Grant writing and Funding Homework

Select a Peer Reviewed article from either the Weekly ERRs or the UOP library where the subject pertains to this week's topic and objectives.

Write a 400 word summary of the article that includes:

· Explain the reason the article was chosen.

· Summarize the major points of the article.

· Identify the correlation of the article main points to process of grant writing in the Human Services field.

Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines.

Click the Assignment Files tab to submit your assignment

Prisons, Community Partnerships and Academia : Sustainable programs and community needs

Peter Boghossian

Philosophy Department, Portland State University

Megan Glavin

College of Urban and Public Affairs: Hatfield School ofCovernment

(Criminology & Criminal Justice Division), Portland State University

Tom O'Connor

Transforming Corrections

JeffBoyer

Columbia River Correctional Institution

Dave Conway

Oregon Corrections Enterprises

IN RECENT YEARS, the effect of the

economic downturn on state budgets has

exacerbated the urgent needs of our most

vulnerable citizens. Services across an array

of state institutions have been cut, often

significantly, with potential consequences

threatening to have cascading effects and

further overwhelm an insolvent system. There

is an immediate need for innovative, low-cost

programs to meet community needs.

One of the most underserved arenas,

and one of the hardest hit by diminishing

resources, are state prisons, where inmate

programming is often the first ser'vice to face

cuts (Brazzell, Crayton, Mukamal, Solomon,

& Lindahl, 2009; Wilhelm 8c Turner, 2002;

Williams, 2009). Among the many targets

of cuts in pre-release services for inmates

are vocational and educational programs, as

well as substance abuse treatment services

(Brazzell et al., 2009; Stevens 8c Ward, 1997;

Wilhehn 8c Turner, 2002).

Fortunately, there are cost-effective and

efficient solutions to help meet the needs of community

members, address social and educational

inequalities, and assist prisons in discharging

public safety mandates. Community-academic

partnerships are increasingly seen as a way to

bring 'Vital resources to the community and

to underfunded state institutions. Regrettably,

however, there is a dearth of literature on how

universities and prison systems can create sustainable

partnerships.

There are many reasons for this. For

academicians, chief among their concerns

are: unfamiliar rules, bureaucratic hurdles,

hesitancy in dealing wfith members of a "protected

class," liability issues associated with

the perceived dangers of being in a prison

environment, and even fears of cultural and

socioeconomic clashes between academicians

and prison staff (Brazzell et al., 2009; Bringle

8c Hatcher, 2002; Nyden 8c Wiewel, 1992;

Schultz, 1992; Suarez-Balcazar, Harper, 8c

Lewis, 2005; Wolff 8c Gerard^j 2007). Prison

management teams have somewhat different

concerns; they fear the introduction of programs

and curricula that are not sanctioned by

the state bureaucracy, as well as the establishment

of non-evidence-based programs that do

not contribute to inmates' desistance efforts (J.

Boyer, personal communication, June, 2011).

The purpose of this paper is to thematically

address these issues by:

1. Discussing a successful, sustainable community

partnership between Portland

State University (PSU) and an Oregon

Department of Corrections (ODOC)

state prison, Columbia River Correctional

Institution (CRCI);

2. Demonstrating the relevance of salient

elements in the literature to the specific

partnership detailed here; and

3. Explaining the benefits of academic-prison

partnerships for the correctional system,

academic institutions, inmates, and the

community at large.

Community Partnership

In 2009, PSU started a partnership 'with the

local state prison, CRCI. CRCI is a pre-release

facility with approximately 550 beds, located

in northeast Porfland, Oregon. The partnership

grew out of an en'vironment of mutual

concern and genuine interest—both PSU and

CRCI recognized the gathering storm of an

economic crisis, the profound and inadequately-

addressed needs of prisoners releasing

to the community, and attendant issues of

public safety. With full support of CRCI's

June 2012 PRISONS, COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS, AND ACADEMIA 31

leadership team and the prison's superintendent,

the partnership initially took the form

of an internship. One graduate student intern

from PSU's criminology and criminal justice

division of the Hatfield School of Government

sought external funding by researching funding

agencies and subsequently managing and

editing a grant, with the explicit purpose of

helping high-risk inmates successfully transition

back into the community. The intern

worked closely with the CRCI leadership

team, ODOC transitional services, a former

ODOC research manager, and a faculty member

from PSU's philosophy department.

The intern and ODOC staff submitted

a grant proposal that targeted the development

and evaluation of ODOC's transitional

program designed to assist inmates in the

desistance and reentry process. Information

regarding the grant was disseminated to

CRCI's management team, CRCI's incoming

superintendent, the director of the Oregon

State Department of Corrections, and appropriate

academic heads at PSU. The successful

development, management, and submission of

the grant application exemphfy an academicprison

partnership success. Even though this

initial effort was ultimately unsuccessful in

obtaining the desired funding, the underlying

project work is a tangible demonstration

of the collaborative relationship between

these two state agencies, both of which harnessed

their collective resources to address a

shared concern.

Because feedback from all of the stakeholders

was overwhelmingly positive, PSU and

CRCI decided to expand their community

partnership by increasing the total number of

internships. Three additional internships at

CRCI have been approved: one internship was

completed and ended with the fall 2011 term;

the second was completed in the fall 2011

term and renewed for the winter 2012 term;

and the third internship has recently been

approved and will be commencing shortly. (In

line with PSU's commitment to diversity, the

newest grant-writing intern is an exchange

student from China.)

In addifion to grant-related tasks, other

services pro'vided by these interns include

assisting prison administrators with ODOC

management presentations and interviewing

inmates on-site (and over the phone) to match

up soon-to-be-released offenders with mentors

who wiU assist them with réintégration in

the community.

Furthermore, PSU's Graduate School of

Education, Curriculum and Instruction has

opened a curriculum designer internship at

CRCI. The curriculum designer wiU work with

correctional administrators to determine the

outstanding educational/instructional needs

of inmates. Based on feedback from prison

staff, the curriculum designer wül develop

e'vidence-based education and programming

curricula, and relevant interventions for highrisk

inmates. The ultimate objective of the

curricula is to equip inmates to successfully

transition back to the community. Additional

interns from PSU's Graduate School of

Education and Postsecondary, Adult, and

Continuing Education (PACE) wiU subsequently

teach this curriculum.

Finally, the goal is to make this partnership

sustainable, and to do so a graduate public

administration internship (GPAI) was created.

The person who holds the GPAI manages and

coordinates the interns, recruits new candidates,

and finds replacements for the posifions,

including her O'wn replacement. (The criteria for

the GPAI are a soUd history of high academic

achievement, previous management/recruitment

experience, and faculty and employer

recommendations.) This public administration

internship, which focuses on the administrafive

aspect of community partnerships, is vital for

the long-term maintenance of these programs,

as it minimizes faculty time commitments while

maintaining accountability.

None of these internships are paid, but

all interns receive academic credits for the

successful completion of their work (which

includes graded papers detailing their experiences

and relating what they have learned

back to the relevant literature). To ensure

the ethical treatment of unpaid interns, strict

guidelines are followed to guarantee that the

intern relationships are not exploitative.'

Creating Sustainable

Community Partnerships

There is no single recipe for creating and

managing a mutually producfive, sustainable

academic-prison partnership. Much has been

written about effective community partnerships

in other domains, particularly with

regard to healthcare, but there is little literature

about the types of partnerships discussed here

(Ahmed, Beck, Maurana, & Newton, 2004;

Minkler et al., 2008). This section will note

three strategies found in the hterature, offer

' For more information on the ethical treatment

of interns and accepted standards for interns,

see the National Association of Colleges and

Employers Position Statement on U.S. Internships:

http://www.naceweb.org/connections/advocacy/

internship_position_paper/

pragmatic suggestions for developing sustainable

community partnerships between prisons

and academic institutions, and show how these

strategies informed and guided the community

partnership between CRCI and PSU.

Listen

In The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People,

Stephen Covey identifies an indispensible

"habit" that also has an extensive pedigree in

the community-based research literature: "Seek

First to Understand, Then to be Understood"

(Birrell et al., 1998; Covey, 1989; Wiewel &

Broski, 1997). Each community partner needs

to assess not only its own needs and motivations,

but the needs and motivations of both

the institutions and of the specific indi'viduals

involved in the relationship. Only affer genuinely

hstening to the needs and concerns of

each partner and explicitly understanding the

advantages of community partnership can

programs be designed that specifically target

desiderata. Through mutual understanding,

each actor has a vested interest in the outcome,

and concerns—like hegemonic fears

over lack of autonomy—can be preempted.

In regard to the PSU-CRCI partnership,

internship creation was a direct response not

only to budget cuts but also to specific staff concerns

regarding what services inmates needed

but were not receiving. For example, one of

the transitional services staff at CRCI wanted

to further develop and evaluate Home For

Good in Oregon (HGO). HGO is an ODOC

institutional program that works "to insure

[sic] successful transition of offenders from

prison to the community" ("Home for Good,"

2011). Anecdotal reports of the program

were universally positive (O'Connor, Cayton,

Taylor, McKenna, & Monroe, 2004). The

staff's desire to further develop the program

and seek independent and demonstrative

e'vidence of HGO's effectiveness culminated

in the criminology and criminal justice intern

assisting in the management and preparation

of a detailed government grant proposal that

would assess HGO's efficacy. The concerns of

the ODOC staff, as they related to the needs of

the inmates, directly determined the nature of

this internship.

Finally, both PSU faculty and CRCI staff

regularly meet and hsten to each other's concerns

about making existing internships more

productive and expanding opportunities for

32 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 76 Number 1

each community partner.^ Listening does not

cease once initial ideas become reaUzed.

Sustainability

Too often community partnerships faü either

because they rely too much on particular

individuals or they lack sufficient funding

(Baum, 2000; Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005). For

collaborative programs to be sustainable, that

is, successfully maintained over the long term,

there must be an institutionalized mechanism

in place that ensures their success in perpetuity

whUe limiting expenditures. This is even more

pertinent in an age of draconian budget cuts.

The PSU-CRCI partnership remedied this

though the creation of the graduate public

administration internship (GPAI). The

purpose of the GPAI is to self-replenish and

self-manage academic resources and human

capital by taking a leadership role in managing

all of the other internship placements.

The GPAI ensures that positions are filled

by qualified graduate students (i.e., students

demonstrating high academic achievement as

well as direct experience and/or relevant skill

sets) and also interfaces with various stakeholders.

The GPAI is inherently sustainable

and requires minimal faculty oversight. Due

to this unique description of the position, and

because the role itself is institutionalized and

is part of academic course offerings, success

is never dependent upon any single individual

for an inordinate length of time.

It must be noted that the GPAI and other

intern placements are only possible because

interns are unpaid and receive academic

credit (and other non-monetary benefits,

like resume building, practical experience,

networking, etc.) for their labor. It is this

necessary condition, "payment" in academic

credits and not money, that allows for the

possibility of the program's sustainability.

This is not just limiting but exclusory for

non-academic institutions. In the context of

academic contributions to community wellbeing,

however, offering academic credits for

meaningful, relevant, and timely community

work allows for the possibility of providing

critically needed services and programs at noto-

low-cost. (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Chau,

Vinekar, & Ran, 2006; Richards et al., 2008;

Rose, Reschenberg, & Richards, 2010).

^ For more information about practical ways for

prison leadership teams and community members

to navigate problems of common concern, see

Boghossian's "The Delphi Technique: Correctional

Administration and Community Consensus"

(Boghossian, 2010).

Finally, the community partnership

described in this paper is also distinctive

because the grant-writing internships are not

solely limited to assisting prison staff with

operational tasks; rather, the interns seek

funding to develop existing (or implement

entirely new) programs for inmates. In this

regard, the internships have the potential to

yield truly generative benefits to the prison

staff, the inmates, and the community.

Dissemination

To offer possibilities for reevaluating and

improving existing projects, to recognize the

efforts of individuals, to demonstrate the

results of collaboration, and ultimately to help

maintain a successful community partnership,

informal and anecdotal reports should

be shared among stakeholders. Dissemination

at the informal level could take many forms,

including openly recognizing individual

accomplishments at meetings, distributing

project analyses to stakeholders, self-reporting

project successes, etc.

Disseminating collaborative results at the

stakeholder level yields possibihties to revisit

two strategies noted in the beginning of this

section: listening and sustainabihty. Findings

can be used by members of a community

partnership to refine goals, discuss specific

strategies, and revisit sustainable solutions by

genuinely listening to the needs of stakeholders

and making appropriate adjustments.'

Benefits

Chief among the difficulties in establishing

these programs were the initial steps in articulating

the advantages for all involved partners.

(One reason that formalization of academicprison

partnerships may be so rare is that

there is scant literature detailing the benefits

of these collaborative relationships.) This section

will detau potential advantages for each

community partner and explain underlying

motivations for successfully interfacing

v^rith stakeholders.

Academia

Community collaboration has many distinct

advantages both for individual academicians

and for colleges and universities. First,

principal among these is the possibility of

' Dissemination in the public arena (e.g., in the form

of articles that report quantifiable project results) is

encouraged after a formal evaluation of the program

is performed, even if results fell short of initial expectations.

Even less than positive results contribute to a

body of knowledge that can then be used to inform

future academic-prison partnerships.

conducting research in prisons with the institutional

support of management teams. Even

the knowledge that the superintendent and

staff are not just tolerating, but are actively

supportive of academicians' projects, is highly

coveted because it allays fears among academic

researchers that they wiii not have an

opportunity to complete their research and

thus wUl lose a tremendous time investment.

Second, over the past decade there has

been a trend in academia advocating that

community service (also referred to as "service

learning") be accorded the importance and

merit that has been traditionally conferred

upon scholarly research and teaching. Several

universities have expanded the existing conception

of service to include community-based

activities (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996; Calleson,

Jordan, & Seifer, 2005; Chau, Vinekar, & Ran,

2006; Holland, 1997; Sandmann, Saltmarsh

& O'Meara, 2008). Traditionally, university

services have included such metrics as the

number of committees in which one was

involved, one's service in governance roles,

and participation in other activities that contribute

to the effectiveness of the university

and that benefit the discipline overall (Boddy

et al., 2002; Woods, 2006).

With the institutional réévaluation of these

traditional categories, new opportunities that

center on community engagement are available

for faculty and students. The resultant

civic participation can improve the surrounding

community's livabihty, aid in recruitment

(i.e., attract students and faculty to the university),

and enhance the public's perception of

the university (Chau, Vinekar, & Ran, 2006).

Prisons

Collaboration with both academicians and

academic institutions has numerous benefits

for prison staff, the community, the

prison's leadership team, and even state-level

administrators. One critical objective of every

department of corrections in the United States

is ensuring public safety (Human Rights

Watch, 2003). Collaborative relations with

universities can improve public safety in a

number of important ways.

First, correctional administrators need reUable

ways of teasing out which interventions,

among the suite of programming options

offered, achieve their preventative ambitions.

Measuring and assessing the effectiveness of

particular programs is particularly problematic

given that research budgets are being

slashed and that measuring a program's effectiveness

can be time consuming and costly

June 2012 PRISONS, COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS, AND ACADEMIA 33

(Lipsey, Pétrie, Weisburd, 8c Gottfredson,

2006; Wolff & Gerardi, 2007). Academic

researchers are uniquely suited to bring their

skiU sets to bear on this problem and are

self-motivated to engage in such work, as it

satisfies intellectual and professional goals and

often culminates in broadening the knowledge

base of the discipline.

Second, community partnerships can reassure

the public that prison administrators

are actively working on practical, innovative

solutions that proactively address pubUc

safety concerns. Taxpayers favor state employees

providing services that address critical

social issues whue not requiring additional

taxes to support these initiatives. Academiccommunity

partnerships can also have

salubrious effects on community cohesion,

civic participation, and staff retention (Chau,

Vinekar, & Ran, 2006).

Third, there is considerable evidence

associating education-based interventions

with decreasing recidivism rates (Brazzell

et al., 2009; Richards, Faggian, Roffers, 8c

Hendricksen, 2008). Research has shovra that

providing key skill sets necessary for the

economic competitiveness (among other factors)

of recently released inmates not only

makes inmates feel self-empowered but often

through this feeUng translates economicaUy

into increased opportunities and personaUy

into prosocial attitudes, thinking patterns, and

behaviors (BrazzeU, et al., 2009). This is particularly

beneficial to the communities where

offenders are released, as modest increases

in educational attainment (e.g., a high

school diploma) have been associated with

decreased crime rates (Page, Petteruti, Walsh,

& Ziedenburg, 2007). Furthermore, academic

institutions are ideaUy suited to provide educational

resources and doing so may discharge

their secondary mandate of meaningful community

engagement.

Obstacles

Every community partnership wül face challenges,

and aUiances between universities and

prisons are not exempt from this reality. Some

of the obstacles experienced in the PSU-CRCI

relationship, particularly during the implementation

of the first internship, included

prison personnel changes and modifications

to the intern's responsibüities. SpecificaUy,

because of budget cuts, CRCI staff working

with interns were unexpectedly transferred

to other faculties. This presented some unexpected

chaUenges for the existing staff and

for the interns to keeping the internships

functioning smoothly. Correctional faculties,

therefore, need to have a sustainabüity plan,

and it is best If the program is institutionalized

in the formal policies and procedures of the

particular prison system.

FinaUy, it should be noted that whue every

effort can be made to ensure the safety of

interns working in a prison environment,

ultimately their safety cannot be guaranteed

and these internship placements do carry a

smaU degree of risk. Potential dangers, such

as the risk of being taken hostage, must be

expUcitly stated to students during the initial

interview, and then again in writing, at the

time of placement.

Limitations

This paper has discussed detaüs and benefits

of the PSU-CRCI community partnership.

However, one limitation is that the partnership

benefits have not yet been formally

assessed. It should be noted that as this partnership

is relatively unseasoned (having been

in place for approximately two years), metrics

are not avaüable at this time. The number of

inmates who directly benefit fi-om the internships

depends upon the nature of grants

appUed for, the number of grants awarded,

and the amount of funding received. This data

can only be assessed longitudinaUy due to the

protracted nature of the grant life cycle (i.e.,

grant appUcation, notice of award, disbursement

of funds, program implementation, etc.).

However, anecdotal qualitative reports

from all stakeholders have been favorable,

with students, faculty, and correctional

partners informaUy reporting measures of

satisfaction and positive perceptions of professional

engagement. The CRCI leadership team

has explicitly noted the quality of student services

received, and PSU interns have candidly

discussed the value of "real world" experience

gained, including the opportunity to network

with a variety of criminal justice professionals.

Faculty have expressed enthusiasm regarding

the prospect of future research possibüities

that may arise as a result of the partnership,

and all parties have discussed personal satisfaction

from developing, fostering, and

nurturing intern-mentor relationships.

Conclusion

In this age of protracted and often extreme

budget cuts, many prisoners do not have

access to needed programs and services. There

is hope, however, in the form of academicprison

partnerships. Through the unification

of individual partners' strengths and assets.

significant contributions can be made toward

the weU-being of the community. This paper

has detaüed specific advantages of community

partnerships that benefit academicians

and universities, as weU as prison administrators,

prisons, and inmates. This article also

demonstrates the application of the thematic

strategies to the PSU-CRCI community partnership;

it is our hope that this model wiU

ultimately prove effective, demonstrating the

potential for successful repUcation elsewhere.

Despite financial constraints, there really are

ultra low-cost and sustainable ways to address

problems of social inequity.

References

Ahmed, S., Beck, B., Maurana, C, 8c Newton,

G. (2004). Overcoming barriers to

effective community-based participatory

research in US medical schools.

Education for Health, 17(2), 141-151. doi:

10.1080/13576280410001710969

Baum, H. (2000). Fantasies and reaUties in university-

community partnerships. Journal of

Planning Education and Research, 20, 234-

246. doi: 10.1177/0739456X0002000208

BirreU, J., Ostlund, M., Egan, M., Young, J.,

Cook, P, DeWitt, P, 8c Tibbitts, C (1998).

Collaboration, communities, and Covey: A

model for personal and professional change.

The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational

Strategies, Issues, and Ideas, 71(6),

359-362. Retrieved from http://virww.tandf

co.uk/journals/titles/00098655.asp

Boddy, R., Gregory, J., Hood, M., Meyer, B.,

Montanari, D., Pasternack, B.,... 8c Roth, L.

(2002). Faculty service in the California State

University (CSU): An integral component

in the retention, tenure, and promotion of

faculty Long Beach, CA: Academic Senate

of the California State University. Retrieved

from http://www.calstate.edu/AcadSen/

Records/Reports/serviceFin alreport.pdf

Boghossian, P (2010, August). The Delphi

technique: Correctional administration and

community consensus. Corrections Today.

BrazzeU, D., Crayton, A., Mukamal, D, Solomon,

A., 8c Lindahl, N. (2009). From the

classroom to the community: Exploring the

role of education during incarceration and reentry

Washington, DC: The Urban Instittite,

Justice Policy Center. Retrieved from http://

urban.org/

Bringle, R., 8c Hatcher, J. (1996). Implementing

service learning in higher education. The

Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 221-239.

Retrieved from http://www.ohiostatepress.

org/index.htm?journals/jhe/jhemain.htm

34 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 76 Number 1

Bringle, R., & Hatcher, J. (2002). Campuscommunity

partnerships: The terms of

engagement. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3),

503-516. Retrieved from http://www.

spssi.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.

viewrpage&pageid=950

CaUeson, D., Jordan, C, & Seifer, S. (2005).

Community-engaged scholarship: Is faculty

work in communities a true academic enterprise?

Academic Medicine, 80, 317-321.

Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com/

academicmedicine/pages/default.aspx

Campus Compact. (2010). Annual membership

survey results: Executive summary. Boston,

MA: Campus Contact. Retrieved from

http://www.compact.org/

Chau, M., Vinekar, K., & Ran, Y. (2006).

University-community partnerships: A

typology of benefits. Philadelphia, PA:

University of Pennsylvania.

Covey, Stephen R. (1989). The Seven Habits

df Highly Effective People. New York, NY:

Simon and Schuster.

Holland, B. (1997). Analyzing institutional

commitment to service: A model of key

organizational factors. Michigan Journal of

Community Service Learning, 4(1), 30-41.

Retrieved from http://ginsberg.umich.edu/

mjcsl/

Home for Good in Oregon (HGO) (2011).

Retrieved from http://www.oregon.gov/

DOC/TRANS/religious_services/Home_

for_good_in_oregon/hgo_h

Human Rights Watch. (2003). Incarcerated

America (Human Rights Watch Backgrounder,

Aprü ed.). New York, NY:

Human Rights Watch. Retrieved from

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/

usa/incarceration/

Israel, B., Schulz, A., Parker, E., Becker, A.,

Allen, A., 8c Guzman, J. (2003). Critical

issues in developing and following

community-based participatory research

principles. In M. Minkler & N. Wallerstein

(Eds.), Community-based participatory research

for health (pp. 56-73). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Lipsey, M., Pétrie, C, Weisburd, D., & Gottfredson,

D. (2006). Improving evaluation

of anti-crime programs: Summary of a

national research council report. Journal of

Experimental Criminology, 2, 271-307. doi:

10.1007/S11292-006-9009-6

Mills, A., Meek, R., & Gojkovic, D. (2011).

Exploring the relationship between the

volimtary sector and the state in criminal

justice. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(2),

195-213. Retrieved from http://www.ncvovol.

org.uk/sites/default/files/UploadedFiles/

NCVO/Research/Research_Conference/

Mills_et_al_O.pdf

Minkler, M., Vasquez, V, Chang, C, Miller, J.,

Rubin, V, BlackweU, A Bell, J. (2008).

Promoting healthy public policy through

community-based participatory research.

Oakland, CA: PolicyLink and The School

of PubUc Health at UCLA, Berkeley Retrieved

from http://www.policylink.org.

Nyden, P, & Wiewel, W. (1992). Collaborative

research: Harnessing the tensions between

researcher and practitioner. The American

Sociologist, 23, 43-55. Retrieved from

http://vvTvw.springer.com/social+sciences/

journal/12108

O'Connor, T., Cayton, T., Taylor, S., McKenna,

R., & Monroe, N. (2004, October). Home

for Good in Oregon: A community, faith,

and state re-entry partnership to increase

restorative justice. Corrections Today, 72-77.

Retrieved from https://www.aca.org/

publications/ctmagazine.asp

Page, A., Petteruti, A., Walsh, N., & Ziedenburg,

J. (2007). Education and public safety.

Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute.

Retrieved from http://www.justicepolicy.

org/index.html

Richards, S., Faggian, D., Roffers, J., 8c

Hendricksen, R. (2008). Convict criminology:

Voices from prison. Race/Ethnicity:

Multidisciplinary Global Perspectives, 2(1),

121-136. Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.

edu/j ournals/race_ethnicity/

Rose, C, Reschenberg, K., & Richards, S. (2010).

The inviting convicts to college program.

Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49(4),

293-308. doi: 10.1080/10509671003716092

Sandmann, L., Saltmarsh, J., 8c O'Meara, K.

(2008). An integrated model for advancing

the scholarship of engagement: Creating

academic homes for the engaged scholar.

Journal of Higher Education Outreach and

Engagement, 12(1), 47-64. Retrieved from

http://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/

jheoe/index

Schultz, M. (1992). Internships in sociology:

Liability issues and risk management measures.

Teaching Sociology, 20(3), 183-191.

Retrieved from http://www.asanet.org/

journals/ts/index.cfm

Stevens, D., 8c Ward, C. (1997). College education

and recidivism: Educating criminals is

meritorious. Journal of Correctional Education,

48(3), 106-111. Retrieved from http://

wrww.ashland.edu/professionals/locations/

gül-center-business-economic-education/

journal-correctional-education

Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Harper, G., 8c Lewis, R.

(2005). An interactive and contextual

model of community-university collaborations

for research and action. Health

Education & Behavior, 32, 84-101. doi:

10.1177/1090198104269512

Wiewel, W, 8c Broski, D. (1997). University

involvement in the community: Developing a

partnership model (A Great Cities Institute

Working Paper GCP-97-3). Chicago, IL:

Great Cities Institute, College of Urban

Planning and Public Affairs, University of

Illinois at Chicago. Retrieved August 12,

2011 from http://www.communitywealth.

com/_pdfs/articles-publications/

universities/paper-wiewel-broski.pdf

Wilhelm, D., 8c Turner, N. (2002). Is the

budget crisis changing the way we look

at sentencing and incarceration? Federal

Sentencing Reporter, 15(1), 41-49. Retrieved

from http://ucpressjournals.com/journal.

asp?j=fsr

Williams, B. (2009). Budget cuts must lead to

innovation in corrections. Retrieved from

http://v*Tvw.thefreelibrarycom/Budgetcuts

must lead to innovation in corrections.-

a0221328129

Wolff, N., 8c Gerardi, D. (2007). Buüding

evidence on best practices through

corrections-academic partnerships: Getting

to successful (and efficient) practice. Crime

& Justice International, 23, 13-21. Retrieved

ÍTom http://wv\rw.cjimagazine.com/

component/option,com_frontpage/

Itemid,l/

Woods, D. (2006). A case for revisiting tenure

requirements. Thought & Action, The NEA

Higher Education Journal, 11, 135-142.

Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/

home/1821.htm

Copyright of Federal Probation is the property of Superintendent of Documents 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.