Edward Latessa 

What Works in Offender Assessment?

Presented by: 

Edward J. Latessa, Ph.D.

Professor & Head

Division of Criminal Justice

University of Cincinnati

Cincinnati, OH  45221-0389

513-556-5836

E-mail: Edward.Latessa@UC.Edu

 

This presentation will focus on why offender assessment is so important in correctional intervention. Participants will learn about the principle of effective classification and assessment, how they were derived, and how they are applied.  As part of this workshop the empirical evidence concerning several questions will be addressed including:

 

·        What are the major predictors of criminal behavior? 

·        What are the principles of effective offender assessment 

·        How assessment improves program effectiveness 

·        A review of some third generation assessment tools

 

 

Arnett Gaston

 

Selections of Training of Community Corrections Personnel:

Risk Assessment, Rehabilitation, Risk Management

 

Presented by: 

Arnett Gaston

Professor

Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice

University of Maryland

Maryland, MD  20742

301-4-5-1668

E-mail: agaston@oacs.umd.edu

 

 

 The criminal justice systems of many of the world’s major industrialized nations have come to the realization they cannot afford to lock up all of their criminal offenders.  The capital and operational costs have become prohibitive; so much so that other solutions must be sought.  interest in alternatives to traditional incarceration has in many instances been driven by the fact that jails and prisons are capacity-driven, i.e. as they are constructed they are filled up with offenders.  This serves to increase rather than resolve the problem, and alternative strategies and approaches must be sought.  One approach that has gained significant recognition is that of community corrections.

While alternatives to traditional incarceration provide some relief, this relief is not without risk.  This realization should not be lost when considering the use of community corrections as a viable option.  Most important is the realization that without appropriately trained personnel the risk of program failure as well as risk to the public is increased.  This presentation attempts to address three major components related to viable community corrections programs: (1) the training of personnel to adequately determine the levels of risk associated with the selection process to ensure those offenders who are allowed into the community corrections program have been reasonably assessed to pose minimum risk to the public, as well as assessing possible impact on the community and the collateral consequences of that impact; (2) the residents of these programs have to be taught how to appropriately address the problems and responsibilities associated with law-abiding behavior.  It is essential that the training programs having criterion validity, i.e., they teach what they have been designed to teach, and the methods and strategies employed in the process can be learned and utilized by the target population.  This must include preparing personnel to achieve these goals through proper training; (3) monitoring and modifying the programs to reasonably ensure that the original goal of minimizing risk to the public is achieved.  This entails risk management; not only through monitoring the behavior of the residents of the program, but monitoring, assessing and modify when necessary the goals of the program in order to viably manage risk.  Staff must be trained in the appropriate performance evaluation and management strategies to further ensure success.  Detailed discussion of these components will be provided.

Doris MacKenzie

What Works in Community Corrections

 

By Doris Layton MacKenzie

Professor

Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice

University of Maryland

College Park, USA 

This presentation will discuss findings from reviews, assessments and meta-analyses of more than 280 evaluations of correctional interventions including management strategies, and treatment and rehabilitation programs.  Effective interventions are those that focus on changing the individual.  Academic education cognitive skills programs, and treatment of drug-involved offenders are some examples of interventions found to be effective in reducing later criminal activity.  Interventions such as intensive probation or parole that focus only on increasing control and surveillance are not effective in reducing recidivism.  Similarly, programs based on deterrence or punishment philosophies are not effective.  Using the results from the reviews, assessments and meta-analyses, the presentation will discuss the type of interventions that are expected to be most effective in reducing recidivism of offenders who participate in community correction programs.

Todd Clear

 

Five Key Managerial Ideas in Community Corrections

by

Todd R. Clear

Professor

The City University of New York

 

This paper describes "five managerial ideas" for community corrections. They are:

1. The key managerial challenge in community corrections is the enormous variation that exists among community supervision workers in the way they approach their work.

2. Community corrections workers will tend to focus their time and attention on activities that are measured and for which there are consequences.

3. The size of a community supervision caseload is less important than the supervision strategies undertaken with the cases.

4. Closer surveillance will identify problem behaviors but it will not deter them.

5. The service capacity of community supervision is extremely limited and needs to be augmented by community-based partners.

 

 

Julia Tresidder

 

Community corrections in Australia: an overview

and strategies to improve the outcomes

of post-release programs

by

 

Julia Tresidder, Research Analyst

Australian Institute of Criminology

Imprisonment rates have steadily climbed in the past decade in Australia and more than a half (58%) of prisoners have a previous history of imprisonment. Against this backdrop the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) has conducted research on good practice in post-release community corrections programs. These programs have the potential to reduce the high rates of recidivism amongst ex-prisoners. This paper outlines good practice elements of community corrections programs and discuses the need to develop inter-sectoral models for the delivery of such programs. Community corrections programs need to draw on the resources of other inter-sectoral agencies to maximise the support for ex-prisoners returning to the community. AIC research shows that released prisoners are better able to integrate back into their communities if they are directed to participate in post-release programs. To set the scene this paper describes the Australian context and the range of community corrections options in Australia. It then uses recent research to illustrate how collaborative inter-sectoral models underpinned by sound policy can work to improve the delivery of community corrections programs, particularly for ex-prisoners returning to the community. Finally, a call is made for more intensive evaluation of Australian community corrections options as a way to further improve the design, delivery and outcomes of these programs. 

Tom McQuillan

MANAGING OFFENDERS; REDUCING CRIME

SOME DEVELOPMENTS IN COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

IN THE UNITED KINGDOM 

by

Tom McQuillan, MA,

National Probation Service for England & Wales, United Kingdom

 

There has been a probation service in England & Wales for almost one hundred years stemming from first legislation in 1907. However, its origins go back rather further than that, with initial roots in philanthropic activities (including the church) and, later, social work. By the end of the twentieth century the organization had developed into fifty-four quasi-autonomous probation services. Until very recently, its statutory duty was to advise, assist and befriend offenders.

During the latter half of the 1990s, the Government began to identify profound concerns about the effectiveness of the probation service. In particular, there was an increasing lack of confidence by the general public and by judges and magistrates. The introduction of national standards for offender supervision had made explicit the measures against which performance would be monitored and these were not all being reached. Performance was particularly below target in the enforcement of community sentences (which exacerbated the increasing lack of confidence among sentences), and there were wide variations in quality of practice and delivery across the fifty-four services. All of this was also in the context of an increasing prison population as judges and magistrates apparently resorted more and more to custodial sentences.

This led to a fundamental review of the role and function of the probation service and indeed of the whole of the correctional services framework. Radical structural changes were introduced in 2001 with the establishment of the National Probation Service for England & Wales (NPS). More recently, and as a result of a Government commissioned independent review of correctional services, we have seen the establishment of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) which encompasses both the NPS and HM Prison Service (HMPS) and has the goal of ensuring much greater integration and therefore greater overall effectiveness of work with offenders both in custody and in the community.

This short paper is intended to provide an overview of these radical new arrangements. It will outline the way in which interventions with offenders are now being managed and the improvements in performance which have already been achieved. It will also highlight the important learning that the UK has drawn from the What Works concept of effective, evidence based practice and the associated importance of offender interventions being based upon comprehensive assessment of need, with delivery being based upon ‘end-to-end’ offender management. Finally, there will be an account of a wholly new sentencing framework that has now been introduced and discussion of how all these changes collectively will contribute to the common aim of achieving a substantial reduction in re-offending.