"HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) and 42 CFR Part 2 (Title 42: Public Health, Part 2—Confidentiality of Substance Abuse Patient Records) are two of the most commonly cited barriers to cross-domain information sharing" (p. 1). This brief takes the ten most common myths about justice-health information sharing and explains the realities behind them.
"Criminal justice professionals face immense challenges today to make communities safer and to equitably apply the law. Their mission is further complicated by the acceleration of technological change that fuels an urgent demand to improve the safety and effectiveness of and access to new law enforcement technology. Budgets to fund these objectives are typically small in comparison to the resources available, making it necessary to engage in strategic planning that will allow units and departments to make the best investments possible … RAND has developed a technology and practice taxonomy to assist in identifying and categorizing potential corrections innovations … Upon viewing the Corrections Technology and Practice Taxonomy, users will see tabs at the upper left-hand corner that will allow them to access information about community or institutional corrections. Once the type of corrections information is selected, a list of parent terms that are representative of major corrections technologies and practice areas will be visible. By clicking on a parent term, descending layers of more specific child terms appear."
Development of outcome-based performance systems of management for correctional agencies has been an important initiative for the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) since the early 1990s. It was envisioned as a means of assessing performance across jurisdictions, promoting the use of performance-based management by correctional agencies, and improving the planning and management capacities of correctional organizations across the nation. Our specific project objectives were threefold: 1) identify a series of correctional measures that are considered to be the most crucial aspects of quality incarceration; 2) develop a set of indicators that reflect the essence of each measure; and, 3) define each indicator to allow for standard application of the measures across jurisdictions. Recognizing the complexity and scope of the potential performance measures for correctional agencies, for the purposes of this project, we focused on measures of public safety, institutional safety, treatment and programming, and contextual data. This report describes our work to date, identifies the performance indicators developed by the subcommittee, summarizes a preliminary assessment of state correctional agencies’ capacity to participate, and outlines the next steps for continued development of a national performance measurement system.
The effects of information technology (IT) and computation developments on prison classification productivity are examined (p. vi). Ten chapters follow an executive summary: current status of MIS (management information system) support for prison classification brief review; MIS software, IT and classification productivity; offender classification roles and data requirements; automated prison classification system features and functions; software design principles and the user interface; evaluating classification MIS; integrating criminal justice system MISs; new directions in classification factors and information content; advances in analytical capacities of IT to strengthen prison classification; and implementing new technology and managing change. Appendixes contain general inmate processing procedures for Department of Correction(s) (or Correctional Services) in Washington, Florida, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, New York, and Colorado.
The contingency management component of a cognitively-behaviorally based substance abuse treatment program in a probation setting is examined. Individuals looking to set up a similar treatment program will find this article very informative. The program is called "Supporting Offenders to Avoid Recidivism and Initiate New Goals (SOARING)". Sections following an abstract include: contingency management (CM) overview; CM intervention settings; CM intervention in substance use treatment; CM in criminal justice settings; a test of CM in community supervision; discussion about target behaviors (or goals) and related issues, contingency issues, and urinalysis issues; and implications.
"[I]t is sometimes difficult for stakeholders, who represent different interests in the system, to come to agreement as to key issues with respect to information sharing for individual case management. These include the purposes and value to youth of information sharing; what are the appropriate limits on sharing; and how to minimize the potential negative collateral consequences of information sharing such as self-incrimination and net widening. In addition, with respect to data collection, aggregation and sharing for law, policy and program development, stakeholders in jurisdictions often make the mistake of developing systems before identifying the key questions they want answered by the aggregated data. Similarly, with respect to program evaluation and performance measurement, stakeholders must first determine the outcomes they wish to achieve and the indicators they will use to measure progress towards those outcomes, and then take their baseline measurements. Without this preliminary legwork, jurisdictions could set up information sharing systems that do not fully meet their needs." The Models for Change Information Sharing Tool Kit – 2d Edition is "is designed to assist jurisdictions in implementing information and data sharing initiatives in support of juvenile justice reform initiatives. Three distinct levels of categories of information sharing make up the Tool Kit’s Framework": "Category One: Information Sharing for Purposes of Individual Case Planning and Decision-making"; "Category Two: Data Collection and Sharing for Law, Policy, and Program Development; and "Category Three: Data Collection and Sharing for Performance Measurement and Program Evaluation;". Each category contains these sections: federal law overview; state law; interactive scenarios—sets of questions for testing ones knowledge about information/data sharing with accompanying answer keys; principles—"a set of core principles or positive values that should undergrid all information/data collection and sharing projects"; guidelines—a step-by-step process for developing and implementing such a project including related tools that can be used in the guidelines establishment; and case studies.
The development, implementation, impact assessment, and refinement of objective internal classification systems are examined. In addition to an executive summary, this report contains three chapters: introduction; description of the states' internal classification initiatives (Connecticut, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Florida, New Jersey, South Dakota, and Missouri); and common problems, issues, and solutions. Appendixes include: Checklist for the Analysis of Life History of Adult Offenders (CALH) from MDOC; MDOC Correctional Adjustment Checklist; and IDOC Internal Classification Form for Maximum Security Facilities.
"The purpose of this policy and procedure is to establish guidelines for the management information systems that are used throughout the Wyoming Department of Corrections (WDOC) for the storage, retrieval, dissemination and use of regular reports of inmate/offender information, including evaluation and research. This policy shall provide for the uniform collecting, recording, organizing and processing of data developed for management information purposes" (p. 1). Procedures cover: primary Wyoming Department of Corrections' information systems—Wyoming Criminal Information System (WCIS) and WDOC Monitor; systems training; information sharing; performance evaluation data; operational terms; evaluation of information systems; and security of data and hardware.
The utilization of motivational interviewing (MI) by probation officers is explained. MI “is a communication style that involves strategic use of questions and statements to help clients find their own reasons for change” (p. 61). Topics discussed include: evidence-based practice; role of the probation officer; MI in criminal justice; the eight stages of learning motivational interviewing; MI training—a model plan; and future directions.