• Alaskan Bush Justice: Legal Centralism Confronts Social Science Research and Village Alaska [original paper]

      Conn, Stephen (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1981-09)
      This paper traces the history of the bush justice system in rural Alaska, describes the relationship between traditional Alaska Native dispute resolution mechanisms and the state criminal justice system, and analyzes bush justice research between 1970 and 1981 and its effects on state agency policies and changes in the rural justice system. Innovations by researchers were well-received by villagers and field-level professionals, but not by agency policymakers. Hence, most reforms made in the 1970s had vanished by the early 1980s. The author concludes that further reforms will be ineffective unless Alaska Natives are drawn into the decisionmaking process as co-equal players negotiating on legal process from positions of power.
    • Career Mobility in Criminal Justice: An Exploratory Study of Alaskan Police and Corrections Executives

      Angell, John E. (Criminal Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1978-03-08)
      This paper provides exploratory research into the career patterns of Alaska police and correctional executives in order to assess career mobility patterns and the variables which may have had a significant influence on success. Basic data for the paper is from biographical descriptions of 78 people who have served during the past ten years in top executive positions of Alaska's police and correctional agencies, including the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Public Safety, police chiefs of the 25 largest municipal police agencies in Alaska, superintendents of Alaska correctional institutions, and directors and assistant directors within the Alaska Division of Corrections.
    • 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.
    • Crime and the Justice System in Rural Alaskan Villages

      Angell, John E. (Criminal Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1979-03-15)
      Approximately 20 percent of Alaska's population live in small remote Native villages. Very little factual data regarding contemporary criminal justice operations has been compiled. For example, comprehensive data concerning present crime rates, policing methods, and local deviancy control mechanisms in rural Alaska simply do not exist. The research underlying this paper was an exploratory effort to begin the collection of crime and justice information which can be used in criminal justice policy development in rural areas of the state by the State of Alaska.
    • Discretion, Due Process, and the Prison Discipline Committee

      Schafer, N. E. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1985-04)
      Prison discipline received considerable attention from both the courts and professional organizations during the decade of the 1970s. It was widely assumed that the due process requirements which resulted from judicial review coupled with the promulgation of model discipline standards and procedures would limit the broad discretionary authority found in the traditional prison disciplinary process. A case study of the activities of one prison discipline committee suggests that these external pressures have had less impact on decision-making than such internal pressures as overcrowding. Due process requirements have not greatly inhibited the exercise of discretion in the prison discipline process.
    • 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.
    • Pretrial Intervention and Chronic Offenders

      Schafer, N. E. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1988-10-05)
      The Alaska Pretrial Intervention (PTI) program of the Alaska Department of Law operated in 13 locations throughout the state from 1983 to 1986, when economic pressures resulted in the program's termination. The program was intended to provide an alternative to full prosecution in cases where the offense behavior did not appear to warrant it. This paper analyzes recidivism in the PTI program through examination of chronic offenders, defined as PTI clients who were rearrested for the same charge as that for which they had initially been referred to the program.
    • Prison Visiting Policies and Practices [paper]

      Schafer, N. E. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1987-10)
      Based on empirical evidence that visiting is significantly related to parole success, several authorities have encouraged correctional institutions to maximize visiting opportunities. Previous studies have noted geographical and architectural limits to such maximization. A decade of prison construction should have improved visiting opportunities. This paper reports the results of a national survey of visiting policies and draws comparisons with surveys reported in 1978 and 1954.
    • Prisoner Behavior, Staff Response: Using Prison Discipline Records

      Schafer, N. E. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1984-03)
      Official prison misconduct records are used to test some of the assumptions inherent in previous research based upon such records. Many of these studies used prison data to measure changes in prisoner behavior, while others used them to indicate changes in the actions and attitudes of prison staff. Analysis of one prison's official discipline records over a 30-month period reveals flaws in both approaches. The same data cannot serve to draw conclusions about both groups though they can provide information about both when supplemented with other research methods. Conclusions drawn from official prison misconduct records are more reliable when used to assess the end of the prison discipline process — assessing discretionary decisionmaking by staff — than at the beginning of the process — evaluating prisoner behavior.
    • 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.
    • Profiles of Prison Visitors

      Schafer, N. E. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1983-10-14)
      An exploratory survey of visitors to two men's prisons finds that the visitors differ in some significant ways from prisoners' families previously described in the literature. The results raise some questions about the correlation that has been established between visits and post-release success and provoke suggestions for in-depth research into visitor/prisoner relationships.
    • Reorganizing Corrections: Revisiting the Recommendations of the National Advisory Commission

      Schafer, N. E. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1993-09)
      In 1973 the National Advisory Commission on Standards and Goals recommended that correctional services be consolidated under a single state agency, arguing that cost efficiencies, improved communication, and greater employee professionalism would result. The National Advisory Commission advocated state rather than local control of probation, and executive rather than judicial branch control of probation services. It encouraged development of regional rather than local jails and recommended that states assume the operation and control of all local detention and correctional functions. This paper examines some of the arguments for consolidation of correctional services and attempts to determine the kinds of reorganization that have occurred since 1973.
    • A Socialist System of Justice: Observations from a Visit to the U.S.S.R.

      Endell, Roger V. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1982-03-28)
      This paper presents observations of the Soviet system of justice, including the courts, the procuracy (described as a combination of a prosecutor or district attorney and a police investigator), criminal trials, sentencing, and corrections. The paper is based upon a three-week visit by the author to the USSR as one of 24 American participants in a criminal justice study program. In all, just over three weeks were spent in the Soviet Union including lengthy visits in Leningrad, Moscow, and Tallin (then-capital of Soviet Estonia). The opportunity of first hand observation and direct interaction with Soviet policy and law makers and Soviet academicians has done much toward destroying myths about Soviet justice practices.
    • 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.
    • Visiting Rules and Regulations: A Preliminary Study

      Schafer, N. E. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1988-04-04)
      Visiting rules and regulations from 71 long-term adult correctional facilities from 31 states were collected for review. The rules are divided into five areas: visitor application, visitor processing, contraband, conduct, and dress codes. They are reviewed in the light of recent standards which stress the importance of encouraging visits. Suggestions and recommendations for change are included.