Funded by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), the Integrated Police–Parole Initiative (IPPI) places police officers in CSC offices, where they support the activities of parole staff. First introduced in 2006–07, these officers work with high-risk offenders in their transition from the penitentiary to community, in order to increase public safety. Analyses of technical violations of conditional releases revealed that sites where these officers were deployed successfully reduced the number of parole violations. These promising results suggest that the IPPI has avoided the ‘community removal’ element of parole supervision that is evident in some North American jurisdictions, and promotes the safe reintegration of offenders into the community. Implications for public safety, as well as law enforcement and correctional partnerships are discussed. Note: these data were originally obtained as part of a CSC analysis of the IPPI, but the opinions expressed within this study do not necessarily reflect those of the CSC.
BucklenK. B.ZajacG. (2009). But some of them don't come back (to prison!): Resource deprivation and thinking errors as determinates of parole success and failure. Prison Journal, 89, 239–264.
2.
BurkeP. (2004). Parole violations revisited: A handbook on strengthening practices for public safety and successful offender transition. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
3.
BurrellW. D. (2008). Implementation: The Achilles heel of evidence based practices. Community Corrections Report, 15, 35–39.
4.
CondonC. D. (2003, February). Falling crime rates, rising caseload numbers: Using police-probation partnerships. Corrections Today, 1, 44–49.
5.
Correctional Service of Canada. (2006). The changing federal offender population. Ottawa, Canada: author.
Correctional Service of Canada. (2009). Integrated police–parole initiative program document. Ottawa, Canada: author.
8.
DelveauxK.FabisiakA.JensenT.BattenD.NolanA.RastinC.LorceE.HenighanM. (2008). Evaluation report: Integrated police–parole initiative. Ottawa, Canada: Correctional Service of Canada.
9.
DillerR.GreeneJ.JacobsM. (2009). Maryland's parole supervision fee: A barrier to reentry. New York: New York University School of Law, Brennan Center for Justice.
10.
DoobA. N.SprottJ. B. (1996). Interprovincial variation in the use of the youth court. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 38, 401–412.
11.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2009). Crime in the United States, 2008. Washington, DC: author.
12.
GiblinM. J. (2002). Using police officers to enhance the supervision of juvenile probationers: An evaluation of the Anchorage CAN program. Crime & Delinquency, 48, 116–137.
13.
HagenbucherG. (2003, September). Progress: An enhanced supervision program for high-risk criminal offenders. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 72, 20–24.
14.
HarrisP. M.KellerK. S. (2005). Exoffenders need not apply: The criminal background check in hiring decisions. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 6–30.
JamesD. J.GlazeL. E. (2006). Mental health problems of prison and jail inmates. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
17.
JonesJ.FlynnE. (2008, April). Cops and corrections: Reentry collaborations for public safety. Corrections Today, 2, 26–29.
18.
JonesM. A.SiglerR. T. (2002). Law enforcement partnership in community corrections: An evaluation of juvenile offender curfew checks. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 245–256.
19.
KingW. R. (2009). Toward a life-course perspective of police organizations. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 46, 213–244.
20.
LanganP.LevinD. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
21.
LarocqueB. (1998). Federal trends and outcomes in conditional release. Forum on Corrections Research, 10, 18–22.
22.
MaguireM.KemshallH.NoaksL.WincupE.SharpeK. (2001). Risk management of sexual and violent offenders: The work of public protection panels. London, UK: Home Office.
23.
MarunaS.ImmarigeonR. (2004). After crime and punishment: Pathways to ex-offender reintegration. Cullompton: Willan Books.
24.
MaruschakL. M. (2008). Medical problems of prisoners. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
25.
MauerM.Chesney-LindM. (2003). Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment. New York: The New Press.
26.
MawbyR. C.WorrallA. (2004). ‘Polibation' revisited: Policing, probation and prolific offender projects. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 6, 63–73.
27.
MillerJ. G. (1996). Search and destroy: African-American males in the criminal justice system. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
MiltimoreJ. (2009, July 12). State guts prison education, drug treatment programs. Panama City News Herald. Retrieved August 2, 2009, from www.newsherald.com.
29.
MurphyD.LutzeF. (2009). Police-probation partnerships: Professional identity and the sharing of coercive power. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 65–76.
30.
NashM. (2008). Exit the polibation officer: Decoupling police and probation. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 10, 302–312.
31.
NashM.WalkerL. (2009). Mappa — Is closer collaboration really the key to effectiveness?Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 3, 172–180.
National Research Council. (2007). Parole, desistance from crime, and community integration, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
34.
PetersiliaJ. (2004). What works in prisoner reentry? Reviewing and questioning the evidence, Federal Probation, 62, 4–8.
35.
Pew Center on the States. (2008). Putting public safety first: 13 strategies for successful supervision and reentry. Washington, DC: author.
36.
Pew Center on the States. (2009). Maximum impact: Targeting supervision on higher-risk people, places and times. Washington, DC: Author.
37.
PiqueroN. L. (2003). A recidivism analysis of Maryland's community probation program. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 295–307.
38.
Public Safety Canada. (2008). Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview, 2008. Ottawa, Canada: author.
39.
RuddellR.TomitaM. (2008). Issues in correctional health. Richmond, KY: Newgate Press.
40.
Scott-HaywardC. S. (2009). The fiscal crisis in corrections: Rethinking policies and practices. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
41.
ShollenbergerT. L. (2009). When relatives return: Interviews with family members of returning prisoners in Houston, Texas. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
42.
SnookB.EastwoodJ. (2009). Integrated police–parole internships: The literature. Unpublished document.
43.
TravisJ. (2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
44.
WallaceM. (2009). Police reported crime statistics in Canada, 2008. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.
45.
WoodJ.KemshallH. (2007). The operation and experience of Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA). London, UK: Home Office.
46.
WorrallA.GainesL. K. (2006). The effect of police-probation partnerships on juvenile arrests. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 579–589.
