"Parole decision-making functions as a crucial mechanism channeling people in and out of prison. This report combines multiple data sources and, for the first time, provides an overview of the movements between prison and parole for each state, focusing on the decision points of parole release and parole revocation. This information allows for a comprehensive picture of each state, both as a snapshot and longitudinally. For each state, information is presented on prison and parole rates over time, the percentage of prison admissions that are due to people on conditional release, the percentage of hearings by the parole board that result in parole being granted, the rate of re-incarceration for parolees, and the percentage of parolees who exit parole due to an incarceration versus a successful completion of supervision" (website).
Presents steps that jurisdictions can take to assess their current parole violation and revocation policy and practice, identify targets of change, and mobilize for change. Chapters address myths and facts about parole; NIC's Technical Assistance Project on Parole Violations and Revocations and lessons from NIC's work; targets of change and innovative solutions; how four states refined violation policy and practice to strengthen parole; deciding whether to explore strengthening an agency's parole violation and revocation practices; and creating opportunities. This document is available on the web in an electronic version (NIC no. 020398). Follow companion link to access web version.
The author describes the experiences of probation and parole agencies from across the country that worked with NIC on developing innovative approaches to probation and parole violations and revocations. The document identifies critical issues emerging from these experiences, and discusses the impact that some of these approaches had on the jurisdiction or agency involved.
Agencies looking for help in implementing the new parole revocation process on July 1, 2013 need to refer to this website. “On Tuesday, March 19, 2013, the Partnership for Community Excellence (PCE) held a forum: Preparing for the New Parole Revocation Process. A diverse group of experts presented information and perspectives about the new revocation process, which will take effect on July 1, 2013 … The goal of the forum was to identify key issues regarding the transition and potential ways to address them. The group identified the following broad categories of issues as top priorities to support successful implementation of the new process: Promoting greater collaboration among public safety stakeholders; Fostering ways for probation, parole, and the courts to learn from each other; Ensuring victims’ rights are protected; Bringing district attorneys, public defenders and law enforcement together to advocate in siting new programs for offenders; [and] Promoting the use of evidence-based practices.”
"The increasing reliance on revocation as a standard tool of parole supervision has created a "separate path to prison for large numbers of former prisoners" … Despite the routine use of parole violations and sanctions – collectively referred to as “back-end sentencing” – as a means of surveillance and punishment, policymakers and reentry scholars are only just starting to explore the contribution of this process to the reentry recycling of offenders through the correctional system" (p. 1-2). This dissertation examines how parole revocation impacts offenders' abilities to successfully reenter their communities. Five chapters make up this dissertation: introduction to parole violations and the three stages of prison's revolving door; the role of social service proximity in prisoner reentry—"how neighborhood contextual conditions shape the likelihood that parolees receive violation reports"; institutional sanctions in context—the impact of county-level characteristics on parole outcomes; the effects of short-term custodial sanctions on labor market outcomes among former prisoners; and conclusion.
In order to ensure that limited jail and prison beds are maintained for high-risk offenders while lower-risk offenders are placed in more effective and cheaper options, the Louisiana legislature passed a law that limits the incarceration time of first-time probation or parole violators to 90 days. "Louisiana’s 90-day revocation limit has: Reduced the average length of incarceration for first-time technical revocations in Louisiana by 281 days, or 9.2 months; Maintained public safety, with returns to custody for new crimes declining from 7.9 percent to 6.2 percent, a 22 percent decrease; Resulted in a net savings of approximately 2,034 jail and prison beds a year; Saved taxpayers an average of $17.6 million in annual corrections costs" (p. 1)
This handbook discusses policy responses to probation and parole violations that enhance the effectiveness of supervision while also improving community safety. Chapters include: Critical issues in violations -- an overview; The importance of vision, mission, goals, and core values; Collaboration -- a central ingredient for success; Developing baseline information; Supervision; Developing tools to make the policy work; Increasing available choices to violation response; Outcome-based interventions; Monitoring the impact of the policy; And tangible outcomes.
"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 overreliance 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" (p. 1015). Six sections make up this article: introduction; history and structures of community supervision—probation and post-release supervision; the dynamics of revocation—conditions of release, methods of supervision, and responses to rule violations; responses to the problem of revocation; the different approach of limiting community supervision—limiting the sanction, limiting release conditions, and limiting terms of supervision; and conclusion.