Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:31 am
Time: 11:31 am
Results for revocation
6 results foundAuthor: 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of new prisoners arrive at the prison gates not as a result of sentencing for a new crime, but because they have been revoked from probation or parole.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: 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: Dunbar, Laura Title: Unlawfully at large: A profile of federal offenders who breach conditional release Summary: Why we did this study In Canada, conditional release is an important strategy for offender management. However, concerns have been raised regarding offenders who have difficulty transitioning to the community and go unlawfully at large (UAL). There is a paucity of empirical research in this area and a need to better understand the characteristics of this group. What we did The characteristics of 18,321 offenders released from the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) between April 2006 and March 2009 were examined, and conditional release outcomes were recorded until March 2010. Of this group, a total of 3,990 offenders (22%) went unlawfully at large by the end of the follow-up period. UAL features including length of time to UAL, as well as revocations with and without offence were explored. Further, UAL offenders were compared to those who did not go UAL to identify factors related to UAL status. What we found Offenders who went UAL tended to do so soon after release (50% within two months). Once UAL, 50% of offenders returned (or were apprehended) within about one week. Eighty percent of this group had their release revoked. The overwhelming majority (84%) were revoked without being charged with a new offence - only 16% were revoked with an offence. UAL offenders were more likely to be single, younger, Aboriginal, have lower levels of education, unstable job histories, longer periods of unemployment, and more problematic substance use than non-UAL offenders. Greater proportions of UAL offenders were also convicted of violent, property, and escape/UAL offence types and had more extensive criminal histories. Although UAL offenders were more likely to be enrolled in institutional correctional programs, they were less likely to complete programming. They were also more likely to have institutional charges (both serious and minor) than non-UAL offenders and, when they were released, were more likely to have a residency condition. Overall, a variety of static and dynamic risk factors predicted UAL status. Predictors of UAL status were largely consistent for non-Aboriginal male offenders, Aboriginal male offenders, and female offenders. Additionally, the predictors demonstrated marked similarity to risk factors for general criminal behaviour and going UAL from an institutional setting. What it means Though some different predictors of UAL status emerged across gender and ethnicity, there were many commonalities (e.g., unemployment / job instability and a history of drug use) suggesting that a focus on correctional interventions to address these issues may be areas to pursue to reduce UALs in the future. Moreover, this study demonstrated that the first two months on release in the community appear to be critical risk periods for going UAL. The findings also suggest that it may be possible to develop a tool to assess risk of going UAL. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2014. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report No. R-271: Accessed August 23, 2014 at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/005/008/092/005008-0271-eng.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Canada URL: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/005/008/092/005008-0271-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 133129 Keywords: Conditional Release (Canada)Offender SupervisionRevocation |
Author: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Office of Research Title: Female Realignment Report: An Examination of Female Offenders Released from State Prison in the First Year of Public Safety Realignment Summary: California's Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011 transferred jurisdiction and funding for managing lower-level criminal offenders from the State to the counties. Under Realignment, for example, certain lower level felons now serve their felony sentences in jail rather than prison. Realignment also changed California's system of community corrections. Prior to Realignment, State parole agents supervised every female inmate released from prison, and parole violators could be revoked to State prison for up to one year. Since October 1, 2011, probation departments have administered a system of post-release community supervision (PRCS) to complement State parole. State parole agents continue to supervise high-risk sex offenders, lifers, and any other female offenders who are released from prison after having been incarcerated for a current/prior serious or violent crime. All other female inmates released from prison are placed on PRCS. No offenders received an early release from prison under Realignment. If offenders violate the terms of PRCS or State parole supervision, a range of sanctions may be used by counties, including a revocation term in jail. Only certain offenders are eligible for revocation to State prison. Prior Realignment research conducted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) evaluated all offenders. This report examines arrest, convictions, and returns to prison for female offenders pre- and post-Realignment. Female offenders have "distinct rehabilitative and health care needs, and are more likely to have suffered trauma and abuse prior to incarceration" (California Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2012). As such, CDCR is committed to providing gender-responsive programs and services to meet those needs and, ultimately, increase successful return to society for our female population. CDCR now has one year of releases and one full year of follow-up data to evaluate how female offenders released from prison during the first year after implementation have fared. Note that a more complete examination of Realignment's impact on female offenders would require a three-year follow-up period. Methodology For this study, we identified two cohorts of female offenders: 1) the Pre-Realignment cohort of female offenders released between October 1, 2010 and September 30, 2011; and, 2) the Post-Realignment cohort of female offenders released between October 1, 2011 and September 30, 2012. One-year post-release recidivism rates were tracked for both cohorts to see if they were re-arrested, convicted of a new crime, or returned to State prison. Sound methodology and procedures were followed for this study; however, the study focuses on only one year of releases, representing an early stage of post-Realignment activity and implementation. Therefore, caution should be used when interpreting the findings. Details: Sacramento: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2014. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 10, 2014 at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/adult_research_branch/Research_Documents/Female%20One%20Yr%20Pre-Post-Realignment%20Recidivism%20Report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/adult_research_branch/Research_Documents/Female%20One%20Yr%20Pre-Post-Realignment%20Recidivism%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 134014 Keywords: California Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011Community SupervisionFemale OffendersGender Specific ResponsesProbationRecidivismRevocation |
Author: MacDonald, Shanna Farrell Title: Patterns of Suspension Warrants Summary: The successful reintegration of offenders into the community and public safety remain top priorities for correctional staff, researchers, and policy makers alike. Currently, there is a large amount of research that has focused on the identification of offender characteristics related to success or failure within the community. However, little research has examined the temporary suspension of community supervision and why some supervision periods are reinstated while others are revoked. The present study aims to contribute to an improved understanding of the reasons behind suspensions, as well as their final outcomes. This study included all supervision suspension warrants for federal offenders that occurred between April 1, 2009 and March 31, 2014. In total, 29,388 suspension warrants were identified, representing 16,032 distinct offenders. The rate of suspension was 1.3 suspensions per offender. Most suspension warrants were issued for men while one-quarter were issued for Aboriginal offenders. All data were obtained from the Correctional Service of Canada's (CSC) administrative database - the Offender Management System. Information concerning the final outcome of the suspension, the reasons for issuing the suspension warrant, the frequency of contact between the offender and the community parole officer at the time of the suspension, and the types of parole conditions in place at the time of the suspension were explored. In addition, patterns across fiscal years and regions were examined, and findings were disaggregated by gender and Aboriginal ancestry. During the study period, the rate of suspension was 755 suspensions per 1,000 offenders under supervision (CSC, 2015). Almost half (48%) of suspension warrants resulted in a revocation of the offender's release, while 29% were cancelled by CSC and 22% were cancelled by the PBC.1 On average, suspension warrants were resolved in 68 days, although there was variation by suspension outcome (18 days to 97 days). Overall, almost two-thirds (59%) of warrants were issued due to the breach of the terms of the offender's supervision period; about half were due to a breach of specific release conditions (26%) or failing to report (23%). Distinct patterns across fiscal year and by region, gender, and Aboriginal ancestry were evident. The current study provides an examination of the patterns and outcomes of supervision period suspensions among federal offenders. A better understanding of the current patterns of suspension warrants may inform case management and community planning strategies as well as inform population management initiatives both in custody and in the community. Future research could examine the characteristics of offenders and behavioural indicators that lead to suspensions and the various suspension outcomes. As well, future research examining the use of alternatives to suspensions would be beneficial. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2015. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: 2015 No. R-368: Accessed November 17, 2017 at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-368-eng.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-368-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 148209 Keywords: Community SupervisionConditional ReleaseOffender ManagementOffender SupervisionRevocationSuspension Warrants |
Author: Beaudette, Janelle Title: The Impact of Offender Participation in the Restorative Opportunities Program Summary: Restorative justice (RJ) has been part of the Canadian criminal justice system for over 30 years. Today, RJ programs exist in all provinces and territories and can be accessed at multiple points in the criminal justice process from pre-charge to post-sentence. The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) began providing victim-offender mediation (VOM) services to address serious crime on a limited basis in 1992. In 2004, VOM was provided nationally and was officially-recognized as the Restorative Opportunities (RO) program in 2006. The purpose of the current study was to compare offenders who participated in facilitated face-to-face meetings organized by RO to a sample of matched non-participants on their rates of revocation while on conditional release. A total of 122 offenders who had taken part in RO and 122 matched offenders comprised the study sample. A facilitated face-to-face meeting could take place while incarcerated or while under conditional release in the community. Consequently, this study reported the results by time of face-to-face meeting (i.e., facilitated meeting prior to release or post-release) to account for differences between these groups and to allow for more meaningful interpretations of the findings. Survival analyses were conducted to compare rates of revocation for offenders who participated in RO to non-participants and to relate the time of revocation with the offenders' participation in RO. Results indicated that for the participants who had their meetings while incarcerated, there was no significant difference between participants and non-participants on rates of revocation, although the trend was that RO participants did better on release. When the meetings were held in the community post-release, participants were significantly more likely to spend a longer period of time under supervision in the community and were less likely to be revoked than their matched counterparts. The findings from the study demonstrated support for RO participation in the community. The results suggest that while participating in facilitated face-to-face meetings during incarceration may not decrease rates of revocation after release, providing offenders with mediation sessions during the period of community supervision does promote better outcomes. While our models controlled for variables associated with risk, it should be cautioned that factors not controlled in the matching procedure could have contributed to this effect. Research that employs a wait list design could control for the possible effects of self selection for participation in the program. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2015. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: 2015 No. R-364: Accessed November 17, 2017 at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-364-eng.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-364-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 148211 Keywords: Restorative JusticeRevocationVictim-Offender Mediation |