Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:30 pm
Time: 9:30 pm
Results for probation supervision
11 results foundAuthor: Burrell, William D. Title: Guns, Safety and Proactive Supervision: Involving Probation and Parole in Project Safe Neighborhoods Summary: The information in this monograph is intended to raise concerns and issues that agencies and officers should consider in decisions about proactive supervision as it relates to dealing with prohibited offenders who may possess guns. The document does not prescribe a template or model for this. Rather, agencies and officers may wish to use the document as a center of discussion on policies and procedures, especially with the agency’s legal counsel who is in the position to advise them on federal, state, and local laws that apply to the practice of supervision. The primary purpose of this monograph is to provide probation, parole, community supervision officers, and their agencies with a framework to assist them in planning, implementing, and enhancing services provided to offenders who may possess firearms. Information provided will neither endorse nor oppose the carrying of weapons by supervising officers. Further, references to matters of law are not intended to be legal interpretations and agencies should consult with legal counsel relative to the development of policies and procedures. Details: Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association, 2008. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2011 at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/pdf/APPA_PSN.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/pdf/APPA_PSN.pdf Shelf Number: 122099 Keywords: Firearms and CrimeIllegal GunsParole SupervisionProbation SupervisionWeapons |
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: Justice Center, The Council of State Governments Title: Justice Reinvestment in Oklahoma - Analysis and Policy Framework Summary: IN JANUARY 2011, GOVERNOR MARY FALLIN, Speaker of the House Kris Steele, Senate President Pro Tempore Brian Bingman, and Supreme Court Justice James Edmondson expressed interest in employing a justice reinvestment strategy, which is a data-driven approach to contain corrections spending and reinvest a portion of the savings generated in strategies that will increase public safety. These state leaders wrote to the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), a division of the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Pew Center on the States (Pew) seeking intensive technical assistance, which was approved by BJA and Pew in May 2011. As a result, the Council of State Governments Justice Center (CSG Justice Center) - the technical assistance provider working in partnership with BJA and Pew - launched a comprehensive analysis of the state's criminal justice system. This report summarizes the CSG Justice Center's work to address key issues that emerged from the quantitative and qualitative analyses. Policy options are organized around three strategies: 1) reducing violent crime, 2) improving supervision of people on probation, and 3) containing state spending on prisons. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2012. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 19, 2012 at http://justicereinvestment.org/files/JR_OK_Analysis_Policy_Framework.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://justicereinvestment.org/files/JR_OK_Analysis_Policy_Framework.pdf Shelf Number: 124185 Keywords: Corrections (Oklahoma)Criminal Justice AdministrationProbation SupervisionViolent Crime |
Author: Gelsthorpe, Loraine Title: Deaths on Probation: An Analysis of Data Regarding People Dying Under Probation Supervision Summary: The study, Deaths on Probation, reveals that between 2005 and 2010, 2,275 men and 275 women died while under probation supervision. Of these, just a quarter were reported as having died of natural causes, with suicide accounting for at least one in eight and alcohol issues one in thirteen. Evidence in the report suggests that probation staff are recording deaths simply as a bureaucratic exercise rather than to help them understand why people are dying under their supervision and what can be done to prevent future deaths. One in eight deaths under supervision was listed as of ‘unknown cause’, suggesting valuable information is being lost. The report calls for a return to the core values of what it means to supervise people who have committed crime: making bureaucracy less of a priority and making looking after some of the most vulnerable people in our society their number one objective. This means not just helping them to turn their backs on lives of crime, but also caring for their welfare needs and giving them some hope for the future. The report highlighted specific examples of people who had been let down while under supervision. These included a man murdered after not having been given permission to travel out of an area where his life was known to be under threat and a suicidal homeless man who was found dead in a park three weeks after his release, despite the fact multiple agencies knew of his problems. Details: London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2012. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 21, 2012 at: http://d19ylpo4aovc7m.cloudfront.net/fileadmin/howard_league/user/online_publications/Deaths_on_probation.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://d19ylpo4aovc7m.cloudfront.net/fileadmin/howard_league/user/online_publications/Deaths_on_probation.pdf Shelf Number: 126398 Keywords: Probation OfficersProbation SupervisionProbationers (U.K.) |
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: Hudson, Kirsty Title: Evaluation of the 'Going Straight Contract' Pilot Project. Final Report Summary: The Going Straight Contract was first mentioned in the Social Exclusion Unit's report - Reducing Re Offending by Ex-Prisoners (2002:7). In line with recent developments in the management of offenders (NOMS 2005), the report stipulated that prisoners who engaged with the Going Straight Project should be given the opportunity to obtain direct access to services to address their needs both in and out of custody, as well as being offered continued contact with project staff after release. In response to the Social Exclusion Unit's recommendations, the Home Office produced the 'Reducing Re-Offending National Action Plan' (July 2004) setting out a clear plan for delivery, including action points for implementation of a 'Going Straight' Pilot Project. A sub-regional GSC Pilot Project was thus developed by South West Integration (SWing), in partnership with the Home Office and Her Majesties Prison and Young Offender Institution Guys Marsh (HMP & YOI Guys Marsh), in an attempt to utilise and test this 'end to end' resettlement strategy. This report presents an evaluation of the Going Straight Contract, in which a total of 168 prisoners took part. Structure of the report The report is structured as follows. The remainder of this chapter provides a descriptive overview of the organisational structure of the GSC and the arrangements that surrounded its implementation within HMP & YOI Guys Marsh. It also sets out the methodology used to evaluate the pilot project. Chapter 2 presents findings that relate to how successfully the GSC was integrated within the prison as a whole. First, attention is paid to attempts to integrate the ideals surrounding the Going Straight Contract across the prison as a whole, through changes in the induction process and the use of motivational training, and then ways in which the Pilot Project itself was integrated into the prison, for example, through the incorporation of the personal Officer Scheme. Chapter 3 then presents a profile of the type of prisoners who engaged with the GSC Pilot Project. Details presented include their age and ethnicity, offending behaviour, initial CRIME-PICS II assessment scores, and their problems and needs, as measured by the South West - Offender Management Record (SWOMR - these research tools will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter). Chapter 4 looks at the role of offender management as tasked by the project's Intensive Support Worker (ISW). This chapter also explores how successful the ISW was at linking up with other agencies working in the area of resettlement both in custody and in the community. In doing so it provides further evidence of how well the Project was integrated within the rest of the prison and within the local community. Unlike in chapter two, particular attention will be on the different agencies working relations with the pilot and their perceived advantages of the pilot for offenders. Chapter 5, by an analysis of interviews with prisoners , then focuses on the offenders' views of the pilot as a whole. Chapter 6 presents findings relating to the impact and outcomes of the pilot. This includes levels of continuity of service (as already discussed in chapter 4), as well as changes in crime related attitudes and self assessed problems as measured by the CRIME-PICS II instrument, and changes in employment and accommodation status following intervention by the GSC Pilot Project, as measured by the SW-OMR. Finally, chapter 7 draws together the main research findings from the study and offers some broad conclusions. It also provides recommendations in relation to the future delivery of the national offender management model (NOMM) that could eventually be absorbed (without major upheaval) into the NOMS system. Details: Cardiff: Cardiff University, 2007. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 17, 2014 at: http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/resources/GSC.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/resources/GSC.pdf Shelf Number: 133736 Keywords: Offender Management (U.K.)Offender TreatmentPrisoner ReentryProbation SupervisionProbationersRe-OffendingRecidivism |
Author: Larkin, Paul J., Jr. Title: The Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Project: A Potentially Worthwhile Correctional Reform Summary: Probation is a long-standing feature of the criminal justice system and is found in every state. Unfortunately, however, probation has not been as successful as its original proponents hoped that it would be: Approximately one-third of offenders placed on probation wind up in prison or abscond. In 2004, a Hawaii state court judge developed a new way of managing probationers that has shown the promise of reforming offenders and reducing costs borne by the criminal justice system and the public. That project - known as Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement, or HOPE - uses a fundamentally different approach to traditional probation supervision. The federal and state governments should look to this program as a potentially valuable criminal justice reform. Details: Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation, 2014. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: legal Memorandum, No. 116: Accessed October 22, 2014 at: http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2014/pdf/LM116.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2014/pdf/LM116.pdf Shelf Number: 133789 Keywords: Offender SupervisionProbation (Hawaii)Probation SupervisionProbationersRecidivism |
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: Rios, Nestor Title: Reducing Recidivism: A Review of Effective State Initiatives Summary: The Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition commissioned this report that documents how retraining staff in behavioral intervention methods, implementing system-wide organizational improvements, and restructuring probation and parole supervision around the crime related behaviors allowed Maryland's PCS program to achieve an amazing 42 percent lower rate of re-arrests for people under supervision. Crime related behaviors were described under Maryland's PCS program as violence, drug entrepreneurship, drug abuse, domestic abuse, etc. In addition, the report introduces the concept of Justice Reinvestment to Colorado policymakers, profiling efforts in Arizona, Connecticut and Kansas to improve parole and probation supervision outcomes while reducing state correctional costs. Details: New York: Justice Strategies, 2009. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2016 at: http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/publications/CO_Reducing_Recidivism_Report.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/publications/CO_Reducing_Recidivism_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 130061 Keywords: Community SupervisionCosts of CorrectionsJustice ReinvestmentParole SupervisionProbation SupervisionRecidivism |
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 |