• Centralization to Consolidation: Some Historical Antecedents of Unified Correctional Systems

      Schafer, N. E. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1995-10)
      Autonomous prisons in the nineteenth century were often inefficient and highly political. Many state legislatures and governors attempted to move toward centralized control of their state facilities. In the twentieth century the Federal Bureau of Prisons was seen by the Wickersham Commission as a model for institutional centralization. Consolidation of all correctional services was recommended by the National Advisory Commission in 1973. Today only a few states – Alaska, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Vermont – have fully unified adult correctional systems; each is described.
    • Equitable over Time? — Evaluating the 'Costs' of Interstate Compact Participation

      Schafer, N. E.; Wenderoff, Leslie (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1992-10)
      The Interstate Compact for the Supervision of Parolees and Probationers (ICSPP) provides for the supervision of offenders in states other than those in which they were sentenced. It is assumed that the number of offenders entering a state for supervision is, over time, approximately equal to the number leaving for supervision elsewhere. Thus the net "cost" to the state would, over time, be zero. Data on Alaska's participation in the Interstate Compact formed the impetus for a study of Interstate Compact clients processed through the Anchorage probation office. This study suggests that numbers should not be the only measure of cost: demographic and offense characteristics of clients, as well as their supervision needs, should be factored into any cost assessment.
    • A Preliminary Assessment of the Impact on Alaska of Participation in the Interstate Compact

      Schafer, N. E.; Wenderoff, Leslie (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1986-10)
      The Interstate Compact for the Supervision of Parolees and Probationers is an agreement whereby one state agrees to provide supervision for offenders on community release from other states. Participants in the interstate compact agree that any state will accept supervision of a parolee or probationer providing the offender has proper residence either as a resident of that state or with family, and that he/she is able to find employment. Major increases in Alaska's prison population over the past decade have been accompanied by corresponding increases in the number of persons under probation/parole supervision and in the caseloads of individual probation officers. Using a master listing of all persons under the jurisdiction of the Alaska Department of Corrections from 1976 to 1983, the Justice Center at University of Alaska Anchorage made a preliminary assessment of the impact on Alaska of participation in the Interstate Compact. From 1976 to 1983, Alaska processed 1,551 offenders through the Interstate Compact, of whom 999 were received for supervision from other states (64.4% of the total) and 552 (35.6%) were sent to other states. Based on this data, the interstate compact has not yet been an equitable arrangement for any city in Alaska: each city has seen a greater number of incoming than of outgoing transfers.
    • Professionalism in the Alaska Department of Corrections: Education and Experience [paper]

      Schafer, N. E. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1986-03-20)
      A survey of Alaska corrections personnel reveals that employees in all classifications tend to have more than the minimum education or experience required for their positions. More than 75 percent of college-educated corrections personnel earned degrees and more than 40 percent acquired their experience outside Alaska. The advantages and disadvantages of hiring large numbers of employees whose education and experience were gained elsewhere are discussed in the context of the unique problems of correctional service delivery in so large and diverse a state.
    • State Operated Jails: How and Why

      Schafer, N. E. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1994-03)
      From the 1931 Wickersham Commission through the 1967 President's Commission and the 1973 National Advisory Commission, criminal justice experts and observers have recommended that state governments assume responsibility for jail operations. Currently six states operate jails: Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island and Vermont. An examination of jail operations in these states shows that history and tradition as well as geography and politics form the impetus for state assumption of jail operations.