Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

3 Parole: Current Practices
Pages 32-39

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 32...
... Parole agents increasingly emphasize their police function and deemphasize the casework portion of their role (Petersilia, 2003; Solomon, Kachnowski, and Bhati, 2005) ; yet there is wide variation across agencies.
From page 33...
... Such checking in varies from mailing in a form to a parole officer, to a periodic phone call to a clerical staff person, to a face-to-face visit with a parole agent. In a keynote address before the Corrections Technology Association, the director of the New York City Probation Services described that agency's automated check-in procedure with regard to probationers, most of whom never have been to prison (Horn, 2002, p.
From page 34...
... of intensive supervision parole and probation programs in nine states, found that offenders in intensive supervision programs had relatively the same number of subsequent arrests, but more technical violations and returns to incarceration, than their nonintensive supervision program counterparts. However, if those programs combined drug treatment, community service, and employment programs with surveillance, recidivism rates were 10 to 20 percent lower than for those who did not participate in such activities.
From page 35...
... . Although caseload size has not been shown to affect recidivism among parolees, one can assume that caseload sizes are not limitless: neither effective supervision nor treatment is as likely when the number of persons being supervised overwhelms the capacity of parole officers and agents. Although the argument for focusing resources simply on caseload size has not been supported, it is possible that very large caseloads diminish the effectiveness of other strategies.
From page 36...
... The overall shift towards a crime control model of parole in recent decades and variations across agencies in how they define their mission create a challenge for some reforms when they do not align with an agency, an office, or agents' cultures. For example, if a new treatment regime is tried in an agency that is primarily focused on surveillance, parole agents may be less likely to implement the treatment as the treatment designers and even their supervisors intend.
From page 37...
... Some jurisdictions have turned to or partnered with law enforcement to buttress the supervision of parolees. The Washington State Department of Corrections, in its neighborhood corrections initiative, has assigned corrections officers to ride with police in what is known on the streets of Seattle as the "jump out van." The teams proactively patrol the streets, working exclusively in transient, urban, and homeless areas to provide an unparalleled level of supervision of releasees and a bridge to services ranging from drug treatment and housing to socks, food, water, and shelter (Northwest Law Enforcement and Public Safety Training, 2006)
From page 38...
... . While parole officers in some agencies may arrest individuals, particularly for noncriminal violations of specific parole conditions, other officers may elect to have sworn police officers make such arrests, and some agencies require it.
From page 39...
... Other parole rules -- such as curfews, stay-away orders, and requirements to appear at work or for treatment -- can be verified by electronic monitoring. The level of contentiousness that sometimes characterizes this debate over violating specified conditions of parole may be lessened by combining realistic and enforceable release conditions with graduated incentives and consequences (i.e., graduated responses)


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.