Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:19 am
Time: 3:19 am
Results for parole officers
24 results foundAuthor: 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: Kramer, John Title: Evaluation of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole's Violation Sanction Grid Summary: This study focuses on sanctions and recommitments for parole and technical violations among a ten-month cohort of Pennsylvania parolees. With more than 10,000 releases a year and recommitments expected to be in excess of 50% over three years, recommitments represent a significant policy arena for study, one that affects prison populations, and more importantly for this research, involves decisions by parole officers regarding the use of available sanctioning resources. This report examines these decisions by following more than 8,000 Pennsylvania offenders paroled between September 1, 2006 and June 30, 2007. Through official information compiled by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, it examines parolee's violations of parole and the sanctions applied in response to those violations. The study is based on both quantitative and qualitative parole reports. Details: Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, 2008. 64p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119144 Keywords: Parole (Pennsylvania)Parole OfficersParole RevocationParolees |
Author: Armstrong, Gaylene Title: The Importance of a Low Span of Control in Effective Implementation of Evidence Based Probation and Parole Practices Summary: Public safety, through positive offender behavior change, and offender accountability are key priorities of the Community Based Correctional System in Iowa. In response to budgetary constraints, recent legislative discussions have ensued regarding the reduction of funding allocated for the supervisory staff in the System. The suggested reduction would significantly decrease the span of control ratio of probation supervisors to probation officers within the System. While recognizing ongoing fiscal demands, the current 7 probation officers to 1 supervisor ratio (7:1 span of control) should not be increased to a higher ratio, as it would be in contrast to suggested principles of organization and management, as well as challenge the continued implementation and sustainability of effective, evidence based practices within the System. "Span of control" has commonly been utilized to describe the number of individuals, or resources, that a person can effectively supervise within a structured organizational, business or military setting. The foundation of this principle is to increase administrative efficiency (Souryal, 1977), while retaining effectiveness within the organization. In examining the span of control in probation jurisdictions across the country, two different studies have found significant variation in this ratio. Cushman and Sechrest (1992) argued as part of their study, which included span of control ratios that a prevailing assumption existed such that probation agencies, clients on probation, and programs used to supervise probationers were similar across jurisdiction. Their results indicated, however that nothing could be further from the truth. Cushman and Sechrest noted "there are truly important differences on all three of these dimensions" between probation organizations; consequently, policy from one jurisdiction may not necessarily be a good model for adaptation to other jurisdictions. Moreover, significant variation found to exist in supervision ratios across jurisdictions, as well as supervision models, was unexplained. To date, evidence documenting the roles and responsibility of the supervising officers, as well as the supervisory structure, that may explain some of the variation in span of control ratios is absent in contextualizing these numbers. Concurrent with the consideration of appropriate span of control ratios, knowledge of recent changes to Iowa's approach to offender management inclusive of evidence based practices must also be understood. The general principle of evidence based practices (EBP) relies on scientific knowledge and/or empirical studies that demonstrate effectiveness of programs, methods or techniques within the contextual setting to accomplish a pre‐defined goal of recidivism reduction. As a result of the System’s implementation of evidence based practices in probation and parole, the implementation of EBP has been credited with a significant reduction in the Iowa prison population. This is a trend that could be reversed if the span of control was increased. Supervisors play a pivotal role in any organization's attempt to improve efficiency and effectiveness through the application of evidence‐based knowledge to the process of work. In order to be successful in this role, supervisors must master a set of skills that even ten years ago were not considered to be part of their competences. These skills include, among others, transformational leadership, strategic thinking, change management, communication, collaboration, coaching and mentoring, motivating staff, and relationship building. Each of these skills takes time to master and apply. Supervision is no longer just telling people what to do and then monitoring whether they do it; it has become the art and science of human and behavioral encouragement, support, and feedback. Moreover, the role of the probation officers themselves has significantly evolved with the implementation of evidence based practices. Probation and parole officers must be engaged with clients in a manner that requires a higher level of direct interaction to implement supervision techniques such as engaging in relationship building, motivational interviewing, and adhering to risk, needs and responsivity principles of treatment. This shift in officer roles aligns with added oversight by the supervisory staff to ensure fidelity of evidence based practices such as those mentioned above. Engaging in evidence‐based practices in probation and parole also requires supervisors who have the time to exercise these skills. If agencies expect to achieve significant modifications of criminal behavior and to reduce recidivism, they must allow supervisors the ability to devote the majority of their work day to collaborating with their staff in the actual conduct of their daily business. Supervisors must be able to tutor their staff in the skills of case planning, building meaningful relationships with the offender, engaging offenders in accomplishing treatment plans, using rewards and sanctions, and reducing risk by addressing criminogenic needs. In addition to ineffective implementation of evidence based practices, when supervision staff is lacking, it is also possible for programs and practices that are initially well‐implemented to erode in quality over time. As one director we spoke with stated, “…EBP takes active supervision and some accountability or it slips.” McManus (2007) also discussed a number of other global issues that may result including skill erosion, customer confidence erosion, and morale erosion or bad morale if employees are not supported with effective and adequate levels of supervision. Moreover, probation organizations are in a unique position such that both individual officers and their organizations may be subject to civil liability suits if it can be demonstrated that the organization failed to adequately train, direct, supervise, entrust, discipline and assign employees. Details: Houston, TX: Correctional Management Institute of Texas, Sam Houston State University, 2010. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 19, 2011 at: http://nicic.gov/Downloads/PDF/Library/024881.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://nicic.gov/Downloads/PDF/Library/024881.pdf Shelf Number: 120831 Keywords: Community Based CorrectionsParole OfficersParoleesProbation OfficersProbationers |
Author: Campbell, Nancy M. Title: Comprehensive Framework for Paroling Authorities in an Era of Evidence-Based Practices Summary: Parole can be defined as both a procedure by which a board administratively releases inmates from prison as well as a provision for post-release supervision. The Comprehensive Framework for Paroling Authorities in an Era of Evidence-Based Practices focuses on procedures relative to how and when to make the release decision and why and when to revoke a release. Parole is defined in this document as the release of an offender from imprisonment to the community by a releasing authority (parole board or paroling authority) prior to the expiration of the offender’s sentence subject to conditions imposed by the releasing authority. Revocation is the action of a releasing authority removing a person from parole status in response to a violation of conditions. Since eligibility for release on parole is a matter of state law, there is considerable variation in the location, administration, and organization of paroling authorities in the United States. All states have parole boards, and these boards may be independent agencies that have responsibility for release decisions or a branch of a department of corrections or a community corrections agency. In these organizational structures, boards may also have responsibility for staff who monitor the supervision of parolees in the community. Regardless of the structure, governors/governments are usually ill-equipped to select, hire, and train the caliber of individuals needed to do this important work that has a significant impact on public safety and the economy of a state. The Comprehensive Framework for Paroling Authorities in an Era of Evidence-Based Practices is the overarching visionary plan that paroling authorities need to lead them to a desired future of well-trained board members, using evidence-based practices within agencies that have sufficient staff and other resources to effectively support the release and, when necessary, revocation of offenders. The document describes what governors (appointing authorities) and paroling authorities need to do to improve the parole process while decreasing offender recidivism and increasing public safety. This document provides an outline of how NIC will lead the implementation of The Comprehensive Framework for Paroling Authorities in an Era of Evidence-Based Practices so that parole boards have the system components, organizational structure, and other resources to be a more vital part of the correctional system. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2008. 114p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 8, 2011 at: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/022906.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/022906.pdf Shelf Number: 122325 Keywords: Offender SupervisionParole (U.S.)Parole OfficersParolees |
Author: Northern Ireland. Criminal Justice Inspection Title: Governance Inspection of the Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland Summary: The Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland (hereafter the Parole Commissioners) are a very important element in the delivery of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. The Parole Commissioners make life-changing decisions about the safe release of offenders back into the community. Originally constituted as the Life Sentence Review Commissioners, the role of the Parole Commissioners is now significantly changed with the Criminal Justice Order 2008 introducing Extended Custodial and Indeterminate Custodial Sentences and making the Parole Commissioners responsible for Determinate Sentence recalls. The Parole Commissioners were established as an independent body with judicial character. Two considerations should be taken into account when reading this inspection report. Firstly, the impact of the Brooke judgement which defined the independence of parole boards, and secondly the Reilly judgement, which consolidated the court-like status of parole boards. The importance of these rulings is manifold in defining the remit of this inspection, the role of the sponsoring body and the nature and extent to which accountability and the trappings of accountability may be exercised. The work of the Parole Commissioners is driven by the number of prisoners considered for release in any one year. In 2008-09 46 cases were referred to the Commissioners and 40 were heard. It was in anticipation of a significant increase in the number of prisoners to be considered (estimates showed a projected increase from 88 in 2009-10 to a potential 407 in 2014-15; 162 cases were referred in 2010-11) that the number of Commissioners was increased from 24 to 40. The Parole Commissioners, led by a Chief Commissioner, make the decision whether or not to release prisoners. Commissioners are paid for their participation in casework decisions and for work ancillary to casework. Their work is supported by a Secretariat that provides assistance in relation to case administration, payment arrangements and other provisions. The current structure of the Parole Commissioners in Northern Ireland is unique. Unlike other arms length bodies within Northern Ireland, it is not an executive agency, a non-departmental public body, a commission or a tribunal. It also differs from the structural arrangements that underpin the work of the Scottish Parole Board and the Parole Board for England and Wales. The Department of Justice (DoJ) have adopted a standard model of governance with an Accounting Officer ostensibly held responsible for decision-making and financial management of the arms length body and set reporting procedures, but this does not happen in practice. The Chief Commissioner is not the Accounting Officer of the Parole Commissioners; is not the Chief Executive, and whilst supported by the Secretariat, is not their line manager. The Accounting Officer role is assigned to an Official within the DoJ reporting to the Permanent Secretary. The Official is the line manager for the Head of the Secretariat. The work of the Parole Commissioners is not subject to oversight by the Secretariat or the DoJ. The DoJ have developed a benefits realisation plan (Appendix 3) but this is a measure of the general effectiveness of the Sentencing Framework Initiative, and as it has not been agreed with the Chief Commissioner, it is not to monitor the work of the Commissioners. Additionally, the normal framework of accountability, as set out in a management statement and financial memorandum, do not apply in this instance due to the independent nature and judicial status of the Commissioners. The central issue in understanding the work of the Parole Commissioners in practice is the question of independence from the Executive in relation to decision-making. An issue is the importance of both real and perceived independence with regard to the work of the Commissioners. This issue has shaped both the establishment of the Parole Commissioners and subsequent formation. A key component of the debate is the Brooke judgement. The Brooke case was a judicial review that dealt with the issues of accountability and independence governing the Parole Board for England andWales. In this instance, the Court of Appeal found that the sponsoring department curtailed the independence of the Parole Board by exercising too much control over the appointment and tenure of the Commissioners by specifying the use of funding, by not adequately segregating support services and by including a policy element in the role of the Commissioners. The ruling extends not only to the decision-making but also the processes and arrangements that support decision-making. Although the Court of Appeal found that the ‘normal’ relationship between a ‘sponsoring department and its sponsored parole body did not automatically create a conflict of interest or automatically infringe the independence of the body’ the implication is that the relationship between a sponsoring body and its parent department may create a conflict. The subsequent ruling in the Reilly application (another judicial review) confirming the court-like status of the Parole Board strengthens the independence of the Commissioners and demands clear water between the Commissioners and the Executive – a situation not best met by the current arrangements. A straightforward comparison with the costs of cases in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales shows the former to be considerably higher. The average cost per referral was just under £8,000 in 2010-11. The comparable figures in England and Wales, and Scotland, are around £2,500, thus Northern Ireland is around three times as expensive. The Northern Ireland Parole Commissioners do not enjoy the economies of scale of the other jurisdictions (England andWales have almost 30,000 referrals per year). The development of the support structures, policies, procedures, recruitment and training of Commissioners and Secretariat staff incurred significant costs. This should reduce over the coming years and alongside increasing numbers of cases should see the unit cost decrease. There is a low level of delay in the cases heard by the Parole Commissioners and no judicial reviews of their decisions (both significant factors following the increase in cases in England and Wales). The Northern Ireland approach has incurred costs, although the achievement of timely hearings, the very low level of lifer recalls or judicial reviews indicate a high quality service. Our inspection has found that there is an inevitable conflict between any governance model proposed by the DoJ and that which complies with the legal rulings in a series of cases culminating in Brooke and Reilly. The thrust of these judgements was to emphasise the independence of the parole bodies and create a governance framework within which the sponsoring authorities must operate. The resulting impracticality of the current sponsorship arrangements with the potential legal ramifications arising from the Brooke judgement requires a rethink of the existing arrangements. The inspection recommends a strengthening in the governance arrangements underpinning the work of the Commissioners – within the constraints set by the Brooke judgement. Reconstituting the Commissioners as a tribunal accompanied by a transfer to the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service (NICTS) and listing the Chief Commissioner under Schedule 1 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, would provide a more suitable environment for a body of judicial character. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, 2011. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 3, 2011 at: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/03/03b77ef8-d196-447c-8d8d-52875dda6dcc.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/03/03b77ef8-d196-447c-8d8d-52875dda6dcc.pdf Shelf Number: 122628 Keywords: Parole (Northern Ireland)Parole BoardsParole Officers |
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: Braithwaite, Helen Title: Parole Agent and Supervisor Feedback from the Pilot Implementation of the California Parole Supervision and Reintegration Model (CPSRM) Summary: Parole reform commenced at four pilot parole units in August, 2010. These four units implemented the California Parole Supervision and Reintegration Model (CPSRM) into their supervision practices. Caseloads decreased significantly and agents adopted new evidence-based practices that were aimed at front-loading supervision services, engaging the parolee in the supervision process, and more effectively targeting and addressing a parolee’s criminogenic needs that increased their risk of reoffending. The Center for Evidence-Based Corrections at UC Irvine was tasked with conducting a process evaluation of the pilot implementation. We used a mixed-methods approach that used document analysis, surveys, interviews, and behavioral observation to evaluate how effectively the new policies were put into practice, and also measured the impact of parole reform on the attitudes and behavior of parole agents – that is, to see whether their style of supervision actually changed after reform was introduced. This report presents findings from interviews with front-line parole agents (PA1s), Assistant Unit Supervisors (PA2s) and Unit Supervisors (PA3s) from the four pilot sites. All interviews were conducted in January and February, 2011, at which time parole reform had been ongoing for 5-6 months. All supervisory staff from all four pilot units were interviewed (N=8); in addition, fifteen PA1 agents were randomly selected from across the four pilot sites equally, to give a total sample size of twenty-three. The purpose of the interviews was to obtain in-depth, anonymous feedback from pilot site staff concerning their experiences of parole reform part-way through its implementation. We adopted an Action Research approach for the interview component of the process evaluation, with the aim of applying the knowledge gained via interviews to further evolve the implementation of parole reform. The policies contained in the parole reform package have been refined during the pilot as they have been put into practice in the field. While other aspects of the UC Irvine process evaluation have employed a quasi-experimental research design to provide a level of scientific control (for example, by collecting baseline data for comparison purposes) the interviews gave the research team an opportunity to get detailed information on the experiences of parole reform that would (a) assist in the interpretation of findings from other research methodologies, and (b) provide DAPO leadership with ‘food for thought’ that would enable further reflection and refinement of the reform model. The goal of an Action Research approach is for researchers and practitioners to better understand the nature of the problem in order to take further action. As such, the ‘findings’ presented here are not an outcome in themselves, but merely part of the ongoing process of parole reform in California. The first thing to note from the interviews was that the implementation process itself was successful, in that all components of the parole reform package were put into practice at all pilot sites. Supervisory staff at all pilot sites ensured that their agents adopted the new procedures, without ‘cutting corners’ or paying lip service to policies but ignoring them in practice. No interviewee could think of an area of parole reform that had not been fully implemented at their unit. The DAPO parole reform team provided comprehensive follow-up support to assist the implementation process. While many suggestions were made to improve training sessions, the ongoing support provided as a follow-up to training (via email, internet, phone calls, site visits) gave pilot site staff the opportunity to clarify issues that arose and provide feedback that led to the refinement of procedures (e.g., reduced redundancy in forms). The interviews provided anecdotal evidence that the new parole model was achieving aims relating to the front-loading of services, a better understanding of the risk factors (or criminogenic needs) that may contribute to reoffending, and perceived improvement in public safety. Approximately half the agents interviewed reported an increase in face-to-face time with parolees, attributed to procedures such as the comprehensive interview, resource contacts, contacts with family members, and more time spent at the residence. While agents were reluctant to report that they had changed the way they spoke to parolees (believing that they always showed the parolee decency and respect and therefore their personal style had not changed over time), it was the perception of supervisors that agents had improved the way they spoke with parolees. Many supervisors said that, in their opinion, the quality of agent-parolee contacts had improved. Most agents and supervisors thought that parole reform would be shown to have a positive impact on public safety. Many agents could thus see the potential benefits of parole reform – reduced caseloads resulted in a perceived improvement in the quality of contacts, enabled agents to work closer with parolees, and provided agents with more information on parolees. The new forms and procedures (like the comprehensive interview and residence verification) front-loaded services and increased standardization across the department. The other 50% or so of agents showed some resistance to change. Paperwork was seen as the biggest obstacle, even though steps had been taken to reduce the amount of paperwork overall and, in particular, decrease redundancy in forms. Many agents perceived that the additional paperwork introduced as part of parole reform had reduced the time they were able to spend in the field. It is likely that the continual ‘tweaking’ of paperwork based on agent feedback caused an additional level of agent effort – agents had to keep track of these changes, print new forms, and in some cases agents were redoing their paperwork to replace ‘old’ versions of the forms with the ‘newer’ versions, in order to keep their files up to date. It could be that this process of refining the documentation requirements added to the perceived workload for some agents, and made them feel like the paperwork was too much. It appeared that, all things being equal, the new caseload size of 48 was achievable, especially since some redundancy in paperwork was being reduced. However, workload was seen as problematic when anomalous circumstances arose – for example, when agents had to carry additional cases due to other agents within their unit being out, or carry additional cases of a higher supervision category (Transition Phase, Category A or B). If caseloads were to increase and some aspect of workload had to be cut to compensate, agents commonly nominated two areas that could be scaled back – goals reports (particularly for ‘old-timer’ parolees) and Case Conference Reviews. An interesting theme to arise from the interviews was that unit leadership was important in overcoming potential staff resistance. A common finding in the literature is that staff with longer length of service within the organization may be more resistant to change. We did not collect background information on agent age, time at unit etc (to encourage interviewees to speak freely under conditions of anonymity) but certain pilot units, due to their geographical location, were more inclined to have veteran employees close to retirement. Agents from these units, however, were not uniformly more negative in their views toward parole reform than agents from other units. It seems likely that organizational factors (such as strong leadership and supervisor ‘buy in’) will be just as important as agent background in the acceptance of parole reform during a rollout. The pilot implementation subjected pilot units to the scrutiny of audits and a rigorous quality assurance process to make sure that agents were ‘meeting specs’ and that any performance issues were detected and rectified promptly. Staff commonly reported feeling under pressure and micromanaged as they adjusted to parole reform, which may have contributed to their negative impressions of reform overall. The final observation worth noting from the interviews is that, when implementing organizational change, it may be beneficial for supervisors to be provided some leeway in extenuating circumstances to enable staff to adjust to the new system over time. The feedback from pilot site staff gathered during the interview process provides DAPO leadership with valuable information that will assist in the further refinement of CPSRM. As noted previously, these experiences should be considered in terms of providing insight, rather than being considered ‘research findings’ themselves. The CPSRM pilot is ongoing, and further interviews may be conducted as DAPO proceeds down the path of reforming California’s parole system. Details: Irvine, CA: University of California at Irvine, Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, 2011. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: Accessed January 24, 2013 at: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/Parole%20agent%20and%20supervisor%20feedback%20from%20the%20pilot%20implementation%20of%20the%20CPSRM.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/Parole%20agent%20and%20supervisor%20feedback%20from%20the%20pilot%20implementation%20of%20the%20CPSRM.pdf Shelf Number: 127396 Keywords: Evidence-Based PracticesParole OfficersParole ReformParole Supervision(California)Parolees |
Author: Turner, Susan Title: The Impact of the California Parole Supervision and Reintegration Model (CPSRM) Pilot Implementation on Parole Agent Attitudes Summary: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) currently supervises approximately 125,000 offenders on post-release supervision, or parole. California's rate of parolees per population, currently 438 per 100,000 residents, is much higher than the national average of 315 (Glaze & Bonczar, 2009). This is due in part to the large prison population in California, which results in a large number of offenders released to community supervision at the completion of their sentences. Two sentencing decisions contribute to California's higher-than-average number of parolees. First, determinate sentencing laws introduced in 1976 resulted in fixed sentences of imprisonment for particular crimes, followed by mandatory release. This compares with a system of indeterminate sentencing, applied in some states, which sets minimum and maximum terms but leaves the release decision to parole boards (discretionary release). Second, California historically has released all prisoners to a period of supervised parole, usually for three years, rather than reserving supervision for some offenders and releasing offenders assessed to be a lower risk to the community with no supervision requirements. With so many offenders under parole supervision, inevitably many parolees violate parole, either by committing a new offense or through technical violations of their parole conditions (e.g., failing a drug test or missing a meeting with their parole agent). The return to custody (RTC) rate for a parolee in California is 66%, nearly twice the national average (Fischer, 2005), and on any given day, six out of ten prison admissions in California are returning parolees (Grattet, Petersilia, & Lin, 2008). In recent years, reviews of the corrections system in California have recommended reforms to implement evidence-based practices (EBP) into corrections policy. One common suggestion has been the targeting of parole supervision and treatment resources to those offenders most at risk of reoffending (Little Hoover Commission, 2007; Burke, 2009). Two recent legislative changes have altered California's parole system significantly. First, Senate Bill 3X 18 (Penal Code Section 3000.03), effective January 25th 2010, introduced Non-Revocable Parole (NRP), which placed ‘lower risk, low stakes' offenders into the community with no parole supervision or parole conditions, but still subject to warrantless search and seizure by law enforcement. To be eligible for NRP, offenders must have no prior serious or violent felonies, a low or moderate California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA) risk score, and not be required to register as a sex offender. Consequently, parole resources were targeted toward those offenders with a higher risk to reoffend who were most in need of assistance with reentry. Second, legislation changed the funding of agent caseloads, reducing caseloads from a funding ratio of 70 cases per agent down to 48:1. These two changes - the removal of a proportion of offenders from parole caseloads and the potential to lower the number of cases that each agent supervised - resulted in a unique opportunity for DAPO management to reconsider the way it supervised offenders to incorporate recent developments in EBP research and ‘best practice’ policies being introduced by colleague agencies elsewhere. In October 2009, DAPO convened a Parole Reform Task Force (PRTF) to recommend new policies and procedures in light of research findings and supervision methods used in other jurisdictions. The PRTF comprised 19 representatives from DAPO Headquarters and all four parole regions, and included ranks of Parole Agent 1 (‘rank and file’ parole agents), PA2 (Assistant Unit Supervisors), and PA3 (Unit Supervisors), in addition to Parole Administrators, Deputy Regional Administrators, and Regional Administrators. The Task Force met weekly through January 2010 and produced a report describing the new parole model, called the California Parole Supervision and Reintegration Model (CPSRM). The CPSRM represented a significant change to the way DAPO supervised offenders post-release. Sections in the Task Force report (i.e., pre-release planning, case management, case conferences, quality of supervision, agent workload, programming, parolee rewards and incentives, and parolee discharge procedures) carefully documented relevant research findings in support of the new practices outlined. At the crux of CPSRM was a move away from a ‘surveillance’ model of supervision towards an approach that emphasized both the quality of supervision, and the engagement of the parolee in the supervision process. Agents were trained in Motivational Interviewing (MI) techniques and used detailed comprehensive interviews to identify the criminogenic needs of parolees. These criminogenic needs formed the basis of the parolee’s case plan. Parolees were encouraged to identify tangible, small steps they could take every month in order to address these needs, and these tasks were written down in a Goals Report. Parolees were now invited to attend Case Conference Reviews in which their case plan was discussed; early discharge from parole was based in part on the level of commitment shown by the parolee in taking a more active role in his/her supervision. Based on the PRTF report a comprehensive DAPO policy manual was developed. Current plans are that CPSRM will roll out state-wide. Prior to its widespread implementation, a pilot implementation took place at four parole units in order to test policies in the field and make adjustments based on agent feedback. This report presents findings from surveys of parole agent attitudes during the CPSRM pilot implementation process. Details: Irvine, CA: Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, University of California, Irvine, 2011. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: accessed February 15, 2013 at: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/The%20impact%20of%20CPSRM%20pilot%20implementation%20on%20parole%20agent%20attitudes.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/The%20impact%20of%20CPSRM%20pilot%20implementation%20on%20parole%20agent%20attitudes.pdf Shelf Number: 127422 Keywords: Intensive SupervisionParole (California)Parole OfficersParole ReformParoleesPrisoner Reintegration |
Author: DeMichele, Matthew T. Title: Community Supervision Workload Considerations for Public Safety Summary: Supported by a grant awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the American Probation and Parole Association developed the report Community Supervision Workload Considerations for Public Safety discussing the dilemma of managing officer time amidst an array of tasks, constraining resources, and high caseloads. Two tools are provided within the document; 1) workload matrices that provide agencies with estimated time ranges for specific tasks officers complete classified by risk level and case type (e.g., domestic violence, sex offender), and 2) a time study template to assist agencies in conducting their own examination of officer workload. Details: Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association, 2011. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 1, 2013 at: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/APPA/pubs/CSWCFPS.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/APPA/pubs/CSWCFPS.pdf Shelf Number: 127755 Keywords: Caseload ManagementCommunity CorrectionsOffender SupervisionParole OfficersProbation Officers |
Author: Harris, Aileen Title: Therapeutic Alliance and Offender-Staff Relations in Women's Corrections Summary: What it means The current study demonstrates that healthy working relationships between institutional parole officers (POs) and women offenders may contribute to the overall adjustment of women during their incarceration. Although the findings are preliminary in nature, the results emphasize the importance of positive staff-offender interactions, the practice of dynamic security, and the selection of correctional staff with qualities that foster positive alliances with offenders in promoting correctional objectives. What we found Results of a correlation analysis demonstrated that women's perceived level of bonding with their PO was related to their institutional adjustment. Women with higher bond ratings were less likely to engage in institutional misconducts (r = -.22, p < .05). Interview responses from both staff and offenders further supported the importance of maintaining relational health and positive alliances within the institutional setting. Women consistently highlighted the importance of communication, interpersonal and relational skills that facilitate positive alliances between staff and offenders. Staff demonstrated their knowledge of the construct of therapeutic alliance, its meaning, and its application to the job, while also acknowledging the challenges of establishing alliances with such a diverse population within an environment that requires a focus on both positive interactions and safety/security concerns. The majority of staff and women indicated that dynamic security was being practiced across all of the women's sites. However, both groups also recognized certain operational demands and the provision of resources as obstacles in the maintenance of alliances. Why we did this study The current study emerged in response to an increasing focus in correctional literature on the importance of therapeutic alliance. Therapeutic alliance has been conceptualized as the collaborative and affective rapport established between a treatment provider and his/her client(s). The quality of this alliance is an important variable in the treatment process, affecting rehabilitation outcomes across diverse modes of treatment. Research in this area in correctional settings, particularly in settings with women offenders, is limited. The purpose of the current study, therefore, was to investigate the extent to which relationships between women offenders and institutional staff in the federal correctional system are characterized by healthy connections while exploring the construct of the therapeutic alliance. What we did Participants consisted of 124 women offenders and 88 correctional staff from all six women's federal facilities in Canada. Measures of alliance and relational health were used as predictors of institutional misconducts. Semi-structured interviews were used to gather information regarding staff and offender perceptions of alliances overall within the facility as well as the impact of the operational environment (dynamic/static security) on the development of such alliances. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2014. 1p. (Summary report). Full report is available upon request. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report No. R-305: Accessed April 1, 2015 at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/005/008/092/005008-0305-eng.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Canada URL: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/005/008/092/005008-0305-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 135120 Keywords: Corrections OfficersFemale InmatesFemale OffendersOffender Treatment ProgramsParole OfficersParolees |
Author: Western Australia. Office of the Auditor General Title: The Management of Offenders on Parole Summary: Background In Australia, crime costs around $36 billion per year. This translates to around $1 601 for every person in Australia or a total of $3.7 billion in Western Australia. Additionally, it costs Australian governments more than $10.7 billion to deal with these crimes, with corrective services accounting for 22.7 per cent of this cost. The Department of Corrective Services (DCS) is responsible for managing offenders in Western Australia. This includes offenders in custody awaiting trial, offenders convicted and sentenced for their crimes, as well as offenders in the community on parole or other community based orders. Offender management includes supervising offenders, ensuring access to treatment programs which aid in rehabilitation and supporting prisoners to lead a law abiding lifestyle. Offender management attracts a large amount of public interest and scrutiny. An offender on parole committing a serious crime often makes headline news and can impact public perceptions of the justice system. Parole provides an avenue for reintegrating and resocialising offenders into the community. A prisoner on parole is released from custody before the end of the maximum term of imprisonment imposed by the court to serve the remainder of their sentence in the community under supervision. Any prisoner released on parole remains on parole until the end of their sentence, unless it is cancelled or suspended. There are mixed views about parole. Some believe that it does not provide justice and that the best way to ensure the community remains safe is to keep offenders locked up for as long as possible. Advocates of parole believe it provides the best long term outcome for the community and offenders. They argue that, prisoners who spend a sustained period of time in custody invariably find it difficult to re-establish themselves into society and to lead a law abiding lifestyle on release. But, parole comes with risks. If an unsuitable offender is released, or parolees are not supervised and monitored appropriately, the community may be put at an increased risk. The Prisoners Review Board (PRB) is responsible for making decisions on parole taking into consideration a number of factors with community safety of paramount importance. The PRB also sets parole conditions before release. These conditions aim to lower the risk that a parolee may reoffend both in the short and long term. Conditions may include restrictions on where a parolee must live, who they may not have contact with and the rehabilitative programs they must attend. Once released into the community, Community Corrections Officers (CCOs), employed by the Department of Corrective Services, supervise parolees. CCOs meet with parolees on a regular basis to help them return to a law abiding lifestyle. This may involve linking offenders into treatment programs, ensuring they comply with parole conditions and prompt reporting to the PRB when a parolee breaches a condition. Details: Perth: Western Australia Auditor General, 2011. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Report 11: Accessed August 26, 2015: Accessed August 26, 2015 at: https://audit.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/report2011_11.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: https://audit.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/report2011_11.pdf Shelf Number: 136593 Keywords: Community Based Corrections Community Corrections Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Offender Supervision Parole Parole OfficersParolees |
Author: Siegel, Jonah Aaron Title: Prisoner Reentry, Parole Violations, and the Persistence of the Surveillance State Summary: The revolving door of the state and federal prison system may be the most persistent challenge faced by criminological practitioners and scholars. Following release from custody, the majority of former prisoners end up back in the system within three years, suggesting that correctional involvement is not an isolated incident for most offenders. Through its analysis of parole violations and sanctions, the current dissertation project offers important new insights on this "revolving door" between prisons and high-risk communities. To do so, each of three empirical chapters looks at a different phase in the cycle of recidivism: offending behavior, institutional responses to offending behavior, and the consequences of institutional sanctions for offenders' well-being. The first analytic chapter examines how geographical proximity to social service providers is related to the risk of recidivism. The findings suggest that the observed impact of contextual conditions on recidivism depends on how expansively one defines the "community" in which parolees are embedded and further demonstrates the importance of capturing the effect of service accessibility on offending behavior within the larger ecological context of where parolees live. The second analytic chapter explores how "supervision regimes," the legal, political, and cultural factors that shape the way supervision is practiced across jurisdictions, influence the risk of recidivism. The analysis demonstrates that regional and county-level attributes shape local templates for decision-making among parole officers in ways that affect not only whether parolees are revoked to prison, but also the use of alternative sanctions, such as stricter community supervision and incarceration in short-term correctional facilities such as jails or detention centers. The final analytic chapter offers a rigorous assessment of the causal impact of incarceration on labor market outcomes through an examination of whether return to short-term custody interferes with the ability of parolees to find and maintain work. Findings indicate that the experience of short-term re-incarceration dramatically increases the risk of unemployment among parolees in the months during and following their incarceration. Taken as a whole, the analyses shed light on how offending behavior, institutional decision-making, and the experience of incarceration combine to perpetuate the cycle of recidivism. Details: Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, 2014. 147p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed February 9, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248412.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248412.pdf Shelf Number: 137815 Keywords: Decision-MakingEx-Offender EmploymentOffender SupervisionParole OfficersParole ViolationsParoleePrisoner ReentryRecidivism |
Author: 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: Andersen, Lars Hojsgaard Title: Decomposing Recidivism Variance into Probation and Parole Officers and their Clients Summary: Existing empirical literature on probation and parole shows that individual client characteristics matter for recidivism, but also characteristics of their assigned probation or parole officer have been shown to matter. And although theoretical accounts of probation and parole debate the relative importance of these client and officer characteristics, no study has provided an empirical benchmark of the total effects of officers and clients (i.e., their characteristics) on recidivism. In this paper I decompose the total variance in recidivism into components attributable to probationers and parolees and their assigned probation or parole officers, respectively, using register data that merges all probationers and parolees in 2002-2009 in Denmark with their assigned officer. Results show that although substantial variance components are attributable to both officers and clients, the component attributable to clients is around twice the size of the component attributable to officers. These estimates provide new evidence on the most common types of noncustodial alternatives to imprisonment, probation and parole, which affect millions of people each day. Details: Copenhagen: Rockwool Foundation Research Unit, 2015. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Study Paper No. 92: Accessed May 18, 2016 at: http://www.rockwoolfonden.dk/app/uploads/2015/12/Study-paper-92_WEB.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Denmark URL: http://www.rockwoolfonden.dk/app/uploads/2015/12/Study-paper-92_WEB.pdf Shelf Number: 139276 Keywords: Community SupervisionParole OfficersParoleesProbation OfficersProbationersRecidivism |
Author: Bolin, Riane Miller Title: Adultification in Juvenile Corrections: A Comparison of Juvenile and Adult Officers Summary: The growing recognition throughout the nineteenth century that juveniles were different than adults culminated in the establishment of the first juvenile court in Cook County, Illinois in 1899. By 1945, every state had developed its own juvenile justice system separate and distinct from the criminal justice system. Since its inception, the juvenile justice system has experienced two waves of adultification in which the lines between the juvenile and criminal justice systems were blurred. While a number of studies have focused on the adultification of juvenile courts, no study has examined the adultification of juvenile corrections. Thus, the present study aims to explore whether one type of juvenile corrections, probation and parole, has been adultified by comparing the professional orientations as well as the behavior of juvenile and adult probation and parole officers. The study finds that juvenile probation and parole officers do differ from adult officers in regards to their professional orientation and behavior. Specifically, it is found that compared to adult probation and parole officers, juvenile officers tend to more strongly adhere to ideas of treatment, welfare, and offender-focused probation/parole. Additionally, it is found that juvenile probation and parole officers are less likely than adult officers to issue written sanctions and to pursue revocation hearings. The evidence from the present study reveals the important practical implications of retaining a separate and distinct juvenile justice system. Details: Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, 2014. 241p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed October 11, 2016 at: http://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3801&context=etd Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3801&context=etd Shelf Number: 145410 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile ParoleJuvenile ProbationParole OfficersProbation Officers |
Author: Meredith, Tammy Title: Assessing the Influence of Home Visit Themes and Temporal Ordering on High-Risk Parolee Outcomes Summary: Over 4.7 million adults were under community supervision in the United States at the end of 2014, of which 856,900 (18%) were on parole (Kaeble, Maruschak, & Bonczar, 2015). Over a quarter of the adults entering prisons nationwide in 2014 were admitted due to failure on parole (Carson, 2015). Thus, successful reentry is of urgent importance as states grapple with the effects of severe fiscal challenges squeezing correctional budgets. While participating in evidence-based programming significantly lowers revocation rates (Andrews & Bonta, 1998), the general question of how supervision influences parole outcomes remains unanswered. Advancing the development and management of comprehensive strategies for improving successful offender outcomes is quintessential to successful reentry. Parole officer fieldwork is integral to community supervision, whether it is home visits, employment verification, or collateral contacts made with a treatment program provider or law enforcement official. Home visits, in particular, provide an opportunity for purposeful face-to-face encounters between officer and offender that may be distinct from other fieldwork. Unfortunately information on what constitutes a home visit, its use as a tool of supervision, and its influence on offender outcomes is largely absent in the literature. Given the time, expense, and potential risk home visits pose for officers, there is a critical need to understand their influence on supervision outcomes. This understanding must include measures of their quality. Parole officers are charged with the dual role of assuring felony offender compliance with sentence and prison release conditions while assisting with community reentry. The natural home environment is a key locale for promoting and monitoring behavior change. Likewise, interactions during home visits yield ideal conditions to understand if and how therapeutic jurisprudence unfolds. Knowledge about what occurs during home visits is important to both researchers and practitioners seeking to develop best practices across all supervision components (DiMichele, 2007, DeMichele, Payne, & Matz, 2011). Further, home visit interactions occur with people in the parolee’s life who often provide emotional, residential, financial and/or social support. Understanding how socio-cultural bonds and social influence are developed among parole officers, parolees, and their support networks during home visits may inform ways to blend surveillance and rehabilitation goals and decrease supervision failures (Braswell, 1989). Details: Atlanta, GA: Applied Research Services, Inc., 2016. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250380.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250380.pdf Shelf Number: 145012 Keywords: Community SupervisionHome VisitsOffender SupervisionParole OfficersParolees |
Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office Title: Investigation into the Parole Board Summary: The National Audit Office has today published the findings from its investigation into the Parole Board (The Board). The Board is responsible for deciding whether prisoners can be safely released from prison and advising on movement between closed and open prisons across England and Wales. The NAO examined the Board in 2008 and made a number of recommendations to improve efficiency, in particular to address a backlog of outstanding cases. A Supreme Court ruling in 2013 (The Osborn ruling) broadened the circumstances in which the law requires the Board to hold an oral hearing. This led to an increase demand for oral hearings by the Board. The number of outstanding parole cases increased sharply, leading to increased delays and additional costs. The key findings of the investigation are as follows: The Osborn ruling in October 2013 had an immediate impact on the demand for oral hearings conducted by the Board. There were 6,872 oral hearings conducted by the Board in 2014-15, an increase of 48% in comparison to 4,628 in 2012-13. Hearings increased to a high of 7,148 in 2015-16. The number of outstanding cases increased by more than 140% following the Osborn ruling. The Board had a backlog of cases for several years, but the number of outstanding cases increased by 143% from October 2013 to a peak of 3,163 in January 2015. Of the 2,117 oral cases outstanding in September 2016, 13% were more than a year past their target date for a hearing. A further 16% were more than six months past their target date. The Board's ability to reduce the number of outstanding cases is limited by the number of cases it is able to list in any month. For example, the Board listed 701 cases for oral hearings in September 2016, while the queue of cases waiting for a hearing date was 1,257. Once listed, 34% oral hearings were deferred, and more than half of these (21%) were deferred or adjourned on the day of the hearing. The increase in demand for oral hearings has meant that older and more complex cases have been less likely to be heard. In 2015-16, 64% of cases were provided with an oral hearing date within 90 days of being ready to list, against a 90% target. The oldest of the outstanding cases in September 2016 had an original target date in 2009, with another 404 cases having target dates in 2015 or earlier. At December 2016, 3,081 prisoners on indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPPs) were in prison beyond their tariff expiry date. IPP prisoners make up around half of the cases waiting more than 90 days for a hearing. Of the 3,683 IPP prisoners still in custody in December 2016, 84% (3,081) were beyond their tariff expiry date. Of these, 48% had been in prison five or more years beyond their tariff and 11% were eight years or more beyond their tariff. In July 2016, the Board announced its intention to reduce the number of IPP prisoners in prison to 1,500 by 2020. The Board has paid £1.1 million in compensation claims to prisoners since 2011-12 as a result of delayed hearings, with £554,000 paid out in 2015-16. The backlog means some prisoners may have spent longer in prison than needed. Spending on member fees increased by 43% from £4.7 million in 2010-11 to £6.7 million in 2015-16. In October 2015, the Board set a target to reduce outstanding cases to 1,200 by April 2017, but this level of outstanding cases does not reflect efficiencies it has made since 2013. In June 2016, the Board moved the date to achieve this target to the end of 2017, and has so far not set out what it expects the level of outstanding cases to be after this. Under its new chair and chief executive, the Board launched a strategy to tackle the backlog in September 2016. The strategy includes aims to prioritise the safe release of IPP prisoners and to improve workflow by listing as many cases as possible and reducing unnecessary deferrals and adjournments. In 2016, the Ministry of Justice, on behalf of the Board, launched a major member recruitment exercise for the first time in four years. The Ministry did not recruit new members between 2012 and 2016, and member numbers fell 23% between 2010-11 (284) and 2015-16 (218). In 2016 it recruited 104 members, around half starting in 2016-17 and the remainder in 2017-18. Details: London: NAO, 2017. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: HC 1013; Session 2016-17: Accessed February 28, 2017 at: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Investigation-into-the-Parole-Board.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Investigation-into-the-Parole-Board.pdf Shelf Number: 141248 Keywords: Offender SupervisionParole BoardParole OfficersParolees |
Author: Latessa, Edward J. Title: Evaluation of the Effective Practices in Community Supervision Model (EPICS) in Ohio Summary: Over the last decade, several attempts have been made to integrate the principles of effective intervention into community supervision (Bourgon, Bonta, Rugge, Scott, & Yessine, 2010; Lowenkamp, Holsinger, Robinson, & Alexander, 2012; Robinson, Vanbenschoten, Alexander, & Lowenkamp, 2011; Smith, Schweitzer, Labrecque, & Latessa, 2012; Trotter, 1996; 2006). In contrast with "traditional" community supervision - which has underscored the importance of monitoring compliance with court-ordered conditions and making referrals to service providers - these recent initiatives attempt to teach probation and parole officers how to structure their face-to-face interactions with offenders using evidence-based practices (Bourgon et al., 2010; Lowenkamp et al., 2012; Robinson et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2012; Trotter, 1996, 2006). Preliminary results from several jurisdictions suggest that the use of core correctional practices within the context of community supervision has been associated with meaningful reductions in offender recidivism (Bourgon et al., 2010; Robinson et al., 2011; Lowenkamp et al., 2012). This work affirms the role of probation and parole officers as agents of behavioral change, and provides empirical support for the notion that community supervision can be effective in reducing recidivism. In an effort to determine the success of a recent initiative designed to teach probation and parole officers to apply the principles of effective intervention to community supervision practices in the state of Ohio, the Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services (OCJS) funded the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute (UCCI) to implement the Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS) model in four jurisdictions throughout Ohio and to study the results of the implementation. A quasi-experimental study was undertaken with a twofold purpose. First, UCCI was interested in how successfully probation and parole officers were able to translate into daily practice the skills taught during the training and coaching process. Second, UCCI examined whether offenders supervised by EPICS-trained officers experienced reductions in recidivism compared with offenders supervised by untrained officers. The primary objective of this study is to examine the effectiveness of a newly integrated practice model that enhances the service delivery role of community supervision. The study addressed the following research questions: 1. Can researchers and practitioners work together to maintain research and program fidelity and translate EPICS techniques into practice? 2. Can researchers and practitioners collaborate to study and improve probation officer-offender interactions? 3. Can the EPICS model increase the effectiveness of community supervision outcomes? What follows is a detailed report on the implementation of the EPICS model in Ohio, as well as an analysis of study outcomes. Details: Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati, School of Criminal Justice, Center for Criminal Justice Research, 2013. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 24, 2017 at: https://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/ccjr/docs/reports/Final%20OCJS%20Report%202.22.13.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/ccjr/docs/reports/Final%20OCJS%20Report%202.22.13.pdf Shelf Number: 146362 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Corrections Community Supervision Parole Parole OfficersProbation Probation Officers |
Author: Braithwaite, Helen Title: Parole Agent Workload Study Summary: This workload study was completed under a research contract between the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the Center for Evidence-Based Corrections (CEBC) at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). CDCR's Office of Research and the Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) collaborated with UCI research staff to design the study, develop data capture instruments that were then pilot tested in the field, identify parole agents to participate in the study, and provide agent training. DAPO was responsible for coordinating the study with parole administrators, unit supervisors and agents in the field. UCI collaborated on instrument development, collected and analyzed data, and provided reports to CDCR and DAPO. The need for a workload study was identified during DAPO training on gender-responsivity (GR). During several two-day training sessions, parole agents expressed concern over the amount of time involved in the supervision of female offenders. Agents reported that, as a consequence of female offenders being more relational and having a broader range of criminogenic needs than males, females took more time. Agents perceived that face-to-face contacts with female parolees were longer, and that additional time was spent on activities such as speaking with females on the telephone and liaising with programs. Under the California Parole Supervision and Reintegration Model (CPSRM), parole caseloads in California are funded at a ratio of 53:1. Due to the perceived additional workload involved in supervising female parolees, some agents attending training were concerned that the introduction of female-only, GR caseloads would be too much work unless the number of females on a GR caseload was lower than 53 parolees. Sixteen GR female-only caseloads (operating at a 53:1 ratio) had been implemented in California at the time of this study. Certain specialized caseloads with reduced caseload sizes are employed in California for Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP) offenders with mental health issues and non-high risk sex offenders (operating at 40:1), in addition to Global Positioning System (GPS) specialized caseloads for gang members and high risk sex offenders (operating at approximately 20:1). Other states have implemented smaller, specialized caseloads for offenders with drug and alcohol problems, mentally ill offenders, domestic violence offenders, and female offenders. Research has shown that these specialized caseloads may result in recidivism reductions (Jalbert & Rhodes, 2012; Jalbert , et al., 2011; Klein, Wilson, Crowe & DeMichele, 2005; Gies, et al., 2012; Wolff, et al., 2014). The purpose of the workload study was to collect data to examine whether female parolees are more work or different work than male parolees. That is, do contacts with females take longer or are they different in nature than contacts with males? For this study, agents reported their daily contacts and the time they allocated to various work activities using a Daily Activity Log instrument over a five week data capture period. Agents supervising the sixteen GR caseloads comprised the experimental group (GR group). Approximately 30 agents supervising regular mixed-gender CPSRM caseloads were selected by DAPO to comprise a control group, used for comparison purposes. Workload that is too high leads to job stress and burnout. Burnout has been linked to decreased work performance, withdrawal from others, substance abuse, employee health problems, an increase in absenteeism, and employee turnover (Griffin, Hogan, & Lambert, 2012; Lambert & Paoline, 2008; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986). Agent burnout is thus costly to both employees, DAPO, and potentially has public safety impacts for society. This study measured the level of agent burnout, job stress, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and perceived workload using an agent survey. The study concludes that female parolees are both more work and different work than male parolees. Female contacts are longer overall, certain tasks are performed more often with female parolees, and certain tasks were shown to take longer with female than male parolees. Other jurisdictions in the United States have adopted a specialized caseloads approach to female offenders by reducing caseload sizes; the findings of this study support such an approach. Details: Irvine: Center for Evidence-Based Corrections University of California, Irvine, 2016. 111p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 29, 2017 at: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/2017/04/Parole-Agent-Workload-Study.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/2017/04/Parole-Agent-Workload-Study.pdf Shelf Number: 147508 Keywords: Community SupervisionParole CaseloadParole OfficersParolees |
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: Cotten, P. Ann Title: Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services: Parole and Probation Agent Workload Study. Final Report Summary: The Maryland General Assembly required the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) to conduct a workload study of the department's parole and probation agents. The Office of Community Supervision Support (CSS), in turn, contracted with the Schaefer Center for Public Policy at the University of Baltimore's College of Public Affairs (Schaefer Center) to conduct a study that included a review of the literature relating to parole and probation agent staffing, an analysis of agents' workload including a time study of agents, an analysis of the supervision caseload, and the collection of comparative caseload data from other states. From the research, the Schaefer Center team was charged with producing staffing recommendations, average caseload counts, and recommendations for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of parole and probation supervision. The primary focus of the research is agents who directly supervise offenders on parole and probation. As part of the research, the team also produced an analysis of how Court Liaison Unit (CLU) agents, Liaison Waiver (LAW) agents, and Warrant Apprehension Unit (WAU) officers spend their work time, and solicited input into recommendations for improving the effectiveness of their work. To fulfill its charge, the research team employed a mix of quantitative and qualitative strategies listed below. A comprehensive literature review of all known English language articles on community supervision and staffing. A four-week time study with 114 parole/probation agents and Warrant Apprehension Officers. Participants recorded 25,743 hours of work activity. Time observations were reported for work relating to 6,388 offenders. A caseload analysis that included all offenders under supervision on September 29, 2014. A review of agent case notes for a 12-month period for 215 randomly selected offenders. Fifteen focus groups with 137 participants including: 71 supervising agents, 42 supervisors, 5 agents and 1 supervisor from the Court Liaison Unit, 9 agents and 1 supervisor from the Liaison Waiver Unit, and 9 Warrant Apprehension Officers. A national survey of state parole and probation agencies. Details: Baltimore, MD: Schaefer Center for Public Policy University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs, 2015. 149p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 3, 2017 at: http://dlslibrary.state.md.us/publications/JCR/2014/2014_116(v3).pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://dlslibrary.state.md.us/publications/JCR/2014/2014_116(v3).pdf Shelf Number: 147534 Keywords: Community SupervisionOffender SupervisionParole CaseloadParole OfficersParoleesProbation CaseloadProbation OfficersProbationers |
Author: Cotten, P. Ann Title: Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services: Parole and Probation Agent Workload Study Report on Agent and Officer Focus Groups Summary: The Maryland General Assembly required the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) to conduct a workload study of the department's parole and probation agents. The Office of Community Supervision Support (CSS), in turn, contracted with the Schaefer Center for Public Policy at the University of Baltimore's College of Public Affairs (Schaefer Center) to conduct a study that included a review of the literature relating to parole and probation agent staffing, an analysis of agents' workload including a time study of agents, an analysis of the supervision caseload, and the collection of comparative caseload data from other states. From the research, the Schaefer Center team was charged with producing staffing recommendations, average caseload counts, and recommendations for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of parole and probation supervision. The primary focus of the research is agents who directly supervise offenders on parole and probation. As part of the research, the team also produced an analysis of how Court Liaison Unit (CLU) agents, Liaison Waiver (LAW) agents, and Warrant Apprehension Unit (WAU) officers spend their work time, and solicited input into recommendations for improving the effectiveness of their work. To fulfill its charge, the research team employed a mix of quantitative and qualitative strategies listed below. A comprehensive literature review of all known English language articles on community supervision and staffing. A four-week time study with 114 parole/probation agents and Warrant Apprehension Officers. Participants recorded 25,743 hours of work activity. Time observations were reported for work relating to 6,388 offenders. A caseload analysis that included all offenders under supervision on September 29, 2014. A review of agent case notes for a 12-month period for 215 randomly selected offenders. A national survey of state parole and probation agencies. To gain a good understanding about the work of the agents and variation in the work across regions, the research team conducted fifteen focus groups with 137 participants including: 71 supervising agents, 42 supervisors, 5 agents and 1 supervisor from the Court Liaison Unit, 9 agents and 1 supervisor from the Liaison Waiver Unit, and 9 Warrant Apprehension Officers. The findings from the focus groups are presented in this supplemental report Details: Baltimore, MD: Schaefer Center for Public Policy University of Baltimore - College of Public Affairs, 2015. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 4, 2017 at: http://dlslibrary.state.md.us/publications/JCR/2014/2014_116(v2).pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://dlslibrary.state.md.us/publications/JCR/2014/2014_116(v2).pdf Shelf Number: 147555 Keywords: Parole CaseloadParole OfficersProbation CaseloadProbation Officers |
Author: Wilton, Geoff Title: Can the Predictive Validity of the Dynamic Factors Identification and Analysis - Revised be improved by calculated ratings? Summary: The Dynamic Factors Identification and Analysis Revised (DFIA-R) is a key component of the Correctional Service of Canadas (CSC) Offender Intake Assessment process. Implemented in 2009, it is the current tool designed to assess dynamic risk. The DFIA-R is comprised of 100 indicators across seven domains (employment/education, marital/family, associates, substance abuse, community functioning, personal/emotional, and attitude) assessed by parole officers. Based on their professional judgement, an overall dynamic need rating is generated as well as a rating on each domain. Recent research has demonstrated that the overall rating and each of the domain ratings are predictive of revocations of conditional release across offender groups (Stewart, Wardrop, Wilton, Thompson, Derkzen & Motiuk, 2017). The present study examined whether calculated ratings could improve the predictive validity of the tool over the structured professional judgment provided by the parole officers at intake. The study included 15,487 non-Indigenous men, 4,640 Indigenous men, and 1,195 women who had completed DFIA-R assessments (that included the assessment of indicators) and had been released. Because of the low number of revocations for women offenders we were unable to disaggregate by Indigenous status. Calculated domain ratings on the DFIA-R were based on the proportion of indicators endorsed on each domain for each offender group. Using this method, no endorsed indicators led to a rating of no need; fewer than 33% of indicators endorsed produced a low need rating; 33% to 66% of indicators endorsed was rated as moderate need, and more than 66% of indicators endorsed produced a high need rating. For the overall rating of need two calculated methods were used. The first was based on the mean of the proportions of indicators endorsed across the domains and the second, weighted each domain by its strength of association with outcome based on the survival analyses (hazard ratios) for each offender group. For the first method, offenders with fewer than 25% of indicators endorsed across the domains were rated low need, 25% to 50% endorsed were rated medium need, and greater than 50% rated high need. An adjusted calculation for women set the cut-offs at less than 33%, 33%-66%, and greater than 66% for low, moderate or high ratings respectively. We did not control for covariates given the need to maximize statistical power. Results indicated that across all domains and for non-Indigenous men, Indigenous men, and women, ratings based on the proportion of indicators endorsed produced greater differentiation in predicting revocations (with or without an offence among offenders rated as no, low, moderate and high need than the parole officers ratings. Predictive validity was improved for all three study groups using these two methods. Both calculated methods of overall need ratings produced stronger predictions of revocations than ratings made by parole officers. For women offenders, the adjusted calculated method further improved the prediction of the overall ratings. Split-half reliability indicated that parole officers ratings of overall need had lower reliability than the calculated ratings. The results allow us to conclude that calculated ratings based on proportion of indicators endorsed provided greater predictive power and reliability than the parole officer ratings. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2017. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report (R-400): Accessed April 5, 2018 at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-400-eng.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Canada URL: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-400-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 149698 Keywords: Female Offenders Indigenous Offenders Indigenous Peoples Parole OfficersParole Revocations Risk Assessment |