Community Corrections for Professionals

  1. The National Parole Resource Center Invites Applications from Paroling Authorities to Participate as “Learning Sites”
    The newly-established National Parole Resource Center invites U.S. state paroling/releasing authorities to become one of four states participating in the first major technical assistance effort of the Center.  Four sites will recieve technical assistance and training geared toward enhancing their capacity for effective decisionmaking policy and practice.  The initiative is designed to support the selected agencies strengthen their decisionmaking and supervision practices, and to generate lessons and insights that will be shared with other jurisdictions.  The application deadline is Monday, June 21, 2010. Click here to see and download the full solicitation.
  2. Validation of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections Risk Assessment Instrument

    The use of risk assessment instruments to measure the probability of individuals under community supervision re-offending is standard operational procedure (SOP) for probation and parole agencies across the country. Across the different generations of instruments that have been employed, the basic question still remains: Does this instrument provide the necessary data to formulate proper levels of offender supervision based on risk, and assist in calculating staff workload and deployment.

    The Wisconsin Department of Corrections has recently completed a validation of the risk assessment instrument they use. The study was prepared by the Council of State Governments Justice Center. With a sample of over 42,000 offenders under community supervision (probation and parole) between 2001 and 2002, data were examined using the outcome measures of: "(a) a new offense within three years of placement on community supervision; and (b) new violent offense within three years of placement on community supervision." to define recidivism.

    Among the findings:

    • A high percentage of offenders were classified as high risk, which is counter to the goal of risk classification: to differentiate the population by risk and and allocate resources accordingly.
    • The main reason for the over-classification was the weight given to the assaultive offense factor.
    • Other factors, besides the weight given to the assaultive risk factor, may have also contributed to the over-classification issue.
    • The probation and parole population differed significantly on the distribution of the population on most risk factors.
    • Probationers and parolees classified at the same risk levels had different rates of re-offending with parolees having higher rates of re-offending for the same risk levels.
    • The Wisconsin Risk instrument (DOC 502) differentiated populations into groups with different rates of committing a new assaultive offense. However, most of the offenders classified at high risk of committing a new offense did not commit a new assaultive offense during the follow-up period.

    Included is a Summary of Recommendations by the authors to increase the effectiveness of this instrument. While this study is specific to Wisconsin, it has implications for every agency that uses assessment instruments for assigning risk and resource allocation.

     

     

     

  3. 2009 Survey of Pretrial Services Programs

    A survey of pretrial service programs in 171 participating jurisdictions has been published by the Pretrial Justice Institute. This survey examines the "general characteristics of pretrial services programs, such as jurisdictions and populations served; pretrial program practices such as investigation, risk assessment, initial court appearances and supervised pretrial release; the management and evaluation of these practices; and issues connected to jail crowding." 

    Among the findings:

    • 44% of pretrial programs established since 2000 serve areas that are considered primarily rural.
    • Half of the pretrial programs started since 1990 are administratively housed within probation departments.
    • Half of these probation-run programs have annual budgets of less than $200,000 and half have five or less staff persons.  
  4. Pandemic Flu Guidelines for Community Corrections

    A recently released report from the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) estimates the H1N1 virus could "produce infection of 30-50% of the U.S. population this fall and winter...; lead to as many as 1.8 million U.S. hospital admissions during the epidemic...; cause between 30,000 and 90,000 deaths in the United States...; pose especially high risks for individuals with certain pre-existing conditions..." 

    With the goal of preparing community corrections professionals to deal with the realities of such a situation, the American Probation and Parole Association, through a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, has published guidelines for preparedeness and response planning for community corrections personnel to protect the health and well-being of themselves and their clients to carry out their mission(s) during an anticipated severe flu season.

  5. Standardizing Parole Violation Sanctions

    The economic realities of many state budgets has prompted a renewed examination of how corrections systems do business. One of the areas of concern has been the number of costly and time-consuming parole violation hearings that often result in the re-incarceration of parolees (Table 6). Is there a methodology parole agencies can utilize to address parole violations and the accompanying sanctions in a fairer and more proportionate manner? In an attempt to answer this question, two states (California and Ohio) have employed standardized tools that provide a grid of graduated sanctions to assist in parole violation decision making. Standardizing Parole Violation Sanctions, a National Institute of Justice Journal report highlights both states and the possible implications the use of standardized tools may have on a national basis.

    A full report on the impact of Ohio's Progressive Sanction Grid is available here. Information on California's Parole Violation Decision Making Instrument (PVDMI) may be found here.