Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:27 pm
Time: 8:27 pm
Results for parole violations
9 results foundAuthor: Dandurand, Yvon Title: Conditional Release Violations, Suspensions and Revocations: A Comparative Analysis Summary: Managing the social reentry of sentenced offenders is a potentially cost-effective way of preventing crime. Different types of conditional release programs can be used to support the social reintegration of offenders and improve public safety. This study is a preliminary comparative attempt to examine the decision-making process involved in selected jurisdictions in cases of alleged breach of conditions by offenders released on conditional release. Details: Vancouver, BC: International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy, 2008. 50p. Source: Year: 2008 Country: International URL: Shelf Number: 114604 Keywords: ParoleParole ViolationsRecidivismRehabilitationRevocations |
Author: 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 Details: Unpublished report to the U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2008. 150p.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: 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: Turner, Susan Title: Development of the California Static Risk Assessment Instrument (CSRA) Summary: Beginning in the mid-1990s, various public policy groups have made recommendations concerning reform of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) parole system. The Little Hoover Commission (1994-2007), the Independent Review Panel led by former Governor Deukmejian (2004), and the Expert Panel commissioned by the California Legislature through the 2006-07 Budget Act have all recommended reforms of the system. One of the central features of recommended reform models is a system of structured decision making for parole supervision and violation issues.1 Such a system would make decisions more consistent and amenable to a policy-driven approach. The panels recommended a system that utilized supervision and violation decision matrices that combined risk to re-offend with other factors to guide supervision and treatment. CDCR has incorporated risk and needs assessment in its “Logic Model” – the recently adopted conceptual framework guiding programming and decisions within the Department. Risk/needs assessment plays a key role from the time offenders enter CDCR reception centers through their release on parole in the community. The Department has adopted the Correctional Offender Management and Profiling Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) as their primary risk/needs tool. As of this date, CDCR is in the process of vetting COMPAS through a contract with researchers from the University of California at Los Angeles. In order to expedite the development of a structured decision-making matrix for parole purposes, the Reentry Strike Team commissioned work to develop a risk prediction model based on static risk factors derived from existing data sources at CDCR and the California Department of Justice (DOJ). The UCI Center for Evidence-Based Corrections (CEBC) was asked by CDCR to collaborate with their Office of Research to develop the scale. The Washington State static risk instrument developed by Robert Barnoski (Barnoski and Drake, 2007; Barnoski and Aos, 2003) served as the model for the tool’s development. Robert Barnoski served as a consultant to the project. The project was conducted under a very tight time line. The project began in October, 2007 and produced the California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA) tool by the end of January 2008. This report describes the development and validation of the CSRA. Details: Irvine, CA: Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, The University of California, Irvine, 2009. 39p. Source: Working Paper: Internet Resource: Accessed February 29, 2012 at http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/CSRA%20Working%20Paper.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/CSRA%20Working%20Paper.pdf Shelf Number: 118604 Keywords: Corrections Reform (California)Parole Supervision (California)Parole ViolationsRisk Assessment |
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: 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: Siegel, Jonah Aaron Title: Prisoner Reentry, Parole Violations, and the Persistence of the Surveillance State Summary: The revolving door of the state and federal prison system may be the most persistent challenge faced by criminological practitioners and scholars. Following release from custody, the majority of former prisoners end up back in the system within three years, suggesting that correctional involvement is not an isolated incident for most offenders. Through its analysis of parole violations and sanctions, the current dissertation project offers important new insights on this "revolving door" between prisons and high-risk communities. To do so, each of three empirical chapters looks at a different phase in the cycle of recidivism: offending behavior, institutional responses to offending behavior, and the consequences of institutional sanctions for offenders' well-being. The first analytic chapter examines how geographical proximity to social service providers is related to the risk of recidivism. The findings suggest that the observed impact of contextual conditions on recidivism depends on how expansively one defines the "community" in which parolees are embedded and further demonstrates the importance of capturing the effect of service accessibility on offending behavior within the larger ecological context of where parolees live. The second analytic chapter explores how "supervision regimes," the legal, political, and cultural factors that shape the way supervision is practiced across jurisdictions, influence the risk of recidivism. The analysis demonstrates that regional and county-level attributes shape local templates for decision-making among parole officers in ways that affect not only whether parolees are revoked to prison, but also the use of alternative sanctions, such as stricter community supervision and incarceration in short-term correctional facilities such as jails or detention centers. The final analytic chapter offers a rigorous assessment of the causal impact of incarceration on labor market outcomes through an examination of whether return to short-term custody interferes with the ability of parolees to find and maintain work. Findings indicate that the experience of short-term re-incarceration dramatically increases the risk of unemployment among parolees in the months during and following their incarceration. Taken as a whole, the analyses shed light on how offending behavior, institutional decision-making, and the experience of incarceration combine to perpetuate the cycle of recidivism. Details: Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, 2014. 147p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed February 9, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248412.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248412.pdf Shelf Number: 137815 Keywords: Decision-MakingEx-Offender EmploymentOffender SupervisionParole OfficersParole ViolationsParoleePrisoner ReentryRecidivism |
Author: Human Impact Partners Title: Excessive Revocations in Wisconsin: The Health Impacts of Locking People Up without a New Conviction Summary: A report on health impacts of current practice in Wisconsin to incarcerate people for breaking rules of parole, probation, or supervision but who have not been convicted of a new crime, and recommendations to change that practice. Details: Oakland, CA: Human Impact Partners, 2016. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 14, 2016 at: http://www.humanimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/Report_ExcessiveRevocationsWI_2016.12.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.humanimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/Report_ExcessiveRevocationsWI_2016.12.pdf Shelf Number: 146143 Keywords: Health ImpactsParole ViolationsProbation ViolationsRevocations |
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 |