Suchergebnisse

With welfare reform soundly launched and its effects already praised, it is time to examine its impact on former welfare recipients. A typology of adaptation to welfare—comprising dependency, supplementation, self-reliance, and autonomy—was developed based on former welfare recipients' financial status and employment status. An examination was also made of ways in which welfare recipients changed from more independent modes of adaptation (autonomy and self-reliance) to less independent modes (supplementation and dependency). Using longitudinal data extracted from a U. S. Department of Labor survey, event history analysis was applied to investigate changes in adaptation mode and factors contributing to these changes, among former welfare recipients across a period of 1 8 years. The investigation found that return to welfare was uncommon. Furthermore, the results show that nonpoor former recipients most often joined the ranks of the working poor because of welfare reform, ethnicity, education level, occupational skills, family income, housing subsidy, child care, and prior experience in welfare use. Some nonpoor former recipients who spent long spells in welfare returned to welfare because they suffered income reductions and needed food stamps. Working poor former recipients were likely to become nonpoor if they were married and had no need for child care or food stamps. Working poor White, single mothers with little work experience and little child support were likely to return to welfare and become further dependent on it.

Former clients of a counseling program for spouse batterers were most likely to be recidivistic if they were living with their partners upon termination of counseling, if they had witnessed violence between their parents, or if they had problems with alcohol.

Increases in the number of drug offenders appearing in state and federal courts, coupled with mounting evidence of both the linkages between drug use and crime and the efficacy of drug treatment programs, led many jurisdictions to implement drug treatment courts. Although these courts vary on a number of dimensions, most are designed to reduce drug use and criminal behavior among drug-involved offenders. This study evaluates the effectiveness of one drug court–the Douglas County (Omaha), Nebraska Drug Court–in reducing offender recidivism. We use a variety of analytical techniques to compare drug court participants and offenders in two matched comparison groups on a number of measures of recidivism. Our results reveal that drug court participants have substantially lower rates of recidivism than traditionally adjudicated felony drug offenders, and that the differences in recidivism rates between drug court participants and drug offenders who participated in a diversion program prior to the implementation of the drug court disappeared once we controlled for the offender's assessed level of risk, as indicated by his/her LSI score.

"Provides comprehensive coverage on recidivism risk/needs assessment tools"--

Cover -- Half Title -- Endorsements -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Dedication -- Table of contents -- Preface -- 1 From "Nothing Works" to "What Works": The History and Social Context of Rehabilitation -- Introduction -- The Age of Enlightenment -- The Penitentiary and Reform -- The Progressive Era -- The Crime Control Period -- The "What Works" Agenda -- The Current Landscape -- Summary -- Key Terms -- Discussion Questions -- References -- 2 Understanding Risk and Needs: The Importance of Assessment -- Introduction -- Major Risk Factors -- Dynamic versus Static Factors -- Evolution of Classification and Assessment -- Development of Assessment Tools -- Juvenile Risk/Need Assessment Tools -- Reliability and Validity -- Assessment and Classification in Practice -- The Principles of Offender Classification -- Risk Principle -- Need Principle -- Responsivity Principle -- Professional Discretion -- Limitations with Assessment -- Case Planning -- Identifying Targets for Change -- Setting Goals and Objectives -- Summary -- Key Terms -- Discussion Questions -- Notes -- References -- 3 Barriers to Treatment: Understanding Specific Responsivity -- Introduction -- Why is it important? -- Motivation to Change -- Cognitive Ability -- Mental Health -- Personality -- Trauma -- Demographic and Cultural Characteristics -- Other Barriers -- Strategies for Dealing with Barriers -- Summary -- Key Terms -- Discussion Questions -- Note -- References -- 4 What Doesn't Work: Ineffective Approaches and Correctional Quackery -- Introduction -- Intermediate Sanctions -- Intensive Supervision -- Day Reporting Centers -- Home Detention and Electronic Monitoring -- Shock Incarceration -- Scared Straight Programs -- Correctional Quackery -- Ineffective Treatment Approaches -- Substance Abuse Treatment -- Targeting Noncriminogenic Needs -- Summary -- Key Terms.

There have been eight U.S. states that have implemented prison nurseries in women's correctional facilities. This article examines the second oldest U.S. prison nursery program located in the Nebraska Correctional Center for Women. Using data from the program spanning the years 1994-2014, three main criteria were utilized as key performance indicators to evaluate success—recidivism within 3 years of initial offense, percentage of women returning to prison custody over the 20-year period, and program cost savings. Major findings related to women who participated in the nursery program include a 28% reduction in recidivism and a 39% reduction in women returning to prison custody. Overall, the program achieved cost savings of more than US$6 million for the period 1994 to 2012.

Recidivism reduction is an important objective of many correctional programs. Recent survey data suggest that boot camp prisons (also referred to as shock incarceration programs) are no exception. In this study, we examine recidivism among boot camp completers in eight states during community supervision. We then assess these recidivism patterns in light of how one or more comparison groups in each state perform. For most states, two or more recidivism measures (such as arrest and revocation) are employed. The analysis suggests that those who complete boot camp do not inevitably perform either better or worse than their comparison group counterparts. Rather, program effectiveness has to be judged on a state‐bystate basis.