Profiles in Parole Release and Revocation Kentucky

Sentences imposed in Kentucky are for a specific number of years (i.e. "three years"); referred to as a "fixed" sentence in state statute. Kentucky does not have sentencing guide-lines or a sentencing commission. Parole was first authorized in Kentucky in 1888. In 1900, the Board of Prison Commissioners was granted releasing authority. A full-time parole board was established in 1962 and, most recently, was expanded to nine members in 2010. In 2011, HB 463 (the Offender Accountability Act) passed; as a result, parole release now requires risk and needs assessment, parolees can complete some correctional programming in the community, and many other changes have been made. In 2012, some provisions were modified by HB 54, a bill that allowed the Department of Corrections to set special conditions of parole based on risk assessment. Finally, in 2015, SB 192 modified parole release for some serious heroin offenses and now requires cost calculations for reentry services for those with opiate or other drug addictions

Profiles in Parole Release and Revocation Idaho

Idaho has had a parole release authority since 1899. Idaho's sentencing framework requires judges to impose a minimum length of incarceration in each felony case; judges may also impose a subsequent indeterminate term of incarceration, during which an inmate may be eligible for parole. Idaho law also imposes mandatory minimum sentences for some crimes. Idaho does not have a sentencing commission or sentencing guidelines

Evaluating time-lapse borehole gravity for CO2 plume detection at SECARB Cranfield

Bureau of Economic Geolog

Profiles in Probation Revocation: Examining the Legal Framework in 21 States

This report compiles—in a convenient format—the results of a yearlong research project on the laws relating to probation revocation in 21 American states. 2 By leafing through the four-page "legal profiles" presented in this volume, readers can easily see how much variation exists in statewide laws of probation and probation revocation, while zeroing in on issues of greatest interest. Whether a reader's jurisdiction is included in the report's 21 states or not, the legal profiles contain a wealth of information that will allow for comparison with one's own system. We think every reader—no matter how experienced in the field—will come across practices or ideas in this study that they never heard of before.The report assumes that American states have much to learn from one another. Justice Louis Brandeis famously believed that the states can serve as "laboratories" for innovations in law and policy, so that best practices can emerge and be brought to the attention of other states for possible adoption or adaptation. 3 In order for Brandeis's laboratory to be a reality, however, the states must have some way of learning about the practices of other jurisdictions. In an increasingly complex and specialized world, this is a daunting task—and one that often requires a heavy investment in research. The Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice has made such an investment in this report. We hope it will allow readers to see their home jurisdictions in new perspective, and will further the nationwide process of dialogue and improvement that Justice Brandeis envisioned.This introduction gives a short overview of why the subject matter is important and how the report fits within a larger Probation Revocation Project launched by the Robina Institute in 2013. The introduction will also discuss the ambitions, scope, limitations, and uses of the state legal profiles

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

Profiles in Parole Release and Revocation Iowa

Iowa does not have a sentencing commission or sentencing guidelines. It is an indeterminate sentencing state that has, over time, adopted mandatory minimum penalties for certain crimes. Its Board of Parole was established in 1907, and has operated continuously since

Comparison of hypertension healthcare outcomes among older people in the USA and England

Funding: Economic and Social Research Council. G1001375/1. Medical Research Council. G1001375/1. US Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. National Institute on Aging. 2R01 AG030153.Background The US and England have very different health systems. Comparing hypertension care outcomes in each country enables an evaluation of the effectiveness of each system. Method The English Longitudinal Study of Ageing and the Health and Retirement Survey are used to compare the prevalence of controlled, uncontrolled and undiagnosed hypertension in the population aged over 50 in the US and in England. Results Controlled hypertension is more prevalent in the US (age 50 to 64: 0.53 (0.50-0.57) and age 65+: 0.51 (0.49-0.53)) than in England (age 50 to 64: 0.45 (0.42-0.48) and age 65+: 0.42 (0.40-0.45)). This difference is driven by lower undiagnosed hypertension in the US (age 50 to 64: 0.18 (0.15-0.21) and age 65+: 0.13 (0.12-0.14)) relative to England (age 50 to 64: 0.26 (0.24-0.29) and age 65+: 0.22 (0.20-0.24)). The prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension is very similar in the US (age 50 to 64: 0.29 (0.26-0.32) and age 65+: 0.36 (0.34-0.38)) and England (age 50 to 64: 0.29 (0.26-0.32) and age 65+: 0.36 (0.34-0.39)). Hypertension care outcomes are comparable across US insurance categories. In both countries undiagnosed hypertension is positively correlated with wealth (ages 50-64). Uncontrolled hypertension declines with rising wealth in the US. Conclusions Different diagnostic practices are likely to drive the cross-country differences in undiagnosed hypertension. US government health systems perform at least as well as private health care and are more equitable in the distribution of care outcomes. Higher undiagnosed hypertension among the affluent may reflect less frequent medical contact.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe