Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Intervention Part 4

Intervention Part 4

Ratings:
(0)
|Views: 19|Likes:
Published by smitty_buckler
Uploaded from Google Docs
Uploaded from Google Docs

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: smitty_buckler on Apr 07, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/04/2013

pdf

text

original

 
“What works in corrections”is not a program or a singleintervention but rather a body of knowledge that is accessible tocriminal justice professionals.
1
The National Institute o Corrections (NIC) has beenpromoting the use o evidence-based practice or many years. The eight principles o evidence based corrections aresummarized on the NIC website.
2
These principles, along  with additional discussion, are presented below. Correctionsand criminology research conducted over the past severaldecades provide substantial direction or implementing prison and community-based programs or criminaloenders. Criminologists have spanned the research-practicedivide that has emerged over the last fteen years. Now leaders in corrections must take orward the inormationlearned and implement programs based on the principleso eective intervention.
1
Latessa,E.J.andLowenkamp,C.(2006).Whatworksinreducingrecidivism?
University o St. Thomas Law Journal 
521-535.
2
Availableathttp://www.nicic.org,especiallyhttp://www.nicic.org/ pubs/2004/019342.pd.
Evidence BasedCorrectionalPractices
PreparedbyColoradoDivisionoCriminalJustice,OfceoResearchandStatistics.BasedinpartonmaterialavailableromtheNationalInstituteoCorrections(www.nicic.org),August2007.
 
2
Evidence Based Correctional Practices
ONE:
  Assess offender risk/need levelsusing actuarial instruments
Risk actors are both static (never changing) and dynamic(changing over time, or have the potential to change). Focusis on criminogenic needs, that is, oender defcits that puthim or her at-risk or continued criminal behavior.
3
Forexample, many studies show that specifc oender defcitsare associated with criminal activity, such as lack o employ-ment, lack o education, lack o housing stability, substanceabuse addiction. Actuarial instrument tools are available which can assist in the identifcation o these areas o serviceneeds. One o the most common o these is the Level o Service Inventory (LSI).
4
The LSI (see sidebar) may be themost used instrument: In a 1999 study, researchers oundthat 14% o the agencies surveyed in a national study wereusing the LSI-Revised with another 6% planning on imple-menting it in the near uture.
5
It is used in jurisdictionsacross the U.S. and Canada, and has been the subject o a considerable amount o research. Systematically identiying and intervening in the areas o criminogenic need is eectiveat reducing recidivism.
 TWO:
 Enhance offender motivation
Humans respond better when motivated- rather than per-suaded-to change their behavior. An essential principle o eective correctional intervention is the treatment teamplaying an important role in recognizing the need ormotivation and using proven motivational techniques.Motivational interviewing, or example, is a specifcapproach to interacting with oenders in ways that tend toenhance and maintain interest in changing their behaviors.
 THREE:
Target interventions
This requires the application o what was learned in theassessment process described in #1 above.
6
Research showsthat targeting three or ewer criminogenic needs does
not 
 reduce recidivism. Targeting our to six needs (at a mini-mum), has been ound to reduce recidivism by 31 percent.Correctional organizations have a long history o assessing inmates or institutional management purposes, i nothing else. But when it comes to using this inormation in thesystematic application o program services, most correctionsagencies all short. While inmate fles may contain adequateinormation identiying oender’s defcits and needs, cor-rectional sta are oten distracted by population movement,lockdowns, and day-to-day prison operations. Oten, thesetake priority over the delivery o services based on the oend-er’s criminogenic needs. Sta training and proessionalismbecomes an essential component o developing a culture o personal change: well-trained sta can—and must—rolemodel and promote pro-social attitudes and behaviors even while maintaining a sae and secure environment.Thus, targeting interventions requires clear leadership andmanagement o the prison culture. Implementation meth-ods include the ollowing:
 Act on the risk principle
. This means prioritizing super-vision and treatment resources or higher risk oenders.
 Recidivism reduction: Implementing new programs and expanding existing programsor the purpose o recidivism reduction requires integratingthe principles described here.
3
Criminogenicriskreerstoattributesassociatedwithcriminalbehaviorsandrecidivisminclude(Gendreau,andAndrews,1990):(1)Anti-socialattitudes,values,andbelies(criminalthinking);(2)Pro-criminalassociatesandisolationrompro-socialassociates,(3)Particulartemperamentandbehavioralcharacteristics(e.g.,egocentrism);(4)Weakproblem-solvingandsocialskills;(5)Criminalhistory;(6)Negativeamilyactors(i.e.,abuse,unstructuredorundisciplinedenvironment),criminalityintheamily,sub-stanceabuseintheamily);(7)Lowlevelsovocationalandeducationalskills(8)Substanceabuse.Themoreriskactorspresent,thegreatertheriskorcommittingcriminalacts.
4
Andrews,D.A.andBonta,J.L.(2003).
Level o Supervision Inventory-Revised. U.S. Norms Manual Supplement 
.Toronto:MultiHealthSystems. TheLSIassessestheextentoneedintheollowingareas:criminalhis-tory,education,employment,fnancial,amilyandmaritalrelationships,residentialaccommodations,leisureandrecreationactivities,companions,alcoholanddrugproblems,emotionalandpersonal,andpro-socialatti-tudesandorientations.
5
Jones,D.A.,Johnson,S.,Latessa,E.J.,andTravis,L.F.(1999).
Caseclassifcation in community corrections: Preliminary fndings rom a national  survey 
.TopicsinCommunityCorrections.WashingtonD.C.:NationalInstituteoCorrections,U.S.DepartmentoJustice.
 But when it comes to usingthis inormation in the systematic application o program services, most corrections agenciesall short.
6
Gendreau,FrenchandTaylor(2002).WhatWorks(WhatDoesn’tWork)Revised2002.
 
3
Evidence Based Correctional Practices
 WHAT IS THE LSI-r?
The Level o Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-r)
1
  is one o the most commonly used classifca-tion tools used with adult oenders. The LSI-r isused in a variety o correctional contexts acrossthe United States to guide decision making. InColorado, the LSI-r is used in probation, com- munity corrections, prison and parole to develop supervision and case management plans, and todetermine placement in correctional programs.In some states, the LSI-r is used to make institu-tional assignments and release rom institutional custody decisions. It may be the most used  instrument: In a 1999 study, researchers ound that 14% o the agencies surveyed in a national  study were using the LSI-R with another 6% planning on implementing it in the near uture.
 2
 The instrument is perhaps the most researched correctional risk/needs assessment and, romthe frst validation study in 1982, it has contin-ued to show consistent predictive validity or a range o correctional outcomes.
3
The LSI-R assessment is administered via a struc-tured interview. Supporting documentation should  be collected rom amily members, employers,case fles, drug tests, and other relevant sources.
 4
 (Andrews & Bonta, 1995).The instrument includes 54 items that measureten components o risk and need. The compo- nents measured are:Criminal history,• Education,• Employment,• Financial,Family and marital relationships,Residential accommodations,Leisure and recreation activities,• Companions,Alcohol and drug problems,Emotional and personal, and Pro-social attitudes and orientations.The LSI-r predicts recidivism but perhaps more importantly it also provides inormation pertain- ing to oender needs. Re-assessment every six  months allows or an examination o whether the oender’s need level was improved by the intervening programming. Probation and DOC apply diering score paradigms or determin- ing levels o risk and need or their respective individual populations.
ProbationandDOChavesetdierentscorecategoriesordesignationorisk/need.
RISK/NEEDcategory ProbationDOC
Low1-18 0-12Medium19-28 13-26High29-54 27-54
Level of Supervision Inventory 
Percentchanceorecidivismwithinoneyear(basedontotalscore).
LSI total score(Raw score)Percent chance of recidivism
0to5 9%6to10 20%11to15 25%16to20 30%21to25 40%26to30 43%31to35 50%36to40 53%41to45 58%46to50 69%50to54 <70%
Source
:Andrews,D.A.andBonta,J.L.(2003).
Level o SupervisionInventory-Revised. U.S. Norms Manual Supplement 
.Toronto:MultiHealthSystems.
1
Andrews,D.A.andBonta,J.(1995).
The Level o Service Inventory-Revised 
.Toronto:Multi-HealthSystems.
2
Jones,D.A.,Johnson,S.,Latessa,E.J.,andTravis,L.F.(1999).
Case classifcation in community corrections: Preliminary fndings rom a national survey 
.TopicsinCommunityCorrections.Washington,D.C.:NationalInstituteoCorrections,U.S.DepartmentoJustice.
3
Andrews,D.A.(1982).
The Level o Supervision Inventory (LSI): Thefrst ollow-up
.Toronto:OntarioMinistryoCorrectionalServices; Andrews,D.A.,Dowden,C.andGendreau,P.(1999).
Clinically  relevant and psychologically inormed approaches to reduced  re-oending: A meta-analytic study o human service, risk, need, responsivity and other concerns in justice contexts.
Ottawa:CarletonUniversity.
4
Andrews,D.A.andBonta,J.(1995).
The Level o SupervisionInventory-revised 
.Toronto:Multi-HealthSystems.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->