Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 25, 2024 Thu
Time: 11:17 pm
Time: 11:17 pm
Results for caseloads
2 results foundAuthor: Jalbert, Sarah Kuck Title: A Multi-Site Evaluation of Reduced Probation Caseload Size in an Evidence-Based Practice Setting Summary: Criminal justice researchers have studied caseload size to determine whether smaller caseloads improve probation outcomes. With exceptions, the findings have been disappointing: Reduced probation officer caseloads have not reduced criminal recidivism for high risk probationers and have increased revocation rates. One explanation is that officers with reduced caseloads do not materially change their supervision practices when caseloads are reduced—they either fail to achieve increased supervision intensity (control) or fail to improve treatment intervention (correction), or both. This raises the question: Would reduced caseloads improve supervision outcomes for medium to high risk offenders in a probation agency that trains its officers to apply a balance of controlling and correctional/rehabilitative measures? The logic is that the reduced caseload would allow probation officers to better deliver correctional interventions, thereby reducing recidivism without unduly increasing revocations. Our research answered this question in three purposefully selected probation agencies: Oklahoma City, where we implemented a randomized controlled trial (RCT) experiment; Polk County, Iowa, where we implemented a regression discontinuity design study (RDD), and four judicial districts in Colorado, where we implemented a RDD. In Oklahoma City the RCT degenerated and the study team turned to a difference in differences (DD) estimator. The results showed that reducing probation officer caseloads can reduce criminal recidivism when delivered in a setting where probation officers apply EBP. The two agencies (Oklahoma and Polk County, Iowa) that fully implemented EBP showed improved outcomes for probationers supervised by officers with smaller caseloads. The districts in Colorado had not fully implemented EBP and showed no reduced criminal recidivism attributable to smaller caseloads. Our results suggest that reduced caseloads, in combination with EBP, can lead to improved recidivism outcomes. The DD estimator in Oklahoma showed a statistically significant decrease in criminal recidivism and a modest increase in technical revocation rates for probationers supervised by officers who had reduced caseloads. Apparently officers with reduced caseloads were better able to identify treatment needs among their clientele, and thus better able to direct resources to those most in need. Consequently, reduced caseloads result in more efficient distribution of resources, and improved average probation outcomes. In Polk County, we found that intensive supervision with a small caseload reduces the likelihood of criminal recidivism by 26% percent (p=.037) for all offenses, 39% (p=.037) for drugs, property and violent offenses, and 45% (p=.023) for property and violent offenses (drug offenses excluded). For longer periods of time, recidivism is reduced significantly for property and violent crimes, 37% at eighteen months and 30 months respectively. We found little evidence that caseload size and resource allocation practices in Colorado’s four largest districts (excluding Denver) reduced the risk of recidivism for the highest risk probationers on general supervision. We speculate that the lack of treatment effect is related to the low frequency of correctional intervention for medium to high risk probationers, and that some core elements of EBP were not implemented until the end of the ten year study period (2007), contributing to the relative lack of treatment provision. The Department of Probation Services has since made considerable efforts to train or retrain officers and add elements of responsivity to Districts’ operations. It may be that similar analysis in two years will yield different findings. This study did not demonstrate the efficacy of the full complement of evidence based practices. Probation officers received equivalent training, so there was no counterfactual to use to evaluate EBP. Nevertheless, the implication is that EBP mattered: the literature demonstrates that without EBP (or similar supervision strategies) reduced caseloads do not reduce recidivism. Details: Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, 2011. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 2, 2011 at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/234596.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/234596.pdf Shelf Number: 121962 Keywords: CaseloadsOffender SupervisionProbation (U.S.)Probation OfficersRecidivism |
Author: National Center for State Courts Title: Examining the Work of State Courts: An Overview of 2015 State Court Caseloads Summary: Improvements for 2015 Alabama The Clerk of the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals engaged additional resources to conduct case-by-case reviews to determine the case types of all appellate cases filed and disposed during the year. This review resulted in the Court being able to report 100 percent publishable data. The Clerk of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals also engaged additional resources to conduct case-by-case reviews enabling the Court to report 100 percent publishable data, as well as information on the manner of disposition and case outcomes, for those cases disposed during the year. Reporting Excellence Awards Connecticut With support from their state court administrator, two Connecticut data specialists were able to accurately and fully map all trial court case types to the State Court Guide to Statistical Reporting. Connecticut, therefore, is the first state to report 100 percent publishable incoming trial court data. Delaware Delaware took advantage of CSP technical assistance to gain a better understanding of how existing trial court data could be restructured to improve CSP reporting. Their subsequent data submission increased publishable incoming trial court data by 32 percent. In addition, a similar examination and rethinking of Supreme Court appellate data produced an increase in that court’s publishable incoming percentage from 14 to 100 percent. District of Columbia District of Columbia’s data specialist disaggregated the trial court’s caseload data and now reports all tort, contract, domestic relations, and juvenile delinquency case types. This effort resulted in the District of Columbia’s publishable incoming data increasing by 49 percent. Minnesota For 2015, Minnesota achieved full implementation of the NCSC’s methodology for counting cases involving self-represented litigants, reporting publishable data for cases with self-represented litigants for all five major trial court case categories. Nevada After years of stakeholder meetings, conducting in-depth reviews of each case type category, and with technical assistance from CSP staff, Nevada rolled out its revised data model to all counties, and the resulting incoming data is 92 percent publishable general jurisdiction trial courts. Details: Williamsburg, VA: NCSC, 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 2, 2017 at: http://cdm16501.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/ctadmin/id/2177 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://cdm16501.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/ctadmin/id/2177 Shelf Number: 141260 Keywords: CaseloadsCourt StatisticsTrial Courts |