A Handbook on Strengthening Parole

Practices for Public Safety and

Successful Transition to the Community

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS

U.S. Department of Justice

National Institute of Corrections

Parole 

Violations 

Revisited

Parole 

Violations 

Revisited
U.S. Department of Justice

National Institute of Corrections

320 First Street, NW

Washington, DC 20534

Morris L. Thigpen

Director

Larry Solomon

Deputy Director

George M. Keiser

Chief, Community Corrections/Prisons Division

Kermit Humphries

Project Manager

National Institute of Corrections

World Wide Web Site

http://www.nicic.org
Parole Violations Revisited

A Handbook on Strengthening Parole Practices for 

Public Safety and Successful Transition to the Community

Peggy B. Burke, Principal

Center for Effective Public Policy, Silver Spring, Maryland

November 2004

NIC Accession Number 019833
This document was prepared under cooperative agreement 01C06GIR3 (Supplement 1) from the

National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions stated in this

document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of

the U.S. Department of Justice.

© Center for Effective Public Policy. 

The National Institute of Corrections reserves the right to reproduce, publish, translate, or

otherwise use and to authorize others to publish and use all or any part of the copyrighted

material contained in this publication.
Contents

Foreword..................................................................................................................................vii

Preface and Acknowledgments ...............................................................................................ix

Executive Summary.................................................................................................................xi

Section I Context ......................................................................................................................1

Introduction Myths and Facts About Parole........................................................................3

A New Focus....................................................................................................3

Highlights.........................................................................................................4

Chapter One NIC’s Technical Assistance Project on Parole Violations and 

Revocations: Background and Application ....................................................5

Need for the Project ........................................................................................5

Application and Selection...............................................................................6

Chapter Two Why Violations and Revocations Are Important..........................................9

Parole at a Crossroads: Perspectives of Four States Participating 

in NIC’s Technical Assistance Project .........................................................10

The Larger Context .......................................................................................11

Section II Lessons for Improving Parole Violation Policy and Practice ................13

Chapter Three What You Need To Know: Lessons From NIC’s Work................................15

Violations and Prison Admissions................................................................15

Collaboration .................................................................................................15

Effective Interventions ..................................................................................16

Risk Assessment............................................................................................16

The Risk Principle.........................................................................................16

Defining Resources From Outside the Criminal Justice System ...............16

Victim Perspectives .......................................................................................17

Incentives Versus Sanctions..........................................................................18

Supervision and Case Management .............................................................18

iii
Chapter Four Targets of Change and Innovative Solutions...............................................21

Clear Policy and Practice ..............................................................................21

Understanding Current Practice...................................................................21

Collaboration .................................................................................................22

Clarifying Vision and Mission ......................................................................24

Effective Interventions With Offenders .......................................................25

New Approaches to Case Management .......................................................25

Involving the Community ............................................................................28

Section III Innovations in Four States ................................................................................29

Chapter Five State Descriptions—How Four States Refined Violation Policy and 

Practice To Strengthen Parole.......................................................................31

Georgia ...........................................................................................................31

Kansas.............................................................................................................36

New Jersey .....................................................................................................43

Rhode Island ..................................................................................................48

Section IV Mobilizing for Change........................................................................................59

Chapter Six Should You Explore Strengthening Your Parole Violation and 

Revocation Practices?....................................................................................61

Chapter Seven How To Mobilize for Change—Six Steps To Strengthen Parole for 

Public Safety and Successful Offender Transition .....................................65

Step 1: Form a Policy Team and a Working Team ......................................66

Step 2: Understand Current Practice and the Lessons of Research ...........69

Step 3: Revisit Your Definition of Success ..................................................72

Step 4: Assess Gaps Between Current Practice and 

Your Definition of Success............................................................................74

Step 5: Identify Targets of Change................................................................74

Step 6: Develop and Implement a Work Plan..............................................75

Chapter Eight Conclusion—Focusing on the Issues Creates Opportunities .....................77

Notes ........................................................................................................................79

Appendix Steps and Tools To Mobilize for Change......................................................81

User Feedback Form

iv
Exhibits

Exhibit 2–1. A New Focus on Goals..................................................................................12

Exhibit 3–1. Forces for Change + Emerging Knowledge = A New Vision for Parole......20

Exhibit 4–1. Targets of Change ..........................................................................................22

Exhibit 5–1. Georgia’s New Policy on Violations and the Use of Reinforcement .........34

Exhibit 5–2. Georgia’s Behavior Response and Adjustment Guide (BRAG)...................35

Exhibit 5–3. Kansas: A New Approach to Supervision: What Will the Work 

Look Like?......................................................................................................39

Exhibit 5–4. Kansas: Principles and Goals of Supervision ...............................................44

Exhibit 5–5. New Jersey: Exploring Changes in Staff Performance 

and Expectations............................................................................................47

Exhibit 5–6. New Jersey: A Map of the State Parole Revocation Process.......................49

Exhibit 5–7. Rhode Island: Parole Release Forum Agenda ..............................................54

Exhibit 5–8. Rhode Island: Inventory of Barriers to Change ...........................................57

Exhibit 6–1. A Quick Checklist: Should Your State Explore Parole Supervision, 

Violation, and Revocation Practices?...........................................................63

Exhibit 6–2. A Quick Look at the Numbers .....................................................................64

Exhibit 7–1. How To Mobilize for Change .......................................................................66

Exhibit 7–2. Steps and Tools To Mobilize for Change .....................................................67

v
Probation and parole systems have two

sets of goals that may appear to be in

conflict but are in fact complementary:

enabling offenders who have left jail or

prison to successfully reintegrate themselves into the community and protecting the community from the risk of

further crimes committed by these offenders. How agencies respond to parole

and probation violations is a critical factor in achieving these goals. Jurisdictions

across the nation are seeking to reduce

the proportion of offenders who return

to prison as a result of technical parole

violations while identifying and revoking high-risk offenders more quickly. 

In 2001, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) published Responding to

Probation and Parole Violations: A

Handbook To Guide Local Policy Development. That handbook used lessons

learned from NIC technical assistance

projects in 29 jurisdictions to provide

guidelines to agency policy teams in

other jurisdictions and to lead them

through a series of activities designed

to help them develop and refine their

own violation policies. 

This handbook builds on the suggestions

and guidelines set forth in the earlier

publication by incorporating the insights

gained through the NIC technical assistance project, “Policy-Driven Responses

to Technical Parole Violations.” This

project helped the four participating

states—Georgia, Kansas, New Jersey,

and Rhode Island—define their desired

outcomes in responding to parole violations more clearly, examine their parole

violation and revocation policies and

practices more closely, articulate and

implement those policies and practices

more clearly and consistently, and

measure their success in achieving their

desired outcomes more systematically.

Based on their experiences, this handbook sets forth a series of steps that

jurisdictions can take to assess their

current policy and practice, identify targets of change, and mobilize for change;

and it provides tools to guide policymakers through this process.

Each jurisdiction must develop its own

strategies for strengthening its response

to parole violations based on its own

values, statutes, offender populations,

and resources. By adapting the materials

in this handbook to their own circumstances, it is hoped that probation and

parole agencies will be able to help meet

their common goal—no new crimes, no

new victims. 

Morris L. Thigpen

Director

National Institute of Corrections

vii

Foreword
In the course of providing technical

assistance for parole violations policy

and practice to interdisciplinary teams

in the states of Georgia, Kansas, New

Jersey, and Rhode Island, the National

Institute of Corrections (NIC) project

generated key insights and lessons that

are set forth in this handbook. These

lessons are the direct result of the hard

work and tenacity of the individuals

and agencies involved in the project—

they should be recognized for their contributions to their colleagues.

Major thanks are due to James Bralley

and John Prevost in Georgia; to Marilyn

Scafe, Robert Sanders, and Margie Phelps

in Kansas; to Mario Paparozzi and Kevin

McHugh in New Jersey; and to A.T. Wall,

Lisa Holley, and Sisan Smallman in

Rhode Island. Their able leadership and

energy were essential to the effort. Although these individuals are mentioned

by name, it should also be acknowledged

that the tasks accomplished in each

state depended on the willingness of a

number of other individuals—too numerous to name—from different agencies

and from different levels to do the hard

work of gathering information, analyzing

practice, participating in strategic planning sessions, identifying targets for

change, and implementing improvements

in policy and practice. They formed the

policy teams and the staff working teams

who served as the genuine engines for

change in each jurisdiction.

I would like to thank Cranston Mitchell

and Kermit Humphries for providing

leadership and support from NIC during

this effort. 

I would also like to thank the members

of the technical assistance team—my colleagues at the Center for Effective Public

Policy—Paul Herman, Peggy McGarry,

Becki Ney, and Richard Stroker—for their

insight and hard work on this project.

Thanks are due, also, to Laura Winterfield of the Urban Institute who provided valuable advice to participating states

on how to make their information systems more helpful in managing violations and revocation practices.

Finally, special thanks are extended to

Brian Higgins of Aspen Systems Corporation for his perseverance in meeting

our deadlines (and ensuring that we did

too) and his untiring attention to detail

in editing this document.

ix

Preface and Acknowledgments
A sea change is taking place in the world

of criminal justice and corrections. A

veritable flood of offenders is returning

from prison to the community—some

600,000 in 2002. Significant numbers of

these offenders are cycling back into

prison as a result of technical violations

of parole. States are staggering under

budget shortfalls of historic proportions.

The correctional policies of the past

two decades—increasingly committed

to lengthy, mandatory incarceration—are

being reassessed. Interest in ideas that

have long been out of favor in correctional circles seems to be reemerging—

sentencing discretion, discretionary

parole release, and rehabilitation.

What some may see as a crisis may prove

to be an opportunity to forge new and

more effective correctional policy. Promising practices to ease the transition of

offenders from prison to the community

are based on accumulating research on

effective interventions, the increasing

availability of sound and empirically

based risk-assessment tools, a growing

appreciation of the need for collaboration across agency boundaries, and an

increased willingness to involve community networks.

As the National Institute of Corrections

undertook its most recent technical

assistance initiative designed to assist

states in developing more policy-driven

and effective responses to technical parole violations, it encountered jurisdictions caught in the sea change described

above. The lesson emerging from the

effort, however, is that through careful

cross-system collaboration and the integration of evidence-based practice, states

can respond to and weather the significant changes surrounding them. The

four participating states have been able

to reduce admissions to prison resulting

from technical parole violations, use

research-based risk assessment to target

their resources, strengthen their approach

to supervision and case management,

and forge new partnerships with fellow

criminal justice agencies and community resources.

This handbook highlights the lessons

from this latest NIC technical assistance

effort and identifies promising targets

of change pursued by the four states. It

also offers the user a step-by-step guide

to assist in—

• Critically exploring current policy

and practice with respect to parole

violations and revocations, and 

• Developing change strategies to

strengthen parole practices in users’

own jurisdictions.

Executive Summary

xi
Section I 

Context
A New Focus

This handbook grows out of experiences from the most recent in a series

of national technical assistance projects

sponsored by the National Institute of

Corrections (NIC). This most recent

project—the culmination of a series of

such efforts over almost 15 years—was

conceived as a way to assist paroling

authorities and parole supervision

agencies in their efforts to develop

clearer and more effective responses to

technical violations of parole, which

are a growing source of admissions to

state prisons. 

Interdisciplinary

teams representing four states—

Georgia, Kansas,

New Jersey, and

Rhode Island—

were chosen to

participate from

among the 20

states that applied. The project supported

and guided these

state teams

through a collaborative process that involved forming

policy and work teams to examine the

issues, documenting current policy and

practice, revisiting the definition of successful outcomes, assessing gaps between

current and desired practice, identifying

targets of change, and planning and implementing change strategies to achieve

Introduction: Myths and 

Facts About Parole

the desired outcomes. Each team identified the collaborative nature of the approach as the single most important

ingredient in its ability to bring about

change.

The participating

teams’ focus on

parole violations

and revocations

quickly broadened

to include an

interest in the

entire process of

offender transition

and reintegration

to the community

and the degree to which parole release

and supervision practices can contribute

to successful completion of this process.

Parole success became an important

theme of the work—one that implies and

enhances community safety. Successful

completion of parole carries with it no

new crimes and no new victims.

The four states

participating in

the NIC project

represented a

wide variation

in the number

of individuals

in prison and on

parole, incarceration rates, size

of parole staff,

crime rates, and even the degree of urbanization and geographic size. Although

empirical analysis in each of the four

3

Myth: Each agency must simply

work harder and smarter

to deal more effectively

with the challenge of

parolees who violate. 

Fact: Collaboration among

agencies enables the

entire system to work

smarter and harder to

respond effectively to

violations.

Myth: Parole policy must

make a choice between

the interests of the parolee

and the interests of the

community.

Fact: Policy supporting

successful completion of

parole serves public safety. 

Myth: Parole violations

are driving admissions to prison in

many states. 

Fact: Parole policies are

driving admissions

to prison in many

states.
states revealed a similar percentage of

those on parole involved in technical

violations—75 to 80 percent—the way

in which the different states responded

to those violations varied dramatically.

Admissions to prison as a result of parole violations ranged from 3 percent to

45 percent, depending on the degree to

which violations were handled in the

community through formal or informal

means.

Highlights

Highlights of this document include the

following:

• The lessons emerging from experiences in these four states are explored.

• Targets of change that the four states

have identified and implemented are

described.

• A practical six-step guide for other

states to follow in assessing and

strengthening their parole practices 

is presented. Implementation of this

guide will help states support the

transition of offenders to the community and will help prevent future victimization.

At least one prominent scholar is now

calling for the reinstatement of discretionary parole release and the strengthening of supervision practices as tools

in ensuring successful reintegration of

offenders returning from prison to the

community.1 The experience of this

project represents an example of how discretionary parole can support successful

offender reintegration. It confirms effective parole release and supervision practices as key tools in addressing some of

the most pressing criminal justice challenges facing the United States today.

4
Need for the Project

One of NIC’s core missions is to provide assistance to state and local correctional agencies. This NIC technical

assistance project, begun in the summer

of 2001, was directed at “Policy-Driven

Responses to Parole Violations.” The

core concept was that responding to

violations is a critical aspect of a parole

supervision agency’s work and that

such response should be guided by clear

policy to achieve the agency’s vision,

mission, and goals. Because the number

of offenders on parole has been growing

substantially (from 200,000 in 1980 to

more than 650,000 in 2000),2 even a stable rate of revocation translates to substantially greater numbers. The project

was partly a response to concerns expressed by corrections professionals

nationwide about the growing volume of

parole revocations resulting from technical parole violations. Their areas of concern included the following:

• The most pressing concern was the

impact of parole revocations on rates

of admission to prison. The number

of parole violators admitted to prison

increased sevenfold between 1980 and

2000—from 27,000 to 203,000.3 This

was creating a significant drain on prison bed space and exacerbating prison

crowding. Parole violators held in

local jails awaiting disposition of their

NIC’s Technical Assistance Project on

Parole Violations and Revocations:

Background and Application

CHAPTER ONE

revocation petitions were similarly

straining local jail capacity in some

jurisdictions.

• Some parole officials were concerned

that the rates of revocation varied

greatly among districts or offices in a

given state without apparent explanation. In some instances, revocation

rates were extremely high; in others,

they were extremely low. Was the

variation a result of radically different

parole populations? If not, did the variation simply result from differing

philosophies of line officers or their

supervisors? Were parole staff receiving

insufficient guidance with regard to

when a violation warranted revocation?

• The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that 68 percent of discharges of

state parolees occurred as a result of

either admission to prison or absconding in 1999. Such a high rate of revocations raised questions about the

effectiveness of parole supervision.

Some argued that parole agencies were

being diligent in identifying violations

and acting quickly to remove highrisk parolees from the community.

Others argued that supervision should

be more effective in contributing to

good performance on parole and that

such high revocation rates were an

indictment of parole release and

supervision practices.

5
Application and Selection

The project was administered for NIC

by the Center for Effective Public Policy,

which assembled a team composed of its

own staff, independent consultants, and

a research and data analysis expert from

the Urban Institute. With the involvement of NIC project managers, this

team was charged with providing assistance to the states that would participate. States were invited to submit

applications for the assistance and were

required to identify a “policy team”

including membership from the state’s

paroling authority and the head of the

agency responsible for parole supervision. Other officials were to be included

on the policy team to provide a key set

of policymakers with the authority and

commitment to bring about genuine

system improvement toward “policydriven responses to parole violations.”

In the summer of 2001, 20 states

applied, a testimony to the urgency

with which this topic was viewed by a

range of states nationwide.

Resources permitted the participation of

four states. Those selected were Georgia,

Kansas, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.

The selection process placed heavy

weight on the commitment of key policymakers to be actively involved, evidence

of previous ability to bring about system

changes, and a willingness to approach

the work from a collaborative perspective. Each state also was required to

commit significant staff time to supporting the work of the policy team. 

Once selected, each state participated in

a policy team retreat designed to develop a common focus for the effort and to

develop a work plan for activities to be

supported by the technical assistance

project. This handbook will describe the

details of some of the key activities and,

in later chapters, the lessons emerging

from the project. Key themes from early

work during the policy team retreats

and the teams’ examination of their

current practices include the following:

• Although the project had begun

with a focus on parole violations and

revocations—what one might consider

to be failure while on parole—all of

the teams quickly articulated the idea

that their real focus as systems and

agencies should be on how to best

marshal their resources to assist

parolees in making a successful

transition and reintegration to the

community. Regardless of varying

philosophies of sentencing and corrections, once an offender has served his

or her term of incarceration, the interests of the offender, the victim, the

community at large, and the criminal

justice system converge. Successful

completion of parole means no new

victims, a more stable community,

and no return to prison. This became

a central theme of the work in all

four states.

• The violation process—and the degree

to which it was a help or a hindrance

to successful transition and reintegration—was poorly documented and

poorly understood in most of the

jurisdictions. This was a result of limitations in management information

systems in at least three of the states

and, in the past, a lack of interest in

and focus on the process. Little written policy existed in some of the jurisdictions, and there were varying

interpretations of the policy that did

exist. Therefore, a major part of the

assistance was to guide the states

through a careful review of policies,

procedures, and practices.

• Even preliminary quantitative analysis across the four states suggested

that practices differed widely. In two

of the states, admissions to prison as

a result of parole revocations appeared

quite high. At least one state was

handling a large percentage of violations through informal or intermediate methods rather than by returning

parolees to prison. The variations

seemed to be the result of differing

6
supervision and decision practices in

the four states rather than sharp differences in crime rates or violation

rates—they were the result of choices

made within the criminal justice system rather than the result of external

factors. This was consistent with the

experiences of previous NIC assistance

projects on the topic of parole and probation violations. It also mirrors the

diversity found in a review of national

parole practices by Jeremy Travis, who

observes the following in Beyond the

Prison Gates: The State of Parole in

America:

Examining the phenomenon of

successful parole discharges at

the state level (as defined by BJS)

shows enormous variation

among states. . . . It is unlikely

that the parolees in Utah and

California, the two states with

the lowest rates of successful

completion (under 20 percent)

are so inherently different from

the parolees in Massachusetts

and Mississippi, the two states

whose successful completion

rates exceed 30 percent. More

likely the policies and practices

of the parole agencies contribute

significantly to these differences.4

The project found itself in the midst

of an escalating focus on—and debate

about—what was then being recognized

as a flood of offenders transitioning

from prison back to the community. In

parallel with this NIC project on violations and its Transition From Prison to

the Community Initiative, another federal effort, the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, provided

funding for services to be offered to

returning offenders. The professional

journals were full of articles identifying

this population of offenders as a critical

issue for the communities to which

they were returning. 

The four states in this project and the

NIC technical assistance team proceeded to examine their current practices,

rethink their mission and goals, and

develop practical strategies to improve

their policies and practices in this area.

They were working at precisely the

nexus of offender transition and reintegration that was garnering so much

attention nationwide. The lessons that

have come out of this experience—

along with the innovations developed by

these states—provide important additions to the national dialogue on offender transition and reintegration. They

also emphasize how important it is for

paroling authorities and parole supervision agencies to participate fully in

meeting this new challenge. 

In 2003, Joan Petersilia published her

comprehensive volume, When Prisoners

Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. Among Petersilia’s central recommendations are the revitalization of

discretionary parole release and a renewal of the traditional role of parole

supervision agencies as a source of support and resources to assist offenders in

the challenging task of reintegrating

into the community.

The four states participating in NIC’s

project had arrived at the same conclusions as had Dr. Petersilia, and their experiences mirror some of the revelations

found in her review of the research. All

four states concluded early in the project period that their vision of parole included working very directly toward

supporting an offender’s successful completion of parole—no new crimes, no

new victims. They then proceeded to

plumb their own experiences and the

lessons from research to begin redefining their violation (and other) policies

and practices toward that end.

7
In addition to their impact on prison admissions, violations and revocations—

and the way in which criminal justice

agencies respond to them—are indicative of larger and more seminal issues

in criminal justice. 

At the beginning of the 21st century, it

is true that we continue to face many

challenges in the arena of criminal justice and corrections. It is also true that

we are confronted with a rich and welldocumented understanding of our track

record on crime and punishment in this

country. Lively debates about the wisdom of different sentencing and correctional schemes have been occurring for

a long time. Today, we have considerable empirical evidence to help us understand clearly what our past policies

have yielded and to help us chart our

course into the future.

Since the early 1980s, determinate sentencing, mandatory minimum sentences,

truth-in-sentencing, and three-strikes

laws have made up the mainstream of

U.S. sentencing and corrections policy.

These sentencing reforms promised a

remedy for too-lenient judges, for the

unfairness toward prisoners of the uncertain length of prison time, and for

the arbitrary and capricious nature of

parole board decisions. At the time these

changes were first conceived, the term

“just deserts” was used to denote the

organizing principle for sentencing. This

replaced rehabilitation as the central

goal for criminal sentencing. The proponents of a just deserts model held that

Why Violations and Revocations 

Are Important

CHAPTER TWO

it was time to be honest about what we

could achieve. Since rehabilitation was

not possible, we should be clear about

the fact that criminal sentences served

primarily as punishment. Andrew von

Hirsch5 and others clarified this just

deserts orientation, emphasizing proportionality, equity, and evenhandedness 

in punishment. Some who embraced 

the philosophy anticipated that prison

terms would be proportionate to the

severity of the crime and culpability of

the offender. The idea implied that many

sentences would be relatively short under

such a model, reserving long sentences

for particularly heinous crimes. Unfortunately, a number of the distinguishing

features of a just deserts philosophy—

proportionality and equity—became

subordinate to the overarching notion

that punishment was the central mission

of criminal sentences, and somehow

more punishment became associated

with being “tough on crime.” In their

zeal to prove themselves tough on crime,

state legislatures and the U.S. Congress

continued to increase the likelihood and

length of incarceration for a wide range

of crimes. The war on drugs further

escalated the idea of incarceration as

punishment, using it even for minor

drug crimes.6

A particularly well-documented, cohesive, and understandable assessment of

the current situation is to be found in the

2003 publication, When Prisoners Come

Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry, by

Joan Petersilia. This volume assembles

9
and interprets a wide range of research

on American criminal justice practices

over the last quarter of the 20th century. Dr. Petersilia paints a picture of a

criminal justice system at the beginning

of the 21st century reaping the consequences of embracing punishment and

deterrence as its central missions: rising

prison populations, dramatically fewer

resources for prison programming, a

heavy law enforcement and surveillance

emphasis within parole (and probation)

supervision agencies, increased parole

and probation case loads, and scant resources for offenders in the community. 

Another dimension of our growing

understanding of past corrections policy

regards the collateral consequences—

both for offenders and for communities—

of the emphasis on incarceration

enhanced by civil punishments. Many

key decisionmakers within the criminal

justice system are themselves unaware

of the plethora of civil punishments that

are levied on those convicted of felonies.

Because these consequences are not imposed by a sentencing judge, but occur

by operation of law once a felony conviction has occurred, these punishments

have been termed “invisible” by some

observers of the system.7

The result of these invisible punishments is that following their release

from prison, offenders are often barred

from much of the social safety net that

might provide them with some support

in their efforts to reintegrate successfully into the community. Access to public

housing, food stamps, welfare, and other

services is significantly limited, creating obvious difficulties for returning

offenders. Prohibitions against voting

and participating in certain types of

work, and a greater risk of termination

of parental rights contribute to a type of

social exclusion that runs directly

counter to the goal of successful reintegration of offenders after release. It is

important for parole agencies who are

attempting to marshal their resources

and efforts toward supporting successful

reintegration to understand and attempt

to address this social exclusion.

Parole at a Crossroads:

Perspectives of Four States

Participating in NIC’s Technical

Assistance Project

The experiences of the four jurisdictions

participating in the NIC project highlight the situation in which paroling

authorities and parole supervision agencies found themselves in 2003:

• Although release from prison via discretionary parole has declined dramatically as a percentage of all releases

from prison since 1970, most states

have retained discretionary parole for

some offenders. And, in most states,

the paroling authority is the body

responsible for setting conditions of

release (when there will be postrelease

supervision) both for mandatory releasees and for offenders released by

discretionary action of the paroling

authority itself—and this is the case

whether the violations are technical

or criminal. In effect, parole boards

are ideally situated to be key managers of transition from prison to the

community.

• Many states are experiencing returns

to prison as a result of violations of

parole as a significant portion of prison admissions. Many of these violations are technical in nature. The

violation and revocation process is

typically poorly understood and documented, and very little policy exists

to guide this process. As a result, the

influx of violators into prison is likely

not the result of a deliberate and purposeful strategy but, rather, the consequence of a highly complex and

diffuse system operating in ways that

are not clearly understood. The outcomes are likely the sum of many different decisions made by line parole

officers, hearing examiners, and

10
parole board members. All the decisionmakers may be operating completely independently of one another

according to their own perceived best

judgment or understanding of poorly

articulated policy.

• Because of the highly fragmented

nature of responsibility for correctional activities, coordination between

what happens to an offender in prison

and what will be expected following

his or her release is very poor. 

—For many years, emphasis in the

correctional field has been on

prison as a punishment, as a deterrent, and as incapacitation. The

focus of institutional corrections

has been keeping order and control

over a skyrocketing prison population with scant resources for treatment. Most important, the mission

of institutional corrections has

been defined over recent decades as

one of “custody and control.” The

notion that prisons should be preparing offenders for their release

from the first day of their incarceration is a relatively new concept to

many state correctional agencies—

or at least one that they have only

recently been given encouragement

to consider.

—Most supervision agencies—if not

housed in a separate agency from 

institutions—are at least defined as

a separate division within a larger

state correctional agency. Their

missions are seen as quite distinct

and there has traditionally been little cohesiveness between institutional correctional practices and

supervision after release.

• Because of rapidly growing populations, limited resources, and a general

focus on punishment and deterrence

as the underlying philosophy, resources available for treatment and

support services for offenders on

parole have dwindled in many jurisdictions. The invisible punishments

previously described create other

barriers. 

Against this backdrop, the four states

involved in the NIC project began examining their violation practices and

revisiting their goals for supervision

and the violation process. Each state

independently concluded that its newly

articulated goal was to support the successful transition of offenders back into

the community. There seems to be a

new appreciation for the fact that if offenders succeed (i.e., complete supervision with no new crimes), the entire

community benefits. This means no

further victimization, no costly reincarceration, and at least a chance for a

more stable community. Examples of

the language adopted by the four states

in articulating their goals regarding

supervision and responding to technical

violations are presented in exhibit 2–1.

The theme of supporting success for

parolees is strongly expressed by all

four states.

The Larger Context

In both academic and practitioner communities, discussions are under way

about how to cope with the flood of

prisoners returning from prison to the

community. An emphasis on surveillance and enforcement of conditions has

become the norm among parole supervision agencies. This fosters a supervision strategy aimed at identifying

violations and quickly revoking the parole of those who do not comply. The

results are predictable and can be observed around the country where admissions to prison as a result of parole

violations are significant and growing.

However, a new focus on transition and

reintegration has raised the following

questions: What are we really trying to

achieve with parolees? Should we be

focused on catching the violator? Or

11
should we marshal resources to support

successful completion of supervision?

One noted scholar observes:

We spent the last decade debating who should go to prison, for

how long, and how we might pay

for it, and we paid virtually no

attention to how we would cope

with prisoners after they left

prison. If these ex-prisoners are

unable to lead law-abiding lives,

we all pay in terms of new

crimes committed. 

Public opinion polls also show

that people across the political

and ideological spectrum agree

that the objectives of reentry

policy should be to prevent

recidivism and to help offenders

reintegrate into society as

responsible and productive citizens. Hence, there is a zone of

consensus around the reentry

issue, which may provide unique

opportunities.8

12

E X H I B I T 2–1. A New Focus on Goals

Georgia Kansas New Jersey Rhode Island

The policy teams of the four states participating in NIC’s technical assistance project articulated

their goals and interest in analyzing and improving responses to parole violations. Examples of

their language are presented below.

The goal is to implement strategies for

supervision that result

in an increase in the

number of offenders

who complete parole

as stable, productive,

law-abiding citizens.

Our system helps offenders be successful

and does not create 

new victims.

The violations

process—and our

work as a policy

team—should

enhance the ability 

of offenders to transition successfully

from prison to the

community.

The mission is to 

contribute to the 

betterment of the

community through

enhancing public 

safety, maximizing 

the productive functioning of offenders,

and providing a rational and comprehensive continuum of

institutionally based

and communitybased supervision,

services, sanctions,

and other appropriate

interventions. 
Section II

Lessons for Improving Parole Violation 

Policy and Practice
It seems clear that parole and corrections

agencies have arrived at a new appreciation of successful offender transition as

an important goal. The next question

must be, “How do we encourage success?” Again, the lessons of the last

three decades provide a very promising

set of experiences on which to draw. 

Violations and Prison

Admissions

One of the most acutely felt consequences of violations and revocations

of parole is that they are contributing

significantly to prison admissions. The

lesson of this project, however, is that

it is not violations that are truly driving

admissions. Rather, it is how the system

deals with those violations that drives

admissions. Among the states participating in this project, great variation

was seen in the rate of admission to

prison as a result of revocations. Indeed,

at least two of the states had low rates

of admission to prison for violations,

and they wanted to examine this issue

as part of larger efforts to create coherent strategies for supervision that made

use of evidence-based practice. However,

the three states that were able to conduct quantitative analyses of their

supervision populations found that violations were quite common. Between

71 and 84 percent of all cases under

supervision in the three states had at

least one violation noted in the file.

Yet, those same three states revoked

from 20 percent to 60 percent of their

What You Need To Know: 

Lessons From NIC’s Work

CHAPTER THREE

sample of cases. Each state made different

choices about whether those violations

would be handled with intermediate

sanctions or with revocation to prison. 

Collaboration

Perhaps one of the clearest lessons

emerging from the work of the states

participating in NIC’s project is that

effective responses to parole violations

and the broader issue of successful offender transition cannot be adequately

addressed by a single individual or a single agency. Institutional corrections,

the releasing authority, the supervision

agency, community resources, employers, family, mentors, and others are all

key participants in efforts to ensure successful reintegration into the community.

Unless specific efforts are made to create a vehicle for collaboration, it is quite

difficult for independent agencies with

specific organizational missions and

other stakeholders to operate in a cohesive fashion to support offender transition and reintegration. Another NIC

initiative, the Transition From Prison to

the Community Initiative, is an effort to

assist states interested in working in the

broader arena of transition, including all

aspects of an offender’s incarceration

experience and extending beyond discharge from supervision. It incorporates

a heavy emphasis on building collaborative partnerships among public and private agencies that influence offender

transition more broadly. Additional information and insights emerging from

15
this effort are presented on the NIC

Web site at http://nicic.org/resources/

topics/transitionfromprison.aspx. Additional examples and resources to enhance

collaboration in the criminal and juvenile justice systems may be accessed at

http://www.collaborativejustice.org.

Effective Interventions

The conventional wisdom of the 1970s

and 1980s was that “nothing works” in

correctional treatment. Even though the

nothing works slogan vastly oversimplified the results of Martinson’s research,

this viewpoint took firm hold in the

consciousness of public policymakers

and the corrections field.9 It opened the

door to a rejection of rehabilitation programs and an acceptance of punishment,

incapacitation, and deterrence as the

major goals of corrections. More recent

research—including meta-analyses of

large numbers of studies—has revealed

that some interventions have been

demonstrated to work with some offenders. Indeed, reductions in recidivism are

well documented in the literature. Furthermore, when such interventions are

targeted to higher risk offenders and

focus on their specific criminogenic

needs, the reductions in recidivism can

be quite significant.

Recent studies by Seiter and Kadela10

and by Gaes and colleagues11 continue

to reinforce the conclusion that effective

correctional programming continues to

be developed and implemented with documented decreases in recidivism by participating offenders. Indepth information

regarding what the research tells us

about effective interventions for offenders and NIC’s compilation of resources

on this topic may be accessed at

http://nicic.org/resources/topics/

effectiveinterventions.aspx.

Risk Assessment

In the past, correctional professionals,

including paroling authority members,

relied on their own “clinical judgment”

in estimating risk to guide their decisions

about release and setting of conditions.

We now have good empirically based

tools for assessing risk. In fact, the technology is now moving to the point where

our risk assessment tools can actually

identify the risk factors that are subject

to change so that we can work to reduce

risk over time and track those changes.

An overview of current thinking about

the use of risk assessment in corrections may be accessed at http://nicic.

org/pubs/1999/period166.pdf, which

provides an issue of NIC’s Topics in

Community Corrections devoted to risk

assessment in correctional settings.

The Risk Principle

Closely allied to the reality that we

now have better assessment tools at our

disposal is the fact that the research

clearly supports the notion of targeting

interventions toward those with higher

levels of risk because this is where the

interventions will have the greatest

impact for the resources expended. The

research also argues for limiting the use

of scarce resources and interventions

with low-risk offenders who will likely

complete their supervision without reoffending. An example of the research

documenting and explaining the risk

principle can be found at http://www.

uc.edu/criminaljustice/Articles/

RiskPrinciple.pdf, an analysis of a manifestation of the risk principle in correctional programming in Ohio.

Defining Resources From Outside

the Criminal Justice System

In the face of fiscal crises that seem to

be worsening, correctional agencies are

being forced to seek resources and support outside the traditional definition of

the “system.” This perspective requires

a strong commitment to collaboration.

By definition, if correctional agencies

would like to tap outside sources of

support (e.g., the faith community,

16
workforce development agencies, social

services providers, and housing agencies),

they will need to build relationships and

work together with both public and private agencies to define common interests and goals so that specific initiatives

and services can be targeted toward offenders returning to the community. It

also involves connecting with the community through community services

and neighborhood organizations, including the following:

• Employment. Employment services

are an important source of support for

transitioning offenders. Among the

existing resources in every state are

the Workforce Development Boards

created by federal legislation and mandated to provide job development and

placement assistance to the community. Links to local Workforce Development Boards can be found at

http://www.nawb.org/asp/links.asp.

• Families. Families are viewed as

potential resources. An example of an

organization with strategies for

involving families as resources for

offenders on parole is La Bodega de la

Familia, a project of Family Justice.

More information can be found at

http://www.familyjusticeinc.org.

• Housing services. Housing services

are another key resource for parolees.

The lack of a stable residence is seen

as a contributing factor to failure on

parole.12 Information and resources on

how to link with housing resources

within the community are provided

on the Corporation for Supportive

Housing site at http://www.csh.org.

The Corporation for Supportive Housing supports the development of accessible and supportive housing for

different populations, including exoffenders. It is currently working in

10 states, and the site provides a range

of literature and links to other resources. A Guide to Reentry Supportive Housing also can be downloaded

from this site.13 From Locked Up to

Locked Out: Creating and Implementing Post-Release Housing for 

Ex-Prisoners, by Kristina Hals, can 

be downloaded from http://www.

aidshousing.org, the Web site of AIDS

Housing of Washington.14 Published

in 2003, this lengthy document is

intended to serve as a training resource for community organizations

involved in improving postrelease

housing for offenders and others.

• Community interest and support.

Community interest and support can

be important ingredients in enhancing

resources for parolees as they transition from prison. One example of a

community initiative specifically targeting offenders returning to the community from prison can be found in

the Wichita [Kansas] Assembly. A

complete description of how the community responded to these issues to

create “A New Beginning for Offenders” may be accessed at http://hws.

wichita.edu/02wichitaassembly.pdf.

Victim Perspectives

As offenders transition out of prison,

they often return to communities in

which their victims also reside. Along

with a generally increasing awareness

of the needs and perspectives of victims,

agencies focusing on transition are considering the steps that need to be taken

to inform victims and to address their

concerns about safety. In some jurisdictions, agencies are beginning to focus

on helping offenders develop victim empathy as one aspect of preparing them

for their return to the community. The

Association of Paroling Authorities

International includes guidance on victim issues for paroling authorities in its

recently published Handbook for New

Parole Board Members, which can be

found at http://www.apaintl.org/

Handbook.html.

17
Incentives Versus Sanctions

We are learning the limits of punishment as an overarching rationale for

criminal sentences. Sentences, even if

long and mandatory, do come to an end.

We still have a concern for the prevention of future crime. Some of the states

involved in the NIC project have

focused on the need to think about

incentives for offenders to achieve

desired outcomes. In the course of

parole supervision, these states are

deliberately defining their desired outcomes and creating incentives for

offenders to achieve them. Sometimes

these incentives are as simple as a graduation certificate for completing a program, but they could extend to the

reduction of reporting requirements or

early discharge from supervision.

Supervision and Case

Management

The recent, conventional view of the

role of parole supervision is one of monitoring, surveillance, and control of

parolees, primarily through maintaining

contacts and tracking compliance with

conditions of supervision. Experiences

of these states—and the broader literature and experience nationwide—suggest

that a new conception of parole supervision is emerging. This new conception

includes the following:

• Supervision as an “intervention”

in itself, using interactions with the

offender as opportunities to employ

motivational interviewing and

strength-based management.15

• Identification and referral to supportive services, including mental health,

employment, housing, and substance

abuse.

• A more collaborative relationship

with the family and community as

“capable guardians” or sources of

informal social control to assist

offenders in successfully completing

supervision. 

In short, major forces are driving change

in the corrections field today. They

include the following:

• The massive number of offenders

returning from prison.

• The growing number of revocations of

parole and parolees who are returned

to prison for parole violations.

• The extreme fiscal crises being experienced by virtually all the states.

• A recognition that the primary correctional strategy of the past 20 years—

incarceration, contact-driven

supervision, surveillance and condition enforcement—has limited ability

by itself to enhance the reintegration

of offenders or to reduce their likelihood of recidivism.

At the same time, our recent experiences are resulting in significant knowledge in the following areas, which will

be of enormous help in responding to

and shaping productive change in the

future:

• The critical importance of collaboration across the traditional boundaries

of both public and private agencies to

deal with the process of transition and

reintegration.

• A growing awareness about “what

works” in terms of interventions that

can increase the likelihood of successful completion of parole.

• A growing recognition of the principles that underlie these successful 

interventions—the principles of risk,

need, and responsivity.

• The availability of sound, empirically

based risk assessment protocols that

assist criminal justice decisionmakers

in identifying groups of offenders who

represent differing levels of risk for

18
19

reoffending and targeting resources

and interventions more effectively.

• Growing acceptance of partnerships

with the community and with noncriminal justice agencies as effective

means to support successful offender

transition and reintegration.

• A recognition that parole agencies can

move beyond the exclusive use of sanctions to discourage negative behavior

and can employ both problem-solving

interventions and incentives to encourage prosocial behavior.

These clusters of new insights represent

a radical advance over the past several

decades in our state of knowledge. They

offer exciting opportunities to rethink

our approach to parole release, supervision, and responses to violations. The

four states participating in the NIC

project provide excellent examples of

how agencies can forge collaborative

partnerships and bring about important

change even in times of fiscal constraints.

Exhibit 3–1 suggests how these forces

for change and emerging knowledge

converge to create a new vision for

parole—one that holds both opportunities and challenges.
20

Forces for Change + Emerging Knowledge = 

A New Vision for Parole

E X H I B I T 3–1.

Forces Driving

Change

Emerging Knowledge 

To Respond to 

and Shape Change

Number of offenders 

returning to the

community

Number of parole

violators being

returned to prison

Fiscal crisis

Limited ability of

punishment to enhance

reintegration or reduce

recidivism

Pressure for Change

Growing research on effective

interventions—“what works”

Critical importance of collaboration

across traditional boundaries

Risk and need assessment protocols

Principles of risk, need, 

and responsivity

Concept of incentives as

reinforcers of desired behavior

Inclusion of the community and

non-criminal justice system assets

Current Opportunities

and Challenges

to Parole

A NEW VISION:

The goal of

parole is

successful

completion of

supervision with

no new offenses

and no

new victims.
The four states participating in the NIC

project individually selected their own

“targets of change” that, if implemented, would help them achieve successful

outcomes (exhibit 4–1). Each state

mounted significant efforts to redeploy

resources, train staff, write policy, and

develop resources to fit its own vision,

mission, and goals. Other jurisdictions

that engage in the process outlined in

this document will likely discover their

own targets of change. Discussions

about some of the targets of change

identified by the four states, presented

below, may stimulate thinking about

changes to consider.

Clear Policy and Practice 

As has been documented previously,16 a

basic improvement in parole violation

practices is the development of clear policy to guide that practice. Any agency

should have, in its policy and procedural documents, a clear statement of its

goals for the violation process. Violations

should be rated by severity and risk. Line

officers should have a prescribed method

for assessing the severity of the violations

and the risk presented by an offender who

has violated the conditions of parole. In

addition, responses to violations should

be targeted to the severity of the violation and the risk of the offender. Options

should be clearly articulated, and it

should be possible to mobilize them as

quickly and informally as possible to

avoid delay. Examples of policy language

and tools for implementing policy can be

Targets of Change and 

Innovative Solutions

CHAPTER FOUR

found in Responding to Parole and Probation Violations: A Handbook To Guide

Local Policy Development, an NIC publication available from the NIC information center at http://nicic.org/pubs/2001/

016858.pdf. All four jurisdictions involved in the project either had or put

in place the clear policies and practices

suggested here. These policies and practices may form the most basic target of

change in reviewing violation practices.

Understanding Current Practice

One of the first challenges that parole

agencies face in seeking improved practices with respect to violations is that

they typically have a very poor understanding of exactly what current practice is. When is a violation a violation?

In some jurisdictions, no data on violations are available unless some formal

paperwork is filed to request revocation.

In others, violations might be recorded

in individual hardcopy files, but there is

no way to analyze this variable across

the entire agency. Chapter 7 presents an

outline of the steps an agency can follow

to develop a clearer understanding of

this practice and specific changes that

some states have made in their systems.

A major requirement in developing a

better understanding of current practice

is to allocate significant staff and information system resources to clearly map

and document the process. In addition,

a number of states have retooled their

management information systems to

generate better information about their

practices in the future.

21
22

E X H I B I T 4–1. Targets of Change

Clear Policy

and Practice

Intermediate

Responses to

Violations Defined

and Available

Risk Assessment

Protocol

Protocol To

Assess Severity

of Violations

Violation

Guidelines

Talk to Staff

About What

They Do

and Why

Understanding

Current Practice

Review Existing

Policy

Analyze a Valid

Sample of Cases

Map the

Process

Effective

Interventions

With Offenders

Integration of 

“What Works”

Incentives

Risk, Need, and

Responsivity

Principles

Victim

Empathy

Empirically

Based Risk

Assessment

Victim

Advocates

Offenders’

Families

Mental

Health

Workforce

Development

Community

Foundations

Involving the

Community

New Case

Audit

Procedures

Incentives

and

Direction

for Staff

Training

New Staff

Evaluation

Protocols

Policy

Team Collaboration WorkTeam

Cross

Agency

and

Jurisdictional

Boundaries

Reach

Outside

Criminal

Justice

System

Define

Success

Secure Staff

Involvement

and Commitment

Clarifying Mission

and Vision

Revisit Vision,

Mission, and Goals

New Approaches to

Case Management

Results-Driven

Supervision

Motivational

Interviewing

Strength-Based

Case Management

Collaboration

However good or poor our understanding of the violation process, one thing is

clear: No one agency or one part of an

agency “owns” it. The prison where an

individual is incarcerated is often the

source of information for both a releasing authority and a supervision agency

regarding the offender’s criminal history,

performance while incarcerated, and a

wide range of assessment. The releasing

authority will determine the conditions

of supervision, which the supervision

agency must then monitor and enforce.

An individual on parole may be ordered

into treatment. The treatment provider

may be a public or private agency and

will likely have a significant impact on
whether the supervision agency receives

information about a parolee’s performance while in treatment. If that treatment agency elects to terminate an

offender from the program for nonperformance, that will have a major impact

on the supervision agency. Should the

offender be revoked for failure? Should

the parole officer now spend significant

effort to get the offender reinstated or

referred to another program? Will the

policies of the state’s substance abuse

agency help or hinder a parolee’s access

to drug abuse treatment? 

Once in the community, an offender’s

ability to find and keep a job, find and

pay for stable housing, or reunite with

his or her children will have a great impact on his or her likelihood of success.

All of these factors, arguably, are affected by the resources, policies, and practices of multiple agencies.

Even within the supervision agency

itself, how a violation is handled may

well depend on the parole officer supervising the case, the opinions of the parole officer’s superior about revocation,

or whether a bed is available in a type

of community facility that might respond to whatever the parolee’s violation behavior has been.

The stakeholders around this issue are

many, they probably articulate their

own interests quite differently, and they

do not routinely develop joint and

coherent strategies about how their

respective activities might support successful transition—unless they take

joint and very directed steps to do so.

All of the states involved in the NIC

project formed policy teams consisting

of leadership from institutional corrections, the releasing authority, and the

parole supervision agency. In a number

of instances, they also expanded their

teams to include other non-criminal

justice agencies. After these teams met

and set the general direction of the effort,

staff teams quickly emerged to carry

out the extensive work required in

documenting current practice and

exploring targets of change. In some

instances, this team effort was the first

time these different stakeholders had

worked together; in others, it provided

a new opportunity to continue collaborative work begun previously.

It is truly remarkable how compartmentalized and fragmented the system responsible for transitioning offenders back

into the community can be. Unless

these agencies take the steps of creating

a forum to articulate goals, defining

common problems, and working toward

change, it becomes almost impossible

to make progress. Suggestions and tools

for organizing a collaborative team to

address violations are presented in section IV, Mobilizing for Change.

Parole release decisionmaking

Although the major focus of this effort

was the supervision, violation, and revocation of parolees, teams from the four

jurisdictions recognized that the methods of release decisionmaking were also

critical to their work for the following

reasons:

• The very existence of discretionary

parole release creates an incentive for

inmates to engage in activities that

will better prepare them for transition

back into the community. Carefully

developed policy on the part of parole

boards can capitalize on this incentive

to contribute another support to successful transition.

• Release decisionmaking usually

includes a number of assessment

activities that can identify an offender’s level of risk and need. This

information—if passed on to the

appropriate supervision agency and

staff—provides a sound basis for

development of a supervision plan.

Sharing and using this information

avoids the duplication of effort from

gathering the same type of information more than once. And, of course,

23
this is also an opportunity to use

some of the emerging research on risk

assessment and put good, empirically

based assessment protocols in place.

• The use of guidelines can significantly

increase the certainty about a potential release date for an offender—even

where discretionary release is the

norm—and allow for more complete

planning of both institutional programming and community transition efforts. A discussion of the elements of

a sound parole guidelines approach is

presented in the Handbook for New

Parole Board Members, accessible at

http://www.apaintl.org/Handbook.

html.

Setting parole conditions

Correctional systems are typically so

compartmentalized and fragmented that

actions may be taken at one point in the

system without regard to their implications for other points. Setting of conditions of release is a perfect example of

this. Often parole boards develop “standard” conditions that typically outline

what they believe constitutes acceptable

standards of behavior for those given the

privilege of parole. They typically include requirements to report to a parole

officer and follow his or her instructions, remain drug free, obey all laws,

not associate with felons, not be in any

place where persons of ill repute might

spend time, remain employed, pay child

support, and not change address without

notifying a parole officer. These standard

conditions, if strictly interpreted to mean

that any breach is cause for revocation,

can create a situation where it is very

difficult for an offender to succeed.

Boards also impose “special” conditions

tailored to the specific characteristics

of an offender. It is often through these

conditions that boards mandate various

kinds of treatment and programming.

Because of a lack of information and

coordination, boards often feel they must

impose such conditions to express their

concerns and expectations. They may

have no way of knowing whether such

resources are available to an offender,

either geographically or financially.

At least one jurisdiction involved in

this project has explored redesigning its

conditions of parole to be more supportive of an offender’s success and to

reduce the likelihood that the conditions will simply create obstacles and

hurdles for offenders returning to their

communities.

Clarifying Vision and Mission

As Yogi Berra once said as he was driving to the Baseball Hall of Fame, “we’re

lost, but we’re making great time!”17 In

the criminal justice arena, we are often

so overwhelmed with the sheer volume

of cases that the tendency is to keep

working harder and faster. We often feel

that we do not even have time to ask

where we are going. As jurisdictions undertook work during the NIC project,

they were asked to envision what their

state or community would be like several years in the future if they were

successful in carrying out effective supervision and violation responses. They

were then asked to consider how their

specific responsibilities—release decisionmaking, supervision, etc.—could be

better organized to support that mission.

It was interesting to see that many of

the individuals involved in the project

felt that they had experienced precious

few opportunities in the course of their

routine work to consider this question

of vision, mission, and goals. 

Project participants discovered that a

unified sense of purpose and vision was

missing among line staff, midlevel supervisors, and management. In fact, individuals held very different conceptions

of what good supervision really meant.

Was the major objective to monitor and

identify violations? Or was the major

objective to mobilize resources to support success? 

This lack of a unified sense of purpose

and vision is not surprising given the

24
fact that agencies are farflung and quite

large in some states. However, even in

Rhode Island, which has fewer than a

dozen parole officers, the team members found they could not assume that

everyone had the same set of operating

assumptions until they made the effort

to clarify them. This is also not surprising because parole supervision has been

operating under an incapacitative philosophy, rather than a rehabilitative

philosophy, for several decades. 

One of the significant breakthroughs in

the field of community supervision during the last decades of the 20th century

was the concept of levels of supervision

and recognition that different types of

cases warrant different levels of effort

by probation or parole officers. Such

standards formalized agency expectations regarding how often and in what

setting probation and parole officers

would have contact with the offenders

on their caseloads. This was an important step forward at the time. It was

helpful in justifying budget requests for

agencies as caseloads grew and in communicating to officers the priority that

should be given to certain offenders.

When agencies begin to think of their

goal as the successful reintegration of

offenders into the community, it becomes even more important to consider

what a probation or parole officer is

spending time on during those contacts

and in other aspects of his or her work.

A contact-driven model does not provide much guidance to parole officers

regarding building partnerships with

social services agencies, housing agencies, job development and employment

resources, and other areas. Agencies are

faced with developing new tools and

methods for communicating such priorities to line staff.

Effective Interventions 

With Offenders

Even if an agency accepts, in theory, the

notion that certain types of programming

(e.g., drug treatment, cognitive behavioral interventions, job skills and

employment services, and mental

health counseling for specific mental

illnesses) can be helpful to certain

offenders, actually obtaining access to

such resources for transitioning offenders is a difficult challenge. Resources

are never plentiful enough, and mechanisms typically are not in place to identify the offender’s needs and ensure that

he or she receives the services. Yet, some

agencies are taking steps to create new

systems to make this happen—some are

established; others are just emerging.

New Approaches to 

Case Management

Given a new sense of mission and desired outcomes, states participating in

the NIC project concluded that the role

of parole officers would be a likely target of change. Concomitant with a shift

toward just deserts and a “nothing

works” posture, supervision agencies

in the last decades of the 20th century

adopted an enforcement posture. In many

agencies, the role of the parole officer—

consistent with a retributive and incapacitative model—has been cast as one

of supervision, monitoring, and control

of offender behavior. The jurisdictions

involved in the NIC project began reexamining this perspective and expanded

their thinking about supervision. They

began thinking and talking about a parole officer’s role in brokering services,

traditionally thought of as “case management.” They also began discussing

parole officer interactions with offenders

as geared toward encouraging change. As

some have put it, this would “alter the

basic foundation of the supervision

agency by focusing on supervision as an

intervention, instead of as a tool to monitor compliance.”18 If we are interested in

the parole officer as an agent of change,

what does that mean in terms of roles,

responsibilities, activities, tools, and resources? Participating states began focusing on the concept of case management

25
to describe new expectations for parole

officer roles and responsibilities and for

their interventions with offenders. 

In the context of this project, participating states began to use the term “case

management” when referring to what a

parole officer does with specific cases. A

sharp distinction exists in the literature

between supervision and case management. Supervision is generally meant to

include parole officer activities designed

to monitor, control, and sanction offenders, although some researchers are beginning to suggest that changes in the field

may be moving toward supervision as

an intervention in and of itself.19 This

new approach to supervision, similar to

case management but going beyond it,

has its roots in the field of social work,

where case managers were originally

defined as brokers of services to individuals with needs for mental health and

other services.20 In the parole context,

case management has come to be associated with the somewhat diverse roles

that parole officers play, including monitoring behavior and conditions of

supervision, brokering services, and,

increasingly, interacting with offenders

in ways designed not simply to monitor

behavior but to change it.

This is not to say that great consensus

exists in the field about a definition of

case management. In some jurisdictions,

case management refers to a specific electronic system for maintaining assessment

and case performance information, along

with information on actions taken by the

parole officer. In other jurisdictions, case

management refers to specific actions

taken in response to particular criminogenic needs identified for offenders.

Case management in practice

All four states participating in the NIC

project identified case management as

one of their targets of change. In Rhode

Island, the team felt that the project focused their attention on a relatively rudimentary approach to case management

that needed to be developed more fully.

In Georgia, already committed to

Results Driven Supervision, the parole

agency more clearly defined how it

wanted its line officers to interact with

offenders in the instances of both negative behavior and positive behavior while

on supervision. In New Jersey, attention

was focused on redefining job functions

as stated in its employee evaluation system. And in Kansas, a significant statewide effort was launched to train the

entire field staff in a new approach to

case management that incorporates risk

assessment, strength-based interventions

with offenders, and motivational interviewing. It envisions the parole officer

identifying resources in the community

and the family as assets for the offender

during his or her period of parole.

If one looks nationally to changes in

case management, other states and researchers are beginning to focus on parole supervision as an intervention in

itself. The State of Maryland has implemented what it calls Proactive Community Supervision. The noted Canadian

researchers Don Andrews, James Bonta,

and Steve Wormith are working on a

case management approach that builds

directly upon the Level of Services

Inventory–Revised (LSI–R) as an assessment tool.21 Colorado has implemented

an approach to case planning that incorporates aspects of the strength-based

approach as well as a restorative justice

framework.

Results Driven Supervision

In Georgia, the State Board of Pardons

and Paroles has been integrating the

lessons of the “what works” research

into its supervision practices. It is

incorporating a risk assessment protocol,

moving away from a contact-standards

supervision approach, and ensuring that

parole officers routinely report the percentage of their cases who are employed

and those participating in mandated

treatment. The automated data system

also prompts parole officers to record

26
technical violations and their response

to every violation. 

An innovation in Georgia’s parole supervision practices that has resulted from

the NIC project is use of the Behavior

Response and Adjustment Guide (BRAG)

(see exhibit 5–2, chapter 5), a guideline

for parole officers that suggests both

appropriate sanctions for various technical violations and positive responses

for desired behavior. Georgia’s practices

are an example of how the lessons of

research are being integrated into supervision practice to support successful

transition.

Securing staff involvement and

commitment

As the four states involved in the NIC

project began implementing their ideas

about system change, they applied a

wide range of strategies to ensure that

staff would understand and support the

direction of the effort. When the direction of an effort changes, staff can be

expected to refocus accordingly only

when they are fully informed, are provided with the opportunity for input,

and have an opportunity to learn new

skills, approaches, and procedures.

Examples of redefining success, providing clear policy training, and using

tracking, evaluations, and additional

working teams to encourage change

include the following:

• Newly restated versions of vision and

mission statements and definitions of

success were created by all participating states and disseminated to staff in

a variety of ways. Employees of one

agency received newly finalized

vision and mission statements in

their pay envelopes.

• Each of the four states amended their

formal policy and procedure manuals,

incorporating new directions into

their formal policy mechanisms.

• In at least three of the four states,

NIC’s technical assistance included

training sessions for all line staff of

the involved agencies, which were

designed to convey a new understanding of the agency’s mission in terms

of successful completion of supervision. The training sessions enlisted

staff in identifying obstacles to be

overcome and assets that could be

mobilized to create change.

• As has been said many times, “What

gets counted gets done.” In other

words, the statistics that parole staff

are required to report are likely to be

given fairly high priority by staff. One

good example comes from the State of

Georgia. In a contact-driven agency,

line staff are required to report how

many contacts they make and of what

type for offenders in their caseloads.

In Georgia, line staff are prompted by

their automated casebooks to enter

information regarding how they are

working with offenders in specific

“tracks” (employment, drug abuse,

cognitive programming, and education) along with responses to all violations. The officer and office generate

routine reports regarding the percentage of offenders in their tracks employed and the percentage involved

with programming. This sends a clear

message to staff that important goals

are for their parolees to have jobs and

to be involved in programming.

• In New Jersey, part of the working

group’s strategy is to refocus the work

of their line staff on successful completion of parole. This includes adding

to their personnel evaluation procedures new performance measures that

focus on building working relationships with key service providers and

others who could support their efforts.

• In each of the four states, in addition

to a policy-level team, a working team

that usually overlapped with the policy

team was also formed. In each state,

this team took major responsibility

for documenting current practice,

reformulating a definition of success,

27
identifying gaps, and establishing targets of change. In the process, the

team developed considerable commitment to achieving its mission and

provided significant support and

momentum for change throughout

the agency.

Involving the Community

Parole and corrections agencies in the

four states involved in the NIC project

identified ways to use the community

as a resource. Examples include the

following: 

• In Kansas, the subject of offenders returning to the community became a

matter of interest for a community initiative known as the Wichita Assembly. Jointly begun a number of years

ago by the city government of Wichita

and Wichita State University, the

forum deliberately brings together a

wide variety of stakeholders around

issues of importance to the community. An effort is made to gather and

synthesize the best information and

research on a topic as a basis for discussions. About 100 stakeholders meet

over a 2-day period to hear the issues

framed and the latest knowledge on the

selected topics summarized by invited

expert speakers. Issues are identified

and working groups are organized by

topic. Participants spend time discussing the issues and begin to identify action steps that can be taken.

During the year before the NIC project, the Wichita Assembly began to

focus on the issue of offenders returning to the community, largely because

they were doing so in increasing numbers and because of the difficulty of

finding suitable housing for them. As

a result of the Wichita Assembly, four

working committees of citizens were

organized around the following topics:

housing for offenders, employment for

offenders, community safety, and community services for offenders. At this

writing, the work of the committees

has not yet been completed, so their

impact is still unclear. A full copy of

the original Wichita Assembly report

can be obtained at http://hws.wichita.

edu/02wichitaassembly.pdf. Although

officials from the Kansas corrections

system were involved in Wichita

Assembly activities, they did so as

participants rather than leaders. The

distinctive feature of this experience

was that the community began to take

ownership of some of the challenges

facing returning prisoners, realizing

that, ultimately, the community’s

interests are intertwined with those

of the offenders.

• In Rhode Island, a nonprofit organization whose board of directors includes

the state director of corrections has

formed a community center specifically to assist in offender transition.

Caseworkers at the center work with

offenders before their release and,

after their release, provide resources

to assist in the areas of employment,

housing, and access to services (e.g.,

substance abuse treatment).

• In New Jersey, the State Parole Board

has developed a partnership with the

Seth Bowden Center, a community

center within the urban center of

Trenton. The board has placed supervision officers at the Center and is

working toward creating a comprehensive resource to serve the interests

of paroled offenders. 

Each state participating in the project,

as it considers case management strategies in times of scarce resources, is

beginning to more directly regard offenders’ families and associates as part of a

“network” of supervision to better support the offenders. Agencies are more

likely to include significant others and

extended family members in meetings

to explain the conditions of supervision

and to enlist their support in reinforcing the expectations that parole has for

offenders under supervision.

28
Section III

Innovations in Four States
The four states participating in the NIC

project have each significantly changed

policy and practice as a result of their involvement in the project. Subsequently,

the three states that had reasonable baselines for comparison (Georgia, Kansas,

and New Jersey)22 have observed the 

following: 

• Reductions in the percentage of their

total caseload revoked to prison for

technical violations of parole.

• Decreases in the percentage of admissions to prison as a result of technical

violations of parole. 

All four states have implemented a range

of adjustments, including a broadened

sense of mission to include not simply

monitoring behavior but also changing

the behavior of parolees under supervision. The following profiles for each

state engaged in this process include

descriptions of particularly helpful

aspects of the process, a brief snapshot

of project results, background information on the state and its correctional

system, a brief analysis of the forces

driving change in that state, a description of the specific targets of change

pursued by each state and how they

managed to implement the changes,

and examples or advice for other states

interested in strengthening their parole

practices.

State Descriptions—How Four States

Refined Violation Policy and Practice 

To Strengthen Parole

CHAPTER FIVE

Georgia

Snapshot

After changes in Georgia’s approach to

supervision and violation were implemented, parole revocations dropped

from an average of 261 each month in

2001 to an average of 224 each month

in early 2002. This represents a decrease

of approximately 11 percent in the number of revocations among the parolee

population.

Background

The Georgia State Board of Pardons and

Paroles is responsible both for discretionary parole release decisions regarding all eligible inmates in Georgia’s

prisons and for supervision of offenders

released on parole. The Georgia Department of Corrections manages all state

correctional facilities and provides probation supervision services to Georgia’s

courts. 

Forces driving change in Georgia

Over the years, the Georgia State Board

of Pardons and Paroles has made a significant investment in building what it

refers to as “Results Driven Supervision.” This approach is based on the

premise that efforts invested in parole

supervision should be directed at specific desired outcomes and should apply the

lessons learned from research on effective interventions and evidence-based

31
practice. Rather than guiding parole officer efforts through contact standards,

Results Driven Supervision identifies

four categories or tracks: substance

abuse, education, cognitive treatment,

and employment. Parole officers are

expected to match offenders with appropriate interventions in these four tracks,

based on a systematic assessment of

each offender’s risk level and criminogenic needs.

In 1991, the board had participated in an

earlier round of NIC technical assistance

on parole violations. It had conducted a

careful review of policy, mapped the process, and rethought desired outcomes. In

addition, it had developed a violation

matrix to guide staff in the consistent

and swift application of sanctions.

Based on this earlier work, policymakers at the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles and the Georgia

Department of Corrections concluded

that more could be done to bring violation response practices into concert

with the basic tenets of Results Driven

Supervision. Significant numbers of

parolees continued to be returned to

prison for technical violations. Rates of

return to prison for drug violations continued to be considerably higher in rural

than in urban areas, at least partially

because of a lack of resources in rural

communities.

The Governor had established a Commission on Certainty in Sentencing,

which was charged with looking at better ways to manage prison growth, and

the executive director of this commission was willing to participate in the

policy team to be convened as part of

the NIC project. Perhaps the most important force driving change in Georgia

was an interest in pursuing more collaborative partnerships with a broader set

of agencies and resources. A critical

shortage of programs geared to respond

to criminogenic factors emphasized the

need to reach out to a broader cross section of community organizations.

Targets of change and

accomplishments in Georgia

Despite the history of work on this

issue in Georgia, the policy team found

it extremely helpful to return to the

concepts of vision, mission, and goals.

This clarified for them the notion of

parole success being an important outcome toward which they were all working. The team proceeded to focus on a

number of issues ranging from mapping

the process to data analysis and a

review of existing policy language.

Balancing sanctions with incentives

and rewards

Nationally, as parole and probation

agencies have begun working on responding to technical violations, one of the

most basic notions has related to intermediate sanctions for technical violations. Rather than using the most severe

sanction or punishment—revocation to

prison—for every violation, one might

scale the sanctions to severity and risk.

This is based on at least two rationales:

proportionality of punishment and deterrence. Clearly, not every technical

violation (e.g., failure to report one time

to a parole officer) seems to warrant

the most severe allowable response of

return to prison, particularly when no

indications of increasing or unacceptable

risk are present. The response should

be “proportionate” to the severity of

the violation. The second notion is that

sanctions will serve as a deterrent and

discourage violations.

Relying exclusively on sanctions or punishments, however, fails to capture what

we know about effective interventions

with offenders. So the notion of “responses” to violations emerges. When

an offender violates conditions of parole,

why not respond with a problem-solving

intervention of some sort? If the offender has lost a job, help him find another

one. If the offender has lapsed into drug

use, why not get him into a different or

more intense treatment setting or work

32
with the treatment provider to address

the relapse directly within the treatment

program?

But even these problem-solving responses do not take advantage of what the

research tells us about the efficacy of

creating incentives and positive rewards

for desired behavior. According to this

research, incentives are as much as four

times as effective as sanctions in changing behavior. Being familiar with this research, the Georgia team began exploring

ways they could structure positive responses and incentives for desired

behavior.

Newly developed language in the

agency’s policy manual identifies the

use of positive reinforcement as an expectation of parole officers. In the manual’s language, “Parole officers should

seek to utilize this type of reinforcement

at every opportunity when interacting

with their releasees.” The manual also

directs that “the emphasis in responding

to releasee behavior is to respond in a

manner which will affect a behavioral

change in the desired direction” (see

exhibit 5–1). This directive to Georgia parole officers is supplemented by Georgia’s

Behavior Response and Adjustment

Guide (BRAG) (exhibit 5–2), which provides examples of parolees’ desirable and

undesirable behaviors with suggested

responses. The format of the guide

clearly communicates the idea of a balanced approach to supervision involving

both sanctions for negative behavior and

reinforcement of desired behavior.

Conditions of supervision

The team discussed the fact that the

standard conditions of supervision in

Georgia were fairly negative in nature,

focusing primarily on what a parolee

could not do and including requirements such as payment of fees, among

others. In fact, some criminal justice

analysts observe that generally, across

the nation, the conditions of parole

almost guarantee failure. The work

team proposed changes in the conditions

that included a focus on the offender’s

active participation in formulating and

carrying out a rehabilitation plan with

his or her parole officer.

The initial interview

When an offender enters parole supervision in Georgia, one of the first events

is the initial interview. This is an opportunity to gather and provide information, set expectations, and establish

a tone for the relationship between the

offender and the parole officer. The team

also identified the initial interview as a

target of change, hoping to integrate

some of their new emphasis on success

with creating incentives for positive performance at the onset of supervision.

Georgia change strategy:

How did they do it?

Policy and work group

It might be argued that deciding what

to do is not quite as difficult as actually

making it happen. The Georgia team

recognized early that if changes were to

be made in the handling of violations,

support would be required from the top

levels of the organization to the line

parole officer, including everyone in

between. Their strategy included a number of elements. First, a member of the

Board of Pardons and Paroles agreed to

participate in key working sessions of

the group. This facilitated communication with and support of the entire

board. In addition, the individuals supporting the work of the policy team

included line parole officers from a

number of areas across the state and

first-line supervisors and managers at a

variety of levels. 

Gaps analysis and identifying 

targets of change

When the Georgia policy team began

working on this project, a violation grid

with guidance about intermediate

33
34

Georgia’s New Policy on Violations and 

the Use of Reinforcement

E X H I B I T 5–1.

SECTION 3.500. SANCTIONS/VIOLATIONS AND DELINQUENT REPORTS

(Policy 2.124, 2.104) (ACA 3–3168)

3.501. Releasee Behavior Releasee behavior is of central concern to the Board. Effective supervision directs the

releasee in learning pro-social behaviors that increase public safety and reduce recidivism. The successful

releasee meets the vision of success established by the Board. This vision of success includes, but is not limited

to, a releasee who is law abiding, self-sufficient, stable in employment, supporting family and dependents, and

abstaining from substance use and/or abuse. (Rev.03/03)

3.502. Responding to Releasee Behavior The skillful parole officer will understand the appropriate response to any

behavior is a response designed to increase desirable behavior and decrease or extinguish the undesirable behavior. In determining the appropriateness of the response to the behavior, the behavior must first be defined and

then recorded. Efforts should be taken to determine the situation or context in which the behavior occurred. The

targeted behavior should be addressed utilizing reinforcers if the behavior was desirable or punishers to extinguish an undesired behavior. It is essential that the response to any behavior be done as close as possible to the

occurrence of the behavior. (Rev.03/03)

3.502.1. Use of Reinforcement Scientific evidence suggests that it is four times more effective to reinforce desired

behaviors than punishment or punishment alone. Studies also suggest that reinforcement of a behavior increases

the frequency of that behavior in the future. This is consistent with the “swift” and “certain” tenets of Results Driven Supervision. The use of social reinforcers such as verbal praise, words of encouragement, and statements like

“good job” or “keep up the good work” have a significant impact on influencing or reinforcing behavior. This type

of positive reinforcement can be achieved with very little effort or time consideration. Parole officers should seek to

utilize this type of reinforcement at every opportunity when interacting with the releasees. Other types of reinforcers

are material reinforcers and preferred activity reinforcers. Material reinforcers consist of letters of recognition, statements of commendation, graduation certificates, and similar awards. Preferred activity reinforcers would include

activities such as extended curfew hours, bimonthly or quarterly reporting and could culminate in a request to the

Board for commutation of the releasee’s sentence. When utilizing these reinforcers, it is essential that the releasee

is aware that the reinforcer is a consequence of the desired behavior and the utilization of the reinforcers should be

documented in FLOID. (Rev.03/03)

3.502.2 Reinforcer Awards Criteria The following awards can be presented to the releasee upon meeting the listed

requirements: (Rev.03/03)

Compliance Certificate. Certificate awarded at six-month intervals to the releasee who has exhibited desired

behavior and has no violations.

Mr. (or Ms.) Clean Award. Certificate awarded at six-month intervals to the releasee who has no positive drug

screens. The releasee must be on the substance abuse track.

Stability Award. Certificate awarded at six-month intervals to the releasee who has maintained stable

employment and residence.

Lifestyle Commitment Award. Certificate awarded to the releasee who has documented involvement in prosocial activities, such as volunteer work, church affiliation, community service. The releasee should also

have stable residence and employment.

3.502.3. Responding to Violations and Undesired Behaviors When responding to violations and undesired behaviors, the parole officer should keep in mind the Board’s vision of success for the releasee. Therefore, the emphasis

in responding to releasee behavior is to respond in a manner which will affect a behavioral change in the desired

direction. The response might incorporate strategies for extinguishing (punishing) a behavior as well as strategies

for changing it. It is important that the parole officer respond swiftly to all violations and undesired behaviors. The

failure to respond to any undesired behavior effectively reinforces the behavior. This could lead to that behavior to

be repeated or increasing. To deter violations from occurring, the parole officer should demonstrate that all detected violations will have a swift and appropriate response. Violation responses should be tailored to the severity of

the violation and the risks posed by the releasee. A “focusing” guide is provided . . . to assist the officer in determining the proper targeting and level of response. Once the level is determined, the BRAG . . . can be applied.

(Rev.03/03)
35

Georgia’s Behavior Response 

and Adjustment Guide (BRAG)

E X H I B I T 5–2.

Suggested Response POSITIVE BEHAVIOR NEGATIVE Suggested Response

Verbal recognition

Letter of Recognition

Certificate of

Completion

6-Month Compliance

Certificate

90 days clean

90 days employed

6 months stable residence

Completed first

school semester or

30 days regular

GED attendance

Outpatient program 

completion

30 days electronic

monitoring (EM)

violation-free

2 months perfect attendance at cognitive 

skills course

L

O

W

Positive drug test(s)

Program nonattendance

Failure to report

EM violations (minor)

Assessment not attended

Failure to support

dependents

Unemployed (short period)

Special condition violation

Fee arrearage $60 or less

Technical violation—other

Specific issue hearing

Outpatient program

Self-help program

PO letter of reprimand

PO verbal reprimand

Increased screening

Increased reporting

Verbal warning

1-Year Compliance

Certificate

Mr./Ms. Clean Award

Letter of Recognition

EM early termination

Certificate of

Completion

Reduced reporting

Chief recognition

Decrease supervision

level

12 months stability

(employment and 

residence, few to 

no violations)

6 months clean

2 months perfect attendance at cognitive skills

class

Completed 1 year of

school or 6 months of

regular GED attendance

90 days EM violation-free

Outpatient program completion

Cognitive skills course

completion

M

E

D

I

U

M

Misdemeanor arrest

Multiple positive drug tests

Multiple program

nonattendance

EM violations (serious)

Unemployed (lengthy)

Assessments not attended

(multiple)

Sex offender violations

(minor)

Fee arrearage $100 or less

Administrative hearing

In-house program

Restart program

EM extension

Outpatient program

Specific Issue Hearing

Increased screening

Increased reporting

Verbal reprimand—

Chief

Restorative/community

service work

Increase supervision

level

Commutation

Request

Donated Gift

Certificate (GED/

school graduation)

Cognitive Skills

Graduation

Lifestyle Commitment

Award

Second Mr./Ms. Clean

Award

Reduced reporting

24 months stability

Completed school or GED

12 months clean

Volunteer work, church

affiliation

Prosocial activities H

I

G

H

Felony arrest

Violent misdemeanor arrest

or DUI

Positive drug tests (critical)

Program nonattendance

(critical)

Sex offender violation 

(serious)

EM violations (critical)

Possession of a weapon

Absconding TRW issued

Failure to attend administrative hearing

Unemployed (critical)

Fee arrearage over $100

Request revocation

Short-term incarceration (local detention)

Electronic monitoring 

In-house program

Administrative hearing

Outpatient program

EM extension

Whitworth Detention

Center
responses to technical violations was

already in place. One might reasonably

ask what more could be done in this

area. By carefully analyzing practice and

considering the gaps that existed among

their definitions of success, team members realized that they wanted to develop

their responses to violations beyond the

mere notion of sanctions. They wanted

to incorporate the principles of Results

Driven Supervision and evidence-based

practice into this aspect of their work

with parolees. As a result, they were

able to create the idea of incorporating

incentives and sanctions into their case

management approach and to garner

even further benefits from the knowledge emerging from research on effective

interventions with offenders.

Parole officer chat room

Another element of the approach was

to create an opportunity for line parole

officers to ask questions, vent concerns,

and discuss changes in responding to

violations through a chat room set up

for this purpose. This allowed conversations to take place at any time, from all

over the state. The ground rules of the

chat room encouraged candid exchange

and allowed for quick feedback and clarification as questions arose.

The topics aired in the chat room fell

into two categories. The first category

was a discussion of the technical requirements of entering data into the board’s

evolving data system. Parole officers in

Georgia enter information daily through

an automated casebook system.

The second topic related to officers’ perspectives on responding to violations.

This discussion allowed the technical

assistance team to understand the wide

variety of perspectives held by parole officers and equipped them to address the

training effort that would be required to

get staff from all across the state on

board with a clear understanding and

acceptance of new violation policy.

Training 

Finally, training became an important

part of the change strategy. NIC’s technical assistance project staff assisted the

Georgia team in designing a daylong

training that brought together field staff

from across the state. The training featured presentations from out-of-state

faculty and, most important, included

discussions led by members of the

working group. A good portion of the

day was devoted to small-group discussions with significant opportunities for

participants to ask questions and voice

concerns.

This project-supported training was

then supplemented by the agency’s regular schedule of training during the

year, which was tailored to reinforce

the messages and support the changes

envisioned by the Georgia policy team.

Data analysis and monitoring

One focus of the NIC project has been

to assist agencies in adapting existing

information systems to generate information on the impact of changes in policy and practice. Georgia had developed

an innovative distributed management

information system before the NIC

project that was generating good information about the operations of supervision and violation responses. However,

it is worth noting that, as part of implementing these changes in the agency,

the Georgia team took measures to

include new factors in the data system

that would enable them to generate

information on positive behavior and

responses to that as well as information

on violations and responses.

Kansas

Snapshot

Preliminary observations indicate that

the team has been successful in reducing admissions to prison that are the

result of parole condition violations. In

36
Kansas, revocations resulting from technical violations have decreased from 45

percent of admissions to prison in fiscal

year 2001 to 39 percent of admissions

to prison in the early months of fiscal

year 2004. The team anticipates that

this trend will continue.

Background

Most offenders sentenced to state incarceration in Kansas, whether under the

indeterminate sentencing structure in

place before 1993 or under the new

determinate sentencing structure implemented in 1993, can expect a period of

postrelease supervision. Those who

serve their full sentence in prison with

no supervision to follow (about 18 percent of releasees) are either “old law”

cases with indeterminate sentences

who have “maxed out” in prison, more

recent cases who are revoked repeatedly

until they finally run out of time so

that their last release is a discharge, or

probation violators. The Kansas Parole

Board has releasing authority over old

law cases; new law cases are released

on a date determined by their sentence.

If released to supervision, both types of

offenders are supervised by parole staff

of the Kansas Department of Corrections. Revocation decisions for all

releasees on parole supervision are the

responsibility of the Kansas Parole Board.

Forces driving change in Kansas

Criminal justice policymakers in Kansas

had been working on the issue of condition violations (the term used in Kansas

for violations of conditions of release,

whether parole or mandatory release)

for several years before they were selected to participate in the 2001 NIC

project on violations. In fact, the Kansas

Department of Corrections had developed a set of guidelines for line parole

officers to guide their use of interventions for violations. The guidelines took

the form of a grid that enumerated possible violations, classified them as

either aggravated or nonaggravated, and

listed possible interventions for each.

Despite the fact that this grid provided

clear policy guidance to line officers

about which violations to bring forward

for formal revocation proceedings—and

guidance indicating that some violations

could be handled through interventions

short of revocation—many stakeholders

in the Kansas system felt that violation

practice was still an area of concern. 

The Kansas Department of Corrections

had been experiencing increasing numbers of admissions to prison as a result

of condition violations. In fiscal year

2001, parole condition violators made

up 44.4 percent of total admissions to

prison compared with new court commitments, which made up 26.7 percent

of the total admissions. (Probation condition violators accounted for 22.2 percent of admissions, and violators with

new sentences and Interstate Compact

admissions made up another 6 percent.)

So, despite the violation grid that specifically allowed responses short of revocation, the numbers were continuing to

grow.

Targets of change and 

accomplishments in Kansas

Policymakers in Kansas also wanted to

shift the focus of supervision from an

exclusive interest in contacts and compliance to one that incorporated the lessons of the “what works” research and

incorporated the use of validated assessment protocols to evaluate offenders’

risks and needs. In the words of the

Kansas Department of Corrections Deputy Secretary for Community and

Field Services:

[W]e started changing the philosophy for working with offenders 

from “trail them, nail them, and 

jail them” to assisting offenders

to change. We changed the Sanctions Grid from including entirely

punitive and prescriptive responses to violations to including

rewards for positive behavior

37
and more discretion in how to

respond to violation behavior.

The goal of the Kansas Department of

Corrections is to move toward a comprehensive risk reduction model both in

the community and in correctional

facilities. Work related to the issue of

condition violators was done in this

broader context.

Moving toward evidence-based

practice

Recent efforts in Kansas to embrace

evidence-based practice provide an

informative context in which to view

the state’s efforts on the NIC violation

project. The Kansas Department of

Corrections had already committed to a

significant effort to integrate empirically validated risk and needs assessments

at various points in the process. The

violations project brought this commitment to evidence-based practice to the

arena of supervision and responses to

violations. As team members worked

through the implications for this perspective, they developed a chart that

summarized the characteristics of

supervision as it currently existed versus how it might look if evidence-based

concepts were implemented. Exhibit

5–3 presents an interesting comparison

between parole officers’ functions under

an evidence-based vs. a non-evidencebased approach. 

Building on other changes in the

system

Kansas also was interested in revisiting

violation policy because a number of

efforts already under way were directed

at transforming the operations of the

Kansas Department of Corrections, the

Kansas Parole Board, and sister agencies

toward evidence-based practice. To move

forward coherently, violation policy and

practice needed to be reshaped as part

of this overall state effort. These parallel initiatives included the following:

• An initiative by the Kansas Sentencing Commission to introduce a coherent strategy of assessing offender risks

and needs using similar protocols

from the time an offender first enters

the criminal justice system through

supervision, incarceration if ordered,

and eventual discharge.

• A focus on offender reentry supported

by grant funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs.

• A multiagency effort to enhance successful transition of sex offenders

from prison to the community and to

ensure appropriate safeguards for the

community.

• A multidisciplinary effort to enhance

knowledge, specialization, and services for offenders with disabilities and a

similar effort that focuses on substance abuse services.

• A focus on offenders with mental illness, including establishing specialized

positions in correctional facilities and

among field staff, through a partnership and joint funding effort with the

Kansas Department of Social and

Rehabilitation Services, and applying

and being accepted for the technical

assistance provided through NIC and

the Council of State Governments.

• A focus on offender workforce development through specialized training

and procurement of new resources to

establish offender job specialists

throughout the state in the One-Stop

Delivery Centers of the Workforce Investment Board and pursuit of grant

funds for training of incarcerated

veterans.

The community as a resource

In addition to these public agency

efforts, a longstanding community

resource, the Wichita Assembly, had

begun to focus on offenders returning

from prison to the community as an

38
39

Kansas: A New Approach to Supervision: 

What Will the Work Look Like?

E X H I B I T 5–3.

Now New Approach

Assessments are static and

brief, mainly focused on risk.

Assessments are dynamic and comprehensive; they address both risk and criminogenic

needs and measure change.

Offender reports to agent;

many contacts are made in 

the office.

Parole officers are able to spend more time in the field and community making contacts 

that address crime-producing risk/needs. 

Caseloads do not vary remarkably between risk levels.High-risk caseloads are defined in relationship to the criminogenic need reflected in the LSI–R

and are smaller, averaging 35; low-risk caseloads are larger and may be as high as 200.

Emphasis is on the contact 

being made.

Emphasis is on the substance of the contact (e.g., whether it is relevant to the case plan,

whether it is done effectively with the parole officer (PO) seeing himself or herself as an

agent of change, and whether the PO is given the tools for effective interventions). Focus is

on the quality rather than the frequency of contacts. 

Focus of the supervision plan

is risk management.

Focus of the supervision plan is targeting crime-producing needs to lower the risk of recidivism. The supervision plan becomes the roadmap that drives the supervision process.

PO makes contact alone or

with one other PO.

PO makes contact with a team, working with supervisors, other POs, police, and community

partners.

Limited sanctions are available, so violations often result

in revocation.

Graduated sanctions and rewards are available and are imposed quickly. Emphasis is on

responding to violations in the least restrictive manner without jeopardizing public safety.

Fewer violations occur when crime-producing behavior is the focus of the supervision plan.

Unemployed offenders are

encouraged to look for work.

PO in partnership with community workforce staff assists the offender in job search and

placement. Specialists support this as resources are found to hire the offender.

Evaluations of POs are based

on meeting contact standards.

Evaluations of POs are based on successful implementation of case plans, which lead to

positive outcome measures.

Case management is often

reacting to a problem, usually

a violation.

Case management is proactive and addresses offenders’ crime-producing needs to prevent

new crimes or violations.

Parole supervisors are generally office bound, working regular business hours.Parole supervisors are given the opportunity to spend time in the field observing POs and

working with the communities to develop partnerships and resources.

File review determines

whether contacts are made.

File review determines whether the contacts are relevant to the case plan, whether they are

driven by assessed crime-producing needs, and whether the content of the contacts is consistent with effective practices.

Staff members are trained in

procedures, processes, and

rules.

Staff members are trained in and have a working familiarity with evidence-based practices

and are familiar with effective interventions.

Technology is used as it is

available.

Technology is available, used to support the case plan, and relevant to effective interventions.

Programs are the responsibility of others, and generally

provided through the Kansas

Department of Corrections.

POs are familiar with programs, have input into the development of programs, and are

familiar with the programs and resources in their communities.

Supervision plans are “one

size fits all” and largely 

disregarded.

Supervision plans are based on the assessed crime-producing needs of the offenders,

reflect realistic and relevant goals, and drive case management.

Case managers are generally

isolated from processes and

information related to working

with victims and are not

entirely comfortable responding to victims or their concerns, including issues related

to confidentiality.

Case managers are trained and knowledgeable about victim issues, comfortable with issues

related to confidentiality, and have tools to respond effectively to victims and their concerns

as part of case management.

Persons other than POs generally perform group work, such

as cognitive training, if at all.

POs participate in group work, cognitive training, and similar activities to address the needs

of offenders and families.
issue of significant community concern.

The assembly initiated efforts to enhance housing, employment, and the

safe transition of offenders from prison,

particularly to communities in the area

surrounding Wichita. A similar effort is

now under way in Kansas City, Kansas.

The NIC project provided an opportunity to revisit the state’s violation policy

and practice in the context of larger

efforts to reshape incarceration and

postrelease supervision and to ensure

community safety by supporting successful transition from prison to the

community. Processes chosen by the

Kansas Department of Corrections and

supported by the Kansas Parole Board

included the following:

• Adoption of the Level of Services

Inventory–Revised (LSI–R) as a risk

and needs assessment tool that would

be used at a number of key assessment points as offenders moved

through the system.

• Training of all relevant departmental

staff in use of the LSI–R.

• Adoption of a case management

strategy based less on contacts and

surveillance and more on effective

interventions with offenders to enhance the likelihood of successful

completion of parole. This included

a comprehensive overhauling of key

policies related to supervision standards, response to behaviors (including interventions), classification,

contact strategies, case planning, and

administrative/case file review. It also

involved establishing different auditing, reporting, and communication

strategies for a wide open flow of

timely, comprehensive, and relevant

information between parole supervisors and agency/division managers.

Case management

A redefinition of the principles and

goals of supervision logically led the

Kansas team to focus on case management. How best should parole officers

manage their cases in support of this

new concept? Again, the team invested

significant effort in redefining exactly

what a case plan would look like and in

laying out guidance for staff. A substantial investment in training all line staff

in the strength-based approach and in

motivational interviewing also occurred

as a spinoff of this effort.

Policy change

As noted earlier, Kansas already had a

violation policy grid in place outlining

interventions that increased the intrusiveness of supervision or served as

some sort of punishment as violations

became more serious. All aggravated

violations, with the exception of those

related to employment and education,

indicated revocation as one of the

response options, although other

options existed for some. 

One person on the department staff indicated that although the grid had been

put in place, staff members were still

unclear regarding the purposes and philosophy that would have enabled them

to use the grid as intended. The chair of

the parole board indicated that, in her

opinion, line officers always opted for

the most intensive disposition possible

in any category. Furthermore, the interventions offered on the grid were determined solely by the violation with no

structured provision to account for the

varying levels of risk presented by

parolees. 

Sentencing guidelines had resulted in a

higher percentage of person offenders in

the prison population and then a higher

percentage of more serious offenders on

supervision, which made parole officers

naturally less tolerant of any noncompliance. On the other hand, parole officers

have experienced decreasing caseloads in

recent years, partly because the length

of supervision has decreased. More time

40
to closely supervise also tends to generate a higher level of known violations.

One of the factors that makes the situation in Kansas somewhat unique is that

the length of supervision has been decreasing, and the law limits the amount

of time that any person can be imprisoned as a result of a parole violation at

any one time—and in total. Building on

its work on revisiting vision, mission,

and goals, the policy team redrafted the

policy regarding violations to integrate

the notion of risk reduction and to

clearly articulate the goal of trying to

work with the offender in the community whenever possible while still protecting community safety.

The Kansas team has been careful to

codify the changes they have agreed on

in the formal policy documents of the

department. In 2003, the department

issued amendments of the following

formal policy documents: Offender 

Risk Management–Classification

Levels, Contact Standards, Case Plan–

Development Implementation, and

Encouraging Pro-Social Behavior and

Responding to Violations. Discussions

of these topics can be found in various

sections of this handbook. It is essential

that such guidance be codified in formal policy language and documents.

Ability to measure progress

A key focus of this round of the NIC

technical assistance effort was to enable

participating states to enhance their

ability to track progress on the violation

issue. As the states determine how they

would like to change practices to generate specific outcomes (for example, a

reduced number of parolees revoked to

prison as a result of technical violations),

they must be able to actually measure

changes in that outcome to determine

whether their efforts have succeeded or

additional changes are needed. 

One important step taken by the Kansas

team was to consider the outcomes

they would hope to see if they were

successful in changing supervision, case

management, and violation practices to

more directly advance their stated goal

of supporting offenders’ successful completion of supervision. They concluded

that the measure of that success would

include a decrease in the percentage of

cases under supervision to which the

following conditions apply:

• They are revoked as a result of condition violations.

• They are revoked as a result of new 

convictions.

• They abscond during the supervision

period.

• They show positive drug tests.

At the same time they concluded that

the measure of that success would also

include increases in the following:

• Prompt responses to any violation

(e.g., within 3 days).

• Restitution paid.

• Offender employment.

• Average length of offender 

employment.

• Average length of time in the community before revocation.

The Kansas team reviewed the content

of both of the automated systems providing information to the department

and concluded that, in combination, the

systems had the necessary data to generate reports on these outcome measures. Project staff worked with the team

to define new output reports to measure progress for each performance measure. The reports for each measure would

be produced for the state overall and

then disaggregated, first by region and

then, within regions, by district. 

The interesting lesson from Kansas is

that, although many states currently may

not be generating useful information

41
about violations, it may be quite possible to do so without major infusions of

new resources or the redesign of information systems. In Kansas, by simply

defining what was needed, the agency

was able to respond with new, targeted

information to track performance

changes that occurred as a result of

policy and practice changes.

What was essential, however, was a

team of interested policymakers and

staff from many levels in the system

who were able to identify the need for

such information and work carefully

to define precisely what information

was desired and required to measure

progress. Barriers included the lack of

enough integration between facilities

and parole processes, staff morale and

buy-in, media education and legislative

education about issues, management

information system limitations, and

limited resources.

Kansas change strategy:

How did they do it?

Beginning with a policy team retreat,

the work of the project included defining vision, mission, and goals for parole

supervision and revocation practices in

the future; creating a map of the violation process from the time of admission

to prison until discharge; completely

reviewing all existing policies and procedures relating to supervision, condition violations, and revocation; and

conducting a quantitative analysis of a

sample of parolees under supervision

during calendar year 2001.

Forming a policy team

Led by the chair of the Kansas Parole

Board and the Secretary of Corrections,

the Kansas policy team included all

three deputy secretaries of corrections,

parole directors, release officers, and

institutional staff, along with representatives of line parole staff and treatment

providers. The newly hired victim witness coordinator for the Department of

Corrections was also invited to join the

team. In addition, the director of release

planning for the Kansas Department of

Corrections was a key member of the

team; this individual provided focus,

energy, and consistent effort to keep the

work of the team moving forward.

Documenting current policy and

practice

One important aspect of any change

strategy is to document current policy

and practice. Often, assumptions exist

about what current practice really is. In

a large, fragmented entity such as the

criminal justice system, it is quite common for different stakeholders to have

different perceptions of current practice

and for at least some of those perceptions to be quite inaccurate. This is

hardly surprising, given the fact that

each of us sees so little of the whole

picture in our day-to-day work. 

The implication, of course, is that it is

difficult to chart a course to where you

want to go unless you know where you

are now. The Kansas policy team and its

staff working groups expended a great

deal of effort in documenting their current policies and practices. 

They assembled all of their policy documents and conducted a quantitative

analysis of offenders on supervision to

obtain a picture of how many offenders

actually violated parole and how the

responses were handled. They also conducted focus groups with parole officers

and institutional staff to learn more

about attitudes and practices. The focus

groups revealed a huge disparity in interpretation between what existing conditions of supervision meant and what the

purpose and efficacy of revoking parole

was. This positioned the agency to

address issues through training.

Training and staff buy-in

A major feature of the project’s work in

Kansas was building a clear understanding

42
43

among staff about the mission of the

agency and how expectations of the

team’s efforts would be changing slightly. They would be more involved in risk

and needs assessment, and they would

be asked to interact with parolees in

more proactive ways. Indeed, the Kansas

team devoted a great deal of effort to

thinking through and clarifying for line

staff how this new direction would look

in their work. For example, the team

articulated guiding principles and goals

of supervision and made those a part

of the materials used in staff training

events. Language clarifying this for staff

is presented in exhibit 5–4.

Having worked on principles and goals,

the team then began to work through

how these should bring about changes

in the day-to-day work of line supervision staff. They created a worksheet that

compared current practice with what

they hoped would be new practice. This

gave supervision staff some clear messages about how their work would be

expected to change (see exhibit 5–3).

In addition to preparing these materials,

the participating agencies invested in an

extensive multipart training strategy.

Some parts of this were directly supported by the NIC technical assistance project; other parts were supported by other

sources of funding, both internal and

external, including other NIC assistance.

The NIC technical assistance project

also included a major training effort,

“Blueprint for Success: Effective Correctional Services,” held in March 2003.

Two daylong sessions were conducted,

one for all supervision staff in the northern part of the state and the other for

staff in the southern part of the state.

Department leadership, midlevel managers, line staff, law enforcement, treatment providers, victim advocates, and

others were invited to attend. The sessions gave participants an opportunity to

understand their roles in implementing

the blueprint for success and allowed

them to learn from faculty and each

other about how the principles of 

evidence-based practice would affect

their work. In addition to presentation

sessions, participants were divided into

groups of 10 to 15 to elicit their reactions to the information being presented, to draw them out about their role in

implementing best practice, and to identify the additional information they

needed to be part of implementing the

blueprint for success.

A major feature of the project’s work in

Kansas was building a clear understanding among staff members about the

agency’s risk reduction mission. Staff

members also were to understand that

their roles and expectations regarding

their performance would be guided by

the risk reduction model. This was a

significant change from the more riskcontainment-focused model and practices of the past. The chair of the parole

board, the director of field services, and

the regional director were present for

the training. The Secretary of Corrections, who was unable to attend because

of legislative business, videotaped his

message to the participants, speaking in

earnest and persuasive language about

how truly different this approach was

going to be and how important their

roles would be in making the effort a

success.

Since that time, the Kansas Department

of Corrections has embarked on a major

training initiative involving all field staff.

The training has focused on developing

skills to implement a strength-based

approach to supervision. 

New Jersey

Snapshot

From the beginning, the New Jersey team

was interested in reducing the number

of admissions to prison that occurred as

a result of parole revocation. By midway

through the 2003 fiscal year (December

29, 2002), the New Jersey State Parole

Board reported 2,178 revocations for the
44

E X H I B I T 5–4. Kansas: Principles and Goals of Supervision

Principles of Supervision

An offender’s behavior can be affected.

Supervision should be strength based with individual goals.

Supervision should be guided by principles of risk, need, responsivity, professional discretion, and program

integrity.

Goals of Supervision

1. Supervision helps offenders be successful.

2. Stakeholders understand and support what we do.

3. Staff are well trained, informed, and understand the goals, principles, and purpose of supervision.

4. We have consistent, equitable, and fair violation and revocation policies statewide.

5. We make decisions based on a valid, dynamic risk/needs instrument.

6. We have a continuum of options available that may be applied to individual offenders.

7. We have individual goals for offenders that are meaningful and achievable and that shape the supervision

plan.

8. We have established methods for identifying and accessing community resources.

9. All individuals and organizations working with offenders have shared and are sharing the information needed

to do their work.

10. Accurate, complete, and timely information and data are available for evaluation and decision-making.

11. Decisions about supervision take into account the victims.

Definitions

Case Management: The combination of supervision, treatment strategies, and resources needed to implement

the supervision plan.

Case Planning: The plan by which the parole officer monitors and holds the offender accountable and addresses

risk and needs through risk reduction practices and through established and specific goals tied to criminogenic

risk factors, intervention, and responding to behaviors, all to help the offender succeed. 

Success:

In case management: Measurable progress in reaching individual and program goals that can be measured

and acknowledged, and no violations of conditions of supervision are present.

In reducing recidivism: No return to incarceration and no new criminal violations. 

Overall: An offender’s reintegration into the community as a productive and law-abiding citizen.
year. For the corresponding period of the

2004 fiscal year, the board reported only

1,692 revocations for the year, a decrease

of 486 revocations or 22.3 percent.

Background

New Jersey policymakers already had

been focusing on parole violation and

revocation issues before their involvement in the NIC technical assistance

project. A number of years before the

project, an independent study had been

conducted to clarify the relationship

between prison capacity at the state

and local levels and sentencing and

parole revocation policies and practices.

According to New Jersey’s application

for participation in the NIC project, “the

study found that the return of parole

violators to prison and jail was a major

contributing factor to prison overcrowding and increased prison construction.”

The study estimated that roughly half

of those returned to prison in New

Jersey for parole violations were technical violators and had not been charged

with a new crime.

Forces driving change 

in New Jersey

In September 2001, state law transferred

field parole supervision from the New

Jersey Department of Corrections to the

New Jersey State Parole Board. The

recently appointed chairman of the

board, who had built a 30-year career

in parole supervision, was anxious to reopen the issue of parole violations and

revocations. He had identified varying

rates of revocation from different parts

of the state as indicative of inconsistent

practice and the need for overall policy

guidance on the issue. In parallel, the

board joined the Greater Newark Safer

Cities Initiative, begun by the Rutgers

School of Criminal Justice, which included monthly meetings of offenders

with the parole board chair, parole 

officers, and family and community

members. The intent was to increase

accountability and compliance with

the conditions of supervision and at the

same time help parolees overcome obstacles they encountered in the course

of supervision. 

Targets of change and

accomplishments in New Jersey

The New Jersey working team, a subcommittee of the interagency policy

team that had begun the effort, identified a number of targets for change in

their parole violations and revocation

practices, including reducing admissions

to prison for parole violations. Other

targets of change included clarifying the

agency’s vision, mission, and goals; identifying additional resources for parolees

in the community that would help support their successful completion of

parole; developing training and supervision approaches for line staff that would

reinforce expectations about how they

should anticipate and respond to violations; and developing clear policy for

staff about responses to violations. Unfortunately, midway through the initiative, the chair of the parole board

resigned and months elapsed before a

new chair was named and confirmed.

However, even in the absence of a designated policy leader for the effort, staff

continued their developmental work.

Clarification of vision, mission, and

goals

Based on work completed by the policy

team at an NIC project workshop during

summer 2002, new statements of vision,

mission, and goals were developed for

the State Parole Board. A major focus of

this work was stating the importance of

promoting successful offender reintegration. The new statements were transmitted to every employee of the State

45
Parole Board by spring 2003. This represented a major refocus for some in the

agency who viewed themselves as primarily oriented toward surveillance and

the enforcement of conditions.

Policy changes

The board has modified its administrative code regarding parole violations to

introduce the concept and use of graduated sanctions that favor using the least

restrictive sanction necessary to address

the violation behavior. The board has

been reviewing all parole violations following issuance of warrants and has

been able to divert significant numbers

of these cases into treatment options and

out of the formal revocation process.

Enhancing resources for parolees 

in the community

During fall 2002, in collaboration with

the Newark Housing Authority and the

Newark Police Department, the New

Jersey State Parole Board joined an initiative known as the Seth Boyden Community Resource and Cultural Center.

Seth Boyden, a public housing community in inner-city Newark, had been

plagued by drug dealing, gang activity,

and violence. At the invitation of local

community organizations and the Dayton Street School, these agencies came

together to create a center that offers

law enforcement support, social services, HIV testing, counseling and education, computer training, credit repair,

financial management classes, employment services, and other services. More

recently, the New Jersey Department of

Labor has located dedicated staff at the

center. Parole officers onsite are charged

with identifying and maintaining catalogs of community resources, using a

team approach to supervise parolees

who reside in the community, providing

social services referrals and followup,

developing a network of treatment and

social services providers, and fostering

business and economic growth in the

area. This initiative has been so successful that the board and its partners are

close to launching a similar initiative in

the city of Camden. (Information about

the Seth Boyden Center can be found at

http://www.njn.net/workforce/prison411/

411general.htm.)

Development of training and supervision approaches for parole staff

Early in its work on the violation and

revocation issue, the New Jersey team

realized that its employee performance

review system, built on the requirement

for parole officers to meet certain contact standards, was inconsistent with

newly emerging expectations for parole

officers as agents of change. A new approach to supervision, which included

intervening with offenders to encourage

successful reintegration, would require

parole officers to spend time identifying

community resources, anticipating problems with offenders, and interacting

with offenders in ways that would generate certain outcomes (e.g., higher rates

of employment, lower rates of drug use,

higher participation in treatment and

prosocial activities). The existing structure would require significant changes.

The team began focusing on three issues:

training for staff, the casebook review

process, and the agency’s Performance

Assessment Review (PAR) system

(exhibit 5–5). The PAR system has been

revised to include the following:

• An approach that emphasizes “responding” to violations rather than

“prosecuting” violations, as articulated in the existing review process.

• Job responsibilities that include “develop[ing] and maintain[ing] relationships with the community in an effort

to balance the needs of the parolee

and public safety.”

• Training on “evidence-based interventions, such as effective sex offender

supervision, motivational interviewing

46
47

New Jersey: Exploring Changes in 

Staff Performance and Expectations

E X H I B I T 5–5.

The New Jersey team explored a number of changes, including reworking the Performance Assessment Review

(PAR) system, to support a new approach to parole supervision, violations, and revocations. Existing PAR language and modifications considered by the team are contrasted below to show how parole supervision might be

viewed differently.

Current PAR Language Possible Changes in PAR Language

Job Responsibility: Caseload monitoring and

supervision. Home, office, and collateral contacts

are to be made in accordance with current

Division policy. . . .

Job Responsibility: Risk assessment, service planning, and

case management. Establish rapport and trust with the

parolee to assess risk and needs through a standardized

tool. Engage and motivate the parolee to address identified

problem areas . . . .

Job Responsibility: Prosecuting parole violations. Essential Criteria: When violations occur,

files warrant where applicable and submits

probable cause reports in a timely fashion.

Responsible for producing needed evidence

and witnesses to testify at all proceedings.

Job Responsibility: Responding to parole violations.

Essential Criteria: Properly identifies, assesses, and documents violations and responds with appropriate behavioral

consequences that may include graduated sanctions. In the

event that violation is necessary, officer shall properly prepare and prosecute a complete case to achieve the district

objectives. Responsible for producing needed evidence and

witnesses to testify at all proceedings.

Job Responsibility: Maintain liaison with other

law enforcement, community, and allied agencies. Essential Criteria: Participates in community

policing efforts with other law enforcement agencies. Develops and maintains a professional relationship with appropriate agencies involved in the

assistance of the parolee in various aspects of his

social, economic, and emotional adjustment.

Demonstrates thorough knowledge of current

available options, including educational, physical,

mental, alcohol, and narcotics treatment. Establishes appropriate contacts with emergency food,

shelter, and job placement providers.

Job Responsibility: Develop and maintain relationships

with the community in an effort to balance the needs of the

parolee and public safety. Essential Criteria: Demonstrates a

thorough knowledge of available resources for parolees,

including educational, physical, mental, substance abuse

treatment, job placement services, and emergency food and

shelter. Develops and maintains a professional relationship

with appropriate agencies involved in assisting the parolee

in various aspects of his/her social, economic, and emotional adjustment in the community. Maintains a professional

relationship with law enforcement agencies, maintains an

awareness of law enforcement activities, and participates in

community policing and offender reentry initiatives.

strategies, risk and needs assessment,

cognitive behavioral interventions,

coping skills training, and drug and

alcohol training and awareness.”

Training

In addition to a focus on performance

evaluation, the State Parole Board has

pursued an aggressive training agenda

that will enable line staff to conduct

risk and need assessments using the

LSI–R. The ability to complete such

evaluations and then to use the results

to target appropriate interventions is

consistent with the board’s increasing

focus on helping parolees successfully

reintegrate into the community.

Special screening of violations for

nonrevocation responses

One concern often expressed when the

possibility of nonrevocation responses to

violations is discussed is the potential

vulnerability of parole officers to criticism, legal liability, or even loss of employment if an offender who remains in

the community commits a serious crime.

The New Jersey State Parole Board is
48

testing a process that would create

shared responsibility for such a decision: the use of a screening panel to

review violators who might be candidates to remain in the community.

New Jersey change strategy:

How did they do it?

Like the other states involved in the

NIC project, New Jersey began the work

by forming a policy team; revisiting vision, mission, and goals; and conducting

a thorough analysis of current practice.

Mapping the violation process

In addition to reviewing current policies

and procedures and looking at existing

statistical information, the team commissioned a special working group to

map the violation and revocation process. This proved to be a helpful exercise that provided all participants with a

clear overview of the steps involved in

the process and raised areas that needed

clarification and new policy (exhibit 5–6).

Staff working group

As often happens in the real world, leadership of key agencies in the system

changed dramatically during the course

of this project. A newly appointed corrections commissioner took office after

a commitment had been made to participate in the project. The policy team

worked to brief him on the goals of the

project, and he joined the team and participated in the project’s activities. However, midway through New Jersey’s

efforts on this project, the chair of the

parole board departed, and a new chair

was confirmed only as the project was

ending. Despite this change in leadership, the work team continued to meet

and to follow the direction set by the

policy team that had initiated the project. Because of the tenacity and competence of this staff team, the work was

able to move forward, and a number of

important recommendations were prepared as a new chair assumed leadership

of the agency. This underlines the importance of having a credible and skilled

membership for the working team to

support the efforts and leadership of the

policy team.

Rhode Island

Snapshot

Rhode Island’s data system was not able

to establish a baseline regarding the

number of revocations per month, nor

about the number of admissions to

prison as a result of parole violations

and revocations. Participation in the

project did help the department revamp

its information system, however, and

the policy team now has access to much

more complete information on violation and revocation practices. 

Background

Rhode Island’s criminal justice and corrections system is distinctive in a number of ways, both because of the state’s

size and because all of its correctional

services are housed within a single

state agency. Rhode Island has a unified

corrections system within the Rhode

Island Department of Corrections that

provides pretrial detention, all secure

prison services, and probation and parole

supervision. The Rhode Island Parole

Board is the state’s independent releasing authority.

Forces driving change 

in Rhode Island

When NIC announced its technical assistance and training initiative on parole

violation and revocation issues, the State

of Rhode Island requested assistance,

noting in its application letter that

“Rhode Island is poised on the brink of

top-to-bottom metamorphosis of its

entire system of offender supervision

and custody” and had a strong interest

in implementing a community justice

approach. The Department of Corrections had emerged from many years of

federal court oversight of its prison
49

Parolee on

Supervision Technical Violation Occurs

PO may learn about this by:• Observation• Self-report• Independent information• Information from program

Possible Violations of 12 Standard Conditions• Travel out of state w/o permission• Dirty urine• Failure to report • Not participating in treatment• Moving w/o permission• New arrest for substance abuse or weapon• Failure to report arrest• Possession of drugs or weapons• Prohibited contact w/ victim/codefendant• Curfew violation• Failure to pay fine• Conviction for new offense

20% of parolees get into this process

Stricter

General

Conditions

Utilize

“Pocket

Warrant”

Must review

w/ supervisor

w/in 24 hrs

Review w/

Supervisor

Adjustment

Session

w/ Parolee

and

Supervisor

Adjustment

Session

w/ PO and

Parolee

PO Records

In chronology

In casebook

1 day–1 week

1 day–1week

Investigate

1 day–1 week1–2 days

1 day–1 week 

Warn orCounsel

Parolee

1–2 days 

Prosecutor

or Division

Can Apply

for Accelerated

Revocation

Issuance of

Warrant

Impose

Special

Condition(s) 

1 day–1 week

Special Conditions• Inpatient/outpatient  drug counseling• NA/AA• Mental health  counseling• Curfews• No contact• Urine testing• Day reporting• Alternative sanctions  program • Secure employment

next step in processtimelinereturn to earlierstep in process New Jersey: A Map of the State Parole Revocation Process E X H I B I T 5–6.
50

Custody

County jail

National

Crime

Information

Serve

Warrant

Center

(NCIC)

Wanted

Person

System

(WPS)

Probable CauseHearing in Jail• HO• PO of record  (usually)• Parolee• Witnesses• Counsel  (if appropriate)

Fast Track

17–21 days

17–21 days

PO presents C39package anddiscovery• Chronology• Police report• Special conditions• Admissions• Lab reports• Parole certificate

3% end up in second hearings97% waive hearing orconvert back to inmate status

2/3 of cases not involved in crime1/3 of cases have new crime activity

Cap of 8 per day

5-10% may be postponed

Probable

Cause

Warrant cancelled No Probable

Cause

Convert to

Final Hearing

at Parolee’s

Request

Cancel warrantHold and issue ship letter

Waive Probable Cause

Cancel warrant and impose special conditions

60 days

82.4% revoked17.6% continue

No Action

(Administratively close

case because maximum

sentence has been reached.

District directed to lift

warrant at maximum.)

Final Hearing• HO• PO• Parolee• Witness• Counsel• Victim

Waive

Probable

Cause and

Final Hearing

Revocation Hearing Unit reviews

on the record and prepares

recommendation for Board

• Probable cause hearing w/in 14 days• Parolee receives C39 package 3 days  before hearing (served by PO, not PO  of record) • Parolee, PO, and HO can request  delay up to a total of 28 days  (PO may interview)• C39 notifies parolee of right to waive  hearing and request attorney and  witness• If parolee requests attorney,  automatic delay is indefinite  depending on county (pro bono  assignment)

Cancel warrant and impose special conditionsCancel warrantCancel warrant and order community final hearingHold over for final hearing (remain in county jail)

(Virtually all of these

are recommended for revocation)

New Jersey: A Map of the State Parole 

Revocation Process (continued)

E X H I B I T 5–6.
51

Recommendationto the Boardmay be given to paroleeat hearing (if hearing isnot waived) or afterward 

Continue the Case

Hold for Further

Staff Participating inParole Violation Process

Review 

Action onRecommendationmay begin immediately ormay await Board action

Continue on Parole w/

or w/o Special Conditions

Revoke and Impose

Future Eligibility Date

Revoke and 

Serve Maximum

Revoke and Reparole

Board Reviewby 2 membersThey may—AgreeRejectModifyIf they reject or modify, action mayneed to be reversed.

Continue on Parole w/

or w/o Special Conditions

Revoke and Impose

Future Eligibility Date

Revoke and Serve

Maximum

Revoke and Reparole

• 5 Supervising POs• 14 District Supervisors• 26 Asst. District Supervisors• 400 Senior POs• Recruits• Electronic Monitoring Unit – District Parole Supervisor – Asst. District Parole Supervisor

Continue on Parole or

Revoke and Reparole to 

Mutual Agreement 

Program (MAP)

Treatment Facility or 

Halfway Back Program

Continue on Parole or

Revoke and Reparole to

MAP Treatment Facility or 

Halfway Back Program

New Jersey: A Map of the State Parole 

Revocation Process (continued)

E X H I B I T 5–6.
52

operations and was interested in focusing

on community supervision. A reexamination of responses to parole violations

was just one issue the department and

board were interested in addressing.

However, they found that the emphasis

on parole violations and revocation provided an excellent vantage point from

which to integrate and rationalize their

interest in evolving toward a community justice model.

Targets of change and

accomplishments in Rhode Island 

The Rhode Island team went through

many of the same steps in examining

their practice and setting goals as did

the other states. They identified a number of interesting targets of change that

illustrate the variety of ways in which a

jurisdiction’s work on parole violations

evolves. 

Vision, mission, and goals

The Rhode Island team’s early work on

the project suggested to them that one

of the most important outcomes would

be to clarify and develop an understanding of, consensus about, and support of

the joint vision, mission, and goals of

the department and parole board. The

group reexamined the mission, vision,

and goals of their violation effort and how

they related to the missions of their two

agencies. (Refer back to exhibit 2–1 for

language found in Rhode Island’s goal

statement.) Notable in this statement is

a focus on “maximizing the productive

functioning of the offender.” This theme

emerged in all four states participating

in the NIC effort. It is based on an appreciation of the fact that a parolee who

successfully reintegrates into the community (e.g., remains crime free, prevents

future victimization, reestablishes ties

with family and community, becomes

self-supporting) is an asset to community

safety.

Explicit policy on revocations

As a result of the team’s involvement

in the NIC project, a number of key

products are now available to assist the

department and the board in communicating more clearly about violation and

supervision issues. 

For instance, the team developed a glossary of terms. As the team’s work began,

it became clear that different individuals were using terms with slightly different meanings. The glossary allowed the

team to clarify the precise meanings of

terms that would be used in the future

(e.g., formal and informal sanctions for

offender behavior while on parole) and

the precise distinctions between terms

(e.g., a new charge violation and a technical violation). Team members indicate

that this has enhanced the ability of all

participants to communicate clearly regarding violation and supervision issues.

Other products include a draft Parole

Violations Policy and a draft Responding

to Parole Violations Standard Operating

Procedure, both of which will be implemented in the near future. The policy

sets out “internal consistency” as one

of the goals in responding to violations.

It also clarifies that responses to violations should be timely, clear, appropriate, and proportional to the situation,

while giving priority to public safety.

The procedure outlines a matrix to rate

the severity of violations behavior and

the dangerousness of an offender.

Creating sources of support 

for paroled offenders

Rhode Island pursued at least two different vehicles to enhance the likelihood of

offenders’ success on parole: the parole

forum and the Family Life Center.

Parole forum. The parole forum, created

by the parole board and the Department

of Corrections, was an effort born of the

realization that transitioning from prison
53

to the community can be a confusing

and difficult time. Conditions of supervision can be unclear, the offender’s

reentry to the community can be a time

of great fearfulness for the offender’s

victim, and failure can be a quick result.

The parole forum, initiated by the chair

of the Rhode Island Parole Board, meets

periodically and all recently released

parolees are invited to attend with a

support person of their choosing. The

chair of the Rhode Island Parole Board

and parole staff, including line parole officers and supervisors, are speakers. Also

in attendance are a victim advocate and

an ex-offender who is currently on the

staff of the Rhode Island Department of

Children, Youth, and Families. 

The purpose of the session is to provide

information, clarification, encouragement, and insight to enhance transitioning offenders’ ability to succeed on

parole. A support person who will help

parolees as needed and clarify the parole

board’s expectations for the supervision

period is also available. This person’s

“buy-in” can be a key contribution to

the parolee’s compliance and success.

The parole chair begins by explaining

the conditions of parole release and the

board’s expectations of cooperation on

the part of the parolee. The victim advocate provides insight into how difficult

it may be for victims to encounter their

perpetrators unexpectedly and explains

how to minimize the consequences if

this occurs. 

The ex-offender is able to share his own

experiences concerning what to expect

and how to cope with the challenges that

parolees will inevitably face. The board

reports that offenders have reacted quite

positively to the session, expressing their

interest and appreciation. It communicates the notion that parole is not only a

form of accountability but also a source

of support and assistance to offenders

returning to their communities. A list

of the key topics covered in these sessions is provided in exhibit 5–7. 

Family Life Center. The second initiative, the Family Life Center, was created

by a group of local nonprofit and faithbased organizations that had indicated

their willingness to work with the Department of Corrections and others to

ensure the successful reintegration of

offenders returning to the community

from prison. The center is located in

the section of the Providence community from which the majority of Rhode

Island’s prison inmates are drawn. A

staff person from the Family Life Center

contacts offenders while they are still

incarcerated and begins to work with

them up to 2 years before an anticipated

release date. The Family Life Center

case manager works with the offenders

to identify and overcome obstacles they

may be facing upon release, including

difficulty in finding housing, jobs, or

substance abuse treatment. The case

manager can also assist offenders with

family needs or health issues and refer

them to the appropriate agency. The

center has a board of directors drawn

from multiple social services and nonprofit and faith-based organizations in

the Providence area. In addition, the

director of corrections sits on the

board. The center’s Web site describes

its mission, programs, and services

and may be accessed at http://www.

ri-familylifecenter.org.

Monitoring progress

Through the NIC project, Rhode Island

has developed and begun to implement

a data system that can track parolees as

they enter supervision and exit from it,

and the state has begun to refine the

system to enhance its functionality. In

addition, the state has developed a mechanism for tracking violation behaviors

and their outcomes at the individual

case level. It has developed and implemented forms and taught officers how to

use them. Through that process, it has

learned about officers’ needs concerning

ease of data entry and has begun to consider how to make information relevant
54

E X H I B I T 5–7. Rhode Island: Parole Release Forum Agenda 

1. An Explanation of Terms and Conditions: Understanding What Is Expected

• Reporting • Associating with individuals with criminal records

• Travel • Electronic monitoring

• Employment, loss of job • Sex offender requirements

• Support of dependents • No possession of weapons

• Change of address • No acting as an informant without parole officer’s permission

• Drug testing and use • Discharge from treatment for noncompliance

2. What To Expect in the Parole Violations Process:What Could Happen,What’s at Stake

3. Obtaining a Rhode Island License or Identification:Where and How

4. A Review of What Has Been Accomplished Before You Leave the Adult Correctional Institution: Foundation for

Success

• With whom are you residing? • Weekly report sessions

• Parole checks on all residents of the home • Schedules: Where can I go?

• Verify employment

• Verify telephone service

• Electronic monitoring parole

• Payment of fees

5. Victims and Successfully Achieving Parole: Understanding Their Perspective

• Respecting crime victims • Needs and concerns of crime victims

– Safety

– Restitution

6. Advice From an Ex-Offender’s Perspective: How To Be Successful 

• Staying positive and trying to succeed 

• Making correct choices and learning

how to solve problems

• Change is hard (but worthwhile)

• Avoiding old friends, areas, and habits

• Substance abuse: meetings, sponsors, 

relapse prevention 

7. We want you to succeed!

The Rhode Island Parole Board and the Department of Corrections Parole Officer

• And finally: In the case of distress or hardship, the holder of

this permit will promptly communicate with his/her parole

officer, who will seek to protect him/her in his/her rights and

aid him/her in his/her needs.

• Work issues: filling out applications, difficulty with employer

or coworkers

• Transportation

• Child visitation/child support

• Old friends/new friends

• The “Lying Cycle”: what it is and how to avoid it
55

for individual officers and for overall

planning and assessment. The state has

begun the process of developing written

policies and procedures, which will provide for uniformity in officer activities

and strengthen the supervision system.

It has also begun to redesign the data

collection system to help manage data

entry and usefulness.

Rhode Island change strategy:

How did they do it?

Forming a policy team

In Rhode Island, the Director of Corrections and the Chair of the Parole Board

agreed to cochair a policy team to conduct the work necessary to participate

in the NIC project. This was a prerequisite of the NIC project. Over the years,

NIC has learned that any significant

system change requires the concerted

efforts of policymakers working both

across traditional agency boundaries and

within the sometimes fragmented confines of an individual agency. In Rhode

Island, in addition to the Director of Corrections and Chair of the Parole Board,

key staff responsible for parole supervision, research and statistics, and intake

and classification were included on the

team. 

Working groups were eventually formed

that included line parole staff, community agencies that provided services to

parolees and their families, a victim advocate, and an ex-offender. All of these

individuals remained active on the policy team throughout the project.

Policy team retreat

In Rhode Island, the project assisted the

department and board in forming a policy team that was to be the steering group

for this change effort. As a way to kick

off the team’s work, the project designed

and facilitated a policy team retreat. A

policy team retreat can help a group of

policymakers define its mission, build

consensus about direction and role,

underline the urgency and importance of

the effort, and create a cross-agency vehicle to spearhead change. Factors to be

considered in designing a successful policy team retreat include the following:

• Bringing the right individuals to the

table. Policymakers are beginning to

realize the fragmentation inherent in

the system that moves offenders from

prison to the community and then

provides supervision, services, and responses to parole violations. To build

a truly integrated system to manage

that process, it is critical to involve

the stakeholders responsible for its

various parts. NIC required that the

paroling authority and the agency responsible for community supervision

be part of the policy team. In this

instance, the Department of Corrections and Parole Board were the main

agencies involved. However, as the

team’s work progressed, it became

clear that the outcomes would be enhanced with the addition of community service providers, a victim advocate,

and an ex-offender. It was also important to include representation from

the policy level and from levels in the

organization responsible for line supervision and middle management. Individuals from within the prison who

were charged with planning the transition of offenders were also included.

Perhaps the most unique aspect of the

Rhode Island team’s membership is

the inclusion of an ex-offender. According to the staff coordinator, the affinity that emerged between the victim

advocate and the ex-offender:

. . . became something close to

the spiritual core of the project.

The effectiveness of this partnership is most clearly witnessed

in the parole forums, in which

recently released parolees and

family members are far more

responsive to their presentations

than to any information or advice from the state officials.
56

Their unique perspectives have

helped to anchor the team as a

whole and to inform the development of mission, purpose, and

policy.

• Creating ground rules for a policy

team retreat that allow for candidness

and for leaving the day-to-day operational business at the door. It is often

very hard for agencies to look at the

broad picture of how they interrelate

because they are so occupied with the

press of daily business. A retreat, particularly one held at a site where individuals will not be interrupted by

daily business, will help to avoid

these barriers.

• Developing clear goals and a thoughtful agenda as a framework for the

retreat. You cannot assume that just

because you get the key players in a

room together that you will make

progress on the issue at hand. A clear

goal for the retreat must be developed

and circulated to the key participants

so that they understand what you are

trying to achieve and come prepared to

assist in making it a successful retreat.

Likewise, a careful roadmap of how

you are going to spend your time must

be developed. What information needs

to be presented? Who should serve as

convener? What questions need to be

considered and answered by the group?

What are your assets and difficulties

in achieving your desired outcomes? 

• Being clear about the stakes. Why

should anyone want to come to such

a policy team retreat? What is the importance of the issue to be discussed?

Everyone in criminal justice is burdened by a seemingly endless supply

of work and a limited set of resources.

To secure the attention of policymakers, managers, and line staff, the agency

or individuals responsible for securing

the cooperation of retreat participants

must be able to articulate the stakes

involved in addressing, or not addressing, the topic at hand. In the violations

arena, many agencies are concerned

about the number of individuals who

are returned to prison because of parole revocations. Depending on the

volume of violators and the pressures

on prison space, this can be an extremely urgent set of issues with major

stakes in terms of prison costs and

community safety.

• Using the services of an outside facilitator. Running a successful retreat

requires expending a major effort that

includes paying attention to clear

goals, keeping the discussion on track,

making sure everyone is heard, and

creating exercises to help participants

“unpack” the issues of concern. Having an outside facilitator available to

assist with these chores will enable

those participating in the substantive

discussions to focus on the work at

hand while someone else moves the

meeting along.

• Understanding that such a retreat is

only the beginning of working on a

problem. Retreats and any similar

events should end with a discussion

of further work that needs to be done,

who will be charged with doing it, and

a timeline and milestones for the work.

Gaps analysis

After members of the Rhode Island team

had completed their reconsideration of

vision, mission, and goals, they began

to analyze how their current practice

either helped them reach those goals or

created barriers. This approach is called

gap analysis because it focuses on the

gaps between what the team has set as

its preferred future and what is currently

in practice. The obstacles that the Rhode

Island team identified in achieving their

goals are summarized in exhibit 5–8. It is

interesting to observe how few of these

challenges relate to resource constraints,

lack of formal authority, or limitations

in our knowledge about effective interventions. Rather, they relate to such

issues as communication, organizational
57

E X H I B I T 5–8. Rhode Island: Inventory of Barriers to Change

Factors that militate against a comprehensive, rational, and systematic approach:

• Demands of daily press of work.

• A prevalent philosophy in the system is “lock them up.”

• Need to identify and enhance a range of intermediate sanctions as responses to violations.

• Resistance to change.

• Lack of understanding and consensus regarding goals and definitions of success.

• Organizational politics.

• Lack of in-house expertise.

• Labor relations issues.

• Gaps in information.

Factors stemming from a lack of support for sound violation practices built into the current way of doing our work:

• Lack of standard operating procedures.

• Uncertainty as to who else should be involved.

• No current means of assessing risk and levels of supervision.

• Staffing and training issues regarding LSI–R.

• Sustaining motivation, enthusiasm, and discipline.

Factors that make it difficult to focus on “successful completion of parole” as a goal:

• The traditional focus has been on negatives and failures.

• Our systems collect information on failures, not success.

• The entire system tends to be reactive, not proactive.

Factors that make it difficult to reallocate resources to support a new approach to violations and revocations:

• Labor issues.

• Community fear and hostility.

• Staff motivation.

• Lack of a complete case management system.

• Lack of immediate benefits to staff for making such a change.

Factors that inhibit a shared understanding regarding the system:

• Lack of clear communication.

• Lack of shared goals.

• Lack of positive public relations.

• Different parts of the system are not in the habit of working together.

• Difficulty in getting the message out to the public.
58

culture, and the challenges of maintaining focus and momentum. These factors

can be transformed into targets of change

for which an implementation strategy

can be developed. (See tool 16 in the appendix for an exercise to help a policy

team develop a similar understanding of

both barriers and assets.)

Advice for colleague agencies

Interviews with some of the key stakeholders in Rhode Island elicited some

advice that might prove to be helpful for

other jurisdictions contemplating a new

focus on parole release, supervision, violations, and revocation. First, the Director of Corrections observed that perhaps

the biggest danger in contemplating

this work is that agencies will feel overwhelmed and discouraged and will not

ever begin. His advice was to realize that

one can start this process at any stage

and that an agency will find it helpful no

matter how advanced or how rudimentary they feel their parole practices may

be. The Chair of the Parole Board stated

that some of the very basic tasks conducted under this project (e.g., the development of a shared glossary of terms)

were among the most helpful because

we often assume that everyone has the

same understanding of terminology or

current practice. 

Perhaps the most urgent advice to colleagues from the leaders of the Rhode

Island team is that the power of bringing

the key stakeholders to the table cannot

be underestimated. In the words of the

Chair of the Rhode Island State Parole

Board:

The collaborative aspect of the

project was the most significant

outcome for us in Rhode Island.

Many of the team members had

never sat at the same table before.

Although most of us work together “on paper,” we have never

met face to face, and most have

never even talked on the phone

due to the world of e-mails! It

was especially good to have the

institutional folks talking with

the community supervision

folks, so that each could more

clearly understand the other’s

needs and perspectives.

Clearly, the exercise of working together to create a common vision, mission,

and goals regarding violations and transition proved to be extremely helpful to

policymakers in Rhode Island.
Section IV

Mobilizing for Change
A major goal of this handbook has been

to identify innovations that have resulted from the work of states involved in

the NIC technical assistance project

with the goal of encouraging readers

to explore improvements in their own

jurisdictions. It is true that every state

is different—in terms of organizational

structures, resources, offender populations, statutes, and values—and that

specific strategies for improving violation policy and practices will vary

markedly from state to state. The variety

among just the four states participating

in this NIC project is testimony to that.

However, the similarities that emerged

among these states and others in terms

of the directions and ends toward which

they felt they must move are striking.

Those directions and ends include the

following:

• Being sure that the right number and

type of parole violators were being

returned to prison. A major question

for these states was whether revocations to prison as a result of parole

violations were appropriate—and what

policymakers from across the system

deemed “appropriate” in terms of the

number and type of violators that

would be revoked. In some states, a

huge percentage of returns to prison

occur as a result of parole violations.

• Achieving clarity and consistency of

violation and revocation policy. An

underlying theme of the work in

Should You Explore Strengthening 

Your Parole Violation and 

Revocation Practices?

CHAPTER SIX

these four states was the need for more

clarity and consistency in violation

policy. These states realized that in

many instances, line parole officers had

little or no guidance about whether or

when to bring a technical violation

into the formal violation process.

• Working from a systems perspective.

Participating states found that many

of their current practices regarding

parole violations had evolved without

regard to a systems perspective. With

a new focus on offender reentry, it

becomes important to craft policy

that incorporates, at a minimum, the

concerns of institutional corrections

with those of the releasing authority

and the agency responsible for postrelease supervision.

• Paying attention to the conditions of

supervision. Conditions of supervision represent important tools and

parameters to frame supervision. A

new appreciation has developed of the

importance of crafting conditions of

supervision that will assist in addressing risk and criminogenic needs and

that take into account the availability

of resources in the community.

• Assessing severity and risk consistently and effectively. Not all technical violations are alike, nor are all parolees.

Basic tools in responding effectively

to parole violations are a standardized

scale of violation severity and an

61
62

empirically based method to assess

the risk presented by a parolee.

• Putting into place a range of intermediate responses to violations. Perhaps

even more basic to sound violation

practice is to have the ability to employ responses short of revocation

when the severity and risk presented

by a violator can be managed in the

community. Policy should be clear as

to which combinations of severity and

risk warrant what types of intermediate responses.

• Being clear about the goals of supervision and revocation. Perhaps the most

fundamental work that any agency can

do as it reviews its violations policy

and practice is to revisit its goals for

supervision and responses to violations.

The agencies involved in NIC’s project all concluded that a major goal of

supervision was to support successful

completion of parole supervision including, in particular, no new crimes

and no new victims. This served to

shape the rest of their retooling of

violation policy and practice.

• Forming a collaborative policy team

to lead the change process. Each jurisdiction found that it was necessary to

jointly define goals and desired changes

across agency boundaries. This required the formation of a collaborative policy team to define and lead

the change effort.

• Using evidence-based practice. Research on effective interventions with

offenders provides an important basis

on which to build improved violation

and revocation policy and practice. If

an important goal of supervision is to

encourage successful completion of

parole, then as technical violations

occur, it is important to consider what

types of interventions have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing

the likelihood of future criminal

offenses.

• Including incentives in supervision.

Parole supervision agencies are beginning to explore the implications of

research regarding the effectiveness

of incentives in changing behavior

and are beginning to build in positive

responses for desired performance on

parole as a way of reinforcing success.

• Recognizing the limits of compliance

and surveillance-driven supervision.

Simply monitoring behavior and compliance with conditions of supervision

will not create behavior change. Supervision agencies are beginning to define

their responsibilities to include case

management, linking offenders with

effective services, identifying and

working with offender strengths, and

mobilizing nontraditional sources of

support in the offender’s family and

community.

Based on the experiences of the four

states involved in the NIC project, a

review of key indicators might help you

decide whether you want to mobilize

for change and will help identify issues

that might be important for your consideration. Each item on the following

checklist (exhibit 6–1) provides two opposing descriptions of some aspect of

parole practice. Which statement best

describes parole supervision, violation,

and revocation practices in your state?

Check the statement that most closely

describes your state’s practices. Put a

checkmark in the center if you are

unsure.

Once you have completed the checklist

and totaled the number of checks in

each column, consider the implications.

Your checkmarks in the left-hand column clearly suggest practices in your

state that are consistent with changes

and improvements made by the states

participating in the NIC violations

project. 

Alternatively, checkmarks in the righthand column clearly identify issues that
63

A Quick Checklist: Should Your State Explore Parole

Supervision, Violation, and Revocation Practices?

E X H I B I T 6–1.

■

There is consensus among key stakeholders that returns 

to prison as a result of parole violations (particularly technical violations) are appropriate in terms of volume and 

the particular offenders being returned. 

■

All your parole practices, including violation practices, 

are guided by clear, explicit policy that is well understood 

at every level of the organizations involved. 

■

All of your practices from admission to prison through discharge from postrelease supervision have been developed

with a clear system perspective. 

■

Parole conditions are set specifically to address criminogenic needs and to support a case plan to ensure successful transition, and excessive conditions that may set 

a parolee up for failure are avoided. 

■

Your violation policy incorporates methods for assessing 

the severity of violations in a consistent way and your 

staff members understand how to use this assessment. 

■

Your violation policy incorporates a research-based method

for assessing the risk presented by a particular offender as

part of determining the appropriate response. 

■

Your violation policy provides clear options short of full 

revocation as responses to lower severity technical violations and lower risk offenders and provides guidance 

about when to use them. 

■

You have worked across agency boundaries to develop a

shared, clear vision, mission, and goals for parole release,

supervision, and revocation practices. 

■

You have in place a collaborative policy team that is working across the system to bring all your resources to bear

upon the shared goal of ensuring successful transition of

offenders from prison to the community.

■

You have put considerable effort into becoming familiar 

with the substance of the “what works” literature and are

working to incorporate evidence-based practice into your

operations. 

■

Your correctional, release, and supervision practices have

begun to incorporate incentives and recognition of positive

achievement in addition to sanctions for noncompliance

and lack of performance.

■

You have a case management system for supervision of

offenders on parole and/or postrelease supervision that is

geared toward supporting successful completion of parole. 

There are significant questions among key stakeholders

about whether the number and type of offenders being

returned to prison as a result of parole violations (particularly technical violations) are appropriate. 

■

You have only general guidance about your parole practices, particularly violation practices, relying on the individual judgment of line officers to decide when violations are

important enough to bring forward into the formal process. 

■

Your institutional corrections, release decisionmaking,

postrelease supervision, and revocation practices have

been developed primarily to achieve the specific interests

of each agency in the process. 

■

Parole conditions tend to be numerous and standard, additional conditions are often added without a clear assessment of risk and criminogenic need, and conditions are 

set without an understanding of whether resources are 

in place to allow parolees to comply. 

■

You try to respond to violations according to how serious

they are, but have no specific guidelines about how to 

rank severity.

■

You are concerned about risk but have no particular

method or protocol (or no research-based protocol) for 

staff to use to assess risk as part of deciding how to

respond to a violation of parole. 

■

Your violation policy does not directly address when nonrevocation responses are appropriate, and other options are

available but guidance about when to use them is unclear. ■

Vision, mission, and goals have been addressed, if at 

all, within each part of the system, rather than across 

agencies. 

■

Although each agency is focused on its mission and has

leadership and staff resources working to support that 

mission, there is no credible vehicle with a clear charge 

to conduct such work across agency boundaries. 

■

Leaders and individuals in your agencies have very different levels of interest in, and knowledge of, the research 

on “what works” and your practices reflect a skepticism

about “what works.”

■

Your practices rely primarily on the notion of punishment

and sanctions as a response to noncooperation or noncompliance or risky behavior by offenders while incarcerated and while under community supervision.

■

Your case management system is geared primarily toward

tracking contacts and identifying noncompliance. ■

Check the column (left, middle “Not Sure?”, or right) with the statement that most nearly describes the practice

in your state.

Not Sure?

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■ 
participating states considered problematic and led them to explore ways to

improve practice regarding violations. 

If you have checkmarks in the center

column, indicating that you are unsure

exactly where practice falls in your state,

that would suggest a need to gather additional information about violation and

revocation practices to decide whether

changes are needed.

Once you have completed the checklist,

refer to exhibit 6–2. Using the Web sites

identified in the exhibit, take a quick

look at the proportion of your parole population successfully completing parole

and the percentage of prison admissions

in your state that occur as a result of

parole revocations. This may provide

further insight into whether or not your

current practice warrants a closer look.

If you feel that you are ready to explore

improvements in parole violation policy

and practice, chapter 7 of this handbook

guides users through a six-step process

to help you to mobilize for change.

64

E X H I B I T 6–2. A Quick Look at the Numbers

Percentage Percentage of Prison

Successfully Admissions as a Result

State Prison Population Parole Population Completing Parole of Parole Violations

National data can sometimes highlight issues and provide a context for discussion in a particular state. Consult

Trends in State Parole 1990–2000 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/tsp00.pdf) and refer to information for your

state in the following areas. This will provide a picture of the dimensions of violations and admissions to prison in

your state. Information on prison population and admissions for 2002 can be found in the Bureau of Justice Statistics publication Prisoners in 2002 at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p02.pdf. Record your information below:
If you used the checklist in the previous chapter and concluded that you

have reason to review and strengthen

your practices in the violation area, 

the approach outlined in this chapter

will help you do so. Specific problems,

issues, and solutions differ in different

jurisdictions. However, if you and your

colleagues want to change strategies to

strengthen your parole practices, reduce

prison admissions resulting from parole

revocations, manage offenders effectively in times of scarce resources, and work

toward safer communities by more effectively supporting offenders during

their transition from prison to the community, the six-step process outlined in

this handbook will help you do so.

The process will help you define a direction, assess current practices, identify

targets of change, and work toward

achieving the desired changes that have

been identified. The handbook does not

prescribe specific solutions. Systems,

conditions, and problems are so different

from state to state that it seems unwise

to prescribe set solutions. A perfect solution for one state may be entirely inappropriate for another. It might even be

argued that it is not specific innovations

that contribute to success but, rather, it

is the ability to define problems, craft

solutions, and create partnerships that

seems to be the most important capacity of an evolving system. The sections

of this report that describe the lessons

How To Mobilize for Change—

Six Steps To Strengthen Parole for Public

Safety and Successful Offender Transition

CHAPTER SEVEN

emerging from NIC’s technical assistance project and the actual targets of

change selected by the four participating states provide examples and suggestions to be considered as you define

your own targets of change.

Exhibits 7–1 and 7–2 show steps that

may help you organize resources to

strengthen parole in your state. This

process was adopted by the four states

that participated in the NIC technical

assistance project and yielded significant change for each state. 

The process has several key features:

• It is possible to begin in one of several

places on the cycle. Revisiting or reshaping your definition of success for

your efforts is extremely important,

but sometimes teams find that it is

helpful to begin with the less threatening exercise of documenting current

practice. Similarly, although you will

ultimately need a policy-level group to

exercise leadership and provide momentum, it may be possible to begin

the work of understanding current

practice with a staff working group

first. By developing a clear and shared

understanding of current practice, participants may be more strongly persuaded that it is important to form a

policy team or to revisit a clear definition of success for parole violation

practices and for supervision itself.

65
66

E X H I B I T 7–1. How To Mobilize for Change

Step 1:

Form a Policy Team

and a Working Team

Step 4:

Assess Gaps

Between Current

Practice and Your

Definition of Success

Step 2:

Understand Current

Practice and the

Lessons of Research

Step 3:

Revisit Your

Definition of Success

• This is a continuing process that you

will likely repeat over time. Anyone

who has worked in the criminal justice field for any length of time will

confirm that both the internal and

external environments of your agencies will change so dramatically that

it will be imperative to reevaluate

your practices and direction continually as you pursue your mission.

• The process assumes that information

is essential to good practice. You must

have good information about your own

system and practices. Likewise, you

need good information about new insights emerging from research.

For each step in the process, this handbook describes tools to help mobilize

for change. The tools, detailed in the

appendix, are designed to serve as a

roadmap for jurisdictions undertaking a

change process centered on parole violations, revocations, and transition. Users

are encouraged to modify and adapt the

tools as necessary to define and reach

their own targets of change.

The six-step process to be applied in

mobilizing for change and the tools for

each step are outlined in exhibit 7–2.

Details are provided in the appendix.

Step 1: Form a Policy Team and a

Working Team

Change does not simply happen because

one individual or a few individuals think

it is a good idea. It requires the joint

effort of individuals and agencies with

similar ends in mind. This step in the

process helps you organize for change

through an interdisciplinary team composed of policymakers supported at various levels by staff working teams.

Step 5:

Identify Targets 

of Change

Step 6:

Develop and

Implement a 

Work Plan
67

Understanding the issues

You probably would not be reading this

text if you didn’t have some interest or

concern about parole violations. This

may be a relatively new interest for you,

however, and scanning the literature

on the topic may help you to view your

own agency’s concerns in a broader context and may help you engage others in

a serious review of the issue. In the appendix to this document, under Tools

for Step 1: Form a Policy Team and a

Working Team, you will find tool 1, Suggested Readings on Parole Violations

and Strengthening Parole Practice.

These information sources are suggested as background for any further work

you may pursue on this topic.

Agencies that should be involved

The essential agencies to be involved in

this work include the parole board, the

agency responsible for supervision of

parolees once they are released, and the

agency responsible for correctional institutions. Other agencies that should be

considered for inclusion at some point

are those providing services and support

that offenders will need as they return to

their communities. These might include

state agencies providing substance abuse,

housing, employment, or mental health

services. Providers of victim services

and advocacy are also important stakeholders to be included. In addition, private agencies involved in providing

services or support for returning offenders would be likely candidates.

Step Tool

Step 1: Form a Policy Team

and a Working Team

Tool 1: Suggested Readings on Parole Violations and Strengthening Parole

Practice 

Tool 2: A Checklist for Planning and Conducting a Policy Team Retreat

Tool 3: Sample Goals and Agenda for a Policy Team Retreat 

Tool 4: Presentation on Lessons From the NIC Project 

Tool 5: Parole in Your State

Step 2: Understand Current

Practice and the

Lessons of Research

Tool 6: Suggestions for Mapping the Violation and Revocation Process

Tool 7: The Violation Process: A Sample Map 

Tool 8: Suggestions for Data Gathering and Analysis To Document Current

Practice 

Tool 9: Understanding the Official Guidance on Parole Violations and

Revocations: A Checklist of Items To Review 

Step 3: Revisit Your Definition

of Success 

Tool 10: Revisiting Your Definition of Success for Responding to Parole

Violations in Your State: Suggested Team Work Session

Step 4: Assess Gaps Between

Current Practice and

Your Definition of

Success

Tool 11: Gaps Analysis: Suggested Team Work Session 

Tool 12: Gaps Analysis Worksheet

Step 5: Identify Targets of

Change

Tool 13: Identifying Targets of Change: Suggested Team Work Session 

Tool 14: Targets of Change Worksheet 

Step 6: Develop and

Implement a Work

Plan

Tool 15: Assessing Your Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats:

Suggested Team Work Session

Tool 16: Developing an Implementation Plan: Suggested Team Work Session

E X H I B I T 7–2. Steps and Tools To Mobilize for Change
68

Two kinds of individuals will need to be

involved in this process: policy-level individuals who have the authority to convene such an effort, to allocate sufficient

resources to it, and to make decisions to

change practice when you have concluded where improvements are needed;

and individuals who have the “nuts and

bolts” knowledge about case flows and

who can free up enough of their time to

do the considerable work that such an

effort takes. Such teams can be assembled in a variety of ways:

• Beginning from the working team

level. One way that such work can

begin is when line staff or midlevel

staff recognize the importance of

focusing on the issue and begin gathering information to “make the case”

with their superiors that the agency

or an alliance of agencies should begin

to work on a key problem. In this scenario, it becomes important for the

line or midlevel staff to do enough

analysis and data collection to make a

case with agency leadership that a

policy-level team should be convened

to guide the effort. This means that

significant work will take place on

“documenting current practice”

before the effort can be officially sanctioned by the agency leadership.

• Beginning from the policy team level.

Another way that such work can begin

is when agency leadership understands

the importance of the issue and buys

into the idea that assembling such a

team is important and worthwhile. In

this instance, a policy team might

begin work by rethinking vision, mission, and goals.

Ultimately, to be effective in mobilizing

for change you should engage two overlapping teams drawn from the policy

and operational levels of the agencies

involved.

Roles within the team 

As part of assembling key stakeholders

into a team, think about who will play

key roles. First, the team will need a

chair or coordinator of team activities.

This is the individual who is willing and

able to be responsible for leading the

team, keeping the team on course, and

helping the team to be successful. The

chair should be someone who, by virtue

of position, experience, and/or personal

stature and credibility, can keep the team

energized and focused on its work. A

facilitator should be designated to manage the work of the team, in support of

the chair’s leadership. The facilitator will

press the team to set a meeting schedule, establish ground rules for working

together, check in with team members

about agenda items for meetings, and

notify everyone of the time and location of meetings. Just as important, a

facilitator will manage the discussions

in meetings, making sure that everyone

is heard and that the meeting stays on

time and on course. Such a team will

also benefit from the designation of

support staff who will take minutes,

develop and circulate a meeting record,

and perform other important functions.

Working together: A policy 

team retreat

One effective way to kick off and coalesce a policy team is to convene a daylong policy team retreat. A retreat is a

meeting of key stakeholders, held in a

location away from the normal work

environment and all its distractions

(e.g., telephone, e-mail, visitors) and

devoted to creating a firm basis for your

work together on strengthening parole

through improved violation responses.

At such a retreat, participants will

share their perspectives on why parole

violation and revocation practices are of

significance, articulate their common

interests, and define a vision of the

future in which they all have a stake.

In the appendix, under Tools for Step 1:

Form a Policy Team and a Working

Team, refer to tool 2, A Checklist for

Planning and Conducting a Policy Team

Retreat, and tool 3, Sample Goals and

Agenda for a Policy Team Retreat.
69

You will want to prepare some very preliminary information for use at the policy team retreat on (1) lessons from the

national experience on parole violations

and (2) what parole violations look like

in the context of corrections in your

state. In the appendix, under Tools for

Step 1: Form a Policy Team and a

Working Team—

• Use tool 4, Presentation on Lessons

From the NIC Project, to provide an

overview for retreat participants on

some of the insights emerging from

other states’ work on this issue.

• Use tool 5, Parole in Your State, a set

of two charts that, when completed

with data from your state, will give at

least a broad overview of the scope of

violations and revocations and what

you know about the outcomes of violations and the revocation process.

Inside or outside your agency?

Because of the fragmentation of the system and the wide range of agencies that

have some interest in offender transition, teams that will be successful in

creating change will be drawn from various agencies and will typically cross

the traditional borders of agency and

level of government. They will typically involve individuals from government

agencies, private agencies, and the community. At first blush, some agencies are

quite reluctant to include “outsiders” in

such work because they feel that much

work needs to be done internally. In fact,

they are probably correct. As mentioned

above, the task of creating good communication and coordination between the

institutional staff and programs of a department of corrections and the supervision staff of the same department may

be quite a challenge. The states involved

in the NIC project found that it was helpful to involve different agencies at different stages of the process. For instance,

in kicking off their efforts, a number of

the teams invited senior representatives

from departments of substance abuse

and mental health, employment services,

child and family services, law enforcement, and other departments. As work

teams emerged, often internal work

teams handled data collection and analysis of policies. However, as agencies

began to design and implement improvements internally, they were positioned

to draw other agencies back into the discussions and to begin addressing more

cross-system issues. No one correct

sequence exists for this work. It is important to keep an open mind about

bringing relevant stakeholders into the

process as needs arise. 

Step 2: Understand Current

Practice and the Lessons 

of Research

Step 2 will provide your team with the

best information possible about how

things are really working in your own

state and about lessons emerging from

the experience of other states and from

the research.

Understand current practice

Detailed guidance about information

that should be gathered to document

current practice is provided below. The

whole purpose of this information gathering is to enable you to ultimately understand what is really going on. Does

this practice seem to get you where you

want to be? Once the information on

your own current practice has been collected, the team has familiarized itself

with national research and practice, and

information has been presented in a

series of informal working papers, team

members should meet to discuss the

implications. The information on your

own current practice paints a picture for

the team of the nature and extent of

parolees’ performance on supervision,

the incidence and nature of violations,

and the system’s response. It also provides a description against which you

can compare practices in your own state

with those in other states and with the
70

principles emerging from the research.

Once you have a good grasp of where

you are, you will be able to move on to

reconsider where you really want to be. 

Do not be discouraged if you are unable

to gather all of the information suggested. At least begin the process and try

to include some information on each

dimension, even if incomplete. If you

have been able to gather your policy

team together by this point, it is a good

idea to meet and discuss among yourselves what questions you would want

to have answered about violation practices. Are you interested in variation

among different parts of the state? Are

you more interested in documenting

available resources? Remember, this is

your undertaking; try to make it as

practical and as relevant to your own

system’s needs as possible.

Regarding practice in your own state, you

may have some preliminary information

or ideas indicating that violations of

parole are a topic you want to address.

It would not be unusual if only rudimentary information was immediately

available to you. However, regardless of

your assumptions about what you know,

it is essential to gather complete and

current information about your practices. This work has three major parts: 

• First, you will want to gather information about the violation process

and how cases move through it. This

will involve mapping the process and

adding quantitative data to the map. 

• Second, you will want to analyze the

existing policy framework that gives

form and direction to how your agencies handle violations. This will involve a review of all the formal and

informal sources of guidance your

staff members have to rely on regarding violations.

• Third, you will want to explore some

of the informal and unspoken norms

that staff are following in their

responses to violations.

It is essential that your team members

be involved in assembling all of this

information on current practice so that

the information will be credible. In fact,

mapping the process is best done in the

context of a team meeting. This is the

task that requires the most systemwide

knowledge, and it is likely that no one

or two individuals will really have the

information needed to construct such a

map. In addition, the construction process is a learning activity in itself, providing opportunities for specialists in

various aspects of the process to exchange information and, ultimately, to

develop a common and credible understanding of current practice.

Map the process

It is not unusual for individuals to be

quite knowledgeable about how things

work at one or two stages of the process.

A line parole officer may be very familiar with how to request approval for a

petition to revoke parole but may not

know how the same process occurs in a

different part of the state or how the conditions of parole are set. Also, a hearing

officer who conducts preliminary parole

hearings may be very knowledgeable

about the hearing itself and what information is typically presented but may

not be so familiar with what happens at

the line level as a parole officer is deciding whether an offender has actually

violated some condition and whether it

is appropriate to bring that violator forward on a petition to revoke. Similarly,

parole board members may be quite

knowledgeable about procedures at a

final parole hearing and may have a

clear sense of the factors that will persuade them to revoke parole, but a firstline supervisor in a regional office may

not be familiar with that aspect of the

process at all. This is why it is so critical to create a map of the process.

Ideally, you will want to begin the map

at a point in time when the offender is

admitted to a reception center in the

department of corrections. This will
71

allow you to capture information about

assessments and programming within

the institutions and how much lead time

exists for preparation for release, what

information is typically provided to the

parole board for a release decision, and

what information is available that might

be forwarded to field supervision staff

once the offender is released. Under

Tools for Step 2: Understand Current

Practice and the Lessons of Research,

you will find tool 6, Suggestions for

Mapping the Violation and Revocation

Process. Tool 7, The Violation Process:

A Sample Map, provides an example of

a simplified map. 

Add quantitative information

Once you have created a map of the flow

of parolees through the different stages

of supervision, violation, and revocation,

explore various ways in which to assemble statistics about the numbers of

offenders passing through each stage of

the process. Your existing management

information system may be able to generate data that you may want to add to

the map. If not, consider drawing a sample of cases from among those on supervision during a particular time period

and tracking their movement through

the process. The four states participating in the project selected a 1-year period and included cases from different

parts of the state to track any variations

occurring within the state. Once you

have added numbers of cases to the

points in the flow, you should also attach

estimates of average time lapses between

steps in the process. For example, to understand the impact of the process on

local jail beds or on prison population,

it is particularly helpful to understand

how much time parolees spend in local

jails or back in state facilities awaiting

disposition of a petition to revoke. Tool

8, Suggestions for Data Gathering and

Analysis To Document Current Practice, is included to provide some guidance about assembling a data set that

will shed light on the quantitative

dimensions of the violation process in

your state. 

Assemble all written policies and

procedures pertaining to violations

Assemble all written policies and procedures pertaining to violations, including

performance standards for your line officers and first-line supervisors. Here

you are examining the messages your

staff members are receiving regarding

violations and supervision in general.

It may be that incomplete or outdated

guidance is provided to staff. Your official policy guidance must be clear and

specific if your practices are to be consistent and supportive of agency vision,

mission, and goals. One task of your

team may be the redrafting or updating

of existing policies and procedures. Refer

to Responding to Parole and Probation

Violations: A Handbook To Guide Local

Policy Development for specific examples of policies and procedures adopted

by states that have created graduated

sanctions for parole violations. Refer

to the examples in the state descriptions contained in this volume for

other examples of efforts to incorporate

evidence-based practice into responses

to violations. 

Refer to the appendix under Tools for

Step 2: Understand Current Practice

and the Lessons of Research for tool 9,

Understanding the Official Guidance

on Parole Violations and Revocations:

A Checklist of Items To Review. This

tool provides a checklist of the types of

documents and sources that will help

you clearly understand the official guidance and direction your agencies have

disseminated to guide the work of their

staff. Ultimately, as you are rethinking

your policy and practice, you may need

to recraft this guidance to make it more

clear and more directly supportive of

your current goals for the violation

process.
72

Review the performance standards

for your line officers

One important process an agency has

in communicating with its staff is its

employee review practices and any performance standards promulgated by

the agency. In many parole supervision

agencies “contact standards” are the

major performance yardsticks against

which line officers are measured. States

participating in the latest NIC project

found that making changes in such

standards could provide another way to

emphasize a shift in direction for line

staff. In these states, emphasis was

shifted from the number of contacts to

the nature and purpose of the contacts

to underscore the parole officer’s role as

an agent of change with parolees.

Gather information about violation

“practices” as distinct from 

official policy

Just because policy is written does not

mean that it is honored in practice. Conducting informal interviews or focus

groups with staff from various regions

of a state or levels within an organization will also provide some insight into

how the work of supervision and responding to violations is actually practiced. This may provide information on

how to clarify directions or correct misunderstandings on the part of staff.

Kansas conducted a number of focus

groups with line staff during its work

with NIC, and this provided important

insight into the different ways in which

guidance from the agency regarding violations had been interpreted by staff.

Gather information about the 

range of responses available 

for violations

It is one thing to discuss in theory that

parole officers have some leeway to respond to technical violations through

“intermediate” responses, and it is

another to identify exactly what those

responses are and that they are available.

Gather lessons emerging from

national practice and research

Fortunately, you are not examining your

own practices in a vacuum. Other jurisdictions have addressed these issues

before, and an expanding body of research knowledge speaks directly to

violation policy and practice as well as

to “what works” in effective correctional

interventions. As a companion activity

to documenting your own practice, your

team and/or its subcommittees need to

familiarize themselves with this body

of work. You may want to refer back to

the suggested reading found as tool 1 in

the appendix for a framing of the national discussion on violations. You might

also want to use tool 4, Presentation on

Lessons From the NIC Project, to outline the lessons emerging from the NIC

projects with a working team that may

have expanded its membership. 

The literature on what works includes a

number of resources. The National Institute of Corrections Information Center

summarizes some of the principles and

provides links to other resources at

http://nicic.org/resources/topics/

EffectiveInterventions.aspx. In essence,

the literature suggests that effective correctional interventions are successful in

reducing the likelihood of recidivism for

some offenders. It further finds that

when those interventions are matched

to higher risk offenders, focus on criminogenic needs, and incorporate principles of responsivity, reductions in

recidivism can be quite significant. 

Step 3: Revisit Your 

Definition of Success

You may want to consider completing

steps 3, 4, 5, and 6 in the context of a 

1- or 2-day retreat, or you may do the

work at shorter meetings over a period

of time. However, steps 3, 4, 5, and 6

are clearly related, and you will rely

heavily on the results of each step to

progress to the next.
73

In step 1 of this process, your policy

team spent some time during its original retreat defining success for this initiative. Participants at that retreat were

asked to answer the question, “If you

were meeting on this topic 3 years from

now and your efforts had been successful, what would be different?” 

Since that time, if you have completed

the work outlined in both steps 1 and

2— 

• You have a much better picture of

what your current practices are and the

outcomes they will generate for you.

• You also have a better idea of what resources exist to respond to violations.

• You have taken the time to familiarize yourselves with what is going on

nationally regarding violations and

have looked at the literature about

correctional interventions.

Given your expanded information base

and greater insight, step 3 calls for the

policy team and working team to revisit your definition of success and to explore whether any changes in the vision

and mission of your agency or agencies

are needed to guide your work into the

future. 

Corrections agencies are often so busy

with the press of cases and workload

that they have little opportunity to step

back and reassess their overall direction

as an agency. So much changes in the

day-to-day environment, and our knowledge base is constantly being expanded

by new research. For these reasons

alone, it is critically important for any

agency or group of agencies to take the

time to look at the big picture. 

In another section of this handbook,

we discussed how thinking has radically

shifted in community supervision agencies regarding the general assumptions

of their work. Agencies are moving away

from a strictly enforcement-focused,

accountability-focused orientation to a

greater concern for ensuring the successful transition of offenders into the community and their successful completion

of parole supervision without new offenses and victims and with greater

community safety.

Definition of success: A vision

Under Tools for Step 3: Revisit Your

Definition of Success in the appendix is

an outline for a team session to help you

reconsider the work done at the first policy team retreat. You will be trying to be

more explicit and firm in describing how

your state might look in the future if

you are successful in setting conditions,

releasing offenders, and managing them

in the community, including how you

respond to violations of parole. In fact,

once you have completed this work,

you will have stated your vision for the

future.

What is a mission?

A mission statement describes the

work and activities of the team needed

to achieve your vision. The mission

includes statements about what the primary work entails, who the key beneficiaries and customers are, and when the

work will be performed. It will include

a series of interim achievements that

you have identified as essential to creating the future as depicted in your vision.

It should be concrete, should articulate

measurable targets of change, and should

be connected clearly to creating your

vision. The steps you take to achieve

those targets of change become the

goals and objectives of your team. 

Once your team has articulated what it

sees to be its vision and mission regarding violations and supervision, revisit

any existing agency statements of vision

and mission. Are they consistent? Do

they conflict? Are they simply unrelated to one another? It may be that individual agency visions and missions

require some adaptation based on current thinking.
74

Step 4: Assess Gaps Between

Current Practice and Your

Definition of Success

As a contrast with your vision of the

future and how you see your mission,

you now have a fairly thorough picture

of your own current practice, lessons

emerging nationwide from other states,

and lessons from the research. Your

team will want to pose the question,

“How closely does our current practice

bring us to achieving our vision?” The

challenge is to assess carefully how current practice differs from what the team

has identified as its vision and mission.

The mismatch between current practice

and a preferred future begins to define

for your team the targets of change you

will want to address as you plan to

implement change. The mismatch

between current practice and what has

emerged from the research and the

experiences of other jurisdictions begins

to identify the tools you might use to

move toward your vision and achieve

your mission.

Key components of parole 

practice for review 

The experiences of other jurisdictions

that have addressed these issues suggest that your team focus on potential

strengths and weaknesses in the

following:

• Policy.

• Protocols for assessing both risk and

severity of violations.

• A clearly understood and documented

range of responses to violation 

behavior.

• Clear policy guidance that links specific levels of risk and levels of violation severity with allowable

responses.

• Setting of conditions targeted to risk

and for which resources exist.

• A supervision and case management

approach that incorporates evidencebased practice.

A gaps analysis is best conducted in the

context of a team work session. Before

such a session, participants should familiarize themselves with the information that documents current practice

and knowledge. Ask each team member

to highlight the aspects of current practice that seem to be assets in moving

toward your vision and achieving your

mission. Ask each to highlight the

aspects that seem to be a hindrance to

achieving your vision and mission.

Under Tools for Step 4: Assess Gaps

Between Current Practice and Your

Definition of Success in the appendix,

you will find tool 11, Gaps Analysis:

Suggested Team Work Session, to help

you move through your gaps analysis

and tool 12, Gaps Analysis Worksheet,

to record some of your observations

about the data analysis completed as

part of step 3. 

Step 5: Identify Targets of Change

Once you have identified the gaps or

mismatch between where you are and

where you want to be, you can begin to

identify specific targets of change. After

those targets are clear, you can build

specific objectives that will assist you

in moving forward. Fortunately, states

that have addressed these issues in the

past have developed some promising

innovations, such as those described in

section III of this handbook, Innovations

in Four States. A number of key targets

of change involve the following:

• Clarification of policy and procedures

and/or recrafting of policy and procedures to more directly support the

current vision and mission of your

team.

• Better direction and creation of incentives and support for staff performance
that will support your vision and

mission.

• Identification of and access to effective interventions with offenders.

• Supervision that incorporates evidencebased practice, includes risk-reduction

strategies, and holds out successful

completion of parole as a desired

outcome.

• Collaborative partnerships with criminal justice, non-criminal justice, and

community organizations.

• Community involvement as a source

of capable guardianship and support

for parolees. 

Under Tools for Step 5: Identify Targets

of Change in the appendix, tool 13 provides instructions on how to move your

team through a process of identifying

targets of change, and tool 14 provides

a format for developing specific objectives that will move you toward the

desired changes.

Step 6: Develop and Implement 

a Work Plan

After you have developed targets of

change and specific objectives to move

you toward those targets, you will be

ready to complete a detailed and specific

work plan. Before you do so, however,

you should spend some time as a

team identifying your assets and your

obstacles.

Once you have completed this quick

review of what you have going for you

as a team, you will be ready to put together a detailed work plan. This will

be your roadmap for achieving the success you have defined for yourselves.

For each of your stated objectives, you

will need to consider specifically what

will have to happen for that objective

to be realized. This will be your list of

major work activities. Discuss what will

be needed in order to complete these

tasks: resources, approval, buy-in, cooperation of certain individuals or agencies, time, information, and so forth. Set

timelines, milestones, and deadlines,

and identify specific persons responsible for the completion of specific tasks. 

In the appendix under Tools for Step 6:

Develop and Implement a Work Plan,

you will find tool 15, Assessing Your

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities,

and Threats: Suggested Team Work

Session, and tool 16, Developing an

Implementation Plan: Suggested Team

Work Session. These tools provide a

step-by-step framework for translating

your earlier work into a specific implementation plan.

75
The states participating in the National

Institute of Corrections technical assistance project on parole violations

brought a number of concerns to the

table. Perhaps the most important lesson to emerge from development of

this handbook is that by focusing on

the various issues and crises precipitated by parole violations, the four state

teams created and discovered opportunities. By engaging in a thoughtful, collaborative, problem-solving approach,

the teams discovered opportunities—

• To revisit their missions, visions, and

goals in ways that helped focus and 

reenergize their efforts.

Conclusion—Focusing on the Issues

Creates Opportunities

CHAPTER EIGHT

• To use the lessons emerging from research about effective interventions

with offenders to move to evidencebased practice.

• To rethink and revitalize discretionary parole release and parole

supervision as resources to enhance

public safety and to encourage successful completion of parole.

• To recognize that true progress will

depend heavily on the willingness and

ability to engage in collaborative efforts within their own agencies and

across traditional boundaries, extending outside the criminal justice system

and into the community.

77
1. Petersilia, J. When Prisoners Come

Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry.

New York: Oxford University Press,

2003 (hereinafter Petersilia, When

Prisoners Come Home).

2. Hughes, T.A., Wilson, D.J., and Beck,

A.J. “Trends in State Parole.” Perspectives 26 (3) (Summer 2002): 26–33.

3. Travis, J., and Lawrence, S. Beyond

the Prison Gates: The State of Parole in

America. Washington, DC: The Urban

Institute, 2002.

4. Ibid.: 9.

5. Von Hirsch, A. Doing Justice: The

Choice of Punishments. New York:

Hill and Wang, 1976.

6. King, R.S., and Mauer, M. Distorted

Priorities: Drug Offenders in State

Prisons. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2002.

7. Travis, J. “Invisible Punishment: An

Instrument of Social Exclusion.” In M.

Mauer and M. Chesney-Lind (eds.),

Invisible Punishment: The Collateral

Consequences of Mass Imprisonment.

New York: The New Press, 2002.

8. Petersilia, When Prisoners Come

Home (see note 1): 14.

9. Lipton, D., Martinson, R., and Wilkes,

J. The Effectiveness of Correctional

Treatment: A Survey of Treatment

Evaluation Studies. New York: Praeger

Publishers, 1975.

10. Seiter, R.P., and Kadela, K.R. “Prisoner Reentry: What Works, What Does

Not, and What Is Promising.” Crime

and Delinquency 49 (3) (July 2003):

360–388.

11. Gaes, G.G., Flanagan, T.J., Motiuk,

L.L., and Steward, L. “Adult Correctional Treatment.” In M. Tonry and J.

Petersilia (eds.), Prisons. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1999:

361–426.

12. Cho, R. Impact of Housing on the

Criminal Justice System. Oakland, CA:

Corporation for Supportive Housing,

2002. Retrieved October 25, 2004 from

http://www.csh.org.

13. Cho, R., Gary, D., Ball, L., and Ladov,

M. A Guide to Reentry Supportive Housing: A Three-Part Primer for Nonprofit

Supportive Housing Developers, Social

Service Providers, and Their Government

Partners. Oakland, CA: Corporation for

Supportive Housing, 2002. Retrieved

October 25, 2004 from http://documents.csh.org/docs/crimjust-guide.doc.

14. Hals, K. From Locked Up to Locked

Out: Creating and Implementing PostRelease Housing for Ex-Prisoners.

Seattle: AIDS Housing of Washington,

2003. Retrieved October 25, 2004 from

http://www.aidshousing.org.

15. Motivational interviewing is designed to help offenders recognize and

do something about their problems

rather than simply gather information

Notes

79
80

or provide external guidance. It is based

on a body of research summarized by

Miller and Rollnick in their book, Motivational Interviewing: Preparing

People for Change. A strength-based

approach to supervision and case management focuses on what a person has

rather than what a person does not have,

what a person can do rather than what a

person cannot do, and what a person

has been successful at rather than past

failures. Miller, W.R., and Rollnick, S.E.

Motivational Interviewing: Preparing

People for Change (2d ed.). New York:

Guilford Press, 2002.

16. Carter, Madeline M., ed., Responding

to Parole and Probation Violations: A

Handbook To Guide Local Policy Development. Washington, DC, and Silver

Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Corrections, and

Center for Effective Public Policy, 2001. 

17. Berra, Y. The Yogi Book. New York:

Workman Publishing, 1998: 51.

18. Taxman, F.S. “Supervision—

Exploring the Dimensions of Effectiveness,” Federal Probation 66 (2)

(September 2002): 14–27.

19. Ibid.

20. Healey, K.M. Case Management

in the Criminal Justice System.

Research in Action. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, 1999,

NCJ 173409: 2.

21. Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J., and

Wormith, J.S. Manual for the Level of

Service/Case Management Inventory

(LS/CMI). Toronto: Multi-Health

Systems, in press. 

22. Rhode Island was the one participating state whose information system did

not allow it to establish a baseline. 
Appendix

Steps and Tools To Mobilize for Change
Tools for Step 1: Form a Policy Team and a Working Team................................................85

Tool 1. Suggested Readings on Parole Violations and 

Strengthening Parole Practice....................................................................85

Tool 2. A Checklist for Planning and Conducting a Policy 

Team Retreat...............................................................................................86

Tool 3. Sample Goals and Agenda for a Policy Team Retreat .................87

Tool 4. Presentation on Lessons From the NIC Project ..........................90

Tool 5. Parole in Your State .......................................................................92

Tools for Step 2: Understand Current Practice and the Lessons of Research.....................93

Tool 6. Suggestions for Mapping the Violation and 

Revocation Process.....................................................................................93

Tool 7. The Violation Process: A Sample Map .........................................95

Tool 8. Suggestions for Data Gathering and Analysis To 

Document Current Practice.......................................................................96

Tool 9. Understanding the Official Guidance on Parole 

Violations and Revocation: A Checklist of Items To Review ...............100

Tools for Step 3: Revisit Your Definition of Success..........................................................101

Tool 10. Revisiting Your Definition of Success for Responding to 

Parole Violations in Your State: Suggested Team Work Session ...........101

Tools for Step 4: Assess Gaps Between Current Practice and Your Definition 

of Success ..................................................................................................103

Tool 11. Gaps Analysis: Suggested Team Work Session ........................103

Tool 12. Gaps Analysis Worksheet..........................................................104

Tools for Step 5: Identify Targets of Change.......................................................................109

Tool 13. Identifying Targets of Change: Suggested Team 

Work Session.............................................................................................109

Tool 14. Targets of Change Worksheet ...................................................111

Tools for Step 6: Develop and Implement a Work Plan .....................................................113

Tool 15. Assessing Your Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, 

and Threats: Suggested Team Work Session...........................................113

Tool 16. Developing an Implementation Plan: Suggested 

Team Work Session ..................................................................................115

Index to Appendix

83
Tool 1. Suggested Readings on Parole Violations and 

Strengthening Parole Practice

Beyond the Prison Gates: The State of Parole in America. Available on the Web at http://www.

urban.org/UploadedPDF/310583_Beyond_prison_gates.pdf

Policy-Driven Responses to Probation and Parole Violations. Available on the Web at http://

nicic.org/Resources/Supplemental/PubDetails.aspx?recordID=115

Responding to Parole and Probation Violations: A Handbook To Guide Local Policy Development.

Available on the Web at http://nicic.org/Resources/Supplemental/PubDetails.aspx?recordID=118

Petersilia, Joan. When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. New York: Oxford

University Press, 2003. 

The article Challenges of Offender Parole and Reentry in California, describing how key points in

this book are perceived in the state of California, is posted on Dr. Petersilia’s Web site at http://

www.seweb.uci.edu/users/joan/Images/ca_parole_and_reentry.pdf.The full text of many of Dr.

Petersilia’s articles and a list of her books with ordering information are posted on her Web site

at http://www.seweb.uci.edu/users/joan/publications.html.

Tools for Step 1: Form a Policy Team 

and a Working Team

85
Tool 2. A Checklist for Planning and Conducting a Policy Team Retreat

1. Identify key members of the policy team.

2. Secure their cooperation in participating.

3. Identify a date and time when all can attend.

4. Identify a location with appropriate meeting space, privacy, and

audiovisual capacity that is available for the date and time needed.

5. Send a registration form to all participants asking them to return

contact information.

6. Develop meeting goals and agenda. 

7. Identify a convener, a facilitator, and a recorder. 

8. Prepare meeting materials: goals, agenda, background information,

participant list. Have conveners review materials.

9. Arrange for refreshments or meal if possible. 

10. Send reminders to all participants.

11. Hold retreat. 

12. Prepare a meeting record and circulate it to all participants.

86

Time

Before

Retreat

Check

When

Complete

3 months

3 months

3 months

2 months

2 months

6 weeks

6 weeks

4 weeks

2 weeks

4 weeks

1 week

after
Tool 3. Sample Goals and Agenda for a Policy Team Retreat

Hosted by:______________________________

Date:____________________________________________

Time:__________________________________________________________

Location: ____________________________________________

(The meeting facilitator should provide each participant with a set of meeting materials, including

a statement of the retreat’s goals and agenda. The materials also should include a complete list

of participants and a list of any visiting speakers or consultants (along with complete contact

information, including name, title, agency, address, phone, fax, e-mail) to aid communication

during and after the retreat. The retreat should be convened by the senior participating officials

from the host agency(ies), who should outline their concerns about this issue and why it is of

significance for the state. These conveners should then invite the designated facilitator to begin

the discussions. The facilitator should review the retreat goals and agenda. The following goals

are offered as suggestions and should be modified to reflect the particular goals that the group

wants to achieve.)

Meeting goals

The purpose of this meeting/retreat is to provide participants with an opportunity to do the

following:

• Come to a common understanding of the significance of parole violations as an important

facet of the prisoner reentry process along with an understanding of current practice within

their states.

• Define their common interests and goals in working toward effective, systemwide policy and

practice in response to parole violations.

• Explore the tools and resources at their disposal to create a “system” response to parole

violations. 

• Forge a consensus as to how they will collaborate in achieving those goals, including—

— Next steps to be taken.

— Formation of a work group or subcommittees to continue the effort.

(The facilitator may want to ask participants if they wish to add to or modify any of the goals.)

Participants’ interests in violations and revocation

One of the most important assets of a group such as the one assembled today is that it brings a

wide range of perspectives, expertise, and knowledge about current practices and policies. We

would like to have participants contribute to this discussion by stating their own particular interests regarding parole violations and revocations.

(The meeting facilitator should invite each participant to comment on his or her interests in

meeting on this topic, outline what he or she hopes will emerge from the work, and record

these comments on a flipchart throughout the discussion.) 

87
Innovations in responding to violations: Experiences from other states

You may want to consider inviting a colleague from another state who has worked on this issue

to speak on his or her experiences, or you may wish to use the information provided in this

handbook from the capsules on the participating states. Other resources include two documents

developed under an earlier NIC technical assistance project: Policy-Driven Responses to Probation and Parole Violations (available on the NIC Web site at http://nicic.org/pubs/1997/013793.pdf)

and Responding to Parole and Probation Violations: A Handbook To Guide Local Policy Development (available on the NIC Web site at http://nicic.org/pubs/2001/016858.pdf).

Key lessons about the process of working on this topic include the following: 

• Make sure you have the right people at the table.

• Ensure that you have the necessary data to identify the problem or issue.

• Look at current policy and practice before you create new strategies.

• Keep your eye on the target over time; this effort will require continued vigilance.

• Monitor and evaluate.

Remember the following key points about the specific issue of violations:

• Develop your violation/supervision “vision” and help staff to “see” it!

• In light of your vision, consider your reentry and initial placement activities.

• Look at your whole violation process: Identify problems, bottlenecks, and issues.

• Look at your use of conditions: What do you apply and why? (And what do you expect?)

• Identify and seek the resources, training, and assistance you need to move toward your vision.

• Identify ways to better use staff supervision time.

• Respond to all violations.

• Tailor responses that are proportional and consistent, based on the risks posed by the offender

and the severity of the violation.

• Develop/expand your continuum of responses.

• Empower staff to use their discretion in ways that will help you move toward your vision.

Defining success for your state

The next portion of the agenda will be devoted to a discussion among participants regarding

what they would see as successful outcomes for a refined approach to violations. Each participant should be asked to answer the following question: “If you were meeting on this topic 3

years from now and your efforts had been successful, what would be different?” Your facilitator

will record these observations on a flipchart or white board. 

Once you have created a list of all participants’ desired outcomes, discuss how to integrate

these into a more coherent statement. If possible, agree on a concise statement that incorporates the essence of the participants’ desired outcomes.

What stands in the way of achieving success?

Having spent time defining the successful outcomes that might be desired, the next section of

the agenda is devoted to discussing obstacles that need to be understood and overcome to

achieve success. 

88
(The facilitator might ask each participant to identify one obstacle to a desired outcome. Once

everyone has spoken, begin asking for obstacles again until everyone has had an opportunity to

list all of the obstacles he or she thinks are relevant. If you have time, ask participants to identify

clusters of problems, eliminate duplications, and create as concise a list as possible.)

Having the right people at the table

The group has now defined the outcomes they wish to see result from this effort, and they have

identified obstacles that may stand in the way of that success. The next section of the agenda

should be devoted to a discussion of other individuals and agencies that need to be part of this

effort to (1) ensure success and (2) overcome obstacles. Typical agencies beyond the releasing

authority, institutional corrections, and community supervision agencies include the following:

• State-level social services, mental health, substance abuse, education, housing, employment,

and health agencies.

• Groups working on other federal initiatives regarding reentry, transition, or effective use of

offender interventions.

• Private-sector agencies that deliver services that might be helpful to parolees/offenders.

• Victim advocacy organizations or system-based advocates.

• Workforce Investment Boards, state and local.

• Housing agencies.

• Community organizations.

• Faith-based communities.

• Juvenile justice, law enforcement, judges.

When possible, identify individuals within those organizations who might provide appropriate

leadership, knowledge, and credibility to the work of the group.

Conclusions

You now have identified your vision, what will look different if you are successful, and what

your desired outcomes are. You have also identified obstacles to achieving that outcome, assets

that you have at your disposal to address these obstacles, and an idea of others you need to

involve to move forward.

Although a very lively discussion will probably ensue about how the outcomes of the violation

process might be different—and what could be achieved if all components of the system were

truly working together—you should not rush to action planning about specific problem areas.

Your next steps should be focused on documenting and understanding current practice. These

include the following:

• Mapping the violation and revocation process.

• Planning and executing a quantitative analysis of a sample of parolees to understand the

dimensions of the process.

• Gathering and analyzing all written materials that speak to the violation process: policy, procedures, staff evaluation practices, standards of supervision, assessment practices, etc.

You should conclude your retreat with the development of “next steps” to begin the work of

documenting and understanding current practice.

89
Tool 4. Presentation on Lessons From the NIC Project

Lessons From the National Institute of Corrections Project: 

Policy-Driven Responses to Parole Violations—A Window on Transition—

Working With the States of Georgia, Kansas, New Jersey, and Rhode Island 

2001–2003 

Project goal

To assist four states in developing a policy-driven response to parole violations to ensure the

highest rate of successful completion of parole supervision consistent with—

• Community safety.

• The wise use of resources.

Context

• As a percentage of all admissions to state prison, parole violators more than doubled from 17

percent in 1980 to 35 percent in 1999.

• In 1999, parole violators accounted for more than 50 percent of state prison admissions in four

states.

• Nearly a quarter of state prisoners in 1997 were parole violators.

Parole violations: Where we began . . .

• A large proportion of admissions to prison are the result of technical violations of parole.

• Inconsistent practice; depends on the parole officer or on which board member is seen.

• Some offenders are less serious, some offenders less risky . . . maybe there is another way to

approach this.

• Let’s systematically craft policy to guide intermediate sanctions/punishments.

• Innovations.

• Rate severity of violations.

• Rate risk of offender.

• Rate risk of violation.

• Describe a “continuum of sanctions” for technical violations.

• Prescribe the expected match between severity/risk and sanctions.

• These innovations have been successful and are worthwhile. They have—

— Reduced technical revocation.

— Increased consistency.

— Enabled agencies to identify and revoke high-risk offenders more quickly.

— Reduced delay between violation and response.

90
• Other “fruits” of this work are as follows:

— We have discovered a new arena in which to apply the lessons of evidence-based practice.

— The work presents an opportunity for changing behavior and for supporting success, not

just avoiding revocations.

Parole violations: Where we are now . . .

• Our goal is community safety. 

• If an offender successfully completes parole—no new crimes, no new victims—EVERYONE

WINS!!!

What do we know about fostering success?

• Treatment works.

• Official punishment without treatment does not work.

• Technical violations—indeed, all of supervision—provides an opportunity to use “effective correctional interventions.”

• The notion of “graduated” or intermediate sanctions/punishments does not capitalize on what

we know about “what works.”

• Motivational interviewing can support behavior change, so . . .

— Graduated sanctions for technical violations are fine to hold offenders accountable and to

shape agency practice.

— Once that is accomplished, if you want to change behavior you can look to use “effective

correctional interventions . . . not just sanctions/punishment.”

Lessons from the NIC effort . . .

• Revisit vision, mission, and goals.

• Put effective assessment tools in place.

• Develop responses to violations that are aimed at changing behavior.

• Focus on incentives for positive behavior.

The next challenges . . .

• Conducting case management/supervision based on evidence-based practice.

• Using the assessment capacity we have created to support changes in supervision/management.

• Linking with nontraditional resources in the community.

• Bringing staff along from “contact-standard” and compliance driven to managing for success.

• Providing the necessary training, tools, and support to staff.

91
Parole in Your State—Violations Revocations FY ____

Tool 5. Parole in Your State

Parole in your state: Parole violations and 

correctional populations in ___________________

Total Prison Population

Admissions Per Year

New Sentences

Parole Violations

Probation Violations

Other 

Total Parole Population

92

____________

All Parolees

____________ (100%)

Revocation Hearings

____________ (_____%)

Continued on Parole

____________ (_____%)

Revoked

____________ (_____%)

Revoked to Prison

____________ (_____%)

Reparoled

____________ (_____%)

Revoked—Eligibility

Date Established

____________ (_____%)

Revoked—

Serve Maximum
Tool 6. Suggestions for Mapping the Violation and Revocation Process

• Begin plans for a mapping meeting. Make plans to gather a group of individuals who together

represent knowledge of every aspect of the entire process, from offender preparation for release from prison through discharge from parole.

• Why not just assign this task to a really smart, experienced person? Wouldn’t that be more

efficient? The process of identifying and responding to violations is part of the larger and quite

complex flow of cases from arrest through adjudication, incarceration, release, and supervision and discharge. No one really works with every aspect of the process in enough depth to

understand the entire picture. You will need to gather information from numerous individuals

and agencies who specialize in each separate phase.

• Why a meeting? This is a journey of discovery, and experience suggests that every time a

group of individuals engages in this process, each participant learns much that he or she did

not know before, and each contributes to the whole picture. The group activity creates an

appreciation for the complexity of the process and the fact that we all have much to learn. It

also allows information about the various aspects of the process to be confirmed on the spot,

since “experts” for each phase are present. It also gives authority and credibility to the product

of the meeting because it has involved verification from a wide range of expert sources.

• Who should participate? At least one individual who is knowledgeable about each aspect of

the process should participate. This should include at least one person who is an expert in

each of the following:

— Institutional programming, assessment, case management, and preparation for release.

— The parole release process and setting of conditions.

— Transfer of information from institutions to the field.

— Actual day-of-release activities.

— Assessment and assignment to supervision in the field.

— Supervision and case management.

— Violation policies and practices.

— Custody awaiting disposition.

— Violation hearings, both preliminary and final.

— Available dispositions at the final hearing.

— Resources in the community.

Tools for Step 2: Understand Current

Practice and the Lessons of Research

93
• What will you need?You will need a facilitator who can guide the group through the process,

an ample supply of newsprint and markers, and meeting space that allows you to affix a large

number of newsprint sheets to the wall.

• How long will it take? Allow at least 4 hours to complete the initial mapping.

• What should we do in this meeting? 

— Start by deciding where you will begin your map. Most jurisdictions find it is helpful to

begin while an offender is in prison and to chart the steps that lead to release. 

— Draw a rectangle or other shape (see the figures at the end of this worksheet) for the step

that indicates the beginning of the process that you have chosen.

— Then, through discussions among the group members, identify each subsequent step,

whether it is to be an information-gathering step, an action by the offender, an action by

staff, or some sort of decision. To connect the steps, use arrows indicating the sequence of

the steps and the possible outcomes at each stage until you reach the point of discharge

from supervision.

— For each step where there is a decision, identify the decisionmaker and, if possible, the type

of information available at that stage. Indicate the time elapsed between each step.

— Add any preliminary information you have on the numbers of cases flowing through the

process. For instance, you should be able to document at least how many violation hearings

(preliminary and final) you hold in the course of a year. 

• What happens if we can’t fill in all the steps?This suggests that you have some gaps in your

working team and that you probably need to seek help from other stakeholders. Do the most

thorough job that you are able to do, given the team members attending the meeting. Your

next step, then, would be to identify others who can join the group and fill in any gaps that

may remain in the map. 

• How do we communicate this information to others? After your newsprint and marker version

of the map is complete, transcribe it into typed form so that it can be distributed and shared

with others involved in the effort. You will want to add to it over time, as you gather more

information.

You may want to use rudimentary rectangles for each step of the process, just to set the basic

framework in place. However, using the following figures will be helpful if you want to begin to

distinguish steps where decisions take place from steps that are simply processing, input of

information, and so forth.

Process Step Input Final Step in the Branch Decision Point

(Terminus)

94
Tool 7. The Violation Process: A Sample Map

• Pick a time period for which you can answer the question, “During this period of time, what

number of offenders were admitted to parole supervision?”

• Place the answer to that question in box 1.

• For those cases, insert the numbers that correspond with the stipulation in each of the boxes,

proceeding from left to right.

• Using the number in box 1 as 100 percent, calculate the percentage that is represented in each

box.

Tool 7: Sample Map of the Outcomes of Parole Violations

95

Cases with

no violations

None of

the above

No new

conditions

or sanctions

Sanctions,

interventions,

adjusted/new

conditions

Return to

supervision

Revoked Return to

prison

With new

conditions

or sanctions

Everyone

admitted to

supervision

Cases with

violations

No formal

revocation 

roceedings

Formal

revocation

proceedings

Discharged

On

supervision
Tool 8. Suggestions for Data Gathering and 

Analysis To Document Current Practice

The goal of a quantitative analysis of parole violations and revocations is to build an understanding of how significant violation behavior is, how it affects the ability of an offender to successfully complete parole, and how the system does or might respond to violations. 

General contextual and descriptive information

As context for your discussion, you will need to assemble information on the following important big-picture parameters as a backdrop for your policy discussions. Much of the overall contextual information outlined here is probably available in published reports that your agencies

already produce.

Information on offenders in correctional institutions (provide the most recent information, indicating the year represented):

• How many prison admissions occurred (in the most recent available year) in your state?

• Of these admissions, how many (and what percentage) were a result of—

— New convictions?

— Parole revocations?

— Probation revocations?

• What is the average daily population of your prison system?

• What is the average length of stay, by type of admission and charge (if available)?

• What is your overall statewide incarceration rate?

• What is the average daily cost for prison inmates?

Information on agency staff involved in community supervision: 

• How many field parole officers and field probation officers are there (statewide and by district

or region)? 

Information on admissions, average daily population, and terminations from parole and parole

supervision:

• What was the number of admissions to parole in the most recent year?

• What was the average daily population under parole supervision that year?

• What was the average length of time under parole supervision, by type of release (if known)?

• What was the number of exits from parole in the same year?

• Of these discharges, how many (and what percentage) were for—

— Successful discharge?

— Revocation?

— Discharge to a new sentence?

• What is the average daily population of your probation system?

• What is the average length of time under probation supervision, by type of conviction (if

known)?

96
Information on supervision practices (statewide and for individual districts or regions):

• What is the average parole caseload size (statewide and by district or region)?

• Do you have specialized caseloads?

— If so, how are they structured (e.g., by problem area, such as a mental health caseload, or

by risk level, such as an administrative caseload)?

— What is the capacity and average caseload in each?

• What is the average length of time under supervision?

• What determines the length of time under supervision (e.g., length of sentence, good time

earned, performance on supervision)? 

Information on initial conditions of supervision (statewide and for individual districts or regions):

• Of those placed under parole supervision during a recent year, what is the distribution of the

following initial conditions of supervision:

— Average number of conditions mandated?

— Percentage with conditions for drug treatment?

— Percentage with conditions for drug testing only?

— Percentage with program referral?

— Percentage with different reporting levels (for example, of all those placed under supervision, what percentage were initially put under “routine” reporting; what percentage were

initially placed under increased reporting; what percentage were initially placed under

administrative reporting)?

Information on violations (the following information may need to be extrapolated from a sample

of cases drawn specifically as part of this effort):

• Purpose of the information.

• Developing the information. (Because the automated data systems in most states are not

geared to provide this type of information, the information will probably have to be extrapolated from case-specific data collection. When the information concerns yearly totals as noted

below, we suggest that you develop proportions based on the case-specific information and

then apply these to overall and district totals. An example is provided below.)

• Overall violation information (statewide and for individual districts or regions). 

• What is the total number of violations reported in a recent year? (This will only be available in

your jurisdiction if some notation is made in the record when violations occur, even if they are

not followed by a formal petition to revoke parole.)

• What percentage of those under supervision have one or more violations (from case-specific

information)?

• What is the total number of parolees for whom violations were reported in a recent year?

• For those with violations, what is the average number of violations reported per parolee (from

case-specific information)?

• For reported violations (from case-specific information)—

— What percentage was for technical violations?

— What percentage was for new criminal activity? 

97
• Within each category (technical and criminal), please indicate the types of violations to the

extent known:

— For instance, for technical violations, what percentage were for nonreporting, what percentage

were for failure to participate in treatment, what percentage were for “dirty” urine samples?

— For criminal activity, what percentage were for misdemeanors?

— What percentage were for felonies?

— What percentage were for crimes against persons, or property crimes, or violent crimes?

Please tell us how you are defining crimes (from case-specific information).

— What specific conditions were violated (from case-specific information)?

— How many parolees had formal violation proceedings against them in the year (from casespecific information)?

■ Among these, how many were revoked to prison?

■ Among these, how many were revoked and reparoled?

■ How many were continued on supervision?

— Of the total number of technical violations, what percentage received nonrevocation

responses (from case-specific information)?

— Of the total number of sanctions (from case-specific information)—

■ What percentage were “punitive” violations (e.g., increased reporting; verbal reprimand)? 

■ What percentage were “treatment oriented” (e.g., counseling; increased programs)?

District-specific distribution of responses

Because one issue that often arises in a discussion of parole violations is whether practices are

consistent from one part of the state to another, or even from one parole officer to another, it is

suggested that you gather case-specific information from a subset of offices or districts. You might

want to consider selecting districts that differ in terms of degree of urbanization, size, and other

variables. For each district or office, you would want descriptive statistics from the case information, according to the flowchart. In each box on the flowchart, we want an absolute number and

a percentage (which is the percentage based on the source box just to the left). For the terminal

boxes, at the far right, we would also like a percentage of the overall number of cases in the

sample.

Overall

We want to create subgroups of offenders in the case-specific information for comparison

purposes.

The first comparison would be—

• Those for whom no violation is reported regardless of whether they are discharged or their

case is still open at the end of the followup period versus

• Those for whom one or more violations are reported.

The second comparison would be, among those for whom one or more violations are reported—

• Those who had a revocation proceeding initiated versus

• Those who had no formal revocation proceeding initiated.

98
A third comparison would be—

• Those who had no violation reported versus

• Those who were revoked versus

• Those who had violations reported but had no formal proceedings filed.

Dimensions of comparison would be—

• Average age.

• Gender distribution.

• Race.

• Prior criminal record (distribution of felonies, misdemeanors, type).

• Juvenile incarcerations.

• Prior prison terms.

• Type of release (mandatory versus discretionary).

• Average time on supervision.

• Supervision level at release.

• Number of interventions that are “treatment” oriented.

• Specialized caseload.

• Living arrangements at time of release.

• Employment at time of release.

• Living situation at time of study end (or revocation, or at discharge).

• Employment at time of study end (or revocation, or at discharge).

• Program involvement at study end (or revocation, or at discharge).

• Supervision level at release at study end.

• Specialized caseload at study end.

99
Tool 9. Understanding the Official Guidance on Parole Violations and

Revocation: A Checklist of Items To Review

1 Policy regarding violations. 

2. Procedures regarding violations.

3. Standards of supervision.

4. Instructions about case management.

5. Instructions for first-line supervisors about how 

to guide line staff regarding violations. 

6. Performance review standards: formal guidance on how

staff will be evaluated and how this evaluation speaks 

(or does not speak) to the handling of violations. 

7. Mission of the agency. 

8. Formal statements about the purpose of supervision 

and responses to violations.

9. Agency philosophy. 

10. Formal statement about what interventions or 

responses are appropriate/available in the case of 

technical violations of parole. 

11. Standard conditions of supervision.

12.Information on available resources for offenders 

in the community.

100

Do We 

Have This? 

Circle One

Check

When

Acquired

Check

When

Reviewed

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N
Tool 10. Revisiting Your Definition of Success for Responding to Parole

Violations in Your State: Suggested Team Work Session

Preparations.Take the earlier work of the policy team on defining the outcomes they would expect of this effort if it is successful. Create a poster-sized printed version of their statements. Post

the printed version in your meeting room. Designate a facilitator.

Work session goal. Revisit your earlier work on defining success so that it can be confirmed or

adjusted as necessary and to provide a common frame of reference for team members completing the remaining steps of the process: a vision for the future.

At a policy team retreat held as one of the first team activities, participants developed statements

describing how they would define the success of this effort, which is designed to improve the

response to parole violations by increasing the number of policy-driven practices, and how they

would generate the outcomes desired by the team. These statements may have been revised

and refined over time.

Use the poster-sized statement as a focal point for the following exercise led by your facilitator:

1. Review this language and make sure that all participants are clear about it. 

2.Each team member should take a few minutes to jot down any changes he or she thinks should

be made, write comments about what might be missing, or describe how his or her definition

of success may have evolved since the last discussion. Your facilitator should ask each team

member individually to summarize his or her thoughts. 

3.Based on this discussion, try to reach an agreement about any changes or additions. Continue

your discussions until you have a reasonable statement of your definition of success before

proceeding to the next questions. If necessary, continue to work with your facilitator to resolve

disagreements and reach consensus.

4.How will you know when you have achieved success? How will you measure success? What

information will you need, where will it come from, and how will you routinize the collection

of this information? Please refer to your experiences in collecting data in preparation for this

workshop.

5.If your team has already completed the work in items 3 and 4 above, please consider the 

following:

• What language in your definition of success is most powerful or inspiring? Why is it important to you?

• How do you communicate this definition of success within your own agency or to your

colleague agencies in the criminal justice system? How could you do so in the future?

Tools for Step 3: Revisit Your

Definition of Success

101
Revisiting your definition of success should provide a common frame of reference to serve as a

basis for your continued work on this effort. In fact, it becomes your statement of vision for the

future.

The next item your team should discuss during this session is your mission. A mission is a series

of interim achievements that you have identified as essential to creating the future depicted in

your vision. It should be concrete, should articulate measurable targets of change, and should be

connected clearly to creating your vision. The steps you take to achieve those targets of change

become the goals and objectives of your team.

Once your team has articulated what it sees to be its vision and mission regarding violations and

supervision, revisit any existing agency statements of vision and mission. Are they consistent? Do

they conflict? Are they simply unrelated to one another? It may be that individual agency vision

and mission require some adaptation based on current thinking. They may become one of your

targets of change.

102
Tool 11. Gaps Analysis: Suggested Team Work Session

What does our work so far—particularly the data collection—

tell us about current practice?

Preparations

This work session can be completed only when you have conducted a thorough analysis of current practice, including performing a mapping exercise, gathering quantitative data on parolees

flowing through the violation process, gathering and reviewing all pertinent written materials

pertaining to violations and revocations, and interviewing staff to obtain a sense of informal

norms and practices undocumented in other ways.

Goal

To develop clear insight into current violation practice that is shared by all team members. This

insight will form the foundation of any plans to change policy or practice to conform more closely

with the goals and mission outlined previously by the policy team. 

First activity (30 minutes)

Review answers to the questions posed by the project based on the aggregate and case-specific

data. Use the attached worksheet to summarize answers to those questions:

• Review issues/questions included with each item and/or articulate the group’s questions and

issues related to each item.

• How do parole officers typically respond to technical violations of parole? Across the state?

Does this differ from one district/region to another?

• How would you characterize responses to technical violations (consistent/inconsistent, punitive/

treatment-oriented, etc.)?

• What other questions are relevant for the group? Discuss.

Second activity (30 minutes)

Review the abbreviated flowcharts and, as a team, discuss and clarify exactly what they

describe:

• Compare the region/district- and state-level charts.

Tools for Step 4: Assess Gaps 

Between Current Practice and Your

Definition of Success

103
• Discuss the statewide flowchart. Any surprises, problems, or opportunities for change?

• Discuss differences from one part of the state to the next.

• Walk through comparisons of the profile of parolees (see “Profiles of groups of parolees” in

Tool 12. Gaps Analysis Worksheet), and for each comparison identify the areas of differences.

Are they differences that seem appropriate or significant, given the groups being compared

(e.g., do they suggest differences in risk, conditions, degree of adjustment, participation in

programming)? 

— In this order, compare— 

■ Parolees who have violations but for whom no formal revocation proceedings have begun

(C) in contrast with

■ Parolees with violations for whom formal revocation proceedings have begun (D).

— Compare— 

■ Parolees with no violations (A) in contrast with

■ Parolees who have violations, but no formal proceedings have begun (C), in contrast with

■ Parolees who are revoked (E).

— Compare— 

■ Parolees who have no violations (A) in contrast with

■ Parolees who have violations (B). 

Third activity (20 minutes)

Free discussion. So far, the discussion has been structured around specific questions. Now is the

time to comment on what this information really suggests to you. Is your current practice what

you expect? If not, why/how not? If so, are you satisfied with it, or does it need to change? What

information is missing that you might want to make sure you have in the future?

Fourth activity (25 minutes)

How does this practice support or not support achieving the mission, goals, and interests stated

by your team? Refer back to the statement recorded on the poster at your last meeting. Remember

that the data are not the only sources of information you have. You also have your map or flowchart of the process, your review of policy documents, interviews with staff and others, and the

experience of the team sitting around the table.

Fifth activity (15 minutes)

Identify someone from your team to be a “reporter” for this session. As a group, prepare a brief

(approximately 10 minutes) summary of the key findings emerging from this discussion:

• Summarize your current practice.

• What is most surprising?

• Does current practice support your mission and goals?

Use this meeting record to document your work and to communicate it to any members who are

absent and to others working on this effort.

104
Tool 12. Gaps Analysis Worksheet

What does your work so far—particularly the data collection—

tell you about current practice?

Question Response/Notes

What percentage (and number) of parolees in the

sample had one or more violations? What are the

implications of this “scope” of violations? If this

rate were true for your entire parole population,

what is the absolute number of violators/violations

that you would be dealing with?

For those with violations, what was the average

number of violations reported per parolee?

For reported violations, what percentage were for

technical violations? What percentage were for new

criminal activity?

Within each category, what types of violations were

reported? For instance, for technical violations,

what conditions were violated? For criminal

violations, which involved felonies versus

misdemeanors, which were for crimes 

against persons?

Of the total number of technical violations, what

percentage received nonrevocation responses?

Of the total number of sanctions, what percentage

was “punitive”? What percentage was “treatment

oriented”?

105
Profiles of groups of parolees

Please use the following worksheet to capture differences among the group and to record 

questions/observations/comments during your team work session.

Characteristic

Parolees With

No Violations

(A)

Parolees With

Violations (B)

Parolees With

Violations/No

Formal

Revocation

Proceedings

(C)

Parolees With

Violations/

Formal

Revocation

Proceedings

Begun (D)

Revoked

Parolees (E)

Background

Average Age

Gender

Race

Prior Criminal

Record

Prior Prison

Terms

Juvenile

Incarceration

Initial Release

Information

Type of Release

Supervision

Level at Entry

Conditions

Average Number

Percentage With

Conditions for

Drug Treatment

Percentage With

Conditions for

Drug Testing Only

Percentage With

Conditions for

Program Referral

Average Number

of Interventions

That Are

“Sanction”

Oriented

Average Number

of Interventions

That Are

“Treatment”

Oriented

Living

Arrangements

Employment

106

(continued on next page)
107

Characteristic

Parolees With

No Violations

(A)

Parolees With

Violations (B)

Parolees With

Violations/

No Formal

Revocation

Proceedings

(C)

Parolees With

Violations/

Formal

Revocation

Proceedings

Begun (D)

Revoked

Parolees (E)

Status at

Termination or

March 31, 2002

Status

Living

Arrangements

Employment

Program

Involvement

Reporting

Level

Average Time

on Supervision

Violation

History

Number of

Technical

Violations—

Average and

Distribution

1. What are the differences among these groups that seem most marked? Are they the kinds of

differences you would expect? If not, why not?

2.Would you say that the “sorting” your current practice is doing is yielding the results you

would expect or desire?

3.What is most surprising about these comparisons?
Tool 13. Identifying Targets of Change: Suggested Team Work Session

Preparation

You should have completed your documentation of current practice, completed a session revisiting your definition of success, and completed an analysis of gaps. In addition, you should

familiarize yourselves with the information on the NIC Web site pertaining to targets of change

identified by other jurisdictions. Identify someone to act as facilitator and someone to act as

recorder for the session.

Goal

To consider the already identified gaps existing between current practice (as documented by the

data collection, analysis, and discussions of the previous session) and optimal practice that support achieving the team’s stated mission and goals, to identify specific targets of change that

would begin to fill the gaps between current practice and desired outcomes, and to develop 

specific objectives that must be achieved to bring about the desired change.

First activity

During this portion of the session, the team will begin identifying specific problems that have

emerged in current practice. Based on the analysis already completed, identify and define some

of the problem issues that emerged:

• Each member of the team should take a few moments to jot down the three or four “problems”

they see from current practice.

• As a group, create a single list of those problems.

• When duplication occurs or similar problems are stated differently, restate the problems in a

way that all members of the group can agree on. 

• Prioritize these problem/issue areas. If consensus does not emerge quickly on a list with a

maximum of five items, use the “dots” method; your facilitator will help. Reduce the list to a

maximum of five items by setting priorities. 

Second activity

Take the list of five priority problems/issues you have generated and record them on the

attached worksheet (Tool 14. Targets of Change Worksheet). 

Across the top of the chart, a number of “domains” are listed within which you might think of

targets of change. If appropriate, you may want to add other domains as headings for the other

columns on the worksheet. 

Tools for Step 5: 

Identify Targets of Change

109
Discuss how you might begin to identify items that could be changed in one or all of these

domains to address the problems you have identified. Please use the attached worksheet to

record specific targets of change that would help address each problem identified. Keep in mind

the presentations on “Innovative Strategies for Success.”

Third activity

For each priority problem included on your list—

• Restate as clearly and concisely as possible the specific targets of change you have identified.

• What would you have to do to bring about the desired change?

For each target of change—

• Develop a clear statement of your specific objective. 

• For instance, if one of the problems/issues is that practice seems to be quite varied in different

parts of the state, you may identify “redrafting and publishing new policy language to give

specific direction to staff about the agency’s policy on this” as a target of change. A specific

objective in this instance might state the following:

The team will develop clear language for Section 4b of the agency policy manual that

delineates exactly what is expected of staff in the event of a technical violation.

Definitions of terms will be included, a ranking of violation behavior will be included,

directions as to how to assess risk will be included, and a range of specific responses

for each combination of severity and risk will be presented.

• If a target of change is “training for staff,” then specific objectives might be—

(a) redesign a training module for new parole officer training that familiarizes new staff

with what is expected of them regarding responding to violations, and (b) develop and

implement a series of training events for current line staff and supervisors regarding

responding to violations over the next 6 months.

The recorder should prepare a complete summary of the key findings emerging from this discussion. This meeting record will be used to keep others informed of the team’s work and to

serve as a starting place for your next work session.

110
Tool 14. Targets of Change Worksheet

Use the following chart to record your thoughts and suggestions during your team’s discussion.

Domains in Which You Might Explore Solutions

Problem/Issue Policy Training Organizational

Culture Goals Clarification 

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Domains in Which You Might Explore Solutions

Problem/Issue Operations

Manner in Which

Staff Is Evaluated/

Performance

Standards 

for Staff

Tools: Structured

Ways of Assessing

Severity, Risk,

Articulating

Available

Responses

Collaboration/

Fragmentation

Issues

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

111
112

Domains in Which You Might Explore Solutions

Problem/Issue Resources Other Other Other

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
Tool 15. Assessing Your Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and

Threats: Suggested Team Work Session

Goal

As you become ready to develop specific plans for making your desired changes, consider the

challenges you face and the resources at your disposal for achieving your goals and objectives.

Reflect on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) that you must address

in moving toward the changes you have identified. To identify the elements in the SWOT analysis, your facilitator should allow each team member to offer a comment in turn, repeating the

process as often as needed until all participants have had an opportunity for all of their comments to be heard. The results of your discussion should be placed in the following matrix:

Tools for Step 6: Develop and 

Implement a Work Plan

113

Strengths Weaknesses

Opportunities Threats
In thinking about what will be needed to mobilize your team and others to achieve the changes

you have articulated—

• Identify the strengths that your team members bring to a collaborative process.

• Identify the weaknesses in your team.

Similarly, both opportunities and threats are present in the environment in which you are

operating.

• Identify the external opportunities that can assist you in your planning efforts.

• Identify the external threats that may have a negative impact on your ability to engage in a

successful planning process.

Keep your flipchart notes on hand for context as you move on to the last part of the team work

session.

114
Tool 16. Developing an Implementation Plan: 

Suggested Team Work Session

Goal

To generate a clear plan with tasks, milestones, sequence, and assignment of responsibility to

guide the work of the team implementing the targets of change.

First activity

Go back to your list of specific objectives. For each objective, consider the specific things

that will have to happen for that objective to be realized. This will be your list of major work

activities.

Second activity

Discuss what will be needed to complete these tasks: resources, approval, buy-in, cooperation

of certain individuals or agencies, time, information, etc.

Third activity

Set timelines and identify the specific persons responsible for the completion of specific tasks.

Create a record of the meeting, including the detailed work plan you have generated. This will

become your guide for work over the time period ahead as you implement specific changes in

your policy and practice.

115
User Feedback Form

Please complete and return this form to assist the National Institute of Corrections in assessing

the value and utility of its publications. Detach from the document and mail to:

Publications Feedback

National Institute of Corrections

320 First Street N.W.

Washington, DC 20534

1. What is your general reaction to this document?

______Excellent ______Good ______Average ______Poor ______Useless

2. To what extent do you see the document as being useful in terms of:

3. Do you believe that more should be done in this subject area? If so, please specify the types of

assistance needed. ________________________________________________________________

4. In what ways could this document be improved? ________________________________________

5. How did this document come to your attention? ____________________________________

6. How are you planning to use the information contained in this document? ______________

7. Please check one item that best describes your affiliation with corrections or criminal justice.

If a governmental program, please also indicate the level of government.

_____ Citizen group _____ Legislative body

_____ College/university _____ Parole

_____ Community corrections _____ Police

_____ Court _____ Probation

_____ Department of corrections or prison _____ Professional organization

_____ Jail _____ Other government agency

_____ Juvenile justice _____ Other (please specify)

8. Optional:

Name: ____________________________________________________________________________

Agency: __________________________________________________________________________

Address: __________________________________________________________________________

Telephone: ________________________________________________________________________

Useful Of some use Not useful

Providing new or important information

Developing or implementing new programs

Modifying existing programs

Administering ongoing programs

Providing appropriate liaisons

Parole Violations Revisited:

A Handbook on Strengthening Parole Practices for Public Safety and Successful Transition to the Community