Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:57 pm
Time: 8:57 pm
Results for parolee
4 results foundAuthor: Feucht, Thomas E. Title: Mental and Substance Use Disorders among Adult Men on Probation or Parole: Some Success against a Persistent Challenge Summary: This report presents data on mental and substance use disorders among adult males on correctional supervised release–parole or probation–from local, state and federal prisons and jails. It examines issues that have grown increasingly salient with the rising costs associated with managing the growing community- and facility-based criminal justice population. Methods. Data were drawn from two key sources: (1) the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) data collected from probation and parole agencies for year-end reports, and (2) the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). The NDSUH is an annual data set based on a national probability sample of the civilian noninstitutionalized population, conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Changes over time in substance abuse and mental health measures among males aged 18 to 49 were studied by comparing 2009 estimates to estimates from each prior year (2002 to 2008). Estimates for probationers and parolees were compared with non-probationers and non-parolees based on several years of pooled NSDUH data. Results. The analysis reveals several significant findings. First, rates of substance dependence or abuse among probationers and parolees were found to be significantly lower than rates in prior years. Second, the percentage of parolees who reported receiving substance use treatment was significantly higher in 2009 than in 2005. Third, significantly lower percentages of probationers and parolees had an unmet need for substance use treatment in 2009 than in previous years. Overall, from 2002 to 2009, illegal drug use among people on probation and parole remained a persistent challenge, with rates of drug abuse and dependence remaining two to three times as high as rates among non-probationers and non- parolees. Similarly, rates of any mental illness, serious mental illness, serious psychological distress and depression during the past year were two to three times higher among probationers and parolees than among other respondents. The data also show a significant gap between need for treatment and the receipt of services. Probationers and parolees were more likely than others to have received some mental health services in the past year, but they were also more likely to report an unmet need for mental health services. In 2009, the percentages of probationers and parolees with mental disorders accessing services or reporting an unmet need for mental health services remained unchanged. Thus, while probationers and parolees report increasing access to substance use treatment and decreasing prevalence of substance abuse symptoms, important substance abuse/dependence and mental health problems persist. The mental health treatment gap among probationers and parolees has yet to be narrowed, let alone closed. These data have important implications for reducing the behavioral health treatment gap overall and for national efforts to improve effective community reentry for offenders with these disorders. Significant attention should be focused on the large numbers of adults on parole or probation who experience mental or substance use disorders, or both. Conclusions. The number of probationers and parolees with mental or substance use disorders whose treatment needs are not being met by community treatment and supportive services is significant. As a result, they are placed at greater risk for parole or probation failure leading to reincarceration. The findings suggest the ongoing need for broader implementation of effective treatment and reentry services for this high-risk, mostly nonviolent population, such as those provided under ongoing federal grant programs focused on reentering offenders. The ability to promote community reentry and reintegration for parolees and probationers with mental or substance use disorders requires a release plan that includes timely and readily accessible community-based treatment and appropriate support services. Details: Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2011. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2011 at: http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k11/NIJ_Data_Review/MentalDisorders.htm Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k11/NIJ_Data_Review/MentalDisorders.htm Shelf Number: 122881 Keywords: Mental HealthParoleeParoleesProbationProbationersSubstance Abuse (U.S.)Substance Abuse Treatment |
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: 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: Bashir, Asli Title: Parole Revocation in Connecticut: Opportunities to Reduce Incarceration Summary: After reviewing the relevant constitutional, statutory, and regulatory standards, observing preliminary and final revocation hearings, interviewing parolees, and surveying procedures and developments in other jurisdictions, CJC identified multiple areas of concern in the parole revocation process in Connecticut. Hearing Observations CJC observed 49 parole revocation hearings in Connecticut during the month of November 2015. After those observations, CJC reported the following findings at a January 2016 meeting at the state Capitol: BOPP’s hearing examiners made a finding of a violation in 100 percent of the cases CJC observed in November 2015. BOPP’s hearing examiners recommended that parole be revoked in 100 percent of observed cases. The BOPP panel revoked parole and imposed a prison sanction in 100 percent of the observed hearings, despite the panel’s broad power to reject a hearing examiner’s recommendation and reinstate parole. No parolee appeared with appointed counsel, even though a number of parolees seemed to qualify for state-provided counsel under the federal constitutional standard. At least 94 percent of observed parolees had previously waived their right to have a preliminary hearing within 14 business days of re-incarceration. These same parolees were routinely incarcerated for at least three months awaiting their final revocation hearings. The standard procedure at final revocation hearings made it difficult for parolees to adequately contest disputed facts or to present mitigating evidence. As a result, BOPP decisions were often made based on intuited credibility determinations rather than verified facts, and parolees were unable to properly present mitigation arguments in favor of a reduced sanction or reinstatement. Details: Connecticut: Samuels Jacobs Criminal Justice Clinic, 2017. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 8, 2018 at: https://law.yale.edu/system/files/area/clinic/document/cjc_parole_revocation_report.final.9.21.17.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://law.yale.edu/system/files/area/clinic/document/cjc_parole_revocation_report.final.9.21.17.pdf Shelf Number: 151441 Keywords: Board of Pardons and Parole Department of Corrections Incarceration Parole Parole Hearings Parole Panel Parolee |