Four studies of medium and high research quality have examined the use of sanctions grids by parole and probation departments; however, only two examined the effect on recidivism. These studies show that there is no effect of the use of sanction grids/matrices on re-offending, compared to the use unstructured supervision policies. However, there is promising evidence that the use of sanctions grids/matrices provide for a better use of agency resources and lower the use of custodial (i.e., prison or jail) sanctions.

Pretrial justice systems seek to maximize court appearance and community well-being and safety. In fact, these are the only two outcomes that can legally be considered when deciding to release or detain a person during the pretrial phase. Fair, just, and effective pretrial justice systems strive to implement practices that help people succeed while on pretrial release. To do this, it’s essential to understand the effectiveness of common pretrial practices based on current research. APPR has developed a number of pretrial research summaries to meet this need.

This is the Final Summary of the findings and methodology of a component of a study that examined the impact on prisoners and corrections officers (COs) receiving and managing restrictive housing (RH) in America’s jails and prisons.

This following report provides a summary of the key findings from a study partnership between the University of Wyoming and Denver Adult Probation Department (DAPD) designed to better understand the drivers of revocation within the DAPD. The DAPD provides supervision to approximately 6,000 adult cases sentenced out of the Second Judicial District. The project was funded through a grant from Arnold Ventures and managed by the CUNY Institute for State and Local Governance. A four-phase mixed-methods approach was utilized to better understand the drivers of revocation in Denver.

As pretrial programming has expanded in Wisconsin and across the country, it is essential that program managers have the ability to measure progress and track outcomes to ensure that they are meeting established justice system goals. In order to support these efforts, it is important to define specific, measurable outcomes, and their associated indicators. This document is intended to help define such measures and explain the data elements necessary to accurately quantify each one. Where necessary, mathematical equations are provided to support data collection and reporting.

Probation departments have used specialized caseloads for years as a way to tailor supervision and better address the specific needs of people at a high risk to reoffend or who belong to certain populations. With these focused caseloads, officers are able to dedicate more time and attention to their cases while also applying targeted supervision and treatment strategies designed to reduce recidivism among their clients.

This 50-state analysis explores how supervision violations impacted prison populations during—and prior to—the pandemic.

This guide to gender-responsive approaches was developed by The Council of State Governments Justice Center in partnership with the National Resource Center on Justice Involved Women. The guide can help program providers in behavioral health and criminal justice settings across the country develop gender-responsive programs.

The purpose of this study was to estimate current posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) prevalence rates among United States’ corrections professionals, and explore indices of psychological., physical., and occupational status and functioning in relation to PTSD. Using a secure online application, a nationwide sample of corrections professionals (N=3599) completed the PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version (PCL-C), the Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21), the Impact on Functioning Scale (IOFS), and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS).

The changing nature of crime, along with an increase in digital literacy among the general population, has resulted in a greater number of tech-savvy individuals under community supervision. This presents unique challenges and opportunities for supervision agencies. A complete ban on supervisee access to technology is generally not justifiable (or practical) except in the most severe circumstances. Therefore, agencies must assess and manage the risk to public safety from supervisees' technology use.