In 2014, a network of membership associations that represent community corrections practitioners—the Community Corrections Collaborative Network (CCCN)—surveyed their memberships to gauge opinions about the state of the field. The survey sought to identify what community corrections practitioners believe are the significant issues and opportunities facing the field. CCCN’s goal with the survey is to bring a fresh perspective about where the field needs to go and what community corrections will need to get there, and allow those engaged in the national criminal justice reform debate to hear directly from those working with most people under correctional control. This survey is the first to ask those employed in community corrections their opinions about the field’s priorities. As such, the survey focuses on issues that relate to the direction community corrections is taking, the influence policymakers and the public have in determining that direction, and the resources needed to address new and anticipated priorities. The survey also provided CCCN an opportunity to determine if it is working on policy and issue areas that association memberships consider priorities Results show that the field embraces key elements of the new approach CCCN says the field needs to take: Key benchmarks include increasing reliance on evidence-based practices, research and data driven approaches. The survey results show strong support for a field that prioritizes innovation, systems change, collaboration and training.
Objectives of this three-hour videoconference include:
- Articulating the purposes for assessment and evaluation of sex offenders and the issues and challenges inherent in each;
- Understanding the limitations of traditional risk and needs assessment tools for sex offenders;
- Identifying and defining the available approaches and instruments used to effectively assess and evaluate sex offenders;
- Distinguishing between effective and ineffective risk assessment tools;
- And identifying the complementary roles of treatment providers and supervising agents in conducting and interpreting assessments and evaluations.
Those who should participate include probation/parole line staff involved in pre-sentence investigations and supervision, first-line supervisors, managers, policymakers, community corrections administrators, parole board members, trainers, and sex offender treatment providers who work closely with community supervision agencies.
This report provides a clear blueprint for closing youth prisons and replacing them with community-based juvenile justice services. Readers will learn how this new system can hold youth accountable — without resorting to incarceration — while cultivating a young person’s strengths, interests and sense of belonging.” Sections of this publication are: introduction: a note on community; defining “continuity of care” for young people in the juvenile justice system; why a continuum is needed; developing a continuity of care—guiding principles, core components, and tying it all together; eight steps for developing a community-based continuum of care for justice involved youth; examples of continua of care; funding a continuum of care for justice-involved youth and their families; and conclusion.
- highlight federal resources available to community corrections and criminal justice agencies; define service needs of justice-involved individuals;
- showcase a local example of collaboration and resources utilization—San Diego County Probation;
- and engage the criminal justice system in a live discussion about the resources available, how to access funding, receive technical assistance, and to motivate our leaders to want to do more.
Topics discussed include: Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice (DACJJ) base budget; community corrections base budget; average daily costs; what community corrections is; probation, parole, and post-release defined; purpose of post-release supervision (PRS); why JRA expanded PRS; Parole and Post-Release Supervision Commission; Judicial Service Coordinators; probation and parole officers; caseload averages; the changing role of probation officers; risk-needs assessment components; supervision levels; electronic monitoring; community supervision programs; Treatment for Effective Community Supervision (TECS); reinvestment; Confinement in Response to Violation (CRV) Centers; and results for prison readmission by type, for probation revocation rate, and for "quick dips" (2-3 day confinement).
The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Community Corrections Collaborative Network (CCCN)—a network representing community corrections professionals—commissioned a position paper to explore the successes and challenges facing the community corrections field. The position paper, "Community Corrections Collaborative Network: Safe and Smart Ways To Solve America’s Correctional Challenges", finds that community corrections is a critical part of the public safety system that supervises individuals under the legal authority in the community to reduce crime and victimization" (p. i). Seven chapters comprise this publication: the five core domains of community corrections—probation, parole, pretrial services, diversion programs, and community treatment; reducing reoffending, recidivism, and victimization in your community—targeting risk, need, and responsivity of the people we supervise; community corrections—changing lives, reducing harm, and helping to build your community; community corrections--a more central role in how the corrections system will manage its resources and overall approach; community corrections has strong public support; helping to solve the nation's public safety and correctional challenges; and what community corrections needs from the field and its partners to meet the public safety and corrections challenges. "Community corrections is changing lives, reducing harm, and helping build communities, and it has strong public support. To succeed in the future, community corrections and its partners need to refocus resources on approaches that are proven to work; change laws, policies, and practices that do not work; target treatment and supervision only to those who need it; and reallocate resources appropriately. Also to succeed in the future, community corrections and its partners need to expand the capacity of the field to take on new challenges and designate resources appropriately" (p. i).
This document provides “conceptual information and practical tools to develop or enhance” an effective “proactive community supervision approach for domestic violence cases” (p.1). Ten Chapters follow a summary: what difference it makes; fundamentals for community corrections domestic violence practice -- types, causes, perpetrators, victims, and the justice system response to domestic violence; legal issues in the supervision of domestic violence offenders -- legal definitions, jurisdictional issues, civil protection orders, federal and state firearms laws, conditions of probation and pretrial release, enforcement and revocation, confidentiality, and related special issues; culture and domestic violence; core goals for implementing the guidelines -- goals (i.e., victim safety and autonomy, offender accountability, and offender intervention), autonomy and empowerment, practice principles, and inadvisable practices for domestic violence case supervision; guidelines for professional and ethical practice; guidelines for case investigation; guidelines for community supervision and enforcement; guidelines for victim safety and autonomy; and guidelines for batterer intervention programs.
This bibliography describes 71 items that address workforce development problems faced by community corrections, probation, and parole agencies. Some of the topics discussed are: the changing workforce; the changing roles of staff; caseload management demands; and recruiting, hiring, training, developing, and retaining staff.
The Community Services Division coordinates technical assistance, specialized training, and other programs related to probation, parole, and other forms of community-based corrections.
The Division also sponsors the development of publications and materials on topics of interest to community corrections practitioners, and it coordinates an interdisciplinary effort to assist jurisdictions in developing a more rational, cost-effective, and coordinated system of criminal justice sanctions and punishments.
Technical assistance related to Community Corrections is provided on issues such as caseload management, victims programs, employee safety, classification and assessment, and intermediate sanctions. The Division also provides specialized training and other programs that focus on: Executive Leadership and Development; Women Offenders; Evidence-Based Offender Interventions; Inmate Transition to Communities; Workforce Development; and Responding to Probation/Parole Violations.
Division Chief: Holly Busby
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. Managing an individual's digital activities not only can deter and detect new crimes but also can help officers identify problematic behaviors, allowing them the opportunity to intervene before a negative outcome occurs. Despite the increasing need to effectively manage supervisees' virtual presence, many agencies struggle with this imperative. To examine this issue, the National Institute of Justice, supported by the RAND Corporation in partnership with the University of Denver, hosted a virtual workshop in June 2020 to discuss the challenges related to supervising individuals in an increasingly digital world. The participants identified a list of 23 needs related to providing community supervision services in a digital world, 13 of which were ranked as high priority. These needs were sorted into the five categories of organizational issues, tools and training, policy and practice, legal and privacy concerns, and research.