Saturday, May 05, 2007

More NCJRS Abstracts, May 5, 2007


NCJ 217824
Sally Cherry ; Len Cheston
Towards a Model Regime for Approved Premises
Probation Journal: The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Volume:53 Issue:3 Dated:September 2006 Pages:248 to 264

This study explored the key issues involved with developing a model regime for Approved Premises, a residential program for high risk offenders released from custody that offers a high level of surveillance within a rehabilitative context. The key finding indicate that face-to-face rehabilitative work with residents of Approved Premises is a crucial component for resident’s success. Yet the growing emphasis on monitoring and surveillance within the Approved Premises program threatens to push the face-to-face rehabilitative work to a secondary position. The authors argue that the rehabilitative aspect of resident work assists in their risk management and that a pro-social and motivational approach to offender community management will enhance public protection and should not be lost to surveillance functions. The research involved a review of the research literature from both Britain and North America on Approved Premises and other offender housing strategies as well as findings from the Approved Premises pathfinder evaluation. The research review indicates that the danger in adopting a strictly surveillance-based approach to residential offender management is that this approach encourages staff to retreat to an office, to minimize contact with residents, and to simply observe their behavior through the use of technology. Research also indicated that in order to fulfill the potential of risk management using a prosocial approach, staff should be well trained and the training should be tailored to the specific issues that come up when working in residential settings. The article also reviewed the core Approved Premises regime for male residents, including the variety of interventions offered, and considered the applicability of the Approved Premises model for female offenders. Future research should focus on the nature and scope of work done in Approved Premises programs. Figure, table, note, references

NCJ 217857
Denise C. Gottfredson ; Stacy S. Najaka ; Brook W. Kearley ; Carlos M. Rocha
Long-Term Effects of Participation in the Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court: Results From an Experimental Study
Journal of Experimental Criminology Volume:2 Issue:1 Dated:Spring 2006 Pages:67 to 98

This study used an experimental design to compare outcomes for 235 offenders assigned either to drug treatment court (Baltimore City, MD) or drug treatment as usual, so as to determine whether any differences between the two groups at 1 and 2 years after the program's start persisted after 3 years, when many of the subjects had ceased treatment. The study found a 15-16 percentage point difference in rearrest that favored drug-treatment participants up to 2 years after the study began. Findings from the third year of the study showed sustained differences in rearrests between the two groups. In addition, drug-court cases had significantly fewer charges than controls (4.4 compared with 6.1), and they were significantly less likely to have been arrested for a drug offense. Of concern, however, was the finding that although drug-court participants had fewer new arrests and new charges than controls, these positive outcomes did not result in overall differences in incarceration time between the two conditions. Findings suggest that if the drug court could find ways to induce greater client participation in the main components of the program, stronger effects on reoffending would be realized. The Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court did not differ significantly from the typical drug court in terms of its components; however, it differed from other drug courts in the type of population it served (mostly African-American male heroin addicts), as well as the involvement of the Division of Parole and Probation in the operation of the program. The study began in February 1997 and involved 139 drug-court participants and 96 controls (treatment as usual in the traditional court). 8 tables, 12 notes, and 44 references

1 comment:

JSN said...

What we see in Iowa is people serving short sentences (less than five years) for drugs, repeat DUI and property crimes who have been in prison before (up to nine times). Some of those who have been arrested repeatedly for DUI have never been treated for alcohol abuse.

There are about 2000 zip codes in Iowa and of the prison inmates with Iowa home zip codes 75% were from 67 zip codes an indication of a high degree of geographical concentration. This means that drug treatment and other services aimed at reducing recidivism can be provides in a relatively small number of communities.