FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2771769346> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2771769346 startingPage "3" @default.
• W2771769346 abstract "ALTHOUGH SEVERAL CRIMINAL justice theories exist as a roadmap to effective supervision, the Risk, Needs, and Responsivity (RNR) model dominates the scholarly literature. A quick search in the Criminal Justice Abstracts Database reveals 140 peer-reviewed publications referencing the RNR model since 2000. As Andrews and Bonta (2007) note, the RNR model has been used, with increasing success, in North American and around the world. authors further comment on the robustness of the model, but observe (2007:15) that The greatest challenge is transferring the RNR model into 'real world' settings. Research on correctional services and the risk principle certainly supports this contention.In a review of 38 correctional programs, researchers found only 1 program that met the criteria for varying programming intensity and duration by risk (Lowenkamp, 2004). Similarly, Lovins (2012) found that 36 out of 134 correctional treatment programs reviewed were varying program duration by risk. Finally, Lowenkamp, Pealer, Smith, and Latessa (2004) found that approximately 33 percent of supervision-based programs in Ohio were targeting high-risk offenders or varying program duration by risk or program intensity by risk. Further, only four programs were meeting all three of these criteria. Echoing Andrews and Bonta (2007), it does seem that translating the RNR model in real-world settings is a challenge and has been quite elusive.A recent attempt to bring the RNR model to probation supervision was presented in a monograph titled Dosage Probation (Center for Effective Public Policy, 2014). This model drew upon the extant research on the RNR model as well as the emerging (but limited) research on dosage. One of the aspects of this model focused on setting correctional service thresholds by risk level. That is, high-risk offenders would receive 300 hours of treatment, which would require longer periods of supervision compared to moderate-risk offenders, who would receive 100 hours of treatment, thereby requiring shorter periods of supervision. This in effect would lead to varying the duration and intensity of services by risk level for offenders placed on supervision. A demonstration project of this model was developed and carried out. authors of the evaluation found that the model had no effect on offender outcomes; however, the model (either due to complexity or some other reason) was not fully implemented (Lowenkamp, Holsinger, & Bechtel, 2016). Although it may intuitively seem easy, the struggle to properly implement the risk principle lies in the details of implementation and the availability of resources.In the federal probation system, there has been a concerted effort to align supervision practices with the RNR model since 2009. This article examines the systems effectiveness in implementing the Risk Principle. Additionally this paper examines the adoption of a violence assessment and how this can further refine the use of this Risk Principle.History of the Risk Principle in the Federal SystemThe federal probation system has a long history of using various risk prediction assessments. Individual districts used various forms of standardized risk assessment instruments throughout its history. In 1982, the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) collected survey data from across the federal system and learned that over two dozen risk prediction tools were in use (Vance, 2011). Soon after, the FJC created the RPS-80 for the entire federal probation system. RPS-80 evolved into the RPI, which was the systems main risk assessment through 2010 (Vance, 2011).In 2008, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) embarked on the creation of a fourth-generation risk assessment instrument for federal probation. In 2010, implementation of the Post Conviction Risk Assessment (PCRA) began. As Vance (2011) recounts, over the course of 18 months, every chief probation officer, supervisory probation officer (over a supervision unit), and federal probation supervision officer was trained in the RNR model. …" @default.
• W2771769346 created "2017-12-22" @default.
• W2771769346 creator A5000845391 @default.
• W2771769346 creator A5032073244 @default.
• W2771769346 creator A5040844096 @default.
• W2771769346 creator A5049289303 @default.
• W2771769346 date "2016-09-01" @default.
• W2771769346 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W2771769346 title "The Real-World Application of the Risk Principle 1: Is It Possible in the Field of Probation?" @default.
• W2771769346 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2771769346 type Work @default.
• W2771769346 sameAs 2771769346 @default.
• W2771769346 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2771769346 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2771769346 hasAuthorship W2771769346A5000845391 @default.
• W2771769346 hasAuthorship W2771769346A5032073244 @default.
• W2771769346 hasAuthorship W2771769346A5040844096 @default.
• W2771769346 hasAuthorship W2771769346A5049289303 @default.
• W2771769346 hasConcept C102587632 @default.
• W2771769346 hasConcept C112758219 @default.
• W2771769346 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2771769346 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2771769346 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2771769346 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2771769346 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2771769346 hasConcept C178300618 @default.
• W2771769346 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2771769346 hasConcept C42475967 @default.
• W2771769346 hasConcept C73484699 @default.
• W2771769346 hasConcept C78458016 @default.
• W2771769346 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2771769346 hasConceptScore W2771769346C102587632 @default.
• W2771769346 hasConceptScore W2771769346C112758219 @default.
• W2771769346 hasConceptScore W2771769346C124952713 @default.
• W2771769346 hasConceptScore W2771769346C127413603 @default.
• W2771769346 hasConceptScore W2771769346C142362112 @default.
• W2771769346 hasConceptScore W2771769346C15744967 @default.
• W2771769346 hasConceptScore W2771769346C17744445 @default.
• W2771769346 hasConceptScore W2771769346C178300618 @default.
• W2771769346 hasConceptScore W2771769346C41008148 @default.
• W2771769346 hasConceptScore W2771769346C42475967 @default.
• W2771769346 hasConceptScore W2771769346C73484699 @default.
• W2771769346 hasConceptScore W2771769346C78458016 @default.
• W2771769346 hasConceptScore W2771769346C86803240 @default.
• W2771769346 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2771769346 hasLocation W27717693461 @default.
• W2771769346 hasOpenAccess W2771769346 @default.
• W2771769346 hasPrimaryLocation W27717693461 @default.
• W2771769346 hasRelatedWork W1573548819 @default.
• W2771769346 hasRelatedWork W1594496763 @default.
• W2771769346 hasRelatedWork W1595529187 @default.
• W2771769346 hasRelatedWork W1974313334 @default.
• W2771769346 hasRelatedWork W1976947831 @default.
• W2771769346 hasRelatedWork W2075030804 @default.
• W2771769346 hasRelatedWork W2118752242 @default.
• W2771769346 hasRelatedWork W2169510402 @default.
• W2771769346 hasRelatedWork W2199954026 @default.
• W2771769346 hasRelatedWork W2468070962 @default.
• W2771769346 hasRelatedWork W2600031383 @default.
• W2771769346 hasRelatedWork W262477584 @default.
• W2771769346 hasRelatedWork W277582189 @default.
• W2771769346 hasRelatedWork W2993532400 @default.
• W2771769346 hasRelatedWork W561596350 @default.
• W2771769346 hasRelatedWork W593411530 @default.
• W2771769346 hasRelatedWork W608445679 @default.
• W2771769346 hasRelatedWork W61441287 @default.
• W2771769346 hasRelatedWork W839049838 @default.
• W2771769346 hasRelatedWork W2771984357 @default.
• W2771769346 hasVolume "80" @default.
• W2771769346 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2771769346 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2771769346 magId "2771769346" @default.
• W2771769346 workType "article" @default.