George Mason University.
Criminal Justice and Behavior (Impact Factor: 1.71). 10/2007; 34(9):1216-1234. DOI: 10.1177/0093854807304431
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The use of screening and assessment tools to gauge substance abuse disorders and the risk for recidivism are two widely recommended practices. A national survey of adult prisons, jails, and community correctional agencies was conducted to examine the practices used to place offenders in appropriate treatment services. Study findings indicate that 58.2% of the surveyed respondents report the use of a standardized substance abuse-screening tool, and that 34.2% use an actuarial risk tool. The provision of higher intensity treatment programs, the use of standardized risk tools, and the provision of more community referral services were all independently associated with the use of a standardized substance abuse-screening tool. Because practices vary considerably, agencies desiring to improve correctional programming should consider different dissemination, implementation, and technology transfer strategies.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Organizational Process Improvement Intervention (OPII), conducted by the NIDA-funded Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies consortium of nine research centers, examined an organizational intervention to improve the processes used in correctional settings to assess substance abusing offenders, develop case plans, transfer this information to community-based treatment agencies, and monitor the services provided by these community based treatment agencies. A multi-site cluster randomized design was used to evaluate an inter-agency organizational process improvement intervention among dyads of correctional agencies and community based treatment agencies. Linked correctional and community based agencies were clustered among nine (9) research centers and randomly assigned to an early or delayed intervention condition. Participants included administrators, managers, and line staff from the participating agencies; some participants served on interagency change teams while other participants performed agency tasks related to offender services. A manualized organizational intervention that includes the use of external organizational coaches was applied to create and support interagency change teams that proceeded through a four-step process over a planned intervention period of 12 months. The primary outcome of the process improvement intervention was to improve processes associated with the assessment, case planning, service referral and service provision processes within the linked organizations. Providing substance abuse offenders with coordinated treatment and access to community-based services is critical to reducing offender recidivism. Results from this study protocol will provide new and critical information on strategies and processes that improve the assessment and case planning for such offenders as they transition between correctional and community based systems and settings. Further, this study extends current knowledge of and methods for, the study of evidence-based practice adoption and implementation.
    09/2014; 2(1). DOI:10.1186/2194-7899-2-1
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The focus on reducing sexual offending has led to the development of risk assessment measures and schemes to predict reoffending, prioritize the allocation of treatment and supervision resources, and ensure public safety. However, different risk assessment approaches may not always have high agreement on the same individual. In light of the research indicating that ordinal risk rankings are most commonly used and reported in various risk communications, this study compares four risk assessment approaches, namely the Static-99R, Static-2002R, Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide, and SVR-20, in order to evaluate the disparities among the risk categories of these measures. The results indicate that there are disparities between all of the risk measures; but, many of these can be explained by structural dif- ferences and common overlapping dimensions in the measures. Possible explanations for and implications of the discrepancies, along with some guidance on determining which approach to use, are discussed
    Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology 06/2013; 24(3):353-370. DOI:10.1080/14789949.2013.806567 · 0.88 Impact Factor
  • Victims & Offenders 01/2014; 9(1):50-75. DOI:10.1080/15564886.2013.860934

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 2, 2014