DQW1-5

W1READING.docx

Home >Social Science homework help >Sociology homework help >DQW1-5

EBSCO Publishing Citation Format: APA (American Psychological Assoc.): NOTE: Review the instructions at http://support.ebsco.com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/help/?int=ehost&lang=&feature_id=APA and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Always consult your library resources for the exact formatting and punctuation guidelines.

References

Frana, J. F. (2013). Humanistic Correctional Programming: A Test of Self-Actualization in a Correctional Cognitive Behavioral Program in the United States. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 8(1), 63–72. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=i3h&AN=91094755&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Top of Form

Accessibility Information and Tips Revised Date: 07/2015

Back

1 article(s) will be saved.

To continue, in Internet Explorer, select FILE then SAVE AS from your browser's toolbar above. Be sure to save as a plain text file (.txt) or a 'Web Page, HTML only' file (.html). In FireFox, select FILE then SAVE FILE AS from your browser's toolbar above. In Chrome, select right click (with your mouse) on this page and select SAVE AS

References

Homel, R. (2017). Preventing Crime and Recidivism. Criminology & Public Policy, 16(2), 411–413. https://doi-org.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/10.1111/1745-9133.12319

Preventing Crime and Recidivism.

In the important article by David Weisburd, David Farrington, and Charlotte Gill ([ 4 ] , this issue), based on a systematic review of 118 separate systematic reviews, the authors and their extensive research team have assembled the most compelling evidence to date that crime prevention and correctional programs work, and they often work extremely well. In fact, an amazing array of different approaches, including developmental and social prevention, community interventions, situational prevention, policing, sentencing/deterrence policies, correctional programs, and drug treatment, have surprisingly large effects on crime. Not only can we say that crime prevention and treatment “work,” we can say that many types of interventions have been shown to reduce crime or related problems by 50% or more, based on odds ratios derived from the average standardized effect size for each systematic review included in the seven review areas. These substantial impacts should have policy makers sitting up and taking notice especially because they are based on the result of analysis of thousands of primary evaluations.

Some policy makers have indeed taken notice of the growing torrent of evidence. Weisburd et al. ([ 4 ] ) adduce the example of Washington State, where in light of the findings from systematic research on what works and how much it costs by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy, “a moderate‐to‐aggressive portfolio of evidence‐based programs” was implemented and then expanded by the state after plans to build a prison were abandoned. As the authors comment, “the results of this well‐regarded and influential case study reveal how small‐scale evaluations can be used to guide large‐scale public policy decisions.”

Only in the past decade or so have some of the conceptual tools essential for the journey from “success‐in‐miniature” to population‐level impact been developed (Schorr, [ 1 ] ). This process of “scaling up” is referred to by researchers in the prevention science literature as Type 2 translation, which is in contrast to Type 1 translation that involves applying the results of basic research to the development and testing of new prevention initiatives of the type that are included in systematic reviews (Spoth et al., [ 2 ] ). The Washington initiatives seem to be moving in the direction of Type 2 translation, although outside the corrections field, it is not clear to what extent system reform has been achieved, as opposed to the implementation of a wide array of evidence‐based programs. In other words, to what extent are “tested and proven interventions … integrated into practice and policy on a large scale and in a sustainable way, across targeted populations and settings” (Spoth et al., [ 2 ] : 321)?

Do the results of this massive study by Weisburd et al. ([ 4 ] ) form a foundation for a shift in criminology from Type 1 to Type 2 translation? The authors themselves warn us to exercise considerable caution in this regard. They observe that the reviews that they have examined (and describe in much more detail in their recent book [Weisburd, Farrington, and Gill, [ 3 ] ]) are best described as “first‐generation studies” that definitely provide enough evidence to overturn the “nothing works” narrative but provide little guidance about how programs can be scaled up in a sustainable and cost‐effective manner. Their discussion of hot‐spots policing is instructive in this regard. Based on the results of several recent case studies, they conclude that to translate the research on policing hot spots into sustainable and widespread practice, criminologists will need to focus as much on a theory of organizational behavior as on theories of crime causation. Only through a deep understanding of police culture and management practices, and of how these might be modified, can the implementation gap be bridged and crime reduced on a permanent basis.

Discussion of the challenges of Type 2 translation should in no way detract from the considerable achievements of the Weisburd et al. ([ 4 ] ) study. It is not too much to state that the results of the study drive the final nail into the coffin of the “nothing works” narrative, a point made with considerable force by the authors: “It is difficult to imagine that just four decades ago criminologists had accepted the narrative that nothing works in crime and justice interventions.” The small band of criminologists who contribute to public debate on what constitutes rational and humane crime policy can be considerably emboldened by the Forrest plot presented by Weisburd et al. in Figure 1.

Weisburd et al. ([ 4 ] ) also make several important methodological contributions. They provide a fine demonstration of how to synthesize and weigh up evidence efficiently from a huge array of primary studies, and this study will undoubtedly be replicated and extended as the evidence base expands. Nevertheless, the authors argue that we need stronger evidence from many prevention and intervention domains, especially situational and community prevention where few primary evaluations are based on randomized controlled trials or on the strongest quasi‐experimental designs. Moreover, primary evaluations, and the systematic reviews on which they are based, need to be moved away from a “black box” approach to one that yields deep insights, based on either qualitative or quantitative data, on how interventions reduce crime or achieve other positive effects. Weisburd et al. argue especially for rapid improvements in methods to guide systematic reviews of qualitative studies. Finally, the results of their study make a strong case not only for more cost–benefit studies but also for the development of methods of economic analysis allied to sophisticated models of decision making.

In summary, Weisburd et al. ([ 4 ] ) make a fine contribution to prevention science but do several other things as well. For instance, they make important recommendations for improvements in methodology and for the expansion of the evidence base, while highlighting the need for an investment in criminological research on Type 2 translation through a study of social systems and organizational reform. Finally, they provide considerable inspirational value. How wonderful it is to be able to contribute to the rough‐and‐tumble debates about crime control knowing that our colleagues have greatly strengthened the scientific foundations on which our discipline aspires to stand.

References

1 Schorr, Lisbeth B. 1998. Common Purpose: Strengthening Families and Neighborhoods to Rebuild America. New York : Anchor House.

2 Spoth, Richard, Louise A. Rohrbach, Mark Greenberg, Philip Leaf, C. Hendricks Brown, Abigail Fagan, Richard F. Catalano, Mary Ann Pentz, Zili Sloboda, J. David Hawkins, and the Society for Prevention Research Type 2 Translational Task Force Members and Contributing Authors. 2013. Addressing core challenges for the next generation of type 2 translation research and systems: The Translation Science to Population Impact (TSci Impact) Framework. Prevention Science, 14 : 319 – 351.

3 Weisburd, David, David Farrington, and Charlotte Gill (eds.). 2016. What Works in Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation? Lessons From Systematic Reviews. New York : Springer.

4 Weisburd, David, David P. Farrington, and Charlotte Gill. 2017. What works in crime prevention and rehabilitation: An assessment of systematic reviews. Criminology & Public Policy, 16 : 415 – 449.

~~~~~~~~

By Ross Homel

Ross Homel is Foundation Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia. He has won many awards for his research on the prevention of crime, violence, and injuries and the promotion of positive development and well‐being for children and young people in socially disadvantaged communities. His accomplishments were recognized in January 2008 when he was appointed an Officer in the General Division of the Order of Australia (AO) “for service to education, particularly in the field of criminology, through research into the causes of crime, early intervention and prevention methods.” In 2010 he received the Sellin‐Glueck Award from the American Society of Criminology for criminological scholarship that considers problems of crime and justice as they manifest outside the United States.

Copyright of Criminology & Public Policy is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Back

Bottom of Form

Back

1 article(s) will be saved.

The link information below provides a persistent link to the article you've requested.

Persistent link to this record: Following the link below will bring you to the start of the article or citation. Cut and Paste: To place article links in an external web document, simply copy and paste the HTML below, starting with "<a href"

Record: 1

Title:

Preventing Crime and Recidivism.

Authors:

Homel, Ross1 [email protected]

Source:

Criminology & Public Policy. May2017, Vol. 16 Issue 2, p411-413. 3p.

Document Type:

Editorial

Subject Terms:

CRIME prevention CORRECTIONS (Criminal justice administration)

Abstract:

The article discusses a paper by David Weisburd and colleagues, published within the issue about crime prevention and correctional programs.

Author Affiliations:

1Griffith University

ISSN:

1538-6473

DOI:

10.1111/1745-9133.12319

Accession Number:

123189332

Persistent link to this record (Permalink):

https://search-ebscohost-com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=i3h&AN=123189332&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Cut and Paste:

<A href="https://search-ebscohost-com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=i3h&AN=123189332&site=ehost-live&scope=site">Preventing Crime and Recidivism.</A>

Database:

Criminal Justice Abstracts with Full Text

Preventing Crime and Recidivism.

In the important article by David Weisburd, David Farrington, and Charlotte Gill ([ 4] , this issue), based on a systematic review of 118 separate systematic reviews, the authors and their extensive research team have assembled the most compelling evidence to date that crime prevention and correctional programs work, and they often work extremely well. In fact, an amazing array of different approaches, including developmental and social prevention, community interventions, situational prevention, policing, sentencing/deterrence policies, correctional programs, and drug treatment, have surprisingly large effects on crime. Not only can we say that crime prevention and treatment “work,” we can say that many types of interventions have been shown to reduce crime or related problems by 50% or more, based on odds ratios derived from the average standardized effect size for each systematic review included in the seven review areas. These substantial impacts should have policy makers sitting up and taking notice especially because they are based on the result of analysis of thousands of primary evaluations.

Some policy makers have indeed taken notice of the growing torrent of evidence. Weisburd et al. ([ 4] ) adduce the example of Washington State, where in light of the findings from systematic research on what works and how much it costs by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy, “a moderate‐to‐aggressive portfolio of evidence‐based programs” was implemented and then expanded by the state after plans to build a prison were abandoned. As the authors comment, “the results of this well‐regarded and influential case study reveal how small‐scale evaluations can be used to guide large‐scale public policy decisions.”

Only in the past decade or so have some of the conceptual tools essential for the journey from “success‐in‐miniature” to population‐level impact been developed (Schorr, [ 1] ). This process of “scaling up” is referred to by researchers in the prevention science literature as Type 2 translation, which is in contrast to Type 1 translation that involves applying the results of basic research to the development and testing of new prevention initiatives of the type that are included in systematic reviews (Spoth et al., [ 2] ). The Washington initiatives seem to be moving in the direction of Type 2 translation, although outside the corrections field, it is not clear to what extent system reform has been achieved, as opposed to the implementation of a wide array of evidence‐based programs. In other words, to what extent are “tested and proven interventions … integrated into practice and policy on a large scale and in a sustainable way, across targeted populations and settings” (Spoth et al., [ 2] : 321)?

Do the results of this massive study by Weisburd et al. ([ 4] ) form a foundation for a shift in criminology from Type 1 to Type 2 translation? The authors themselves warn us to exercise considerable caution in this regard. They observe that the reviews that they have examined (and describe in much more detail in their recent book [Weisburd, Farrington, and Gill, [ 3] ]) are best described as “first‐generation studies” that definitely provide enough evidence to overturn the “nothing works” narrative but provide little guidance about how programs can be scaled up in a sustainable and cost‐effective manner. Their discussion of hot‐spots policing is instructive in this regard. Based on the results of several recent case studies, they conclude that to translate the research on policing hot spots into sustainable and widespread practice, criminologists will need to focus as much on a theory of organizational behavior as on theories of crime causation. Only through a deep understanding of police culture and management practices, and of how these might be modified, can the implementation gap be bridged and crime reduced on a permanent basis.

Discussion of the challenges of Type 2 translation should in no way detract from the considerable achievements of the Weisburd et al. ([ 4] ) study. It is not too much to state that the results of the study drive the final nail into the coffin of the “nothing works” narrative, a point made with considerable force by the authors: “It is difficult to imagine that just four decades ago criminologists had accepted the narrative that nothing works in crime and justice interventions.” The small band of criminologists who contribute to public debate on what constitutes rational and humane crime policy can be considerably emboldened by the Forrest plot presented by Weisburd et al. in Figure 1.

Weisburd et al. ([ 4] ) also make several important methodological contributions. They provide a fine demonstration of how to synthesize and weigh up evidence efficiently from a huge array of primary studies, and this study will undoubtedly be replicated and extended as the evidence base expands. Nevertheless, the authors argue that we need stronger evidence from many prevention and intervention domains, especially situational and community prevention where few primary evaluations are based on randomized controlled trials or on the strongest quasi‐experimental designs. Moreover, primary evaluations, and the systematic reviews on which they are based, need to be moved away from a “black box” approach to one that yields deep insights, based on either qualitative or quantitative data, on how interventions reduce crime or achieve other positive effects. Weisburd et al. argue especially for rapid improvements in methods to guide systematic reviews of qualitative studies. Finally, the results of their study make a strong case not only for more cost–benefit studies but also for the development of methods of economic analysis allied to sophisticated models of decision making.

In summary, Weisburd et al. ([ 4] ) make a fine contribution to prevention science but do several other things as well. For instance, they make important recommendations for improvements in methodology and for the expansion of the evidence base, while highlighting the need for an investment in criminological research on Type 2 translation through a study of social systems and organizational reform. Finally, they provide considerable inspirational value. How wonderful it is to be able to contribute to the rough‐and‐tumble debates about crime control knowing that our colleagues have greatly strengthened the scientific foundations on which our discipline aspires to stand.

References

1 Schorr, Lisbeth B. 1998. Common Purpose: Strengthening Families and Neighborhoods to Rebuild America. New York : Anchor House.

3 Weisburd, David, David Farrington, and Charlotte Gill (eds.). 2016. What Works in Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation? Lessons From Systematic Reviews. New York : Springer.

~~~~~~~~

By Ross Homel

Back

1 article(s) will be saved.

The link information below provides a persistent link to the article you've requested.

Record: 1

Title:

What Are We Hoping For? Defining Purpose in Deterrence-Based Correctional Programs.

Authors:

Klingele, Cecelia1

Source:

Minnesota Law Review. May2015, Vol. 99 Issue 5, p1631-1663. 33p.

Document Type:

Essay

Subject Terms:

*PUNISHMENT in crime deterrence *PROBATION supervision *CORRECTIONS (Criminal justice administration) *REVOCATION of probation *CRIME *COMMUNITY supervision *CRIMINAL behavior -- Social aspects UNITED States

People:

ALM, Steven

Abstract:

An essay is presented on probation supervision and the purpose of deterrence-based correctional programs in the U.S. as of 2015, and it mentions prison sentences and U.S. Judge Steven Alm's establishment of the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) program. Crime in America is mentioned, along with probation revocation and community supervision programs in the U.S. Criminal justice intervention and accountability for criminal behavior are also examined.

Author Affiliations:

1Assistant Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School

ISSN:

0026-5535

Accession Number:

108279887

Persistent link to this record (Permalink):

https://search-ebscohost-com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=108279887&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Cut and Paste:

<A href="https://search-ebscohost-com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=108279887&site=ehost-live&scope=site">What Are We Hoping For? Defining Purpose in Deterrence-Based Correctional Programs.</A>

Database:

Academic Search Complete

Back

1 article(s) will be saved.

The link information below provides a persistent link to the article you've requested.

Record: 1

Title:

First do no harm: a look at correctional policies and programs today.

Authors:

MacKenzie, Doris1 [email protected]

Source:

Journal of Experimental Criminology. Mar2013, Vol. 9 Issue 1, p1-17. 17p.

Document Type:

Article

Subject Terms:

CRIMINAL justice policy SOCIAL change CRIMINOLOGY REHABILITATION of criminals EMPLOYMENT PUNISHMENT in crime deterrence

Author-Supplied Keywords:

Correctional programs Deterrence Evidence-based corrections Incapacitation Offender treatment Rehabilitation

Abstract:

Objectives: This paper reviews the historical changes in correctional policies and the impact these changes have had on the operations of corrections and correctional programs. Social changes and theoretical perspectives moved corrections away from a focus on rehabilitation to programs characterized by deterrence, incapacitation, and control. Similarly, theoretical criminology encouraged corrections to move away from rehabilitation towards programs designed to provide social opportunities such as employment and housing for offenders. This paper examines whether these changes in policies and programs have been effective in reducing recidivism. The question is: What works in corrections? Methods: This paper reviews the research examining the impact of correctional policies and programs on the later criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. Research using systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and the Maryland method scores is used to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of various types of programs, management strategies, and policies. Results: Research demonstrates programs based on deterrence, incapacitation and increased control do not reduce the future criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. Nor have programs targeting social opportunities such as employment and housing been effective in reducing recidivism. The most effective programs target individual-level change in thinking and information processing. Conclusions: In the search for ways to sanction offenders, U.S. correctional policies and programs using control, deterrence, and incapacitation have harmed individuals and communities. Such programs have not been effective in reducing recidivism. While programs that provide social opportunities for offenders do not necessarily harm offenders neither do they decrease later criminal activities. Effective programs bring about a cognitive transformation in offenders and delinquents. Theorists have begun to develop hypotheses about how and why these transformations are effective. The current emphasis on evidence-based programs, the research evidence on what is effective and the need to reduce the cost of corrections suggest we are on the brink of another paradigm change. Where this will take us is still unclear, but the paradigm will have to address the current problems facing the U.S. correctional systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Experimental Criminology is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Author Affiliations:

1Department of Sociology, Crime, Law and Justice Program, Penn State University, 327 Pond Bldg University Park 16802 USA

ISSN:

1573-3750

DOI:

10.1007/s11292-012-9167-7

Accession Number:

85596369

Persistent link to this record (Permalink):

https://search-ebscohost-com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=i3h&AN=85596369&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Cut and Paste:

<A href="https://search-ebscohost-com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=i3h&AN=85596369&site=ehost-live&scope=site">First do no harm: a look at correctional policies and programs today.</A>

Database:

Criminal Justice Abstracts with Full Text

Detailed Record

Title:

Indiana Industry sectors that Hire ex-offenders: Implications to Correctional education Programs.

Authors:

Nally, John M.1 Lockwood, Susan2,3 Taiping Ho4 Knutson, Katie

Source:

Journal of Correctional Education. Sep2014, Vol. 65 Issue 3, p43-65. 23p.

Document Type:

Article

Subject Terms:

PRISONERS -- Education EDUCATIONAL programs EMPLOYMENT of ex-convicts EMPLOYEE selection INDUSTRIES -- United States

Geographic Terms:

INDIANA

Abstract:

Previous studies consistently showed that postrelease employment was a major contributing factor for recidivism among ex-offenders, but the studies lacked specific information about the type of employment found by ex-offenders. The main focus of this 5-year follow-up study was to analyze which industrial sectors would likely employ ex-offenders. This study contained data from 6,561 released offenders who represented approximately 43% of 15,184 offenders released from the Indiana Department of Correction correctional facilities throughout 2005. Additionally, the Indiana Department of Workforce Development provided crucial employment-related information for the present researchers to examine the industrial sectors that employed these ex-offenders. Results of this study showed that 62.4% (n = 4,096) were employed in a variety of sectors for at least one quarter in any given year during the study period of 2005 to 2009. By using the North American Industry Classification System to categorize these jobs, this study found the primary sectors that employed ex-offenders were related to "administrative support, waste management and remediation services," "accommodation and food services, " "manufacturing, " "construction, " "retail trade, " or "health care and social assistance." Also, a significant number of ex-offenders found employment in "temporary help services. " The authors discuss the implications for correctional education programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Correctional Education is the property of Correctional Education Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Author Affiliations:

1Director of education for the Indiana Department of Correction 2Director of Juvenile Education for the Indiana Department of Correction, University of Phoenix, Indianapolis Campus 3Lead faculty area chair for the College, University of Phoenix, Indianapolis Campus 4Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana

ISSN:

0740-2708

Accession Number:

99273310

· Result List

· Refine Search

· Prev Result 1 of 1 Next

Hide Left Column

Document Viewing Options:

· Detailed Record

· This PDF document opens in a frame, to view the document outside of a frame, please change your Adobe Reader settings. To do this, open Adobe Reader, go to Help Menu and select Accessibility Setup Assistant option then select Use Recommend Settings and Skip Setup. You only need to do this once with the current computer you are using. PDF Full Text (971KB)

· Request Document Optimized for Screen Reader

Cited References

· Cited References (21)

Find Similar Results using SmartText Searching.

Hide Right Column

Tools

· Google Drive

· Add to folder

· Print

· E-mail

· Save

· Cite

· Export

· Create Note

· Permalink

· Share

Top of Page

· Mobile Site

· iPhone and Android apps

· EBSCO Support Site

· Privacy Policy

· Terms of Use

· Copyright

The Importance of Ecological Context for Correctional Rehabilitation Programs: Understanding the Micro- and Macro-Level Dimensions of Successful Offender Treatment.

Authors:

Wright, Kevin A. [email protected] Pratt, Travis C. Lowenkamp, Christopher T. Latessa, Edward J.

Source:

JQ: Justice Quarterly . Dec2012, Vol. 29 Issue 6, p775-798. 24p.

Document Type:

Article

Subject Terms:

REHABILITATION of criminals SOCIAL learning RECIDIVISM CRIME BEHAVIOR modification

Author-Supplied Keywords:

ecological context offender rehabilitation recidivism

Abstract:

The resurgence of support for offender rehabilitation has led to an increased emphasis on correctional program integrity. Treatment programs are now being evaluated and tailored in accordance with the principles of effective intervention, which are rooted primarily in methods of individual behavior modification through a social learning approach. The problem with this exclusive focus on the individual is that it fails to recognize the importance of certain ecological factors that have been shown to be significant predictors of recidivism. The purpose of the current research, therefore, is to examine the impact of structural characteristics on both treatment program quality and effectiveness of halfway house programs in Ohio. Our results reveal that ecological context influences the magnitude of program treatment effects largely indirectly though its influence on program quality. The implications of these findings for correctional theory and practice are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of JQ: Justice Quarterly is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

ISSN:

0741-8825

DOI:

10.1080/07418825.2011.583933

Accession Number:

82849409

Publisher Logo:

· Result List

· Refine Search

· Prev Result 1 of 1 Next