Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:44 pm
Time: 9:44 pm
Results for parolees
113 results foundAuthor: Harrison, Linda Title: The Status of Parole Returns to Prison in Colorado Summary: This analysis presents data on those incarcerated in Colorado prisons between FY 2000 and FY 2007, with special focus on the parole revocation population. Details: Denver, CO: Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, Office of Research and Statistics, 2008. 13p. Source: Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 113863 Keywords: ParoleParole RevocationParolees |
Author: Cabana, Tammy Title: Waivers, Postponements and Withdrawals: Offenders, Parole Officers and National Parole Board Perspectives Summary: This report examines the reasons offenders chose not to appear before the National Parole Board of Canada (waived, postponed, or withdrew a parole application). The research also examined the impact and reasons for adjournments and administrative adjournments of parole hearings. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2009. 88p. Source: Year: 2009 Country: Canada URL: Shelf Number: 118155 Keywords: ParoleParole OfficersParolees |
Author: Hamilton, Zachary Title: Do Reentry Courts Reduce Recidivism? Results from the Harlem Parole Reentry Court Summary: The Harlem Parole Reentry Court was established in June of 2001 in response to the high concentration of parolees returning to the East Harlem neighborhood of Manhattan. The Reentry Court provides intensive judicial oversight, supervision and services to new parolees during the first six months following release from state prison. This report assesses the impact of the Harlem Parole Reentry Court following program modifications that were implemented after an initial formative evaluation. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2010. 40p. Source: Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118154 Keywords: ParoleesPrisoner ReentryReentry Courts |
Author: Sedley, Tia Title: A New Parole System for England and Wales Summary: This report makes recommendations for a new parole system for England and Wales, proposing that an independent Parole Tribunal be established as part of the Tribunals Service to replace the existing Parole Board. As a judicial body making decisions regarding liberty, the tribunal would be independent of the executive and would have the powers and resources necessary to enable it to make expert and informed decisions regarding which prisoners should be released. Details: London: JUSTICE, 2009. 93p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 118618 Keywords: Parole ( England and Wales)Parolees |
Author: Latessa, Edward J. Title: Community Corrections Centers, Parolees, and Recidivbism: An Investigation into the Characteristics of Effective Reentry Programs in Pennsylvania Summary: This report reviews the methodology, analysis, findings and recommendations related to the evaluation of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Community Corrections Centers and Facilities. Specifically, the research study was designed to examine the link between program integrity and effectiveness. Other than identifying the program characteristics associated with measures of effectiveness, the intention of this study was to: 1) provide information about the effective of the Community Corrections Centers (CCC) and Community Contract Facilities (CCR) in Pennsylvania; 2) identify strengths and weaknesses in CCCs and CCFs; 3) provide a blueprint for developing more effective programs in Pennsylvania; 4) develop a protocol for matching parolees to programming based on risk and need; and 5) assist the state in identifying programming characteristics to be considered when making program funding decisions. Details: Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice, 2009. 206p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119161 Keywords: Community Based CorrectionsParoleesPrisoner ReentryRedidivism |
Author: Kramer, John Title: Evaluation of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole's Violation Sanction Grid Summary: This study focuses on sanctions and recommitments for parole and technical violations among a ten-month cohort of Pennsylvania parolees. With more than 10,000 releases a year and recommitments expected to be in excess of 50% over three years, recommitments represent a significant policy arena for study, one that affects prison populations, and more importantly for this research, involves decisions by parole officers regarding the use of available sanctioning resources. This report examines these decisions by following more than 8,000 Pennsylvania offenders paroled between September 1, 2006 and June 30, 2007. Through official information compiled by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, it examines parolee's violations of parole and the sanctions applied in response to those violations. The study is based on both quantitative and qualitative parole reports. Details: Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, 2008. 64p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119144 Keywords: Parole (Pennsylvania)Parole OfficersParole RevocationParolees |
Author: Baker, Jordan Title: A Solution to Prison Overcrowding and Recidivism: Global Positioning System Location of Parolees and Probationers Summary: The research of the Innovative Tracking Systems team focuses on location and data management technology for use in the criminal justice system, with an emphasis on monitoring probationers and parolees. Faced with an overwhelming prison population and an unprecedented amount of people recently released from prison, the need to curb recidivism is stronger than ever before. A Global Positioning System (GPS) based technological solution will better equip corrections officers to monitor offenders in the community and also provide a highly visible deterrent. This thesis explores the philosophy of incarceration and parole, current trends in correctional manpower and technology, officer burnout, case law, and privacy concerns. Specific evaluation is made of existing and on-the-horizon location technology for use in probation monitoring. In light of current problems in the corrections field, the thesis proposes and evaluates the efficacy of a novel technology – the Sentinel Location System - for use in probationer and parolee monitoring programs. Details: Baltimore, MD: Gemstone Program, University of Maryland, 2002. 131p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2002 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118538 Keywords: Global Positioning System (GPS)ParoleParoleesPrison OvercrowdingProbationProbationers |
Author: Willison, Janeen Buck Title: Evaluation of the Ridge House Residential Program: Final Report Summary: The Ridge House is a faith-based transitional housing program operating in Reno, Nevada, that provides prisoner reentry services to men and women leaving prison. The evaluation: (1) documents the logic and operations of the program; the barriers to and facilitators of successful operations; and whether program outcomes were achieved; (2) assesses the impacts of the program in reducing recidivism and improving employment, housing, and drug use outcomes of participants compared to a parolee comparison group; and (3) provides a cost-benefit analysis. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2010. 92p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119367 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisParoleParoleesRecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Brown, Tracy M.L. Title: Global Positioning System (GPS) Technology for Community Supervision: Lessons Learned Summary: This report identifies the current practices of agencies that have been using global positioning system (GPS) to supervise offenders on community supervision — probation, parole, or supervised release. The study reports on interviews with seven community supervision agencies about their experiences using GPS to manage their populations. Details: Falls Church, VA: Noblis, 2007. 142p. Source: Internet Resource; Accessed August 16, 2010 at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219376.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219376.pdf Shelf Number: 113264 Keywords: Community Based CorrectionsComputer MappingConditional ReleaseElectronic Monitoring, OffendersGlobal Positioning SystemParoleesProbationers |
Author: Bonta, James Title: The Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision: Risk-Need-Responsivity in the Real World Summary: Community supervision is the most prevalent form of correctional control. In Canada, there are approximately 95,000 offenders under probation or parole supervision. In the United States the number exceeds five million. Despite the prevalence of its use, little is known about the effectiveness of community supervision. The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model of offender rehabilitation has guided the development of treatment programs but it has not been applied in situations of one-on-one supervision. In the present study, an RNR-based training program was developed and delivered to probation officers to assist in the direct supervision of offenders under a probation order. Probation officers were randomly assigned to a training or no-training condition. After training, probation officers audiotaped some of their sessions with clients in order to assess their use of the skills taught in training. The results showed that the trained probation officers evidenced more of the RNR-based skills and that their clients had a lower recidivism rate. The findings suggest that training in the evidenced-based principles of the RNR model can have an important impact on the behaviour of probation officers and their clients. Details: Ottawa: Public Safety Canada, 2010. 20p. Source: Internet Resource; Corrections Research: User Report 2010-01. Accessed August 16, 2010 at: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/sp-ps/PS3-1-2010-1-eng.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Canada URL: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/sp-ps/PS3-1-2010-1-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 119617 Keywords: Community Based Corrections (Canada)ParoleesProbation OfficersProbationersRisk Assessment |
Author: Florida Department of Corrections. Bureau of Research and Data Analysis Title: 2009 Florida Prison Recidivism Study: Releases From 2001 to 2008 Summary: The 2009 Florida Prison Recidivism Study is the first report to be produced annually that examines the issue of recidivism among Florida's released inmate population. The use of recidivism as a performance indicator of the state's rehabilitative efforts can be debated, but the analysis itself is of vital public importance. Basically, what is the likelihood that an inmate who is released today will come back to prison? This question is important for the state in terms of planning and budgeting, but more importantly to the public and elected officials in terms of public safety. Since 88% of inmates in Florida's prisons today will one day be released back into our communities, their success or failure comes at a cost to public order and public safety. This study finds that results for Florida are generally consistent with existing research of the factors that influence recidivism. The Bureau of Justice Statistics report, "Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994 (2002)" shows overall recidivism rates for releases from 15 different states. That report shows a 51.8% recidivism rate (return to prison for any reason within three years) for this group of inmates. Unlike most states, Florida paroles very few inmates and only about a third of released inmates have any community supervision sanction at all. Since those with supervision after release recidivate more often than those without supervision upon release, it is important to keep in mind that Florida's recidivism rate may be lower than another state due to this difference in release mechanisms. Details: Talahassee, FL: Florida Department of Corrections, 2010. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 28, 2010 at: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/secretary/press/2010/RecidivismStudy.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/secretary/press/2010/RecidivismStudy.pdf Shelf Number: 119699 Keywords: ParoleesPrisonersRecidivism (Florida) |
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: Berk, Richard Title: Forecasting Murder Within a Population of Probationers and Parolees: A High Stakes Application of Statistical Learning Summary: In the United States, forecasts of future dangerousness are often used to inform the sentencing decisions of convicted offenders, and for individuals sentenced to probation or parole, the conditions under which they are to be supervised. The target for these forecasts is commonly almost any new offense, most of which are not considered to be very serious. This can produce a one-size-fits-all decision that may not allocate scarce criminal justice resources effectively. In this paper, we focus on individuals sentenced to probation or parole. Using data on over 60,000 cases beginning supervision under the Philadelphia Department of Adult Probation and Parole, we forecast whether a homicide or attempted homicide will be committed. We use statistical learning procedures that take the relative costs of false negatives and false positives into account and evaluate our forecasting skill with a large test sample. Homicide and attempted homicide are relatively rare crimes, but are considered to be among the most serious. Insofar as prospective murderers can be usefully identified, there is the possibility of shifting supervisory and rehabilitation resources to a subset of offenders who may be in greatest need. Details: Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Department of Criminology, 2007. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 13, 2010 at: http://www.crim.upenn.edu/faculty/papers/berk/murder.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.crim.upenn.edu/faculty/papers/berk/murder.pdf Shelf Number: 119941 Keywords: HomicideParoleesProbationers |
Author: Zhang, Sheldon Title: COMPAS Validation Study: Final Report Summary: COMPAS (Correctional Offender Management and Profiling Alternative Sanctions) is a computerized database and analysis system designed to help criminal justice practitioners determine the placement, supervision, and case-management of offenders in community and secure settings. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation contracted with the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and San Diego State University (SDSU) to validate the instrument in terms of its ability to identify treatment needs among inmates as well as predict various recidivism outcomes. A total of 91,334 parolees who had been assessed with COMPAS prior to release were included in the study sample. Of these, roughly 60,000 had been on parole for at least 12 months and the remainder had been on parole for at least 24 months. Characteristics of the study subjects closely paralleled those of the general parolee population in California. The COMPAS needs scales were evaluated in terms of their reliability over time (test-retest coefficients) and the extent to which their constituent scales correlated with relevant counterparts on the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) scale (concurrent validity). To accomplish this, the COMPAS was administered twice to 75 inmates at the California Institute for Men (CIM) located in Chino, California, over a span of approximately two weeks. To establish concurrent validity, the LSI-R was also administered at the same time points. The COMPAS scales showed extremely high test-retest reliability, ranging from .70 to 1.00. The perfect and near-perfect correlations obtained for many of the scales appear to be driven by the fact that these scales were coded directly from the inmates’ Central Files. Overall, the average test-retest correlation coefficient for the COMPAS scales was .88. Of the 18 scales making up the core of the COMPAS assessment, nine appeared to measure identical or similar constructs with scales found in the LSI-R. For six of these scales (Criminal Involvement, Criminal Associates/Peers, Substance Abuse, Financial, Vocational/Educational, and Housing), significant and positive correlations were found between the COMPAS and LSI-R. The correlations were marginally significant for two of the scales, Family Criminality (COMPAS) with Family/Marital (LSI-R) and Criminal Attitudes (COMPAS) with Attitudes/Orientation (LSI-R), and not significant for one, Leisure (COMPAS) with Leisure/Recreation (LSI-R). Validation of Risk Scales Using official records data provided by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), two major outcome measures were examined: (1) any subsequent arrest, and (2) a subsequent arrest for a violent offense. For the first measure, the overall re-arrest rate for the COMPAS sample was 56% for the first 12 months on parole and 70% for those who had been released for two years. For violent offenses, the re-arrest rates were approximately 13% and 21% in the 12- and 24-month periods following release, respectively. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were computed to assess the overall accuracy of the COMPAS risk scales for recidivism and violence. The ROC curve (measured in terms of the area under the curve or AUC) has become a primary measure of predictive accuracy in research instrumentation. A value of .70 is generally considered minimally acceptable. The recidivism and violence COMPAS risk scales were examined with regard to how well they predicted whether a parolee had been re-arrested (for any reason and for a violence offense) within two years of being released from prison. Both risk scales achieved levels of accuracy greater than chance, with the recidivism scale receiving an AUC value of .70, and the violence scale receiving an AUC value of .65. The risk prediction resulting from the COMPAS scales was comparable to our own risk prediction models using existing electronic records maintained by CDCR. We conclude that the COMPAS scales have high test-test retest reliability and moderate concordance with select LSI-R scales (with significant or marginally significant associations with eight of the nine scales that overlap with the LSI-R). With regard to the predictive validity of the recidivism and violence COMPAS risk scales, the general recidivism risk scale achieved an AUC value of .70, which is the conventional threshold for acceptability; the violence scale, however, fell short of this threshold. Details: Los Angeles: Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, University of California, Los Angeles, 2010. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 9, 2010 at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/COMPAS_Final_Report_08-11-10.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/COMPAS_Final_Report_08-11-10.pdf Shelf Number: 120274 Keywords: ParoleParoleesRisk AssessmentRisk Management |
Author: Mulmat, Darlanne Hoctor Title: Improving Reentry for Ex-Offenders in San Diego County: SB 618 Third Annual Evaluation Report Summary: In October 2005, California Senate Bill (SB) 618 was signed into law. This law is based on the concept that providing tangible reentry support services will increase parolees’ successful reintegration into the community. As the first county authorized to create a multiagency plan, and with the leadership from the District Attorney’s Office, San Diego County brought together a diverse group of stakeholders to develop policies and programs to educate and rehabilitate non-violent felony offenders. Key program components are based on best practices and include conducting screenings and assessments and providing case management and services to meet identified needs. The process begins before sentencing and continues through imprisonment, as well as up to 18 months post release. As part of this effort, process and impact evaluations are being conducted by SANDAG. This second annual evaluation report describes project implementation to date, outlines the research methodology, and presents preliminary research findings from the process and impact evaluation. Details: San Diego, CA: San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), 2010. 238p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 10, 2010 at: http://sandiegohealth.org/sandag/sandag_pubs_2009-7-25/publicationid_1412_9234.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://sandiegohealth.org/sandag/sandag_pubs_2009-7-25/publicationid_1412_9234.pdf Shelf Number: 120277 Keywords: Ex-OffendersParoleesReentryRehabilitation |
Author: Napo: The Trade Union and Professional Association for Family Court and Probation Staff Title: Armed Forces and the Criminal Justice System Summary: A survey conducted by Napo during the summer of 2009 found that 12,000 former armed service personnel were under the supervision of the Probation Service in England and Wales on either community sentences or on parole. Research published by Napo last year found that 8,500 former veterans were in custody at any one time in the UK, following conviction of a criminal offence. There are therefore twice as many veterans in the criminal justice system than are currently serving in military operations in Afghanistan. Indeed the total number of men and women in active service in all locations on 31-05-09 was 13,400 (not including Iraq). The Probation Service caseload on 31-12-08 was 243,000 including 165,000 on court order supervision and a further 47,000 on pre or post release from prison supervision. During the course of 2008, 205,000 persons started supervision. Napo’s survey would suggest therefore that at least 6% of those currently under supervision are former veterans. The custodial study of 2008 concluded that 8.5% of the prison population had an armed service record. Previous studies by the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence had found that the proportion of those in prison with a service record varied from between 4-6% (Home Office) to 16.7% (MOD). A 2007 study carried out by Veterans in Prison, based on prisoners self certification, concluded that 9% of all inmates were veterans. Details: London: Napo, 2009. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 1, 2010 at: http://www.napo.org.uk/publications/Briefings.cfm Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.napo.org.uk/publications/Briefings.cfm Shelf Number: 120328 Keywords: Armed ForcesInmatesMilitaryParoleesVeterans |
Author: Freeman, Linda Title: Best Practices in Gender Specific Probation and Parole Models and Survey of Women Currently on Supervision in New Mexico Summary: This paper introduces the reader to the field of corrections dealing with gender responsive programming. From a definition of gender related terms, we move to describing the differences between men and women found in current criminal justice literature. Describing differences include understanding gender characteristics and a look at recent statistics. National and statewide data for New Mexico will help to clarify how women are involved in crime differently than men. Next we look at the contemporary trends and components for gender-responsive programs. Studying gender-specific probation and parole models is our ultimate task, so we conclude by reviewing probation and parole programs specifically designed for women. Our critique will apply a “gender-lens” of best practices to recent programs. Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Sentencing Commission, 2008. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 9, 2010 at: http://nmsc.unm.edu/nmsc_reports/sentencing1/ Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://nmsc.unm.edu/nmsc_reports/sentencing1/ Shelf Number: 120432 Keywords: Gender-Responsive Programs (New Mexico)ParoleParoleesProbationProbationers |
Author: Zhang, Sheldon Title: COMPAS Validation Study: Final Report Summary: COMPAS (Correctional Offender Management and Profiling Alternative Sanctions) is a computerized database and analysis system designed to help criminal justice practitioners determine the placement, supervision, and case-management of offenders in community and secure settings. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation contracted with the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and San Diego State University (SDSU) to validate the instrument in terms of its ability to identify treatment needs among inmates as well as predict various recidivism outcomes. A total of 91,334 parolees who had been assessed with COMPAS prior to release were included in the study sample. Of these, roughly 60,000 had been on parole for at least 12 months and the remainder had been on parole for at least 24 months. Characteristics of the study subjects closely paralleled those of the general parolee population in California. The COMPAS needs scales were evaluated in terms of their reliability over time (test-retest coefficients) and the extent to which their constituent scales correlated with relevant counterparts on the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) scale (concurrent validity). To accomplish this, the COMPAS was administered twice to 75 inmates at the California Institute for Men (CIM) located in Chino, California, over a span of approximately two weeks. To establish concurrent validity, the LSI-R was also administered at the same time points. The COMPAS scales showed extremely high test-retest reliability, ranging from .70 to 1.00. The perfect and near-perfect correlations obtained for many of the scales appear to be driven by the fact that these scales were coded directly from the inmates’ Central Files. Overall, the average test-retest correlation coefficient for the COMPAS scales was .88. Of the 18 scales making up the core of the COMPAS assessment, nine appeared to measure identical or similar constructs with scales found in the LSI-R. For six of these scales (Criminal Involvement, Criminal Associates/Peers, Substance Abuse, Financial, Vocational/Educational, and Housing), significant and positive correlations were found between the COMPAS and LSI-R. The correlations were marginally significant for two of the scales, Family Criminality (COMPAS) with Family/Marital (LSI-R) and Criminal Attitudes (COMPAS) with Attitudes/Orientation (LSI-R), and not significant for one, Leisure (COMPAS) with Leisure/Recreation (LSI-R). Using official records data provided by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), two major outcome measures were examined: (1) any subsequent arrest, and (2) a subsequent arrest for a violent offense. For the first measure, the overall re-arrest rate for the COMPAS sample was 56% for the first 12 months on parole and 70% for those who had been released for two years. For violent offenses, the re-arrest rates were approximately 13% and 21% in the 12- and 24-month periods following release, respectively. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were computed to assess the overall accuracy of the COMPAS risk scales for recidivism and violence. The ROC curve (measured in terms of the area under the curve or AUC) has become a primary measure of predictive accuracy in research instrumentation. A value of .70 is generally considered minimally acceptable. The recidivism and violence COMPAS risk scales were examined with regard to how well they predicted whether a parolee had been re-arrested (for any reason and for a violence offense) within two years of being released from prison. Both risk scales achieved levels of accuracy greater than chance, with the recidivism scale receiving an AUC value of .70, and the violence scale receiving an AUC value of .65. The risk prediction resulting from the COMPAS scales was comparable to our own risk prediction models using existing electronic records maintained by CDCR. We conclude that the COMPAS scales have high test-test retest reliability and moderate concordance with select LSI-R scales (with significant or marginally significant associations with eight of the nine scales that overlap with the LSI-R). With regard to the predictive validity of the recidivism and violence COMPAS risk scales, the general recidivism risk scale achieved an AUC value of .70, which is the conventional threshold for acceptability; the violence scale, however, fell short of this threshold. Details: Sacramento: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Office of Research, Adult Research Branch, 2010. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 15, 2010 at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/adult_research_branch/Research_Documents/COMPAS_Final_Report_08-11-10.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/adult_research_branch/Research_Documents/COMPAS_Final_Report_08-11-10.pdf Shelf Number: 120517 Keywords: LSI-RParoleesRecidivismRisk Assessment |
Author: Janetta, Jesse Title: CPAP Assessment of CDCR Recidivism-Reduction Programs Summary: There has been an increasing emphasis in recent years on correctional programming being “evidence-based.” In its report issued in December of 2007,a the Governor’s Rehabilitation Strike Team stated that “prisoners must be assessed, routed to appropriate evidence-based programs, and once released, continuity of treatment must be assured.” Evidence-based practice in the field of corrections is the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use by correctional administrators of current best research evidence in selecting programs designed to manage offenders, reduce recidivism, and increase public safety. Evidence-based programs adhere to “principles of effective intervention” established by prior research. With California facing serious prison overcrowding challenges in addition to the long-standing public safety need to reduce recidivism to the lowest possible levels, the salience of having evidence-based recidivism-reduction programming in California is greater than ever. This report assesses the degree to which 26 recidivism-reduction programs offered to prison inmates and parolees by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) are evidence-based, as determined by a rating of the programs using the California Program Assessment Process (CPAP). The CPAP is an instrument designed to measure the conformity of offender change programs to research-derived principles of effective correctional programming and the extent of research evidence supporting the program’s model. Details: Irvine, CA: Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, University of California, Irvine, 2008. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 1, 2011 at: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/CPAP%20Assessment%20of%20CDCR.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/CPAP%20Assessment%20of%20CDCR.pdf Shelf Number: 120646 Keywords: Correctional ProgramsInmatesParoleesRecidivismRehabilitation Programs |
Author: Armstrong, Gaylene Title: The Importance of a Low Span of Control in Effective Implementation of Evidence Based Probation and Parole Practices Summary: Public safety, through positive offender behavior change, and offender accountability are key priorities of the Community Based Correctional System in Iowa. In response to budgetary constraints, recent legislative discussions have ensued regarding the reduction of funding allocated for the supervisory staff in the System. The suggested reduction would significantly decrease the span of control ratio of probation supervisors to probation officers within the System. While recognizing ongoing fiscal demands, the current 7 probation officers to 1 supervisor ratio (7:1 span of control) should not be increased to a higher ratio, as it would be in contrast to suggested principles of organization and management, as well as challenge the continued implementation and sustainability of effective, evidence based practices within the System. "Span of control" has commonly been utilized to describe the number of individuals, or resources, that a person can effectively supervise within a structured organizational, business or military setting. The foundation of this principle is to increase administrative efficiency (Souryal, 1977), while retaining effectiveness within the organization. In examining the span of control in probation jurisdictions across the country, two different studies have found significant variation in this ratio. Cushman and Sechrest (1992) argued as part of their study, which included span of control ratios that a prevailing assumption existed such that probation agencies, clients on probation, and programs used to supervise probationers were similar across jurisdiction. Their results indicated, however that nothing could be further from the truth. Cushman and Sechrest noted "there are truly important differences on all three of these dimensions" between probation organizations; consequently, policy from one jurisdiction may not necessarily be a good model for adaptation to other jurisdictions. Moreover, significant variation found to exist in supervision ratios across jurisdictions, as well as supervision models, was unexplained. To date, evidence documenting the roles and responsibility of the supervising officers, as well as the supervisory structure, that may explain some of the variation in span of control ratios is absent in contextualizing these numbers. Concurrent with the consideration of appropriate span of control ratios, knowledge of recent changes to Iowa's approach to offender management inclusive of evidence based practices must also be understood. The general principle of evidence based practices (EBP) relies on scientific knowledge and/or empirical studies that demonstrate effectiveness of programs, methods or techniques within the contextual setting to accomplish a pre‐defined goal of recidivism reduction. As a result of the System’s implementation of evidence based practices in probation and parole, the implementation of EBP has been credited with a significant reduction in the Iowa prison population. This is a trend that could be reversed if the span of control was increased. Supervisors play a pivotal role in any organization's attempt to improve efficiency and effectiveness through the application of evidence‐based knowledge to the process of work. In order to be successful in this role, supervisors must master a set of skills that even ten years ago were not considered to be part of their competences. These skills include, among others, transformational leadership, strategic thinking, change management, communication, collaboration, coaching and mentoring, motivating staff, and relationship building. Each of these skills takes time to master and apply. Supervision is no longer just telling people what to do and then monitoring whether they do it; it has become the art and science of human and behavioral encouragement, support, and feedback. Moreover, the role of the probation officers themselves has significantly evolved with the implementation of evidence based practices. Probation and parole officers must be engaged with clients in a manner that requires a higher level of direct interaction to implement supervision techniques such as engaging in relationship building, motivational interviewing, and adhering to risk, needs and responsivity principles of treatment. This shift in officer roles aligns with added oversight by the supervisory staff to ensure fidelity of evidence based practices such as those mentioned above. Engaging in evidence‐based practices in probation and parole also requires supervisors who have the time to exercise these skills. If agencies expect to achieve significant modifications of criminal behavior and to reduce recidivism, they must allow supervisors the ability to devote the majority of their work day to collaborating with their staff in the actual conduct of their daily business. Supervisors must be able to tutor their staff in the skills of case planning, building meaningful relationships with the offender, engaging offenders in accomplishing treatment plans, using rewards and sanctions, and reducing risk by addressing criminogenic needs. In addition to ineffective implementation of evidence based practices, when supervision staff is lacking, it is also possible for programs and practices that are initially well‐implemented to erode in quality over time. As one director we spoke with stated, “…EBP takes active supervision and some accountability or it slips.” McManus (2007) also discussed a number of other global issues that may result including skill erosion, customer confidence erosion, and morale erosion or bad morale if employees are not supported with effective and adequate levels of supervision. Moreover, probation organizations are in a unique position such that both individual officers and their organizations may be subject to civil liability suits if it can be demonstrated that the organization failed to adequately train, direct, supervise, entrust, discipline and assign employees. Details: Houston, TX: Correctional Management Institute of Texas, Sam Houston State University, 2010. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 19, 2011 at: http://nicic.gov/Downloads/PDF/Library/024881.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://nicic.gov/Downloads/PDF/Library/024881.pdf Shelf Number: 120831 Keywords: Community Based CorrectionsParole OfficersParoleesProbation OfficersProbationers |
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: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality Title: The TEDS Report: Characteristics of Probation and Parole Admissions Aged 18 or Older Summary: This report uses data from the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) for 2008 to examine the characteristics of substance abuse treatment admissions referred to treatment by the probation or parole system (hereafter referred to as “probation or parole admissions”). Highlights of the study include the following: ● The most common substances of abuse reported by probation or parole admissions were alcohol (30.6 percent), marijuana (26.4 percent), and methamphetamines (15.6 percent); more than one half reported more than one substance of abuse at admission (59.2 percent)● The majority of probation or parole admissions were male (76.6 percent), had never married (63.1 percent), were between the ages of 18 and 44 (81.3 percent), and were non-Hispanic White (52.3 percent)● Over one third of the probation and parole admissions had less than a high school education (39.6); the majority of these admissions were unemployed (36.8 percent) or not in the labor force (26.2 percent)● The majority of probation or parole admissions had been in treatment at least once before (57.5 percent); 18.4 percent reported three or more prior treatment episodes. Details: Rockville, MD: SAMHSA, 2011. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 9, 2011 at: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k11/231/231Parole2k11Web.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k11/231/231Parole2k11Web.pdf Shelf Number: 120912 Keywords: Drug Abuse and CrimeParoleParoleesProbationProbationersSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Jannetta, Jesse Title: Kiosk Supervision for the District of Columbia Summary: The majority of people involved with the criminal justice system are under community supervision. In 2009, 5 million of the 7.2 million individuals under some form of criminal justice system control were supervised in the community (Glaze 2010). Although all individuals under supervision are required to report regularly to their supervising officer, the intensity and structure of supervision varies considerably according to the risk of reoffense. Managing this population to facilitate their success in becoming law-abiding citizens is a huge challenge for community supervision agencies across the country as they struggle to distribute scarce resources across their supervised population without diluting interventions and monitoring to the point of ineffectiveness. Providing the appropriate level of supervision and intensity of treatment based on an individual’s assessed risk and need is the key to meeting that challenge. One supervision method that states and localities across the nation have adopted to supervise low-risk offenders and pretrial defendants efficiently is kiosk supervision. Kiosk systems can replace in-person reporting requirements, are convenient for both supervisees and supervision agencies, and help shift resources to moderate- and high-risk probationers and parolees who need more intensive interventions and monitoring. With supervision budgets under increasing stress and caseloads rising, these aspects of kiosk supervision systems are highly attractive. In 2008, the Court Supervision and Offender Services Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA) set out to implement a kiosk reporting pilot program for the probationers and parolees the agency supervises. CSOSA engaged the Urban Institute to conduct an outcome evaluation of the pilot. Due to software integration problems, implementation was delayed, and the Urban Institute instead conducted a simulated analysis. The simulation was designed to identify, if possible, low-risk offenders who posed the same risk whether supervised passively (i.e., with a minimal compliance reporting requirement or Kiosk reporting) or actively (i.e., in-person reporting to community supervision officers). After the simulation analysis was complete, the Urban Institute co-sponsored (with the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council for the District of Columbia) a symposium titled The Risk Principle in Action: Right-Sizing Supervision Monitoring for High- and Low-Risk Offenders. The symposium presented an overview of research on kiosk supervision for low-risk supervisees and global positioning system (GPS) monitoring for higher-risk offenders as examples of different technology-based approaches used to allocate supervision resources according to offender risk level. Local criminal justice leaders joined the symposium to address issues raised and discuss implications for the future direction of practice in the District. This brief draws upon and summarizes findings from both the simulation and the symposium. It discusses the capabilities of kiosk supervision technology, how kiosk supervision fits within a broader risk reduction supervision strategy, challenges of kiosk implementation, and empirical evidence regarding kiosk supervision impacts. It concludes with recommendations for implementation of a kiosk supervision system in the District of Columbia. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2011. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 28, 2011 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412314-Kiosk-Supervision-DC.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412314-Kiosk-Supervision-DC.pdf Shelf Number: 121149 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationLow-Risk OffendersOffender Supervision (Washington, D.C.)ParoleesPretrial DefendantsProbationers |
Author: White, Michael D. Title: Halfway Back: An Alternative to Revocation for Technical Parole Violators Summary: Over the last three decades, concomitant increases in prison population and the use of parole, coupled with a more punitive parole philosophy and fiscal crises at every level of government, have prompted a renewed interest in intermediate sanctions – especially for technical parole violators. A number of jurisdictions have developed intermediate sanctions for technical violators that are both custodial and therapeutic – but do not involve a return to prison. Despite their growing popularity, little research has examined these technical violator programs, and as a result, basic questions regarding their impact remain unanswered. This paper examines a therapeutic technical violator program in the state of New Jersey called Halfway Back. Using a quasi-experimental, retrospective matched groups design, the study explores the impact of the program through a comparison of recidivism and incarceration costs among random samples of program participants (n=227) and non-participants (n=392). Results suggest that program participants experienced modest though statistically significant reductions in new arrests over the 18-month follow-up period. An examination of incarceration costs related to program participation shows that Halfway Back sets the stage for measurable cost savings though the degree to which these savings are realized remains unclear. The paper concludes with a discussion of implications for parole policy and practice. Details: Unpublished Paper, 2010. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 19, 2011 at: http://www.cecintl.com/pdf/research/Halfway%20Back%20paper%20for%20CJPR.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.cecintl.com/pdf/research/Halfway%20Back%20paper%20for%20CJPR.pdf Shelf Number: 121407 Keywords: Intermediate Sanctions (New Jersey)ParoleParole ViolatorsParolees |
Author: Duggan, Erica Title: No Violence Alliance (NoVA) Project: San Francisco’s Model Adult Case Management Reentry Program Summary: This report explores the history of releasing individuals from incarceration and how model reentry programs can assist in the reentry process. The benefits to formerly incarcerated individuals and society are discussed. The report further describes similar qualities between model programs in the United States. Finally, it highlights a San Francisco model reentry project, the No Violence Alliance (NoVA) Project that was initiated by the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department in collaboration with the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) and other community based organizations. Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2010. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 5, 2011 at: http://www.cjcj.org/files/No_Violence_Alliance_Project.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/No_Violence_Alliance_Project.pdf Shelf Number: 121651 Keywords: Community-based CorrectionsParoleesReentryRehabilitation |
Author: Jacobs, Erin Title: Report on the Evaluation of the ComALERT Prisoner Reentry Program Summary: This report evaluates the ComALERT (“Community and Law Enforcement Resources Together”) program, which provides substance abuse counseling and other treatment, employment and housing services to parolees in Kings County, New York. The evaluation consists of three main parts: (1) an analysis of recidivism among ComALERT clients, studying patterns of re-arrest, re-conviction, parole violation, and re-incarceration, (2) an analysis of a survey of employment, family life, and drug use among ComALERT clients and a comparison group of Brooklyn parolees, and (3) an analysis of unemployment insurance data, containing earnings and employment information on the respondents to the survey. Among a new generation of prisoner re-entry programs around the country, ComALERT is unusual in providing a comprehensive array of services to its clients shortly after release from prison. In addition to substance abuse counseling, ComALERT offers transitional housing and employment for up to a year as well as job referral services in an effort to integrate parolees into mainstream social roles. While evaluations of prisoner re-entry programs typically focus on recidivism, our research design also aims to shed light on the employment, sobriety, and family life of the ComALERT clients. We take this broader focus in part because ComALERT is motivated to reduce recidivism particularly through treatment and employment, and partly because criminological research shows the importance of employment, family life, and sobriety to criminal desistance. To preview the main results, we find that ComALERT clients are 15% less likely to be re-arrested after two years from release from prison than a comparison group with a similar criminal history. Clients that graduate from the program are more than 30% less likely to be arrested than the comparison group. The survey data show very high employment rates among ComALERT clients and graduates, more than twice as high as a comparison group matched on criminal history and demographic characteristics. Graduates of ComALERT’s Ready Willing and Able program have especially high rates of employment. ComALERT clients also report modestly lower rates of drug and alcohol use than the control group. While these results are extremely promising, a stronger evaluation is needed. Such an evalution would involve some kind of random assignment to the program, to eliminate systematic selection as a source of the difference between the program and comparison groups. Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2007. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 9, 2011 at: http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/soc/faculty/western/pdfs/report_1009071.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/soc/faculty/western/pdfs/report_1009071.pdf Shelf Number: 121663 Keywords: Employment, Ex-OffendersHousingParoleesRecidivismReentryRehabilitationSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Cadora, Eric Title: Travis Community Impact Supervision. Thinking About Location: Orienting Probation to Neighborhood Based Supervision Summary: The Travis County Community Supervision and Corrections Department (CSCD) in Austin, Texas (the county’s adult probation department) has teamed up with The JFA Institute in a two-year effort to reengineer the operations of the department to support more effective supervision strategies. The goal is to strengthen probation by using an evidence-based practices (EBP) model. The Travis County CSCD, the Community Justice Assistance Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and the Open Society Institute have provided funds to support the reengineering effort and use the department as an “incubator” site to develop, test and document organization-wide changes directed at improving assessment, supervision, sanctioning, personnel training and quality control policies. The Travis County CSCD is the fifth largest probation system in the state and, as such, has tremendous impact on the state probation system. The total number of offenders under some form of probation supervision in Travis County in FY 2005 was 22,827. This report presents an analysis of the geographical location of the Travis County probation population using mapping technology. The analysis was conducted by Eric Cadora and his team at the JFA Mapping Center in New York City. A great number of the persons entering and exiting the Texas prison system and persons on probation tend to concentrate in specific neighborhoods in our large metropolitan areas. Mapping analysis identifies these concentrations in specific geographical locations. The goal is to provide a visual depiction of the geographical distribution of the probation population to identify high density neighborhoods that can be targeted for a neighborhood based supervision approach. The neighborhood based approach consolidates caseloads with fewer officers specifically assigned to supervising probationers in those locations. This can be done in Travis County in at least three neighborhoods. The research also shows that neighborhoods receiving the most offenders released from prison are also neighborhoods with a high concentration of probationers. Present supervision practices between the probation and parole agencies in these neighborhoods are not coordinated. Collaboration between these agencies may lead to more effective supervision that leverages resources between the agencies and between the agencies and neighborhood partners. The visualization of concentrated parole and probation populations in what we call “high stakes” communities is critical for more effective policy. The notion is that, although we need policies that address the overall issue of criminality and the supervision of justice populations regardless of where persons are committing crimes or where they live, we also need to consider the location of concentrated justice populations. Details: Washington, DC: JFA Institute, 2006. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 18, 2011 at: http://caction.org/research_reports/reports/TravisCommunityImpactSupervision2006.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://caction.org/research_reports/reports/TravisCommunityImpactSupervision2006.pdf Shelf Number: 122085 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsGeographic StudiesMappingNeighborhoodsParoleesProbation (Texas)Probationers |
Author: Janetta, Jesse Title: Promoting Partnerships between Police and Community Supervision Agencies: How Coordination Can Reduce Crime and Improve Public Safety Summary: The past two decades have witnessed a period of revitalization for the field of law enforcement, marked by the emergence of a new paradigm of policing that embraces data-driven decision-making, emphasizes partnerships with the community, and underscores the belief that policing can be effective in making neighborhoods safer. During the same period, community supervision agencies have experienced a parallel shift in focus and philosophy, suggesting the potential for such agencies to enhance their role in improving public safety. The reenergizing of community supervision could not come at a more opportune time because it is needed to meet the challenges of the tremendous volume of people sentenced to probation or returning from prison. At any given time, 4.2 million adults are on probation supervision in the United States. Approximately 735,000 prisoners are released from state and federal prisons annually, and more than 500,000 are released to parole supervision. Adjudicated juveniles place an additional strain on community supervision agencies because approximately 42 percent of all petitioned cases result in an order of probation supervision. Moreover, 47,000 individuals (39,100 probationers and 7,900 parolees) were under community supervision in tribal areas in 2008, equaling a 7.9 percent increase from 2007. The potential impact that these supervisees have on public safety is undeniable: over two-thirds of released adult prisoners are arrested for a new crime within three years of release. While supervised populations may pose significant challenges for police and community supervision agencies, a partnership between the two can help them improve public safety. A community policing orientation, with a focus on building partnerships and engaging in problem-solving efforts to address crime, social disorder, and the fear of crime proactively, provides a strong foundation for collaboration between police and community supervision agencies. The two are allies and partners in the work of reintegrating parolees into their communities and managing probationers so that they refrain from criminal activity. Each agency can bring its skills, competencies, resources, and knowledge to a partnership. Police understand crime prevention and neighborhood dynamics; this knowledge can be valuable to community supervision agencies as they shift their focus toward preventing supervisees from committing a violation of their probation or parole conditions (as opposed to simply responding to violations once they occur). In turn, community supervision agencies know their supervisees, including the risks they present, potential triggers to reoffending, and interventions necessary to keep them in compliance. Building on the distinct strengths of both police and community supervision agencies, such partnerships can aid in the prevention of crime and enhance public safety. This guidebook is intended for all levels of police and community supervision personnel, as agency executives, supervisors, and line officers all have an opportunity to contribute to and benefit from partnering. The first section of this guidebook discusses why police and community supervision agencies should be interested in developing partnerships and what each partner can contribute to them. The second section discusses the key elements of partnership, specifically intelligence and information sharing, case planning and supporting behavior change, problem-solving approaches, targeted interventions for special populations, and focused deterrence efforts. Throughout the guidebook, examples of partnerships in the field are provided to offer tangible illustrations of how police/community supervision collaboration can be structured. While many of these examples focus on urban areas, the principles discussed throughout this guidebook are equally relevant for police and supervision agencies in rural areas where large agency boundaries can pose significant challenges for supervising probationers and parolees. These challenges only increase the need for interagency coordination and partnerships. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2011. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2011 at: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412362-promoting-partnerships-police-community-supervision-agencies.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412362-promoting-partnerships-police-community-supervision-agencies.pdf Shelf Number: 122113 Keywords: CollaborationCommunity Corrections (U.S.)Community-Oriented PolicingLaw EnforcementOffender SupervisionParoleesPrisoner ReentryProbationersPublic Safety |
Author: Levin, Marc Title: The Role of Parole in Texas: Achieving Public Safety and Efficiency Summary: Texas recently earned national acclaim for avoiding what was expected to be a catastrophic prison overcrowding crisis. In 2005, in anticipation of overcrowding, the Legislative Budget Board recommended building more than 17,000 new prison beds. Texas did not build the beds, however, and it still managed to reduce crime throughout the state. Part of the credit for this impressive accomplishment must go to the state’s parole system. In 2009, out of 76,607 parole-eligible cases considered, 23,182 Texas inmates were placed on some kind of parole supervision. More importantly, the number of parolees revoked to prison has sharply declined from 11,311 in 2004 to 6,678 in 2010, reflecting a drop in both new crimes and technical violations serious enough to warrant revocation. The parole system is designed to ensure those leaving prison are under supervision during their initial reentry into society and promote order in prisons by providing inmates with an incentive for good behavior, but it is also the primary means by which the state controls the size and cost of the prison population at the back-end of the system. Some states don’t have parole and instead adhere to “truth-in-sentencing” policies which incarcerate offenders for every day of their sentence. While such policies have some appeal, they don’t allow for an appraisal of the inmate’s behavior in prison and his eff orts at self-improvement through completing rehabilitation programs. As conservative Congressman Howard Coble of North Carolina noted, “I still embrace the theory of locking the cell door if an offender has been convicted of a crime. But I don’t say throw the key away. I say, keep the key handy, so the same key that locked that door can also unlock it.” In a practical sense, parole is also the state’s response to the problematic incentive created by a dual system of locally elected prosecutors and judges and state-funded incarceration. The incentive is for locally elected officials to seek public support and eliminate any risk of crime in their local jurisdictions through the longest sentences possible for every offender at the state’s expense, as opposed to managing risks by balancing incarceration costs with other priorities, such as better policing programs that may prevent more crime for every dollar spent. In Texas, parole revocations have declined in recent years, from 14.8 percent in 2004 to 8.2 percent in 2010. Further parole reforms, if properly targeted, could improve this, staving off prison crowding problems long before they start and contributing to gains in public safety. The recommendations presented in this report stand in stark contrast to the late 1980’s debacle when the state leadership decided to turn the parole system into a gigantic jailbreak rather than incur the cost of building new lockups. At that time, some 750 prisoners were being released early every week, including many murderers and rapists. There are key differences, however, in our situation today: 1) the state has more than three times as many prison beds due to the early 1990s prison building spree triggered in part by the public outrage at these releases in the 1980s; 2) carefully targeted changes have resulted in only a slight increase in the total parole rate from 27 to 31 percent; and 3) the state has far more nonviolent inmates today who are either ineligible for parole or who are being refused parole. By continuing to focus parole changes on this population, the state can avoid building new prisons while also not repeating the mistakes of the past. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2011. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Perspective: Accessed July 22, 2011 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2011-05-PP09-Parole-mlevin-vreddy.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2011-05-PP09-Parole-mlevin-vreddy.pdf Shelf Number: 122151 Keywords: Community CorrectionsParole (Texas)Parole RevocationsParolees |
Author: Reiter, Keramet Title: Parole, Snitch, or Die: California’s Supermax Prisons & Prisoners, 1987-2007 Summary: Supermax prisons across the United States detain thousands in long-term solitary confinement, under conditions of extreme sensory deprivation. They are prisons within prisons, imprisoning those who allegedly cannot be controlled in a general population prison setting. Most supermaxes were built in a brief period, between the late 1980s and the late 1990s. In 1988 and 1989, California opened two of the first and largest of the modern supermaxes: Pelican Bay and Corcoran State Prisons. Today, California houses more than 3,300 prisoners in supermax conditions. Each month, between 50 and 100 people are released directly from these supermaxes onto parole. Using statistics obtained from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, this paper explores who these parolees are: what race are these prisoners, how long did they spend in solitary confinement, how frequently are they released, and how frequently are they returned to prison? These supermax-specific statistics are then compared with publicly available state statistics describing the overall race and return-to-prison rates of parolees in California, revealing that supermax prisoners are disproportionately Latinos who have served long prison sentences, under severe conditions. The potential effects of supermax confinement on levels of violence within supermax institutions and throughout the state prison system are also explored, through the lens of prisoner death and assault statistics; no conclusive data establish a direct relationship between supermaxes and reductions in violence. Analysis of interviews with correctional department administrators about the original goals and purposes of the supermaxes further contextualizes these data, revealing that supermaxes today function rather differently than their designers envisioned twenty years ago. In sum, this research provides one of the first evaluations of how supermaxes function, in terms of whom they detain and for how long, and how these patterns relate to their originally articulated purposes. Details: Berkeley, CA: Institute for the Study of Social Change, University of California Berkeley, 2010. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: ISSC Fellows Working Papers: Accessed July 26, 2011 at: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/04w6556f` Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/04w6556f` Shelf Number: 122154 Keywords: GangsInmatesParoleesPrison ViolencePrisonersRecidivismSolitary ConfinementSupermax Prisons (California) |
Author: Goldkamp, John S. Title: Parole and Public Safety in Pennsylvania: A Report to Governor Edward G. Rendell Summary: This report describes the results of a review of the public safety implications of the correctional and parole processing of offenders returning to the community that was requested by Governor Edward G. Rendell. The Governor initiated the review on September 28, 2008, in reaction to violence by persons under parole or correctional pre-release supervision that resulted in killings of police officers in Philadelphia. The purpose of the review was to identify current policies or practices that could be improved in the processing and handling of offenders returning to Pennsylvania communities after incarceration in state corrections facilities with the goal of reducing the chances that such incidents could occur again. At the same time the Governor requested this review, he also sought a temporary moratorium on all parole releases. The Parole Board then held a special executive meeting and supported the Governor‘s call for such a moratorium pending recommendations from the review. The moratorium, which became the backdrop against which this inquiry was conducted, subsequently was lifted in stages until full parole processing was restored in the early spring of 2009. The problems facing corrections and parole in Pennsylvania are not unique but are shared by many other states with large populations of offenders under correctional supervision, most of whom eventually return to the community. In general, because of the policies fostering the incarceration of large numbers of offenders during the 1970‘s, 80‘s and 90‘s, large numbers of offenders are returning to communities across the nation, many of whom may be unprepared for life outside of incarceration. For example, California has recently been confronted with court-ordered release of large numbers of inmates before expiration of their sentences in order to address serious overcrowding in its correctional institutions, posing major challenges for its parole system. The Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee conducted hearings about Pennsylvania‘s overcrowded institutions (housing 51,000 inmates in institutions with a capacity designed for roughly 44,000 persons) as recently as November 16, 2009. This has prompted a great deal of thinking and innovation focusing on ― prisoner reentry — aimed at developing ways in which successful and crime-free return to the community can be promoted by addressing a variety of needs for support services as well as by effective supervisory measures. At the same time, this development has forced reexamination of parole and other versions of supervised release nationwide to develop the capacity to deal with issues related to the return of released offenders most requiring attention. As the recent dramatic economic recession has exacerbated these and related challenges facing corrections and parole systems, the large volume of returning prisoners has highlighted the critical need for effective public safety and support strategies that will best facilitate crime-free transitions from prison to community. In short, in this time of strained resources for basic government functions, and sparked by the recent killings of police officers by persons under correctional pre-release and parole supervision, Pennsylvania, like other states, is faced with a growing need for enhanced post-incarceration transition and supervision systems. Though now taking on added importance and urgency, these challenges relating to successful prisoner reentry and public safety are longstanding and have been at the heart of correctional and parole strategies in Pennsylvania and other states for decades. The recommendations we present as a result of this inquiry are made with an awareness that violent crime among parolees falls within the larger category of violent crime generally — and that the factors contributing to crime are complex and often outside of the power of corrections and parole to affect alone. We have tried to limit the report‘s focus to formulating practical suggestions for system improvements that could help minimize threats to public safety posed by potentially violent offenders who reenter the community on parole. The scope of this inquiry is limited to the segment of the justice process that begins with admission of a convicted and sentenced offender to the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and ends with termination of parole after completion of the term of incarceration. The primary focus is on returning offenders who are subject to supervision, monitoring and transitional services in the community. The focus of this inquiry‘s recommendations for improvement therefore mostly involves two key agencies of government: Corrections and Parole. The institutional relationship between corrections and parole agencies varies from state to state. In Pennsylvania both the Department of Corrections (Corrections or DOC) and the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Parole or PBPP) are executive branch agencies, though the PBPP is independent of Corrections, with authority by law to determine release of parole-eligible offenders from state institutions and to set conditions of that release. We would like to point out that this inquiry did not consider a particularly significant category of higher risk returning offenders — those released without parole supervision after completion of maximum sentences (unconditional or ―maximum releases). These offenders returning from prison without constraint form roughly one-fourth of all those gaining release from prison and represent an important area for policy review and crime prevention approaches. We further note that this review also did not focus on a variety of issues that are closely related to those addressed, but which do not center directly on new crimes among paroled offenders. For example, technical infractions not involving new crimes are not covered in this report. Although concern about increased potential for, or unproved involvement in criminal behavior may prompt the filing and handling of violation actions by parole agents and board members, this inquiry focused on arrests of paroled offenders for new criminal charges rather than charges of parolee misconduct that resulted solely in technical violations being lodged. Details: Philadelphia: Temple University, Department of Criminal Justice, 2010. 106p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 29, 2011 at: http://www.temple.edu/cj/news/documents/GOLDKAMPPAROLEREPORTFINAL2010.PDF Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.temple.edu/cj/news/documents/GOLDKAMPPAROLEREPORTFINAL2010.PDF Shelf Number: 122184 Keywords: Parole (Pennsylvania)ParoleesPrisoner Reentry |
Author: Western, Bruce Title: From Prison to Work: A Proposal for a National Prisoner Reentry Program Summary: Around seven hundred thousand mostly low-income and minority men and women are released from prison each year. Returning to lives of low wages and high rates of unemployment, about two thirds will be rearrested within three years. I propose a national prisoner reentry program whose core element is up to a year of transitional employment available to all parolees in need of work. Transitional jobs are supplemented by substance-abuse treatment and housing after release, expanded work and educational programs in prison, and the restoration of eligibility for federal benefits for those with felony records. The program costs are offset by increased employment and reduced crime and correctional costs for program participants. By shifting supervision from custody in prison to intensive programs in the community, the national reentry program improves economic opportunity and reduces prison populations. Details: Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute, The Hamilton Project, 2008. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Discussion Paper 2008-16: Accessed August 5, 2011 at: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2008/12_prison_to_work_western/12_prison_to_work_western.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2008/12_prison_to_work_western/12_prison_to_work_western.pdf Shelf Number: 122303 Keywords: Ex-Offenders, EmploymentParoleesPrisoner Reentry (U.S.) |
Author: Campbell, Nancy M. Title: Comprehensive Framework for Paroling Authorities in an Era of Evidence-Based Practices Summary: Parole can be defined as both a procedure by which a board administratively releases inmates from prison as well as a provision for post-release supervision. The Comprehensive Framework for Paroling Authorities in an Era of Evidence-Based Practices focuses on procedures relative to how and when to make the release decision and why and when to revoke a release. Parole is defined in this document as the release of an offender from imprisonment to the community by a releasing authority (parole board or paroling authority) prior to the expiration of the offender’s sentence subject to conditions imposed by the releasing authority. Revocation is the action of a releasing authority removing a person from parole status in response to a violation of conditions. Since eligibility for release on parole is a matter of state law, there is considerable variation in the location, administration, and organization of paroling authorities in the United States. All states have parole boards, and these boards may be independent agencies that have responsibility for release decisions or a branch of a department of corrections or a community corrections agency. In these organizational structures, boards may also have responsibility for staff who monitor the supervision of parolees in the community. Regardless of the structure, governors/governments are usually ill-equipped to select, hire, and train the caliber of individuals needed to do this important work that has a significant impact on public safety and the economy of a state. The Comprehensive Framework for Paroling Authorities in an Era of Evidence-Based Practices is the overarching visionary plan that paroling authorities need to lead them to a desired future of well-trained board members, using evidence-based practices within agencies that have sufficient staff and other resources to effectively support the release and, when necessary, revocation of offenders. The document describes what governors (appointing authorities) and paroling authorities need to do to improve the parole process while decreasing offender recidivism and increasing public safety. This document provides an outline of how NIC will lead the implementation of The Comprehensive Framework for Paroling Authorities in an Era of Evidence-Based Practices so that parole boards have the system components, organizational structure, and other resources to be a more vital part of the correctional system. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2008. 114p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 8, 2011 at: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/022906.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/022906.pdf Shelf Number: 122325 Keywords: Offender SupervisionParole (U.S.)Parole OfficersParolees |
Author: Yvette, Emily Title: Offenders on the "Earned Release Date Housing Voucher" Program Summary: The objective of the Earned Release Date (ERD) Housing Voucher Program is to assist offenders release at or near their ERD. The aim of this report is to describe the participants of the voucher program beginning July 2009 through October 2010. This report describes the demographics of the housing voucher population, their release to the community relative to ERD, and the offenders’ recent history of homeless or transient status in the community. Additionally, this report provides an analysis of offender violations, sanctions, new offenses, and reincarceration during and after voucher funding. A comparison group comprised of offenders who did not receive housing vouchers was established in order to determine how voucher recipients differ from other offenders. The comparison group consists of offenders released during the same time period as voucher recipients. Non-voucher releases are separated into those that received supervision following release and those that did not; comparisons are between voucher recipients and supervised non-voucher releases. The distribution of demographics varies between voucher recipients and supervised non-voucher releases; voucher recipients are older and are more likely to have been convicted of a sex offense (33% vs. 12%). During 2010, voucher recipients had fewer average days past ERD than non-voucher releases (71 vs. 84 days) and contributed fewer days past ERD than non-voucher releases (42,671 vs. 54,264 days). The average length of follow up time is 274 days. Voucher recipients are more likely to report being homeless prior to incarceration and following release. Voucher recipients are more likely than supervised non-voucher releases to have a violation after release. A very small proportion of each group was convicted of new crimes during the follow up period. Overall, voucher recipients are more likely than non-voucher releases to be convicted of a new offense and to face reincarceration after release. Among offenders with at least one year of follow up, voucher funding status did not predict a new conviction or reincarceration for a new offense. This report could be improved by using a more appropriate comparison group and by incorporating other indicators of successful reentry. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington state Department of Corrections, 2011. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 22, 2011 at: http://doc.wa.gov/aboutdoc/measuresstatistics/docs/voucherreportrevised3.28.11.docx Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://doc.wa.gov/aboutdoc/measuresstatistics/docs/voucherreportrevised3.28.11.docx Shelf Number: 122432 Keywords: HousingParoleesPrisoner Reentry (Washington State)Recidivism |
Author: Black, Kendall Title: New Beginnings: The Need for Supportive Housing for Previously Incarcerated People Summary: Persons exiting the criminal justice system contribute significantly to the growing number of homeless individuals throughout the United States. Supportive housing has proven itself the most cost effective strategy to end homelessness, but the supply of units is extremely limited. It is in the interest of city, state, and federal criminal justice systems to take the lead in providing capital and operating support to enable the creation of supportive housing for ex-offenders in partnership with non-profit organizations. Supportive housing for ex-offenders is critical at this time when homelessness is rising. The number of individuals released from prisons is 300% greater than it was twenty years ago. In order to prevent ex-offenders from further contributing to the overall homeless population, we must first understand why many re-enter communities with no housing or prospect of housing. Some of those reasons include: • Many are discharged without having received needed assistance, from the most basic, such as attaining photo identification, to the most specialized, including medical and mental health services. • Because the lengths of incarceration are longer than they were twenty years ago, persons exiting prisons have more difficulty readjusting to life outside a correctional facility. • Many are unable to cope with the new stresses and differences of life outside a correctional institution, which is often manifested in re-arrest. • Many are likely not to have participated in prison-based programs such as vocational training, education, or drug treatment, leaving them inadequately prepared to succeed on their own. • Many return to a relatively few disadvantaged urban communities where the prevalence of crime and lack of legal, living wage employment opportunities are disproportionately greater than in other areas of the U.S. In urban centers, such as New York City, between 30-50% of parolees are homeless. Many ex-offenders who always had stable housing in the past have a difficult time finding and keeping housing once released. With little to no discharge planning prior to release, many newly released prisoners tend to return to or enter the shelter system. Housing placement must be part of reentry services provided to released offenders. Without homes, ex-offenders struggle to tackle the many other issues that they face upon re-entry to the community. Persons in and exiting incarceration experience significant disadvantages: • 65% of state prison inmates have not completed high school. • Over one-third of all inmates report having some physical or mental disability. • 20-26% of all HIV/AIDS cases in the U.S. were releasees from correctional facilities; releasees with hepatitis B accounted for 12-16% of all cases in the U.S.; releasees with hepatitis C accounted for 29-32% of all cases in the U.S.; and those with tuberculosis accounted for 38% of all cases in the U.S. • 70-85% of state prisoners are in need of drug treatment, however only 13% receive it while incarcerated. As of December 31, 2002, 1,440,655 inmates were under federal or state jurisdiction in the United States. In 1999, nearly 600,000 individuals were released from state and federal prisons and returned to their communities. Of these individuals released, 67.5% were rearrested for a new crime and 51.8% were sent back to prison within 3 years after release. In New York City, nearly 75% of the inmates released from Rikers Island jail return within one year. According to the Vera Institute, approximately 350 inmates are released into New York City every day. In New York City, it is common for released prisoners to be dropped off at Queens Plaza in Queens or the Port Authority Bus Terminal in Manhattan before dawn with only a few dollars and subway fare. The immediate needs of ex-offenders, including food stamps, methadone, emergency cash, or a shelter bed therefore cannot be met. Supportive housing providers report that significant numbers of tenants are ex-offenders. Unfortunately, these numbers have not been formally tracked since the tenants came to supportive housing through the Department of Homeless Services (DHS), and historically, DHS does not keep records of the number of ex-offenders served. Nonetheless, ex-prisoners have been integrated into supportive housing and have thrived therein, along with the overwhelming majority of other supportive housing tenants. The success of supportive housing in helping ex-offenders become productive members of society demonstrates that it is an effective re-entry housing option for this population. Details: New York: Corporation for Supportive Housing and Common Ground, 2004. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2011 at: http://www.commonground.org/org_info/media/press_releases/CGC_ex-offender.pdf Year: 2004 Country: United States URL: http://www.commonground.org/org_info/media/press_releases/CGC_ex-offender.pdf Shelf Number: 122577 Keywords: Ex-Offenders, HousingParoleesPrisoner Reentry |
Author: Meredith, Tammy Title: Enhancing Parole Decision-Making Through the Automation of Risk Assessment Summary: How do we know if a parolee will be arrested while under our supervision? We cannot know for certain. Yet by using the tools of science, we can improve upon our professional judgment by mathematically assessing risk. An officer with insight into a parolee’s likelihood of re-offending can make more informed case supervision decisions. This idea exemplifies the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles’ philosophy of “results driven supervision,” which encourages the use of research to improve our ability to address the needs of parolees in order to enhance their chances of successful integration into the community. The development of risk assessment instruments is based on the premise that certain factors (characteristics of an offender or his environment) can be used to predict an offender’s risk of future criminality. Correctional professionals have traditionally relied on clinical and professional judgment to predict the behavior of offenders. We can now add to that a sizable body of research, emerging over the past twenty years, that identifies factors statistically predictive of recidivism in order to create and validate actuarial risk instruments. Actuarial risk instruments have focused primarily on static, or unchanging predictors of recidivism, such as age and prior criminality. Today, empirically-derived assessment instruments are evolving to include both static and dynamic predictors of recidivism, or those factors that can change over time, such as offender attitudes and behavior while under correctional supervision. This trend is confirmed by the work of Gendreau and colleagues (1996) in identifying the 10 static and 7 dynamic risk factors that consistently surface across 131 recidivism studies published between 1970 and 1994 (most importantly age, prior record, antisocial personality, companions, and criminogenic needs -- which establish standards of conduct and rational for engaging in antisocial behavior). Despite the identification of 17 prime risk factors, Gendreau and his colleages note that composite risk scales, which summarize a variety of risk factors, remain the most powerful predictors of recidivism. Today, many correctional agencies are adopting existing and well-tested composite risk scales. Some are developing their own scales, based upon data analyses performed on their own population of offenders. To assess the empirical support for various risk assessment options, we identified 42 risk assessment studies published in the past twenty years (see Table 1). This body of literature guided the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles in developing an actuarial risk assessment method for the assignment of supervision level for 20,000 active parolees. Details: Atlanta, GA: Applied Research Services, Inc, 2001. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 1, 2011 at: http://www.ars-corp.com/_view/PDF_Files/EnhancingParoleDecisionMakingThroughtheAutomationofRiskAssessment2003.pdf Year: 2001 Country: United States URL: http://www.ars-corp.com/_view/PDF_Files/EnhancingParoleDecisionMakingThroughtheAutomationofRiskAssessment2003.pdf Shelf Number: 122586 Keywords: Parole (Georgia)ParoleesRecidivismRisk Assessment |
Author: Cobb, Kimberly A. Title: A Desktop Guide for Tribal Probation Personnel: The Screening and Assessment Process Summary: This guide is intended to provide tribal probation personnel with information on how the screening and assessment process can facilitate and promote offender accountability and long-term behavior change. This guidebook discusses the use of screening and assessment tools within the constructs of Risk-Need-Responsivity Model; the benefits of using screening and assessment tools; the challenges to using screening and assessment tools; and the factors to consider when choosing tools to use in your agency. Further, Appendix A of this guidebook provides tribal probation officers with an index of screening and assessment tools which were cataloged by the Reentry Policy Council. These tools are searchable by domains, or focus areas, including criminal thinking, employment & education, family relationships, financial status, housing, mental health, physical health, recidivism risk, and substance abuse. Appendix B provides screening and assessment tools for domestic violence. Details: Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association, 2011. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 3, 2011 at: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/APPA/pubs/DGTPP.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/APPA/pubs/DGTPP.pdf Shelf Number: 122638 Keywords: Indians of North AmericaParoleesPrisoner ReentryProbation Officers (U.S.)Risk Assessment |
Author: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality Title: Characteristics of Probation and Parole Admissions Aged 18 or Older Summary: I n 2008, approximately 4.3 million adults were on probation and nearly 1 million adults were on parole in the United States. Many of the criminal offenses committed by these probationers and parolees were related to substance abuse. As a condition of their probation or parole, some offenders are required to participate in community-based substance abuse treatment programs. Data from the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) for 2008 indicate that the criminal justice system is the single largest source of referral to substance abuse treatment. Further, probation/parole treatment admissions represent the largest proportion of these criminal justice system referrals. Understanding the characteristics of admissions referred by the probation/parole system to substance abuse treatment may help inform treatment providers and other public health professionals as they work with this population. This report uses data from the TEDS for 2008 to examine the characteristics of substance abuse treatment admissions referred to treatment by the probation or parole system (hereafter referred to as “probation or parole admissions”). TEDS includes a Minimum Data Set collected by all States and a Supplemental Data Set collected by some States. “Detailed criminal justice referral” is a Supplemental Data Set item that classifies known criminal justice system referrals into the following subtypes: courts, probation/parole, DUI/DWI, other recognized legal entity, diversion program, prison, or other. Only data for the 32 States with a response rate of 75 percent or higher on this item were used in this analysis. In those States, among admissions 18 or older for which detailed information on their criminal justice referrawas available, 42.8 percent (203,700) were referred to treatment by the probation or parole system in 2008. Details: Rockville, MD: SAMHSA, 2011. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: TEDS Report: Accessed September 23, 2011 at: http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k11/231/231Parole2k11Web.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k11/231/231Parole2k11Web.pdf Shelf Number: 122811 Keywords: ParoleParoleesProbation (U.S.)ProbationersSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office ofApplied Studies Title: The NSDUH Report: Parents on Probation or Parole Summary: The past two decades have seen large increases in the numbers of adults involved in the criminal justice system, including those incarcerated, on probation, and on parole. Although the numbers of each of these groups increased substantially, the numbers of those on probation have increased at a much faster rate; yet, much less attention has been given to those on probation and to those on parole. Probationers and parolees often have an array of health problems, including substance use disorders. One subgroup of those on probation or parole that may be of particular concern, however, comprises parents with children under the age of 18. Although research on the substance use behaviors of incarcerated parents and their children is limited, there is even less information about the behaviors of parents on probation or parole. Gaining a better understanding of this population and its substance use problems may help to inform criminal justice personnel, family services personnel, educators, and policymakers about the needs of this population (both parents and children) and help them with service planning. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) asks respondents if, at any time during the past 12 months, they were (1) on probation or (2) on parole, supervised release, or other conditional release from prison. NSDUH also asks about use of alcohol and illicit drugs, as well as dependence or abuse. This issue of The NSDUH Report focuses on substance use and dependence or abuse among persons aged 18 or older who were living with at least one biological, step-, adoptive, or foster child aged 17 or younger. All findings in the report are annual averages based on combined 2005 to 2008 data. Details: Rockville, MD: SAMHSA, 2010. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2011 at: http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k10/176/176ParentProbParolHTML.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k10/176/176ParentProbParolHTML.pdf Shelf Number: 122880 Keywords: ParentsParoleParoleesProbation (U.S.)ProbationersSubstance Abuse |
Author: 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: Albright, Danielle Title: An Evaluation of a New Mexico Department of Corrections Dental Treatment Program: Findings from Participant Intake Interviews Summary: In March 2008, the New Mexico Department of Corrections (NMDOC) Education Bureau, in collaboration with the NMDOC Probation and Parole Division, implemented a pilot dental repair program for parolees currently under NMDOC supervision. The intent of the program is to provide services for parolees with significant dental problems in hopes of reducing visible barriers to employment, thus increasing their chances of successful reentry. The program was funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice under the Edward Byrne Memorial Grant Program. The NMDOC contracted the University of New Mexico Hospital Dentistry Department to perform dental treatments. The New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center (NMSAC) at the University of New Mexico‘s Institute for Social Research (ISR) was contracted to provide an evaluation of program implementation and outcomes. There is a substantial body of research suggesting that dental health is a major problem for prisoners. Researchers have consistently found that prisoners report significantly more dental problems than the general population (Lund et al., 2002; Mixson et al., 1990, O‘Brien and Lee, 2006, Salive, Corolla, & Brewer, 1989). While this clearly suggests a medical need for expanded dental treatment for prisoners, the prevalence of dental problems for prisoners may also have implications for reentry. Given the large prison population in United States today (Listwan et al., 2008) and that an estimated 67.5% of inmates are rearrested within three years of being released (Langan and Levin, 2002), the issue of prisoner reentry has been described as at "the forefront of domestic public policy" (Kubrin and Stewart, 2006: 166) and is currently receiving a large amount of attention from academics and practitioners. While a substantial body of research has investigated the individual factors associated with reentry success (Benedict & Huff-Cordine, 1997; Ulmer, 2001; Listwan et al., 2003), research on reentry has not yet examined the influence of dental health and dental treatment on recidivism. This may be an important oversight, as previous research suggests two mechanisms through which dental health may be linked to reentry success. First, a small body of research suggests that physical appearance is correlated with perceived criminality, affecting the way a person is treated by both the general public and the criminal justice system and therefore indirectly influencing recidivism outcomes (Bull, 1982). In this sense, improving the dental appearance of ex-offenders may reduce their perceived criminality, which in turn may result in more legitimate opportunities. Research also suggests that dental health and appearance are related to self-esteem (Patzer, 1995), which in turn is thought to be linked to desistance. More specifically, research suggests that self-appraisals of dental appearance were more strongly related to self-esteem than general appraisals of appearance (Kanealy et al., 1991) and that missing teeth were especially problematic (Oosterhaven, Westert, & Schaub, 1989). As a whole, this research indicates that negatively perceived dental appearance and poor dental health are related to decreased levels of self-esteem. Self-esteem, which is related to other social psychological constructs like self-efficacy and sense of control (Skinner, 1996), is thought to be an important component in the desistance process. This is exemplified by Maruna (2001, 2006), who argues that desistance is only possible when offenders adopt a prosocial identity and empirically demonstrates that self-perceptions are related to post release success (2004). Second, dental treatment may be related to employment success. Research has shown that dental and facial appearance is strongly correlated with evaluations of attractiveness and professionalism (Eli, Bar-Tal, & Kostovetzki, 2001) and that employer evaluations of attractiveness and professionalism are related to employability (Avrey & Campion, 1982; Rankin & Borah, 2003). Perhaps more importantly, research suggests that dental treatment is related to favorable occupational outcomes. While a host of other factors are likely to be more directly related to employment outcomes, early research on this topic revealed that five years after treatment, there was still a modest, yet significant, positive relationship between occupational rank and having received dental treatment (Rutzen, 1973). More recently, a study of dental intervention for welfare recipients found that individuals who participated in a dental treatment program and received all prescribed treatment were twice as likely to report a favorable or neutral employment outcome as individuals who did not complete the program (Hyde, Satariano, & Weintraub, 2006). The relationship between dental appearance and employability is important for evaluating the reentry process, as sociological and criminological research suggests that there may be a relationship between incarceration and unemployment (Freeman, 1992; Laub & Sampson, 1993), incarceration and earnings potential (Western, 2002; Western, Kling, & Weiman, 2001) and employment and recidivism (Uggen, 2000; Uggen & Staff, 2001). The issue of employability is of extra importance for ex-prisoners, as this population suffers from both a general lack of work-related skills (Graffam, Shinkfield, & Hardcastle, 2008) and from the stigma associated with being an ex-convict (Uggen, Manza, & Behrens, 2003). Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center, 2009. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 28, 2011 at: http://nmsac.unm.edu/contact_information/nmsac_publications/ Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://nmsac.unm.edu/contact_information/nmsac_publications/ Shelf Number: 122933 Keywords: Dental CareEx-Offenders, EmploymentHealth CareParoleesPrisoner Reentry (New Mexico)Recidivism |
Author: Albright, Danielle Title: Reducing Barriers to Re-Entry: Assessing the Implementation and Impact of a Pilot Dental Repair Program for Parolees Summary: In March 2008, the New Mexico Department of Corrections (NMDOC) Education Bureau, in collaboration with the NMDOC Probation and Parole Division, implemented a pilot dental repair program for parolees currently under NMDOC supervision. The intent of the program was to provide services for parolees with significant dental problems in hopes of reducing visible barriers to employment, thus increasing their chances of successful reentry. The program was funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice under the Edward Byrne Memorial Grant Program. The NMDOC contracted with the University of New Mexico Hospital Dentistry Department to perform dental treatments. The New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) at the University of New Mexico’s Institute for Social Research (ISR) was contracted to provide an evaluation of program implementation and outcomes. The NMSAC issued a report in December, 2009, detailing program implementation. The current report focuses on program outcomes. The primary objectives for this report (continuing from the initial report) include: Objective 4: To examine the effect of population characteristics (demographic, education, employment, criminal history, and corrections history) on three outcomes--completion of the dental treatment, completion of the program, and probation/parole performance. Objective 5: To describe how participants articulate the impact of dental treatment on education, employment, and personal relationships. We will also compare participant reported effects to those anticipated prior to receiving the dental treatment. Objective 6: To assess how participants experienced the dental treatment program from intake to completion. Here we focus on participant perceptions of the organization and delivery of the dental treatment program. Objective 7: To assess the fidelity of program delivery with program goals and objectives. Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center, 2011. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 28, 2011 at: Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 122934 Keywords: Dental CareEx-Offenders, EmploymentHealth CareParoleesPrisoner Reentry (New Mexico)Recidivism |
Author: Denman, Kristine Title: Parole Revocation in New Mexico Summary: The general goal of this project is to understand how the parole system operates in New Mexico as well as its impact on, and response to, parolee misconduct. This pro-ject begins with a review of policies and statutes that guide the treatment of parolees. This provides the framework to understand the operation of parole in New Mexico as well as responses to violations. We then investigate documented parole violations and revocations among offenders released to parole in New Mexico during the 2005 and 2006 calendar years, assessing factors that contribute to these incidents. Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center, 2010. 83p.; ex. summary Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 3, 2011 at: http://nmsac.unm.edu/contact_information/nmsac_publications/ (executive summary only) Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://nmsac.unm.edu/contact_information/nmsac_publications/ (executive summary only) Shelf Number: 122967 Keywords: Parole (New Mexico)Parole RevocationParolees |
Author: Stroker, Richard Title: Paroling Authorities’ Strategic Planning and Management for Results Summary: Parole boards, releasing authorities, and parole directors have been invested with significant public responsibilities.The individuals who comprise paroling authorities and parole boards have been entrusted with the authority to make critical parole case decisions. More broadly, parole boards, releasing authorities, and their executives are charged with making organizational decisions that can affect— in a variety of ways—every citizen in their jurisdictions. In light of the broad public policy, criminal justice, and fiscal responsibilities that these key officials exercise, it is imperative that the leaders of parole organizations: 1. Have clarity of vision. They should be able to develop a clear sense of what their organization strives to accomplish and the values that drive its work. 2. Assess the organization’s current operating practices. They should be able to appreciate the organization’s current circumstances and its position relative to its goals. 3. Engage key partners. They should be able to develop and use the skills necessary to bring appropriate individuals together to define, assess, and prioritize critical issues. 4.Take strategic action. They should be able to plan and execute strategic actions that will allow the organization to advance toward its objectives. 5. Review information and manage for results. They must monitor and adjust activities consistent with the results of objective information, feedback, and evaluations. In Comprehensive Framework for Paroling Authorities in an Era of Evidence-Based Practices, author nancy Campbell (2008:6) makes an important observation: ... for a parole board to be effective, it is not enough for the members of the organization to learn new skills and/or to recognize the way they individually frame ideas about others or about issues. Rather, they must also change the way they view themselves and their individual roles within the organization and redefine the organization’s role and processes (emphasis in original). This paper discusses the five areas outlined above as they relate to parole boards and releasing authorities. It offers specific methods and techniques parole leaders can use to explore and transform their organization’s role and processes to better achieve their desired organizational goals. It is intended to help parole leaders hone their capacity to analyze and manage effectively the many and varied challenges they face. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2011. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Parole Essentials: Practical Guides for Parole Leaders No. 3: Accessed October 20, 2011 at: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/024199.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/024199.pdf Shelf Number: 123059 Keywords: ParoleParole Boards (U.S.)Parolees |
Author: Burke, Peggy Title: Special Challenges Facing Parole Summary: Parole boards, releasing authorities, and parole executives make a variety of critical decisions concerning the timing of release, conditions to be imposed, and supervision strategies for thousands of offenders each year. As the development of this series of papers progressed and guidance was sought from its advisory group, a number of challenging topics surfaced. One had to do with certain subpopulations of offenders who present unique challenges for parole boards. Another had to do with the intractable issue of identifying appropriate housing for offenders returning to the community. The feeling among the advisory group was that new parole board members—or even more senior members—would benefit from an easily accessible source of information on these topics. They envisioned a document that would lay out the context, summarize the key issues, highlight the recent research, and provide suggestions about where to find more extensive and detailed resources. To accomplish that goal, the paper presents basic and current information about populations identified by the project advisory group: •• Inmates who have committed sex offenses. •• Those who have significant mental health or substance abuse issues. •• Female offenders. •• Aging or geriatric offenders. •• Youthful offenders incarcerated in the adult correctional system. This publication includes, where possible, examples of practices adopted in various jurisdictions to address these populations. A final section provides a framework for considering housing issues from the perspective of paroling authorities. Clearly, a single document cannot present all there is to know on these topics. The current document is intended to provide a solid grounding in these issues that is relevant to the perspective of parole board members and to point the way to more extensive resources on these topics. Although this paper addresses a set of issues that may appear, at first, to be somewhat unrelated, a clear pattern emerges from the following discussion. First, it highlights the specialized knowledge that parole leaders are required to master. Given the limited and staggered terms typical of paroling authority members, continuing training, self-education, and peer consultation are critical. With respect to the particular populations and challenges discussed in this paper, paroling authority members often have little direct authority over the types of assessments or programs that are available in correctional institutions or in the community. This underlines the continuing importance of building strong, collaborative partnerships with other correctional stakeholders to create support for strong, evidence-based assessments and interventions and for their targeted deployment. Finally, the issues addressed in this paper may be very closely related, even in the context of a single case. Substance abuse, sexual offending, and mental illness, for example, all can be exhibited by a single offender, whether male or female, young or old. Hopefully, the information in this paper will assist paroling authority members as they work to address these challenges, however they present themselves. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2011. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Parole Essentials: Practical Guides for Parole Leaders No. 4: Accessed October 20, 2011 at: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/024200.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/024200.pdf Shelf Number: 123060 Keywords: Parole (U.S.)Parole BoardsParolees |
Author: Carter, Madeline Title: Evidence-Based Policy, Practice, and Decisionmaking Implications for Paroling Authorities Summary: Governments around the world are moving to align their programs and services with what is known as evidence-based policy and practices (EBP). EBP, which originated in the medical profession three decades ago, asserts that public policy and practice must be based on the best available scientific evidence to be effective in the achievement of its goals and to be efficient in the use of taxpayers’ dollars. To be evidence-based is to implement practices, both at the individual and the organizational levels, that are guided by sound, empirical research.The result is more efficient and effective outcomes — outcomes that make better use of public resources and, ultimately, reduce future crime. This paper presents the key research findings that make these goals possible and the implications of these findings for paroling authorities. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2011. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Parole Essentials: Practical Guides for Parole Leaders No. 2: Accessed October 20, 2011 at: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/024198.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/024198.pdf Shelf Number: 123061 Keywords: Evidence-Based PracticesParole (U.S.)Parole OfficersParolees |
Author: Burke, Peggy Title: The Future of Parole as a Key Partner in Assuring Public Safety Summary: New research is providing lessons about how the criminal justice system in the United States can reduce recidivism, prevent crime and victimization, and better use precious public resources. One of the fundamental principles of this new body of knowledge is that all components of the justice system must target new, more effective solutions to the right offenders.This paper will argue that paroling authorities can lead change efforts in this transformation, because they are uniquely positioned to target interventions to the appropriate offenders. By strengthening and focusing their decisionmaking regarding release, setting of conditions, and responding to violations, paroling authorities can help the system do what has proven effective and discontinue past practices that have proven ineffective. The paper will also make the case that strong, collaborative partnerships with and support from other key stakeholders—including chief executives, prison officials, and parole supervision agencies — are another essential ingredient to realize parole’s leadership role in the criminal justice system. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2011. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Parole Essentials: Practical Guides for Parole Leaders No. 5: Accessed October 20, 2011 at: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/024201.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/024201.pdf Shelf Number: 123062 Keywords: CollaborationParole (U.S.)Parole OfficersParoleesPartnerships |
Author: Boyle, Douglas J. Title: Outcomes of a Randomized Trial of an Intensive Community Corrections Program – Day Reporting Centers – For Parolees Summary: The present study is an experimental evaluation of the relative effectiveness of an intensive community corrections program, often referred to as a Day Reporting Center (DRC), versus an intensive supervision parole condition (Phase I). DRC is a program that brings groups of parolees together from throughout a municipality or larger geographic area for supervision, services, and programming, and requires them to spend significant amounts of time together on a daily basis. Alternatively, Phase I is an individual-based intensive supervision with referral to services and with additional conditions imposed. Participants were randomly assigned to either DRC (n = 198) or Phase I (n = 204), and data were collected for 18 months post 90 day study period. Overall, during the 90 day study period, DRC participants were more likely to be arrested for a new offense, whereas Phase I participants were more likely to obtain employment than were DRC participants. During the 6 month period immediately following study participation, DRC participants were more likely to be re-convicted of a new offense. Furthermore, DRC participants were more likely than Phase I participants to produce a positive drug test during this period. Over the 12 and 18 month post completion periods, there was only one difference between the study groups, with Phase I participants more likely to obtain employment at 18 month follow-up. Results of the current investigation showed that DRCs did not produce better outcomes than the control group, and during some time periods treatment effects were significantly worse. The pattern of outcomes favoring Phase I supervision is even more noteworthy given the relative costs of the two programs, since Phase I is significantly less expensive than DRC programming. These findings raise important policy and fiscal concerns regarding the rationale for using the DRC model to supervise medium- and high-risk parolees. However, this should not be construed as saying that individual supervision alone is sufficient, since Phase I parolees were assigned additional conditions at the discretion of their parole officers which could include outpatient drug treatment, mental health treatment, educational training and others. The implications of the present research for policy and practice are significant. The overall finding is that medium- and high-risk parolees can be managed as effectively in the community at far less cost using a Phase-based individual system. Details: Newark, NJ: Violence Institute of New Jersey at the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, 2011. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 20, 2011 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236080.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236080.pdf Shelf Number: 123067 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsDay Reporting CentersParoleParolees |
Author: Davis, Lois M. Title: Understanding the Public Health Implications of Prisoner Reentry in California: State-of-the-State Report Summary: When prisoners are released and return to communities, an often overlooked concern is the health care needs that former prisoners have and the role that health care plays in how successfully they reintegrate. To a large extent, the reentry population will eventually become part of the uninsured and medically indigent populations in communities. This volume examines the health care needs of newly released prisoners in California, including the need for mental health and substance abuse treatment; which communities are most affected by prisoner reentry; the health care system capacity of those communities; and the experiences of released prisoners, service providers, and families of incarcerated individuals. The authors conducted a geographic analysis to identify where parolees are concentrated in California and the capacity of the safety net in four of these communities — Alameda, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Kern counties — to meet the health care needs of the reentry population. They then conducted focus groups in Alameda, Los Angeles, and San Diego counties with former prisoners and their family members and interviews with relevant service providers and community groups to better understand how health affects reentry; the critical roles that health care providers, other social services, and family members play in successful reentry; and how the children and families of ex-prisoners are affected by reentry. The authors discuss all this in the context of budget cuts that have substantially shrunk California's safety net and the May 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision ordering California to reduce its prison population by 33,000. The volume concludes with recommendations for improving access to care for this population in the current fiscal environment. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2011. 252p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 22, 2011 at: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1165.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1165.pdf Shelf Number: 123423 Keywords: Health CareMedical CareParoleesPrisoner Reentry (California) |
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: Bradford, Siân Title: The decision-making process at parole reviews (indeterminate imprisonment for public protection sentences) Summary: Research summary giving high-level findings from Ministry of Justice and Parole Board research on the decision-making process at parole reviews of indeterminate sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP). It involved analysing data collected from parole review dossiers and interviews with Parole Board members. Key findings demonstrated that: • parole decisions correlate strongly with offender manager recommendations to the panel •sentence progression is an important factor in release decisions • prisoners released had often spent time in open conditions •the importance of good quality risk management plans; and • Parole Board members were frustrated that more resources were needed in certain areas. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2012. 10p. Source: Research Summary 1/12: Internet Resource: Accessed February 10, 2012 at Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 124077 Keywords: Parole (U.K.)Parole Boards (U.K.)ParoleesRisk Assessment |
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: Anwar, Shamena Title: Testing for Racial Prejudice in the Parole Board Release Process: Theory and Evidence Summary: We develop a model of a Parole Board contemplating whether to grant parole release to a prisoner who has finished serving their minimum sentence. The model implies a simple outcome test for racial prejudice robust to the inframarginality problem. Our test involves running simple regressions of whether a prisoner recidivates on the exposure time to the risk of recidivism and its square, using only the sample of prisoners who are granted parole release strictly between their minimum and maximum sentences and separately by race. If the coefficient estimates on the exposure time term differ by race, then there is evidence of racial prejudice against the racial group with the smaller coefficient estimate. We implement our test for prejudice using data from Pennsylvania from January 1996 to December 31, 2001. Although we find racial differences in time served, we find no evidence for racial prejudice on the part of the Parole Board based on our outcome test. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2012. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper No. 18239: Accessed July 24, 2012 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18239 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18239 Shelf Number: 125756 Keywords: BiasParole (U.S.)Parole BoardParoleesRacial DisparitiesRacial Prejudice |
Author: Kane, Michael Title: Exploring the Role of Responsivity and Assessment with Hispanic and American Indian Offenders Summary: This report presents findings from an exploration of cultural responsivity in risk and needs assessment in community corrections agencies. As risk and needs assessment becomes more popular in community corrections, more researchers have begun to study issues involving the specific characteristics of offenders and how they interact with assessment and programming to impact outcomes, a concept commonly known as responsivity. In particular, two cultural groups were selected for study: Hispanics and American Indians. Initial plans for the current project involved the development of a new tool or ‘trailer’ for use in assessing Hispanic and American Indian populations. In the early stages of the project, however, the project team and its advisors determined that the creation of a new tool would be premature. Instead, the project focused efforts on: 1) describing current practices in assessing and working with Hispanic and American Indian offenders; 2) determining how well current assessment tools and practices predict recidivism for these offender groups; and 3) suggesting ways to improve tools and practices to make them more culturally competent and responsive. The report that follows will describe assessment and cultural responsivity, describe current practices in culturally responsive assessment, and detail the findings of research activities including data analysis and focus groups. Chapter 1 provides a literature review on the topic of risk assessment and culture. This section will describe the evolution of risk assessment in community corrections, summarize research on evidence-based practices, describe the Hispanic and American Indian populations in the United States and their context in corrections systems nationwide, suggest a model for understanding cultural competency, and describe some popular risk and needs assessment tools. Chapter 2 provides information on a Roundtable of assessment and corrections experts and results from a national survey of probation and parole agencies. The chapter describes the project team’s understanding of the current state of community corrections practice in assessing and supervising American Indian and Hispanic offenders. Chapter 3 summarizes findings from discussions with experts in Hispanic and American Indian culture and focus groups conducted with community corrections staff and Hispanic and American Indian offenders in five sites. Based on this feedback, the project team provides recommendations for improving assessment practices. Focus groups addressed cultural and linguistic barriers in supervision and assessment, specific cultural factors that may impact the scoring of risk and needs assessment, cultural competency during the assessment process, cultural competency training available to officers and supervisors, and suggestions for improving supervision and assessment with Hispanic and American Indian offenders. Chapter 4 presents findings from analysis of assessment and outcome data provided by five community corrections agencies and provides recommendations for improving the effectiveness of assessment tools. Predictive validity analysis was conducted for each site, and a combined analysis examining whether Hispanic and American Indian offenders are scoring differently on risk assessments compared to other offenders, and if agency-level cultural competency practices result in reductions in recidivism. Details: Boston: Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice, 2011. 113p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 27, 2012 at: https://www.bja.gov/Publications/CRJ_Role_of_Responsivity.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://www.bja.gov/Publications/CRJ_Role_of_Responsivity.pdf Shelf Number: 126118 Keywords: American Indian OffendersCommunity CorrectionsHispanic OffendersOffender SupervisionParoleesProbationersRisk Assessment |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: The Impact of Probation and Parole Populations on Arrests in Four California Cities Summary: One of the first questions as officer asks when arresting someone is “Are you on probation or parole?” and the answer generally expected is “yes.” Given this expectation, it is understandable for officers on the beat to believe that it is only a matter of time before people on parole or probation commit a crime. As longstanding and prevalent as this assumption has been, very little research exists quantifying the extent to which people under community supervision are, in fact, driving local law enforcement’s arrest activity. Law enforcement executives across the country have been forced to make deep cuts to their budgets as a result of plunging local tax revenues and shrinking federal funding for local police departments. This has certainly been the case in California. For example, the police departments in Sacramento, Los Angeles, and Redlands experienced significant declines in funding between 2008 and 2012, which have resulted in, among other things, major reductions in personnel. On top of the fiscal pressures police departments are experiencing, local governments in California are struggling with the transformation of the state corrections system currently underway. Compelled by federal court order to address overcrowding in the California prison system, state policymakers have taken a number of steps to reduce the prison population. For example, they have mandated that non-violent, non-serious and non-sex offenders serve their sentences at the local level rather than in state prisons. In addition, state officials have transferred post-release supervision responsibilities for people convicted of these crimes already in state prison to county probation officers. As a result of these and other actions, the number of people incarcerated in state prison has plummeted by nearly 40,000 people, from more than 173,000 in 20063 to fewer than 133,000 in November 2012. During the same timeframe, the state’s parole supervision population has declined by nearly 50 percent, from almost 120,000 to fewer than 61,000.5 The downsizing of the prison population has enabled the state to address dangerous levels of overcrowding in its system and to reduce state spending on corrections by billions ofdollars. Some of these savings have been passed along to the county governments, which must decide what to do with people who had previously been incarcerated in a state prison or under state parole supervision. Local law enforcement officials generally have received few of these redirected funds. Many police chiefs and sheriffs have asserted that the growing numbers of people released from state prison, combined with supervision responsibility shifting from state to local government for people convicted of particular offenses, will intensify demands on the resources of local law enforcement, which are already stretched to the breaking point. In 2010, Chief Charlie Beck of the Los Angeles Police Department, Chief James Bueermann of the Redlands Police Department, Chief Rick Braziel of the Sacramento Police Department, and Chief George Gascón of the San Francisco Police Department asked the Council of State Governments Justice Center (CSG Justice Center) to help them to determine the extent to which people on probation and parole contribute to the demands on the resources of local law enforcement, and to identify what opportunities exist to use data to target their limited resources more effectively. They asked CSG Justice Center to conduct an unprecedented analysis of arrest, probation, and parole data to answer these questions: To what extent do people on probation and parole contribute to crime, as measured by arrests? What types of crimes are these people most likely to commit? Are there particular subsets of people on probation and parole who are most likely to reoffend? If so, what characteristics do they have in common? What strategies can law enforcement employ to better respond to the people being released from prisons and jails to community supervision? Considerable research exists documenting rearrest or reincarceration rates for people under probation or parole supervision. Little research, however, has been published about the extent to which people on probation and parole contribute to the overall volume of arrests in a particular jurisdiction. This groundbreaking study addresses this gap in the research. Researchers had access to separate information systems maintained by multiple independent agencies. They assembled a vast, comprehensive dataset covering a lengthy time period that is without precedent. Researchers amassed more than 2.5 million adult arrest, probation, and parole supervision records maintained by 11 different agencies over a 42-month period stretching from January 1, 2008 to June 30, 2011. Because California does not mandate the uniform statewide collection of arrest data, each local jurisdiction maintains this information independently and distinctly. Needless to say, the gathering and matching of records for this study proved to be a complex undertaking. The research presented here is not a recidivism study. Researchers did not follow a particular group of people post-release for a prescribed period of time to determine that group’s rates of reoffense and compare that number to another, similar group of people for a similar length of time. The dataset assembled for this study encompassed all people arrested (as opposed to a narrower universe limited to people released from prison or jail) during a three-and-a-half-year time period. By using this cohort, which was far larger than just the number of people under correctional supervision, researchers could learn about the proportion of arrests that involve people under supervision compared to those not under supervision, as well as characteristics of the subset of parolees and probationers who contribute to police arrests. Details: New York: Council of State Government Justice Center, 2013. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 24, 2013 at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports/docs/External-Reports/CAL-CHIEFS-REPORT.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports/docs/External-Reports/CAL-CHIEFS-REPORT.pdf Shelf Number: 127372 Keywords: ArrestsCosts of Criminal JusticeParoleParoleesProbationProbationers (California) |
Author: Braithwaite, Helen Title: Parole Agent and Supervisor Feedback from the Pilot Implementation of the California Parole Supervision and Reintegration Model (CPSRM) Summary: Parole reform commenced at four pilot parole units in August, 2010. These four units implemented the California Parole Supervision and Reintegration Model (CPSRM) into their supervision practices. Caseloads decreased significantly and agents adopted new evidence-based practices that were aimed at front-loading supervision services, engaging the parolee in the supervision process, and more effectively targeting and addressing a parolee’s criminogenic needs that increased their risk of reoffending. The Center for Evidence-Based Corrections at UC Irvine was tasked with conducting a process evaluation of the pilot implementation. We used a mixed-methods approach that used document analysis, surveys, interviews, and behavioral observation to evaluate how effectively the new policies were put into practice, and also measured the impact of parole reform on the attitudes and behavior of parole agents – that is, to see whether their style of supervision actually changed after reform was introduced. This report presents findings from interviews with front-line parole agents (PA1s), Assistant Unit Supervisors (PA2s) and Unit Supervisors (PA3s) from the four pilot sites. All interviews were conducted in January and February, 2011, at which time parole reform had been ongoing for 5-6 months. All supervisory staff from all four pilot units were interviewed (N=8); in addition, fifteen PA1 agents were randomly selected from across the four pilot sites equally, to give a total sample size of twenty-three. The purpose of the interviews was to obtain in-depth, anonymous feedback from pilot site staff concerning their experiences of parole reform part-way through its implementation. We adopted an Action Research approach for the interview component of the process evaluation, with the aim of applying the knowledge gained via interviews to further evolve the implementation of parole reform. The policies contained in the parole reform package have been refined during the pilot as they have been put into practice in the field. While other aspects of the UC Irvine process evaluation have employed a quasi-experimental research design to provide a level of scientific control (for example, by collecting baseline data for comparison purposes) the interviews gave the research team an opportunity to get detailed information on the experiences of parole reform that would (a) assist in the interpretation of findings from other research methodologies, and (b) provide DAPO leadership with ‘food for thought’ that would enable further reflection and refinement of the reform model. The goal of an Action Research approach is for researchers and practitioners to better understand the nature of the problem in order to take further action. As such, the ‘findings’ presented here are not an outcome in themselves, but merely part of the ongoing process of parole reform in California. The first thing to note from the interviews was that the implementation process itself was successful, in that all components of the parole reform package were put into practice at all pilot sites. Supervisory staff at all pilot sites ensured that their agents adopted the new procedures, without ‘cutting corners’ or paying lip service to policies but ignoring them in practice. No interviewee could think of an area of parole reform that had not been fully implemented at their unit. The DAPO parole reform team provided comprehensive follow-up support to assist the implementation process. While many suggestions were made to improve training sessions, the ongoing support provided as a follow-up to training (via email, internet, phone calls, site visits) gave pilot site staff the opportunity to clarify issues that arose and provide feedback that led to the refinement of procedures (e.g., reduced redundancy in forms). The interviews provided anecdotal evidence that the new parole model was achieving aims relating to the front-loading of services, a better understanding of the risk factors (or criminogenic needs) that may contribute to reoffending, and perceived improvement in public safety. Approximately half the agents interviewed reported an increase in face-to-face time with parolees, attributed to procedures such as the comprehensive interview, resource contacts, contacts with family members, and more time spent at the residence. While agents were reluctant to report that they had changed the way they spoke to parolees (believing that they always showed the parolee decency and respect and therefore their personal style had not changed over time), it was the perception of supervisors that agents had improved the way they spoke with parolees. Many supervisors said that, in their opinion, the quality of agent-parolee contacts had improved. Most agents and supervisors thought that parole reform would be shown to have a positive impact on public safety. Many agents could thus see the potential benefits of parole reform – reduced caseloads resulted in a perceived improvement in the quality of contacts, enabled agents to work closer with parolees, and provided agents with more information on parolees. The new forms and procedures (like the comprehensive interview and residence verification) front-loaded services and increased standardization across the department. The other 50% or so of agents showed some resistance to change. Paperwork was seen as the biggest obstacle, even though steps had been taken to reduce the amount of paperwork overall and, in particular, decrease redundancy in forms. Many agents perceived that the additional paperwork introduced as part of parole reform had reduced the time they were able to spend in the field. It is likely that the continual ‘tweaking’ of paperwork based on agent feedback caused an additional level of agent effort – agents had to keep track of these changes, print new forms, and in some cases agents were redoing their paperwork to replace ‘old’ versions of the forms with the ‘newer’ versions, in order to keep their files up to date. It could be that this process of refining the documentation requirements added to the perceived workload for some agents, and made them feel like the paperwork was too much. It appeared that, all things being equal, the new caseload size of 48 was achievable, especially since some redundancy in paperwork was being reduced. However, workload was seen as problematic when anomalous circumstances arose – for example, when agents had to carry additional cases due to other agents within their unit being out, or carry additional cases of a higher supervision category (Transition Phase, Category A or B). If caseloads were to increase and some aspect of workload had to be cut to compensate, agents commonly nominated two areas that could be scaled back – goals reports (particularly for ‘old-timer’ parolees) and Case Conference Reviews. An interesting theme to arise from the interviews was that unit leadership was important in overcoming potential staff resistance. A common finding in the literature is that staff with longer length of service within the organization may be more resistant to change. We did not collect background information on agent age, time at unit etc (to encourage interviewees to speak freely under conditions of anonymity) but certain pilot units, due to their geographical location, were more inclined to have veteran employees close to retirement. Agents from these units, however, were not uniformly more negative in their views toward parole reform than agents from other units. It seems likely that organizational factors (such as strong leadership and supervisor ‘buy in’) will be just as important as agent background in the acceptance of parole reform during a rollout. The pilot implementation subjected pilot units to the scrutiny of audits and a rigorous quality assurance process to make sure that agents were ‘meeting specs’ and that any performance issues were detected and rectified promptly. Staff commonly reported feeling under pressure and micromanaged as they adjusted to parole reform, which may have contributed to their negative impressions of reform overall. The final observation worth noting from the interviews is that, when implementing organizational change, it may be beneficial for supervisors to be provided some leeway in extenuating circumstances to enable staff to adjust to the new system over time. The feedback from pilot site staff gathered during the interview process provides DAPO leadership with valuable information that will assist in the further refinement of CPSRM. As noted previously, these experiences should be considered in terms of providing insight, rather than being considered ‘research findings’ themselves. The CPSRM pilot is ongoing, and further interviews may be conducted as DAPO proceeds down the path of reforming California’s parole system. Details: Irvine, CA: University of California at Irvine, Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, 2011. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: Accessed January 24, 2013 at: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/Parole%20agent%20and%20supervisor%20feedback%20from%20the%20pilot%20implementation%20of%20the%20CPSRM.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/Parole%20agent%20and%20supervisor%20feedback%20from%20the%20pilot%20implementation%20of%20the%20CPSRM.pdf Shelf Number: 127396 Keywords: Evidence-Based PracticesParole OfficersParole ReformParole Supervision(California)Parolees |
Author: Turner, Susan Title: Implementation and Outcomes for California’s GPS pilot for High Risk Sex Offender Parolees Summary: In November 2006, California passed Proposition 83 mandating that all sex offenders be monitored by GPS for life. The law was passed without sufficient evidence regarding the effectiveness of GPS monitoring on sex offenders, and lacked a clear plan for how these new provisions would be implemented. This study provides a much needed test addressing the effectiveness of GPS monitoring for high risk sex offenders supervised in the community. Using data from a GPS pilot program in San Diego California in 2005, 94 high risk sex offenders monitored by GPS and 91 high risk sex offenders were followed for 18 months. The results showed that there were no significant differences between groups with respect to overall recidivism rates, although GPS offenders were less likely to abscond or fail to register as a sex offender. Additionally, we found that GPS offenders were less likely to be charged of committing a new crime, but more likely to violate a special condition of GPS supervision. Overall, GPS monitoring appeared to prevent parolees only from committing lower level offenses, which calls into question the utility of this particular supervision tool as a deterrent for the sex offender population. Details: Irvine, CA: UC Irvine, Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, 2010. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: Accessed January 29, 2013 at: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/HRSO%20GPS%20Pilot%20Working%20Paper.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/HRSO%20GPS%20Pilot%20Working%20Paper.pdf Shelf Number: 127423 Keywords: GPS (Global Positioning Systems)Offender MonitoringOffender SupervisionParoleesSex 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: Turner, Susan Title: The Impact of the California Parole Supervision and Reintegration Model (CPSRM) Pilot Implementation on Parole Agent Attitudes Summary: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) currently supervises approximately 125,000 offenders on post-release supervision, or parole. California's rate of parolees per population, currently 438 per 100,000 residents, is much higher than the national average of 315 (Glaze & Bonczar, 2009). This is due in part to the large prison population in California, which results in a large number of offenders released to community supervision at the completion of their sentences. Two sentencing decisions contribute to California's higher-than-average number of parolees. First, determinate sentencing laws introduced in 1976 resulted in fixed sentences of imprisonment for particular crimes, followed by mandatory release. This compares with a system of indeterminate sentencing, applied in some states, which sets minimum and maximum terms but leaves the release decision to parole boards (discretionary release). Second, California historically has released all prisoners to a period of supervised parole, usually for three years, rather than reserving supervision for some offenders and releasing offenders assessed to be a lower risk to the community with no supervision requirements. With so many offenders under parole supervision, inevitably many parolees violate parole, either by committing a new offense or through technical violations of their parole conditions (e.g., failing a drug test or missing a meeting with their parole agent). The return to custody (RTC) rate for a parolee in California is 66%, nearly twice the national average (Fischer, 2005), and on any given day, six out of ten prison admissions in California are returning parolees (Grattet, Petersilia, & Lin, 2008). In recent years, reviews of the corrections system in California have recommended reforms to implement evidence-based practices (EBP) into corrections policy. One common suggestion has been the targeting of parole supervision and treatment resources to those offenders most at risk of reoffending (Little Hoover Commission, 2007; Burke, 2009). Two recent legislative changes have altered California's parole system significantly. First, Senate Bill 3X 18 (Penal Code Section 3000.03), effective January 25th 2010, introduced Non-Revocable Parole (NRP), which placed ‘lower risk, low stakes' offenders into the community with no parole supervision or parole conditions, but still subject to warrantless search and seizure by law enforcement. To be eligible for NRP, offenders must have no prior serious or violent felonies, a low or moderate California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA) risk score, and not be required to register as a sex offender. Consequently, parole resources were targeted toward those offenders with a higher risk to reoffend who were most in need of assistance with reentry. Second, legislation changed the funding of agent caseloads, reducing caseloads from a funding ratio of 70 cases per agent down to 48:1. These two changes - the removal of a proportion of offenders from parole caseloads and the potential to lower the number of cases that each agent supervised - resulted in a unique opportunity for DAPO management to reconsider the way it supervised offenders to incorporate recent developments in EBP research and ‘best practice’ policies being introduced by colleague agencies elsewhere. In October 2009, DAPO convened a Parole Reform Task Force (PRTF) to recommend new policies and procedures in light of research findings and supervision methods used in other jurisdictions. The PRTF comprised 19 representatives from DAPO Headquarters and all four parole regions, and included ranks of Parole Agent 1 (‘rank and file’ parole agents), PA2 (Assistant Unit Supervisors), and PA3 (Unit Supervisors), in addition to Parole Administrators, Deputy Regional Administrators, and Regional Administrators. The Task Force met weekly through January 2010 and produced a report describing the new parole model, called the California Parole Supervision and Reintegration Model (CPSRM). The CPSRM represented a significant change to the way DAPO supervised offenders post-release. Sections in the Task Force report (i.e., pre-release planning, case management, case conferences, quality of supervision, agent workload, programming, parolee rewards and incentives, and parolee discharge procedures) carefully documented relevant research findings in support of the new practices outlined. At the crux of CPSRM was a move away from a ‘surveillance’ model of supervision towards an approach that emphasized both the quality of supervision, and the engagement of the parolee in the supervision process. Agents were trained in Motivational Interviewing (MI) techniques and used detailed comprehensive interviews to identify the criminogenic needs of parolees. These criminogenic needs formed the basis of the parolee’s case plan. Parolees were encouraged to identify tangible, small steps they could take every month in order to address these needs, and these tasks were written down in a Goals Report. Parolees were now invited to attend Case Conference Reviews in which their case plan was discussed; early discharge from parole was based in part on the level of commitment shown by the parolee in taking a more active role in his/her supervision. Based on the PRTF report a comprehensive DAPO policy manual was developed. Current plans are that CPSRM will roll out state-wide. Prior to its widespread implementation, a pilot implementation took place at four parole units in order to test policies in the field and make adjustments based on agent feedback. This report presents findings from surveys of parole agent attitudes during the CPSRM pilot implementation process. Details: Irvine, CA: Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, University of California, Irvine, 2011. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: accessed February 15, 2013 at: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/The%20impact%20of%20CPSRM%20pilot%20implementation%20on%20parole%20agent%20attitudes.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/The%20impact%20of%20CPSRM%20pilot%20implementation%20on%20parole%20agent%20attitudes.pdf Shelf Number: 127422 Keywords: Intensive SupervisionParole (California)Parole OfficersParole ReformParoleesPrisoner Reintegration |
Author: Klingele, Cecelia M. Title: Rethinking the Use of Community Supervision Summary: Community supervision, whether in the form of probation or post-release supervision, is ordinarily framed as an alternative to incarceration. For this reason, legal reformers intent on reducing America's disproportionately high incarceration rates often urge lawmakers to expand the use of community supervision, confident that diverting offenders to the community will significantly reduce over-reliance on incarceration. Yet, on any given day, a significant percentage of new prisoners arrive at the prison gates not as a result of sentencing for a new crime, but because they have been revoked from probation or parole. It is therefore fair to say that in many cases community supervision is not an alternative to imprisonment, but only a delayed form of it. This Article examines the reasons why community supervision so often fails, and challenges popular assumptions about the role community supervision should play in efforts to reduce over-reliance on imprisonment. While probation and post-release supervision serve important purposes in many cases, they are often imposed on the wrong people, and executed in ways that predictably lead to revocation. To decrease the overuse of imprisonment, sentencing and correctional practices should therefore limit, rather than expand, the use of community supervision in three important ways. First, terms of community supervision should be imposed in fewer cases, with alternatives ranging from fines to unconditional discharge to short jail terms imposed instead. Second, conditions of probation and post-release supervision should be imposed sparingly, and only when they directly correspond to a risk of re-offense. Finally, terms of community supervision should be limited in duration, extending only long enough to facilitate a period of structured re-integration after sentencing or following a term of incarceration. Details: Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Law School, 2013. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Univ. of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1220 : Accessed March 30, 2013 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2232078 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2232078 Shelf Number: 128179 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SentencesOffender Supervision (U.S.) Community Based CorrecParoleesProbationersRevocation |
Author: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Office of Research Title: Realignment Report: A One-year Examination of Offenders Released from State Prison in the First Six Months of Public Safety Realignment Summary: One-year arrest rates are down and conviction rates are virtually static for offenders released after completing their state prison sentences post-Realignment, according to a report released today by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). For this Realignment Report, CDCR identified all offenders who had served their full sentence and were released from prison during the first six months after the implementation of Realignment (October 2011 through March 2012). Researchers then tracked the offenders, which include those released to state parole supervision and those released to county probation supervision, for one year to see if they were re-arrested, convicted of a new crime, or returned to state prison. CDCR then compared those results with all offenders released during October 2010 to March 2011 (pre-Realignment) and tracked them for one year in the same manner. Key findings include: • Post-Realignment offenders were arrested at a lower rate than pre-Realignment offenders (62 percent pre-Realignment and 58.7 percent post-Realignment). • The rate of post-Realignment offenders convicted of new crimes is nearly the same as the rate of pre-Realignment offenders convicted of new crimes (21.3 percent pre-realignment and 22.5 percent post realignment). • Post-Realignment offenders returned to prison at a significantly lower rate than pre-Realignment offenders, an intended effect of Realignment as most offenders are ineligible to return to prison on a parole violation. (42 percent pre-Realignment and 7.4 percent post-Realignment) Under California’s Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, no offenders receive an early release from state prison. The law, which was passed by the Legislature in response to a federal court order to reduce California’s prison population, has achieved dramatic reductions by stemming the flow of low-level inmates and parole violators into prison. The intent of Realignment is to encourage counties to develop and implement evidenced-based practices and alternatives to incarceration to limit future crimes and reduce victimization. Prior to Realignment, more than 60,000 felon parole violators returned to state prison annually, with an average length of stay of 90 days. Beginning on October 1, 2011, most parole violations are now served in county jails. Also, offenders newly convicted of certain low-level offenses serve their time in county jail. Under another component of Realignment, inmates who have served their full state prison sentence for a non-serious, non-violent or non-sexual offense are now supervised upon their release by county probation rather than state parole. Realignment provides a dedicated, constitutionally protected, and permanent revenue stream to the counties. Details: Sacramento: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2013. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 1, 2013 at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/realignment/docs/Realignment%206%20Month%20Report%20Final_5%2016%2013%20v1.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/realignment/docs/Realignment%206%20Month%20Report%20Final_5%2016%2013%20v1.pdf Shelf Number: 128887 Keywords: California RealignmentCosts of CorrectionsParoleesPrison OvercrowdingPrisoners (California)Recidivism |
Author: Queensland Corrective Services Title: Court Ordered Parole in Queensland Summary: This paper provides the findings of an analysis of the trends and impact of court ordered parole since it was introduced in August 2006 with the Corrective Services Act 2006. The introduction of court ordered parole has ensured more offenders are under active supervision in the community. This order type is a high volume order; more than 5,515 orders were made in 2012 and more than 3,000 offenders are in the community on court ordered parole at any one time. Approximately 40% of those who receive court ordered parole are paroled straight from court. Offenders on court ordered parole generally serve shorter sentences with 66% serving a sentence of 12 months or less in duration. This group could potentially have received wholly suspended sentences with no community supervision. Queensland Corrective Services (QCS) has a strict regime when supervising offenders in the community to identify and facilitate appropriate responses to risk. An examination of the data, with particular focus on the suspension and cancellation rates, demonstrates that: • approximately 300 offenders per month are suspended and returned to prison (most common reason is an unacceptable risk of further offending); • almost 1,800 prisoners in custody are there for a violation of court ordered parole (order suspended or cancelled); and • reoffending accounts for half of the orders cancelled by the Parole Board. The introduction of court ordered parole aimed to address the over-representation of short-sentenced, low-risk prisoners in QCS facilities; such prisoners were responsible for a high degree of turnover in the prison population. Prior to the introduction of court ordered parole, prisoner numbers were forecast to grow. However, this order type stabilised growth in prisoner numbers from 2006 until recently. This suggests that court ordered parole has reversed the growth in short sentence prisoners, delaying the need to invest in prison infrastructure. Overall, court ordered parole is QCS’ most successful supervision order with approximately 72% of orders successfully completed without cancellation or reconviction. Details: Brisbane: Queensland Corrective Services, 2013. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Paper No. 4: Accessed July 8, 2013 at: http://www.correctiveservices.qld.gov.au/Publications/Research_Publications/Court_Ordered_Parole_Research_Paper.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.correctiveservices.qld.gov.au/Publications/Research_Publications/Court_Ordered_Parole_Research_Paper.pdf Shelf Number: 129267 Keywords: Community-based CorrectionsEarly ResearchParole (Australia)Parolees |
Author: Texas. Legislative Budget Board Title: Statewide Criminal Justice Recidivism and Revocation Rates Summary: In fiscal year 2012, nearly 80,000 adults and over 5,000 juveniles returned to neighborhoods following their release from Texas correctional facilities. More than 355,000 adults and more than 30,000 juveniles were under active supervision in the community. In fiscal year 2013, appropriations for the state agency overseeing the care of these adult populations, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, totaled $3.1 billion, and appropriations for the state agency overseeing the care of these juvenile populations, the Texas Juvenile Justice Department, totaled $330.4 million. This report examines the public safety outcomes for this investment. This report assesses whether groups of these individuals were rearrested and/or (re)incarcerated within three years of release from incarceration or after beginning supervision. This report refers to subsequent incarcerations as reincarcerations if the population has been previously incarcerated; otherwise, they are referred to as incarcerations. Adult cohorts analyzed in this report include individuals released from Texas prisons, state jails, Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facilities, In-Prison Therapeutic Community programs, and Intermediate Sanction Facilities. Juvenile cohorts include individuals released from Texas Juvenile Justice Department secure residential facilities, juveniles starting juvenile probation department (JPD) supervision, and juveniles released from JPD secure residential facilities. This report also summarizes whether populations under active supervision in the community were terminated (i.e., revoked) and incarcerated in response to the commitment of a new offense or technical violation of supervision conditions. The populations included in this analysis represent a diverse set of offenders with varying levels of community-based supervision, offense severity, offense history, and risk of reoffending. Details: Austin: Texas Legislative Budget Board, 2013. 118p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 10, 2013 at: http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Public_Safety_Criminal_Justice/RecRev_Rates/Statewide%20Criminal%20Justice%20Recidivism%20and%20Revocation%20Rates2012.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Public_Safety_Criminal_Justice/RecRev_Rates/Statewide%20Criminal%20Justice%20Recidivism%20and%20Revocation%20Rates2012.pdf Shelf Number: 129357 Keywords: Parole RevocationsParoleesRecidivism (Texas, U.S.)Reoffending |
Author: Field-Pimm, Melanie Title: Parenting Status of Community Correctional Clients: Informing Service Planning Summary: No single agency or government department routinely collects data about the parental status of offenders or the characteristics or needs of offenders' families and children. This lack of hard data is partly responsible for difficulties in planning and targeting of services. More broadly, the lack of data prevents rational discussion of this issue. As a result, the population of parents, children and families is 'unmonitored, under-researched and unsupported by the statutory sector' (Murray, 2007:55). In response, this paper recommends a planned approach for informed service delivery aimed at improving the family circumstances of offenders who are also parents in Victoria. The data collected in this project represents a first step towards this planning. The Victorian Correctional System itself already has a number of responses in place for offenders who are parents. These include the Springhill Unit in Marngoneet Correctional Centre (designed to provide a targeted parenting program for fathers), the Mother & Baby Units in the Women's Prisons, and The Family Support Service at Dame Phyllis Frost Centre. Community based organisations offer a myriad of individual services. However these are i) ad hoc and ii) connected to correctional centres rather than the community correctional system. Partly as a result of recent legislative changes to the application of Parole in Victoria coming into effect as of September 2013, the number of parole breaches has increased. It is anticipated that this will significantly impact on families, particularly when the offender is a parent and is moving through or back to a period of incarceration due to the breach. Details: Melbourne: Victorian Association for the Care & Resettlement of Offenders, 2014. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2014 at: http://www.vacro.org.au/Portals/0/PDF/Research/Publications/Parenting%20Status%20of%20Community%20Correctional%20Clients.2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: http://www.vacro.org.au/Portals/0/PDF/Research/Publications/Parenting%20Status%20of%20Community%20Correctional%20Clients.2014.pdf Shelf Number: 132380 Keywords: Children of Prisoners (Australia)Community CorrectionsFamilies of InmatesParolees |
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: Gobeil, Renee Title: Offenders with Long Term Supervision Orders Assigned Residency Conditions at Release Summary: Why we did this study A very small number of offenders present a high risk of re-offence even after the end of their sentence. Legislation exists to allow for these offenders to be imposed a long term supervision order (LTSO), a period of additional community supervision of up to 10 years at the end of their sentence. In addition, many offenders with LTSOs are given a residency condition at release - that is, are required to live in a halfway house. In the last decade, the number of offenders with LTSOs has increased, as has the proportion who receive residency conditions. What we did We therefore conducted a study to better understand if and how residency conditions contribute to the management of the risk presented by offenders with LTSOs. We examined all offenders with LTSOs released to the community by August 2011. The 347 with a residency condition were compared to the 120 without one in areas such as demographics, risk and need, and both suspensions and returns to custody (that is, revocation of conditional release as well as breach of LTSO and other new offences). What we found In general, offenders with and without a residency condition were very similar. This was true for demographic characteristics, victim information patterns, and mental health. However, those assigned a residency condition were judged by their parole officers to present higher levels of risk and of need, though the two groups returned to custody (due to revocations of conditional release or breaches of LTSO and other new offences) at the same rates. After statistically controlling for differences in reintegration potential, offenders with LTSOs with a residency condition may be less likely to be suspended. Nonetheless, the overall pattern of findings suggests that residency conditions are not contributing to managing the risk presented by offenders with LTSOs. Notably, two factors which were peripheral to the offender - the region where release occurred and how recently the offender was released - were both also related to whether residency was imposed. What it means Findings suggest that decisions to impose residency conditions may not be sufficiently rooted in risk. From a correctional theory perspective, imposition of restrictive conditions should be based on sound principles and research, and there may be room for improvement in this area with respect to the imposition of residency conditions on offenders with LTSOs. The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) has undertaken relevant initiatives in this domain (specifically, education programs) that may lead to improvements if they are expanded. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2012. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report No. R-285: Accessed August 23, 2014 at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/005/008/092/005008-0285-eng.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Canada URL: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/005/008/092/005008-0285-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 133126 Keywords: Community SupervisionHigh-Risk OffendersHousing RestrictionsOffender Supervision (Canada)ParoleesRecidivismResidency Restrictions |
Author: D'Amico, Ron Title: Evaluation of the Second Chance Act (SCA) Demonstration 2009 Grantees: Interim Report Summary: This report presents the results from an implementation study of 10 grantees awarded Second Chance Act (SCA) adult demonstration grants to improve reentry services for adult offenders. The implementation study was designed to learn how the 10 grantees operated their SCA projects. During site visits to each grantee lasting two to three days each, study team members interviewed program administrators, case managers, probation and parole officers (POs), fiscal and MIS staff members, and SCA service providers, asking questions about project management and service delivery. They also conducted focus groups with program participants, observed project services, and reviewed selected case files. These site visits largely took place in the spring and summer of 2012. The grantees included state departments of corrections, county sheriff's offices, county health agencies, and other public agencies. Each SCA project targeted medium to high-risk adult offenders and enrolled participants, variously, well before release, just before release, or just after release. Case management, involving needs-based service planning and service coordination, was the focal point of project services across all 10 sites. Depending on the site, case managers were (specialized) POs or employees of municipal departments or nonprofit organizations. Other SCA services included education and training, employment assistance, substance abuse treatment, mental health services, cognitive behavioral therapy, pro-social services, housing assistance, and other supportive services. These services were provided either directly by the case managers, through formal agreements with service providers (often including payment for services rendered), or through unfunded informal referrals to community agencies. The direct service model provided tailored services to participants, but required case managers to have specialized expertise and, for this reason, was used sparingly. The formal partnership model ensured priority access to services that participants needed but was costly. The informal partnership model provided participants with access to a wide array of community services but often without close coordination with the SCA project itself. Each grantee used all three of these service delivery models. The grantees faced numerous challenges in developing strong projects, stemming partly from the intrinsic difficulty in serving offenders and partly due to the challenge of designing and implementing evidence-based reentry programming. These challenges included: - needing substantial ramp-up time to operate smoothly, - needing to train case managers (especially those without a social service background) on needs-based service planning, and - coordinating partner services. The SCA projects that overcame these challenges created strong foundations for sustainable systems change. They: - gained considerable experience in needs-based service planning and in coordinating pre-release and post-release services, - strengthened partnerships between various government and community-based agencies, and - came to embrace a rehabilitative philosophy to reentry that, in some cases, represented an important cultural shift. An impact study that uses a random assignment design is separately underway, and results from it will be provided in a separate report. Details: Oakland, CA: Social Policy Research Associates, 2013. 113p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 2, 2014 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/243294.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/243294.pdf Shelf Number: 129915 Keywords: Case ManagementParoleesPrisoner Reentry (U.S.)ProbationersRecidivismRehabilitation |
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: Sohoni, Tracy Title: The Effect of Collateral Consequence Laws on State Rates of Returns to Prison Summary: Formal restrictions on a person following arrest or conviction are referred to as "collateral consequence laws" and exist in all states in the US. In recent years, scholars, policy makers and advocacy groups have expressed concern that many of these laws hinder reintegration, increasing the likelihood of future crime. In addition, these laws may interfere with the ability of former offenders to meet conditions of release following incarceration, such as maintaining stable employment and housing or paying child support. In this dissertation I examine the effect of states' collateral consequence laws in the categories of voting, access to public records, employment, public housing, public assistance, and driver's licenses. I examine the impact of these laws on state rates of returns to prison, as measured by percent of prison admissions that were people on conditional release when they entered prison, the percent of exits from parole that were considered unsuccessful due returning to incarceration; the percent of exits from parole that were returned to incarceration for a new sentence, and the percent of exits from parole that were returned to incarceration for a technical violation. I also run an additional fixed effects analysis on the effect of restrictions on Temporary Assistance for Needy Children (TANF) over a seven year period. Ultimately, limitations in the data restrict the conclusions that can be drawn regarding the impact of these laws. Results from the analysis are mixed, indicating that these laws may not have a uniform impact. Surprisingly, these analyses give some indication that collateral consequences may be related to lower rates of returns to prison for technical violations, however future research is needed to confirm this relationship. Possible explanations for these relationships are discussed, as are future research possibilities that would address limitations in the data. Data from the fixed-effects analysis does indicate preliminary support that states that imposed harsh restrictions on TANF saw an increase in state rates of returns to prison, however the analysis will need to be expanded to include state-level controls in order to draw any firm conclusions. Details: College Park, MD: University of Maryland, College Park, 2013. 181p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed September 11, 2014 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/247569.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/247569.pdf Shelf Number: 133277 Keywords: Collateral Consequence Laws (U.S.)Ex-Offender EmploymentHousingParoleesPrisoner ReentryRecidivism |
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: France. Ministry of Justice Title: Parole groups for perpetrators of domestic violence introduced in the judicial district of the Tribunal de Grande Instance [Regional Court] of Mulhouse de Summary: As part of its involvement in the STARR project, from October 2010 to June 2011 the Ministere de la Justice et des Libertes undertook a research project on a system to combat recidivism in the area of domestic violence through probation measures. This research is, therefore, in response to the objective set out by the project: to identify and to share best practices applied within the European Union in order to effectively combat recidivism in three areas: - alcohol and drug addiction - juvenile crime - domestic violence In May 2010 the service des affaires europeennes et internationales (SAEI) of the ministere de la Justice et des libertes approached the direction de l'administration penitentiaire (DAP) [Penitentiar Administration Department], for it to develop a system to combat recidivism in the area of domestic violence implemented by its services de probation et d'insertion penitentiaire (SPIP) [probation and penintentiary integration departments]. This system was conspicuous through its innovative character, particularly the methodological tools applied. Following this approach the DAP reoriented the SAEI towards a system developed from the Mulhouse SPIP initiative, in partnership with the Accord68 association, involving the development of parole groups for the perpetrators of domestic violence. These parole groups were formed within recidivism prevention programmes (RPP) developed since the end of December 2007 by the DAP which represent a procedure for 'collective responsibility in the form of parole groups, the objective of which is to work on the development of the act and the conditions for its non-reiteration'. The objective of this study is to reproduce the experience of the parole groups and to describe their operation. Its conclusions are aimed at all the STARR project's partners but also at all Member States of the European Union interested in this system. They will also allow professionals in the judicial system in France to have access to 'feedback' on a system for the combat of recidivism. From 24 to 26 November 2010 the Ministere de la Justice et des Libertes also organised an international seminar devoted to domestic violence. Magistrats, experts, universities, representatives from the associative and medical sector from different European countries were also able to exchange information about the various existing systems within this field over three days. Details: Paris: Ministry of Justice, 2013(?). 44p. Source: Internet Resource: European Project STARR: Accessed October 27, 2014 at: http://www.starr-probation.org/uploaded_files/Rep%20STARR%20DV%20E.pdf Year: 2013 Country: France URL: http://www.starr-probation.org/uploaded_files/Rep%20STARR%20DV%20E.pdf Shelf Number: 133824 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationsDomestic Violence (France)ParoleParoleesRecidivism |
Author: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: Reducing Incarceration for Technical Violations in Louisiana: Evaluation of revocation cap shows cost savings, less crime Summary: In 2007, Louisiana lawmakers unanimously approved legislation that set a 90-day limit on the incarceration in jail or prison of those whose probation or parole has been revoked for the first time for violating the rules of their community supervision. Lawmakers passed the legislation, Act 402 (House Bill 423), to prioritize jail and prison beds for serious offenders and steer lower-level offenders to less expensive and potentially more effective alternatives. An independent evaluation of the policy commissioned by The Pew Charitable Trusts, supplemented by additional research conducted by Pew, concluded that Louisiana's 90-day revocation limit has: -- Reduced the average length of incarceration for first-time technical revocations in Louisiana by 281 days, or 9.2 months. -- Maintained public safety, with returns to custody for new crimes declining from 7.9 percent to 6.2 percent, a 22 percent decrease. -- Resulted in a net savings of approximately 2,034 jail and prison beds a year. -- Saved taxpayers an average of $17.6 million in annual corrections costs. This brief summarizes these findings and looks ahead to the longer-term implications of Act 402 for Louisiana. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2014. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed February 5, 2015 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2014/11/PSPPReducingIncarcerationforTechnicalViolationsinLouisiana.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2014/11/PSPPReducingIncarcerationforTechnicalViolationsinLouisiana.pdf Shelf Number: 134546 Keywords: Community SupervisionCost-Benefit AnalysisParole Revocation (Louisiana)ParoleesProbation RevocationProbationers |
Author: Harris, Aileen Title: Therapeutic Alliance and Offender-Staff Relations in Women's Corrections Summary: What it means The current study demonstrates that healthy working relationships between institutional parole officers (POs) and women offenders may contribute to the overall adjustment of women during their incarceration. Although the findings are preliminary in nature, the results emphasize the importance of positive staff-offender interactions, the practice of dynamic security, and the selection of correctional staff with qualities that foster positive alliances with offenders in promoting correctional objectives. What we found Results of a correlation analysis demonstrated that women's perceived level of bonding with their PO was related to their institutional adjustment. Women with higher bond ratings were less likely to engage in institutional misconducts (r = -.22, p < .05). Interview responses from both staff and offenders further supported the importance of maintaining relational health and positive alliances within the institutional setting. Women consistently highlighted the importance of communication, interpersonal and relational skills that facilitate positive alliances between staff and offenders. Staff demonstrated their knowledge of the construct of therapeutic alliance, its meaning, and its application to the job, while also acknowledging the challenges of establishing alliances with such a diverse population within an environment that requires a focus on both positive interactions and safety/security concerns. The majority of staff and women indicated that dynamic security was being practiced across all of the women's sites. However, both groups also recognized certain operational demands and the provision of resources as obstacles in the maintenance of alliances. Why we did this study The current study emerged in response to an increasing focus in correctional literature on the importance of therapeutic alliance. Therapeutic alliance has been conceptualized as the collaborative and affective rapport established between a treatment provider and his/her client(s). The quality of this alliance is an important variable in the treatment process, affecting rehabilitation outcomes across diverse modes of treatment. Research in this area in correctional settings, particularly in settings with women offenders, is limited. The purpose of the current study, therefore, was to investigate the extent to which relationships between women offenders and institutional staff in the federal correctional system are characterized by healthy connections while exploring the construct of the therapeutic alliance. What we did Participants consisted of 124 women offenders and 88 correctional staff from all six women's federal facilities in Canada. Measures of alliance and relational health were used as predictors of institutional misconducts. Semi-structured interviews were used to gather information regarding staff and offender perceptions of alliances overall within the facility as well as the impact of the operational environment (dynamic/static security) on the development of such alliances. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2014. 1p. (Summary report). Full report is available upon request. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report No. R-305: Accessed April 1, 2015 at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/005/008/092/005008-0305-eng.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Canada URL: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/005/008/092/005008-0305-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 135120 Keywords: Corrections OfficersFemale InmatesFemale OffendersOffender Treatment ProgramsParole OfficersParolees |
Author: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: The Impact of Parole in New Jersey Summary: Nearly 700,000 offenders were released from U.S. prisons in 2011. Ensuring their successful re-entry into the community remains a critical issue for public safety. A new analysis of New Jersey data shows that inmates released to parole supervision are less likely to be rearrested, reconvicted, and reincarcerated for new crimes than inmates who serve, or "max out," their full prison sentences and are released without supervision. The two groups return to prison at nearly identical rates, however, because parolees can be sent back for technical violations-such as failing drug tests or missing meetings-that are not associated with committing new crimes. These findings demonstrate not only that supervision can make a decisive difference in controlling criminal behavior among released offenders, but also that technical revocations unrelated to new crimes reduce the cost savings of parole. This brief discusses the findings in depth and examines their implications for states' corrections policies. Details: Philadelphia, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2013. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Brief: Accessed April 29, 2015 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2013/PSPPNJParoleBriefpdf.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2013/PSPPNJParoleBriefpdf.pdf Shelf Number: 135415 Keywords: Parole Supervision (New Jersey)ParoleesPrisoner Reentry |
Author: Fontaine, Jocelyn Title: Interim Reincarceration Outcomes of Safer Return Summary: Safer Return provided supportive services to 727 individuals returning from state prison to Chicago's Garfield Park neighborhood. This interim analysis uses administrative data from the Illinois Department of Corrections to compare one-year reincarceration outcomes of: Safer Return participants, nonparticipants paroled to a comparison neighborhood, and nonparticipants paroled to Garfield Park. Of the three groups, program participants had the lowest reincarceration rate. Statistical analyses find that participants' did not fare significantly better than nonparticipants paroled to the comparison neighborhood, but they did fare significantly better than Garfield Park nonparticipants. Differences in reincarceration rates were driven largely by differences in technical violations. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2014. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 6, 2015 at: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/413076-Interim-Reincarceration-Outcomes-of-Safer-Return.PDF Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 135516 Keywords: ParoleesPrisoner Reentry (Chicago) Recidivism |
Author: Sarver, Christian M. Title: Prisoner Reentry Initiatives: Review of the Literature and Reentry in Utah. Summary: Nearly seven million adult offenders were under some form of correctional supervision in the United States (U.S.) in 2011, compared to less than two million in 1980 (Glaze & Parks, 2012). More than 1.5 million of those were incarcerated in state or federal prison, which represents a fivefold increase in just three decades (Travis, 2008). Dramatic growth in the prison population is largely a function of criminal justice reforms that started in the mid-1970s as states moved away from indeterminate sentencing models, which were flexible, individualized, and operated under the discretion of judges and parole boards. Indeterminate models were replaced with policies intended to standardize criminal justice processes, including "truth-in-sentencing," three-strikes, and mandatory minimum sentencing legislation (Campbell, 2008). Simultaneously, in an attempt to "get tough" on crime, many jurisdictions reduced, or entirely eliminated, the practice of discretionary parole release. As a result of these changes, offenders now receive comparatively longer sentences, serve more of that sentence in prison, and are less frequently under parole supervision when they are released (Burke & Tonry, 2006; Petersilia, 2011). Sentencing reform has been identified as the primary force behind rising prison expenditures, which averaged more than $30,000 per inmate annually in 2010 (Henrichson & Delaney, 2012). Efforts to lower prison costs include reducing the number of people who are incarcerated, a strategy that is complicated by the high re-incarceration rates of released offenders (Petersilia, 2004; Taxman, 2009; Travis, 2005). Recommitment rates are fueled by use of "get tough" approaches in parole, which result in offenders being returned to prisons not only for new crimes but, more frequently, for violating the conditions of supervision (Burke & Tonry, 2006). In 2011, more than 600,000 inmates were released from state and federal facilities (Carson & Sabol, 2012). Anywhere from one-half to two-thirds of those individuals will be returned to prison within three years of release (Langan & Levin, 2002; The Pew Center for the States (PCS), 2011). Of the more than 500,000 inmates who exited parole supervision in 2011, one-third of inmates were re-incarcerated within twelve months and 65% of those were for a technical violation (Maruschak & Parks, 2012). There are a number of explanations for the frequency with which offenders are recommitted to institutions, including the collateral impacts of cycling between prison and parole. The majority of offenders enter prison with significant deficits in terms of social and financial capital (Petersilia, 2004; Raphael, 2011; Seiter & Kadela, 2003) and lengthy or repeated episodes of incarceration further disrupt community ties, social relationships, and employment (Wolff, Schi, & Schumann, 2012). When compared to the non-prison population, offenders have lower levels of education, less stable employment and housing histories, less social support, and higher levels of substance abuse (Lynch & Sabol, 2001; Visher, Yahner, & La Vigne, 2010). While the majority of prisons operate programs to address these deficits, budget constraints have limited inmates' access to services (Crayton & Neustetter, 2008; Mumola & Karberg, 2006; National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (NCASA), 2010; Petersilia, 2003). Griffiths, Dandurand, and Murdoch (2007) argue that most offenders had never fully entered society prior to incarceration and conclude that, for many, the risk of recidivism will remain elevated until they "acquire the attitudes and behaviors that result in most people functioning productively in society" (p. 3). Rehabilitative approaches to crime prevention have been viewed with suspicion since Martinson's (1974) study, which appeared to demonstrate that corrections-based treatment programs did not work. And yet, the evidence clearly shows that criminal sanctions alone do not produce long-term behavioral change (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Cullen & Gendreau, 2000; Stemen, 2007). In contrast, treatment-oriented interventions can have a significant, positive impact on recidivism (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990; Aos, Phipps, Barnoski, & Lieb, 2001; MacKenzie, 2006). For example, substance abuse treatment, cognitive behavioral therapy, correctional education, and treatment-oriented intensive supervision are all associated with reduced rates of recidivism and overall cost savings (Aos et al., 2011; Aos, Miller, & Drake, 2006; Drake, Aos, & Miller, 2009; Lipsey, Landenberger, &Wilson, 2007). The combination of longer sentences and relatively limited rehabilitation services means that inmates exit prison with a risk of offending that is similar to, or even higher than, the risk when they were admitted (Petersilia, 2011). Ex-offenders have difficulty obtaining and maintaining employment and housing; they lack positive social support and community ties; and they struggle with substance abuse and mental illness (Gaynes, 2005; Visher et al., 2010). Compounding this situation are state and federal policies that restrict ex-offenders from certain types of employment and benefits programs, including public housing and welfare assistance (Visher, Palmer, & Roman, 2007). As a result, many offenders leave prison without the skills to lead a crime-free life and without access to resources and support to develop or maintain those skills. Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2013. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 27, 2015 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/PrisonerReentry_final_090913.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/PrisonerReentry_final_090913.pdf Shelf Number: 129964 Keywords: ParoleesPrisoner ReentryRecidivism |
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: Sarver, Christian M. Title: Parole, Re-incarceration, and Desistance: Utah Parolees Summary: The current study complements the earlier literature review and survey of Utah reentry practices and is comprised of two parts. Part I provides a quantitative description for a cohort of Utah parolees, describing their demographic backgrounds, criminal history, and programmatic factors that predict parole violations and new criminal offenses. Part II, based on interviews with 50 Utah parolees, is a qualitative analysis of offenders' experience returning to the community after release from prison. In particular, the qualitative portion of the study explores parolees' perceptions of those things that foster and inhibit reintegration after incarceration. Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2014. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 28, 2015 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/Reentry_Yr2.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/Reentry_Yr2.pdf Shelf Number: 135793 Keywords: DesistanceParoleParoleesPrisoner ReentryRecidivismRehabilitation |
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: Ferguson, Catherine Title: Parole in Western Australia: An analysis of parole cancellations of female offenders Summary: The number of prisoners in Australian prisons has been increasing over the past decade. In Western Australia the number of female offenders has increased by 40 percent over the past five years. One contributing factor to this increase may be the re incarceration of parolees who have violated parole. This research used the publicly available decision documents from the Prisoners Review Board in Western Australia to investigate the background details of offences, and the details of the parole violations of 41 women released in 2013-14. Data revealed that a high proportion of women returned to prison after a very short time in the community as a result of illicit drug use. The high cost of re-incarceration is considered against a background of rehabilitation and extra support in the community that might assist released women negotiate their complex lives on release without resorting to further drug use. The paper includes a number of recommendations to consider in an effort to reduce the recidivism of female offenders. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2015. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 501: Accessed September 17, 2015 at: http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi501.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi501.pdf Shelf Number: 136793 Keywords: Female OffendersParoleParole RevocationParolees |
Author: 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: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: U.S. Parole Commission: Number of Offenders under Its Jurisdiction Has Declined; Transferring Its Jurisdiction for D.C. Offenders Would Pose Challenges Summary: USPC was established in 1976, in part to carry out a national parole policy that would govern the release of offenders to community supervision prior to completing their full custody sentences. USPCs budget is just over $13 million for fiscal year 2015. Over time, changes in laws have abolished parole and introduced supervised release - a new form of post-incarceration supervision. As a result, USPC has been reauthorized and has authority to grant and revoke parole for eligible federal and D.C. offenders and to revoke supervised release for D.C. offenders violating the terms of their release. USPC'[s current authorization is set to expire in 2018. This report addresses (1) changes in the number of offenders under USPC's jurisdiction from fiscal years 2002 through 2014 and (2) the organizational characteristics needed for an entity to feasibly assume jurisdiction of D.C. offenders from USPC, and the feasibility and implications of such a transfer. GAO analyzed USPC data on federal and D.C. offenders from fiscal years 2002-2014 - the most recent years for which reliable data were available - as well as DOJ reports on USPC and USPC policies, and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. GAO also discussed with USPC and some of its criminal justice partners the feasibility of transferring USPC's jurisdiction for D.C. offenders and any related challenges. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2015. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-15-359: Accessed September 21, 2015 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670509.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670509.pdf Shelf Number: 135913 Keywords: Community CorrectionsOffender SupervisionParoleParole RevocationParolees |
Author: Braithwaite, Helen Title: Impact of the California Parole Supervision and Reintegration Model (CPSRM) on parolee perceptions of supervision Summary: In 2009, the California Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) convened a Parole Reform Task Force (PRTF) to recommend new supervision policies and procedures in light of recent evidence-based research findings and supervision methods being introduced in jurisdictions across the country. The Task Force developed a package of parole reforms called the California Parole Supervision and Reintegration Model (CPSRM). CPSRM represented a significant change to the way that DAPO supervised offenders. Caseloads were reduced from a funding ratio of 70:1 down to 48:1. With fewer parolees to supervise, agents would have more time to get to know the particular needs of parolees and be able to manage these needs more effectively. Agents were given extensive training over a 6-month period in evidence-based practices and the new procedures relating to pre-release planning, case management, quality of supervision, programming, and parolee rewards and incentives. The goal was to shift parole from a 'surveillance' or a 'contact-driven' model of supervision toward an approach that emphasized case management, with parole agents spending more time both understanding the criminogenic risk factors of parolees, and addressing these needs through referrals to programming. Supervision under a CPSRM model was quite different from routine parole supervision. For example, agents conducted an in-depth interview with parolees at the time of their release from prison and arrival into the parole system to gather detailed information about issues such as their relationships with their family and friends, triggers that caused them to get into trouble, their drug and alcohol use, participation in programs, their perceived challenges in reentering the community, and their plans or goals. Parolees collaborated in developing an individualized case plan and were invited to attend a periodic review of this case plan in a Case Conference Review. Parolees worked with their agents to develop monthly goals, specifying the small steps they agreed to work on in the coming month toward a bigger goal (for example, spending 20 hours looking for a job and attending school for 100 hours). These monthly goals were a tool for the parolee to receive the 'dosage' (i.e. number of hours) required to impact their criminogenic risk factors, and were also a mechanism for the parolee to be part of their supervision rather than supervision being something that happened to them. Working towards achieving these goals provided evidence of progress that could be used by the parolee during the discharge consideration process. Agents were trained in the use of Motivational Interviewing techniques to improve the quality of the relationship with the parolee and to recognize the importance of the parolee's willingness to change. Taken together, these and the other policy changes implemented with CPSRM represented a dramatic change in the way that DAPO supervised offenders. CPSRM was introduced at four pilot parole units across the state - one in each of the four parole regions - in August, 2010. Since early 2010, the Center for Evidence-Based Corrections (CEBC) at the University of California, Irvine (UCI) has been involved in evaluating CPSRM implementation. This CEBC process evaluation has used a variety of methods - including surveys, interviews, and a behavioral study - to examine agent perceptions of CPSRM, and change in agent attitudes or behavior brought about by parole reform policies. CEBC has disseminated several reports presenting the findings from these studies. In addition to the process evaluation, CEBC is conducting an outcome evaluation to examine the impact of CPSRM on parolee recidivism. This outcome evaluation will compare the rates of parole violations, arrests, convictions and return to custody of parolees supervised at the four CPSRM pilot sites with (a) a control group of parolees supervised under routine parole supervision at four comparable non-CPSRM parole units, and (b) parolees supervised at the four CPSRM pilot sites prior to the introduction of CPSRM. Details: Irvine, CA: Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, University of California, Irvine, 2012. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 21, 2015 at: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/2014/08/Impact-of-the-California-Parole-Supervision-and-Reintegration-Model-CPSRM-on-parolee-perceptions-of-supervision.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/2014/08/Impact-of-the-California-Parole-Supervision-and-Reintegration-Model-CPSRM-on-parolee-perceptions-of-supervision.pdf Shelf Number: 136843 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationEvidence-Based PracticesOffender SupervisionParoleParolees |
Author: Justice Policy Institute Title: Parole Perspectives in Maryland: A Survey of People Who Returned to Prison from Parole and Community Supervision Agents Summary: A new analysis from the Justice Policy Institute (JPI) shows the connection between efforts to reduce prison populations, connect people to work, and address the challenges of Baltimore's distressed communities. In Parole Perspectives in Maryland: A survey of people who returned to prison from parole and community supervision agents, JPI heard from the people most directly impacted by and involved with Maryland's parole practices. JPI surveyed people who returned to prison from parole and their community supervision agents to get a clearer picture of the barriers to successfully transitioning to the community from prison. About half of the people surveyed were from Baltimore City and most of the parole agents surveyed were responsible for a caseload that includes people from Baltimore City. Forty-six percent of the people who left prison and were on parole that were surveyed were from Baltimore City, and 12 percent were from Baltimore County. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2015. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2015 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/paroleperspectivesinmaryland.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/paroleperspectivesinmaryland.pdf Shelf Number: 136854 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity-Based CorrectionsCosts of CorrectionsOffender SupervisionParoleParole RevocationsParolees |
Author: Serin, Ralph C. Title: Analysis of the Use of the Structured Decisionmaking Framework in Three States Summary: In recent years, interest in high-quality parole decisionmaking has grown significantly. Paroling authorities are under considerable pressure and subject to substantial public scrutiny as they strive to reach high-quality parole decisions that ensure public safety. In this context, the Legal Decision-Making Lab at Carleton University has been working for nearly a decade to develop and improve a decisionmaking tool for parole practitioners. This tool, the Structured Decisionmaking Framework, acts as a road map or guideline for professional decisionmakers to help them reach consistent, transparent, and defensible high-quality conditional release decisions. It acknowledges the professional expertise and extensive experience of parole decisionmakers by using a structured approach that guides paroling authorities through the process of making parole decisions by considering offender information demonstrated to be closely linked to post-release performance. Given this grounding, the Framework can help paroling authorities incorporate or enhance the use of evidence-based practice in their decisionmaking. Through its technical assistance program, the National Institute of Corrections facilitated opportunities for three states-Ohio, Connecticut, and Kansas-to examine the use of the Structured Decisionmaking Framework in their jurisdictions. The paroling authorities in these states all received training in the use of the Framework. Though the Framework has been extensively validated and its use supported via research in Canada, each state also participated in a small-scale exercise aiming to provide preliminary validation results specific to their jurisdiction. This document summarizes the results of these validation exercises. For all three states, analyses were conducted in two phases. The first phase addressed the applicability of the Framework to each jurisdiction, verified whether all information necessary to complete the Framework was available, and examined: - The distribution of Framework domain ratings in that jurisdiction - Case-specific and discordant information - Variability among coders in rating domains The second phase of analyses was focused on case outcomes and included: - A description of parole and post-release outcomes for the sample - An examination of overall Framework ratings and release recommendations for each case - A comparison of Framework results to actual parole outcomes (where possible) - A comparison of Framework results to parole decisions (where the previous analyses were not possible) Overall, applying the Structured Decisionmaking Framework to a sample of approximately 100 offender cases in each of three states (Ohio, Connecticut, and Kansas) revealed interesting patterns both with respect to the completion of the Framework itself and to its overall results as compared to actual post-release outcomes. With respect to the Framework, a number of findings are noted: 1. Sufficient information was generally available to complete the Framework. However, in one state, this was not the case at the time of data collection; the state has since changed its parole preparation approach to broaden the information available and address this concern. 2. Second, though the authors intend that the Framework be completed according to each board member's expertise, personal experience, and knowledge, there were some items noted under the case-specific factors domain that we believe should not have been included, or that should have been included in a different manner. For example, several items (e.g., behavior on this or a previous sentence) could and should more appropriately have been captured in other Framework domains. 3. Inter-coder variability was also noted. When the Framework is applied in practice, board members are expected to vary as a result of their backgrounds, experience, knowledge, and beliefs. However, an effort was made to obtain consistency among coders for the purposes of this validation exercise, but this did not appear to be wholly successful. If such variability is also noted in board members' completion of the Framework, there may be benefit in periodic ongoing training in the use of the Framework to ensure an accurate understanding of its intended use. This may be profitably achieved using a train-the-trainers approach. Turning to an examination of the how the Framework's overall results compare to actual post-release outcomes, it appears, promisingly, that in the state of Connecticut, the Framework appears to distinguish between offenders who reoffend after release and those who do not. Indeed, these findings suggest that the Framework is more able to do so than is the State's accepted risk instrument, though results in this area are preliminary. For Ohio and Kansas, unfortunately, the virtually non-existent variability in post-decision outcomes among coded cases prevented an examination of how the Framework's overall results compared to actual post-release outcomes. Instead, the association of the Framework with the parole decision was investigated. The identification of greater numbers of aggravating domains within the Framework tended to be associated with decisions to deny, and consideration of Framework ratings (either on their own or together with an actuarial risk estimate) led to (non-significantly) better prediction of parole decisions. Based on the results of these preliminary validation exercises, it appears that the Structured Decisionmaking Framework can contribute to high-quality, transparent, and consistent parole decisionmaking by the Ohio Parole Board, Connecticut Board of Pardons and Parole, and Kansas Prisoner Review Board. Though it must still be confirmed in Ohio and Kansas, the Framework does not appear to influence decisions negatively. Findings in Connecticut and Canada demonstrate that the Framework can increase the quality of parole decision-making. Given the high stakes involved in parole decision-making, even minimal improvements in predictive accuracy can result in fewer victims, better management of strained prison capacity, and cost savings. As such, continued investigation of the use of the Structured Decision-making Framework is warranted and is supported by preliminary promising results. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2014. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 5, 2015 at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/028408.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/028408.pdf Shelf Number: 136961 Keywords: Decision-MakingEvidence-Based PracticeParoleParolees |
Author: Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts Title: Judicial Council Report to the Legislature: California Parolee Reentry Court Evaluation Report Summary: Judicial Council staff recommend that the Judicial Council receive the California Parolee Reentry Court Evaluation Report and direct the Administrative Director to submit this report to the California Legislature and Governor, as mandated by Penal Code section 3015. Under the statute, the Judicial Council is required to submit a final evaluation report that assesses the pilot reentry court program's effectiveness in reducing recidivism no later than three years after the establishment of a reentry court. The report was developed in consultation with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Details: San Francisco: Judicial Council of California, 2014. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 20, 2015 at: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/CA-Parolee-Reentry-Court-Evaluation-Report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/CA-Parolee-Reentry-Court-Evaluation-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 137177 Keywords: Drug CourtsParoleesPrisoner ReentryProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Zatz, Noah Title: Get To Work or Go To Jail: Workplace Rights Under Threat Summary: When many people consider work and the criminal justice system, they commonly consider how difficult it is for people coming out of jail to find work. Yet, a recent UCLA Labor Center report, Get to Work or Go To Jail: Workplace Rights Under Threat, goes further by exploring the ways in which the criminal justice system can also lock workers on probation, parole, facing court-ordered debt, or child support debt into bad jobs. Because these workers face the threat of incarceration for unemployment, the report finds that they cannot afford to refuse a job, quit a job, or to challenge their employers. Among other findings, the report concludes: - Nearly 5 million Americans and 400,000 Californians are under probation or parole - Many of these workers may be stripped of standard labor protections such such as minimum wage and workers compensation - On any given day, about 9,000 nationwide are in prison or jail for violating the probation or parole requirement to hold a job. - Every year in Los Angeles, 50,000-100,000 people must perform unpaid, court-order community service. Some debtors perform many hundreds of hours of unpaid labor, the equivalent to several months of full-time work. - African Americans or Latinos account for 2/3 of those incarcerated for violating parole or probation conditions related to work or debt. - The majority of fathers who were incarcerated for failing to pay child support worked during the previous year, in fact 95% of fathers reported having been employed prior to incarceration. Of these fathers, 85% of these fathers lived in or near poverty. Details: Los Angeles: UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, UCLA Labor Center, 2016. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2016 at: http://www.labor.ucla.edu/publication/get-to-work-or-go-to-jail/ Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.labor.ucla.edu/publication/get-to-work-or-go-to-jail/ Shelf Number: 138838 Keywords: Ex-Offender EmploymentParoleesProbationers |
Author: Andersen, Lars Hojsgaard Title: Decomposing Recidivism Variance into Probation and Parole Officers and their Clients Summary: Existing empirical literature on probation and parole shows that individual client characteristics matter for recidivism, but also characteristics of their assigned probation or parole officer have been shown to matter. And although theoretical accounts of probation and parole debate the relative importance of these client and officer characteristics, no study has provided an empirical benchmark of the total effects of officers and clients (i.e., their characteristics) on recidivism. In this paper I decompose the total variance in recidivism into components attributable to probationers and parolees and their assigned probation or parole officers, respectively, using register data that merges all probationers and parolees in 2002-2009 in Denmark with their assigned officer. Results show that although substantial variance components are attributable to both officers and clients, the component attributable to clients is around twice the size of the component attributable to officers. These estimates provide new evidence on the most common types of noncustodial alternatives to imprisonment, probation and parole, which affect millions of people each day. Details: Copenhagen: Rockwool Foundation Research Unit, 2015. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Study Paper No. 92: Accessed May 18, 2016 at: http://www.rockwoolfonden.dk/app/uploads/2015/12/Study-paper-92_WEB.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Denmark URL: http://www.rockwoolfonden.dk/app/uploads/2015/12/Study-paper-92_WEB.pdf Shelf Number: 139276 Keywords: Community SupervisionParole OfficersParoleesProbation OfficersProbationersRecidivism |
Author: Ruhland, Ebony Title: The Continuing Leverage of Releasing Authorities: Findings from a National Survey Summary: he Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice launched a national survey of releasing authorities in March 2015 to each state, and the U.S. Parole Commission. The importance of the survey was underscored by an endorsement from the Association of Paroling Authorities International (APAI). We are pleased to present the results from this important survey here. This is the first comprehensive survey of parole boards completed in nearly 10 years. Its findings provide a rich database for better understanding the policy and practice of paroling authorities. The last survey to be conducted of paroling authorities was in 2007/2008.The current report offers an expansion and update of previous surveys. The results summarized throughout the report offer a timely resource for paroling authorities, correctional policy-makers and practitioners, legislators, and those with a public policy interest in sentencing and criminal justice operations. It is our hope that the document and its findings provide key justice system and other stakeholders with an incisive snapshot of the work of paroling authorities across the country in a manner that contributes to a larger conversation about sound and effective parole release and revocation practices. The completion of this comprehensive survey and the reporting of its findings offers a timely and invaluable resource for releasing authorities. It provides them and other key justice system stakeholders with a comparative understanding of their colleagues work across the nation, and contributes to a larger conversation pertaining to effective parole release and revocation practices. Details: Minneapolis, MN: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota, 2016. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 26, 2016 at: http://robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/continuing-leverage-releasing-authorities-findings-national-survey Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/continuing-leverage-releasing-authorities-findings-national-survey Shelf Number: 140452 Keywords: Parole Parole Boards Parolees |
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: Wong, Timothy Title: 2015 Recidivism Update Summary: This report provides a comparative update to the 2002 Hawaii Recidivism Baseline Study and subsequent updates in 2006 through 2014. Hawaii's statewide recidivism rate is an important indicator of the Interagency Council on Intermediate Sanctions' (ICIS) efforts to reduce recidivism by 30% over a ten-year period. Although this ten-year period ended in 2011, the 30% recidivism reduction benchmark remains an important long-term goal. This study is comprised of 2,464 offenders from the Fiscal Year 2012 cohort, as compiled from the following State agencies: 1. Hawaii State Probation Services – 1,639 Offenders Sentenced to Felony Probation. 2. Hawaii Paroling Authority (HPA) - 560 Offenders Released to Parole. 3. Department of Public Safety (PSD) - 265 Maximum-Term Released Prisoners. Background: ICIS conducted its first recidivism study in 2002. This baseline study monitored probationers and parolees for criminal rearrests and revocations/technical violations over a three-year follow-up period, and reported a 63.3% recidivism rate (72.9% for parolees and 53.7% for felony probationers). ICIS has since conducted eight additional recidivism update studies, for the FY 2003 and FYs 2005-2011 cohorts, all of which replicated the methodology and recidivism definition adopted in the 2002 baseline study. These update studies retain the methodological consistency required for year-to-year trend comparisons. Methodology This study examines felony probationers, prisoners released to parole, and maximum-term released ("maxed-out") prisoners. It tracks recidivism for each offender over a precise 36- month period. ICIS defines recidivism as criminal arrests (most recent charge after supervision start date), revocations, technical violations, and/or criminal contempt of court. Additionally, excluded from this study (per past methodology) were probationers arrested within three months following their supervision start date, and who did not have a reported offense date. This is due to the reasoning that some probationers are in jail because of an offense committed prior to the supervision start date. Details: Honolulu: Interagency Council ion Intermediate Sanctions, 2016. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 16, 2016 at: http://icis.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ICIS-2015-Recidivism-Update.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://icis.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ICIS-2015-Recidivism-Update.pdf Shelf Number: 151286 Keywords: ParoleesProbationersRecidivism |
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: 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. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 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: 145012 Keywords: Community SupervisionHome VisitsOffender SupervisionParole OfficersParolees |
Author: Yahner, Jennifer Title: Validation of the Employment Retention Inventory: An Assessment Tool of the National Institute of Corrections Summary: Purpose This report summarizes findings from the first validation study of the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Employment Retention Inventory (ERI). The ERI is an assessment tool designed to detect potential job loss risks and needs among justice-involved and behavioral health populations. Scope From September 2013 to August 2016, the Urban Institute (Urban) worked collaboratively with NIC's Community Services Division to assess the ability of the ERI to predict employment-related risks and job loss among criminal justice-involved individuals in two diverse jurisdictions - Jackson County, OR and Allegheny County, PA. Researchers also examined the relationship between employment and recidivism. Methods In both study sites, individuals on probation and parole were recruited for study participation from May to October 2014; a total of 253 employed and 159 unemployed individuals participated in the study. Study participation included baseline completion of a short online survey in which the ERI was embedded, and collection of follow-up data on employment and recidivism eight and 12 months later, respectively. Findings Overall, items in the ERI showed strong face and content validity and readability at a 6th grade level, with study participants reporting ease and comfort in taking the computerized, self-administered questionnaire. Looking at the ERI's predictive validity, the instrument performed fair overall with excellent ratings for those in rural Jackson County. Findings also support a linkage between employment retention and recidivism. Next Steps A replication validation of the ERI is currently underway to assess the instrument's validity for a larger sample of individuals, covering the full array of employment experiences for justice-involved and behavioral health populations. The goal is to study the ERI's implementation in practice, when administered by NIC-trained Employment Retention Specialists and applied to individuals from a diversity of backgrounds. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2016. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 21, 2017 at: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/85331/validation-of-the-employment-retention-inventory_0.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/85331/validation-of-the-employment-retention-inventory_0.pdf Shelf Number: 146651 Keywords: EmploymentEx-Offender EmploymentJobsParoleesProbationersRecidivism |
Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office Title: Investigation into the Parole Board Summary: The National Audit Office has today published the findings from its investigation into the Parole Board (The Board). The Board is responsible for deciding whether prisoners can be safely released from prison and advising on movement between closed and open prisons across England and Wales. The NAO examined the Board in 2008 and made a number of recommendations to improve efficiency, in particular to address a backlog of outstanding cases. A Supreme Court ruling in 2013 (The Osborn ruling) broadened the circumstances in which the law requires the Board to hold an oral hearing. This led to an increase demand for oral hearings by the Board. The number of outstanding parole cases increased sharply, leading to increased delays and additional costs. The key findings of the investigation are as follows: The Osborn ruling in October 2013 had an immediate impact on the demand for oral hearings conducted by the Board. There were 6,872 oral hearings conducted by the Board in 2014-15, an increase of 48% in comparison to 4,628 in 2012-13. Hearings increased to a high of 7,148 in 2015-16. The number of outstanding cases increased by more than 140% following the Osborn ruling. The Board had a backlog of cases for several years, but the number of outstanding cases increased by 143% from October 2013 to a peak of 3,163 in January 2015. Of the 2,117 oral cases outstanding in September 2016, 13% were more than a year past their target date for a hearing. A further 16% were more than six months past their target date. The Board's ability to reduce the number of outstanding cases is limited by the number of cases it is able to list in any month. For example, the Board listed 701 cases for oral hearings in September 2016, while the queue of cases waiting for a hearing date was 1,257. Once listed, 34% oral hearings were deferred, and more than half of these (21%) were deferred or adjourned on the day of the hearing. The increase in demand for oral hearings has meant that older and more complex cases have been less likely to be heard. In 2015-16, 64% of cases were provided with an oral hearing date within 90 days of being ready to list, against a 90% target. The oldest of the outstanding cases in September 2016 had an original target date in 2009, with another 404 cases having target dates in 2015 or earlier. At December 2016, 3,081 prisoners on indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPPs) were in prison beyond their tariff expiry date. IPP prisoners make up around half of the cases waiting more than 90 days for a hearing. Of the 3,683 IPP prisoners still in custody in December 2016, 84% (3,081) were beyond their tariff expiry date. Of these, 48% had been in prison five or more years beyond their tariff and 11% were eight years or more beyond their tariff. In July 2016, the Board announced its intention to reduce the number of IPP prisoners in prison to 1,500 by 2020. The Board has paid £1.1 million in compensation claims to prisoners since 2011-12 as a result of delayed hearings, with £554,000 paid out in 2015-16. The backlog means some prisoners may have spent longer in prison than needed. Spending on member fees increased by 43% from £4.7 million in 2010-11 to £6.7 million in 2015-16. In October 2015, the Board set a target to reduce outstanding cases to 1,200 by April 2017, but this level of outstanding cases does not reflect efficiencies it has made since 2013. In June 2016, the Board moved the date to achieve this target to the end of 2017, and has so far not set out what it expects the level of outstanding cases to be after this. Under its new chair and chief executive, the Board launched a strategy to tackle the backlog in September 2016. The strategy includes aims to prioritise the safe release of IPP prisoners and to improve workflow by listing as many cases as possible and reducing unnecessary deferrals and adjournments. In 2016, the Ministry of Justice, on behalf of the Board, launched a major member recruitment exercise for the first time in four years. The Ministry did not recruit new members between 2012 and 2016, and member numbers fell 23% between 2010-11 (284) and 2015-16 (218). In 2016 it recruited 104 members, around half starting in 2016-17 and the remainder in 2017-18. Details: London: NAO, 2017. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: HC 1013; Session 2016-17: Accessed February 28, 2017 at: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Investigation-into-the-Parole-Board.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Investigation-into-the-Parole-Board.pdf Shelf Number: 141248 Keywords: Offender SupervisionParole BoardParole OfficersParolees |
Author: Prendergast, Michael Title: Outcome Evaluation of the Forever Free Substance Abuse Treatment Program: One-Year Post-Release Outcomes Summary: This executive summary highlights the background, design and methods, and findings relating to the outcome evaluation of the Forever Free Program located at the California Institution for Women in Frontera. The Forever Free Substance Treatment Program is an intensive residential treatment program for women inmates with substance abuse problems followed by voluntary community residential treatment during parole. Study Goals Contrast the 12-month post-release outcomes of Forever Free participants with those of the comparison group with regard to parole performance, drug use, employment, and psychological functioning Examine differences between groups with regard to their relationships with their children following release to parole (custody status and parenting). Examine service needs during parole for both groups. Determine outcome predictors for the whole sample and for Forever Free participants (tested predictors included group status, age, ethnicity, primary drug problem, criminal history, psychological functioning, level of therapeutic alliance, treatment readiness, and locus of control). Details: Los Angeles: Drug Abuse Research Center, UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, 2002. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 10, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/199685.pdf Year: 2002 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/199685.pdf Shelf Number: 131187 Keywords: Correctional Programs Drug Abuse and Addiction Drug Abuse Treatment ParoleesSubstance Abuse Treatment |
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: Braithwaite, Helen Title: Parole Agent Workload Study Summary: This workload study was completed under a research contract between the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the Center for Evidence-Based Corrections (CEBC) at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). CDCR's Office of Research and the Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) collaborated with UCI research staff to design the study, develop data capture instruments that were then pilot tested in the field, identify parole agents to participate in the study, and provide agent training. DAPO was responsible for coordinating the study with parole administrators, unit supervisors and agents in the field. UCI collaborated on instrument development, collected and analyzed data, and provided reports to CDCR and DAPO. The need for a workload study was identified during DAPO training on gender-responsivity (GR). During several two-day training sessions, parole agents expressed concern over the amount of time involved in the supervision of female offenders. Agents reported that, as a consequence of female offenders being more relational and having a broader range of criminogenic needs than males, females took more time. Agents perceived that face-to-face contacts with female parolees were longer, and that additional time was spent on activities such as speaking with females on the telephone and liaising with programs. Under the California Parole Supervision and Reintegration Model (CPSRM), parole caseloads in California are funded at a ratio of 53:1. Due to the perceived additional workload involved in supervising female parolees, some agents attending training were concerned that the introduction of female-only, GR caseloads would be too much work unless the number of females on a GR caseload was lower than 53 parolees. Sixteen GR female-only caseloads (operating at a 53:1 ratio) had been implemented in California at the time of this study. Certain specialized caseloads with reduced caseload sizes are employed in California for Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP) offenders with mental health issues and non-high risk sex offenders (operating at 40:1), in addition to Global Positioning System (GPS) specialized caseloads for gang members and high risk sex offenders (operating at approximately 20:1). Other states have implemented smaller, specialized caseloads for offenders with drug and alcohol problems, mentally ill offenders, domestic violence offenders, and female offenders. Research has shown that these specialized caseloads may result in recidivism reductions (Jalbert & Rhodes, 2012; Jalbert , et al., 2011; Klein, Wilson, Crowe & DeMichele, 2005; Gies, et al., 2012; Wolff, et al., 2014). The purpose of the workload study was to collect data to examine whether female parolees are more work or different work than male parolees. That is, do contacts with females take longer or are they different in nature than contacts with males? For this study, agents reported their daily contacts and the time they allocated to various work activities using a Daily Activity Log instrument over a five week data capture period. Agents supervising the sixteen GR caseloads comprised the experimental group (GR group). Approximately 30 agents supervising regular mixed-gender CPSRM caseloads were selected by DAPO to comprise a control group, used for comparison purposes. Workload that is too high leads to job stress and burnout. Burnout has been linked to decreased work performance, withdrawal from others, substance abuse, employee health problems, an increase in absenteeism, and employee turnover (Griffin, Hogan, & Lambert, 2012; Lambert & Paoline, 2008; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986). Agent burnout is thus costly to both employees, DAPO, and potentially has public safety impacts for society. This study measured the level of agent burnout, job stress, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and perceived workload using an agent survey. The study concludes that female parolees are both more work and different work than male parolees. Female contacts are longer overall, certain tasks are performed more often with female parolees, and certain tasks were shown to take longer with female than male parolees. Other jurisdictions in the United States have adopted a specialized caseloads approach to female offenders by reducing caseload sizes; the findings of this study support such an approach. Details: Irvine: Center for Evidence-Based Corrections University of California, Irvine, 2016. 111p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 29, 2017 at: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/2017/04/Parole-Agent-Workload-Study.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/2017/04/Parole-Agent-Workload-Study.pdf Shelf Number: 147508 Keywords: Community SupervisionParole CaseloadParole OfficersParolees |
Author: National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) Title: Agent Workload Study Findings Summary: The nature of parole services is changing as a result of new legislation and the implementation of evidence-based practices. As changes occur in staff caseloads as well as in parole practices, it is essential to make sure staffing levels are appropriate to maintain strong performance and achieve the mission of protecting public safety. In response to these changes, the South Dakota Department of Corrections (SDDOC) contracted with the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) to conduct a workload study of parole agents in the spring of 2015. The primary objective of this workload study is to determine the number of parole agents needed to supervise offenders in a manner that meets agency standards. NCCD uses a prescriptive, case-based methodology for conducting correctional workload studies. This approach estimates the time needed by parole agents to not only manage their cases, but to do so in a way that meets state standards and expectations. Workload demand is calculated using time estimates from only those cases that met standards. Additionally, the study measures how much time agents realistically have available for their caseloads after making deductions for non-case-based activities. Together, these results are used to estimate the staff resources needed for SDDOC to effectively carry out its mission. All 39 agents in the state participated in the study. The agents tracked time for a sampled portion of their caseload over a two-month period. A two-tiered approach was used to determine which cases met standards. First, supervisors reviewed forms and indicated whether the case met standards. Researchers at NCCD then used compiled data to count the number of contacts and determine whether quantitative contact standards were met. A case had to pass both reviews in order to be included in the calculation of workload values. Agents also tracked time spent on case support and administrative activities in order to help determine the average time spent per month on activities that detract from time they have available for their caseloads. The results of the study indicate that agents have, on average, 111.6 hours available per month to supervise offenders on their caseload. In order to determine the available agent time per month, NCCD deducted estimates of the average number of hours that agents spend on other work activities from the total number of full-time equivalent (FTE) hours per month. These deductions include 22.1 hours of case support and administrative tasks (which were measured during the study), 31.8 hours of leave time, and 7.8 hours of mandatory training. Based on the monthly workload values and the average monthly case counts, NCCD calculated the total monthly workload demand for each type of parole case. The monthly workload demand reflects the number of cases multiplied by the average number of hours required per case. At the time of the workload study, SDDOC did not have specific standards outlined for offenders in the community transition program (CTP). Since then, new standards have been developed for these cases that are similar to the number of contacts required for cases at the intensive-supervision level (i.e., weekly contacts). In order to account for these new standards NCCD applied the workload value for intensive supervision cases to the CTP cases. Results show that an estimated 4,286.8 hours are needed each month to complete all of SDDOC's Parole Services casework according to standards. When divided by the amount of agent time available (111.6 hours per month), this corresponds to an estimated 38.4 full-time agents needed to meet workload demand in the state of South Dakota (Table ES). Currently, the state is allocated 39 parole agents. Using the workload values that reflect current policy standards, SDDOC is sufficiently staffed with parole agents, assuming vacant positions are filled. However, the evolving practice improvement efforts engaged in by SDDOC are likely to increase workload expectations, and therefore also increase the number of workload hours per month necessary to complete all casework according to standards. NCCD recommends that SDDOC reassess staffing needs on a regular basis, particularly as changes in policy impact the parole population. Measuring workload and ensuring the agency has adequate staffing to meet standards for all cases is the first step toward improving outcomes. In addition to addressing staffing and workload demand, agencies can take a number of actions to meet their mission to protect public safety. Strong implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs), which promote the success of parolees living in the community and reduce their risk of recidivism, has great potential to make a positive impact. Details: Aberdeen, SD: South Dakota Department of Corrections, Parole Services, 2016. 81p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2017 at: https://doc.sd.gov/documents/ParoleAgentWorkloadStudyReport.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://doc.sd.gov/documents/ParoleAgentWorkloadStudyReport.pdf Shelf Number: 147511 Keywords: Community SupervisionParoleParole CaseloadParole OfficersParolees |
Author: Cotten, P. Ann Title: Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services: Parole and Probation Agent Workload Study. Final Report Summary: The Maryland General Assembly required the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) to conduct a workload study of the department's parole and probation agents. The Office of Community Supervision Support (CSS), in turn, contracted with the Schaefer Center for Public Policy at the University of Baltimore's College of Public Affairs (Schaefer Center) to conduct a study that included a review of the literature relating to parole and probation agent staffing, an analysis of agents' workload including a time study of agents, an analysis of the supervision caseload, and the collection of comparative caseload data from other states. From the research, the Schaefer Center team was charged with producing staffing recommendations, average caseload counts, and recommendations for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of parole and probation supervision. The primary focus of the research is agents who directly supervise offenders on parole and probation. As part of the research, the team also produced an analysis of how Court Liaison Unit (CLU) agents, Liaison Waiver (LAW) agents, and Warrant Apprehension Unit (WAU) officers spend their work time, and solicited input into recommendations for improving the effectiveness of their work. To fulfill its charge, the research team employed a mix of quantitative and qualitative strategies listed below. A comprehensive literature review of all known English language articles on community supervision and staffing. A four-week time study with 114 parole/probation agents and Warrant Apprehension Officers. Participants recorded 25,743 hours of work activity. Time observations were reported for work relating to 6,388 offenders. A caseload analysis that included all offenders under supervision on September 29, 2014. A review of agent case notes for a 12-month period for 215 randomly selected offenders. Fifteen focus groups with 137 participants including: 71 supervising agents, 42 supervisors, 5 agents and 1 supervisor from the Court Liaison Unit, 9 agents and 1 supervisor from the Liaison Waiver Unit, and 9 Warrant Apprehension Officers. A national survey of state parole and probation agencies. Details: Baltimore, MD: Schaefer Center for Public Policy University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs, 2015. 149p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 3, 2017 at: http://dlslibrary.state.md.us/publications/JCR/2014/2014_116(v3).pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://dlslibrary.state.md.us/publications/JCR/2014/2014_116(v3).pdf Shelf Number: 147534 Keywords: Community SupervisionOffender SupervisionParole CaseloadParole OfficersParoleesProbation CaseloadProbation OfficersProbationers |
Author: Gobeil, Renee Title: Releases of Men Offenders Classified as Medium and Maximum Security Summary: In recent years, the percentage of men offenders released at their statutory release dates has been increasing, and many of these releases occur from medium and maximum security institutions. This study was undertaken to follow up on these patterns both by examining the risks associated with release directly from medium- and maximum-security institutions and by exploring the factors that may be associated with not being granted parole and/or with not cascading, or transferring,to a minimum-security institution prior to release. Analyses included all 4,455 male offenders released on day or full parole or on statutory release in fiscal year 2013-14. Of these, most were classified as minimum (45%) or medium (49%) security at release. Analyses focused on comparing the groups of offenders using administrative data. In addition, thematic analyses were used to analyze data in narrative security review and parole recommendation assessments. Offenders released from higher levels of security had higher rates of suspensions, revocations, and re-offences in the year following release. These differences remained present when analyses were limited to only statutorily-released offenders, and relative differences remained very similar regardless of the special conditions imposed at release (e.g., residency condition). In other words, results aligned with previous findings that offenders released from higher levels of security were more likely to return to custody, even after accounting for certain offender differences. The second series of analyses focused on identifying possible factors associated with offenders not cascading to lower levels of security prior to release, and/or being released on statutory release rather than on day or full parole. Offenders statutorily-released from different security levels differed importantly even at intake, suggesting that many differences were present prior to their periods of incarceration rather than developed while in custody. Offenders classified as medium or maximum security at release and those who were statutorily released were consistently higher risk, less engaged in their correctional plan, less motivated and less accountable. They also had more institutional misbehaviour and lacked insight or responsibility regarding their offences. Perhaps more interesting, however, were findings relating to opportunities. Over a third (38%) of offenders statutorily-released while classified as medium or maximum security did not undergo a security classification review (e.g., due to the short length of their sentence, or to avoid a negative outcome) - in other words, they did not have or take the chance to be reclassified to a lower level of security. Moreover, a considerable number of offenders classified as medium and maximum security waived or withdrew their opportunities to be considered for discretionary release (i.e., day or full parole). Overall, these findings suggest that it is not only characteristics of offenders that are contributing to these release patterns but also opportunities missed or not taken. As such, it may be fruitful to develop action plans that facilitate offenders transferring to minimum security prior to their release. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2015. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: 2015 N R-376: Accessed October 19, 2017 at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-376-eng.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-376-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 147734 Keywords: Male PrisonersParoleParoleesRecidivism |
Author: Shames, Alison Title: Remote Access: Using Video Technology to Treat Substance Users on Probation and Parole in South Dakota Summary: The challenges of accessing services for alcohol and other drug use in South Dakota may have contributed to the state's high percentage of people convicted of low-level nonviolent offenses, particularly for drug or alcohol related offenses. To minimize these challenges, especially for parolees and probationers residing in the state's vast rural areas, the state worked with local providers to pilot a teleconferencing program aimed at connecting people to community-based services without the cost and barrier of transportation or other access issues. This brief describes the issues people on parole or probation encounter and the solutions the state developed to address them. It is the second brief in a series of three that focuses on the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) - an initiative funded by the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), in partnership with the Pew Charitable Trusts. JRI is a data-driven approach to improve public safety, examine corrections and related criminal justice spending, manage and allocate criminal justice populations in a more cost-effective manner, and reinvest savings in strategies that can hold system-involved people accountable, decrease crime, and strengthen neighborhoods. At least 30 states have engaged in this process. Key Takeaway How South Dakota overcame the challenge of delivering treatment services across vast distances may serve as a guide for interested jurisdictions facing similar issues and hoping to start a similar program. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2016. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Brief: Accessed November 7, 2017 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/remote-access-video-technology-probation-parole-substance-users-south-dakota/legacy_downloads/Remote-access-using-video-technology-to-treat-substance-users-south-dakota-web-v2.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/remote-access-video-technology-probation-parole-substance-users-south-dakota/legacy_downloads/Remote-access-using-video-technology-to-treat-substance-users Shelf Number: 148070 Keywords: Community-Based CorrectionsOffender SupervisionParoleesProbationersSubstance Abuse TreatmentVideo Technology |
Author: Wish, Eric D. Title: Community Drug Early Warning System (CDEWS-3): Maryland - Site 4 of 4 Summary: The Community Drug Early Warning System (CDEWS) provides timely information about emerging drug use in criminal justice populations in local communities by collecting and re-testing urine specimens already obtained and tested for a limited panel of drugs by local criminal justice testing programs. CDEWS or local staff sample specimens that are ready to be discarded and send them to an independent laboratory for testing for an expanded panel of over 150 drugs. By using already collected de-identified urine specimens, CDEWS is able to provide a relatively quick and inexpensive snapshot of the types of drugs recently used by participating populations. The CDEWS methodology has now been piloted in twelve jurisdictions and the results are provided in five reports already released by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). This report presents findings from adult parolees and probationers in a single jurisdiction -- Maryland -- as part 4 of 4 sites for the third CDEWS Study, called CDEWS-3. This study was conducted somewhat differently from prior CDEWS studies. This is because we wanted to replicate the findings from a study we had conducted in Maryland in 2008. And second, because of the opioid epidemic in Maryland, the State asked us to collect and analyze a separate large sample of specimens statewide that had tested positive for opiates by the laboratory used by the Maryland Division of Parole and Probation (DPP). With the strong support of the DPP, we collected two samples of specimens: the Maryland Regional Sample (N=288) and the Opiate Positive (Opiate+) Sample (N=202 statewide). Specimens were classified as CJS+ (tested positive for any drug) or CJS- (tested negative for all drugs) according to the results from the DPP laboratory's 4-drug screen. The findings from the Maryland Regional Sample indicated that most of the persons who had tested positive for one of the drugs in the CDEWS larger test panel had also tested positive for one of the four drugs in the DPP drug screen. However, approximately one in ten CJS+ specimens also contained antidepressants, synthetic cannabinoids (SC), methadone and/or other licit pharmaceutical opioids, drugs not tested for by the limited DPP screen. The additional drugs the CDEWS lab detected may not have practical significance for the DPP, given that most of these specimens did test positive for a drug in the DPP's limited screen. It is not possible to tell from the urinalyses if the persons taking the licit drugs were doing so legally under a physician's supervision. In contrast, 15% of the specimens that the DPP screen indicated did not contain a drug (CJS-) contained an opioid. Methadone and buprenorphine were among the opioids most found in CJS specimens and it is possible that these persons were receiving treatment with these drugs. Antidepressants were identified in as many CJS- specimens as CJS+ specimens (9%). SC was found in CJS- specimens but these metabolites were less common than in CJS+ specimens. These results suggest that in this population, persons were unlikely to be using SC to avoid detection by the standard DPP tests. The comparisons of probationers/parolees in this study and our earlier study in 2008 show considerable agreement in the drugs detected. The primary changes were a decline in cocaine (36% to 17%) and buprenorphine (15% to 7%) and an increase in codeine (3% to 13%) among CJS+ specimens. The increase in codeine positives may be the result of the increased sensitivity of the tests used in the current study. The results from the Opiate+ Sample strongly indicated that probationers/parolees who had tested positive for opiates by the DPP screen were likely to be using a variety of legal and illegal opioids in addition to non-opioid drugs. About one in three also used cocaine, one fifth used marijuana and/or benzodiazepines and about one quarter used a prescription opioid other than morphine or codeine. These results therefore have important implications for the testing used by physicians and diagnosticians who need to know if patients are using other drugs. Use of multiple opioids at the same time may lead to serious health complications and even death. We also conducted special analyses of the combined specimens found in either sample to be positive for fentanyl, synthetic cannabinoids, or codeine. Perhaps some of the most meaningful results in this study were those showing the large number of opioid and non-opioid drugs found in the fentanyl+ specimens. The 21 specimens positive for fentanyl each contained an average of 5 different drugs, most prominently morphine, codeine, 6-MAM (heroin), cocaine, and/or hydromorphone. The findings for fentanyl+ specimens were similar to those described above for the entire sample of Opiate+ specimens and our recent study of 136 persons who died of a fentanyl related overdose in New Hampshire. It is clear that probationers/parolees in Maryland who screen positive for any opioids are likely to be using a variety of other opioid and non-opioid drugs. These findings suggest that treatment will be more effective if one identifies and focuses on the totality of drugs the person may be using. Our analysis of the combined sample of all specimens positive for SC supported the findings from our previous CDEWS studies that found multiple SC metabolites in specimens. Surprisingly, specimens from the current study often contained both new and older generation SC metabolites. Given the unpredictable composition of synthetic cannabinoids (also known as Spice or K2) being marketed, it is not possible for users to know what chemicals they are consuming and to predict the effects. SC was less likely to be found in the Maryland samples compared to other CDEWS study samples, and few persons who tested CJS- in the Maryland Regional Sample were found to test positive for SC. Probationers in Maryland may therefore be less likely than other populations CDEWS has studied to use SC to avoid screening positive by the CJS test screens, which do not typically test for SC. We also found that 70% of the Opiate+ specimens contained codeine and that codeine was found across the state. In addition, codeine was detected in 81% of fentanyl+ specimens from the combined Opiate+ and Maryland Regional samples. Acetylcodeine, which metabolizes into codeine, is often produced as an impurity of illicit heroin synthesis, which may explain the large percentage of specimens positive for codeine given that almost all of the specimens also contained morphine. It is also possible that some of the codeine positives were the result of the direct use of codeine. We suspected that some of the codeine detected might have been caused by the use of "Purple Drank", a mixture of codeine syrup and promethazine typically sold as a cough suppressant, that has been reported in Maryland. However, only 4% of the codeine positive specimens contained promethazine. Given that the half-life of promethazine is longer than that of codeine, one would expect to have detected promethazine in these specimens had "Purple Drank" been the source of the codeine. It is also possible that the codeine may have resulted from codeine extracted from pills containing the drug. Additional research is needed to learn more about the codeine that was detected in 60% or more of probationers across all regions of Maryland and how the use of codeine may relate to the State's current opioid epidemic. Details: Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy Executive Office of the President, 2017. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 29, 2017 at: https://ndews.umd.edu/sites/ndews.umd.edu/files/finalreport_cdews3_mdapproved.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://ndews.umd.edu/sites/ndews.umd.edu/files/finalreport_cdews3_mdapproved.pdf Shelf Number: 148578 Keywords: Drug Abuse and Addiction Drug Control Policy Drug Enforcement Drug OffendersDrug TestingIllicit Drugs ParoleesProbationersUrine Testing |
Author: MacDonald, Shanna Farrell Title: Reasons for parole waivers, postponements, and withdrawals: Examining indicators for low-risk offenders Summary: One of the Correctional Service of Canada's (CSC) strategic priorities is the safe transition of offenders from the institution to the community. Discretionary release provides offenders with a gradual and structured reintegration process for this transition. In addition, offenders on discretionary release, i.e. parole, are more likely to remain in the community than offenders who are released on statutory release (Public Safety Canada, 2015). For offenders who waive, postpone, or withdraw their parole application, the potential amount of time they have to reintegrate into society prior to the end of their sentence is shortened. This is particularly problematic for offenders deemed a low-risk to reoffend and who could be suitably managed and supported in the community (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Office of the Auditor General, 2015). For this study, all parole reviews scheduled in FY2014-2015 for men and FY2014-2015 and FY2015-2016 for women were extracted. The main focus of this study was to examine parole review outcomes for low-risk offenders, i.e., offenders that were determined to be at a low-risk to reoffend based on actuarial measures. Overall, 8,476 parole reviews were scheduled for lowrisk offenders during the study period, representing 3,663 offenders. Women accounted for 12% of the offenders in this study, 3% of which were Indigenous. Among men, 6% were Indigenous. Of the parole reviews scheduled for low-risk offenders, 37% were waived, postponed, or withdrawn. Variations by type of delay/cancellation, gender, ethnicity and region were evident. Indigenous women and men had higher rates of parole delays and cancellations than nonIndigenous offenders. Rates were highest in the Ontario and Pacific regions. Postponements, however, were more common in the Quebec region. Examination of the reasons provided by offenders for parole delays and cancellations showed that avoid a negative decision, program non-completion, and other were the most common. Additional analyses were conducted to determine if structured indicators (such as demographics, criminogenic factors, offender behaviour, and correctional interventions) collected by CSC supported the reasons provided by offenders. For instance, among offenders citing program noncompletion, almost two-thirds were referred to programming. Among these offenders, many were either still in the program, waitlisted or had recently completed the program in relation to their scheduled review date. Furthermore, waiving, postponing, or withdrawing parole does not appear to negatively impact on the Parole Board of Canada's decisions at subsequent parole reviews. This study builds on prior research examining the reasons that offenders choose to delay or cancel their parole reviews while also exploring the specific characteristics based on the reasons endorsed by offenders. Overall, these results provide CSC with targeted areas for intervention in order to support offenders at low-risk to reoffend reintegrate to the community in a timely and successful manner. Future research areas are also identified. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2017. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: 2017 No. R-396: Accessed February 21, 2018 at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-396-eng.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Canada URL: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-396-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 149193 Keywords: Low Risk OffendersParoleParole BoardParole PostponementsParoleesRisk Assessment |
Author: Holmberg, Stina Title: Reintegration assistance after prison: Follow-up on the Prison and Probation Service's work with special reintegration assistance measure Summary: Within three years of release from prison, two out of five persons commit a new offence sanctionable by prison or probation. For most of these individuals, recidivism occurs within several months after they have left prison (Bra 2017). In order to reduce the risk that individuals who are released commit new offences in connection with release, the Swedish Prison and Probation Service can grant reintegration assistance at the end of their sentence. These measures smooth the transition between prison and life at liberty, and entail a gradual reduction of the Prison and Probation Service's control over the client. The four so-called special reintegration assistance measures are: - day release; - treatment period; - halfway house; - enhanced day release. Bra has been instructed by the Government to follow up on the Prison and Probation Service's work with reintegration assistance. In conjunction with this instruction, the Government instructed the Prison and Probation Service at the end of 2015 to develop and strengthen its work with reintegration assistance. Bra's instruction requires us to follow up on the progress of the Prison and Probation Service's development work and to track the scope and nature of the reintegration assistance. We are also meant to report on any impediments to well-functioning and knowledge-based reintegration assistance work. Special attention is to be paid to any differences in working methods in various parts of the country, differences between men and women, and differences for persons from different language backgrounds. The crime victim aspects are to be highlighted, where relevant. Finally, Bra is, as necessary, required to suggest ideas for further development of the reintegration assistance efforts. As a basis for the study, Bra has visited 13 different facilities ' prisons with various security classifications, detention centres, day release offices, halfway houses, and treatment homes. We have interviewed a total of 100 individuals, both staff and clients, at these facilities. Interviews have also been conducted with a number of individuals at the headquarters of the Prison and Probation Service, as well as with other strategically important individuals. In addition, Bra has had continual contact with representatives from the Prison and Probation Service's working group for the development work. Our quantitative source material includes both the Prison and Probation Service's existing statistics and a special order in respect of clients who were released from prison. Bra has also been given access to unpublished data from a study which was conducted on the Prison and Probation Service's research unit. In addition to the above, a survey of the literature in the form of previous studies and evaluations has been conducted. Details: Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Bra), 2018. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: English summary of Bra report 2017:15: Accessed April 4, 2018 at: https://www.bra.se/download/18.10aae67f160e3eba62919667/1517917740405/2017_15_Reintegration_assistance_summary.pdf Year: 2028 Country: Sweden URL: https://www.bra.se/download/18.10aae67f160e3eba62919667/1517917740405/2017_15_Reintegration_assistance_summary.pdf Shelf Number: 149687 Keywords: ParoleesPrisoner ReentryProbationersRecidivismRehabilitationReintegrationReoffending |
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 |
Author: Love, Margaret Title: Reducing Barriers to Reintegration: Fair Chance and Expungement Reforms in 2018 Summary: Executive Summary In 2018, 30 states and the District of Columbia produced 56 separate laws aimed at reducing barriers faced by people with criminal records in the workplace, at the ballot box, and elsewhere. Many of these new laws enacted more than one type of reform. This prolific legislative "fair chance" track record, the high point of a sixyear trend, reflects the lively on-going national conversation about how best to promote rehabilitation and reintegration of people with a criminal record. As in past years, approaches to restoring rights varied widely from state to state, both with respect to the type of relief, as well as the specifics of who is eligible, how relief is delivered, and the effect of relief. Despite a growing consensus about the need for policy change to alleviate collateral consequences, little empirical research has been done to establish best practices, or what works best to promote reintegration. The most promising legislative development recognizes the key role occupational licensing plays in the process of reintegration, and it was this area that showed the greatest uniformity of approach. Of the 14 states that enacted laws regulating licensing in 2018, nine (added to 4 in 2017) adopted a similar comprehensive framework to improve access to occupational licenses for people with a criminal record, limiting the kinds of records that may be considered, establishing clear criteria for administrative decisions, and making agency procedures more transparent and accountable. The most consequential single new law was a Florida ballot initiative to restore the franchise to 1.5 million people with a felony conviction, which captured headlines across the country when it passed with nearly 65 percent of voters in favor. Voting rights were also restored for parolees, by statute in Louisiana and by executive order in New York. The largest number of new laws - 27 statutes in 19 states - expanded access to sealing or expungement, by extending eligibility to additional categories of offenses and persons, by reducing waiting periods, or by simplifying procedures. A significant number of states addressed record clearing for non-conviction records (including diversions), for marijuana or other decriminalized offenses, for juveniles, and for human trafficking victims. For the first time, the disadvantages of a separate petition-based relief system were incorporated into legislative discussions. Four states established automated or systemic record-sealing mechanisms aimed at eliminating a "second chance gap" which occurs when a separate civil action must be filed. Pennsylvania's "clean slate" law is the most ambitious experiment in automation to date. Other states sought to incorporate relief directly into the criminal case, avoiding the Pennsylvania law's technological challenges. Three additional states acted to prohibit public employers from inquiring about criminal history during the initial stages of the hiring process, Washington by statute, and Michigan and Kansas by executive order. Washington extended the prohibition to private employers as well. A total of 33 states and the District of Columbia now have so-called "ban-the-box" laws, and 11 states extend the ban to private employers. Four states expanded eligibility for judicial certificates of relief. Colorado's "order of collateral relief" is now the most extensive certificate law in the nation, available for almost all crimes as early as sentencing, and effective to bar consideration of conviction in public employment and licensing. Arizona, California, and North Carolina made more modest changes to facilitate access to this judicial "forgiving" relief. The District of Columbia established a clemency board to recommend to the President applications for pardon and commutation by D.C. Code offenders. Governors in California and New York used their pardon power to spare dozens of non-citizens from deportation, and California also streamlined its pardon process and made it more transparent. Moving in the other direction, Nebraska authorized sealing of pardoned convictions, and Maine made both pardon applications and pardon grants confidential. The legal landscape at the end of 2018 suggests that states are experimenting with a more nuanced blending of philosophical approaches to dealing with the collateral consequences of arrest and conviction. These approaches include forgiving people's past crimes (through pardon or judicial dispensation), forgetting them (through record-sealing or expungement), or forgoing creating a record in the first place (through diversionary dispositions). While sealing and expungement remain the most popular forms of remedy, there seems to be both popular and institutional resistance to limiting what the public may see respecting the record of serious offenses, and a growing preference for more transparent restoration mechanisms that limit what the public may do with such a record, along with standards to guide administrative decisionmaking. Details: New York, NY: Collateral Consequences Resource Center, 2019. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 11, 2019 at: http://ccresourcecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Fair-chance-and-expungement-reforms-in-2018-CCRC-Jan-2019.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: http://ccresourcecenter.org/2019/01/10/press-release-new-report-on-2018-fair-chance-and-expungement-reforms/ Shelf Number: 154132 Keywords: Ban the BoxClean Slate LawCriminal RecordExpungementFair ChanceFelony ConvictionParoleesRecord SealingRehabilitationReintegrationRestoring RightsVoting Rights |
Author: Denman, Kristine Title: Correlates of Substance Use Preferences and Prison Revocations Summary: The NMSAC received funding from the Bureau of Justice Statistics to complete this study, which has two objectives. First, it examines the correlates of substance use by substance type. Second, it explores whether substance use type, particularly opioid use, influences revocation of community supervision. The findings from this study indicate that the risk factors associated with substance use vary by substance type. Only two variables-a history of substance use and parolee status-were associated with increased odds of substance use regardless of the substance type. The odds of testing positive for specific substances differed by specific demographic characteristics, social capital, stability, current offense, and criminal history. These results indicate there may be different risk and protective factors associated with the choice of substance. The findings also indicate that the odds of returning to prison are highest for those who use stimulants, with or without opioids, holding all other factors constant. Other variables, such as current offense, supervision level, and violation history were associated with revocations, as were demographic variables including gender and race. This report summarizes these findings. Details: Albuquerque: New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center, New Mexico Institute For Social Research, 2018. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2019 at: http://isr.unm.edu/reports/2018/correlates-of-substance-use-preferences-and-prison-revocations.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://isr.unm.edu/reports/2018/correlates-of-substance-use-preferences-and-prison-revocations.pdf Shelf Number: 154693 Keywords: Opioid Abuse Parole Violations ParoleesRevocations Substance Abuse |
Author: California. Office of the Inspector General Title: Special Review: Assessment of Electronic Monitoring of Sex Offenders on Parole and the Impact of Residency Restrictions Summary: Proposition 83 ("Jessica's Law"), passed by California voters in 2006, requires that all convicted sex offenders paroled from prison and required by law to register with local law enforcement shall be subjected to monitoring by global positioning technology (GPS) and to restrictions on where they may reside. The Office of the Inspector General conducted a review of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's electronic monitoring of sex offender parolees and the impact of residency restrictions on sex offender parolees at the request of the Senate Rules Committee. The review found: - The annual costs of GPS tracking has decreased over the past five fiscal years. In fiscal year 2009-10, the department spent $12.4 million to monitor sex offender parolees with GPS. By fiscal year 2013-14, these costs were $7.9 million. - There exists little objective evidence to determine to what extent, if any, GPS tracking is a crime deterrent, although a small 2012 study funded by the National Institute of Justice of 516 high-risk sex offenders found that offenders who were not subjected to GPS monitoring had nearly three times more sex-related parole violations than those who were monitored by GPS technology. Despite the rarity of studies defending GPS as a crime deterrent, the OIG's interviews with parole agents and local law enforcement personnel found that they value GPS technology as a tool for its ability to locate parolees, track their movements, and provide valuable information in solving crimes. - GPS technology adds to parole agents' workloads in certain aspects, while affording time-savings in others. For example, agents spend approximately two hours reviewing and analyzing parolees' tracks for a single-day period. On the other hand, GPS facilitates mandatory face-to-face contacts between parole agents and parolees by allowing the agent to locate parolees more quickly than might be the case in locating a non-GPS parolee. - Over 60 percent of parole agents who supervise sex-offender parolees have caseloads exceeding established departmental ratios (parolee-to-agent) when taking into consideration the mix of high-risk vs low-risk parolees per caseload. In addition, the department has a disparity of caseloads across its parole units, with 14 of the 37 parole units that supervise sex offenders reporting caseload sizes exceeding the department's established ratios for all agents assigned to those units. Simultaneously, five other parole units report caseload sizes below the department's established ratios for all of their parole agents. - Field agents whom the OIG interviewed consistently expressed their concerns that the department-issued laptops used for tracking parolee movements in the field should be replaced by smaller hand-held devices such as smart phones, stating that the laptops were not only cumbersome, but may inhibit officer safety in certain situations. Many agents the OIG encountered were using their personal smart phones for GPS mapping and tracking in the field. - The residency restrictions imposed by Jessica's Law, which prohibit paroled sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children congregate, contribute to homelessness among paroled sex offenders. According to the California Sex Offender Management Board, there were only 88 sex offenders on parole statewide who were registered as transient when Proposition 83 was passed in November 2006. As of June 2014, there were 1,556 sex offender parolees identified as transient by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. While this represents 3.38 percent of all parolees, the incidence of homelessness is 19.95 percent (approximately one in five) among the subset of parolees who are sex offenders. - Transient sex offender parolees are more "labor intensive" than are parolees who have a permanent residence. The OIG interviewed parole administrators in 12 parole districts, who said that because transient sex offenders are moving frequently, monitoring their movement is time consuming. Transient sex offenders must register with local law enforcement monthly (as opposed to yearly for those with permanent residences), thus requiring more frequent registration compliance tracking by parole agents. Adding further to the workload associated with monitoring transients, agents are required to conduct weekly face-to-face contacts with them. - Transient sex offender parolees are more likely to violate the terms of their parole than those who have a permanent residence. Transient sex offenders have committed a majority of parole violations (which include technical violations as well as new crimes) among parolee sex offenders over a recent five-year period. Less than 1 percent of those violations were for sex-related crimes. In the most recently completed fiscal year (2013-14), over 76 percent of the sex offender parolees whom the department charged with violating their parole terms were transient. - While Jessica's Law leaves open the option for local governments to impose their own restrictions on paroled sex offenders, parolees are finding relief from residency restrictions through the courts. Several counties have issued stays suspending the blanket enforcement of residency restrictions to those who petition the local court, and San Diego County has issued a stay suspending the blanket enforcement of residency restrictions on sex offenders pending the outcome of the California Supreme Court's decision of the matter In re Taylor (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 210, review granted January 3, 2013, S206143. - The California Sex Offender Management Board's findings and recommendations remain largely unaddressed. While some of the board's recommendations have been implemented, most recently with CDCR's implementation of the sex offender containment model, major recommendations, such as tiering registration requirements, reevaluating residency restrictions, and applying best practices for GPS monitoring, have not. Details: Sacramento: Author, 2014. 85p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed May 15, 2019 at: https://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/Reports/Reviews/OIG_Special_Review_Electronic_Monitoring_of_Sex_Offenders_on_Parole_and_Impact_of_Residency_Restrictions_November_2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/Reports/Reviews/OIG_Special_Review_Electronic_Monitoring_of_Sex_Offenders_on_Parole_and_Impact_of_Residency_Restrictions_November_2014.pdf Shelf Number: 155844 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeElectronic MonitoringGlobal Positioning Technology (GPS)Offender MonitoringParoleesProposition 83Residency RestrictionsSex Offender RegistrationSex Offenders |