The changing role of probation hostels: voices from the inside

Probation Approved Premises (hereafter referred to by their earlier and informal moniker; hostels) are a small, but vital part of the wider work of the probation service in which high risk offenders are provided semi-secure accommodation either on release from prison (as part of release license conditions) or on bail. Currently 100 hostels cater for a wide range of offenders including both male and female offenders, sexual, drug and violent offenders (HMI Probation et al. 2008). This paper explores what people either working or residing in a probation hostel understand the purpose of work in hostels to be

Reorganizing Corrections: Revisiting the Recommendations of the National Advisory Commission

In 1973 the National Advisory Commission on Standards and Goals recommended that correctional services be consolidated under a single state agency, arguing that cost efficiencies, improved communication, and greater employee professionalism would result. The National Advisory Commission advocated state rather than local control of probation, and executive rather than judicial branch control of probation services. It encouraged development of regional rather than local jails and recommended that states assume the operation and control of all local detention and correctional functions. This paper examines some of the arguments for consolidation of correctional services and attempts to determine the kinds of reorganization that have occurred since 1973.BACKGROUND / Reorganizing Institutional Corrections / Reorganizing Probation / Reorganizing Parole / REORGANIZATION OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES / Institutional Reorganization / Reorganization of Probation / Reorganization of Parole / THE FUTURE OF CORRECTIONAL REORGANIZATION / Juvenile Corrections / Adult Probation / Local Facilities / REFERENCE

Effective Approaches With Young Adults: A Guide for Probation Services

The aim of this guide is to give probation practitioners, whether in the National Probation Service or Community Rehabilitation Companies, the tools to deliver a more effective approach to young adults. It provides practical suggestions for effective ways to engage young adults and support their desistance from crime. It also includes suggestions for managers on what they can do to enable practitioners to improve outcomes within probation services

Alaska Offender Profile: Adult Probation/Parole, 2002–2012

This fact sheet presents data on characteristics of offenders under the supervision of the Alaska Department of Corrections, Division of Probation and Parole (DOC-PP) for the period 2002–2012, and briefly describes how probation and parole operate in Alaska. Data were extracted from the annual Offender Profile publication of the Alaska Department of Corrections. Data presented include total numbers of adult probationers and parolees, rates of adult probation/parole supervision, percentage breakdowns of the probation/parole population by sex and race, and distribution of probation/parole cases among the three largest DOC-PP offices. There has been a notable increase in the total number of persons subject to probation/parole supervision in Alaska over the 11-year period, but this increase has not outpaced the state’s population growth.Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of JusticeOffenders on Probation/Parole / Probation/Parole Supervision Rates / Offender Race / Probation/Parole Caseloads / Summar

Juvenile Probation Officer Workload and Caseload Study: Alaska Division of Juvenile Justice

This report describes results of a study to measure and analyze the workload and caseload of Juvenile Probation Officers (JPOs) within the Alaska Division of Juvenile Justice. More specifically, this study assessed the resources needed in both rural and urban Alaska to adequately meet minimum probation standards, to continue the development and enhancement of system improvements, and to fully implement the restorative justice field probation service delivery model.Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant No. 2008-IC-BX-K001Section I – Juvenile Probation Officer Workload and Caseload Study Table 1. Total Time Available by Office Figure 1. Referrals for New Offenses, by Depth of Processing Table 2. Average Caseloads by Office: FY06-08 Table 3. Summary Estimates for Hours Required per Type of Case Table 4. Final Results Table 5. Workload Burdens / Section II – Workload Elements Table 6. Total Time Available by Office Figure 2. Referrals for New Offenses, by Depth of Processing Table 7. Average Caseloads for Ultimate Probation Officers: FY06-08 Table 8. Average Caseloads for Immediate Probation Officers: FY06-08 Table 9. Summary Estimates for Hours Required per Type of Case / Section III – Workload Calculations Table 10. Total Hours Needed by Office Table 11. Total Hours Needed and Available by Office Table 12. Positions Needed by Office Table 13. Workload Burdens by Office Table 14. Summary of Final Results Table 15. Final Results with Average Times Required per Case Table 16. Final Results with Average Case Dispositions Table 17. Final Results with Average Times Required per Case and Case Dispositions Table 18. Summary of Final Results Table 19. Time Study Comparisons / Appendix A – Time Available Table A.1. Number of Positions by Region and Location Table A.2. Average Hours per Week Required for Other Activities Table A.3. Total Hours Available per Year by Position and Office / Appendix B – Number of Cases Figure B.1. Referrals for New Offenses, by Depth of Processing Table B.1. Average Caseloads for Ultimate Probation Officers: FY06-08 Table B.2. Average Caseloads for Immediate Probation Officers: FY06-08 / Appendix C – Time Required Table C.1. Summary Estimates for Hours Required per Type of Case Table C.2. Average Estimates (in Minutes) per Type of Case and Activity Table C.3. Detailed Estimates (in Minutes) for Time Required per Dismissed Case Table C.4. Detailed Estimates (in Minutes) for Time Required per Case Adjusted Without a Referral Table C.5. Detailed Estimates (in Minutes) for Time Required per Case Adjusted With a Referral Table C.6. Detailed Estimates (in Minutes) for Time Required per Informal Probation Case Table C.7. Detailed Estimates (in Minutes) for Time Required per Petitioned Cas

On Probation. An Experimental Analysis

Does probation pay a double dividend? Society saves the cost of incarceration, and convicts preserve their liberty. But does probation also reduce the risk of recidivism? In a meta-study we show that the field evidence is inconclusive. Moreover it struggles with an identification problem: those put on probation are less likely to recidivate in the first place. We therefore complement the field evidence by a lab experiment that isolates the definitional feature of probation: the first sanction is conditional on being sanctioned again during the probation period. We find that probationers contribute less to a joint project; punishment cost is higher; efficiency is lower; inequity is higher. While experimental subjects are on probation, they increase their contributions to a joint project. However, once the probation period expires, they reduce their contributions. While in the aggregate these two effects almost cancel out, critically those not punished themselves do trust the institution less if punishment does not become effective immediately.probation, recidivism, public goods, punishment, experimental economics

Rehabilitation, punishment and profit: The dismantling of public-sector probation

Probation has been nurtured and developed for over a century as the key cornerstone of our community justice system in England and Wales. However, a fundamental transformation in the way in which offenders are managed in the community is underway. After 106 years of rehabilitative intervention, the Probation Service is about to be dismantled - at least, in its traditional public sector incarnation. On 9 May 2013, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling formally confirmed the Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition government's plans to privatise the majority of probation work by 2015. While few would argue with the principle of supporting rehabilitation, there was controversy over both how this could be achieved and which agencies might deliver it. The privatisation of probation was viewed as a key component of the government’s “rehabilitation revolution”

The association of criminal justice supervision setting with overdose mortality: a longitudinal cohort study.

Background and aimsDespite the high prevalence of substance use among people in the US criminal justice system, little is known about the incidence of overdose mortality by use patterns, drug convictions and supervision setting. We examined the associations between these characteristics and overdose mortality.DesignRetrospective cohort study.Setting and participantsIndividuals sentenced to prison, jail, probation or jail plus probation for a felony conviction in Michigan, USA from 2003 to 2006.MeasurementsUsing the National Death Index, we assessed overdose mortality to December 2012. We calculated overdose mortality rates by pre-sentence opioid use, drug convictions and supervision setting. Multivariable analyses were conducted using competing risks regression with time-varying covariates.FindingsAmong 140 266 individuals followed over a mean of 7.84 years [standard deviation (SD) = 1.52], 14.9% of the 1131 deaths were due to overdose (102.8 per 100 000 person-years). Over the follow-up, more than half of overdose deaths occurred in the community (57.7%), nearly a third (28.8%) on probation and 12.8% on parole. The adjusted risk of overdose death was lower on probation [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.60, 0.85] than in the community without probation or parole (HR = 1.00) but not significantly different on parole (HR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.87, 1.47). Pre-sentence daily opioid use (HR = 3.54, 95% CI = 3.24, 3.87) was associated with an increased risk. Drug possession (HR = 1.11, 95% CI = 0.93, 1.31) and delivery convictions (HR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.77, 1.09) were not significantly associated with overdose mortality.ConclusionsBased on the absolute or relative risk, parole, probation and community settings are appropriate settings for enhanced overdose prevention interventions. Ensuring that individuals with pre-sentence opioid use have access to harm reduction and drug treatment services may help to prevent overdose among people involved with the criminal justice system

Parole and Probation in Alaska, 2002–2016

Underlying data is available in both Excel and PDF format. (Download below.)This fact sheet presents data on the characteristics of offenders who came under the supervision of the Alaska Department of Corrections, Division of Probation and Parole (DOC-PP) between 2002 and 2016. Probation and parole offender data are from the Alaska Department of Corrections’ annual Offender Profile publication. Overall trends saw numbers of probationers and parolees increasing from 2002 to 2012, then decreasing through 2016. The majority of probationers and parolees are between 20 and 34 years old. The trend for both males and females followed the overall trend, increasing from 2002 to 2012 then decreasing. On average, from 2002 to 2016, Alaska Natives were 26.7% of the probation and parole population, Asian & or Pacific Islander 4.1%, Black 8.7%, and White 56.1%.Overall / Age / Gender / Ethnicity / Summary / Note