Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 2:52 am
Time: 2:52 am
Results for vocational training and education
4 results foundAuthor: Leshnick, Sukey Soukamneuth Title: Evaluation of School-District-Based Strategies for Reducing Youth Involvement in Gangs and Violent Crime Summary: In 2007, the Employment and Training Administration provided funding to five school districts to improve services to youth who are involved, have been involved or are at risk of involvement with gangs or the juvenile justice system. A variety of educational, employment, and violence prevention programs and strategies were developed and designed to increase academic performance, lower the involvement of drop-outs and reduce involvement in crime and gangs. The Evaluation of School District-Based Strategies for Reducing Youth Involvement in Gangs and Violent Crime report summarizes findings that cover several key areas for improving services: community context, school district characteristics, in-school and out-of-school youth service models, and program outcomes. The goals of the evaluation were to document prevention and intervention strategies, assess partnership models, document outcomes, and identify successful strategies, challenges and lessons learned. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor/ETZ, 2010. 239p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2013 at: http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/Evaluation_of_School_District-Based_Strategies_for_Reducing_Youth_Involvement_in_Gangs_and_Violent_Crime_Final_Report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/Evaluation_of_School_District-Based_Strategies_for_Reducing_Youth_Involvement_in_Gangs_and_Violent_Crime_Final_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 127711 Keywords: At-risk YouthDelinquency PreventionEducational ProgramsGang PreventionGangs (U.S.)Violent CrimeVocational Training and EducationYouth Violence |
Author: Duwe, Grant Title: The Effects of Minnesota Prison-Based Educational Programming on Recidivism and Employment Summary: This study evaluated the effectiveness of prison-based educational programming by examining the effects of obtaining secondary and post-secondary degrees on recidivism and post-release employment outcomes among offenders released from Minnesota prisons between 2007 and 2008. Obtaining a secondary degree in prison significantly increased the odds of securing post-release employment by 59 percent but did not have a significant effect on recidivism or other employment measures such as hourly wage, total hours worked, and total wages earned. Earning a post-secondary degree in prison, however, was associated with greater number of hours worked, higher overall wages, and less recidivism. Details: St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2013. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 30, 2013 at: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/publications/documents/MNDOCEducationalProgrammingEvaluation_Final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/publications/documents/MNDOCEducationalProgrammingEvaluation_Final.pdf Shelf Number: 128880 Keywords: Educational ProgramsEx-Offender EmploymentPrison ProgramsPrisoners (Minnesota, U.S.)RecidivismVocational Training and Education |
Author: Mukamal, Debbie Title: Degrees of Freedom: Expanding College Opportunities for Currently and Formerly Incarcerated Californians Summary: College has the power to change lives. A college education creates job opportunities; it fosters leadership and improves the social and economic well-being of students, families, and communities. California has long recognized these benefits, and we enjoy a robust public higher education system unparalleled by any in the nation. More significantly, California is a national leader with a long-standing commitment to making college accessible and affordable for all its residents. In order to fully realize this commitment, we cannot overlook Californians who are involved in the criminal justice system. College can break the cycle of recidivism and transform formerly incarcerated individuals into community leaders and role models; it can alleviate economic barriers faced by the formerly incarcerated and enable families to enjoy the fruits of economic mobility. We must recognize that these students' success is part of California's success by including them in our existing education structures, and by ensuring that they persist to graduation. Improving access for all will require leadership and strategic intervention. Our colleges and criminal justice agencies must break out of their silos and share a commitment to high-quality education for all students whether they are learning in prison, jail, or the community. Our policymakers must enable partnership and collaboration between the education and criminal justice fields. Realizing this vision may not be easy, but doing so will improve the lives of thousands of potential college students, for the benefit of our communities now and in future generations. California has a history as a leader in prioritizing college access for all, including criminal justice-involved students. In the late 1970s, every state prison facility offered in-person college courses, and programs to support students with criminal histories existed at 15 community colleges across the state and on nearly half of California State University campuses. Today, we have the infrastructure and experience to successfully support non-traditional students working to achieve their educational goals, but we have only one in-person college program in our 35 prisons and only a handful of small campus programs to assist formerly incarcerated students. We can be a national leader again. This vision will not be realized without overcoming challenges. California is a remarkably decentralized state, both in education and in criminal justice. Programs that work in one region may be practically or politically unpalatable in another. Budgeting priorities in one county may differ greatly from the adjacent county, and each county has its own way of delegating decision-making power between education institutions and criminal justice agencies. For these reasons, a college education may remain elusive for criminal justice-involved individuals as well as others. To do nothing, however, abandons thousands of potential students who are eager for better opportunities. We have the tools to help, and we should. The descriptions and recommendations in this report are based on research conducted in 2014 by the Stanford Criminal Justice Center at Stanford Law School and the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. This initiative included a May 2014 convening of over 150 leaders and stakeholders in education and criminal justice from across California and the United States, as well as reviews of academic research, government reports, legal archives, publicly available databases, and surveys. We interviewed over 175 educators, educational administrators, criminal justice stakeholders, and formerly incarcerated students throughout California and the nation, including in-depth, semi-structured interviews with representatives of college programs for criminal justice-involved students across the country. Some of their direct words are highlighted throughout the report. (See Appendix A for a complete list of contacts and Appendix B for program descriptions.) Drawing on these sources, this report begins with a background on the higher education and criminal justice systems in California. This background section highlights the vocabulary and common pathways for each system, and provides a primer on California community colleges. Part II explains why California needs this initiative. Part III presents the landscape of existing college programs dedicated to criminal justice-involved populations in the community and in jails and prisons. This landscape identifies promising strategies and sites of innovation across the state, as well as current challenges to sustaining and expanding these programs. Part IV lays out concrete recommendations California should take to realize the vision of expanding high-quality college opportunities for currently and formerly incarcerated individuals. It includes guidelines for developing high-quality, sustainable programs, building and strengthening partnerships, and shaping the policy landscape, both by using existing opportunities and by advocating for specific legislative and policy changes. Profiles of current college students and graduates with criminal records divide the sections and offer first-hand accounts of the joys and challenges of a college experience. Throughout this report, terms marked in red italics are defined in the Glossary (only the first appearance of glossary terms are marked in red). Throughout this report, we refer to jail and prison inmates as incarcerated people or prospective students. The education and criminal justice systems relate and refer to the individuals who pass through them differently: colleges and universities teach students by exposing them to new ideas and skills, instilling a thirst for inquiry and cultivating leadership; correctional institutions confine inmates and prioritize the safety and security of their facilities by enforcing compliance and restricting individuality. Using the term student, rather than inmate or offender, intentionally aims to shift public perception of these individuals from passively confined inmates to actively engaged students pursuing the goals and dreams that a college education makes possible. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Criminal Justice Center; Berkeley, CA: Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy, 2015. 154p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 26, 2015 at: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/publication/874512/doc/slspublic/Degrees%20of%20Freedom2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/publication/874512/doc/slspublic/Degrees%20of%20Freedom2015.pdf Shelf Number: 137139 Keywords: Colleges and UniversitiesEducational ProgramsRehabilitation ProgramsVocational Training and Education |
Author: Lizama, Jaslene Title: What Works? Short-Term, In-Custody Treatment Programs Summary: Assessing the effectiveness of in-custody treatment programs is essential in the correctional system to appropriately allocate resources and reduce offender recidivism rates. With California passing AB 109, "2011 Public Safety Realignment", it becomes imperative to understand the characteristics and principles of effective rehabilitation programing. Treatment programs that follow the core principles of the Risk-Needs-Responsivity model are found to be effective and to significantly decrease recidivism rates (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2011). The main question is whether jail treatment programs can be effective given the short duration of most jail terms. The transitory population in jails makes it difficult to provide continuous and effective treatment, further indicating the importance of analyzing the effectiveness of short-term, in-custody treatment programs. The authors reviewed the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy, education and vocational programs, substance and alcohol abuse treatment, faith-based, and mental illness treatment programs. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is based on the premise that offenders have distorted cognitions, which allows for dysfunctional thinking patterns that lead to unreasonable thoughts and beliefs and eventually to criminal and anti-social behaviors. There are different types of CBT programs that include, for example, Moral Reconation Thinking, Thinking for a Change, and Reasoning and Rehabilitation. These CBT programs are cost effective and when the program targets an offender's criminogenic needs, it can positively reduce an offender's recidivism rates. Effective educational and vocational programming are important as a large percentage of offenders in jail lack the basic skills to be a part of a well-functioning society. Educational programs are considered to be Adult Basic Education (ABE), General Educational Development (GED), and Post-Secondary Educational (PSE) classes - which includes academic classes and vocational training. Though most if not all correctional facilities provide their adult offenders with educational classes and vocational training there are no conclusive findings that these programs actually reduce recidivism. However, these programs are deemed effective because they teach offenders basic education, such as reading and writing and they also emphasize academic, vocational, and social education skills. Alcohol and substances abuse rehabilitation programs aim to reduce offenders' dependency and recidivism rates simultaneously. The research suggests cognitive-behavioral therapy, therapeutic communities, and interactive journaling used as in-custody treatment programs for offenders with alcohol or substance dependence can be effective in helping decrease drug use, drug relapse, and future criminal activity. Another promising program for jail inmates is the short-term but intensive OUT program. It is important to note that 12-step programs implemented in rehabilitation programs yield inconclusive evidence of effectiveness and have been found to have harmful consequences if not fully completed. Faith-based programs work with inmates to help grow their beliefs while providing vital services during incarceration but there is little evidence to support their effectiveness as a treatment. Sumter and Clear (n.d.) concluded that there are not enough studies regarding faith-based rehabilitation programs, and the results of the few existing studies yield too many inconsistences to clearly support the effectiveness of religious programs to reduce recidivism. Mentally ill offenders pose a difficult challenge for correctional facility staff and with the growing inmate population more mentally ill individuals find themselves placed in insufficient facilitates that do not meet their needs. Similar to faith-based rehabilitation programs; there is little research analysis to determine the effectiveness of treatment. While it is hard to determine whether mental illness programs can significantly reduce recidivism, it is essential for correctional facilities to provide some sort of programs to meet this population's needs. In general, research suggests that select short-term, intensive treatment programs may be useful within jails and can be effective in reducing offender recidivism rates. Details: Fullerton, CA: California State University - Fullerton, Center for Public Policy, 2015. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2016 at: http://cpp.fullerton.edu/Faculty/Dixie_CPP/What_Works_In_Corrections_2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://cpp.fullerton.edu/Faculty/Dixie_CPP/What_Works_In_Corrections_2015.pdf Shelf Number: 138563 Keywords: Correctional ProgramsRehabilitation ProgramsVocational Training and Education |