1. Nwokocha, Chuks Udutu Project
2. Prior Project Selected: BP9-@009122Flickr: Teaching Creative Writing; modified to Stimulating Creative Writing
3. EDMT Class Created: ETC November 2009
4. Initial Appraisal: The initial lesson had a game approach to it and a sort of round table discussion. But in this adaptation I changed the topic to stimulating Creative writing. Here students look at the pictures and following the prompts on them form and write their impressions of them in a coherence structure.
Then each student discusses their impressions with others and the selections of these write ups- poems are displayed on the class publishing board for one week.
5 Location:http://www.viddler.com/explore/chuks4viddler/videos/14/
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Friday, July 16, 2010
LMSO Week 2 Readings
Week 2 readings
Learning Content Management Systems (LCMS)
When there is a reusable content that can be shared across the board and for different varieties of a single course, then Learning Content Management System is in place. It also includes a storage database using a structure that defines each variety or version of the content/course such that accessibility to the materials is enhanced. Besides, LCMS includes the functions and objectives and the modes of presentations and assessment of each type of content materials. When there are collaborative tools like IChat, emails and so forth then a LCMS is the system
An LCMS can therefore be defined as a system that provides for design and development and sequencing of content to facilitate teaching and learning.
As can be observed from the foregoing paragraph, LCMS is content and objective focused while a CMS is course directed. LCMS are used to ‘develop, distribute and manage content’ while a CMS are used to ‘ develop, distribute and manage courses.’ LCMS are an integrated system while a CMS is more like a stand-alone.
LCMS has the potential for design, delivery and support of content and is adaptable to various conditions and cultural sensitivities.
In spite of these differences an LCMS seems to combine the ‘learner administration capabilities of an LMS with the content creation and storage capabilities of a CMS’ to deliver its features. An LMS deals with learning organization while an LCMS delivers the right content to the right person at the right time.
LCMS and LMS complement each other. An LCMS delivers content , notes individual learners progress records test scores and passes these on to an LMS for reporting to individual learners and manages them also.
LMSO Week 2 Readings
Learning Content Management Systems (LCMS)
When there is a reusable content that can be shared across the board and for different varieties of a single course, then Learning Content Management System is in place. It also includes a storage database using a structure that defines each variety or version of the content/course such that accessibility to the materials is enhanced. Besides, LCMS includes the functions and objectives and the modes of presentations and assessment of each type of content materials. When there are collaborative tools like IChat, emails and so forth then a LCMS is the system
An LCMS can therefore be defined as a system that provides for design and development and sequencing of content to facilitate teaching and learning.
As can be observed from the foregoing paragraph, LCMS is content and objective focused while a CMS is course directed. LCMS are used to ‘develop, distribute and manage content’ while a CMS are used to ‘ develop, distribute and manage courses.’ LCMS are an integrated system while a CMS is more like a stand-alone.
LCMS has the potential for design, delivery and support of content and is adaptable to various conditions and cultural sensitivities.
In spite of these differences an LCMS seems to combine the ‘learner administration capabilities of an LMS with the content creation and storage capabilities of a CMS’ to deliver its features. An LMS deals with learning organization while an LCMS delivers the right content to the right person at the right time.
LCMS and LMS complement each other. An LCMS delivers content , notes individual learners progress records test scores and passes these on to an LMS for reporting to individual learners and manages them also.
LMSO Week 2 Readings
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Literature Review : Balancing Supervision and paper work for parole agents
Balancing Field Supervision and Paper Work for Parole Agents Effectiveness
Introduction
The purpose of this research is find out whether effective field supervision of parolees is hindered by documentation of agents activities and what was done on the parolees, including parolees relapses or rearrested. Related questions on the search would include: Does paperwork decrease the efficiency of parole agents? Is field supervision of parolees enhanced by less paperwork? Implied in the questions include the assumption that field supervision of parolees make them comply with their conditions of parole.
The preponderance of studies and writings on this topic is weighed heavily on the side of field supervision and what programs that work and less on what effect paper work has on the effectiveness of parole agents.
Models of Reentry Services
Several models of reentry services have been tried to stem the tide of recidivism and help parolees reintegrate into their community. Bouffard, Bergseth and Ford (2003) reporting on the Minnesota Clay County reentry services program have outlined four models of these reentry services and the role of parole agents in their implementation. These include Serious and Violent Offender Initiative (SVORI), Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP), Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) and Aftercare for Indians (Indians (AIM) For each of these programs, a three phase design is implemented: Planning and services begin at the facility, followed by assistance during release and assessment of individual needs of offenders, integration of treatment programs with supervision by parole agents. Aos, S., Miller, M. & Drake, E. (2006) in their study compared 9 treatment models and their effectiveness .In their tabulation of results, Intensive supervision (treatment-oriented programs were found more effective than other models. This Intensive supervision treatment program topped with a score of 21.9%, followed by Drug Treatment in Community with a score of 12.4%. What works is considered in terms of recidivism rate or relapse in drug offenses.
Clay County Study reported by Bouffard, Bergseth and Ford (2003) concluded that reentry programs work when combined with services and supervision by parole agents and transitional coordinators. Minnesota provided transitional coordinators who bridged the gap in services to parolees between parole agents and parolees. The article cited the study described of 63 youths who served in the program and were compared with 49 parolees who did not serve in the reentry service program (RSP) Transitional coordinators are like parole services associates introduced by Southern California Regional Department of Juvenile Justice.
Like Finn and Kuck (2005) observed, one thing is common to these programs with regard to parole agents and probation officers :officers: ‘high caseload, excess paperwork and deadline’ are factors that combine to ‘make it difficult for many officers to find the time to properly supervise their caseloads.’ (P3). Bouffard et al (2006) noted the ‘high caseload numbers, distance from clay county and other job duties and responsibilities.’ (P2)
It has long been assumed that supervision of parolees would deter them for sliding back to a life of crime. However, Stanley (1976) contends that a parolee determined to make it does not need surveillance while one who is not will con his parole agent.
Role of Parole Agents
Parole agents do the work of supervising parolees. Agents visit them at home or community of release, and evaluate the environment to make sure it is safe for them to stay in, call them for drug test, get them to attend programs aimed at helping them secure a job like parole to Payroll, search their homes for weapons or drugs among others. O*NET Online is an internet based service outlet that specifies skills needed for a job or task and has listed more skills and duties that parole agents perform. It ranges from preparing and maintaining a folder for each parolee, writing reports on offenders progress, informing inmates of conditions of release, discussing with offenders issues like drugs and alcohol and how it had affected their behavior, providing offenders with assistance in matters of sentencing, jurisdictions, writs and applications for social assistance to arranging for post release services.
Bloede (2009) affirms that ‘increased supervision, mentoring, counseling and education all under one roof’ will help prepare parolees for life outside detention. St. Gerard (2009) illustrates the importance of having a dedicated intensive supervision officer (ISO) make a decided impact on parolees.
O’Deane (2010) affirms that coordination among various law enforcement agencies help to curb crime, especially when parolees and other law enforcement agents are made to know the conditions of parole for those involved. Besides, maintaining good working relations and rapport with parolees is the answer to keeping them out of trouble. Schultz, Walgrave, McNeil and Dilorio (2009) reports another dimension or rather an extension of parole agents. In this report and case study medical students do their service work mentoring inmates at a detention center, helping such inmates acquire their GED while in detention as a preparation for release.
Field Supervision and Paperwork
Travis, Crayton, and Mukamal (2009) points out the increase of parolees under supervision rose from 60% in the 1970s to 80% currently. Besides the nature of supervision has shifted from service inclined to surveillance oriented with a 700% increase between 1980 and 2000. These people removed from their homes and put in prisons follow the iron law of imprisonment which states that those who go to prison eventually come back, the report stated, and face the hurdle of reintegration back to society.
Supervision has added technology to extend and support the work of parole agents. This is the GPS monitoring system, used especially on sex offenders who need to be confined to certain areas. Turner, S., Jannetta, J. Hess, J., Myers, R. Shah, R., Werth, R., and Whitby, A., (2007) did a survey for San Diego County in California on the outcome of GPS monitoring for high-risk sex offenders. This study quotes findings by Padgett, K., Bales, W. and Blomberg, T. (2006), which showed that offenders placed on home detention in Florida, reduced the probability of technical violations, reoffending and absconding from supervision. Turner et al (2007) pilot survey also confirms the same: that absconding were rare when High –Risk Sex Offenders (HRSO) and Global Positioning system (GPS) monitored offenders were compared. The study also showed that the GPS system had little effect on recidivism. In addition this study also pointed out the problems parole agents had with the GPS.
Conclusion
In spite of the overwhelming number of caseloads for parole agents and the avalanche of prisoners being released into the system, the Minnesota example and case study as well as the California example of Continuum of Care and with the support of parole agents by parole services associates, it is possible to stem the tide of recidivism and help parole agents be more effective in their work as ‘agents of change’ in the lives of parolees. Clay County experiment and study in Minnesota has shown the possibility of helping parolees reintegrate into the society with the Intensive supervision model
References
Aftercare for Indiana through Mentoring (2004) Indiana’s juvenile
reentry program: Aftercare for Indiana through mentoring, annual
report, Retrieved 06/09/2010, from http://aim.spea.iupui.edu/
reentry/latest-research.htm
Allen, H.E. Latessa, E. J. Ponder, B. S. & Simonsen, C. E. (2007). Corrections in America: An introduction (11th e.d.) N .J. Prentice Hall
Altschuler, D. & Armstrong, T. (1994). Intensive aftercare for high-
risk juveniles: A community care model. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Aos,S. Miller, M & Drake, E (2006) Evidence-based adult corrections programs: What works and does not work, Olympia, Washington State Institute for Public Policy, www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/06-01-1201.pdf
Blanchette, K. and Taylor, K. N. (2009). Reintegration of female offenders: perspectives on ‘what works’ Corrections Today. Retrieved DATE, from
https://www.aca.org/fileupload/177/ahaidar/Blanchette_Taylor.pdf
Bloede, C (2009) Merging juvenile justice and sustainability in California Retrieved June 8, 2010,
https://www.aca.org/fileupload/177/ahaidar/Bloede1.pdf
Bouffard,J. Bergseth, K. & Ford, S (2006) A Minnesota County mentors juveniles and provides reentry services https://www.aca.org/fileupload/177/ahaidar/Bouffard.pdf
Bouffard, J. and Bergseth. K. (2008) The impact of reentry services
on juvenile offenders’ recidivism, Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
6(3): 295-318. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database
Bouffard, J., Bergseth, K., & Ford, S. (2009), A Minnesota County mentors juveniles and provides reentry services, Corrections Today, 71(6), 54-57. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Gottfredson, M., Mitchell-Herzfeld, S., & Flanagan, T. (1982)., Another look at the effectiveness of parole supervision Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 19(2), 277-298. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Hanrahan, K., Gibbs, J., & Zimmerman, S. (2005). Parole and revocation: perspectives of young adult offenders Prison Journal, 85(3), 251-269. Doi: 10.1177/0032885505279467.
Jalbert, S., Rhodes, W., Flygare, C., & Kane, M. (2010). Testing probation outcomes in an evidence-based practice setting: Reduced caseload size and intensive supervision effectiveness. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49(4), 233-253. doi:10.1080/1050967100371598
Kleiman, M., & Hawken, A. (2008). Fixing the parole system, Issues in Science & Technology, 24(4), 45-52. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Paparozzi, M. & Gendreau, P. (2005). An intensive supervision program that worked: Service delivery, professional orientation, and organizational supportiveness Prison Journal, 85(4), 445-466. Doi:10.1177/0032885505281529.
Nakaya, A. C. (ed. )(2005) Juvenile crime: opposing viewpoints, Farming Hills MI Thomson Press
Novotney, L.C., E. Mertinko, J. Lange and Baker, T. K. (2000): Juvenile-
mentoring program: A progress review. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Nussbaum, A. (1974) A second chance: amnesty for the first offender, New York, Hawthorne Books
O’Deane, M (2010) Alternatives to incarceration: coordinating efforts between police, probation officers and parole agents Retrieved June 15, 2010, from http://www.lawofficer.com/news-and-articles/articles/online/2010/alternatives-incaceration
Schram, P., Koons, Witt, B., Williams III, F., & McShane, M. (2006). Supervision strategies and approaches for female parolees: Examining the link between unmet needs and parolee outcome. Crime & Delinquency, 52(3), 450-471. Doi: 10.1177/0011128705281845.
Schultz. K. Walgrave, J. McNeil, J. Dilorio, J. (2000 Service Learning
Stanley, D. T. (1976) Prisoners among us: the problem of parole, Washington DC: The Brookings Institution
St. Gerard, V (2009) Timothy Adams: Service to youths brings extraordinary results
https://www.aca.org/fileupload/177/ahaidar/BIB_Adams1.pdf retrieved 06/08/2010
Swaton, J. N. & Morgan, L. (1984) Administration of justice: An introduction, Belmont CA Wadsworth
Travis, J. Crayton, A. & Mukamal, D. A. (2009) A new era in inmate reentry. Retrieved DATE from
https://www.aca.org/fileupload/177/ahaidar/Travis_Crayton_Mukamal.pdf
Winterfield, L. and S. Brumbaugh. (2005). Characteristics of prisoner
reentry: Programs for juveniles. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
Zhang, S., Roberts, R. , & Callanan, V. (2006). Preventing parolees from returning to prison through community-based reintegration. Crime & Delinquency, 52(4), 551-571. Doi:10.1177/0011128705282594.
Zhang, S., Roberts, R., & Callanan, V. (2006). The cost benefits of providing community-based correctional services: An evaluation of a statewide parole program in California. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(4), 341-350. Doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.05.001.
Introduction
The purpose of this research is find out whether effective field supervision of parolees is hindered by documentation of agents activities and what was done on the parolees, including parolees relapses or rearrested. Related questions on the search would include: Does paperwork decrease the efficiency of parole agents? Is field supervision of parolees enhanced by less paperwork? Implied in the questions include the assumption that field supervision of parolees make them comply with their conditions of parole.
The preponderance of studies and writings on this topic is weighed heavily on the side of field supervision and what programs that work and less on what effect paper work has on the effectiveness of parole agents.
Models of Reentry Services
Several models of reentry services have been tried to stem the tide of recidivism and help parolees reintegrate into their community. Bouffard, Bergseth and Ford (2003) reporting on the Minnesota Clay County reentry services program have outlined four models of these reentry services and the role of parole agents in their implementation. These include Serious and Violent Offender Initiative (SVORI), Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP), Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) and Aftercare for Indians (Indians (AIM) For each of these programs, a three phase design is implemented: Planning and services begin at the facility, followed by assistance during release and assessment of individual needs of offenders, integration of treatment programs with supervision by parole agents. Aos, S., Miller, M. & Drake, E. (2006) in their study compared 9 treatment models and their effectiveness .In their tabulation of results, Intensive supervision (treatment-oriented programs were found more effective than other models. This Intensive supervision treatment program topped with a score of 21.9%, followed by Drug Treatment in Community with a score of 12.4%. What works is considered in terms of recidivism rate or relapse in drug offenses.
Clay County Study reported by Bouffard, Bergseth and Ford (2003) concluded that reentry programs work when combined with services and supervision by parole agents and transitional coordinators. Minnesota provided transitional coordinators who bridged the gap in services to parolees between parole agents and parolees. The article cited the study described of 63 youths who served in the program and were compared with 49 parolees who did not serve in the reentry service program (RSP) Transitional coordinators are like parole services associates introduced by Southern California Regional Department of Juvenile Justice.
Like Finn and Kuck (2005) observed, one thing is common to these programs with regard to parole agents and probation officers :officers: ‘high caseload, excess paperwork and deadline’ are factors that combine to ‘make it difficult for many officers to find the time to properly supervise their caseloads.’ (P3). Bouffard et al (2006) noted the ‘high caseload numbers, distance from clay county and other job duties and responsibilities.’ (P2)
It has long been assumed that supervision of parolees would deter them for sliding back to a life of crime. However, Stanley (1976) contends that a parolee determined to make it does not need surveillance while one who is not will con his parole agent.
Role of Parole Agents
Parole agents do the work of supervising parolees. Agents visit them at home or community of release, and evaluate the environment to make sure it is safe for them to stay in, call them for drug test, get them to attend programs aimed at helping them secure a job like parole to Payroll, search their homes for weapons or drugs among others. O*NET Online is an internet based service outlet that specifies skills needed for a job or task and has listed more skills and duties that parole agents perform. It ranges from preparing and maintaining a folder for each parolee, writing reports on offenders progress, informing inmates of conditions of release, discussing with offenders issues like drugs and alcohol and how it had affected their behavior, providing offenders with assistance in matters of sentencing, jurisdictions, writs and applications for social assistance to arranging for post release services.
Bloede (2009) affirms that ‘increased supervision, mentoring, counseling and education all under one roof’ will help prepare parolees for life outside detention. St. Gerard (2009) illustrates the importance of having a dedicated intensive supervision officer (ISO) make a decided impact on parolees.
O’Deane (2010) affirms that coordination among various law enforcement agencies help to curb crime, especially when parolees and other law enforcement agents are made to know the conditions of parole for those involved. Besides, maintaining good working relations and rapport with parolees is the answer to keeping them out of trouble. Schultz, Walgrave, McNeil and Dilorio (2009) reports another dimension or rather an extension of parole agents. In this report and case study medical students do their service work mentoring inmates at a detention center, helping such inmates acquire their GED while in detention as a preparation for release.
Field Supervision and Paperwork
Travis, Crayton, and Mukamal (2009) points out the increase of parolees under supervision rose from 60% in the 1970s to 80% currently. Besides the nature of supervision has shifted from service inclined to surveillance oriented with a 700% increase between 1980 and 2000. These people removed from their homes and put in prisons follow the iron law of imprisonment which states that those who go to prison eventually come back, the report stated, and face the hurdle of reintegration back to society.
Supervision has added technology to extend and support the work of parole agents. This is the GPS monitoring system, used especially on sex offenders who need to be confined to certain areas. Turner, S., Jannetta, J. Hess, J., Myers, R. Shah, R., Werth, R., and Whitby, A., (2007) did a survey for San Diego County in California on the outcome of GPS monitoring for high-risk sex offenders. This study quotes findings by Padgett, K., Bales, W. and Blomberg, T. (2006), which showed that offenders placed on home detention in Florida, reduced the probability of technical violations, reoffending and absconding from supervision. Turner et al (2007) pilot survey also confirms the same: that absconding were rare when High –Risk Sex Offenders (HRSO) and Global Positioning system (GPS) monitored offenders were compared. The study also showed that the GPS system had little effect on recidivism. In addition this study also pointed out the problems parole agents had with the GPS.
Conclusion
In spite of the overwhelming number of caseloads for parole agents and the avalanche of prisoners being released into the system, the Minnesota example and case study as well as the California example of Continuum of Care and with the support of parole agents by parole services associates, it is possible to stem the tide of recidivism and help parole agents be more effective in their work as ‘agents of change’ in the lives of parolees. Clay County experiment and study in Minnesota has shown the possibility of helping parolees reintegrate into the society with the Intensive supervision model
References
Aftercare for Indiana through Mentoring (2004) Indiana’s juvenile
reentry program: Aftercare for Indiana through mentoring, annual
report, Retrieved 06/09/2010, from http://aim.spea.iupui.edu/
reentry/latest-research.htm
Allen, H.E. Latessa, E. J. Ponder, B. S. & Simonsen, C. E. (2007). Corrections in America: An introduction (11th e.d.) N .J. Prentice Hall
Altschuler, D. & Armstrong, T. (1994). Intensive aftercare for high-
risk juveniles: A community care model. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Aos,S. Miller, M & Drake, E (2006) Evidence-based adult corrections programs: What works and does not work, Olympia, Washington State Institute for Public Policy, www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/06-01-1201.pdf
Blanchette, K. and Taylor, K. N. (2009). Reintegration of female offenders: perspectives on ‘what works’ Corrections Today. Retrieved DATE, from
https://www.aca.org/fileupload/177/ahaidar/Blanchette_Taylor.pdf
Bloede, C (2009) Merging juvenile justice and sustainability in California Retrieved June 8, 2010,
https://www.aca.org/fileupload/177/ahaidar/Bloede1.pdf
Bouffard,J. Bergseth, K. & Ford, S (2006) A Minnesota County mentors juveniles and provides reentry services https://www.aca.org/fileupload/177/ahaidar/Bouffard.pdf
Bouffard, J. and Bergseth. K. (2008) The impact of reentry services
on juvenile offenders’ recidivism, Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
6(3): 295-318. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database
Bouffard, J., Bergseth, K., & Ford, S. (2009), A Minnesota County mentors juveniles and provides reentry services, Corrections Today, 71(6), 54-57. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Gottfredson, M., Mitchell-Herzfeld, S., & Flanagan, T. (1982)., Another look at the effectiveness of parole supervision Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 19(2), 277-298. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Hanrahan, K., Gibbs, J., & Zimmerman, S. (2005). Parole and revocation: perspectives of young adult offenders Prison Journal, 85(3), 251-269. Doi: 10.1177/0032885505279467.
Jalbert, S., Rhodes, W., Flygare, C., & Kane, M. (2010). Testing probation outcomes in an evidence-based practice setting: Reduced caseload size and intensive supervision effectiveness. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49(4), 233-253. doi:10.1080/1050967100371598
Kleiman, M., & Hawken, A. (2008). Fixing the parole system, Issues in Science & Technology, 24(4), 45-52. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Paparozzi, M. & Gendreau, P. (2005). An intensive supervision program that worked: Service delivery, professional orientation, and organizational supportiveness Prison Journal, 85(4), 445-466. Doi:10.1177/0032885505281529.
Nakaya, A. C. (ed. )(2005) Juvenile crime: opposing viewpoints, Farming Hills MI Thomson Press
Novotney, L.C., E. Mertinko, J. Lange and Baker, T. K. (2000): Juvenile-
mentoring program: A progress review. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Nussbaum, A. (1974) A second chance: amnesty for the first offender, New York, Hawthorne Books
O’Deane, M (2010) Alternatives to incarceration: coordinating efforts between police, probation officers and parole agents Retrieved June 15, 2010, from http://www.lawofficer.com/news-and-articles/articles/online/2010/alternatives-incaceration
Schram, P., Koons, Witt, B., Williams III, F., & McShane, M. (2006). Supervision strategies and approaches for female parolees: Examining the link between unmet needs and parolee outcome. Crime & Delinquency, 52(3), 450-471. Doi: 10.1177/0011128705281845.
Schultz. K. Walgrave, J. McNeil, J. Dilorio, J. (2000 Service Learning
Stanley, D. T. (1976) Prisoners among us: the problem of parole, Washington DC: The Brookings Institution
St. Gerard, V (2009) Timothy Adams: Service to youths brings extraordinary results
https://www.aca.org/fileupload/177/ahaidar/BIB_Adams1.pdf retrieved 06/08/2010
Swaton, J. N. & Morgan, L. (1984) Administration of justice: An introduction, Belmont CA Wadsworth
Travis, J. Crayton, A. & Mukamal, D. A. (2009) A new era in inmate reentry. Retrieved DATE from
https://www.aca.org/fileupload/177/ahaidar/Travis_Crayton_Mukamal.pdf
Winterfield, L. and S. Brumbaugh. (2005). Characteristics of prisoner
reentry: Programs for juveniles. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
Zhang, S., Roberts, R. , & Callanan, V. (2006). Preventing parolees from returning to prison through community-based reintegration. Crime & Delinquency, 52(4), 551-571. Doi:10.1177/0011128705282594.
Zhang, S., Roberts, R., & Callanan, V. (2006). The cost benefits of providing community-based correctional services: An evaluation of a statewide parole program in California. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(4), 341-350. Doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.05.001.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
LMO Week 1 Overview
Week 1 Project: LMO Overview
I have in my mind's eye a four-legged table. Each of its legs comprise the four pillars of learning management systems as described by Gibson(2010): Learning Content/Course management systems (LCMS); Learning Management Systems(LMS); Course Management Systems(CMS), and others, although these table and house metaphors do not adequately covey the relationship between the systems. To me the relationship is more like a crate which contains a package that has an equipment and other items. LCMS seems to encompass LMS which contains a CMS and others items.
Let me begin with a CMS. A Course Management System(CMS) like Blackboard or eCollege or WebCT is designed to extend the reach of a traditional teacher in terms of time and space. A CMS is an ‘internet-based software’ that handles the registration of students, track their performances and develop and do the distribution of course content according to the need of students. In Full sail Online for example, I had a challenge in one of the courses that needed repetition. Once I was through with a course I was in, i re registered automatically by the system to re do it.
each version of CMS has at least three distinguishing features: an authoring and publishing tool which allows an instructor to publish files on the CMS for students to download. Also a Virtual learning community that enables instructors and students to communicate individually or as a group, synchronously like in WIMBA sessions of Full Sail or asynchronously as in the threaded discussion. Lastly, a CMS has a data management tool that allows students to be assigned to a class rather than have the teacher do it.
A LMS is another software application that allows for the ‘administration and documentation, training and reporting of training programs’ for all elearning events and activities. Its features include centralized, automated administration, a serve your self and self guided services, assemblage and delivery of learning content rapidly, reinforce training activities on a web based design and enable re use and portability of knowledge and standards. A bank ATM is such a system. An FSO system that displays a course calender, learning path, messages and notifications, displays scores and transcripts is also such a system.
An LCMS uses an LMS to deliver its services. Ot focuses on the development, management and delivery on a larger scale or multi user system than in a than a LMS or CMS. There is the creation of re-use, store and manage of courses and content for daily or anytime use.
Comparing the two, it possible to say that an LCMS authors, developers and subject matter experts the tool to create and reuse elearning and reduce duplication while a LMS is tool for planning and delivering learning events within an organization.
PLEs are systems which help learners take control of their learning contents and be able to interact with others in a social networking environment.It is a tool that enable learners set their own goals, manage their learning and communicate with others and in the process enhance their own experience. A Google document that enables several people collaborate with each other to edit a project is one. even a second Life environment where groups of students can explore and share experiences is another type of learning environment.
I have in my mind's eye a four-legged table. Each of its legs comprise the four pillars of learning management systems as described by Gibson(2010): Learning Content/Course management systems (LCMS); Learning Management Systems(LMS); Course Management Systems(CMS), and others, although these table and house metaphors do not adequately covey the relationship between the systems. To me the relationship is more like a crate which contains a package that has an equipment and other items. LCMS seems to encompass LMS which contains a CMS and others items.
Let me begin with a CMS. A Course Management System(CMS) like Blackboard or eCollege or WebCT is designed to extend the reach of a traditional teacher in terms of time and space. A CMS is an ‘internet-based software’ that handles the registration of students, track their performances and develop and do the distribution of course content according to the need of students. In Full sail Online for example, I had a challenge in one of the courses that needed repetition. Once I was through with a course I was in, i re registered automatically by the system to re do it.
each version of CMS has at least three distinguishing features: an authoring and publishing tool which allows an instructor to publish files on the CMS for students to download. Also a Virtual learning community that enables instructors and students to communicate individually or as a group, synchronously like in WIMBA sessions of Full Sail or asynchronously as in the threaded discussion. Lastly, a CMS has a data management tool that allows students to be assigned to a class rather than have the teacher do it.
A LMS is another software application that allows for the ‘administration and documentation, training and reporting of training programs’ for all elearning events and activities. Its features include centralized, automated administration, a serve your self and self guided services, assemblage and delivery of learning content rapidly, reinforce training activities on a web based design and enable re use and portability of knowledge and standards. A bank ATM is such a system. An FSO system that displays a course calender, learning path, messages and notifications, displays scores and transcripts is also such a system.
An LCMS uses an LMS to deliver its services. Ot focuses on the development, management and delivery on a larger scale or multi user system than in a than a LMS or CMS. There is the creation of re-use, store and manage of courses and content for daily or anytime use.
Comparing the two, it possible to say that an LCMS authors, developers and subject matter experts the tool to create and reuse elearning and reduce duplication while a LMS is tool for planning and delivering learning events within an organization.
PLEs are systems which help learners take control of their learning contents and be able to interact with others in a social networking environment.It is a tool that enable learners set their own goals, manage their learning and communicate with others and in the process enhance their own experience. A Google document that enables several people collaborate with each other to edit a project is one. even a second Life environment where groups of students can explore and share experiences is another type of learning environment.
LMO Week ! Comments
Chukwudinma Nwokocha says:
July 6, 2010 at 1:02 am
Online Education: Horror or Happy Stories
So far online education has been one of an exciting adventure for me. It has saved me time for commuting to classes and the usual traffic jams so that more time is spent on reading and doing assignments than on commuting. Though I miss the face to face contacts yet this mode of learning has been a new way of acquiring knowledge and I am happy for it despite its draw backs.
@Kathy Kellen
I agree with Kathy. The platform works well with me. I am able to turn is assignments without hassle; just with a click/. I connect with course mates through, Wimba, iChat, Skype and video conferencing. By these means I am able to see some face to face besides the voice connection. Through Google document we are able to work together as course mates and do editing and populating our documents. To me it has been an exciting learning adventure.
@Cathy Palmer
Yes Cathy you are right about threaded discussions. However in one of these courses(I think in Cathy Craven class) we were exposed to threaded discussions system which we could develop for use in the classes we teach. And I believe with these comments Full Sail may incorporate it soon in their online systems.
Participation by instructors was really helpful.
@Felicia Andorko
Yes, Felicia, I also used blackboard and Turn It in in some of my college class. And they were my first introduction to online classes and systems of learning. However my experience at Full Sail has so far surpasses my previous experiences. Though I a slow learner in cooperation and connectivity, yet I have begun to appreciate the system and simply love it.
July 6, 2010 at 1:02 am
Online Education: Horror or Happy Stories
So far online education has been one of an exciting adventure for me. It has saved me time for commuting to classes and the usual traffic jams so that more time is spent on reading and doing assignments than on commuting. Though I miss the face to face contacts yet this mode of learning has been a new way of acquiring knowledge and I am happy for it despite its draw backs.
@Kathy Kellen
I agree with Kathy. The platform works well with me. I am able to turn is assignments without hassle; just with a click/. I connect with course mates through, Wimba, iChat, Skype and video conferencing. By these means I am able to see some face to face besides the voice connection. Through Google document we are able to work together as course mates and do editing and populating our documents. To me it has been an exciting learning adventure.
@Cathy Palmer
Yes Cathy you are right about threaded discussions. However in one of these courses(I think in Cathy Craven class) we were exposed to threaded discussions system which we could develop for use in the classes we teach. And I believe with these comments Full Sail may incorporate it soon in their online systems.
Participation by instructors was really helpful.
@Felicia Andorko
Yes, Felicia, I also used blackboard and Turn It in in some of my college class. And they were my first introduction to online classes and systems of learning. However my experience at Full Sail has so far surpasses my previous experiences. Though I a slow learner in cooperation and connectivity, yet I have begun to appreciate the system and simply love it.
Revised Research Topic
<
Balancing Field Supervision and Paper Work for Parole Agents Effectiveness
The purpose of this research is find out whether effective field supervision of parolees is hindered by paper work,or whether paperwork decreases the efficiency of parole agents.
The preponderance of studies and wrings on this topic is weighed heavily on the side of field supervision and what programs that work and less on what effect paper work has on the effectiveness of parole agents.
Models of Reentry Services
Several models of reentry services have been tried to stem the tide of recidivism and help parolees reintegrate to their community. Bouffard, Bergseth and Ford (2003) reporting on the Minnesota Clay County reentry services program have outlined four models of these reentry services and the role of parole agents in their implementation. These include Serious and Violent Offender Initiative (SVORI), Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP), Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) and Aftercare for Indians(AIM) For each of these programs, a three phase design is implemented: Planning and services begin at the facility, followed by assistance during release and assessment of individual needs of offenders, integration of treatment programs with supervision by parole agents.
Clay County Study reported by Bouffard, Bergseth and Ford (2003) concluded that reentry programs work when combined with services and supervision by parole agents and transitional coordinators. Minnesota provided transitional coordinators who bridged the gap in services to parolees between parole agents and parolees. The article sited the study of 63 youths who have served in the program and were compared with 49 parolees who did not serve in the reentry service program (RSP) Transitional coordinators are like parole services associates introduced by Southern California Regional department of juvenile justice.
Like Finn and Kuck (2005) observed, one thing is common to these programs with regard to parole agents and probation officers : ‘high caseload, excess paperwork and deadline’ are factors that combine to ‘make it difficult for many officers to find the time to properly supervise their caseloads.’ Bouffard et al (2006) noted the ‘high caseload numbers, distance from clay county and other job duties and responsibilities.’ One of the parole agents I interviewed concurs with this finding of researchers.
It has long been assumed that supervision of parolees would deter them for sliding back to a life of crime. However, Stanley (1976) p 101 contends that a parolee determined to make it does not need surveillance while one who is not will con his parole agent
Role of parole agents
parole agents do much of the work of supervision among others.O*NET Online outlines some tasks of these agents. It ranges from preparing and maintaining a folder for each parolee, writing reports on offenders progress, informing inmates of conditions of release, discussing with offenders issues like drugs and alcohol and how it had affected their behavior, providing offenders with assistance in matters of sentencing, jurisdictions, writs and applications for social assistance to arranging for post release services.
Bloede (2009) affirms that ‘increased supervision, mentoring, counseling and education all under one roof’ will help prepare parolees for life outside detention. St. Gerard (2009) illustrates the importance of having a dedicated intensive supervision officer (ISO) make a decided impact on parolees.
In O’Deane (2010), the author affirms that coordination among various law enforcement agencies help to curb crime, especially when parolees and other law enforcement agents are made to know the conditions of parole for those involved. maintaining good working relations and rapport with parolees is the answer to keeping them out of trouble.Schultz, Walgrave, McNeil and Dilorio (2009) reports another dimension or rather an extension of parole agents. In this report and case study medical students do their service work mentoring inmates at a detention center, helping such inmates acquire their GED while in detention as a preparation for release.
Field supervision and paperwork
Travis, Crayton, and Mukamal (2009) points out the increase those under supervision from 60% in the 1970s to 80% currently besides the nature of supervision has shifted from service inclined to surveillance oriented with a result a 700% increase between 1980 and 2000. These people removed from their homes following the iron law of imprisonment that those who go to prison eventually come back , the report stated, facing the hurdles of reintegration back to society
Conclusion
In spite of the overwhelming number of caseloads afor parole agents and the avalanche of prisoners being released into the system, the Minnesota example and case study as well as the California example continuum of care and support of parole agents by parole services associates it is possible to stem the tide of recidivism and help parole agents be more effective in their work as ‘agents of change’ in the lives of parolees.
Literature resources
Aftercare for Indiana through Mentoring (2004) Indiana’s juvenile
reentry program: Aftercare for Indiana through mentoring, annual
report, Retrieved 06/09/2010, from http://aim.spea.iupui.edu/
reentry/latest-research.htm
Allen, H.E. Latessa, E. J. Ponder, B. S. & Simonsen, C. E. ( 2007) Corrections in America: An introduction (11th e.d.) N .J. Prentice Hall
Altschuler, D. & Armstrong, T. (1994) Intensive aftercare for high-
risk juveniles: A community care model. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Blanchette, K. and Taylor, K. N. (2009) Reintegration of female offenders: perspectives on ‘what works’ Corrections Today
https://www.aca.org/fileupload/177/ahaidar/Blanchette_Taylor.pdf
Bloede, C (2009) Merging juvenile justice and sustainability in California,
https://www.aca.org/fileupload/177/ahaidar/Bloede1.pdf retrieved 06/08/2010
Bouffard,J. Bergseth, K. & Ford, S (2006) A Minnesota County mentors juveniles and provides reentry services https://www.aca.org/fileupload/177/ahaidar/Bouffard.pdf
Bouffard, J. and Bergseth. K. (2008) The impact of reentry services
on juvenile offenders’ recidivism. Youth Violence and Juvenile
Justice, 6(3): 295-318.
Gottfredson, M., Mitchell-Herzfeld, S., & Flanagan, T. (1982)., Another look at the effectiveness of parole supervision Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 19(2), 277-298. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Hanrahan, K., Gibbs, J., & Zimmerman, S. (2005). Parole and revocation: perspectives of young adult offenders Prison Journal, 85(3), 251-269. Doi: 10.1177/0032885505279467.
Jalbert, S., Rhodes, W., Flygare, C., & Kane, M. (2010). Testing Probation Outcomes in an Evidence-Based Practice Setting: Reduced Caseload Size and Intensive Supervision Effectiveness. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49(4), 233-253. doi:10.1080/1050967100371598
Kleiman, M., & Hawken, A. (2008). Fixing the Parole System. Issues in Science & Technology, 24(4), 45-52. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Paparozzi, M. & Gendreau, P. (2005). An intensive supervision program that worked : Service delivery, professional orientation, and organizational supportiveness Prison Journal, 85(4), 445-466. Doi:10.1177/0032885505281529.
Nakaya, A. C. (ed. )(2005) Juvenile crime: opposing viewpoints, Farming Hills MI Thomson Press
Novotney, L.C., E. Mertinko, J. Lange and Baker, T. K. (2000): Juvenile-
mentoring program: A progress review. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Nussbaum, A. (1974) A second chance: amnesty for the first offender, New York, Hawthorne Books
O’Deane, M (2010) Alternatives to incarceration: coordinating efforts between police, probation officers and parole agents, http://www.lawofficer.com/news-and-articles/articles/online/2010/alternatives-incaceration retrieved 6/15/2010
Schram, P., Koons, Witt, B., Williams III, F., & McShane, M. (2006). Supervision Strategies and Approaches for Female Parolees: Examining the Link Between Unmet Needs and Parolee Outcome. Crime & Delinquency, 52(3), 450-471. Doi: 10.1177/0011128705281845.
Schultz. K. Walgrave, J. McNeil, J. Dilorio, J. (2000 Service Learning
Stanley, D. T. (1976) Prisoners among us: the problem of parole, Washington DC: The Brookings Institution
St. Gerard, V (2009) Timothy Adams: Service to youths brings extraordinary results
https://www.aca.org/fileupload/177/ahaidar/BIB_Adams1.pdf retrieved 06/08/2010
Swaton, J. N. & Morgan, L. (1984) Administration of justice: An introduction, Belmont CA Wadsworth
Travis, J. Crayton, A. & Mukamal, D. A. (2009) A new era in inmate reentry
https://www.aca.org/fileupload/177/ahaidar/Travis_Crayton_Mukamal.pdf
Winterfield, L. and S. Brumbaugh. 2005. Characteristics of prisoner
reentry: programs for juveniles., Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
Winterfield, L. and Brumbaugh, S. (2005) Characteristics of prisoner
reentry programs for juveniles, Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
Zhang, S., Roberts, R. , & Callanan, V. (2006). Preventing parolees from returning to prison through community-based reintegration. Crime & Delinquency 52(4), 551-571. Doi:10.1177/0011128705282594.
Zhang, S., Roberts, R., & Callanan, V. (2006). The cost benefits of providing community-based correctional services: An evaluation of a statewide parole program in California. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(4), 341-350. Doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.05.001.
Balancing Field Supervision and Paper Work for Parole Agents Effectiveness
The purpose of this research is find out whether effective field supervision of parolees is hindered by paper work,or whether paperwork decreases the efficiency of parole agents.
The preponderance of studies and wrings on this topic is weighed heavily on the side of field supervision and what programs that work and less on what effect paper work has on the effectiveness of parole agents.
Models of Reentry Services
Several models of reentry services have been tried to stem the tide of recidivism and help parolees reintegrate to their community. Bouffard, Bergseth and Ford (2003) reporting on the Minnesota Clay County reentry services program have outlined four models of these reentry services and the role of parole agents in their implementation. These include Serious and Violent Offender Initiative (SVORI), Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP), Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) and Aftercare for Indians(AIM) For each of these programs, a three phase design is implemented: Planning and services begin at the facility, followed by assistance during release and assessment of individual needs of offenders, integration of treatment programs with supervision by parole agents.
Clay County Study reported by Bouffard, Bergseth and Ford (2003) concluded that reentry programs work when combined with services and supervision by parole agents and transitional coordinators. Minnesota provided transitional coordinators who bridged the gap in services to parolees between parole agents and parolees. The article sited the study of 63 youths who have served in the program and were compared with 49 parolees who did not serve in the reentry service program (RSP) Transitional coordinators are like parole services associates introduced by Southern California Regional department of juvenile justice.
Like Finn and Kuck (2005) observed, one thing is common to these programs with regard to parole agents and probation officers : ‘high caseload, excess paperwork and deadline’ are factors that combine to ‘make it difficult for many officers to find the time to properly supervise their caseloads.’ Bouffard et al (2006) noted the ‘high caseload numbers, distance from clay county and other job duties and responsibilities.’ One of the parole agents I interviewed concurs with this finding of researchers.
It has long been assumed that supervision of parolees would deter them for sliding back to a life of crime. However, Stanley (1976) p 101 contends that a parolee determined to make it does not need surveillance while one who is not will con his parole agent
Role of parole agents
parole agents do much of the work of supervision among others.O*NET Online outlines some tasks of these agents. It ranges from preparing and maintaining a folder for each parolee, writing reports on offenders progress, informing inmates of conditions of release, discussing with offenders issues like drugs and alcohol and how it had affected their behavior, providing offenders with assistance in matters of sentencing, jurisdictions, writs and applications for social assistance to arranging for post release services.
Bloede (2009) affirms that ‘increased supervision, mentoring, counseling and education all under one roof’ will help prepare parolees for life outside detention. St. Gerard (2009) illustrates the importance of having a dedicated intensive supervision officer (ISO) make a decided impact on parolees.
In O’Deane (2010), the author affirms that coordination among various law enforcement agencies help to curb crime, especially when parolees and other law enforcement agents are made to know the conditions of parole for those involved. maintaining good working relations and rapport with parolees is the answer to keeping them out of trouble.Schultz, Walgrave, McNeil and Dilorio (2009) reports another dimension or rather an extension of parole agents. In this report and case study medical students do their service work mentoring inmates at a detention center, helping such inmates acquire their GED while in detention as a preparation for release.
Field supervision and paperwork
Travis, Crayton, and Mukamal (2009) points out the increase those under supervision from 60% in the 1970s to 80% currently besides the nature of supervision has shifted from service inclined to surveillance oriented with a result a 700% increase between 1980 and 2000. These people removed from their homes following the iron law of imprisonment that those who go to prison eventually come back , the report stated, facing the hurdles of reintegration back to society
Conclusion
In spite of the overwhelming number of caseloads afor parole agents and the avalanche of prisoners being released into the system, the Minnesota example and case study as well as the California example continuum of care and support of parole agents by parole services associates it is possible to stem the tide of recidivism and help parole agents be more effective in their work as ‘agents of change’ in the lives of parolees.
Literature resources
Aftercare for Indiana through Mentoring (2004) Indiana’s juvenile
reentry program: Aftercare for Indiana through mentoring, annual
report, Retrieved 06/09/2010, from http://aim.spea.iupui.edu/
reentry/latest-research.htm
Allen, H.E. Latessa, E. J. Ponder, B. S. & Simonsen, C. E. ( 2007) Corrections in America: An introduction (11th e.d.) N .J. Prentice Hall
Altschuler, D. & Armstrong, T. (1994) Intensive aftercare for high-
risk juveniles: A community care model. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Blanchette, K. and Taylor, K. N. (2009) Reintegration of female offenders: perspectives on ‘what works’ Corrections Today
https://www.aca.org/fileupload/177/ahaidar/Blanchette_Taylor.pdf
Bloede, C (2009) Merging juvenile justice and sustainability in California,
https://www.aca.org/fileupload/177/ahaidar/Bloede1.pdf retrieved 06/08/2010
Bouffard,J. Bergseth, K. & Ford, S (2006) A Minnesota County mentors juveniles and provides reentry services https://www.aca.org/fileupload/177/ahaidar/Bouffard.pdf
Bouffard, J. and Bergseth. K. (2008) The impact of reentry services
on juvenile offenders’ recidivism. Youth Violence and Juvenile
Justice, 6(3): 295-318.
Gottfredson, M., Mitchell-Herzfeld, S., & Flanagan, T. (1982)., Another look at the effectiveness of parole supervision Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 19(2), 277-298. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Hanrahan, K., Gibbs, J., & Zimmerman, S. (2005). Parole and revocation: perspectives of young adult offenders Prison Journal, 85(3), 251-269. Doi: 10.1177/0032885505279467.
Jalbert, S., Rhodes, W., Flygare, C., & Kane, M. (2010). Testing Probation Outcomes in an Evidence-Based Practice Setting: Reduced Caseload Size and Intensive Supervision Effectiveness. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49(4), 233-253. doi:10.1080/1050967100371598
Kleiman, M., & Hawken, A. (2008). Fixing the Parole System. Issues in Science & Technology, 24(4), 45-52. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Paparozzi, M. & Gendreau, P. (2005). An intensive supervision program that worked : Service delivery, professional orientation, and organizational supportiveness Prison Journal, 85(4), 445-466. Doi:10.1177/0032885505281529.
Nakaya, A. C. (ed. )(2005) Juvenile crime: opposing viewpoints, Farming Hills MI Thomson Press
Novotney, L.C., E. Mertinko, J. Lange and Baker, T. K. (2000): Juvenile-
mentoring program: A progress review. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Nussbaum, A. (1974) A second chance: amnesty for the first offender, New York, Hawthorne Books
O’Deane, M (2010) Alternatives to incarceration: coordinating efforts between police, probation officers and parole agents, http://www.lawofficer.com/news-and-articles/articles/online/2010/alternatives-incaceration retrieved 6/15/2010
Schram, P., Koons, Witt, B., Williams III, F., & McShane, M. (2006). Supervision Strategies and Approaches for Female Parolees: Examining the Link Between Unmet Needs and Parolee Outcome. Crime & Delinquency, 52(3), 450-471. Doi: 10.1177/0011128705281845.
Schultz. K. Walgrave, J. McNeil, J. Dilorio, J. (2000 Service Learning
Stanley, D. T. (1976) Prisoners among us: the problem of parole, Washington DC: The Brookings Institution
St. Gerard, V (2009) Timothy Adams: Service to youths brings extraordinary results
https://www.aca.org/fileupload/177/ahaidar/BIB_Adams1.pdf retrieved 06/08/2010
Swaton, J. N. & Morgan, L. (1984) Administration of justice: An introduction, Belmont CA Wadsworth
Travis, J. Crayton, A. & Mukamal, D. A. (2009) A new era in inmate reentry
https://www.aca.org/fileupload/177/ahaidar/Travis_Crayton_Mukamal.pdf
Winterfield, L. and S. Brumbaugh. 2005. Characteristics of prisoner
reentry: programs for juveniles., Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
Winterfield, L. and Brumbaugh, S. (2005) Characteristics of prisoner
reentry programs for juveniles, Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
Zhang, S., Roberts, R. , & Callanan, V. (2006). Preventing parolees from returning to prison through community-based reintegration. Crime & Delinquency 52(4), 551-571. Doi:10.1177/0011128705282594.
Zhang, S., Roberts, R., & Callanan, V. (2006). The cost benefits of providing community-based correctional services: An evaluation of a statewide parole program in California. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(4), 341-350. Doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.05.001.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
