collection included site visits and document review for the process evaluation, as well as analysis of fidelity data. For the outcome and cost evaluation, administrative data were collected from local and state agencies and three waves of interviews were conducted with study participants. Oral swab drug tests were administered during the second and third interviews for individuals in the community and who consented. A substudy was conducted that enlisted randomly selected subjects in a telephone component that asked subjects to call in weekly and answer a short set of questions to assess whether attitudinal changes occurred over the course of HOPE participation. Results: Implementation fidelity was good to excellent in the DFE sites, showing adherance to guidelines for warning and violation hearings, random drug testing, and responses to violations. Of the eleven metrics measured, the sites had the greatest difficulty bringing a violator to a violation hearing within 3 days of the violation, although three-quarters did have a hearing within 1 week. Overall, cooperation, prior experience with HOPE-like programs, and organizational linkages between probation and the court. Challenges in some sites included resource constraints-even with grant funding-and conflict with existing probation culture. HOPE probationers were more likely to have a violation and had more violations than PAU probationers, including more than twice as many drug-related violations accompanying the more than five-fold increase in drug testing for HOPE versus PAU probationers. HOPE probationers were less likely to miss a probation officer visit, to fail to pay their fees and fines , and to be violated for a new charge ; but were more likely to have a violation for failing to appear for court . Most sanctions for HOPE probationers were jail days; HOPE probationers were more likely to go to jail , to go more often ), and to serve more days total than PAU probationers. there was strong buy-in to the HOPE concept and implementation was facilitated by existing agency The HOPE model included treatment referral after repeated failed tests and HOPE participants were three times more likely to go to residential treatment . HOPE probationers were also referred to treatment more quickly (overall and in three sites). Drug tests conducted in conjunction with follow-up interviews showed fewer positives for HOPE than PAU probationers. Recidivism outcomes were similar for the HOPE and PAU groups: 40% of HOPE versus 44% of PAU had a new arrest; 25% of HOPE versus 22% of PAU had a revocation; 49% of HOPE versus 50% of PAU had an arrest or revocation; and 28% of HOPE versus 26% of PAU had a new conviction. There was some variation in rates across sites, but the general conclusions of no differences hold with two exceptions: (1) HOPE probationers were more likely to be revoked in two sites (PAU revocation rates in those sites were about 10%.); and (2) HOPE probationers were more likely to have a new conviction in one site. Lognormal survival models of time to recidivism events confirm the bivariate findings, but revealed one additional finding-HOPE probationers had longer times to revocation in one site. Cost analyses estimated costs of intake, warning hearings, staffing meetings, office visits, drug tests, violation hearnings, arrests, state and county corrections, and residential treatment. Six-month median costs were significantly higher for HOPE than PAU overall and in four sites and mean costs were higher overall and in three sites. Twelve-month median and mean costs were significantly higher overall and in three sites. Twenty-four-month median and mean costs were significantly higher overall and in one site. Cost differences were driven by treatment and incarceration costs. Conclusions: Four sites that differed in organizational structures and populations successfully implemented HOPE programs-holding probationers accountable to their conditions of supervision and reducing drug use. Overall, HOPE did not reduce recidivism, as measured by arrest, revocation, and new conviction. More jail days, more residential treatment, and similar (or higher) recidivism resulted in higher (although not always significantly higher) costs for HOPE compared with PAU. PAU context is important as sites consider whether to implement HOPE or similar programs based on "swift, certain, and fair" principles. PAU revocation rates were low (9% and 13%) in two sites- suggesting limited ability to reduce revocations and that sites with low PAU revocation rates should consider whether to implement procedures to mitigate any potential increases in revocations that would accompany the increased surveillance of HOPE. In at least two sites, revocation could yield only short prison stays (90 days)-suggesting limited opportunities for "prison bed savings" even if revocations were lower with HOPE and a smaller incentive for individuals to comply. PAU was based at least somewhat on Risk-Needs-Response principles in at least two sites-suggesting an additional consideration with respect to the integration of HOPE with PAU. In addition, in one site, probation could use short jail stays on their authority (and did for PAU cases)-suggesting that a HOPE judge was not necessary to enforce conditions. Thus, the similar outcomes may hinge on the "compared to what" aspect of any evalution-in that findings suggest that HOPE worked as well as but not better than PAU. However, given the consistency of findings across four sites that differed in the administration of PAU, there is little to support a conclusion that HOPE or HOPE-like programs will produce substantial improvements over PAU when implemented widely. Details: Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, 2018. 268p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 3, 2018 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251758.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251758.pdf Shelf Number: 151019 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDrug Offender TreatmentDrug OffendersOffender SupervisionProbationProbationersProject HopeRecidivismRevocations |
Author: McVey, Catherine C. Title: Modernizing Parole Statutes: Guidance from Evidence-Based Practice Summary: Nearly one million people are released or supervised under conditions established by state paroling authorities each year. The appointed members of those paroling authorities determine whether and when individuals are released from prison, how they are supervised post-release, and the punishment (including reincarceration) they may face for violating the conditions of their supervision. The power over an individual's liberty exercised by paroling authorities is vast, in some respects as much as sitting felony sentencing judges, more in some jurisdictions. How paroling authorities carry out their responsibilities matters to those sentenced, their families and their victims at the individual case level, as well as in the aggregate through the collective impact these decisions have on the key goals of managing criminal justice system costs, reducing recidivism and increasing public safety. Research has grown on what works relative to evidence-based practice. Paroling authorities are increasingly working to apply this research to the policies and tools driving the parole release and supervision function. Their efforts have been supported and nurtured by such organizations as the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), the National Parole Resource Center (NPRC), the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), and The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center. Although states have made considerable progress in incorporating evidence-based practices in parole board decision making, many paroling authorities still operate under state laws that have not been amended in decades. Paroling authorities often find their new practices require that the statutory requirements need to be modernized, either because they directly conflict with evidence-based practices, or they do not support efforts to ensure parole decisions and supervision practices are rooted in what the research says works. This paper offers broadly crafted recommendations for legislation to serve as a starting place for those states and paroling authorities interested in modernizing parole laws around three core areas: the parole decisionmaking process, the terms and conditions of supervision post-release, and the administration of the paroling authority itself. The proposals are designed to support the continuing transition of paroling authorities to effective, evidence-based organizations. In several instances, sound or best practices formed the basis of the recommendations in this paper, drawing from published works and advocacy efforts undertaken by organizations committed to parole reform (see Appendix A: Key Resources for Releasing Authorities). Details: Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 2018. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 30, 2018 at: https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/modernizing-parole-statutes-guidance-evidence-based-practice Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/modernizing-parole-statutes-guidance-evidence-based-practice Shelf Number: 151305 Keywords: Evidence-Based PracticesOffender SupervisionParoleParole BoardsParoling Authorities |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: The quality of service user assessment (probation services) Summary: This bulletin focuses upon the quality of probation service user assessment. Well-informed, analytical and personalised assessment is vital to the delivery of a high-quality service for each individual. It helps to ensure that planning focuses upon those areas which are most critical, and that the delivered services sufficiently support desistance and the safety of other people. Needs or factors linked to offending, often termed 'criminogenic needs', must be understood, as should those needs which are less directly related to offending but are important to the service user's chances of desistance. The desistance literature emphasises the need to pay attention to the individual's legitimate aspirations and to identify and develop personal strengths and skills. Personalisation further requires analysis of the service user's diversity and personal circumstances, and the impact these have on his/her ability to comply and engage with service delivery. Assessment needs to consider the service user's attitude towards change. Motivation to change is pivotal to desistance and can be assessed using frameworks such as the well-established 'cycle of change' model. Determining the service user's position on the change cycle helps the practitioner to use the right skills and identify the right interventions to enable the individual service user to move forward. The process of assessment - how it is undertaken - is as important as the outcome. A diverse range of sources of information should be utilised, including court reports, previous records and, in appropriate cases, information gained from other agencies or people who know the service user. This helps to build a rounded view of the individual, capturing the full range of risks, needs, skills and strengths. It is important to ensure that the information is not merely presented but a sufficiently comprehensive analysis of the different factors affecting the service user's life is conducted. Wherever possible, service users should be meaningfully involved in the process of assessment, building the one-to-one trusting personal relationships which can be a powerful vehicle for change. The concepts of procedural justice, self-efficacy and self-determination are all relevant. Service users should be given a voice and treated with respect. They should be enabled to identify issues and solutions themselves, working out who they want to be and what they want to achieve. Details: West Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2018. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Research & Analysis Bulletin 2018/01: Accessed September 27, 2018 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/09/2018-01-The-quality-of-service-user-assessment-probation-services-final.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/09/2018-01-The-quality-of-service-user-assessment-probation-services-final.pdf Shelf Number: 151706 Keywords: Desistance Offender SupervisionProbation Recidivism |
Author: St. Giles Trust Title: The Evaluation of St Giles Trust's SOS Project Summary: St Giles Trust's SOS Project trains and employs reformed ex-offenders as caseworkers, who provide practical and psychological support to their clients - primarily other ex-offenders, but also those at risk of offending - to help them to avoid offending and reintegrate themselves into society. This is a pioneering model for the delivery of such services and the limited results of this paper indicate this model could have an impact if scaled and supported appropriately. This paper provides an account of a mixed-methods evaluation of the SOS Project, carried out by The Social Innovation Partnership (TSIP) and its associates, whose dual-purpose was to analyse the SOS Project's impact and optimise its implementation. The key findings of this report are: - The caseworkers themselves are the biggest strength of the SOS Project. Their commitment, willingness to challenge their clients, and ability to address their attitudes and behaviours whilst still providing support are integral to the SOS Project's work. Clients most frequently mentioned support from SOS workers and the information, advice and guidance as the most valuable parts of the SOS Project. - The SOS Project and St Giles Trust in general are clearly (based on case file reviews, interviews, and partner discussions) receiving referrals from multiple routes, and taking on clients who are difficult or not motivated to reform. This dynamic and 'hard-to-measure' variable means the reconviction analysis conducted in this study needs to be considered in this context. - The SOS Project is well-aligned with the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) understanding of best practice - it takes a holistic approach that principally targets four of NOM' reoffending risk factors this is an important foundation that St Giles Trust are targeting well. With more structure, all nine outcomes could be strongly targeted. - According to client interviews and caseworkers' self-reported outcomes, the SOS Project shows signs of positive impact. The feedback was overwhelmingly positive and case file analysis indicates good work. - A reconviction analysis showed that the reoffending rates of SOS clients were not significantly different from what would be predicted had no intervention taken place. However, due to unavoidable issues with data, these results may not accurately reflect the SOS Project's impact. Further work is recommended. - In any case, data collection needs to be improved in order to fully and accurately capture the SOS Project's impact. St Giles Trust could capture its data better with dedicated administrative support - The process of delivering this evaluation has illustrated that projects that emerge organically and subject to a wide range of funder requirements like the SOS Project (evolved over 6 years) i.e. take on a variety/difficult of clients, use multiple referral routes, and use flexible interventions need to carefully consider the evaluation methodologies and desired outcomes that they select to assess their work. Details: London: St. Giles Trust, 2013. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 3, 2018 at: https://www.stgilestrust.org.uk/misc/Evaluation%20into%20SOS%20Gangs%20project%20full%20report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.stgilestrust.org.uk/misc/Evaluation%20into%20SOS%20Gangs%20project%20full%20report.pdf Shelf Number: 151748 Keywords: CaseworkersEx-OffendersMentoringOffender SupervisionPeer AdvisorsRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Williams, Jarred Anthony Title: The Wisconsin Community Corrections Story Summary: Increasing scholarship and advocacy points to probation and parole (collectively known as "community corrections") as a contributor, rather than an alternative, to mass incarceration (Executive Session on Community Corrections 2017; Columbia University Justice Lab 2018; Columbia University Justice Lab 2017). Rules that individuals under supervision must abide by are extensive, often unclear and can be arbitrarily enforced (Corbett 2015; Doherty 2016), contributing to the high numbers of people incarcerated in state prisons and local jails for technical violations of those rules (Phelps 2018). Fines and fees add a burden to people under community corrections supervision and can drive a wedge between probation and parole officers (known as "agents" in Wisconsin) and people under supervision, turning community supervision agents into collection agents (Martin, Smith and Still 2017). Furthermore, as the number of people under community supervision has swelled over the past several decades, funding has not kept pace, creating massive caseloads and inadequate resources to assist in community integration (Pew Public Safety Performance Project 2018; Columbia University Justice Lab 2018). Wisconsin serves as a good example of a place where parole and probation supervision are contributing to a prison population that is highly racially disparate and growing. The number of people under parole supervision in Wisconsin exceeds the national average, and lengths of stay on parole are estimated at nearly twice (1.7 times) the national average (Justice Lab analysis of Kaeble 2018, Appendix Table 5). Failure rates under supervision in Wisconsin are also higher than average for other states, both nationally and in the Great Lakes Region (Alper 2016; Herberman and Bonczar 2014, Appendix Table 7). Nationally, Black people are disproportionately supervised and disproportionately reincarcerated for supervision violations (Horowitz and Utada 2018; Jannetta et al. 2014). Wisconsin rates of supervision and reincarceration for Black people are also higher than these already-inflated national numbers (Herberman and Bonczar 2014, Appendix Table 7). Ironically, then, these community-based mechanisms, which originated as alternatives to incarceration, are actually contributing to its rise in Wisconsin and elsewhere in the United States at the very time when the foundations of mass incarceration have been rejected by many on both sides of the aisle. The good news is that states around the country have begun to safely and effectively reduce their rates of both supervision and revocation, as well as return to prison for violations. In this report, we will examine the state of community corrections in Wisconsin, concluding with recommendations for reducing the scope and negative impact of parole and probation supervision. Details: New York: Columbia University, Justice Lab, 2019. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 7, 2019 at: https://justicelab.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Wisconsin%20Community%20Corrections%20Story%20final%20online%20copy.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://justicelab.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Wisconsin%20Community%20Corrections%20Story%20final%20online%20copy.pdf Shelf Number: 154535 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Corrections Correctional Reform Offender SupervisionParole Probation |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: An inspection of probation services in the Wales Division of Kent, Surrey and Sussex Community Rehabilitation Company Summary: The Wales Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) was one of three CRCs owned, until recently, by Working Links. We previously expressed concerns about work in two of those organisations, in the Gloucestershire area (part of the Bristol, Gloucestershire, Somerset & Wiltshire CRC) and more recently in Dorset, Devon & Cornwall CRC (DDC CRC). In this inspection we found some of the same difficulties arising from the Working Links operating model and corporate approach. The ownership and governance arrangements in Wales have changed significantly this year, and the organisation is now in transition. After the original owner, Working Links, went into administration, Seetec assumed responsibility for the CRC in February 2019, pending transfer to the National Probation Service in Wales at the end of 2019. The new name for the organisation is the Wales division of Kent, Surrey and Sussex CRC which we will refer to in this report as the CRC. The CRC provides probation services within a legal and policy framework set by the Welsh government. The fieldwork for this inspection was conducted in February 2019 and therefore focused on case supervision undertaken while the CRC was still under the control of its previous owners. While future inspections will assess the impact of the change of ownership, this report inevitably focuses on the previous Working Links operating model. We found that this was well embedded (as in DDC CRC), but in Wales there is also a strong and positive organisational ethos built around improving the life chances of those under probation supervision and contributing to their rehabilitation. The quality of practice is better than we reported in DDC CRC earlier this year, but it is mixed, and needs to improve considerably. We have rated the CRC as 'Requires improvement'. When we last inspected in part of this CRC area, in 2017, we identified practice deficits in case planning, particularly in respect of risk of harm and safeguarding. These are still evident. Management and staff understand the risks and needs of those the CRC supervises. A sufficient range of community-based and specialist services are in place, including services for women. Professional staff have high workloads, but they nevertheless prioritise engagement with those they supervise. They work hard to support individuals with the everyday challenges they face. However, poor record-keeping is commonplace. The standard of unpaid work services differs across Wales, and Through the Gate services require improvement across the organisation, to address risk of harm and to better coordinate their work with others. As elsewhere, team managers have a broad range of responsibilities, and this dilutes the attention given to overseeing practice. The organisation needs to do more to provide relevant training to staff and promote a culture of learning and improvement. With its strong rehabilitative ethos and the clear commitment of staff, and the drive shown by leaders, much better service provision is certainly within this CRC's grasp. Details: Manchester, UK: Author, 2019. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Internet Resource: Accessed July 5, 2019 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2019/06/Wales-division-of-KSS-CRC-English-version.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2019/06/Wales-division-of-KSS-CRC-English-version.pdf Shelf Number: 156831 Keywords: Community-Based Corrections Offender Rehabilitation Offender SupervisionProbation |