Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: August 17, 2024 Sat
Time: 2:16 am
Time: 2:16 am
Results for revocations
5 results foundAuthor: Dandurand, Yvon Title: Conditional Release Violations, Suspensions and Revocations: A Comparative Analysis Summary: Managing the social reentry of sentenced offenders is a potentially cost-effective way of preventing crime. Different types of conditional release programs can be used to support the social reintegration of offenders and improve public safety. This study is a preliminary comparative attempt to examine the decision-making process involved in selected jurisdictions in cases of alleged breach of conditions by offenders released on conditional release. Details: Vancouver, BC: International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy, 2008. 50p. Source: Year: 2008 Country: International URL: Shelf Number: 114604 Keywords: ParoleParole ViolationsRecidivismRehabilitationRevocations |
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: Human Impact Partners Title: Excessive Revocations in Wisconsin: The Health Impacts of Locking People Up without a New Conviction Summary: A report on health impacts of current practice in Wisconsin to incarcerate people for breaking rules of parole, probation, or supervision but who have not been convicted of a new crime, and recommendations to change that practice. Details: Oakland, CA: Human Impact Partners, 2016. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 14, 2016 at: http://www.humanimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/Report_ExcessiveRevocationsWI_2016.12.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.humanimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/Report_ExcessiveRevocationsWI_2016.12.pdf Shelf Number: 146143 Keywords: Health ImpactsParole ViolationsProbation ViolationsRevocations |
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: Hobbs, Anne Title: The Lancaster County Juvenile Reentry Project: Follow-up Report Summary: In 2011, Lancaster County received a planning grant under the Second Chance Act administered by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Using these funds, a team of stakeholders examined the limited reentry services available to juveniles who return to Lancaster County after a stay in a Nebraska Youth Rehabilitation and Treatment Center (YRTC). The following year, Lancaster County officials brought together multiple agencies to develop a systematic juvenile reentry approach, which subsequently became known as the Lancaster County Juvenile Reentry Project. From January 1, 2013 to June 30, 2015, a total of 126 youth were served under the Reentry Project. Of these, 45 (35.7%) were young women who were returning from YRTC-Geneva and 81 (64.3%) were young men returning from YRTC-Kearney. The majority were youth of color (62.7%), which is consistent with research that demonstrates minority overrepresentation in detention facilities in Nebraska. On average, youth were a little older than 16 when they entered the Reentry Program. The University of Nebraska Omaha's Juvenile Justice Institute (JJI) was hired to evaluate the success of the program. To examine the overall effectiveness of the Reentry Project, the stakeholders agreed to measure revocations (youth sent back to the facility after having been released and served under the program) and recidivism (new law violations filed after participating in the program). In order to determine whether the Reentry Project had an impact on the youth served, JJI used a comparison group of 150 youth who returned to Lancaster County between 2007 and 2012. Because the Reentry Project had not yet been established, those youth did not receive any of the reentry services. (A description of the control group can be found in the Appendix). We first examined all reentry services compared to the control group. Overall, the Reentry Project was very effective for youth when all of the various program elements were taken into account. This supports Antchuler and Bilchek's (2014) theory that reentry programs are most effective when they contain six functions, or components, operating in concert with one another. We then tested Antchuler and Bilchek's (2014) theory and compared the separate components of the Reentry Project (education specialist, mentoring, public defender, family support, aggression replacement therapy) to see if a specific program had a significant impact on reducing recidivism after reentry. Age was the most consistently significant characteristic that influenced whether additional charges would be filed. That is, the older the youth, the more likely he or she was to have subsequent charges filed. Awareness of this should allow programs in Lancaster County to devote extra attention to older youth returning to the community, and to examine particular factors that may be influencing this outcome. Details: Omaha, NE: Juvenile Justice Institute, University of Nebraska, Omaha, 2015. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 6, 2018 at: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=jjireports Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=jjireports Shelf Number: 151027 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Reentry Revocations |