Caregivers of Children with Incarcerated Parents

With rising attention toward the plight of children with incarcerated parents, there has, as yet, been little focus placed on the adults who care for them, individuals who may have a profound impact on the children\u27s relationships with their incarcerated parent. This study explores unique parenting challenges the caregivers faced, from their perspectives and presents their voices. Caregivers discussed the strain of serving as a gatekeeper between the child and imprisoned parent, coping with stigma and isolation, and negotiating a predominantly child-unfriendly visitation system. The findings suggest that caregivers need information about raising a child in this context, connections with others in similar situations, and a more child-friendly and transparent judicial and visitation process

Children of Incarcerated Parents: Challenges and Resiliency, in Their Own Words

This study explores the impact of parental incarceration on children, from the children\u27s own perspectives. The sample includes thirty-four children interviewed regarding how having a parent in prison affected their family and peer relationships, school experiences, their reactions to prison visits, and perceptions of prison. The interviews explored both their challenges and their strengths. The children revealed a variety stresses around social isolation and worrying about their caregivers, but also demonstrated resilience in locating venues for support and self-sufficiency. Recommendations for policy, service, and community actions and interventions are presented

Decreasing Organizational Autonomy of Paroling Authorities

In recent years, there has been a significant decrease in the number of states that have fully independent and autonomous releasing authorities

Probation Revocation and Its Causes: Profiles of State and Local Jurisdictions, Ramsey County, Minnesota

This profile describes how probation violations and revocations work in Ramsey County. Due to the size of the county, the interviews are only from a sample of representatives involved in probation violations and revocations. Interviewees commented that because Ramsey is a large county with over 12,000 individuals on probation, caseloads can be high, and at times there can be a great deal of work. Interview participants shared the importance of all players in the criminal justice system working as a team to handle the high volume of cases. However, working together and being on the same page was sometimes a challenge. When the interview participants were asked what they would like to change about how probation violations are currently handled in Ramsey County, many expressed an interest in improving the relationships between probation officers, attorneys, and judges. One probation officer stated they would like to have increased communication with judges and that they would like judges to trust the probation department more – specifically, to trust that the probationdepartment is using evidence-based practices to the best of their ability

Probation Revocation and Its Causes: Profiles of State and Local Jurisdictions, Bell County, Texas

This profile describes the structure and operations of probation in one county in Texas. It presents the perspectives of the individuals who participate in the county's probation system and how they navigate issues surrounding probation violations and revocations. The picture it paints is one of a complex system, tasked with ensuring that those under supervision abide by a lengthy list of conditions and remain crime-free, all while working within the realities of probationers' daily lives. Though many of the probationers had limited financial means, the probation system in Bell County—and across the state—is largelyfunded by probationers' fees, turning probation officers into "bill collectors" to finance the system and burdening the probationers who already struggle with financial instability

Probation Revocation and Its Causes: Profiles of State and Local Jurisdictions, Hennepin County, Minnesota

This profile describes the structure and operations of probation violations in Hennepin County. Hennepin County Probation is a large department with over 900 probation staff, 65 judges and many more public defenders, city and county attorneys. Interviews were only conducted with a small sample of professionals and probationers involved in probation violations and revocations. The county attorneys are also not represented in this profile as they declined participation in the interviews

Probation Revocation and Its Causes: Profiles of State and Local Jurisdictions, Wharton and Matagorda Counties, Texas

This report summarizes findings from interviews with criminal justice professionals involved in probation violations and revocations in 2 rural counties in Texas, as well as from a sample of individuals on probation. The profile also describes the organizational structure and demographics of probation within these counties. Dealing with probation violations in a small rural county can be difficult because of limited resources that are available to respond to violations. There are limited treatment options and other community based sanctions as well as virtually no public transportation to assist probationers then there are options. Probation officers stated they would like more services to help probationers deal with issues such as drug problems, criminogenic thinking, and mental health

Releasing Authority Chairs: A Comparative Snapshot Across Three Decades

This report provides a comparative analysis of releasing authority chairs' views of the issues and challenges confronting them at two points in time: 1988 and 2015. Drawing from two surveys, one conducted during the tenure of an ACA Parole Task Force that functioned from 1986-1988, and the other a survey published in 2016 by the Robina Institute called The Continuing Leverage of Releasing Authorities: Findings from a National Survey, this new publication highlights both change and constancy relative to a wide range of comparative markers including, but not limited to, structured decision tools, prison crowding and risk aversion, and the myriad factors considered in granting or denying parole

The Continuing Leverage of Releasing Authorities: Findings from a National Survey

The Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice launched a national survey of releasing authorities in March 2015 to each state, and the U.S. Parole Commission. The importance of the survey was underscored by an endorsement from the Association of Paroling Authorities International (APAI). We are pleased to present the results from this important survey here. This is the first comprehensive survey of parole boards completed in nearly 10 years. Its findings provide a rich database for better understanding the policy and practice of paroling authorities. The last survey to be conducted of paroling authorities was in 2007/2008.The current report offers an expansion and update of previous surveys. The results summarized throughout the report offer a timely resource for paroling authorities, correctional policy-makers and practitioners, legislators, and those with a public policy interest in sentencing and criminal justice operations. It is our hope that the document and its findings provide key justice system and other stakeholders with an incisive snapshot of the work of paroling authorities across the country in a manner that contributes to a larger conversation about sound and effective parole release and revocation practices.The completion of this comprehensive survey and the reporting of its findings offers a timely and invaluable resource for releasing authorities. It provides them and other key justice system stakeholders with a comparative understanding of their colleagues' work across the nation, and contributes to a larger conversation pertaining to effective parole release and revocation practices

Exploring Supervision Fees in Four Probation Jurisdictions in Texas

In 2014, the University of Minnesota's Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice began a multi-state study that was tasked with exploring nationwide variations in the practices and policies of probation violations and revocations. A distinctive finding that grew out of the Robina Institute's work in two Texas counties was that probation supervision fees play a major role throughout the state. Probationers are required as one of 25 standard conditions to pay supervision fees, and—depending on the case— they may have to pay additional program fees, fines, and restitution. Texas probation departments depend on supervision fees for a large share of their operating budgets, and they are responsible for collecting those fees. Because payment of fees is a formal condition of probation, probationers may be sanctioned if they fall delinquent. Additionally, their probation terms may be extended to allow more time to pay, or early termination may be denied. In interviews, some probationers believed they could be revoked to jail or prison for failure to pay supervision fees. However, we heard from probation officers that probationers were not revoked solely for fees. The officers told us that nonpayment may be one reason probationers are revoked, but only when combined with other violations.The Robina Institute was encouraged by other probation chiefs in Texas to add additional counties to our study. To understand the interaction between probation and criminal justice fees in greater depth, the Robina Institute conducted a mixed methods study with 4 probation jurisdictions in Texas. Quantitative data was analyzed to examine the average amount of fees ordered, the breakdown of the fees ordered, and the percent of probationers who were current and delinquent on their fees. The quantitative analysis also examined the outcomes for those who were delinquent on their fees. Qualitative interviews were conducted with probationers to understand how fees impacted them and their experience of probation, as well as how they handled paying their fees. Probation officers were also interviewed to examine how fees were utilized and how officers collected fees.This report highlights some of the findings from qualitative interviews with over 50 probation officers and 46 probationers in 4 probation jurisdictions. A separate report highlights our quantitative findings; future Robina Institute publications will explore the quantitative and qualitative data in greater depth, as well as legal issues associated with the imposition and collection of supervision fees.The first section of this report presents findings from the focus groups with the probation officers. The second section focuses on findings from the probationer focus groups