Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:59 am
Time: 1:59 am
Results for parole revocation
11 results foundAuthor: Harrison, Linda Title: The Status of Parole Returns to Prison in Colorado Summary: This analysis presents data on those incarcerated in Colorado prisons between FY 2000 and FY 2007, with special focus on the parole revocation population. Details: Denver, CO: Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, Office of Research and Statistics, 2008. 13p. Source: Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 113863 Keywords: ParoleParole RevocationParolees |
Author: 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: Denman, Kristine Title: Parole Revocation in New Mexico Summary: The general goal of this project is to understand how the parole system operates in New Mexico as well as its impact on, and response to, parolee misconduct. This pro-ject begins with a review of policies and statutes that guide the treatment of parolees. This provides the framework to understand the operation of parole in New Mexico as well as responses to violations. We then investigate documented parole violations and revocations among offenders released to parole in New Mexico during the 2005 and 2006 calendar years, assessing factors that contribute to these incidents. Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center, 2010. 83p.; ex. summary Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 3, 2011 at: http://nmsac.unm.edu/contact_information/nmsac_publications/ (executive summary only) Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://nmsac.unm.edu/contact_information/nmsac_publications/ (executive summary only) Shelf Number: 122967 Keywords: Parole (New Mexico)Parole RevocationParolees |
Author: California. Office of the Inspector General Title: Special Report: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Implementation of the Non-Revocable Parole Program Summary: On October 11, 2009, a major change occurred in California statutory parole requirements with the passage of Senate Bill X3 18. This landmark legislation was intended to help alleviate the endemic overcrowding within California prisons – and the numerous constitutional violations and budgetary demands occasioned by such overcrowding – by providing a system whereby non-violent parole offenders would not be returned to prison unless they were convicted of another felony offense. On April 4, 2011, additional significant legislation was enacted with the passage of Assembly Bill 109. When funded, this legislation will ultimately shift non-violent parolees from oversight by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to oversight by local governmental agencies. Consequently, the nonrevocable parole program established by Senate Bill X3 18 can now be viewed as an interim measure that will be in place only until such time as local governmental agencies assume supervision over non-violent parolees. Effective January 25, 2010, CDCR began placing eligible convicted felons on non-revocable parole, commonly referred to as NRP, in compliance with Penal Code section 3000.03. Before the law’s enactment, when these types of inmates were released from California prisons, they were typically subject to parole terms of one to three years and were under some level of supervision by CDCR. Since the enactment of Penal Code section 3000.03, however, paroled inmates who meet certain criteria must be placed on non-revocable parole. Parolees on non-revocable parole are not supervised. Moreover, unlike supervised parolees, they are not subject to arrest or reincarceration in prison for parole violations. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has very little authority over offenders once they are placed on non-revocable parole. In the interest of public safety, then, and to comport with the legislative intent that only qualified, non-violent offenders be placed on non-revocable parole, the screening process used to determine an inmate’s eligibility for non-revocable parole must be accurate. The screening process for non-revocable parole excludes the following inmates and parolees: registered sex offenders; offenders with current or prior serious, violent or sexually violent felony convictions; offenders who are known prison gang members; and other offenders determined to have a high risk to reoffend. To determine an inmate’s risk of reoffending, CDCR has developed a validated risk assessment instrument referred to as the California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA).1 However, flaws in the CSRA’s implementation have resulted in flawed assessments. The CSRA has understated some offenders’ risk of reoffending; some of these high-risk offenders have been placed on nonrevocable parole. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) estimates that approximately 23.5 percent of the offenders assessed for possible placement on non-revocable parole between January and July 2010 were scored inaccurately, and that approximately 15 percent of the more than 10,000 offenders placed on non-revocable parole were inappropriately placed on non-revocable parole during that same time period.2 Over 450 of these ineligible offenders carry a high risk for violence, and some of these ineligible offenders may have already been discharged from nonrevocable parole after completing 12 months of parole, thereby precluding CDCR from taking action to correct the parolee’s inappropriate placement on non-revocable parole. It should be noted, however, that CDCR reports it has improved scoring tables used in the automated scoring process and that these corrections would have reduced the error rate from approximately 23.5 percent to approximately eight percent if these corrections had been in place before July 2010. Details: Sacramento: Office of the Inspector General, 2011. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2012 at: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/BOI/Special%20Report%20California%20Department%20of%20Corrections%20and%20Rehabilitations%20Implementation%20of%20the%20Non-Revocable%20Parole%20Program.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/BOI/Special%20Report%20California%20Department%20of%20Corrections%20and%20Rehabilitations%20Implementation%20of%20the%20Non-Revocable%20Parole%20Program.pdf Shelf Number: 125319 Keywords: Alternatives to ImprisonmentParoleParole RevocationParolees, JuvenilesPrison OvercrowdingRisk Assessment (California) |
Author: Weatherburn, Don Title: Re-offending on Parole Summary: Aim: To measure the rate of re-offending on parole and identify the predictors of both general and violent offending on parole. To describe the types of offences committed on parole. Method: The analysis was based on 9,604 offenders released on parole in 2010 or 2011. Multinomial logistic regression was used to identify demographic and criminal history characteristics independently associated with re-offending or re-imprisonment while on parole. Results: Just under 61 per cent (60.8%) of parolees neither re-offended nor were re-imprisoned during their parole period. About twenty-eight per cent (28.4%) of the sample re-offended on parole. A further 10.8 per cent were re-imprisoned on parole without having first re-offended. Approximately 7 per cent (7.1%) of the sample committed a violent offence on parole. Parolees were more likely to offend on parole if they were male; Indigenous; young; had spent less than 180 days in prison (during the current episode); had a higher Level of Service Inventory - Revised score had a non drug offence as their principal offence; had six or more prior court appearances, had been imprisoned before; or had a prior conviction for drug use and/or possession. The correlates of violent re-offending on parole were very similar but also included prior conviction for a serious violent offence. Those who re-offended on parole committed a broad spectrum of offences, including: break and enter, assault, possess illicit drugs, receive/handle proceeds of crime, drive while licence disqualified, breach apprehended violence order and property damage. Conclusion: Offending on parole is less common than previous studies have suggested. Future research should focus on three issues: whether it is possible to improve the accuracy of the parole risk assessment process; whether post release supervision/support reduces the risk of re-offending following release from prison; and whether offenders released to parole are less likely to re-offend if released to parole by the State Parole Authority than if released on parole by a court. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2014. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, No. 178: Accessed September 17, 2014 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/_assets/bocsar/m716854l2/cjb178.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/_assets/bocsar/m716854l2/cjb178.pdf Shelf Number: 133330 Keywords: Parole RevocationParolees (Australia)RecidivismReoffendingRisk Assessment |
Author: Ferguson, Catherine Title: Parole in Western Australia: An analysis of parole cancellations of female offenders Summary: The number of prisoners in Australian prisons has been increasing over the past decade. In Western Australia the number of female offenders has increased by 40 percent over the past five years. One contributing factor to this increase may be the re incarceration of parolees who have violated parole. This research used the publicly available decision documents from the Prisoners Review Board in Western Australia to investigate the background details of offences, and the details of the parole violations of 41 women released in 2013-14. Data revealed that a high proportion of women returned to prison after a very short time in the community as a result of illicit drug use. The high cost of re-incarceration is considered against a background of rehabilitation and extra support in the community that might assist released women negotiate their complex lives on release without resorting to further drug use. The paper includes a number of recommendations to consider in an effort to reduce the recidivism of female offenders. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2015. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 501: Accessed September 17, 2015 at: http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi501.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi501.pdf Shelf Number: 136793 Keywords: Female OffendersParoleParole RevocationParolees |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: U.S. Parole Commission: Number of Offenders under Its Jurisdiction Has Declined; Transferring Its Jurisdiction for D.C. Offenders Would Pose Challenges Summary: USPC was established in 1976, in part to carry out a national parole policy that would govern the release of offenders to community supervision prior to completing their full custody sentences. USPC’s budget is just over $13 million for fiscal year 2015. Over time, changes in laws have abolished parole and introduced supervised release - a new form of post-incarceration supervision. As a result, USPC has been reauthorized and has authority to grant and revoke parole for eligible federal and D.C. offenders and to revoke supervised release for D.C. offenders violating the terms of their release. USPC'[s current authorization is set to expire in 2018. This report addresses (1) changes in the number of offenders under USPC's jurisdiction from fiscal years 2002 through 2014 and (2) the organizational characteristics needed for an entity to feasibly assume jurisdiction of D.C. offenders from USPC, and the feasibility and implications of such a transfer. GAO analyzed USPC data on federal and D.C. offenders from fiscal years 2002-2014 - the most recent years for which reliable data were available - as well as DOJ reports on USPC and USPC policies, and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. GAO also discussed with USPC and some of its criminal justice partners the feasibility of transferring USPC's jurisdiction for D.C. offenders and any related challenges. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2015. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-15-359: Accessed September 21, 2015 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670509.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670509.pdf Shelf Number: 135913 Keywords: Community CorrectionsOffender SupervisionParoleParole RevocationParolees |
Author: Northern Ireland. Criminal Justice Inspection Title: The Impact of Prisoner Recalls on the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland Summary: The report examined how the prisoner recall system operated and sought to balance the need to provide offenders released on licence with the opportunity to make a fresh start, with the requirement to effectively manage the risk of further offending and maintaining public safety. Some offenders react positively to the opportunities being presented through early release on licence, and with the support of their families and friends, probation staff and members of their community, they make the transition to become positive contributors to society. Others who suffer from mental illness, or have limited family support, low levels of self worth, poor education, lack of employability and life skills, experience homelessness, drug and alcohol addiction, or are immature and irresponsible, struggle to keep from reoffending or breach their licence or parole conditions, are subsequently recalled to custody. At one level recall to custody is seen as a failure of, or setback in the rehabilitative process. At another level recall is seen as an effective intervention to deal with the increased risk of further offending. Balancing the risk of further offending with the opportunity for offenders to make a fresh start is one of the dilemmas facing our penal system. In response to this we have created a complex process to help manage these risks, keep the public safe and protect the rights of offenders, all of which is reported to be working reasonably well. The key to improving the reoffending rates and reducing the number of recalls to prison is in the quality of the work undertaken during custody in preparing a prisoner for their release, together with the support available to offenders in the community to assist with their transition from custody. I welcome the RESET programme which is an excellent example of where statutory agencies can work collaboratively with the voluntary sector to reduce reoffending. There is also a need for step-up and step-down facilities as alternatives to returning offenders directly to prison, where we know so little happens in the short to medium-term to reduce their risk of reoffending. Details: Belfast: Northern Ireland Criminal Justice Inspection, 2016. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2016 at: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/f4/f491d48d-7c82-4459-9dc2-830223db93fc.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/f4/f491d48d-7c82-4459-9dc2-830223db93fc.pdf Shelf Number: 139663 Keywords: Parole RevocationRe-offending Recidivism |
Author: Alper, Mariel Title: By the Numbers: Parole Release and Revocation Across 50 States Summary: Parole decision-making functions as a crucial mechanism channeling people in and out of prison. This report combines multiple data sources and, for the first time, provides an overview of the movements between prison and parole for each state, focusing on the decision points of parole release and parole revocation. This information allows for a comprehensive picture of each state, both as a snapshot and longitudinally. For each state, information is presented on prison and parole rates over time, the percentage of prison admissions that are due to people on conditional release, the percentage of hearings by the parole board that result in parole being granted, the rate of re-incarceration for parolees, and the percentage of parolees who exit parole due to an incarceration versus a successful completion of supervision. These five topics show a wide diversity of trends over the fifty states. This is due largely to the varying contexts in which parole operates across the states. For example, states vary in the extent to which discretionary decision-making is authorized; eligibility requirements for parole release and revocation; attitudes, cultures, and norms of parole boards; and the risk level of their prison and parole populations. In addition, only about half of the states make information on parole grant rates publicly available. Of the states that do not make this information available, only a few do not (or very rarely) use discretionary parole release. The amount of information available on grant rates varies by state, with few states offering comparable data over time and most states offering data only on hearings that actually take place. In contrast, due to national data collections by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, more comprehensive information is available on prison and parole populations, the number of conditional releases, and re-incarcerations. Certain patterns - or lack of patterns - are evident throughout the briefs, providing some answers but also raising a range of questions. Details: Minneapolis, MN: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 2016. 214p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 23, 2016 at: http://robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/numbers-parole-release-and-revocation-across-50-states Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/numbers-parole-release-and-revocation-across-50-states Shelf Number: 139802 Keywords: Parole Parole RevocationParolees |
Author: Denman, Kristine Title: Absconding and Other Supervision Violations: A Study of Probationers, Parolees, and Dual Supervision in New Mexico Summary: This study examined violations of supervision among a cohort of individuals under state supervision in New Mexico. We included probationers, who comprise the vast majority of those under state supervision, parolees, and those supervised under dual supervision (both probation and parole). We focused on several key questions, intended to improve our understanding of violations of supervision and revocations. Additionally, we built on our prior study of parole violations where we found that absconding was one of the most common violations of parole, and the most salient predictor of revocation. The key differences between the prior study and the current one are that we expanded the study population to include probationers, and added variables that may help to explain absconding behavior. Our overall objectives for this part of the study were to explore the risk and protective factors associated with absconding, and to understand whether these differed by supervision type. Details: Albuquerque: New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center, 2017. 111p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 8, 2017 at: http://isr.unm.edu/reports/2017/absconding-and-other-supervision-violations--a-study-of-probationers,-parolees,-and-dual-supervision-in-new-mexico.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://isr.unm.edu/reports/2017/absconding-and-other-supervision-violations--a-study-of-probationers,-parolees,-and-dual-supervision-in-new-mexico.pdf Shelf Number: 148781 Keywords: AbscondingOffender SupervisionParole RevocationParole ViolationsProbation RevocationProbationer ViolationsSupervision Violations |
Author: Laskorunsky, Julia A. Title: Kansas Prisoner Review Board: Parole and Post-Release Supervision and Revocation Technical Assistance Report Summary: In February 2017, the Kansas Prisoner Review Board ("Board") answered a Request for Proposals (RFP) for technical assistance from the Robina Institute on Criminal Law and Criminal Justice ("Institute"). The Board requested assistance with improving its parole and post-release supervision revocation process in two main areas. First, the Board sought to reduce the number of offenders who are revoked each year by identifying those requiring revocation due to the seriousness of their violation. Second, it sought to streamline the processing time between initial and final revocation to reduce the amount of time revoked offenders spend incarcerated. This report provides an account of the technical assistance request, a description of the research findings, and a summary of procedural and policy recommendations for the Board's consideration. The overall project is designed to address a broad set of issues targeting multiple dimensions associated with the decision to revoke post-release supervision. First, Institute staff interviewed Board members and parole agency staff to develop an understanding of the revocation process and to help explain how Board members decide to revoke post-release supervision. Second, online survey data were collected from 87 parole officers focusing on their supervision practices, particularly those related to the decision to recommend post-release supervision revocation. Third, Institute staff reviewed available administrative data, agency reports, and policy and practice manuals providing a statistical snapshot of the revocation process in the state. What follows summarizes the results of these combined efforts, supplemented by a series of recommendations Details: Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota Law School, 2018. 40p. Source: internet Resource: Accessed May 19, 2018 at: https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/kansas-prisoner-review-board-parole-and-post-release-supervision-and-revocation Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/kansas-prisoner-review-board-parole-and-post-release-supervision-and-revocation Shelf Number: 150278 Keywords: Offender SupervisionParole RevocationParole SupervisionParolees |