National Institute of Corrections (NIC) (Washington DC)
“This white paper presents a shared framework for reducing recidivism and behavioral health problems among individuals under correctional control or supervision—that is, for individuals in correctional facilities or who are on probation or parole. The paper is written for policymakers, administrators, and practitioners committed to making the most effective use of scarce resources to improve outcomes for individuals with behavioral health problems who are involved in the corrections system. It is meant to provide a common structure for corrections and treatment system professionals to begin building truly collaborative responses to their overlapping service population. These responses include both behind-the-bars and community-based interventions. This framework is designed to achieve each system’s goals and ultimately to help millions of individuals rebuild their lives while on probation or after leaving prison or jail” (p. viii). Three parts follow an introduction regarding the need for a framework intended for coordinating services across systems: current responses to individuals with mental health and substance use disorders and corrections involvement—mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment, mental health and substance use appearing together, corrections—custody, control, and supervision, screening and assessment, the relationship between behavioral health needs and criminogenic risk/need—assembling the parts, and closing thoughts on RNR (risk-need-responsivity); the framework—strong foundations, criminogenic risk and behavior health needs, application to resource allocation and individual case responses, and goal for the framework’s use; and operationalizing the framework and next steps.
- highlight federal resources available to community corrections and criminal justice agencies; define service needs of justice-involved individuals;
- showcase a local example of collaboration and resources utilization—San Diego County Probation;
- and engage the criminal justice system in a live discussion about the resources available, how to access funding, receive technical assistance, and to motivate our leaders to want to do more.
The Community Supervision Peer Support Program Guidelines were developed by community supervision leaders, front-line officers, and peer team support members operating peer support programs in community-based supervision agencies within the United States. The guidelines are intended to support community supervision agencies, including probation, parole, and pretrial service agencies, in creating and maintaining peer support programs. The guidelines reflect the commonly accepted practices within community-based supervision agencies at publication. The guidelines should be aligned with state-specific requirements (e.g., confidentiality laws and union contracts).
Characteristics that result in the best performance of executive and senior level leaders are identified along with the key skills, knowledge, and attributes of effective and successful leaders which are then linked to a set of specific behaviors. Following an executive summary, this manual provides an exploration of: managerial profiles; self awareness; ethics and values; vision and mission; strategic thinking; managing the external environment; power and influence; strategic planning and performance measurement; collaboration; and team building.
The past two decades have enhanced our understanding of pretrial risk. We now know that most individuals with pending criminal cases make scheduled court appearances and remain arrest-free as they await trial. When missed court dates occur, they often are not intentional abscondence but rather the result of unintentional or unavoidable circumstances. Further, most new cases filed against pretrial defendants involve misdemeanors and lower-level felony charges, not violent crimes.
However, while we recognize the infrequent and dynamic nature of pretrial misconduct, most justice systems define, and measure missed court appearances using the dated and overly broad “failure to appear” descriptor and view new case filings mostly as serious offenses affecting public safety. The result is an overestimation of defendant risk and overly punitive responses to misconduct.
This publication discusses the nature of pretrial risk, missed court dates, and new case filings. It also proposes more accurate and useful definitions for these events and presents strategies used nationwide to help prevent misconduct or to mitigate it when it occurs.
This brief covers results from the report "Evaluation of Phase II Technical Assistance for Evidence-Based Decision-Making in Local Criminal Justice Systems" by Janeen Buck Willison, Pamela Lachman, Dwight Pope, and Ashleigh Holand (issued June 2012) available at https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/029768.pdf. It "describes the EBDM Phase II technical assistance approach and presents findings and themes from the process evaluation and outcome assessment of the technical assistance delivered to the seven sites selected under Phase II of the EBDM initiative. In doing so, we [the authors] explore the effect of Phase II technical assistance on the sites’ readiness for implementation and examine the broader impacts of Phase II participation for these communities. The report concludes with a discussion of implications and recommendations for future technical assistance efforts, informed by the lessons learned as part of this assessment … Evaluation results offer ample evidence that Phase II training and technical assistance enhanced site capacity in critical areas (i.e., strengthened collaboration, increased EBDM and system knowledge, increased support for EBDM principles and practices, identified change targets, and facilitated strategic planning) essential for successful implementation. Furthermore, stakeholders generally rated the TA positively, giving it high marks on relevance, quality, responsiveness, and utility" (p. 2, 3).
This webinar took place August 28, 2018. The Family Connections in Correctional Facilities Project is intended to advance practices that foster contact and communication between parents experiencing incarceration and their children and family members by: developing a set of low-cost, high-impact correctional practices to reduce barriers to family connections and contact; working with select facilities to implement these practices; documenting how these practices can be implemented and are related to parent, family, and system outcomes. Participation in the Family Connections in Correctional Facilities Project provides an opportunity for correctional facilities to receive training and technical assistance for implementing practices geared to helping parents who are incarcerated maintain communication and contact with their children.
The presenters were as follows: Rachel Brushett, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, US Department of Justice Hilary Cuthrell, National Institute of Corrections, US Department of Justice Bryce Peterson, Senior Research Associate, Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute Jocelyn Fontaine, Senior Research Fellow, Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute Lindsey Cramer, Research Associate, Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute Alina Martinez, Lead Coordinator, One Family Program, Community Works West
Behavioral health and social service needs are common in most arrest populations. For most individuals, these needs will not interfere with making court appearances and remaining arrest-free before trial. However, need can escalate into a heightened risk of pretrial misconduct for some people. This publication discusses the complexity of managing substance use disorder—a prevalent need in most arrest populations—and suggests a “pretrial intervention services” model that outlines when pretrial agencies should consider services, when services should be integrated into supervision support, and what treatment service strategies are best at the pretrial stage.
This publication should be the first that elected officials and other policymakers turn to when developing jail facilities--either a new jail or expansion of an existing jail. All the participants’ roles, decisions they make, and the documents resulting from the process are covered. Sections of this manual explain: what the facility development process is; who the participants in the decision are; what types of decisions must be made; how much time and money are spent on each phase; and the nine phases with their respective tasks and track activities. A facility development process flowchart is also included.
Good correctional practice includes applying principles of risk based classification to all adult and juvenile offenders while accounting for unique characteristics and concerns of LGBTI and gender non-conforming populations. To ensure a culture of safety, it is important to identify these individuals at intake. A culture of safety includes everyone understanding and practicing respectful, appropriate and professional language.
Intake personnel function as the “gatekeepers” for correctional systems and facilities and are a critical component in the information gathering process. If information obtained at intake is inaccurate or misleading, it can have dire consequences and impact safety. Staff must have clear guidelines allowing for the consistent identification of LGBTI offenders and the collection of key information. Establishing good communication at intake is essential to obtain the necessary information for appropriate housing, medical and mental health referrals, programs, security level, and services in the community. During this broadcast we will demonstrate effective and professional communication with LGBTI offenders during intake and make recommendations to improve the intake process.
Using a variety of methods including on-air discussions and activities, demonstrations and skills practice, this two-day six-hour interactive training broadcast is designed to: establish the relevance of initial information-gathering and how it impacts LGBTI populations from intake to successful reentry; provide recommendations and good correctional practice examples to ensure a culture of respect and safety at intake for LGBTI populations and correctional staff; and provide practical examples and demonstrate professional communication with LGBTI populations at intake.