Evaluation Plan
Background
The program evaluation will be assessing the outcomes resulting from offenders that were placed into the HOPE program versus those that were not.
As mentioned in previous assignments, the HOPE program is a rigorous probation sentence which entails submitting to random drug testing, mandatory appointments with law enforcement personnel, and the completion of counseling or drug treatment sessions while not repeating previous violations. Violations of the probation program will result in a swift and certain punishment of a short-term jail sentence. The swiftness and certainty to punishment are the keys in Beccaria’s theory to effective deterrence. The idea is for this program to prevent recidivism with its differing stance on probation. The offenders not enrolled in the HOPE program will be sentenced to a traditional probation program, which do not hold swiftness or certainty as the core facets of their structure.
Design of HOPE program
HOPE is considered a quasi-experimental design since its subjects are not selected randomly. All probationary subjects coming into the program in lieu of incarceration, who are sex, drug, or domestic violence offenders, were required to be in the program due to sentencing by the judge. The experiment group is those individuals sentenced to the HOPE program, while the control group would be those individuals that are undergoing standard probation protocols. The population will be individuals originally defendants in drug and criminal courts. These individuals will be categorized by the type of offense committed through nonequivalent group design. This will allow for effective comparison of individuals within each area of the program. For example, it is virtual...
... middle of paper ...
...ntially confounding the results since the lack of re-offense would be unrelated to the treatment. The validity of the possible Z factors is difficult to measure. Therefore I will utilize statistical conclusion validity, which will infer on the possibilities. It will also be necessary to evaluate the patterns that arise through the analysis of the experiment data regarding the recidivism rates, especially within the comparison between the HOPE program and the control group.
By using pattern matching, it will be possible to determine the level of success established by the program across the variety of offenses that are being tracked. It is to not only determine effectiveness of the program overall in a broad comparison to the control group, but also the level of effectiveness across the differing offenses. This will enable iterative correction of limiting flaws.
In today’s society, many people commit crimes and illegal behavior is nothing new. Society knows that there are criminals and they have criminal intentions. The question today is not if people are going to commit crimes, it is finding the most effective method to help those criminals reenter society as productive citizens, and preventing new people from becoming criminals. Department of corrections around the nation have implemented a program that identifies the most effective method. The “what works” movement outlines four general principles that are implemented in the rehabilitation of criminals; and, these principles are risk principle, criminogenic need principle, treatment principle, and fidelity principle.
This essay begins with the introduction of the Risk-Needs-Responsivitiy Model which was developed to assess offending and offer effective rehabilitation and treatment (Andrews & Bonta, 2007). The R-N-R model “remains the only empirically validated guide for criminal justice interventions that aim to help offenders” (Polashek, 2012, p.1) consisting of three principles which are associated with reductions in recidivism of up to 35% (Andrew & Bonta, 2010); risk, need and responsivity. Firstly, the risk principle predicts the offenders risk level of reoffending based on static and dynamic factors, and then matched to the degree of intervention needed. Secondly, the R-N-R targets individual’s criminogenic needs, in relation to dynamic factors. Lastly, the responsivity principle responds to specific responsivity e.g. individual needs and general responsivity; rehabilitation provided on evidence-based programming (Vitopoulous et al, 2012).
Without proper motivation, many inmates may lose sight of their overall goal to improve their behavior. However, for the safety of the public, the requirements for parole should be strict enough to allow only the rehabilitated individuals out so there are less chances of violent re-offenders within the public. These constraints should serve only to filter out dangerous individuals, and should be flexible enough to provide the hope necessary to benefit offenders who are ethically ready to enter the general public. Furthermore, having the parole available to those who deserve it increased the overall compliance of inmates within prisons. Everyone deserves a second chance and probation should not serve to deprive offenders of that.
Predictors of Treatment Outcome in a Drug Court Program. American Journal Of Drug & Alcohol Abuse, 31(4), 641-656.
73). This model is designed to give convicts the control to decide if they serve on low end of the range of years or the high end of the range of years. The responsibility is on the inmate to take part in and complete the rehabilitation programs within the prison successfully, or spend a longer time in prison for failure to do so. One of issues with this sentencing model is that not all convicts want to change their behavior, and often end up serving most of, if not the entire sentence. This model leads to severe overcrowding, which affects the quality of life and the rehabilitation programs within the prison. “The core problems of an increasing prison population will result in administrative release compelled by overcrowding rather than an individualized and measured assessment” (Perrin, 2010). The mixing of violent and nonviolent offenders makes it difficult to distinguish who deserves to be released, and who should remain in
If offenders are not attending or following the programs it could lead to unwanted activities
The first issue to be tackled for an offender is a drug referral if needed since other interventions and programs will not have much effect if the offender will not retain them due to drug use. These treatment facilities communicate with the probation officers. They keep them informed on the offender’s progress and/or issues the offender has. The lower risk offenders are eligible for treatment programs. (Loftus, lecture)
... offenders who were “worse off.” As a result, local criminal justice officials are encouraged to evaluate their current correctional situation in terms of organizational impetus (are key stakeholders behind the initiative?), political culture (will new programs be supported?), and prospective clientele (what type of offenders are being targeted?) to identify the most appropriate program or approach. A common approach being employed by law enforcement agencies around the country to address these questions and identify problems is the utilization of the SARA model. SARA involves:
To properly measure the success of the Senate Bill 618 of San Diego, one must look at the changes that impacted participants in a positive way. The success of each individual varied based on their involvement in the program and taking advantage of all the resources available to them. The program provided services such as job placement and secure housing, which for someone being released can be a challenging experience. The outcome measure of the program is the rate of recidivism among the participants in the program. Also, the rate of successful completion of the parole condition is another way of outcome measures by reducing recidivism and set them for success. The reason the program was tremendously successful in reducing recidivism, was simply the fact that realistic goals were set. Furthermore, a follow-up with the support from the resources available through the program plays a role in the overall success of the program. According to the evaluation findings, fewer parolees were returned to prison and they abided by the limitation of their parole. The Senate Bill 618 was also more cost effective in comparison to traditional California correctional program as much as eight thousand dollars in savings. The Senate Bill 618 program does not need any improvement since it showed significant recidivism reduction and most importantly provided parolees with tools
The goals of juvenile corrections are too deter, rehabilitate and reintegrate, prevent, punish and reattribute, as well as isolate and control youth offenders and offenses. Each different goal comes with its own challenges. The goal of deterrence has its limits; because rules and former sanctions, as well anti-criminal modeling and reinforcement are met with young rebellious minds. Traditional counseling and diversion which are integral aspects of community corrections can sometimes be ineffective, and studies have shown that sometimes a natural self intervention can take place as the youth grows older; resulting in the youth outgrowing delinquency.
Wormith, J. S., Althouse, R., Simpson, M., Reitzel, L. R., Fagan, T. J., & Morgan, R. D. (2007). The rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders: The current landscape and some future directions for correctional psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(7), 879-892.
It was this effort that identified the problem as failures of the judicial process. These failures included sluggish courts, increased levels of recidivism, and a significant loss of public trust (Ballenstedt, 2008). To solve the problem, the program takes a multifaceted approach to punishment in non-violent cases. Through the program, justices have more options available to them when sentencing such offenses as drug possession, prostitution, or even shoplifting. The concept combines social services with punishment in order to reduce reliance on expensive and ineffective short-term jail sentences for non-violent offenders and boost the community’s confidence in the system (Ballenstedt, 2008).
This model of corrections main purpose was to reintroducing the offenders in to the community. This Program was invented to help offenders in the transition from jail to the community, aid in the processes of finding jobs and stay connected to their families and the community. The needs of these individuals are difficult: the frequency of substance abuse, mental illness, unemployment, and homelessness is elevated among the jail population.
The rate of repeat offenders is rising and the need to suppress this rate should be attended to immediately. Statistics supports the implementation of stricter rules, as the continual rate of the repeat offenders increases.
In this study Grunwald, Lockwood, Harris, and Mennis (2010) used four different juvenile recidivism outcomes to measure the rate of recidivism among juveniles. One of the outcomes measured new offenses and specific offenses relating to property, drug, or violence. When Grunwald and his team measured for recidivism