Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:32 am
Time: 11:32 am
Results for parole
79 results foundAuthor: Connecticut. Office of Policy & Management. Research, Analysis & Evaluation Title: Comparative Analysis of Probation, Parole and Incarceration: Connecticut, the United States and Other States - 1996-2006 Summary: This document provides a comprehensive analysis of rates and numbers of probation, parole and sentenced prison populations for Connecticut, the United States and a cohort of other Northeast states - Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The stated purpose of this document is to provide a relative measurement of increasing or decreasing rates and numbers of those statistics, by comparison, to those same geographic areas. Details: Hartford, CT: 2008 Source: Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 114897 Keywords: Comparative StudiesIncarceration RatesParoleProbation |
Author: New York State Commission on Sentencing Reform Title: The Future of Sentencing in New York State: Recommendations for Reform Summary: This report calls for reforms to New York State drug laws; determinate sentencing, graduated and sanctions for parole violators are among the other recommendations offered. Details: Albany: New York State Commission on Sentencing Reform, 2009. 256p. Source: Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 113484 Keywords: Drug Abuse PolicyDrug OffensesParoleSentencing |
Author: Harrison, Linda Title: The Status of Parole Returns to Prison in Colorado Summary: This analysis presents data on those incarcerated in Colorado prisons between FY 2000 and FY 2007, with special focus on the parole revocation population. Details: Denver, CO: Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, Office of Research and Statistics, 2008. 13p. Source: Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 113863 Keywords: ParoleParole RevocationParolees |
Author: Cabana, Tammy Title: Waivers, Postponements and Withdrawals: Offenders, Parole Officers and National Parole Board Perspectives Summary: This report examines the reasons offenders chose not to appear before the National Parole Board of Canada (waived, postponed, or withdrew a parole application). The research also examined the impact and reasons for adjournments and administrative adjournments of parole hearings. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2009. 88p. Source: Year: 2009 Country: Canada URL: Shelf Number: 118155 Keywords: ParoleParole OfficersParolees |
Author: Dandurand, Yvon Title: Conditional Release Violations, Suspensions and Revocations: A Comparative Analysis Summary: Managing the social reentry of sentenced offenders is a potentially cost-effective way of preventing crime. Different types of conditional release programs can be used to support the social reintegration of offenders and improve public safety. This study is a preliminary comparative attempt to examine the decision-making process involved in selected jurisdictions in cases of alleged breach of conditions by offenders released on conditional release. Details: Vancouver, BC: International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy, 2008. 50p. Source: Year: 2008 Country: International URL: Shelf Number: 114604 Keywords: ParoleParole ViolationsRecidivismRehabilitationRevocations |
Author: U.S. National Institute of Corrections Title: Core Competencies: A Resource for Parole Board Chairs, Members, and Executive Staff Summary: Paroling authorities play a critical role in correctional systems nationwide. They make thousands of decisions each year about the timing of release from prison for a significant number of offenders. They set conditions of release and respond to violations of postrelease supervision for many thousand more. Recognizing this critical role, the National Institute of Corrections is engaged in a major initiative to develop useful resources for parole board chairs, members, and their executive staff. This report provides an overview of how the role of paroling authorities is, and should be, changing to meet the challenges facing the corrections field as it looks forward, and is the first of the series intended to both outline the complex and varied challenges facing paroling authorities and identify and nurture the skills needed to address those challenges. Details: Washington, DC: NIC, 2010. 49p. Source: Internet Resource; Parole Essentials: Practical Guides for Parole Leaders, No. 1 Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118559 Keywords: ParoleParole BoardsParoling Authorities |
Author: Baker, Jordan Title: A Solution to Prison Overcrowding and Recidivism: Global Positioning System Location of Parolees and Probationers Summary: The research of the Innovative Tracking Systems team focuses on location and data management technology for use in the criminal justice system, with an emphasis on monitoring probationers and parolees. Faced with an overwhelming prison population and an unprecedented amount of people recently released from prison, the need to curb recidivism is stronger than ever before. A Global Positioning System (GPS) based technological solution will better equip corrections officers to monitor offenders in the community and also provide a highly visible deterrent. This thesis explores the philosophy of incarceration and parole, current trends in correctional manpower and technology, officer burnout, case law, and privacy concerns. Specific evaluation is made of existing and on-the-horizon location technology for use in probation monitoring. In light of current problems in the corrections field, the thesis proposes and evaluates the efficacy of a novel technology – the Sentinel Location System - for use in probationer and parolee monitoring programs. Details: Baltimore, MD: Gemstone Program, University of Maryland, 2002. 131p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2002 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118538 Keywords: Global Positioning System (GPS)ParoleParoleesPrison OvercrowdingProbationProbationers |
Author: Willison, Janeen Buck Title: Evaluation of the Ridge House Residential Program: Final Report Summary: The Ridge House is a faith-based transitional housing program operating in Reno, Nevada, that provides prisoner reentry services to men and women leaving prison. The evaluation: (1) documents the logic and operations of the program; the barriers to and facilitators of successful operations; and whether program outcomes were achieved; (2) assesses the impacts of the program in reducing recidivism and improving employment, housing, and drug use outcomes of participants compared to a parolee comparison group; and (3) provides a cost-benefit analysis. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2010. 92p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119367 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisParoleParoleesRecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Olotu, Michael Title: Evaluation Report: Electronic Monitoring Program Pilot Summary: This evaluation was initiated in response to a request for an analysis of CSC’s Electronic Monitoring Program Pilot (EMPP) and constituted an implementation evaluation intended to examine the progress of EMPP to date and establish a foundation upon which the design and delivery of EMPP could be realigned. Treasury Board standards for evaluation were used to examine the project’s continued relevancy, implementation, success, and cost-effectiveness. On August 11th, 2008, the Minister of Public Safety Canada announced the launch of the pilot to electronically monitor offenders on conditional release in the community. Electronic monitoring was piloted within CSC in order to assess its potential as an additional tool for managing federal offenders in the community, thereby contributing to the safety of Canadians. More specifically, EMPP was intended to provide parole officers with additional offender supervision and monitoring tools in the community, increase offender accountability, encourage positive offender behaviour, and augment staff safety. Furthermore, the specific purposes of EMPP were to: Test CSC’s capacity to manage information received through GPS technology; Ensure that an appropriate policy framework and response protocols were in place; Assess staff readiness to use EM as a tool to assist in monitoring offenders in the community; Identify appropriate response protocols when an EM alert was received; and Identify future needs and requirements in relation to a potential larger scale, national EM program. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada, Evaluation Branch, Policy Sector, 2009. 98p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9, 2010 at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pa/empp/empp-eng.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Canada URL: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pa/empp/empp-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 119908 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SupervisionElectronic MonitoringParole |
Author: Austin, James Title: Reliability and Validity Study of the LSI-R Risk Assessment Instrument Summary: The Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (PBPP) selected the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) instrument as its risk classification tool because it introduces dynamic and more current factors into the risk assessment process, beyond the conventional use of static criminal history and demographic factors. The LSI was developed in the late 1970s in Canada through a collaboration of probation officers, correctional managers, practitioners and researchers. The LSI-R is comprised of 54 static and dynamic items across ten sub-scales. While the LSI-R has been researched extensively in other jurisdictions, its reliability and validity specifically for Pennsylvania’s offender population had not yet been tested. Of particular interest is Pennsylvania’s decision to use the LSI-R as a component of its parole decision making guidelines; heretofore, the LSI-R has been used to identify the appropriate level of supervision for probationers and parolees already residing in the community. In this study, the LSI-R’s relevance and usefulness as a decision making tool as applied to an incarcerated population is a key line of inquiry. The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD) contracted The Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections (ICJC) at The George Washington University to conduct a reliability and validation study using the LSI-R scores and recidivism data. The following report summarizes the ICJC’s findings. This project consists of two segments: an assessment of the inter-rater reliability in scoring the LSI-R, and the validation of the LSI-R’s statistical association with recidivism. The reliability assessment was conducted by selecting a sample of 120 prisoners who were scored on the LSI-R on two separate occasions by two independent PBPP institutional staff. The results of the initial reliability test showed that most of the LSI-R scoring items did not meet a sufficient level of reliability. Consequently, a second reliability test was made in September 2002 on another sample of 156 prisoners to determine if the reliability rates could be improved. The validation assessment entailed examining recidivists (for the purposes of this study, arrests, detentions, absconders, and returns to prison are considered recidivists) of approximately 1,000 prisoners who were released from nine LSI-R test facilities in 2001. For each of these prisoners an LSI-R form was completed. The follow-up period was for 12 months, which allowed the researchers to determine which items were associated with recidivism within that period. Details: Washington, DC: Institute on crime, Justice and Corrections at The George Washington University, 2003. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 9, 2010 at: www.portal.state.pa.us Year: 2003 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 120273 Keywords: ParolePredictionProbationRecidivismRisk AssessmentRisk Management |
Author: Zhang, Sheldon Title: COMPAS Validation Study: Final Report Summary: COMPAS (Correctional Offender Management and Profiling Alternative Sanctions) is a computerized database and analysis system designed to help criminal justice practitioners determine the placement, supervision, and case-management of offenders in community and secure settings. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation contracted with the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and San Diego State University (SDSU) to validate the instrument in terms of its ability to identify treatment needs among inmates as well as predict various recidivism outcomes. A total of 91,334 parolees who had been assessed with COMPAS prior to release were included in the study sample. Of these, roughly 60,000 had been on parole for at least 12 months and the remainder had been on parole for at least 24 months. Characteristics of the study subjects closely paralleled those of the general parolee population in California. The COMPAS needs scales were evaluated in terms of their reliability over time (test-retest coefficients) and the extent to which their constituent scales correlated with relevant counterparts on the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) scale (concurrent validity). To accomplish this, the COMPAS was administered twice to 75 inmates at the California Institute for Men (CIM) located in Chino, California, over a span of approximately two weeks. To establish concurrent validity, the LSI-R was also administered at the same time points. The COMPAS scales showed extremely high test-retest reliability, ranging from .70 to 1.00. The perfect and near-perfect correlations obtained for many of the scales appear to be driven by the fact that these scales were coded directly from the inmates’ Central Files. Overall, the average test-retest correlation coefficient for the COMPAS scales was .88. Of the 18 scales making up the core of the COMPAS assessment, nine appeared to measure identical or similar constructs with scales found in the LSI-R. For six of these scales (Criminal Involvement, Criminal Associates/Peers, Substance Abuse, Financial, Vocational/Educational, and Housing), significant and positive correlations were found between the COMPAS and LSI-R. The correlations were marginally significant for two of the scales, Family Criminality (COMPAS) with Family/Marital (LSI-R) and Criminal Attitudes (COMPAS) with Attitudes/Orientation (LSI-R), and not significant for one, Leisure (COMPAS) with Leisure/Recreation (LSI-R). Validation of Risk Scales Using official records data provided by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), two major outcome measures were examined: (1) any subsequent arrest, and (2) a subsequent arrest for a violent offense. For the first measure, the overall re-arrest rate for the COMPAS sample was 56% for the first 12 months on parole and 70% for those who had been released for two years. For violent offenses, the re-arrest rates were approximately 13% and 21% in the 12- and 24-month periods following release, respectively. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were computed to assess the overall accuracy of the COMPAS risk scales for recidivism and violence. The ROC curve (measured in terms of the area under the curve or AUC) has become a primary measure of predictive accuracy in research instrumentation. A value of .70 is generally considered minimally acceptable. The recidivism and violence COMPAS risk scales were examined with regard to how well they predicted whether a parolee had been re-arrested (for any reason and for a violence offense) within two years of being released from prison. Both risk scales achieved levels of accuracy greater than chance, with the recidivism scale receiving an AUC value of .70, and the violence scale receiving an AUC value of .65. The risk prediction resulting from the COMPAS scales was comparable to our own risk prediction models using existing electronic records maintained by CDCR. We conclude that the COMPAS scales have high test-test retest reliability and moderate concordance with select LSI-R scales (with significant or marginally significant associations with eight of the nine scales that overlap with the LSI-R). With regard to the predictive validity of the recidivism and violence COMPAS risk scales, the general recidivism risk scale achieved an AUC value of .70, which is the conventional threshold for acceptability; the violence scale, however, fell short of this threshold. Details: Los Angeles: Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, University of California, Los Angeles, 2010. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 9, 2010 at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/COMPAS_Final_Report_08-11-10.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/COMPAS_Final_Report_08-11-10.pdf Shelf Number: 120274 Keywords: ParoleParoleesRisk AssessmentRisk Management |
Author: Freeman, Linda Title: Best Practices in Gender Specific Probation and Parole Models and Survey of Women Currently on Supervision in New Mexico Summary: This paper introduces the reader to the field of corrections dealing with gender responsive programming. From a definition of gender related terms, we move to describing the differences between men and women found in current criminal justice literature. Describing differences include understanding gender characteristics and a look at recent statistics. National and statewide data for New Mexico will help to clarify how women are involved in crime differently than men. Next we look at the contemporary trends and components for gender-responsive programs. Studying gender-specific probation and parole models is our ultimate task, so we conclude by reviewing probation and parole programs specifically designed for women. Our critique will apply a “gender-lens” of best practices to recent programs. Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Sentencing Commission, 2008. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 9, 2010 at: http://nmsc.unm.edu/nmsc_reports/sentencing1/ Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://nmsc.unm.edu/nmsc_reports/sentencing1/ Shelf Number: 120432 Keywords: Gender-Responsive Programs (New Mexico)ParoleParoleesProbationProbationers |
Author: Stalans, Loretta J. Title: Assessing the Risk of Sexual and Violent Recidivism and Identifying Differences in Risk Factors: Comparing Probation Supervised and Released Imprisoned Sex Offenders Summary: The management of sex offenders’ risk of committing sex crimes is of paramount importance to the criminal justice system. Criminal justice and treatment professionals assess risk of sexual recidivism using validated risk assessment tools such as the Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offender Recidivism (RRASOR), the Structured Anchored Clinical Judgment- Minimum Version (SACJ-min), the STATIC-99, and the STATIC-2002. However, these scales were created using data primarily from sex offenders released from prison or institutions for dangerous sexual predators. Moreover, although these scales are more accurate than clinical or professional judgment, their accuracy still is only modest and needs improvement. The aim of this research was to identify risk factors and how to combine risk factors to improve standardized risk assessment tools. The driving assumption of the current work was that sex offenders sentenced to probation and sex offenders released from prison are very different on important criminal history, offense, mental health, and social characteristics related to risk of sexual recidivism. Therefore if these two populations are different the current assessment scales used may not be appropriate for probation populations or may not predict well certain subgroups of sex offenders such as sex offenders who also commit domestic violence against adult intimate partners. Moreover, prior research has never considered how supervision may modify the behavior of sex offenders and change the risk factors that predict sexual recidivism. Are the risk factors for sexual recidivism the same if sex offenders are under probation or parole supervision or are free in the community without any supervision? Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2011. 155p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2011 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/Probation_Supervised_Released_Imprisoned_Sex_Offenders_Report_1210.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/Probation_Supervised_Released_Imprisoned_Sex_Offenders_Report_1210.pdf Shelf Number: 120750 Keywords: ParoleProbationRecidivismRisk AssessmentSex OffendersSexual Violence |
Author: Porter, Nicole D. Title: The State of Sentencing 2010: Developments in Policy and Practice Summary: Today, 7.2 million men and women are under correctional supervision. Of this total, five million are monitored in the community on probation or parole and 2.3 million are incarcerated in prisons or jails. As a result the nation maintains the highest rate of incarceration in the world at 743 per 100,000 population. The scale of the correctional population results from a mix of crime rates and legislative and administrative policies that vary by state. In recent years, lawmakers have struggled to find the resources to maintain state correctional systems; 46 states are facing budget deficits in the current fiscal year, a situation that is likely to continue, according to the National Governors Association. Many states are looking closely at ways to reduce correctional costs as they seek to address limited resources. States like Kansas, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York have successfully reduced their prison populations in recent years in an effort to control costs and effectively manage prison capacity. Overall, prison populations declined in 24 states during 2009, by 48,000 persons, or 0.7 percent. During 2010, state legislatures in at least 23 states and the District of Columbia adopted 35 criminal justice policies that may contribute to reductions in the prison population and eliminate barriers to reentry while promoting effective approaches to public safety. This report provides an overview of recent policy reforms in the areas of sentencing, probation and parole, drug policy, the prison census count, collateral consequences, and juvenile justice. Highlights include: South Carolina equalized penalties for crack and powder cocaine offenses as part of a sentencing reform package that garnered bipartisan support. New Jersey modified its mandatory sentencing law that applies to convictions in “drug free school zones,” and now authorizes judges to impose sentences below the mandatory minimum in appropriate cases. Prior to the reform, more than 3,600 defendants a year were convicted under the statute, 96% of whom were African American or Latino. During 2010, state legislatures in at least 23 states and the District of Columbia adopted 35 criminal justice policies that may contribute to reductions in the prison population and eliminate barriers to reentry while promoting effective approaches to public safety. This report provides an overview of recent policy reforms in the areas of sentencing, probation and parole, drug policy, the prison census count, collateral consequences, and juvenile justice. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2011. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 28, 2011 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/publications/Final%20State%20of%20the%20Sentencing%202010.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/publications/Final%20State%20of%20the%20Sentencing%202010.pdf Shelf Number: 120882 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCorrectionsCriminal Justice PolicyInmatesParolePrisonersProbationSentencing |
Author: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality Title: The TEDS Report: Characteristics of Probation and Parole Admissions Aged 18 or Older Summary: This report uses data from the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) for 2008 to examine the characteristics of substance abuse treatment admissions referred to treatment by the probation or parole system (hereafter referred to as “probation or parole admissions”). Highlights of the study include the following: ● The most common substances of abuse reported by probation or parole admissions were alcohol (30.6 percent), marijuana (26.4 percent), and methamphetamines (15.6 percent); more than one half reported more than one substance of abuse at admission (59.2 percent)● The majority of probation or parole admissions were male (76.6 percent), had never married (63.1 percent), were between the ages of 18 and 44 (81.3 percent), and were non-Hispanic White (52.3 percent)● Over one third of the probation and parole admissions had less than a high school education (39.6); the majority of these admissions were unemployed (36.8 percent) or not in the labor force (26.2 percent)● The majority of probation or parole admissions had been in treatment at least once before (57.5 percent); 18.4 percent reported three or more prior treatment episodes. Details: Rockville, MD: SAMHSA, 2011. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 9, 2011 at: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k11/231/231Parole2k11Web.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k11/231/231Parole2k11Web.pdf Shelf Number: 120912 Keywords: Drug Abuse and CrimeParoleParoleesProbationProbationersSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Cabana, Tammy Title: Waivers, Postponements and Withdrawals of Parole Reviews: Examining the Characteristics of High Volume Users Summary: One of the challenges confronting both the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC or the Service) and the National Parole Board (NPB or the Board) is the large number of offenders who waive, postpone, or withdraw their reviews for day or full parole. In order to conduct this study information was collected for all offenders who had at least one waiver, postponement or withdrawal from April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2009. During that time period, a total of 8,604 offenders accounted for 14,563 waivers, postponements or withdrawals. Almost two-thirds (63.9%) of these offenders had only one decision, one-fifth (20.8%) had two decisions, and 6.7% had three decisions. There was, however, a group of 735 offenders who had a minimum of four decisions that we labelled “high volume users.” Although this group only represented 8.5% of the entire population of offenders who had a wavier, postponement, or withdrawal, they accounted for more than one-quarter (25.6%) or 3,736 of these decisions. Understanding the factors that drive high individual numbers of waivers, postponements and withdrawals might help the Service develop strategies that will reduce the occurrence of multiple delays and cancellations. For example, if each of these 735 offenders had just one waiver, withdrawal or postponement, the national number of decisions would be reduced by over one-fifth. Consequently, in order to better understand this group of offenders, we examined their demographic characteristics, offence histories, sentence length, security rating, need and risk levels, institutional behaviours as well as the institutions and regions where these offenders were incarcerated. In addition, examples of individual cases are presented to illustrate how multiple delays and cancellations (e.g., when an offender requests both day and full parole at the same hearing) result in an inflated number of decisions. The outcomes of the profile of high volume users revealed that there were many similarities with the offenders who had three or fewer waivers, withdrawals or postponements. There were, however, some differences between the groups. First, offenders with higher levels of risk and need appear to be more likely to cancel a parole review than to delay their hearing repeatedly. Second, multiple consecutive postponements appear to be linked to factors that have not been resolved and that may impact the Board's decision to grant parole, such as when an offender has difficulty finding a placement in a community-based residential facility, when a correctional program is incomplete, psychological or other reports have not submitted to the Board, or due to a pending court decision (such as outstanding charges). Third, high volume users were more likely to have two delays or cancellations recorded for one scheduled hearing. This means that these offenders were scheduled to be reviewed for both day and full parole on the same date, and each delay or cancellation resulted in a separate count. For example, double-counting accounts for almost one-fifth of the total number of waivers, postponements, and withdrawals for both day and full parole between April 1, 2007 and March 31, 2009. As a result, this method of counting decisions artificially inflates the number of waivers, withdrawals, and postponements. Finally, in addition to offender specific differences, there are noticeable regional and institutional differences in the location of high volume users. For example, this study found that the Quebec and Pacific regions had a higher proportion of high compared to low volume users. By recognizing the number of delays and cancellations generated by high volume users, and by being cognizant of the double-counting of delays and cancellations for scheduled parole hearings, the factors impacting these trends can be better understood and, when possible minimized to reduce the frequency of multiple delays and cancellations. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2010. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 29, 2011 at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r224/r224-eng.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Canada URL: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r224/r224-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 121202 Keywords: ParoleParolees (Canada) |
Author: White, Michael D. Title: Halfway Back: An Alternative to Revocation for Technical Parole Violators Summary: Over the last three decades, concomitant increases in prison population and the use of parole, coupled with a more punitive parole philosophy and fiscal crises at every level of government, have prompted a renewed interest in intermediate sanctions – especially for technical parole violators. A number of jurisdictions have developed intermediate sanctions for technical violators that are both custodial and therapeutic – but do not involve a return to prison. Despite their growing popularity, little research has examined these technical violator programs, and as a result, basic questions regarding their impact remain unanswered. This paper examines a therapeutic technical violator program in the state of New Jersey called Halfway Back. Using a quasi-experimental, retrospective matched groups design, the study explores the impact of the program through a comparison of recidivism and incarceration costs among random samples of program participants (n=227) and non-participants (n=392). Results suggest that program participants experienced modest though statistically significant reductions in new arrests over the 18-month follow-up period. An examination of incarceration costs related to program participation shows that Halfway Back sets the stage for measurable cost savings though the degree to which these savings are realized remains unclear. The paper concludes with a discussion of implications for parole policy and practice. Details: Unpublished Paper, 2010. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 19, 2011 at: http://www.cecintl.com/pdf/research/Halfway%20Back%20paper%20for%20CJPR.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.cecintl.com/pdf/research/Halfway%20Back%20paper%20for%20CJPR.pdf Shelf Number: 121407 Keywords: Intermediate Sanctions (New Jersey)ParoleParole ViolatorsParolees |
Author: Alexander, Elizabeth Title: Michigan Breaks the Political Logjam: A New Model for Reducing Prison Populations Summary: The United States has adopted a set of criminal justice policies that has produced a tidal wave of imprisonment in this country. Between 1970 and 2005, the number of men, women, and children locked up in this country has grown by an historically unprecedented 700%. As a result, the United States locks up almost a quarter of the prisoners in the entire world. In fact, if all our prisoners were confined in one city, that city would be the fourth largest in the country. This tidal wave of mass incarceration has a devastating effect on those communities, mostly poor and minority, whose residents so disproportionately end up in our prisons. Of course, it is critical to prevent crime, but we need to ask if mass incarceration is really necessary to protect our public safety. Michigan’s experience offers a persuasive answer to that question. Between March 2007 and November 2009, Michigan did something remarkable. It reduced its prison population by roughly 8% during an era in which our incarcerated population continues its unprecedented growth nationally. Perhaps equally remarkable, Michigan accomplished this feat of “breaking the political logjam,” as the Deputy Director of the Department of Corrections phrased it, without provoking a backlash that public officials have been insufficiently “tough on crime.” Because these changed policies will also result in increased public safety, Michigan for the first time provides a possible model for other states seeking a smarter and more affordable criminal justice policy. This report examines the measures that Michigan took to bring about that turn-around. Most significantly, these changes did not require the legislature to change the statutory penalties for criminal offenses. Michigan’s successful reforms primarily involve the parole process, based on research that has identified practices and techniques that increase the accuracy of predicting which offenders can be safely released. The changes involve, however, far more than simply encouraging the parole board to increase its rate of approval of discretionary parole. The new policies are designed to provide offenders with individualized programing in prison, and re-entry services upon release, that are most likely to assure success on parole, based on evidence of what works to reduce crime and save money. Because Michigan’s reforms are designed to fit into the specific structure of its system, they cannot simply be replicated in states lacking discretionary parole. The Michigan reforms are nonetheless important, because the nation’s current level of incarceration is morally wrong and bad public policy, and because we can no longer afford to incarcerate 2.3 million people. Our nation’s criminal justice policy requires fundamental change, and Michigan provides one example of how that change can work. Details: New York: American Civil Liberties Union, 2009. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2011 at: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/2009-12-18-MichiganReport.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/2009-12-18-MichiganReport.pdf Shelf Number: 121567 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCosts of Criminal JusticeIncarceration (Michigan)ParolePrisoner ReentryPrisonsRisk Assessment |
Author: Korber, Dorothy Title: ‘ A Courtroom Unlike Any Other’ Santa Clara County’s Parolee Reentry Court is a Case Study in Reducing Prison Recidivism Summary: The judge ran through his afternoon calendar at a sprinter’s pace. More than 50 cases cycled through the court in three hours – all of them parolees with a violation. Dirty drug tests. Missed appointments. New crimes. Such lapses normally would have sent them straight back to state prison. But today, instead of a prison cell, they are in Judge Stephen Manley’s crowded, bustling San Jose courtroom. This is Santa Clara County’s Parolee Reentry Court, where high-risk offenders get a second chance at redemption. If it works, everybody wins: the parolee rebuilds his life, his community is safer, and taxpayers save the thousands of dollars it would cost to return him to prison. If it fails, he is one more statistic in California’s dismal recidivism rate. California has the worst record in the nation for re-incarcerating parolees, with nearly 70 percent returning to prison within three years of release. To address this problem, in 2009 the Legislature passed Senate Bill x3 18, which created a pilot program testing whether a drug-court model can reduce recidivism. Santa Clara is one of six counties participating in the pilot. The aim of these Parolee Reentry Courts is to stop the swinging prison door. Details: Sacramento: California Senate Office of Oversight and Outcomes, 2011. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 14, 2011 at: http://www.momentumformentalhealth.org/document.doc?id=39 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.momentumformentalhealth.org/document.doc?id=39 Shelf Number: 122054 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCourtsParoleParole SupervisionParolees (California)RecidivismReentry |
Author: Rhyne, Charlene Title: Multnomah County Day Reporting Center Evaluation Summary: In January 1994 Multnomah County Department of Community Justice celebrated the opening of the Day Reporting Center (DRC). The DRC is a highly structured programming opportunity for offenders that can be used as an alternative to incarceration. DRC staff work closely with Parole/Probation Officers to address public safety concerns by addressing high risk/high need behaviors such as drug abuse, impulsivity, anti-social thinking, lack of employment and education, mental health concerns and lack of positive peer supports. In 2005 the Day Reporting Center was evaluated by this author. Findings included evidence of DRC's impact on recidivism with completers having a statistically significant 39% decrease in arrests pre- and post-DRC as compared to a 19% increase in arrests for non-completers. This current evaluation was conducted as a part of DCJ continuous quality improvement efforts. This form of monitoring allows course corrections to be made that are data and outcome driven. This evaluation utilized a sample of 642 offender referral entries to the Day Reporting Center in fiscal year 2008. These referral outcomes will be compared to 162 offenders who were referred to the DRC and no-showed. No-show samples are often used as comparison groups given they are identical in characteristics of the participants yet had no treatment (DRC) experience. Findings: Half of the episodes with engaged offenders resulted in 50% successful completion and 50% unsuccessful completion. The successful completion rate is up 5% from the 2005 study. Statistically significant reductions in pre- and post-DRC arrests were seen across all three groups: Successful -- 60% reduction --Unsuccessful -- 31% reduction - No show -- 27% reduction - Statistically significant percent of each group with post-arrests were in the expected direction: - Successful -- 12.1% of group had at least one arrest post-DRC exit - Unsuccessful -- 25.2% of group had at least one arrest post-DRC exit - No show - 38.9% of group had at least one arrest post-DRC exit - On average, the time to failure for the successful group was observed to be 50 days greater than the no show group. - Statistically significant differences were found between the DRC dosage of the successful group as compared to the unsuccessful group. Details: Portland, OR: Multnomah County Department of Community Justice, 2010. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed August 2, 2011 at: http://web.multco.us/sites/default/files/dcj/documents/drc_final_document.doc Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://web.multco.us/sites/default/files/dcj/documents/drc_final_document.doc Shelf Number: 122256 Keywords: Alternative to IncarcerationCommunity-based CorrectionsDay Reporting CentersIntensive ProbationParoleRehabilitation |
Author: Martin, Ginger Title: From Incarceration to Community: A Roadmap to Improving Prisoner Reentry and System Accountability in Massachusetts Summary: With the tremendous growth in incarceration in Massachusetts, inmates are returning to communities in record numbers. More than 20,000 prison and jail inmates are released to Massachusetts’ towns and cities each year. Policymakers have become increasingly concerned with how the corrections system should manage the reentry process to best protect the public and how communities can absorb and reintegrate returning prisoners. The entire reentry process must be strengthened. This report provides a roadmap for prisoner reentry in Massachusetts, drawing from the national research literature of evidence-based practices and interviews with experts, officials, practitioners, and community-based service providers. It addresses areas of policy that have a significant effect on reentry, from sentencing through post-release follow-up, with particular focus on the roles of the state prison system, houses of corrections, and parole. Details: Boston: Criminal and Justice Institute, 2004. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 8, 2011 at: http://cjinstitute.org/files/reentryrpt_1.pdf Year: 2004 Country: United States URL: http://cjinstitute.org/files/reentryrpt_1.pdf Shelf Number: 122326 Keywords: Community-based CorrectionsParolePrisoner Reentry (Massachusetts)RecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Taxman, Faye S. Title: Proactive Community Supervision in Maryland: Changing Offender Outcomes Summary: With over 70,000 adult offenders under community supervision in the late 1990s, and more than 100 offenders assigned to each probation/parole agent, Maryland faced challenges similar to other states regarding the most effective strategy for supervising offenders in the community. In response to the 2000 Joint Chairmen’s Report, the Maryland Division of Parole and Probation (MDPP) developed a strategy to reengineer supervision by integrating research-based findings pertinent to protecting community safety and returning offenders to a more prosocial lifestyle. The strategy, called Proactive Community Supervision (PCS), has three goals: protect public safety; hold offenders accountable to victims and the community; and help offenders become responsible and productive (Sachwald, 2000). These goals are accomplished through the five major components of PCS: 1) identify criminogenic traits using a valid risk and need tool; 2) develop a supervision plan that addresses criminogenic traits employing effective external controls and treatment interventions; 3) hold the offender accountable for progress on the supervision plan; 4) use a place-based strategy wherein individual probation/parole office environments are engaged in implementing the strategy; and 5) develop partnerships with community organizations who will provide ancillary services to supervisees. Collectively, these five tenets are based on findings from research studies identifying crime reduction strategies over the last 30 years. Funds to implement the PCS strategy were appropriated for State Fiscal Year 2002. To allow MDPP to change the context of supervision, caseload sizes for intensive supervision by probation/parole agents were to be reduced from 100 to 55 in four areas: Mondawmin in Baltimore City, Hyattsville in Prince George’s County, Silver Spring in Montgomery County, and all of Caroline County. With PCS, probation/parole agents are armed with a research-based strategy regarding how to address the criminogenic traits that propel individuals to continue their involvement in criminal behavior. PCS offers a holistic approach for probation/parole agents to facilitate offender change while emphasizing accountability and public safety. This report presents an overview of the impact of the PCS strategy on key offender outcomes--rearrest rates, warrants for violation of probation, and adherence to offender supervision plans. To determine whether the PCS process achieves the intended goals, a team of researchers from the University of Maryland and Virginia Commonwealth University evaluated the impact of the PCS process on offender outcomes. The evaluation study used an individual match design that compares the outcomes of 548 offenders — 274 randomly selected offenders supervised in PCS areas with 274 matched offenders in areas that use the traditional supervision model. The researchers found that participation in PCS had a positive effect on offender outcomes. In particular, regardless of the criminal history of the offender or risk level, the rates of rearrest and warrants filed for technical violations were significantly lower for offenders that were supervised under the PCS strategy. The PCS model has shown to have statistically significant outcomes for offenders compared to traditional methods of supervision. Details: College Park, MD: University of Maryland; Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University, 2006. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 8, 2011 at: http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/publicinfo/publications/pdfs/PCS_Evaluation_Feb06.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/publicinfo/publications/pdfs/PCS_Evaluation_Feb06.pdf Shelf Number: 122327 Keywords: CollaborationCommunity-based CorrectionsOffender Supervision (Maryland)ParoleProbationRecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: California State Auditor. Bureau of State Audits Title: Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: The Benefits of Its Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions Program Are Uncertain Summary: The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Corrections) intends to use the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) software to help identify factors that cause inmates to commit crimes, so they can participate in such rehabilitative programs as substance abuse treatment or vocational education to reduce their likelihood of reoffending, thereby reducing overcrowding in the State’s prisons. California’s high recidivism rates and difficulties with prison overcrowding are well documented. In its October 2010 outcome evaluation report, Corrections reported that 67.5 percent of all felons released during fiscal year 2005–06 returned to prison within three years. Further, in May 2011 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling upholding the authority of a lower court to require that California reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of the design capacity of its correctional institutions. As of June 30, 2011, Corrections had more than 144,000 inmates in its various institutions, which were designed to accommodate only 80,000. However, the prospects that COMPAS will play a meaningful role in helping Corrections ultimately reduce prison overcrowding and lower its recidivism rates are, at best, uncertain. Corrections uses gender-specific versions of two different COMPAS assessments. The COMPAS core assessment identifies the needs of inmates entering the prison system, while the COMPAS reentry assessment evaluates inmates who are about to reenter society on parole. Our review found Corrections’ use of COMPAS during its parole planning process is not consistently enforced, while its use in reception centers — where inmates are initially evaluated and assigned to a prison — does not appear to affect decisions on prison assignments and, by extension, the rehabilitative programs inmates might access at those facilities. Corrections’ process at its 12 reception centers for assigning inmates to prisons is complex and considers factors such as an inmate’s history of violence, medical needs, gang affiliations, and the available bed space at suitable facilities that can accommodate the inmate’s security requirements. Our observations at one reception center and discussions with Corrections’ staff at seven others revealed that prison assignments are often not based on COMPAS. Instead, the inmate’s security level and the weekly placement restrictions imposed by Corrections’ Population Management Unit — the unit responsible for coordinating inmate movement within the prison system — are the primary determinants of prison assignment. Details: Sacramento: California State Auditor, 2011. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 10, 2011 at: http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2010-124.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2010-124.pdf Shelf Number: 122680 Keywords: -Prison AdministrationCorrectional InstitutionsCorrectional ProgramsParolePrison Over-crowdingPrisoner RehabilitationPrisons (California)Recidivism |
Author: Weisberg, Robert Title: Life in Limbo: An Examination of Parole Release for Prisoners Serving Life Sentences with the Possibility of Parole in California Summary: In recent years, California’s prison system has been under federal judicial control because of severe overcrowding, which partly results from the recycling of revoked inmates under parole supervision. The federal litigation has cast a sharp focus on the mandatory parole system created by the 1976 Determinate Sentencing Law and viewed as the legal mechanism by which this recycling has developed. But far too little attention has been given to the prison population serving life sentences with the possibility of parole under older indeterminate sentencing principles, a population that as of 2010 represents a fifth of California state prisoners. More than 32,000 inmates comprise the “lifer” category, i.e., inmates who are eligible to be considered for release from prison after screening by the parole board to determine when and under what condition. (This group of prisoners is distinct from the much smaller population of 4,000 individuals serving life sentences without the possibility of parole (LWOP)). The goal of this project is to examine in empirical detail (a) the lifer population, covering key details of its demographics, and (b) the processes by which lifers are considered for release, including an examination of historical trends in grant and denial rates, the recidivism record of released inmates, and legal and policy analysis of the specific mechanisms of the parolee hearing process. Despite the importance of the lifer population in terms of its size and the major legal and policy changes that have occurred to the parole process for lifers in the last several years, little research has yet been devoted to this topic. This is the first in a series of reports the Stanford Criminal Justice Center (SCJC) will be issuing on this topic. It describes the scope of the population of prisoners serving life sentences with the possibility of parole, as well as the process by which they are considered for release. It also includes initial analysis from our research examining Board of Parole Hearings transcripts the factors that might correlate with grant and denial decisions. Finally, this report identifies important research questions we are now pursuing. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Criminal Justice Center, 2011. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2011 at: http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/publications_pdf/SCJC%20Lifer%20Parole%20Release%20Sept%202011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/publications_pdf/SCJC%20Lifer%20Parole%20Release%20Sept%202011.pdf Shelf Number: 122807 Keywords: Life ImprisonmentLife SentenceLife Without ParoleLifersParoleSentencing (California) |
Author: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality Title: Characteristics of Probation and Parole Admissions Aged 18 or Older Summary: I n 2008, approximately 4.3 million adults were on probation and nearly 1 million adults were on parole in the United States. Many of the criminal offenses committed by these probationers and parolees were related to substance abuse. As a condition of their probation or parole, some offenders are required to participate in community-based substance abuse treatment programs. Data from the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) for 2008 indicate that the criminal justice system is the single largest source of referral to substance abuse treatment. Further, probation/parole treatment admissions represent the largest proportion of these criminal justice system referrals. Understanding the characteristics of admissions referred by the probation/parole system to substance abuse treatment may help inform treatment providers and other public health professionals as they work with this population. This report uses data from the TEDS for 2008 to examine the characteristics of substance abuse treatment admissions referred to treatment by the probation or parole system (hereafter referred to as “probation or parole admissions”). TEDS includes a Minimum Data Set collected by all States and a Supplemental Data Set collected by some States. “Detailed criminal justice referral” is a Supplemental Data Set item that classifies known criminal justice system referrals into the following subtypes: courts, probation/parole, DUI/DWI, other recognized legal entity, diversion program, prison, or other. Only data for the 32 States with a response rate of 75 percent or higher on this item were used in this analysis. In those States, among admissions 18 or older for which detailed information on their criminal justice referrawas available, 42.8 percent (203,700) were referred to treatment by the probation or parole system in 2008. Details: Rockville, MD: SAMHSA, 2011. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: TEDS Report: Accessed September 23, 2011 at: http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k11/231/231Parole2k11Web.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k11/231/231Parole2k11Web.pdf Shelf Number: 122811 Keywords: ParoleParoleesProbation (U.S.)ProbationersSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office ofApplied Studies Title: The NSDUH Report: Parents on Probation or Parole Summary: The past two decades have seen large increases in the numbers of adults involved in the criminal justice system, including those incarcerated, on probation, and on parole. Although the numbers of each of these groups increased substantially, the numbers of those on probation have increased at a much faster rate; yet, much less attention has been given to those on probation and to those on parole. Probationers and parolees often have an array of health problems, including substance use disorders. One subgroup of those on probation or parole that may be of particular concern, however, comprises parents with children under the age of 18. Although research on the substance use behaviors of incarcerated parents and their children is limited, there is even less information about the behaviors of parents on probation or parole. Gaining a better understanding of this population and its substance use problems may help to inform criminal justice personnel, family services personnel, educators, and policymakers about the needs of this population (both parents and children) and help them with service planning. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) asks respondents if, at any time during the past 12 months, they were (1) on probation or (2) on parole, supervised release, or other conditional release from prison. NSDUH also asks about use of alcohol and illicit drugs, as well as dependence or abuse. This issue of The NSDUH Report focuses on substance use and dependence or abuse among persons aged 18 or older who were living with at least one biological, step-, adoptive, or foster child aged 17 or younger. All findings in the report are annual averages based on combined 2005 to 2008 data. Details: Rockville, MD: SAMHSA, 2010. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2011 at: http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k10/176/176ParentProbParolHTML.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k10/176/176ParentProbParolHTML.pdf Shelf Number: 122880 Keywords: ParentsParoleParoleesProbation (U.S.)ProbationersSubstance Abuse |
Author: Stroker, Richard Title: Paroling Authorities’ Strategic Planning and Management for Results Summary: Parole boards, releasing authorities, and parole directors have been invested with significant public responsibilities.The individuals who comprise paroling authorities and parole boards have been entrusted with the authority to make critical parole case decisions. More broadly, parole boards, releasing authorities, and their executives are charged with making organizational decisions that can affect— in a variety of ways—every citizen in their jurisdictions. In light of the broad public policy, criminal justice, and fiscal responsibilities that these key officials exercise, it is imperative that the leaders of parole organizations: 1. Have clarity of vision. They should be able to develop a clear sense of what their organization strives to accomplish and the values that drive its work. 2. Assess the organization’s current operating practices. They should be able to appreciate the organization’s current circumstances and its position relative to its goals. 3. Engage key partners. They should be able to develop and use the skills necessary to bring appropriate individuals together to define, assess, and prioritize critical issues. 4.Take strategic action. They should be able to plan and execute strategic actions that will allow the organization to advance toward its objectives. 5. Review information and manage for results. They must monitor and adjust activities consistent with the results of objective information, feedback, and evaluations. In Comprehensive Framework for Paroling Authorities in an Era of Evidence-Based Practices, author nancy Campbell (2008:6) makes an important observation: ... for a parole board to be effective, it is not enough for the members of the organization to learn new skills and/or to recognize the way they individually frame ideas about others or about issues. Rather, they must also change the way they view themselves and their individual roles within the organization and redefine the organization’s role and processes (emphasis in original). This paper discusses the five areas outlined above as they relate to parole boards and releasing authorities. It offers specific methods and techniques parole leaders can use to explore and transform their organization’s role and processes to better achieve their desired organizational goals. It is intended to help parole leaders hone their capacity to analyze and manage effectively the many and varied challenges they face. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2011. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Parole Essentials: Practical Guides for Parole Leaders No. 3: Accessed October 20, 2011 at: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/024199.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/024199.pdf Shelf Number: 123059 Keywords: ParoleParole Boards (U.S.)Parolees |
Author: Boyle, Douglas J. Title: Outcomes of a Randomized Trial of an Intensive Community Corrections Program – Day Reporting Centers – For Parolees Summary: The present study is an experimental evaluation of the relative effectiveness of an intensive community corrections program, often referred to as a Day Reporting Center (DRC), versus an intensive supervision parole condition (Phase I). DRC is a program that brings groups of parolees together from throughout a municipality or larger geographic area for supervision, services, and programming, and requires them to spend significant amounts of time together on a daily basis. Alternatively, Phase I is an individual-based intensive supervision with referral to services and with additional conditions imposed. Participants were randomly assigned to either DRC (n = 198) or Phase I (n = 204), and data were collected for 18 months post 90 day study period. Overall, during the 90 day study period, DRC participants were more likely to be arrested for a new offense, whereas Phase I participants were more likely to obtain employment than were DRC participants. During the 6 month period immediately following study participation, DRC participants were more likely to be re-convicted of a new offense. Furthermore, DRC participants were more likely than Phase I participants to produce a positive drug test during this period. Over the 12 and 18 month post completion periods, there was only one difference between the study groups, with Phase I participants more likely to obtain employment at 18 month follow-up. Results of the current investigation showed that DRCs did not produce better outcomes than the control group, and during some time periods treatment effects were significantly worse. The pattern of outcomes favoring Phase I supervision is even more noteworthy given the relative costs of the two programs, since Phase I is significantly less expensive than DRC programming. These findings raise important policy and fiscal concerns regarding the rationale for using the DRC model to supervise medium- and high-risk parolees. However, this should not be construed as saying that individual supervision alone is sufficient, since Phase I parolees were assigned additional conditions at the discretion of their parole officers which could include outpatient drug treatment, mental health treatment, educational training and others. The implications of the present research for policy and practice are significant. The overall finding is that medium- and high-risk parolees can be managed as effectively in the community at far less cost using a Phase-based individual system. Details: Newark, NJ: Violence Institute of New Jersey at the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, 2011. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 20, 2011 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236080.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236080.pdf Shelf Number: 123067 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsDay Reporting CentersParoleParolees |
Author: American Bar Association. Criminal Justice Section Title: Dialogue On Strategies to Save States Money, Reform Criminal Justice & Keep the Public Safe Summary: The American Bar Association has chosen to focus on five key issues where states can implement changes that will promote public safety, reduce recidivism, and save money. These five issues cover a range of criminal justice topics, but the goal is the same: to create an effective, low-cost system that improves our current justice system. Below is a brief description of each policy. PRE-TRIAL RELEASE REFORM According to the United States Department of Justice, over 500,000 men and women sit in jail awaiting trial. Two-thirds of these people are low bail risk, meaning they have been deemed by a magistrate to pose no significant risk to themselves or the community, as well as representing a low risk of flight. Often, these inmates will sit in jail for over a year before standing trial. While these non-violent offenders are in jail, taxpayers provide them with food, clothing, healthcare, and security – last year alone the United States spent $9 billion on services for those who could not afford bail. With the development of better tools, methods, and technologies to supervise non-violent offenders, states will be able to save money on pretrial detention and reduce risk to the community. Those who pose the lowest risk can be identified, released before trial, and then appropriately monitored and supported so they do not become a risk. Under these narrow circumstances, not only do taxpayers save money, but the community is not put in danger. DECRIMINALIZATION OF MINOR OFFENSES State budgets have very limited resources. Because of these limits, police and prosecutors simply cannot bring justice to all culprits. By declassifying certain minor crimes, law enforcement and attorneys can focus on more serious offenders. A large portion of low-level cases in this country go unsolved – declassification would not only direct more resources toward the investigation of serious crimes, but it would also provide states with a steady stream of income in from applicable civil fines. EFFECTIVE REENTRY PROGRAMS Recidivists account for a significant portion of the United States’ prison populations – it is estimated that over half of former inmates are re-arrested and incarcerated within three years following release from prison. A key component to combating these high numbers is to more effectively choose those inmates who are prepared for release and to create programs that provide those released with useful counseling and vocational training. Without guidance, former inmates are often left without necessary support and job training and quickly return to a life of crime. With the costs of incarceration skyrocketing, states simply cannot afford to repeatedly house the same prisoners. At a reduced cost, states can implement programs that provide former inmates with the tools necessary to become successful, productive members of the community. INCREASED USE OF PAROLE & PROBATION Unnecessary inctiaornce irsa a tremendous expense to the taxpayer, and can do more harm than good with regards to an offender’s rehabilitation. Lengthy periods of incarceration should therefore be reserved for offenders who commit the most serious offenses and pose the greatest danger to the community. In contrast, alternatives to incarceration should be provided for those offenders who pose minimal risk to the community and appear likely to benefit from rehabilitation efforts outside a correctional institution. Recognizing that few convicted persons require lengthy incarceration and many require none, the ABA’s Criminal Justice Standards on Sentencing call for sentencing schemes that allow administrative parole boards to decide when individuals incarcerated under inadequately determinate sentences should be released. The Standards also include probation options for the courts, substantial “good time” credit for individuals sentenced to total confinement, and the assertion that violations of parole and probation for non-violent offenders should not automatically result in incarceration. COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PROGRAMS Community corrections consists of any number of sanctions served by an offender within the community where that offender either (a) committed an offense, or (b) currently resides. The objectives of community corrections include punishing an offender in the least restrictive setting consistent with public safety and the gravity of the crime; providing offenders with education, training, and treatment to enable an individual to become a fully functional member of the community upon release from supervision; and making offenders accountable to the community for criminal behavior. Community corrections envisions a wide-range of locally implemented, non-incarcerative sanctions such as probation, day-reporting centers, community service, home confinement with or without electronic monitoring, drug and alcohol treatment, means-based fines, and restitution to both the victim and the community. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2011. 170p. Source: Interent Resource: Accessed November 1, 2011 at: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/criminal_justice/dialogpacket.authcheckdam.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/criminal_justice/dialogpacket.authcheckdam.pdf Shelf Number: 123205 Keywords: BailCommunity CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice Policy (U.S.)Criminal Justice ReformDecriminalizationParolePretrial ReleasePrisoner ReentryProbation |
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: Ziedenberg, Jason Title: You're An Adult Now: Youth in Adult Criminal Justice Systems Summary: It has been estimated that nearly 250,000 youth under age 18 end up in the adult criminal justice system every year. However, little attention has been directed to how adult corrections systems are managing the youth offenders that end up in jails, prisons and under community supervision. To address this information gap, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) convened three dozen juvenile justice and adult corrections experts on June 18th, 2010, to consider some of the known issues, impacts and opportunities that face corrections systems as they work to safely and effectively rehabilitate thousands of youth offenders in the nations’ jails, prisons, probation and parole systems. This monograph presents the key findings identified during this convening of experts.” Six section comprise this publication: executive summary; what is known about the issue of juveniles in the adult corrections systems, and where there are gaps in data collection and information; what the issues, impacts and options are facing public safety systems when youth are awaiting trial on adult charges; when youth are convicted, and committed to the adult system; when youth who convicted in adult court are on probation or parole; and conclusion--corrections and the entire public safety system needs to focus on the successful strategies to curb delinquency, and positive youth development. The “Summary of Options for Federal, State, and Local Policymakers to Consider” is appended. Details: Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, 2011. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 23, 2012 at http://static.nicic.gov/Library/025555.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/025555.pdf Shelf Number: 123753 Keywords: Adult CorrectionsJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile OffendersParoleProbation |
Author: Jannetta, Jesse Title: Surveying the Field: State-Level Findings from the 2008 Parole Practices Survey Summary: Parole supervision is the key mechanism facilitating the return of prisoners to the community. To examine the current state of parole practice, the Urban Institute conducted a survey of parole supervision field offices. In this report, the authors examine survey results at the state level to supplement and extend the national-level analysis presented in the previously released An Evolving Field. This analysis provides a more nuanced view of parole practices and, despite differences in population and structure of justice systems, shows the varying strengths, weaknesses, and similarities across states. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute, 2011. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 27, 2012 at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412410-State-Level-Findings-from-the-2008-Parole-Practices-Survey.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412410-State-Level-Findings-from-the-2008-Parole-Practices-Survey.pdf Shelf Number: 123841 Keywords: ParoleParole SupervisionParolees |
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: Smith-Heisters, Skaidra Title: The Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act: Prison Overcrowding, Parole and Sentencing Reform (Proposition 5) Summary: California’s prisons are overburdened because state policies have created an endless cycle of incarceration that does little to promote public safety. An estimated one-third of inmates in California prisons are nonviolent recidivists who have never been sentenced for a violent crime.1 Meanwhile, as a result of sentencing changes in the late 1970s and early ’80s, the prison population has quadrupled, the parolee population has more than quadrupled, and general fund expenditures for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) have ballooned from 2 percent to 10 percent, or more than $10 billion today. State institutions are at double their capacity, resulting in such poor performance that portions of the state’s criminal justice system are now run by federal mandate. The threat of federal takeover of more of the state’s failing prison system is real and significant. Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act, will be decided by voters in the November 4, 2008 General Election. The proposition contains within it some of the important reform measures that numerous advisory committees have for years urged the state to implement.2 These reforms would help to break the state’s appallingly high prison recidivism rate by bringing California’s parole terms and sanctions for parole violation more in line with other states’, which have managed incarcerated populations more effectively. Proposition 5 would also build on the cost-saving drug treatment programs approved by voters in 2000 under Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act. Details: Los Angeles, CA: The Reason Foundation, 2008. 19p. Source: Policy Brief 74: Internet Resource: Accessed on February 3, 2012 at http://reason.org/files/fca481a6c38c69c7f9ae9761e97bb053.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://reason.org/files/fca481a6c38c69c7f9ae9761e97bb053.pdf Shelf Number: 123928 Keywords: Nonviolent Offenders (California)Offender RehabilitationParolePrison Overcrowding (California)Sentencing Reform |
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: Stys, Yvonne Title: Conditional Release of Federal Offenders Convicted of Criminal Organization Offences Summary: Past research on criminal organization offenders has typically centred on the nature of the offences committed and profiling those offenders. This study extended the extant knowledge of criminal organization offenders by updating past profiles, focusing on community outcomes while on conditional or statutory release, and identifying risk factors related to re-offending for these offenders. Overall, 451 offenders were identified in the Correctional Service of Canada’s (CSC) Offender Management System (OMS) as being convicted of a criminal organization offence, as outlined in Sections 467.11 to 467.13 of the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC), between April 25, 1997 and March 31, 2009. This included 418 non-Aboriginal males, 19 Aboriginal males, and 14 women offenders, with an average sentence length of 5.2 years. Most offenders convicted of a criminal organization offence had some prior involvement with the criminal justice system, with 21.5% having served a previous adult term in a federal penitentiary. Along with their current criminal organization conviction, offenders were most commonly also convicted of drug offences (59.6%) or attempted murder (8.2%). Examination of criminogenic risk, need and reintegration potential found that the typical criminal organization offender was assessed as being “medium” risk (58.1%) and “high” need (45.9%), with “high” reintegration potential (68.8%). Domain-level analyses of need illustrated that criminal organization offenders were significantly more likely to have some or considerable need in the areas of criminal attitudes and criminal associates than a matched sample of CSC offenders. Of the 451 offenders who were convicted of a criminal organization offence, 332 (73.6%) had been released to the community. The majority were released on day parole (51.8%) or statutory release (44.9%). Most (76.4%) had been employed at some point during release, and 14.8% of those released were participating in some sort of community intervention program, with the most common programs including education, Counter-Point, and living skills programs. Of those who were released, 12.7 % (42) were re-admitted to a federal institution. Most had their release revoked without a new offence (76.2%), while 14.3% (n=6) were convicted of a new offence. Survival analyses conducted to determine the risk of failure upon release found that those convicted of criminal organization offences were significantly less likely than the matched group to be returned to custody. Risk factors found to be especially predictive of readmission or re-conviction included age at release and type of release, with younger offenders and those on statutory release more likely to fail than those released at an older age or released on day or full parole. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2010. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report 2010 No R-227: Accessed April 16, 2012 at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r227/r227-eng.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Canada URL: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r227/r227-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 124986 Keywords: Conditional Release (Canada)Criminal OrganizationsDay ParoleGangsOrganized CrimeParolePunishmentRecidivism |
Author: Bourgon, Guy Title: From Case Management to Change Agent: The Evolution Of ‘What Works’ Community Supervision Summary: Traditionally, the role of a community supervision officer has in large-part been that of a case manager. However, knowledge in the area of ‘What Works’ in offender rehabilitation has stimulated efforts to revolutionize what it means to supervise clients in the community; that is, moving from a case-management approach to what we call a ‘change-agent’ approach. In this article, we define what cognitive-behaviourism looks like in a criminal justice context and how it can be used to maximize the impact of community supervision. Through the amalgamation of cognitive-behavioural techniques and risk/need information, we propose the use of a theoretically and empirically-based framework (i.e., the STICS Action Plan) to assist community supervision officers in planning, prioritizing and effectively achieving change with their clients. Details: Ottawa: Public Safety Canada, 2012. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Corrections Research: User Report 2012-01: Accessed April 16, 2012 at: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/_fl/2012-01-cmca-eng.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Canada URL: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/_fl/2012-01-cmca-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 124988 Keywords: Community Supervision Officers (Canada)ParoleProbation |
Author: California. Office of the Inspector General Title: Special Report: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Implementation of the Non-Revocable Parole Program Summary: On October 11, 2009, a major change occurred in California statutory parole requirements with the passage of Senate Bill X3 18. This landmark legislation was intended to help alleviate the endemic overcrowding within California prisons – and the numerous constitutional violations and budgetary demands occasioned by such overcrowding – by providing a system whereby non-violent parole offenders would not be returned to prison unless they were convicted of another felony offense. On April 4, 2011, additional significant legislation was enacted with the passage of Assembly Bill 109. When funded, this legislation will ultimately shift non-violent parolees from oversight by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to oversight by local governmental agencies. Consequently, the nonrevocable parole program established by Senate Bill X3 18 can now be viewed as an interim measure that will be in place only until such time as local governmental agencies assume supervision over non-violent parolees. Effective January 25, 2010, CDCR began placing eligible convicted felons on non-revocable parole, commonly referred to as NRP, in compliance with Penal Code section 3000.03. Before the law’s enactment, when these types of inmates were released from California prisons, they were typically subject to parole terms of one to three years and were under some level of supervision by CDCR. Since the enactment of Penal Code section 3000.03, however, paroled inmates who meet certain criteria must be placed on non-revocable parole. Parolees on non-revocable parole are not supervised. Moreover, unlike supervised parolees, they are not subject to arrest or reincarceration in prison for parole violations. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has very little authority over offenders once they are placed on non-revocable parole. In the interest of public safety, then, and to comport with the legislative intent that only qualified, non-violent offenders be placed on non-revocable parole, the screening process used to determine an inmate’s eligibility for non-revocable parole must be accurate. The screening process for non-revocable parole excludes the following inmates and parolees: registered sex offenders; offenders with current or prior serious, violent or sexually violent felony convictions; offenders who are known prison gang members; and other offenders determined to have a high risk to reoffend. To determine an inmate’s risk of reoffending, CDCR has developed a validated risk assessment instrument referred to as the California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA).1 However, flaws in the CSRA’s implementation have resulted in flawed assessments. The CSRA has understated some offenders’ risk of reoffending; some of these high-risk offenders have been placed on nonrevocable parole. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) estimates that approximately 23.5 percent of the offenders assessed for possible placement on non-revocable parole between January and July 2010 were scored inaccurately, and that approximately 15 percent of the more than 10,000 offenders placed on non-revocable parole were inappropriately placed on non-revocable parole during that same time period.2 Over 450 of these ineligible offenders carry a high risk for violence, and some of these ineligible offenders may have already been discharged from nonrevocable parole after completing 12 months of parole, thereby precluding CDCR from taking action to correct the parolee’s inappropriate placement on non-revocable parole. It should be noted, however, that CDCR reports it has improved scoring tables used in the automated scoring process and that these corrections would have reduced the error rate from approximately 23.5 percent to approximately eight percent if these corrections had been in place before July 2010. Details: Sacramento: Office of the Inspector General, 2011. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2012 at: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/BOI/Special%20Report%20California%20Department%20of%20Corrections%20and%20Rehabilitations%20Implementation%20of%20the%20Non-Revocable%20Parole%20Program.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/BOI/Special%20Report%20California%20Department%20of%20Corrections%20and%20Rehabilitations%20Implementation%20of%20the%20Non-Revocable%20Parole%20Program.pdf Shelf Number: 125319 Keywords: Alternatives to ImprisonmentParoleParole RevocationParolees, JuvenilesPrison OvercrowdingRisk Assessment (California) |
Author: American Probation and Parole Association Title: Hardcore Drunk Driving Community Supervision Guide: A Resource Outlining Probation & Parole Challenges, Effective Strategies and Model Programs Summary: The American Probation and Parole Association and the Century Council convened a group of community supervision and corrections experts to develop the “Hardcore Drunk Driving Community Supervision Guide: A Resource for Outlining Supervision Challenges, Effective Strategies, and Model Programs.” This guide combines the latest in evidenced-based supervision practices with treatment strategies known to work with alcohol involved and DUI/DWI offenders. The advisory group assembled to develop this guide began by identifying what would educate and benefit the community corrections field. To that end, the group identified supervision challenges, and where applicable possible solutions to those challenges, promising practices working in their jurisdictions, and an array of resources for community corrections practitioners and administrators to turn to for additional information and guidance. What is meant by saying that someone is supervised in the community? It means that probation and/or parole officers using a combined approach involving surveillance, treatment, and accountability, enforce the court ordered rules and sentencing meted out to the offenders. Details: Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association; Arlington, VA: Century Council, 2012. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 30, 2012 at: http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/materials/HCDD-Community-Supervision-Guide.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/materials/HCDD-Community-Supervision-Guide.pdf Shelf Number: 125799 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsCommunity-based CorrectionsDriving Under the Influence (U.S.)Drunk DrivingParoleProbation |
Author: Klingele, Cecelia M. Title: Changing the Sentence Without Hiding the Truth: Judicial Sentence Modification as a Promising Method of Early Release Summary: Last year, as the State of California struggled with a $42 billion budget deficit, its financial inability to correct constitutionally-deficient prison conditions led a federal court to order the release of 40,000 state prisoners. In Oregon, Michigan, Connecticut, Vermont, and Delaware, spending on corrections now exceeds spending on higher education. Across the nation, more than 1 of every 100 Americans is behind bars. When the financial crisis of 2008 dealt its blow, state correctional budgets were already nearing a breaking point. Now, in the wake of unprecedented budget shortfalls, state governments have been forced to confront a difficult reality: the ever-increasing prison population has come at too high a price. The question is no longer whether to reduce the number of prisoners, but how. Reversing years of ever-harsher sentencing policies, jurisdictions throughout the United States are trying to cut costs by expanding good time credit, increasing parole eligibility, and authorizing new forms of early release. This Article examines judicial sentence modification, an often overlooked ameliorative mechanism that has potential benefits many other forms of early release lack. For states wishing to promote early release in a manner that is both transparent and publicly accountable, judicial sentence modification is a promising, and potentially sustainable, new mechanism for sentence reduction. Details: Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Law School, 2010. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: University of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1109: Accessed August 3, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1576131 Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1576131 Shelf Number: 125853 Keywords: Compassionate ReleaseCosts of Criminal JusticeEarly ReleaseEarned Release CreditGood TimeMeritorious Good TimeParoleSentencingState Budgets |
Author: Kuziemko, Ilyana Title: Should Prison Inmates be Released via Rules or Discretion? Summary: In 1980, nearly all state and federal prisoners were released via the discretion of a parole board, whereas today the majority are subject to rules-based regimes where the original sentence is binding. While opponents of parole have argued that boards are discriminatory or overly lenient, discretion might also have important benefits. If prison time lowers recidivism risk and if parole boards can accurately estimate inmates' risk, then, relative to a rules-based regime where sentences are binding, discretion produces allocative-efficiency benefits (costly prison space is allocated to the highest-risk offenders) and incentive bene ts (prisoners know they must reduce their recidivism risk to gain an early release, so invest in their own rehabilitation). Exploiting quasi-experiments from the state of Georgia, I show that prison time reduces recidivism risk and that parole boards set prison time in an allocatively efficient manner. Prisoners respond to these incentives -- after a reform that limited parole for certain offenders, they accumulated a greater number of disciplinary infractions, completed fewer prison rehabilitative programs, and recidivated at higher rates than inmates unaffected by the reform. I estimate that eliminating parole increases the prison population by ten percent while simultaneously increasing the crime rate through deleterious effects on recidivism. Details: Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 2011. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 3, 2012 at: http://www.princeton.edu/~kuziemko/parole_29oct2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.princeton.edu/~kuziemko/parole_29oct2011.pdf Shelf Number: 125854 Keywords: DiscretionEarly ReleaseParoleParole BoardsRecidivism |
Author: Klingele, Cecelia M. Title: The Early Demise of Early Release Summary: Reversing the tough-on-crime policies that have defined American criminal justice for the past two decades, cash-strapped states across the nation have begun reducing the number of people they confine in prisons and jails. In their efforts to reduce correctional populations, numerous states have passed laws that allow parole boards, prison officials, or judges to shorten the sentences of people already serving time in custody. These so-called "early release" laws have proven highly controversial, and in at least three states have been repealed outright. In others, they remain on the books but have provided less savings than anticipated because of the failure of decision-makers to utilize their newly-conferred authority. This Article examines the early demise of early release in several jurisdictions, identifying practical, political, and moral obstacles to the practice of early release that may account for the failure of recent legislation. Responding to those concerns, I suggest principles to guide future efforts to reduce custodial populations through the use of early release. These include drafting laws that respect the limits of institutional capacity, adopting principled rules about who may be released early and for what reasons, and emphasizing the moral concerns that justify efforts to reduce prison populations. Details: Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Law School, 2011. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Univ. of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1179: Accessed August 7, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1968432 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1968432 Shelf Number: 125901 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeEarly ReleaseParolePrisoners |
Author: Barnoski, Robert Title: The Effects of Parole on Recidivism: Juvenile Offenders Released from Washington State Institutions - Final Report Summary: In July 1998, the Washington State Legislature eliminated parole for youth released from Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration (JRA) institutions for all but high risk and sex offenders. In a 2001 report, preliminary recidivism findings were compared for juvenile offenders released on parole with juvenile offenders released without parole. Results indicated that parole does not have an influence on recidivism. In this study, the Institute used a longer follow-up period and added a second comparison group. This 2006 study is therefore a more rigorous test of the effect of parole on recidivism for most juvenile offenders. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2006. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2012 at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/06-07-1203.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/06-07-1203.pdf Shelf Number: 110180 Keywords: Juvenile OffendersParoleRecidivism |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: The Impact of Probation and Parole Populations on Arrests in Four California Cities Summary: One of the first questions as officer asks when arresting someone is “Are you on probation or parole?” and the answer generally expected is “yes.” Given this expectation, it is understandable for officers on the beat to believe that it is only a matter of time before people on parole or probation commit a crime. As longstanding and prevalent as this assumption has been, very little research exists quantifying the extent to which people under community supervision are, in fact, driving local law enforcement’s arrest activity. Law enforcement executives across the country have been forced to make deep cuts to their budgets as a result of plunging local tax revenues and shrinking federal funding for local police departments. This has certainly been the case in California. For example, the police departments in Sacramento, Los Angeles, and Redlands experienced significant declines in funding between 2008 and 2012, which have resulted in, among other things, major reductions in personnel. On top of the fiscal pressures police departments are experiencing, local governments in California are struggling with the transformation of the state corrections system currently underway. Compelled by federal court order to address overcrowding in the California prison system, state policymakers have taken a number of steps to reduce the prison population. For example, they have mandated that non-violent, non-serious and non-sex offenders serve their sentences at the local level rather than in state prisons. In addition, state officials have transferred post-release supervision responsibilities for people convicted of these crimes already in state prison to county probation officers. As a result of these and other actions, the number of people incarcerated in state prison has plummeted by nearly 40,000 people, from more than 173,000 in 20063 to fewer than 133,000 in November 2012. During the same timeframe, the state’s parole supervision population has declined by nearly 50 percent, from almost 120,000 to fewer than 61,000.5 The downsizing of the prison population has enabled the state to address dangerous levels of overcrowding in its system and to reduce state spending on corrections by billions ofdollars. Some of these savings have been passed along to the county governments, which must decide what to do with people who had previously been incarcerated in a state prison or under state parole supervision. Local law enforcement officials generally have received few of these redirected funds. Many police chiefs and sheriffs have asserted that the growing numbers of people released from state prison, combined with supervision responsibility shifting from state to local government for people convicted of particular offenses, will intensify demands on the resources of local law enforcement, which are already stretched to the breaking point. In 2010, Chief Charlie Beck of the Los Angeles Police Department, Chief James Bueermann of the Redlands Police Department, Chief Rick Braziel of the Sacramento Police Department, and Chief George Gascón of the San Francisco Police Department asked the Council of State Governments Justice Center (CSG Justice Center) to help them to determine the extent to which people on probation and parole contribute to the demands on the resources of local law enforcement, and to identify what opportunities exist to use data to target their limited resources more effectively. They asked CSG Justice Center to conduct an unprecedented analysis of arrest, probation, and parole data to answer these questions: To what extent do people on probation and parole contribute to crime, as measured by arrests? What types of crimes are these people most likely to commit? Are there particular subsets of people on probation and parole who are most likely to reoffend? If so, what characteristics do they have in common? What strategies can law enforcement employ to better respond to the people being released from prisons and jails to community supervision? Considerable research exists documenting rearrest or reincarceration rates for people under probation or parole supervision. Little research, however, has been published about the extent to which people on probation and parole contribute to the overall volume of arrests in a particular jurisdiction. This groundbreaking study addresses this gap in the research. Researchers had access to separate information systems maintained by multiple independent agencies. They assembled a vast, comprehensive dataset covering a lengthy time period that is without precedent. Researchers amassed more than 2.5 million adult arrest, probation, and parole supervision records maintained by 11 different agencies over a 42-month period stretching from January 1, 2008 to June 30, 2011. Because California does not mandate the uniform statewide collection of arrest data, each local jurisdiction maintains this information independently and distinctly. Needless to say, the gathering and matching of records for this study proved to be a complex undertaking. The research presented here is not a recidivism study. Researchers did not follow a particular group of people post-release for a prescribed period of time to determine that group’s rates of reoffense and compare that number to another, similar group of people for a similar length of time. The dataset assembled for this study encompassed all people arrested (as opposed to a narrower universe limited to people released from prison or jail) during a three-and-a-half-year time period. By using this cohort, which was far larger than just the number of people under correctional supervision, researchers could learn about the proportion of arrests that involve people under supervision compared to those not under supervision, as well as characteristics of the subset of parolees and probationers who contribute to police arrests. Details: New York: Council of State Government Justice Center, 2013. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 24, 2013 at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports/docs/External-Reports/CAL-CHIEFS-REPORT.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports/docs/External-Reports/CAL-CHIEFS-REPORT.pdf Shelf Number: 127372 Keywords: ArrestsCosts of Criminal JusticeParoleParoleesProbationProbationers (California) |
Author: Porter, Nicole D. Title: The State of Sentencing 2012: Developments in Policy and Practice Summary: Today, 6.98 million men and women are under correctional supervision. A total of 4.8 million individuals are monitored in the community on probation and parole and 2.2 million are incarcerated in prisons or jail. The nation continues to maintain the highest rate of incarceration in the world at 716 people in prison per 100,000 population. The scale of incarceration varies substantially by state, resulting from a mix of crime rates and legislative and administrative policies. Lawmakers continue to face challenges in funding state correctional systems. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, several states are likely to be reducing services, including education and health care, during the 2013 legislative session due to reduced state revenues, uncertainty at the federal level and the impact of potential cuts in federal funding. In recent years, reducing prison populations with the goal of controlling correctional costs has been a salient reason for reform in states like Kansas, New York, and New Jersey. Overall, prison populations declined by 28,582 in twenty-six states during 2011, or 1.5%. State lawmakers in at least 24 states adopted 41 criminal justice policies that in 2012 may contribute to downscaling prison populations and eliminating barriers to reentry while promoting effective approaches to public safety. This report provides an overview of recent policy reforms in the areas of sentencing, probation and parole, collateral consequences, and juvenile justice. Highlights include: • Relaxed mandatory minimums – Seven states – Alabama, California, Missouri, Massachusetts, Kansas, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania – revised mandatory penalties for certain offenses including crack cocaine possession and drug offense enhancements; • Death penalty – Connecticut abolished the death penalty, becoming the 17th to eliminate death as a criminal sanction; • Sentence modifications – Two states – Louisiana and Oklahoma – authorized or expanded mechanisms to modify sentences post-conviction. These policies allow prosecutors and judges to reduce the prison sentences of individuals who meet eligibility requirements; • Parole and probation revocation reforms – Seven states – Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Missouri, and Pennsylvania -- expanded the use of earned time for eligible prisoners and limited the use of incarceration for probation and parole violations; and • Juvenile life without parole – Three states -- California, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania – authorized sentencing relief for certain individuals sentenced to juvenile life without parole. Changes in criminal justice policy were realized for various reasons, including an interest in managing prison capacity. Lawmakers have demonstrated interest in enacting reforms that recognize that the nation’s scale of incarceration has produced diminishing returns for public safety. Consequently, legislators and other stakeholders have prioritized implementing policies that provide a more balanced approach to public safety. The evolving framework is rooted in reducing returns to prison for technical violations, expanding alternatives to prison for persons convicted of low level offenses and authorizing earned release for prisoners who complete certain rehabilitation programs. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2013. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 4, 2013 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/sen_State%20of%20Sentencing%202012.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/sen_State%20of%20Sentencing%202012.pdf Shelf Number: 127475 Keywords: Correctional ReformInmatesParolePrisonersProbationSentencing (U.S.) |
Author: Penal Reform International Title: The Probation and Parole System in Pakistan: Assessment and Recommendations for Reform Summary: Alternatives to imprisonment in Pakistan have their legal basis at the pre-trial stage in the form of bail; at the sentencing stage with fines and probation; and at the post-sentencing stage with parole. Probation and parole are, however, underused, despite significant overcrowding in the country's prisons and widely accepted evidence globally that alternatives to imprisonment such as community-based rehabilitation programmes and restorative justice are more effective at reducing re-offending. Details: London: Penal Reform International, 2013. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 28, 2013 at: Year: 2012 Country: Pakistan URL: http://www.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Pakistan_English-v3.pdf Shelf Number: 131490 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationParoleProbation (Pakistan)Rehabilitation |
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: Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending Title: Parolable Lifers in Michigan: paying the Price of Unchecked Discretion Summary: Hundreds of Michigan prisoners sentenced to "parolable life" terms have been eligible for release for one, two or even three decades. As a group, they are aging, low-risk and guilty of offenses comparable to those for which thousands of other people have served a term of years and been paroled. Each parole board decision to incarcerate a lifer for another five years - often based on nothing more than a single board member's review of a file - costs taxpayers roughly $200,000. Americans have certain expectations of government. In times of tight budgets and soaring costs, the one most discussed is cost-effectiveness. We want to spend as few taxpayer dollars as possible to fulfill governmental functions. We also want transparency, so we know how decisions are being made; accountability, so that decisions are subject to review and, if necessary, correction; consistency, so that outcomes are predictable and similarly situated citizens are similarly treated; and objectivity, so that decisions are based on evidence, not emotions or unsupported assumptions. The parole decision-making process for lifers violates all these norms. It is one of the few areas where a group of unelected officials has virtually unlimited power over people's lives and the public purse. Over the last few decades, a series of policy changes with no proven impact on public safety has undermined the parole process for prisoners generally and for lifers in particular. The solutions are simple and straightforward: return to practices that protected both public safety and taxpayers' pocketbooks. Details: Lansing, MI: CAPPS, 2014. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 13, 2014 at: http://www.capps-mi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Parolable-Lifers-in-Michigan-Paying-the-price-of-unchecked-discretion.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.capps-mi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Parolable-Lifers-in-Michigan-Paying-the-price-of-unchecked-discretion.pdf Shelf Number: 131898 Keywords: Costs of ImprisonmentDecision-MakingJudgesLife ImprisonmentLife Sentence ParoleParole Board |
Author: Justice Policy Institute Title: Billion Dollar Divide: Virginia's Sentencing, Corrections and Criminal Justice Challenge Summary: Billion Dollar Divide points to racial disparities, skewed fiscal priorities, and missed opportunities for improvements through proposed legislation, and calls for reforms to the commonwealth's sentencing, corrections and criminal justice system. While other states are successfully reforming their sentencing laws, parole policies and drug laws, Virginia is lagging behind and spending significant funds that could be used more effectively to benefit public safety in the commonwealth. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2014. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 19, 2014 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/billiondollardivide.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/billiondollardivide.pdf Shelf Number: 132068 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCriminal Justice ReformDrug PolicyParoleRacial DisparitiesSentencingSentencing Reform |
Author: Stys, Yvonne Title: Federal Offenders with a High Reintegration Potential (RP): Characteristics and Community Outcomes Summary: Correctional systems are tasked with managing a diverse population of offenders from those who could be released from custody early in their sentence, without risk of re-offence; to those who may never be safely released. The challenge is to identify those suitable for early release through an effective assessment process. In addition to individual measures of risk, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC or the Service) calculates a reintegration potential (RP) score; this RP classification forms the basis of the offender's correctional plan and paves the way for a specific correctional path. Given the potential value of effective assessment for identifying lower risk offenders, it is important to know whether the expected differences in the flow of offenders through correctional systems can actually be demonstrated. To do so, this research examined the characteristics of 21,746 offenders admitted to the CSC between 2002 and 2006 and recorded the success of their releases into the community until January 2010. Of this group, a total of 8,824 offenders identified at admission as being lower risk (high RP) were followed through the system from admission to release (and for those who were not successful, back to custody) in order to investigate the characteristics of these offenders and to determine if they are following a correctional trajectory that is consistent with what would be expected for this group. A profile of offenders with a high RP was created through the examination of admission information, institutional experiences, and community outcomes. These results were then compared against those who were designated as offenders with medium or low RPs in order to identify the distinct attributes of the high RP cohort. Analyses were conducted separately for four groups of offenders (study groups); non-Aboriginal males (n=16,815), Aboriginal males (n=3,731), non-Aboriginal women (n=876) and Aboriginal women (n=324). At the time of admission, both high RP non-Aboriginal offender groups were found to be significantly older than their medium and low RP counterparts. Generally, males with a high RP tended to be admitted for shorter sentence lengths than the medium and low RP groups, although this relationship did not always hold true for the women's groups. Offenders with a high RP were also generally less likely to be admitted with a violent offence, and more likely to be admitted for a drug-related offence than offenders with medium or low RPs. Examination of institutional experience revealed that only non-Aboriginal women offenders with a high RP differed from their medium RP counterparts in institutional program participation - they were more likely to start and complete programs - and only non-Aboriginal male offenders with a high RP were less likely than their low RP counterparts to complete programs. Where there were significant differences in institutional employment, the high RP groups were always employed for significantly fewer days than the other RP levels, even when time served in the institution was taken into account. The high RP Aboriginal groups did not differ from the medium RP groups and the high RP Aboriginal women group did not differ from the low RP group in terms of involvement in institutional incidents, however in all other instances, the high RP groups were significantly less likely than the medium and low RP groups to be involved in institutional incidents as the instigator/associate. When considering release types, results indicated that offenders with a high RP were generally more likely than offenders with medium and low RPs to participate in escorted and unescorted temporary absences (ETAs and UTAs), with limited exceptions for women offenders. Overall, offenders with a high RP were significantly more likely than the other RP levels to be granted day or full parole as their first release from custody, again with limited exceptions for women offenders - for example there was no significant difference in this regard when comparing high and medium RP Aboriginal women. All four high RP offender groups served a significantly smaller percentage of their sentence prior to their first release than offenders in the medium and low RP groups. Finally, survival analyses conducted to determine differences in the risk of failure upon release for the three RP levels found that for all four interest groups, offenders with a high RP were significantly more likely to be successful on release, and less likely to experience a revocation or a new offence upon release. Specifically, being an offender with a medium RP rather than an offender with a low RP was found to increase the hazard of return to custody by between 1.52 (Aboriginal males) and 2.39 (non-Aboriginal males), and being an offender with a low RP rather than an offender with a high RP increased the hazard of return to custody by between 1.93 (Aboriginal males) and 3.37 (non-Aboriginal males). In conclusion, based on these outcomes, it would appear that the designation of high reintegration potential is associated with better access to correctional resources and earlier release from prison to serve the balance of the sentence in the community. Offenders with a high RP are generally following a correctional trajectory appropriate for that RP level and are performing as would be expected in the community. However, it should be noted that not all offenders who are identified as having a high RP are actually released early, nor do they all succeed after release. This demonstrates the variability of risk within the high RP group and suggests that reintegration potential may require some adjustments to the scoring which serves to define the levels for the three groups. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2012. 122p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report No. R-260: Accessed May 15, 2014 at: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cn21494-eng.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Canada URL: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cn21494-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 132371 Keywords: Early ReleaseParolePrisoner ReentryRecidivismReintegrationReoffendingRisk Assessment (Canada) |
Author: Vujic, Suncica Title: Structural Intervention Time Series Analysis of Crime Rates: The Impact of Sentence Reform in Virginia Summary: We adopt a structural time series analysis to investigate the impact of parole abolition and sentence reform in Virginia on reported crime rates. The Commonwealth of Virginia abolished parole and reformed sentencing for all felony offences committed on or after January 1, 1995. To examine the impact of Virginia's change in legislation on reported crime rates from 1995 onwards, we perform an intervention time series analysis based on structural time series models. We empirically find that the change in legislation has significantly reduced the burglary rates and to a lesser extent the murder rates in Virginia. For other violent crimes such as rape and aggravated assault the evidence of a significant reduction in crime rates is less evident or is not found. This empirical study for Virginia also provides an illustration of how an effective intervention time series analysis can be carried out in crime studies. Details: Amsterdam: Tinbergen Institute, 2012. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 28, 2014 at: http://opus.bath.ac.uk/29051/ Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://opus.bath.ac.uk/29051/ Shelf Number: 132794 Keywords: Crime RatesCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformParoleSentencing Reform (Virginia) |
Author: France. Ministry of Justice Title: Parole groups for perpetrators of domestic violence introduced in the judicial district of the Tribunal de Grande Instance [Regional Court] of Mulhouse de Summary: As part of its involvement in the STARR project, from October 2010 to June 2011 the Ministere de la Justice et des Libertes undertook a research project on a system to combat recidivism in the area of domestic violence through probation measures. This research is, therefore, in response to the objective set out by the project: to identify and to share best practices applied within the European Union in order to effectively combat recidivism in three areas: - alcohol and drug addiction - juvenile crime - domestic violence In May 2010 the service des affaires europeennes et internationales (SAEI) of the ministere de la Justice et des libertes approached the direction de l'administration penitentiaire (DAP) [Penitentiar Administration Department], for it to develop a system to combat recidivism in the area of domestic violence implemented by its services de probation et d'insertion penitentiaire (SPIP) [probation and penintentiary integration departments]. This system was conspicuous through its innovative character, particularly the methodological tools applied. Following this approach the DAP reoriented the SAEI towards a system developed from the Mulhouse SPIP initiative, in partnership with the Accord68 association, involving the development of parole groups for the perpetrators of domestic violence. These parole groups were formed within recidivism prevention programmes (RPP) developed since the end of December 2007 by the DAP which represent a procedure for 'collective responsibility in the form of parole groups, the objective of which is to work on the development of the act and the conditions for its non-reiteration'. The objective of this study is to reproduce the experience of the parole groups and to describe their operation. Its conclusions are aimed at all the STARR project's partners but also at all Member States of the European Union interested in this system. They will also allow professionals in the judicial system in France to have access to 'feedback' on a system for the combat of recidivism. From 24 to 26 November 2010 the Ministere de la Justice et des Libertes also organised an international seminar devoted to domestic violence. Magistrats, experts, universities, representatives from the associative and medical sector from different European countries were also able to exchange information about the various existing systems within this field over three days. Details: Paris: Ministry of Justice, 2013(?). 44p. Source: Internet Resource: European Project STARR: Accessed October 27, 2014 at: http://www.starr-probation.org/uploaded_files/Rep%20STARR%20DV%20E.pdf Year: 2013 Country: France URL: http://www.starr-probation.org/uploaded_files/Rep%20STARR%20DV%20E.pdf Shelf Number: 133824 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationsDomestic Violence (France)ParoleParoleesRecidivism |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in Nebraska: Analysis and Policy Framework Summary: This report summarizes comprehensive analyses of sentencing, corrections, probation, and parole data presented to Nebraska's Justice Reinvestment Working Group. It outlines strategies and policy options to avert prison population growth and reduce recidivism in the state by holding people convicted of the lowest-level felonies accountable with probation and treatment, reducing the number of people leaving prison unsupervised, and strengthening parole supervision. The report also offers strategies for supporting victims of crime through improved restitution collection. If implemented, the report's suggested policies would reinvest $32.8 million in recidivism reduction strategies and avert $306.4 million in prison costs Details: New York: Council of State Government, Justice Center, 2015. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 28, 2015 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/JusticeReinvestmentinNebraska.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 134445 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsJustice Reinvestment (Nebraska)ParoleProbationRecidivismSentencing |
Author: Berry, William W., III Title: Eighth Amendment Presumptions: A Constitutional Framework for Curbing Mass Incarceration Summary: The Supreme Court's conceptualization of the Eighth Amendment over the past decade has focused on narrow exceptions to the ability of the states to punish criminal offenders, excising particular punishments based on characteristics of the offender or crime. What is missing, however, is a set of broader guiding principles delineating the line between acceptable and impermissible punishments. The Court itself, in Kennedy v. Louisiana, acknowledged as much, describing the case law as "still in search of a unifying principle." In light of this vacuum, this article proposes a new approach to the application of the Eighth Amendment. The absence of regulation of excessive and disproportionate punishments by state legislatures over the past two decades has resulted in the largest prison population in the history of the human race. Instead of merely being a tool that merely removes a few types of offenses and offenders from the purview of state legislatures, the Eighth Amendment should also serve as a more robust guide to shape state penal practices. To that end, this Article argues for the development of a series of Eighth Amendment presumptions - guiding principles that would govern the punishment practices of legislatures without excluding them from the conversation. Currently, the Eighth Amendment serves to identify the constitutional "exceptions" to the "rules" promulgated by the legislatures. This Article's approach would reverse that status quo, with the Court articulating general rules and the legislatures then developing (and justifying through careful study) the exceptions to the rules. Indeed, an examination of the Court's Eighth Amendment cases suggests this "presumptive" sentiment is already implicit in much of the thinking of the Court. Part I of the Article briefly explains the shortcomings of the current evolving standards of decency doctrine and its devastating consequences. Part II of the Article explores the concept of presumptions, exploring how presumptions operate and demonstrating their virtues. The Article then argues in Part III for the reimagining of the Eighth Amendment as an Amendment of constitutional presumptions combining elements from the Court's past cases with the needs arising from three decades of neglecting the decisions of legislatures. Finally, Part IV demonstrates how this conceptual framework would work in practice. Details: University, MS: University of Mississippi School of Law, 2015. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 26, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2567962 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2567962 Shelf Number: 134680 Keywords: Death Penalty (U.S.)Mandatory SentencingParolePunishmentSentencingSupreme Court |
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: Sarver, Christian M. Title: Parole, Re-incarceration, and Desistance: Utah Parolees Summary: The current study complements the earlier literature review and survey of Utah reentry practices and is comprised of two parts. Part I provides a quantitative description for a cohort of Utah parolees, describing their demographic backgrounds, criminal history, and programmatic factors that predict parole violations and new criminal offenses. Part II, based on interviews with 50 Utah parolees, is a qualitative analysis of offenders' experience returning to the community after release from prison. In particular, the qualitative portion of the study explores parolees' perceptions of those things that foster and inhibit reintegration after incarceration. Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2014. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 28, 2015 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/Reentry_Yr2.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/Reentry_Yr2.pdf Shelf Number: 135793 Keywords: DesistanceParoleParoleesPrisoner ReentryRecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Council of State Governments, Justice Center Title: Juvenile Reinvestment in Alabama: Analysis and Policy Framework Summary: This report summarizes comprehensive analyses of sentencing, corrections, probation, and parole data presented to Alabama's Prison Reform Task Force. It outlines strategies and policy options to reduce the prison population and recidivism in the state by strengthening community-based supervision and treatment, prioritizing prison space for violent and dangerous offenders, and providing supervision to every person released from prison. The report also offers strategies for supporting victims of crime through improved victim notification. If implemented, the report's suggested policies would reinvest $26 million in recidivism reduction strategies in FY2016 and avert $407 million in prison construction and operations costs by FY2021 Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2015. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 30, 2015 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/JRinAlabamaPoliciesandFramework.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/JRinAlabamaPoliciesandFramework.pdf Shelf Number: 135832 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity Based CorrectionsCommunity SupervisionCorrectional InstitutionsJustice ReinvestmentParolePrisonsProbation |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Number of Offenders under Its Jurisdiction Has Declined; Transferring Its Jurisdiction for D.C. Offenders Would Pose Challenges Summary: From fiscal years 2002 through 2014, the total number of offenders under the Department of Justice's (DOJ) U.S. Parole Commission's (USPC) jurisdiction declined 26 percent from about 23,000 to about 17,000. Specifically, following the abolition of parole, the number of offenders on or eligible for parole declined 67 percent among federal offenders, and 74 percent among D.C. offenders. However, following the introduction of supervised release, the number of D.C. offenders on supervised release or serving a prison sentence that includes supervised release increased 606 percent from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2011, and then slightly declined through fiscal year 2014. Transferring USPC's jurisdiction for D.C. offenders would require that an entity has three key organizational characteristics to assume this jurisdiction, and altering or establishing a new entity poses challenges. Based on our discussions with officials from USPC and other organizations, including those from the D.C. government, these three key organizational characteristics are: - statutory authority for asserting jurisdiction over D.C. offenders; - processes, procedures and personnel in place for handling parole and supervised release cases; and - formal agreements with other criminal justice organizations for making parole and supervised release decisions. We identified 17 criminal justice entities with the potential to assume USPC's jurisdiction for D.C. offenders; however none currently possesses the three key organizational characteristics. Thus, transferring jurisdiction is not feasible without altering an existing or establishing a new entity, and would pose challenges related to estimating costs and assessing impacts on decision making. Why GAO Did This Study 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. USPC's 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 June 5, 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: ParoleParole SupervisionParolees |
Author: Ferguson, Catherine Title: Parole in Western Australia: An analysis of parole cancellations of female offenders Summary: The number of prisoners in Australian prisons has been increasing over the past decade. In Western Australia the number of female offenders has increased by 40 percent over the past five years. One contributing factor to this increase may be the re incarceration of parolees who have violated parole. This research used the publicly available decision documents from the Prisoners Review Board in Western Australia to investigate the background details of offences, and the details of the parole violations of 41 women released in 2013-14. Data revealed that a high proportion of women returned to prison after a very short time in the community as a result of illicit drug use. The high cost of re-incarceration is considered against a background of rehabilitation and extra support in the community that might assist released women negotiate their complex lives on release without resorting to further drug use. The paper includes a number of recommendations to consider in an effort to reduce the recidivism of female offenders. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2015. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 501: Accessed September 17, 2015 at: http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi501.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi501.pdf Shelf Number: 136793 Keywords: Female OffendersParoleParole RevocationParolees |
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: 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: Serin, Ralph C. Title: Analysis of the Use of the Structured Decisionmaking Framework in Three States Summary: In recent years, interest in high-quality parole decisionmaking has grown significantly. Paroling authorities are under considerable pressure and subject to substantial public scrutiny as they strive to reach high-quality parole decisions that ensure public safety. In this context, the Legal Decision-Making Lab at Carleton University has been working for nearly a decade to develop and improve a decisionmaking tool for parole practitioners. This tool, the Structured Decisionmaking Framework, acts as a road map or guideline for professional decisionmakers to help them reach consistent, transparent, and defensible high-quality conditional release decisions. It acknowledges the professional expertise and extensive experience of parole decisionmakers by using a structured approach that guides paroling authorities through the process of making parole decisions by considering offender information demonstrated to be closely linked to post-release performance. Given this grounding, the Framework can help paroling authorities incorporate or enhance the use of evidence-based practice in their decisionmaking. Through its technical assistance program, the National Institute of Corrections facilitated opportunities for three states-Ohio, Connecticut, and Kansas-to examine the use of the Structured Decisionmaking Framework in their jurisdictions. The paroling authorities in these states all received training in the use of the Framework. Though the Framework has been extensively validated and its use supported via research in Canada, each state also participated in a small-scale exercise aiming to provide preliminary validation results specific to their jurisdiction. This document summarizes the results of these validation exercises. For all three states, analyses were conducted in two phases. The first phase addressed the applicability of the Framework to each jurisdiction, verified whether all information necessary to complete the Framework was available, and examined: - The distribution of Framework domain ratings in that jurisdiction - Case-specific and discordant information - Variability among coders in rating domains The second phase of analyses was focused on case outcomes and included: - A description of parole and post-release outcomes for the sample - An examination of overall Framework ratings and release recommendations for each case - A comparison of Framework results to actual parole outcomes (where possible) - A comparison of Framework results to parole decisions (where the previous analyses were not possible) Overall, applying the Structured Decisionmaking Framework to a sample of approximately 100 offender cases in each of three states (Ohio, Connecticut, and Kansas) revealed interesting patterns both with respect to the completion of the Framework itself and to its overall results as compared to actual post-release outcomes. With respect to the Framework, a number of findings are noted: 1. Sufficient information was generally available to complete the Framework. However, in one state, this was not the case at the time of data collection; the state has since changed its parole preparation approach to broaden the information available and address this concern. 2. Second, though the authors intend that the Framework be completed according to each board member's expertise, personal experience, and knowledge, there were some items noted under the case-specific factors domain that we believe should not have been included, or that should have been included in a different manner. For example, several items (e.g., behavior on this or a previous sentence) could and should more appropriately have been captured in other Framework domains. 3. Inter-coder variability was also noted. When the Framework is applied in practice, board members are expected to vary as a result of their backgrounds, experience, knowledge, and beliefs. However, an effort was made to obtain consistency among coders for the purposes of this validation exercise, but this did not appear to be wholly successful. If such variability is also noted in board members' completion of the Framework, there may be benefit in periodic ongoing training in the use of the Framework to ensure an accurate understanding of its intended use. This may be profitably achieved using a train-the-trainers approach. Turning to an examination of the how the Framework's overall results compare to actual post-release outcomes, it appears, promisingly, that in the state of Connecticut, the Framework appears to distinguish between offenders who reoffend after release and those who do not. Indeed, these findings suggest that the Framework is more able to do so than is the State's accepted risk instrument, though results in this area are preliminary. For Ohio and Kansas, unfortunately, the virtually non-existent variability in post-decision outcomes among coded cases prevented an examination of how the Framework's overall results compared to actual post-release outcomes. Instead, the association of the Framework with the parole decision was investigated. The identification of greater numbers of aggravating domains within the Framework tended to be associated with decisions to deny, and consideration of Framework ratings (either on their own or together with an actuarial risk estimate) led to (non-significantly) better prediction of parole decisions. Based on the results of these preliminary validation exercises, it appears that the Structured Decisionmaking Framework can contribute to high-quality, transparent, and consistent parole decisionmaking by the Ohio Parole Board, Connecticut Board of Pardons and Parole, and Kansas Prisoner Review Board. Though it must still be confirmed in Ohio and Kansas, the Framework does not appear to influence decisions negatively. Findings in Connecticut and Canada demonstrate that the Framework can increase the quality of parole decision-making. Given the high stakes involved in parole decision-making, even minimal improvements in predictive accuracy can result in fewer victims, better management of strained prison capacity, and cost savings. As such, continued investigation of the use of the Structured Decision-making Framework is warranted and is supported by preliminary promising results. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2014. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 5, 2015 at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/028408.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/028408.pdf Shelf Number: 136961 Keywords: Decision-MakingEvidence-Based PracticeParoleParolees |
Author: Keown, Leslie-Anne Title: Aboriginal Social History Factors in Case Management Summary: Why we did this study Aboriginal Canadians are over-represented in correctional populations. The Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged this over-representation in a landmark 1999 ruling where they interpreted the Criminal Code of Canada to require that judges consider the years of systemic disadvantage of Aboriginal peoples in reaching sentencing decisions. Following this ruling, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) incorporated this principle into its policy. CSC has implemented policy requiring that Aboriginal social history is reflected in correctional case management decision-making and offered all parole officers two days of related training in 2013-14. What we did This study was undertaken to examine the extent to which Aboriginal social history factors were considered in assessments for decision relating to both security classification and discretionary release. A total of 618 assessments for decision were coded to examine the extent to which these factors were incorporated in recommendation rationales. In addition, a matched sample of assessments for decision corresponding to non-Aboriginal offenders was included. Comparisons allowed for an examination of whether Aboriginal social history factors were associated with recommendations after accounting for the variables on which the groups were matched. What we found Aboriginal social history was documented in 98% of assessments reviewed. That said, there may be room for improvement in the extent to which these factors were explicitly linked to the resulting recommendations. Recommendations for Metis offenders were slightly less likely to be linked to Aboriginal social history factors. Overall, it did not appear that Aboriginal social history factors influenced decisional recommendations. There was no evidence that, as some have worried, Aboriginal social history factors were misperceived as risk factors. The lack of association between these factors and recommendations may be partly explained by the broader context in which parole officers formulate recommendations; it was impossible to disentangle the relative effects of Aboriginal social history factors and other priorities, such as public safety. What it means Clearly, CSC's parole officers are complying with policy with respect to the inclusion of Aboriginal social history factors in assessments for decision relating to security classification and discretionary release. Future iterations of training on Aboriginal social history factors may benefit from a focus on how to ensure these factors are explicitly linked to recommendations, as well as on certain domains that seem to be less well understood. In addition, training could also perhaps be enhanced by including further direction on how to consider both Aboriginal social history factors and other priorities - in particular, public safety - concurrently. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2015. 23p. To obtain a PDF version of the full report, or for other inquiries, please e-mail the Research Branch or contact us by phone at (613) 995-3975. Source: Internet Resource: 2015 No. R-356: Accessed March 4, 2016 at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/005/008/092/r356-eng.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/005/008/092/r356-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 138040 Keywords: AboriginalsCase managementIndigenous PeoplesParoleParole Officers |
Author: Victoria. Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Parole and Sentencing Research Report Summary: Parole is the conditional release of a prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment. Parole allows prisoners to serve a portion of their sentence in the community for the period during which they are still under sentence. A court determines the portion of a sentence that an offender may be allowed to serve on parole by fixing a non-parole period. A non-parole period is a component of some imprisonment sentences that represents the minimum term that an offender must serve before becoming eligible for release on parole. An offender's eligibility for a non-parole period is determined by both the length of the sentence imposed on the offender and the discretion of the sentencing court. An offender sentenced to imprisonment for under one year cannot have a non-parole period. An offender sentenced to imprisonment for one year to less than two years may have a non-parole period imposed by the court, at the court's discretion. An offender sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more must have a non-parole period imposed by the court, unless the circumstances of the offender or the case are such that it is inappropriate (for example, when, for the most serious offending, the court imposes a life sentence without fixing a non-parole period). Over the last five years, there has been considerable analysis and review of the parole system in Victoria and the introduction of substantial reforms regarding the way in which the parole system is administered. However, there have been no substantive changes to the law regarding how a court imposes a non-parole period at the time of sentencing. Nevertheless, the reforms to parole administration have taken place during a period of significant changes to the sentencing landscape in Victoria, including the introduction of new sentencing orders such as community correction orders (CCOs), and the abolition of others such as suspended sentences. Further, the length of the imprisonment term that a court may combine with a CCO has been extended, with the maximum term of imprisonment for such an order increasing from three months to two years. In light of these changes, this report seeks to answer the following questions: - How did the courts' use of non-parole periods change between 2010-11 and 2014-15? - What factors influenced the length of non-parole periods imposed by the courts between 2010-11 and 2014-15? Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2016. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 23, 2016 at: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Parole%20and%20Sentencing%20Research%20Report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Parole%20and%20Sentencing%20Research%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 138795 Keywords: ImprisonmentParoleSentencing |
Author: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: Missouri Policy Shortens Probation and parole Terms, Protects Public Safety. Summary: In 2012, Missouri established an "earned compliance credits" policy that allows individuals to shorten their time on probation or parole by 30 days for every full calendar month that they comply with the conditions of their sentences. Credits are available only to those who were convicted of lower-level felonies and have been under community supervision for at least two years. The Pew Charitable Trusts evaluated the policy and found that in the first three years, more than 36,000 probationers and parolees reduced their supervision terms by an average of 14 months. As a result, the state's supervised population fell 18 percent, driving down caseloads for probation and parole officers. The law had no evident negative impact on public safety: Those who earned credits were subsequently convicted of new crimes at the same rate as those discharged from supervision before the policy went into effect. Details: Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2016. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2016 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2016/08/missouri_policy_shortens_probation_and_parole_terms_protects_public_safety.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2016/08/missouri_policy_shortens_probation_and_parole_terms_protects_public_safety.pdf Shelf Number: 147920 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformEarned CreditsParoleProbation |
Author: Utah. Legislative Auditor General Title: A Performance Audit of the Board of Pardons and Parole Summary: Utah's Board of Pardons and Parole (BOP or board) plays a critical and unique role in the state's criminal justice system. For example, last year, they made nearly 18,000 decisions, including releasing offenders from prison, setting the conditions of release and supervision, and responding to over 1,000 parole violations. Consequently, they wield significant influence on public safety and the use of public resources. Utah's parole board has considerable discretion because of wide sentencing time-frames coupled with an indeterminate system. The level of discretion appears to be greater than is found in other states. This report examines opportunities for the board to better deploy such broad discretion and recommends improvements to the BOP's oversight, structure, decision making, data collection, and business operations. These recommendations come at a time when criminal justice reform (both nationally and locally) is working toward improved outcomes and lowered costs. BOP Can Benefit from Improved Planning, Oversight, and Structure Improved Planning, Performance Measures, and Transparency of Information Is Needed. The BOP has always been a crucial player in Utah's criminal justice system. The board has been especially involved in justice reinvestment efforts since the Legislature passed H.B. 348 in the 2015 General Session. We are encouraged by the board's actions, but more can be done. We believe the BOP should: develop a strategic plan, track and monitor key data elements, measure its impact on the criminal justice system through targeted performance measures, and improve its transparency. BOP's Internal Organizational Structure Should Be Reviewed. As discussed in the previous section, several operational improvements are needed at the BOP. To help ensure these improvements are made and effective, the board should review its organizational structure. We do not question the dedication of BOP employees, but the board needs to ensure it has adequately defined its roles and the roles of its staff to maximize the needed operational improvements. BOP Should Adopt More Proven Practices Structured Decision Making Will Increase Consistency of Decisions. The BOP can do more to ensure its decisions are consistent, fair, and properly structured for the best outcomes. Nationally recognized research organizations that study paroling authorities recommend that parole boards adopt a structured decision-making (SDM) model. SDM is an evidence-based, policy-driven approach to decision making that uses established risk and needs factors to make quality release decisions. Paroling authorities that use SDM are better at setting goals and report better outcomes. Currently, BOP parole release decisions are based mainly on individual professional judgement and experience. BOP decision makers have differing philosophies and may weigh factors in the same case differently. The lack of a common paroling philosophy may be the cause for the large number of inmates and inmate advocacy groups expressing concerns about the inconsistency of paroling decisions. The board has taken steps to implement SDM but as a prerequisite, the BOP should establish a common paroling philosophy to facilitate consistency in parole decisions. BOP Should Improve Rationale for Its Decisions. A second area to aid the BOP in decision making is an improved rationale sheet. The only information an inmate receives about the content of the board's decision is a rationale sheet that lists some aggravating and mitigating factors. Several individuals at the BOP told us that this sheet does not capture the important factors the board uses in weighing their decisions. Further, inmates, families, and advocates list the rationale sheet as one of their primary concerns because they find it confusing, vague, and unclear. Best practices discuss communication with inmates as an important factor. We also found that other states' releasing authorities have more informative rationale sheets that focus on specific areas of improvement and/or risk to the community. The board agrees that it needs to improve its rationale sheet and is currently working on a new version of the form. Use of Research-Based Practices Can Help BOP Improve Its Outcomes. In addition to the two best practices just discussed, we recommend that the BOP adopt and integrate the nationally recognized ten practice targets that incorporate evidence-based practices in parole decisions. The board agrees and is already working toward implementation of some of these practice targets. BOP Should Adopt an Electronic File Management System The BOP's Current Paper Process Is Vulnerable to Errors. Our review of the BOP's business process revealed two areas that are vulnerable to errors. One vulnerability is the way the board documents and enters decisions. The BOP's current decision-making process relies on board members' handwritten notes, which are unclear and subject to misinterpretation. In most cases, we could not decipher the handwritten notes to validate that clerical staff entered decisions correctly. Second, calculations for time served made in case files are also vulnerable to inaccuracies. Paper-Based System Limits Data Tracking and Transparency. The BOP's paper-based system limits the ability to track key performance metrics and data critical to board operations. Paper files also limit transparency and availability of information to external entities. Adopting an electronic file management system will help the board begin collecting and analyzing data on how its actions affect the larger criminal justice system. This will also promote more informed decision making. Paper-Based System Creates Operational Inefficiencies. In addition to the data limitations, there are also operational inefficiencies that result from a paper-based file management system. These include limitations on information sharing with surrounding agencies as well as BOP workflow, since only one activity can be performed on an offender's file at a time. Board staff devote significant amounts of time to the paper process. Staff time spent printing, copying, filing, and locating paper files is costly and time intensive. Electronic BOP System Will Promote Alignment with Other Criminal Justice Agencies. With other Utah criminal justice agencies as well as other state parole boards adopting electronic file management systems, it is increasingly clear that it is time for the board to convert to a paperless record-keeping system. The current board supports transition from a paper-based to electronically based record-keeping system. To do this, the board will need to determine if it is in their best interest to develop an electronic system that piggybacks on the UDC's database or purchase a system from a private vendor. Funding the new system will likely require funding from several sources, including federal funds, nonlapsing funds, and other state resources. BOP Should Consider Implementing Process Efficiencies A Streamlined Decision Process Is Needed for Less Serious Offenders. As the state's population grows, BOP's workload will continue to increase. The PEW Charitable Trusts group studied Utah's criminal justice system in 2014. They estimate that Utah's prison population will grow 37 percent in the next 20 years. To deal with this growth, we believe the board should consider process efficiencies before adding more hearing officers. Other states have achieved efficiencies in streamlining the parole processing of low-risk, less severe offenders and maintained quality of decisions. In this section, we recommend a continuum of options the board could pursue to achieve efficiencies in processing low-level offenders, such as limiting case preparation requirements, reducing the number of board member votes for release decisions, and in limited circumstances allowing hearing officers a vote. BOP Should Review Expungement Process and Recommend Statutory Changes. The BOP has received an increase in the number of pardon requests over the last year and a half. This increase is due partially to more people seeking pardons because the Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI) rejected their expungement requests for relatively minor offenses. Some applicants rejected by BCI are turning to the board, which has greater authority to pardon and, by extension, expunge criminal records. The board's pardon process involves significant staff time and resources. Therefore, we recommend that the BOP and BCI review the expungement process and recommend to the Legislature statutory changes that reduce pardon workloads. Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Legislative Auditor General, 2016. 100p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 28, 2016 at: http://le.utah.gov/audit/16_01rpt.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://le.utah.gov/audit/16_01rpt.pdf Shelf Number: 146164 Keywords: Decision-MakingPardonsParoleParole BoardsProbation |
Author: Aliu, Paul Utu Title: Public Safety Impact of Electronic Monitoring of Texas High-Risk Offenders Summary: The use of electronic monitoring (EM) as a tool to supervise high-risk offenders has increased in the field of criminal justice in the state of Texas. Although EM is now widely used to supervise high-risk offenders to prevent them from committing further crimes, it is unclear whether EM has achieved the purpose of reducing reoffenses during parole supervision. Hirschi's social bond theory, which was later developed into social control theory, was used as the framework for this general qualitative study to explore retired parole officers' perceptions concerning whether EM is successful in preventing high-risk offenders from committing additional crimes. Interview data were collected from 10 retired parole officers who supervised high-risk offenders on EM in Harris County, Texas. The findings revealed that the 10 officers perceived EM to be an effective tool, but they perceived the role of capitalizing on positive social bonds was equally important in controlling criminal behavior. Specifically, the officers perceived that their bond with the high-risk offenders on EM could diminish offenders' propensity to commit new crimes. Opportunities for positive social change stemming from this study include recommendations to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to develop policies and training that is consistent with social bond theory, and retrain parole officers to emphasize to offenders positive contacts and relationship with family and continuing employment during the term of parole release in order to reduce opportunities for reoffense and further victimization to the community. Details: Minneapolis, MN: Walden University, 2015. 137p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed December 10, 2016 at: http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2770&context=dissertations Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2770&context=dissertations Shelf Number: 140379 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Electronic Monitoring Offender Supervision Parole |
Author: Ghandnoosh, Nazgol Title: Delaying a Second Chance: The Declining Prospects for Parole on Life Sentences Summary: Most people serving life sentences were convicted of serious crimes. Their incarceration was intended to protect society and to provide appropriate punishment. But many were sentenced at a time when "life with the possibility of parole" meant a significantly shorter sentence than it has become today. Many remain incarcerated even though they no longer pose a public safety risk. Researchers have shown that continuing to incarcerate those who have "aged out" of their crime-prone years is ineffective in promoting public safety. Long sentences are also limited in deterring future crimes given that most people do not expect to be apprehended for a crime, are not familiar with relevant legal penalties, or criminally offend with their judgment compromised by substance abuse or mental health problems. Unnecessarily long prison terms are also costly and impede public investments in effective crime prevention, drug treatment, and other rehabilitative programs that produce healthier and safer communities. Despite this body of criminological evidence, the number of people serving life sentences has more than quadrupled since 1984—a faster rate of growth than the overall prison population. Even between 2008 and 2012, as crime rates fell to historic lows and the total prison population contracted, the number of people serving life sentences grew by 12%. By 2012, one in nine people in U.S. state and federal prisons - nearly 160,000 people were there under life sentences. Two factors have driven this growth: the increased imposition of life sentences, particularly those that are parole-ineligible,6) and an increased reluctance to grant parole to the 110,000 lifers who are eligible. This report documents the growing wait for parole among eligible lifers and identifies four factors producing longer prison terms for this population. The findings draw on a national survey in response to which 31 states and the federal government provided data for available years since 1980. The analyses reveal that a variety of policy choices and practices at the state and federal levels have caused recently paroled lifers to serve longer prison sentences than their counterparts in the past. Specifically, and as elaborated in 32 in-depth jurisdiction profiles: In South Carolina, lifers paroled in 2013 had served an average of 27.5 years in prison whereas those paroled in 1980 had served 11.6 years. In Missouri, time served among paroled lifers increased steadily from 15.0 years in 1991 to 25.2 years in 2014. In eight jurisdictions for which data are available since the 1980s, average time served by lifers with murder convictions nearly doubled from 11.6 years for those paroled in the 1980s to 23.2 years for those paroled between 2000 and 2013.8) In California, death before parole is not an uncommon outcome for lifers. A press spokesman for the corrections department has stated that "most lifers will die in prison before they get out on parole" and state records reveal that more lifers with murder convictions died in prison than were paroled between 2000 and 2011. Our examination of the 32 jurisdictions for which we were able to obtain data identifies four key drivers of the growth in prison terms for parole-eligible lifers: Legislation: Lawmakers in several states have made parole much harder to obtain by delaying when lifers can receive their initial parole consideration and by increasing the wait times for subsequent hearings after parole is denied. Gubernatorial Authority: Governors in some states have overhauled the composition of parole boards to appoint members who will reduce parole grants. In a few states, gubernatorial approval is necessary before parole boards can even review cases or for their recommendations to become final. Parole Board Decisions: Parole boards now are evaluating lifers who have served longer sentences than their counterparts in the past. Yet despite a general understanding that older parole applicants pose a reduced risk of recidivism, parole boards have not increased, and sometimes have even reduced, their grant rates. Parole Board Procedures: Most states afford only limited rights to incarcerated individuals during parole hearings and some recently have further narrowed these rights. Lifer parole procedures have broad implications. According to the American Law Institute, the most severe penalties serve as an "anchor point," or a benchmark of severity, on which penalties are established for less serious crimes.10) By placing upward pressure on prison sentences for people with less serious convictions, excessive prison terms for lifers have contributed to a major cause of mass incarceration. To reduce excessive prison terms, The Sentencing Project has previously recommended that states and the federal government abolish sentences of life without the possibility of parole and limit most prison sentences to a maximum of 20 years.11) Based on the findings of this report, we make four additional proposals. To reduce excessive sentences for parole-eligible lifers and to give rehabilitated individuals a meaningful opportunity for release from prison—as the Supreme Court now requires for those convicted as juveniles12)—we recommend that policymakers and parole practitioners: Expedite parole eligibility: Reduce the minimum number of years that lifers must serve before their first parole hearing and shorten wait times for subsequent hearings. Depoliticize and professionalize parole boards: Distance governors from paroling authorities to enable parole decisions to be based on meaningful assessments of public safety risk. Establish a presumption of release: Parole boards should assume that parole candidates are potentially suited for release at the initial, and especially subsequent, parole hearings unless an individual is deemed to pose an unreasonable public safety risk. Improve the integrity of parole hearings: Expand the procedural rights of parole applicants, enable parole applicants to review the evidence used to evaluate their eligibility for parole, and allow the public to review decision-making criteria and outcomes. This report is organized as follows: Section I presents key findings on lifer parole policies, practices, and outcomes across the country based on data provided by state and federal agencies and other organizations. Section II provides an in-depth look at a sample of four states: California, Georgia, Missouri, and New York. These states were chosen based on the size of their lifer populations, the representativeness of their lifer parole procedures and outcomes, geographic distribution, and availability of data. Sections III and IV summarize past research on people serving life sentences and on parole boards, respectively. Section V concludes by recommending reforms to depoliticize the parole process and reverse the excessive growth in prison terms for lifers. The Appendices present details on our methods of data collection and analysis. A supplemental document contains the profiles of all 32 jurisdictions for which we obtained data. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2017. 40p., app. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 1, 2017 at: http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Delaying-a-Second-Chance.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Delaying-a-Second-Chance.pdf Shelf Number: 144932 Keywords: Life SentencesLife Without ParoleLifersParole |
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: Queensland. Department of Premier and Cabinet Title: Queensland Parole System Review: Final Report Summary: The Honourable Annastacia Palaszczuk MP, Premier and Minister for the Arts and the Honourable Bill Byrne MP, Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services and Minister for Corrective Services established a review into the parole system in Queensland. Mr Walter Sofronoff QC was appointed to lead the review. The review sought input from victims' organisations, organisations working with offenders, academic researchers and experts, interested members of the public and persons working in the criminal justice system. A report including findings and recommendations was provided to the Premier and Minister for the Arts and the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services and Minister for Corrective Services on 1 December 2016. Details: Brisbane: Queensland Government, 2016. 362p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed march 6, 2017 at: https://parolereview.premiers.qld.gov.au/assets/queensland-parole-system-review-final-report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: https://parolereview.premiers.qld.gov.au/assets/queensland-parole-system-review-final-report.pdf Shelf Number: 141348 Keywords: Community-Based CorrectionsCorrectional AdministrationParoleRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Bierschbach, Richard A. Title: Rationing Criminal Justice Summary: Of the many diagnoses of American criminal justice’s ills, few focus on externalities. Yet American criminal justice systematically overpunishes in large part because few mechanisms exist to force consideration of the full social costs of criminal justice interventions. Actors often lack good information or incentives to minimize the harms they impose. Part of the problem is structural: criminal justice is fragmented vertically among governments, horizontally among agencies, and individually among self-interested actors. Part is a matter of focus: doctrinally and pragmatically, actors overwhelmingly view each case as an isolated, short-term transaction to the exclusion of broader, long-term, and aggregate effects. Treating punishment like other public-law problems of regulation suggests various regulatory tools as rough solutions, such as cost-benefit analysis, devolution, pricing, and caps. As these tools highlight, scarcity often works not as a bug but as a design feature. Criminal justice’s distinctive intangible values, politics, distributional concerns, and localism complicate the picture. But more direct engagement with how best to ration criminal justice could help to end the correctional free lunch at the all-you-can-eat buffet and put the bloated American carceral state on the diet it needs. Details: Unpublished Paper, 2017. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 512; U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 17-10; Accessed March 20, 2017 at: http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2733&context=faculty_scholarship Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2733&context=faculty_scholarship Shelf Number: 144518 Keywords: Cost-Benefit Analysis Costs of Criminal Justice ParolePrisons Prosecutors Punishment Sentencing |
Author: Halloran, Nick Title: The NSW Prison Population Simulation Model: A policy analysis tool Summary: Aim: To describe a simulation model of the NSW prison system and demonstrate its utility as a tool for examining the effects of changes to the criminal justice system that influence the number of prisoners in custody Method: The model consists of four states (bail, remand, custody and parole) and a set of parameters governing flows into and out of those states as well as lengths of stay in each state. Data for the model were sourced from police, court and correctional databases. Results: The prison system is extremely sensitive to changes in the percentage of persons refused bail. A one percentage point change in the percentage of persons refused bail by a court increases the remand population by 7.66 per cent, the sentenced prisoner population by 6.03 per cent and the parole population by 6.15 per cent. Conclusion: It is feasible to build a simple model of the prison system which is easy to maintain but nonetheless useful in analysing the likely consequences of changes in arrest, bail and sentencing policy. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2017. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice Number 203; Accessed May 10, 2017 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/Report-2017-NSW-Prison-Population-Simulation-Model-CJB203.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/Report-2017-NSW-Prison-Population-Simulation-Model-CJB203.pdf Shelf Number: 145396 Keywords: BailCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice SystemsInmatesParolePrison Population |
Author: Polinsky, A. Mitchell Title: Deterrence and the Optimal Use of Prison, Parole, and Probation Summary: In this article we derive the sentence - choosing among the sanctions of prison, parole, and probation - that achieves a target level of deterrence at least cost. Potential offenders discount the future disutility of sanctions and the state discounts the future costs of sanctions. Prison has higher disutility and higher cost per unit time than parole and probation, but the cost of prison per unit of disutility can be lower or higher than the cost of parole and probation per unit of disutility. The optimal order of sanctions depends on the relative discount rates of potential offenders and the state, and the optimal duration of sanctions depends on the relative costs per unit of disutility among the sanctions and on the target level of deterrence. We focus on the case in which potential offenders discount the disutility of sanctions at a higher rate than the state discounts the costs of sanctions. In this case, if prison is more cost-effective than parole and probation - that is, has a lower cost per unit of disutility - prison should be used exclusively. If prison is less cost-effective than parole and probation, probation should be used if the deterrence target is low enough, and prison followed by parole should be used if the deterrence target is relatively high. Notably, it may be optimal to employ a prison term even if prison is less cost-effective than parole and probation and even if prison is not needed to achieve the target level of deterrence, because of what we refer to as the front-loading advantage of imprisonment. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2017. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working paper No. 23436: Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 507: Accessed May 22, 2017 at: Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 145662 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsDeterrenceImprisonmentParolePrisonProbationPunishmentSentencing |
Author: National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) Title: Agent Workload Study Findings Summary: The nature of parole services is changing as a result of new legislation and the implementation of evidence-based practices. As changes occur in staff caseloads as well as in parole practices, it is essential to make sure staffing levels are appropriate to maintain strong performance and achieve the mission of protecting public safety. In response to these changes, the South Dakota Department of Corrections (SDDOC) contracted with the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) to conduct a workload study of parole agents in the spring of 2015. The primary objective of this workload study is to determine the number of parole agents needed to supervise offenders in a manner that meets agency standards. NCCD uses a prescriptive, case-based methodology for conducting correctional workload studies. This approach estimates the time needed by parole agents to not only manage their cases, but to do so in a way that meets state standards and expectations. Workload demand is calculated using time estimates from only those cases that met standards. Additionally, the study measures how much time agents realistically have available for their caseloads after making deductions for non-case-based activities. Together, these results are used to estimate the staff resources needed for SDDOC to effectively carry out its mission. All 39 agents in the state participated in the study. The agents tracked time for a sampled portion of their caseload over a two-month period. A two-tiered approach was used to determine which cases met standards. First, supervisors reviewed forms and indicated whether the case met standards. Researchers at NCCD then used compiled data to count the number of contacts and determine whether quantitative contact standards were met. A case had to pass both reviews in order to be included in the calculation of workload values. Agents also tracked time spent on case support and administrative activities in order to help determine the average time spent per month on activities that detract from time they have available for their caseloads. The results of the study indicate that agents have, on average, 111.6 hours available per month to supervise offenders on their caseload. In order to determine the available agent time per month, NCCD deducted estimates of the average number of hours that agents spend on other work activities from the total number of full-time equivalent (FTE) hours per month. These deductions include 22.1 hours of case support and administrative tasks (which were measured during the study), 31.8 hours of leave time, and 7.8 hours of mandatory training. Based on the monthly workload values and the average monthly case counts, NCCD calculated the total monthly workload demand for each type of parole case. The monthly workload demand reflects the number of cases multiplied by the average number of hours required per case. At the time of the workload study, SDDOC did not have specific standards outlined for offenders in the community transition program (CTP). Since then, new standards have been developed for these cases that are similar to the number of contacts required for cases at the intensive-supervision level (i.e., weekly contacts). In order to account for these new standards NCCD applied the workload value for intensive supervision cases to the CTP cases. Results show that an estimated 4,286.8 hours are needed each month to complete all of SDDOC's Parole Services casework according to standards. When divided by the amount of agent time available (111.6 hours per month), this corresponds to an estimated 38.4 full-time agents needed to meet workload demand in the state of South Dakota (Table ES). Currently, the state is allocated 39 parole agents. Using the workload values that reflect current policy standards, SDDOC is sufficiently staffed with parole agents, assuming vacant positions are filled. However, the evolving practice improvement efforts engaged in by SDDOC are likely to increase workload expectations, and therefore also increase the number of workload hours per month necessary to complete all casework according to standards. NCCD recommends that SDDOC reassess staffing needs on a regular basis, particularly as changes in policy impact the parole population. Measuring workload and ensuring the agency has adequate staffing to meet standards for all cases is the first step toward improving outcomes. In addition to addressing staffing and workload demand, agencies can take a number of actions to meet their mission to protect public safety. Strong implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs), which promote the success of parolees living in the community and reduce their risk of recidivism, has great potential to make a positive impact. Details: Aberdeen, SD: South Dakota Department of Corrections, Parole Services, 2016. 81p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2017 at: https://doc.sd.gov/documents/ParoleAgentWorkloadStudyReport.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://doc.sd.gov/documents/ParoleAgentWorkloadStudyReport.pdf Shelf Number: 147511 Keywords: Community SupervisionParoleParole CaseloadParole OfficersParolees |
Author: Gobeil, Renee Title: Releases of Men Offenders Classified as Medium and Maximum Security Summary: In recent years, the percentage of men offenders released at their statutory release dates has been increasing, and many of these releases occur from medium and maximum security institutions. This study was undertaken to follow up on these patterns both by examining the risks associated with release directly from medium- and maximum-security institutions and by exploring the factors that may be associated with not being granted parole and/or with not cascading, or transferring,to a minimum-security institution prior to release. Analyses included all 4,455 male offenders released on day or full parole or on statutory release in fiscal year 2013-14. Of these, most were classified as minimum (45%) or medium (49%) security at release. Analyses focused on comparing the groups of offenders using administrative data. In addition, thematic analyses were used to analyze data in narrative security review and parole recommendation assessments. Offenders released from higher levels of security had higher rates of suspensions, revocations, and re-offences in the year following release. These differences remained present when analyses were limited to only statutorily-released offenders, and relative differences remained very similar regardless of the special conditions imposed at release (e.g., residency condition). In other words, results aligned with previous findings that offenders released from higher levels of security were more likely to return to custody, even after accounting for certain offender differences. The second series of analyses focused on identifying possible factors associated with offenders not cascading to lower levels of security prior to release, and/or being released on statutory release rather than on day or full parole. Offenders statutorily-released from different security levels differed importantly even at intake, suggesting that many differences were present prior to their periods of incarceration rather than developed while in custody. Offenders classified as medium or maximum security at release and those who were statutorily released were consistently higher risk, less engaged in their correctional plan, less motivated and less accountable. They also had more institutional misbehaviour and lacked insight or responsibility regarding their offences. Perhaps more interesting, however, were findings relating to opportunities. Over a third (38%) of offenders statutorily-released while classified as medium or maximum security did not undergo a security classification review (e.g., due to the short length of their sentence, or to avoid a negative outcome) - in other words, they did not have or take the chance to be reclassified to a lower level of security. Moreover, a considerable number of offenders classified as medium and maximum security waived or withdrew their opportunities to be considered for discretionary release (i.e., day or full parole). Overall, these findings suggest that it is not only characteristics of offenders that are contributing to these release patterns but also opportunities missed or not taken. As such, it may be fruitful to develop action plans that facilitate offenders transferring to minimum security prior to their release. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2015. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: 2015 N R-376: Accessed October 19, 2017 at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-376-eng.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-376-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 147734 Keywords: Male PrisonersParoleParoleesRecidivism |
Author: MacDonald, Shanna Farrell Title: Reasons for parole waivers, postponements, and withdrawals: Examining indicators for low-risk offenders Summary: One of the Correctional Service of Canada's (CSC) strategic priorities is the safe transition of offenders from the institution to the community. Discretionary release provides offenders with a gradual and structured reintegration process for this transition. In addition, offenders on discretionary release, i.e. parole, are more likely to remain in the community than offenders who are released on statutory release (Public Safety Canada, 2015). For offenders who waive, postpone, or withdraw their parole application, the potential amount of time they have to reintegrate into society prior to the end of their sentence is shortened. This is particularly problematic for offenders deemed a low-risk to reoffend and who could be suitably managed and supported in the community (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Office of the Auditor General, 2015). For this study, all parole reviews scheduled in FY2014-2015 for men and FY2014-2015 and FY2015-2016 for women were extracted. The main focus of this study was to examine parole review outcomes for low-risk offenders, i.e., offenders that were determined to be at a low-risk to reoffend based on actuarial measures. Overall, 8,476 parole reviews were scheduled for lowrisk offenders during the study period, representing 3,663 offenders. Women accounted for 12% of the offenders in this study, 3% of which were Indigenous. Among men, 6% were Indigenous. Of the parole reviews scheduled for low-risk offenders, 37% were waived, postponed, or withdrawn. Variations by type of delay/cancellation, gender, ethnicity and region were evident. Indigenous women and men had higher rates of parole delays and cancellations than nonIndigenous offenders. Rates were highest in the Ontario and Pacific regions. Postponements, however, were more common in the Quebec region. Examination of the reasons provided by offenders for parole delays and cancellations showed that avoid a negative decision, program non-completion, and other were the most common. Additional analyses were conducted to determine if structured indicators (such as demographics, criminogenic factors, offender behaviour, and correctional interventions) collected by CSC supported the reasons provided by offenders. For instance, among offenders citing program noncompletion, almost two-thirds were referred to programming. Among these offenders, many were either still in the program, waitlisted or had recently completed the program in relation to their scheduled review date. Furthermore, waiving, postponing, or withdrawing parole does not appear to negatively impact on the Parole Board of Canada's decisions at subsequent parole reviews. This study builds on prior research examining the reasons that offenders choose to delay or cancel their parole reviews while also exploring the specific characteristics based on the reasons endorsed by offenders. Overall, these results provide CSC with targeted areas for intervention in order to support offenders at low-risk to reoffend reintegrate to the community in a timely and successful manner. Future research areas are also identified. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2017. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: 2017 No. R-396: Accessed February 21, 2018 at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-396-eng.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Canada URL: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-396-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 149193 Keywords: Low Risk OffendersParoleParole BoardParole PostponementsParoleesRisk Assessment |
Author: Silber, Rebecca Title: A Question of Compassion: Medical Parole in New York State Summary: Compassionate release laws enable incarcerated people who are elderly, seriously ill, incapacitated-or some combination thereof-to obtain parole in order to receive treatment in a community setting and in the company of loved ones. In recent years, the number of older adults in U.S. prisons has soared, even as the overall prison population has declined. With them, the elderly bring increasingly demanding health and end-of-life care needs. However, prisons make insufficient use of these laws and policies. The result? Too many people end up dying in prison, at great human cost and great cost to taxpayers. In this report, Vera outlines a case study of medical parole in New York State and makes practical recommendations that can guide New York-and other states across the country-in making full use of their compassionate release laws. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2018. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 7, 2018 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/medical-parole-new-york-state/legacy_downloads/a-question-of-compassion-full-report_180501_154111.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/medical-parole-new-york-state/legacy_downloads/a-question-of-compassion-full-report_180501_154111.pdf Shelf Number: 150085 Keywords: Compassionate ReleaseMedical ParoleParole |
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 |