Active LNG 4 & 5 CRJ 520II - Essay Example

ACTIVE LEARNING 5 CRJ 520 DANIEL ACHEOMPONG Discuss your thoughts on the articles and their implications to the field of corrections The focus of both articles was on Motivational Interviewing (MI). Motivational Interviewing is an important intervention that aims to encourage people to commit to goals for change, and is commonly used by corrections personnel (McMurran, 2009). According to Miller and Rollnick (2002), "Motivational Interviewing is an empirically supported intervention approach thought to build motivation by facilitating client recognition and resolution of ambivalence about changing behavior.

" Motivational Interviewing was originally used as a technique for motivating substance abusers to change but currently used more generally in offender treatment as a basic approach to bring about change (McMurran, 2009). Motivational Interviewing is an evidence-based practice which has been lauded as a necessary clinical tool used by probation officers as a way of helping reduce recidivism. Should Motivational Interviewing be taught to all Probation Officers?Yes, Motivational Interviewing should be taught to all Probation Officers including those with years of experience on the field of corrections.

This should be done through training workshops. The training should focus on strengthening core skills, role play, and coaching. The trainers should have prior experience with probation services and on the field of corrections. If Yes, what are some of the implications?According to Clark, Walters, Gingerich and Metzler (2006), Motivational Interviewing brings officers back into the "business of behavior change." Probation officers become enforcers of court orders, but not active participants in the offenders behavioral change.

Motivational Interviewing helps probation officers to build a positive and collaborative relationship with offenders. This creates an atmosphere of trust where offenders can express themselves and talk about change (Clark et.al, 2006)Motivational Interviewing trains probation officers in basic listening and speaking strategies such as ask open questions, affirm positive talk and behavior, reflect what you are hearing and seeing and summarize what has been said. This technique enables probation officer to gather information about offenders such as their personal strength and assist them in planning (Clark et.al, 2006). Motivational Interviewing encourages officers to be honest with offenders about supervision and sanctions should they go wrong.

ReferencesClark, M.D., Walters, S., Gingerich, R. & Metzler, M.(2006). Importance, Confidence and Readiness to Change: Motivational Interviewing for probation and parole. Journal of American Probation and Parole Association. 30(1), 37-45McMurran, M.(2009). Motivational Interviewing with Offenders: A systematic review. Legal and Criminological Psychology. 14(1),83-100Miller, W.R.,&Rollnick, S.(2002). Motivational Interviewing: Preparing for Change (2nd ed). New York, NY. Guilford PressResponse:The ability to conduct Motivational Interviewing is one of the essential skills of a Probationary Officer because it facilitates the "business of behavior change.

" While Probationary Officers may not be the active personnel to complete behavioral change, he or she can still facilitate the behavioral change that could help rehabilitate an offender. Facilitating behavioral change through motivational interview is better than policing an offender because behavioral change has a greater chance of rehabilitating an individual.DARRYL SMITH The idea of Motivational Interviewing (MI) does seem to be a monumental shift in the supervision of probationers.

Clark, Walters, Gingerich, and Metzler (2006) make this clear from the get-go in their article. They describe how much probation officers POs simply oversee their clients and the burden is on the probationer to find motivation to change. However, once motivation is broken down and understood fully, it becomes more evident that POs can impact the success of their probationers. This is because motivation is behavior-specific, interactive, and can predict action (Clark, et al., 2006).A PO can play an active part in the success of an offender by assisting them with motivation.

However, internal motivation is more long-lasting (Clark, et al., 2006). Many POs may wish to help their clients, or think they are, but simply do not know the proper way to go about it. The key is to find what motivates each probationer. A PO can assist a client in gaining confidence to see results and, ultimately, autonomy to lead a productive life. MI comes down to three components: collaboration (exploring ideas, not imposing them); evocation (“pulling” ideas out of the client, not “putting them in”); and autonomy (allowing the probationer to control their destiny) (Clark, et al., 2006).Those that arrive at probation are generally involuntary clients (Bogue & Nandi, 2012).

MI reduces client defensiveness so it can certainly help PO’s during intake processing, client meetings, and when conducting pre-sentence investigations. It builds an alliance between POs and offenders, which not only benefits clients but those supervising them as well. If offenders are more successful in completing their programs, POs themselves will likely gain motivation to continue their work (since they see a positive end-product), and it could reduce their workload (by seeing more offenders do well, rather than violate case requirements) (Bogue & Nandi, 2012).

According to Clark, et al. (2006), to increase the likelihood of offender’s progress, under MI, a PO must demonstrate empathy, re-focus client resistance to change, aid the client is seeing the discrepancy between their values and behavior, and aid the offender in building self-confidence to seek out positive behavior. MI suggests, “Confrontation is the goal, but not the style” (Clark, et al., 2006, p. 39). PO’s can make a huge difference by using open-ended questions, encouraging offenders to develop “balance sheets”, and moving offenders towards talk of “self-change”.

I would say POs can move towards Motivational Interviewing provided some factors are addressed (Clark, et al., 2006). This is a new concept to many PO’s so they will need training (usually 2-3 days). As with offenders, information cannot be crammed down a PO’s throat. This new approach and its benefits have to be “sold” to the POs. The probation officers must feel they are playing a part in this change and their concerns are being addressed. Assuming a “middle-of-the- road” role as a PO will not be easy those that see their position as either an enforcer or a social worker.

I do not think MI will work for all POs by any means. Many experienced POs are set in their ways, believe their style is appropriate, and are incapable or unwilling to change. Some have poor interpersonal or listening skills (Clark, et al., 2006). While supervisors can try to encourage veteran POs to adopt MI techniques and reap the benefits, it cannot be forced upon them. I would suggest MI be incorporated to any initial training or academy classes that newly hired POs receive. This will lay the foundation for POs going forward.

Supervisors also need to realize MI is not a “silver bullet” that will work with all clients. I am sure an effective PO uses a variety of techniques to coach their clients and help them progress. Clark et al. (2006) suggest those POs resistant to MI attend a 2-3 hour training to try to introduce them to the concept and share its benefits. Another large obstacle to implementing MI is organizational culture (Bogue & Nandi, 2012). Just as some individuals are “set in their ways,” so too are some agencies or offices.

Those that seek change or new ideas can be met with, “That’s not how we do things here.” Administrators must set the example and convince employees of the benefits of MI. Subordinates must be trained and coached; the use of MI will not occur overnight and there will be some challenges. Supervisors play a vital role in providing support to employees when changes are implemented and can have an immense impact on a cultural shift (Bogue & Nandi, 2012).Finally, agencies must have tools available to evaluate the implementation of MI to determine if it is working or not and what changes may be necessary.

Probation officers regularly complain of high caseloads and a dwindling number of success stories with their clients. If the organization is serious about creating positive change, practices such as MI need to be implemented. As Alexander, VanBenschoten, and Walters (2008) point out, MI has been shown to be particularly effective in community settings in preparing clients to engage in substance abuse programming. MI can build rapport between POs and those they supervise. A positive relationship can predict the probation outcome of clients (violations, revocation, and new arrests).

DarrylReferences:Alexander, M., VanBenschoten, S. W., & Walters, S. T. (2008). Motivational interviewing training in criminal justice: Development of A model plan. Federal Probation, 72(2), 61-66,91. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.saintleo.edu/docview/213980046?accountid=4870Bogue, B. and Nandi, A. (2012). Motivational interviewing in corrections: A comprehensive guide to implementing MI in corrections. National institute of corrections. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Clark, M.D.

, Walters, S., Ginerich, R., and Metzler, M. (2006). Importance, confidence and readiness to change: Motivational interviewing for probation and parole. American Probation and Parole, 30, 1. pp. 36-45.Response: Motivational interview is a better option in handling probationers than merely enforcing court order of overseeing them. It is already evident that through motivational interview, probationary officers can still have an impact the behavioral change of probationers. This is better than merely being a passive overseer which may not change the individual at all.

Behavioral change may come from an internal motivation but a little help from a probationary officer may help initiate the needed change.ANGEL HUDSON Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a way of communicating with people to get help to resolve their ambivalence about changing specific, maladaptive behaviors. It was created by two preeminent scientists by the name of William Miller and Stephen Rollnick (U.S. Department of Justice, 2007). It was developed in 1980’s as an alternative to counseling between clients and agents.

It was first used for people with alcohol-related problems then used for other drug problems and mental illnesses (U.S. Department of Justice, 2007). MI will fit into the criminal justice system from case planning to terminating cases. MI skills are used at almost every point to help process correctional case management. MI is an Evidence Based Practice to help reduce recidivism (U.S. Department of Justice, 2007). The first article gives you a history of MI and how MI was first used to help drug and other health problems.

Then it also talks about how using this method will help to change the behavior of the offender and the offender. The article also gives you a little bit of knowledge about MI (U.S. Department of Justice, 2007). The second article talks about how probation officers should be trained with MI. MI is a good tool for probation officer to learn. It helps the probation officer as well as the client to better understand to person and help the client to talk about their problems and how they need to change.

MI does not work for all clients because there are not two clients alike. The goals of the articles are to teach you about behavior change to help reduce recidivism. I thought that the article was well written and it teaches the officer how to gather better information from the client. If you come off disrespectful to the client then that the way they will treat you. So, MI is a good tool to learn (Clark, M. D., Walters, S., Gingerich, R. & Metzler, M., 2006).My thought about MI being taught to all probation officers is that it should not be, it should be given to officer who wants to learn how to use MI.

The Florida Department of Correctional made all of its probation officers conduct training on MI. I heard people say that they have been a probation officer for years and how is the department going to come in a try to change them. As a probation officer I personal like using motivational interviewing, you know what types of questions to ask and how to deal with people better. I am not saying that you can use motivational interviewing on everyone but it teaches the officer better skills and how to remain calm in a situation.

You don’t have to scream at a person to get their attention and with motivational interview the client respects you because you are respecting them. If you as the officer get out of control then your client will and that will just create more problems. Motivational speaking also helps the offender talk more so that the probation officer is not doing all the talking and with the offender talking you can get them to talk about the changes that they need to make. Most officers in my officer just do want they want to do.

All the officers’ style is different. I don’t really know any other alternative to use. I don’t really see an issue with teaching probation officers MI the only thing is MI doesn’t work for all clients.With motivational interview you can ask open-ended questions, positive talk and this would help you to find out more about your client and their needs. I ask a lot of questions to get to know that offender better and to access their needs. Even though we all had the training on MI, everybody does not use it.

When we first get the training if someone was scream or talking loud in the office a officer would say motivational interviewing didn’t we just have that training. Some people do not like change but it’s a good tool it will help the officer to better understand what questions to ask and how to go over their probation orders and to make sure that they understand them. In my opinion even if the officer has been a probation officer for a while they still can benefit for MI training to a least see if it help them out.

Some of the implications should be a positive outcome for the probation officer and the client. References:Clark, M. D., Walters, S., Gingerich, R. & Metzler, M.( 2006). Importance, confidence and readiness to change: Motivational interviewing for probation and parole. Perspectives. Journal of American Probation and Parole AssociationU.S. Department of Justice. (2007). Motivating Offenders to Change. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/022253.pdf Response Motivational interview capability must now become a standard skill for all Probationary Officers.

Motivational interview will serve as a “cushion” before a probationer will advance to counseling which is many cases, may no longer be needed because the desired behavioral change was already achieved in the motivational interview stage. Counseling should no longer be the sole option to rehabilitate and facilitate behavioral change. Every chance that would help the probationer to change his or her behavior must be resorted to such as motivational interview.ACTIVE LEARNING 4 CRJ 520DARYL SMITH While I believe correctional education is very important and beneficial, I would not support the rollback and issuing of Pell Grants to inmates.

I think this federal funding should be given to those in the community not currently serving a jail or prison sentence. This will be an incentive for persons, including former offenders, to comply with local laws. We should not reward illicit behavior. There is much that can be done to aid the education of inmates, but I do not believe Pell Grants is one area they should be eligible. A provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 prohibits inmates from receiving Pell Grants (Messemer, 2003).

While some inmates were able to take advantage prior to the Act passing, even if it were allowed today, a majority of offenders would be ineligible, as they must have a diploma or GED to receive grants. According to our module’s AVP, 41% of offenders have not completed high school, as opposed to 18% of the general public. Once a person has completed their sentence, their eligibility for Pell Grants in most cases is restored (certain drug offenses disqualify them) (Students, n.d.). Even those on probation or parole are eligible.

Examinations have indicated there are benefits to educating offenders (Steurer, Smith, & Tracy, 2001). One study from the late 1990s involving three states reported that inmates that participated in educational programs had a lower rate of recidivism after three years of release than non-participants. Those that took educational courses also found work with higher average salaries. Finally, the report concluded every dollar spent for educational classes resulted in a $2 reduction in prison costs.

Studies by Lawrence, Mears, Dubin, and Travis (2002) highlight some additional benefits of correctional education programs. Participating in such courses gives offenders self-worth. It aids the physical and mental well being of inmates. It often assists with job training, socialization, and the confidence to continue learning upon release. As a Correctional Deputy, I support most inmate programs because it provides them with meaningful, pro-social activity. Those in the field know the importance of reducing inmate idleness.

With free time, offenders tend to cause more problems and have little to look forward to or incentive to behave.In the commentary by John Chancellor (1990), he suggests America could learn from Japan’s penal system. Any offender sentenced to a term over one year must learn to read and write in order to be released. Since a majority of American inmates return back to society, gaining literacy could assist inmates in obtaining jobs, which could then lower government dependency. As Mackenzie (2006) points out, research has indicated those offenders with less education have few marketable skills and are more likely to remain unemployed.

Response Offender education should become mandatory to all inmates. Incarcerating them without any reformatory initiative such as educating and imbuing them with practical skills will defeat the penal system because the cycle of criminality can no longer be broken with the numbers of offenders continue to rise until we can no longer contain them. Educating offenders benefits not only the offender but society as well because such offender may no longer resort to criminality when he or she is taught skills for livelihood which could be used upon reintegration in society.

ADRIENNE MORDICAActive Learning 4 Adrienne Mordica1. Discuss your thoughts and their implications to the field of corrections. My thoughts are simply put. I do believe people can change and they have a right to better themselves through educational programs.2. Should we allow prisoners to get Pell Grants? In my personal opinion. I believe inmates should be allowed to receive Pell grants to further their education even they are incarcerated. Education is a key fundamental in broadening your horizon.

If individuals were afford the opportunity to a have decent education then most individuals that are in prison would not be there. This not only can help prevent some persons from being arrested. It can also be an intervention for individuals to remain focused get out of prison and have the necessary tools and education needed to be a beneficial product of society. 3. Is it fair to give an inmate a Pell Grant to get a degree when some law-abiding student may not qualify? If an inmate leaves prison with a degree, is society better served?

Yes, I believe they should be able to receive Pell grants. They should also be able to receive all of the funds that would normally be given to them as a condition of their release. Because this would allow for the individuals to leave with an education and a sense of financial stability. However, this amount could only be award with degree or trade was reach within normal guidelines and not too exceed a certain amount. This is money could only be applied to living expenses. They would be better served in society.

This is not setting them up to fail. 4. Are there other factors involved besides recidivism? This act of being rearrested and sentences again for committing crimes is a wasteful act. Other factors would be creating a program that offer Pell grants to inmates to be able to better themselves. Education is the main factor that needs to be explored. Response: I believe that prisoners should not be totally excluded to get Pell Grants. In saying this, I also do not mean that every prisoner must be entitled to get the grant.

The grant should be given on a case to case especially if one is an offender. The grant may be given to a deserving offender who after review found to be deserving for an education that could help him or her get a second chance in society. SHARHONDA SCOTT1. Discuss your thoughts and their implications to the field of corrections.The field of corrections has its pros and cons, as with everything else. My thoughts are that the cons outweigh the pros, because I have seen too many trials where offenders should have been put away for a long time and wasnt.

For example, Casey Anthony was never charged with her daughters murder, yet she was allowed to get off free. Nobody has ever been charged because they made the focus on something else that was irrelevant to the fact that a little girl was dead. Another example was the George Zimmerman case, where he approached a child, after being told not to, and murdered him. George Zimmerman also got off free, and he not only committed murder, but he also lied about money he was recieving from his supporters.

That was another case that was made into a circus and the real issue was never resolved. Then there are juveniles that are offenders that are in prison serving time for crimes that dont fit the sentence they were given. As in the case of Timothy Jackson, who was given a life sentence for shoplifting. Jackson, 53, is one of 3,281 prisoners in America serving life sentences with no chance of parole for non-violent crimes.(Pilkington, 2013). 2. Should we allow prisoners to get Pell Grants?Yes I think prisoners should be given a chance to recieve Pell Grants.

If they are serving lengthy prison sentences, they should take that opportunity to get an education. The whole point of going to prison is to be rehabilitated, and obtaining a GED, a college degree, or learning a trade is doing just that. 3. Is it fair to give an inmate a Pell Grant to get a degree when some law-abiding student may not qualify? If an inmate leaves prison with a degree, is society better served? Yes I think that it is fair to give an inmate a chance at getting an education, even though a law abiding student may not qualify.

Pell grants are given to low income students, that are seeking an associates or bachelors degree. There are income guidelines that are followed and there cant be any record of the student having any kind of drug charges on their criminal record. If a student falls within the guidelines than they may be awarded up to the maximum of $5,550. http://usapellgrants.com/pell-grant-eligibility/ Other than that, if the student has a criminal record that consists of a drug charge, or is in the US illegally, they may be denied.

That is not a prisoners fault, since the opportunity is open to everyone. Im sure if there is a prisoner with drug charges on their criminal record, they would not qualify either. 4. Are there other factors involved besides recidivism?Recidivism can be hard because there are other factors involved such as poverty, lack of education, and drug use. If an offender is accustomed to getting into trouble and going to prison, there is a reason behind it. It could be that the offender is unemployed and cant get hired becuase of his criminal history, so he or she chooses to commit crimes in order to survive.

Drugs have impacted the crime rate for many years, and it still does today. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/13/us-prisoners-sentences-life-non-violent-crimeshttp://usapellgrants.com/pell-grant-eligibility/ Response:Our justice system requires a penal system. It is a better alternative to antiquated method of dispensing justice such as execution, banishment, flogging, etch. It is a method of a civilized society to dispense justice as well as to reform those who are offenders. Not all may be rehabilitated because there will be some are really recidivist, but there is a good number that with proper rehabilitation and reintegration program, offenders can change and break the cycle of criminality.