Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:44 am
Time: 12:44 am
Results for probationers (california)
2 results foundAuthor: Golaszewski, Paul Title: Achieving Better Outcomes for Adult Probation Summary: This report reviews the adult probation system in California and presents recommendations for improving the system's public safety and fiscal outcomes. In general, it found that many county probation departments are not operating according to the best practices identified by experts and are underperforming in key outcome measures. It also found that the current funding model for probation provides an unintended incentive for local agencies to revoke probation failures to state prison instead of utilizing alternative community-based sanctions. Details: Sacramento, CA: Legislative Analyst's Office, 2009. 32p. Source: Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 116384 Keywords: Probation (California)Probationers (California) |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: The Impact of Probation and Parole Populations on Arrests in Four California Cities Summary: One of the first questions as officer asks when arresting someone is “Are you on probation or parole?” and the answer generally expected is “yes.” Given this expectation, it is understandable for officers on the beat to believe that it is only a matter of time before people on parole or probation commit a crime. As longstanding and prevalent as this assumption has been, very little research exists quantifying the extent to which people under community supervision are, in fact, driving local law enforcement’s arrest activity. Law enforcement executives across the country have been forced to make deep cuts to their budgets as a result of plunging local tax revenues and shrinking federal funding for local police departments. This has certainly been the case in California. For example, the police departments in Sacramento, Los Angeles, and Redlands experienced significant declines in funding between 2008 and 2012, which have resulted in, among other things, major reductions in personnel. On top of the fiscal pressures police departments are experiencing, local governments in California are struggling with the transformation of the state corrections system currently underway. Compelled by federal court order to address overcrowding in the California prison system, state policymakers have taken a number of steps to reduce the prison population. For example, they have mandated that non-violent, non-serious and non-sex offenders serve their sentences at the local level rather than in state prisons. In addition, state officials have transferred post-release supervision responsibilities for people convicted of these crimes already in state prison to county probation officers. As a result of these and other actions, the number of people incarcerated in state prison has plummeted by nearly 40,000 people, from more than 173,000 in 20063 to fewer than 133,000 in November 2012. During the same timeframe, the state’s parole supervision population has declined by nearly 50 percent, from almost 120,000 to fewer than 61,000.5 The downsizing of the prison population has enabled the state to address dangerous levels of overcrowding in its system and to reduce state spending on corrections by billions ofdollars. Some of these savings have been passed along to the county governments, which must decide what to do with people who had previously been incarcerated in a state prison or under state parole supervision. Local law enforcement officials generally have received few of these redirected funds. Many police chiefs and sheriffs have asserted that the growing numbers of people released from state prison, combined with supervision responsibility shifting from state to local government for people convicted of particular offenses, will intensify demands on the resources of local law enforcement, which are already stretched to the breaking point. In 2010, Chief Charlie Beck of the Los Angeles Police Department, Chief James Bueermann of the Redlands Police Department, Chief Rick Braziel of the Sacramento Police Department, and Chief George Gascón of the San Francisco Police Department asked the Council of State Governments Justice Center (CSG Justice Center) to help them to determine the extent to which people on probation and parole contribute to the demands on the resources of local law enforcement, and to identify what opportunities exist to use data to target their limited resources more effectively. They asked CSG Justice Center to conduct an unprecedented analysis of arrest, probation, and parole data to answer these questions: To what extent do people on probation and parole contribute to crime, as measured by arrests? What types of crimes are these people most likely to commit? Are there particular subsets of people on probation and parole who are most likely to reoffend? If so, what characteristics do they have in common? What strategies can law enforcement employ to better respond to the people being released from prisons and jails to community supervision? Considerable research exists documenting rearrest or reincarceration rates for people under probation or parole supervision. Little research, however, has been published about the extent to which people on probation and parole contribute to the overall volume of arrests in a particular jurisdiction. This groundbreaking study addresses this gap in the research. Researchers had access to separate information systems maintained by multiple independent agencies. They assembled a vast, comprehensive dataset covering a lengthy time period that is without precedent. Researchers amassed more than 2.5 million adult arrest, probation, and parole supervision records maintained by 11 different agencies over a 42-month period stretching from January 1, 2008 to June 30, 2011. Because California does not mandate the uniform statewide collection of arrest data, each local jurisdiction maintains this information independently and distinctly. Needless to say, the gathering and matching of records for this study proved to be a complex undertaking. The research presented here is not a recidivism study. Researchers did not follow a particular group of people post-release for a prescribed period of time to determine that group’s rates of reoffense and compare that number to another, similar group of people for a similar length of time. The dataset assembled for this study encompassed all people arrested (as opposed to a narrower universe limited to people released from prison or jail) during a three-and-a-half-year time period. By using this cohort, which was far larger than just the number of people under correctional supervision, researchers could learn about the proportion of arrests that involve people under supervision compared to those not under supervision, as well as characteristics of the subset of parolees and probationers who contribute to police arrests. Details: New York: Council of State Government Justice Center, 2013. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 24, 2013 at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports/docs/External-Reports/CAL-CHIEFS-REPORT.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports/docs/External-Reports/CAL-CHIEFS-REPORT.pdf Shelf Number: 127372 Keywords: ArrestsCosts of Criminal JusticeParoleParoleesProbationProbationers (California) |