Prisoner Reentry in Virginia

Keegan, Sinéad; SOlomon, Amy L.

doi:10.1037/e720252011-001

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, Maxwell, Gray, and Bynum (1999) report probation violators accounted for 32% of all prison admissions in Michigan in 1997. Another study revealed that more than 40% of all new Virginia prison admissions in 2002 were the result of offenders revoked from probation supervision (Keegan & Solomon, 2004). These statistics reveal that probation violators, much like parole violators, have had a substantial impact on prison populations in several states.…”

Section: The Prison Journal 91(2)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Revocation Trends: A Threat to the Legitimacy of Community-Based Corrections

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Community-based correctional agencies exist in an institutional environment where maintaining legitimacy is essential for organizational success. Maintaining legitimacy has emerged as an even more salient issue in recent times given the current economic state. This article argues that the growing number of offenders who are incarcerated after their unsuccessful termination from community supervision represents a prominent threat to the legitimacy of community-based correctional organizations. This article draws attention to the relationship between revocation trends and the legitimacy of community corrections. In addition, strategies to enhance legitimacy by mitigating the effects of community corrections failures are addressed.

show abstract

Section: The Prison Journal 91(2)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Revocation Trends: A Threat to the Legitimacy of Community-Based Corrections

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…North Carolina enacted structured sentencing in 1994, which affected all felony and misdemeanor crimes (except driving while impaired) committed on or after October 1, 1994 (North Carolina Department of Correction, 2008). Virginia abolished discretionary parole release in 1995 (Keegan & Solomon, 2004). Prior to the abolition of parole release, both North Carolina and Virginia had indeterminate sentencing.…”

Section: Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The examination of after-release policies and programs in each of these six states suggests that prisoners released by discretionary parole and mandatory release were supervised in the community for a similar period of time. Indeed, in each of these six states, mandatory releases were subject to the same authority, rules, regulations, and community supervision conditions as discretionary parole releases (Keegan & Solomon, 2004; La Vigne et al, 2003; Watson et al, 2004). In Maryland, for example, all conditional releasees were supervised by the Maryland Division of Parole and Probation.…”

Section: Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Indeterminate and Determinate Sentencing Models

Zhang

Vaughn

2009

Crime & Delinquency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article compares the effects of indeterminate and determinate sentencing models on recidivism using a measure of parole board discretionary release and mandatory parole release under each sentencing model. Data collected from Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994: United States are used to conduct a state-specific comparison of the two release programs in six mixed-sentencing states. The results indicate that the effects of different sentencing models significantly vary across the six states. Whereas mandatory parole release was more likely to have a deterrent effect on recidivism in Maryland and Virginia, parole board discretionary release was more effective in New York and North Carolina. Release programs in Oregon and Texas showed no significant differences in their effects on recidivism.

show abstract

Prisoner Reentry in Virginia

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Revocation Trends: A Threat to the Legitimacy of Community-Based Corrections

Revocation Trends: A Threat to the Legitimacy of Community-Based Corrections

Indeterminate and Determinate Sentencing Models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About