Browsing Conference papers by Subject "community corrections"
Now showing items 1-2 of 2
Equitable over Time? — Evaluating the 'Costs' of Interstate Compact ParticipationThe 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 CompactThe 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.