Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:50 am
Time: 1:50 am
Results for parole (u.s.)
6 results foundAuthor: Campbell, Nancy M. Title: Comprehensive Framework for Paroling Authorities in an Era of Evidence-Based Practices Summary: Parole can be defined as both a procedure by which a board administratively releases inmates from prison as well as a provision for post-release supervision. The Comprehensive Framework for Paroling Authorities in an Era of Evidence-Based Practices focuses on procedures relative to how and when to make the release decision and why and when to revoke a release. Parole is defined in this document as the release of an offender from imprisonment to the community by a releasing authority (parole board or paroling authority) prior to the expiration of the offender’s sentence subject to conditions imposed by the releasing authority. Revocation is the action of a releasing authority removing a person from parole status in response to a violation of conditions. Since eligibility for release on parole is a matter of state law, there is considerable variation in the location, administration, and organization of paroling authorities in the United States. All states have parole boards, and these boards may be independent agencies that have responsibility for release decisions or a branch of a department of corrections or a community corrections agency. In these organizational structures, boards may also have responsibility for staff who monitor the supervision of parolees in the community. Regardless of the structure, governors/governments are usually ill-equipped to select, hire, and train the caliber of individuals needed to do this important work that has a significant impact on public safety and the economy of a state. The Comprehensive Framework for Paroling Authorities in an Era of Evidence-Based Practices is the overarching visionary plan that paroling authorities need to lead them to a desired future of well-trained board members, using evidence-based practices within agencies that have sufficient staff and other resources to effectively support the release and, when necessary, revocation of offenders. The document describes what governors (appointing authorities) and paroling authorities need to do to improve the parole process while decreasing offender recidivism and increasing public safety. This document provides an outline of how NIC will lead the implementation of The Comprehensive Framework for Paroling Authorities in an Era of Evidence-Based Practices so that parole boards have the system components, organizational structure, and other resources to be a more vital part of the correctional system. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2008. 114p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 8, 2011 at: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/022906.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/022906.pdf Shelf Number: 122325 Keywords: Offender SupervisionParole (U.S.)Parole OfficersParolees |
Author: Burke, Peggy Title: Special Challenges Facing Parole Summary: Parole boards, releasing authorities, and parole executives make a variety of critical decisions concerning the timing of release, conditions to be imposed, and supervision strategies for thousands of offenders each year. As the development of this series of papers progressed and guidance was sought from its advisory group, a number of challenging topics surfaced. One had to do with certain subpopulations of offenders who present unique challenges for parole boards. Another had to do with the intractable issue of identifying appropriate housing for offenders returning to the community. The feeling among the advisory group was that new parole board members—or even more senior members—would benefit from an easily accessible source of information on these topics. They envisioned a document that would lay out the context, summarize the key issues, highlight the recent research, and provide suggestions about where to find more extensive and detailed resources. To accomplish that goal, the paper presents basic and current information about populations identified by the project advisory group: •• Inmates who have committed sex offenses. •• Those who have significant mental health or substance abuse issues. •• Female offenders. •• Aging or geriatric offenders. •• Youthful offenders incarcerated in the adult correctional system. This publication includes, where possible, examples of practices adopted in various jurisdictions to address these populations. A final section provides a framework for considering housing issues from the perspective of paroling authorities. Clearly, a single document cannot present all there is to know on these topics. The current document is intended to provide a solid grounding in these issues that is relevant to the perspective of parole board members and to point the way to more extensive resources on these topics. Although this paper addresses a set of issues that may appear, at first, to be somewhat unrelated, a clear pattern emerges from the following discussion. First, it highlights the specialized knowledge that parole leaders are required to master. Given the limited and staggered terms typical of paroling authority members, continuing training, self-education, and peer consultation are critical. With respect to the particular populations and challenges discussed in this paper, paroling authority members often have little direct authority over the types of assessments or programs that are available in correctional institutions or in the community. This underlines the continuing importance of building strong, collaborative partnerships with other correctional stakeholders to create support for strong, evidence-based assessments and interventions and for their targeted deployment. Finally, the issues addressed in this paper may be very closely related, even in the context of a single case. Substance abuse, sexual offending, and mental illness, for example, all can be exhibited by a single offender, whether male or female, young or old. Hopefully, the information in this paper will assist paroling authority members as they work to address these challenges, however they present themselves. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2011. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Parole Essentials: Practical Guides for Parole Leaders No. 4: Accessed October 20, 2011 at: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/024200.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/024200.pdf Shelf Number: 123060 Keywords: Parole (U.S.)Parole BoardsParolees |
Author: Carter, Madeline Title: Evidence-Based Policy, Practice, and Decisionmaking Implications for Paroling Authorities Summary: Governments around the world are moving to align their programs and services with what is known as evidence-based policy and practices (EBP). EBP, which originated in the medical profession three decades ago, asserts that public policy and practice must be based on the best available scientific evidence to be effective in the achievement of its goals and to be efficient in the use of taxpayers’ dollars. To be evidence-based is to implement practices, both at the individual and the organizational levels, that are guided by sound, empirical research.The result is more efficient and effective outcomes — outcomes that make better use of public resources and, ultimately, reduce future crime. This paper presents the key research findings that make these goals possible and the implications of these findings for paroling authorities. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2011. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Parole Essentials: Practical Guides for Parole Leaders No. 2: Accessed October 20, 2011 at: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/024198.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/024198.pdf Shelf Number: 123061 Keywords: Evidence-Based PracticesParole (U.S.)Parole OfficersParolees |
Author: Burke, Peggy Title: The Future of Parole as a Key Partner in Assuring Public Safety Summary: New research is providing lessons about how the criminal justice system in the United States can reduce recidivism, prevent crime and victimization, and better use precious public resources. One of the fundamental principles of this new body of knowledge is that all components of the justice system must target new, more effective solutions to the right offenders.This paper will argue that paroling authorities can lead change efforts in this transformation, because they are uniquely positioned to target interventions to the appropriate offenders. By strengthening and focusing their decisionmaking regarding release, setting of conditions, and responding to violations, paroling authorities can help the system do what has proven effective and discontinue past practices that have proven ineffective. The paper will also make the case that strong, collaborative partnerships with and support from other key stakeholders—including chief executives, prison officials, and parole supervision agencies — are another essential ingredient to realize parole’s leadership role in the criminal justice system. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2011. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Parole Essentials: Practical Guides for Parole Leaders No. 5: Accessed October 20, 2011 at: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/024201.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/024201.pdf Shelf Number: 123062 Keywords: CollaborationParole (U.S.)Parole OfficersParoleesPartnerships |
Author: Bierschbach, Richard A. Title: Proportionality and Parole Summary: Commentators analyzing the Supreme Court’s watershed decision in Graham v. Florida, which prohibited sentences of life without parole for juveniles convicted of nonhomicide crimes, have generally done so in substantive proportionality terms, ignoring or downplaying parole in the process. This Article challenges that approach, focusing on the intersection of proportionality and parole as a jumping off point. Taking parole seriously makes clear that Graham is difficult to understand solely in terms of substantive proportionality concepts like individual culpability and punishment severity. Instead, the decision can be seen as establishing a rule of constitutional criminal procedure, one that links the validity of punishment to the institutional structure of sentencing. By requiring the state to revisit its first-order sentencing judgments at a later point in time, Graham mandates a procedural space for granular, individualized, and ultimately more reliable sentencing determinations. I expose this procedural and institutional side of parole’s constitutional significance, situate it within the constitutional landscape of sentencing, and sketch some of its implications for the future of sentencing regulation. Details: New York: Cardozo School of Law, 2012. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 367: Accessed April 27, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2038969 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2038969 Shelf Number: 125078 Keywords: Criminal LawCriminal ProcedureJuvenile OffendersParole (U.S.)Sentencing, Proportionality |
Author: Anwar, Shamena Title: Testing for Racial Prejudice in the Parole Board Release Process: Theory and Evidence Summary: We develop a model of a Parole Board contemplating whether to grant parole release to a prisoner who has finished serving their minimum sentence. The model implies a simple outcome test for racial prejudice robust to the inframarginality problem. Our test involves running simple regressions of whether a prisoner recidivates on the exposure time to the risk of recidivism and its square, using only the sample of prisoners who are granted parole release strictly between their minimum and maximum sentences and separately by race. If the coefficient estimates on the exposure time term differ by race, then there is evidence of racial prejudice against the racial group with the smaller coefficient estimate. We implement our test for prejudice using data from Pennsylvania from January 1996 to December 31, 2001. Although we find racial differences in time served, we find no evidence for racial prejudice on the part of the Parole Board based on our outcome test. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2012. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper No. 18239: Accessed July 24, 2012 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18239 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18239 Shelf Number: 125756 Keywords: BiasParole (U.S.)Parole BoardParoleesRacial DisparitiesRacial Prejudice |