A Colorado parolee’s murder admission has raised questions about Colorado’s adoption of SCF.
Illinois is considering giving permission to the state’s department of correction to use electronic monitoring as an intermediate sanction for supervision violations.
This article argues that HOPE and SCF are fundamentally punitive and fail to address essential components of probationer and parolee rehabilitation. The author recommends providing greater access to services and support as superior solutions.
This article explores the issue of human will as it relates to addiction, and how HOPE has reduced drug use among parolees.
Arizona’s SB 1067 would require the department of corrections to implement graduated sanctions in response to parole and probation violations. Those who oppose the bill say the state cannot legally extend the time that an individual is under community supervision, even if it is in lieu of revoking supervision.
This brief webinar explains how Michigan’s Swift and Sure Probation Program works and how it’s different from treatment-based courts.
Montana’s Senate has passed a bill to use swift and proportionate sanctioning to address technical violations of probation terms.
Pennsylvania’s SIP (State Intermediate Punishment) progress report indicates that the program, which is based on HOPE, has saved the state nearly $80 million and has reduced recidivism compared to supervision as usual.
A Southern California gang member allegedly killed a police officer and injured another after being released from a short jail stint for violating terms of his SCF-based community supervision.
The perspective that HOPE and SCF-based initiatives are ineffective is presented here. The article cites recent research that suggests SCF does not reduce recidivism.
Michigan’s senate has passed a series of criminal justice reforms, including legislation that expands the state’s Swift and Sure eligibility, designates Swift and Sure as a specialty court, and uses SCF concepts in a new program intended to prevent parolees from returning to prison.
Victoria, Australia’s drug court has adopted a quasi-SCF approach, but participants must attend regular hearings, even when there are no violations to address. Participants also accrue jail sanctions, instead of receiving immediate sanctioning
The Oklahoma Justice Reform Task Force recommends swift, certain, and proportionate sanctions for parole and probation violations, which include short, graduated jail stints when violations occur and a lengthier process for revoking parole or probation.
A task force sanctioned by Oklahoma’s governor recommends SCF-based sanctioning for technical parole violations in order to ameliorate the state’s growing prison population
Arkansas’s SB 136 proposes an SCF supervision model that diverts parole and probation violators to community correction facilities instead of back to prison.
Monroe County, MI has adopted an SCF-based approach to its gun court that aims to help young individuals with repeat offenses stay out of prison.
A recent analysis found that San Diego County’s SCF-based re-entry program reduced participants’ rates of parole revocation and time in prison compared to non-participants.
Victoria, Australia’s Drug Court has implemented an SCF-based approach, but requires participants to attend regularly scheduled hearings, even if there has been no infraction. Additionally, sanctions accrue rather than being served immediately for individual violations.
An Oklahoma task force recommends SCF-based sanctions for technical violations of supervision terms before revoking parole, and decreasing sentence terms for non-violent drug offenses.
CSG recommends brief, proportional jail sanctions, and alternative sanctions, for probation and parole violators in Montana, to promote fairness.