Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:38 am
Time: 1:38 am
Results for day reporting
3 results foundAuthor: Spence, Douglas H. Title: Recidivism by Direct Sentence Clients Released from Day Report Centers in 2011: Predictors and Patterns over Time Summary: This study investigates the factors that predict the likelihood that DRC clients will be arrested, booked into jail, or incarcerated within 2 years of release. It also examines the timing of recidivism events during the period after release. The strong relationship between successful program completion, risk scores, and recidivism provides evidence of the impact of DRC programming and the predictive validity of the LS/CMI risk assessment tool. Analysis of LS/CMI subcomponent scores reveals important areas of criminogenic need for the DRC client population in WV, and suggest means for further improving the quality of service delivery in DRCs. Findings related to the timing of recidivism point to additional opportunities for reducing recidivism rates through the use of targeted post-release supervision strategies. Implications for quality assurance, effective treatment dosage, and adherence to evidence-based practices are also discussed. Details: Charleston, WV: Criminal Justice Statistical Analysis Center, Office of Research and Strategic Planning, 2016. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 3, 2016 at: http://jrsa.org/sac-spotlight/wv-recidivism/wv-drc-recidivism.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://jrsa.org/sac-spotlight/wv-recidivism/wv-drc-recidivism.pdf Shelf Number: 137750 Keywords: Alternative to IncarcerationsDay ReportingDay Reporting CentersOffender Risk AssessmentPredictionRecidivismRisk Assessment |
Author: Spence, Douglas H. Title: The Predictive Utility of Risk and Needs Assessment Summary: Risk and needs assessment plays a crucial role in determining the services offenders receive while in correctional custody and their level of supervision after release. According to the principles of effective correctional intervention, clients assessed as having a higher risk of recidivism should receive both a greater treatment dosage and a higher level of case supervision. This strategy of providing more services to higher risk individuals is frequently described as adhering to the "risk principle" (Andrews and Dowden, 2006). In order to adhere to the risk principle, however, correctional programs must first ensure that they are accurately assessing offenders' risk and needs. The Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI), and its predecessor the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R), are two of the most prominent and widely-used tools for assessing offenders. Both have been subjected to extensive empirical research and have been shown to accurately predict the likelihood of recidivism for a variety of offender populations (Vose, Cullen and Smith, 2008). The LS/CMI is currently used by all correctional agencies in West Virginia to assess risk for recidivism. The tool is completed through a process that involves an offender interview combined with the use of official records. The collective information is used to calculate risk scores that indicate an overall risk for recidivism as well as identify specific criminogenic needs (i.e., dynamic risk factors shown to be empirically related to recidivism). These factors include: education/employment, family/marital relationships, substance abuse, procriminal attitudes, antisocial peers, leisure/recreation activities, antisocial personality, and past criminal behavior. LS/CMI scores are utilized to make a variety of decisions including level of supervision and services to be provided to protect public safety. Several recent and forthcoming studies conducted by researchers from the Office of Research and Strategic Planning (ORSP) assess the effectiveness of the LS/CMI for predicting recidivism by offenders in WV. These studies investigate the statistical relationships between various offender characteristics (including LS/CMI scores) and the likelihood of committing a new offenses during a 24 month follow-up period. Details: Charleston, WV: Criminal Justice Statistical Analysis Center, Office of Research and Strategic Planning, 2015. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Brief; Evidence-Based Practice Series, No. 1: Accessed February 3, 2016 at: http://www.djcs.wv.gov/ORSP/SAC/Documents/JCEBP%20Research%20Brief%201_final.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.djcs.wv.gov/ORSP/SAC/Documents/JCEBP%20Research%20Brief%201_final.pdf Shelf Number: 137753 Keywords: Alternative to IncarcerationsDay ReportingDay Reporting CentersOffender Risk AssessmentPredictionRecidivismRisk Assessment |
Author: American Friends Service Committee Title: Community Cages: Profitizing community corrections and alternatives to incarceration Summary: As states pursue sentencing reform efforts to reduce prison populations and the federal government continues to grapple with comprehensive immigration reform, the private prison industry faces pressure to adapt to a shifting penal landscape that is moving toward alternatives to incarceration. In response to these developments, the private prison industry began rebranding and expanding into subcontracted prisoner health care, forensic mental health treatment, and other "alternative" programming. In 2014, The American Friends Service Committee, Grassroots Leadership, and the Southern Center for Human Rights identified this emerging trend as the Treatment Industrial Complex (TIC). In the present report, we offer an in-depth analysis of the community corrections segment. Community corrections refers to "front-end" alternatives to incarceration, such as probation, home arrest, diversion programs, and "back-end" reentry programs such as parole, halfway houses, and work release centers. Nearly two-thirds of people involved in the criminal justice system are not held in prison or jail, but are instead monitored via community correction programs. At the end of 2014, more than 4.7 million adults were under probation or parole. For prison corporations such as Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and GEO Group, this represents a huge untapped market for privatization. Smaller companies are also springing up to meet the demand for community corrections programs and related services. In this report, we examine four different components of community corrections that are being aggressively privatized: 1. Electronic monitoring through the use of GPS ankle monitors and other mobile surveillance technology 2. Day reporting centers for individuals to "check in" and/or participate in rehabilitative programs and services 3. Intermediate sanctions facilities as an alternative to revocation to prison for technical violations of the terms of probation or parole 4. Residential reentry centers, more commonly known as halfway houses Details: Tucson: American Friends Service Committee, 2016. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2016 at: https://afscarizona.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/communitycages.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://afscarizona.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/communitycages.pdf Shelf Number: 140316 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsDay ReportingElectronic MonitoringHalfway HousesPrivatization |