Deborah Koetzle

Police Departments’ Use of Facebook Patterns and Policy Issues

Police departments (PDs) are increasingly using social networking sites (SNS) as a method of public communication. Over 75% of the largest U.S. departments currently have a presence on at least one of the three major SNS (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace). However, little is known about how departments are actually using these sites. To explore this issue, we conducted a content analysis of messages posted by the 23 largest U.S. PDs using Facebook over a 3-month period. Our results indicate that the content pattern was, to some extent, dependent upon the frequency that departments posted messages. Departments posting more frequently typically used Facebook for crime-related messages, whereas those posting less often were more likely to convey public relations messages. We also identified several message characteristics associated with greater responsiveness on the part of individuals following departments on Facebook. Policy implications of these trends are discussed.

Treating High-Risk Offenders in the Community The Potential of Drug Courts

The drug court model, which integrates drug treatment with community supervision and uses the authority of the court to facilitate compliance and behavioral change, provides an innovative alternative to processing as usual. While drug courts have enjoyed considerable empirical support, research suggests that they could increase their effectiveness through further refining their target population. In particular, it is hypothesized that drug courts are particularly well suited to treat drug offenders who have a high risk for recidivism. The purpose of the current study is to compare recidivism rates of high-risk drug court participants and high-risk probationers. Using new charges as a measure of recidivism, the results indicate drug court participants had significantly better outcomes than probationers. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.

Responsivity: What Is It, and Why Is It Important?

Responsivity is the third component of the risk–need–responsivity model. The concept is divided into two principles: general and specific responsivity. The general responsivity principle refers to the type of intervention utilized. The specific responsivity principle refers to how the intervention is tailored to the clients served. This chapter focuses on the specific responsivity principle by covering a number of factors that may impede the success of treatment programming. Those factors range from individual-level characteristics such as motivation and cognitive ability/intelligence to external factors such as transportation, child care, and homelessness.

What Doesn’t Work: Ineffective Approaches and Correctional Quackery

Over the years, policy makers, treatment providers, and public officials have tried just about every imaginable approach to reducing recidivism. These attempts range from “getting tough” with offenders to treatment programs of all shapes and sizes. Under the guise of “punishing smarter,” we have increased surveillance, gotten offenders in better shape, and tried to scare them out of their behavior. Most of these efforts have failed. Unfortunately, many so-called treatment programs have not fared much better. Targeting noncriminogenic needs, trying to educate or talk offenders out of their behavior, providing vague unstructured programming, relying on self-help approaches, and outright quackery are not only ineffective in reducing recidivism but also often undermine support for correctional treatment. This chapter reviews what does not work with offenders and provides a long list of interventions and programs that are not effective.

What Works in Prison

Nearly 2 million people are incarcerated in the United States. Estimates suggest that among those returning home, nearly two-thirds are rearrested within 3 years of release. This chapter explores the relationship between incarceration and recidivism and considers strategies for improving outcomes among prisoners. Specifically, we discuss the importance of classification and assessment, along with the need for empirically based treatment programs. Special consideration is given to drug treatment, sex offender treatment, and general counseling programs. Finally, we consider options for managing juvenile offenders in prison.

Making Sure It’s Done Right: The Importance of Quality and How to Ensure Program Fidelity

Many well-designed interventions in the criminal justice field have faltered, despite being carefully designed and implemented with good intentions. A number of factors can influence how well a program is implemented and its success. In that vein, although recidivism remains the primary outcome measure for most correctional intervention programs, it is also important for correctional officials to examine other performance measures, especially those that have shown a relationship to recidivism. Likewise, it is important that we assess correctional programs to ensure that they are designed using research and are implemented with fidelity and integrity. In this chapter, the characteristics of effective programs are identified, and the research that has demonstrated the relationship between program integrity and outcome is examined. We examine the importance of attending to implementation issues, building program fidelity through organizational culture and staff, and outline ways that programs can develop and use quality assurance processes to improve performance over the long term.

What Works with Drug Courts

Drug courts provide a community-based option for treating drug offenders in the community. Using a collaborative approach to provide judicial monitoring, community supervision, and treatment services to participants, drug courts have been found to reduce recidivism and drug use. Drug courts should be designed to be intensive programs that target high-risk offenders with substance abuse and dependence. The success of drug courts depends on the involvement of the drug court team, including the drug court judge, who is thought to be a critical part of the process. Finally, as with other programs, drug courts should provide treatment services in a manner consistent with the principles of risk, need, and responsivity.

What Works with Women

Although the number of female offenders on correctional supervision is relatively small, the need for effective treatment strategies for women and girls remains important. The nature of these services, however, is up for debate. Feminist scholars often argue that treatment services for women and girls should focus on trauma and mental health, with an emphasis on building self-efficacy and feelings of empowerment. In contrast, RNR scholars argue that treatment strategies should be similar to those for male offenders, with an emphasis on reducing antisocial attitudes, antisocial peers, and antisocial personality in an effort to reduce recidivism. This chapter reviews the debate between both camps and seeks to reconcile the differences by offering treatment recommendations within the context of understanding gendered differences.

Substance Use and Crime Identifying and Treating Those in Need

Drug offenders account for nearly 20% of state prison inmates, almost half of federal inmates, and a quarter of those on probation (Carson & Sabol, 2012; Maruschak & Parks, 2012). National estimates indicate that over half of drug offenders are rearrested within 3 years of release from prison (Langan & Levin, 2002). This points to the need to provide treatment to those with substance use problems, yet relatively few receive treatment while in prison (Mumola & Karberg, 2006). Federal, state, and local agencies must do a better job of identifying those in need of treatment and of providing effective interventions aimed at substance use. Many of the articles in this issue of the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology have implications for substance use treatment. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013) included a number of revisions to the diagnostic criteria, including criteria for substance related disorders. Whereas the DSM-IV (4th ed.; APA, 1994) treated substance abuse and dependence as two disorders, the DSM-5 combines these into one category, substance use disorder, and revised the criteria for moderate and severe substance use disorder. Kopak, Metze, and Hoffman examine the impact of the revisions by comparing diagnoses under both DSM-IV and DSM-5 guidelines as they relate to alcohol use disorder. Understanding the impact of the new guidelines is important as they have implications for the nature of substance use treatment. Many drug offenders receive treatment services in the community. Drug treatment courts (DTC) are estimated to serve over 100,000 participants at any given time in the United States (Huddleston & Marlowe, 2011). There is ample research to suggest DTC can reduce recidivism, but more research is needed to know when and how drug courts work best, both in the United States and elsewhere (Mitchell, Wilson, Eggers, & MacKenzie, 2012; Shaffer, 2011). Somers, Rezansoff, and Moniruzzaman explore the predictors of success in a Canadian DTC. Using recidivism as an outcome measure, they examine the effectiveness of the program across a number of sub-groups. This is

What Works in Reentry

Until recently, the process or transition between prison and the community was largely ignored. Due to high recidivism rates and costs associated with incarceration, many states have embraced a rehabilitative approach to dealing with re-entry. In the context of the era of get-tough policies, the re-entry movement represents an important effort to provide social services to offenders as they reintegrate into society. There is some concern, however, that these re-entry programs and approaches may fail either because they are not well implemented or fail to take into consideration the principles of effective intervention. This chapter examines best practices in the area of re-entry and presents recommendations for the future.