Showing papers by "Christopher T. Lowenkamp published in 2011"

A random (almost) study of staff training aimed at reducing re-arrest (STARR): Reducing recidivism through intentional design.

Abstract: COMMUNITY SUPERVISION IS one of the most widely imposed court responses, with approximately 5,095,200 or 70 percent of the correctional population being under community supervision (Glaze, 2010). Despite its popularity, researchers have limited insight into whether community supervision is an effective strategy for reducing recidivism. The most recent reviews of the effectiveness of community supervision (Solomon, Kachnowski, & Bhati, 2005; Aos, Miller, & Drake, 2006; Bonta, Rugge, Scott, Bourgon, & Yessine, 2008; Green & Wink, 2010) brought sobering results. More than three decades after Martinson (1974) summarized the findings of his review of rehabilitation efforts by saying \"with few and isolated exceptions, the rehabilitative efforts that have been reported so far have had no appreciable effect on recidivism,\" Bonta and his colleagues (2008) have found that more recent research yields no better results: the impact of community supervision is limited at best and non-existent in the most pessimistic interpretation.

Training to see risk: Measuring the accuracy of clinical and actuarial risk assessments among federal probation officers

Abstract: THE PREDICTION OF RISK is ubiquitous in modern society (Beck, 1992). Physicians consider risk when treating patients, financiers consider risk when making investments, and psychologists consider risk when working with clients. Within the criminal justice system, predictions of risk guide discretion at all points (Gottfredson & Tonry, 1987). When police officers choose between formal citations and verbal warnings, they evaluate risk; when judges impose sentences upon defendants, they evaluate risk; and when community corrections officers monitor the conditions of pretrial defendants, parolees, and probationers, they, too, evaluate risk.

Implementing risk assessment in the federal pretrial services system.

Abstract: IN 2009 THE ADMINISTRATIVE Office of the U.S. Courts and the Office of Federal Detention Trustee (a Justice Department agency charged with administering and controlling the costs of pretrial detention in the federal system) published Pretrial Risk Assessment in the Federal Court, which recommended that the federal pretrial services system develop and implement an actuarial risk assessment tool. Ever since then, the system has been moving towards that goal. Lowenkamp and Whetzel (2009) have already detailed the process followed and described the tool that was ultimately developed, the Pretrial Risk Assessment (PTRA). As of August 2011 the tool had been fully implemented in almost all districts; therefore, it seems an appropriate time to assess the tool in light of the available pretrial risk assessment literature, determine how implementation has proceeded in the federal system to this point, and assess the ultimate impact, if any, of the tool on the federal pretrial services system. Perhaps the most important question is whether the tool has begun to affect officer recommendations for release/detention and/or release rates in districts where it has been operational for a year or more.