Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

SAGE Journal User Guide

Kifer, M., Hemmens, C., &Stohr, M. (2003). The Goals of Corrections: Perspectives from the Line. Criminal Justice Review, 28(1): 47-69.

Abstract

Four different goals of corrections are commonly espoused: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Each of these goals has received varied levels of public and professional support over time. In an effort to assess the level of professional support for these goals, a survey was administered to staff in three prisons, two jails, and a jail academy in a rural mountain state. The results indicate that jail and prison staff are more likely than not to perceive the primary goal of corrections as incapacitation. Respondents generally ranked incapacitation first, followed by deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution. Age, years of service, military background, and facility type (prison or jail) were significant predictors of staff orientation toward rehabilitation. For jail staff, only gender was related to a rehabilitation orientation. For prison staff, only age and years of service were related to a rehabilitation orientation. The authors conclude that role perceptions are colored by a variety of factors, including age, gender, years of service, facility type, and prior military service.

Makarios, M. &Latessa, E.J. (2013). Developing a risk needs assessment instrument for prison inmates: The issue of outcome. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40 (12), 1449-1471.

Abstract

The assessment of inmate risk and need in prison poses a unique challenge to correctional policy makers because it is used for two purposes: classification and case management. Classification and case management require assessment instruments that are designed to predict two separate outcomes: institutional misconduct and community recidivism. The current research examines differences between a prison classification instrument developed to predict misconduct and a case management instrument developed to predict community recidivism using a sample of 414 inmates in Ohio. The results indicated substantial differences between assessment instruments and that separate risk and needs assessments should be conducted. A hybrid assessment system is suggested that seeks to maximize accuracy and efficiency by including select factors from each instrument.