Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:41 am
Time: 1:41 am
Results for parole supervision
28 results foundAuthor: Jannetta, Jesse Title: An Evolving Field: Findings from the 2008 Parole Practices Survey Summary: To examine more closely the current state of parole supervision, the Urban Institute conducted a survey of parole supervision field offices to assess the extent to which the 13 strategies outlined in Putting Public Safety First: 13 Parole Supervision Strategies to Enhance Reentry Outcomes (2008) were reflected in current practice around the country. The survey was sent to 1,550 parole supervision field offices in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. This survey covered characteristics of the field offices, backgrounds of the administrators, organizational climate and culture, collaboration, training, use and support of evidence-based practices, and supervision policies and practices as they relate to the 13 Strategies. This report presents the findings of this survey. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2009. 57p. Source: Online Resource Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117789 Keywords: Parole (United States)Parole Supervision |
Author: Diller, Rebekah Title: Maryland's Parole Supervision Fee: A Barrier to Reentry Summary: In this report, we conclude that billing individuals on parole $40 per month for their supervision is a penny-wise, pound-foolish policy that undercuts the State of Maryland’s commitment to promoting the reentry of people into society after prison. Implemented nearly two decades ago during a national wave of new supervision fees, the Maryland policy was intended to raise extra revenue for general state functions. However, our research shows that the fee is largely uncollectible due to the dire financial situation in which parolees find themselves and that the paper debt it creates does more harm than good. Moreover, the imposition of the fee is out of step with Maryland’s move toward supervision policies that protect the public by promoting the ability of parolees to reenter society successfully. Details: New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2009. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9, 2010 at: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/baltimore/articles_publications/publications/parole_20090320/parolereport_20090320.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/baltimore/articles_publications/publications/parole_20090320/parolereport_20090320.pdf Shelf Number: 114777 Keywords: Parole SupervisionParoleesReentry |
Author: Lopez, John S. Title: Have Perceptions Changed Among Staff Regarding Parole Officers' Carrying Firearms?: A Description of Changes in Safety Perceptions and Supervisory Styles at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Parole Division Summary: The purpose of this research is threefold. The first purpose is to describe the changes in safety perceptions of Parole Division staff since the implementation of the firearms policy within the division. The second purpose is to explore possible changes in supervisory style since the implementation of the firearms policy ( Welebob 1998). The third purpose is to determine possible changes in staff safety perceptions since Welebob’s findings. The survey method was used to analyze the possible changes in safety perceptions and supervisory styles. The sampling frame consisted of 347 Texas Department of Criminal Justice Parole Division staff members. Overall, there were no major changes in safety perceptions and supervisory styles among carriers, non-carriers, and support staff since Welebob’s 1998 study. Details: San Marcos, TX: Applied Research Projects, Texas State University - San Marcos, 2007. 137p. Source: Internet Resource: Paper 205: Accessed March 9, 2011 at: http://ecommons.txstate.edu/arp/205 Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://ecommons.txstate.edu/arp/205 Shelf Number: 120962 Keywords: FirearmsParole Officers (Texas)Parole SupervisionParolees |
Author: Korber, Dorothy Title: ‘ A Courtroom Unlike Any Other’ Santa Clara County’s Parolee Reentry Court is a Case Study in Reducing Prison Recidivism Summary: The judge ran through his afternoon calendar at a sprinter’s pace. More than 50 cases cycled through the court in three hours – all of them parolees with a violation. Dirty drug tests. Missed appointments. New crimes. Such lapses normally would have sent them straight back to state prison. But today, instead of a prison cell, they are in Judge Stephen Manley’s crowded, bustling San Jose courtroom. This is Santa Clara County’s Parolee Reentry Court, where high-risk offenders get a second chance at redemption. If it works, everybody wins: the parolee rebuilds his life, his community is safer, and taxpayers save the thousands of dollars it would cost to return him to prison. If it fails, he is one more statistic in California’s dismal recidivism rate. California has the worst record in the nation for re-incarcerating parolees, with nearly 70 percent returning to prison within three years of release. To address this problem, in 2009 the Legislature passed Senate Bill x3 18, which created a pilot program testing whether a drug-court model can reduce recidivism. Santa Clara is one of six counties participating in the pilot. The aim of these Parolee Reentry Courts is to stop the swinging prison door. Details: Sacramento: California Senate Office of Oversight and Outcomes, 2011. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 14, 2011 at: http://www.momentumformentalhealth.org/document.doc?id=39 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.momentumformentalhealth.org/document.doc?id=39 Shelf Number: 122054 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCourtsParoleParole SupervisionParolees (California)RecidivismReentry |
Author: Burrell, William D. Title: Guns, Safety and Proactive Supervision: Involving Probation and Parole in Project Safe Neighborhoods Summary: The information in this monograph is intended to raise concerns and issues that agencies and officers should consider in decisions about proactive supervision as it relates to dealing with prohibited offenders who may possess guns. The document does not prescribe a template or model for this. Rather, agencies and officers may wish to use the document as a center of discussion on policies and procedures, especially with the agency’s legal counsel who is in the position to advise them on federal, state, and local laws that apply to the practice of supervision. The primary purpose of this monograph is to provide probation, parole, community supervision officers, and their agencies with a framework to assist them in planning, implementing, and enhancing services provided to offenders who may possess firearms. Information provided will neither endorse nor oppose the carrying of weapons by supervising officers. Further, references to matters of law are not intended to be legal interpretations and agencies should consult with legal counsel relative to the development of policies and procedures. Details: Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association, 2008. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2011 at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/pdf/APPA_PSN.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/pdf/APPA_PSN.pdf Shelf Number: 122099 Keywords: Firearms and CrimeIllegal GunsParole SupervisionProbation SupervisionWeapons |
Author: State of Oregon Government Title: Oregon Parole/Post-Prison Revocation Study Summary: Oregonians sentenced for felony convictions and released from jail or prison in 2005 and 2006 were evaluated for revocation risk. Those released from jail, from prison, and those served through interstate compact were considered in the analysis. The revocation rate is lowest for the interstate compact population and highest for the jail population; overall, 24% were revoked in the two years after release. Revocation risk is influenced by numerous static and demographic variables. Independent variables common with the three populations include recidivism risk, number of arrests while on parole or post-prison supervision (PPS), number of prior felony convictions, age, and being a veteran. Comparing the jail and prison populations, both age and number of prior felony convictions have similar effects for both populations. The number of arrests while on parole/PPS has more of an effect with the jail population than those released from prison. The factors that are important for the prison population yet are not important risk factors for the jail population include being male, being African American, incarcerated for a violent offense, incarcerated for a public order offense, and considered high risk at release; all of these factors increase risk for the prison population yet are not important risk considerations for those released from jail. The factors that have different effects in each population (i.e. associated with increased risk in one population and decreased risk in the second population) include veteran status, prior imprisonment, and incarceration for a property crime. There are some demographic and static factors that influence revocation risk among the three populations. Despite numerous similarities, differences do exist. The predictive accuracy of the models suggests that individuals prone to revocations can be identified with some accuracy. Details: Eugene, OR: State of Oregon, 2011. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 15, 2011 at: http://www.oregon.gov/CJC/docs/Oregon_Revocation_Final.pdf?ga=t Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.oregon.gov/CJC/docs/Oregon_Revocation_Final.pdf?ga=t Shelf Number: 122748 Keywords: Parole SupervisionParole ViolationsParolees (Oregon)RecidivismRisk Assessment |
Author: Jannetta, Jesse Title: Surveying the Field: State-Level Findings from the 2008 Parole Practices Survey Summary: Parole supervision is the key mechanism facilitating the return of prisoners to the community. To examine the current state of parole practice, the Urban Institute conducted a survey of parole supervision field offices. In this report, the authors examine survey results at the state level to supplement and extend the national-level analysis presented in the previously released An Evolving Field. This analysis provides a more nuanced view of parole practices and, despite differences in population and structure of justice systems, shows the varying strengths, weaknesses, and similarities across states. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute, 2011. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 27, 2012 at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412410-State-Level-Findings-from-the-2008-Parole-Practices-Survey.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412410-State-Level-Findings-from-the-2008-Parole-Practices-Survey.pdf Shelf Number: 123841 Keywords: ParoleParole SupervisionParolees |
Author: Solomon, Amy L. Title: Putting Public Safety First: 13 Parole Supervision Strategies to Enhance Reentry Outcomes Summary: In 2007, the Urban Institute convened two meetings with national experts on the topic of parole supervision. The goal of the meetings was to articulate participants’ collective best thinking on parole supervision, violation, and revocation practices and to identify policies and strategies that would help policymakers and practitioners improve public safety and make the best use of taxpayer dollars. This paper, the result of those meetings and a review of the research literature, describes 13 key strategies to enhance reentry outcomes along with examples from the field. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Center, The Urban Institute, 2008. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 28, 2012 at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411791_public_safety_first.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411791_public_safety_first.pdf Shelf Number: 123851 Keywords: Offender SupervisionParoleParole SupervisionParoleesPrisoner ReentryPublic Safety |
Author: Taylor, Mac Title: The 2012-13 Budget: Refocusing CDCR After The 2011 Realignment Summary: In 2011, the state enacted several bills to “realign” to county governments the responsibility for certain low-level offenders, parolees, and parole violators. These changes will result in significant reductions in the inmate and parole populations managed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). These reductions will have various implications for how CDCR manages its prison and parole system. In 2011, the state enacted several bills to realign to county governments the responsibility for managing and supervising certain felon offenders who previously had been eligible for state prison and parole. Over the next few years, these changes will result in significant reductions in the inmate and parole populations managed by CDCR. The purpose of this report, which is the second of a two-part series examining the impacts of the 2011 realignment on California’s criminal justice system, is to identify the impacts of the realignment of adult offenders on CDCR’s operations and facility needs. Specifically, this report discusses whether realignment will enable the state to meet the prison population limit required by the federal court, and how the state should proceed if it appears that these limits will be missed in the time line specified by the court. In addition, the report discusses how the change in the makeup of CDCR’s inmate population following realignment will affect its housing, mental health, and medical facility needs, and provides recommendations on how to better match CDCR facilities with the remaining inmate population. We also discuss how realignment will impact the state’s fire camp program and how the state can ensure that this program continues to yield its full benefit following realignment. Finally, we describe how realignment will affect the need for rehabilitation programs and how to better match these programs to the needs of the remaining inmates and parolees. Details: California: Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), 2012. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 15, 2012 at http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis/2012/crim_justice/cdcr-022312.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis/2012/crim_justice/cdcr-022312.pdf Shelf Number: 124966 Keywords: Corrections AdministrationInmatesParole (California)Parole Supervision |
Author: Gies, Stephen V. Title: Monitoring High-Risk Sex Offenders with GPS Technology: An Evaluation of the California Supervision Program Summary: Despite the increasing number of high-risk sex offenders (HRSOs) who are being placed on electronic monitoring programs, little is known about how effective these programs are in increasing offender compliance and in reducing recidivism. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine the effectiveness of the global positioning system (GPS) monitoring of HRSOs who are released onto parole. This study integrates outcome, cost, and process evaluation components. The outcome component assesses the impact of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s GPS supervision program by employing a nonequivalent-group quasi-experimental design with a multilevel survival model. We also use a propensity score matching procedure to account for the differences between the treatment and comparison groups. The study population is drawn from all HRSOs who were released from prison between January 2006 and March 2009 and residing in the state of California. The final sample includes 516 subjects equally divided between the treatment and control groups. The treatment group consists of HRSOs who were placed on GPS monitoring. The control group is made up of similar offenders who were not placed on the GPS system during the study period. The resulting sample shows no significant differences between the groups on any of the propensity score matching variables. The effectiveness of the program is assessed using an intent-to-treat (known as ITT) approach. The two main outcomes of interest are compliance and recidivism. Compliance is measured through violations of parole. Recidivism is assessed in a variety of ways, including 1) rearrest, 2) reconviction, and 3) return to prison custody. Each outcome is assessed with a survival analysis of time-to-event recidivism data, using a Cox proportional hazards model. In addition, we use frailty modeling to account for the clustering of parole agents within parole districts. The findings indicate, despite the baseline similarities, a clear pattern of divergence in outcomes during the 1-year study period. The subjects in the GPS group demonstrate significantly better outcomes for both compliance and recidivism. In terms of compliance, the multivariate model shows that the hazard ratio of a sex-related violation is nearly three times as great for the subjects who received traditional parole supervision as for the subjects who received the GPS supervision. In terms of recidivism, compared with the subjects who received the GPS monitoring supervision, the hazard ratio for any arrest is more than twice as high among the subjects who received traditional parole supervision. Similarly, for both a parole revocation and any return-to-custody event, the hazard ratio suggests that these events are about 38 percent higher among the subjects who received traditional parole supervision. The cost analysis indicates that the GPS program costs roughly $35.96 per day per parolee, while the cost of traditional supervision is $27.45 per day per parolee—a difference of $8.51. However, the results favor the GPS group in terms of both noncompliance and recidivism. In other words, the GPS monitoring program is more expensive but more effective. Finally, the process evaluation reveals that the GPS program was implemented with a high degree of fidelity across the four dimensions examined: adherence, exposure, quality of program delivery, and program differentiation. Details: Bethesda, MD: Development Services Group, Inc., 2012. 114p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed May 15, 2012 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238481.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238481.pdf Shelf Number: 125277 Keywords: Electronic MonitoringGlobal Positioning Systems (GPS)Parole SupervisionParoleesRecidivismSex Offender SupervisionSsex Offenders (California) |
Author: Rhodes, William Title: Recidivism of Offenders on Federal Community Supervision Summary: The Office of Probation and Pretrial Services (OPPS) of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) provides community supervision for offenders convicted of federal crimes and conditionally released to the community. Between October 1, 2004 and September 30, 2010 245,362 offenders commenced a term of federal community supervision – 56,361 began a term of probation following a conviction for a federal offense and 189,001 began a term of supervised release following a prison sentence. This report examines criminal recidivism, defined as an arrest for a new crime or a revocation, for these 245,362 offenders. Specifically this report examines: The rates of recidivism among offenders who entered federal community supervision between October 1, 2004 and September 30, 2010. How recidivism rates vary with risk and protective factors and the accuracy of using risk and protective factors to predict recidivism. How contextual factors (i.e., district, offender’s environment, and probation officer characteristics) affect recidivism rates. Highlights 38% of offenders received for supervision between October 1, 2004 and September 30, 2005 recidivated within five years of commencing supervision. 24 percent were re-arrested and almost 13 percent were revoked. Most were re-arrested for drug (30%), property (25%) and violent (23%) offenses. 30% of offenders received for supervision between October 1, 2004 and September 30, 2007 recidivated during their term of supervision (within three years of commencing supervision). 16 percent were re-arrested for a new crime and almost 14 percent were revoked. They were most often arrested for drug (28%), violent (25%) and property (24%) offenses. Several risk factors increase offenders’ risks of committing new offenses or being revoked during their period of supervision including a history of criminal behavior, gender, race, drug abuse problems, mental health issues, unemployment, and basic needs (e.g., financial assistance, temporary housing, and/or transportation assistance). Several protective factors can decrease offenders’ risks of committing new offenses or being revoked including having a strong social support system, marketable skills (i.e., strong educational foundation or life skills), motivation to change, and age. These risk and protective factors distinguish between offenders who will and will not recidivate during their term of supervision and the seriousness of future offenses. Arrest and revocations rates vary significantly across the 90 federal districts studied, after taking risk and protective factors into account. Several district-level variables explain variation in arrest and revocation rates across the districts including the population size, proportion of American Indians, and average household income in a district. Offenders who return to neighborhoods that are seen as impoverished and transient have higher failure rates. Arrest and revocation rates increase with officer experience in the federal probation system. Similarly, arrest and revocations rates increase when an officer has an advanced degree. Details: Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, Inc., 2012. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 30, 2013 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/241018.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/241018.pdf Shelf Number: 127455 Keywords: Offender SupervisionParole SupervisionParoleesRecidivism |
Author: California. Sex Offender Supervision and GPS Monitoring Task Force Title: Sex Offender Supervision and GPS Monitoring Task Force Final Report Summary: Citizens across California have become increasingly concerned about sex offenders returning to their neighborhoods. They want greater assurances that these offenders will not place their children or themselves in jeopardy of victimization. As a result, laws have recently been passed that increase incarceration and community supervision periods, place restrictions on where sex offenders can reside, and prohibit them from being in specific locations. In California, there are approximately 85,000 registered sex offenders in our communities, more than any other state in the nation. Even with increased sentences, nearly all convicted sex offenders sentenced to state prison will eventually be released back to their respective communities. They will be placed on supervised parole for a period of time to monitor their reintegration and help protect the public. Currently, fewer than 10% (approximately 6,600) of all California sex offenders are on supervised parole in the community and being monitored by GPS technology. Additionally, there are approximately 2,900 sex offender parolees that are on parole, who are either in custody pending revocation, committed to a State Mental Hospital or have absconded supervision. Over the past year, two horrific crimes have focused the concerns of citizens. Phillip Garrido and John Gardner, both registered sex offenders, committed unthinkable acts that forever changed the lives of the victims families and communities. The Governor requested a review of the John Gardner case be completed by the California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) to offer recommendations for improving sex offender management. Meanwhile, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated an independent investigation of these cases and also offered recommendations on how to improve sex offender supervision. Acting on the content of the reports, CDCR reviewed relevant policies and practices and made substantive changes to both sex offender parole supervision policies and GPS tracking policies. Further, at the direction of Secretary Matthew Cate, the Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) convened a task force of CDCR staff, outside public safety representatives, and victim advocates to review the OIG and CASOMB recommendations, as well as relevant sex offender supervision policies and practices. The objective of the task force is to make further recommendations to improve public safety as it relates to parolee sex offender supervision. The Sex Offender Supervision and GPS Monitoring Task Force met weekly between July and September 2010. Participants included statewide representatives from CDCR, Board of Parole Hearings, local law enforcement, probation, district attorneys, Office of the Inspector General, National Institute of Justice, treatment providers, and victim advocates. Details: Sacramento: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2010. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 5, 2014 at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/News/docs/Sex_Offender_and_GPSTask_Force_Report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/News/docs/Sex_Offender_and_GPSTask_Force_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 132241 Keywords: Global Positioning System (GPS) Offender Monitoring Parole SupervisionParolees Sex Offenders |
Author: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: Mandatory Reentry Supervision: Evaluating the Kentucky Experience Summary: In 2011, the Kentucky Legislature passed the Public Safety and Offender Accountability Act (HB 463), which sought to earn a greater public safety return on the state's corrections spending. The historic measure included a mandatory reentry supervision policy that required every inmate to undergo a period of post-release supervision so that no inmates would be released from prison to communities without monitoring or support. This brief summarizes recent state corrections data and an independent evaluation of the policy commissioned by The Pew Charitable Trusts, which found that mandatory reentry supervision: - improved public safety by helping reduce new offense rates by 30 percent. - resulted in a net savings of approximately 872 prison beds per year. - saved more than $29 million in the 27 months after the policy took effect. Details: Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2014. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 9, 2014 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2014/06/PSPP_Kentucky_brief.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2014/06/PSPP_Kentucky_brief.pdf Shelf Number: 132635 Keywords: Offender SupervisionParole SupervisionParoleePrisoner Reentry |
Author: Lofstrom, Magnus Title: Is Public Safety Realignment Reducing Recidivism in California? Summary: California has had one of the highest recidivism rates in the nation for more than a decade. This contributed to overcrowding in the state's expensive prison system and helped to motivate wide-ranging corrections reform legislation in 2011, commonly referred to as public safety realignment. Realignment essentially halted the practice of sending parole violators back to state prison and instead made counties responsible for supervising and sanctioning most released offenders. It also cut in half the maximum sentence for a supervision violation-from one year to six months. How are these changes affecting the state's recidivism rates? We find that the post-realignment period has not seen dramatic changes in arrests or convictions of released offenders. In the context of realignment's broad reforms to the corrections system, our findings suggest that offender behavior has not changed substantially. Overall arrest rates of released offenders are down slightly, with the proportion of those arrested within a year of release declining by 2 percentage points. At the same time, the proportion of those arrested multiple times has increased noticeably, by about 7 percentage points. These higher multiple arrest rates may reflect the substantial increase in the time that released offenders spend on the streets-a result of counties' limited jail capacity (Lofstrom and Raphael 2013). Convictions among released offenders have increased, but this increase does not appear to reflect changes in offender behavior so much as changes in arrest procedures and prosecutorial approaches. The likelihood that an arrest will lead to a conviction has increased by roughly 3 percentage points. Furthermore, the proportion of released offenders who are actually convicted has increased about 1.2 percentage points-a small but statistically significant rise-and nearly all of these new convictions are for felonies. Together, these findings suggest that new offenses are increasingly being processed through the courts as formal felony charges and convictions, rather than as technical violations through the Board of Parole Hearings. Finally, our analysis shows that realignment has, as intended, led to a considerable 33 percentage point drop in the proportion of released inmates who are returned to state prison. This demonstrates that realignment has made substantial progress in one of its main goals: reducing the use of prison as a sanction for parole violations and minor criminal offenses. Taken together, our findings suggest that county efforts are at least partly offsetting the effects of increased street time among released offenders. Changes in arrest and conviction rates have been modest-but these rates remain high in the post-realignment period. State and local authorities need to develop more effective, targeted policies aimed at both deterring crime and connecting released offenders to rehabilitative services. California needs such strategies to bring recidivism rates down to levels that will relieve pressure on state prison and county jails, and help the state reach the federally mandated prison population threshold. Details: Sacramento: Public Policy Institute of California, 2014. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 17, 2014 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_614MLR.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_614MLR.pdf Shelf Number: 132704 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformParole SupervisionParoleesPrison OvercrowdingPublic Safety RealignmentRecidivism |
Author: Gies, Stephen V. Title: Monitoring High-Risk Gang Offenders with GPS Technology: An Evaluation of the California Supervision Program: Final Report Summary: Despite the overall decline in violent crime nationally, gang violence rates throughout the country have continued at exceptional levels over the past decade. Therefore, it is vital for parole departments to have effective tools for maintaining public safety. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine the effectiveness of global positioning system (GPS) monitoring of high-risk gang offenders (HRGOs) who are released onto parole. This study integrates outcome, cost, and process evaluation components. The outcome component assesses the impact of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) GPS supervision program by employing a nonequivalent-group quasi-experimental design, with a multilevel discrete-time survival model. A propensity score matching procedure is used to account for differences between the treatment and comparison groups. The study population is drawn from all HRGOs released from prison between March 2006 and October 2009 in six specialized gang parole units in the State of California. The final sample includes 784 subjects equally divided between the treatment and control groups. The treatment group consists of HRGOs who were placed on GPS monitoring, and the control group consists of matched gang offenders with a similar background. The resulting sample shows no significant differences between the groups in any of the propensity score matching variables. The effectiveness of the program is assessed using an intent-to-treat (known as ITT) approach, with two main outcomes of interest: compliance and recidivism. Compliance is measured through parole violations; recidivism is assessed using rearrests and rearrests for violent offenses. Each outcome is assessed with a survival analysis of discrete-time recidivism data, using a random intercept complementary log-log model. In addition, frailty modeling is used to account for the clustering of parolees within parole districts. The findings indicate that during the two-year study period, subjects in the GPS group, while less likely than their control counterparts to be arrested in general or for a violent offense, were much more likely to violate their parole with technical and nontechnical violations. Descriptive statistics and summary analysis revealed more GPS parolees were returned to custody during the study period. These results will be studied further in a forthcoming follow-up report. The cost analysis indicates the GPS program costs approximately $21.20 per day per parolee, while the cost of traditional supervision is $7.20 per day per parolee - a difference of $14. However, while the results favor the GPS group in terms of recidivism, GPS monitoring also significantly increased parole violations. In other words, the GPS monitoring program is more expensive, but may be more effective in detecting parole violations. Finally, the process evaluation reveals the GPS program was implemented with a high degree of fidelity across the four dimensions examined: adherence, exposure, quality of program delivery, and program differentiation. Details: Bethesda, MD: Development Services Group, 2013. 112p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 23, 2014 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/244164.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/244164.pdf Shelf Number: 133120 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisElectronic MonitoringGangsGlobal Positioning Systems (GPS)Offender SupervisionParole SupervisionParolees |
Author: Grommon, Eric Title: Understanding the Challenges Facing Offenders Upon Their Return to the Community: Final Report Summary: One of the greatest contemporary challenges for public policy is in the reintegration of offenders released from prison back into local communities. There are well over a million individuals currently incarcerated in state and federal prisons in the United States. Only 7% of prisoners are serving death or life sentences and only a small fraction of inmates die in prison, thus 93% of these individuals will be returning home. About 650,000 individuals are released from prison each year or approximately 160 per day. Perhaps even more dramatic is the fact that the current average length of prison sentence is only 2.4 years and, given that, 44% of state prisoners will be released within a year (Petersilia, 2003). In Michigan, more than 100,000 individuals are released from prison each year; 85% of whom are released under parole supervision. Further exacerbating this situation is the fact that the rate of successful returns of offenders to the community is declining. There are an increasing number of individuals sent to prison as a result of parole violations. Parole violators now account for about a third of all prison admissions (Travis, 2000). Furthermore, the rate of "failure" among released individuals is increasing. In 1984, 70% of those discharged from parole were deemed to be "successful." By 1996, less than half were determined to be successfully discharged (Petersilia, 2000). Similarly, Hughes and Wilson (2003) noted that of state parole discharges in 2000, less than half successfully completed their term of supervision. In Michigan, there is a similar situation with approximately 48% of offenders being returned to prison within a two year period. With recognition of these trends and an increased understanding of the dynamics of prisoner reentry, there has been a growing movement to better prepare offenders for the situations they will face upon returning to their communities (Nelson & Trone, 2000; Travis, 2000). Currently, almost every state and federal correctional system has some form of reentry programming designed to facilitate the prisoner's transition back to society. Reentry efforts have sought to create a more systematic preparation of offenders for their return home by addressing the critical areas that research has demonstrated are related to successful community reintegration. Among these critical areas are housing, employment, substance abuse, and family (social support) (LaVigne & Cowan, 2005). Documented reentry efforts have created extensive research on recidivism and its correlates. However, there has been relatively little research on the dynamics of the adjustment process inmates experience when they are released from prison (Petersilia, 2000, 2003; Visher & Travis, 2003). Many studies have found correlations between recidivism and factors such as finding and maintaining employment, locating stable housing, reuniting with children, family and significant social support networks and continuity of substance abuse treatment (if needed). However, there has been little research that explores the manner in which offenders personally deal with the challenges presented in each of these critical areas of reentry. To address this gap in the literature, this study involved a qualitative examination of the challenges offenders face as they make the transition from prison back to the community. The principal objective of this research was to increase our understanding of the reentry process from the perspective of offenders as they confront these challenges during their first year on parole after release from prison. It was envisioned that information from this research could produce a more comprehensive understanding of the reentry process which in turn may enable correctional agencies to better assist offenders in their adjustment to life outside of prison. Increasing this positive adjustment may produce lower recidivism rates. When recidivism rates are high, scarce economic resources that are needed elsewhere are often spent on corrections. In the United States is costs about $25,000 per year to incarcerate one person, and the total amount spent on corrections has risen to more than $50 billion annually (Petersilia, 2003; Stephan, 2004). In addition, imprisonment negatively impacts many families. More than half of all male inmates are fathers of minor children, while two-thirds of female inmates are mothers (Mumola, 2000; Petersilia, 2000). Thus obtaining a better understanding the dynamics of successful as well as unsuccessful reentry outcomes has considerable potential for creating interventions to improve these programs and reduce correctional expenditures. Details: East Lansing, MI: Michigan Justice Statistics Center, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, 2012. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 2, 2014 at: http://cj.msu.edu/assets/MI-SAC_Reports_Reentry-Interview-Tech-Report_final.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://cj.msu.edu/assets/MI-SAC_Reports_Reentry-Interview-Tech-Report_final.pdf Shelf Number: 133162 Keywords: Parole SupervisionParole ViolationsParoleesPrisoner ReentryPrisoner RehabilitationRecidivism |
Author: Maryland. Governor's Office of Crime Control and Prevention Title: Evaluation of the Maryland Violence Prevention Initiative (VPI): 2013 Summary: In 2007, under the direction of Governor Martin O'Malley, the Violence Prevention Initiative (VPI) was launched in Maryland. Developed and implemented by the Maryland Division of Parole and Probation, now known as Community Supervision, the goal of VPI was to identify, and closely monitor the state's most dangerous supervisees. In 2010, Dr. James F. Austin from the JFA Institute completed a preliminary evaluation of VPI while analyzing specific data regarding the VPI population. Expanding on these preliminary findings, GOCCP conducted a study with additional research to determine if VPI was truly accomplishing its goals by lowering recidivism among a violent subgroup of offenders, and providing swift and certain punishment to violent offenders who violated the terms of their community supervision. This current study used a quasi-experimental design to analyze two groups of offenders. The control group consisted of paroled offenders who were assigned to Maryland's intensive community supervision program for the three years prior to the implementation of VPI in 2007. The experimental group consisted of paroled offenders who were assigned to Maryland's Violence Prevention Initiative from January 1, 2008 to June 30, 2008. Criminal and technical violation data was collected on both cohorts for a period of three years from their assignment to their respective supervision. Results indicated that the 2004 control group had a statistically significantly higher mean number of arrests while under original supervision, violent arrests while under original supervision, arrests 3 years after the start of supervision, and violent arrests 3 years after the start of supervision than the VPI group. In addition, offenders in the 2008 group were violated, served warrants, and apprehended swifter than offenders in the 2004 group. Finally, offenders in the VPI group were more likely to have their supervision revoked for a new offense, a violent new offense, and a technical violation when compared to the 2004 sample. An analysis of the substance treatment aspect of VPI yielded inconclusive results due to limitations in data collection. Overall, evidence supports the theory that when compared to the intensive supervision program in place prior to VPI, the Violence Prevention Initiative aids in the reduction of crime, and administers swift and certain sanctions when supervision is violated. Details: Towson, MD: Maryland Statistical Analysis Center (MSAC) Governors Office of Crime Control and Prevention, 2014. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 1, 2014 at: http://www.jrsa.org/sac-spotlight/maryland/vpi-eval.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.jrsa.org/sac-spotlight/maryland/vpi-eval.pdf Shelf Number: 133528 Keywords: Crime PreventionIntensive SupervisionParole SupervisionParoleesViolence Prevention (Maryland)Violent CrimeViolent Offenders |
Author: Lofstrom, Magnus Title: Realignment, Incarceration, and Crime Trends in California Summary: When California's historic public safety realignment was implemented in October 2011, many were concerned about the impact it would have on crime rates. In a 2013 report, we found that realignment did not increase violent crime in its first year, but that it did lead to an increase in auto thefts. In this report, we assess whether these trends continued beyond realignment's first year. We find that both the prison and jail populations increased slightly since 2012, which means that the number of offenders on the street did not rise from the 18,000 during realignment's first year. This is likely to change with the implementation of Proposition 47, which further reduces California's reliance on incarceration. Our analysis of updated state-level crime data from the FBI confirms our previous findings. Violent crime rates remain unaffected by realignment, and although California's property crime rate decreased in 2013, it did not drop more than in comparable states-so the auto theft gap that opened up in 2012 has not closed. Research indicates that further reductions in incarceration may have a greater effect on crime trends; the state needs to implement effective crime prevention strategies-and it can learn about alternatives to incarceration successfully implemented by the counties as well as other states. Details: Sacramento: Public Policy Institute of California, 2015. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 27, 2015 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_515MLR.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_515MLR.pdf Shelf Number: 135791 Keywords: Crime RatesCriminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice Reform Parole SupervisionParolees Prison Overcrowding Public Safety Realignment Recidivism |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Number of Offenders under Its Jurisdiction Has Declined; Transferring Its Jurisdiction for D.C. Offenders Would Pose Challenges Summary: From fiscal years 2002 through 2014, the total number of offenders under the Department of Justice's (DOJ) U.S. Parole Commission's (USPC) jurisdiction declined 26 percent from about 23,000 to about 17,000. Specifically, following the abolition of parole, the number of offenders on or eligible for parole declined 67 percent among federal offenders, and 74 percent among D.C. offenders. However, following the introduction of supervised release, the number of D.C. offenders on supervised release or serving a prison sentence that includes supervised release increased 606 percent from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2011, and then slightly declined through fiscal year 2014. Transferring USPC's jurisdiction for D.C. offenders would require that an entity has three key organizational characteristics to assume this jurisdiction, and altering or establishing a new entity poses challenges. Based on our discussions with officials from USPC and other organizations, including those from the D.C. government, these three key organizational characteristics are: - statutory authority for asserting jurisdiction over D.C. offenders; - processes, procedures and personnel in place for handling parole and supervised release cases; and - formal agreements with other criminal justice organizations for making parole and supervised release decisions. We identified 17 criminal justice entities with the potential to assume USPC's jurisdiction for D.C. offenders; however none currently possesses the three key organizational characteristics. Thus, transferring jurisdiction is not feasible without altering an existing or establishing a new entity, and would pose challenges related to estimating costs and assessing impacts on decision making. Why GAO Did This Study USPC was established in 1976, in part to carry out a national parole policy that would govern the release of offenders to community supervision prior to completing their full custody sentences. USPC's budget is just over $13 million for fiscal year 2015. Over time, changes in laws have abolished parole and introduced supervised release - a new form of post-incarceration supervision. As a result, USPC has been reauthorized and has authority to grant and revoke parole for eligible federal and D.C. offenders and to revoke supervised release for D.C. offenders violating the terms of their release. USPC's current authorization is set to expire in 2018. This report addresses (1) changes in the number of offenders under USPC's jurisdiction from fiscal years 2002 through 2014 and (2) the organizational characteristics needed for an entity to feasibly assume jurisdiction of D.C. offenders from USPC, and the feasibility and implications of such a transfer. GAO analyzed USPC data on federal and D.C. offenders from fiscal years 2002-2014 - the most recent years for which reliable data were available - as well as DOJ reports on USPC and USPC policies, and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. GAO also discussed with USPC and some of its criminal justice partners the feasibility of transferring USPC's jurisdiction for D.C. offenders and any related challenges. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2015. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-15-359: Accessed June 5, 2015 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670509.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670509.pdf Shelf Number: 135913 Keywords: ParoleParole SupervisionParolees |
Author: Turner, Susan Title: Public Safety Realignment in Twelve California Counties Summary: Following long bouts of litigation among inmates, prison guards, and state officials, in May 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of a three-judge panel that imposed a cap on California's prison population and ordered the state to reduce its prison population to 137.5 percent of "design capacity" within two years. The primary basis for the court ruling was that the overcrowded prison system violated inmates' constitutional right to adequate health care. In response to the 2011 Supreme Court decision, California adopted two measures, Assembly Bill (AB) 109 and AB 117, collectively known as realignment. These measures shift responsibility for certain low-level offenders, parole violators, and parolees, previously the state's responsibility, to California counties. Realignment gives counties a great deal of flexibility in how they treat these offenders and allows them to choose alternatives to custody for realignment offenders. As time has passed since realignment began in October 2011, several studies have evaluated various aspects of the planning and implementation of realignment. The study reported here focused on the flexibility that the state granted counties in implementing realignment. In particular, the authors wanted to determine whether counties essentially continued and expanded what they were already doing in county corrections or whether they used realignment as an opportunity to change from "business as usual." Key Findings Counties Encounter Unanticipated Challenges and Find That There Are Many Unknowns About Strategies' Effects - Realignment appears to have shifted the responsibility for, but not the total numbers of, offenders in the system (at least those under the primary forms of supervision and incarceration). Many Things That Are Being Implemented Are Enhancements of Existing Programs or Policies - Both probation and sheriff's department representatives mentioned a focus on providing services and expanding evidence-based practices, although clearly sheriff's departments often focused on adding jail capacity. Every county voiced concern about realigned offenders' increased risk levels and need profiles: They required more mental and other health services, and high proportions were rated as high risk on assessment instruments. There Is Evidence of Movement Toward Co-locating Service Provision - A movement toward the delivery of services in a one-stop location was evident in both probation and sheriff's departments. Reentry units - specialized areas in the jails - are gaining momentum for inmates near the ends of their sentences in an effort to provide them with the skills, services, and connections to outside agencies. Recommendations - Longer-term follow-up will be able to provide a more comprehensive analysis of system changes. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2015. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 21, 2015 at: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR800/RR872/RAND_RR872.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR800/RR872/RAND_RR872.pdf Shelf Number: 136837 Keywords: Criminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice ReformOffender SupervisionParole Supervision Parolees Prison Overcrowding Public Safety Realignment |
Author: Rios, Nestor Title: Reducing Recidivism: A Review of Effective State Initiatives Summary: The Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition commissioned this report that documents how retraining staff in behavioral intervention methods, implementing system-wide organizational improvements, and restructuring probation and parole supervision around the crime related behaviors allowed Maryland's PCS program to achieve an amazing 42 percent lower rate of re-arrests for people under supervision. Crime related behaviors were described under Maryland's PCS program as violence, drug entrepreneurship, drug abuse, domestic abuse, etc. In addition, the report introduces the concept of Justice Reinvestment to Colorado policymakers, profiling efforts in Arizona, Connecticut and Kansas to improve parole and probation supervision outcomes while reducing state correctional costs. Details: New York: Justice Strategies, 2009. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2016 at: http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/publications/CO_Reducing_Recidivism_Report.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/publications/CO_Reducing_Recidivism_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 130061 Keywords: Community SupervisionCosts of CorrectionsJustice ReinvestmentParole SupervisionProbation SupervisionRecidivism |
Author: Crosse, Scott Title: Multi-jurisdiction Research on Automated Reporting Systems: Kiosk Supervision Summary: The Multi-jurisdiction Kiosk Study was designed to expand and strengthen the evidence base on kiosk reporting used to supervise probationers and parolees. The research study collected and analyzed information on the prevalence of kiosk reporting, implementation experiences of adopters of this approach, and outcomes and costs associated with its use. In addition to enhancing the evidence base, the research findings informed the development of a practical guidebook on adoption and implementation that will help community supervision agencies make knowledgeable decisions about kiosk reporting. This mixed method study involved multiple components including: 1) a brief telephone screener and in-depth telephone interviews, 2) an implementation and cost study, and 3) an outcome study. The research methods and findings from each component are described in the remainder of this overview. Details: Rockville, MD: Westat, 2015. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 8, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250173.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250173.pdf Shelf Number: 145376 Keywords: Corrections TechnologyKiosk SupervisionOffender SupervisionParole SupervisionParoleesProbationers |
Author: Bauer, Erin L. Title: Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Corrections Professionals Summary: Automated kiosk reporting systems have gained popularity in recent years as community supervision agencies strive to provide quality supervision services at reduced costs. This guidebook, which provides community supervision agencies with an overview of automated kiosk reporting systems, is based primarily on the findings of a multi-jurisdiction kiosk study on the use of automated kiosk reporting systems to supervise clients placed under community supervision. The multi-jurisdiction kiosk study was conducted by Westat, an employee-owned research firm in Rockville, Maryland, and funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice (NIJ). This research was designed to gather as much information as possible on automated kiosk reporting systems from the field - i.e., community supervision agencies that were currently using, seriously considered using, or formerly used automated kiosk reporting systems to supervise clients - and to compile and disseminate the information collected to community supervision agencies that may be exploring alternatives to traditional officer supervision. Details: Rockville, MD: Westat, 2015. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 8, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250174.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250174.pdf Shelf Number: 145377 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCommunity Supervision Corrections Technology Kiosk Supervision Offender Supervision Parole Supervision Parolees Probationers |
Author: Heaton, Harold I. Title: Geospatial Monitoring of Community-Released Offenders: An Analytics Market Survey, Version 2. Summary: With the growing need for deriving actionable information from the burgeoning volume of offender tracking data, it is becoming progressively more essential to leverage analytics to enable Probation and Parole Officers to help manage their caseloads. This report summarizes information gathered from the responses provided by six companies to a Request for Information issued by the National Institute of Justice regarding the analytics features of their commercially available offender-tracking software. It also describes some of the capabilities of a seventh vendor’s product, which were derived by synthesizing information from its Web site and insights provided by correctional departments that use that firm’s services. These businesses include companies that currently provide integrated offender-monitoring services to correctional customers (BI Incorporated, Satellite Tracking of People, Track Group, 3M), an industry leader in big data predictive analytics (SAS Institute, Inc.), and vendors interested in adapting current products to community corrections that have been applied successfully to criminal justice and other applications (FMS, Uncharted Software). As such, it comprises a near-term resource for assisting correctional agencies that may be considering establishing or upgrading an analytics capability in support of their location-based monitoring mission prior to making purchasing decisions. The report is structured topically to summarize and compare the analytics capabilities of these products in each of seven areas, and a separate chapter is devoted to each topic: (1) Demographic information for the company and point-of-contact; (2) Product purpose and installation; (3) Performance characteristics and validation approach; (4) Analyses performed by the product; (5) Data formatting and information exchange; (6) Requirements for host-agency computing systems; and (7) Operator/analyst education and training requirements. Subsequently, an initial view of end-user needs is captured based on information provided by a small sample of state and county-level correctional departments comprising the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; Oklahoma, Michigan, and Colorado Departments of Corrections; Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; and Pretrial Services, City and County of Denver. These agencies also offered their current views on the most significant roles that analytics could play in enabling the effectiveness of each organization’s mission. The departments selected and the questions posed regarding the analytics currently in use were not chosen to provide statistically meaningful results, but the knowledge acquired helped guide interpretations of the vendor responses. Although the analytics capabilities of offender monitoring products do not appear to have been a strong motivator for vendor selection to date, analytical tools comprising various combinations of statistical analysis procedures (including crime scene analysis), data and text mining, social network analysis, and predictive modeling can enable the discovery of hidden behavioral patterns and the prediction of future outcomes. As analysis technology progresses and becomes more user friendly, the correctional agencies queried during this study indicated that analytics would become more of a consideration in any replacement systems that are contemplated in the future. Details: Laurel, MD: The National Criminal Justice Technology Research, Test, and Evaluation Center, The Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory, 2016. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 14, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250371.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250371.pdf Shelf Number: 14889 Keywords: Electronic SurveillanceGeospatial TechnologyOffender MonitoringOffender SupervisionParole SupervisionParolees |
Author: Flower, Shawn M. Title: Outcome Evaluation of Call-in Meetings Conducted in Maryland under Project Safe Neighborhoods Summary: Conducted by IGSR in partnership with the U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Maryland, and the Governor's Office of Crime Control and Prevention, the research reported here builds on a prior IGSR report, Process Evaluation of Call-in Meetings Conducted in Maryland under Project Safe Neighborhoods. The purpose of this outcome evaluation is to assess the impact of call-in meetings held in five Maryland jurisdictions on the recidivism of participants attending the meetings. Targeting newly-released parolees with histories of gun-related and violent offenses, the call-in meetings are described in detail on pages 20-33 of the process evaluation report. The outcome study employs a quasi-experimental design and compares call-in participants' rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration outcomes with those of a group of persons with similar criminal histories who did not attend the meetings. The call-in sample includes participants of 18 call-in meetings held in the City of Annapolis, Baltimore City, and the City of Frederick and in Anne Arundel and Prince George's Counties. Reviewed on pages 7 through 13 of the process evaluation report, the few studies that have examined recidivism among participants of call-in meetings have yielded mixed results. This research will contribute to our understanding of the effectiveness of call-in meetings for reducing crime among violent offenders. Research Questions and Hypotheses Research questions and hypotheses for the outcome evaluation were focused in three areas: 1. Recidivism of call-in participants a. What percentage of participants are rearrested, reconvicted, and reincarcerated for up to three years following participation in the meetings? What is their frequency of rearrest and reconviction during the follow-up period? What are the types and severity of charges among those recidivating? b. Of those recidivating, what is the time between participation and rearrest and reconviction? 2. Recidivism reduction comparisons between study groups a. Hypothesis: The percentage of call-in participants recidivating will be lower than that of comparison group offenders with similar demographics and criminal histories. b. Hypothesis: Of those recidivating in both groups, the time to first rearrest and reconviction will be longer than that of comparison group offenders. c. Hypothesis: Of those recidivating in both groups, call-in participants will be less likely to be arrested and convicted for violent offenses than comparison group offenders. 3. Factors affecting recidivism and recidivism reduction comparisons between study groups a. What is the relationship between background factors (demographics, criminal histories) and recidivism in both study groups? b. Hypothesis: Lower recidivism rates among call-in participants relative to comparison group subjects will be observed controlling statistically for group differences in demographics and criminal histories Details: College Park, MD: Institute for Governmental Service and Research, University of Maryland, 2016. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 26, 2017 at: http://www.igsr.umd.edu/applied_research/Pubs/OutcomeEvaluationProjectSafeNeighborhoods_042016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.igsr.umd.edu/applied_research/Pubs/OutcomeEvaluationProjectSafeNeighborhoods_042016.pdf Shelf Number: 147452 Keywords: Parole SupervisionParoleesRecidivismViolent Offenders |
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. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 4, 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: 147554 Keywords: Community Supervision Home Visits Parole Officers Parole SupervisionParolees |
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 |
Author: Valentine, Erin Jacobs Title: Implementing the Next Generation of Parole Supervision: Findings from the Changing Attitudes and Motivation in Parolees Pilot Study Summary: One strategy for addressing persistently high recidivism rates among individuals leaving prison is to incorporate interventions into the parole supervision process. This paper presents findings from the Changing Attitudes and Motivation in Parolees (CHAMPS) study, which examined the implementation of a pilot of one parole-based intervention, known as the Next Generation of Parole Supervision (NG), in three sites: Dallas, Denver, and Des Moines. NG is intended to improve parolee outcomes by enhancing parole officers' knowledge and the strategies they use during their regular supervision meetings with parolees. The study uses a range of qualitative and quantitative data, including assessments of the knowledge and skills of parole officers who were trained in NG and a second group of officers who represented business-as-usual supervision, to assess the implementation of NG. Results from the study show that, while there was some variation across sites, parole officers in the CHAMPS sites generally already knew many of the concepts that were part of NG, and changes to officers' supervision practices were limited. Only in Dallas did NG-trained parole officers exhibit practices that were substantially different from those observed among untrained officers, perhaps because the Dallas parole agency's supervision culture and parole officer training started out least aligned with NG, allowing more room for change. The results in Dallas also suggest that coaching may be important to successfully implementing an intervention that involves changing parole officers' skills and practices. While NG-trained parole officers exhibited small changes in their supervision practices early in the study period, there were more noticeable changes once coaching was introduced. However, despite coaching for the entire study period in Des Moines and Denver, little change was observed there, suggesting that the presence of a coach is not sufficient to lead to change. Overall, this study shows that parole officers are amenable to training and coaching to help them improve their supervision practices, but that consistent implementation can be challenging. Details: New York: MDRC, 2018. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 21, 2018 at: https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/CHAMPS_full%20report_FINAL_0.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/CHAMPS_full%20report_FINAL_0.pdf Shelf Number: 150630 Keywords: Offender ManagementParole Officer TrainingParole SupervisionParoleesPrisoner ReentryRecidivism |