Skip navigation

The Pew Public Safety Policy Brief Condition Violation 2007

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Smart Responses to Parole and Probation
Smart
Violations
Responses to Parole and Probation Violations
No. 3 Q November 2007

No. 3 Q November 2007

When Offenders
Break the Rules
Smart Responses to Parole and Probation Violations
Public Safety Policy Brief

No. 3 | November 2007

Executive Summary

T

he incarceration of offenders who break the rules of their probation
or parole is one of the chief reasons for the rapid growth of prison and jail
populations and costs. Over 230,000 parole violators were admitted to
prison in 2005, accounting for more than one-third of all admissions.1 Half the U.S.
jail population is the consequence of failure under community supervision.2
Some of these offenders are returning to lock-ups for committing new criminal
acts. Others are revoked to prison for violations of their parole and probation
conditions, non-criminal offenses such as missing appointments or failing drug
tests. A growing body of analysis and experience suggests a strategy that can boost
the success of people on parole and probation, keeping them crime- and drug-free
and thereby saving more prison beds for violent, serious and chronic offenders.
Some states return a high percentage of probationers and parolees to prison for
breaking the rules of their release; others do not. The decision to seek revocation of
community supervision can be inconsistent, the result of wide variability in staff
members’ interpretation of when revocation is appropriate. Revocation rates also vary
widely within a single state—high in one region, much lower in another—and even
among judges and parole officers in the same district. This raises questions about evenhandedness and fundamental fairness. It also suggests a significant opportunity to be
more strategic in using the power to revoke release.
A Shifting Perspective. Most offenders
occasionally violate some condition of
their community supervision. A
common violation involves the use of
illicit drugs or alcohol, since the
standard conditions of parole or
probation usually require addicted
offenders to stay clean and sober, or to
participate in treatment that may be
unavailable or difficult to access.
Unskilled and uneducated offenders
must be continually employed, seeking

In this brief
Q Condition violation
or new crime? ......................3

Q Revocation rates
vary widely ............................4

Q Elements of a
strategic approach................5

Q Action steps
for policy makers..................7

Public Safety Performance Project Q www.pewpublicsafety.org

1

Smart Responses to Parole and Probation
Smart
Violations
Responses to Parole and Probation Violations
No. 3 Q November 2007

No. 3 Q November 2007

Executive Summary

continued from page 1

employment or attending school. Indigent offenders must have a stable residence,
pay court fees, fines and restitution, and support all dependents.
The Pew Charitable Trusts
1025 F Street, NW Suite 900
Washington, DC 20004-1409
www.pewtrusts.org

ABOUT THE PROJECT
Launched in 2006 as a project of Pew's
Center on the States, the Public Safety
Performance Project seeks to help states
advance fiscally sound, data-driven policies
and practices in sentencing and corrections
that protect public safety, hold offenders
accountable, and control corrections costs.
The Pew Charitable Trusts applies
the power of knowledge to solve today’s
most challenging problems. Our Pew
Center on the States identifies and
advances effective policy approaches
to critical issues facing states.

ABOUT THIS BRIEF
This document is part of a series of primers
for policy makers about the critical choices
they face in developing strategies to
improve the public safety return on
taxpayer dollars. For more on this topic, see
our companion publications—key questions
for policy makers and a case study of
parole violator reforms in Texas—and visit
our website at www.pewpublicsafety.org.

Innovative judges and correctional administrators believe that many individuals
who have violated the conditions of their release can be managed safely and costeffectively in the community rather than returned to expensive prison cells. They
increasingly are relying on a strategic approach that includes incarceration of highrisk offenders who present an imminent danger of reoffending and a problemsolving combination of penalties, rewards and services to those who pose less risk to
public safety. The strategy seeks to protect the community, to hold violators
accountable with interventions that address the reasons for the violations, and to
reduce reincarceration and the resulting costs to taxpayers.

Defining the Issue
Federal and state governments over
recent years have invested significant
and growing funds in expanding
corrections systems. From 1977 to
2003, state and local expenditures for
corrections increased by 1,173 percent,
far outstripping growth rates for
education (505 percent), hospital and
health care (572 percent), interest on

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

debt (577 percent), and public welfare

This document was written by Peggy Burke
in collaboration with Adam Gelb and
Jake Horowitz. Ms. Burke is a Principal
with the Center for Effective Public Policy
where she directs projects in the areas of
offender transition and reentry, responses
to parole and probation violations, court
innovation, offender classification,
sentencing policy, and strategic planning.
Mr. Gelb is Director of, and Mr. Horowitz
is a Senior Associate on, the Public Safety
Performance Project.

(766 percent).3 Between 1982 and
2003, state correctional expenditures
increased 550 percent from $6 billion
to $39 billion, far above the 184
percent increase that would have been
expected from inflation alone.4 In
2005, the average annual operating
cost per inmate nationwide was
estimated to be $23,876, although costs

ABOUT THE REVIEWERS

varied greatly by state, region, and

This document was peer reviewed by
Judith Sachwald and Dale Parent. Ms.
Sachwald was most recently the Director
of the Maryland Division of Probation and
Parole. Mr. Parent recently retired from
Abt Associates, Inc., where for the past
20 years he conducted research and
planning on sentencing alternatives,
performance-based standards in criminal
justice, and prisoner reentry.

security level of inmates.5 Some states

While these experts have screened the
report for methodology and accuracy,
neither they nor their current or former
organizations necessarily endorse its
findings or conclusions.

population ages and as corrections

have been able to reduce per capita
costs in the very recent past while other
states have experienced increases. In
general, most analysts expect
continuing increases in per capita
corrections costs as the inmate
administrators find it harder to

squeeze additional efficiencies out of
their budgets.
Increasing costs primarily reflect the
growth in prison and jail populations
nationwide. Between 1980 and 2006,
the prison population of the U.S. more
than quadrupled to 1.55 million.6 Not
only have the absolute numbers of
inmates increased, but the rate of
incarceration has risen dramatically as
well. Between 1995 and 2006, the
incarceration rate grew from 601 to
750 jail or prison inmates per 100,000
citizens— a 25 percent increase. At
mid-year 2006, one in every 133 U.S.
residents was in prison or jail.7
The population of individuals who are
at risk of violating the terms of their
release—and being sent to prison or
jail—is large and growing. At year-end
2001, there were 312 state parolees per
100,000 adult U.S. residents, up from
271 in 1990 and 123 in 1980. In
absolute terms, 656,320 releases from
state and federal prison were reported
in 2003.8 For state prison releases, this
was a 50 percent increase since 1990.9
The probation population is even
larger, and growing. In 2005, there were
4.2 million people on probation in the
community, up from 3 million in 1995.10

2 Public Safety Performance Project Q www.pewpublicsafety.org

Smart Responses to Parole and Probation Violations
No. 3 Q November 2007

parole violations.12 In fact, leading

Violators: A Leading
Driver of Prison
Population Growth

criminal justice scholars observe that
shifts in practices with respect to
parole release and reincarceration for
parole violations accounted for 60

The chief cause of the growth in

percent of the increase in the nation’s

incarceration has not been higher

prison population between 1992 and

crime rates, but rather stricter

2001.13 The number of parolees

sentencing and release policies put in

revoked and sent to prison in 2005

place by all three branches of

was 232,000, up from 133,900 in

government. Judges are more likely to

1990.14 The same is true among

sentence felons to prison for longer

probationers: in 2004, 330,000

terms. Legislatures have passed more

probationers were revoked and sent to

mandatory minimum sentences,

jail, up from 222,000 in 1990.15

especially for drug offenders. And
parole boards have held inmates in

Many of those revoked to prison have

prison longer before deciding to

been convicted of new crimes, either

release them. They also are more likely

misdemeanors or felonies. And some

than in the past to revoke individuals

cases that could have been handled as

on parole and return them to prison.11

new criminal prosecutions are, instead,
processed administratively as parole

An analysis of data over the past 25

violations, often to avoid the delays and

years finds an important shift in the

costs that attend new criminal court

source of population growth. From

cases. A significant number of returns,

1980 to 1992, crime trends and the

however, are solely for violations of the

number of commitments to prison per

conditions of probation or parole—

arrest were most significant in driving

acts, such as missing treatment

prison populations. In contrast, data

sessions, which otherwise are not

from 1992 to 2001 show a significantly

crimes. In some states, these so-called

greater influence from longer time

“technical” or “condition” violators

served in prison, including time

account for more than half of all those

served as a result of recommitment for

returned to prison.16

Parole vs. Probation

Condition Violation
or New Crime?
Sometimes the criminal justice system
processes new arrests of people on
probation or parole as condition
violations rather than new crimes. By
revoking an offender’s release
through the administrative violations
process, prosecutors and judges avoid
further clogging the courts with new
criminal cases, while also achieving
the goal of removing the offender
from the community.
Some analysts suggest that if there is
new criminal behavior it should be
charged and prosecuted in all cases.
Anything less holds the determination
of guilt to a lower burden of proof, and
could result in more time served for
revocations than would result from
prosecution and sentencing by a court.
Others argue that revocation is a
quicker and more appropriate way to
sanction lower-level offenses without
burdening court dockets.
Available statistics do not paint a clear
picture of the degree to which returns
to prison for probation and parole
violations involve solely breaking the
rules of supervision or also involve
significant new criminal behavior. Many
analysts believe that about half of the
condition violators sent to prison were
revoked for new criminal acts. But the
actual figures can be determined only
by studies within individual states.

In some states, judges may order “split sentences,” a period of
probation supervision to be served after release from prison or jail.

Probation and parole are very similar in that they both involve
supervision of offenders in the community and require them to
comply with a set of rules or face incarceration. The key differences
between the two are in how they are ordered and when they typically
occur. Probation is ordered by a judge in court at the time of
sentencing instead of a prison term. Parole, on the other hand,

Much of this briefing is based on parole research because more is
known nationally about this population than about probationers.
There is only one parole board in each state, making parole data
collection much more simple than gathering probation data,
which in many states is kept by local courts. Although the
impact of probation violators on prison populations is hard to

involves supervision in the community after serving time in prison.

quantify, these violations have some of the same effects on

The timing of release is, in most cases, determined by the offender’s

prison growth and public safety as do parole violations. Several

original sentence and sometimes credit for satisfactory behavior

jurisdictions across the nation have focused on developing a

(“good time credit”). In a small percentage of cases, parole boards

more structured and strategic approach to probation violations.

determine the timing of release. Once on parole, however, parole

Most of the analysis and many of the recommendations in this

boards set conditions and make decisions as to revocation of parole.

briefing can be applied to both populations.

Public Safety Performance Project Q www.pewpublicsafety.org

3

Smart Responses to Parole and Probation Violations
No. 3 Q November 2007

If current trends continue, states are

Types of
Violations

likely to see increasing numbers of

Offenders placed on probation
by a court or on parole by a
paroling authority must abide by
a set of rules, or conditions of
supervision, while they are in the
community. There are two types
of conditions:

who could be managed in the

■

General conditions
that apply to all offenders,
such as obeying all laws,
abstaining from alcohol and
drug use, maintaining
employment, and reporting
regularly to the probation or
parole officer. While these
are common requirements,
general conditions of
supervision vary among the
states and can differ among
court districts within a state.

■

Special conditions that
are directed toward individual
offenders and the risks they
pose, such as requirements to
attend treatment, submit to
drug testing, avoid certain
places such as bars or areas
where children congregate, or
stay away from certain people
such as prior victims. Courts
and parole boards often add
up to a dozen special
conditions to an offender’s list
of requirements.

Taken together, the general and
special conditions are intended to
help monitor offenders, keep
them away from risky situations,
and link them with resources that
will reduce the chances of
recidivism. They also define a
range of expectations that, should
offenders fail to comply, can
result in punishment in the
community or return to prison.
When an offender breaks the
rules, it is often called a
“technical” or condition violation.

parole and probation violators
admitted to prison. Those violators
community tie up prison beds that

“…the choices states
make in responding to
violations of parole

could be used for more dangerous
offenders, which risks public safety and

vary widely and those

hikes correctional costs.

choices have enormous
Revocation Rates Vary
Widely Among States
Research on releases and
recommitments to prison in California

implications for prison
populations, costs and

and Illinois shows that different
policies and practices result in radically

public safety.”

different rates at which violators are
returned to prison.17

in California, where more than half of

Based on a study of all prisoners in

all released prisoners are recommitted

those states released in 1995 and

more than once during their parole

tracked through 2001, the percent of

period. Remember that paroling

released prisoners reincarcerated for

authorities have discretion about

new crimes ranges from 30 in

whether to reincarcerate an offender

California to 52 in Illinois. (See chart.)

guilty of a technical violation, or to

The percent of released prisoners who

impose an intermediate sanction in the

are reincarcerated for violations of

community. These statistics

parole during that same time period

demonstrate that the choices states

ranges from 2.5 percent in Illinois to

make in responding to violations of

35.8 percent in California.

parole vary widely and those choices

Recommitments for parole violations

have enormous implications for prison

per 100 releases reached a high of 209

populations, costs and public safety.

California

Illinois

Prisoners released in 1995: 92,997

Prisoners released in 1995: 21,598

4 Public Safety Performance Project Q www.pewpublicsafety.org

Number
returned
by 2001
66%

for a new
offense
30.2%
for a
technical
violation
35.8%

for a new
offense
51.6%

for a technical
violation
2.5%

Number
returned
by 2001
54.1%

Smart Responses to Parole and Probation Violations
No. 3 Q November 2007

hearings or actually revoked to prison.

Current Practice:
Three Approaches

about prohibiting recommitment to
prison as a result of a probation or

Experience from work on violations by

parole violation. Such an approach can

the National Institute of Corrections

limit the ability to quickly remove

(NIC), an agency of the U.S.

offenders from the street when they

Department of Justice, indicates that it

present an imminent risk, in effect

is typical for 75 to 80 percent of

telling supervision agencies to wait

parolees to be, at one time or another,

until a crime is committed to take

in violation of some condition of their

action to protect the community.

violations should not hide the fact that

Overly-prescriptive limits on revocations

they vary widely in terms of severity

also remove the ability to incarcerate

and risk to the community.

violators who repeatedly and blatantly
refuse to comply with requirements for

States have developed three broad

treatment or other conditions designed

approaches to handling these

to reduce their risk of reoffending. For

violations. They can be characterized as

example, an offender might be revoked

unstructured, prescriptive and strategic.

if he had a history of domestic violence

Q Unstructured. When NIC began

and is found contacting a victim he was

practices in the late 1980s,19 it became
clear that there was very little policy,
clear sense of purpose, or specific
criteria that guided staff in decisions
about how to respond to rule violations.
Revocation rates varied dramatically

prohibited from contacting as a
condition of supervision. An offender
who has been assessed as high risk,
particularly because of his criminal
associates, could be revoked for being
in the company of gang members who
were his former co-defendants.

among line officers, supervisors, and

Q Strategic. As early as 1997, NIC-

regions within the same state—the

sponsored work found that revocation

consequence of a diffuse network of

rates could be reduced without increases

unstructured decisions. While there has

in new crime.20 NIC’s recent work in

been no comprehensive research that

three states helped cut the percentage of

catalogs the details of states’ approaches

total caseloads revoked to prison for

to violations, experience on a range of

parole violations and decreased the

national technical assistance efforts

percentage of admissions to prison as a

supported by NIC indicates that while a

result of violations with no

number of states are attempting to be

corresponding increase in new criminal

more strategic in responding to

behavior among those supervised.21

violations, most practice remains

Encouraged by such results, parole and

relatively unstructured in this regard.

probation agencies are beginning to

Q Prescriptive. At the other extreme

adopt similar strategies, developing tools

is an approach that prescribes in law or
regulation which violators must or
cannot be brought to revocation

This third approach to parole
violations may be characterized as
strategic because it includes a clear
definition of desired outcomes,
corresponding policies and tools, and
measurement of performance. This
approach has its roots in the work NIC
conducted for many years on
“structured decision making” for
parole release and supervision.22

supervision.18 But the prevalence of

studying probation and parole violation

through sanctions in the community.

There is discussion in some states

The implications for public safety are
promising. If violators are judged
according to their risk of reoffending,
with priority placed on quick
reimprisonment in high-risk cases,
then safety can be enhanced. At the
same time, if violations by offenders
having difficulty with substance abuse,
mental health, and similar issues can
be identified for problem-solving
interventions that prevent future
criminal behavior, then community
safety can be even more effectively
enhanced, and at lower cost than
revocation and reincarceration.

Elements of a
Strategic Approach
The critical first step for states
interested in better handling of
violations is a careful analysis of
current policies and practices. These
policies and practices can be designed
to enhance the likelihood of successful
completion of supervision, with
violations becoming used as an
opportunity to intervene with
offenders and redirect their behavior.

and policies that help determine which

Key elements of this strategic approach

violators should be taken off the street

include the following:

and which can be held accountable

Public Safety Performance Project Q www.pewpublicsafety.org

5

Smart Responses to Parole and Probation Violations
No. 3 Q November 2007

Collaboration Between

offenders accountable for their actions,

that can be changed and that research

Releasing Authority and

and helping them become productive,

has identified as chief drivers of

Supervision Agency. Typically, the

law-abiding citizens. This balanced

criminal behavior, such as low self-

decision-maker with authority over

mission differs markedly from the

control and substance abuse.

release or revocation—the judge or the

notion that the job of probation and

parole board—is separate from the

parole officers is to monitor and revoke

agency responsible for actually

individuals who are not in compliance

supervising offenders on probation or

with the conditions of their release.

parole. Yet because their

Identifying agency goals, establishing

responsibilities are so intertwined, it is

clear policies, communicating

difficult to conceive of a “strategic”

expectations to staff, and providing

approach to violations without the

options short of revocation to prison are

close collaboration of these two

the important elements of this strategy.

entities. In those states where such
strategic approaches have been
developed, there has been a conscious
effort to involve the court or releasing
authority and the supervision agency in
defining and implementing changes.

Structured Discretion. Parole and
probation supervision staff need
discretion so they can respond
appropriately to different situations. On
the other hand, clear policies that guide
staff, particularly as to when revocation
should be pursued, help agencies
pursue their public safety and fiscal
goals. Many agencies are requiring

Good Risk Assessment

higher levels of approval to issue a

Tools. Supervision agencies need

warrant or begin the revocation process.

to understand offender risk to make

These include supervisory approval and

strategic decisions about how to

the use of centralized “warrant units”

respond to specific violations. States

that review requests and assure

that develop, implement, maintain and

consistency and adherence to policy.

Clarifying the Goals of

evaluate research-based risk assessment

Supervision. Correctional policy

tools improve their ability to make

over the past decade has increasingly

sound decisions in individual cases and

recognized that the successful

at the policy level. These tools should

completion of community supervision—

be so-called “third generation”

with no new offenses

instruments that include both “static”

and no new victims—is in the best

factors—things about the offender that

interests of public safety. The three most

can’t be changed, such as their prior

important goals of supervision

criminal records and age at first arrest,

are protecting the public, holding

and “dynamic” factors—characteristics

Graduated Responses. Violations
vary in terms of severity and the risk
they represent to the community.
Supervision agencies are beginning to
craft policy and garner resources that
support front-line officers with a
continuum of practical, communitybased sanctions. Missing a meeting
with the probation officer might result
in imposition of community service
hours, and repeated failures to comply

“Agencies without a continuum
of sanctions and services to
address these situations will
deliver either a slap on the
wrist or revocation to prison,
neither of which provides a
level of accountability
proportionate to the violation.”

with rules could lead to placement of
the offender in a day reporting center.
Swiftness and Certainty. In addition
to being scaled according to the
severity of the offense and the risk of
the offender, sanctions for probation
and parole violations should be
delivered as certainly and swiftly as
possible. Sanctions lose their deterrent
impact if they happen arbitrarily or too
long after the violation has occurred.
Courts and parole boards need to
construct procedures that minimize
paperwork and speed the imposition of

6 Public Safety Performance Project Q www.pewpublicsafety.org

Smart Responses to Parole and Probation Violations
No. 3 Q November 2007

sanctions. Some mechanisms, such as

difficulties finding or keeping a job, and

Policymakers should expect

granting sanctioning authority to

the like. Agencies without a continuum

correctional agencies to:

agency officials or hearing officers,

of sanctions and services to address these

require legislative permission.

situations will deliver either a slap on the

Positive Reinforcement. One of the
critical lessons emerging from research

wrist or revocation to prison, neither of
which provides a level of accountability
proportionate to the violation.

is that the motivation of offenders to

crime. Parole and probation staff have

supervision as a goal in service of
community safety;

Q Advance an agency culture that
supports a strategic approach to

change is a critically important factor in
their likelihood of avoiding return to

Q Articulate successful completion of

parole violations;

Action Steps for
Policymakers

Q Routinely measure and report rates

many opportunities to affect motivation,

of successful completion of

and one of the significant tools that staff

As growing numbers of probation and

have is positive feedback.23 Agencies

parole failures push prison populations

have focused on the use of incentives

beyond capacity, communities and

for positive behavior, such as certificates

policy makers are beginning to explore

framework for revocations that

of completion when offenders complete

remedies. Research and experience

includes graduated responses based

programs, reductions in restrictions,

suggest some key steps that policy

on offender risk and violation

and early termination of supervision.

makers in all three branches of

severity and allows probation and

government can take to ensure their

parole agencies to impose those

state’s parole and probation violations

responses as quickly as possible.

Condition and Supervision
Strategies. A violation may be an

supervision; and

Q Design and implement a policy

process is working effectively.
By adopting more strategic approaches

indication of substantial risk and
trigger a decision to remove an

First, they can determine if their state has

to probation and parole violations,

offender quickly from the community.

adopted an unstructured, prescriptive, or

states will better protect public

Or it may be an opportunity to

strategic approach to violations. If it is

safety by reducing recidivism, hold

reinforce expectations, hold offenders

not a strategic approach, diagnose the

offenders accountable to the victims

accountable through community-based

statutory, funding or managerial

and communities they have harmed,

sanctions, and to connect offenders

obstacles that stand in the way of reform.

and control the costs of their

with needed services and treatment.

A strategic framework will:

corrections systems.

Supervision should be targeted by risk,
reserving interventions and monitoring
for higher risk offenders. Lower risk
offenders can be managed with a

Q Promote tailored responses to
violations that improve public safety,
offender accountability, and prudent
use of resources.

limited set of conditions and
considered for early discharge. The

Q Mandate and fund sound, research-

alignment of judicial and parole board

based assessments of risk that inform

practices on setting conditions with this

decision making; and

overall strategic approach to violations

Q Mandate, fund and organize

also is critical. The supervision of
higher risk offenders must incorporate

community-based sanctions and

treatment programs that have been

resources that ensure a continuum
24

demonstrated to reduce recidivism.
Community Resources. Many
violations of parole and probation

of sanctions short of incarceration.

Additional information
and guidance on these
issues can be found at
www.paroleviolationsrevisited.org,
a resource developed by the
Center for Effective Public Policy
with the support of the National
Institute of Corrections. This web
site guides policy makers through
a process of assessing and
reshaping their approach
to violations in collaboration
with other key stakeholders.

involve relapses into drug abuse,

Public Safety Performance Project Q www.pewpublicsafety.org

7

Smart Responses to Parole and Probation Violations
No. 3 Q November 2007

Notes
1

William J. Sabol, Todd D. Minton, and Paige M. Harrison,
Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2006, U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, 2007), 4.

14

Page M. Harrison and Allen J. Beck, Prison and Jail Prisoners
at Midyear 2006, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, 2007).

2

Allen J. Beck, “The Importance of Successful Reentry to Jail
Population Growth,” presented at the Corrections Statistics
Program, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of
Justice, June 27, 2006, Washington, D.C.

15

Allen J. Beck, “The Importance of Successful Reentry to Jail
Population Growth.”

16

Hughes, Wilson, Beck, 13.

17

Blumstein and Beck, 73.

18

Peggy B. Burke, Parole Violations Revisited: A Handbook on
Strengthening Parole Practices for Public Safety and Successful
Transition to the Community (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections,
2004), 4.

19

Peggy B. Burke, Policy-Driven Responses to Probation and Parole
Violations (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Corrections, 1997).

20

Ibid., 27-33.

21

Burke, Parole Violations Revisited, 31. The three states are
Georgia, Kansas and New Jersey.

22

Peggy Burke, Linda Adams, and Becki Ney, Policy for Parole
Release and Revocation: The National Institute of Corrections
1988-1989 Technical Assistance Project (Washington, D.C.:
National Institute of Corrections, 1990); The Intermediate
Sanctions Handbook: Experience and Tools for Policymakers, eds.
Peggy McGarry and Madeline Carter (Washington, D.C.:
National Institute of Corrections, 1993); Burke, Policy-Driven
Responses to Probation and Parole Violations; Madeline Carter,
Responding to Parole and Probation Violations: A Handbook to
Guide Local Policy Development (Washington, D.C.: National
Institute of Corrections, 2001).

23

Scott Walters, Michael D. Clark, Ray Gingerich, and Melissa
Meltzer, A Guide for Probation and Parole: Motivating Offenders
to Change (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of
Corrections, 2007), 31.

24

Steve Aos, Marna Miller, and Elizabeth Drake, Evidence-Based
Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction,
Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates

3

Kristen A. Hughes, Justice Expenditure and Employment in the
United States, 2003, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, 2006), 4.

4

Ibid., 2.

5

Public Safety Performance Project, The Pew Charitable
Trusts, Public Safety, Public Spending: Forecasting America’s
Prison Population, 2007-2011 (Washington, D.C.: The Pew
Charitable Trusts, 2007), 33.

6

Sabol, Minton, and Harrison, 1.

7

Sabol, Minton, and Harrison, 8.

8

Paige M. Harrison and Allen J. Beck, Prison and Jail Prisoners
at Midyear 2004, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, 2005).

9

Timothy A. Hughes, Doris James Wilson, and Allen J. Beck,
Trends in State Parole, 1990-2000, U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, 2001).

10

Lauren E. Glaze and Thomas P. Bonczar, Probation and
Parole in the United States, 2005, U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, 2006), 1.

11

Alfred Blumstein and Allen J. Beck, “Reentry as a Transient
State between Liberty and Recommitment,” in Prisoner
Reentry and Crime in America, Jeremy Travis and Christy
Visher, eds., (New York, New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2005), 56.

12

Ibid.

13

Ibid., 59.

8 Public Safety Performance Project Q www.pewpublicsafety.org

 

 

Federal Prison Handbook - Side
CLN Subscribe Now Ad
Federal Prison Handbook