David Duffee

Competing Value Premises for the Provision of Drug Treatment to Probationers

Anti-drug-abuse policy debates center on the relative emphasis to be given to prevention, enforcement, and treatment efforts. Even though there are insufficient treatment services to meet the demand, there has been little debate about the question of who should benefit first from the available services. The consequences of lack of such policy for urban probation departments are examined. Lack of an allocation policy appears to be related to unresolved conflicts among competing premises for allocating services. Four premises are identified, and how drug-abusing probationers might fare under each premise is discussed.

Traumatic histories and stressful life events of incarcerated parents II: Gender and ethnic differences in substance abuse and service needs

Substance abuse is increasingly common in prison inmates. This article presents findings on substance abuse and service needs of male and female inmate parents in Arizona, with a particular focus on gender and ethnic differences across inmates. A sample of 838 incarcerated fathers and 1,441 mothers completed anonymous questionnaires regarding traumatic and stressful events experienced as children and/or adults, including addiction. Exposure to childhood and adult traumatic events, especially child abuse, was related to self-reported alcohol and drug problems for both males and females. Mothers reported significantly more postrelease service needs than fathers. Implications for practice and policy are discussed.

Styles of Evidence-Based Practice in the Child Welfare System

The use of evidence-based practice (EBP) has been advocated as a means by which to improve the outcomes of services delivered to children and families in the child welfare system. However, the term “evidenced-based practice” has been used to describe several different approaches to using evidence or research findings to improve practice. These approaches differ significantly in several important ways, including their assumptions, how data concerning programming should be collected and used, and who sets the agenda concerning the usage of research findings. In order to clarify the various approaches to evidence-based practice, the authors developed a framework for distinguishing different styles of EBP in child welfare. Two implications of the framework for the production and utilization of knowledge to improve programming are discussed. Different styles of EBP should be implemented when their underlying assumptions are valid for a particular system or situation. Elements of different styles of EBP are often combined in one program without adequate attention to the conflicts among the elements.

Limitations on Citizen Involvement in Correctional Programs

not mean punishment is always carried out in public view, but decisions on what to punish, how to punish, and how much to punish are made by public officials and implemented, most often, by public organisations. Explanations for public, rather than private, punishment vary. Some argue that responsibility for punishment is vested in public actors because crimes, beyond harming individuals, threaten societal norms. Others argue that by separating the individual victim and the public, punitive response, vengeance is tempered and ordered. Public order is preserved not only in the recognition of norm breaking but also in the maintenance of norms about reacting to crime. Others doubt either kind of societal benefit. They argue instead that the public punishment system preserves the myth that the law benefits all members of society rather than those groups who control its passage and implementation.