Role Models or Gateways to Resources?: Contemporary Confusions in Mentoring Practice

Mentoring has become increasingly popular in recent years in the criminal justice system, presented across the UK and internationally as a service that can address the specific ‘needs’ of women involved with the criminal justice system. This article draws on original qualitative research with mentors and mentees to explore their experiences and to establish the aims and processes of mentoring. The rhetoric of mentoring offered by mentors and staff suggested that mentoring was based on an individualistic approach that contained responsibilising strategies. In practice, however, mentors were helping women to resolve issues related to the welfare system and other services outwith the criminal justice system. If positive outcomes of mentoring are viewed by policy makers to be the result of an individualistic approach aimed at fostering ‘pro-social’ interventions, rather than the result of attempts to mitigate wider structural failures outwith the criminal justice system, then this takes responsibility away from the state and distracts from the deeper effects of criminalising processes

Effects of correctional boot camps on offending

Background: Correctional boot camps were first opened in United States adult correctional systems in 1983. Since that time they have rapidly grown, first within adult systems and later in juvenile corrections, primarily within the United States. In the typical boot camp, participants are required to follow a rigorous daily schedule of activities including drill and ceremony and physical training, similar to that of a military boot-camp. Punishment for misbehavior is immediate and swift and usually involves some type of physical activity like push-ups. Boot-camps differ substantially in the amount of focus given to the physical training and hard labor aspects of the program versus therapeutic programming such as academic education, drug treatment or cognitive skills. Objectives: To synthesize the extant empirical evidence on the effects of boot-camps and boot camp like programs on the criminal behavior (e.g., postrelease arrest, conviction, or reinstitutionalization) of convicted adult and juvenile offenders. Search Strategy: Numerous electronic databases were searched for both published an unpublished studies. The keywords used were: boot camp(s), intensive incarceration, and shock incarceration. We also contacted U.S and non-U.S. researchers working in this area requesting assistance in locating additional studies. The final search of these sources was completed in early December of 2003. Selection Criteria: The eligibility criteria were (a) that the study evaluated a correctional boot camp, shock incarceration, or intensive incarceration program; (b) that the study included a comparison group that received either probation or incarceration in an alternative facility; (c) that the study participants were exclusively under the supervision of the criminal or juvenile justice system; and (d) that the study reported a post-program measure of criminal behavior, such as arrest or conviction. Data Collection and Analysis: The coding protocol captured aspects of the research design, including methodological quality, the boot-camp program, the comparison group condition, the participant offenders, the outcome measures and the direction and magnitude of the observed effects. All studies were coded by two independent coders and all coding differences were resolved by Drs. MacKenzie or Wilson. Outcome effects were coded using the odds-ratio and meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model. Main Results: Thirty-two unique research studies met our inclusion criteria. These studies reported the results from 43 independent boot-camp/comparison samples. The random effects mean odds-ratio for any form of recidivism was 1.02, indicating that the likelihood that boot camp participants recidivating was roughly equal to the likelihood of comparison participants recidivating. This overall finding was robust to the selection of the outcome measure and length of follow-up. Methodological features were only weakly related to outcome among these studies and did not explain the null findings. The overall effect for juvenile boot camps was slightly lower than for adult boot camps. Moderator analysis showed that studies evaluating boot-camp programs with a strong treatment focus had a larger mean odds-ratio than studies evaluating boot camps with a weak treatment focus. Conclusions: Although the overall effect appears to be that of “no difference,” some studies found that boot camp participants did better than the comparison, while others found that comparison samples did better. However, all of these studies had the common element of a militaristic boot camp program for offenders. The current evidence suggests that this common and defining feature of a boot-camp is not effective in reducing post boot-camp offending

Correspondence - Department of Correctional Services, State of New York

https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/posttrial_proceedings/1030/thumbnail.jp

Substance use patterns in newly admitted male and female South Australian prisoners using WHO-ASSIST (alcohol, smoking, and substance involvement screening test)

Objective: To report on the patterns of substance use in newly admitted male and female South Australian prisoners using the WHO-ASSIST screening tool (Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test) and observe the feasibility of using the ASSIST and associated Brief Intervention in this population. Data sources: Results of the first 518 prisoners screened using ASSIST in South Australian reception prisons. Results: In the first 10 months of the implementation of the WHO ASSIST, 518 clients were assessed in the 3 metropolitan intake prisons in Adelaide, Australia. This represents 31% of all male and 35% of all female prisoners admitted over this period. Injecting drug use was reported in the previous 3 months by 55% of men and 51% of women. The six most common substances used at high and moderate risk levels, in order of prevalence (from high to low) in males were tobacco, cannabis, amphetamines, opiates, alcohol, and sedatives. In women the order was tobacco, amphetamines, cannabis, opiates and sedatives equal, and alcohol. Fifty percent of men and 33% of women were using four or more substances. Overall rates of substance use related risk amongst men coming into prison are slightly greater than for women. Accessing prisoners for screening within the first few days is difficult with 55% already being released or at court or other external appointments.Chris Holmwood, Michelle Marriott and Rachel Humeniu