NCJ Number
224142
Journal
American Jails Volume: 21 Issue: 2 Dated: May/June 2007 Pages: 16-20,22,28
Date Published
May 2007
Length
12 pages
Annotation
This article presents a behavioral management model of community supervision, discusses its relevance to the jail population, and presents preliminary findings of a Maryland study on the potential impact of the model on recidivism reduction.
Abstract
A behavioral management model has the goal of changing those factors in the offender’s life that underlie his/her criminal behavior. The model first uses standardized risk and needs assessment tools to identify high-risk offenders and the needs that underlie the individual’s criminal behavior. The latter may involve antisocial values, association with criminal peers and networks, substance abuse, a dysfunctional family, and low self-control. Following this assessment, the offender should be matched to the services that address the needs linked to specific criminal behaviors. Services that have proven most effective in this regard use cognitive-behavioral techniques, cognitive processing, and contingency management. A case plan or behavioral contract should guide the offender. It should include clearly defined and achievable incremental tasks that provide the offender with new skills in defining and addressing problems. A system of rewards and sanctions should be used to reinforce behavioral change. Personnel in the jail/community supervision office should focus on the development of a trusting relationship with the offender, such that he/she believes that the supervision provided is less interested in detecting and punishing bad behavior than in guiding the offender into new behaviors, skills, and attitudes that will produce positive outcomes. The behavioral management model was implemented in Maryland in the Proactive Community Supervision (PCS) project. The evaluation found that the PCS group was statistically less likely than a control group to be arrested (32.1 percent compared to 40.9 percent) for a new offense. The PCS group was also less likely to have a warrant filed for violation of parole/probation (20.1 percent compared to 29.2 percent). 6 tables 19 references, and 7 notes