Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:49 am
Time: 11:49 am
Results for probation
126 results foundAuthor: Hawken, Angela Title: Managing Drug Involved Probationers with Swift and Certain Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii's HOPE Summary: This report describes an evaluation of a community supervision strategy called HOPE (Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement) for substance-abusing probationers. HOPE began as a pilot program in October 2004 and has expanded to more than 1500 participants, about one of six felony probabtioners on Oahu. Details: S.I.: s.n., 2009 Source: National Institute of Justice Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117401 Keywords: Community SupervisionDrug Abuse and AddictionDrug OffendersProbationProbation ViolationsProbationersRecidivism |
Author: Rodriguez, Nancy Title: An Initial Review of Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Detention Length of Stay Summary: This technical report is based on a four month study of the Maricopa County juvenile detention population. The research goals of this study include providing a description of cases subject to detention over a six year period of study and the identification of significant predictors of detention length of stay. Details: Tempe, AZ: Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety, Arizona State University, 2006 Source: Prepared for the Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 115790 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionProbation |
Author: Connecticut. Office of Policy & Management. Research, Analysis & Evaluation Title: Comparative Analysis of Probation, Parole and Incarceration: Connecticut, the United States and Other States - 1996-2006 Summary: This document provides a comprehensive analysis of rates and numbers of probation, parole and sentenced prison populations for Connecticut, the United States and a cohort of other Northeast states - Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The stated purpose of this document is to provide a relative measurement of increasing or decreasing rates and numbers of those statistics, by comparison, to those same geographic areas. Details: Hartford, CT: 2008 Source: Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 114897 Keywords: Comparative StudiesIncarceration RatesParoleProbation |
Author: U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Title: Guidelines for Community Supervision of DWI offenders Summary: The guidelines presented in this document are intended to provide a framework for developing, implementing and operating effective programs for the community supervision of DWI offenders. These strategies are recommended to achieve the best possible outcomes and to provide a structure from which to build a solid approach and direction to ensure long-term public safety by reducing recidivism through offender behavioral change. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2008. 96p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117803 Keywords: Community-based CorrectionsDrugged DrivingDrunk DrivingProbation |
Author: Debidin, Mia, editor Title: A Compendium of Research and Analysis on the Offender Assessment System (OASys) 2006-2009 Summary: The Offender Assessment System (OASys) is a U.K. national risk/need assessment tool used by the prison and probation services in England and Wales. Th tool combines actuarial methods of prediction with structured professional judgment to provide standardized assessments of offenders' risks and needs, as well as linking these risks and needs to individualized sentence plans and risk management plans. OASys data is collated centrally within the OASys Data Eveluation and Analysis Team (O-DEAT) database, and this report presents OASys research and analysis conducted by O-DEAT from 2006 to 2009. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2009. 314p. Source: Ministry of Justice Research Series 16/09; Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 118222 Keywords: PrisonsProbationRisk Assessment |
Author: Van Vleet, Russell K. Title: Evaluation of the FOCUS Program for DUI Offenders Summary: This report presents an evaluation of the FOCUS, Facilitating Offender CommUnity Supervision program operated by Salt Lake County Criminal Justice Services. The evaluation examined FOCUS (n=311) and DUI Probation (PROB;n=612) participants who were on supervision, pimarily, between 2004 and 2007. Both programs required participants to initiate probation, report monthly to their probation case manager, pay supervision fees, and commit no new violations. In addition, FOCUS participants were required to complete the following FOCUS conditions: bi-monthly reporting to their case manager, 47 hours of community service, attend the Victim Impact Panel, attend community panels, and complete all FOCUS assignments. Recidivism rates, as well as successful completion rates, indicate that FOCUS is having an impact on its participants and leading to better outcomes than DUI probation. Details: Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2008. 73p. Source: Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 114824 Keywords: Driving Under the InfluenceDrunkennessProbationRecidivism |
Author: Nicholls, Carol McNaughton Title: Examining Implementation of the Stable and Acute Dynamic Risk Assessment Tool Pilot in England and Wales Summary: The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) piloted a new dynamic risk assessment tool for sexual offenders managed in the community – the Stable and Acute 2007. This tool was used by both police and probation staff managing eligible convicted sexual offenders. This evaluation examines how the Stable and Acute 2007 tool was implemented in the pilot areas, the benefits and limitations of the tool, and provides recommendations for any future use of dynamic risk assessment in England and Wales. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2010. 77p. Source: Internet Resource; Ministry of Justice Research Series 4/10 Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 117726 Keywords: ProbationRisk Assessment, Sex OffendersSex Offenders |
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: Bullock, Karen Title: The Delivery of Domestic Abuse Programmes: An Implementation Study of the Delivery of Domestic Abuse Programmes in Probation Areas and Her Majesty's Prison Service Summary: This study explored the delivery of accredited programmes for domestic violence offenders in custody and community settings – specifically to assess the extent to which these programmes were being implemented as intended. The study found that many aspects of the programmes were delivered as intended, particularly the main group work element, as well as identifying further strengths and weaknesses in programme delivery and will be useful in developing best practice. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2010. 20p. Source: Internet Resource; Ministry of Justice Research Series 15/10 Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 119344 Keywords: Correctional ProgramsDomestic ViolenceDomestic Violence OffendersProbation |
Author: McInnis, Lia Title: Trends in the Use of Suspended Sentences in NSW Summary: "Since they were re-introduced to New South Wales in April 2000, the use of suspended prison sentences has tripled in NSW Local Courts and more than doubled in NSW District and Supreme Courts. The aim of the current study was to assess the extent to which suspended sentences have replaced custodial and non-custodial penalties. In Local Courts, the proportional use of full time and periodic custody sanctions decreased after the introduction of suspended sentences but so did the use of Community Service Orders (CSOs). In the Higher (District and Supreme) Criminal Courts, there appears to have been a small reduction in full-time imprisonment and the use of period detention. The introduction of suspended sentences, however, has also resulted in significant reductions in the use of bonds and CSOs." Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2010. 4p. Source: Internet Resource; Crime and Justice Statistics Bureau Brief, Issue Paper No. 47 Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 119366 Keywords: Alternatives to ImprisonmentCourtsProbationSentencing (New South Wales)Suspended Sentences |
Author: Meek, Rosie Title: The Role of the Third Sector in Work With Offenders: The Perceptions of Criminal Justice and Third Sector Stakeholders Summary: This paper examines the views of national criminal justice and third sector stakeholders on the strategic position of the sector, and its role in the resettlement of offenders. The interview data suggests that although the involvement of the third sector in the criminal justice system is promoted in national policy, considerable gaps have been identified. These include the quality and availability of regional commissioning, implementation strategies and the long-term plans for the re-specification of the criminal justice system. The findings also indicate that increasing emphasis on competitive policy may put a strain on future inter-sector partnerships. The implications of the findings are discussed and areas of further research are highlighted in relation to both the prison and probation services. Details: Birmingham, UK: Third Sector Research Centre, 2010. 18p. Source: Internet Resource; Working Paper 34 Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 119536 Keywords: Criminal Justice, Administration of (U.K.)OffendersPartnershipsPrisonsProbation |
Author: Stevenson, Nicky Title: Reducing Re-Offending Through Social Enterprise: Social Enterprises Working with Prisons and Probation Services - A Mapping Exercise for National Offender Management Service Summary: The primary purpose of this report is to inform the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) about the current level of activity of social enterprises working with prisons and probation services in England. Its secondary purpose is to assist the social enterprise sector to position itself to develop new opportunities identified by the findings. The report is structured to meet these two purposes. Chapters include: An executive summary – a short summary of the key findings and recommendations; Part 1 of the full report – background, methodology and context; Part 2 of the full report – detailed findings from the data collection; and Part 3 of the full report – analysis of the findings findings, signposting future opportunities, summary and recommendations. The research was carried out between May and August 2009 by Concilium, using a mixed methods approach. In undertaking this work, 100% of probation services and 72% of prisons were interviewed. In total, 38 extended interviews took place with prisons and probation services, 20 with prisons and 18 with probation services. 82 social enterprises completed the on-line survey and 18 social enterprises were interviewed. The full report includes an analysis of the data from each of these sources, a series of case studies showing examples of how social enterprises are currently working with prisons and probation services and a series of recommendations for NOMS and the social enterprise sector to address. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2009. 122p. Source: Internet Resource; Accessed August 10, 2010 at http://www.justice.gov.uk/social-enterprise-prison-probation.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/social-enterprise-prison-probation.pdf Shelf Number: 117544 Keywords: Ex-Offenders (U.K.)PrisonersPrisonsProbationVoluntary and Community Organizations |
Author: Bourgon, Guy Title: Translating "What Works" into Sustainable Everyday Practice: Program Design, Implementation and Evaluation 2009-05 Summary: "A major challenge for community correctional agencies is yranslating “what works” knowledge into effective everyday practice. Service delivery adherence to the principles of Risk, Need and Responsivity (RNR) is threatened by a variety of design, implementation, and evaluation issues found in the “real world” of community supervision. The Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision (STICS) was designed as a service delivery model and implementation training package, which attempted to translate these principles into the routine practice of probation officers. In this report, we describe the challenges and issues that should be addressed when trying to bring research to the real world of community supervision faced by probation officers and we evaluate our efforts to overcome these challenges through STICS. Firmly rooted in RNR principles, the STICS supervision model emphasizes officers’ interventions that facilitate prosocial attitudinal/cognitive change in moderate to high-risk offenders. In order to maintain service integrity and officers’ skill maintenance, STICS not only provided probation officers with initial three-day training in the model and basic cognitive-behavioural interventions but the model also provided ongoing clinical supervision. Random assignment and direct observation of probation officer behaviour during interactions with their clients are key components of the evaluation of this initiative. Preliminary results suggest that STICS had a significant impact in improving probation officers’ use of effective core correctional practices." Details: Ottawa: Public Safety Canada, 2009. 23p. Source: Internet Resource; Accessed August 14, 2010 at:https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2009-05-pd/index-en.aspx Year: 2009 Country: Canada URL: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2009-05-pd/index-en.aspx Shelf Number: 117120 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCommunity SupervisionOffender SupervisionProbationProbation Officers |
Author: Gill, Charlotte E. Title: The Effects of Sanction Intensity on Criminal Conduct: A Randomized Low-Intensity Probation Experiment Summary: Probation is a well-established part of our criminal justice toolkit, but we know surprisingly little about the circumstances under which it is effective. Attempts to increase supervision intensity for crime- and cost-saving purposes have yielded mixed results at best. This dissertation examines the theory and scientific evidence on the effectiveness of probation, and the impact of changing the intensity of probation sanctions on recidivism. First, we conduct a rigorous search and synthesis of the existing literature on intensive probation programs. We utilize meta-analysis to identify the circumstances under which such programs might be effective. We find no evidence that probationers in these programs fare better than their counterparts under traditional supervision. We call for further research into supervision approaches that emphasize behavioral management over contact frequency and caseload size. Second, we employ a range of statistical procedures to examine the viability of saving resources by reducing supervision for lowrisk offenders. In a randomized controlled trial comparing low-intensity probation to traditional practice, we find no evidence that reducing supervision increases recidivism. We find that low-risk probationers are heterogeneous in their characteristics but homogeneous in their propensity to reoffend. They appear to respond well regardless of the intensity of the sanction. Finally, we use epidemiological methods to evaluate the low-risk prediction model used in the experiment. We find that the model successfully identifies offenders who are unlikely to commit serious offenses, and is therefore a useful tool for diverting probationers to low-intensity supervision. In turn, low-intensity supervision is not associated with changes in offending severity. Chapters 2 and 3 both conclude that low-intensity supervision is a safe strategy that works very well for a probation agency’s lowest-level offenders. This dissertation contributes to knowledge by changing perceptions of the characteristics of offenders and resource allocation in criminal justice supervision. We find that ‘more’ does not always mean ‘better,’ and there is no need to distribute expensive services equally. In a given probation population, the majority of offenders will respond well no matter how little supervision they receive, so it makes sense to focus our attention on the minority that will not. Details: Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2010. 264p. (Thesis) Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 19, 2010 at: http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1189&context=edissertations Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1189&context=edissertations Shelf Number: 119641 Keywords: Intensive SupervisionProbationProbationers |
Author: Great Britain. Home Office Title: Reducing Reoffending, Cutting Crime, Changing Lives: Guidance on New Duties for Community Safety Partnerships in England and Wales Summary: Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) across England and Wales have become a critical part of the local delivery landscape. They are now in an ideal position to co-ordinate the actions of the police, local authorities, housing providers, health services and other key players, including youth services and third sector organisations, all of which have a significant role in helping successfully reduce reoffending and in keeping communities safe. These changes will help responsible authorities focus better on the key elements that keep communities safe. This is particularly important when over half of all crime is committed by those who have already been through the criminal justice system. It will enable a more strategic engagement between CSPs and other local partners, such as the third sector, Local Strategic Partnerships, Local Service Boards and Local Criminal Justice Boards, in planning and commissioning services for offenders. For the first time local partners will be collectively accountable for reducing reoffending. The critical link between crime reduction and reducing reoffending is clearly recognised in Public Service Agreement 23 ‘Make Communities Safer’. Extending the duties of CSPs will further strengthen this link and formalise the effective joint working that is already underway at a local level through Integrated Offender Management (IOM) and schemes such as Prolific and other Priority Offenders (PPO). These approaches demonstrate our shift in focus from offences to offenders and highlight how effective partnerships can help the prevention and detection of crime and the rehabilitation and resettlement of offenders once they have been punished appropriately. Success in reducing reoffending can only be achieved by local partners working beyond traditional organisational boundaries. This guidance provides suggested practice and case studies to support the legislative changes to CSPs and help partners embed the new duties within their everyday activities. More effective partnership working as a result of these changes will help to reduce crime and reoffending, protect the public and improve public confidence in the criminal justice system, the police and in other local partners, in a way that allows people to see and feel the difference in their local communities. Details: London: Home Office, 2010. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 3, 2010 at: http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/CD2F417E-271E-45D1-840A-BA0699A0C0FE/0/NationalSupportFrameworkReducingReoffending.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/CD2F417E-271E-45D1-840A-BA0699A0C0FE/0/NationalSupportFrameworkReducingReoffending.pdf Shelf Number: 119734 Keywords: Community Safety Partnerships (U.K.)PartnershipsProbationRehabilitationReoffending |
Author: Stevens, Alex Title: Offender Management Community Scoping of London Gang Demographics: Final Report Summary: This is the final report of the community scoping of London gang demographics, provided to London Probation. It includes: A literature review; A discussion of the drivers and dynamics of serious group offending in London; Initial findings from interviews with probation officers in the field; Thematic Issues arising from stakeholder consultations; A review of alternative models of offender management; and Recommendations for probation practice. Details: Canterbury, UK: European Institute of Social Services, University of Kent, 2010. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 21, 2010 at: http://www.cepprobation.org/uploaded_files/Rep%20STARR%20gangs.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cepprobation.org/uploaded_files/Rep%20STARR%20gangs.pdf Shelf Number: 119852 Keywords: GangsJuvenile OffendersProbation |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Probation Title: Getting There Now: A Follow-Up Inquiry into the Management of Offenders' Risk of Harm to Others by London Probation Trust. In: Croydon; Bexley & Bromley; Greenwich; Lewisham; Ealing; Harrow & Hillington; Camden & Islington; Newham Summary: In 2009 we were asked by the then Justice Secretary to inspect the Public Protection work of London Probation because of concerns that had arisen in a scrutiny of the management by London Probation of an offender, Dano Sonnex, who had committed two serious further offences whilst under supervision. Two sets of case inspections were planned, for 2009 and 2010 respectively, partly to cover as much of London as possible, and partly to look at performance over time. In the event, this second set of inspections took on an even greater significance as a follow-up exercise, since our 2009 report was critical of the quality of ROH work in London Probation. We used our Risk of Harm Area Assessment (RoHAA) inspection tool to assess the total sample of 280 cases across 8 Local Delivery Units (LDUs). The tool comprises a subset of the questions used in the OMI 2 programme and focuses principally on the assessment and management of the ROH to others in a representative sample of cases. We also received evidence from London Probation Trust and spoke to the Assistant Chief Officers in charge of each LDU. The report concludes that the organisation has improved substantially in the past year. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2010. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 1, 2010 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-probation/docs/london-roh-inspection-2010-report-final-rps.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-probation/docs/london-roh-inspection-2010-report-final-rps.pdf Shelf Number: 120150 Keywords: ProbationProbationersRisk Assessment |
Author: Austin, James Title: Reliability and Validity Study of the LSI-R Risk Assessment Instrument Summary: The Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (PBPP) selected the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) instrument as its risk classification tool because it introduces dynamic and more current factors into the risk assessment process, beyond the conventional use of static criminal history and demographic factors. The LSI was developed in the late 1970s in Canada through a collaboration of probation officers, correctional managers, practitioners and researchers. The LSI-R is comprised of 54 static and dynamic items across ten sub-scales. While the LSI-R has been researched extensively in other jurisdictions, its reliability and validity specifically for Pennsylvania’s offender population had not yet been tested. Of particular interest is Pennsylvania’s decision to use the LSI-R as a component of its parole decision making guidelines; heretofore, the LSI-R has been used to identify the appropriate level of supervision for probationers and parolees already residing in the community. In this study, the LSI-R’s relevance and usefulness as a decision making tool as applied to an incarcerated population is a key line of inquiry. The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD) contracted The Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections (ICJC) at The George Washington University to conduct a reliability and validation study using the LSI-R scores and recidivism data. The following report summarizes the ICJC’s findings. This project consists of two segments: an assessment of the inter-rater reliability in scoring the LSI-R, and the validation of the LSI-R’s statistical association with recidivism. The reliability assessment was conducted by selecting a sample of 120 prisoners who were scored on the LSI-R on two separate occasions by two independent PBPP institutional staff. The results of the initial reliability test showed that most of the LSI-R scoring items did not meet a sufficient level of reliability. Consequently, a second reliability test was made in September 2002 on another sample of 156 prisoners to determine if the reliability rates could be improved. The validation assessment entailed examining recidivists (for the purposes of this study, arrests, detentions, absconders, and returns to prison are considered recidivists) of approximately 1,000 prisoners who were released from nine LSI-R test facilities in 2001. For each of these prisoners an LSI-R form was completed. The follow-up period was for 12 months, which allowed the researchers to determine which items were associated with recidivism within that period. Details: Washington, DC: Institute on crime, Justice and Corrections at The George Washington University, 2003. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 9, 2010 at: www.portal.state.pa.us Year: 2003 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 120273 Keywords: ParolePredictionProbationRecidivismRisk AssessmentRisk Management |
Author: Omand, David Title: Omand Review: Independent Serious Further Offence Review: The Case of Jon Venables Summary: Following the conviction of Jon Venables on 23 July this year for possessing and distributing indecent images of children, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice commissioned Sir David Omand GCB to undertake an independent review into the management of Jon Venables, from his release from local authority detention in June 2001 until his recall to custody on 24 February in 2010. This reviews examines the supervision of Jon Venables who was accused in the murder of James Bulger. Details: London: Sir David Omand GCB, 2010. 115p. Source: Internet Resource: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/omand-review-web.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/omand-review-web.pdf Shelf Number: 120371 Keywords: Child PornographyOffender SupervisionProbation |
Author: New Jersey Commission to Review Criminal Sentencing Title: New Jersey's Drug Courts, Special Probation and Proposal for Reform Summary: This report presents a concise summary of the key findings and recommendations of the New Jersey Commission to Review Criminal Sentencing concerning N.J.S.A. 2C:3514, commonly referred to as the special probation statute. The special probation statute was enacted as part of the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 1986 and provides for rehabilitative treatment and intensive supervision for nonviolent, drug-dependent offenders. The special probation statute was intended by the Legislature to divert appropriate offenders subject to state imprisonment to a five-year period of intensive supervision conditioned upon a mandatory six-month period of inpatient drug treatment. The special probation statute predated by several years the establishment of drug courts in New Jersey and serves as a mechanism pursuant to which otherwise prison-bound offenders are admitted into New Jersey's Drug Court Program. The special probation statute and the New Jersey Adult Drug Court Program are not synonymous. The New Jersey Drug Court program is administered by the Administrative Office of the Courts and involves a collaborative relationship between representatives of the criminal justice system, including judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and probation officers, and drug treatment professionals. The special probation statute defines with particularity which prisonbound defendants, i.e., those who are subject to a presumption of imprisonment or a mandatory minimum term of incarceration, may gain entry into the Drug Court Program. The provision also enumerates specific conditions that must be adhered to by these offenders while participating in the Drug Court Program. There exists compelling evidence that individuals who use illicit drugs are more likely to engage in criminal behavior, and that many offenses are commonly committed by individu als who had used drugs or alcohol during or just prior to committing their crimes. The drug court model was developed in response to a widespread recognition that the conventional criminal justice process had little impact on the rehabilitative prospects of drug-dependent offenders. The principal goal of drug courts is to reduce drug use and associated criminal behavior by engaging and retaining drug-involved offenders in coerced treatment. At the center of the collaborative approach embodied by the drug court model is the trial judge. The investment of judicial resources in drug court programs has been validated by a study reflecting that “highrisk” offenders perform better in drug court when subject to biweekly status hearings. While acknowledging the methodological flaws in a substantial number of studies, the New Jersey Commission to Review Criminal Sentencing (Commission) has nonetheless reviewed recent literature on the impact of drug courts and concluded there is substantial and empirically reliable evidence that drug courts are indeed effective in reducing recidivism among offenders who have successfully completed drug court programs. Although more comprehensive and methodologically rigorous studies are certainly warranted, the available outcome data for offenders sentenced under N.J.S.A. 2C:3514 compares favorably to the data on outcomes for nondrug court state prison offenders. Details: Trenton: New Jersey Commission to Review Criminal Sentencing, 2007. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 3, 2010 at: http://www.sentencing.nj.gov/downloads/special_probation_report_April_2007.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.sentencing.nj.gov/downloads/special_probation_report_April_2007.pdf Shelf Number: 120374 Keywords: Drug Courts (New Jersey)Drug OffendersDrug TreatmentIntensive SupervisionProbation |
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: Great Britain. Criminal Justice Joint Inspection Title: Restriction and Rehabilitation: Getting the Right Mix. An Inspection of the Management of Sexual Offenders in the Community Summary: The proportion of sexual offenders who are reconvicted of further offending is known to be low. Nevertheless, their subsequent crimes understandably cause considerable public concern. In taking this inspection forward, we wanted to see how far the police and probation services were able to fulfil their different roles in controlling and restricting the offender, whilst at the same time offering them help to change their behaviour. In other words, whether they were able to maintain the right mix, so necessary for public protection, between Restriction and Rehabilitation in work with registered sexual offenders. We were aware, from our Offender Management Inspections of all probation trusts, that work with offenders assessed as an increased Risk of Harm to others was generally of a higher standard than that with other offenders. We were therefore not surprised to find many examples of good practice by both police and probation. These related particularly to the restrictive elements of work with sexual offenders and included: consolidating practice relating to the notification requirements for registered sex offenders; use of the sexual offences prevention order; monitoring licence conditions; and the multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) with more serious cases. The inspection, nevertheless, revealed a number of areas where practice by both police and probation could be improved. In our opinion the three main issues, all key to public protection, threatened to undermine the efficacy of work with registered sexual offenders by both the police and probation services. These were: engagement: some probation offender managers did not engage well with those sexual offenders who were not required to attend a Sexual Offender Treatment Programme communication: formal channels of communication, both within and between police and probation services, needed to be improved MAPPA: specifically the identification and management of level 1 cases, i.e. those subject to ‘ordinary agency management’. Details: London: Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2010. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 3, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-probation/docs/Sex_Offenders_Report-rps.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-probation/docs/Sex_Offenders_Report-rps.pdf Shelf Number: 120682 Keywords: Community SupervisionPolicingProbationRecidivismRehabilitationSex Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Stalans, Loretta J. Title: Assessing the Risk of Sexual and Violent Recidivism and Identifying Differences in Risk Factors: Comparing Probation Supervised and Released Imprisoned Sex Offenders Summary: The management of sex offenders’ risk of committing sex crimes is of paramount importance to the criminal justice system. Criminal justice and treatment professionals assess risk of sexual recidivism using validated risk assessment tools such as the Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offender Recidivism (RRASOR), the Structured Anchored Clinical Judgment- Minimum Version (SACJ-min), the STATIC-99, and the STATIC-2002. However, these scales were created using data primarily from sex offenders released from prison or institutions for dangerous sexual predators. Moreover, although these scales are more accurate than clinical or professional judgment, their accuracy still is only modest and needs improvement. The aim of this research was to identify risk factors and how to combine risk factors to improve standardized risk assessment tools. The driving assumption of the current work was that sex offenders sentenced to probation and sex offenders released from prison are very different on important criminal history, offense, mental health, and social characteristics related to risk of sexual recidivism. Therefore if these two populations are different the current assessment scales used may not be appropriate for probation populations or may not predict well certain subgroups of sex offenders such as sex offenders who also commit domestic violence against adult intimate partners. Moreover, prior research has never considered how supervision may modify the behavior of sex offenders and change the risk factors that predict sexual recidivism. Are the risk factors for sexual recidivism the same if sex offenders are under probation or parole supervision or are free in the community without any supervision? Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2011. 155p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2011 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/Probation_Supervised_Released_Imprisoned_Sex_Offenders_Report_1210.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/Probation_Supervised_Released_Imprisoned_Sex_Offenders_Report_1210.pdf Shelf Number: 120750 Keywords: ParoleProbationRecidivismRisk AssessmentSex OffendersSexual Violence |
Author: Porter, Nicole D. Title: The State of Sentencing 2010: Developments in Policy and Practice Summary: Today, 7.2 million men and women are under correctional supervision. Of this total, five million are monitored in the community on probation or parole and 2.3 million are incarcerated in prisons or jails. As a result the nation maintains the highest rate of incarceration in the world at 743 per 100,000 population. The scale of the correctional population results from a mix of crime rates and legislative and administrative policies that vary by state. In recent years, lawmakers have struggled to find the resources to maintain state correctional systems; 46 states are facing budget deficits in the current fiscal year, a situation that is likely to continue, according to the National Governors Association. Many states are looking closely at ways to reduce correctional costs as they seek to address limited resources. States like Kansas, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York have successfully reduced their prison populations in recent years in an effort to control costs and effectively manage prison capacity. Overall, prison populations declined in 24 states during 2009, by 48,000 persons, or 0.7 percent. During 2010, state legislatures in at least 23 states and the District of Columbia adopted 35 criminal justice policies that may contribute to reductions in the prison population and eliminate barriers to reentry while promoting effective approaches to public safety. This report provides an overview of recent policy reforms in the areas of sentencing, probation and parole, drug policy, the prison census count, collateral consequences, and juvenile justice. Highlights include: South Carolina equalized penalties for crack and powder cocaine offenses as part of a sentencing reform package that garnered bipartisan support. New Jersey modified its mandatory sentencing law that applies to convictions in “drug free school zones,” and now authorizes judges to impose sentences below the mandatory minimum in appropriate cases. Prior to the reform, more than 3,600 defendants a year were convicted under the statute, 96% of whom were African American or Latino. During 2010, state legislatures in at least 23 states and the District of Columbia adopted 35 criminal justice policies that may contribute to reductions in the prison population and eliminate barriers to reentry while promoting effective approaches to public safety. This report provides an overview of recent policy reforms in the areas of sentencing, probation and parole, drug policy, the prison census count, collateral consequences, and juvenile justice. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2011. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 28, 2011 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/publications/Final%20State%20of%20the%20Sentencing%202010.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/publications/Final%20State%20of%20the%20Sentencing%202010.pdf Shelf Number: 120882 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCorrectionsCriminal Justice PolicyInmatesParolePrisonersProbationSentencing |
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: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Probation and HM Inspectorate of Prisons Title: A Joined-Up Sentence? Offender Management in Prisons in 2009/2010 Summary: The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) aims to provide a structure to manage certain more serious or prolific offenders through their custodial sentence with probation staff in the community acting as offender managers. An offender manager’s role is to assess the risk of harm to others each offender poses and the likelihood of them reoffending, and then to produce a sentence plan accordingly. By the end of 2006, offender management units had been created in prisons to manage those arrangements in custody. This report, A Joined-Up Sentence?, reflects findings from the first 13 prison establishments inspected. Inspectors found that, even taking account of the different nature of the 13 establishments, some common themes emerged: despite considerable progress, there is still too much variation in the way in which prisoners are managed by the Prison and Probation Services; NOMS envisaged that offender managers in the community (probation officers) would be responsible for assessing the prisoner and for driving the management of the case, but this was rarely happening, and some offender supervisors (prison officers) were expected to take on this role, often without appropriate training or guidance, and sometimes with competing operational duties; some prisons had worked hard to ensure that all relevant prisoners had an OASys assessment, even where these should have been prepared by the offender manager, but the quality of these assessments varied, and they were rarely seen as a key document within the establishment; sentence planning was often driven more by the availability of activities than by the assessment; few establishments made strategic use of the OASys database to identify and provide for key areas of need in the prisoner population, which was disappointing; and information about prisoners was held in different locations within the establishment and, worryingly, public protection information was sometimes kept separate from offender management, which impeded the safe and effective management of prisoners. Despite these criticisms, the inspection found some Offender Management Units which were well integrated into the establishment and where core custodial functions sat effectively alongside offender management. However, there needs to be considerable progress across the custodial estate before the NOMS vision of a ‘joined up sentence’ is realised and Offender Management Units operate as a hub within the establishment. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Probation and HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2011. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Prison Offender Management Inspection 2: Accessed May 5, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-probation/docs/A_Joined_Up_Sentence-rps.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-probation/docs/A_Joined_Up_Sentence-rps.pdf Shelf Number: 121653 Keywords: Offender SupervisionOffendersPrisoners (U.K.)ProbationSentencing |
Author: Aebi, Marcelo F. Title: SPACE II: Non-Custodial Sanctions and Measures Served in 2009 Summary: SPACE II collects information on persons serving non-custodial and semi-custodial sanctions and measures. Such sanctions and measures are frequently referred to as alternatives to imprisonment. The survey is not designed to cover all the existing non-custodial and semi-custodial sanctions and measures. The ones included are basically those suggested by the Council of Europe in Rule 15 of Recommendation No R (99)22 on prison overcrowding and prison population inflation, in Recommendation No R (2000)22 on improving the implementation of the European rules on community sanctions and measures, and in Recommendation CM/Rec (2010)1 on the Council of Europe Probation Rules. Most –but not all– of them are community sanctions and measures (CSM) as defined by the Council of Europe. According to Recommendation No R (92)16 and Recommendation CM/Rec (2010)1, CSM are to be understood as "sanctions and measures which maintain offenders in the community and involve some restrictions on their liberty through the imposition of conditions and/or obligations. The term designates any sanction imposed by a judicial or administrative authority, and any measure taken before or instead of a decision on a sanction, as well as ways of enforcing a sentence of imprisonment outside a prison establishment". Persons serving a CSM are usually referred to as persons on probation, and are normally placed under the supervision of a probation agency. In accordance with Recommendation CM/Rec (2010)1, the term probation “relates to the implementation in the community of sanctions and measures, defined by law and imposed on an offender. It includes a range of activities and interventions, which involve supervision, guidance and assistance aiming at the social inclusion of an offender, as well as at contributing to community safety”. Also according to the same Recommendation, probation agency “means any body designated by law to implement the above tasks and responsibilities. Depending on the national system, the work of a probation agency may also include providing information and advice to judicial and other deciding authorities to help them reach informed and just decisions; providing guidance and support to offenders while in custody in order to prepare their release and resettlement; monitoring and assistance to persons subject to early release; restorative justice interventions; and offering assistance to victims of crime.” SPACE II covers the number of persons who have been under a community sanction or measure. This information is divided in two sections: figures of stock (the number of persons under CSM on 31 December 2009), and figures of flow (the number of persons having started the execution of CSM during 2009). SPACE II does not cover post-prison supervisory or probation measures applied to offenders after they have served their sentence. SPACE II does not cover sanctions and measures imposed by the juvenile criminal law or applicable only to juveniles. The goal of the survey is to gather and compare, in a reliable way, the information provided by Member States of the Council of Europe. In order to allow comparisons at the European level, States were asked to adapt their national categories to the categories proposed by SPACE II. Moreover, in order to improve the validity of such comparisons, the questionnaire used for the survey included questions on the particularities of the sanctions and measures used in each country and had enough room for comments. Details: Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2011. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 2, 2011 at: http://www3.unil.ch/wpmu/space/files/2011/02/Council-of-Europe_SPACE-II-2009-E.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Europe URL: http://www3.unil.ch/wpmu/space/files/2011/02/Council-of-Europe_SPACE-II-2009-E.pdf Shelf Number: 121959 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity Based Corrections (Europe)Community SanctionsCommunity ServiceProbation |
Author: Northern Ireland. Criminal Justice Inspection Title: Pre-Sentence Reports Summary: The Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI) is best known for the supervision of offenders. An equally important but less obvious aspect of its work is the delivery of Pre-Sentence Reports (PSRs) to the courts. A PSR provides the court with an assessment of the nature and causes of a defendant’s offending, the likelihood of re-offending, the risk of harm to the public, information on the range of appropriate disposals, areas to be addressed and additional measures. These reports have a major impact on the outcomes for the offender pre and post-sentence as well as for the public at large. The PBNI prepares around 6,000 PSRs each year. The demands on the Probation Board in the production of PSRs are increasing and it is important that they are completed within a robust quality assurance framework and that they are positively received by the court in deciding their sentencing options for offenders. The purpose of the inspection was to consider how the Probation Board assures quality control of PSRs, identify areas of good practice and make recommendations aimed at improving service delivery. The overall conclusion from the inspection was that there were clear arrangements in place for the quality control of PSRs and that there was a high degree of concordance between sentencing options and the options given in the PSR. The inspection confirmed the competency of the on-going quality control mechanisms. The quality of the PSRs produced by the Probation Board were held in high regard by the courts. The inspection made a number of recommendations aimed at improving current arrangements, including the need to increase the use of Specific Sentence Reports, where appropriate, and the need to engage with the Department of Justice (DoJ) concerning the use of PSRs as a vehicle towards influencing Community Sentence Orders. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, 2011. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 6, 2011 at: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/7d/7d0d4159-4e96-4991-968e-0ef24365c699.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/7d/7d0d4159-4e96-4991-968e-0ef24365c699.pdf Shelf Number: 121981 Keywords: Pre-Sentence ReportsPre-Sentence Reports (Northern Ireland)ProbationSentencing |
Author: Fabelo, Tony Title: Organizational Assessment of Travis County Community Supervision and Corrections Department (CSCD) -- Facing the Challenges to Successfully Implement the Travis Community Impact Supervision (TCIS) Model Summary: On July 1, 2005 the Travis County Community Supervision and Corrections Department (CSCD) accepted a proposal by The JFA Institute to conduct an operational assessment of the department. The proposal was in response to interest from the new director of the Travis CSCD, Dr. Geraldine Nagy, to assess the department’s strengths and weaknesses and to assist her in designing management strategies for the department. Particularly, the goal is to identify the organizational challenges of implementing an Evidence Based Practices (EBP) organization and supervision model. The main goal of EBP is to operate the agency as a “learning organization” that uses strategies proven to be effective to manage the probation population. The model moves supervision strategies from a primary emphasis on enforcement to one that focuses on providing the offenders the resources and motivation to effect change by addressing their criminogenic traits using methods that have been proven to work. TCIS is a model directed at increasing the effectiveness of probation. Effective assessment practices, differentiated supervision strategies, and organizational assessments to maintain model fidelity are the critical elements of TCIS. The assessments are used to classify the population to receive different supervision strategies that have been proven to be the most effective with their particular population risks and needs. To support this model, the probation department has to be retooled to conduct more effective assessments and routinely monitor program and supervision outcomes. Personnel training and personnel evaluations need to be directed at supporting and encouraging the new supervision strategies. The information systems of the organization also have to be effectively tapped to provide data for management and policy analysis to assist in the management and policy oversight of the practices. The expected outcomes of TCIS are: (a) the more effective diversion of low risk offenders from the criminal justice system; (b) reduction in the recidivism of “social problem” offenders (offenders who are mainly pro-social people that have gotten in trouble with the law because of a substance abuse or mental health problem); and (c) the more effective surveillance and control of high risk offenders. Details: Washington, DC: JFA Institute, 2005. 108p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 18, 2011 at: http://www.jfa-associates.com/publications/ppope/Travis83105Final.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://www.jfa-associates.com/publications/ppope/Travis83105Final.pdf Shelf Number: 122086 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity Corrections (Texas)ProbationProbation OfficersProbationersRisk Assessment |
Author: Park, Graham Title: Through the Gates: Improving the Effectiveness of Prison Discharge - First Half Year Evaluation August 2008 to January 2009. Summary: Through The Gates describes itself as a scheme to reduce re-offending by prisoners by ensuring they are supported before release, on the day of release and for some weeks after release if necessary by engaging them with housing, benefits, specialist agencies and pobation. It aims to fill the gap between prison-based and community-based support services, carrying peole through the difficult post release period and linking them to support and supervision in the community before closing the case. Tis report covers the first six months of the St.Giles Through The Gates 2008/2009 expanded service. It follows a 2007/2008 pilot service in Lambeth and Southwark only. The purpose of the report is to ascertain whether the service might reasonably be recommissioned by London Probation or be funded in another way, and to inform St.Giles on their own performance and amendments they might wish to make to various aspects of their practice. Both quantitative (numbers) and qualitative (experiences and opinions) data are presented. Details: London: Graham Park Consulting; London: St. Giles Trust, 2009. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 22, 2011 at: http://hlg.org.uk/home/resources/Criminal-Justice---Offending/Homelessness-Code-of-Guidance-(2).aspx Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://hlg.org.uk/home/resources/Criminal-Justice---Offending/Homelessness-Code-of-Guidance-(2).aspx Shelf Number: 122148 Keywords: Community SupervisionPrisoner Reentry (U.K.)Probation |
Author: Lucht, Jim Title: Enhancing Supervision and Support for Released Prisoners: A Documentation and Evaluation of the Community Supervision Mapping System Summary: Mapping has become increasingly employed in the field of criminal justice. Compared to the more traditional types of justice mapping, such as crime prevention and detection, spatially viewing returning prisoners and the reentry services or resources in their communities is a more recent development. This final report introduces the Community Supervision Mapping System (CSMS), an online tool that enables users to map the formerly incarcerated and others on probation, along with related data such as service provider locations and police districts. CSMS was developed and piloted in Rhode Island in 2008, and was intentionally designed to be a user-friendly, low-cost software package that is easy to replicate in other jurisdictions. This report documents the development process, implementation with a variety of users, and process and initial outcome evaluation of CSMS. Results from the evaluation indicate that the most popular search features on CSMS include a probationer’s name, a specific city, the general radius around a landmark (including schools, addresses, or services), an individual’s Department of Correction ID number, and probation officer caseload numbers. Probation officers use CSMS more often than reentry, law enforcement, or other users, and tend to use a wider variety of features for a more extensive range of purposes. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2011. 121p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 5, 2011 at: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412368-enhancing-supervision.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412368-enhancing-supervision.pdf Shelf Number: 122301 Keywords: MappingProbationProbationersReentry (U.S.) |
Author: Taxman, Faye S. Title: Proactive Community Supervision in Maryland: Changing Offender Outcomes Summary: With over 70,000 adult offenders under community supervision in the late 1990s, and more than 100 offenders assigned to each probation/parole agent, Maryland faced challenges similar to other states regarding the most effective strategy for supervising offenders in the community. In response to the 2000 Joint Chairmen’s Report, the Maryland Division of Parole and Probation (MDPP) developed a strategy to reengineer supervision by integrating research-based findings pertinent to protecting community safety and returning offenders to a more prosocial lifestyle. The strategy, called Proactive Community Supervision (PCS), has three goals: protect public safety; hold offenders accountable to victims and the community; and help offenders become responsible and productive (Sachwald, 2000). These goals are accomplished through the five major components of PCS: 1) identify criminogenic traits using a valid risk and need tool; 2) develop a supervision plan that addresses criminogenic traits employing effective external controls and treatment interventions; 3) hold the offender accountable for progress on the supervision plan; 4) use a place-based strategy wherein individual probation/parole office environments are engaged in implementing the strategy; and 5) develop partnerships with community organizations who will provide ancillary services to supervisees. Collectively, these five tenets are based on findings from research studies identifying crime reduction strategies over the last 30 years. Funds to implement the PCS strategy were appropriated for State Fiscal Year 2002. To allow MDPP to change the context of supervision, caseload sizes for intensive supervision by probation/parole agents were to be reduced from 100 to 55 in four areas: Mondawmin in Baltimore City, Hyattsville in Prince George’s County, Silver Spring in Montgomery County, and all of Caroline County. With PCS, probation/parole agents are armed with a research-based strategy regarding how to address the criminogenic traits that propel individuals to continue their involvement in criminal behavior. PCS offers a holistic approach for probation/parole agents to facilitate offender change while emphasizing accountability and public safety. This report presents an overview of the impact of the PCS strategy on key offender outcomes--rearrest rates, warrants for violation of probation, and adherence to offender supervision plans. To determine whether the PCS process achieves the intended goals, a team of researchers from the University of Maryland and Virginia Commonwealth University evaluated the impact of the PCS process on offender outcomes. The evaluation study used an individual match design that compares the outcomes of 548 offenders — 274 randomly selected offenders supervised in PCS areas with 274 matched offenders in areas that use the traditional supervision model. The researchers found that participation in PCS had a positive effect on offender outcomes. In particular, regardless of the criminal history of the offender or risk level, the rates of rearrest and warrants filed for technical violations were significantly lower for offenders that were supervised under the PCS strategy. The PCS model has shown to have statistically significant outcomes for offenders compared to traditional methods of supervision. Details: College Park, MD: University of Maryland; Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University, 2006. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 8, 2011 at: http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/publicinfo/publications/pdfs/PCS_Evaluation_Feb06.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/publicinfo/publications/pdfs/PCS_Evaluation_Feb06.pdf Shelf Number: 122327 Keywords: CollaborationCommunity-based CorrectionsOffender Supervision (Maryland)ParoleProbationRecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Minnesota. Department of Corrections Title: Adult Gross Misdemeanor/Misdemeanor and Juvenile Workload Study 2008 Summary: Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) community supervision agents have been basing their workload on a system and study dating back to the 1980s. Much has changed since then, including specialized caseloads; supervision standards that emphasize field contacts and case planning; utilization of various evidence-based practices; and the use of computers and cell phones. While many tasks have been added, others have been streamlined or omitted. A total of 40 agents from 10 DOC districts tracked nearly 800 adult and juvenile offenders to develop an accurate picture of each adult gross misdemeanor/misdemeanor and juvenile supervision level. There were also tasks that were tracked, including adult pre-sentence investigations; adult and juvenile new clients; juvenile pre-disposition investigations; juvenile certification studies; adult chemical assessments; adult pre-trial monitoring; and juvenile pre-disposition monitoring. Offenders were tracked for two months, and agents logged their time spent on the selected offenders. As expected, the changes that have taken place over the last few years have affected the time it takes an agent to supervise an offender. Details: St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2009. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 22, 2011 at: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/publications/documents/06-09AdultGrossMisdemeanor-MisdemeanorandJuvenileWorkloadReport2008.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/publications/documents/06-09AdultGrossMisdemeanor-MisdemeanorandJuvenileWorkloadReport2008.pdf Shelf Number: 122443 Keywords: Offenders, Community Based Corrections (Minnesota)ProbationProbation OfficersWorkload Analysis |
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: American Bar Association. Criminal Justice Section Title: Dialogue On Strategies to Save States Money, Reform Criminal Justice & Keep the Public Safe Summary: The American Bar Association has chosen to focus on five key issues where states can implement changes that will promote public safety, reduce recidivism, and save money. These five issues cover a range of criminal justice topics, but the goal is the same: to create an effective, low-cost system that improves our current justice system. Below is a brief description of each policy. PRE-TRIAL RELEASE REFORM According to the United States Department of Justice, over 500,000 men and women sit in jail awaiting trial. Two-thirds of these people are low bail risk, meaning they have been deemed by a magistrate to pose no significant risk to themselves or the community, as well as representing a low risk of flight. Often, these inmates will sit in jail for over a year before standing trial. While these non-violent offenders are in jail, taxpayers provide them with food, clothing, healthcare, and security – last year alone the United States spent $9 billion on services for those who could not afford bail. With the development of better tools, methods, and technologies to supervise non-violent offenders, states will be able to save money on pretrial detention and reduce risk to the community. Those who pose the lowest risk can be identified, released before trial, and then appropriately monitored and supported so they do not become a risk. Under these narrow circumstances, not only do taxpayers save money, but the community is not put in danger. DECRIMINALIZATION OF MINOR OFFENSES State budgets have very limited resources. Because of these limits, police and prosecutors simply cannot bring justice to all culprits. By declassifying certain minor crimes, law enforcement and attorneys can focus on more serious offenders. A large portion of low-level cases in this country go unsolved – declassification would not only direct more resources toward the investigation of serious crimes, but it would also provide states with a steady stream of income in from applicable civil fines. EFFECTIVE REENTRY PROGRAMS Recidivists account for a significant portion of the United States’ prison populations – it is estimated that over half of former inmates are re-arrested and incarcerated within three years following release from prison. A key component to combating these high numbers is to more effectively choose those inmates who are prepared for release and to create programs that provide those released with useful counseling and vocational training. Without guidance, former inmates are often left without necessary support and job training and quickly return to a life of crime. With the costs of incarceration skyrocketing, states simply cannot afford to repeatedly house the same prisoners. At a reduced cost, states can implement programs that provide former inmates with the tools necessary to become successful, productive members of the community. INCREASED USE OF PAROLE & PROBATION Unnecessary inctiaornce irsa a tremendous expense to the taxpayer, and can do more harm than good with regards to an offender’s rehabilitation. Lengthy periods of incarceration should therefore be reserved for offenders who commit the most serious offenses and pose the greatest danger to the community. In contrast, alternatives to incarceration should be provided for those offenders who pose minimal risk to the community and appear likely to benefit from rehabilitation efforts outside a correctional institution. Recognizing that few convicted persons require lengthy incarceration and many require none, the ABA’s Criminal Justice Standards on Sentencing call for sentencing schemes that allow administrative parole boards to decide when individuals incarcerated under inadequately determinate sentences should be released. The Standards also include probation options for the courts, substantial “good time” credit for individuals sentenced to total confinement, and the assertion that violations of parole and probation for non-violent offenders should not automatically result in incarceration. COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PROGRAMS Community corrections consists of any number of sanctions served by an offender within the community where that offender either (a) committed an offense, or (b) currently resides. The objectives of community corrections include punishing an offender in the least restrictive setting consistent with public safety and the gravity of the crime; providing offenders with education, training, and treatment to enable an individual to become a fully functional member of the community upon release from supervision; and making offenders accountable to the community for criminal behavior. Community corrections envisions a wide-range of locally implemented, non-incarcerative sanctions such as probation, day-reporting centers, community service, home confinement with or without electronic monitoring, drug and alcohol treatment, means-based fines, and restitution to both the victim and the community. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2011. 170p. Source: Interent Resource: Accessed November 1, 2011 at: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/criminal_justice/dialogpacket.authcheckdam.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/criminal_justice/dialogpacket.authcheckdam.pdf Shelf Number: 123205 Keywords: BailCommunity CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice Policy (U.S.)Criminal Justice ReformDecriminalizationParolePretrial ReleasePrisoner ReentryProbation |
Author: Great Britain: HMI Probation Title: Thematic Inspection Report: Putting the Pieces Together An Inspection of Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements Summary: This inspection of the of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) was agreed by the Criminal Justice Chief Inspectors Group and formed part of the Joint Inspection Business Plan 2011-2013. It was led by HM Inspectorate of Probation, supported by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary. Its purpose was to assess the effectiveness of MAPPA in reducing the potential risk of harm to others presented by identified offenders in the community through joint working and the exchange of relevant information. We visited six areas and looked at a sample of cases managed through MAPPA. We examined the referral process and the plans to manage these offenders in the community drawn up at the MAPPA meetings. We then assessed the extent to which the agencies involved with the offenders took action and coordinated activity in response to the decisions made at the meetings. We also carried out a separate audit of the Violent and Sexual Offender Register (ViSOR), the database that contains information about most MAPPA eligible offenders. Overall findings -- The introduction of MAPPA placed, on a statutory basis, what previously had been a series of ad hoc arrangements for criminal justice agencies and other organisations to manage offenders deemed to present a risk of harm to others. It meant that staff in all agencies had, over time, to learn to share information and work collaboratively in order to assess and manage offenders who posed a risk of harm to the public. The subsequent development of MAPPA improved the assessment and management of these offenders. Despite the significant challenges in dealing with such individuals, the level of cooperation amongst criminal justice and other agencies, as shown by this inspection, was impressive. We found a culture of trust and openness in the agencies involved that encouraged the thoughtful exchange of information between staff working with the offenders. We also saw much good practice in the way in which staff tried to balance the needs of communities and victims with those of the offender. Given the nature of the offenders within MAPPA, it could be argued that all the cases should have been managed to the highest possible standard. Although, our findings were broadly positive, the inspection revealed a number of key areas for improvement which, in our opinion are crucial if MAPPA are to ensure that all reasonable action is taken to manage the risk of harm presented by an offender to others in the community. Lead Agency -- The national guidance, that sets out the way in which MAPPA are to operate, requires that a lead agency should be identified for each MAPPA eligible offender. We found that, despite this clear guidance, the concept of one agency taking the lead for an offender within MAPPA, whilst acknowledged by staff, was underdeveloped and did not impact on the way in which cases were managed. In practice, each agency involved with a case tended to act in isolation from one another other and used the MAPPA meetings mainly to update partners and exchange information. A clearer focus on a specified lead agency would promote a more coordinated approach to the management of each offender. Risk Management Planning -- We found that MAPPA rarely produced a comprehensive risk management plan. In accordance with the national guidance, MAPPA should agree a risk management plan for each offender subject to multi-agency management. We found that this very rarely happened in a comprehensive way. In some cases, a list of short-term actions was identified; in others, actions were too vague or simply not identified at all. We did not see any examples of a jointly agreed MAPPA risk management plan, specifying how all the relevant agencies would work together to manage the individual’s risk of harm to others, including contingency arrangements. Furthermore, actions for agencies identified by MAPPA were not always well integrated into the records of the relevant agency. Most of the cases we saw were managed through a range of restrictive interventions, including curfews, approved premises, exclusion zones and surveillance. There was little question that these interventions were necessary, but they needed to be balanced by a focus on protective factors such as involvement in positive activities and constructive interventions designed to reduce the level of risk presented by the offender in the longer term. Offender managers and MAPPA as a whole paid little attention to what would happen to the offender at the end of supervision. Active Management -- Emphasis was too often placed on information exchange within MAPPA, rather than on the active management of an offender. MAPPA meetings to review and plan work with offenders were well attended and held at the right frequency. The chairs of the meetings worked hard to ensure that all the participants were able to make a contribution. However, in many meetings, the emphasis was more on the exchange of information between agencies rather than on the development of strategies actively to manage the risk of harm presented by the offender. As a result, the chair did not always hold agencies sufficiently to account for their actions. In order to do this, chairs of meetings not only needed to be knowledgable about process and procedures, they also needed to be assertive and have well developed skills in chairing and managing meetings. Documentation Minutes of MAPPA meetings were often not fit for purpose. Minutes recording the details of MAPPA meetings were generally poorly written and presented. In many instances, there were delays in distribution and we found numerous examples of minutes that contained out of date information, or information that was wrong. Some were lengthy and difficult to read because discussions had been transcribed verbatim. In one area, the minutes contained pages of action points, whilst in others, there were almost none. As a result, the minutes were rarely used as a working tool and staff tended to develop their own recording systems. The poor quality of the minutes meant that the agencies within MAPPA would not always be able demonstrate that they had made defensible decisions in the event of a challenge. ViSOR -- We also undertook a detailed audit of the ViSOR records held on the offenders in the inspection sample. Our findings were disappointing. We found that ViSOR was not used as a shared working tool by police and probation staff, mainly because, whilst ViSOR was reasonably accessable to police staff, access by probation staff was severly constrained. In addition, the quality of the information held on the system was not always of a high standard. Conclusion -- In order to work well, all the participants in MAPPA need to work together to develop a shared view about the nature of the risk presented by an individual offender to the public, draw up a plan to manage that risk and then ensure that the plan is implemented, reviewed and updated in response to events. In this report, we identify a number of areas where these elements of MAPPA work can be improved and we make a range of recommendations to address these findings. Details: London: Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2011. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 19, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprob/mappa-thematic-report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprob/mappa-thematic-report.pdf Shelf Number: 123404 Keywords: Agency Collaboration (U.K.)Community Based CorrectionsOffender SupervisionPartnershipsProbationRisk Management |
Author: Glaze, Lauren E. Title: Probation and Parole in the United States, 2010 Summary: Presents statistics about adult offenders under community supervision while on probation or parole during 2010. It examines changes in community supervision populations during 2010 and prior years. The report documents a slowing of growth in these populations over time and declines in recent years. The report also provides statistics on the number of offenders entering and exiting probation and parole and the turnover of these populations. It describes the outcomes of supervision, including the rate at which probationers or parolees completed the terms of their supervision or were incarcerated for violating the conditions of supervision. Appendix tables in the report include detailed information by jurisdiction, such as entries and exits by type; sex, race, and Hispanic origin of offenders; offense type; supervision status; and Global Positioning System (GPS) offender tracking, including sex offenders. Highlights include the following: The number of adult offenders under community supervision declined by 66,700 during 2010 to reach 4,887,900 offenders at yearend 2010. At yearend 2010, about 4,055,500 adults were on probation, and during 2010 more than 4.4 million adults moved onto or off probation. At yearend 2010, an estimated 840,700 adults were on parole, and about 1.1 million offenders moved onto or off parole during the year. Both parole entries (down 0.5%) and exits (down 1.8%) declined during 2010. Details: Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 21, 2012 at http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus10.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus10.pdf Shelf Number: 123711 Keywords: Adult OffendersCommunity SupervisionOffender SupervisionParoleProbation |
Author: Fabelo, Tony Title: A Ten-Step Guide to Transforming Probation Departments to Reduce Recidivism Summary: This guide draws extensively on the experience of a multi-year effort in Travis County, Texas (Austin), to implement each of the four recidivism reduction practices. The fieldwork in Travis County emerged from an on-the-ground reality: Although much had been written about evidence-based practices in parole agencies, little or no research had been conducted on how the individual elements of effective probation practices can be used together to produce positive agency-wide outcomes. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2011. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 22, 2012 at http://nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/documents/0000/1150/A_Ten-Step_Guide_to_Transforming_Probation_Departments_to_Reduce_Recidivism.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/documents/0000/1150/A_Ten-Step_Guide_to_Transforming_Probation_Departments_to_Reduce_Recidivism.pdf Shelf Number: 123732 Keywords: Offender SupervisionProbationRecidivism (Texas) |
Author: Ziedenberg, Jason Title: You're An Adult Now: Youth in Adult Criminal Justice Systems Summary: It has been estimated that nearly 250,000 youth under age 18 end up in the adult criminal justice system every year. However, little attention has been directed to how adult corrections systems are managing the youth offenders that end up in jails, prisons and under community supervision. To address this information gap, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) convened three dozen juvenile justice and adult corrections experts on June 18th, 2010, to consider some of the known issues, impacts and opportunities that face corrections systems as they work to safely and effectively rehabilitate thousands of youth offenders in the nations’ jails, prisons, probation and parole systems. This monograph presents the key findings identified during this convening of experts.” Six section comprise this publication: executive summary; what is known about the issue of juveniles in the adult corrections systems, and where there are gaps in data collection and information; what the issues, impacts and options are facing public safety systems when youth are awaiting trial on adult charges; when youth are convicted, and committed to the adult system; when youth who convicted in adult court are on probation or parole; and conclusion--corrections and the entire public safety system needs to focus on the successful strategies to curb delinquency, and positive youth development. The “Summary of Options for Federal, State, and Local Policymakers to Consider” is appended. Details: Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, 2011. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 23, 2012 at http://static.nicic.gov/Library/025555.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/025555.pdf Shelf Number: 123753 Keywords: Adult CorrectionsJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile OffendersParoleProbation |
Author: Speir, John C. Title: Analysis of Georgia's 90-Day Short-Term Program for Juvenile Offenders Summary: The Children and Youth Coordinating Council (CYCC) commissioned Applied Research Services (ARS) to conduct a preliminary investigation into the re-offending patterns of juveniles ordered to spend time in Georgia’s 90-day Short-Term Program (STP). The central question is whether youths placed in STP exhibit improved re-offense rates compared to similarly situated youths placed on probation. The research focused on two main questions: 1. Is there an observable difference between Georgia youths placed in STP compared to those placed on probation (demographics, referral type, offense type, prior history)? 2. Is there a measurable reduction in re-offending among youths placed in STP compared to similarly situated probationers at the end of a two-year follow-up period? In Georgia, juvenile case management and local probationary services are organized into independent and non-independent court systems. The independent courts, such as Fulton and Cobb Counties, depend on the Juvenile Case Activity Tracking (JCAT) System as the primary case management system. Information on youth referrals, charges, and dispositions in the independent juvenile courts was retrieved from JCAT. The remaining courts, also referred to as DJJ served courts, rely on the Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) Juvenile Tracking System (JTS). This state operated case management system contains referrals, charges, disposition, and facility admissions for all youths committed to the custody of DJJ (including the independent courts), as well as youths placed on probation in the DJJ served juvenile court systems. Information for the DJJ served court system cases was retrieved from JTS. The study examines a variety of outcome measures associated with juvenile reoffending. Unfortunately, there is no single, accepted measure of re-offending used nationwide or recommended by the Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention (OJJDP) to evaluate juvenile justice programs, such as the Short-Term Program. Each measure has inherent advantages and disadvantages which must be taken into consideration, and each is impacted by the way researchers select the study cohort and define their follow-up period. These reasons usually explain why agencies often produce disparate re-offending rates over time. Recognizing these problems, this study investigates over a dozen distinct measures of re-offending. This study also includes a comparison group in order to assess the effectiveness of STP in comparison to another DJJ program – probation. For example, if the reoffense rate for STP was 50%, one might incorrectly conclude that STP is ineffective. However, if the similarly situated youths placed on probation exhibited a 75% re-offense rate, the STP findings now take on an entirely new interpretation. While policy-makers may conclude that both re-offense rates are unacceptable and inconsistent with the agency mission, the lower, hypothetical STP rate suggests that the program is resulting in improved outcomes over probation. To provide such a benchmark, this study includes juvenile probationers as an appropriate comparison group. Details: Atlanta, GA: Applied Research Services, Inc., 2004. 11p. Source: Submitted to Pete Colbenson, Executive Director Children and Youth Coordinating Council: Internet Resource: Accessed February 19, 2012 at http://ars-corp.com/_view/PDF_Files/AnalysisofGeorgias90DayShortTermProgramforJuvenileOffenders2004.pdf Year: 2004 Country: United States URL: http://ars-corp.com/_view/PDF_Files/AnalysisofGeorgias90DayShortTermProgramforJuvenileOffenders2004.pdf Shelf Number: 124197 Keywords: Evaluative StudiesJuvenile Offenders (Georgia)ProbationRe-Offending |
Author: Kevin, Maria Title: Evaluation of the Drug and Alcohol Addiction and Relapse Prevention Programs in Community Offender Services: One Year Out Summary: Community Offender Services (COS), NSW Department of Corrective Services (NSW DCS) is responsible for the management of offenders serving community-based sentences across 60 offices in NSW. The Drug and Alcohol Addiction (DAAP) and Relapse Prevention (RPP) programs were designed to be delivered by Probation and Parole Officers (PPOs) who supervise the offenders. These new programs formed part of a Drug and Alcohol Intervention strategy that aimed to enhance the range of options that PPOs may use to assist community-based offenders under supervision in breaking the cycle of drug1 dependency and crime. COS received NSW Drug Summit funding to develop and implement these programs and to evaluate their effectiveness in terms of program outputs and participant outcomes. This report covers the first year of the program to end September 2006. Details: Sydney: Corporate Research, Evaluation & Statistics, NSW Department of Corrective Services, 2008. 24p. Source: Research Bulletin No. 24: Internet Resource: Accessed March 20, 2012 at Year: 2008 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 124619 Keywords: Drug Abuse and Crime (Australia)Drug Addiction and Abuse (Australia) - Alcohol AbuIntervention Programs (Australia)Offender SupervisionParoleProbation |
Author: Bourgon, Guy Title: From Case Management to Change Agent: The Evolution Of ‘What Works’ Community Supervision Summary: Traditionally, the role of a community supervision officer has in large-part been that of a case manager. However, knowledge in the area of ‘What Works’ in offender rehabilitation has stimulated efforts to revolutionize what it means to supervise clients in the community; that is, moving from a case-management approach to what we call a ‘change-agent’ approach. In this article, we define what cognitive-behaviourism looks like in a criminal justice context and how it can be used to maximize the impact of community supervision. Through the amalgamation of cognitive-behavioural techniques and risk/need information, we propose the use of a theoretically and empirically-based framework (i.e., the STICS Action Plan) to assist community supervision officers in planning, prioritizing and effectively achieving change with their clients. Details: Ottawa: Public Safety Canada, 2012. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Corrections Research: User Report 2012-01: Accessed April 16, 2012 at: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/_fl/2012-01-cmca-eng.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Canada URL: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/_fl/2012-01-cmca-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 124988 Keywords: Community Supervision Officers (Canada)ParoleProbation |
Author: Orbis Partners, Inc. Title: Outcome Evaluation of the Women Offender Case Management Model in Connecticut Probation Summary: This outcome report on the Women Offender Case Management Model (WOCMM) implemented in Connecticut probation represents the first formal examination of outcomes. The reporting period for this outcome report includes data collected from the introduction of WOCMM in July 2007 until November 2008. The outcome evaluation focuses on determining whether participation in the project reduces future involvement in the criminal justice system as measured by recidivism over a fixed length follow-up period. The outcome evaluation employs a comparison group to determine if participants have more positive outcomes than a group of women with similar characteristics who were not exposed to the model. Details: Ottawa: Orbis Partners, Inc., 2009. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 10, 2012 at: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/025927.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/025927.pdf Shelf Number: 125234 Keywords: Case ManagementFemale Offenders (Connecticut)ProbationRecidivism |
Author: Helyar-Cardwell, Vicki, ed. Title: Delivering Justice The Role of the Public, Private and Voluntary Sectors in Prisons and Probation Summary: The number of people in the criminal justice system has increased extraordinarily over the last two decades. The focus is often on rocketing prison numbers – quite rightly lambasted as one of the worst features of this extraordinary growth. But, so too have the numbers on community sentences increased over the last two decades; the probation service now manages some 230,000 offenders in the community. This huge increase in scope of the justice system come at a significant financial cost. For example, investment in prisons has increased by nearly 40% in real terms between 2003-04 and 2008-09, from £2.52bn to £3.98bn a year. Despite this, capacity has not been able to meet demand, and as a result the prison system is severely overcrowded. So too in the community, the challenge of high probation caseloads is well known. As well as questions about whether the size and scope of our criminal justice system, in particular the custodial estate, is necessary and appropriate, to which the answer is surely no, there is also debate about how the government intends to financially sustain the functions of the justice system whilst maintaining historic low crime rates, and what the respective roles of the private, public and voluntary sectors should be in delivering these functions. Private prisons were first introduced to the UK in the 1990s and represent part of the move from the 1980s onwards towards greater competition across a range of public services. The catalyst for prison privatisation was to address overcrowding, reduce costs and to some degree improve standards. The involvement of private companies in building, financing and operating custodial facilities has been endorsed and expanded by the former Conservative administration, New Labour and now the Coalition government. Despite being strongly against private prisons in their time in opposition in the 1990s, once elected, the Labour government, faced by a spiralling prison population, quickly announced that they would be allowing private companies to bid for the running of new prisons, and that existing private prisons would not be taken back into the public sector. A consensus had now been reached amongst the major parties in support of privately-run prisons. Despite this political consensus, there has been a consistent critique, including from academics (Teague, 2010), the penal reform lobby (Neilson, 2009) and sections of the media (Monbiot, 2009). Following this initial foray in the 1990s, the next major step towards privatization was the establishment of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) in 2004, with the intention of introducing ‘contestability’ throughout the prison and probation services. The review by Patrick Carter (2003), on which the structure of NOMS was based, argued for ‘greater use of competition from private and voluntary providers’ (p.5), and called for this to be extended to existing prisons. It was clear that Carter, and subsequently the Government, envisaged a much greater role for the private and voluntary sector in the criminal justice system, and that the introduction of NOMS was seen as a way of facilitating this. The second important development was the announcement in 2008 that a number of charities were bidding in partnership with private sector companies for prison contracts. While the voluntary sector has long worked in both public sector and privately-run prisons, delivering services to prisoners, this was seen as a significant change in the landscape. There are now charities and private companies running prisons and delivering large-scale payment-by-results contracts within prisons. Perhaps the most significant ‘step change’ has occurred over the last year or so. Although the majority of the UK prison estate is managed by the public sector, there are now currently 14 private or ‘contracted out’ prisons. Last year Birmingham was the first public sector prison transferred to private sector management, and the government is currently tendering out a further nine prisons. At the same time probation services are being radically reshaped. The majority of probation functions are being competed out, with advice to courts and the management of high risk individuals retained in public sector. Probation Trusts will inevitably merge to form fewer, larger entities and become commissioners of services at local level, although it is questionable how ‘local’ this will be. Clearly, cuts in public spending are a significant cause of the current quickening in the pace of the privatisation of the prison estate, based on the (contested) belief that privately-run prisons are cheaper than their public sector equivalents. As NOMS Business Plan 2012-2013 makes clear, the stated aim of government is to drive down prison place costs (MoJ, 2012). The Probation Service has undergone a 19% real terms budget cut since 2008-09, and this pressure on cost is set to continue. While the ongoing debate about competition is sometimes presented as peripheral to the overall future of criminal justice policy, it is in fact highly significant. The issue of who delivers criminal justice services is important, and must be informed by full and accurate analysis of the benefits of different approaches. This collection of essays is intended to be a contribution to this debate. Details: London: Criminal Justice Alliance, 2012. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 16, 2012 at: http://www.criminaljusticealliance.org/delivering_justice.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.criminaljusticealliance.org/delivering_justice.pdf Shelf Number: 125314 Keywords: Criminal Justice Systems (U.K.)PrisonsPrivate PrisonsPrivatizationProbationVolunteers in Criminal Justice |
Author: American Probation and Parole Association Title: Hardcore Drunk Driving Community Supervision Guide: A Resource Outlining Probation & Parole Challenges, Effective Strategies and Model Programs Summary: The American Probation and Parole Association and the Century Council convened a group of community supervision and corrections experts to develop the “Hardcore Drunk Driving Community Supervision Guide: A Resource for Outlining Supervision Challenges, Effective Strategies, and Model Programs.” This guide combines the latest in evidenced-based supervision practices with treatment strategies known to work with alcohol involved and DUI/DWI offenders. The advisory group assembled to develop this guide began by identifying what would educate and benefit the community corrections field. To that end, the group identified supervision challenges, and where applicable possible solutions to those challenges, promising practices working in their jurisdictions, and an array of resources for community corrections practitioners and administrators to turn to for additional information and guidance. What is meant by saying that someone is supervised in the community? It means that probation and/or parole officers using a combined approach involving surveillance, treatment, and accountability, enforce the court ordered rules and sentencing meted out to the offenders. Details: Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association; Arlington, VA: Century Council, 2012. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 30, 2012 at: http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/materials/HCDD-Community-Supervision-Guide.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/materials/HCDD-Community-Supervision-Guide.pdf Shelf Number: 125799 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsCommunity-based CorrectionsDriving Under the Influence (U.S.)Drunk DrivingParoleProbation |
Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office Title: Restructuring of the National Offender Management Service Summary: The U.K. National Offender Management Service, an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Justice, faces substantial financial and operational challenges, including a vulnerability to unexpected changes in the prison population, and will find it more difficult to meet its savings targets following decisions to drop some sentencing reforms designed to reduce the size of the prison population. The National Offender Management Service achieved value for money in 2011-12, as it hit its savings target of £230 million while restructuring its headquarters and it has broadly maintained its performance, such as in reducing reoffending. As a result of some sentencing reforms not going ahead, the Ministry of Justice lost around £130 million of savings. Given the loss of these reforms, the prison population is now unlikely to fall significantly over the next few years. This limits the Agency’s plans to close older, more expensive, prisons and bring down costs. The Agency’s savings target for 2012-13 of a further £246 million is challenging and it currently projects it will spend £32 million more than its budget. Its cumulative annual savings target increases to over £880 million by 2014-15. The Agency currently has a £66 million shortfall in the £122 million needed over the next two years to fund early staff departures aimed at bringing long-term reductions in its payroll bill. The Agency has restructured its headquarters, reducing staff numbers by around 650 from around 2,400. Despite having fewer staff at its headquarters, prison governors, probation trust chief executives and other stakeholders consulted by the NAO generally regarded the restructure positively, considering it produced a more efficient organization with greater clarity on accountability. The Agency relies on the probation profession to deliver reforms and to reduce costs, but there are some tensions in the relationship. The NAO found that the Agency has done much to ensure knowledge of probation is captured at its headquarters but has recommended the Agency continue to engage with probation trusts to address their perception it lacks understanding of probation issues. The Agency’s responsibility for offenders means that its core business is managing risk. It has strong risk management mechanisms at its headquarters and in the oversight of prisons. However, there are gaps in how the Agency consolidates the recording of risks from prisons at a regional level, meaning the Agency may be unaware of risks in different areas. Details: London: The Stationery Office, 2012. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: HC: 593, 2012-2013; Accessed September 29, 2012 at: http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1213/restructuring_noms.aspx Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1213/restructuring_noms.aspx Shelf Number: 126489 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeExpenditures in Criminal JusticeOffender Supervision (U.K.)ProbationProbationers |
Author: Cobb, Kimberly A. Title: Tribal Probation: An Overview for Tribal Court Judges Summary: More effective ways of addressing the misdemeanor offenses of tribal members is needed since incarceration does not play a great part in many tribal cultures. “This article is designed to provide tribal court judges with a general understanding of community supervision and how it can benefit tribal justice systems, as well as provide some insight into the role of community supervision officers” (p. 4). Topics discussed include: what community supervision is; benefits to the tribal justice system; benefits to communities and victims; benefits to offenders; how judges can utilize community supervision officers; the role of a tribal probation officer; and ways a tribal court judge can support community supervision of offenders. Details: Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, 2010. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 14, 2012 at http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/appa/pubs/TPOTCJ.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/appa/pubs/TPOTCJ.pdf Shelf Number: 126706 Keywords: Community SupervisionNative AmericansProbationTribal CourtsTribal Justice |
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: Porter, Nicole D. Title: The State of Sentencing 2012: Developments in Policy and Practice Summary: Today, 6.98 million men and women are under correctional supervision. A total of 4.8 million individuals are monitored in the community on probation and parole and 2.2 million are incarcerated in prisons or jail. The nation continues to maintain the highest rate of incarceration in the world at 716 people in prison per 100,000 population. The scale of incarceration varies substantially by state, resulting from a mix of crime rates and legislative and administrative policies. Lawmakers continue to face challenges in funding state correctional systems. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, several states are likely to be reducing services, including education and health care, during the 2013 legislative session due to reduced state revenues, uncertainty at the federal level and the impact of potential cuts in federal funding. In recent years, reducing prison populations with the goal of controlling correctional costs has been a salient reason for reform in states like Kansas, New York, and New Jersey. Overall, prison populations declined by 28,582 in twenty-six states during 2011, or 1.5%. State lawmakers in at least 24 states adopted 41 criminal justice policies that in 2012 may contribute to downscaling prison populations and eliminating barriers to reentry while promoting effective approaches to public safety. This report provides an overview of recent policy reforms in the areas of sentencing, probation and parole, collateral consequences, and juvenile justice. Highlights include: • Relaxed mandatory minimums – Seven states – Alabama, California, Missouri, Massachusetts, Kansas, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania – revised mandatory penalties for certain offenses including crack cocaine possession and drug offense enhancements; • Death penalty – Connecticut abolished the death penalty, becoming the 17th to eliminate death as a criminal sanction; • Sentence modifications – Two states – Louisiana and Oklahoma – authorized or expanded mechanisms to modify sentences post-conviction. These policies allow prosecutors and judges to reduce the prison sentences of individuals who meet eligibility requirements; • Parole and probation revocation reforms – Seven states – Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Missouri, and Pennsylvania -- expanded the use of earned time for eligible prisoners and limited the use of incarceration for probation and parole violations; and • Juvenile life without parole – Three states -- California, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania – authorized sentencing relief for certain individuals sentenced to juvenile life without parole. Changes in criminal justice policy were realized for various reasons, including an interest in managing prison capacity. Lawmakers have demonstrated interest in enacting reforms that recognize that the nation’s scale of incarceration has produced diminishing returns for public safety. Consequently, legislators and other stakeholders have prioritized implementing policies that provide a more balanced approach to public safety. The evolving framework is rooted in reducing returns to prison for technical violations, expanding alternatives to prison for persons convicted of low level offenses and authorizing earned release for prisoners who complete certain rehabilitation programs. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2013. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 4, 2013 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/sen_State%20of%20Sentencing%202012.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/sen_State%20of%20Sentencing%202012.pdf Shelf Number: 127475 Keywords: Correctional ReformInmatesParolePrisonersProbationSentencing (U.S.) |
Author: Drake, E.K. Title: Confinement for Technical Violations of Community Supervision: Is There an Effect on Felony Recidivism? Summary: The Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) has jurisdiction over offenders when a superior court orders community supervision. While on supervision, offenders must adhere to conditions such as reporting regularly to their Community Corrections Officer (CCO). If conditions are violated, DOC may impose sanctions ranging from reprimands to confinement. Between fiscal years 2002 and 2008, approximately 72 percent of all offenders who had a violation received confinement as a sanction. We investigate whether the use of confinement—as a sanction for a violation—has an impact on recidivism. We rely on a “natural experiment” to analyze this question. We discovered that some CCOs use confinement as a sanction more than others, and that DOC attempts to evenly distribute offenders to CCO caseloads by risk for reoffense. These two factors allow us to test whether recidivism is affected by confining offenders who violate the conditions of their community supervision. We employed numerous tests, all of which demonstrate that recidivism is not lowered for offenders who are confined for a violation of supervision. Limitations and possible extensions of this research are discussed. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2012. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2013 at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/12-07-1201.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/12-07-1201.pdf Shelf Number: 127573 Keywords: Community Based Corrections (Washington State)Community SupervisionProbationProbationersRecidivism |
Author: University of Nebraska. Public Policy Center Title: Evaluation of Nebraska’s Probation Problem Solving Courts Summary: Eight Nebraska problem solving courts were examined for this evaluation: three adult drug courts, four juvenile drug courts, and one young adult problem solving court. The key questions intended to be addressed through this evaluation included the following: 1. To what extent do problem-solving courts serve appropriate persons, specifically in relation to risk classification? 2. How do the demographic characteristics of participants compare to the general population and other offenders? 3. To what extent do policies and procedures adhere to the proposed problem solving court rules 4. How do policies and procedures compare across courts? 5. What are possible areas of improvement, particularly in court procedures, treatment and ongoing program evaluation? 6. What are the participant outcomes, and to what extent are these outcomes associated with participant characteristics and program elements? The evaluation used a variety of methods to answer these questions including a review of the literature and Nebraska problem solving court documentation, courtroom observations, focus groups and interviews, and analysis of data from the state probation information system. Quantitative information for this study was collected for the time period January 2006 through June 2007. Information about policies, practices and perceptions about problem solving court operations was collected during the summer of 2007. Therefore, this evaluation provides analysis for a particular period of time and does not reflect subsequent changes in problem solving courts. Consistent with national trends, the majority of Nebraska problem solving court participants are classified as requiring a high level of community supervision. However, there were limited data available to answer this question. There were also limited data available to make a determination about what factors affect success in problem solving courts. It is recommended that data system improvements be developed to help answer these and other key policy questions. There were mixed results regarding whether there are disparities with regard to race and ethnicity of court participants as compared to the general population of the communities they serve. The data available was limited and did not indicate disparities; however, this likely was the result of small sample size. Stakeholders identified potential selection biases that could be addressed through more equitable selection processes. A review of written court policies and procedures revealed disparities between existing documented practices of the eight courts and the proposed court rules for problem solving courts. To conform to the proposed rules, enhancements in documentation are required for most courts. Although currently problem solving courts are standardizing their policies and procedures, at the time of this study there were differences in policies and procedures across the eight problem solving courts reflecting the individual strengths and challenges faced by each. Many of the courts’ practices are known by the team members, but are not well documented in policies and procedures. It is recommended that the combined knowledge and experience of the courts be captured in writing more clearly to help future team members and participants to clearly understand each court’s target population, selection processes, instruments used in the selection process, and activities built into the phases of the problem solving court process. Similar to other evaluations of problem solving courts in Nebraska, this evaluation recommends developing documentation that clearly articulates standards for selecting participants in each problem solving court. The preliminary results of this evaluation also yielded several additional findings that can be used as a basis for enhancing Nebraska’s problem solving courts. Problem solving courts in Nebraska generally have strong, dedicated teams that are critical to the success of the courts. It is recommended that team functioning be enhanced through on-going training, team building and standardized orientation for new members. Court procedures strongly influence participant success. Recommendations include enhanced attention to practices in the courtroom such as voice amplification and regular use of trained interpreters. Documenting courtroom practices via standardized orientation material may help participants, their families, team members and communities understand judicial expectations in a courtroom. The role and expectations of treatment in the problem solving court process can be better articulated. It is recommended that expectations about the use of evidence based practices by treatment providers be articulated in writing along with clear expectations about how providers should report progress in treatment as part of the problem solving court process. Participants can be better served by developing the capacity for assessment and treatment of mental health disorders for participants with co-occurring disorders. The current state level data system has serious limitations for collecting the types of information useful for informing policy. Regular generation of reports via an integrated information system would make it possible to track and compare problem solving court activities. It is more likely that errors or omissions in court reporting data will be caught early if reports are meaningful to local courts and relied upon by statewide administrators. Standardized exit interviews of participants exiting problem solving courts are recommended as a mechanism for documenting challenges and successes in local court processes. Details: Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, Public Policy Center, 2008. 113p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 27, 2013 at: http://ppc.unl.edu/userfiles/file/Documents/projects/DrugCourtEvaluation/EvaluationofNebraska'sProbationProblemSolvingCourts.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://ppc.unl.edu/userfiles/file/Documents/projects/DrugCourtEvaluation/EvaluationofNebraska'sProbationProblemSolvingCourts.pdf Shelf Number: 127740 Keywords: Drug CourtsProbationProbationersProblem Solving Courts (Nebraska, U.S.) |
Author: Chana, Rajinder Title: The Prevent Initiative: A Review of Local and National Prevent Work. What Can Yorkshire and Humberside Probation Region Learn? Summary: Yorkshire and Humberside Probation Region has been responsible for supervising offenders convicted under the Terrorism Act (TACT) or for terrorist related offences. It is predicted that these numbers will potentially increase as will the number of offenders on the Trust’s caseload that may be at risk of radicalisation. A recent evaluation (Harris, 2010) looked at the training, consultancy, and support work developed and offered to assist Offender Managers at West Yorkshire Probation Trust (WYPT). Staff feedback from the evaluation found that they felt more confident in such work. The purpose of the current research is to assess what work is being developed and undertaken, both locally and nationally, with radicalised offenders on probation and those identified as susceptible to radicalisation. The key research questions are: 1. What work is currently undertaken nationally and locally with radicalised offenders on probation and those susceptible to radicalisation? Does this differ across areas? 2. What does the literature suggest as to what makes an individual become radicalised or susceptible to radicalisation? 3. What interventions have been or are being developed for such individuals locally and nationally? Does this differ across areas? 4. Are there any emerging trends or evidence since the initiative began of what can be applied to such individuals for what we can prescribe as an intervention? 5. Are there any issues relating to the new risk assessment tool1 that is being piloted by NOMS? The research will be used to inform the development of interventions within Yorkshire and Humberside Probation Region. Details: Wakefield, UK: West Yorkshire Probation Trust, 2010. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 4, 2013 at: www.westyorksprobation.org.uk Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 127817 Keywords: ProbationProbationersRadical GroupsTerrorismTerroristsViolent Extremism (U.K.) |
Author: Robinson, Emma Title: What Women Want? An Evaluation of the TWP/EVOLVE partnership with West Yorkshire Probation Summary: This research was commissioned to evaluate the partnership arrangements between West Yorkshire Probation Trust, WomenCentre and the Together Women Project (TWP). Within these partnerships, a percentage of WYPT’s female offenders are co-supervised by Offender Managers and Project Workers at partner premises in Calderdale (WomenCentre), Leeds and Bradford (both TWP). The aim of the evaluation was to follow-up cases referred to both TWP and WomenCentre The evaluation sample comprised 150 women who have been supervised by either of the two agencies. Interviews were also conducted with offenders, project staff, and offender managers co-located at the partner agency premises. Details: Wakefield, UK: West Yorkshire Probation Services, 2010. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2013 at: http://www.westyorksprobation.org.uk/documentlist.php?type=1&year=2010 Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.westyorksprobation.org.uk/documentlist.php?type=1&year=2010 Shelf Number: 128268 Keywords: Community-based CorrectionsFemale Offenders (U.K.)PartnershipsProbationProbationers |
Author: Brooker, Charlie Title: An Investigation into the Prevalence of Mental Health Disorder and Patterns of Health Service Access in a Probation Population Summary: This study was funded by an East Midlands Research for Patient Benefit grant. The research is divided into three stages, each of which is presented separately below. Stage 1 aimed to investigate the prevalence of mental health disorders, substance misuse, needs and patterns of service access amongst offenders under probation supervision in Lincolnshire, through one-toone clinical interviews with a stratified random sample of offenders. A sub-study was included in this stage which investigated the use of a brief screen for ‘likely caseness’ of Personality Disorder (PD) (SAPAS) with a probation population. This is reported here as ‘Stage 4’. Stage 2 investigated the extent to which probation staff were aware of, and recording, offenders’ mental health and substance misuse problems, and the nature of any action taken by the probation service to address these issues. In Stage 3, qualitative interviews were undertaken in order to investigate the experiences of probation staff when trying to facilitate access to health services for offenders, and the experiences of offenders trying to access health services. This stage of the study aimed to highlight models of good practice in service provision for offenders, and barriers to service access for this hard-to-reach group. This stage also includes recommendations on how access to services could be improved for offenders under probation supervision. The over-arching aim of the research is to pilot a methodology for assessing the prevalence of mental health disorder and substance misuse amongst offenders under probation supervision. In addition, the study aims to gather data which will be shared with a multi-agency steering group and used to inform both probation practice and health service provision for this hard-to-reach group. Details: Lincoln, UK: University of Lincoln, Criminal Justice and Health Research Group, 2011. 172p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2013 at: http://www.cepprobation.org/uploaded_files/RfPB-final-report-17-9-11.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cepprobation.org/uploaded_files/RfPB-final-report-17-9-11.pdf Shelf Number: 128431 Keywords: Drug Abuse TreatmentDrug OffendersMental Health ServicesMentally Ill OffendersProbationProbationers (U.K.) |
Author: Wood, Martin Title: Offender Management Community Cohort Study (OMCCS) Baseline Technical Report Summary: The Offender Management Community Cohort Study (OMCCS) was a longitudinal study that brought together a wide range of data to describe the cohort of offenders aged 18 and over who started Community Orders between October 2009 and December 2010. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) commissioned NatCen Social Research and Get the Data (GtD) to carry out the OMCCS. The broad aims of the study were: to assess the effectiveness of interventions in reducing offending behaviour; and to evaluate aspects of offender management. In its initial conception, the OMCCS comprised three main stages: Baseline (Wave 1) – which would describe the commencement of Community Orders and offenders’ position at an early stage in their sentence; Mid-order (Wave 2) – which would describe the implementation of Community Orders, including what was delivered and to whom, and; End of Order (Wave 3) – a final stage that would explore the outcomes for the cohort, particularly in relation to breach of the Community Orders and reoffending. Although there were changes to the design as the study progressed, this remained the basic approach. This is the first of three technical reports on the OMCCS and it focuses on the baseline stage. Research design The OMCCS used a dataset based on three data sources: A longitudinal survey of a representative sample of 2,919 offenders, drawn from ten Probation Areas. This provides information on their perceptions and experiences of Community Orders, their backgrounds, attitudes and needs, and how these change over time. The first survey (the baseline survey) was carried out around three months after the start of the offender’s Community Order, with subsequent surveys carried out seven months, on average, into the sentence and following its expected end point. Central administrative records for all those offenders starting a Community Order during the period (144,407 offenders) describing the sentence received, offences and the risks and needs of offenders as assessed by practitioners. This includes: FORM 20 data detailing Community Order commencements and terminations; Offender Assessment System (OASys) data, containing details of the needs and risks that offenders present with; and Interim Accredited Programmes System (IAPS) data on offenders’ attendance on accredited programmes. Local administrative records from the same ten Probation Areas selected for the survey (covering 48,943 offenders), which describe how offender management operates and how offenders complete or breach their sentences. The survey and administrative data sources were combined to form a ‘Universal Dataset’. Structure of the report This technical report covers the baseline data collection, comprising the first survey interview and the initial round of data collection from the central and local administrative data sources. Many of the same processes were followed for the subsequent stages of the study, and further details about these later stages will be included in future technical reports on the OMCCS. Following this introductory chapter, the structure of this report is as follows: chapter 2 discusses the sample design and selection for the survey, and the coverage of the administrative data collection; chapter 3 describes the fieldwork for the face-to-face survey of offenders; chapter 4 sets out the response to the survey and the challenges faced; chapter 5 details the administrative data collection; chapter 6 deals with the weights that were developed for the survey to deal with differences in selection probabilities and to correct for non-response bias; chapter 7 describes the approach to a ‘Universal Dataset’ that brought the different data sources together for the cohort. The report does not contain results from the study; the Assessment and Sentence Planning report, which describes the characteristics of the whole cohort of offenders on Community Orders, their sentences, assessments of their needs and their sentence plans, is available on Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2013. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 18, 2013 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/206735/omccs-baseline-technical-report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/206735/omccs-baseline-technical-report.pdf Shelf Number: 129035 Keywords: Community OrdersCommunity SentencesOffender Management (U.K.)ProbationRecidivism |
Author: Cattell, Jack Title: Results from the Offender Management Community Cohort Study (OMCCS): Assessment and sentence planning Summary: This report uses the Ministry of Justice’s Offender Management Community Cohort Study (OMCCS), a longitudinal cohort study of offenders who started Community Orders between October 2009 and December 2010. This is the first, baseline, report from the study, and explores which offenders are sentenced to Community Orders, which offenders on Community Orders have their needs assessed, and what their needs are; and sentence planning and how sentences are tailored for these offenders. Community Orders, for offenders aged 18 and over, were introduced in England and Wales in 2005 to enable judges and magistrates to tailor sentences according to the particular nature of the offence and the offender. Community Orders comprise a ‘menu’ of possible requirements, such as unpaid work or treatment for drug problems, which can be imposed by the courts individually or combined.1 Offenders serving sentences in the community are assessed to identify the risk of harm that they pose to the community. A proportion of them also go through a formal process to identify the needs they have that may lead to further offending. Identifying needs associated with an offender’s risk of reoffending2 allows resources to be directed towards those needs, optimising the reduction of harm. This assessment is the first step in the National Offender Management Model (NOMM). The role and effectiveness of Community Orders have come under renewed scrutiny recently. The Ministry of Justice consultation ‘Punishment and Reform: effective community sentences’ (MoJ, 2012) proposed that there was a lack of public confidence in Community Orders that might be addressed by increasing their punitive content. This has led to changes to ensure that every Community Order contains a punitive requirement unless there are exceptional circumstances. A subsequent consultation, ‘Transforming Rehabilitation: A revolution in the way we manage offenders’ (MoJ, 2013), set out proposals for reforming 1 At the time the OMCCS was carried out there were 12 requirements. This has now been increased to 14 requirements under The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. 2 Known as ‘criminogenic’ needs; these are needs which are known to influence offending behaviour for an individual. the provision of services in the community to reduce reoffending and deliver improved value for money. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2013. 109p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series: Accessed June 21, 2013 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/206734/results-omccs.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/206734/results-omccs.pdf Shelf Number: 129036 Keywords: Community OrdersCommunity SentencesOffender Management (U.K.)ProbationRecidivismSentencing |
Author: Durnescu, Ioan Title: Resettlement Research and Practices. An International Perspective. Summary: This report provides a comprehensive account of resettlement practices and research around the world. The main focus is around the questions: what are the initiatives that have been found effective by research and how are they implemented into real life settings. An adapted version of the framework provided by Taxman (2004) is instrumental in structuring the presentation. Therefore, research findings and practices are divided into three different stages: institutional stage, pre-release stage and the post-custody stage. A summary of the existing theoretical models available is also provided. In this part, Risk-Needs-Responsivity model and the Desistance paradigm receive a more extended account since they are the dominant ones and are already considered effective by the empirical studies. A few messages are important to retrieve from this section. First, it is essential that prisoners are treated fair and just and the quality of the professional relationship is carefully observed. Second, programs based on cognitive restructuring, motivating offenders and developing human and social capital seem to be the most effective in triggering and supporting change. As for the institutional stage a number of ideas stood up as important learning points: programs should start as soon as possible after the sentence and are organized from the release perspective, programs should be designed and delivered by motivated and professional staff that strongly believe in change, programs such as vocational training, education, drug rehabilitation and therapeutic - community are acknowledged in systematic reviews as effective in preventing reoffending. At the pre-release stage concepts such as continuity, coherence and consistency are important for describing effective programs. Two programs – FOR...A Change and Reducing the Risk of Reoffending – seem to incorporate these concepts and produced promising results. Programs dealing with transition from inside to the outside world and also with employment produced also useful conclusions. In the post-release stage it is important to continue the programs started inside the prison and overcome the reintegration barriers while supporting hope and motivation within released people. Issues like employment, stigma, financial aid, community and family are discussed in some depth. Some of the conclusions refer to the fact that research already produced some important hard data that can be used in real life settings. More has to be done to promote prison and probation organisations to become true learning organisation. Research on penology issues should employ more sensitive and credible methodologies such as quasi-experimental or experimental designs. In the same time qualitative insights should be pursued in order to understand better what, with whom and in what context change is possible. In the final part of the report the author suggests an European project structured in three directions: develop a trans-theoretical model for resettlement, pilot the model and evaluate it. Details: Utrecht, The Netherlands: European Organisation for Probation, 2011. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 17, 2013 at: http://www.cepprobation.org/uploaded_files/Durnescu-CEP-Resettlement-research-and-practice-final.pdf Year: 2011 Country: International URL: http://www.cepprobation.org/uploaded_files/Durnescu-CEP-Resettlement-research-and-practice-final.pdf Shelf Number: 129431 Keywords: Correctional Treatment ProgramsOffenders Treatment ProgramsPrisoner RehabilitationProbationProbationersReentryResettlement |
Author: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Title: Youth to Adult Transitions Framework: Advice for managing cases which transfer from Youth Offending Teams to Probation Trusts Summary: The point of transfer from youth to adult justice services is a critical time for a young person and for the justice professionals who must work to ensure that a young person’s welfare is properly safeguarded and that any risks they pose to the public are minimised. Improving the transition from youth to adult services will produce better outcomes for young people as they are supported through the process during a fragile time in their lives. Making improvements in the way that information is shared between Youth Offending Teams (YOTs), under-18 YOIs and probation trusts and young adult YOIs will lead to more informed assessments, continuity in interventions and advances in addressing the needs of young people. There is evidence to suggest that improved practice in this area may also have an impact on reoffending rates. This framework has been developed by the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB) in conjunction with the National Offender Management Service (NOMS). It provides advice to YOTs and local probation trusts that manage the transition of young people from youth to adult justice services in the community. It contains information about the essential elements of the transition process and seeks to empower local agencies in finding creative solutions and developing systems to aide transition. In addition, it promotes current good practice and encourages YOTs and probation trusts to consider this when agreeing an appropriate local approach. National Standards for Youth Justice Services require YOTs to have a local transition protocol in place. This should be developed in a way that builds on the content of this framework and takes into account local arrangements. Details: London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, 2012 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 7, 2013 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/youth-justice/youth-to-adult-transitions/youth-to-adult-transitions-framework Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/youth-justice/youth-to-adult-transitions/youth-to-adult-transitions-framework Shelf Number: 129572 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile ProbationProbationYoung Adult OffendersYouth to Adult Transitions |
Author: Mulheirn, Ian Title: Paying for Results? Rethinking probation reform Summary: In May this year the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) produced the blueprint for its planned reforms of probation. This briefing note examines the detailed proposals for the payment by results element of the scheme. Payment by results, by which non state providers are supposed to be rewarded according to how much progress they make in cutting re-offending, is an essential part of the Ministry of Justice’s plan to improve the effectiveness of rehabilitation services as they face deep budget cuts. We use a financial simulation to examine the MoJ’s proposals as they look to an investor considering the chances that they will make a return on their investment in rehabilitation services. This demonstrates the problems posed by statistical uncertainty around measured levels of reoffending. Our results, using generous assumptions, show that: • Under the MoJ’s proposed payment structure, providers risk making losses if they spend money on rehabilitative services. • Providers can only be confident of being rewarded for their efforts if they achieve reductions in reoffending that are larger than the available evidence suggests is achievable, even with greater resources than are likely to be on offer under the new scheme. • The payment mechanism encourages providers to cut spending on services and allow reoffending to drift marginally upwards. • The proposed regime therefore creates strong perverse incentives: the opposite of how a PbR scheme should operate. • As they stand, the plans would offer poor value for money for taxpayers and should be radically revised before the scheme is rolled-out. We propose a number of solutions that would resolve the problems identified, improve incentives on providers, and offer much better value for money to the taxpayer. • The reward scheme should be simplified to pay (or penalise) on a per-person basis for any observed reduction (or increase) in re-offending below the baseline level of reoffending. This would ensure that providers have unambiguous incentives to invest in services that cut reoffending. Details: London: Social Market Foundation, 2013. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 12, 2013 at: http://www.smf.co.uk/files/7413/7603/8981/20130808_PBR_paper_FINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.smf.co.uk/files/7413/7603/8981/20130808_PBR_paper_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 129621 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisCosts of Criminal Justice (U.K.)Criminal Justice ReformProbation |
Author: American Probation and Parole Association Title: Effective Responses to Offender Behavior: Lessons Learned for Probation and Parole Supervision Summary: Using effective strategies to keep probationers and parolees crime- and drug-free and curb their revocation rates is among the most important issues facing our community corrections supervision system. From the early 1980s through 2005, there was a sharp decline in the percentage of adult probationers (from 79% to 59%) and parolees (from 60% to 45%) who successfully completed supervision (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1984; Glaze & Bonczar, 2006). While there has been a period of stabilization in more recent years, probation and parole agencies continue to seek alternatives to "business as usual" in community supervision. This is mainly due to the fact that high revocation rates have had a detrimental impact on the criminal justice system, including extensive prison growth (see Pew Center on the States, 2008) and significant increases in costs for both corrections and the judiciary (see Kyckelhahn, 2012). The community corrections field has a responsibility to implement a more effective supervision process that enhances compliance and accountability among probationers and parolees, thereby improving public safety in a cost-effective way. Given these challenges, community corrections agencies are increasingly taking a more comprehensive approach in responding to certain violations and reinforcing compliance among probationers and parolees. Decades of learning in the field and a growing research base has led to a consensus among many corrections professionals about what needs to be done to achieve better results and increase public safety. These strategies include, but are not limited to, assessing criminal risk and need factors, focusing resources on higher risk offenders, tailoring conditions of supervision to the risk and needs most likely to result in new criminal behavior, and balancing surveillance requirements and treatment needs (Solomon, 2007). Based on solid research, two key strategies that many agencies have begun to implement are the use of swift, certain, and proportionate sanctions to respond to violations, and the use of incentives to promote and reinforce compliance among probationers and parolees. These responses can be imposed by the courts, or they may be executed administratively, meaning that the authority to issue sanctions and reward compliance is given to the supervision agency, without returning to the court or releasing authority (e.g., parole board). This administrative response authority can be established by statute or can be delegated by the court. An administrative response strategy can strengthen community supervision services by providing agencies greater autonomy in responding to behaviors in more effective and cost-efficient ways, and thereby avoiding a reliance on the courts or releasing authorities to handle all violations, particularly those that include minor behavioral infractions. In December 2012, The Pew Charitable Trusts' Public Safety Performance Project (Pew), the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA), and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) jointly sponsored a convening of representatives from 14 states to address the use of effective administrative responses in probation and parole supervision. The conference was designed to assist the states by highlighting effective procedures and common performance measures in responses that involve both sanctions and incentives. In addition, it provided an excellent opportunity for individuals to interact with representatives from the legislative, executive and judicial branches in their respective states around this timely public safety issue, and to share their experiences and observations with other policymakers, practitioners and national experts. Several documents were developed for the summit, including legal and research memos, and individual profiles of the states that summarized their policies and practices around effective administrative responses (see Appendix A). This report highlights key lessons learned around planning and implementation of sanctions and incentives, with particular attention to ways in which states and local jurisdictions can improve effective responses in probation and parole supervision. This report first provides an overview of the research and rationale supporting swift and certain sanctions and responses shown to be effective in community supervision. Second, the report provides key lessons learned based on the feedback received by attendees at the conference. Last, the report summarizes practical implications about the use of the effective administrative response approach in community supervision, including directions for future research. Details: Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association, 2013. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed November 23, 2013 at: http://www.appa-net.org/eWeb/docs/APPA/pubs/EROBLLPPS-Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.appa-net.org/eWeb/docs/APPA/pubs/EROBLLPPS-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 131671 Keywords: Community Based Corrections (U.S.)Offender SupervisionParoleProbation |
Author: Cattell, Jack Title: Implementation of Community Orders: Results from the Offender Manager Community Cohort Study Summary: This report uses the Ministry of Justice's (MoJ) Offender Management Community Cohort Study (OMCCS), a longitudinal cohort study of adult offenders who started Community Orders between October 2009 and December 2010. The report describes how Community Orders were implemented by exploring the way sentences were delivered and how this varied for different types of offender. The report also looks at offenders' compliance with their sentence. The findings from this report will be useful in the development of policy and practice of Community Orders and supervision in the community. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2014. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series: Accessed May 8, 2014 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/295658/implementation-of-community-orders.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/295658/implementation-of-community-orders.pdf Shelf Number: 132306 Keywords: Community OrdersCommunity SentencesOffender Management (U.K.)ProbationRecidivismSentencing |
Author: Cox, Stephen M. Title: Evaluation of the Court Support Services Division's Probation Transition Program and Technical Violation Unit Summary: In response to Public Act 04- 234, An Act Concerning Prison Overcrowding, the Court Support Services Division within the Judicial Branch designed and implemented two pilot probation programs that sought to decrease probation violations and subsequent incarceration. These programs are the Probation Transition Program (PTP) and the Technical Violation Unit (TVU). Description of the Probation Transition Program and Technical Violation Unit The PTP targets inmates who have terms of probation upon their discharge from the Department of Correction (e.g., those discharged at the end of sentence from a correctional facility, halfway house, parole, transitional supervision or a furlough). The goal of this program is to increase the likelihood of a successful probation period for split sentence probationers by reducing the number and intensity of technical violations during the initial period of probation. The TVU also focuses on probationers about to be violated for technical reasons (e.g., deliberate or repeated non-compliance with court ordered conditions, reporting requirements, and service treatment requirements). However, it addresses all probationers regardless of whether they have been incarcerated or not. The goal of the TVU is to reduce the number of probationers sentenced to incarceration as a result of technical violations of probation. Prior Research on Probation Best Practices These programs were created around best practices of probation. Prior probation research brings forward several important issues that were considered during the development of the PTP and the TVU. These are: (1) probation violation rates have been found to be as low as 12% and as high as 62%; (2) while probation violations have led to increased prison populations, little is known as to the extent that these increases are the result of new offenses or technical violations (although the majority of probation violators sent to prison are for technical violations); (3) substance abuse issues among probationers are highly related to probation violations; (4) probation supervision techniques that are less controlling and enforcement oriented are more effective; (5) better communication between probation officers and other court personnel result in lower incarceration rates of probation violators; (6) role clarity and comprehensive training of probation officers on rehabilitation principles increases probation officers' receptiveness to less strict control and enforcement oriented supervision. Evaluation Description and Findings To measure the effectiveness of the PTP and the TVU programs in reducing probation violations and reincarceration, the Court Support Services Division contracted with faculty from the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Central Connecticut State University (CCSU) to conduct a process and outcome evaluation of these programs. The evaluation used both qualitative and quantitative research methods in assessing the implementation of the two probation programs and its effects on program participants. This report presents the findings from this evaluation. Details: New Britain, CT: Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Central Connecticut State University, 2005. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 16, 2014 at: http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/news/ProbPilot.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/news/ProbPilot.pdf Shelf Number: 132689 Keywords: ProbationProbation SupervisionProbation ViolationsProbationersRecidivismRevocation |
Author: Weisberg, Robert Title: Assessing Judicial Sentencing Preferences After Public Safety Realignment: A Survey of California Judges Summary: Public Safety Realignment ("AB 109") made drastic changes to California's criminal justice system by transferring authority for the supervision of most non-violent, nonserious, and non-sexual offenders from the state to the 58 counties. This study aims to better examine the perceived effect of AB 109 on Superior Court (trial) judges in California who sentence offenders. Through the use of a modified factorial survey, we queried judges on their sentencing choices between felony probation and new California Penal Code 1170(h) county jail sentences. We received responses from 112 judges throughout California, representing 35 counties or 96% of the state population, including the 10 most populous counties in California. The responses revealed judicial preferences that emphasize a desire to deploy sentencing to manage offenders. The preferences generally aim at a combination of a "taste of jail" and rigorous community supervision, whether that is a traditional felony probation sentence or an 1170(h) split sentence. Our study found that more than half of judges surveyed preferred to give an 1170(h) sentence over a felony probation sentence, except when the judge was aware of an offender's substance abuse problem or mental illness, or when the judge was trying to lengthen the period of incarceration or mandatory supervision. In addition, when judges chose an 1170(h) sentence, they selected a split sentence over a straight jail sentence almost half the time. However, among judges who chose split sentences, there was a tremendous variation in the chosen fraction as between jail time and supervision. Drawing from our findings, we strongly recommend that the California Legislature and/or the California judiciary clarify the relationship between traditional felony probation and an 1170(h) split sentence, and develop guidance and consensus on when and how to use split sentences. In addition, counties should enhance and increase the availability of effective community-based treatment resources, because improved treatment programs will likely increase judges' confidence in embracing these sentencing options. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, Stanford Criminal Justice Center, 2014. 142p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 25, 2014 at: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/443996/doc/slspublic/Judges%20Report%20Feb%2028%202014%20Final.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/443996/doc/slspublic/Judges%20Report%20Feb%2028%202014%20Final.pdf Shelf Number: 132779 Keywords: CorrectionsCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformJudgesPrison OvercrowdingProbationPublic Safety Realignment (California)Sentencing |
Author: Boehm, Steve Title: Exploring the Process of Desistance in Two High-Risk Probation Populations Summary: Problem-solving courts were developed in the 1980s and 1990s to reduce recidivism and probation revocations. The first problem-solving courts focused primarily on treating drug abuse, but the missions have expanded to include issues such as domestic violence and the problems faced by returning war veterans. Research has found these courts to be generally effective, but there is wide variation in their outcomes, and there are questions about the process offenders undergo as their identity shifts from offender to non-offender. This dissertation presents qualitative and quantitative analysis of interview data for a group of problem-solving court probationers (n = 19) and a similar group of regular probationers (n = 19) that explores the differences and similarities in how these groups describe the probation experience. In general, the groups' descriptions are more similar than they are different, but those small differences suggest that the problem-solving court may be a qualitatively better experience for probationers than regular probation. Details: San Marcos: Texas State University, 2013. 170p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed October 15, 2014 at" https://digital.library.txstate.edu/handle/10877/4852 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://digital.library.txstate.edu/handle/10877/4852 Shelf Number: 133909 Keywords: DesistanceProbationProbationersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Office of Research Title: Female Realignment Report: An Examination of Female Offenders Released from State Prison in the First Year of Public Safety Realignment Summary: California's Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011 transferred jurisdiction and funding for managing lower-level criminal offenders from the State to the counties. Under Realignment, for example, certain lower level felons now serve their felony sentences in jail rather than prison. Realignment also changed California's system of community corrections. Prior to Realignment, State parole agents supervised every female inmate released from prison, and parole violators could be revoked to State prison for up to one year. Since October 1, 2011, probation departments have administered a system of post-release community supervision (PRCS) to complement State parole. State parole agents continue to supervise high-risk sex offenders, lifers, and any other female offenders who are released from prison after having been incarcerated for a current/prior serious or violent crime. All other female inmates released from prison are placed on PRCS. No offenders received an early release from prison under Realignment. If offenders violate the terms of PRCS or State parole supervision, a range of sanctions may be used by counties, including a revocation term in jail. Only certain offenders are eligible for revocation to State prison. Prior Realignment research conducted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) evaluated all offenders. This report examines arrest, convictions, and returns to prison for female offenders pre- and post-Realignment. Female offenders have "distinct rehabilitative and health care needs, and are more likely to have suffered trauma and abuse prior to incarceration" (California Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2012). As such, CDCR is committed to providing gender-responsive programs and services to meet those needs and, ultimately, increase successful return to society for our female population. CDCR now has one year of releases and one full year of follow-up data to evaluate how female offenders released from prison during the first year after implementation have fared. Note that a more complete examination of Realignment's impact on female offenders would require a three-year follow-up period. Methodology For this study, we identified two cohorts of female offenders: 1) the Pre-Realignment cohort of female offenders released between October 1, 2010 and September 30, 2011; and, 2) the Post-Realignment cohort of female offenders released between October 1, 2011 and September 30, 2012. One-year post-release recidivism rates were tracked for both cohorts to see if they were re-arrested, convicted of a new crime, or returned to State prison. Sound methodology and procedures were followed for this study; however, the study focuses on only one year of releases, representing an early stage of post-Realignment activity and implementation. Therefore, caution should be used when interpreting the findings. Details: Sacramento: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2014. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 10, 2014 at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/adult_research_branch/Research_Documents/Female%20One%20Yr%20Pre-Post-Realignment%20Recidivism%20Report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/adult_research_branch/Research_Documents/Female%20One%20Yr%20Pre-Post-Realignment%20Recidivism%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 134014 Keywords: California Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011Community SupervisionFemale OffendersGender Specific ResponsesProbationRecidivismRevocation |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in Nebraska: Analysis and Policy Framework Summary: This report summarizes comprehensive analyses of sentencing, corrections, probation, and parole data presented to Nebraska's Justice Reinvestment Working Group. It outlines strategies and policy options to avert prison population growth and reduce recidivism in the state by holding people convicted of the lowest-level felonies accountable with probation and treatment, reducing the number of people leaving prison unsupervised, and strengthening parole supervision. The report also offers strategies for supporting victims of crime through improved restitution collection. If implemented, the report's suggested policies would reinvest $32.8 million in recidivism reduction strategies and avert $306.4 million in prison costs Details: New York: Council of State Government, Justice Center, 2015. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 28, 2015 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/JusticeReinvestmentinNebraska.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 134445 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsJustice Reinvestment (Nebraska)ParoleProbationRecidivismSentencing |
Author: Irish Prison Service Title: Community Return: A Unique Opportunity. A descriptive evaluation of the first twenty six months (2011 - 2013) Summary: In October 2011, the Probation Service, in partnership with the Irish Prison Service, commenced a pilot Community Return Programme. The Community Return Programme is an incentivised early release scheme introduced in line with the recommendations of the Thornton Hall Project Review Group. All participants have demonstrated their willingness and ability to co-operate with the prison regime and to engage with the therapeutic services available. Community Return is a novel and unique initiative combining unpaid work for the benefit of the community with early release and resettlement support. In its development, no equivalent or similar initiative could be identified anywhere in the world and none had been reported in academic reviews or criminal justice literature. In the Community Return Programme, qualifying prisoners may be released early from their custodial sentences, with a period of unpaid community work as a condition of their incentivised, structured and reviewable temporary release. The Community Return Programme pilot, between October 2011 and April 2012, proved to be very successful in assessed compliance with the conditions of the release and behaviour, and in terms of the very low level of reconviction of participants. The success of the pilot led to the programme being mainstreamed. The aim of this research study is to assess the operation, impact, and effectiveness of the Community Return programme through a piece of descriptive and evaluative research. The study cohort comprised all 761 Community Return Programme participants between October 2011 and December 31st 2013. A mixed methods approach was used in the study, as well as analysis of anonymised pre-existing data on participants held by the Irish Prison Service. Questionnaires were completed by relevant Irish Prison Service and Probation Service personnel. The Community Return Programme participants were predominantly male, with females comprising approximately 6% of the population on the programme. 77% of the population were aged between 21 and 40, with the greatest concentration in both genders (43%) in the ten year age group between 21 and 30 years. - 62% of Community Return Programme participants were from Leinster. 43% of all participants were from Dublin. Of the total population who commenced the Community Return Programme, approximately 53% were located in three major urban areas (Dublin, Cork and Limerick). - Of the 761 offenders who commenced the Community Return Programme, (90%) were serving custodial sentences of less than six years. 45% were serving sentences of between two and four years imprisonment. The average sentence length was 3.2 years - 40% of Community Return Programme participants had been convicted on drug offences. 16% had been convicted in respect of offences including assaults and related offending. 9% were convicted of offences including robbery and related offences. - 38% of participants were released from open prisons, Shelton Abbey and Loughan House, while Mountjoy Prison was the closed prison with the highest release rate at 11%. The high percentage of prisoners released onto the Community Return programme from open prisons reflects the Irish Prison Service Incentivised Regime policy in practice and the pre-release role of open prisons. - Of the 761 participants who had commenced the Community Return Programme between October 2011 and December 31st 2013, 548 had completed it and 108 were still in progress. 88, approximately 11%, breached conditions of the Community Return Programme and were returned to custody. Almost 89% had either successfully completed their Community Return Programme or were still working on the Programme. Of those participants (n =233) released during the first year of the programme, 91% had not been committed to prison on a new custodial sentence in the period up to the end of 2013. - 9,580 weeks of Community Return Programme work, comprising 201,056 hours unpaid work, was completed by participants. Based on the national minimum wage in 2014 for an adult worker of L8.65 per hour, this represents L1,739,135 worth of unpaid work completed for the community by Community Return participants. - The most common types of work undertaken by Community Return Programme participants were landscaping/gardening, painting/decorating and renovation, with participants preferring work which allowed them to see 'a job through from beginning to end rather than constant switching between jobs'. Supervisors reported that Community Return Programme participants performed positively in their work and displayed a positive attitude towards the work. - Over 80% of community based Probation Officers attributed Community Return Programme participant compliance primarily to a desire to avoid returning to prison. In some cases this was complemented by secondary motivational factors such as participant enjoyment of the work experience, appreciation of their early release or, a sense of commitment to the Community Return contract. - Access to social protection entitlements ('social welfare') was the single biggest difficulty faced by Community Return participants involved in this study following their release, affecting one third of participants. According to participant feedback, difficulties appear to have stemmed from an apparent lack of a shared understanding regarding access to income maintenance payments by Community Return participants. - The Community Return Programme participants identified particular benefits in the Programme, including the structure and routine which aided re-integration, the work ethic and self-esteem developed, their positive profile in working in the community and the learning of work skills transferable to employment. Challenges included coping with the strictness and frequency of the signing-on conditions, difficulties accessing entitlements and payments, and time and costs in travelling to worksites. - The Community Return Programme helped participants stay out of trouble according to some of them, by keeping them occupied, providing positive supports and a starting point to build on, particularly in the early stages after release, when, according to research here and abroad, newly released prisoners are particularly vulnerable to relapse to anti-social behaviour, companions and offending. The Community Return Programme has potential for further expansion and detailed recommendations are outlined in Chapter 7. Details: Longford, IE: Irish Prisons Service; Dublin: Irish Probation Service, 2014. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Probation Service Research Report 5: Accessed February 12, 2015 at: http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Community_Return_Study_Report_v3_9.pdf/Files/Community_Return_Study_Report_v3_9.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Ireland URL: http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Community_Return_Study_Report_v3_9.pdf/Files/Community_Return_Study_Report_v3_9.pdf Shelf Number: 134613 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (Ireland)Community ServiceEarly ReleaseProbationProbationsWork Programs |
Author: Council of State Governments. Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in North Carolina: Three Years Later Summary: Three years after North Carolina enacted justice reinvestment legislation, this report reviews the policies the state enacted and their impact on North Carolina's correctional and criminal justice system. Through transforming the state's probation system, reinventing how treatment is delivered, and expanding supervision, the state has seen declines in its prison population, the number of probation revocations, and releases from prison without supervision. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2014. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 20, 2015 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/JRinNCThreeYearsLater.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/JRinNCThreeYearsLater.pdf Shelf Number: 134994 Keywords: CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeJustice Reinvestment (North Carolina)Probation |
Author: Schaefer, Lacey Title: Environmental Corrections: Making Offender Supervision Work Summary: With nearly five million offenders under community correctional supervision, the time has come to seriously question the efficacy of probation and parole. In terms of resource expenditures, public safety, recidivism reduction, and offender outcomes, there is ample room for improvement. Unfortunately, most current offender supervision practices are of limited value. The balance of treatment and control espoused by most community corrections agencies is ineffective, often resulting in nothing more than bureaucratic case management. Moreover, both of these models of probation and parole as practiced are largely defunct. In the first instance, efforts to reduce offender propensity often fail to adopt the principles of effective correctional intervention. In the second, efforts to deter offenders from misbehaving have produced little more than an increase in technical violations of supervision conditions. Accordingly, a new framework for probation and parole supervision is sorely needed. Determining how to reduce recidivism among community-supervised offenders leads us to consider why criminal acts occur. The answer is that two conditions must be present: An individual must have the propensity to offend and must also have the opportunity to offend. A considerable amount of research has been dedicated to discovering the criminogenic needs that must be targeted for change in order to reduce criminal propensity. By contrast, relatively little is known about what offender supervisors might do to reduce the crime opportunities of probationers and parolees. Notably, Cullen, Eck, and Lowenkamp (2002) propose that environmental criminology can help guide the development of innovative strategies that limit supervisees' chances to offend. They reconceptualize probation and parole supervision as "environmental corrections," a model in which officers would work to enhance the informal social control offenders are subject to, reduce offenders' access to crime opportunities, and restructure offenders' routine activities with prosocial influences. The aim of this dissertation is to elaborate on these ideas, developing a new strategy for offender supervision that is based on opportunity reduction. In so doing, the following roadmap is taken. Chapter 1 outlines the drawbacks of current probation and parole practices, demonstrating the limited effectiveness of existing treatment and control orientations to offender supervision. Chapter 2 introduces the components of environmental criminology, discussing how the advances of crime science have produced practical programs that reduce crime opportunities. Chapter 3 applies these theories to offender supervision, discussing strategies for preventing probationers and parolees from encountering situations where there are high-risk chances to commit crime. Chapter 4 presents assessment technologies for community corrections officers to use in discerning where, when, why, and with whom offenders commit crimes, developing methods for using this information to reduce the actual crime opportunities of supervisees. Chapter 5 demonstrates how cognitive-behavioral techniques can be used to help probationers and parolees recognize, avoid, and resist available chances to offend. Chapter 6 identifies how community corrections authorities can partner with the police to further limit supervisees' crime opportunities. In closing, Chapter 7 features eight lessons learned from the current elaboration of environmental corrections supervision that can help to make probation and parole work Details: Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati, 2013. 293p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed May 6, 2015 at: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap/10?0::NO:10:P10_ACCESSION_NUM:ucin1377875062 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap/10?0::NO:10:P10_ACCESSION_NUM:ucin1377875062 Shelf Number: 135528 Keywords: Community CorrectionsOffender SupervisionParoleParolees (U.S.)ProbationProbationers (U.S.)Recidivism |
Author: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Title: Profiles in Probation Revocation: Examining the Legal Framework in 21 States Summary: This report compiles - in a convenient format - the results of a yearlong research project on the laws relating to probation revocation in 21 American states. By leafing through the four-page "legal profiles" presented in this volume, readers can easily see how much variation exists in statewide laws of probation and probation revocation, while zeroing in on issues of greatest interest. Whether a reader's jurisdiction is included in the report's 21 states or not, the legal profiles contain a wealth of information that will allow for comparison with one's own system. We think every reader - no matter how experienced in the field - will come across practices or ideas in this study that they never heard of before. The report assumes that American states have much to learn from one another. Justice Louis Brandeis famously believed that the states can serve as "laboratories" for innovations in law and policy, so that best practices can emerge and be brought to the attention of other states for possible adoption or adaptation. In order for Brandeis's laboratory to be a reality, however, the states must have some way of learning about the practices of other jurisdictions. In an increasingly complex and specialized world, this is a daunting task - and one that often requires a heavy investment in research. The Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice has made such an investment in this report. We hope it will allow readers to see their home jurisdictions in new perspective, and will further the nationwide process of dialogue and improvement that Justice Brandeis envisioned. Details: Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota Law School, 2014. 104p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 16, 2015 at: http://www.robinainstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/Robina-Report-2015-WEB.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.robinainstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/Robina-Report-2015-WEB.pdf Shelf Number: 135677 Keywords: Community SupervisionProbationProbation RevocationProbation SupervisionProbationers |
Author: Council of State Governments, Justice Center Title: Juvenile Reinvestment in Alabama: Analysis and Policy Framework Summary: This report summarizes comprehensive analyses of sentencing, corrections, probation, and parole data presented to Alabama's Prison Reform Task Force. It outlines strategies and policy options to reduce the prison population and recidivism in the state by strengthening community-based supervision and treatment, prioritizing prison space for violent and dangerous offenders, and providing supervision to every person released from prison. The report also offers strategies for supporting victims of crime through improved victim notification. If implemented, the report's suggested policies would reinvest $26 million in recidivism reduction strategies in FY2016 and avert $407 million in prison construction and operations costs by FY2021 Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2015. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 30, 2015 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/JRinAlabamaPoliciesandFramework.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/JRinAlabamaPoliciesandFramework.pdf Shelf Number: 135832 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity Based CorrectionsCommunity SupervisionCorrectional InstitutionsJustice ReinvestmentParolePrisonsProbation |
Author: Burke, Cynthia Title: Smart Probation: A Study of the San Diego County Probation Department's Application of Evidence-Based Practices Summary: The passage of Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109), also known as Public Safety Realignment California, shifted the supervision, housing, and rehabilitation of certain offenders (whose most recent conviction was for a nonviolent and non-serious offense) from state prison and parole to local jurisdictions. In response to this monumental change in the criminal justice system, San Diego County created a realignment plan that was structured around Evidence-Based Practices (EBP). In support of this commitment to EBP, the San Diego County Probation Department applied for, and was awarded, a Smart Probation grant from the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance in September 2012 to support continued implementation of evidence-based supervision to ensure fidelity to its EBP-based model. The grant funded a supervisor-level EBP peer coach and mentor to work with supervisors and line staff in the Post Release Offender (PRO) division. The following are the four primary project goals implemented through the Smart grant: 1. Support EBP leadership capacity in the PRO Division management team. 2. Implement a supervision model. 3. Provide access to appropriate intervention services. 4. Collaborate with justice partners to improve the criminal justice system. To assist Probation in measuring its adoption of EBP in the PRO Division, the Criminal Justice Research Division of SANDAG was contracted to evaluate how effectively and to what extent Probation implemented the four project goals. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS - Supervising Probation Officers (SPOs) and Deputy Probation Officers (DPOs) in Probation's PRO Division who participated in focus groups viewed Probation's EBP as the standard operating procedure, but noted that IBIS and EBP training have made it more formalized. - EBP was viewed by SPOs and DPOs as effective for supervising most offenders. Offenders with severe mental health issues or criminogenic traits were the exception. - A review of the COMPAS assessments revealed that almost nine in ten offenders had been assessed. On average, there were fewer than three discrepancies per case and even fewer discrepancies in more recent assessments. - An assessment of how well offender case plans were done indicated that information regarding the offender's greatest needs was included and offenders were generally included in the goal-setting process. - Incentives and sanctions most often included verbal accolades, revocation, and verbal warnings. Sixty percent of PRCS offenders received a flash incarceration, a one to ten day custody sanction for a probation violation. - Average ratings of DPO's use of IBIS during interactions with offenders suggest that POs are implementing these skills with proficiency. - Based on survey results, offenders reported positive feelings regarding the relationship with their DPO. Details: San Diego: SANDAG, 2015. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 3, 2015 at: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1951_19203.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1951_19203.pdf Shelf Number: 134249 Keywords: Community CorrectionsEvidence-Based PracticesOffender SupervisionProbationProbation OfficersProbationersPublic Safety Realignment California |
Author: Sarver, Christian M. Title: Utah Cost of Crime. Intensive Supervision (Adults): Technical Report (includes Electronic Monitoring) Summary: Intensive supervision is an intermediate sanction intended to reduce the costs of incarceration, by decreasing the time that offenders spend in jail or prison, while protecting public safety through increased monitoring (Gendreau, Goggin, Cullen, Andrews, 2000; MacKenzie, 2006). Offenders who receive intensive supervision are sentenced to community-based sanctions with increased supervision rather than incarceration. Traditionally, the defining feature of intensive supervision is the increased allocation of resources to surveillance, which can include a range of strategies for monitoring and controlling offenders in the community: increased contact with probation/parole officers, reduced caseload for probation/parole officers, home confinement, Day Reporting Centers, electronic monitoring, and random drug testing (Tonry, 1990). Surveillance-oriented intensive supervision programs (ISP) are designed to reduce recidivism via increased monitoring of offenders' location and activities, which is intended to have a deterrent effect on criminal behavior. In contrast, treatment-oriented ISPs intended to reduce recidivism via the use of monitoring to enforce compliance with treatment and supervision goals, which is believed to result in long-term behavioral change (Brown, 2007). Prior Research Research on intensive supervision suggests that surveillance alone is not an effective strategy for deterring criminal behavior. Results from an extensive study that used random assignment to evaluate the effects of ISP at 14 sites in nine states demonstrated that increased surveillance had no impact on rearrest rates when compared to regular supervision or incarceration (Petersilia & Turner, 1993). Similarly, MacKenzie (2006) combined 31 effect sizes, from 13 studies, and found a non-significant increase in recidivism for offenders who participated in ISP when compared to other forms of supervision (probation/parole or incarceration). In fact, in some cases, ISPs have been associated with higher rates of incarceration due to increased detection of technical violations (GAO, 1993; Gendreau et al., 2000). This latter finding suggests that surveillance-oriented ISPs are ineffective-from both a cost and public safety perspective-because they do not reduce the incidence of new crimes but do increase the likelihood that offenders will be returned to jail or prison on technical violations. A separate analysis of intermediate sanction programs that included a treatment component found that those programs were associated with a 10% reduction in recidivism (Gendreau et al., 2000). Increasingly, research indicates that ISPs are more effective when structured in accordance with the principles of effective rehabilitation, combining treatment and rehabilitation programming with intensive monitoring (Andrews, Bonta, & Hodge, 1990; Bonta, 2001). In a series of cost-benefit analyses, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) consistently found significant reductions in recidivism for treatment-oriented ISPs when compared to regular supervision (Aos, Phipps, Barnoski, & Lieb, 2001; Aos et al., 2011; Drake, 2009). Surveillance-oriented ISPs were not associated with any statistically significant difference in reoffending when compared to regular supervision. The WSIPP analyses found no difference in recidivism when comparing ISP to incarceration; however, given cost differences between community-based supervision and a secure placement, the authors concluded that ISP was cost effective when compared to prison (Aos et al., 2001). In a meta-analysis of 58 ISPs, Lowenkamp, Flores, Holsinger, Makarios, and Latessa (2010) found a relationship between the impact of ISPs and program philosophy: treatment-oriented ISPs were associated with statistically significant reductions in recidivism while deterrence-oriented programs were not. Further emphasizing the importance of treatment as a component of ISPs, the authors found that even programs that included well-implemented treatment did not significantly reduce recidivism when it was provided in the context of a surveillanc--oriented ISP. Electronic monitoring. Electronic monitoring (EM) is also an intermediate sanction, often implemented within the context of home confinement or a curfew order. Offenders are monitored by probation/parole staff via a range of devices, which include wrist and ankle bracelets, global positioning systems, and voice verification systems (U. S. Department of Justice (USDOJ), 2009). While many EM programs are administered as part of an ISP, the WSIPP studies evaluated electronic monitoring (EM) separately and found no difference in recidivism rates for offenders sentenced to EM when compared to incarceration (Drake, 2009) or regular probation (Aos et al., 2001). These findings are confirmed in MacKenzie's (2006) analysis of eight EM studies and in Renzema and May-Wilson's (2007) systematic review. Renzema and May-Wilson only identified three studies that met inclusion criteria in terms of methodological rigor. Their meta-analysis of those studies showed no effect on reoffending as a result of EM; combining the results of this analysis with the systematic review, the authors concluded that no empirical proof exists to show that EM reduces recidivism. The U.S. Department of Justice (2009), however, argues that the lack of difference in recidivism rates for EM-supervised offenders when compared to incarcerated offenders is justification for the use of EM, because EM is less expensive than prison. Renzema's (2007) analysis supports this assessment, to some degree, as the authors conclude that EM can be appropriate when used "to accomplish realistic goals" rather than as a "knee-jerk reaction to crime, overcrowding, and high costs of running correctional systems" (p. 232). Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2012. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 26, 2015 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/ISP_Adult_Tech_updateformat.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/ISP_Adult_Tech_updateformat.pdf Shelf Number: 136590 Keywords: Costs of crimeCosts of Criminal JusticeElectronic MonitoringIntensive SupervisionOffender SupervisionProbationProbationers |
Author: Great Britain. Ministry of Justice Title: Transforming Rehabilitation: A revolution in the way we manage offenders Summary: 'Transforming Rehabilitation - a revolution in the way we manage offenders' describes the Government's proposals for reforming the delivery of offender services in the community to reduce reoffending rates whilst delivering improved value for money for the tax payer. The proposals set out in the consultation paper include: - opening the majority of probation services to competition, with contracts to be awarded to providers who can deliver efficient, high quality services and improve value for money; - commissioning to be managed centrally, with specifications informed by local delivery requirements within 16 regional contract package areas, to generate economies of scale and deliver efficiencies, whilst responding to local needs; - contract package areas to align closely with other public service boundaries, to support more integrated commissioning in the future; - more scope for providers to innovate, with payment by results as an incentive to focus on rehabilitating offenders - we expect to see increased use of mentors and an emphasis on addressing offenders' 'life management' issues; - key functions to remain within the public sector, including the direct management of offenders who pose the highest risk of serious harm. We have already consulted on the principles behind many of the proposals in the consultation paper through the 'Punishment and Reform: effective probation services' consultation. We now wish to undertake a shorter, focused consultation exercise, as although many of the underlying themes and issues are the same, our latest proposals contain some significant differences. In Part B of the paper ('Extending our reform programme'), we are seeking a wide range of views on further proposals which could support our reforms. In Part C ('System specification questions'), we set out some detailed issues on which we particularly want the views of current practitioners, sentencers and potential providers, as we finalise the operational design of the new system. Details: London: The Stationery Office Limited, 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Consultation Paper CP1/2013: Accessed September 18, 2015 at: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-rehabilitation/supporting_documents/transformingrehabilitation.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-rehabilitation/supporting_documents/transformingrehabilitation.pdf Shelf Number: 136818 Keywords: Offender RehabilitationOffender SupervisionProbationReoffending |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in Kansas: Strengthening Probation Supervision and Promoting Successful Reentry Summary: Facing a projected 23-percent growth in the state prison population by FY2021, policymakers from across the political spectrum in Kansas enacted House Bill (HB) 2170 in April 2013. The law implements policy recommendations developed through "justice reinvestment," a data-driven approach designed to reduce corrections spending and reinvest savings in strategies that can reduce recidivism and improve public safety. Throughout the process, the state received intensive technical assistance from the Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center, in partnership with The Pew Charitable Trusts and the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). With continued support, Kansas leaders have been working to implement this legislation and track the impact of the new policies. This report reflects on the progress Kansas has made to date and the continued efforts that are necessary to meet the state's goals. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2015. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 25, 2015 at: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/JusticeReinvestmentInKansas.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/JusticeReinvestmentInKansas.pdf Shelf Number: 136877 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentOffender SupervisionPrisoner ReentryProbationProbationers |
Author: Heard, Catherine Title: Community sentences since 2000: How they work - and why they have not cut prisoner numbers Summary: Over the past decade, the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies has been charting developments in community sanctions and calling for a more ambitious approach to criminal justice policy, informed by principles of social justice. Our research has shown that the UK's increased use of community sentences has not led to any overall reduction in the number of people in prison. At best, it may have controlled the growth of short-term prison sentences. At worst, it has simply expanded the net of criminalisation and punishment, exacerbating rather than resolving social harms. This report offers a unique review of the range of alternatives to custody in the UK, from bail, through community sanctions and probation, to early release from prison. It gives an overview of how governments have attempted to control the staggering rise in prisoner numbers since 2000 by the use of so-called 'alternatives' - and largely failed to do so. The key measures are explained in Appendix 1, with supporting statistical and financial data for the separate jurisdictions of England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland in Appendix 3. Probation practices under the three systems are described in Appendix 2. Details: London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2015. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2015 at: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/Community%20sentences%20since%202000%20CCJS%20Sept%202015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/Community%20sentences%20since%202000%20CCJS%20Sept%202015.pdf Shelf Number: 136926 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SentencesProbation |
Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office Title: Transforming Rehabilitation Summary: The Ministry of Justice (the Ministry) is responsible for protecting the public, reducing reoffending and providing a more effective criminal justice system. It is supported by 37 agencies and public bodies, including the National Offender Management Service (NOMS). NOMS is an executive agency of the Ministry, responsible for making sure that people serve the sentences and orders handed out by courts, both in prisons and through probation in the community. Probation is the means through which offenders are supervised and their rehabilitation is pursued. Probation services exist to: protect the public; reduce reoffending and rehabilitate offenders; carry out the proper punishment of offenders; and ensure offenders are aware of the impact of crime on victims and the public. Previously, probation services were delivered by 35 self-governing probation trusts working under the direction of NOMS. From late 2013, arrangements for delivering probation and rehabilitation services to offenders underwent concurrent changes, including: - in June 2014 probation services were divided into a National Probation Service (NPS) across seven regions and 21 new community rehabilitation companies (CRCs): - The public sector NPS advises courts on sentencing all offenders and manages those offenders presenting higher risks of serious harm or with prior history of domestic violence and sexual offences. Around 20% of all cases are allocated to the NPS. - CRCs supervise offenders presenting low- and medium-risk of harm. CRCs operated as companies in public ownership until 1 February 2015 when they transferred to eight, mainly private sector, providers. Around 80% of cases are allocated to the CRCs. - As at July 2015, some 243,000 offenders were supervised by the NPS and CRCs; - supervision was extended to offenders released from prison sentences of under 12 months, as part of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014; and - reorganisation of the prison system to provide 'Through the Gate' services. Since May 2015 CRCs have provided offenders with resettlement services while imprisoned. Our report This report builds on our 2014 Probation: landscape review and our reports on commercial and contracting issues, particularly Transforming contract management in the Home Office and Ministry of Justice. It explores ongoing probation reforms and the extent to which changes are being managed in a way likely to promote value for money. We recognise that these changes have barely started and that it will take two years before prospects for success are clearer. In particular, success depends on achieving economic benefits to society estimated at more than L12 billion of economic benefits from reduced reoffending over the next seven years. This report has four parts: - Part One provides an overview of probation reforms and assesses the procurement for the CRC contracts. - Part Two focuses on the performance management of the 21 CRCs and the NPS. - Part Three identifies important operational issues in CRCs and the NPS. ' Part Four examines progress by CRCs and the NPS in transforming probation services, and the main challenges they face in achieving the necessary transformation. Details: London: NAO, 2016. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: HC 951 SESSION 2015-16 28 APRIL 2016: Accessed April 29, 2016 at: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Transforming-rehabilitation.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Transforming-rehabilitation.pdf Shelf Number: 138842 Keywords: Offender SupervisionProbationProbationersRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Morse, Amyas Title: Probation: Landscape Review Summary: This report summarises the arrangements for probation that were in place during the first year of the C&AG's audit. It also summarises the main elements of the reform currently under way and identifies the key issues now facing those involved in probation. The report is a landscape review, intended to inform Parliament about developments and advance its understanding of them. It is not an evaluation of progress in implementing the Transforming Rehabilitation policy. It is based on our audit of probation trusts, analysis of documents published by the Ministry of Justice (the Ministry) and other relevant bodies, and our ongoing contacts with the sector. The report covers: - the current probation system (Part One); and - proposals for reforming probation (Part Two). Details: London: National Audit Office, 2014. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2016 at: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Probation-landscape-review.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Probation-landscape-review.pdf Shelf Number: 138917 Keywords: Offender SupervisionProbationProbationers |
Author: Strickland, Pat Title: Contracting out probation services, 2013-2016. Summary: This briefing paper charts the implementation controversial reforms to the probation service. Most offenders are now supervised by Community Rehabilitation Companies, which are mostly privately led. A new public sector National Probation Service manages high risk offenders. So what's the verdict so far? Under the Transforming Rehabilitation programme, the Coalition Government introduced major controversial reforms. These included: - Abolishing Probation Trusts - Contracting out the majority of probation work to private and voluntary sector providers in 21 new Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) - Introducing a new public sector National Probation Service (NPS)to manage high risk offenders and service the courts In addition, an extra 45,000 offenders are being brought into the probation system. This is because, for the first time, those sentenced to less than 12 months in prison are going to be supervised in the community upon release. Details: London: Parliament, House of Commons Library, 2016. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Briefing Paper No. 06894: Accessed May 16, 2016 at: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06894/SN06894.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06894/SN06894.pdf Shelf Number: 139056 Keywords: Offender SupervisionPrivatizationProbationProbation Reform |
Author: Alper, Mariel Title: Probation Revocation and Its Causes: Profiles of State and Local Jurisdictions, Bell County, Texas Summary: The Bell County Community Supervision and Corrections Department (CSCD or "Department") services Bell County and Lampasas County, Texas. The CSCD had 87 employees in 2014, including 45 probation officers and technicians, dispersed over four units. The Department's annual budget was about four million dollars, about half of which came from state funding. Roughly 50 percent of the Department's FY2014 budget was funded by supervision fees paid by probationers under the terms of their sentences, which is not unusual for probation departments statewide. In June 2015, 3,126 individuals were under direct probation supervision in Bell County. Over the past four years, the overall size of Bell County's probation population has not substantially changed, but the number of probationers under supervision for a felony has decreased while the number under supervision for a misdemeanor has increased. The county's probation supervision rate was an estimated 1,314 per 100,000 adult residents as of November 2014, which is 64 percent lower than the average rate for the entire state. In 2013, the statewide probation supervision rate in Texas was 2,043 per 100,000 adult residents, the 9th highest rate among all states. Statewide, the probation supervision rate has been falling over the past 10 years, from 2,698 at yearend 20034 to 2,043 at yearend 2013. The index crime rate in Bell County is slightly higher than the statewide average in 2014: 3,420.6 versus 3,349.6 per 100,000 residents. In 2014, the average length of probation sentences pronounced for misdemeanor cases was 14 months; for felonies it was 74 months or approximately 6 years. Details: Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota Law School, 2016. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 19, 2016 at: http://www.robinainstitute.org/publications/probation-revocation-and-its-causes-profiles-of-state-and-local-jurisdictions-bell-county-texas/ Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.robinainstitute.org/publications/probation-revocation-and-its-causes-profiles-of-state-and-local-jurisdictions-bell-county-texas/ Shelf Number: 139114 Keywords: Community SupervisionProbationProbation RevocationProbation SupervisionProbationers |
Author: Alper, Mariel Title: Probation Revocation and its Causes: Profiles of State and Local Jurisdictions. Wharton and Matagorda Counties, Texas Summary: The Matagorda County Community Supervision and Corrections Department (CSCD, or "Department") services Wharton County and Matagorda County, Texas. In 2014, the CSCD had 22 employees, 18 of whom supervised cases in some capacity, dispersed over two units. One unit is located in Wharton and one in Bay City, Matagorda. The Department's annual budget was about $1.5 million, $1.3 million of which is for basic supervision, and which funds the majority of departmental functions and salaries. The remaining budget is devoted to the high risk caseload (which is grant funded by the state) and a substance abuse caseload (which is funded by the state and community correction funds). The primary sources of funding are supervision fees paid by probationers (65%) and state funding (35%). The high reliance on supervision fees is not unusual for probation departments statewide. On August 31st, 2014, 473 individuals were under direct probation supervision in Wharton County and 720 were under direct probation supervision in Matagorda County. The probation supervision rate was an estimated 1,551 per 100,000 adult residents in Wharton County and 2,646 in Matagorda County as of August 2014. The combined supervision rate is 2,067, which is near the average rate for the entire state. In 2013, the statewide probation supervision rate in Texas was 2,043 per 100,000 adult residents, the ninth highest rate among all states. Statewide, the probation supervision rate has been falling over the past 10 years, from 2,698 at yearend 20033 to 2,043 at yearend 2013. Details: Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 2016. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 24, 2016 at: http://www.robinainstitute.org/publications/probation-revocation-causes-profiles-state-local-jurisdictions-wharton-matagorda-counties-texas/ Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.robinainstitute.org/publications/probation-revocation-causes-profiles-state-local-jurisdictions-wharton-matagorda-counties-texas/ Shelf Number: 139141 Keywords: Community Supervision Probation Probation Revocation Probation SupervisionProbationers |
Author: Hawken, Angela Title: HOPE II: A Follow-up to Hawaii's HOPE Evaluation Summary: Hawai'i's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Hawai'i's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement probation relies on a regimen of regular, random drug testing tied to swift and certain, but modest, sanctions to motivate probationer compliance. In two 2007 studies in Hawai'i, a comparison-group quasi-experiment and a randomized controlled trial, HOPE was demonstrated to improve compliance with terms of probation at 12-month follow-up, with large reductions in drug use, recidivism, and overall incarceration for offenders assigned to the program. Following the original evaluations, HOPE expanded from 34 participants in 2004 to approximately 2200 participants in Hawai'i in 2014, with many replications on the mainland. Several important questions remained. The primary impact of drug treatment is felt during exposure to the treatment program; over half of treatment subjects relapse within a year of ending treatment. The original evaluations of HOPE relied on a relatively short follow-up period, and it is not clear whether its effects would persist over a longer period. And it is not clear whether implementation would maintain fidelity to the model when no longer being evaluated. This study extends the original HOPE evaluations to an almost ten-year follow-up, addressing whether the improvements in criminal-justice outcomes observed during the active HOPE intervention persist after the term of probation. The study also documents changes in HOPE practices and ongoing implementation fidelity to the model. Administrative data from several sources were collected on HOPE and probation-as-usual (PAU) subjects. These records data were supplemented with in-person surveys with probationers, a probation-officer survey, and interviews with key officials. Interpretations of outcomes data reported here should take changes in implementation practices into consideration. Tracking and contacting subjects after nearly a decade proved more challenging than anticipated. Consequently, this study relies more heavily on administrative data, and less on in-person surveys and bio-specimen collection, than initially planned. The principal findings were: 1. HOPE probationers performed better than those supervised under routine supervision. They were less likely to be revoked and returned to prison. They were more likely to be free in the community and therefore at higher risk of committing new offenses; even so, they were less likely to commit new crimes during the follow-up period, although the difference in reoffending rate was smaller at long-term follow-up than at 12-month, and the reductions in drug crimes accounted for most of the difference (differences in property crimes were smaller than anticipated). HOPE was also found to economize on supervision resources, as HOPE probationers were more likely to receive successful early terminations from probation. 2. Probationers' perception of risk of punishment given a violation (estimated from the probationer survey) was higher than probation officers' estimates, which in turn were higher than our estimates of the true risk. As the deterrent value depends on perceived risk rather than actual risk, HOPE appears to benefit from a reputation effect that exceeds the certainty delivered in practice. 3. Probation-officer surveys suggest that POs support HOPE: It makes them more effective at their job and their probationers are more likely to succeed on HOPE. POs reported deviation from how HOPE is implemented compared with how it is described in policies and procedures. They agree that positive drug tests are referred to the court, but believe that their colleagues exercise discretion in deciding how to respond to missed appointments (including missed random drug tests). As HOPE relies on swift and certain sanctions, this argues for closer monitoring of implementation fidelity. Details: Malibu, CA: School of Public Policy, Pepperdine University, 2016. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249912.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249912.pdf Shelf Number: 139508 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDrug CourtsDrug OffendersDrug Treatment ProgramsOffender SupervisionProbationProbationersRecidivism |
Author: Epperson, Matthew Title: Comparative Evaluation of Court-Based Responses to Offenders with Mental Illnesses Summary: 1 FINAL SUMMARY OVERVIEW Purpose of Study Persons with serious mental illness (SMI) are over-represented in the criminal justice system and criminal justice agencies have struggled for years with managing and serving this population. In recent years, probation departments have forged new collaborative relationships with mental health treatment providers and adopted problem-solving approaches in responding to the needs of people with SMI in the criminal justice system. These efforts have resulted in two prevailing court-based models for offenders with mental illnesses: mental health courts and specialized probation. Both mental health courts and specialized probation units have experienced rapid growth over the past decade. However, most evaluation research on these programs has been criticized for studying new programs that are still in development, employing short follow up periods that are unable to examine sustained effectiveness, and utilizing less than ideal comparison conditions. In response to these methodological issues, this study employed a mixed methods comparative evaluation of three established court-based programs that serve offenders with SMI: mental health court, specialized probation, and standard probation. The primary aims of the study were to examine and compare each program's: 1)Structure; 2)Operation; and 3)Effectiveness. Research Methods The study was conducted in Cook County, Illinois; data were collected from three distinct court-based programs. The Cook County Felony Mental Health Court (MHC) was implemented in 2004 and serves individuals with SMI who have been arrested for nonviolent felonies. The Specialized Mental Health Probation Unit (herein "specialized probation") has been in operation in Cook County for more than 25 years and involves specially trained probation officers who supervise a reduced caseload of probationers diagnosed with SMI. The Cook County Adult Probation Department (herein "standard probation") has an active caseload of approximately 25,000 probationers, a portion of whom have SMI. Details: Chicago: University of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration, 2014. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 12, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249894.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249894.pdf Shelf Number: 139623 Keywords: Mental Health CourtsMentally Ill OffendersProbationProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Reichert, Jessica Title: Fidelity to the intensive supervision probation with services model: An examination of Adult Redeploy Illinois programs Summary: Prison populations in America are the highest per capita of any country in the world (International Centre for Prison Studies, 2014). Illinois houses about 49,000 prisoners daily, spending $1.1 billion on corrections in 2014 (Illinois Department of Corrections, 2015; Illinois State Commission on Criminal Justice and Sentencing Reform, 2014). Growing public support for prison reform has brought attention to incarceration alternatives, including intensive supervision probation (ISP). ISP programs include increased surveillance, increased surveillance with treatment, and increased surveillance with evidence-based practices (Drake, 2011). The ISP programs examined for this study were a hybrid of the three, using increased surveillance with treatment services and evidence-based practices. For the purposes of this report, these programs will be referred to as intensive supervision probation with services (ISP-S). ISP-S programs have better outcomes than deterrence-based, surveillance-only ISP (Aos, Miller, & Drake, 2006; Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice, 2009; Paparozzi & Gendreau, 2005). Research has shown ISP-S programs reduce recidivism by 17 percent, saving approximately $20,000 per offender (Drake, Aos, & Miller, 2009). Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (Authority) researchers examined ISP-S programs operating in four counties supported by Adult Redeploy Illinois (ARI). ARI applies evidence-based, data-driven, and result-oriented strategies to reduce reliance on incarceration, increase community capacity for diversion, and enhance public safety. Since 2010, the Authority has administered grant funding for ARI and offered research, evaluation, and technical assistance to the program. In exchange for ARI grant funding, jurisdictions agree to implement evidence-based prison-diversion programs, such as ISP-S, and reduce by 25 percent the number of non-violent offenders sentenced to prison from a target population. Researchers examined ISP-S programs in DuPage, Macon, McLean, and St. Clair counties and used staff and stakeholder interviews, client interviews, and program data to evaluate fidelity to key components of evidence-based ISP-S. Researchers developed a list of nine key components of ISP-S drawing from Petersilia and Turner's ISP literature and the National Institute for Corrections (NIC) recommendations for evidence-based practices, shaped largely by Andrews and Bonta's Risk-Need-Responsivity model (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; NIC, 2004; Petersilia & Turner, 1993; Petersilia & Turner, 1991; Petersilia & Turner, 1990). Researchers used data collected during the 18-month pilot phases of DuPage, Macon, McLean and St. Clair county programs, beginning in 2011. However, not all programs started at the same time and McLean did not start accepting clients until January 2012. Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2016. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 21, 2016 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/ISP%20FIDELITY%20FINAL%2006-16-16.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/ISP%20FIDELITY%20FINAL%2006-16-16.pdf Shelf Number: 139784 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationIntensive SupervisionOffender SupervisionProbation |
Author: DeLong, Caitlin Title: Learning about probation from client perspectives: Feedback from probationers served by Adult Redeploy Illinois-funded program models Summary: Satisfaction with the criminal justice system often reflects the opinions of the public, rather than that of the offender (DeLude, Mitchell, & Barber, 2012). Research in the medical and behavioral sciences indicate, however, that client satisfaction is associated with compliance and treatment outcomes (Barbosa, Balp, Kulich, Germain, & Rofail; Levenson, Prescott, & D'Amora, 2010; Zhang, Gerstein, & Friedmann, 2008). Beyond the increased adherence that is expected when probation clients are engaged in services they consider worthwhile, satisfaction data offers providers valuable insight into the specific needs of their target population, while potentially increasing perceptions of procedural justice. When participants are unable to provide feedback in a meaningful way, they are further marginalized and alienated from a process that hinges on a change in their behavior and attitudes. Since 2010, the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority has administered the state's Adult Redeploy Illinois (ARI) program, offering grant funding to jurisdictions to implement local evidence-based programs that reduce the number of non-violent offenders sentenced to prison. In this study, researchers interviewed program clients for insight into program implementation and operations that could strengthen program outcomes. Interviewed were 108 clients enrolled in 10 prison diversion programs using three program models - drug courts, intensive supervision probation with services (ISP-S), and Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE). Drug courts refer clients to court-supervised substance abuse treatment in lieu of incarceration, and staff work in interdisciplinary teams of probation officers, substance abuse treatment providers, prosecutors, law enforcement, defense attorneys, and judges to manage the cases (Carey, Mackin, & Finigan, 2012). ISP-S features specially trained probation officers who use risk/needs assessment tools to provide individualized case management, heightened supervision, and responsive referrals to social services (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). The HOPE model focuses on behavior modification through swift, certain, and fair sanctions, and offers drug treatment to those in need (Hawken & Kleiman, 2009). Data were collected after 18 months of pilot program implementation ending in mid- to late-2012. The following are key findings from the probationer interviews, during which researchers asked questions about demographics, program staff, program operations, and services. Conditions of probation Most interviewees thought the conditions of their probation were very clear (81 percent). Almost all clients (97 percent) were drug tested. Most were required to pay court costs (75 percent) and attend drug treatment (69 percent). Of 64 probationers who received a sanction for noncompliance, 89 percent (n=51) said it was very likely that they would be caught if they violated probation conditions, 75 percent (n=48) said the sanctions were fair, and 72 percent (n=46) said they were immediate. Sanctions and incentives that are swift, certain, and fair are crucial to all three models of supervision. Seventy-eight percent of interviewed clients said they had developed a case plan with clear goals with their probation officers. Clearly outlined case plans have been shown to reduce recidivism in evidence-based practice (Carey, 2010). This study revealed a statistical relationship between having a case plan and offering positive feedback on the program. On average, each client needed assistance in obtaining four different types of services (out of 22 listed); the most common were transportation, employment, or housing. Clients reported that, of the 490 total service requests, 329 (67 percent) were fulfilled by their probation officer. Compliance and incentives Sixty-six percent of respondents reported violating the conditions of their supervision (n=72); however, only 60 (83 percent) of those respondents were sanctioned. Those violations included 57 failed drug/alcohol tests, 12 arrests for new crimes, and 14 missed appointments. Four clients reported having three or more violations, 18 had two violations, but the majority (n=49; 69 percent) of those who broke the terms of their probation agreements did so only once. A total of 25 clients (23 percent) indicated they had been arrested either for new crimes or as sanctions for violations while on probation. Forty-eight (75 percent) of 64 probationers who received a sanction for noncompliance said the sanctions were fair and 46 (72 percent) said they were immediate. Seventy-five percent (n=81) of interviewees said they received rewards for program compliance, such as gift cards, certificates, praise from staff, and food. Of those, 88 percent (n=71) said these rewards were good program motivators. Client assessments Overall, clients agreed with positive statements about probation - that the program helped them, it positively impacted their future, and it made them better off than other court sanctions. A majority of clients thought probation was a better alternative to prison (100 percent), offered a better lifestyle than prison (99 percent), and was easier to complete than a prison term (66 percent). Overall, clients agreed with positive statements about their probation officers and disagreed that their officers expected too much of them. Implications for policy and practice Further address client service needs Many probationers sampled reported needing, but not receiving, housing, identification, healthcare services, public assistance, and job support. In order to address this, probation officers should be operating under reduced caseloads and be trained in evidence-based practices (for example, actuarial risk assessment and cognitive behavioral techniques) in order to provide necessary services and reduce recidivism most effectively (Jalbert, Rhodes, Flygare, & Kane, 2010). Probation officers should advocate for clients with local housing assistance agencies and assist them with obtaining subsidized or low-income housing (Family Justice, 2009). Clients must have proper identification to secure housing and half of the clients sampled requested assistance in obtaining a state ID or driver's license, birth certificate, and social security card. Probation officers should be prepared to help guide clients through the process of obtaining these documents as they are necessary to meet other needs. Thirty-eight percent of clients reported chronic medical conditions, but 59 percent of these respondents did not have health insurance. Access to healthcare and preventive health services saves lives and money (Currie, 2010). Probation officers can screen clients for Medicaid eligibility and help them apply and enroll. Research has found that public assistance alleviates financial stress leading to criminal behavior (Gartner, 1990; LaFree, 1999). Probation officers can assist clients in navigating complex public assistance regulations. Collateral legal consequences affecting clients can interfere with probation officers' efforts to meet their needs. Probationers can be barred from voting, public housing, educational grants, and employment because of their convictions. Without social supports, offenders are more likely to recidivate (Mock, in press). While there should be a balance within probation providing surveillance and social supports, jurisdictional commitments to hiring more probation officers, providing more officer training, and advocating for the removal of barriers to services are system-level changes that will address service provision problems for the long term. Increase client accountability Of 72 probationers who reported violating supervision conditions, 60 respondents (83 percent) received subsequent sanctions. While sanctions and surveillance alone may not be effective at reducing recidivism (Taxman, 2002), their presence enforces offender accountability (National Institute of Corrections, 2004). Prison diversion programs must focus on swift, certain, and fair responses to non-compliant actions while using positive reinforcement and incentives to modify behavior (U.S. Department of Justice, 2015). Develop clear case plans Probationers with clear case plans were significantly more likely to understand their conditions, probation's phase system and levels of supervision, and more likely to receive incentives. They also rated their probation officers higher in areas of respectfulness and fairness. All model probation programs are advised to develop comprehensive case plans to appropriately assess risk levels, provide individualized support to overcome criminogenic needs, and use evidence-based practices to rehabilitate probationers (National Institute of Corrections, 2004). It is also important that probationers fully understand these plans. In addition, probation officers demonstrating use of their "dual role" - surveillance with case management - increases the likelihood for offender success (Skeem, Eno Louden, Polaschek, & Camp, 2007; Trotter, 2006). Comprehension of goals and heightened perceptions of probation officer legitimacy are research-supported goals for effective probation (Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice, 2009). Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2016. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 15, 2016 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/Client%20feedback%20FINAL%2008-18-16.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/Client%20feedback%20FINAL%2008-18-16.pdf Shelf Number: 147880 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SupervisionProbationProbation OfficersProbationers |
Author: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: Missouri Policy Shortens Probation and parole Terms, Protects Public Safety. Summary: In 2012, Missouri established an "earned compliance credits" policy that allows individuals to shorten their time on probation or parole by 30 days for every full calendar month that they comply with the conditions of their sentences. Credits are available only to those who were convicted of lower-level felonies and have been under community supervision for at least two years. The Pew Charitable Trusts evaluated the policy and found that in the first three years, more than 36,000 probationers and parolees reduced their supervision terms by an average of 14 months. As a result, the state's supervised population fell 18 percent, driving down caseloads for probation and parole officers. The law had no evident negative impact on public safety: Those who earned credits were subsequently convicted of new crimes at the same rate as those discharged from supervision before the policy went into effect. Details: Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2016. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2016 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2016/08/missouri_policy_shortens_probation_and_parole_terms_protects_public_safety.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2016/08/missouri_policy_shortens_probation_and_parole_terms_protects_public_safety.pdf Shelf Number: 147920 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformEarned CreditsParoleProbation |
Author: Utah. Legislative Auditor General Title: A Performance Audit of the Board of Pardons and Parole Summary: Utah's Board of Pardons and Parole (BOP or board) plays a critical and unique role in the state's criminal justice system. For example, last year, they made nearly 18,000 decisions, including releasing offenders from prison, setting the conditions of release and supervision, and responding to over 1,000 parole violations. Consequently, they wield significant influence on public safety and the use of public resources. Utah's parole board has considerable discretion because of wide sentencing time-frames coupled with an indeterminate system. The level of discretion appears to be greater than is found in other states. This report examines opportunities for the board to better deploy such broad discretion and recommends improvements to the BOP's oversight, structure, decision making, data collection, and business operations. These recommendations come at a time when criminal justice reform (both nationally and locally) is working toward improved outcomes and lowered costs. BOP Can Benefit from Improved Planning, Oversight, and Structure Improved Planning, Performance Measures, and Transparency of Information Is Needed. The BOP has always been a crucial player in Utah's criminal justice system. The board has been especially involved in justice reinvestment efforts since the Legislature passed H.B. 348 in the 2015 General Session. We are encouraged by the board's actions, but more can be done. We believe the BOP should: develop a strategic plan, track and monitor key data elements, measure its impact on the criminal justice system through targeted performance measures, and improve its transparency. BOP's Internal Organizational Structure Should Be Reviewed. As discussed in the previous section, several operational improvements are needed at the BOP. To help ensure these improvements are made and effective, the board should review its organizational structure. We do not question the dedication of BOP employees, but the board needs to ensure it has adequately defined its roles and the roles of its staff to maximize the needed operational improvements. BOP Should Adopt More Proven Practices Structured Decision Making Will Increase Consistency of Decisions. The BOP can do more to ensure its decisions are consistent, fair, and properly structured for the best outcomes. Nationally recognized research organizations that study paroling authorities recommend that parole boards adopt a structured decision-making (SDM) model. SDM is an evidence-based, policy-driven approach to decision making that uses established risk and needs factors to make quality release decisions. Paroling authorities that use SDM are better at setting goals and report better outcomes. Currently, BOP parole release decisions are based mainly on individual professional judgement and experience. BOP decision makers have differing philosophies and may weigh factors in the same case differently. The lack of a common paroling philosophy may be the cause for the large number of inmates and inmate advocacy groups expressing concerns about the inconsistency of paroling decisions. The board has taken steps to implement SDM but as a prerequisite, the BOP should establish a common paroling philosophy to facilitate consistency in parole decisions. BOP Should Improve Rationale for Its Decisions. A second area to aid the BOP in decision making is an improved rationale sheet. The only information an inmate receives about the content of the board's decision is a rationale sheet that lists some aggravating and mitigating factors. Several individuals at the BOP told us that this sheet does not capture the important factors the board uses in weighing their decisions. Further, inmates, families, and advocates list the rationale sheet as one of their primary concerns because they find it confusing, vague, and unclear. Best practices discuss communication with inmates as an important factor. We also found that other states' releasing authorities have more informative rationale sheets that focus on specific areas of improvement and/or risk to the community. The board agrees that it needs to improve its rationale sheet and is currently working on a new version of the form. Use of Research-Based Practices Can Help BOP Improve Its Outcomes. In addition to the two best practices just discussed, we recommend that the BOP adopt and integrate the nationally recognized ten practice targets that incorporate evidence-based practices in parole decisions. The board agrees and is already working toward implementation of some of these practice targets. BOP Should Adopt an Electronic File Management System The BOP's Current Paper Process Is Vulnerable to Errors. Our review of the BOP's business process revealed two areas that are vulnerable to errors. One vulnerability is the way the board documents and enters decisions. The BOP's current decision-making process relies on board members' handwritten notes, which are unclear and subject to misinterpretation. In most cases, we could not decipher the handwritten notes to validate that clerical staff entered decisions correctly. Second, calculations for time served made in case files are also vulnerable to inaccuracies. Paper-Based System Limits Data Tracking and Transparency. The BOP's paper-based system limits the ability to track key performance metrics and data critical to board operations. Paper files also limit transparency and availability of information to external entities. Adopting an electronic file management system will help the board begin collecting and analyzing data on how its actions affect the larger criminal justice system. This will also promote more informed decision making. Paper-Based System Creates Operational Inefficiencies. In addition to the data limitations, there are also operational inefficiencies that result from a paper-based file management system. These include limitations on information sharing with surrounding agencies as well as BOP workflow, since only one activity can be performed on an offender's file at a time. Board staff devote significant amounts of time to the paper process. Staff time spent printing, copying, filing, and locating paper files is costly and time intensive. Electronic BOP System Will Promote Alignment with Other Criminal Justice Agencies. With other Utah criminal justice agencies as well as other state parole boards adopting electronic file management systems, it is increasingly clear that it is time for the board to convert to a paperless record-keeping system. The current board supports transition from a paper-based to electronically based record-keeping system. To do this, the board will need to determine if it is in their best interest to develop an electronic system that piggybacks on the UDC's database or purchase a system from a private vendor. Funding the new system will likely require funding from several sources, including federal funds, nonlapsing funds, and other state resources. BOP Should Consider Implementing Process Efficiencies A Streamlined Decision Process Is Needed for Less Serious Offenders. As the state's population grows, BOP's workload will continue to increase. The PEW Charitable Trusts group studied Utah's criminal justice system in 2014. They estimate that Utah's prison population will grow 37 percent in the next 20 years. To deal with this growth, we believe the board should consider process efficiencies before adding more hearing officers. Other states have achieved efficiencies in streamlining the parole processing of low-risk, less severe offenders and maintained quality of decisions. In this section, we recommend a continuum of options the board could pursue to achieve efficiencies in processing low-level offenders, such as limiting case preparation requirements, reducing the number of board member votes for release decisions, and in limited circumstances allowing hearing officers a vote. BOP Should Review Expungement Process and Recommend Statutory Changes. The BOP has received an increase in the number of pardon requests over the last year and a half. This increase is due partially to more people seeking pardons because the Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI) rejected their expungement requests for relatively minor offenses. Some applicants rejected by BCI are turning to the board, which has greater authority to pardon and, by extension, expunge criminal records. The board's pardon process involves significant staff time and resources. Therefore, we recommend that the BOP and BCI review the expungement process and recommend to the Legislature statutory changes that reduce pardon workloads. Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Legislative Auditor General, 2016. 100p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 28, 2016 at: http://le.utah.gov/audit/16_01rpt.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://le.utah.gov/audit/16_01rpt.pdf Shelf Number: 146164 Keywords: Decision-MakingPardonsParoleParole BoardsProbation |
Author: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc. Title: Drug Treatment Education Fund Program Evaluation Final Report Summary: Overview The Drug Treatment and Education Fund (DTEF) was established in April 1996 with the enactment of A.R.S. 13-901.01 by the Arizona Legislature. The act requires that... first and second time non-violent offenders who are convicted of personal possession or use of a controlled substance be diverted from prison and sentenced to probation and drug treatment and that a fund be created (A.R.S 13-901.02), which receives revenue from a tax on liquors, to provide substance abuse education and treatment services as mandated by the Act. The Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), administers the funds to each of the fifteen county probation departments in Arizona and provides oversight and reporting. A total of $3,297,020 was distributed to all adult probation departments (counties) in FY2006. Counties are required to screen probationers sentenced under A.R.S. 13.901.01 (mandatory cases) for substance abuse problems and refer them to appropriate treatment. Counties may also use the DTEF for "discretionary" cases, that is, for probationers who were screened and determined to need treatment but were not "mandatory" cases. LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc. conducted an evaluation to provide information for improvements to the DTEF programs in the fifteen county adult probation departments. The counties' practices were compared to the DTEF legislated operational code (DTEF code) and to the National Institute of Drug Abuse Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations (NIDA principles). A limited and preliminary analysis of probationers' substance abuse treatment completion rates and probation outcomes was conducted. Profiles of the fifteen counties were developed to summarize the local level DTEF processes and substance abuse treatment characteristics. The results are based on these profiles. Details: Tucson, AZ: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, 2007. 112p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 12, 2016 at: http://www.lecroymilligan.com/data/resources/dtef-program-evaluation-final-report-aug-9-1.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.lecroymilligan.com/data/resources/dtef-program-evaluation-final-report-aug-9-1.pdf Shelf Number: 140686 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug OffendersDrug Treatment ProgramsProbationSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Lai, Keith Title: Does Supervision After Release From Prison Reduce Re-offending? Summary: Currently, in England and Wales, adult prisoners serving a sentence of 12 months or more are supervised by the Probation Service "on licence" upon release from custody, whilst those serving a sentence of less than 12 months are not. This paper summarises work exploring the use of a Regression Discontinuity Design to assess the impact of this supervision on re-offending rates. The analysis compares the re-offending rates of offenders either side of the 12 month licence supervision threshold. It is based on offenders with one or no previous convictions and sentenced to around a year in custody. © Crown copyright 2013 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives. gov.uk/doc/open-governmentlicence/ or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi. gov.uk Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. First published July 2013 ISBN 978-1-84099-606-7 Contact info: mojanalyticalservices@ justice.gsi.gov.uk Key findings For offenders with one or no previous convictions, the one-year re-offending rate is between 14 and 17 percentage points lower for offenders on licence than similar offenders not on licence. Extending the analysis to a two-year re-offending rate increased the difference between the offenders on licence and offenders not on licence to between 16 and 20 percentage points. These estimates are statistically significant at the 5% level. Whilst none of the results relating to the three-year re-offending rate were statistically significant at the 5% level, the size of the re-offending reductions are only a little smaller in absolute terms than for the one and two year re-offending reductions. More generally, the estimates are less reliable and subject to more uncertainty the longer the time period from release. The analysis suggests that a period of probation supervision after release from custody reduces the re-offending rate of offenders sentenced to around one year in custody and with one or no previous convictions. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2013. 3p. Source: Internet Resource: Analytical Summary: Accessed November 11, 2016 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224557/supervision-after-release.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224557/supervision-after-release.pdf Shelf Number: 130133 Keywords: Offender SupervisionPrisoner ReentryProbationRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Morehead State University. Sociology, Social Work, and Criminology Title: Kentucky Smart Probation Program: Year One Report Summary: The Kentucky Supervision, Monitoring, Accountability, Responsibility, and Treatment (SMART) Probation Program grant was awarded in July 2012 to the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Department of Corrections for the purpose of providing enhanced probation services for eligible participants in six pilot jurisdictions throughout the state of Kentucky. Funding was used to support a call-in system to inform defendants in each jurisdiction when they were to drug test, to purchase drug testing supplies, to provide for testing of abused drugs not typically detected on traditional drug screens, and to contract with an independent evaluator to conduct an unbiased program evaluation. This evaluation report was prepared by Morehead State University to highlight program activities during the first grant year. An overview of applicable data elements (i.e., process evaluation and outcome evaluation) for grant year one (July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013) is highlighted below. Process Evaluation Summary Overall themes emerging from the process evaluation suggest that a majority of administrators, judges, attorneys, and law enforcement/corrections officials are satisfied with the services provided through the SMART Probation Program during the first grant year. There were a minority of individuals interviewed that wished they had more inclusion and knowledge about the program during the implementation process. Many reported they were uncertain, at this point, what the data will show in terms of program success, because it is relatively new, but hope results reveal reduced recidivism and incarceration costs. Overall, despite some initial barriers and problems, most felt the program was beneficial for probationers and would like to see the program expand in the future. Outcome Data Summary Outcome data was reported for 307 participants who entered the SMART Probation Program (between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013). Individuals in the SMART Probation Program were compared with 300 similarly matched probationers. All outcome data was retrieved from the Department of Corrections Kentucky Offender Management System (KOMS). The evaluation for the first grant year focused on examining: the level of service/case management inventory (LS/CMI), drug screening/results, violations/responses, and movements/alterations of sentencing. The target number of individuals to be served was 600. During the first grant year, approximately 51% of the target number was served. Almost two-thirds of probationers served were from two SMART project sites: the combined site of Lincoln/Pulaski/Rockcastle (30.6%) and Jefferson (30.3%). Based on data provided, the average time on probation was 8 months (mean = 7.9 months). When examining raw scores for all of the domains on the LS/CMI, the SMART Probationers were rated as significantly higher on all domains measured by this risk assessment instrument. When examining the categorization of need as measured by the LS/CMI for each domain (i.e., low, medium, and high), the SMART and comparison group had comparable categorization of needs, with the exception of the drug and alcohol problem domain and total score. For the alcohol and drug problem domain, the SMART participants were categorized as having medium needs, whereas the comparison group was categorized as having low needs. Second, when assessing the total LS/CMI score, the SMART participants were rated as medium risk whereas the comparison group was rated as low risk. These differences match the scope of the SMART program, which targets individuals with substance use and related needs who are at-risk of failing on traditional probation. These data suggest the SMART group is a higher risk group – thus, comparisons with a traditional probation group should be interpreted with some caution as the two groups had some inherent differences. In terms of drug testing, the SMART probationers were drug tested 2,529 times; of these, there were 218 positive drug screens, which equates to approximately 11.6% of the total tests. In contrast, the comparison probationers were drug tested 1,149 times; of these, there were 338 positive drug screens, which equates to approximately 29% of the total tests. Further, there were significantly more positive drug screens, on average, for the comparison group (mean = 1.1) compared with the SMART group (mean = 0.6). More specifically, there were significantly more comparison group probationers with positive drug screens for marijuana (48.7% vs. 29.0%) while more SMART probationers tested positive for Oxycontin (14.0% vs. 4.2%). Program violations, as reported in KOMS, were also examined. In general, the comparison probationers had a significantly higher average number of violations (2.3) compared to the SMART probationers (1.2). Almost one third of probationers in the comparison group (32.7%) had a substance use violation compared to 24.0% for the SMART probationers. Further, a significantly greater number of probationers in the comparison group also had probation/parole violations (29.7%) compared to the SMART probationers (21.2%). In addition, a significantly greater percentage of probationers in the comparison group had new charges (33.0% vs. 10.6%). Finally, there was a significant difference between the percentage of probationers in the comparison group (8.7%) and the SMART probationers (3.5%) that had fees and services violations. The most common responses to all violations involved the discretion of the court and a recommendation for probation revocation. In some instances, the responses were more tailored to the violation type. For example, for substance use related violations, the response from the court included referrals to the Social Service Clinician (SSC) and other treatment options. At the time of this report, approximately 14% of the SMART probation participants had probation conditions which had been revoked. A comparable statistic was unable to be calculated for the comparison group, given a criteria for selecting this group was actively on probation. In future evaluation reports, the evaluation team, in partnership with the Department of Corrections will strive to select a comparison group which more accurately reflects a contemporary group of individuals referred to probation that may/may not be active at the time of the reporting. While a significantly greater percentage of SMART probationers (15.1%) were moved into an incarceration placement compared to the comparison group (9.3%), probationers in the comparison group spent a significantly greater average time incarcerated (118.1 days compared to 32.5 days for the SMART probationers). Details: Morehead, KY: Morehead State University, 2013. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 22, 2016 at:http://www.scfcenter.org/resources/Research/201311%20Kentucky%20SMART%20Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.scfcenter.org/resources/Research/201311%20Kentucky%20SMART%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 147311 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationOffender SupervisionProbationProbationersRecidivism |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Quality & Impact inspection: The effectiveness of probation work in the north of London Summary: This is our first inspection of adult probation services in the capital for some time. It is not yet comprehensive – in that on this occasion we inspected in eight boroughs in the north of London, and will return to inspect other London quadrants next year and beyond. Meanwhile we hope that our findings are of value to those responsible for probation services throughout the city. Delivering probation services in the capital is particularly challenging. The city has a diverse, mobile and relatively young population, living in 32 boroughs that each differ in the way they work with offenders. The work is unrelenting, with some 17% of all those under probation supervision nationally living in London . Probation services in London have long struggled with high workloads, and workload pressures have been a regular feature in the most notorious of cases where a supervised individual has committed a Serious Further Offence. We found the quality of work by the Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) poor. There was some welcome good practice by individual officers and first-line managers but generally, practice was well below standard, with the public exposed unduly to the risk of harm in some cases despite lessons from the past. That is plainly not acceptable. A combination of unmanageable caseloads, inexperienced officers, extremely poor oversight and a lack of senior management focus and control meant some service users were not seen for weeks or months, and some were lost in the system altogether – something we alerted managers to early on in our inspection. This simple lack of management attention to basic attendance and supervision was the most striking and surprising finding, and again, not acceptable. Sadly and despite the heroic efforts of some staff, we found that there had been little or no likely impact on reducing reoffending. Staff were sometimes working long hours and were often 'fire-fighting' rather than enabled to deliver a professional service consistently or sufficiently well. We found the National Probation Service (NPS) delivering services better, but with plenty of room for improvement. The quality of work was mixed, but we were pleased to find that public protection work was satisfactory overall. The delivery of court services has been a rubbing point in the 'new world', and we found it stubbornly problematic here. Managers must resolve tensions between the two organisations, to improve court services. Details: Manchester: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2016. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 20, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/12/North-of-London-QI-Report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/12/North-of-London-QI-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 147781 Keywords: Offender ManagementProbationProbation CaseloadsProbation OfficersProbationers |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Quality & Impact inspection: The effectiveness of probation work in York & North Yorkshire Summary: This inspection was the second in our new Quality & Impact inspection programme, designed to assess the effectiveness of work undertaken locally by probation services with people who have offended, to implement orders of the court, reduce reoffending, protect the public and safeguard the vulnerable. We found much to be commended and, indeed, it is a pleasure to present this report. Both the local Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) and the National Probation Service (NPS) region had gone through significant change as a consequence of the government's national Transforming Rehabilitation programme. Nonetheless, staff had maintained a pragmatic approach to the day-to-day work, focusing on responding to risks of harm posed and supporting individuals to change their lives for the better. In effect, we saw 'business as usual', with less obvious evidence of the dissonance we have seen elsewhere. That said, there was also a real sense of innovation evident across both organisations. Staff showed initiative and persistence, with the CRC introducing new innovations to aid their working practice and extend available services for offenders. Managers were frustrated, however, by not being able to judge whether probation work was making a difference, since local reoffending data was not yet available to them, albeit the quality of work we saw boded well for successful outcomes. The organisations were working well together in the face of the long-standing challenge of delivering services across a large geographical area. Working arrangements between both organisations were generally effective, supported by open and cooperative relationships between staff at all levels of both organisations. The quality of much of the work we saw was good, save that the CRC's work to manage risk of harm was not sufficiently focused, in part due to the lack of routine management oversight of practitioners' work. In contrast, the NPS was managing risk of harm with rigour. The presence of a very large army barracks at Catterick created an unusual offender group of serving and former military personnel and their families. Although probation staff were experienced in managing such cases, poor information provision by the army to probation staff in cases led to confusion as to any interventions delivered by the army, and ongoing risks. We were surprised to find no formal communications process, given that the garrison was longstanding Details: Manchester: The Inspectorate, 2016. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 20, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/08/York-North-Yorkshire-QI-170816.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/08/York-North-Yorkshire-QI-170816.pdf Shelf Number: 146001 Keywords: Offender Management Probation Probation CaseloadsProbation Officers Probationers |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Quality & Impact Inspection: The effectiveness of probation work in Kent Summary: In our March 2014 inspection of Kent we found much room for improvement in certain areas of practice, most notably assessment. Within the CRC in this inspection, we saw clear signs of improvement in some of the areas we had identified in the former Probation Trust as weak. The quality of practice overall was encouraging and (with the exception of the delivery of unpaid work) progress was noteworthy. In contrast, the quality of NPS work was mixed. Court work was being delivered to an acceptable standard, and court staff and sentencers we spoke with were content with the services being delivered. Despite this, we found an unacceptable level of cases being misallocated, meaning that offenders were too often supervised by the wrong organisation. The quality of assessments within the NPS was generally good, although subsequent work was too often insufficiently focused on addressing factors linked to risk of harm issues, and so risks to the public were not sufficiently well managed. Protecting the public CRC effectiveness We found that the assessment of the risk of serious harm individuals posed to others was generally undertaken to an acceptable standard. We found, however, that some staff managing cases that had the potential to cause significant harm did not have sufficient experience, training or managerial oversight. There had been severe and unacceptable delays in the delivery of some interventions, including the Building Better Relationships programme, designed to tackle domestic abuse. As a result, too many service users did not have an effective challenge to their behaviour quickly enough, to reduce promptly the risk of harm they posed. The situation was improving. NPS effectiveness At the pre-sentence stage, cases were generally assessed to an acceptable standard, with no noticeable difference between cases to be managed by the CRC or the NPS. There were clearly many staff with the necessary skills to work with the risk of harm NPS offenders posed, although not all staff were sufficiently alert to or focused on managing risk of harm. Nearly half of the responsible officers we interviewed felt that they had not had sufficient training to manage the cases for which they were responsible. We thought this proportion too high. Shortages in first-line managers compounded the problem, as responsible officers were not always receiving sufficient guidance or support. The CRC and NPS working together The CRC and NPS were generally working together well. There was a danger, however, that information was being lost due to insufficient NPS recording and/or onward communication of relevant information from court reports, particularly oral reports. Reducing reoffending CRC effectiveness Assessments of service users’ needs in relation to their offending behaviour were delivered to an acceptable standard in a high proportion of cases. Planning to address these needs was also sufficient in most cases. The CRC’s performance in reviewing cases, however, was poor. The organisation’s operating model necessitated the transfer of service users between two teams: the assessment team and the rehabilitation team. This could, in certain circumstances, have acted as a barrier to rehabilitation although staff were generally working hard to mitigate this possibility. Conversely, within resettlement teams the same teams of officers maintained contact with service users as they moved from custody into the community. Despite the fact there is no hard evidence of effectiveness as yet, we thought this practice looked promising. We found that there had been sufficient progress in delivering the necessary interventions within the first six months of the order in approximately half of the cases we inspected. The CRC acknowledged that not enough staff were trained to deliver programmes, and we found examples of unacceptably long waiting times for some programmes. Waiting times had reduced significantly in recent months. Substance misuse services in the county were in a state of flux at the time of the inspection. For the sample of cases we inspected, most individuals with drug or alcohol misuse needs could access an effective service. There were reasonable concerns, however, that this might not be so in future. NPS effectiveness Most pre-sentence reports were of an acceptable standard, although the lack of suitable IT equipment hindered the development of efficient practices. Feedback from sentencers and court staff indicated that those NPS staff working in courts were held in high regard. There was a problem, however, with the allocation of cases. We found several examples where staff had either not understood the complexities of the allocation procedure, or for some other reason had made errors of judgement. Overall, for cases managed by the NPS, we found that the assessment of individual offending-related needs was acceptable in a reasonable proportion of cases. Plans to tackle offending were usually sufficient. The delivery of interventions was more problematic; too many cases were being transferred between insufficiently trained temporary or inexperienced staff. This problem was compounded by a lack of oversight from middle managers who were themselves overstretched. The CRC and NPS working together Working relationships between CRC and NPS staff were generally positive. The CRC had produced high quality information leaflets about their services for courts, although NPS staff felt that there was a need for a more dynamic approach to the provision of information, so as to keep them abreast of developments within the CRC. Abiding by the sentence CRC effectiveness CRC effectiveness was mixed, but improving. The CRC had impressive arrangements to make sure that they listened to the needs of service users, captured their views and took seriously the feedback they received. There was also evidence that in most cases responsible officers had taken the time to engage offenders carefully, to establish what they wanted to achieve from probation, and to deliver interventions in ways that met their diverse individual needs. There was still work to be done, however, to better understand and deliver rehabilitation activity requirement days as intended by legislation, a common issue nationally. Most significantly, we found very poor performance with regard to the delivery of unpaid work. Despite the efforts that had been made, there had been insufficient progress on the recruitment of supervisors, leading to a totally unacceptable rate of ‘stand downs’. Consequently, offenders were sometimes prevented from abiding by the requirements of their sentence. As mentioned earlier, there were also delays in starting accredited programmes. NPS effectiveness NPS performance was acceptable. Assessments and plans drawn up by responsible officers were usually done in consultation with offenders and took account of their diverse needs. In most cases, there were good levels of contact offered and, where problems with compliance arose, these were usually dealt with effectively. The CRC and NPS working together Working relationships between CRC and NPS staff were generally positive. There was good communication between staff, and swift action taken to resolve any difficulties. Practitioners from both organisations worked together to solve problems, for example, in relation to the quality of breach reports. The problems the CRC had delivering unpaid work caused some tensions, as did the ‘fee for service’ arrangements where the CRC delivered interventions for NPS cases. Recommendations The Community Rehabilitation Company and National Probation Service should: 1. improve the exchange of information about sentencing options by supplementing the high quality information leaflets produced with other methods agreed locally 2. prepare a joint response to the health service commissioners of substance misuse services on the impact of changes in treatment opportunities. The Community Rehabilitation Company should: 3. make sure that the rate at which service users are ‘stood down’ from unpaid work placements is significantly reduced 4. monitor the waiting list for access to accredited programmes and make further progress in reducing waiting times 5. improve the availability of specialist provision for enhancing the educational, training and employment opportunities for service users 6. increase the management oversight of probation services officers, particularly during their initial training, so as to support their management of service users posing a medium risk of harm to others. The National Probation Service should: 7. seek a solution to the problems of the insufficient staff complement, recruitment and retention issues in Kent 8. make sure that the level of mis-allocations is reduced significantly 9. improve the quality of IT equipment available for use by court staff, and provide computer hardware and software that enables local staff to more easily access national online training packages 10. make sure that all new staff, whether employed directly or via an agency, have access to sufficient training to enable them to undertake the work they are given. Details: Manchester: The Inspectorate, 2016. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 21, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/10/Kent-QI.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/10/Kent-QI.pdf Shelf Number: 147794 Keywords: Offender Management Probation Probation CaseloadsProbation Officers Probationers |
Author: Irwin-Rogers, Keir Title: Beyond the Prison Gate: Licencees' Perceptions of the Legitimacy of Power Holders Summary: In England & Wales, the number of people leaving prison subject to a period of supervision in the community has almost doubled in the last decade. The significant and consistent upward trend in the number of people 'on licence' has been accompanied by another notable trend: an increasing number of people being recalled to prison for breaching the terms and conditions of their licence. Yet, despite these two important trends, there has been a dearth of research on postcustodial supervision. This thesis explores post-custodial supervision from the perspective of those on licence. In particular, it explores licencees' perceptions of the legitimacy of probation and hostel workers, and considers how these perceptions were shaped. Understanding licencees' perceptions of the legitimacy of power holders is important, since previous research has consistently identified a relationship between people's perceptions of power holder legitimacy and their willingness to comply with rules and cooperate with those in power. Empirical fieldwork was conducted in three Approved Premises in England, including periods of observation and interviews with hostel residents and members of hostel staff. Based on this fieldwork, I identified two fundamental sources of power holder legitimacy: procedure-based and outcome-based legitimacy. Overall, I argue that licencees' perceptions of procedure-based legitimacy were pivotal, since they formed the basis of constructive relationships between licencees and power holders (e.g. probation and hostel workers). In turn, these relationships could play a significant role in helping licencees to reintegrate into their communities, thus contributing to licencees' perceptions of power holder outcome-based legitimacy. The thesis rides on a tide of legitimacy research that has already served to illuminate the fields of policing and other forms of penal sanction. While research to date has primarily utilised quantitative data to explore perceptions of legitimacy, the current research highlights the role that qualitative data can play in this regard. The thesis aims not only to increase our understanding of a neglected area of penology, but also to contribute to the development of theories of legitimacy Details: Sheffield, UK: University of Sheffield, 2015. 249p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed December 21, 2016 at: http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/9179/1/KIR%20Thesis%20Beyond%20the%20Prison%20Gate.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/9179/1/KIR%20Thesis%20Beyond%20the%20Prison%20Gate.pdf Shelf Number: 147793 Keywords: Community SupervisionProbationProbation OfficersProbationers |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: An Inspection of Through the Gate Resettlement Services for Short-Term Prisoners Summary: Executive Summary The strategic vision for Through the Gate services has not been realised Through the Gate services had been in place for almost a year at the time of our fieldwork. Delivering the Through the Gate aspect of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms has been a significant task. To set up and deliver a resettlement service to meet the needs of this cohort of offenders would always be difficult. Despite this, it was reasonable to expect that core services would be in place at the time of our inspection. Some of the new services that were proposed in the bids for contracts had promise, but had not been implemented. The provision that we saw was some distance from the original vision of a seamless service from the beginning to end of the sentence. We found little evidence of the anticipated creativity or innovation in the new services being delivered by the CRCs. The minimum contractual requirement is to complete and review resettlement plans for all prisoners, and this is the main driver for the activity of the CRCs. We found no evidence that payment by results was in anyway incentivising the work when compared with the direct contractual requirements. This was not altogether surprising given the comparative limited weight of payment by results and the time lag before the reoffending outcome data becomes available. In addition, the achievement of reduced reoffending is not wholly within the control of the CRC, unlike the completion of mandatory processes as part of the 'fee-for-service'. The absence of common resettlement targets for prisons, CRCs and the NPS meant that there could not be a ‘whole system approach’ to the resettlement of offenders. The needs of individual prisoners were not properly identified and planned for Most prisoners serving short sentences had multiple and complex needs. Basic custody screenings, completed at the start of sentence by HM Prison staff, drew only upon what the prisoner had said and were a wholly inadequate basis for resettlement planning. The National Offender Management Service guidance for completion of these initial screenings did not promote depth or quality. Resettlement plans, completed by CRC staff within five days of the screening, did not robustly address the most urgent resettlement needs. In too many cases, resettlement planning consisted of no more than referrals to other agencies, recorded as completed once an email had been sent. Prisoners had not been involved with setting objectives or given a copy of their plan. The emphasis on completing processes led to adverse behaviours such as the creation and review of a resettlement plan on the same day, and copying initial plans with only minimal update. Not enough was being done to help prisoners to get ready for release or to manage risks Too many prisoners reached their release date without their immediate resettlement needs having been met, or even recognised. Some CRC senior managers reported difficulties recruiting organisations to provide resettlement services in the supply chains. The need to replace organisations in their supply chains had also been disruptive to the resettlement of prisoners. Not enough assistance was given to prisoners to resolve debts. Too many prisoners were released without any accommodation. None of the prisoners had been helped into employment by Through the Gate services and we did not see examples of handover to specialist education or training resources in the community. The low number of mentors available did not match the early promise of CRC contract bids, or the numbers of prisoners who might have benefited from this type of support on release. Work at the low level of intensity that we found was unlikely to achieve the aim of resettlement and reduced reoffending. We were further concerned that the risks of harm presented to others by prisoners were not always recognised. Where they were known, CRC responsible officers did too little to manage risk of harm, which meant that victims were not always protected, particularly in cases of domestic abuse. The level of communication between staff in prisons and the community was poor and there was very little continuity between services in prison and in the community. Prospects after release None of the CRCs we visited were able to provide us with any information on the outcomes they had achieved for prisoners receiving Through the Gate services. Our sample showed concerning rates of reoffending and recall to prison and unsatisfactory initial outcomes for basic needs such as being in settled accommodation. The picture was more positive for women with more services available to help them than men. Overall, however, many responsible officers conveyed a lack of hope and an almost fatalistic acceptance of the likelihood of failure. This did not bode well for the released prisoner or the wider community Details: Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2016. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 30, 2017 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/cjji/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/09/Through-the-Gate.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/cjji/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/09/Through-the-Gate.pdf Shelf Number: 140752 Keywords: Prisoner Reentry Prisoner Rehabilitation ProbationRecidivism Reoffending |
Author: Glod, Greg Title: Incentivizing Results: Lessons From Other States' Probation Funding Formula Reforms and Recommendations to Texas Lawmakers Summary: Prison is an important and necessary component of the criminal justice system. It is, in many cases, necessary to incarcerate offenders who pose a danger to society even with strict and modern monitoring. That being said, the state should supervise offenders outside the prison walls if the interests of public safety and liberty are best served by forgoing incarceration. When implemented effectively, probation keeps neighborhoods safer, saves money, and produces more successful outcomes for nondangerous offenders. When taking into account risk level, recidivism rates for individuals who are sentenced to community supervision (also known as probation) are lower than for those who are incarcerated. Key Points • Most probation funding to counties comes from the state based upon the amount of offenders being directly supervised. • This funding formula does not incentivize counties to implement strategies that maximize results but may cost counties more on the front-end. • Several states have altered their probation funding formulas to incentivize counties to reduce the amount of offenders going to state correctional facilities and to get a portion of the savings back.. • Texas could make minor changes to its current funding formula to achieve better probation results and save millions on incarceration costs Details: Austin, TX: Texas Public policy Foundation, 2017. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2017 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/2016-11-PP27-IncentivizingResults-CEJ-GregGlod.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/2016-11-PP27-IncentivizingResults-CEJ-GregGlod.pdf Shelf Number: 144934 Keywords: Community SupervisionCosts of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice SystemsOffender SupervisionProbation |
Author: Ford, Matt Title: Profile of Provision for Armed Forces Veterans under Probation Supervision Summary: This report builds on the Phillips Review into ex-armed forces personnel in the criminal justice system. Announced in January 2014 and published in November the same year, the Phillips Review aimed to 'identify properly the reasons for ex-service personnel ending up in the criminal justice system, to look at the support provided to them and how that support could be improved.' It covered both custody and the community, and made a series of recommendations. With respect to probation, these included: routine identification of veterans, as well as collection of data on offences convicted for and the factors and characteristics associated with their conviction; for the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) to publish guidance on how to address the needs of convicted veterans on probation within twelve months of the release of the Review; that NOMS work with service charities and other bodies to better coordinate support for veterans in criminal justice; and, that a senior civil servant within the Ministry of Justice should be appointed to have responsibility for ex-armed forces personnel involved with the criminal justice system, aiming to implement an identifiable national strategy in England and Wales for best practice in working with this group. The Phillips Review is underpinned by the Armed Forces Covenant, which states that no-one who has served in HM armed forces should face disadvantage in public or commercial services, and in some cases should receive special consideration. With respect to involvement with the criminal justice system, this would refer to how military service may relate to their conviction. Reforms to the probation service under the Government’s Transforming Rehabilitation agenda began during the period of Phillips. Under this programme the 35 old Probation Trusts were replaced by a single National Probation Service responsible for supervising 'high risk' convicted offenders, and 21 privately owned Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) which would supervise ‘medium’ to 'low risk' convicted offenders. Contracts to run these CRCs were awarded in December 2014, and these providers have since been building supply chains made up of public, private, and voluntary sector organisations which are subcontracted to supply services. Details: London: Forces in Mind Trust, Probation Institute and Centre for Crime and Justice Studies 2016. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2017 at: http://probation-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Veterans-Probation-Report-Final-PDF1.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://probation-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Veterans-Probation-Report-Final-PDF1.pdf Shelf Number: 144822 Keywords: Armed Forces Community SupervisionPost-traumatic Stress Syndrome ProbationProbationersRehabilitationVeterans |
Author: Still, Wendy Title: Building Trust and Legitimacy Within Community Corrections Summary: Over the past three decades, the U.S. incarceration rate has increased to historic highs, while crime rates have dropped significantly. Today, the U.S. incarcerates more people than any other nation in the world. In addition to the 2.3 million people incarcerated in our nation’s jails and prisons, 4 million individuals are on probation or parole at any given time. The individuals on probation and parole — who represent the community corrections system in America — are the largest part of the correctional system. Yet, this aspect of corrections has been largely absent from the national conversation surrounding incarceration rates and criminal justice reform — this despite the fact that community corrections presents the most obvious alternative to incarceration for many and perhaps the best opportunity for reforming the criminal justice system in ways that will promote public safety, efficiency and fairness. Similar to the growth of prison populations during the past three decades, the number of individuals on probation in the United States has also grown. While there were 492 people on probation for every 100,000 U.S. residents in 1980, this figure peaked in 2007 at 1,425, and by 2014 had declined slightly to 1,214 (see figure 1). With nearly 4 million people on probation at any given time, this represents the largest correctional population in the nation. Interestingly, long-term trends in crime rates and arrests for serious offenses should have militated toward a smaller probation population. Arrests for serious offenses are at historic lows, especially for the relatively young. Figures 2 and 3 compare the likelihood of being arrested in 1980 and 2012, by age, for violent and property index offenses. While arrests for violent and property offenses are somewhat higher for individuals over 30, we observe pronounced decreases in arrest rates for younger individuals in the highest risk age ranges. However, arrests for drug offenses are up, way up, for all ages (figure 4) as are overall arrests for non-index crimes (figure 5). On net, the aggregate age-arrest profile changes very little as increases in less serious arrests have offset the decrease in arrests for more serious crime (figure 6). With lower crime rates, these higher arrest rates for lesser offenses likely reflect shifts in enforcement. In conjunction with stiffer sentencing and net widening in the application of probation sentences, the proportion of U.S. residents on probation has grown alongside the prison incarceration rate. The authors of this report find that the strength and success of probation and parole agencies must be rooted in trust and legitimacy. They propose six principles to guide agencies and policy makers in strengthening the field: (1) Treat each individual on community corrections with dignity and respect. Recognize our common human capacity both to make mistakes and to make a change for the better. (2) Realign incentives in the criminal justice system. Cost considerations at the local level should not systematically favor incarceration over alternative sanctions. (3) Impose the least restrictive sanctions necessary, and minimize the collateral consequences associated with criminal processing and conviction. (4) Restore communities, and facilitate their health and safety in a holistic way. (5) Reduce institutional bias and work to ensure that all individuals receive fair, equal access to the justice system. (6) Evaluate what we do, invest in practices that work, and abandon practices that do not. Details: Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: New Thinking in Community Corrections Bulletin: Accessed February 11, 2017 at: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/content/download/82224/1844712/version/2/file/building_trust_and_legitimacy_within_community_corrections_rev_final_20161208.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/content/download/82224/1844712/version/2/file/building_trust_and_legitimacy_within_community_corrections_rev_final_20161208.pdf Shelf Number: 144821 Keywords: Community CorrectionsOffender SupervisionParoleProbation |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Quality & Impact inspection: The effectiveness of probation work in Greater Manchester Summary: The two organisations providing probation services in Greater Manchester were working well in some respects, but needed to do more to reduce reoffending, said Dame Glenys Stacey, HM Chief Inspector of Probation. The Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) also needed to do more to protect the public, she added. Today she published the report of a recent inspection of probation work in Greater Manchester. The inspection looked at the quality of probation work carried out by the CRC and the National Probation Service (NPS) and assessed the effectiveness of work undertaken locally with people who have offended. Overall, the quality of the Cheshire and Greater Manchester's CRC's work was mixed. The CRC is applying the same innovative way of working in each of the five CRCs it owns, based on solid research into what makes people turn away from crime. Despite this, leaders were finding it hard to embed in practice. Public protection work was not good enough because policies and procedures, though commendable, were not being applied consistently enough by frontline staff to protect actual or potential victims from the risk of harm. Sickness absence rates were high in the CRC and individual caseloads had been large in the months before the inspection. This led to cases moving from one Responsible Officer to another, making it difficult to keep hold of the meaningful relationships so central to good rehabilitative work and reducing reoffending. Extra staff had recently been recruited, which should improve the quality of work and staff morale. The CRC was delivering impressive services for women, supported by additional funding from the Police and Crime Commissioner. In common with other regions, the NPS had experienced less change and was more settled. Staff morale was relatively high and good core work to protect the public was carried out, though there was more to do on delivering rehabilitation work consistently. Inspectors made recommendations which included the NPS accessing the range of accredited and non-accredited programmes and services on offer from the CRC to reduce reoffending, and the CRC providing all staff, and especially new staff, with regular supervision and training. The CRC should also improve the effectiveness of the management of unpaid work. Details: Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2016. 77p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 16, 2017 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/02/Greater-Manchester-QI-report-final2.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/02/Greater-Manchester-QI-report-final2.pdf Shelf Number: 146276 Keywords: Offender Management Probation Probation CaseloadsProbation Officers Probationers |
Author: Sorsby, Angela Title: Probation Staff Views of the Skills for Effective Engagement Development (SEED) Project Summary: The aim of the SEED project implemented by the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) is to provide training and continuous professional development for probation staff in relation to skills which could be used in supervising offenders, particularly in one-to-one supervisions. The SEED training package, which has been influenced by the STICS project in Canada (Bourgon et al. 2008) and the aims of the broader Offender Engagement Programme, includes relationship building, prosocial modelling, motivational interviewing, risk-need-responsivity, cognitive behavioural techniques and structuring of one-to-one supervision. The training package consists of an initial three day training programme, and three one day and one half-day follow-up training events at three monthly intervals. The initial three day training programme took place in March to April 2011 and the final follow-up events took place in February 2012. The SEED project also includes action learning sets (regular meetings of offender managers (OMs) to discuss cases) and observation and feedback on one-to-one supervision sessions from team leaders. The training package was delivered within eight Probation Trusts in total, three of which are included in this external evaluation. The three externally evaluated Trusts are London, Merseyside and Thames Valley. Within these three Trusts training was delivered to six teams: in London, Merton and Sutton OMT3 and Barking, Dagenham and Havering OMT3; in Merseyside, two teams based in the St Helens office and in Thames Valley, Milton Keynes PPU and Reading OMUB. The evaluation was designed as action research, so this progress report provides a detailed look at how practitioners viewed the training and the SEED model, which it is hoped will be helpful to those implementing and developing the training. This progress report focuses on practitioners' views of the training, and of the SEED model, as assessed by evaluation questionnaires completed by participants at the conclusion of each of the training events.. Details: Sheffield, UK: University of Sheffield, Centre for Criminological Research, 2013. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 27, 2017 at: https://www.shef.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.293093!/file/probation-staff-views-seed.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.shef.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.293093!/file/probation-staff-views-seed.pdf Shelf Number: 141221 Keywords: Offender SupervisionProbationProbation Officers |
Author: Hayes, Clare Title: A Review of service user involvement in prisons and probation trusts Summary: Offenders engaged with the Criminal Justice System (CJS), whether they are in prison or under the supervision of a probation trust, are also citizens. Service user involvement refers to the process by which the people using a service become involved in the planning, development and delivery of that service to make changes and improvements. Over recent years, there have been efforts in the CJS to promote and develop the involvement of offenders in the services with which they engage. Desistance theory supports the view that playing an active role in one's community and taking on a measure of responsibility can assist in the offender journey away from crime. This review investigates the extent and nature of service user involvement in prisons and probation trusts across England & Wales and raises a number of recommendations to improve quality and ensure sustainability. Main findings Service user involvement was generally more developed in the prisons than the probation trusts in our sample. Of those prisons and trusts interviewed: The researchers interviewed staff at prisons and probation trusts to generate information on staff experiences of service user involvement and the perceived benefits and challenges of using different models. ✪ Prison and probation staff viewed service user involvement as a dynamic process with a number of benefits including voice and empowerment, a way of channelling difficult issues and reducing conflict, gaining expertise, and measuring quality of services. ✪ There was evidence of Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) contribution to focus group and consultative committees, particularly in the prisons. However, there was uncertainty over the extent and nature of VCS provision in this area and this report calls for a further mapping exercise and improved collaboration. ✪ There was a perception that service user groups have been more successful and meaningful where they are co-designed and co-developed by the service users themselves and the offenders involved have a role in taking actions forward. ✪ More consistency is needed to ensure that service user representatives are genuinely representative and diversity is monitored. Prisons that have introduced Council elections have reported a transformation in the way that consultative bodies operate. ✪ More guidance is needed on recruitment, providing incentives and training for both service users and staff involved. ✪ Some organisations, particularly prisons, have moved beyond communication and consultation, to a more proactive model where offenders participate in taking solutions forward. Greater service user ownership precipitates a more sustainable and dynamic process. ✪ Wide-ranging changes have been seen in response to service user involvement projects. ✪ Challenges to effective service user involvement include staff apprehension, the prevailing culture of criminal justice agencies, knowledge and understanding of the service users, reluctance of offenders to be involved and decreasing resource. ✪ There is very little research on the outcomes of service user involvement in prisons and trusts. This is an area that requires development to provide evidence for the widely held perception that service user involvement is a very useful mechanism for making services more effective, improving offender confidence and self esteem and assisting on the path to desistance. The review concludes that guidance and a more systematic approach to service user involvement is required. It is essential, particularly in a time of reducing budgets and competing priorities, that the learning from evolving service users projects is shared and capitalised upon. Offenders are a source of ideas, creativity and direct experience of NOMS services and service user involvement should be a priority for every prison and probation trust. This review has raised a series of recommendations in response to the identified challenges and barriers to service user involvement and staff views on how to set up and sustain an effective service user involvement project. Details: London: Clinks, 2011. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 2, 2017 at: https://www.clinks.org/sites/default/files/Service%20User%20Findings%20Sept%2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.clinks.org/sites/default/files/Service%20User%20Findings%20Sept%2011.pdf Shelf Number: 141258 Keywords: PrisonersProbationProbationersService User Involvement |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: The Implementation and Delivery of Rehabilitation Activity Requirements Summary: When making a community or suspended sentence order, a court may include a rehabilitation activity requirement - that is, a requirement that the defendant participates in activity to reduce the prospect of reoffending. Rehabilitation activity requirements are commonly known as RARs. RARs were introduced in 2015. Formerly, court orders used to specify both the nature of an activity to be undertaken and the number of days, but now only the maximum number of days of activity need be specified. This allows for the precise activity to be determined following a more in-depth assessment after sentence and allocation to probation services, and amended subsequently if needs be. An activity day can be of any duration, from less than an hour up to one day, according to the length of the session. The considerations the court should take into account in deciding the maximum number of RAR days for any individual are not set out in legislation, but the enabling Act2 makes clear that the primary purpose of RARs is rehabilitation. The court should also take into account the nature of the offending, as RARs can have functions other than rehabilitation, and indeed the order can also include other punitive requirements (for example unpaid work). In legislating for RARs, the government aimed to ensure flexible and efficient use of sentencing so as to reduce reoffending, as it sought to encourage innovative work under new arrangements for delivering probation services, introduced at about the same time. RARs in practice RARs have taken centre stage in community sentencing for rehabilitation, and having superseded supervision and activity requirements, as intended, they are now the vehicle for most rehabilitative activity. Orders requiring specific programmes of intervention (known as accredited programmes, deemed to be effective in reducing the likelihood of reoffending) and also alcohol, drug and mental health treatments are much less common. As RARs were introduced, established Probation Trusts were disbanded and new organisations - Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) and a National Probation Service (NPS) - created to deliver probation services. The transition has been challenging, and performance so far is variable. In our routine inspections we are finding the quality of NPS work acceptable by and large (but there are notable exceptions and shortfalls) whereas CRCs are often struggling to deliver quality work consistently well. Generally, we are finding CRCs with high, variable or changing caseloads for some professional staff, and insufficient attention given so far to staff supervision and quality assurance. Other common shortcomings include inadequate assessment or subsequent management of the risk of harm to others, inadequate or inconsistent supervision of service users, and - of particular relevance here - insufficient purposeful intervention likely to reduce an individual's likelihood of reoffending. The change to new arrangements has been very demanding, and to compound matters, workload shortfalls have led to financial constraints and uncertainties for CRCs and a reluctance to commit to the settled arrangements with other providers needed to support RAR and other delivery. Information is not collected on the distribution of RAR orders (as between CRCs and the NPS) but the CRCs carry the bulk of these cases. This is the context for our inspection of RARs. Details: London: HMIP, 2017. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 6, 2017 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/02/Report-Rehabilitation-Activity-Requirement-Thematic-final.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/02/Report-Rehabilitation-Activity-Requirement-Thematic-final.pdf Shelf Number: 145339 Keywords: Offender ManagementOffender RehabilitationProbationProbationers |
Author: Rogers, Ashley Title: The First Fifty: A Study of Summary: Assembly Bill 109 ("AB 109") and the subsequent amending legislation (collectively, "The 2011 Realignment Legislation Addressing Public Safety" or "Realignment") seismically shifted the way California structures and manages its criminal justice system. Effective October 1, 2011, AB 109 redefined more than 500 felonies and "realigned" responsibility for the incarceration and supervision of a significant population of specified adult felony offenders from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") to county-based corrections programs. In brief, AB 109 altered both sentencing and post-prison supervision for the newly statutorily classified "non-serious, non-violent, non-sex" offenses and offenders. While the legislation is comprehensive and complex, two major groups are affected by these changes. First, offenders convicted of qualifying felonies are now incarcerated in county jails instead of in state prisons. Second - and perhaps most critically-released prisoners who would have previously been placed on state parole but now qualify as so-called "non-non-non" offenders are diverted to the supervision of county probation departments under "Post Release Community Supervision ("PRCS"). Because of its import and controversial surrounding it, the latter population-prisoners released under PRCS-is the focus of this paper. On October 1, 2011, California counties assumed responsibility for supervising approximately 60,000 offenders from 33 California prisons who qualified for PRCS. While some have remained neutral, responses to the PRCS component of AB 109 have been largely as passionate as they have been mixed. Supporters note that, because the offenders were to be released into counties anyway, PRCS simply shifts who will do the supervising. They assert that the shift is more technical than substantive: because the offenders to be supervised by PRCS were incarcerated for a relatively low-level "non-non-non" felony, probation offers should be equipped to handle the risks and needs of a population nearly identical to those they already supervise. Prior to AB 109's implementation, Governor Brown expressed confidence that counties were prepared to assume the targeted populations, adding, "It's bold, it's difficult and it will continuously change as we learn from experience. But we can't sit still and let the courts release 30,000 serious prisoners. We have to do something, and this is the most-viable plan that I've been able to put together." Critics of AB 109, however, assert with equal confidence that the plan as it relates to PRCS is far from "viable." They emphasize that under AB 109, offenders are classified only by the present committed offense, meaning that it is possible that a person with a history of violent, serious, or sex offenses-or even a lengthy criminal history-may technically qualify as a "non-non-non" offender under AB 109. The shift in supervisory responsibility from parole to probation departments becomes important. Probation officers, critics argue, may be ill-equipped to address the great risks and significant needs of a potentially a dramatically different population than that contemplated by the legislature. Indeed, several counties have asserted that they are unprepared and under-financed, and some are even bracing for a spike in crime. (See "Part II: The Counties' Responses to AB 109" for further discussion.) b. Scope of the Paper What is missing from these charged debates, however, is data. Speculation about the population is insufficient to spur any informed changes, and a lack of data could lead to rash, harmful decisions based on isolated incidents or conjecture alone. Answers to critical questions - Who are these offenders to be supervised by PRCS? What are their risks? What are their needs? - must be answered. This paper examines these questions in the context of one county - Santa Clara County. In this paper, we first provide an overview of the history and legislative rationale of AB 109, the provisions governing the scope of PRCS, and the CDCR's procedures regarding the determination screening process and data provided to the counties ("Part I: The Legislative Intent of AB 109 and Post-Release Community Supervision"). Second, we provide further context on the various responses to AB 109 as depicted in the media ("Part II: The Counties' Responses to AB 109"). Third, we answer the aforementioned questions (Who are these offenders? What are their risks? What are their needs?) by analyzing the demographics, risks, and needs of the first fifty offenders released to Santa Clara County under PRCS ("Part III: Describing the PRCS Population: The First Fifty Released in Santa Clara"). We then compare the results of the study with the legislative intent and the counties' various responses and predictions ("Part IV: Comparing the First Fifty to the Legislative Intent and Counties' Responses"). Finally, we offer an analysis of the limitations of the study ("Part V: Limitations of the Study") and offer conclusions on the implications of the findings ("Conclusion: Implications of the Study"). Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, 2012. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Draft report: Accessed May 13, 2017 at: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/183091/doc/slspublic/The_First_Fifty_Rogers.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/183091/doc/slspublic/The_First_Fifty_Rogers.pdf Shelf Number: 131360 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCommunity SupervisionCriminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice Reform Prison Overcrowding Probation Public Safety Realignment Recidivism |
Author: Polinsky, A. Mitchell Title: Deterrence and the Optimal Use of Prison, Parole, and Probation Summary: In this article we derive the sentence - choosing among the sanctions of prison, parole, and probation - that achieves a target level of deterrence at least cost. Potential offenders discount the future disutility of sanctions and the state discounts the future costs of sanctions. Prison has higher disutility and higher cost per unit time than parole and probation, but the cost of prison per unit of disutility can be lower or higher than the cost of parole and probation per unit of disutility. The optimal order of sanctions depends on the relative discount rates of potential offenders and the state, and the optimal duration of sanctions depends on the relative costs per unit of disutility among the sanctions and on the target level of deterrence. We focus on the case in which potential offenders discount the disutility of sanctions at a higher rate than the state discounts the costs of sanctions. In this case, if prison is more cost-effective than parole and probation - that is, has a lower cost per unit of disutility - prison should be used exclusively. If prison is less cost-effective than parole and probation, probation should be used if the deterrence target is low enough, and prison followed by parole should be used if the deterrence target is relatively high. Notably, it may be optimal to employ a prison term even if prison is less cost-effective than parole and probation and even if prison is not needed to achieve the target level of deterrence, because of what we refer to as the front-loading advantage of imprisonment. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2017. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working paper No. 23436: Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 507: Accessed May 22, 2017 at: Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 145662 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsDeterrenceImprisonmentParolePrisonProbationPunishmentSentencing |
Author: Clinks Title: Change and Challenge: The Voluntary Sector's Role in Transforming Rehabilitation Summary: Change & challenge is the second report in a series looking at the voluntary sector's role in Transforming Rehabilitation (the first report is available here). Clinks surveyed 151 voluntary sector organisations in mid-late 2015 to gain their views. As a result Clinks has found six key findings and made seven recommendations that we will work to progress over the coming months In response to feedback from our members and other voluntary sector organisations, Clinks partnered with NCVO and Third Sector Research Centre to undertake in-depth research into the voluntary sector's experience of the changes to probation services brought about by the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms. We use this information to advocate on behalf of the voluntary sector to government and probation services run by the National Probation Service (NPS) and Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). Details: London: Clinks, 2016. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 13, 2017 at: http://www.clinks.org/sites/default/files/basic/files-downloads/clinks_track-tr_changechallenge_final-web.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.clinks.org/sites/default/files/basic/files-downloads/clinks_track-tr_changechallenge_final-web.pdf Shelf Number: 146074 Keywords: Offender Rehabilitation ProbationVoluntary and Community Organizations Volunteers in Criminal Justice |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: An Inspection of Through the Gate Resettlement Services for Prisoners Serving 12 Months or More Summary: Until 2014, probation services in England and Wales were delivered by local Probation Trusts. Reoffending rates for released prisoners were high. It was recognised that issues including homelessness, unemployment, mental health and substance misuse contributed to reoffending. The government's Transforming Rehabilitation strategy aimed to reduce reoffending rates by opening up the probation market to new providers, encouraging innovation and creativity. A new National Probation Service and 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies were set up on 01 June 2014. Cases allocated to the NPS included high risk of serious harm offenders and those subject to Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements. CRCs were to manage most other medium and low risk of serious harm offenders, and were to be given: 'flexibility to do what works and freedom from bureaucracy' (Ministry of Justice, 2013). The Transforming Rehabilitation programme introduced Through the Gate resettlement services into prisons in England and Wales. Through the Gate services were intended to be delivered by the local CRC to help prisoners maintain or find accommodation; provide assistance with finance, benefits and debt; and to support them to enter education, training and employment. Additional support was to be provided for those prisoners who had been sex workers or had experienced domestic abuse. These services had existed in prisons previously, but in a more fragmented way. The aim of Through the Gate was to provide a seamless transition between prison and the community. Through the Gate arrangements The prison estate was reorganised in November 2014, with 89 of the 120 prisons in England and Wales designated as resettlement prisons. All female prisons were so designated. The aim is for 80% of prisoners to be moved to a resettlement prison local to their home area at least three months before release. Prison staff screen all new prisoners to discover what needs they have, and CRCs are expected to plan to meet any immediate resettlement needs at the start of sentence, and then to review the plan 12 weeks before release putting in place assistance required at that point. CRCs have Through the Gate resettlement teams located within all designated resettlement prisons, consisting either of direct CRC employees or staff working for organisations in a contractual arrangement with the CRC. CRCs receive a 'fee for service' for providing core Through the Gate services, which should include assistance to maintain or find accommodation; assistance with finance, benefits and debt; education, training and employment; release coordination; and support for those who have been sex workers or have experienced domestic abuse. When CRCs bid for the contracts, they set out their broad intentions about how they would deliver Through the Gate services, but the detailed content is not specified. Through the Gate services are available to all prisoners, irrespective of whether their cases are to be managed upon release by a CRC or the NPS. The CRC contracts are managed by HMPPS, and the only performance target for CRCs relating to Through the Gate is to complete resettlement plans in the prescribed timescale. There is no contractual obligation to address the needs that have been identified. We visited nine prisons, where Through the Gate services were being delivered by eight different CRCs with seven different corporate owners. We looked at the cases of 98 prisoners, before and after release. What prisoners need to help them resettle We found, as anticipated, that many prisoners needed substantial help before they were released. Finding somewhere to live was a common problem, along with finding work or making a benefits claim, and getting assistance with substance misuse or mental health problems. We found that many of these needs were not recognised when prisoners first went into custody. Problems that should have been obvious to prison staff were not identified. Where problems were picked up, they were not well-recorded, so that Through the Gate staff did not have enough information to make a good plan about what help was needed. If urgent issues were identified at the start of a sentence, the speed with which prisoners were transferred to other prisons meant that they were unlikely to receive early help, for example to sort out debts or maintain accommodation. There was then a time delay until they could access Through the Gate services, 12 weeks before release. Most prisoners did have plans drawn up for them before release, though not always in the required timescale. The quality of the plans was variable. Necessary actions were not always identified. Moreover, many of the actions in plans consisted of no more than referring the prisoner on to other services, with little or no follow-up. The delays in completing plans sometimes meant there was not enough time left to deal with issues that arose. Outcomes for prisoners receiving Through the Gate services Too many prisoners (more than one in seven) were released not knowing where they would sleep that night. Only two prisoners were found accommodation via Through the Gate arrangements. Three more were placed in short-term accommodation provided by HMPPS for home detention curfew. Work that could and should have been done by Through the Gate services in prison was left for responsible officers to pick up after release. Five prisoners only found accommodation on their day of release. This increased the anxiety of those prisoners and placed a heavy burden on staff in the community trying to make arrangements for housing on the day of release. The rate of homelessness varied from prison to prison, but ten of the cases we looked at started off their licence period with no fixed address. The impact of Through the Gate services on education, training and employment was minimal. No prisoners were helped by Through the Gate services to enter education, training or employment after release. All except one of the prisons we visited were able to set bank accounts up for prisoners, but even where this service was available, some prisoners were still released without bank accounts. Other work on finance, benefits and debt was not being delivered to any great extent. When Through the Gate was introduced there was much talk about the use of mentors to provide intensive support to prisoners around the time of release. The use of mentors had not been developed as anticipated, and only one prisoner had received support through a mentor scheme introduced under Through the Gate. After release, all of the prisoners in our sample would be supervised for at least 12 months. We thought it was important that their responsible officers in the community received full information at the point of release, about the prisoner's behaviour and experience in prison. Ideally this would include details of all handover arrangements, including appointments made at Jobcentre Plus, and with drug treatment and mental health services. This could be done either by prison staff or Through the Gate workers, but in many prisons communication and information sharing was poor. Public protection Public protection is the business of everyone working with the prisoner. Most of the Through the Gate staff we met were ill-informed about public protection issues in the cases they were working with. We observed shortcomings in the work of prison staff, and of responsible officers in the CRCs and in the NPS. Too many prisoners had inadequate assessment of their potential to cause harm, and too little was done to mitigate these risks. Poor communication was often a factor, and there was not enough evidence of a 'whole system' approach to managing risk of harm. Design and evaluation of Through the Gate services Prison places are not evenly distributed across the country, so layering Through the Gate onto the prison footprint was never going to be straightforward. Other pressures in the prison system mean that the catchment areas for some resettlement prisons are very wide. We only saw a few prisons where there was a clear benefit from having the 'local' CRC delivering Through the Gate services. No clear guidance has been given on how Through the Gate services should align with sentence planning arrangements. For many prisoners, no sentence planning takes place at all because of operational difficulties within prisons, while others only receive a risk assessment due to the current Offender Assessment System prioritisation policy. The Through the Gate resettlement plan may be the only record of work that needs to be done with them, and it is not sufficient for that purpose. The complexity and incompatibility of the IT systems used by staff in preparing prisoners for release were major obstacles to effective working. Either staff waste time entering the same information in multiple places, or they just record in one or two places, with the consequence that others are not able to find out about relevant work. While many CRCs have contracted well-respected voluntary organisations to deliver Through the Gate services, the focus has been on completion of resettlement plans and so the potential for these more diverse providers to improve the overall quality of resettlement work is not being realised. The few examples of innovation we saw were on a very small scale, so are likely to have no more than a negligible impact on reducing reoffending. The CRC contracts incentivise the completion of resettlement plans, not the improvement of prisoners' situations. CRCs are generally struggling financially and it is not surprising, then, that most have invested little in services beyond the minimum contractual expectation. Those that are doing more - Durham Tees Valley CRC for example - told us that they are doing so at a loss. It is hard to see any impact of the prospect of future payment by results for reducing reoffending rates. The consequence is that Through the Gate services as delivered now are not likely to reduce rates of reoffending. For technical and legal reasons it is impossible for CRCs to track any difference Through the Gate has made for the prisoners they have worked with, such as finding accommodation or work. This makes it hard for them to evaluate the impact of their work. The staff we met in prisons working for Through the Gate were keen and committed, and were clearly very busy writing resettlement plans to meet contractual targets. Many of them, and some of their managers, were unaware that the work they were doing was having little or no impact on the eventual resettlement of prisoners. Details: Manchester: Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation, 2017. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 23, 2017 at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/cjji/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/06/Through-the-Gate-phase-2-report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/cjji/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/06/Through-the-Gate-phase-2-report.pdf Shelf Number: 146349 Keywords: Prisoner ReentryProbationProbationersRe-offendingRecidivismResettlement |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: The work of probation services in courts Summary: Probation services have for many years provided advice and information to courts to help judges and magistrates decide on the right sentence. Under the government's Transforming Rehabilitation programme, probation services changed. In June 2014, they were divided into a new public sector National Probation Service (NPS) and 21 new privately owned Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). The NPS assumed responsibility for all advice and information provided to courts. Alongside Transforming Rehabilitation, the Ministry of Justice is modernising the criminal justice system. Historically, courts adjourned for three weeks or more so that pre-sentence advice could be assembled. New expectations are that most advice to court can be given on the day in cases where a defendant pleads guilty, to allow for an immediate sentence decision. In response, the NPS implemented nationwide arrangements for a speedier approach. Court Workload The inspection report sets out the volume of work undertaken by the NPS in court: 158,305 Pre-sentence reports prepared for magistrates' and Crown Courts (July 2015 to June 2016) 100% - The percentage of pre-sentence reports completed by the NPS within the timescales set by the court, including remands in custody (April to September 2016) 31,342 (29%) Community sentences enforced in court due to failure to comply, further offences or other reasons (October 2015 to September 2016) 71% Of community sentences ran their full course successfully or were finished early for good progress (October 2015 to September 2016) 48% Decline in commencements of accredited programmes (2009/2010 to 2015/2016) 44% Percentage increase in the use of rehabilitation activity requirements for community orders during the period of April-June 2015 to April-June 2016 Findings Inspectors found strong arrangements between the NPS and the courts, though working arrangements with CRCs were less well developed. Pre-sentence oral reports delivered on the day were well regarded by sentencers. Inspectors found satisfactory (or better) arrangements to obtain information regarding child protection and domestic abuse. Worryingly, accredited programmes to prevent reoffending were recommended by the NPS relatively infrequently, despite clear evidence to support their use. Short written reports were not always sufficiently thorough in their assessments of the risks an individual could pose. NPS enforcement work was of a high quality, but many sentencers expressed concern about cases where CRCs allowed an individual too many absences before breaching them and taking them back before the court. NPS hardware and software were dated, making staff less efficient, but inspectors did see the effective use of video link in some courts. Details: Manchester: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2017. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 23, 2017 at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/06/The-work-of-probation-services-in-courts-report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/06/The-work-of-probation-services-in-courts-report.pdf Shelf Number: 146351 Keywords: Community SentencesCriminal Justice ReformProbationProbationersSentencing |
Author: Nellis, Mike Title: Grayling's failings on electronic monitoring: after the fiasco, what next? Summary: This briefing by Professor Mike Nellis scrutinises the chaotic attempts by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to commission a new generation of satellite-enabled tags for monitoring those under a criminal sanction in England and Wales. Drawing on the recent forensic analysis by the National Audit Office (NAO), Professor Nellis, one of the foremost experts on electronic monitoring, highlights the 'massive waste of public money' and the 'hubris and incompetence' that has dogged the programme. But as Professor Nellis points out, the electronic monitoring fiasco was more than just a story of unrealistic plans, shifting specifications and incompetent management. It was also the story of a politically-driven attempt, particularly by the former Justice Secretary Chris Grayling, to reshape aspects of the justice system along market lines. A 'lot of what Grayling pushed through during his tenure', Professor Nellis writes, makes sense if one abandons the idea that it had a primarily penal rational. Every move he ma... was designed ... to make established state agencies dysfunctional so that a certain kind of market model could be imposed on them'. The probation service was subjected to a damaging part-privatisation from which it has not recovered. In the new satellite enabled tags, Grayling thought his department was developing world-leading technology that it could sell around the world. Instead it wasted large amounts of time and money on a scheme that many had suspected would fail. Looking ahead, Professor Nellis calls for the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee to review what happened and hold those who made the key decisions to account. He also argues that the MoJ should draw on the 'abundant expertise in England and Wales' to help develop any new programmes, and consider a more localised approach to contracting. And he throws down a challenge to penal reform organisations to play an active role in shaping future developments. Electronic monitoring technologies, he argues, 'will never be used wisely and well anywhere unless they are embedded in decent and properly resourced pre-trial, community supervision and resettlement services'. It is up to penal reform organisations and others to make this case. Details: London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2017. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Briefing 19: Accessed September 2, 2017 at: https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/Briefing%2019%20EM.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/Briefing%2019%20EM.pdf Shelf Number: 146011 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Electronic Monitoring Electronic Tagging Offender Supervision Probation |
Author: San Francisco. Office of the Controller. City Services Auditor Title: Adult Probation Department Reentry Division CASC Program Analysis Summary: In preparation for the San Francisco Adult Probation Department's (APD) upcoming Request for Proposal (RFP) for reentry services, APD requested that the Controller's Office, City Performance Unit, conduct a program assessment of services provided at the Community Assessment and Services Center (CASC). The CASC, which opened in June 2013, is a one-stop reentry center that bridges APD probation supervision with comprehensive services including case management, cognitive behavioral interventions, employment, education, barrier removal, health care enrollment and income benefits acquisition assistance. City Performance developed an analytical approach to assess reentry services at the CASC. The approach consisted of the following four elements: 1. Research on evidence-based practices in the field of reentry services and other related fields. 2. Benchmarking and best practice interviews with peer probation systems that share a commitment to implementing evidence-based practices. 3. Interviews and focus groups with key stakeholders from APD, the current CASC vendor - Leaders in Community Alternatives (LCA), the Department of Public Health (DPH), the Human Services Agency (HSA) and partner organizations that provide on-site and off-site support. 4. Interviews with CASC clients. Based on this assessment, City Performance found several areas where CASC service provision could be enhanced to strengthen adherence to evidence-based practices and improve client outcomes. The recommendations included in this report reflect findings based on research done from July to September of 2016. New information gathered outside of the original time period can be found in footnotes throughout the report. Stakeholders report that San Francisco has a challenging reentry environment due to a large number of high risk probationers with high rates of homelessness, mental health issues and drug addiction. In this environment, the CASC has struggled to motivate clients to maintain the necessary attendance levels that allow for many evidence-based practices to have an impact on recidivism rates. Furthermore, City Performance found other areas where the CASC could improve adherence to best practices in the field including during case planning, client tracking, and mental health and substance abuse support. Finally, the CASC has struggled to maintain a consistent and effective data tracking system across programs which has affected its ability to monitor program performance and measure impact. The first three years of the CASC focused on initiating a wide array of new community services while aligning law enforcement and support services. The recommendations in this report can serve as a guide for Adult Probation Department to deepen the work of the CASC as it matures as the cornerstone of reentry services in San Francisco. This report provides six high level recommendations based on findings from City Performance research, interviews, and focus groups that APD can incorporate into the upcoming RFP for reentry services. City Performance recommends that the CASC adopt the following practices: 1. Increase client engagement hours. a. Enhance intrinsic motivation through using the therapeutic community model. b. Require case managers to spend more time with clients outside of the CASC. c. Increase case manager engagement for clients in custody. d. Require case managers to assume intake responsibilities at the CASC. e. Choose dosage targets and use in probation plans. 2. Ensure that CASC case planning and services address the criminogenic needs of clients. a. Require alignment between Individual Treatment and Rehabilitation Plan (ITRP), Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) assessment and all other client reentry planning. b. Host joint training sessions for CASC case managers, APD staff and subcontractors to ensure that all parties have a uniform understanding of program goals. c. Provide CASC case managers with greater access to the client's COMPAS assessment. d. Provide greater access for subcontractors to the criminogenic and mental health needs of their clients before the client accesses their services. e. Require case managers to attend all collaborative meetings about clients, including case conferences and bi-weekly client case management meetings. 3. Enhance the CASC's capacity to handle clients with mental health and substance abuse issues. a. Expand and streamline CASC capacity for handling clients with mental health issues. b. Hire case managers that have more experience handling mental health cases. c. Train current case managers in de-escalation tactics and mental health awareness. d. Collaborate with county jails, APD Probation Officers, and CASC case management to develop a standard process for transferring clients with mental health issues to ensure continuous care. 4. Develop and implement an effective data reporting system. a. Create and maintain a data dictionary. b. Track and analyze client level dosage data. c. Track data points that give information on program performance. 5. Conduct annual fidelity assessments of the CASC. 6. Long Term: Create specialized client tracks for service provision. a. Create client tracks based on criminogenic risk level. b. Pursue programming by gender as outlined in the Women's Community Justice Reform Blueprint and consider creating client tracks by gender. c. Create client tracks by age. Details: San Francisco: Office of the Controller, 2017. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2017 at: http://sfcontroller.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Auditing/Adult%20Probation%20Department%20Reentry%20Division%20CASC%20Program%20Analysis.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://sfcontroller.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Auditing/Adult%20Probation%20Department%20Reentry%20Division%20CASC%20Program%20Analysis.pdf Shelf Number: 147432 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SupervisionOffender SupervisionPrisoner ReentryProbationProbationers |
Author: Beard, Jacqueline Title: Contracting out probation services Summary: This briefing paper charts the progress of recent reforms to probation services in England and Wales. It also brings together some of the commentary. Background In the 2010 Coalition agreement, the Government said it would introduce a "rehabilitation revolution that will pay independent providers to reduce reoffending". On 9 May 2013, the MoJ published Transforming Rehabilitation: A Strategy for Reform, announcing its plans to invite providers from the voluntary and private sectors to bid for rehabilitation services. One of the main new changes was splitting the probation service in two, with the public sector managing high risk offenders and providing services to the courts, and the new Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRC) managing low and medium risk offenders. In September 2013, the MoJ invited bids to run 21 CRCs across England and Wales, worth a combined $450 million. The list of new owners of CRCs was released on 18 December 2014. Only one of the CRCs was won by an organisation outside the private sector. Implementation Payment by Results (PbR) is an outcome-based payment scheme central to the Government's reforms. Under the contracts, a proportion of a provider's payment is determined by the reductions in reoffending they achieve. The Transforming Rehabilitation strategy document said this would create an incentive for providers to "focus relentlessly on driving down reoffending". Transforming Rehabilitation introduced a nationwide "Through the Gate" resettlement service. The intent was to give most offenders continuous support, usually by the CRC, from custody into the community. CRCs began providing "Through the Gate" services from 1 May 2015. Inspections Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) produced five reports evaluating the reforms as they progressed. The final report, published in May 2016, found improvements in joint working and communication between the CRCs and the NPS, particularly in dealing with breaches or increased risk of harm However, there were problems with court work, staff training and morale. In its thematic inspections, HMIP said that the 'Through the Gate' services were so poor that if they were removed the impact would be "negligible". HMIP also found in a separate report that the reforms had meant services for women offenders were less focused. In a further report, HMIP found that CRC enforcement decision making in relation to community orders, suspended sentence supervision orders and post-sentence supervision was poor. HMIP began individual area inspections in summer 2016. They have found overall that CRCs are performing below expectations, with particular criticism for some CRCs monitoring offenders by telephone. Reactions to the reforms There has been widespread comment on the reforms in Parliament, and by charities, inspectors and directors of prisons and probation. Transforming Rehabilitation has primarily attracted criticism since the reforms were announced. Initial concerns focused on the speed of the reforms, the splitting of the probation service into two, and the possible ideological reasons behind the changes. During the reforms, criticism focused on the performance of CRCs, with lower than expected workloads causing financial difficulties. The Public Accounts Committee found that the MoJ had yet to bring about a "rehabilitation revolution" and questioned the effectiveness of the reforms. More recently, in 2017, both the Chief Executive of the National Offender Management Service and the Chief Inspector of Probation have said the new system is not working well. The Justice Select Committee is conducting an inquiry into Transforming Rehabilitation, seeking to find out how current Government measures are effectively addressing the challenges facing the probation services and what more needs to be done in the shortterm to improve the probation system. The Government's position In July 2017, Sam Gyimah, then Minister for Prisons and Probation, accepted that there had been problems with the delivery of the reform programme, blaming in part the reduction in the number of low or medium risk offenders. He said the Government acted urgently to adjust the payment mechanism to make CRC income "less sensitive to changes in demand". The Government hopes that this will provide CRCs with more certainty of their future income, allowing them to invest in delivering the necessary services. The Government also set out plans to develop a joint protocol with the health authorities, as well as funding a new inspection framework for probation. The Government set up a dedicated unit in Her Majesty's Prisons and Probation Service in the summer of 2017 to coordinate implementation of all recommendations made by inspectorates and other bodies in relation to offender services. Details: London: Parliament, House of Commons Library, 2018. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Briefing Paper no. 06894: accessed March 6, 2018 at: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06894#fullreport Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06894#fullreport Shelf Number: 149319 Keywords: Offender SupervisionPrivatizationProbationProbation Reform |
Author: Aebi, Marcelo Title: Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics SPACE II Survey 2016. Persons Serving Non-Custodial Sanctions and Measures in 2016 Summary: Key points of SPACE II 2016 - The participation rate in the 2016 SPACE II Survey was very satisfying: 47 out of the 52 probation services of the 47 Council of Europe Member States answered the questionnaire. - About 75% of the probation services of the responding countries are placed under the authority of the national Ministry of Justice. This authority is shared with the Prison Administration in around 33% of these cases. - During the year 2016, 2,169,077 persons entered into supervision by the probation services, and 1,365,006 left that supervision. This represents an average rate of 258 entries and 188 exits per 100,000 inhabitants. As a comparison, in 2015, there 228 entries per 100,000 inhabitants (+13.2% in 2016) and 167 exits per 100,000 inhabitants (+12.6% in 2016). - On 31st December 2016, there were 1,628,626 persons under the supervision or care of the probation services of the responding countries. This represents an average rate of 219 probationers per 100,000 inhabitants, which is 12.3% higher than one year before (there were 195 probationers per 100,000 inhabitant on 31stDecember 2015). If we restrict the comparison to countries with more than one million inhabitants, the 2016 rate is 225 per 100,000, which is 3.9% higher than in 2015 (when the rate was 216.4 per 100,000 inhabitants) - Non-custodial sanctions and measures are seldom used as an alternative to pre-trial detention: Roughly, only 9.8% of the probation population corresponds to persons placed under supervision before trial. - On average, on 31st December 2016, female probation clients represented 12.9% of the total probation population. The proportion of minors and foreigners was 3.9% and 16.8% respectively. - On average, there are 5.8 probation staff members per 100,000 inhabitants, with great individual variation among the responding countries. - On average, each probation staff member across Europe is in charge of 4.9 pre-sentence reports. - In 20 countries, probation is used for all kind of criminal offenses. - The average length of probation for persons sentenced for violence against persons and robbery are 17.3 months and 17.5 months respectively. - The longer length of probation is, on average, 21.6 months, and corresponds to persons sentenced for sexual offenses. Details: Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2017. 99p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 10, 2018 at: http://wp.unil.ch/space/files/2018/03/SPACE_II_report_2016_Final_100320.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Europe URL: http://wp.unil.ch/space/files/2018/03/SPACE_II_report_2016_Final_100320.pdf Shelf Number: 149752 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity Based CorrectionsCommunity SanctionsCommunity ServiceProbation |
Author: Matrix Consulting Group Title: Phase 2 Study of the Community Corrections Division: Orange County, Florida Summary: The objective of this study was to evaluate the management, staffing and operations of various alternatives to incarceration programs operating in Orange County's Department of Corrections' Community Corrections Division. The Phase 1 project examined to Home Confinement Program. In this phase of the study the project team examined the other programs in the Division, namely: - Pre-Trial Release - Pre-Trial Division - Alternative Community Service Program - County Probation - Work Release Program - Central Intake Specific objectives of the Phase 2 study of the Community Corrections Division, then, included the following: 1. Evaluate statutes and administrative orders pertinent to the programs. 2. Review of the organizational structures, program policies and procedures, staff authority and supervisory oversight to determine program effectiveness. 3. Conduct a survey of other corrections alternatives' programs in operation in Florida and elsewhere around the country to compare operational and programmatic features which could be utilized in Orange County. 4. Analyze and assess staffing levels and caseloads of the programs. 5. Assess and analyze the programs' use of technology and its effectiveness as well as opportunities to enhance the technology in use. 6. Evaluate the feasibility of privatizing the programs. 7. Analysis of the potential of discontinuing the programs and the impacts of such closure on the criminal justice system within Orange County. The review also included examining electronic monitoring with other Community Corrections Division programs. Details: Mountain View, CA: Matrix, 2013. 130p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 11, 2018 at: https://www.matrixcg.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Orange-County-Phase-2-FR.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.matrixcg.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Orange-County-Phase-2-FR.pdf Shelf Number: 149788 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCommunity ServiceElectronic MonitoringOffender SupervisionPretrial ReleaseProbationWork Release |
Author: Kaeble, Danielle Title: Probation and Parole in the United States, 2016 Summary: Presents national data on adult offenders under community supervision on probation or parole in 2016, including trends in the overall community supervision population and annual changes in probation and parole populations. Appendix tables include jurisdiction-level data on population counts; types of entries to and exits from probation and parole; and offenders by sex, race, Hispanic origin, most serious offense type, and status of supervision. Findings are based on data from BJS's 2016 Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey. Highlights: At year-end 2016, an estimated 4,537,100 adults were under community supervision (probation or parole), down 49,800 offenders (down 1.1%) from January 1, 2016. Approximately 1 in 55 adults in the United States were under community supervision at year-end 2016. The adult probation population declined by 1.4% from January 1, 2016, to December 1, 2016, falling by 52,500 (to 3,673,100). Probation exits increased from 2,043,200 in 2015 to 2,071,400 in 2016. Exits from parole decreased from an estimated 463,700 in 2015 to 456,000 in 2016. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2018. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 27, 2018 at: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus16.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus16.pdf Shelf Number: 149922 Keywords: Adult Offenders Community Supervision Offender Supervision Parole Probation |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Probation Title: Probation Supply Chains: A Thematic Inspection Summary: The original policy intent of Transforming Rehabilitation was exceptionally ambitious. Government sought to reconfigure probation delivery while also requiring additional probation services to be delivered, and with wholly different payment mechanisms as well. New probation providers needed to become notably more efficient than the 35 probation trusts they replaced, to deliver all that was expected of them within their anticipated funding. The changes to what and how probation was delivered were to be brought about very quickly. Government was successful in restructuring probation services to time and within the implementation budget.11 Expectations about third-sector involvement changed as evaluation progressed, and it became clear that bids for CRC ownership were not forthcoming from the sector. The government nevertheless expected the sector to be heavily involved as Tier 2 or Tier 3 providers. It was envisaged that the CRCs would enlist the expertise of specialist voluntary organisations through subcontracting arrangements. Government intended that this mixed provider landscape of both private companies and third-sector organisations would lead to innovation, drive efficiencies, ensure value for money for the public purse and improve reoffending outcomes. Third-sector involvement and supply chain development were never an absolute requirement. Instead, the Target Operating Model (TOM 3)12 repeatedly confirms that CRCs were not being told how to deliver. TOM 3 encourages working with local partner organisations, but it was left to the market to decide. Transforming Rehabilitation prohibits the NPS from directly commissioning specialist rehabilitation and resettlement services, and so saves the NPS the set-up costs of procurement. Our assumption is that it was thought to be a sensible strategy for one body (the CRC) to contract with sub-providers locally, and that this would increase efficiency and effectiveness for all, but the rationale is not clearly stated in the documentation we have seen. There was never any one national body responsible for the stewardship of specialist services across the country. To a variable extent, probation trusts and those before them assumed responsibility and nurtured local provision, with the probation value chain in mind. There is still no one body with that stewardship responsibility, but post Transforming Rehabilitation the dynamics have changed. Some responding to Transforming Rehabilitation consultations predicted difficulties with the proposed arrangements for local specialist services - for example, a concern about how local services could meet a CRC footprint. However, we are not aware that a paucity of Tier 2 provision was foreseen by government. Details: Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2018. 75p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2018 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/04/Probation-Supply-Chains-Thematic-Report.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/04/Probation-Supply-Chains-Thematic-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 149944 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationOffender RehabilitationProbation |
Author: Clinks Title: Under represented, Under pressure, Under resourced: the voluntary sector's role in Transforming Rehabilitation Summary: Under represented, Under pressure, Under resourced is the third and final report in a series looking at the voluntary sector's role in Transforming Rehabilitation (you can also read the first report and second report). Clinks surveyed 132 voluntary sector organisations between February and April 2017 and gathered six in depth case studies. The survey results were analysed by the Third Sector Research Centre and by using the same questions posed in our 2015 survey we have been able to record changes over time. As a result Clinks has identified seven key findings and made 11 recommendations that we believe can make a difference, and help us to understand what the next generation of probation services could look like. Since 2015, in response to feedback from our members and other voluntary sector organisations, Clinks has led the trackTR partnership to undertake in-depth research into the voluntary sector's experience of the changes to probation services brought about by the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms. We have assessed the impact the reforms have had on organisations, the services they deliver, and the people they support; and will use the findings to advocate on behalf of the voluntary sector to government and to probation services run by the National Probation Service (NPS) and Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). Details: London: Clinks, 2018. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 9, 2018 at: https://www.clinks.org/sites/default/files/basic/files-downloads/clinks_track-tr_under_final-web.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.clinks.org/sites/default/files/basic/files-downloads/clinks_track-tr_under_final-web.pdf Shelf Number: 150132 Keywords: MentoringOffender RehabilitationPartnershipsProbationVolunteers |
Author: Bartels, Lorana Title: Swift, Certain and Fair: Does Project HOPE Provide a Therapeutic Paradigm for Managing Offenders? Summary: This book presents a detailed analysis of Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) program. Developed by Judge Steven Alm in Hawaii in 2004, this model of 'swift, certain and fair' justice has been widely adopted across the United States. The book argues that although HOPE has principally been viewed in terms of its deterrent impact, it is in fact best understood through the lens of therapeutic jurisprudence and solution-focused courts, especially drug courts. Bartels presents a detailed overview of HOPE's operation, as well as a critical assessment of the evaluation findings of HOPE and other programs based on this model. Crucially, the book draws on observational research to demonstrate that much of the commentary on HOPE has been based on misunderstandings about the program, and Bartels ultimately provides much-needed in-depth analysis of critiques of the HOPE model. A rigorous study which concludes by identifying key issues for jurisdictions considering implementing the model and areas for future research, this book will be of special interest to scholars of criminal justice, recidivism and drug-related issues. Details: Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.237p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3125644 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3125644 Shelf Number: 150250 Keywords: Offender ManagementOffender RehabilitationOffender SupervisionProbationProject HOPE |
Author: Lattimore, Pamela K. Title: Evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation With Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment (HOPE DFE): Final Report Summary: Purpose: The multi-site evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment (HOPE DFE) was a four-site, randomized controlled trial replicating a Hawaii probation program widely touted as successful in reducing drug use, violations, and reincarceration. HOPE is based on "swift, certain, and fair" principles-beginning with a warning hearing from a judge and requiring strict adherance to supervision requirements, including random drug testing, with all violations followed by hearings and jail sanctions; treatment is for those who repeatedly fail random tests. Grants and technical assistance were provided to the sites (Saline County, Arkansas; Essex County, Massachusetts; Clackamas County, Oregon; Tarrant County, Texas) by the Bureau of Justice Assistance to facilitate implementation. The evaluation documented implementation and fidelity; tested outcomes, primarily recidivism; and estimated costs. Research Subjects: 1,504 HOPE-eligible individuals were randomly assigned to HOPE or to probation as usual (PAU) between August 2012 and September 2014. Most were male (81%), white (69%), and high risk (55%). On average, they were 31 years at study enrollment, with 7 prior arrests and 3.5 prior convictions. Subject characteristics varied across the sites. For example, study participants were younger at first arrest in Texas than Massachusetts (19 versus 27 years) and had more prior convictions in Massachusetts than in Arkansas and Texas (6 versus about 2). Methods: The evaluation team established procedures with each site for identifying HOPE-eligible probationers and implementing random assignment. Data collection included site visits and document review for the process evaluation, as well as analysis of fidelity data. For the outcome and cost evaluation, administrative data were collected from local and state agencies and three waves of interviews were conducted with study participants. Oral swab drug tests were administered during the second and third interviews for individuals in the community and who consented. A substudy was conducted that enlisted randomly selected subjects in a telephone component that asked subjects to call in weekly and answer a short set of questions to assess whether attitudinal changes occurred over the course of HOPE participation. Results: Implementation fidelity was good to excellent in the DFE sites, showing adherance to guidelines for warning and violation hearings, random drug testing, and responses to violations. Of the eleven metrics measured, the sites had the greatest difficulty bringing a violator to a violation hearing within 3 days of the violation, although three-quarters did have a hearing within 1 week. Overall, cooperation, prior experience with HOPE-like programs, and organizational linkages between probation and the court. Challenges in some sites included resource constraints-even with grant funding-and conflict with existing probation culture. HOPE probationers were more likely to have a violation and had more violations than PAU probationers, including more than twice as many drug-related violations accompanying the more than five-fold increase in drug testing for HOPE versus PAU probationers. HOPE probationers were less likely to miss a probation officer visit, to fail to pay their fees and fines , and to be violated for a new charge ; but were more likely to have a violation for failing to appear for court . Most sanctions for HOPE probationers were jail days; HOPE probationers were more likely to go to jail , to go more often ), and to serve more days total than PAU probationers. there was strong buy-in to the HOPE concept and implementation was facilitated by existing agency The HOPE model included treatment referral after repeated failed tests and HOPE participants were three times more likely to go to residential treatment . HOPE probationers were also referred to treatment more quickly (overall and in three sites). Drug tests conducted in conjunction with follow-up interviews showed fewer positives for HOPE than PAU probationers. Recidivism outcomes were similar for the HOPE and PAU groups: 40% of HOPE versus 44% of PAU had a new arrest; 25% of HOPE versus 22% of PAU had a revocation; 49% of HOPE versus 50% of PAU had an arrest or revocation; and 28% of HOPE versus 26% of PAU had a new conviction. There was some variation in rates across sites, but the general conclusions of no differences hold with two exceptions: (1) HOPE probationers were more likely to be revoked in two sites (PAU revocation rates in those sites were about 10%.); and (2) HOPE probationers were more likely to have a new conviction in one site. Lognormal survival models of time to recidivism events confirm the bivariate findings, but revealed one additional finding-HOPE probationers had longer times to revocation in one site. Cost analyses estimated costs of intake, warning hearings, staffing meetings, office visits, drug tests, violation hearnings, arrests, state and county corrections, and residential treatment. Six-month median costs were significantly higher for HOPE than PAU overall and in four sites and mean costs were higher overall and in three sites. Twelve-month median and mean costs were significantly higher overall and in three sites. Twenty-four-month median and mean costs were significantly higher overall and in one site. Cost differences were driven by treatment and incarceration costs. Conclusions: Four sites that differed in organizational structures and populations successfully implemented HOPE programs-holding probationers accountable to their conditions of supervision and reducing drug use. Overall, HOPE did not reduce recidivism, as measured by arrest, revocation, and new conviction. More jail days, more residential treatment, and similar (or higher) recidivism resulted in higher (although not always significantly higher) costs for HOPE compared with PAU. PAU context is important as sites consider whether to implement HOPE or similar programs based on "swift, certain, and fair" principles. PAU revocation rates were low (9% and 13%) in two sites- suggesting limited ability to reduce revocations and that sites with low PAU revocation rates should consider whether to implement procedures to mitigate any potential increases in revocations that would accompany the increased surveillance of HOPE. In at least two sites, revocation could yield only short prison stays (90 days)-suggesting limited opportunities for "prison bed savings" even if revocations were lower with HOPE and a smaller incentive for individuals to comply. PAU was based at least somewhat on Risk-Needs-Response principles in at least two sites-suggesting an additional consideration with respect to the integration of HOPE with PAU. In addition, in one site, probation could use short jail stays on their authority (and did for PAU cases)-suggesting that a HOPE judge was not necessary to enforce conditions. Thus, the similar outcomes may hinge on the "compared to what" aspect of any evalution-in that findings suggest that HOPE worked as well as but not better than PAU. However, given the consistency of findings across four sites that differed in the administration of PAU, there is little to support a conclusion that HOPE or HOPE-like programs will produce substantial improvements over PAU when implemented widely. Details: Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, 2018. 268p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 3, 2018 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251758.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251758.pdf Shelf Number: 151019 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDrug Offender TreatmentDrug OffendersOffender SupervisionProbationProbationersProject HopeRecidivismRevocations |
Author: Herz, Denise Title: Los Angeles County Probation Workgroup: Report Summary: Pursuant to a September 15, 2015 motion by Supervisors Sheila Kuehl and Hilda L. Solis, the Board instructed the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and the Probation Department to review The Los Angeles County Juvenile Probation Outcomes Study and establish an interagency workgroup comprised of various entities in order to build on the report's findings, create a mechanism to implement the report recommendations and ensure continued systems improvement and monitoring of youth outcomes. The goals of this interagency workgroup (hereafter referred to as the "Probation Workgroup") are to support the Los Angeles County and the Probation Department in its ongoing development and implementation of best practices in juvenile justice. Specifically, this group is expected to produce key documents to help: maximize service integration; strengthen coordination between County Departments and community-based service providers; ensure a data-driven, transparent and accountable juvenile justice system; and improve information sharing within Probation and across County Departments. The Board motion directed Dr. Denise C. Herz, Ph.D. and Kristine Chan, MSW, from California State University Los Angeles School of Criminal Justice & Criminalistics to lead this effort. Following the passage of the motion, the Probation Workgroup was established in November 2015 and met monthly either as a full group or as an Ad Hoc Working Committee through January 2017 to address the six tasks. The Workgroup was comprised of 71 participants with a range of expertise and experiences necessary to generate direct guidance on how Los Angeles County Probation can become more efficient and effective in delivering services to youth. Specifically, the membership included seven young people and three parents with different backgrounds and diversity in their Probation experiences. They were engaged through monthly contacts and transportation was coordinated to these meetings when they are able and willing to attend. Over the past year, the Probation Workgroup approached each task with the intent to produce "building blocks" for Probation and other entities involved in juvenile justice. In particular, these documents offer a substantive starting point for building a better infrastructure and delivery system for juvenile justice practice in Los Angeles County. It holds as a primary assumption that preventing and effectively responding to delinquency when it occurs is a shared responsibility across a variety of stakeholders. Thus, better delinquency prevention and intervention requires the commitment of time and resources by the Board of Supervisors, the Probation Department, other County agencies, community-based organizations, schools, advocacy groups and many others. The Probation Department alone will not be able to effectively reduce delinquency and improve the overall well-being of youth and their families without partnerships with all entities who play a role in the wellness in communities. It is our hope the documents contained within this report facilitate and support that relationship. Details: Los Angeles: California State University, Los Angeles, 2017. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2018 at: http://www.juvenilejusticeresearch.com/sites/default/files/2017-05/Probation%20Workgroup%20Report%203-3-17.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.juvenilejusticeresearch.com/sites/default/files/2017-05/Probation%20Workgroup%20Report%203-3-17.pdf Shelf Number: 151322 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity-Based ProgramsDelinquency preventionJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationProbation |
Author: Cuddy, Joshua Title: Young Adults and Community Supervision: The Need for Developmentally Appropriate Approach to Probation Summary: While community supervision (probation) is widely accepted to be an effective strategy for diverting people from prison and offering rehabilitative programming, the truth is that young adults placed on adult probation for felony offenses are far more likely to be revoked and sent to prison than older adults. Young adults are less likely than older adults to have remained on probation for the full term by the two-year point, and the majority of cases terminated by the two-year point were due to revocation rather than successful completion. In fact, only 18 percent of 17- to 21-year-olds successfully completed and were terminated from felony probation in FY 2017. The rate was slightly better for 22-to 25-year-olds, with 41 percent successfully completing and being terminated from probation, compared to 60 percent of felony probationers over age 25. Sadly, nearly 7,400 young men and women had their probation revoked in FY 2017, with 7,000 young people committed to prison or jail. Traditional probation practices are not effective with 17-to 25-year-olds on felony probation. Courts continue to discount important developmental factors when setting probation conditions. This is heartbreaking when one considers the missed opportunities to alter the course for a generation of young adults who might otherwise have moved beyond criminal justice system involvement and led productive lives. New approaches are critical, as people aged 17-25 are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system overall, both in Texas and nationally. At a national level, young adults aged 18-25 make up less than 10 percent of the total population but represent approximately 29 percent of all arrests, 26 percent of people on probation, and 21 percent of all people admitted into adult prison. Young people of color, more so than any other age group, are disproportionately involved in the justice system. Nationally, for every white man sentenced to prison in 2012, there were six African American men and three Hispanic/Latino men imprisoned. Similarly, for every white man aged 18 to 19 sent to prison, nine African American men and three Hispanic/Latino men of the same age were imprisoned. Upon release from prison, young adults are significantly more likely to be re-arrested and/or return to prison compared to other age groups, a factor that underscores the essential role that community supervision can play in keeping young adults out of prison. Incarceration fundamentally derails a young adult's transition into adulthood, and it diminishes the likelihood of finishing school, establishing a career, and starting a family. Probation can be an effective tool for rehabilitation, and it is the primary means by which felony defendants are diverted from prison in Texas. According to data from the Harris County Community Supervision and Corrections Department, adults who successfully completed a term of probation were less likely (regardless of risk level) to be re-arrested within 16 months of release than those with the same risk level who were sentenced to state jail. The same results are seen at the juvenile level, where youth who successfully complete community supervision in the juvenile system are 21 percent less likely to be re-arrested within a year than those who are incarcerated. Also importantly, community supervision is significantly less expensive than incarceration. At the adult level, community supervision costs the state $1.78 per person per day as opposed to $51.72 for incarceration in state jail. At the juvenile level, basic supervision cost $5.93 per youth per day as opposed to $37.62 for placement in a post-adjudication residential program or $441.92 for placement in a state residential facility. The benefits of community supervision - both in public safety and taxpayer savings - are only realized when the completion rates improve for all demographics, especially young adults on felony probation. The purpose of this report is to highlight evidence-based practices that improve outcomes, strengthening public safety and changing the life trajectory of young adults who might otherwise spend years in prison. Details: Austin, Texas: Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 2018. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 8, 2018 at: https://www.texascjc.org/node/8645/download/4681e2359b4d1e06f47d3cbe79e99940 Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.texascjc.org/system/files/publications/Young%20Adults%20and%20Community%20Supervision%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 151442 Keywords: Community SupervisionFelony ProbationJuvenile IncarcerationProbationRehabilitationYoung Adults |
Author: Florida. Legislature. Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability Title: Diverting Low-Risk Offenders from Florida Prisons Summary: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2018, Florida had 143 prison facilities, including 50 major institutions housing 96,253 inmates. Florida's inmate population is the third largest state prison population in the United States. The Florida Department of Corrections' total budget for Fiscal Year 2017-18 was $2.4 billion, with the estimated cost to house an inmate at $59.57 per day, or $21,743 annually. Over the past 8 years, both admissions to prison and prison population have decreased. However, Florida continues to have the 10th highest incarceration rate in the United States at 500 per 100,000. There are multiple points at which offenders can be diverted from the path between arrest and prison, and Florida currently uses many of these diversion programs. Diversion programs include pretrial intervention, plea bargaining, problem-solving courts, and probation. Probation and plea bargaining are the most utilized types of diversion in Florida. Our analysis finds that there are additional lowerrisk offenders who could be diverted from prison, which could likely result in reduced recidivism and long-term cost savings. As such, the Legislature may want to consider various options for diverting additional offenders from prison. This review answers five questions: - How are offenders sentenced in Florida? - What factors influence Floridas incarceration rate? - How does prison diversion occur in Florida? - Are there low-risk offenders who could be diverted from prison? - What options exist for diverting low-risk offenders from prison? Details: Tallahassee. Florida: The Florida Legislature, Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, 2019. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 3, 2019 at: http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/summary.aspx?reportnum=19-01 Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/1901rpt.pdf Shelf Number: 154754 Keywords: Incarceration RateLow-Risk OffendersOffenderPlea BargainingPrisonProbation |
Author: Gisler, Charlotte Title: Experiences with welfare, rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners: Lessons learned? Summary: This paper contributes to the debate on desirable correctional services systems by presenting four national case studies on the welfare, rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners, and how each country regulates and institutionalizes these aspects of the penal system. The countries analysed are: Canada, known for its community involvement in release approach; Norway, known for its strong welfare system; Japan, known for its decreasing prison rate; and Malaysia, known for its efforts in the deradicalization and reintegration of prisoners with extremist ideologies. To create a comparable basis for analysis between the different countries, a comparative scale was developed based on the revised United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). The scale allows the welfare, rehabilitation and reintegration dimensions of correctional services in each country to be classified in three categories (insufficient, sufficient and excelled). In addition to these three dimensions, the prison regime of each country was analysed to allow the national prison context to be considered in the country comparison. Some of the main findings and lessons of the paper are as follows. The only country classified as sufficient in terms of the Nelson Mandela Rules is Norway, which demonstrates promising practices (in terms of exceeding the standards) in the areas of health care, living conditions, visits, offender assessment, conditional release, parole and probation, aftercare and re-entry assistance, as well as family support. All the other countries have at least one insufficient dimension, implying breaches of the Nelson Mandela Rules. The most frequent breach affecting the prison regime is the inappropriate use of solitary confinement. This demonstrates that correctional services administrators in these countries still have difficulties in finding the right balance between the rights of inmates on the one hand, and the overall peace and order of the institution (or in a broader sense, of the society) on the other. The impact of an insufficient or sufficient prison regime on the implementation of welfare, rehabilitation and reintegration measures is considerable. Further, the analysis in this paper argues that promising practices are achieved in collaboration with external stakeholders, such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), volunteers, families, national service providers, communities or external employers. This finding underscores the positive impact that inter-sectoral collaborations have on prisoner rehabilitation, as well as the need for equal provision of services for inmates and for the general population. Promising practices among the case study countries are not limited to Norway. Another example can be seen in Canada's levels of community involvement in the reintegration process. Canada displays a remarkably high percentage of conditional releases, facilitating the application of the "throughcare" approach (that is, the probation service takes responsibility for the support of the offender after release to ease the transition from prison to society) for the majority of prisoners. Regarding Japan, its cooperative employers' service achieves two important reintegration goals by supporting released prisoners to find employment and by integrating civil society into the reintegration strategy. Finally, and despite the Malaysian correctional service system being insufficient insofar as meeting the Nelson Mandela Rules, the country has an effective deradicalization programme for prisoners with extremist ideologies, which is designed to begin in prison and end with a reintegrated person in the community Details: Geneva, SWIT: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), 2018. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: UNRISD Working Paper, No. 2018-5: Accessed march 8, 2019 at: http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BCCF9/(httpAuxPages)/45121C97B9B92C7BC125827B00469BDA/$file/gisler-et-al.pdf Year: 2018 Country: International URL: http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BCCF9/(httpAuxPages)/45121C97B9B92C7BC125827B00469BDA/$file/gisler-et-al.pdf Shelf Number: 154883 Keywords: Deradicalization Extremists Poverty Prisoner Reentry Prisoner Rehabilitation Prisoner Reintegration ProbationThroughcare Welfare |
Author: Aebi, Marcelo Title: Persons Under the Supervision of Probation Agencies Summary: The SPACE II 2018 annual report is part of the SPACE project. This project provides an overview of the use of custodial (SPACE I) and non-custodial (SPACE II) sanctions and measures in the Member States of the Council of Europe (CoE) by means of two annual reports. SPACE II focuses on probation populations and the Probation Agencies that supervise them. In principle, persons in probation are serving non-custodial and semi-custodial sanctions and measures. The latter are frequently referred to as alternatives to imprisonment and most of them are community sanctions and measures (CMS). According to the Council of Europes Recommendation M/Rec(2017)3, "the expression 'community sanctions and measures' means sanctions and measures which maintain suspects or offenders in the community and involve some restrictions on their liberty through the imposition of conditions and/or obligations. The term designates any sanction imposed by a judicial or administrative authority, and any measure taken before or instead of a decision on a sanction, as well as ways of enforcing a sentence of imprisonment outside a prison establishment". Persons who are serving such sanctions are generally under the supervision of the CSM implementing authority, which in the majority of countries is a probation agency. Council of Europe's Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)4 defines a probation agency as "a body responsible for the execution in the community of sanctions and measures defined by law and imposed on an offender. Its tasks include a range of activities and interventions, which involve supervision, guidance and assistance aiming at the social inclusion of offenders, as well as at contributing to community safety. It may also, depending on the national legal system, implement one or more of the following functions: providing information and advice to judicial and other deciding authorities to help them reach informed and just decisions; providing guidance and support to offenders while in custody in order to prepare their release and resettlement; monitoring and assistance to persons subject to early release; restorative justice interventions; and offering assistance to victims of crime. A probation agency may also be, depending on the national legal system, the 'agency responsible for supervising persons under electronic monitoring'". SPACE II is not designed to cover all the existing CSM. The sanctions and measures covered are basically those encouraged by the Council of Europe through the following Recommendations of the Committee of Ministers to member States: Rec(99)19 concerning mediation in penal matters, Rec(99)22 concerning prison overcrowding and prison population inflation, Rec(2003)22 concerning conditional release (parole), CM/Rec(2010)1 on the Council of Europe Probation Rules, CM/Rec(2014)4 on electronic monitoring, and CM/Rec(2017)3 on the European Rules on community sanctions and measures. The data gathered by the SPACE II survey includes the stock (number of persons under the supervision of Probation Agencies on 31 January 2018), the flow of entries (number of persons placed under the supervision of Probation Agencies during 2017), the flow of exits (number of persons that have ceased to be under the supervision of Probation Agencies during 2017), socio-demographic information on these persons, and information on the staff of Probation Agencies and the reports produced by them. Data for the SPACE II report are collected by means of a questionnaire agreed by the Council for Penological Co-operation (PC-CP) of the CoE and sent every year by the research team of the University of Lausanne (UNIL) to the Probation Administrations (or equivalent bodies) of the CoE Member States. The aim is to obtain data that are comparable across States. However, any comparisons of the levels (in rates, ratios and percentages) shown by the countries according to different indicators are always problematic and must be conducted very cautiously. This is due to the fact that the way in which data are collected in different countries varies from country to country. For that reason, since 2010, the SPACE II questionnaire includes questions on the way in which data are collected (known as metadata) and provides sufficient space for comments that can help explain some artificial differences between countries. Thus, the questionnaire aims to identify, and whenever possible reduce, differences in the way in which categories are defined and data are gathered in the national statistics of each country. The questionnaire is filled by the national correspondents in each Probation Administration and sent back to a team of experts of the University of Lausanne (UNIL), which undertakes a procedure of data validation that involves a multilevel counterchecking of the information received. In that perspective, significant inconsistencies and visible outliers (corresponding to very high or very low values) are identified as the data are introduced in the database through a series of control tables. In such cases, the countries that provided the data are contacted and asked to check the figures or explain the reasons for the inconsistencies. The revised figures or explanations are then introduced in the database, which sometimes lead to further exchanges between the UNIL research team and the national correspondents. After that, a first draft version of the SPACE II report is produced and circulated among colleagues, who may identify other inconsistencies which can be solved before publication. Nevertheless, despite this data validation procedure, there are some inconsistenciesthat cannot be fully elucidated (and in that case the figures are presented between brackets) and there may be others that have not been identified before the publication of the final report. In that context, any readers' comments, notes or criticisms are welcome. The Notes to the tables included in the SPACE report provide an additional and invaluable source of information about the data included in the tables. in that perspective, the golden rule for users of SPACE II is to avoid using the data included in SPACE II without taking into account the notes and comments to that data. Details: Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe, University of Lausanne, 2018. 107p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 28, 2019 at: http://wp.unil.ch/space/files/2019/05/SPACE-II_report_2018_Final_190520.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Europe URL: http://wp.unil.ch/space/files/2019/05/SPACE-II_report_2018_Final_190520.pdf Shelf Number: 156092 Keywords: Alternatives to Imprisonment Community Service Custodial Sanctions Electronic Monitoring Home Arrests Metadata Prison Overcrowding Probation |
Author: Glod, Greg Title: Community Corrections in Florida Summary: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the state of Florida at the end of 2016 was supervising over 218,000 individuals in the community (Kaeble, 11). According to the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC), as of June 2018, there were 166,157 individuals being supervised by state probation officers (FDOC 2018a, 52). The Florida Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) determined that by June 2018, roughly 119,027 individuals were on probation, not including pretrial intervention programs (15). The large discrepancy between the numbers likely is due to the fact that most misdemeanor probation is done by local law enforcement and private service providers (FL Title XLVII 948.1). Additionally, it is not clear whether FDOC considers those on administrative probation for this count or other pre- and post-adjudication supervision. See Florida Statute Title 948.013, Criminal Procedure and Corrections. Florida, similar to the federal corrections system, removed parole in 1983, which was coupled with the establishment of sentencing guidelines. However, individuals can still technically be granted parole if they were sentenced to prison prior to its abolishment or were convicted of certain higher-level offenses (although most of these must have been committed between 1983-1995). According to the Florida Commission on Offender Review (FCOR), as of June 30, 2017, there were 4,438 inmates eligible for parole and 486 individuals on parole supervision (FCOR, 6). FCOR retains jurisdiction for several types of discretionary and mandatory release systems, in particular conditional release and addiction recovery release, which are mandatory supervision for certain violent offenders and offenders, respectively (6-8). Oddly, those convicted of drug-trafficking offenses are not eligible for addiction recovery release (Florida Statute Title 944.4731, Criminal Procedure and Corrections). The majority of the population under FDOC control is made up of individuals on felony probation. In 2018, 63.4 percent of those under supervision are being supervised for third-degree felonies (FDOC 2018a, 52). Most higher-level offenses (particularly drug trafficking charges) are subject to mandatory minimum sentences, and those individuals rarely spend time on supervision post-release or as part of their original sentence. Nearly 65% of individuals on supervision are there for a property or drug offense (54). The community corrections population has dropped considerably over the past decade. In 2008, 193,401 individuals were being supervised by FDOC officers; that number dropped to 166,157 in 2018, a 14 percent decrease (FDOC 2018a, 51). Admissions are down over 16 percent over the same time period (54). Details: Austin, Texas: Texas Public Policy Foundation, Center for Effective Justice, 2019. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 10, 2019 at: https://files.texaspolicy.com/uploads/2019/05/27121618/Glod-Community-Corrections-FL1.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.texaspolicy.com/community-corrections-in-florida/ Shelf Number: 156345 Keywords: Adjudication Community Corrections Community Supervision Corrections Mandatory Minimum Probation |
Author: Haugen, Michael Title: Results-Oriented Solutions for Probation Funding Summary: Key Points: -Increased growth in prison and jail populations has received much of the public's attention, but most offenders are on community supervision, which has rapidly grown, as well. -Probation funding formulas which incentivize supervision of probationers for longer than may be necessary are partially responsible for community supervision population growth. -Performance-based funding has been shown in many jurisdictions to reduce caseloads, reduce the number of people revoked from supervision and into prison, and to effectively restrain costs. -Earned-time credits can also be an effective method of reducing over-long supervision by encouraging probationers to adhere to treatment plans and remain crime-free in exchange for early termination. Details: Austin, Texas: Texas Public Policy Foundation, Center for Effective Justice, 2019. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 17, 2019 at: https://files.texaspolicy.com/uploads/2019/05/07101812/Haugen-Results-Oriented-Solutions.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.texaspolicy.com/results-oriented-solutions-for-probation-funding/ Shelf Number: 156374 Keywords: Community Supervision Corrections Probation |
Author: Levin, Marc Title: Ten Tips for Policymakers for Improving Probation Summary: Key Points: -Probation can be an alternative or gateway to incarceration. -Probation should be right-sized to serve only those individuals who require supervision for only the limited time period that their assessment and conduct indicate a continued need for supervision. -Incentives should drive probation policy, both for agencies and those they supervise. Details: Austin, Texas: Texas Public Policy Foundation, Center for Effective Justice, 2019. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 17, 2019 at: http://rightoncrime.com/2019/05/ten-tips-for-policymakers-for-parole/ Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://files.texaspolicy.com/uploads/2019/05/17151137/Levin-Improving-Probation.pdf Shelf Number: 156375 Keywords: CorrectionsProbationSupervision |
Author: Gatens, Alysson Title: Mental Health Disorders and the Criminal Justice System: A Continuum of Evidence-Informed Practices Summary: Mental health disorders (MHD) are between three and six times more common among individuals involved in the criminal justice system compared to the general population. In the United States, 24 percent of individuals who are incarcerated reported receiving a clinical diagnosis or treatment for a MHD within the past year and 49 percent reported experiencing symptoms of a MHD. Research estimates 1 million individuals with a MHD are on probation or parole in the United States. Details: Chicago, Illinois: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2019. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 19, 2019 at: https://mhcontinuum.icjia.cloud/print-friendly Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/publications/mental-health-disorders-and-the-criminal-justice-system-a-continuum-of-evidence-informed-practices Shelf Number: 156548 Keywords: Evidence-Based Practices Incarceration Mental Health Parole Prison Prisoners Probation |