U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Summary of the First Year Evaluation of the Special Parole Supervision Program for Violent Felony Offenders

NCJ Number
80495
Author(s)
W V Collier
Date Published
1980
Length
35 pages
Annotation
Findings and recommendations are presented from the first-year evaluation of New York State's special parole supervision program for violent felony offenders.
Abstract
In April 1979, New York State's Division of Parole began an intensified community supervision program for parolees who had been convicted of a violent felony offense. The primary goal of the program was to prevent violent felons under community supervision from committing new violent or other offenses. The program is based on the belief that if parole officers are better able to identify the relative potential risks of parolees to recidivate, identify the support needs of parolees, deliver counseling and referral services to parolees, maintain closer surveillance contracts, and apprehend parolee absconders more quickly, then the probability of reducing or containing recidivism among violent felon parolees would be enhanced. The 12-month evaluation focused on how the program was initially implemented, the program's impact on client recidivism, and the relative cost effectiveness of the program. The outcome of the program was assessed by comparing the successes and failures of program parolees (1979) with parolees convicted of a violent felony and paroled in 1978. The program sample consisted of 1,905 parolees, and the nonprogram sample had 1,732 parolees. The success outcome (no recidivism) of the program group was 86.9 percent, while the success outcome for the comparison group was 82.5 percent. Thus, despite the many problems encountered in implementation, the program was successful in reaching its objectives. The program was cost effective, since it saved the State a significant amount of money that would otherwise have been spent on reincarceration of recidivists. Suggestions for improving the program are offered. Tabular data and footnotes are provided.