correctional treatment

Although the length of the project will vary by student, your final manuscript will likely be between 25 and 30 typed pages, APA Format

Paper Overview: Since the 1970’s the debate has raged over the effectiveness of correctional treatment programs in reducing recidivism. On the one hand we have those who argue that “nothing works” and that the best solution is incarceration and long sentences. Getting tough on crime is the battle cry of politicians and others who advocate that public safety is best served through punitive policies. Conversely, many researchers have taken the position that the most effect way to ensure public safety is to design and deliver effective correctional treatment programs based on empirically derived principles.

Paper Topic and Question: The topic for your paper is correctional treatment. The specific questions you will be addressing are: 1) what do we know about the effectiveness of correctional treatment in reducing recidivism? And, 2) how can we improve the effectiveness of these efforts? Included in your paper should be a discussion of what works in reducing recidivism and what doesn’t. You should add a discussion of some of impediments to implementing effective programs and ways that they can be overcome. Finally, I want you to add a section on what is going on in your state with regard to evidenced based programs in corrections. This may require a little digging, but I would like you to describe some of the activities that are occurring in corrections in your state, be it probation, parole, institutional or juvenile corrections (or all of them).

In writing your paper you should structure your thinking around the following issues.

· What does the research tell us about the effects of criminal sanctions (punishment) versus treatment?

· What are the major predictors of criminal conduct and why is this research important in designing effective programs?

· What are the risk, need, treatment and responsivity principles, and why are they important?

In reviewing the research on many of the widely used “treatment” approaches used in corrections it is clear that many have not demonstrated effectiveness in changing offender behavior. Why are some more effective than others?

· Implementing effective programs requires an agency to overcome a number of obstacles. What are some of these obstacles and what strategies would you use to deal with them?

· How has the correctional system in your state attempted to implement evidence based programs or practices?

READING LIST:

ARTICLES:

1. Andrews, D., I. Zinger, R, Hoge, J. Bonta, P. Gendreau, and F. Cullen. (1990). Does Correctional Treatment Work? A Clinically Relevant and Psychologically Informed Meta-Analysis. Criminology, 28(3), 369-404.

2. Chadwick, N., A. Dewolf, and R. Serin. (2015). Effectively Training Community Supervision Officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20:1-3.

3. Cullen, F. T. (2002) Rehabilitation and Treatment Programs (2002) in Crime: Pubic Policy for Crime Control, (pp: 254-615). J. Q. Wilson and J. Petersilia (Eds.) Institute of Contemporary Studies, Oakland: CS Press.

4. Cullen, F. T. and P. Gendreau (2000) Assessing Correctional Rehabilitation: Policy, Practice, and Prospects, in Policies, Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System Vol. 3, J. Horny, J. Martin, R. Peterson, and D. Rosenbaum (Eds.). U.S. Department of Justice.

5. Cullen, F. T., P. Smith, C. T. Lowenkamp, and E. J. Latessa (2009) Nothing Works Revisited: Deconstructing Farabee’s Rethinking Rehabilitation. Victim and Offenders Journal of Evidence-Based Policies and Practices, 4.

6. Cullen F. T., A. J. Myer, and E. J. Latessa (2009). Eight Lessons Learned from Moneyball: The High Cost of Ignoring Evidence-Based Corrections Victim and Offenders Journal of Evidence-Based Policies and Practices, 4.

7. Dowden, C. and D.A. Andrews. (1999).What Works in Young Offender Treatment: A Meta-Analysis. (1999) Forum, 11 (2): 21-24.

8. Dowden, C. and D.A. Andrews. (1999). What Works for Female Offenders: A Meta-Analytic Review. Crime and Delinquency, 45(4), 438-452.

9. Gendreau, P., C. Goggin, F. T. Cullen, and D. A. Andrews (2000). The Effects of Community Sanctions and Incarceration on Recidivism. Forum, 12(2):10-13.

10. Landenberger, N. A., and M. W. Lipsey (2005). The Positive Effects of Cognitive Behavioral Programs for Offenders: A Meta Analysis of Factors Associated with Effective Treatment. Journal of Experimental Criminology.

11. Latessa, E. J. (2012). Why Work is Important and How to Improve the Effectiveness of Correctional Reentry Programs that Target Employment. Criminology and Public Policy 11: 87-91.

12. Latessa, E. J. (2011). Why the Risk and Needs Principles are Relevant to Correctional Programs (even to employment programs). Criminology and Public Policy. , 10: 973–977.

13. Latessa, E. J. (2004). The Challenge of Change: Correctional Programs and Evidenced-Based Practices. Criminology and Public Policy, 3 (4): 547-560.

14. Latessa, Edward J. (2004). From Theory into Practice: What Works in Reducing Recidivism. In, State of Crime and Justice in Ohio. Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services, Columbus.

15. Latessa, E. J., F. T. Cullen, and P. Gendreau, 2002. Beyond Correctional Quackery: Professional Responsibility for Evidence-Based Practice. Federal Probation, 66(2).

16. Latessa, E. J., and C. Lowenkamp (2006). What Works in Reducing Recidivism. St. Thomas Law Journal. Vol.3 (3).

17. Latessa, E., J., & B. Lovins, (2010). The Role of Offender Risk Assessment: A Policy Maker Guide. Victims and Offenders, 5 (3):203-219.

18. Latessa, E. J., and C. Lowenkamp (2005). What are Criminogenic Needs and Why are they Important. For The Record (fourth quarter).

19. Latessa, E. J. & A. K. Reitler, (2015). What Works in Reducing Recidivism and How Does it Relate to Drug Courts? Ohio Northern University Law Review. 41: 757-789.

20. Latessa, E.J. and M. Schweitzer (2016). Improving Correctional Supervision: What Does the Research Tell Us? In T. Bloomberg, J. M, Brancale, K. Beaver, and W. Bales, (Eds.), pp. 237-248. Advancing Criminology and Criminal Justice Policy, New York: Routledge.

21. Listwan, S., F. Cullen, and E. J. Latessa (2006) How to Prevent Prisoner Re-Entry Programs from Failing: Insights from Evidence-Based Corrections. Federal Probation, 70 (3).

22. Lowenkamp. C., A. Flores, A. Holsinger, M. Makarios, and E. Latessa. Intensive Supervision Programs: Does Program Philosophy and the Principles of Effective Intervention Matter? Journal of Criminal Justice. 38:368-375.

23. Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J. and Holsinger, A. (2006). The risk principle in action: What we have learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs. Crime and Delinquency 51 (1).

24. Lowenkamp, C. T., D. Hubbard, M. D. Makarios, and E. J. Latessa (2009) A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of Thinking for a Change A “Real World” Application. Criminal Justice and Behavior 36 (2).

25. Lowenkamp, C., T., J. Pealer, P. Smith and E. Latessa (2006). Adhering to the Risk and Need Principles: Does it Matter for Supervision-Based Programs? Federal Probation, 70 (3).

26. Lowenkamp, C., T., E. Latessa, and P. Smith (2006). Does Correctional Program Quality Really Matter? The Impact of Adhering to the Principles of Effective Intervention. Criminology and Public Policy, 5 (3).

27. Makarios, M., Sperber, K, & Latessa, E.J. (2014). Treatment Dosage and the Risk Principle: A Refinement and Extension. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53:5, 334-350.

28. Makarios, M., Lovins, L., Latessa, E. J., & Smith, P. (2014). Staff Quality and Treatment Effectiveness: An Examination of the Relationship between Staff Factors and the Effectiveness of Correctional Programs. Justice Quarterly.

29. Ndrecka, M., Listwan-Johnson, S., and Latessa E.J. (2017). What Works in Reentry and How to Improve Outcomes. In S. Stojkovic (Ed.), pp. 177-244. Prisoner Reentry Critical Issues and Policy Directions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

30. Smith, P., F. T. Cullen and E. J. Latessa (2009) Can 14,737 Women be Wrong? A Meta-Analysis of the LSI-R and Recidivism for Female Offenders. Criminology and Public Policy, 8 (1).

31. Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2011) “WHAT WORKS” IN COMMUNITY SUPERVISION INTERIM REPORT.

32. Wodahl, E. J., B. E. Garland, S. E. Culhane, and W. P. McCarty (2011). Utilizing Behavioral Interventions to Improve Supervision Outcomes in Community-Based Corrections. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38:386-405.

33. Wodahl, E. J., J. H. Boman IV, and B. E. Garland, (2015). Responding to Probation and Parole Violations: Are jail sanctions more effective than community-based graduate sanctions? Journal of Criminal Justice, 43:242-250.

Andrews, D., and J. Bonta (2010). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, Cincinnati: Anderson.

Cullen, F. T. and B.K. Applegate. (1997). Offender Rehabilitation: Effective Correctional Intervention. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate/Dartmouth.

Howell, J. (2003) Preventing & Reducing Juvenile Delinquency, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Latessa, E. J., and P. Smith (2015). Corrections in the Community. New York: Routledge.

Lipsey, M.W. and J.H. Derzon. (1998). Predictors of Violent or Serious Delinquency in Adolescence and Early Adulthood: A Synthesis of Longitudinal Research. London: Sage Publications.

Loeber, R. and D. P. Farrington (1998), Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McGuire J. (Ed). (2002) Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment: Effective Programmes and Policies to Reduce Re-Offending. New York: John Wiley.

Palmer, T. (1992). The Re-Emergence of Correctional Intervention. Newbury Park: Sage.

Petersilia, J. (2003). When Prisoners Come Home Parole and Prisoner Reentry. New York: Oxford Press.

Van Voorhis, P. and E. Salisbury (2013). Correctional Counseling and Rehabilitation. Cincinnati: Anderson.

COURSE WITHDRAWAL

Please check with your advisor before withdrawing from any course. If you are receiving financial aid there could be repercussions from withdrawing. Also note that only in very rare circumstances will an "Incomplete" be given and it is at the discretion of the professor. Only students who have been attending class regularly and submitting assignments as required will be considered for an “I” grade.

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY

Academic dishonesty in any form (cheating, plagiarism) is a serious offense and cannot be tolerated. Dishonesty will result in a failing grade for the assignment and may result in a failing grade for the entire course. When you use other people's words, make sure that you use quotation marks. Students are expected to follow the mandates of the University of Cincinnati Code of Conduct. You may view this information online at the following site: http://www.uc.edu/conduct/Code_of_Conduct.html .

NETIQUETTE

The University has a strong commitment to the principles of free speech, open access to knowledge, and respect for a diversity of opinions.   However, it is important to be polite and respectful to others in an online environment. Netiquette is a set of rules for behaving properly and professionally online. Something about cyberspace makes it easy for people to forget that they are interacting with other real people. Here are some basics to communicating online: 

· Be sensitive to the fact that there will be different cultural and linguistic backgrounds as well as different political and religious beliefs, plus just differences in general. 

· Use good taste when composing your responses in Discussion Forums. Swearing and profanity should be avoided as part of being sensitive to your classmates. Also consider that slang or sarcasm can be misunderstood or misinterpreted. 

· Don’t use all capital letters when composing your responses as this is considered “shouting” on the internet and is regarded as impolite or aggressive. It can also be stressful on the eye when trying to read your message. 

· Be respectful of your others’ views and opinions. Avoid “flaming” (publicly attacking or insulting) them as this can cause hurt feelings and decrease the chances of getting all different types of points of view. 

· Be careful when using acronyms. If you use an acronym it is best to spell out its meaning first, then put the acronym in parentheses afterward, for example: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). After that you can use the acronym freely throughout your message. 

· Use good grammar and spelling and avoid using text messaging shortcuts. 

· Most importantly, please remain professional in all communications with your classmates and me. College can be stressful at times, but remember I am preparing you to be a professional in a stressful field and expect professionalism. 

· Be sure to think before pressing the Send/Submit button!

ACCOMODATIONS POLICY

If you have a disability (e.g., visual impairment, hearing impairment, physical impairment, communication disorder, and/or specific learning disability) which may influence your performance in this course, you must talk with the Disability Services Office (DSO) to arrange for reasonable accommodations to ensure an equitable opportunity to meet all the requirements of this course. If you require accommodations due to disability, please contact DSO ( http://www.uc.edu/aess/disability.html ), [email protected] , or 513-556-6823.

TUTORING

Writing revision assistance is available via the Academic Writing Center. Check out their website for more information. See http://www.uc.edu/aess/lac/writingcenter.html . The tutoring is free. You may initiate it without the instructor’s permission or knowledge.

Plan extra time before your assignment is due to allow time to send a draft to the tutor, receive input from him/her, revise the assignment and get it to the course teaching assistant on or before the due date. It is your responsibility to get the paper to the instructor on time even if it is late being returned from a tutor.