Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:37 pm
Time: 8:37 pm
Results for probation (u.s.)
7 results foundAuthor: Jalbert, Sarah Kuck Title: A Multi-Site Evaluation of Reduced Probation Caseload Size in an Evidence-Based Practice Setting Summary: Criminal justice researchers have studied caseload size to determine whether smaller caseloads improve probation outcomes. With exceptions, the findings have been disappointing: Reduced probation officer caseloads have not reduced criminal recidivism for high risk probationers and have increased revocation rates. One explanation is that officers with reduced caseloads do not materially change their supervision practices when caseloads are reduced—they either fail to achieve increased supervision intensity (control) or fail to improve treatment intervention (correction), or both. This raises the question: Would reduced caseloads improve supervision outcomes for medium to high risk offenders in a probation agency that trains its officers to apply a balance of controlling and correctional/rehabilitative measures? The logic is that the reduced caseload would allow probation officers to better deliver correctional interventions, thereby reducing recidivism without unduly increasing revocations. Our research answered this question in three purposefully selected probation agencies: Oklahoma City, where we implemented a randomized controlled trial (RCT) experiment; Polk County, Iowa, where we implemented a regression discontinuity design study (RDD), and four judicial districts in Colorado, where we implemented a RDD. In Oklahoma City the RCT degenerated and the study team turned to a difference in differences (DD) estimator. The results showed that reducing probation officer caseloads can reduce criminal recidivism when delivered in a setting where probation officers apply EBP. The two agencies (Oklahoma and Polk County, Iowa) that fully implemented EBP showed improved outcomes for probationers supervised by officers with smaller caseloads. The districts in Colorado had not fully implemented EBP and showed no reduced criminal recidivism attributable to smaller caseloads. Our results suggest that reduced caseloads, in combination with EBP, can lead to improved recidivism outcomes. The DD estimator in Oklahoma showed a statistically significant decrease in criminal recidivism and a modest increase in technical revocation rates for probationers supervised by officers who had reduced caseloads. Apparently officers with reduced caseloads were better able to identify treatment needs among their clientele, and thus better able to direct resources to those most in need. Consequently, reduced caseloads result in more efficient distribution of resources, and improved average probation outcomes. In Polk County, we found that intensive supervision with a small caseload reduces the likelihood of criminal recidivism by 26% percent (p=.037) for all offenses, 39% (p=.037) for drugs, property and violent offenses, and 45% (p=.023) for property and violent offenses (drug offenses excluded). For longer periods of time, recidivism is reduced significantly for property and violent crimes, 37% at eighteen months and 30 months respectively. We found little evidence that caseload size and resource allocation practices in Colorado’s four largest districts (excluding Denver) reduced the risk of recidivism for the highest risk probationers on general supervision. We speculate that the lack of treatment effect is related to the low frequency of correctional intervention for medium to high risk probationers, and that some core elements of EBP were not implemented until the end of the ten year study period (2007), contributing to the relative lack of treatment provision. The Department of Probation Services has since made considerable efforts to train or retrain officers and add elements of responsivity to Districts’ operations. It may be that similar analysis in two years will yield different findings. This study did not demonstrate the efficacy of the full complement of evidence based practices. Probation officers received equivalent training, so there was no counterfactual to use to evaluate EBP. Nevertheless, the implication is that EBP mattered: the literature demonstrates that without EBP (or similar supervision strategies) reduced caseloads do not reduce recidivism. Details: Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, 2011. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 2, 2011 at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/234596.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/234596.pdf Shelf Number: 121962 Keywords: CaseloadsOffender SupervisionProbation (U.S.)Probation OfficersRecidivism |
Author: Fabelo, Tony Title: A Ten-Step Guide to Transforming Probation Departments to Reduce Recidivism Summary: A Ten-Step Guide to Transforming Probation Departments to Reduce Recidivism provides probation leaders with a roadmap to overhaul the operations of their agencies so they can increase public safety in their communities and improve rates of compliance among people they are supervising. The first section describes how officials can engage key stakeholders, evaluate agency policies, and develop a strategic plan for implementing reform; the second section provides recommendations for redesigning departmental policies and practices; and the final section includes steps for making the department transformation permanent. The report provides numerous examples of how these steps were used in one probation department in particular (Travis County, Texas). Since transforming its operations between 2005 and 2008, the Travis County probation department has seen felony probation revocations decline by 20 percent and the one-year re-arrest rate for probationers fall by 17 percent (compared with similar probationers before the departmental overhaul). Details: Washington, DC: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2011. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 10, 2011 at: http://www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/documents/0000/1150/A_Ten-Step_Guide_to_Transforming_Probation_Departments_to_Reduce_Recidivism.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/documents/0000/1150/A_Ten-Step_Guide_to_Transforming_Probation_Departments_to_Reduce_Recidivism.pdf Shelf Number: 122344 Keywords: Probation (U.S.)Probation OfficersProbationersRecidivismRisk Assessment |
Author: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality Title: Characteristics of Probation and Parole Admissions Aged 18 or Older Summary: I n 2008, approximately 4.3 million adults were on probation and nearly 1 million adults were on parole in the United States. Many of the criminal offenses committed by these probationers and parolees were related to substance abuse. As a condition of their probation or parole, some offenders are required to participate in community-based substance abuse treatment programs. Data from the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) for 2008 indicate that the criminal justice system is the single largest source of referral to substance abuse treatment. Further, probation/parole treatment admissions represent the largest proportion of these criminal justice system referrals. Understanding the characteristics of admissions referred by the probation/parole system to substance abuse treatment may help inform treatment providers and other public health professionals as they work with this population. This report uses data from the TEDS for 2008 to examine the characteristics of substance abuse treatment admissions referred to treatment by the probation or parole system (hereafter referred to as “probation or parole admissions”). TEDS includes a Minimum Data Set collected by all States and a Supplemental Data Set collected by some States. “Detailed criminal justice referral” is a Supplemental Data Set item that classifies known criminal justice system referrals into the following subtypes: courts, probation/parole, DUI/DWI, other recognized legal entity, diversion program, prison, or other. Only data for the 32 States with a response rate of 75 percent or higher on this item were used in this analysis. In those States, among admissions 18 or older for which detailed information on their criminal justice referrawas available, 42.8 percent (203,700) were referred to treatment by the probation or parole system in 2008. Details: Rockville, MD: SAMHSA, 2011. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: TEDS Report: Accessed September 23, 2011 at: http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k11/231/231Parole2k11Web.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k11/231/231Parole2k11Web.pdf Shelf Number: 122811 Keywords: ParoleParoleesProbation (U.S.)ProbationersSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office ofApplied Studies Title: The NSDUH Report: Parents on Probation or Parole Summary: The past two decades have seen large increases in the numbers of adults involved in the criminal justice system, including those incarcerated, on probation, and on parole. Although the numbers of each of these groups increased substantially, the numbers of those on probation have increased at a much faster rate; yet, much less attention has been given to those on probation and to those on parole. Probationers and parolees often have an array of health problems, including substance use disorders. One subgroup of those on probation or parole that may be of particular concern, however, comprises parents with children under the age of 18. Although research on the substance use behaviors of incarcerated parents and their children is limited, there is even less information about the behaviors of parents on probation or parole. Gaining a better understanding of this population and its substance use problems may help to inform criminal justice personnel, family services personnel, educators, and policymakers about the needs of this population (both parents and children) and help them with service planning. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) asks respondents if, at any time during the past 12 months, they were (1) on probation or (2) on parole, supervised release, or other conditional release from prison. NSDUH also asks about use of alcohol and illicit drugs, as well as dependence or abuse. This issue of The NSDUH Report focuses on substance use and dependence or abuse among persons aged 18 or older who were living with at least one biological, step-, adoptive, or foster child aged 17 or younger. All findings in the report are annual averages based on combined 2005 to 2008 data. Details: Rockville, MD: SAMHSA, 2010. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2011 at: http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k10/176/176ParentProbParolHTML.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k10/176/176ParentProbParolHTML.pdf Shelf Number: 122880 Keywords: ParentsParoleParoleesProbation (U.S.)ProbationersSubstance Abuse |
Author: Adams, Sharyn Title: Examining Illinois Probationer Characteristics and Outcomes Summary: While most adults convicted of crimes in Illinois are sentenced to probation, little is known about the characteristics of these offenders, the conditions imposed as part of their probation terms, or their recidivism rates. In this report, researchers examined characteristics of adult probationers sentenced to probation in 2006 to develop a detailed snapshot of probationers in Illinois. This research can help guide probation departments’ policy and programming decisions. Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2011. 77p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2011 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/Examining_IL_probationer_characteristics_and_outcomes_092011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/Examining_IL_probationer_characteristics_and_outcomes_092011.pdf Shelf Number: 122888 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationProbation (U.S.)Probationers |
Author: Los Angeles County. Office of Independent Review Title: Evaluation and Recommendations Concerning Internal Investigations at the Los Angeles County Probation Department Summary: The Office of Independent Review was asked in March of this year by the County Board of Supervisors to conduct a three month examination of internal investigation functions at the Los Angeles County Probation Department. Our review of this 6,000 member Department revealed a number of significant problems in the units most directly involved with internal investigations and administrative discipline. During our review, we received the unqualified support of the new Departmental leadership and executive team and were granted unfettered access to documents and managerial personnel. We discovered inordinate delays in completing and reviewing internal investigations. As a result, in at least thirty-one cases over the past two calendar years, the Department may well be unable to discipline sworn employees who violated policy because it was unable to complete the cases on time. The twenty-eight cases are only emblematic of a wholesale systems breakdown in which over half of all disciplinary cases were completed five days or less shy of the statutory one-year deadline. This systemic failure caused victims, complainants, subject employees, and Department managers in over half the cases to wait almost a year before the cases were finalized. The bottlenecks that caused the delay derived primarily from bureaucratic inefficiencies, insufficient tracking, and weak case management. We found general difficulty in accurately tracking cases through the system from beginning to end. The lack of an integrated database caused investigators, reviewers, supervisors, case managers, and executives alike to be unable to ascertain fundamental data such as the current number of administrative investigations in the system. This inability to know the universe of cases and track each of them hampers the Department’s efforts to improve the system in critical ways. The Department entities assigned to root out and address misconduct work in isolation from one another and this way of doing business combined with the lack of an integrated database makes it virtually impossible to share information effectively and make the system more efficient. In the Internal Affairs unit, we found quality deficiencies in the investigations and a clear need for training in basic investigative skills to professionalize their methods and work product. We also found that the unit lacked adequate Departmental investigative support , making it extremely difficult for the investigators to conduct timely, thorough and effective investigations. In the Child Abuse Special Investigations Unit, we found the beginning of a well functioning investigation entity hampered by uneven training, erratic notification and evidence preservation at the juvenile facilities, and insufficient internal quality control within the unit. In the Performance Management unit we found significant holes in documentation and an obscure, inconsistent process of case evaluation and discipline decision-making. Some of these issues are personnel based. Many others concern processes and procedures that do not serve those personnel well and create unnecessary obstacles to effective performance. When we asked why some seemingly counterproductive procedures exist, we often heard, ―[t]hat’s the way we’ve always done it.‖ Many of the problems we identified are amenable to practical short and medium term solutions, while others may take a more sustained effort. We have recommended a total of 34 changes in structure, procedure, policy and standards. We also recommend that the leadership of the Department make an explicit commitment to creating a disciplinary system that meets the standards of skill, integrity and professionalism that are so necessary to this Department. Among our central recommendations, we believe it is indispensable for the Department to adopt a single unified case tracking system accessible by personnel from Internal Affairs, Child Abuse, and Performance Management. The confusion, data loss and mistakes engendered by the current proliferation of different, incompatible tracking systems cripples the Department’s disciplinary efforts We also recommend that the investigative and reviewing units take action to speed up the glacial pace with which cases are moved through the system and institute better safeguards and management control so that cases are not needlessly bottlenecked and potentially lost to expired statutes of limitation. We make recommendations aimed at improving the skill set of Internal Affairs and Child Abuse investigators. We also believe that IA and CASIU could benefit from merging into a single professional organization with standardized prerequisites, training, and procedures. Many of our recommendations point to a new holistic attitude we believe the Department should adopt toward the internal disciplinary system. Disciplinary investigations and their outcomes can provide significant feedback to Department leaders that can help improve the quality of operations within the Department as well as the investigations themselves. We recommend that the Department provide needed transparency and information to both its employees and the public about individual cases, the investigative process, and systemic issues. We also recommend that the Department consider seeking independent oversight to ensure a continued path to reform, system-wide as well as providing quality control, fair investigations and principled decision-making on a case-specific level. During our review, we observed a Department already actively engaging in reforms on many fronts with the assistance of the County offices of the CEO, the Auditor/Controller and Human Resources. The Probation Department’s managers have already modified some aspects of their process during our review as a result of our continuing dialogue with them. Details: Los Angeles: Office of Independent Review, County of Los Angeles, 2010. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 19, 2011 at: http://laoir.com/reports/Report%20on%20Los%20Angeles%20County%20Probation%20Department%20June%202010.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://laoir.com/reports/Report%20on%20Los%20Angeles%20County%20Probation%20Department%20June%202010.pdf Shelf Number: 123397 Keywords: Probation (U.S.)Probation OfficersProbation Supervision |
Author: Phelps, Michelle S. Title: Mass Probation: Toward a More Robust Theory of State Variation in Punishment Summary: Scholarship on the expansion of the criminal justice system in the U.S. has almost exclusively focused on imprisonment, investigating why some states lead the world in incarceration rates while others have restrained growth. Yet for most states, the predominant form of punishment is probation, and many seemingly progressive states supervise massive numbers of adults on community supervision. Drawing on Bureau of Justice Statistics data from 1980 and 2010, I analyze this expansion of mass probation and develop a typology of control regimes that theorizes both the scale and type of formal punishment states employ. The results demonstrate that mass probation rearranges scholars' conclusions about the causes and consequences of the penal state. Details: Unpublished paper, 2014. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 1, 2014 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2476051 Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2476051 Shelf Number: 133534 Keywords: Community CorrectionsMass ImprisonmentMass IncarcerationProbation (U.S.)Punishment |