Worker Observation

COMES NOW the Defendant, Josue Emmanuel Rivera Lemus, by and through counsel, Vernida R. Chaney, and pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Section 6A1.2 the United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (“U.S.S.G.” or the “Guidelines”), United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540 (4th Cir. 2005), and this Court’s Policy Regarding Procedure to be followed in Sentencing, represents that he has reviewed the Probation Office’s Presentence Investigation Report and submits the Defendant’s Position with Respect to Sentencing to aid the Court in determining an appropriate sentence.

The program itself involves three different areas under the branch. These areas are Intensive Supervision/Electronic Monitoring (EM), Intensive community Program (IC), and the Bail Verification and Supervision Program (BV). The Intensive Supervision/Electronic Monitoring program is a sentencing release option that provides intensive planning, high levels of supervision, surveillance and control (CSRS, 2012) The program is designed for those who would otherwise be sentenced to incarceration, so by keeping them in the community, they are given opportunities to participate in re-integration planning with members from the community and their families. Referrals to this program can only be made by a court judge, prosecutor, defense counsel or probation officer and can only be ordered by the court (CSRS, 2012). Like the EM program, The Intensive Community Program provides re-integration opportunities to individuals rather than incarceration under intense supervision. The Bail Verification program also provides an alternative to incarceration while the individual is pending trial or sentencing. All of these programs are designed to promote community integration under intense supervision. Service providers are used in both urban and rural settings. Services such as transportation are more important for rural areas, as programming, education, and employment are

In 2012, TDOC put a new priority on its probation, parole, and community corrections programs. There is a precedence to ensure that not only are offenders in these programs supervised, but also that supervision is successful (“Department Overview”, n.d.). Tennessee supervises roughly 79,000 people that make up those on probation, parole, or in a

"Approximately 1 in 51 adults in the United States was under community supervision at yearend 2013, the lowest rate observed since 1996" (Herberman & Bonczar, 2014, p.1). Probation/parole supervision also known as "community" supervision, helps individuals (ex-criminals) acclimate back in their community. Probation is used when a judge chooses to let the offender serve his sentence under officer supervision in the community, rather than in prison. It is usually given to individuals that have committed a non-violent/ minor infraction or that have a really good defense attorney. However, when someone has been sent to prison for an extended period of time but have served a certain amount of their time or has proven to the Parole Board that they have improved their behavior, will be released to a Parole officer. The probation and parole program is comprised of two approaches casework and brokerage. Casework approach deals with the offender as a flawed person that needs help; brokerage approach is when the probation/parole officer uses his influence in the community to assist the criminal in finding employment or programs. Knowing how to use these approaches along with monitoring techniques will assist in the officer and offender being successful. This paper will examine the approaches to PO work along with the types of monitoring used to keep track of offenders. The purpose of this paper is to examine the elements of community supervision (probation/parole) that will make the

COMES NOW the Defendant, Josue Emmanuel Rivera-Lemus, by and through counsel, Vernida R. Chaney, and pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Section 6A1. 2 the United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (“U.S.S.G.” or the “Guidelines”), United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540 (4th Cir. 2005), and this Court’s Policy Regarding Procedure to be followed in Sentencing, represents that he has reviewed the Probation Office’s Presentence Investigation Report and submits the Defendant’s Position with Respect to Sentencing to aid the Court in determining an appropriate sentence.

Mrs. Debra Mogul contacted this Agent, in reference to the Subject. Mrs. Mogul reported she has a hearing on November 13, 2016 and inquired if the Subject was compliant with his probation. Ms. Mogul further stated she wondering if she should extend the Protective Order against the Subject, because she was fearful. It was explained, that the Subject is compliant with his supervision. However, if she felt like it was needed to extend the Protective Order it was her call.

From a statistical standpoint, there are nearly seven million individuals who are currently on correctional supervision within the United States of America (DeMichele, 2014). Of those seven million individuals, a meager two million or 30 percent are incarcerated within a jail or prison environment (DeMichele, 2014). The remaining five million or 70 percent of those seven million are currently being supervised through community corrections (DeMichele, 2014). The dramatic growth in community-based corrections over the last three decades is nothing short of astounding (Wodahl, Ogle, & Heck, 2011). In a span of less than 30 years, the number of offenders under supervision in the community has more than tripled, with an estimated 5.1 million people under probation and parole supervision in 2008 (Wodahl, Ogle, & Heck, 2011).

This case study will examine four parts of out-of-town brown and the besieged probation supervisor. The first is what should Casey’s response be to the reporter concerning the agency’s recommendation. The second is if Casey elects to discuss her officer’s recommendation for some form of intermediate sanction, how can she justify such sanctions in general and in this case specifically. The third covers do you feel that the probation officer’s recommendation based on these facts is correct, why or why not. Lastly, which form of intermediate sanction would appear to hold the most promise for

James joined the agency in 1991at age 23 working as a Correctional Officer with the Division of Prisons. In 1997 he promoted to Intensive Surveillance Officer with the Division of Community Corrections. While working with our agency, he studied at Mount Olive College and graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice Administration in 2003. As a result of his hard work, James quickly promoted to Probation Officer I, and in 2004 promoted to Probation Officer II. As his career progressed, he experienced the privilege of working with a Mental Health Treatment Court where James first experienced evidence based supervision. This was a pivotal point in James’ career where he began to value the importance evidence based principles. During

The field work that I have done was at the Foundation daycare between 9am and 10:30 am. The daycare is next to the Shaar Hashomayim on Metcalfe and Kensington Avenue in Westmount (o). When I first went to the school I went through the courtyard which had cemented pillars and archways (O) as well as a row of plastic play houses of a variety of colours and sizes (O). The doors are all locked therefore I had to ring the Foundation school doorbell (O). The school has 2 stories (O); the first story is where the daycare (O) is and the second floor is where the elementary school (O) is located. There are 6 classrooms (O) and each classroom has a specific age group (O). While walking to the classroom, there are rows of cubbies and hooks along the walls

Continuing Needs: There are concerns regarding William’s attitude and motivation to adhere to terms of his probation when he returns home. Mr. Schola has recommended

Alternative programs for youth were developed for mild and less serious delinquents. Over the years, the program has seen a surge in electronic home monitoring, community intensive supervision programs which service serious offenders in addition to minor cases. At times, group homes may house repeated youth offenders. Regardless of the placement, 24-hour supervision is provided in a unique way.

Juvenile probation officers today have the duty to make several decisions about the case managements cases on their juvenile offender’s clients on a daily basis. The following studies shows the officer’s perceptions of young clients that are repeating violations before carrying out of a risk/needs assessment self-reported, and case management after the proposal of risk/ need assessment by the officer. Juvenile probation officers give the impression to be making service recommendations and placement judgements equal with youth risk levels, regardless of if they claimed to use risk /needs assessment tool while making their decisions. Implications for the use of risk assessments in juvenile probation will be discussed in this paper. Boot camp

It is recommended that discharge not be granted on March 1, 2016, but deferred for at least 45 additional days to assure timely implementation of services and the development and staffing of the Mental Health Services Transitional Plan. It is also recommended that Armun be placed on parole supervision with the Portsmouth Court Service Unit upon release. Armun will need electronic monitoring services to assist him with his transition back into the community. Parole Transition will allow Armun's movement to be monitored and tracked ensure public safety while he is in the community. I am requesting that he receive 30 days of electronic monitoring with the Parole Transition Program to include GPS monitor through Tidewater Youth Services Commission.

Upon arrival, I buzzed the door to enter the work site. I spoke with supervisor, Natalie Klopher, about evaluations which are due during week three. During my visit, I picked up time sheets which were mostly free from errors. I also left incorrect time sheets for participants to correct. I also was able to observed a clean facility and a well supervised work site. The participants on site were fully engaged in work activities. They were working as teacher assistant in the class rooms. The stairs and emergency exits were clear and accessible along with the entrance. I also noticed adequate bathroom facility and the fire extinguishers through out the building. Overall, the day camp was still in compliance with DYCD rules and regulations.