Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:42 am
Time: 3:42 am
Results for probationers
115 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: 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: Brown, Tracy M.L. Title: Global Positioning System (GPS) Technology for Community Supervision: Lessons Learned Summary: This report identifies the current practices of agencies that have been using global positioning system (GPS) to supervise offenders on community supervision — probation, parole, or supervised release. The study reports on interviews with seven community supervision agencies about their experiences using GPS to manage their populations. Details: Falls Church, VA: Noblis, 2007. 142p. Source: Internet Resource; Accessed August 16, 2010 at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219376.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219376.pdf Shelf Number: 113264 Keywords: Community Based CorrectionsComputer MappingConditional ReleaseElectronic Monitoring, OffendersGlobal Positioning SystemParoleesProbationers |
Author: Bonta, James Title: The Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision: Risk-Need-Responsivity in the Real World Summary: Community supervision is the most prevalent form of correctional control. In Canada, there are approximately 95,000 offenders under probation or parole supervision. In the United States the number exceeds five million. Despite the prevalence of its use, little is known about the effectiveness of community supervision. The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model of offender rehabilitation has guided the development of treatment programs but it has not been applied in situations of one-on-one supervision. In the present study, an RNR-based training program was developed and delivered to probation officers to assist in the direct supervision of offenders under a probation order. Probation officers were randomly assigned to a training or no-training condition. After training, probation officers audiotaped some of their sessions with clients in order to assess their use of the skills taught in training. The results showed that the trained probation officers evidenced more of the RNR-based skills and that their clients had a lower recidivism rate. The findings suggest that training in the evidenced-based principles of the RNR model can have an important impact on the behaviour of probation officers and their clients. Details: Ottawa: Public Safety Canada, 2010. 20p. Source: Internet Resource; Corrections Research: User Report 2010-01. Accessed August 16, 2010 at: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/sp-ps/PS3-1-2010-1-eng.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Canada URL: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/sp-ps/PS3-1-2010-1-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 119617 Keywords: Community Based Corrections (Canada)ParoleesProbation OfficersProbationersRisk Assessment |
Author: 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: Berk, Richard Title: Forecasting Murder Within a Population of Probationers and Parolees: A High Stakes Application of Statistical Learning Summary: In the United States, forecasts of future dangerousness are often used to inform the sentencing decisions of convicted offenders, and for individuals sentenced to probation or parole, the conditions under which they are to be supervised. The target for these forecasts is commonly almost any new offense, most of which are not considered to be very serious. This can produce a one-size-fits-all decision that may not allocate scarce criminal justice resources effectively. In this paper, we focus on individuals sentenced to probation or parole. Using data on over 60,000 cases beginning supervision under the Philadelphia Department of Adult Probation and Parole, we forecast whether a homicide or attempted homicide will be committed. We use statistical learning procedures that take the relative costs of false negatives and false positives into account and evaluate our forecasting skill with a large test sample. Homicide and attempted homicide are relatively rare crimes, but are considered to be among the most serious. Insofar as prospective murderers can be usefully identified, there is the possibility of shifting supervisory and rehabilitation resources to a subset of offenders who may be in greatest need. Details: Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Department of Criminology, 2007. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 13, 2010 at: http://www.crim.upenn.edu/faculty/papers/berk/murder.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.crim.upenn.edu/faculty/papers/berk/murder.pdf Shelf Number: 119941 Keywords: HomicideParoleesProbationers |
Author: 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: Bales, William Title: A Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Electronic Monitoring Summary: Research Purposes: The purposes of this research include: (1) determining the effect of electronic monitoring (EM) as a supervision enhancement for offenders in terms of absconding, probation violations, and the commission of new crimes; (2) providing an explanation of the findings; (3) documenting the implementation of EM; (4) identifying and documenting the impact that EM has on offenders' personal relationships, families, employment, and assimilation within the community; and (5) developing evidence-based recommendations to improve public safety and lessen negative consequences for offenders and their families. Research Design and Methodology: Data sources include: (1) administrative data from the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC), which include 5,034 medium- and high-risk offenders on EM and 266,991 offenders not placed on EM over a six year period; and (2) qualitative data collected through face-to-face interviews with 105 offenders, 36 supervising officers, and 20 administrators from fourteen counties in Florida. Random assignment of offenders to the experimental (EM) and control (non-EM) groups was not possible; therefore, propensity score matching was employed to establish the two groups. Propensity score matching, as a statistical procedure, is an effective method of selecting subjects for experimental and control groups whereby selection bias is minimized and the groups closely resemble each other across key variables (Rubin, 2006; Rosenbaum, 2002). One-hundred-twenty-two covariates were used to predict EM participation, which enhanced the predictive accuracy of the matching procedure. Cox's regression techniques were utilized to analyze time-to-failure for various outcome measures. The qualitative data, which included forced-choice and open-ended questions, were systematically analyzed and include descriptive statistics and illustrative quotes from respondents. Research Results and Conclusions: The quantitative analysis demonstrates that EM reduces offenders' risk of failure by 31 percent and that global positioning system (GPS) monitoring results in 6 percent fewer supervision failures compared to radio frequency (RF). All categories of offenders, regardless of offense type, experienced fewer supervision violations as a result of EM; however, the effect was reduced for violent offenders. Offenders of all age groups and those on different forms of community supervision benefited from EM. The findings from the qualitative analysis indicates that: (1) administrators reported that EM goals and objectives were being met; (2) officers' and offenders' opinions of EM's impact on reducing undesirable behavior are consistent with the findings from the quantitative assessment; (3) EM status and equipment does have negative consequences for offenders' families, employment opportunities, and adjustment in the community; (4) there is a need to refine the selection of offenders identified as the most appropriate for EM; (5) EM is used as an alternative to prison in approximately one-third of the cases; (6) EM devices frequently lose the satellite signal resulting in numerous, unnecessary alerts; (7) EM operations may benefit from increasing judges' understanding of the equipment, the most appropriate subjects for EM, and key operational aspects of EM; and (8) the most important, recent enhancement to FDOC's EM program has been the statewide monitoring center that has significantly reduced the number of alerts. This reduction in alerts enables officers to devote more time to essential supervisory responsibilities. Details: Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Center for Criminology and Public Policy Research, 2010. 189p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 2, 2010 at: http://www.criminologycenter.fsu.edu/p/pdf/EM%20Evaluation%20Final%20Report%20for%20NIJ.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.criminologycenter.fsu.edu/p/pdf/EM%20Evaluation%20Final%20Report%20for%20NIJ.pdf Shelf Number: 120159 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsElectronic MonitoringProbationers |
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: Armstrong, Gaylene Title: The Importance of a Low Span of Control in Effective Implementation of Evidence Based Probation and Parole Practices Summary: Public safety, through positive offender behavior change, and offender accountability are key priorities of the Community Based Correctional System in Iowa. In response to budgetary constraints, recent legislative discussions have ensued regarding the reduction of funding allocated for the supervisory staff in the System. The suggested reduction would significantly decrease the span of control ratio of probation supervisors to probation officers within the System. While recognizing ongoing fiscal demands, the current 7 probation officers to 1 supervisor ratio (7:1 span of control) should not be increased to a higher ratio, as it would be in contrast to suggested principles of organization and management, as well as challenge the continued implementation and sustainability of effective, evidence based practices within the System. "Span of control" has commonly been utilized to describe the number of individuals, or resources, that a person can effectively supervise within a structured organizational, business or military setting. The foundation of this principle is to increase administrative efficiency (Souryal, 1977), while retaining effectiveness within the organization. In examining the span of control in probation jurisdictions across the country, two different studies have found significant variation in this ratio. Cushman and Sechrest (1992) argued as part of their study, which included span of control ratios that a prevailing assumption existed such that probation agencies, clients on probation, and programs used to supervise probationers were similar across jurisdiction. Their results indicated, however that nothing could be further from the truth. Cushman and Sechrest noted "there are truly important differences on all three of these dimensions" between probation organizations; consequently, policy from one jurisdiction may not necessarily be a good model for adaptation to other jurisdictions. Moreover, significant variation found to exist in supervision ratios across jurisdictions, as well as supervision models, was unexplained. To date, evidence documenting the roles and responsibility of the supervising officers, as well as the supervisory structure, that may explain some of the variation in span of control ratios is absent in contextualizing these numbers. Concurrent with the consideration of appropriate span of control ratios, knowledge of recent changes to Iowa's approach to offender management inclusive of evidence based practices must also be understood. The general principle of evidence based practices (EBP) relies on scientific knowledge and/or empirical studies that demonstrate effectiveness of programs, methods or techniques within the contextual setting to accomplish a pre‐defined goal of recidivism reduction. As a result of the System’s implementation of evidence based practices in probation and parole, the implementation of EBP has been credited with a significant reduction in the Iowa prison population. This is a trend that could be reversed if the span of control was increased. Supervisors play a pivotal role in any organization's attempt to improve efficiency and effectiveness through the application of evidence‐based knowledge to the process of work. In order to be successful in this role, supervisors must master a set of skills that even ten years ago were not considered to be part of their competences. These skills include, among others, transformational leadership, strategic thinking, change management, communication, collaboration, coaching and mentoring, motivating staff, and relationship building. Each of these skills takes time to master and apply. Supervision is no longer just telling people what to do and then monitoring whether they do it; it has become the art and science of human and behavioral encouragement, support, and feedback. Moreover, the role of the probation officers themselves has significantly evolved with the implementation of evidence based practices. Probation and parole officers must be engaged with clients in a manner that requires a higher level of direct interaction to implement supervision techniques such as engaging in relationship building, motivational interviewing, and adhering to risk, needs and responsivity principles of treatment. This shift in officer roles aligns with added oversight by the supervisory staff to ensure fidelity of evidence based practices such as those mentioned above. Engaging in evidence‐based practices in probation and parole also requires supervisors who have the time to exercise these skills. If agencies expect to achieve significant modifications of criminal behavior and to reduce recidivism, they must allow supervisors the ability to devote the majority of their work day to collaborating with their staff in the actual conduct of their daily business. Supervisors must be able to tutor their staff in the skills of case planning, building meaningful relationships with the offender, engaging offenders in accomplishing treatment plans, using rewards and sanctions, and reducing risk by addressing criminogenic needs. In addition to ineffective implementation of evidence based practices, when supervision staff is lacking, it is also possible for programs and practices that are initially well‐implemented to erode in quality over time. As one director we spoke with stated, “…EBP takes active supervision and some accountability or it slips.” McManus (2007) also discussed a number of other global issues that may result including skill erosion, customer confidence erosion, and morale erosion or bad morale if employees are not supported with effective and adequate levels of supervision. Moreover, probation organizations are in a unique position such that both individual officers and their organizations may be subject to civil liability suits if it can be demonstrated that the organization failed to adequately train, direct, supervise, entrust, discipline and assign employees. Details: Houston, TX: Correctional Management Institute of Texas, Sam Houston State University, 2010. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 19, 2011 at: http://nicic.gov/Downloads/PDF/Library/024881.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://nicic.gov/Downloads/PDF/Library/024881.pdf Shelf Number: 120831 Keywords: Community Based CorrectionsParole OfficersParoleesProbation OfficersProbationers |
Author: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality Title: The TEDS Report: Characteristics of Probation and Parole Admissions Aged 18 or Older Summary: This report uses data from the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) for 2008 to examine the characteristics of substance abuse treatment admissions referred to treatment by the probation or parole system (hereafter referred to as “probation or parole admissions”). Highlights of the study include the following: ● The most common substances of abuse reported by probation or parole admissions were alcohol (30.6 percent), marijuana (26.4 percent), and methamphetamines (15.6 percent); more than one half reported more than one substance of abuse at admission (59.2 percent)● The majority of probation or parole admissions were male (76.6 percent), had never married (63.1 percent), were between the ages of 18 and 44 (81.3 percent), and were non-Hispanic White (52.3 percent)● Over one third of the probation and parole admissions had less than a high school education (39.6); the majority of these admissions were unemployed (36.8 percent) or not in the labor force (26.2 percent)● The majority of probation or parole admissions had been in treatment at least once before (57.5 percent); 18.4 percent reported three or more prior treatment episodes. Details: Rockville, MD: SAMHSA, 2011. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 9, 2011 at: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k11/231/231Parole2k11Web.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k11/231/231Parole2k11Web.pdf Shelf Number: 120912 Keywords: Drug Abuse and CrimeParoleParoleesProbationProbationersSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Jannetta, Jesse Title: Kiosk Supervision for the District of Columbia Summary: The majority of people involved with the criminal justice system are under community supervision. In 2009, 5 million of the 7.2 million individuals under some form of criminal justice system control were supervised in the community (Glaze 2010). Although all individuals under supervision are required to report regularly to their supervising officer, the intensity and structure of supervision varies considerably according to the risk of reoffense. Managing this population to facilitate their success in becoming law-abiding citizens is a huge challenge for community supervision agencies across the country as they struggle to distribute scarce resources across their supervised population without diluting interventions and monitoring to the point of ineffectiveness. Providing the appropriate level of supervision and intensity of treatment based on an individual’s assessed risk and need is the key to meeting that challenge. One supervision method that states and localities across the nation have adopted to supervise low-risk offenders and pretrial defendants efficiently is kiosk supervision. Kiosk systems can replace in-person reporting requirements, are convenient for both supervisees and supervision agencies, and help shift resources to moderate- and high-risk probationers and parolees who need more intensive interventions and monitoring. With supervision budgets under increasing stress and caseloads rising, these aspects of kiosk supervision systems are highly attractive. In 2008, the Court Supervision and Offender Services Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA) set out to implement a kiosk reporting pilot program for the probationers and parolees the agency supervises. CSOSA engaged the Urban Institute to conduct an outcome evaluation of the pilot. Due to software integration problems, implementation was delayed, and the Urban Institute instead conducted a simulated analysis. The simulation was designed to identify, if possible, low-risk offenders who posed the same risk whether supervised passively (i.e., with a minimal compliance reporting requirement or Kiosk reporting) or actively (i.e., in-person reporting to community supervision officers). After the simulation analysis was complete, the Urban Institute co-sponsored (with the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council for the District of Columbia) a symposium titled The Risk Principle in Action: Right-Sizing Supervision Monitoring for High- and Low-Risk Offenders. The symposium presented an overview of research on kiosk supervision for low-risk supervisees and global positioning system (GPS) monitoring for higher-risk offenders as examples of different technology-based approaches used to allocate supervision resources according to offender risk level. Local criminal justice leaders joined the symposium to address issues raised and discuss implications for the future direction of practice in the District. This brief draws upon and summarizes findings from both the simulation and the symposium. It discusses the capabilities of kiosk supervision technology, how kiosk supervision fits within a broader risk reduction supervision strategy, challenges of kiosk implementation, and empirical evidence regarding kiosk supervision impacts. It concludes with recommendations for implementation of a kiosk supervision system in the District of Columbia. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2011. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 28, 2011 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412314-Kiosk-Supervision-DC.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412314-Kiosk-Supervision-DC.pdf Shelf Number: 121149 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationLow-Risk OffendersOffender Supervision (Washington, D.C.)ParoleesPretrial DefendantsProbationers |
Author: 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: Cadora, Eric Title: Travis Community Impact Supervision. Thinking About Location: Orienting Probation to Neighborhood Based Supervision Summary: The Travis County Community Supervision and Corrections Department (CSCD) in Austin, Texas (the county’s adult probation department) has teamed up with The JFA Institute in a two-year effort to reengineer the operations of the department to support more effective supervision strategies. The goal is to strengthen probation by using an evidence-based practices (EBP) model. The Travis County CSCD, the Community Justice Assistance Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and the Open Society Institute have provided funds to support the reengineering effort and use the department as an “incubator” site to develop, test and document organization-wide changes directed at improving assessment, supervision, sanctioning, personnel training and quality control policies. The Travis County CSCD is the fifth largest probation system in the state and, as such, has tremendous impact on the state probation system. The total number of offenders under some form of probation supervision in Travis County in FY 2005 was 22,827. This report presents an analysis of the geographical location of the Travis County probation population using mapping technology. The analysis was conducted by Eric Cadora and his team at the JFA Mapping Center in New York City. A great number of the persons entering and exiting the Texas prison system and persons on probation tend to concentrate in specific neighborhoods in our large metropolitan areas. Mapping analysis identifies these concentrations in specific geographical locations. The goal is to provide a visual depiction of the geographical distribution of the probation population to identify high density neighborhoods that can be targeted for a neighborhood based supervision approach. The neighborhood based approach consolidates caseloads with fewer officers specifically assigned to supervising probationers in those locations. This can be done in Travis County in at least three neighborhoods. The research also shows that neighborhoods receiving the most offenders released from prison are also neighborhoods with a high concentration of probationers. Present supervision practices between the probation and parole agencies in these neighborhoods are not coordinated. Collaboration between these agencies may lead to more effective supervision that leverages resources between the agencies and between the agencies and neighborhood partners. The visualization of concentrated parole and probation populations in what we call “high stakes” communities is critical for more effective policy. The notion is that, although we need policies that address the overall issue of criminality and the supervision of justice populations regardless of where persons are committing crimes or where they live, we also need to consider the location of concentrated justice populations. Details: Washington, DC: JFA Institute, 2006. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 18, 2011 at: http://caction.org/research_reports/reports/TravisCommunityImpactSupervision2006.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://caction.org/research_reports/reports/TravisCommunityImpactSupervision2006.pdf Shelf Number: 122085 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsGeographic StudiesMappingNeighborhoodsParoleesProbation (Texas)Probationers |
Author: Janetta, Jesse Title: Promoting Partnerships between Police and Community Supervision Agencies: How Coordination Can Reduce Crime and Improve Public Safety Summary: The past two decades have witnessed a period of revitalization for the field of law enforcement, marked by the emergence of a new paradigm of policing that embraces data-driven decision-making, emphasizes partnerships with the community, and underscores the belief that policing can be effective in making neighborhoods safer. During the same period, community supervision agencies have experienced a parallel shift in focus and philosophy, suggesting the potential for such agencies to enhance their role in improving public safety. The reenergizing of community supervision could not come at a more opportune time because it is needed to meet the challenges of the tremendous volume of people sentenced to probation or returning from prison. At any given time, 4.2 million adults are on probation supervision in the United States. Approximately 735,000 prisoners are released from state and federal prisons annually, and more than 500,000 are released to parole supervision. Adjudicated juveniles place an additional strain on community supervision agencies because approximately 42 percent of all petitioned cases result in an order of probation supervision. Moreover, 47,000 individuals (39,100 probationers and 7,900 parolees) were under community supervision in tribal areas in 2008, equaling a 7.9 percent increase from 2007. The potential impact that these supervisees have on public safety is undeniable: over two-thirds of released adult prisoners are arrested for a new crime within three years of release. While supervised populations may pose significant challenges for police and community supervision agencies, a partnership between the two can help them improve public safety. A community policing orientation, with a focus on building partnerships and engaging in problem-solving efforts to address crime, social disorder, and the fear of crime proactively, provides a strong foundation for collaboration between police and community supervision agencies. The two are allies and partners in the work of reintegrating parolees into their communities and managing probationers so that they refrain from criminal activity. Each agency can bring its skills, competencies, resources, and knowledge to a partnership. Police understand crime prevention and neighborhood dynamics; this knowledge can be valuable to community supervision agencies as they shift their focus toward preventing supervisees from committing a violation of their probation or parole conditions (as opposed to simply responding to violations once they occur). In turn, community supervision agencies know their supervisees, including the risks they present, potential triggers to reoffending, and interventions necessary to keep them in compliance. Building on the distinct strengths of both police and community supervision agencies, such partnerships can aid in the prevention of crime and enhance public safety. This guidebook is intended for all levels of police and community supervision personnel, as agency executives, supervisors, and line officers all have an opportunity to contribute to and benefit from partnering. The first section of this guidebook discusses why police and community supervision agencies should be interested in developing partnerships and what each partner can contribute to them. The second section discusses the key elements of partnership, specifically intelligence and information sharing, case planning and supporting behavior change, problem-solving approaches, targeted interventions for special populations, and focused deterrence efforts. Throughout the guidebook, examples of partnerships in the field are provided to offer tangible illustrations of how police/community supervision collaboration can be structured. While many of these examples focus on urban areas, the principles discussed throughout this guidebook are equally relevant for police and supervision agencies in rural areas where large agency boundaries can pose significant challenges for supervising probationers and parolees. These challenges only increase the need for interagency coordination and partnerships. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2011. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2011 at: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412362-promoting-partnerships-police-community-supervision-agencies.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412362-promoting-partnerships-police-community-supervision-agencies.pdf Shelf Number: 122113 Keywords: CollaborationCommunity Corrections (U.S.)Community-Oriented PolicingLaw EnforcementOffender SupervisionParoleesPrisoner ReentryProbationersPublic Safety |
Author: 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: 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: Kirby, Amy Title: Engaging Substance Misusing Offenders: A Rapid Review of the Substance Misuse Treatment Literature Summary: The Offender Engagement Programme (OEP) seeks to investigate the hypothesis that one-to-one work with those under probation supervision can be a powerful vehicle for facilitating behavioural change. By establishing what supports effective engagement and better understanding how to overcome the barriers which hinder these processes, the aim of the OEP is to better enable practitioners to reduce reoffending and change probationers’ lives through their one-to-one engagement with them. Here we report findings of a rapid review about engagement in the substance misuse treatment and criminogenic literature. Details: London: Institute for Criminal Policy Research, 2011. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 7, 2011 at: http://www.icpr.org.uk/media/31487/Rapid%20review%20-%20engaging%20and%20retaining%20substance%20users%20final.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.icpr.org.uk/media/31487/Rapid%20review%20-%20engaging%20and%20retaining%20substance%20users%20final.pdf Shelf Number: 122676 Keywords: Drug Abuse and CrimeDrug Abuse Treatment (U.K.)Drug OffendersProbationers |
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: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality Title: Characteristics of Probation and Parole Admissions Aged 18 or Older Summary: I n 2008, approximately 4.3 million adults were on probation and nearly 1 million adults were on parole in the United States. Many of the criminal offenses committed by these probationers and parolees were related to substance abuse. As a condition of their probation or parole, some offenders are required to participate in community-based substance abuse treatment programs. Data from the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) for 2008 indicate that the criminal justice system is the single largest source of referral to substance abuse treatment. Further, probation/parole treatment admissions represent the largest proportion of these criminal justice system referrals. Understanding the characteristics of admissions referred by the probation/parole system to substance abuse treatment may help inform treatment providers and other public health professionals as they work with this population. This report uses data from the TEDS for 2008 to examine the characteristics of substance abuse treatment admissions referred to treatment by the probation or parole system (hereafter referred to as “probation or parole admissions”). TEDS includes a Minimum Data Set collected by all States and a Supplemental Data Set collected by some States. “Detailed criminal justice referral” is a Supplemental Data Set item that classifies known criminal justice system referrals into the following subtypes: courts, probation/parole, DUI/DWI, other recognized legal entity, diversion program, prison, or other. Only data for the 32 States with a response rate of 75 percent or higher on this item were used in this analysis. In those States, among admissions 18 or older for which detailed information on their criminal justice referrawas available, 42.8 percent (203,700) were referred to treatment by the probation or parole system in 2008. Details: Rockville, MD: SAMHSA, 2011. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: TEDS Report: Accessed September 23, 2011 at: http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k11/231/231Parole2k11Web.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k11/231/231Parole2k11Web.pdf Shelf Number: 122811 Keywords: ParoleParoleesProbation (U.S.)ProbationersSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office ofApplied Studies Title: The NSDUH Report: Parents on Probation or Parole Summary: The past two decades have seen large increases in the numbers of adults involved in the criminal justice system, including those incarcerated, on probation, and on parole. Although the numbers of each of these groups increased substantially, the numbers of those on probation have increased at a much faster rate; yet, much less attention has been given to those on probation and to those on parole. Probationers and parolees often have an array of health problems, including substance use disorders. One subgroup of those on probation or parole that may be of particular concern, however, comprises parents with children under the age of 18. Although research on the substance use behaviors of incarcerated parents and their children is limited, there is even less information about the behaviors of parents on probation or parole. Gaining a better understanding of this population and its substance use problems may help to inform criminal justice personnel, family services personnel, educators, and policymakers about the needs of this population (both parents and children) and help them with service planning. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) asks respondents if, at any time during the past 12 months, they were (1) on probation or (2) on parole, supervised release, or other conditional release from prison. NSDUH also asks about use of alcohol and illicit drugs, as well as dependence or abuse. This issue of The NSDUH Report focuses on substance use and dependence or abuse among persons aged 18 or older who were living with at least one biological, step-, adoptive, or foster child aged 17 or younger. All findings in the report are annual averages based on combined 2005 to 2008 data. Details: Rockville, MD: SAMHSA, 2010. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2011 at: http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k10/176/176ParentProbParolHTML.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k10/176/176ParentProbParolHTML.pdf Shelf Number: 122880 Keywords: ParentsParoleParoleesProbation (U.S.)ProbationersSubstance Abuse |
Author: Feucht, Thomas E. Title: Mental and Substance Use Disorders among Adult Men on Probation or Parole: Some Success against a Persistent Challenge Summary: This report presents data on mental and substance use disorders among adult males on correctional supervised release–parole or probation–from local, state and federal prisons and jails. It examines issues that have grown increasingly salient with the rising costs associated with managing the growing community- and facility-based criminal justice population. Methods. Data were drawn from two key sources: (1) the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) data collected from probation and parole agencies for year-end reports, and (2) the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). The NDSUH is an annual data set based on a national probability sample of the civilian noninstitutionalized population, conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Changes over time in substance abuse and mental health measures among males aged 18 to 49 were studied by comparing 2009 estimates to estimates from each prior year (2002 to 2008). Estimates for probationers and parolees were compared with non-probationers and non-parolees based on several years of pooled NSDUH data. Results. The analysis reveals several significant findings. First, rates of substance dependence or abuse among probationers and parolees were found to be significantly lower than rates in prior years. Second, the percentage of parolees who reported receiving substance use treatment was significantly higher in 2009 than in 2005. Third, significantly lower percentages of probationers and parolees had an unmet need for substance use treatment in 2009 than in previous years. Overall, from 2002 to 2009, illegal drug use among people on probation and parole remained a persistent challenge, with rates of drug abuse and dependence remaining two to three times as high as rates among non-probationers and non- parolees. Similarly, rates of any mental illness, serious mental illness, serious psychological distress and depression during the past year were two to three times higher among probationers and parolees than among other respondents. The data also show a significant gap between need for treatment and the receipt of services. Probationers and parolees were more likely than others to have received some mental health services in the past year, but they were also more likely to report an unmet need for mental health services. In 2009, the percentages of probationers and parolees with mental disorders accessing services or reporting an unmet need for mental health services remained unchanged. Thus, while probationers and parolees report increasing access to substance use treatment and decreasing prevalence of substance abuse symptoms, important substance abuse/dependence and mental health problems persist. The mental health treatment gap among probationers and parolees has yet to be narrowed, let alone closed. These data have important implications for reducing the behavioral health treatment gap overall and for national efforts to improve effective community reentry for offenders with these disorders. Significant attention should be focused on the large numbers of adults on parole or probation who experience mental or substance use disorders, or both. Conclusions. The number of probationers and parolees with mental or substance use disorders whose treatment needs are not being met by community treatment and supportive services is significant. As a result, they are placed at greater risk for parole or probation failure leading to reincarceration. The findings suggest the ongoing need for broader implementation of effective treatment and reentry services for this high-risk, mostly nonviolent population, such as those provided under ongoing federal grant programs focused on reentering offenders. The ability to promote community reentry and reintegration for parolees and probationers with mental or substance use disorders requires a release plan that includes timely and readily accessible community-based treatment and appropriate support services. Details: Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2011. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2011 at: http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k11/NIJ_Data_Review/MentalDisorders.htm Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k11/NIJ_Data_Review/MentalDisorders.htm Shelf Number: 122881 Keywords: Mental HealthParoleeParoleesProbationProbationersSubstance Abuse (U.S.)Substance Abuse Treatment |
Author: 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: O'Connell, John P. Title: Evaluation of Price's Run Weed and Seed Summary: The Weed and Seed Law Enforcement Subcommittee, made up of representatives from the U.S. Attorney and state Attorney General’s offices, Wilmington PD, U.S. Marshals, FBI, DEA, ATF, state and federal probation offices, was responsible for developing crime reduction strategies in the Price’s Run Weed and Seed area. Weed and Seed grant funds were used to pay police overtime for safety checkpoints and enforcement of quality of life crimes. In anticipation of the Weed and Seed grant, the Wilmington Police Department assigned 2 additional police officers to the Price’s Run neighborhood starting in October 2005, months before the initial Weed and Seed grant was awarded. From October 2005 to May 2006, officers assigned to the Weed and Seed area made 101 drug related arrests, 45 arrests for quality of life crimes, 10 arrested for weapon offenses, and 18 guns seizures. From March to May 2006, police handled 390 complaints, made 132 community contacts, made 90 pedestrian stops, and handled 470 special attention assignments. Starting in 2006, a Weed and Seed law enforcement grant was used to pay for police overtime operations that resulted in 98 vehicle stops, 8 traffic summons, 2 capias arrests, 49 warrant attempts, and 6 executed warrants. In 2009, a dedicated probation officer from the Delaware Department of Correction was hired part-time with Weed and Seed funds to conduct curfew checks and warrant attempts for probationers residing in Census Tract 6.02. Weed and Seed officers also held educational seminars to inform the public about the police department and distributed informational literature to resident of Census Tract 6.02. Fugitive Safe Surrender, a successful and well publicized weeding operation in Price’s Run, took place at New Destiny Fellowship Church from April 29 to May 2, 2009. Led by the U.S. Marshals Service and Delaware courts, this 4-day operation allowed persons with outstanding warrants to surrender to law enforcement in a non-threatening environment. Participants were able to meet with an attorney, be seen by a judge, and have their cases adjudicated on-site. While the program did not provide amnesty, participants were offered favorable consideration for turning themselves in voluntarily. A total of 1,073 fugitives surrendered to law enforcement (including 101 felons) and 4,131 warrants were cleared as a result of Fugitive Safe Surrender. Details: Dover, DE: Delaware Statistical Analysis Center, 2010. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 29, 2011 at: http://sac.omb.delaware.gov/publications/documents/weed_and_seed_evaluation_110810.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://sac.omb.delaware.gov/publications/documents/weed_and_seed_evaluation_110810.pdf Shelf Number: 122960 Keywords: CollaborationCommunity Crime PreventionCommunity PolicingProbationersWeed and Seed Programs (Delaware) |
Author: Baldwin, Helen Title: Evaluation of the Alcohol Treatment Requirement in Five Sites Across the Lancashire Probation Area Summary: An Alcohol Treatment Requirement can be mandated by Courts as part of a community sentence. It requires offenders to attend structured alcohol treatment for a set number of hours a week over a fixed period of time (in this case 6 months). This paper outlines the findings from an evaluation of the delivery and effectiveness of the Alcohol Treatment Requirement in Lancashire. Delivery of the partnership working between Probation and alcohol treatment services was generally excellent and was underpinned by good quality communication. There were positive outcomes for offenders including reductions in alcohol consumption and improved health and relationships Details: Liverpool: Centre for Public Health, Liverpool John Moores University, 2010. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 8, 2011 at: http://www.cph.org.uk/showPublication.aspx?pubid=712 Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cph.org.uk/showPublication.aspx?pubid=712 Shelf Number: 123265 Keywords: Alcohol Treatment ProgramsAlcoholism (U.K.)Probationers |
Author: Barnes, Geoffrey C. Title: Classifying Adult Probationers by Forecasting Future Offending Summary: Random forest modeling techniques represent an improvement over the methodologies of traditional risk prediction instruments. Random forests allow for the inclusion of a large number of predictors, the use of a variety of different data sources, the expansion of assessments beyond binary outcomes, and taking the costs of different types of forecasting errors into account when constructing a new model. This study explores the application of random forest statistical learning techniques to a criminal risk forecasting system, which is now used to classify adult probationers by the level of risk they pose to the community. The project principally focused upon creating a risk prediction tool within a partnership between University-based researchers and Philadelphia’s Adult Probation and Parole Department (APPD). This report details the model building process, including an explanation of the random forest procedures, and sets out the issues in data management and in policy considerations that are associated with creating a prediction tool. The importance of developing strong researcher-practitioner partnerships, especially with regard to tailoring the prediction tool to real-world concerns, is also considered. The prediction models developed as a part of this project have been used since 2009 to assess all incoming probation and parole cases. Each risk prediction is then used to assign offenders to risk-stratified supervision divisions. This report discusses the development and accuracy of the three generations of models that have been employed to make these predictions, as well as the salient features of each iteration. For the most recent version of the model, the influences of major predictor variables are discussed, with a focus on those that were most powerful in the Philadelphia sample. Additionally, the predictions of the three models are also validated using a sample of cases from 2001, a cohort not used to build any of the prediction models. The long-term offending patterns of these 2001 offenders, with regard to their assessed risk level, are also considered. Finally, suggestions and step-by-step instructions are offered for practitioners seeking to build a similar prediction instrument for use in a wide variety of criminal justice settings. As a matter of policy, criminal sanctions that are encompassed under the umbrella of community corrections have become an increasingly prevalent punishment option. Given resource constraints, as well as concerns about public safety, statistical risk assessment tools – such as the one developed here – have begun to take increasingly prominent roles in determining levels of supervision. This report, and the partnership supporting it, highlights the promises and potential of the methodology. Details: Report to the U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2012. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 27, 2012 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238082.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238082.pdf Shelf Number: 125408 Keywords: Offender Classification (Pennsylvania)ProbationersRecidivismRisk Management |
Author: Byng, Richard Title: COCOA: Care for Offenders, Continuity of Access. Summary: The project aims to inform policy on improving health and reducing recidivism for offenders by examining access to, and continuity of, healthcare for people in contact with criminal justice agencies. Focus: The project has investigated the impact of health and criminal justice agencies on access and continuity of care. We carried out a multi-method investigation into the continuity of healthcare for offenders; interviewed 200 offenders; carried out 8 organisational case studies; developed a peer offender research group; and developed theory related to offender continuity of care. Key findings: Access and continuity of care for mental health problems was very low in comparison with care for substance misuse. Bothe the organisation of services and also offenders' beliefs and priorities contribute to poor engagement with initial and on-going mental health care. However, models of good practice can be found in isolated pockets across the UK. It is recomended that services for mental health care are best positioned in probation and as individuals leave prison in order to maximise chances of sustained engagement. The study population (prisoners and probationers), were predominantly male, white, skewed to 18-25 age range. Many had partners and children. 23% were employed and 20% homeless. Twenty seven percent had been in prison more than five times. Within the previous six months 37% rated their current health as poor. Fifty three percent reported drug misuse, 36% alcohol misuse, 15% severe and 59% moderate mental health problems. Only 4% believed they had no physical problems. Co-morbidity was typical. The majority of offenders were happy for health services to know about their CJS contact (79%), were willing to share medical information between services (82%), and preferred one person to have an overview of all their healthcare needs (81%). There were significantly more healthcare contacts in probation than in other CJS settings; predominantly for heroin, dependence forming 40% of all health contacts. However for physical problems, healthcare contact rates were significantly higher for prison when compared to other CJS settings. Overall contact rates for mental health problems were low, particularly for those without heroin misuse. Treatment recommended by health services for current health issues across the whole sample was received for the majority of dependency related (74%) and physical health (71%) problems, but for only 50% of the mental health problems reported. Participants in prison rated the quality of their healthcare contacts as significantly lower than in other contexts. Quality was rated higher for drug and mental health services. Participant reports and healthcare records of healthcare contacts were similar. Generally, participants recall was better for substance misuse services than others. Details: London: NIHR (National Institute for Health Research), 2012. 265p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2012 at: https://wombat.pcmd.ac.uk/document_manager/documents/files/primary_care/cocoa/COCOA_FINAL_REPORT.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://wombat.pcmd.ac.uk/document_manager/documents/files/primary_care/cocoa/COCOA_FINAL_REPORT.pdf Shelf Number: 125682 Keywords: Health CareMental Health ServicesPrisoners (U.K.)PrisonsProbationersRecidivism |
Author: Mann, Christopher Title: Mental Health and Criminal Activity: The Prevalence and Characteristics of Mental Health Disorders among a Population of Probationers Summary: Although ADHD (Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder), BD (Bipolar Disorder), and IED (Intermittent Explosive Disorder) are common mental disorders, there has been limited research to study their prevalence among prisoner/probationer populations. This study aimed to measure the prevalence of ADHD, BD, and IED in Fort Worth’s Treatment Alternative to Incarceration Program (TAIP) probationer population. TAIP is a probation sentencing diversion for offenders with substance abuse problems. Rather than being incarcerated, these offenders may choose to enroll in three or more months of substance abuse treatment, including detoxification, residential treatment, and/or outpatient substance abuse counseling, as deemed appropriate by the offender’s initial assessment/evaluation. The study also evaluated the ability of a new mental health survey instrument to measure the prevalence of these mental disorders. The survey instrument is a compilation of other validated instruments put together by the Primary Care Research Institute. If the survey is determined to be an effective and efficient way to measure these mental health disorders, it will be used in a larger general study to measure the prevalence of mental health disorders in the general population. Although a growing body of evidence supports the hypothesis that ADHD, BD, and IED are prevalent, though under‐diagnosed, among the adult prison population, few studies have investigated the characteristics of the prison population affected by these disorders or investigated their prevalence with co‐occurring disorders. In an effort to fill this gap, this study aimed to assess the prevalence of ADHD, BD, and IED among a probationer population and describe characteristics of the probationer population with ADHD. The study further aimed to assess the prevalence of co‐occurring ADHD and Bipolar and/or Intermittent Explosive Disorder and describe the population that has co‐occurring disorders. Details: Fort Worth, TX: Primary Care Research Institute, 2009. 12p. Source: Research Brief: Internet Resource: Accessed August 13, 2012 at http://centerforcommunityhealth.org/Portals/14/Reports/MentalHealthBrief%20Final2.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://centerforcommunityhealth.org/Portals/14/Reports/MentalHealthBrief%20Final2.pdf Shelf Number: 126016 Keywords: Demographic TrendsMental HealthProbationersPublic Health |
Author: Kane, Michael Title: Exploring the Role of Responsivity and Assessment with Hispanic and American Indian Offenders Summary: This report presents findings from an exploration of cultural responsivity in risk and needs assessment in community corrections agencies. As risk and needs assessment becomes more popular in community corrections, more researchers have begun to study issues involving the specific characteristics of offenders and how they interact with assessment and programming to impact outcomes, a concept commonly known as responsivity. In particular, two cultural groups were selected for study: Hispanics and American Indians. Initial plans for the current project involved the development of a new tool or ‘trailer’ for use in assessing Hispanic and American Indian populations. In the early stages of the project, however, the project team and its advisors determined that the creation of a new tool would be premature. Instead, the project focused efforts on: 1) describing current practices in assessing and working with Hispanic and American Indian offenders; 2) determining how well current assessment tools and practices predict recidivism for these offender groups; and 3) suggesting ways to improve tools and practices to make them more culturally competent and responsive. The report that follows will describe assessment and cultural responsivity, describe current practices in culturally responsive assessment, and detail the findings of research activities including data analysis and focus groups. Chapter 1 provides a literature review on the topic of risk assessment and culture. This section will describe the evolution of risk assessment in community corrections, summarize research on evidence-based practices, describe the Hispanic and American Indian populations in the United States and their context in corrections systems nationwide, suggest a model for understanding cultural competency, and describe some popular risk and needs assessment tools. Chapter 2 provides information on a Roundtable of assessment and corrections experts and results from a national survey of probation and parole agencies. The chapter describes the project team’s understanding of the current state of community corrections practice in assessing and supervising American Indian and Hispanic offenders. Chapter 3 summarizes findings from discussions with experts in Hispanic and American Indian culture and focus groups conducted with community corrections staff and Hispanic and American Indian offenders in five sites. Based on this feedback, the project team provides recommendations for improving assessment practices. Focus groups addressed cultural and linguistic barriers in supervision and assessment, specific cultural factors that may impact the scoring of risk and needs assessment, cultural competency during the assessment process, cultural competency training available to officers and supervisors, and suggestions for improving supervision and assessment with Hispanic and American Indian offenders. Chapter 4 presents findings from analysis of assessment and outcome data provided by five community corrections agencies and provides recommendations for improving the effectiveness of assessment tools. Predictive validity analysis was conducted for each site, and a combined analysis examining whether Hispanic and American Indian offenders are scoring differently on risk assessments compared to other offenders, and if agency-level cultural competency practices result in reductions in recidivism. Details: Boston: Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice, 2011. 113p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 27, 2012 at: https://www.bja.gov/Publications/CRJ_Role_of_Responsivity.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://www.bja.gov/Publications/CRJ_Role_of_Responsivity.pdf Shelf Number: 126118 Keywords: American Indian OffendersCommunity CorrectionsHispanic OffendersOffender SupervisionParoleesProbationersRisk Assessment |
Author: Briggs, Sarah Title: Offender Literacy and Attrition from the Enhanced Thinking Skills Programme Summary: A sample of 39 offenders identified as having literacy problems was compared with a sample of 50 offenders for whom no literacy problems were identified. · The samples were broadly similar with respect to gender, ethnicity, history of breach, broad categories of index offence, and OGRS risk of reconviction scores. · Offenders with identified literacy problems were more likely to drop out at every stage between sentence and final completion of post programme psychometric tests · We can be at least 90% confident that there is a significant difference in programme retention between the literacy problems group and the control group. Confidence in the finding is enhanced by repeated observation of an apparent literacy problem effect at each of the stages observed. · There was also an effect of age on attrition, with younger offenders more likely to be retained. This enhances confidence in the finding of an effect of literacy problems, since the literacy problems group tended to be younger on average. · Psychometric test papers examined in the course of this research showed a consistent low level of literacy. This raises the question of whether systematic identification of literacy problems takes place, and whether the number of offenders with these problems is higher than we are currently aware. Details: West Yorkshire, UK: West Yorkshire Probation, 2003. 10p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2003 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 126243 Keywords: Cognitive SkillsEducationJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)LiteracyProbationersRehabilitationYoung Adult Offenders |
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: Bewley, Helen Title: The Effectiveness of Different Community Order Requirements for Offenders Who Received an OASys Assessment Summary: The study used propensity score matching to explore the impact of different community order requirements on the re-offending rate and frequency of re-offending within two years of the initial offence. The analysis used data from the Offender Assessment System, probation and re-offending records and administrative data on employment and benefit receipt. The study found no evidence to suggest that increasing the punitive element of community orders would have a detrimental effect on re-offending, for the combinations of requirements considered. However, combining other types of requirement, such as supervision, with a punitive element, can increase the effectiveness of the community order. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2012. 135p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Research Series 17/12: Accessed October 24, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/niesr-report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/niesr-report.pdf Shelf Number: 126796 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SentencingCommunity SupervisionOffenders (U.K.)ProbationersRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Ireland. Probation Service Title: Probation Service Recidivism Study 2011 Summary: The Probation Service and Central Statistics Office have established a partnership to conduct research on recidivism and related issues among offenders on supervision in the community. This first study report is based on anonymised offender and offence information on a 2007 cohort of offenders from the Probation Service supervision database. The study reports on recidivism within two years among that cohort using four years follow up of recorded crime and Court Service data held by the Central Statistics Office. The study also examines variations in recidivism relating to type of original order, gender and age of the offender, category of original offence and of the subsequent offence. This recidivism study, in partnership with the Central Statistics Office, provides a clear overview of community sanctions and their outcomes; informing the Service in the development and support of effective interventions in working to make our communities safer. Details: Dublin: Probation Service, 2012. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Probation Service Research Report 2; Accessed January 29, 2012 at: http://www.probation.ie/pws/websitepublishingdec09.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/The+Probation+Service+Recidivism+Study+2007-2011/$FILE/The+Probation+Service+Recidivism+Study+2007-2011.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Ireland URL: http://www.probation.ie/pws/websitepublishingdec09.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/The+Probation+Service+Recidivism+Study+2007-2011/$FILE/The+Probation+Service+Recidivism+Study+2007-2011.pdf Shelf Number: 127427 Keywords: Offender SupervisionProbation (Ireland)ProbationersRecidivism |
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: Wiliszowski, C. Title: An Evaluation of Intensive Supervision Programs for Serious DWI Offenders Summary: Intensive Supervision Programs (ISPs) for offenders convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) vary considerably around the United States. There are State “systems” that provide standard guidelines to counties and local communities in the State, and there are numerous local county and community programs that appear promising in reducing DWI recidivism. We prepared case studies for two State programs (Nebraska and Wisconsin), four individual area ISPs (“Staggered Sentencing for Multiple DWI Convicted Offenders” in Minnesota; “Serious Offender Program” in Nevada; “DWI Enforcement Program” in New York; and “DUII Intensive Supervision Program” (DISP) in Oregon) and two rural programs (“24/7 Sobriety Project” in South Dakota; and “DUI Supervised Probation Program” in Wyoming). These ISPs revealed certain common features: Screening and assessment of offenders for the extent of their alcohol/substance abuse problem Close monitoring and supervision of the offenders Encouragement by officials to complete the program requirements successfully Jail for noncompliance The authors evaluated three of the programs. The Minnesota Staggered Sentencing Program appeared to be successful in reducing offender recidivism, even given the small sample size of program offenders (n=200). Compared to a similar matched group of DWI offenders, the staggered sentencing offenders had a significant 30.6% lower recidivism rate (p=.017) up to 4 years post-offense. The program prevented an estimated 15 to 23 re-arrests for DWI due to its effectiveness. The Westchester County program appeared to be effective in the short term (18.1% lower recidivism in 5 years post-offense [p<.001]) but not in the long term (only 5.4% [p=.171] lower recidivism in 15 years post-offense). This program resulted in an estimated 78 fewer re-arrests for DWI in the first 5 years. The Oregon DISP intervention group had 54.1% lower recidivism up to 8 years post index offense than both of the stratified matched-sample comparison groups, adjusting for the demographic covariates (Wald=51.50; p>.001). The program prevented 67 re-arrests for DWI in the first 8 years. The benefit/cost of ISPs appears to be very good for the prevention of rearrests. Preventing re-arrest for DWI for multiple offenders saves thousands of dollars in sanctions (jail time) and rehabilitation. Details: Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Behavioral Safety Research, 2011. 118p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 12, 2013 at: www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811446.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 127596 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDriving Under the InfluenceDrunk DrivingIntensive Supervision (U.S.)ProbationersRecidivism |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Probation Title: Aggregate Report: Offender Management Inspection 2009-2012 Summary: • This report provides aggregate findings across the nine English Regions and Wales from HMI Probation’s second round of Offender Management Inspections (OMI 2) which was completed in November 2012. The findings in this report cover the 36 Probation Trust areas1 inspected in the programme and are based on close scrutiny of representative samples of cases in each area. • Overall, these findings indicate that a great deal of good work is being undertaken with adult offenders, but that there remains scope for further improvement in specific aspects. • On the main “headline” elements of work inspected in OMI 2: o on average, HMI Probation judged that 75% of work to keep each offender’s risk of harm to others to a minimum was of a sufficiently high level of quality o on average, HMI Probation judged that 74% of work to make each individual less likely to reoffend was of a sufficiently high level of quality o on average, HMI Probation judged that 79% of compliance and enforcement work (aimed at ensuring that each individual offender serves their sentence) was of a sufficiently high level of quality For each of these elements there were considerable gaps between the highest and lowest scores between individual Trust areas, but no Trust received a score which required a reinspection. • In 74% of all cases (and in 79% of high risk of harm cases) all reasonable action was taken to keep risk of harm to others to a minimum. • In 66% of all cases (but in 79% of high risk of harm cases), risk of harm to identifiable, or potentially identifiable, victims was effectively managed. • In only 51% of all cases (but in 71% of high risk of harm cases) was there management involvement in child safeguarding issues. • In 81% of all cases, interventions were delivered according to the requirements of the sentence. • In 76% of all cases, constructive interventions encouraged and challenged the offender to take responsibility for their actions and decisions related to offending, while in the community. • In 85% of all cases, effective action had, where necessary, been taken to secure compliance with all interventions. • In 76% of all cases (and in 84% of high risk of harm cases), breach action or recall was instigated on all occasions when required. • In general, the quality of work with cases assessed as high risk of harm was better than that for all cases as a whole. • When analysed by diversity characteristics, there was no evidence of any major difference in quality of work by gender, ethnicity, or reported disability. However, where there were differences, in respect of age, there was evidence that some aspects of work were done sufficiently well with older offenders somewhat more often than with younger adult offenders. Details: London: HM IOnspectorate of Probation, 2013. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 26, 2013 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprobation/adult-inspection-reports/omi2/omi2-aggregate-findings-feb-2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprobation/adult-inspection-reports/omi2/omi2-aggregate-findings-feb-2013.pdf Shelf Number: 127718 Keywords: Offender ManagementOffender SupervisionProbation Supervision (U.K.)Probationers |
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: West Yorkshire National Probation Services' Cocker, Sarah Title: Using Reconviction Data to Explore the Usefulness of Community Penalties in West Yorkshire Summary: • This study is based on two samples of offenders. The first (Community Penalties) comprised 343 offenders sentenced to a Community Punishment Order, a Community Rehabilitation Order, or a Community Punishment and Rehabilitation Order. The second sample (Comparison) consisted of 215 cases that had a proposal for one of the three community penalties in their Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) but who received a lesser sentence at court (i.e. no period of supervision by the probation service). • The two samples were not found to be well matched in terms of age, risk of reconviction (OGRS), and index offence. The samples were also taken from differing time periods. This makes it difficult to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of West Yorkshire community penalties based on this data alone. • The actual reconviction rate for the Community Penalties sample was 45.2%; this is 0.3% higher than the predicted rate of 44.9%. In contrast, the actual reconviction rate for the Comparison sample was 31.6%; this is 5.5% lower than the predicted rate of 37.1%. • The actual reconviction rate for the Community Penalties group was 8.1% lower than the recent national figures for community sentences (53.3%). The two studies used different counting methods and are therefore not directly comparable. • Those who were reconvicted in both the Community Penalties and Comparison samples tended to be younger and had higher predicted reconviction rates than those who did not re-offend. • Younger offenders were also found to have higher actual reconviction rates than older offenders in both samples. Offenders aged between 16-20 years had actual reconviction rates of 65.4% (Community Penalties sample) and 63.6% (Comparison sample) whilst offenders in the 35+ age bracket had reconviction rates of 19.2% and 20.3% respectively. • Analysis of reconviction rates by risk band (OGRS) showed that the reconviction rate increased with each risk band. For example, cases with an OGRS score between 0-25 had reconviction rates of 14.0% (Community Penalties) and 11.4% (Comparison) compared to reconviction rates of 83.8% and 77.8% respectively for cases with OGRS scores between 76-100. This suggests that OGRS is a useful predictor of risk of reconviction for both samples. • Cases with index offences of an ‘acquisitive’ nature had the highest reconviction rates in both the Community Penalties (68.4%) and Comparison (50%) samples. • Cases with a Community Punishment Order (CPO) had the lowest reconviction rates (33.8%) of those in the Community Penalties sample. Those with a Community Rehabilitation Order (CRO) had the highest rate (57.9%) whilst those with a Community Punishment & Rehabilitation Order (CPRO) had a reconviction rate of 36.4%. This rate is lower than anticipated although this may be due to the small number of cases with a CPRO and should be used with caution. • Reconviction rates for those who did and did not complete their community order were significantly different; the reconviction rate for those who completed was 33.2% (n=76) compared to a reconviction rate of 70.3% (n=71) for those who did not complete. However, those who completed their order had a much lower predicted reconviction rate (38.6%) than those who did not complete (59%). • In terms of first re-offence, a larger proportion (+12.4%) of cases that did not complete their community order committed an offence which was of a more serious nature than those who completed their order (47.9% compared to 35.5% respectively). • By the six month stage, 23% of the Community Penalties sample had been reconvicted of an offence and 52% of those who were reconvicted within the two year period had already done so. By 12 months 35% of the sample had been reconvicted and 77% of those who were reconvicted had already done so. • In contrast, by the six month stage, 16% of the Comparison sample had been reconvicted and 51% of those who were reconvicted in this sample had done so by this stage. By 12 months, 22% of the Comparison sample had been reconvicted and 69% of the Comparison sample who were reconvicted had done so by this stage. These findings suggest that the first few months after sentence are critical in terms of reducing the risk of further reconviction. • A larger proportion of the Comparison sample (52.9%, n=66) were convicted of only one offence within two-years compared to the Community Penalties sample (42.6%, n=36). Similar proportions of offenders in the Community Penalties (40%, n=62) and Comparison samples (38.2%, n=26) had two, three or four reconvictions within two-years. However, a much larger proportion (17.4%, n=27) of offenders in the Community Penalties sample had between 5 & 11 reconvictions compared to the Comparison sample (8.8%, n=6). Details: Wakefield, UK: National Probation Service (West Yorkshire), 2006. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 3, 2013 at: http://www.westyorksprobation.org.uk Year: 2006 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.westyorksprobation.org.uk Shelf Number: 127818 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsCommunity PenaltiesProbationersRecidivismReconviction (U.K.) |
Author: King, Samuel Joshua Title: Going Straight On Probation: Desistance Transitions and the Impact of Probation Summary: This thesis explores primary desistance as a transitional phase between offending and crime cessation. Recent work has explored desistance within an integrated theoretical framework, combining elements of both structure and agency theories, and this thesis builds upon this by exploring the initial transitions towards desistance, and the prospective strategies to sustain it, among a group of adult male offenders under Probation supervision. Where agency has been employed in such accounts its conceptualisation has tended to be vague, and this thesis seeks to address this by examining agency as the temporally located reflexive deliberations of adult offenders upon their future goals and present social environment. This allows for the identification of individuals’ future goals in relation to desistance and the strategies that they intend to pursue to achieve them, in relation to their personal and social contexts. The thesis finds that recent Probation policy has delimited the role of supervising officer towards that of Offender Manager, which inhibits the relationship between officer and offender such that would-be desisters tend to revert to past repertoires of thought and action in their strategies. This is likely to sustain the social contexts that led to offending in the past, and is likely to hinder desistance in the future. Details: Birmingham, UK: School of Social Policy, College of Social Sciences, The University of Birmingham, 2010. 353p. Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed March 14, 2013 at: http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/3172/5/King_11_PhD.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/3172/5/King_11_PhD.pdf Shelf Number: 127936 Keywords: Desistance (U.K.)ProbationersRecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Klingele, Cecelia M. Title: Rethinking the Use of Community Supervision Summary: Community supervision, whether in the form of probation or post-release supervision, is ordinarily framed as an alternative to incarceration. For this reason, legal reformers intent on reducing America's disproportionately high incarceration rates often urge lawmakers to expand the use of community supervision, confident that diverting offenders to the community will significantly reduce over-reliance on incarceration. Yet, on any given day, a significant percentage of new prisoners arrive at the prison gates not as a result of sentencing for a new crime, but because they have been revoked from probation or parole. It is therefore fair to say that in many cases community supervision is not an alternative to imprisonment, but only a delayed form of it. This Article examines the reasons why community supervision so often fails, and challenges popular assumptions about the role community supervision should play in efforts to reduce over-reliance on imprisonment. While probation and post-release supervision serve important purposes in many cases, they are often imposed on the wrong people, and executed in ways that predictably lead to revocation. To decrease the overuse of imprisonment, sentencing and correctional practices should therefore limit, rather than expand, the use of community supervision in three important ways. First, terms of community supervision should be imposed in fewer cases, with alternatives ranging from fines to unconditional discharge to short jail terms imposed instead. Second, conditions of probation and post-release supervision should be imposed sparingly, and only when they directly correspond to a risk of re-offense. Finally, terms of community supervision should be limited in duration, extending only long enough to facilitate a period of structured re-integration after sentencing or following a term of incarceration. Details: Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Law School, 2013. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Univ. of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1220 : Accessed March 30, 2013 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2232078 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2232078 Shelf Number: 128179 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SentencesOffender Supervision (U.S.) Community Based CorrecParoleesProbationersRevocation |
Author: Rennison, Claire Title: ViP- Volunteering in Probation Evaluation of the Kirklees Mentoring Project Summary: The Kirklees Mentoring Project was a 12 month pilot partnership between West Yorkshire Probation Trust and Foundation. Its aim was to improve the successful completion rates of Community Orders in Kirklees, to break down barriers to compliance and assist offenders to build pro-social links within the community. It also aimed to provide positive role models from members of the local community some of whom are ex-offenders themselves. This report is an evaluation of the partnership. Data was collected and analysed via pre and post mentoring questionnaires, file reads of mentee case files and interviews with offenders, Offender Managers, volunteers and Foundation representatives. The report presents the findings gained from this information and recommendations for practice. Details: Wakefield, UK: West Yorkshire Probation Trust, 2011. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2013 at: http://www.westyorksprobation.org.uk/documentlist.php?type=1&year=2011 Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.westyorksprobation.org.uk/documentlist.php?type=1&year=2011 Shelf Number: 128267 Keywords: MentoringPartnershipsProbation (U.K.)ProbationersVolunteers |
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: Robinson, Emma Title: The Alcohol Treatment Requirement: A more responsive way of working with alcohol-misusing offenders Summary: The overarching aim of the evaluation was to give some early indications of the success of the Alcohol Treatment Requirement in West Yorkshire, in terms of offender compliance and completion levels, changes in alcohol dependency and whether the ATR better meets the needs of alcohol misusing offenders. With this in mind there were three main research strands: a case file-read of offenders on the ATR to investigate levels of compliance; a pre and post programme offender questionnaire designed to capture feedback on levels of alcohol consumption; and interviews with offenders and treatment provider staff to ascertain feedback on the ATR in terms of meeting offender needs and partnership working. The file-read analysis revealed that compliance to ATR appointments was lower than the compliance rate of the comparison group (of offenders with an alcohol need in OASys prior to the introduction of the ATR). However, the ATR group did not have a high level if ‘unacceptable’ (and therefore enforceable) absences for appointments with the treatment provider. Indeed the number of ‘unacceptable’ absences for actual ATR appointments (n=29) was lower than that for probation appointments in both the ATR group (n=43) and the comparison group (n=41). The comparison group also had a much higher number of acceptable absences which may reflect the chaotic nature of offenders with alcohol misuse problems and therefore confirms the need for a dedicated programme of treatment and support for this group. The file-read analysis appears to suggest that it is compliance to probation appointments, and in particular a high number of ‘acceptable’ absences for these appointments, that is bringing the compliance level down amongst the ATR sample. It may be that the ATR appointments are afforded some priority amongst this group, since they are specifically ‘aimed at ‘treating’ their alcohol misuse. Greater efforts might be made to attend these appointments over other probation appointments which are perhaps less likely to meet offender’s immediate needs in terms of addressing entrenched patterns of alcohol abuse. The number of successful completions for the ATR sample was 8 (27%), compared to a total of 19 (63%) in the comparison group. However, this was not a straightforward like-for-like comparison as within the ATR group, there were 7 cases that still had an order ongoing at the time of data analysis. A total of 12 offenders (40%) completed their ATR requirement and went on to successfully complete their order. Therefore the conversion rate from ATR completion to order completion is actually 8 from 12 (67%) for this sample. Details: Wakefield, UK: West Yorkshire Probation Services, 2010. 54p. 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: 128269 Keywords: Alcohol Misusing OffendersAlcohol Treatment ProgramsAlcoholism (U.K.)Probationers |
Author: Robinson, Emma Title: One-to-One Process Evaluation Summary: This evaluation sought to look at the implementation and delivery of One to One in four research areas: West Yorkshire, Northants, West Mercia and Cambridgeshire. The main aim of the research was to highlight how the programme is being implemented, in what circumstances it is used, and the types of offenders it is being targeted at. Method The research has used both quantitative and qualitative data sources to address this aims. Briefly the three main samples comprised: an IAPS data extract of referrals in each of the areas between 06/01/05 and 31/05/06 (n=237); interviews with 14 OTO delivery staff and a further 8 interviews with offenders at varying stages of the programme. Background information was gathered from each of the Areas in order to provide information on referral processes, delivery and staffing. There were differences between the areas in how the programme is implemented and delivered. In West Yorkshire OTO is only delivered in hostels by Residential Officers who have undertaken the tutor training. Two areas (West Mercia and Northants) deliver across a widely dispersed area and reported having had significant waiting lists for the programme. Cambridgeshire felt that their referral process was rather more ‘ad-hoc’ with tutors identifying appropriate participants whenever they have space to deliver the programme. Throughput Results The throughput data from IAPS appeared to correlate with the above background information. Referral rates were much higher in Northants (n=81) and West Mercia (n=122). Cambridgeshire had 32 referrals but as there were only two tutors delivering the programme in this time period their commencement rate was very low (22%). There were only 2 cases in the IAPS extract for West Yorkshire and these were both lost between the referral and assessment stage. There was little difference in the type of offenders being referred between areas, with the exception that Cambridgeshire had almost a 50/50 split of male and female referrals to the programme. West Mercia and Northants had higher proportions of Male referrals (88% and 78% respectively). Proportions of offenders from different ethnic groups were roughly similar in each area and overall, Offenders referred to the programme were predominantly ‘White:British’ (n=225, 95). Across the 4 areas, the completion rate was 35%, suggesting that offenders referred to OTO might be one of the most difficult client groups to engage and motivate. This was confirmed by feedback from tutors who commented that OTO offenders tend to have more inherent problems compared to other offender groups (e.g. mental health issues). An interesting finding from the IAPS extract was with regards to the average number of sessions completed by offenders who commenced the programme. The average across the four areas was 13 sessions. Feedback from both tutors and offenders suggested that it was the latter stages of the programme (sessions 13-20) that needed the most improvement. It was commented that these sessions can be very repetitive and in some cases unnecessary. These figures appear to suggest, when considered alongside the interview feedback, that the programme could perhaps be shortened. Feedback from Staff and Offenders The majority of tutors felt that referrals to the programme are made appropriately though there was some feeling that a minority of cases are referred to OTO purely because they are unsuitable for any other programme and don’t necessarily fit any of the other referral criteria for POTO. Northamptonshire area felt that their referral process had been greatly improved by introducing a Single Point of Contact (SPOC). All potential referrals have to be talked through with the SPOC before they are instigated and this was seen to have improved targeting and reduce the waiting lists in this area. Tutor feedback suggested that OTO is less well promoted in areas than other Accredited Programmes, and is often seen as the ‘quiet’ programme, poorly advertised with few staff outside of programmes teams aware of it’s value. This seems unfortunate given the wealth of comments from tutors and offenders on the value of the programme, and the examples given where OTO has had a significant impact on offenders Tutors also felt that it would be worthwhile looking at reconviction data for those who have been through the programme as it was felt that these cases had not gone on to re-offend. The programme was seen as needing a large amount of preparation time and tutors reported having to juggle their time as best as possible, especially if they had responsibility for delivering other programmes. The two hostel tutors in West Yorkshire found it particularly difficult to fit in OTO delivery alongside running the hostel and dealing with their normal caseloads. There was also some suggestion that at times, the tutor role can encroach onto more of an Offender Management role due to the difficult client group that they are dealing with. All Areas had tried to maintain an effective support network between tutors following the initial tutor training, with some having introduced ‘development days’ where tutors could discuss cases and share good practice. However, it appeared that not many Areas are not keeping these going as regularly as originally intended despite that fact that they are considered very useful, particularly for those tutors who work in very dispersed areas and can feel more isolated, not having another tutor nearby to ‘debrief’ with. There was some agreement between tutors and offenders as to which parts of the programme are more successful. The Offence Analysis work was considered to be particularly useful, especially as this was an area that offenders felt they would have difficulty discussing in a group situation. The role play/role rotation exercises were explicitly mentioned several times as an area of the programme that offenders dislike and is difficult for tutors to deliver. It was also felt that parts of the programme manual are quite badly written and difficult for tutors to understand and then translate into a programme session. Motivation of offenders on the programme appears to be tied to several factors. Rapport with the programme tutor appears to be one of the more important elements but also some buy-in to the programme appears to come from the fact that the programme is structured in such a way as to allow participants to see how far they have progressed. Details: Wakefield, UK: West Yorkshire Probation Service, 2007. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2013 at: http://www.westyorksprobation.org.uk/documentlist.php?type=1&year=2007 Year: 2007 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.westyorksprobation.org.uk/documentlist.php?type=1&year=2007 Shelf Number: 128271 Keywords: Probation (U.K.)Probation OfficersProbationers |
Author: Turner, Russell Title: Thinking about Re-offending: Reductions in reconviction rates for offenders on the Enhanced Thinking Skills (ETS) programme. Summary: The Enhanced Thinking Skills (ETS) programme has been operating in West Yorkshire for over 5 years and 2005/6 saw 882 offenders ordered to attend the programme. This is a sizeable investment in accredited programmes as a method to tackle general offending behaviour. National research on the effectiveness of programmes such as ETS is still in its infancy and at present gives mixed results. How well an area delivers its programmes may in part cause this. There has been much local research in West Yorkshire on programme implementation and delivery but none on the impact on reconviction. This report aimed to provide data on the impact upon reconviction during a two-year follow-up period on a sample of 298 offenders ordered to attend the programme mainly during 2002/3 as part of a Community Rehabilitation Order (CRO) or Community Punishment & Rehabilitation Order. Reconviction data was also obtained on a comparison group of 182 offenders who were either eligible to attend the programme or likely to have been eligible to attend, but were given a CRO without an ETS condition during the same period. Reconviction data from the Home Office could not be matched for 11% (n=51) of the cases: 9% (n=28) from the ETS sample and 13% (n=23) from the comparison group. The remaining samples – 264 ETS offenders and 157 comparison offenders – differed on several key aspects. Predicted reconviction rates, as given by the Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS), were lower for the comparison sample at 50.5, compared to 63.6 for the ETS sample. The comparison sample was on average slightly older with an average age of 28.6 compared to 26.4, and proportionately had more women: 29% (n=46) compared to 13% (n=34) in the ETS sample. Lower predicted rates were also found for the comparison group when men and women were considered separately. The relationship between these factors - OGRS, age, and gender - and reconviction is complex but taken together strongly suggests that we would expect the comparison sample to have lower reconviction rates than the ETS sample, even if the ETS sample do better than expected using their predicted reconviction rate. Conversely, the ETS sample had a lower actual reconviction rate than the comparison sample: 60.6% were reconvicted within two years compared to 66.2% of the comparison sample, a difference of 5.6%. This difference was not sufficient to be statistically significant with this sample and may have arisen due to chance. The actual reconviction rate for the ETS sample was also 3% lower than their predicted rate, whilst the rate for the comparison group was 16% higher than their predicted rate. A ‘true’ reduction for the ETS group, from predicted to actual reconviction rate, is very likely to be between 0.6% and 5.4%, based on this sample. Clearly, this ranges between a negligible effect to one in line with national targets, i.e. the Government’s 5% reduction in reconviction. The 3% difference found for this West Yorkshire sample might be indicative of a ‘real’ difference in the behaviour of these offenders, compared to what was expected. However, these rates are based on all offenders sentenced to ETS. The reconviction rate halves to 33% for those offenders who complete the programme, compared to 73% for the combined non-completers. This difference is statistically significant and also stands when differences in predicted reconviction rates between the completers and non-completers are taken into account. Additionally, the completers’ actual reconviction rate is 25% points lower than their predicted rate, whereas the non-completers do show any improvement effect. This strongly suggests that the ETS programme in West Yorkshire helps reduce reconviction providing offenders complete the programme. What this research does not address however is the relationship between a ‘treated’ offender profile (see Friendship et al., 2003) and reductions in reconvictions, i.e. to what extent did ETS change offenders’ thinking, and their subsequent behaviour? A third of offenders sentenced to ETS had OGRS scores over 75. These offenders may have had additional conditions imposed to address their risk of re-offending, as opposed to simply being poor-targeting. When different risk-bands are considered separately, only the medium-high risk offenders reconvict less than expected. The medium-low offenders’ reconviction rate is 5.5% higher than that given by OGRS, although it is 9% lower than the comparison group. The medium-high risk offenders, on the other hand, have an actual rate some 8% lower than the predicted rate and 25% lower than the comparison group. Whilst this implies that ETS has a stronger effect on medium-high risk offenders, it reaffirms the need for correct targeting. Whilst reconviction rates for each age-band in the ETS sample are between 2% and 7% lower than the comparison sample, they are not lower than the predicted rates in all age-bands. Indeed, only the 18-20 age-group shows a reliable effect with the reconviction rate for this group being nearly 9% lower than predicted. The other three age-groups do not show any notable effect. This suggests that the ETS programme in West Yorkshire had a greater impact upon reconviction rates for younger offenders. It may well be the case that the older a recidivist offender gets, the more likely they have experienced ETS or a similar intervention, and the less effective a repeat experience will be. The ETS offenders who did reconvict had, on average, higher OGRS scores than those who did not, but did not differ in age from offenders who did not reconvict. This again highlights the need for correct targeting of offenders for ETS: nearly half (48%) of the cases who did reconvict had OGRS scores of 75 and over, whereas of those who did not reconvict only 16% had high OGRS scores. Given that offenders who complete the programme have much lower reconviction rates, it would be useful to see if the effects of age and risk upon reconviction found in this study on all offenders sentenced are also found for completers and non-completers. Much larger samples of completers than obtained in this study would be necessary to run reliable statistical analyses. The ETS offenders had lower actual reconviction rates for both men and women. These differences were too small to be found statistically significant with these samples and may have arisen due to chance. The difference between the comparison and the ETS samples’ actual reconviction rates is larger for the men: -7.6% compared to -2.1% for the women. When actual reconviction rates are compared against the predicted rates, it appears that only men in the ETS sample reconvict less than expected. Much caution is needed with the difference for the women due to the low numbers of women in the samples overall but this might suggest that although receiving ETS is better than not for both sexes, the programme in West Yorkshire is less effective with women than with men. Further research with larger samples of women is needed. The average on-set time to the first reoffence was 189 days for the ETS sample and 233 days for the comparison sample. This difference was not statistically significant suggesting no real difference in how quickly the two samples began reoffending again. However, during the first year the comparison group’s reconviction rate was lower than the ETS group’s rate, at a maximum of 6.5% lower 5 months after being sentenced. This trend reversed at approximately 8-9 months when the ETS group’s reconviction rate began to slow, falling below the comparison group’s rate after one year. By 18 months the ETS group’s reconviction rate was at its maximum difference of 6.6% lower than the comparison group. Poor targeting may in part cause this: offenders with higher OGRS scores reoffend faster in both samples and the ETS sample had higher proportions of these offenders. However, we can also theorise that the decrease in reoffending rate at the 8-9 month point is linked to offenders completing the programme, as the average time to completion was 7 months and offenders who complete have lower reconviction rates than predicted. A criticism of reconviction studies is that just one reconviction is necessary, perhaps for a relatively minor offence, for the offender to be counted as ‘reconvicted’. Considering the volume or frequency of reconvictions over a two-year period and the seriousness of these provides another more sensitive measure of reconviction. To look at frequency and seriousness however, each offender needs to have an equivalent period of two-years at liberty to reoffend, i.e. not in prison. Due to the time-frame of this study, this resulted in 90 offenders being excluded from frequency and seriousness analyses as they were in custody. Cases ‘lost to custody’ – 23% (n=70) from the ETS sample and 12% (n=21) from the comparison group – had higher OGRS scores than the remaining cases: 11% and 12% points for the comparison and ETS samples respectively. This suggests that the remaining ETS sample used in this part of the study is slightly skewed towards medium-high risk offenders and actual figures should be used with much caution. However, as the difference in OGRS scores between cases lost to custody and the final sample was proportionately the same the comparison between the two samples is not necessarily jeopardised by the exclusion of these cases. The ETS sample was responsible for more reconvictions and offences, on average per reconvicted offender. The ETS sample had an average of 2.26 reconvictions, compared to 2.05 for the comparison sample, although this difference is not sufficient to be statistically significant. The comparison sample also had a higher proportion of offenders with only 1 reconviction, this being 54.1% of those who reconvicted, compared to 41.5% in the ETS sample. It might be the case that more offences were committed by the ETS sample but done so by a smaller number of offenders. However this conjecture cannot be statistically confirmed or refuted due to the smaller number of offenders who actually did reconvict. For the purpose of this study, a quick and systematic method was used to gauge the seriousness of a reconviction using the courts’ view of seriousness as determined by the disposal given. This enabled a robust comparison between the two samples; it was not intended to make a theoretical point about offence seriousness per se. Approximately 39% of both samples’ reoffences were more serious than the index offence, whilst the ETS group had slightly higher proportions (+6.5%) of less serious reoffences than the comparison group. The comparison group had similarly higher proportions of same-seriousness reoffences. This implies that the reoffending committed by the ETS sample is no worse than that of the comparison group. Details: Wakefield, UK: West Yorkshire Probation Service, 2006. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2013 at: http://www.westyorksprobation.org.uk/documentlist.php?type=1&year=2006 Year: 2006 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.westyorksprobation.org.uk/documentlist.php?type=1&year=2006 Shelf Number: 128272 Keywords: Community-Based Corrections Cognitive SkillsEnhanced Thinking SkillsProbationersRecidivismReoffending (U.K.) |
Author: Robinson, Emma Title: Added Value? HIMMAT in Halifax Evaluation Report Summary: Currently Himmat are contracted to work with South Asian offenders in Halifax. This evaluation forms part of a best value review and investigates whether the Himmat service adds value over and above the standard offender management practice. Specifically the evaluation looks at whether Himmat helps to improve order compliance and completions, whether it reduces the likelihood of breach and if offenders value the service. This study combined quantitative and qualitative approaches in order to address the question of whether the HIMMAT service adds value above that of standard offender management practice in Halifax. The aims of the research where to assess whether HIMMAT helps to improve order completions and compliance, whether it reduces instances of breach and whether the offenders themselves value the service. Quantitative data was obtained from CRAMS and Performance Information packs for West Yorkshire. A file-read was also conducted on the first 34 cases who had contact with the HIMMAT service. Interviews were also conducted with Offender Management staff (n=5) who have worked with HIMMAT in producing SDRs on their cases, and offenders (n=5) who had been in contact with HIMMAT for at least 6 months. Compliance and breach figures were analysed for the first 6 months (26 weeks) of the order/licence for each offender, this matching the process which is used for area auditing on these measures. Data was obtained for 2006/7 and 2007/8 on the number of National Standards appointments kept and instances of breach. The file-read results were very positive and revealed an average compliance rate of 90% for offenders in the sample. Only 3 cases (9%) had any breach action recorded in the first 26 weeks of their order. A total of 21 offenders (88%) went on to complete their order successfully. When compared to data for Calderdale (61%) and Area figures (61%), these results were statistically significant. These results were compared to those for Asian offenders in other districts and offenders across the area as a whole by using Nsmart data held by the Performance Information team. The results for 2006/7 showed that overall, Asian offenders in Calderdale have performed better on compliance with National Standards appointments and matched the results from the file read with a 90% compliance rate. The overall compliance rate for offenders in Calderdale was 79% in 2006/7, which showed that offenders in Calderdale are only slightly more compliant then the total caseload (76%), thus suggesting that there is indeed a high rate of compliance amongst Asian offenders in this district rather than the results being a product of Calderdale being a more compliant district in itself. The figures for 2007/8 were much closer between the districts. Although Calderdale has maintained a high compliance rate, it appears that the other districts have drive up their compliance during this period, thus they are now more on a par with Calderdale. Breach is also monitored for the first 26 weeks of an offender’s order/licence. Results are recorded by means of a ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ for each individual. The breach data was less conclusive with regards to the impact of HIMMAT when looking at results for Asian offenders in other districts. The percentage success rate for Asian offenders was fairly consistent across West Yorkshire districts in 2006/7. Data for this year showed that the average success rate for Asian offenders was 68% (compared to 63%) for the total caseload, suggesting that Asian offenders performed better on breach measures. Data for 2007/8 showed that there had been improvements across the area on breach for Asian offenders (now ranging from 75% to 87%). The average rate for Asian offenders in this time period was 80%, an improvement of 12% on the previous year. This is likely to be, in part, a result of performance improvement projects that were implemented across the area in order to improve compliance figures. However, there were some significant findings when comparing results for the HIMMAT offenders against area figures. In 2006/7 the pass rate for breach was 65% for the area (1590/2447). When compared to the HIMMAT sample results, Chi Square testing showed the better performance of the HIMMAT sample to be a statistically significant result (p=0.003). In 2007/8 the rate was 67% (1528/2267) for the area compared to the 91% for HIMMAT offenders. Again, this was a statistically significant result (p=0.007). All offenders interviewed spoke positively about the value of HIMMAT both in terms of the flexibility offered around appointments and also the way in which HIMMAT staff can help them to address often multiple issues which may have cultural implications. Offender Managers also talked about the value of HIMMAT to the offenders they supervise. Overall comments appeared to be linked to they way in which HIMMAT can assist Asian offenders in dealing with issues linked to relationships, employment, family and health whilst taking into account the offenders culture. Offender managers talked about the value of HIMMAT in terms of being able to have someone they can consult with regarding a case but also someone who can challenge offenders on things that they might not feel confident approaching themselves. Some staff members gave examples of where HIMMAT had challenged an individual in the early stages of their order and this had impacted positively on engaging that individual in supervision. There were few suggestions as to how the service could be improved. Where suggestions were made these tended to relate to whether the service could be expanded out to other districts or whether HIMMAT could offer a wider range of services (i.e. whether HIMMAT could offer support to drug misusing offenders). Offender Management staff also felt that the service could be used more by their own colleagues as it was considered that use of the service could be variable at present. Details: Wakefield, UK: West Yorkshire Probation Service, 2008. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2013 at: http://www.westyorksprobation.org.uk/documentlist.php?type=1&year=2008 Year: 2008 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.westyorksprobation.org.uk/documentlist.php?type=1&year=2008 Shelf Number: 128273 Keywords: Asian OffendersProbation (U.K.)Probation OfficersProbationers |
Author: Northern Ireland. Criminal Justice Inspection Title: An Inspection of Community Supervision by the Probation Board for Northern Ireland Summary: Supervising offenders in the community represents a significant proportion of the overall work of the probation service, and is carried out by probation officers and probation service officers across the whole of Northern Ireland. A small number of these offenders when released from prison continue to pose a significant risk to the community, and it is essential that they are being supervised effectively to support their rehabilitation. This inspection assessed the performance of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI) in supervising offenders in the community. The inspection also sought to ensure that there was a legacy of both personal and organisational learning by involving probation managers and probation officers/probation service officers in the review of case files, together with the assessors from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMI Probation). We also sought to benchmark the performance of the PBNI in comparison with other probation services and practice in England and Wales. The inspection shows the PBNI to be an effective organisation which delivers its services against challenging standards which compare to, and on many occasions exceed, those being delivered in England and Wales. The results of the case file reviews, feedback from stakeholders from within the criminal justice system and third sector, as well as offenders and victims, reflects the approach of an organisation which understands and accepts its role in delivering public safety and reducing offending. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, 2013. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 9, 2013 at: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/78/78040759-0c4f-449b-b36b-647dd986eb51.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/78/78040759-0c4f-449b-b36b-647dd986eb51.pdf Shelf Number: 128691 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SupervisionProbation (Northern Ireland)Probationers |
Author: Kunkel, Tara L. Title: Arkansas SWIFT Courts: Implementation Assessment and Long-Term Evaluation Plan Summary: In 2011, the Arkansas legislature provided for the establishment of five pilot programs, known as SWIFT Courts. These pilots are modeled after the successful Hawaii HOPE program and are designed to reduce probation failure among high-risk probationers by concentrating on a small number of easily verifiable behaviors (drug use and showing up for appointments) to ensure compliance. The five pilot SWIFT Courts became operational between March and October 2012. An implementation review of the SWIFT Courts, conducted by the National Center for State Courts, suggests that the programs have successfully implemented the majority of the HOPE benchmarks. Preliminary data suggests the programs are having a positive short-term impact on the probationers enrolled in the program. A number of suggestions for strengthening the pilot programs are offered throughout this review. Finally, the report concludes with a long-term evaluation plan for the SWIFT Court programs. Details: Williamsburg, VA; National Center for State Courts, 2013. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 18, 2013 at: http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/criminal/id/219 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/criminal/id/219 Shelf Number: 129014 Keywords: Court Administration (Arkansas)ProbationersProblem-Solving Courts |
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: Reddy, Vikrant P. Title: Cutting Edge Corrections: Using Technology to Improve Community Supervision in Texas Summary: Over the last three decades, the United States has seen an extraordinary burst of technological innovation. Desktop computing, mobile communication, and mapping are just a few aspects of daily life that are completely different than they were only thirty years ago. For Texas legislators, these innovations have provided exciting new opportunities throughout public policy. In education policy, for example, digital learning could lead to a revolution in student outcomes. Criminal justice policy in Texas is one area that could especially benefit from innovation. In particular, technology has the potential to completely revolutionize community supervision. The fundamental needs of community supervision are technologies for monitoring offenders, for communicating with them, and for analyzing data about them. In all of these areas, technology has grown leaps and bounds. Key Points - Use risk assessments to match probationers and parolees with the most appropriate level of supervision. - Explore use of including voice recognition reporting for the lowest-risk offenders, thus reallocating supervision resources to frequent home visits as well as GPS monitoring for high-risk offenders. - Given that many of those under supervision with technical probation revocations become absconders, consider using enhanced monitoring in order to reduce technical revocations. - While continuing to use ignition interlock devices where appropriate, also consider expanding the use of other alcohol detection devices that are directed at stopping alcohol abuse, not just drunk driving. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2014. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Perspective: Accessed May 5, 2014 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2014-04-PP17-CuttingEdgeCorrections-CEJ-ReddyLevin_0.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2014-04-PP17-CuttingEdgeCorrections-CEJ-ReddyLevin_0.pdf Shelf Number: 132239 Keywords: Alcohol Interlock DevicesCommunity SupervisionCriminal Justice PolicyOffender MonitoringOffender SupervisionProbationersTechnology and Crime |
Author: Gyateng, Tracey Title: Key Predictors of Compliance with Community Supervision in London Summary: Non-compliance with court orders and subsequent breach proceedings are important factors fuelling a rising prison population: one in seven (14%) receptions into English and Welsh prison establishments during 2008 were for breach of a court order. The London Criminal Justice Partnership (LCJP) has established a Compliance and Enforcement Strategy for 2008/2011 which seeks to reduce re-offending and prison overcrowding, and lower the considerable costs of enforcement activities in the capital. This independent research study by the Institute for Criminal Policy Research (ICPR), King's College London, sought to support and inform the delivery of that strategy in achieving these aims. This study aimed to meet the LCJP's need for strategic information that would: - help probation staff target their proposals to sentencers more precisely; - identify gaps in provision which could be addressed by using packages of requirements attached to orders more creatively; - identify the key predictors of breach and compliance; and - identify the sub-groups of offenders for whom other disposals, such as fines, are the most sensible PSR proposal. Details: London: London Criminal Justice Partnership, 2010. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2014 at: http://www.icpr.org.uk/media/10306/Key%20predictors%20in%20compliance%20mcsweeney%20gyateng%20hough.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.icpr.org.uk/media/10306/Key%20predictors%20in%20compliance%20mcsweeney%20gyateng%20hough.pdf Shelf Number: 132392 Keywords: Community SupervisionOffender SupervisionProbation OfficersProbationers |
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: Quan, Lisa T. Title: Reallocation of Responsibility: Changes to the Correctional System in California Post-Realignment Summary: On October 1, 2011, California's long troubled correctional system began operating under a new framework created by Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109). Formally known as the 2011 Public Safety Realignment Act, AB 109 was largely a result of the state's failure to control overcrowding and its consequences for inmates in California's 33 state prisons. In 2009, a three-judge federal panel ordered the state to reduce its prison population to 137.5% of design capacity-a reduction of about 30,000 people-within two years. In mid-2011, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that order in Brown v. Plata. By signing the Realignment bill, Governor Jerry Brown put the state on the path toward compliance with the court order. More broadly, his action launched a titanic policy shift in California criminal justice, perhaps the most sweeping such change since the adoption of determinate sentencing in the 1970's. Once known as a state that relied heavily on prison to punish parole violators and other lower-level offenders, California under Realignment began shifting responsibility for most non-serious, non-violent, non-sexual (N3) felons from the state to the counties. Through the initiative's first two years, counties have received more than $2 billion to manage the new load of offenders in jails, on probation, and through evidence-based programs in the community. While several other states have also begun favoring the use of local sanctions over prison for less serious offenders, the scale of California's effort makes it an experiment of unparalleled national significance. Although it is too early to draw solid conclusions about Realignment's effects on long-term crime and recidivism, at least one outcome is clear: As the Legislature intended, AB 109 has shifted a large share of correctional control from the state to the local level. Two years after the law's implementation, the majority of California adults in the correctional system has been "realigned" and now undergoes local supervision as jail inmates and probationers. As a result, California now ranks below the national average in the proportion of adults it imprisons and places on parole. The state's probation population, meanwhile, has ballooned, with the number of probationers per 100,000 jumping 30% from 2010 to 2012. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, Stanford Criminal Justice Center, 2014. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 25, 2014 at: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/458403/doc/slspublic/CC%20Bulletin%20Jan%2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/458403/doc/slspublic/CC%20Bulletin%20Jan%2014.pdf Shelf Number: 132777 Keywords: Corrections (California)Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformPrison OvercrowdingProbationersPublic Safety Realignment Sentencing |
Author: Cobb, Kimberly Title: Going Beyond Compliance Monitoring of Drug/Alcohol-Involved Tribal Probationers Summary: It is no secret that alcohol and substance abuse are common problems in Indian Country. While official data on crime in Indian Country is hard to come by, anecdotal data alludes to the fact that many tribal communities face overwhelming numbers of crimes either directly related to or associated with drugs/alcohol. Alcohol abuse has been associated with numerous negative consequences including crime, domestic violence, sexual assault and rape, suicide, morbidity, and ultimately mortality (Aguirre & Watts, 2010; Kovas, McFarland, Landen, Lopez, & May, 2008). However, alcohol is far from the only substance abused on tribal land. Marijuana, methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, and various pharmaceutical drugs are also regularly abused (NDIC, 2008). Although there has been great emphasis lately on the building or renovation of detention facilities in Indian Country, many tribal communities hold fast to the belief that they do not want to imprison their members. In fact, alternatives to incarceration, which includes probation and community supervision programs, are professed as a more "culturally compatible approach to punishment for crime" in Indian Country (Luna-Firebaugh, 2003, p. 63). Therefore, unless something tragic has occurred, those charged with drug/alcohol-related offenses will more than likely be placed on community supervision. That is where you come in as the tribal probation officer. Working with probationers is more than just identifying and controlling their risk to re-offend. As a tribal probation officer, you are "charged with ensuring public safety; holding offenders accountable for their actions; and, facilitating behavioral change in offenders" (The Century Council, 2010, pg. 8). In order to fulfill this charge, you often have to take on many roles associated with law enforcement, social work, counselor and court servant - which, at times, can have conflicting goals (Cobb, Mowatt, Matz, & Mullins, 2011). To be effective, you have to blend your duties of being an officer of the court (focused on compliance) and a probationer motivator (focused on facilitating behavior change) - both of which are necessary to fulfill the mandate of protecting public safety. In order to be effective and protect public safety over the long-term, as a tribal probation officer, you must move beyond compliance monitoring of the probation conditions ordered by the court to working with individuals on your caseload to identifying the root cause of the issues behind their drug/alcohol-related problems and intervene as necessary to put them on a better path. Details: Lexington, KY: American Probation & Parole Association, 2014. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 25, 2014 at: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/APPA/pubs/GBAITP.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/APPA/pubs/GBCMDAITP.pdf Shelf Number: 133133 Keywords: Alcohol AbuseAlternatives To IncarcerationCommunity Based CorrectionsCommunity SupervisionDrug Abuse and AddictionDrug OffendersIndians of North AmericaProbation Officers (U.S.)ProbationersRisk AssessmentSubstance Abuse |
Author: Choate, David E. Title: Arizona Arrestee Reporting Information Network: 2013 Maricopa County Adult Probation Department Report Summary: The Arizona Arrestee Reporting Information Network (AARIN) is a monitoring system that provides ongoing descriptive information about drug use, crime, victimization, and other characteristics of interest among individuals arrested in Maricopa County, Arizona. Funded by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors beginning in 2007, AARIN is modeled after the former National Institute of Justice (NIJ) national-level Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program (ADAM). In three facilities throughout the county, professionally trained interviewers conduct voluntary and confidential interviews with recently booked adult arrestees and juvenile detainees. Questions focus on a range of topics including education, employment and other demographics, patterns of drug use (lifetime and recent), substance abuse and dependence risk, criminal activity, gang affiliation, victimization, mental health, interactions with police, public health concerns, incarceration and probation, citizenship, and treatment experiences. Each interviewee also provides a urine specimen that is tested for the presence of alcohol and/or drugs. Arrestees who have been in custody longer than 48 hours are ineligible for participation in AARIN, due to the 72-hour time limitation for valid testing of urine specimen. The instruments used and the reporting mechanism underwent a substantial revision in 2011. While maintaining all of the data elements from the previous core set of questions, the baseline interview expanded by more than 60%. Additionally, with the change in the core questionnaire, the project shifted its reporting strategy to focus reports to each of six key Maricopa County criminal justice agencies: Maricopa County Manager's Office, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Office of the Public Defender, Adult Probation Department, and the Juvenile Probation Department. Overall, AARIN serves as a near-real time information source on the extent and nature of drug abuse and related activity in Maricopa County, AZ. This information helps to inform policy and practice among police, courts and correctional agencies to increase public safety and address the needs of individuals who find themselves in the criminal justice system. Details: Phoenix, AZ: Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety, Arizona State University, 2013. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 25, 2014 at: http://cvpcs.asu.edu/sites/default/files/content/projects/AARIN%20Adult%20Probation%202013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://cvpcs.asu.edu/sites/default/files/content/projects/AARIN%20Adult%20Probation%202013.pdf Shelf Number: 133139 Keywords: Adult Probation (Arizona)Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug OffendersOffender ProfilingProbationers |
Author: D'Amico, Ron Title: Evaluation of the Second Chance Act (SCA) Demonstration 2009 Grantees: Interim Report Summary: This report presents the results from an implementation study of 10 grantees awarded Second Chance Act (SCA) adult demonstration grants to improve reentry services for adult offenders. The implementation study was designed to learn how the 10 grantees operated their SCA projects. During site visits to each grantee lasting two to three days each, study team members interviewed program administrators, case managers, probation and parole officers (POs), fiscal and MIS staff members, and SCA service providers, asking questions about project management and service delivery. They also conducted focus groups with program participants, observed project services, and reviewed selected case files. These site visits largely took place in the spring and summer of 2012. The grantees included state departments of corrections, county sheriff's offices, county health agencies, and other public agencies. Each SCA project targeted medium to high-risk adult offenders and enrolled participants, variously, well before release, just before release, or just after release. Case management, involving needs-based service planning and service coordination, was the focal point of project services across all 10 sites. Depending on the site, case managers were (specialized) POs or employees of municipal departments or nonprofit organizations. Other SCA services included education and training, employment assistance, substance abuse treatment, mental health services, cognitive behavioral therapy, pro-social services, housing assistance, and other supportive services. These services were provided either directly by the case managers, through formal agreements with service providers (often including payment for services rendered), or through unfunded informal referrals to community agencies. The direct service model provided tailored services to participants, but required case managers to have specialized expertise and, for this reason, was used sparingly. The formal partnership model ensured priority access to services that participants needed but was costly. The informal partnership model provided participants with access to a wide array of community services but often without close coordination with the SCA project itself. Each grantee used all three of these service delivery models. The grantees faced numerous challenges in developing strong projects, stemming partly from the intrinsic difficulty in serving offenders and partly due to the challenge of designing and implementing evidence-based reentry programming. These challenges included: - needing substantial ramp-up time to operate smoothly, - needing to train case managers (especially those without a social service background) on needs-based service planning, and - coordinating partner services. The SCA projects that overcame these challenges created strong foundations for sustainable systems change. They: - gained considerable experience in needs-based service planning and in coordinating pre-release and post-release services, - strengthened partnerships between various government and community-based agencies, and - came to embrace a rehabilitative philosophy to reentry that, in some cases, represented an important cultural shift. An impact study that uses a random assignment design is separately underway, and results from it will be provided in a separate report. Details: Oakland, CA: Social Policy Research Associates, 2013. 113p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 2, 2014 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/243294.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/243294.pdf Shelf Number: 129915 Keywords: Case ManagementParoleesPrisoner Reentry (U.S.)ProbationersRecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: 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: Taxman, Faye S. Title: What Works in Residential Reentry Centers Summary: Residential Reentry Centers (RRCs) are designed to facilitate the transition from prison to the community, and many often serve as halfway back facilities for offenders who have difficulties when placed on community supervision. During this transitional period, the RRCs assist offenders in securing housing and employment as well as continuing in appropriate treatment and other programs to address criminogenic needs. Monographs available at this website are: "Executive Overview: What Works in Residential Reentry Centers" by Faye S. Taxman, Jessica Rexroat, Mary Shilton, Amy Mericle, and Jennifer Lerch; "Report 1: What Is the Impact of "Performance Contracting" on Offender Supervision Services?" by Shilton, Rexroat, Taxman, and Mericle; "Report 2: Measuring Performance -The Capacity of Residential Reentry Centers (RRCs) to Collect, Manage, and Analyze Client-Level Data" by Mericle, Shilton, Taxman, and Rexroat; "Report 3: What Organizational Factors Are Related to Improved Outcomes?" by Shilton, Rexroat, Taxman, and Mericle; "Report 4: How Do Staff Hiring, Retention, Management and Attitudes Affect Organizational Climate and Performance in RRCs?" by Rexroat, Shilton, Taxman, and Mericle; "Report 5: What Services Are Provided by RRCs?" by Shilton, Rexroat, Taxman, and Mericle; Report 6: Technical Violation Rates and Rearrest Rates on Federal Probation after Release from an RRC" by Lerch, Taxman, and Mericle; and "Report 7: Site Visits" by Shilton, Rexroat, Taxman, and Mericle. Details: Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, Criminology, Law and Society, 2010. 8 parts; executive summary Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 16, 2014 at: http://www.gmuace.org/research_reentry.html Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.gmuace.org/research_reentry.html Shelf Number: 133728 Keywords: Halfway HousesOffender ReintegrationPrisoner Reentry (U.S.)ProbationersRehabilitation |
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: Title: Indiana Workload Evaluation: A Multi-Methods Investigation of Probation Supervision Summary: Virtually everyone agrees that probation has grown as a sanction over the past few decades. When considering this growth in the probation sanction, it is common for commentators to discuss the number of probationers or the size of probation officer caseloads. Less frequently, however, is attention given to the actual workload of probation officers and the way these workloads have changed over time. Indeed, it is not enough to say that probation officer caseloads have grown. Instead, it is necessary to focus on the changes in workload that have accompanied this increased reliance on the probation sanction. In this project, the research team used a variety of techniques to examine issues related to workload in probation agencies across Indiana. Methods utilized included interviews with probation chiefs, conversations with members of the advisory board, and a sophisticated time study. The majority of data for this evaluation come from a time and motion study completed by 338 officers across 24 probation departments from October 1, 2012 through November 14, 2012. The researchers gathered data about sixty-nine different types of tasks. In total, the data provided information about more than two million minutes of workload performed by the officers over the five week time period. Officers recorded 74,239 tasks, with 80 percent (n = 59,746) supervision activities, 10 percent (n = 7,649) reporting activities, 4.4 percent (n = 3,299) non-case related, 1.3 percent (n = 989) juvenile intake activities, .5 percent (n = 390) equipment management activities, and 3 percent (n = 2,256) administration activities. Key findings from this study included the following: - The average time per task was 28.22 minutes. - Of the activities in which an officer spent time with an offender, about 23 percent of the time the offender was high or very high risk. - On average, adult probation officers spent about 23 minutes per task, adult pre-trial spent about 30 minutes, juvenile probation officers spent about 24 minutes, and alcohol and drug officers spent about 23 minutes per activity. - The two most frequent activities were face-to-face meetings with offenders and generating and responding to emails, phone calls, or letters. - Non-case and administrative time accounted for nearly 8 percent of all tasks recorded. - Face-to-face meetings with offenders are slightly longer (26.9 minutes) than are meetings with others (20.9 minutes). - It is estimated that juvenile intake averaged about 4.5 hours to complete. - On average, officers spent more than seven hours on each pre-sentence investigation. - Officers spent just over two hours per offender dealing with equipment issues related to electronic monitoring and global position satellite systems over the five week period. - Comparisons between sex offenders, domestic violence offenders, and other offenders revealed that the amount of time spent on activities was similar for the different offender groups. - Supervision activities are the most frequent type (n = 59,730, 80 percent) of activities that officers completed during the data collection period and while they took less time to complete than many other activities (averaging 23 minutes), they still accounted for nearly two-thirds of all the time officers spent working during the five week time period. Details: University Park, PA: Justice Center for Research, Penn State University, 2014. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 30, 2014 at: http://justicecenter.psu.edu/research/projects/indiana-workload-evaluation-a-multi-methods-investigation-of-probation-supervision/IndianaFinalReport.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://justicecenter.psu.edu/research/projects/indiana-workload-evaluation-a-multi-methods-investigation-of-probation-supervision/IndianaFinalReport.pdf Shelf Number: 133874 Keywords: Offender SupervisionProbation CaseloadProbation Officers (Indiana)Probationers |
Author: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: Reducing Incarceration for Technical Violations in Louisiana: Evaluation of revocation cap shows cost savings, less crime Summary: In 2007, Louisiana lawmakers unanimously approved legislation that set a 90-day limit on the incarceration in jail or prison of those whose probation or parole has been revoked for the first time for violating the rules of their community supervision. Lawmakers passed the legislation, Act 402 (House Bill 423), to prioritize jail and prison beds for serious offenders and steer lower-level offenders to less expensive and potentially more effective alternatives. An independent evaluation of the policy commissioned by The Pew Charitable Trusts, supplemented by additional research conducted by Pew, concluded that Louisiana's 90-day revocation limit has: -- Reduced the average length of incarceration for first-time technical revocations in Louisiana by 281 days, or 9.2 months. -- Maintained public safety, with returns to custody for new crimes declining from 7.9 percent to 6.2 percent, a 22 percent decrease. -- Resulted in a net savings of approximately 2,034 jail and prison beds a year. -- Saved taxpayers an average of $17.6 million in annual corrections costs. This brief summarizes these findings and looks ahead to the longer-term implications of Act 402 for Louisiana. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2014. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed February 5, 2015 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2014/11/PSPPReducingIncarcerationforTechnicalViolationsinLouisiana.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2014/11/PSPPReducingIncarcerationforTechnicalViolationsinLouisiana.pdf Shelf Number: 134546 Keywords: Community SupervisionCost-Benefit AnalysisParole Revocation (Louisiana)ParoleesProbation RevocationProbationers |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Probation Title: An Inspection of the work of Probation Trusts and Youth Offending Teams to protect children and young people Summary: This inspection was undertaken by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation in response to the findings from our mainstream inspection programmes of probation and youth offending work practice which suggested that work to protect children and young people carried out by Probation Trusts and Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) was not being consistently delivered well enough. The inspection focused on the work to identify those children and young people at risk of harm and to take appropriate action where necessary. We visited six Probation Trusts and YOTs to assess the quality of the work by inspecting cases and interviewing offender/case managers. In all we inspected: - 58 orders held by Probation Trusts and 83 orders held by YOTs which had commenced in the three month period prior to the inspection - 42 cases in Probation Trusts and 36 cases in YOTs where a child protection plan was or had been in place at some point during the course of the order - 48 referrals to children's social care services made by Probation Trusts and 37 made by YOTs. We also interviewed key managers, staff and partners at local and national level involved in work to protect children. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2014. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 26, 2015 at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/08/Protecting-Children-Thematic-Report1.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/08/Protecting-Children-Thematic-Report1.pdf Shelf Number: 134708 Keywords: Offender SupervisionProbation (U.K.)ProbationersYouthful Offenders |
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: 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: 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: New Mexico Sentencing Commission Title: Updated Exploratory Sex Offender Recidivism Study: 2004-2006 Probation Sentence & Prison Release Cohorts Summary: This analysis builds on a report that was published by NMSC in 2012. Additional release and probation cohorts were added. The analysis includes offenders who were released from NMCD facilities or began probation for a sex offense that requires registration for calendar years 2004 - 2006. Additionally, in this analysis, NMSC staff were given access to Offender Watch by the New Mexico Department of Public Safety to confirm registration and NMCD probation data to confirm that offenders in the probation cohort received sentences that did not include prison time. Details: Albuquerque: New Mexico Sentencing Commission, 2014. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 16, 2015 at: http://nmsc.unm.edu/reports/2014/updated-exploratory-sex-offender-recidivism-study-2004-2006-probation-sentence--prison-release-cohorts.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://nmsc.unm.edu/reports/2014/updated-exploratory-sex-offender-recidivism-study-2004-2006-probation-sentence--prison-release-cohorts.pdf Shelf Number: 137467 Keywords: ProbationersRecidivismSex Offender RegistrationSex Offenders |
Author: Zatz, Noah Title: Get To Work or Go To Jail: Workplace Rights Under Threat Summary: When many people consider work and the criminal justice system, they commonly consider how difficult it is for people coming out of jail to find work. Yet, a recent UCLA Labor Center report, Get to Work or Go To Jail: Workplace Rights Under Threat, goes further by exploring the ways in which the criminal justice system can also lock workers on probation, parole, facing court-ordered debt, or child support debt into bad jobs. Because these workers face the threat of incarceration for unemployment, the report finds that they cannot afford to refuse a job, quit a job, or to challenge their employers. Among other findings, the report concludes: - Nearly 5 million Americans and 400,000 Californians are under probation or parole - Many of these workers may be stripped of standard labor protections such such as minimum wage and workers compensation - On any given day, about 9,000 nationwide are in prison or jail for violating the probation or parole requirement to hold a job. - Every year in Los Angeles, 50,000-100,000 people must perform unpaid, court-order community service. Some debtors perform many hundreds of hours of unpaid labor, the equivalent to several months of full-time work. - African Americans or Latinos account for 2/3 of those incarcerated for violating parole or probation conditions related to work or debt. - The majority of fathers who were incarcerated for failing to pay child support worked during the previous year, in fact 95% of fathers reported having been employed prior to incarceration. Of these fathers, 85% of these fathers lived in or near poverty. Details: Los Angeles: UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, UCLA Labor Center, 2016. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2016 at: http://www.labor.ucla.edu/publication/get-to-work-or-go-to-jail/ Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.labor.ucla.edu/publication/get-to-work-or-go-to-jail/ Shelf Number: 138838 Keywords: Ex-Offender EmploymentParoleesProbationers |
Author: 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: Andersen, Lars Hojsgaard Title: Decomposing Recidivism Variance into Probation and Parole Officers and their Clients Summary: Existing empirical literature on probation and parole shows that individual client characteristics matter for recidivism, but also characteristics of their assigned probation or parole officer have been shown to matter. And although theoretical accounts of probation and parole debate the relative importance of these client and officer characteristics, no study has provided an empirical benchmark of the total effects of officers and clients (i.e., their characteristics) on recidivism. In this paper I decompose the total variance in recidivism into components attributable to probationers and parolees and their assigned probation or parole officers, respectively, using register data that merges all probationers and parolees in 2002-2009 in Denmark with their assigned officer. Results show that although substantial variance components are attributable to both officers and clients, the component attributable to clients is around twice the size of the component attributable to officers. These estimates provide new evidence on the most common types of noncustodial alternatives to imprisonment, probation and parole, which affect millions of people each day. Details: Copenhagen: Rockwool Foundation Research Unit, 2015. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Study Paper No. 92: Accessed May 18, 2016 at: http://www.rockwoolfonden.dk/app/uploads/2015/12/Study-paper-92_WEB.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Denmark URL: http://www.rockwoolfonden.dk/app/uploads/2015/12/Study-paper-92_WEB.pdf Shelf Number: 139276 Keywords: Community SupervisionParole OfficersParoleesProbation OfficersProbationersRecidivism |
Author: 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: Caudill, Jonathan W. Title: Navigating the Storm: An Empirical Assessment of the Local Effects of California's Criminal Justice Realignment Summary: October 1st of 2014 marked the third-year implementation anniversary of California's Criminal Justice Realignment (AB 109) legislation. California's AB 109 realigned sentencing options for certain non-violent, non-sexual, and non-serious felony offenses, precluding incarceration in state prison. This less punishment, more rehabilitation sentencing structure shifted correctional supervision to county criminal justice systems (namely, county jails and probation departments) across the State. Along with this widespread jurisdictional decentralization, came many concerns regarding the impact of such a dramatic shift in correctional supervision. Reported here are the results of a three-year evaluation that uniquely included both quantitative and qualitative research methods to assess the impact of AB 109 on Butte County criminal justice organizations. First examined is the change in workload for the District Attorney's Office, focusing on outcomes such as the number of case filings by specific offense categories, failure to appear charge accumulation, and total number of charges over time. Second, this report demonstrates through comparison of recidivism outcomes of pre-AB 109 offenders to recidivism outcomes of post-AB 109 offenders a continuity of supervision during the implementation of Realignment. Results here also highlight factors that increased the likelihood of new arrests and/or probation violations for probation offenders. The empirical work then turns to a small cohort of Post-Release Community Supervision (PCS) offenders. These PCS offenders were tracked for three years to better understand their recidivism outcomes and impact on the local criminal justice system. Their cumulative impact on the jail and overall recidivism was assessed through exploring their total number of times entering the county jail, the proportion of those bookings that turned into formalized charges, and the proportion of those charges that ultimately became convictions. Finally, the report presents findings from two qualitative studies: the level of service orientation across supervision organizations and offenders' perceptions of the utility of home visits' Details: Chico, CA: California State University, Chico, 2015. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 8, 2016 at: https://www.csuchico.edu/pols/documents/Navigating%20the%20storm%20three%20years%20after%20109.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.csuchico.edu/pols/documents/Navigating%20the%20storm%20three%20years%20after%20109.pdf Shelf Number: 139318 Keywords: Community SupervisionCommunity-Based CorrectionsCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformProbationersPublic Safety RealignmentRecidivism |
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: 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: 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: Crosse, Scott Title: Multi-jurisdiction Research on Automated Reporting Systems: Kiosk Supervision Summary: The Multi-jurisdiction Kiosk Study was designed to expand and strengthen the evidence base on kiosk reporting used to supervise probationers and parolees. The research study collected and analyzed information on the prevalence of kiosk reporting, implementation experiences of adopters of this approach, and outcomes and costs associated with its use. In addition to enhancing the evidence base, the research findings informed the development of a practical guidebook on adoption and implementation that will help community supervision agencies make knowledgeable decisions about kiosk reporting. This mixed method study involved multiple components including: 1) a brief telephone screener and in-depth telephone interviews, 2) an implementation and cost study, and 3) an outcome study. The research methods and findings from each component are described in the remainder of this overview. Details: Rockville, MD: Westat, 2015. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 8, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250173.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250173.pdf Shelf Number: 145376 Keywords: Corrections TechnologyKiosk SupervisionOffender SupervisionParole SupervisionParoleesProbationers |
Author: Bauer, Erin L. Title: Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Corrections Professionals Summary: Automated kiosk reporting systems have gained popularity in recent years as community supervision agencies strive to provide quality supervision services at reduced costs. This guidebook, which provides community supervision agencies with an overview of automated kiosk reporting systems, is based primarily on the findings of a multi-jurisdiction kiosk study on the use of automated kiosk reporting systems to supervise clients placed under community supervision. The multi-jurisdiction kiosk study was conducted by Westat, an employee-owned research firm in Rockville, Maryland, and funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice (NIJ). This research was designed to gather as much information as possible on automated kiosk reporting systems from the field - i.e., community supervision agencies that were currently using, seriously considered using, or formerly used automated kiosk reporting systems to supervise clients - and to compile and disseminate the information collected to community supervision agencies that may be exploring alternatives to traditional officer supervision. Details: Rockville, MD: Westat, 2015. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 8, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250174.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250174.pdf Shelf Number: 145377 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCommunity Supervision Corrections Technology Kiosk Supervision Offender Supervision Parole Supervision Parolees Probationers |
Author: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc. Title: The Colorado State Court Administrator's Office Division of Probation Services Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment Program Annual Evaluation Report Summary: Since the early 1990s the Colorado Division of Probation Services (DPS) has been committed to implementing cognitive-behavioral programming as part of their service delivery to probation clients. In the fall of 2008, the State Court Administrator's Office contracted with LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc. (LMA) to conduct a three-year implementation and outcome evaluation of the cognitive-behavioral programs being delivered to probation clients across the state's 22 judicial districts. The first year of the evaluation included a literature review of cognitive-behavioral programs and an implementation analysis. The second and third years of the project involve an evaluation of fidelity and outcomes for the two major cognitive-behavioral treatment programs: Thinking for a Change and Why Try. Details: Tucson, AZ: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, 2010. 83p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 12, 2016 at: http://www.lecroymilligan.com/data/resources/colorado-annual-report-june-2010-final.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.lecroymilligan.com/data/resources/colorado-annual-report-june-2010-final.pdf Shelf Number: 129793 Keywords: Cognitive-Behavioral ProgramProbationersTreatment Programs |
Author: Wong, Timothy Title: Hawaii State Validation Report on the Domestic Violence Screening Instrument (DVSI) and Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) Summary: This report presents analyses of data on probationers in the State of Hawaii who received the Domestic Violence Screening Instrument (DVSI) and Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) in Fiscal Years 2004-2007. It is a companion report that supplements a recently published descriptive study of domestic violence probationers in Hawaii. It also is a follow-up report to a previous study on the DVSI and SARA, published in October 2008. The State of Hawaii Judiciary utilizes the DVSI for risk screening, classification, and case supervision purposes, while the SARA provides a critical assessment for the case planning of high risk probationers. This report provides the information needed to evaluate the DVSI and SARA as risk assessment and classification instruments. This includes evaluating the instruments' capacity to identify and match criminogenic risks and needs; and in particular, the utility of the SARA as an offender management and case planning tool. The major findings in this report come from an analysis of 1,470 DVSIs from July 2004 through June 2007, and 198 SARAs administered to probationers who scored six and above on the DVSI from February 2005 through May 2007. A 36-month recidivism analysis was the primary method used to evaluate the accuracy and predictive validity of the DVSI and SARA as risk classification instruments. This study defines recidivism as new domestic violence (DV) arrests, which include the abuse of a household member, violation of protective orders, or terroristic threatening offenses; and Non-DV arrests, such as possession of controlled substances, criminal property damage, motor vehicle violations, or probation revocations. This report contains the following sub-sections: 1. Demographic profile of probationers assessed using the DVSI, which includes gender, age, ethnicity, and judicial unit; 2. Descriptive statistical analyses of probationers who were administered the DVSI and SARA, such as frequency distributions, and cross-tabulations of selected variables; 3. DVSI and SARA recidivism analysis; and 4. Validation analyses of the DVSI and SARA instruments. Details: Honolulu: Interagency Council on Intermediate Sanctions, 2011. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 16, 2016 at: http://onlinetraining.learningtoendabuse.ca/sites/default/files/lessons/DVSI_and_SARA_Validation_Study_2005-2007.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://onlinetraining.learningtoendabuse.ca/sites/default/files/lessons/DVSI_and_SARA_Validation_Study_2005-2007.pdf Shelf Number: 141173 Keywords: Domestic Violence Family Violence Intimate Partner Abuse ProbationersRisk Assessment Spouse Abuse |
Author: Wong, Timothy Title: Validation of LSI-R and ASUS Criminogenic Risk Instruments Summary: This study report is based on a compilation of adult offender risk assessment data from the CYZAP database, and offender arrest/conviction data from the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS). The report contains detailed analyses of offenders from the Judiciary’s Probation Services, Hawaii Paroling Authority, and the Department of Public Safety, who were administered the Level of Service Inventory Revised (LSIR) and Adult Substance Use Survey (ASUS). These assessment instruments measure criminogenic and alcohol/drug dependency risk levels, as well as the severity of criminogenic and alcohol/drug patterns, known as subdomains. All offenders are classified by risk levels, which provide invaluable information needed for case supervision purposes and determining treatment levels. Both risk instruments are critical to risk and need principles established in evidence-based practices, and necessitate validation; e.g., ascertainment of whether or not they accurately predict recidivism, and if they correctly classify offenders into distinct risk groups. Recidivism is an important outcome measure, since it distinguishes offenders who have re-offended from those who remained free of crime or technical violations over a three-year period. This report presents information on recidivism rates for probationers, parolees, and incarcerated offenders in the State of Hawaii. It also assesses a variety of offender conditions, including criminogenic dimensions, criminal offenses committed, and socio-demographic variables. The major objective of this report is to assist Interagency Council on Intermediate Sanctions (ICIS) agencies in evaluating longer-term outcomes, and documenting change in criminogenic risk patterns. It also provides analytical information on how a complement of predictive risk indicators, specified by risk levels, plays an important role in identifying risk assessment patterns, analyzing policy decisions, and evaluating service delivery options. The statistical charts depicted herein present data relating to the following areas: (1) Recidivism Analysis a. Agency and County b. Socio-demographics c. Time to Recidivism d. LSI-R Risk classification validity (2) Analysis of LSI-R Initial and Most Recent Assessments (3) ASUS and LSI-R Predictive Validity Methodology: The recidivism database includes an unduplicated count of 7,286 offenders, of which 5,126 received two or more LSI-Rs and ASUS’ from 2009 through 2011. The approach of this report is to complement existing LSI-R and ASUS statistical profile information with offender arrest data. The recidivism database was prepared as a flat file of unduplicated offender records. Each record contains data fields that incorporate initial and most recent LSI-R and ASUS assessment information, criminal arrests, and types of charged offenses. Additionally, calculated fields were added to the database to measure change in both the LSI-R total and protective scores, and criminogenic subdomain percentiles. Furthermore, the use of calculated date fields, which measure the length of time between the start of follow-up date and arrest date, is critical for the measurement of recidivism. For the purpose of this report, recidivism is defined as rearrests, revocations, and technical violations, tracked over a three-year period from the onset of supervision or release to parole. Details: Honolulu: Interagency Council on Intermediate Sanctions, 2013. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 16, 2016 at: http://icis.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Validation_LSI-and-ASUS-FYs-2009-2011.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://icis.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Validation_LSI-and-ASUS-FYs-2009-2011.pdf Shelf Number: 147316 Keywords: ProbationersRecidivismRisk Assessment |
Author: Wong, Timothy Title: 2015 Recidivism Update Summary: This report provides a comparative update to the 2002 Hawaii Recidivism Baseline Study and subsequent updates in 2006 through 2014. Hawaii's statewide recidivism rate is an important indicator of the Interagency Council on Intermediate Sanctions' (ICIS) efforts to reduce recidivism by 30% over a ten-year period. Although this ten-year period ended in 2011, the 30% recidivism reduction benchmark remains an important long-term goal. This study is comprised of 2,464 offenders from the Fiscal Year 2012 cohort, as compiled from the following State agencies: 1. Hawaii State Probation Services – 1,639 Offenders Sentenced to Felony Probation. 2. Hawaii Paroling Authority (HPA) - 560 Offenders Released to Parole. 3. Department of Public Safety (PSD) - 265 Maximum-Term Released Prisoners. Background: ICIS conducted its first recidivism study in 2002. This baseline study monitored probationers and parolees for criminal rearrests and revocations/technical violations over a three-year follow-up period, and reported a 63.3% recidivism rate (72.9% for parolees and 53.7% for felony probationers). ICIS has since conducted eight additional recidivism update studies, for the FY 2003 and FYs 2005-2011 cohorts, all of which replicated the methodology and recidivism definition adopted in the 2002 baseline study. These update studies retain the methodological consistency required for year-to-year trend comparisons. Methodology This study examines felony probationers, prisoners released to parole, and maximum-term released ("maxed-out") prisoners. It tracks recidivism for each offender over a precise 36- month period. ICIS defines recidivism as criminal arrests (most recent charge after supervision start date), revocations, technical violations, and/or criminal contempt of court. Additionally, excluded from this study (per past methodology) were probationers arrested within three months following their supervision start date, and who did not have a reported offense date. This is due to the reasoning that some probationers are in jail because of an offense committed prior to the supervision start date. Details: Honolulu: Interagency Council ion Intermediate Sanctions, 2016. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 16, 2016 at: http://icis.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ICIS-2015-Recidivism-Update.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://icis.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ICIS-2015-Recidivism-Update.pdf Shelf Number: 151286 Keywords: ParoleesProbationersRecidivism |
Author: 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: 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: 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: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Quality & Impact inspection: The effectiveness of probation work in Staffordshire and Stoke Summary: This is our second inspection of adult probation work undertaken in the Midlands division of the National Probation Service (NPS) and in a Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) owned by the Reducing Reoffending Partnership (RRP). RRP is applying the same ambitious operating model in the two CRCs it owns, and it is reassuring to see the progress made since our inspection in Derbyshire just a few months ago. Implementation in Staffordshire and Stoke is almost complete - albeit case management software and systems are still pending - and the operating model is now almost fully fledged. RRP’s model provides for an extensive range of interventions and it was pleasing to see some in good use, for example, substance misuse services. We were impressed as well by RRP’s commitment to specific services for women, and commend its strategy to others. That said, the CRC is not yet delivering the full range of planned services. Delivery has been inconsistent during a period of rapid change, but there is the prospect of steadier times ahead. Individual caseloads, however, look set to stay high with some officers now responsible for up to 80 cases. High individual caseloads are becoming commonplace in CRCs. Of course CRCs must manage within anticipated resource, but the public is at greater risk when officers are spread too thinly and if quality assurance is not robust. In common with other regions, the Midlands division of the NPS has so far experienced less (and less complex) change. It was not surprising then that the organisation was more stable and effective. This is generally consistent with what we have found elsewhere. Overall, the NPS work inspected was of sufficient quality but there were notable weaknesses in places, for example in the provision of rehabilitative services. There was little evidence of the NPS purchasing services from the CRC to assist here, whereas CRC provision of services to the NPS is a key tenet of the model for probation services nationally. In practice and despite leaders' intentions, the rate card (listing services available) and/or concerns over pricing remain sticking points, here and elsewhere in the country. Both the CRC and NPS in Staffordshire and Stoke need to improve the quality and impact of their work. We hope that the findings and recommendations from this inspection will help them to do just that. Details: Manchester, UK: The Inspectorate, 2017. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 18, 2017 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/01/Staffordshire-and-Stoke-QI-report2.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/01/Staffordshire-and-Stoke-QI-report2.pdf Shelf Number: 141099 Keywords: Offender Management Probation Probation Caseloads Probation Officers Probationers |
Author: Yahner, Jennifer Title: Validation of the Employment Retention Inventory: An Assessment Tool of the National Institute of Corrections Summary: Purpose This report summarizes findings from the first validation study of the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Employment Retention Inventory (ERI). The ERI is an assessment tool designed to detect potential job loss risks and needs among justice-involved and behavioral health populations. Scope From September 2013 to August 2016, the Urban Institute (Urban) worked collaboratively with NIC's Community Services Division to assess the ability of the ERI to predict employment-related risks and job loss among criminal justice-involved individuals in two diverse jurisdictions - Jackson County, OR and Allegheny County, PA. Researchers also examined the relationship between employment and recidivism. Methods In both study sites, individuals on probation and parole were recruited for study participation from May to October 2014; a total of 253 employed and 159 unemployed individuals participated in the study. Study participation included baseline completion of a short online survey in which the ERI was embedded, and collection of follow-up data on employment and recidivism eight and 12 months later, respectively. Findings Overall, items in the ERI showed strong face and content validity and readability at a 6th grade level, with study participants reporting ease and comfort in taking the computerized, self-administered questionnaire. Looking at the ERI's predictive validity, the instrument performed fair overall with excellent ratings for those in rural Jackson County. Findings also support a linkage between employment retention and recidivism. Next Steps A replication validation of the ERI is currently underway to assess the instrument's validity for a larger sample of individuals, covering the full array of employment experiences for justice-involved and behavioral health populations. The goal is to study the ERI's implementation in practice, when administered by NIC-trained Employment Retention Specialists and applied to individuals from a diversity of backgrounds. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2016. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 21, 2017 at: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/85331/validation-of-the-employment-retention-inventory_0.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/85331/validation-of-the-employment-retention-inventory_0.pdf Shelf Number: 146651 Keywords: EmploymentEx-Offender EmploymentJobsParoleesProbationersRecidivism |
Author: 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: DuMont, Sophie Title: Where did it all go wrong? A study into the use of community sentences in England and Wales Summary: Despite overall crime falling, our criminal justice system remains under pressure. Nowhere is that more apparent than in our prisons, which are, in the words of the former Chief Inspector, "in their worst state for a decade", with violence, overcrowding and self-harm higher than at any point on record. Policymakers have long understood that a key part of the solution to an overstretched prison system lies in a more effective regime of community sentences, able to secure the confidence of magistrates and the public. As far back as 2003, Pat Carter (whose review presaged the creation of the National Offender Management Service) was calling for sentences in the community "to be made more demanding" as a way to re-balance the system. And in November 2016, the Lord Chief Justice called for more offenders to be sentenced to "tough" and "visible" alternatives in the community, in order to reduce the numbers sent to prison. The notion that community sentences can be a more effective, cheaper alternative to prison is supported by a strong body of evidence. At their best, sentences served in the community can offer a powerful tool for addressing the root causes of offending behaviour, reducing the rate at which an offender reoffends and thus lowering demand on the system overall. Yet despite their obvious potential, community sentences (community orders and suspended sentence orders) are being used less than at any point over the last 15 years. Since 2004, the numbers sentenced to community orders have halved, and overall numbers of sentences served in the community are down 25%, whilst the numbers sentenced to custody have remained relatively stable. Not only is this fuelling unnecessary pressure on our prisons, it is impacting the financial viability of community rehabilitation companies, who are struggling to cope with a lower than anticipated volume of paid work. This report is the first systematic attempt in over a decade to understand what lies behind this phenomenon. It reveals that community sentences: - are implemented in a way that bears little resemblance to the evidence of what works: they are neither intensive, swift, nor punitive enough to act as a proper deterrent. Most importantly, offenders are not held properly to account for complying with their sentence. The Probation Inspectorate (HMIP) has found that in a third of cases where the offender breached their order, "insufficient effort was made by the CRC responsible officer to re-engage them" ; - are failing to transform lives, acting as little more than a stepping stone on the path to prison: 35% of those sentenced to custody have received at least five previous community sentences; - have lost the confidence of magistrates: a new survey of magistrates commissioned for this report reveals that over a third of magistrates (37%) are not confident that community sentences are an effective alternative to custody, and two thirds (65%) are not confident that community sentences reduce crime. These problems are the result of long term structural issues relating to the operation of the criminal justice system, which largely pre-date recent changes to the mix of crimes and government policy reforms. In particular, there appears to have been a long term decline in: the quality/depth of advice provided to the court to guide sentencing decisions - in the form of 'pre-sentence reports' (PSR): there has been a transition over the past decade from PSRs being detailed, written reports to speedy, short, written and oral reports. Almost half (42%) of reports in 2015 were delivered orally, with no information recorded, compared to just 5% in 2006; - the level of information/training provided to magistrates: meaning they are unable to make the most effective use of community sentences and/or to take into account probation providers' capacity to deliver. Over a third (36%) of magistrates do not feel that the training has adequately prepared them for dealing with community sentences and their requirements; - probation's ability to deliver personalised sentences that address the underlying causes of an offender's behaviour and hold the offender to account for compliance: our qualitative research has revealed a deep-seated sense of decline amongst probation staff about the quality of services being provided and the ability to enforce breaches, which has been exacerbated by recent government policy changes. Four in ten magistrates (39%) are not confident that community sentences can be tailored to suit the individual needs of an offender. This report puts forward proposals to tackle these failures, including: - Introducing primary legislation to guarantee prolific offenders receive a swift and robust response to breaching sentences in the community - A new presumption to sentence young adult offenders (18-25) to intensive community orders (successfully piloted in Greater Manchester), rather than short custodial sentences - Encouraging magistrates' courts to regularly review the sentences of prolific offenders - Providing magistrates with the ability to deliver more innovative community sentences that are tied to the offender/offence - Publishing local data on the nature of unpaid work so communities can see justice being served These proposals come at a time of significant change to the way offenders are managed in the community. Whilst it is too early to be definitive, there is emerging evidence that the government's flagship reform programme - Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) - will exacerbate the problems identified above, reducing dialogue between probation and the courts, reducing incentives to deal swiftly with breaches and stifling innovation in the delivery of services to prevent reoffending. There is also little doubt that the fiscal context, with funding having declined since 2010 and set to continue falling, will add to the pressures identified in this report. Our report seeks to learn the lessons of the recent past, in order to influence the future of sentencing and probation reform. The research was informed by a large number of interviews with police and crime commissioners, magistrates, probation staff, police and policymakers. We also commissioned a new survey of magistrates through the Magistrates' Association. Sentences in the community need to improve if they are to have any meaningful impact on reoffending rates. The reforms set out in this paper are a roadmap for how we can make community sentences a powerful crime prevention tool that stops reoffending and keeps communities safe, whilst reducing the pressure on our overstretched prisons. Details: London: Crest Advisory Group, 2017. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 6, 2017 at: http://crestadvisory.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/community-sentences-report-where-did-it-all-go-wrong.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://crestadvisory.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/community-sentences-report-where-did-it-all-go-wrong.pdf Shelf Number: 145338 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Sentences Offender Management Offender Rehabilitation Probation Probationers |
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: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Quality & Impact Inspection: The effectiveness of probation work in Gwent Summary: This is our first inspection of adult probation work undertaken by a CRC owned by Working Links, and our first in Wales after the implementation of the UK government's Transforming Rehabilitation programme. We inspected work done in Gwent by the Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) and the Wales division of the National Probation Service (NPS). The published performance figures for probation services have their limitations. Latest figures suggest that the NPS Wales is performing below average, but in fact we found strong leadership, motivated staff, readily manageable workloads and some excellent NPS work in Gwent. The big issue for NPS Wales is that the quality of work varies, place by place, yet if all offices could deliver the high quality of work done by the NPS in Newport, then more individuals would be helped more effectively, to change their lives for the better. We found a more troubling picture at the CRC. More than two years after Transforming Rehabilitation, the operating model is still changing, and staff are anxious and no doubt long for stability. Seasoned Transforming Rehabilitation observers have long feared that CRCs would cherry pick, investing little in those most likely to reoffend, but instead the Working Links approach is to scale supervision, with the most intensive supervision for the most challenging individuals, and to work in local community hubs that also provide a range of services to the community at large. We were impressed with the community hub, in practice. For the one in four people assessed as low risk, however, their supervision while in the community is scaled back to a telephone call every six weeks, albeit one in three of these should also have contact with unpaid work supervisors or other interventions staff, assuming those arrangements work as intended. In our view, this means too many people get too little attention. Without meaningful contact, individuals are most unlikely to develop a will to change. What is more, as individuals' circumstances change, so can the risk of harm they present to the public. Staff are unsure about the model, with their views no doubt influenced to an extent by the downsizing exercise underway. Implementation is taking a long time, and some aspects of the model are not working as they should. Staff morale is low, and sickness absence alarmingly high, yet (as I have come to expect) we found committed responsible officers working hard to support service users. The CRC's published performance figures show it performing relatively well. What gets measured gets done, of course, but sometimes at a cost to other work that should be done, as we found here. With not enough service user plans actually followed through, and with staff numbers reducing substantially, it is hard to avoid concluding that despite good intentions, simple affordability considerations and an overpowering need to balance the books is driving priorities in this CRC. Details: Manchester: HMIP, 2017. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 6, 2017 at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/04/Gwent-QI-inspection-report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/04/Gwent-QI-inspection-report.pdf Shelf Number: 145343 Keywords: Offender Management Probation Probation Caseloads Probation Officers Probationers |
Author: Williams, Ryan J. Title: Approaches to violent extremist offenders and countering radicalisation in prisons and probation Summary: This paper aims to provide policy-makers, prison governors and prison and probation staff with information on current practice and issues relevant to managing Violent Extremist Offenders (VEOs) and individuals considered at risk of engaging in violent extremism in a prison and probation context. The paper is structured around these two contexts. While in practice this distinction may not exist in some EU Member States, it serves to identify key issues: prison conditions and reintegration strategies, risk assessment, prison regime choices, rehabilitation and reintegration initiatives, and staff training Details: Utrecht The Netherlands: Radicalisation Awareness Network, Confederation of European Probation, 2016. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: RAN Working Paper Second Edition: Accessed June 19, 2017 at: http://www.cep-probation.org/wp-content/uploads/PP_working_paper_second-edition_2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Europe URL: http://www.cep-probation.org/wp-content/uploads/PP_working_paper_second-edition_2016.pdf Shelf Number: 146267 Keywords: Prisoner Radicalization Prisoners ProbationersRadicalization Terrorism Violent Extremism |
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: 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: San Joaquin County Probation Title: Day Reporting Center (DRC): Recidivism by EBP Dosage Hours Summary: This evaluation report centers on analysis specific to the San Joaquin County Probation Department's Day Reporting Center (DRC). The DRC, which has been in operation for numerous years and was recently redesigned, offers clients on probation a location in which they can check in with their probation officers, remain in compliance (via reporting and drug testing), and take part in evidence based curriculum. These clients are moderate to high risk probationers who have been referred to the DRC in order to receive case management services. An overarching goal of the Probation Department is to reduce recidivism and commitments to local jail and State prison. In order to achieve these goals, the Department, via the services and programs offered at the DRC, is focused on addressing the barriers that hinder the success of their clients. This report centers on DRC clients and recidivism data. Moreover, this analysis centers on a sample of 73 clients and offers a preliminary look at recidivism analysis 120 days since enrollment in the DRC. In addition, this data analysis includes recidivism findings analyzed by the amount of evidence base programming hours received. The two main data analysis questions for this work are: - What is the level of recidivism for the sample? - Are levels of recidivism affected by the dosage hours received? Details: Stockton, CA: San Joaquin County Probation, no date. 2p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 25, 2017 at: http://cech.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/corrections/docs/IntheNews/DRC%20Recidivism%20Analysis%20by%20EBP%20hours.pdf Year: 0 Country: United States URL: http://cech.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/corrections/docs/IntheNews/DRC%20Recidivism%20Analysis%20by%20EBP%20hours.pdf Shelf Number: 147441 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Day Reporting ProbationersRecidivism |
Author: Cotten, P. Ann Title: Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services: Parole and Probation Agent Workload Study. Final Report Summary: The Maryland General Assembly required the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) to conduct a workload study of the department's parole and probation agents. The Office of Community Supervision Support (CSS), in turn, contracted with the Schaefer Center for Public Policy at the University of Baltimore's College of Public Affairs (Schaefer Center) to conduct a study that included a review of the literature relating to parole and probation agent staffing, an analysis of agents' workload including a time study of agents, an analysis of the supervision caseload, and the collection of comparative caseload data from other states. From the research, the Schaefer Center team was charged with producing staffing recommendations, average caseload counts, and recommendations for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of parole and probation supervision. The primary focus of the research is agents who directly supervise offenders on parole and probation. As part of the research, the team also produced an analysis of how Court Liaison Unit (CLU) agents, Liaison Waiver (LAW) agents, and Warrant Apprehension Unit (WAU) officers spend their work time, and solicited input into recommendations for improving the effectiveness of their work. To fulfill its charge, the research team employed a mix of quantitative and qualitative strategies listed below. A comprehensive literature review of all known English language articles on community supervision and staffing. A four-week time study with 114 parole/probation agents and Warrant Apprehension Officers. Participants recorded 25,743 hours of work activity. Time observations were reported for work relating to 6,388 offenders. A caseload analysis that included all offenders under supervision on September 29, 2014. A review of agent case notes for a 12-month period for 215 randomly selected offenders. Fifteen focus groups with 137 participants including: 71 supervising agents, 42 supervisors, 5 agents and 1 supervisor from the Court Liaison Unit, 9 agents and 1 supervisor from the Liaison Waiver Unit, and 9 Warrant Apprehension Officers. A national survey of state parole and probation agencies. Details: Baltimore, MD: Schaefer Center for Public Policy University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs, 2015. 149p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 3, 2017 at: http://dlslibrary.state.md.us/publications/JCR/2014/2014_116(v3).pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://dlslibrary.state.md.us/publications/JCR/2014/2014_116(v3).pdf Shelf Number: 147534 Keywords: Community SupervisionOffender SupervisionParole CaseloadParole OfficersParoleesProbation CaseloadProbation OfficersProbationers |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Quality & Impact Inspection: The Effectiveness of Probation Work in Cumbria Summary: We report here on probation services provided in Cumbria by the North West division of the National Probation Service (NPS) and the Cumbria & Lancashire Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC). This is the fourth inspection of a CRC owned by Sodexo Justice Services in partnership with Nacro, and the second from their northern region. The quality of the work within Cumbria is good overall. The NPS is providing a good-quality service for the most part but, as elsewhere, there are pockets of inconsistency. Staff are working hard with complex cases and are appropriately focused on protecting the public. However, more needs to be done to realise the full potential of the service so as to make a bigger difference to people's life chances. We found exceptional practice at the CRC, the best we have seen in a CRC since we began inspecting CRCs and the NPS on a regular basis following Transforming Rehabilitation. The CRC is taking a considered approach to implementing the Sodexo model in rural Cumbria. Leaders locally have been keen to adhere to the principles of the model while thinking carefully about how best to make it work in the area, and enhance the prospects of service users. The enduring values of probation and evidence-based professional practice shone through, case after case, in our inspection. Not all is well. Poor working conditions in some offices and the open-plan booths we have found in Sodexo-owned CRCs elsewhere made things difficult for service users and staff alike. The CRC's supply chain is too thin, and the situation is compounded by the limited services available from third-sector and statutory organisations within Cumbria. Commercial considerations and uncertainties have inhibited supply chain development. Nevertheless, responsible officers have been tireless and remarkably conscientious in their persistent engagement with service users and their creative approach to the delivery of effective interventions. And staff have remained focused on the critical issues, especially the protection of the public and safeguarding of children. That is exactly what we expect of probation services, and it is a delight to see it provided by the CRC in Cumbria. Details: Manchester, UK: The Inspectorate, 2017. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 18, 2017 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/10/Cumbria-QI-report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/10/Cumbria-QI-report.pdf Shelf Number: 147720 Keywords: Offender Management Probation Probation Caseloads Probation Officers Probationers |
Author: Shames, Alison Title: Remote Access: Using Video Technology to Treat Substance Users on Probation and Parole in South Dakota Summary: The challenges of accessing services for alcohol and other drug use in South Dakota may have contributed to the state's high percentage of people convicted of low-level nonviolent offenses, particularly for drug or alcohol related offenses. To minimize these challenges, especially for parolees and probationers residing in the state's vast rural areas, the state worked with local providers to pilot a teleconferencing program aimed at connecting people to community-based services without the cost and barrier of transportation or other access issues. This brief describes the issues people on parole or probation encounter and the solutions the state developed to address them. It is the second brief in a series of three that focuses on the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) - an initiative funded by the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), in partnership with the Pew Charitable Trusts. JRI is a data-driven approach to improve public safety, examine corrections and related criminal justice spending, manage and allocate criminal justice populations in a more cost-effective manner, and reinvest savings in strategies that can hold system-involved people accountable, decrease crime, and strengthen neighborhoods. At least 30 states have engaged in this process. Key Takeaway How South Dakota overcame the challenge of delivering treatment services across vast distances may serve as a guide for interested jurisdictions facing similar issues and hoping to start a similar program. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2016. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Brief: Accessed November 7, 2017 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/remote-access-video-technology-probation-parole-substance-users-south-dakota/legacy_downloads/Remote-access-using-video-technology-to-treat-substance-users-south-dakota-web-v2.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/remote-access-video-technology-probation-parole-substance-users-south-dakota/legacy_downloads/Remote-access-using-video-technology-to-treat-substance-users Shelf Number: 148070 Keywords: Community-Based CorrectionsOffender SupervisionParoleesProbationersSubstance Abuse TreatmentVideo Technology |
Author: Wish, Eric D. Title: Community Drug Early Warning System (CDEWS-3): Maryland - Site 4 of 4 Summary: The Community Drug Early Warning System (CDEWS) provides timely information about emerging drug use in criminal justice populations in local communities by collecting and re-testing urine specimens already obtained and tested for a limited panel of drugs by local criminal justice testing programs. CDEWS or local staff sample specimens that are ready to be discarded and send them to an independent laboratory for testing for an expanded panel of over 150 drugs. By using already collected de-identified urine specimens, CDEWS is able to provide a relatively quick and inexpensive snapshot of the types of drugs recently used by participating populations. The CDEWS methodology has now been piloted in twelve jurisdictions and the results are provided in five reports already released by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). This report presents findings from adult parolees and probationers in a single jurisdiction -- Maryland -- as part 4 of 4 sites for the third CDEWS Study, called CDEWS-3. This study was conducted somewhat differently from prior CDEWS studies. This is because we wanted to replicate the findings from a study we had conducted in Maryland in 2008. And second, because of the opioid epidemic in Maryland, the State asked us to collect and analyze a separate large sample of specimens statewide that had tested positive for opiates by the laboratory used by the Maryland Division of Parole and Probation (DPP). With the strong support of the DPP, we collected two samples of specimens: the Maryland Regional Sample (N=288) and the Opiate Positive (Opiate+) Sample (N=202 statewide). Specimens were classified as CJS+ (tested positive for any drug) or CJS- (tested negative for all drugs) according to the results from the DPP laboratory's 4-drug screen. The findings from the Maryland Regional Sample indicated that most of the persons who had tested positive for one of the drugs in the CDEWS larger test panel had also tested positive for one of the four drugs in the DPP drug screen. However, approximately one in ten CJS+ specimens also contained antidepressants, synthetic cannabinoids (SC), methadone and/or other licit pharmaceutical opioids, drugs not tested for by the limited DPP screen. The additional drugs the CDEWS lab detected may not have practical significance for the DPP, given that most of these specimens did test positive for a drug in the DPP's limited screen. It is not possible to tell from the urinalyses if the persons taking the licit drugs were doing so legally under a physician's supervision. In contrast, 15% of the specimens that the DPP screen indicated did not contain a drug (CJS-) contained an opioid. Methadone and buprenorphine were among the opioids most found in CJS specimens and it is possible that these persons were receiving treatment with these drugs. Antidepressants were identified in as many CJS- specimens as CJS+ specimens (9%). SC was found in CJS- specimens but these metabolites were less common than in CJS+ specimens. These results suggest that in this population, persons were unlikely to be using SC to avoid detection by the standard DPP tests. The comparisons of probationers/parolees in this study and our earlier study in 2008 show considerable agreement in the drugs detected. The primary changes were a decline in cocaine (36% to 17%) and buprenorphine (15% to 7%) and an increase in codeine (3% to 13%) among CJS+ specimens. The increase in codeine positives may be the result of the increased sensitivity of the tests used in the current study. The results from the Opiate+ Sample strongly indicated that probationers/parolees who had tested positive for opiates by the DPP screen were likely to be using a variety of legal and illegal opioids in addition to non-opioid drugs. About one in three also used cocaine, one fifth used marijuana and/or benzodiazepines and about one quarter used a prescription opioid other than morphine or codeine. These results therefore have important implications for the testing used by physicians and diagnosticians who need to know if patients are using other drugs. Use of multiple opioids at the same time may lead to serious health complications and even death. We also conducted special analyses of the combined specimens found in either sample to be positive for fentanyl, synthetic cannabinoids, or codeine. Perhaps some of the most meaningful results in this study were those showing the large number of opioid and non-opioid drugs found in the fentanyl+ specimens. The 21 specimens positive for fentanyl each contained an average of 5 different drugs, most prominently morphine, codeine, 6-MAM (heroin), cocaine, and/or hydromorphone. The findings for fentanyl+ specimens were similar to those described above for the entire sample of Opiate+ specimens and our recent study of 136 persons who died of a fentanyl related overdose in New Hampshire. It is clear that probationers/parolees in Maryland who screen positive for any opioids are likely to be using a variety of other opioid and non-opioid drugs. These findings suggest that treatment will be more effective if one identifies and focuses on the totality of drugs the person may be using. Our analysis of the combined sample of all specimens positive for SC supported the findings from our previous CDEWS studies that found multiple SC metabolites in specimens. Surprisingly, specimens from the current study often contained both new and older generation SC metabolites. Given the unpredictable composition of synthetic cannabinoids (also known as Spice or K2) being marketed, it is not possible for users to know what chemicals they are consuming and to predict the effects. SC was less likely to be found in the Maryland samples compared to other CDEWS study samples, and few persons who tested CJS- in the Maryland Regional Sample were found to test positive for SC. Probationers in Maryland may therefore be less likely than other populations CDEWS has studied to use SC to avoid screening positive by the CJS test screens, which do not typically test for SC. We also found that 70% of the Opiate+ specimens contained codeine and that codeine was found across the state. In addition, codeine was detected in 81% of fentanyl+ specimens from the combined Opiate+ and Maryland Regional samples. Acetylcodeine, which metabolizes into codeine, is often produced as an impurity of illicit heroin synthesis, which may explain the large percentage of specimens positive for codeine given that almost all of the specimens also contained morphine. It is also possible that some of the codeine positives were the result of the direct use of codeine. We suspected that some of the codeine detected might have been caused by the use of "Purple Drank", a mixture of codeine syrup and promethazine typically sold as a cough suppressant, that has been reported in Maryland. However, only 4% of the codeine positive specimens contained promethazine. Given that the half-life of promethazine is longer than that of codeine, one would expect to have detected promethazine in these specimens had "Purple Drank" been the source of the codeine. It is also possible that the codeine may have resulted from codeine extracted from pills containing the drug. Additional research is needed to learn more about the codeine that was detected in 60% or more of probationers across all regions of Maryland and how the use of codeine may relate to the State's current opioid epidemic. Details: Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy Executive Office of the President, 2017. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 29, 2017 at: https://ndews.umd.edu/sites/ndews.umd.edu/files/finalreport_cdews3_mdapproved.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://ndews.umd.edu/sites/ndews.umd.edu/files/finalreport_cdews3_mdapproved.pdf Shelf Number: 148578 Keywords: Drug Abuse and Addiction Drug Control Policy Drug Enforcement Drug OffendersDrug TestingIllicit Drugs ParoleesProbationersUrine Testing |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Probation Title: New Psychoactive Substances: the response by probation and substance misuse services in the community in England Summary: The prevalence of NPS is hard to quantify for several reasons. Synthetic drug manufacture is not geographically constrained and this prevents an estimation of the volume of such drugs being manufactured worldwide. Users of NPS often don't know what they are taking, and in some cases they have been misled, with NPS passed off as more conventional drugs such as ecstasy. In addition, GPs, accident and emergency departments, probation services and the police do not specifically record NPS use. While the overall size of the NPS market is small in comparison with other drugs, an increasing number of countries are reporting seizures of NPS. There is also growing recognition of the harm associated with NPS use - often the result of crude manufacturing techniques and unpredictable dosage levels. As a result, they can be more lethal than other drugs. Concern is also rising about their use among marginalised populations such as prisoners and street homeless, attracted by the availability and low cost of NPS. Treatment options are more limited than with other substances, for example opioids, where substitutes are available. In most cases, treatment involves psychosocial interventions to help people consider the health risks and the costs of using NPS, and to help them make behavioural changes to reduce harm and moderate their drug use. We came across two areas using clinical detoxification to help manage withdrawal from NPS use. Overall, inspected areas did not have a good enough understanding of the prevalence of NPS use at a local level or what may work for those using NPS. While the UK government has issued advice and guidance for commissioners and substance misuse services, in the main, strategies have focused on crisis management to address emergencies. While local management relationships between substance misuse services and probation providers were good, probation engagement at a strategic level was less consistent. Where the strategic response was appropriately coordinated, for example in Newcastle, it included longer-term actions for agencies to work together and address NPS-related concerns locally. They were also more likely to be collecting NPSspecific data. Partnership working was strongest in probation teams that worked in collaboration with other agencies, such as Integrated Offender Management, and in cases where service users had court-imposed or licence conditions to engage with substance misuse services. In other cases, work was often being done in isolation. We found the assessments and plans completed by substance misuse services sufficient overall. In line with Public Health England guidance, substance misuse services worked with the individual symptoms and not specifically on the drug that the individual used. We were told that this national guidance that NPS users should be treated the same as other drug users was the reason that NPS-specific training had not been rolled out to all keyworkers - we found that this had led to a significant gap. Without specific training, keyworkers relied on their more experienced colleagues and their own research to increase their knowledge and understanding. The most skilled practitioners had developed NPS toolkits, which were then used in individual work with service users. Where these were being used, we found that there was more awareness of the risks and effects of using NPS. However, many NPS users were not accessing available services. All the cases we inspected were known either to have used or be currently using NPS, yet probation assessments lacked sufficient information to explore the pattern, level and funding of NPS use. Many users experienced problems with housing, mental health, relationships and finances. Some had lost placements in hostels or housing tenancies for reasons that were often related to their NPS use, but responsible officers rarely identified this. In the process, those who lost their accommodation ended up on the streets, sleeping rough in an environment where NPS were easy to obtain and frequently used. Worryingly, probation providers did not routinely consider the risks associated with NPS use to groups such as children, staff, prisoners or the wider community, despite there being enough known about the unpredictable behaviour that could be displayed by those using the drugs. Two Community Rehabilitation Companies had developed short-duration substance misuse interventions. NPS use was only covered to a basic standard, with many attendees being better informed than responsible officers. We found no evidence that the Building Skills for Recovery accredited programme, which is designed to reduce offending behaviour and problematic substance misuse, was used for NPS users by either the National Probation Service or Community Rehabilitation Companies. Responsible officers were rarely able to talk to NPS users about their symptoms and consolidate work undertaken by substance misuse services. While probation providers were making appropriate referrals to substance misuse services, these were not always responded to in a timely fashion. Service user engagement was often sporadic and responsible officers did not do enough to support NPS users to re-engage. We found poor-quality information-sharing. Prisoners were being released into the community often with no information shared about their NPS use in prison, and release plans did not meet the needs of the prisoner in relation to their substance misuse. We found good recording of information by substance misuse keyworkers who had access to probation IT systems. In many cases, however, we found that substance misuse services held information that would have improved the quality of probation assessments and plans but was not being shared. NPS users were disengaged from services, insufficient progress had been made to address NPS use and in many cases no other work was taking place either. NPS users lacked trust in the help and support available, and many turned to using NPS to forget their problems. Confidence, knowledge and awareness were the key areas that affected the quality of work for both probation and substance misuse services. While some training had been provided, this was often not sufficient for practitioners and was no longer up to date. As a result, responsible officers and many substance misuse keyworkers were not confident enough to undertake harm minimisation work with NPS users. While clinical guidance is available, not enough has been provided to inform professionals working with NPS users on community orders in the criminal justice system. Details: Manchester, UK: Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation, 2017. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 30, 2017 at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/cjji/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/11/New-Psychoactive-Substances-report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/cjji/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/11/New-Psychoactive-Substances-report.pdf Shelf Number: 148589 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug OffendersDrug TreatmentProbation OfficersProbationersSubstance AbuseSubstance Abuse TreatmentSynthetic Drugs |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Enforcement and Recall: A thematic inspection Summary: Introduction -- Good-quality case management should underpin effective decisions on enforcement and recall. We expect responsible officers to be able to assess risk of harm, risk of reoffending and individuals' needs. They should be able to plan work, implement or facilitate structured programmes of work and review the progress of that work. This should all be done in a way that is sensitive to the diverse backgrounds and needs of those under probation supervision, and that builds on identified strengths in a person's life. Evidence from effective practice and desistance theories suggests that these approaches provide the best platform for successful rehabilitation7 Our findings - Community Rehabilitation Companies Community orders and suspended sentence supervision orders Overall, the quality of offender management and consequent enforcement decision-making in our sample of community orders and suspended sentence orders was poor. Assessment was too often deficient. Plans, though timely, were not of good quality. Engagement with the individual in constructive work was insufficient in too many cases. Planned levels of contact were not always adequate to meet the individual's needs. Consequently, CRCs did not always know when enforcement was appropriate. The task of building a competent workforce was constrained by the level of resourcing, with dwindling front-line resources to manage the work. Licence recall We found better work in licence cases. We cannot be definitive about why that is, but we noted that the majority of the individuals were assessed as posing a medium risk of harm to others, and so were more likely to be allocated to an experienced member of staff at probation officer grade. We found that staff were clearer about the process for recall than for community enforcement. Overall, the quality of assessment and planning was sufficient. The programmes of work then delivered should have been better tailored to reducing the risk posed to the public and the likelihood of reoffending, but in almost all cases the level of contact met the requirements of the licence. Recall decision-making was good. Judgements about the acceptability of absences or individual behaviour were generally appropriate. Post-sentence supervision We looked at a small sample of post-sentence supervision cases. Overall, the quality of case management and consequent enforcement decision-making in the sample of post-sentence supervision was poor. We found that CRCs were struggling to provide adequate services for the range of complex needs of this group of individuals. In particular, responsible officers struggled to find ways to engage with them. Enforcement had the effect of compounding rather than lessening the sense of a revolving door between prison and the community. Our findings - National Probation Service Community order and suspended sentence supervision orders Overall, the quality of assessment, supervision planning and consequent enforcement decision-making was good. At the beginning of the community sentence, responsible officers outlined to individuals the consequences of non-compliance, including a return to court. Judgements about the acceptability of absences or individual behaviour were appropriate in most cases. However, better attention should have been paid to engaging individuals in the process of supervision. While staff had a heightened sensitivity to issues of risk, the level of contact set was based on considerations of the risk of harm posed to others in just under two-thirds of cases. Overall, we found a good balance struck between purposeful work and the use of enforcement to re-engage individuals or to apply controls on behaviour when necessary. Licence recall Overall, the quality of case management and consequent enforcement decisionmaking was good. The NPS had an organisation-wide process for managing these cases. This supported engagement and promoted compliance, and enabled staff to take recall action when necessary and appropriate. More needed to be done to ensure that relevant information from the prison is incorporated into the plan of work undertaken in the community. Nevertheless, we considered that judgements about the acceptability of absences or behaviour were appropriate in all but one case. We also found that senior managers had applied sufficient checks and balances to ensure that recall was viewed as a last resort, with action only taken when the risks of continued supervision in the community were unmanageable. Post-sentence supervision We looked at a small sample of post-sentence supervision cases. Overall, the quality of case management and consequent enforcement decision-making was good. Are women treated differently? Within CRCs we found some evidence that staff responded positively to women's needs, but this was far from consistent. The identification of women-specific issues was better at the NPS. However, both had very limited access to appropriate womenonly provision. Details: Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2018. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 14, 2018 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/02/Enforcement-and-Recall-report.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/02/Enforcement-and-Recall-report.pdf Shelf Number: 149480 Keywords: Case ManagementCommunity OrdersCommunity-Based CorrectionsOffender SupervisionProbation OfficersProbationers |
Author: Lynch, Mathew Title: Arches Transformative Mentoring Program: An Implementation and Impact Evaluation in New York City Summary: The Arches Transformative Mentoring program (Arches) advances New York City's commitment to maintain public safety through community-based programming that supports personal development as a mechanism to avoid future criminal activity. Through a combination of credible messenger mentoring and an evidence-based curriculum, Arches reduces one-year felony reconviction by over two-thirds and reduces two-year felony reconviction by over half. These findings demonstrate the promise of combining an evidence-based curriculum and credible messenger mentoring to achieve recidivism reduction. This evaluation report reflects the findings of a qualitative and impact evaluation of Arches, a group mentoring program serving young adult probation clients ages 16 to 24. Arches uses an evidence-based interactive journaling curriculum centered on cognitive behavioral principles, delivered by mentors with backgrounds similar to those of their mentees, known as "credible messengers," direct service professionals with backgrounds similar to the populations they serve, often including prior criminal justice system involvement. Launched in 2012 as part of the NYC Young Men's Initiative (YMI) and with private funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies and oversight from the Mayor's Office for Economic Opportunity (NYC Opportunity), Arches is managed by the NYC Department of Probation (DOP) and currently operates with City funding at 13 sites across the five boroughs. The evaluation was conducted using a matched comparison group to assess the impact of Arches on participant outcomes, including recidivism reduction; to explore participant and staff experiences in and attitudes toward the program; to identify practices associated with successful programmatic operation and positive outcomes; and to develop recommendations for program enhancement. The evaluation finds that Arches participants are significantly less likely to be reconvicted of a crime. Relative to their peers, felony reconviction rates among Arches participants are 69 percent lower 12 months after beginning probation and 57 percent lower 24 months after beginning probation. This impact is driven largely by reductions among participants under age 18. The evaluation also indicates the program helps participants achieve improvement in self-perception and relationships with others. Pre- and post-assessment show gains in key attitudinal and behavioral indicators, including emotion regulation and future orientation. Qualitative findings show that participants report very close and supportive relationships with mentors, attributed to mentors' status as credible messengers, their 24/7 availability for one-on-one mentoring, and a "family atmosphere" within the program. The report presents several recommendations to enhance the Arches program model and capitalize on its success, including better tailoring the content of the curriculum to reflect the lived experience of the participant population, increasing the frequency and length of programming to support participant engagement, and introducing wraparound and aftercare services. The report highlights the potential for expanded collaboration across Arches providers to improve knowledge sharing and adoption of best practices, as well as enhanced partnerships between Arches providers and other young adult programming to supplement service delivery and grow community awareness of the program. The report also calls for expanded mentor supports, including opportunities for full-time employment and advanced training. This evaluation confirms that Arches is an impactful program with demonstrated ability to reduce participant recidivism and great promise to produce sustainable attitudinal and behavioral change for justice system-involved young adults. New York City has already formalized its commitment to Arches through the new allocation of City funding to sustain the program following the completion of Bloomberg Philanthropies grant funding. Additionally, as part of the Mayor's Action Plan for Neighborhood Safety, the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice has launched the Next STEPS program, a modified version of Arches targeted to serve young adults at risk of justice-system involvement who reside in select high-crime New York City Housing Authority developments Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2018. 81p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 19, 2018 at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/96601/arches_transformative_mentoring_program.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/96601/arches_transformative_mentoring_program.pdf Shelf Number: 149523 Keywords: Cognitive Behavioral ProgramsEvidence-Based ProgramsFelony OffendersMentoringProbationersRecidivismRehabilitation ProgramsYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: Holmberg, Stina Title: Reintegration assistance after prison: Follow-up on the Prison and Probation Service's work with special reintegration assistance measure Summary: Within three years of release from prison, two out of five persons commit a new offence sanctionable by prison or probation. For most of these individuals, recidivism occurs within several months after they have left prison (Bra 2017). In order to reduce the risk that individuals who are released commit new offences in connection with release, the Swedish Prison and Probation Service can grant reintegration assistance at the end of their sentence. These measures smooth the transition between prison and life at liberty, and entail a gradual reduction of the Prison and Probation Service's control over the client. The four so-called special reintegration assistance measures are: - day release; - treatment period; - halfway house; - enhanced day release. Bra has been instructed by the Government to follow up on the Prison and Probation Service's work with reintegration assistance. In conjunction with this instruction, the Government instructed the Prison and Probation Service at the end of 2015 to develop and strengthen its work with reintegration assistance. Bra's instruction requires us to follow up on the progress of the Prison and Probation Service's development work and to track the scope and nature of the reintegration assistance. We are also meant to report on any impediments to well-functioning and knowledge-based reintegration assistance work. Special attention is to be paid to any differences in working methods in various parts of the country, differences between men and women, and differences for persons from different language backgrounds. The crime victim aspects are to be highlighted, where relevant. Finally, Bra is, as necessary, required to suggest ideas for further development of the reintegration assistance efforts. As a basis for the study, Bra has visited 13 different facilities ' prisons with various security classifications, detention centres, day release offices, halfway houses, and treatment homes. We have interviewed a total of 100 individuals, both staff and clients, at these facilities. Interviews have also been conducted with a number of individuals at the headquarters of the Prison and Probation Service, as well as with other strategically important individuals. In addition, Bra has had continual contact with representatives from the Prison and Probation Service's working group for the development work. Our quantitative source material includes both the Prison and Probation Service's existing statistics and a special order in respect of clients who were released from prison. Bra has also been given access to unpublished data from a study which was conducted on the Prison and Probation Service's research unit. In addition to the above, a survey of the literature in the form of previous studies and evaluations has been conducted. Details: Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Bra), 2018. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: English summary of Bra report 2017:15: Accessed April 4, 2018 at: https://www.bra.se/download/18.10aae67f160e3eba62919667/1517917740405/2017_15_Reintegration_assistance_summary.pdf Year: 2028 Country: Sweden URL: https://www.bra.se/download/18.10aae67f160e3eba62919667/1517917740405/2017_15_Reintegration_assistance_summary.pdf Shelf Number: 149687 Keywords: ParoleesPrisoner ReentryProbationersRecidivismRehabilitationReintegrationReoffending |
Author: Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission Title: Immediate Sanction Probation Pilot Program Evaluation Summary: The Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) program was established in 2004 with the goal of enhancing public safety and improving compliance with the rules and conditions of probation among offenders being supervised in the community. HOPE targets higher risk probationers and requires that each violation of the conditions of supervision is met with a swift and certain, but mild, sanction. A rigorous evaluation of HOPE completed in 2009 found a significant reduction in technical violations (such as drug use and missed appointments), lower recidivism rates, fewer probation revocations, and reduced use of prison beds among HOPE participants compared to similar offenders supervised on regular probation. Interest in Hawaii's swift-and-certain sanctions model spread. As of July 2015, there were swift-and-certain sanctions programs operating in at least 29 states across the country. The 2010 General Assembly passed legislation which established the basic parameters for swift-and-certain sanctions programs in Virginia (19.2-303.5). In May 2012, the General Assembly adopted budget language to extend the provisions of 19.2-303.5 and to authorize the creation of up to four Immediate Sanction Probation Programs (Item 50 of Chapter 3 of the 2012 Acts of Assembly, Special Session I). This provision charged the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission with selecting the pilot sites, developing guidelines and procedures for the program, administering program activities, and evaluating the results. As no additional funding was appropriated for this purpose, the pilot project was implemented within existing agency budgets and local resources. The General Assembly has since extended the sunset date to July 1, 2017, which enabled the pilot sites to continue the program until the 2017 General Assembly has reviewed the Commission's evaluation and determined whether to continue the program in the future. Since the 2009 HOPE evaluation, a number of programs based on the HOPE model have been evaluated. Results of these studies have been mixed. A longer term evaluation of HOPE completed in 2016, as well as evaluations in Washington State, Arkansas, Michigan, and Kentucky found that the HOPE approach yielded positive results, such as lower recidivism rates and reduced use of incarceration. However, a recent large-scale evaluation of a four-site replication of the HOPE model, funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), did not produce similar results. According to this evaluation, there were no statistically significant differences, overall, between the HOPE and probation-as-usual groups in the likelihood of arrest, new conviction, or probation revocation. Similarly, an evaluation of a Delaware program based on the HOPE model found that the program was not successful in reducing substance use or new crimes among probationers. The Commission designed Virginia's Immediate Sanction Probation Program based on the parameters established by the General Assembly's statutory and budgetary language and the key elements of the swift-and-certain sanctions model pioneered in Hawaii. Implementing Virginia's program with as much fidelity as possible to the swift-and-certain sanctions model provided the best opportunity to determine if the positive results observed in HOPE and other programs would emerge in Virginia. Thus, the Immediate Sanction Program targets offenders who are at risk for recidivating or failing probation. Working with the Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security and the Department of Corrections, the Commission identified four pilot sites (Henrico County, the City of Lynchburg, City of Harrisonburg/Rockingham County, and Arlington County), which became operational between November 2012 and January 2014. The Commission developed policies and procedures to provide a framework for the program, including eligibility criteria and a mechanism for expedited hearings for program violations. In each site, Commission staff organized and participated in multiple meetings to facilitate and support local implementation of the program. As of October 1, 2016, 288 probationers across the four pilot sites had been placed into the Immediate Sanction Probation Program. In order to allow for a sufficient follow-up period to track participants for recidivism, the 200 eligible participants who were placed into the program before July 1, 2015, were selected for the evaluation cohort. The majority (76%) were at medium to high risk of recidivating and all had a history of technical violations prior to program placement. Low risk probationers were only placed in the program after committing at least three violations while on regular supervision, indicating a higher risk for revocation. More than 80% of participants violated at least once after program placement, committing an average of 2.7 violations each. The most common violation during program participation was drug use. As of October 1, 2016, 39% of the evaluation cohort had completed the program. Nearly all of the program completers had been violation-free for 12 months, the measure established by the Commission for "successful completion." Judges allowed seven participants who had not reached the 12-month violation-free mark to complete the program, due to individual circumstances of these participants. The Commission used standards established in the 2016 evaluation of the BJA/NIJ-funded HOPE replication project to measure the swiftness and certainty of sanctions imposed during Virginia's pilot program. For swiftness, pilot sites were assessed based on the percentage of violations heard by the court within three days. Approximately half (47%) of program violations in Virginia's pilot sites were heard by the court within the three-day window. This is below the minimum of 60% established by the evaluators of the HOPE replication project. Regarding the certainty of sanctions, Immediate Sanction judges responded to violations by imposing a jail sanction for 100% of the violations brought to court, per the program's design. Judges utilized jail sanctions as envisioned by the Commission, with more than 94% of sanctions falling within the recommended range. Nearly 93% of the jail sanctions imposed were at or below the maximum sanction of 19 days used by evaluators of the HOPE replication project. The Commission tracked the evaluation cohort for one year following placement into the Immediate Sanction Program. At the one-year mark, 9.7% of the participants in the evaluation cohort had been arrested for a new felony. Only 6.2% had a new felony conviction based on an offense committed during the follow-up period. Participants whose primary drug of use was opiates (including heroin) recidivated at a higher rate than other participants. For the evaluation, the Commission developed a quasi-experimental design, often used in evaluations of criminal justice programs. Quasi-experimental designs identify a comparison group that is as similar as possible to the program or treatment group in terms of baseline (pre-intervention) characteristics. To reduce the risk of bias (i.e., the possibility that participants are systematically different from nonparticipants), the Commission used commonly accepted statistical techniques to create a valid comparison group. Constructing the comparison group for this evaluation was a two-stage process. In the first stage, the Commission identified jurisdictions that were similar to the pilot sites across a number of community-level characteristics, such as crime rates, demographics, and judicial practices in sanctioning technical probation violators. In the second stage, the Commission developed a pool of potential comparison offenders from within the selected comparison jurisdictions. Using tightly controlled matching procedures, the final sample included 63 participants in the evaluation cohort matched to 63 comparison probationers, for a total of 126 subjects. Participants for whom no matched comparison probationer could be found were not included in the subsequent analyses. At one year from program placement or, in the case of the comparison group, one year from the date the probationer would have become eligible for placement, 7.9% of the 63 participants in the matched sample had been rearrested for a felony offense versus 22.2% of the comparison group. Thus, Immediate Sanction participants were less likely than comparison probationers to be rearrested for a felony during the one-year follow-up. Immediate Sanction participants were also less likely than comparison probationers to be reconvicted of a felony following the arrest (6.3% for participants versus 17.5% for the comparison group). The Commission conducted survival analysis, which measures the time until a recidivist event occurs, to determine if these differences were statistically significant. The results of the survival analysis are mixed. This analysis revealed that Immediate Sanction participants were less likely to be rearrested for a felony over time than those in the comparison group and were free of felony arrests for a longer period of time. When controlling for relevant factors, including street time (i.e., the time that the individual was not in jail serving sanctions, etc., and, thus, was in the community with the opportunity to recidivate), this finding remained statistically significant (p<.05). However, when examining the time until rearrest for an offense that resulted in a felony conviction, the differences between participants and the comparison group were not statistically significant after controlling for other factors. Due to the small sample size and relatively low occurrence of recidivism, the results of the Commission's analyses are not generalizable to the population. Details: Richmond: VCSC, 2016. 91p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 30, 2018 at: http://www.vcsc.virginia.gov/Immediate%20Sanction%20Probation%20Pilot%20Program%20Evaluation%20-%20Final%2012-20-2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.vcsc.virginia.gov/Immediate%20Sanction%20Probation%20Pilot%20Program%20Evaluation%20-%20Final%2012-20-2016.pdf Shelf Number: 150381 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsCommunity SupervisionFelony ProbationIntermediate SanctionsProbationersRecidivism |
Author: International Centre for the Prevention of Crime (ICPC) Title: Dispositif d'intervention sur la radicalisation violente en milieu ouvert : identification des difficultes et des besoins des professionnels des SPIP, aide a l'adaptation des pratiques Summary: The International Centre for the Prevention of Crime (ICPC) carried out a research-action over 18 months in collaboration with the French Penitentiary Administration (DAP) in order to develop an intervention response for individuals who have been radicalized or are in the process of radicalization within the Penitentiary Services for Integration and Probation (SPIP) within the probation system. This project was developed in three pilot sites: Grenoble, Lyon and Nice. This "intervention response" is understood as a set of actions and initiatives implemented at the institutional level to counter violent radicalization, namely: - A decision-making support system in the process of identifying and reporting individuals who have been or are being radicalized. For this purpose, the following products were developed by the research-action: - An Identification and Reporting Protocol for individuals who have initiated a process of radicalization leading to violence, and - A Semi-Structured Interview Guide for the Identification of individuals who have initiated a process of radicalization leading to violence. - A support system for individuals who are at risk or are already radicalized. For this component, three different actions were developed: - Two collective actions, one of which is primary-secondary prevention (Vivre Ensemble) and the other is secondary-tertiary prevention (CODE), as well as - An individual program for the prevention of recidivism (Accordeon). This research-action is a world first. Never has a project of such magnitude been implemented within the probation system. Violent radicalization although very popular remains very difficult to apprehend. This is the reason why this research-action is quite unique considering its very great ambition that is to think of and create identification and support procedures and methods. This Report is aiming to present the work achieved from July 4, 2016 to December 31, 2017, by pilot research units (mainly professionals of the Ministry of Justice and the ICPC) in the framework of the project: "Intervention response to violent radicalization within the probation system: identifying the challenges and the needs of the SPIPs professionals, and support to adapt practices". This report describes the methodology used, developed products, the results of the process evaluation and the impact of this approach as well as the actions implemented. Details: Montreal: The Centre, 2018. 146p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 3, 2018 at: http://www.crime-prevention-intl.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/2018/Rapport_final_RAMO__Copie_securisee_.pdf Year: 2018 Country: France URL: http://www.crime-prevention-intl.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/2018/Rapport_final_RAMO__Copie_securisee_.pdf Shelf Number: 150761 Keywords: ExtremismExtremist GroupsExtremist ViolencePrisonersProbationersRadical GroupsRadicalizationTerroristsViolent Extremists |
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: Probation Developmental Disabilities Study Summary: n December 2010, Public Counsel and its partners reached a settlement agreement in the case of I.T. v. Los Angeles County with Los Angeles County to reform conditions for youth with developmental disabilities in the juvenile halls, in group homes, and in the family homes under Probation's supervision. The agreement called for Public Counsel and Disability Rights California to monitor implementation of reform efforts for three years following the development of policies and procedures, and training to Probation staff on those policies and procedures. Monitoring activities began in November 2011 and continued through July 2015. The overall goals of the settlement agreement are to ensure that youth with developmental disabilities in the juvenile halls will be immediately and effectively identified; will not be detained longer than others because of the lack of available, appropriate community placements; and will be provided with appropriate services and effective supports to successfully transition back to the community and avoid recidivism and violence. Study Overview At the beginning of the settlement agreement, Public Counsel and Disability Rights California monitored its implementation by visiting the halls and community placements, observations, interviews with key staff, and reviewing data and documents provided by Probation. Public Counsel eventually received funding from the Keck Foundation to conduct a more formal assessment of the work by researchers at California State University Los Angeles. This study had two interrelated tracks: (1) to utilize Probation data collected as part of the settlement agreement, and (2) to conduct meeting observations, interviews, and reviews of documents related to the settlement agreement. Details: Los Angeles, California State University, Los Angeles, 2017. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2018 at: http://www.juvenilejusticeresearch.com/sites/default/files/2016-12/Probation%20DD%20Report%20FINAL%202016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.juvenilejusticeresearch.com/sites/default/files/2016-12/Probation%20DD%20Report%20FINAL%202016.pdf Shelf Number: 151325 Keywords: Developmental DisabilitiesDisabled PersonsJuvenile ProbationProbationersYouth Detention |