Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:18 am
Time: 12:18 am
Results for parole revocations
7 results foundAuthor: Grattat, Ryken Title: Parole Violations and Revocations in California Summary: This study examines parole violations and revocations in California based on the number of adults on parole at any point during the calendar years 2003 and 2004. The study is designed to generate concrete policy recommendations for the state. Details: Unpublished report to the U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2008. 150p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 21, 2010 at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/224521.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/224521.pdf Shelf Number: 113075 Keywords: Parole RevocationsParole ViolationsParolees (California) |
Author: Levin, Marc Title: The Role of Parole in Texas: Achieving Public Safety and Efficiency Summary: Texas recently earned national acclaim for avoiding what was expected to be a catastrophic prison overcrowding crisis. In 2005, in anticipation of overcrowding, the Legislative Budget Board recommended building more than 17,000 new prison beds. Texas did not build the beds, however, and it still managed to reduce crime throughout the state. Part of the credit for this impressive accomplishment must go to the state’s parole system. In 2009, out of 76,607 parole-eligible cases considered, 23,182 Texas inmates were placed on some kind of parole supervision. More importantly, the number of parolees revoked to prison has sharply declined from 11,311 in 2004 to 6,678 in 2010, reflecting a drop in both new crimes and technical violations serious enough to warrant revocation. The parole system is designed to ensure those leaving prison are under supervision during their initial reentry into society and promote order in prisons by providing inmates with an incentive for good behavior, but it is also the primary means by which the state controls the size and cost of the prison population at the back-end of the system. Some states don’t have parole and instead adhere to “truth-in-sentencing” policies which incarcerate offenders for every day of their sentence. While such policies have some appeal, they don’t allow for an appraisal of the inmate’s behavior in prison and his eff orts at self-improvement through completing rehabilitation programs. As conservative Congressman Howard Coble of North Carolina noted, “I still embrace the theory of locking the cell door if an offender has been convicted of a crime. But I don’t say throw the key away. I say, keep the key handy, so the same key that locked that door can also unlock it.” In a practical sense, parole is also the state’s response to the problematic incentive created by a dual system of locally elected prosecutors and judges and state-funded incarceration. The incentive is for locally elected officials to seek public support and eliminate any risk of crime in their local jurisdictions through the longest sentences possible for every offender at the state’s expense, as opposed to managing risks by balancing incarceration costs with other priorities, such as better policing programs that may prevent more crime for every dollar spent. In Texas, parole revocations have declined in recent years, from 14.8 percent in 2004 to 8.2 percent in 2010. Further parole reforms, if properly targeted, could improve this, staving off prison crowding problems long before they start and contributing to gains in public safety. The recommendations presented in this report stand in stark contrast to the late 1980’s debacle when the state leadership decided to turn the parole system into a gigantic jailbreak rather than incur the cost of building new lockups. At that time, some 750 prisoners were being released early every week, including many murderers and rapists. There are key differences, however, in our situation today: 1) the state has more than three times as many prison beds due to the early 1990s prison building spree triggered in part by the public outrage at these releases in the 1980s; 2) carefully targeted changes have resulted in only a slight increase in the total parole rate from 27 to 31 percent; and 3) the state has far more nonviolent inmates today who are either ineligible for parole or who are being refused parole. By continuing to focus parole changes on this population, the state can avoid building new prisons while also not repeating the mistakes of the past. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2011. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Perspective: Accessed July 22, 2011 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2011-05-PP09-Parole-mlevin-vreddy.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2011-05-PP09-Parole-mlevin-vreddy.pdf Shelf Number: 122151 Keywords: Community CorrectionsParole (Texas)Parole RevocationsParolees |
Author: Murphy, Amy Title: Parole Violation Decision-Making Instrument (PVDMI) Process Evaluation Summary: California currently has the nation’s largest prison population (about 167,000 prisoners) (CDCR, 2009), and while some other state prison populations have declined in recent years, California’s continues to increase (Petersilia, 2008). Its prison expenditures are among the highest in the nation—per inmate, per staff, and as a share of the overall state budget. In spite of vast expenditures, California prisons remain dangerously overcrowded (now at 200 percent of inmate capacity), and a federal court has issued an Opinion and Order to reduce the number of inmates by over 40,000 (Grattet, et. al., 2008). Rehabilitation has also been scaled back, as classrooms have been converted to living space. California’s Expert Panel on Rehabilitation recently reported that nearly 50 percent of all prisoners released in 2006 sat idle—meaning they did not participate in any work assignment or rehabilitation program for their entire time in prison (California Expert Panel on Adult Offender Recidivism Reduction Programming, 2007). Two-thirds (66 percent) of all parolees return to prison within three years, nearly twice the average rate nationally (Grattet, et. al., 2008). Because of this high rate of failure, parolees comprise much of the prison admissions in California, accounting for nearly two-thirds (66 percent) of all persons admitted to California prisons in 2007 (Grattet, et. al., 2008). Over the last 20 years, the number of parole revocations has increased 30-fold in California, compared with a six-fold increase nationally (Travis, 2003). As an effort to address parolees’ high rates of recidivism and returns to custody, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) introduced and piloted the Parole Violations Decision-Making Instrument (PVDMI) in 2008-9, two years after the initial planning for the tool began. The PVDMI is a tool that uses parolee risk level and violation severity to make recommendations on addressing parole violations. This type of reform, using structured decision-making tools in parole practice, had been recommended by several public policy forums in California. The pilot took place over 90 days in four parole units, and the PVDMI was then implemented across the state. Details: Irvine, CA: Center for Evidence-Based Corrections The University of California, Irvine, 2009 (Revised February 2010). 82p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: Accessed March 15, 2013 at: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/PVDMI.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/PVDMI.pdf Shelf Number: 118614 Keywords: Decision-MakingParole RevocationsParole ViolationsParolees (California)Risk Assessment |
Author: Texas. Legislative Budget Board Title: Statewide Criminal Justice Recidivism and Revocation Rates Summary: In fiscal year 2012, nearly 80,000 adults and over 5,000 juveniles returned to neighborhoods following their release from Texas correctional facilities. More than 355,000 adults and more than 30,000 juveniles were under active supervision in the community. In fiscal year 2013, appropriations for the state agency overseeing the care of these adult populations, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, totaled $3.1 billion, and appropriations for the state agency overseeing the care of these juvenile populations, the Texas Juvenile Justice Department, totaled $330.4 million. This report examines the public safety outcomes for this investment. This report assesses whether groups of these individuals were rearrested and/or (re)incarcerated within three years of release from incarceration or after beginning supervision. This report refers to subsequent incarcerations as reincarcerations if the population has been previously incarcerated; otherwise, they are referred to as incarcerations. Adult cohorts analyzed in this report include individuals released from Texas prisons, state jails, Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facilities, In-Prison Therapeutic Community programs, and Intermediate Sanction Facilities. Juvenile cohorts include individuals released from Texas Juvenile Justice Department secure residential facilities, juveniles starting juvenile probation department (JPD) supervision, and juveniles released from JPD secure residential facilities. This report also summarizes whether populations under active supervision in the community were terminated (i.e., revoked) and incarcerated in response to the commitment of a new offense or technical violation of supervision conditions. The populations included in this analysis represent a diverse set of offenders with varying levels of community-based supervision, offense severity, offense history, and risk of reoffending. Details: Austin: Texas Legislative Budget Board, 2013. 118p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 10, 2013 at: http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Public_Safety_Criminal_Justice/RecRev_Rates/Statewide%20Criminal%20Justice%20Recidivism%20and%20Revocation%20Rates2012.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Public_Safety_Criminal_Justice/RecRev_Rates/Statewide%20Criminal%20Justice%20Recidivism%20and%20Revocation%20Rates2012.pdf Shelf Number: 129357 Keywords: Parole RevocationsParoleesRecidivism (Texas, U.S.)Reoffending |
Author: Justice Policy Institute Title: Parole Perspectives in Maryland: A Survey of People Who Returned to Prison from Parole and Community Supervision Agents Summary: A new analysis from the Justice Policy Institute (JPI) shows the connection between efforts to reduce prison populations, connect people to work, and address the challenges of Baltimore's distressed communities. In Parole Perspectives in Maryland: A survey of people who returned to prison from parole and community supervision agents, JPI heard from the people most directly impacted by and involved with Maryland's parole practices. JPI surveyed people who returned to prison from parole and their community supervision agents to get a clearer picture of the barriers to successfully transitioning to the community from prison. About half of the people surveyed were from Baltimore City and most of the parole agents surveyed were responsible for a caseload that includes people from Baltimore City. Forty-six percent of the people who left prison and were on parole that were surveyed were from Baltimore City, and 12 percent were from Baltimore County. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2015. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2015 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/paroleperspectivesinmaryland.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/paroleperspectivesinmaryland.pdf Shelf Number: 136854 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity-Based CorrectionsCosts of CorrectionsOffender SupervisionParoleParole RevocationsParolees |
Author: Clark, Valerie A. Title: An Evaluation of Minnesota's Second Chance Act Adult Demonstration Grant: The High-Risk Revocation Reduction Reentry Program Summary: This research assessed whether a reentry program targeted towards high-risk short-term prison inmates significantly reduced recidivism. Adult male release violators serving incarceration periods of two to six months in two Minnesota state prisons were randomly assigned to either the control group (n = 77) or the High-Risk Revocation Reduction (HRRR) program (n = 162). The latter group was provided with enhanced case planning, housing assistance, employment assistance, mentoring services, cognitive-behavioral programming, and transportation assistance, while the former group was given standard case management services. After one to two years of post-release follow-up time, event history analysis was used to predict the following four measures of recidivism: supervised release revocation, rearrest, reconviction, and new offense reincarceration. The Cox regression analyses revealed that participation in the HRRR program significantly lowered the risk of supervised release revocations and reconvictions by 28 and 43 percent, respectively. Regardless of treatment or control group membership, receiving more reentry assistance significantly reduced supervision revocations as well as rearrests. Analyses also revealed that employment assistance, including subsidized employment, was especially effective at reducing recidivism. Targeting resources towards this previously under-served population may be useful for lowering recidivism as well as promoting public safety. Details: St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2014. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 22, 2016 at: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/PAGES/files/8214/1340/4401/Evaluation_of_HRRR_Program_-_October_2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/PAGES/files/8214/1340/4401/Evaluation_of_HRRR_Program_-_October_2014.pdf Shelf Number: 138362 Keywords: Parole RevocationsPrisoner ReentryRecidivismSecond Chance ActSupervised Release |
Author: Campbell, Christopher Michael Title: Dooming Failure: Understanding the Impact, Utility, and Practice of Returns on Technical Violations Summary: Since its modern establishment in 1870, systems of parole or conditional release from incarceration have been understood as a test of "readiness." It is a test for returning offenders to demonstrate whether they are "ready" to be in society untethered from state control. Violating release conditions indicates that the offender is not ready, and requires further confinement. Over a century later this readiness assumption remains untested. As every state releases offenders under some form of the "readiness assumption," its lack of empirical support marks associated policies (e.g., parole revocation) as an assumption-driven practice that impacts more than 500,000 parolees a year. Within this practice, there are two major areas in need of research: (1) developing a baseline understanding of the types of people that make up a group of returned violators, and (2) the multifaceted impact of revoking parole status on the offender and the system. Through a datasharing partnership between the Washington State Department of Corrections and Washington State University, this dissertation aims to fill this gap using cluster analyses to answer the question What are the characteristics of returned violators? and propensity score analyses to address the question What is the effect of returning someone to confinement due to a TV on future recidivism? in a quasi-experimental design. Findings from the cluster analyses revealed eight different profiles of violators who are returned, and six to seven different profiles among all others on community custody. The profiles demonstrate unique features that suggest divergence across characteristics such as social support (pro-social family and friends) and mental health problems among others. Results from the investigation into the effects of confinement as a violation sanction on recidivism revealed that, after all covariates are equal, returning someone to total confinement based on TVs actually increases the likelihood of the person committing a new crime. These results hold great potential as implications to community corrections by identifying a need for reform in traditional parole systems, emphasizing a need to trace and reassess how finite resources are being employed in practice, and whether such practice is theory- and evidence-driven, or if it is simply assumption-based. Details: Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, 2015. 188p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed August 28, 2017 at: https://research.libraries.wsu.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2376/5512/Campbell_wsu_0251E_11412.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://research.libraries.wsu.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2376/5512/Campbell_wsu_0251E_11412.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Shelf Number: 146917 Keywords: Conditional Release Parole Parole RevocationsParole Violations |