“The HOPE program — Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement — is an experimental probation program that emphasizes the delivery of "swift and certain" punishment when a probationer violates conditions of probation.” Sections of this brief cover; the positive effects of swift and certain sanctions; how HOPE works; why HOPE effectively reduces probation violations; the impact of HOPE on courts and officers of the courts—process evaluation; and additional research is needed. At the one year mark, 61% of probationers are less likely to skip meetings with their probation officers, and 53% are less likely to have their probation revoked.
"Although home visits are seen as a critical tool employed by probation officers, recent evidence demonstrates that home visits are rarely conducted, even for high-risk offenders who might benefit from them the most … Because there are costs (such as probation officer time and safety risks) associated with conducting field work, we need to understand the role of home visits in modern probation agencies and determine best practices of how they should be implemented to meet intended goals. This article highlights the historical importance of home visits as a key element of probation and suggests future avenues to inform the field about their full potential and utility" (p. 32). Sections cover: a brief history of probation—from rehabilitation to crime control and back again; the role of home visits in supporting probation goals; expansion of probation to higher-risk offenders—retaining a role for home visits; and addressing gaps in our knowledge about home visits—officer and offender goals for home visits, opening the "black box" of home visits, impact of home visits on family and communities, dosage—how often and how many home visits are needed, and desistance among high-risk offenders.
"While victims are not the primary client for you as a tribal probation officer [TPO], you are in a unique position to provide them with critical information and link them with services. This bulletin is designed to provide TPOs with a brief overview of victims’ rights, tips to help coordinate and improve the delivery of victim services, and information about the varied services available to victims of crime" (p. 3). Sections of this publication cover: why tribal probation officers should be concerned about crime victims; the impact of crime on victims; eight specific victims' rights under federal law; barriers to victim participation in criminal and tribal justice processes; victims' rights and related services—safety and reasonable protection, confidentiality, notification and information, participation, victim input, restitution and other legal/financial obligations (LFOs), and victim compensation; effective communication with victims; collaboration for victims' rights implementation and victim assistance services—federal victim services, tribal victim services, and state and local victim services; services for crime victims and survivors; National Information and Referral Resources for Crime Victim/Survivor Assistance—20 national toll-free information, assistance, and referral numbers; and victim/offender and restorative justice programs.
Anyone working with Native American offenders should read this article. Its purpose is to "increase the level of understanding of correctional professionals about how the responsivity issues of Native American (NA) individuals can be effectively addressed. NA offenders are involved in criminal and juvenile justice systems handled by tribal, county, state, and federal agencies. As a result, there are several levels of justice practitioners, administrators, and policy makers that come into contact with NA supervisees at various stages of the criminal or juvenile justice system. This article focuses on how probation and parole officers (PPOs) are addressing responsivity factors of NA youth or adults on their caseloads throughout the supervision process" (p. 1). Sections of this publication include: risk, need, and responsivity approaches with Native American supervisees; methods; survey findings—general and specific responsivity; recommendations—three regarding research and development, risk and needs assessments, evaluation, three for recommendations for policy, and six practice recommendations; and conclusion.
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.
This analysis covers supervision compliance outcomes of quick dips, two or three day periods of jail confinement in response to probation non-compliance. The purpose of quick dips, results, and implication are presented. Offenders who received quick dips were more likely to have positive supervision outcomes, less revocations in the follow-up period, and less absconding than the comparison group. Overall, quick dips are an effective quick and certain response to offender non-compliance.
"All justice-involved individuals who are under community supervision are expected to abide by a set of conditions. Unfortunately, a significant portion will violate one or more of their terms and conditions of supervision at some point, either by committing a new offense or by committing a technical violation—an infraction related to failing to comply with the technical rules set by the releasing authority. Many of these individuals will be incarcerated as a result of a violation. Yet, incarcerating individuals for violations does not necessarily achieve the desired public safety impact in terms of reducing future violations and recidivism. There remains an endless “revolving door” of individuals who are placed on community supervision, engage in further problematic behavior, and return to correctional facilities to likely repeat the cycle again. This paper provides a policy and practice framework to support the development of effective behavior management systems that will increase the compliance and prosocial behavior of justice-involved individuals both during and following their community supervision."
Sections of this publication include: the "never events" in the behavior management of justice-involved individuals; introduction to conditions of community supervision; why behavior management matters—developments over the past three decades, summary of the research and frameworks in what works in shaping behavior, rethinking the term sanctions, six key principles guiding effective responses to noncompliance, the use of incentives and rewards, key considerations in their effective use, the Model Penal Code on rewards and responses to noncompliance, putting it together--responding to behavior in ways that produce positive outcomes, making it work—operationalizing the research, illustrations of select programmatic efforts to manage behavior, and state and local efforts to address behavior management using a structured policy framework process; advancing behavior management policy and practice—ten steps to developing a behavior management policy; recent advances in behavior management—accounting for criminogenic needs, considering the complexity of the behavior, tailoring responses to prosocial behaviors, automating decision making tools, consistently addressing behavior across the justice system continuum, and key data questions; future advances in behavior management; and a recommended behavior management policy and practice approach—"always events" in the behavior management of justice-involved individuals.
"The New York City Department of Probation (DOP)—the second largest probation department in the country—is advancing a process to infuse evidence-based policies and practices (EBPP) throughout the organization … What is significant for the purpose of this story is that the Federal agencies were able to thoughtfully, strategically, respectfully, and effectively apply the right dosage of technical assistance to the moving train in a way that made the most of the investment and the capacity that BJA and NIC had to marshal for the city" (p. 3-4). This brief explains how the NYC DOP Adult Operations Division partnered with the U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the National Institute of Correction (NIC) to create an organizational culture within the division that was committed to using evidence-based practices. Lessons learned from this collaboration are also covered. This document is comprised of six sections: what the BJA and NIC technical assistance providers worked on with DOP, and how their work fit with other pilot programs, initiatives, and philanthropic support; what is unique about DOP from the perspective of Federal agencies that engage in technical assistance with local agencies; what is unique about what the partners brought to the table, what kind of technical assistance approach they developed together, and how it was managed and delivered; how the Federal agencies’ technical assistance advanced DOP’s EBPP goals; where New York City’s DOP evidence-based practice work is taking the department; and conclusion--what the rest of the field can learn from the DOP, BJA, and NIC technical assistance collaborative partnership, and why it does matter.
Objectives: 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.
"This survey asked if probation was an executive or judicial branch function for adult and juvenile cases. Forty-five states and the District of Columbia indicated that juvenile probation is a function of the judicial branch." This collection is comprised of three documents: "Branch Responsible for Probation"—whether probation is a function of Executive, Judicial, or a variation; "Level of Government Responsible for Probation"--whether probation operates at the state- or county-level; and "Relationship Between Court and Probation"—whether local trial court and local probation or community corrections agency work together as institutions or work independently depending on the judge's inclinations. Aggregate results for each responding state are provided for juvenile cases, adult misdemeanor cases, and adult felony cases. This data is clearly compared through bar charts.