"This article describes the evolution of the Georgia Parole Board's business-oriented data and performance leadership model" (p. 35). Topics covered include: business is data driven, government should be, too; Georgia's data-driven TCPI (Transition From Prison to the Community Initiative) plan; computerized information systems -- essential data to support accountability measures; managing with the right data; effective reports -- easy to access, read, and understand the causal link; performance leadership -- speak mission and what works language at every opportunity; and TPCI -- how to do what works.
If you are a community corrections officer you should read this article. This article offers an efficient way to effectively monitor your supervisees’ computer use. Sections of this article cover: the issue of computer use and disuse by offenders such as gang members and sex offenders; the five major components of computer management—know what computer(s) the supervisee has or has access to, deciding how to monitor computer or Internet use, going online to check unauthorized use, using complementary technologies like location monitoring, and continued field visits; computer searches versus computer monitoring; and training. “The complexity and diversity of criminal and delinquent activities enabled and accelerated by technology can be daunting but that cannot be used as an excuse for a “wait and see” strategy. Expertise is developed over time and agencies are encouraged to start with the major components and to develop their expertise by focusing on specific strategies and offense types. Starting the process now will help prepare agencies for future challenges that will continue to occur as probationers or parolees find new and innovative ways to exploit developing technologies” (p. 46).
This brief examines the impact a mandatory reentry supervision program has on spending and public safety. Kentucky requires that every inmate that is released from prison undergo post-release supervision to ensure that the inmate has the necessary monitoring and/or support in the community. Results show that the post-release supervision program: "improved public safety by helping reduce new offense rates by 30 percent; resulted in a net savings of approximately 872 prison beds per year; [and] saved more than $29 million in the 27 months after the policy took effect" (p. 1).
"Despite growing evidence and a broad consensus that the period immediately following release from prison is critical for preventing recidivism, a large and increasing number of offenders are maxing out—serving their entire sentences behind bars—and returning to their communities without supervision or support. These inmates do not have any legal conditions imposed on them, are not monitored by parole or probation officers, and do not receive the assistance that can help them lead crime-free lives … This report examines the rise in max-outs and its policy origins, looks at states that are leading on the use of post-prison supervision to protect public safety and reduce costs, and provides a framework to help other states use evidence to inform release and supervision decisions" p. 1-2. Sections cover: overview; policy changes lead to spike in max-outs; one in five inmates max out; state release policies vary widely; increase driven by nonviolent offenders; supervised release can cut recidivism and costs; policy framework to reduce max-outs; and conclusion.
This publication "provides probation and parole officers and other correctional professionals with both a solid grounding in the principles behind MI [motivational interviewing] and a practical guide for applying these principles in their everyday dealings with offenders" (p.2). Seven chapters are contained in this guide: how MI fits in with evidence-based practice; how and why people change; the motivational interviewing style; preparing for change; building motivation for change; navigating through tough times--working with deception, violations, and sanctions; and from start to finish--putting MI into practice.
The Community Corrections Collaborative Network (CCCN) is a network comprised of the leading associations representing 90,000-plus probation, parole, pretrial, and treatment professionals around the country, including the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA), the Association of Paroling Authorities International (APAI), the Federal Probation and Pretrial Officers Association (FPPOA), the International Community Corrections Association (ICCA), the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP), the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA), and the National Association of Probation Executives (NAPE).
This "Myths & Facts" package includes a one-page list of myths and facts along with a research-based supporting document to help dispel three specific myths regarding the use of risk and need assessments within the criminal justice system. A description and relevant research to dispel each myth is provided. Our network believes that risk and need assessments currently provide the most accurate, objective prediction of the risk to recidivate. While risk and need assessments do not predict with perfect accuracy, they guide practitioners in the field towards the most accurate and equitable decisions available for safely managing justice-involved individuals.
Parole, both a procedure by which a board administratively releases inmates from prison as well as a provision for post-release supervision, comes from the French word parol, referring to "word," as in giving one's word of honor or promise.
Over time it has come to mean an inmate's promise to conduct him- or herself in a law abiding manner and according to certain rules—in exchange for release. Persons under parole supervision served terms of incarceration and were released to live and work in the community under supervision, with continued adherences to the law monitored (Senate Research Center, 1999).
Since eligibility for release on parole is a matter of state law, there is considerable variation in the location, administration, and organization of paroling authorities in the United States. Parole boards may be autonomous panels with administrative support from a department of corrections or a community corrections agency, or they may be a part of the executive branch of state government. Some have direct responsibility for staff who monitor the supervision of parolees in the community while others do not. Regardless of the location, administration, and organization of these agencies, parole is a significant component of the criminal justice system.
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.
Individuals involved in making sure their parole agency’s goals are being met need to read this paper. It provides guidance for a paroling authority in “defining its vision and mission, assembling information and resources to accomplish its goals, and putting into place appropriate management and performance measurement systems to carry out its objectives and measure its progress” (p. v). Six chapters are contained in this publication: craft your vision and mission statements; assess your organization’s current operating practices; engage key partners; plan and take strategic action; review information and manage for results; and conclusion.
This article examines the benefits and challenges of interagency collaboration between law enforcement and community corrections. "The primary assumption of these programs is that both entities possess distinct intelligence and resources that if combined should better address, prevent, or intervene in the violence perpetuated by this criminogenic population" (p. 2). Sections cover: history of police-probation/parole partnerships; research and evaluation on partnerships; problems associated with partnership; and seven recommendations for policy and practice on police-probation/parole partnerships.