Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 11:12 pm
Time: 11:12 pm
Results for probation violations
5 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: Rubin, Mark Title: An Analysis of Probation Violations and Revocations in Maine: Probation Entrants in 2005-2006 Summary: In 2009, Maine was selected (with four other states) to conduct a study of probation revocations in Maine, and to provide data to the Justice Research and Statistics Association (JRSA) for a multi-state study of parole/probation revocations. This study analyzes a sample of 4,725 offenders who entered probation between January, 2005 and December, 2006 from either prison or jail, and analyzes probation violations and revocations occurring in the sample population over a 24 month period. Maine’s correctional system is unlike many others in the U.S. in that parole was abolished by the state legislature in 1976. However, probation often acts as de-facto parole in Maine, as more than two thirds of offenders enter probation from jail or prison (split sentence). Probation is a state-wide function administered by the Maine Department of Corrections (MDOC). MDOC supervises all Maine probationers across four probation regions. Since this study’s main objective is to examine variations in probation violations and revocation practices, we must first understand how Maine’s unique correctional laws and administration constrain and influence probation decision-making. The next section of this report briefly describes those aspects of Maine’s sentencing system and probation supervision regulations that may influence probation recidivism rates. Details: Portland, ME: Maine Statistical Analysis Center, University of Southern Maine Muskie School of Public Service, 2010. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Technical Report: Accessed September 15, 2011 at: http://muskie.usm.maine.edu/justiceresearch/Publications/Adult/Maine_Probation_Violations_%20Revocations_Entrants2005_06.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://muskie.usm.maine.edu/justiceresearch/Publications/Adult/Maine_Probation_Violations_%20Revocations_Entrants2005_06.pdf Shelf Number: 122742 Keywords: Probation (Maine)Probation RevocationsProbation ViolationsProbationersRecidivismRevocationsSentencing |
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: Hamilton, Zachary Title: Evaluation of Washington State Department of Corrections (WADOC) Swift and Certain (SAC) Policy: Process, Outcome and Cost-Benefit Evaluation Summary: In 2012, the Washington State Department of Corrections (WADOC) embarked on an ambitious effort to restructure their community supervision model. These changes were driven by the passage of Senate Bill 6204, which created substantial operating changes to the Community Corrections Division (CCD) of the WADOC, including matching the level of supervision to offender's risk level, utilizing evidence-based treatment and implementing swift and certain (yet moderate) jail sanctions for community supervision violations (Washington State Department of Corrections 2008; 2014). The Swift and Certain (SAC) policy was implemented in May of 2012, with the intent of expanding the HOPE model to a much broader community-based criminal justice population. Primarily, SAC was established to reduce confinement time for sanctions following a violation of supervision conditions. While maintaining a substantial focus on public safety, the Washington SAC program also sought to reduce correctional costs associated with short-term confinement for violation sanctioning. Through support by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (LJAF), researchers at Washington State University (WSU) completed a multi-phase project to examine the implementation process and provide an outcome and cost-benefit evaluation of SAC. Process Evaluation: The purpose and intent of this research is to provide a deeper understanding of the implementation, adoption and use of SAC with over 10,000 offenders across the state of Washington. To complete this evaluation, WSU Researchers conducted the following: 1) a careful document review of policies and procedures, 2) focus groups were conducted with community corrections officers and supervisors (CCOs & CCSs), and 3) community corrections offenders. Over 16 hours of interviews were transcribed, and were then coded to search for common themes and patterns in the data. Interviews were also conducted with numerous WADOC Administrators in order to clarify or gain further insight. Details: Pullman, WA: Washington State University, 2015. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2016 at: http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/cj/gray/searchresults.php Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/cj/gray/searchresults.php Shelf Number: 139516 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCommunity SupervisionCost of CorrectionsCost-Benefit AnalysisDrug CourtsDrug OffendersProbation ViolationsProbationers |
Author: Human Impact Partners Title: Excessive Revocations in Wisconsin: The Health Impacts of Locking People Up without a New Conviction Summary: A report on health impacts of current practice in Wisconsin to incarcerate people for breaking rules of parole, probation, or supervision but who have not been convicted of a new crime, and recommendations to change that practice. Details: Oakland, CA: Human Impact Partners, 2016. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 14, 2016 at: http://www.humanimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/Report_ExcessiveRevocationsWI_2016.12.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.humanimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/Report_ExcessiveRevocationsWI_2016.12.pdf Shelf Number: 146143 Keywords: Health ImpactsParole ViolationsProbation ViolationsRevocations |