Post Custodian Supervision; May 6^th – 13^th

Frontloading of services (first 90 days)

In a book (2014) and in an article (2014), Faith E. Lutze wrote that studies show the first 90 days are critical for offender reentry mainly due to technical violations; however, the two studies she cites for this information both find 180 days is critical not 90. That said research does show that the first 6 to 12 months are critical for offender reentry.  The list below has the resources related to the Lutze quote. If the resource does not have a link, it is a book and not available to read online.

These are the resources related to Lutze's statements: 
Grattet, Ryken, Joan Petersilia, Jeffrey Lin, and Marlene Beckman. “Parole Violations and Revocations in California: Analysis and Suggestions for Action’” 73, no. 1 (2009): 11. https://www.d.umn.edu/~jmaahs/Correctional%20Continuum/Online%20Readings/parole%20violations%20in%20CA.pdf

Hamilton, Zachary K., and Christopher M. Campbell. “A Dark Figure of Corrections: Failure by Way of Participation.” Criminal Justice and Behavior, January 17, 2013. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0093854812464219.
“What is unexpected is the relative lack of risk for new crimes early in the release process, where all other noncriminal returns typically occur between 6 months and just over 1 year. this finding is confirmed by Grattet et al. (2009), who indicate that the riskiest time for all technical violations occurs within the first 180 days of release.” (p. 197)

Langan, Patrick A, and David J Levin. “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994,” June 2002, 16. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf
Table 2 , page 3, in this report has recidivism rates for 6 months, 1 year, 2 years and 3 years. It is a statistical report. It does not make conclusions, but rather shares research findings. 

Lutze, Faith E. “Professional Lives of Community Corrections Officers: The Invisible Side of Reentry.” Accessed October 21, 2019.
"research consistently shows that offenders fail within the first 90 of reentry....(Chapter Six, page 187)”.

Lutze, Faith E., Jeffrey W. Rosky, and Zachary K. Hamilton. “Homelessness and Reentry: A Multisite Outcome Evaluation of Washington State’s Reentry Housing Program for High Risk Offenders.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 41, no. 4 (April 2014): 471–91. https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/436/2014/11/Criminal-Justice-and-Behavior-2014-Lutze-471-91.pdf.
“Immediately establishing residential stability may be critical for long term success, given that the majority of those who fail will do so within the first 3 to 6 months of release from prison (Hamilton & Campbell, 2013; Petersilia, 2003).” p. 471

Fabelo, Tony, Geraldine Nagy, and Seth Prins. “A Ten-Step Guide to Transforming Probation Departments to Reduce Recidivism – CSG Justice Center.” The Council of State Governments, April 9, 2013. https://csgjusticecenter.org/publications/ten-step-guide-to-transforming-probation-departments-to-reduce-recidivism/

Fontaine, Jocelyn, Samuel A. Taxy, Bryce Peterson, Justin Breaux, and Shelli B. Rossman. “Safer Return Demonstration: Impact Findings from the Research-Based Community Reentry Initiative.” Urban Institute, June 4, 2016. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/safer-return-demonstration-impact-findings-research-based-community-reentry-initiative.

Hlavka, Heather, Darren Wheelock, and Richard Jones. “Exoffender Accounts of Successful Reentry from Prison.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 54, no. 6 (September 8, 2015): 406–28. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10509674.2015.1057630.

Li, Melissa. “From Prisons to Communities: Confronting Re-Entry Challenges and Social Inequality.” Https://Www.Apa.Org (blog), March 2018. https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/indicator/2018/03/prisons-to-communities.

Mosteller, Jeremiah. “Why Reentry Programs Are Important.” Charles Koch Institute (blog). Accessed October 18, 2019. https://standtogethertrust.org/stories/reentry-programs/.

Pager, Devah. “Evidence-Based Policy for Successful Prisoner Reentry.” Criminology & Public Policy 5, no. 3 (August 2006): 505–14. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2006.00391.x.

Polaschek, Devon L. L., Julia A. Yesberg, and Preeti Chauhan. “A Year Without a Conviction: An Integrated Examination of Potential Mechanisms for Successful Reentry in High-Risk Violent Prisoners.” Criminal Justice & Behavior 45, no. 4 (April 2018): 425–46. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0093854817752757.

Urban Institute. “Returning Home Study: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry,” December 16, 2014. https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/justice-policy-center/projects/returning-home-study-understanding-challenges-prisoner-reentry.

Vigne, Nancy G. La, Elizabeth Davies, Tobi Palmer, and Robin Halberstadt. “Release Planning for Successful Reentry.” Urban Institute, June 4, 2016. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/release-planning-successful-reentry.

Release Conditions and Violations

Specialized Smartphones Could Keep Released Offenders on Track for Successful Reentry
Green, Brannon and Christopher Rigano. April, 2020.
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/specialized-smartphones-could-keep-released-persons-track-successful-reentry
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), in a 2019 grant program, is engaging researchers to find new pathways for using smartphones and other mobile devices to help offenders returning to the community. Initially, a research team from Purdue University plans to develop devices that deploy artificial intelligence (AI) to provide early warning of risky offender behavior, as well as tools to curb that behavior and help offenders comply with reentry conditions.

Leveraging The Power of Smarthphone Applications to Enhance Community Supervision. American Probation and Parole Association April 7, 2020.
https://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/APPA/stances/ip-LPSAECS.pdf
This paper will address the use of smartphone applications installed on a client’s personal device, or a device provided to the client, to be used in support of the community supervision process.

Victim Services

Working with Victims of Crime: An Integrated Approach for Community Supervision Professionals (032727)
https://info.nicic.gov/wwvc/
This Guide provides a comprehensive overview of available information on victims' rights and services. It is informed by the foundational work of many advocates, academics and community corrections professionals. While the Guide will outline specific tools and resources to inform your work, it is worth noting that there is no one size fits all approach that will work across all scenarios. There may be information in the Guide that will require you to self-reflect on your practice as it relates to the needs of victims, however, you are the best judge on how and when to use this resource.

Crime Victims and Offender Reentry-National Institute of Corrections
https://media.csosa.gov/podcast/audio/crime-victims-and-offender-reentry-national-institute-of-corrections-2/
Listen to this informative podcast, Crime Victims and Offender Reentry - National Institute of Corrections, from the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA). Aired on May 7, 2015, this radio show focuses on “promising programs throughout the country that are successfully integrating victims in the reentry process. The show also identifies resources and funding opportunities for jurisdictions wishing to improve victim services programming in their own areas.”

Community offender programming

Corrections & Reentry Programs. National Institute of Justice, https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/topics/corrections-reentry?ID=2

CrimeSolutions.gov assesses the strength of the evidence about whether these programs achieve criminal justice, juvenile justice, or crime victim services outcomes in order to inform practitioners and policy makers about what works, what doesn’t, and what’s promising.

A personalized approach to probation saved Arizona $461 million. April 2018. PBS NewsHour. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/a-personalized-approach-to-probation-saved-arizona-461-million
Arizona has saved millions of dollars by keeping people out of prison since it introduced a more rigorous adult probation program 10 years ago. With classes that help people on probation create goals and learn coping skills, violations have declined by 29 percent. NewsHour Weekend’s Christopher Booker talks to some of the people who have benefited from the overhaul. (8 min. video)

Duwe, Grant. "The Use and Impact of Correctional Programming for Inmates on Pre- and Post-Release Outcomes" (2017) https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/250476.pdf

This paper reviews the available evidence on the impact of institutional programming on pre- and post-release outcomes for prisoners. Given the wide variety of institutional interventions provided to inmates in state and federal prisons, this paper focuses on programming that: (1) is known to be provided to prisoners, (2) has been evaluated, and (3) addresses the main criminogenic needs, or dynamic risk factors, that existing research has identified. This paper, therefore, examines the empirical evidence on educational programming, employment programming, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), chemical dependency (CD) and sex offender treatment, social support programming, mental health interventions, domestic violence programming, and prisoner re-entry programs. In addition to reviewing the evidence on the effects of these interventions on pre- and post-release outcomes, this paper identifies several broad conclusions that can be drawn about the effectiveness of institutional programming, discusses gaps in the literature, and proposes a number of directions for future research.

Dosage

This study seeks to identify the number of hours of treatment that are necessary to reduce recidivism in a sample of offenders placed in a residential community corrections facility. The risk principle suggests that effective correctional interventions should vary the intensity of treatment by offender risk, with higher risk offenders receiving more intense services than lower risk offenders. Although much research indicates that programs that target higher risk cases are more likely to be effective, relatively little research has examined the impact of varying levels of treatment dosage by risk. This study found that recidivism was reduced if high-risk offenders are given 200 hours or more of treatment, while low-and moderate-risk offenders need 100 hours or more.

Baber, Laura M. and James L. Johnson. " Early Termination of Supervision: No Compromise to Community Safety." Federal Probation Journal (2013) 77:2. https://www.uscourts.gov/federal-probation-journal/2013/09/early-termination-supervision-no-compromise-community-safety

The authors compare rearrest rates over three years of early-termed offenders with a matched group of offenders who served their entire supervision term and found that offenders granted early termination posed no greater danger to the community than offenders who served a full term of supervision.

Success, Desistance and Relationships Between Probation Officers and Probationers: A Social Work Perspective, 2013: https://sophia.stkate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1157&context=msw_papers

Effective Responses to Offender Behavior: Lessons Learned from Probation and Parole Supervision: https://nicic.gov/resources/nic-library/all-library-items/effective-responses-offender-behavior-lessons-learned

Behavior Management of Justice-Involved Individuals: Contemporary Research and State-of-the-Art Policy and Practice: https://nicic.gov/resources/nic-library/all-library-items/behavior-management-justice-involved-individuals

Motivating Offenders to Change: A Guide for Probation and Parole: https://nicic.gov/resources/nic-library/all-library-items/motivating-offenders-change-guide-probation-and-parole

Factors that contribute to success of probationers: Probation officers’ point of view (thesis), 2011: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.892.6768&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Risk, need and responsivity principles