Volume 74 Number 1
Federal Probation
 
     
     
 

Endnotes

References
 

Program Design, Implementation, and Evaluation in “Real World” Community Supervision

The Creation and Validation of the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS)

Huikahi Restorative Circles: A Public Health Approach for Reentry Planning


Program Design, Implementation, and Evaluation in “Real World” Community Supervision

1.The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Public Safety Canada. Correspondence should be addressed to Guy Bourgon, Public Safety Canada, 340 Laurier Ave. W., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0P8. Telephone: 613-991-2033. FAX: 613-990-8295. Email: Guy.Bourgon@ps.gc.ca We would like to thank Leticia Gutierrez and Kyle Simpson for their tireless efforts in coding the audiotapes and entering this data, and Jobina Li for providing assistance to the probation officers with data collection.

back to top

The Creation and Validation of the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS)

1 For more details on the Pretrial instrument see: Lowenkamp, C. T., Lemke, R. and Latessa, E. (2008). Federal Probation 72(3)2-9.

2 The responsivity principle touches on two related aspects of responsivity—specific and general. This article, and assessment in general, usually focuses on assessing specific responsivity.

3 Space constraints limit a full presentation of the methodology involved in the validation and construction of ORAS; for a full review see Latessa et al. (2009).

4 Due to the high volume of offenders on community supervision, an abbreviated version of the CST was developed as a screening tool to identify moderate and high risk cases for the full assessment. Latessa et al. (2009) provides a detailed description of the Community Supervision Screening Tool.

5 Due to differences in access, interview availability, due process issues, and ethical considerations, pretrial defendants were assessed using different interview protocols and data collection tools. See Latessa et al 2009 for a further explanation of the differences in data collection between the pretrial instrument and other assessment instruments.

6 Unlike the other assessment tools, the outcome used in the construction of the Pretrial Assessment Tool was either a new arrest or failure-to-appear. Failure-to-appear was included as an outcome because one of the major goals of the pretrial tool was to assist court actors in the decision to release or hold the defendant prior trial. A major concern of court actors in making this decision involves both the potential for new criminal activity and the likelihood that the defendant will appear at court date.

7 The number of cases excluded for each tool because they have more than four items missing were:
pretrial sample = 0, community supervision sample = 3, prison intake sample = 10, reentry sample = 2.

8 Latessa et al. (2009) provides a thorough description of the priorities in cases management, included analyses for each instrument that provide the likelihood of recidivism for each domain.

9 Latessa et al. (2009) provides the scoring sheets that list all items for each assessment instrument.

10 r values are reported here to indicate the predictive validity of each assessment instrument because they are widely understood and easy to interpret. Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) analyses were also performed to gauge the predictive validity. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) values that resulted from these analysis are as follows: Pretrial Assessment Tool AUC=.65, p<.00; Community Supervision Tool male AUC=.71, p<.00; Community Supervision Tool female AUC=.69, p<.00; Prison Intake Tool male AUC=.67, p=<.00; Prison Intake Tool female AUC=.69,p<.00; Reentry Tool male AUC=.65,p<.00, Reentry Tool female AUC=.77,p<.00.

back to top

 

Huikahi Restorative Circles: A Public Health Approach for Reentry Planning

1 Two men who applied for Circles in prison were out when they had theirs. One was held at his mother's home and one at a church.

2 An additional Modified Huikahi Restorative Circle was provided to an incarcerated woman in a California jail as part of a training program for probation officers. The woman, four of her incarcerated friends, and two support people who worked in the jail participated, and all reported the process was very positive. The city in California is working with a community-based organization to replicate the Circle program. A non-profit in upstate New York is also working to replicate it.

3 This average rate includes people on parole and probation and those who were released directly out of prison without parole or probation (“maxed out”). The recidivism rate for people who maxed out was markedly higher at 61.5 percent.

back to top