This empirical study systematically explores risk factors that staff perceive as important when ascertaining risk for prison sexual perpetration and victimization. This study examined ratings from 10 staff for 315 female and 1,842 male inmates screened for admission to correctional facilities in a Midwestern state. Overall, findings indicate that a low proportion of inmates were rated medium–high risk for either perpetration or victimization. In addition, results suggest that staff perceived risk factors for sexual violence somewhat differently for female and male inmates. Furthermore, data revealed that staff considered presentation characteristics more relevant than empirically derived risk factors when determining vulnerability to prison rape. Implications for institutional policy and prison sexual assault screening are discussed.
The Office of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT) manages and regulates the Federal detention programs and the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System (JPATS) by establishing a secure and effective operating environment that drives efficient and fair expenditure of appropriated funds.
The major functions and responsibilities of the Federal Detention Trustee are to:
- Direct and coordinate the budget and strategic planning submissions of detention operations to ensure internal consistency and elimination of duplication;
- Develop, implement, and monitor compliance with Department-wide standards, policies, and procedures;
- Develop and manage comprehensive statistical and financial databases describing detention activities;
- Develop and implement strategies to deal with detention "hot spots" and crises;
- Review existing detention practices and develop alternatives to improve mission efficiency and cost effectiveness; and
- Integrate existing predictive workload models to develop comprehensive, Department-wide detention planning capabilities.
- Manage JPATS through achieving efficiencies, effectiveness and operational improvements by driving process enhancements and network optimization, focusing on total transportation processes.
Summary of topics addressed the State PREA Coordinators’ Conference on December 14 – 16, 2009. Some of the topics discussed were: Written Policies and Procedures, PREA Staff Training and Inmate Education, Concerns about the NPREC standards, Responding to PREA Standards,Technical Assistance and Training, Investigation and Reporting,and Inmate Medical and Mental Health Services.
The article focuses on the unintended consequences of the legislation on juvenile sex offenders. The legislation established a national registry for sex offenders, including juvenile offenders 14 years or older. The registry of juvenile sex offenders, according to the author, has sparked a controversy, and legal attempts have been made to avoid registration. He concludes that actions to avoid registration may inadvertently prohibit treatment opportunities.
Findings suggest that a possible unintended consequence of sex offender legislation on juvenile sex offenders may be withholding juvenile sex offender treatment for youth who have committed sex crimes as a result of reduced charges at disposition in order to avoid registration requirements. Results found that based on the initial charge, the majority of juvenile sex crimes committed in the region were the most serious sex crimes; the majority of juvenile sex crimes were pled down to lesser charges, most of which became Gross Indecency charges; and the majority of juvenile sex offenders were not eligible for county-funded sex offender treatment as a result of dispositional charges. The introduction of sex offender legislation has significant implications for juvenile justice. Although the interaction of this legislation with civil rights and the ideological foundation for the juvenile justice system has begun to be explored, the impact of this legislation on dispositional decision making is still largely unknown. Because of the controversy surrounding sex offender legislation and juveniles, dispositional decision making action to avoid registration requirement may inadvertently prohibit treatment opportunities for this population. Continuous examination will be required to ensure that the strides that have been made in juvenile sex offender treatment and management are not inadvertently lost due to challenges faced by prosecutors and jurists attempting to work within the constructs of this legislation.
The Network has supported research examining the course of psychopathy from adolescence into adulthood, asking in essence: Once a psychopath, always a psychopath? This article defines the term “psychopath” describes differences in measurement between adolescents and adults and discusses the implications for policy and practice.
This article discusses existing case law from around the country regarding relationships between correctional staff and offenders/ex-offenders—incarcerated, in the community, and on probation and parole. For each case, exact policies or rules in question are provided in endnotes. Recommendations are also given for how to construct your agency’s policies in this area.
On September 4, 2003, the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003 (P.L. 108-79) was signed into law. The PREA created the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission to study and develop national standards on the prevention, detection, and punishment for rape in correctional settings. The commission has several studies underway required under PREA and has asked the National Academy of Public Administration to assist with two main areas of research: a review of policy and procedures and a review of surveillance and design techniques. The academy is an independent, nonprofit organization chartered by Congress. To learn more about the academy visit: http://www.napawash.org
In order to provide the commission with more information, this survey asked about policy, procedure, and practices, as well as surveillance techniques to prevent inmate-on-inmate prison rape and sexual misconduct with inmates. Information gathered from all reporting jails was used only in the aggregate
Metzenbaum sets forth five building blocks—tools and techniques for constructing a good measurement system for an organization. She describes six practices that leaders need to use to make appropriately designed systems work properly. This report will be of interest to policy makers as well as managers. Policy makers need to understand the implications of the systems they design, such as performance-based pay tied to organizational targets. Managers need to understand that what they choose to do or not to do also has implications for the successful use of performance measures. Metzenbaum emphasizes the importance of constructive feedback and the use of constant back-and-forth discussions in improving performance based on metrics.
Contains a report of the work undertaken by the Office of the Inspector General in 2005 in the State of California. Includes investigations into deaths and suicide by inmates, allegations of abuse, and conditions of facilities, as well as plans for the future.
Description: OJJDP views this project as one means to assist public and private corrections agencies in developing and implementing aftercare approaches for chronic and serious juvenile offenders who initially require secure confinement. The Johns Hopkins University’s Institute for Policy Studies and the Division of Criminal Justice, California State University at Sacramento, were funded in the spring of 1988 to conduct this project. This policy and procedures manual constitutes one of two products developed during stage two of the project. The other is the Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) model, or prototype, that has been described in considerable detail in other project documents. The IAP model represents an effort to combine coherently the most innovative ideas and strategies that have been identified nationally to facilitate effective transitioning of high-risk juvenile parolees into the community and to offer a reasonable chance for long-term positive adjustment and reduced recidivism.
“Public law litigation”—civil rights advocacy seeking to restructure public agencies—changed course beginning in the mid-1970s. It has moved away from remedial intervention modeled on command-and-control bureaucracy toward a kind of intervention that can be called “experimentalist.” Instead of top-down, fixed-rule regimes, the experimentalist approach emphasizes ongoing stakeholder negotiation, continuously revised performance measures, and transparency. Experimentalism is evident in all the principal areas of public law intervention—schools, mental health institutions, prisons, police, and public housing. This development has been substantially unanticipated and unnoticed by both advocates and critics of public law litigation. In this article, the emergence of the experimentalist model is described, and it is argued that it moots many common criticisms of public law litigation. Further suggested is that it implies answers to some prominent doctrinal issues, including the limits on judicial discretion in enforcing public law rights and the constraints entailed by separation-of-Rowers norms. The interpretation understands public law cases as core instances of “destabilization rights”—rights to disentrench an institution that has systematically failed to meet its obligations and remains immune to traditional forces of political correction. It suggests reasons why judicial recognition and enforcement of such rights might be both effective in inducing better compliance with legal obligations and consistent with our structure of government.
In 1972, a Texas Department of Corrections (TDC) “inmate David Ruiz filed a hand-written lawsuit against [TDC], which was destined to become the most far-reaching prison conditions litigation in American history.” TDC was largely unaccountable; it was invisible to the general public and even to the rest of the state government. One of the many profound changes to TDC's successor agency, as a result of the Ruiz litigation, is a high degree of visibility, accountability, and concomitantly, fairly sophisticated methods of internal monitoring for accountability. This article is intended to highlight those methods, demonstrating how one professionally operated prison system detects and addresses problems and risks.
For each of six topics -- use of force; complaints and misconduct investigations; promoting accountability and effective management; training; non-discriminatory policing and data collection; and recruitment, hiring, and retention -- the booklet presents principles for police behavior and instruction under varying circumstances. Regarding the use of force, principles address both deadly and non-deadly force, as well as the continuum of force. Principles for the use of force also focus on the use of canines to apprehend suspects, administrative review of shootings and the use of deadly force, use-of-force reporting, and the administrative review of the use of non-deadly force. Principles that pertain to complaints and misconduct investigations cover accepting misconduct complaints, reports of misconduct, misconduct investigations, and the resolution of misconduct investigations. Principles for promoting accountability and effective management encompass information management systems ("early warning" systems), supervision, searches and seizures, public information and feedback, and meaningful civilian input. Principles for traffic stops, the conduct of law enforcement stops, data collection, and persons with limited English proficiency are delineated under the general topic of nondiscriminatory policing and data collection. In addition to principles for recruitment and hiring, the concluding section presents principles for assignment and promotion as well as the prevention of harassment. Appended examples of promising police practices and policies and 48 annotated listings of U.S. Department of Justice research, resources, and programs on police practices.
A Report to the Honorable Eleanor Holms Norton U.S. House of Representatives On the special concerns dealing with female prison inmates.