S p e c i a l N e e d s O f f e n d e r s

a publication of the Federal Judicial Center BULLETIN

INSIDE Defendant/Offender–Community Symbiosis . . 3

Investigation and Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Referral and Coordination of Services . . . . . 7

Relevant BOP Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Developing In-house Job Assistance

and Life Skills Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Overcoming Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Things to do to Mitigate Conflict . . . . . 11

No. 4

January

2000

 through

EMPLOYMENT

and EDUCATION

REDUCING

RISK

by MARK

SHERMAN

IN RECENT YEARS the federal

criminal justice system has seen an

increase in the number of defendants and offenders with limited job

skills and education. Present in both

urban and rural districts, these defendants and offenders have grown

up in economically depressed environments where employment opportunities are few and scholastic

achievement is typically low. They

have trouble finding and keeping

jobs, reading, doing simple math,

and managing basic life tasks. Faced

with bleak prospects, they develop

behavior patterns that lead them

into crime.

The substantial presence of these

disadvantaged defendants and offenders in the federal criminal justice system has important implications for pretrial and probation investigation and supervision. Statistics indicate that defendants and

offenders who have employment
Special Needs Offenders Bulletin ◆ January 2000 ◆ Reducing Risk Through Employment and Education 2

problems or who are poorly

educated become more deeply

involved with criminal justice

than those with jobs or more

education.

Pretrial Release. For example, according to the Department of Justice, in 1996, 67.3%

of federal defendants employed

at the time of arrest were released, compared to 47.5% of

defendants unemployed at the

time of arrest. Twenty-two percent of defendants with less

than a high school education

violated release conditions at

least once, compared to 7.3%

of college graduates. And almost 9% of defendants with less

than a high school education

had their release revoked, compared to less than 3% of those

with college degrees.

“[D]efendants with lower

levels of education were more

likely to be detained,” the Justice Department reported.

“Seventy-four percent of those

who did not graduate from high

school were detained, versus

31% of college graduates.”

Probation Supervision. Statistics on the probation side are

equally telling. Analysis of Federal Probation Supervision Information System data collected by the Administrative

Office of the U.S. Courts revealed that of the more than

78,000 offenders who started a

period of active federal supervision in 1997 and 1998, nearly

40% were unemployed at the

beginning of supervision, and

nearly 33% had only an elementary or partial high school

education. Among those who

had less than a high school or

equivalent education, 64% had

been convicted of drug, assault,

weapons, or property offenses,

and 73% had been incarcerated

before being released on supervision. These figures are higher

than those for offenders who

had a high school diploma or

its equivalent (56% and 63%)

or some college education

(40% and 57%). In developing

the Risk Prediction Index

(RPI), the Federal Judicial

Center observed that among

individuals on probation and

supervised release, lower levels

of education corresponded to a

higher rate of recidivism. Similarly, the recidivism rate was

found to be higher for unemployed supervisees than for

those who were employed at

the start of supervision.

Writing in a recent issue of

Federal Probation, Kathryn Morgan, a professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, noted that “young males

[on probation] who are unemployed or underemployed with

a low income and prior criminal record are likely to fail.”

Probation officers have a

statutory duty to “use all suitable methods . . . to aid a probationer or a person on supervised release . . . and to bring

about improvements in his conduct and condition” (18 U.S.C.

Sec. 3603(3)). Likewise, pretrial services officers have a

mandate to “assist persons released in securing any necessary

employment . . . or social services.” (18 U.S.C. Sec.

3154(7)). There are good reasons for these directives, as the

statistics cited above indicate.

Supervision strategies incorporating employment or education assistance can reduce court

appearances, violations, revocations, risk of nonappearance

at trial, and risk of danger to the

community. In addition, these

strategies can serve the public

interest by reducing the numbers of defendants and offenders who have repeated contact

with the federal system, thus

saving the system money.

And ultimately, developing

strategies for supervising disadvantaged defendants and offenders is in the officer’s selfinterest. In 1997 and 1998, officers found a need for employment or education assistance

for 16% of all offenders starting supervision. No wonder

that officers often are frustrated

by the amount of time required

to supervise defendants and offenders who lack job skills and

formal education. By learning

how to deal efficiently with this

population, officers will save

time and energy. ◆

Special Needs Offenders Bulletin

a publication of the Federal Judicial Center

No. 4, January 2000

Written by

Mark Sherman

Training Specialist

Court Education Division

Edited and designed by

Nathan Dotson

Communications Policy & Design

Send questions or comments to Mark Sherman, Court

Education Division, Federal Judicial Center, Thurgood

Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus

Circle, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002-8003.

This publication was undertaken in furtherance of the

Center’s statutory mission to develop and conduct education programs for judicial branch employees. The

views expressed are those of the author and are not

necessarily those of the Federal Judicial Center.
3 Special Needs Offenders Bulletin ◆ January 2000 ◆ Reducing Risk Through Employment and Education

Consider the case of 24-

year-old Thomas Derrick

Ross. The subject of a recent series of articles in the Washington Post, Ross, who grew up in

a Washington, D.C., housing

project, belonged to a gang that

was terrorizing the neighborhood. Ross’s father died in

1985. His brother was convicted of manslaughter and

committed suicide in a juvenile

facility. His mother, a habitual

drug user, was convicted of

manslaughter and imprisoned.

In Ross’s neighborhood, male

role models were few. At 12 he

started using and dealing drugs.

He spent time in a juvenile facility. Between the ages of 18

and 23, Ross was arrested and

charged in five felony cases

ranging from armed robbery to

unauthorized use of a vehicle.

Somehow, he managed to avoid

prison.

Ross has fathered children

by six different women. Until

recently, he carried only cash

and maintained no bank account or credit cards. He carried no driver’s license or wallet because the former served as

a tip sheet for police and he felt

the latter was just “packaging”

for robbers. When he did finally

obtain his driver’s license, he

passed the test by mimicking

what law-abiding drivers did

rather than by studying. He carried a handgun regularly. He

owned cars but never bothered

to register or insure them or to

have them inspected.

Ross began to turn things

around after becoming involved with gang truce talks

sponsored by the Alliance of

Concerned Men, a community

group for ex-offenders, and the

National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise. The Alliance

and National Center eventually partnered with the District

of Columbia Housing Authority, which pledged equipment

and paid property management

internships for 30 gang members, including Ross. The Alliance and the Housing Authority understood the challenges

Ross faced, but they also recognized in his ability to survive

and head his gang a capacity for

leadership and management.

They addressed those challenges and nurtured those abilities by serving as coaches, role

models, and mentors.

Since joining the internship program, Ross has obtained his GED, contributed to

the financial support of his children, maintained bank and

credit accounts, performed his

job well, and helped reduce

crime in his neighborhood. His

integration into mainstream

society has not been seamless,

however. Ross soon discovered

that, for him, “[d]oing things by

the law is more stressful than

breaking the law.” Ross admits

that he occasionally abuses alcohol. He was also arrested for

beating one of his children. He

pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four weekends in jail

DEFENDANT/OFFENDER–

COMMUNITY SYMBIOSIS

• problems obtaining and retaining employment

• reading/writing/comprehension difficulties, poor math

skills—often, the individual never completed high

school

• substance abuse problems

• deficient practical living

skills (those having to do

with money management,

housing, transportation,

parenting, health, etc.)

• inability to manage personal

growth in terms of goals, responsibility, morality, anger

management, etc.

• poor social skills (getting

along with others, resolving

conflict)

• history of involvement with

criminal justice: misdemeanor or felony arrest

record (possibly for drug offense); sometimes, incarceration for short periods

(up to three years)

Characteristics

of Disadvantaged

Defendants and

Offenders
Special Needs Offenders Bulletin ◆ January 2000 ◆ Reducing Risk Through Employment and Education 4

(continued from page 3)

and 18 months of probation,

with an order to participate in

parenting and anger management classes. Ross has been permitted to continue working at

the Housing Authority.

Ross’s story offers an important lesson for probation and

pretrial services officers. If they

are to help disadvantaged defendants and offenders like

Ross, officers must be able not

only to identify the characteristics that prevent change but

also the signs of individuals’

potential. Moreover, officers

must be able to identify community resources that can facilitate positive change. Neither task is easy.

Many disadvantaged defendants and offenders lack even

the most basic skills. They may

not be able to so much as read

a fast food restaurant menu, or

calculate the cost of their order. They may not be able to

write well enough to fill out a

job application. If they get a

job, they can’t seem to keep it.

Most practical living skills—

managing money, finding a

decent place to live, getting

around town, raising children,

staying healthy—likewise elude

them. And needless to say, the

concept of “personal growth” is

foreign to them: They have

trouble setting goals, exercising

responsibility or moral reasoning, controlling anger, and handling basic social skills, such as

getting along with people and

resolving conflict. Compounding these problems in many

cases is a history of substance

abuse. Plus, the individuals will

frequently be found to have arrest records (misdemeanor or

felony) and in some cases will

already have been sentenced to

probation or incarceration, if

for relatively short periods

(three years or less). ◆

According to Regina Thomas,

a Georgetown University literacy expert who has helped

develop correctional programs,

assessing a defendant’s or

offender’s literacy level can be

tricky. Perhaps the person can

read, that is, understands the

mechanics of how words are

formed with letters and is able

to sound out words, but is illiterate, that is, unable to comprehend ideas conveyed by written words and to communicate

in writing. Compounding the

difficulty is the fact that illiterate adults often develop camouflage techniques or were promoted through school despite

their deficiencies. Further,

people who never learned to

Assessing Literacy

read may be frustrated with

themselves or deny that they

have a problem, leading them

to resist help.

Screening for literacy

should be systematic. If you suspect that the defendant or offender can’t read, ask the individual to spell a common word

or to read and sign a form. Does

he or she become defensive or

refuse to cooperate? Does the

individual have difficulty signing his or her name, or sign it

too quickly? Does the individual claim to have lost or forgotten his or her glasses?

Ask the individual to respond in writing to some basic

questions. The information

sought should be uncommon—

something other than familiar

names and places—since many

illiterate individuals are able to

memorize common words. Does

the person struggle?

If the situation permits, an

officer can formally assess literacy by referring the defendant

or offender to a local testing

center or by administering the

Peabody Picture Vocabulary

Test III (PPVT-III). (Test results indicate reading gradelevel but do not address causes

of low achievement.) Training

for administration of the PPVTIII is available at most universities and community colleges

through their speech, communications, or psychology departments.
5 Special Needs Offenders Bulletin ◆ January 2000 ◆ Reducing Risk Through Employment and Education

Effective investigation and

supervision of disadvantaged defendants and offenders

can benefit the officer, the defendant or offender, and the

community. Figure 1 illustrates

a model that explicitly links investigation and supervision

with case management and program evaluation. Each of the

tools described in this bulletin

fits this model.

Because of their lack of life

skills and schooling, disadvantaged defendants and offenders

have few recourses when it

comes to staying out of trouble.

They are often reluctant to ask

for assistance or don’t know

whom to ask. And if they are

INVESTIGATION AND

SUPERVISION

currently unemployed or not

enrolled in a training program,

the possibility of their violating conditions escalates; put

simply, they have more time to

get into trouble. Those who are

either employed or in school,

on the other hand, have more

to lose if they violate their conditions of release. And because

they are usually in one place for

a significant part of the day,

they are easier to supervise.

Officers should thus view assistance as a method of directly

reducing both risk of nonappearance and risk to the community. Specific recommendations to the court for employment- and education-related

conditions should be framed

persuasively with these connections and consequences in

mind.

Pretrial. Much of the information necessary to assess risk,

needs, and capabilities—employment history, education,

reading level, housing situation, community ties, extent of

life skills—will come from the

interview with the defendant.

Whether a defendant is mentally ill or has other disabilities

may also become apparent during the interview. Use an interviewing approach that will provide clues to the defendant’s

reading and cognitive skills.

Information may also be obFigure 1: Supervision Model for Disadvantaged Defendants and Offenders. Adapted from: Altschuler, David M.; Armstrong,

Troy L.; and MacKenzie, Doris Layton. Reintegration, Supervised Release, and Intensive Aftercare NCJ 175715. Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, July 1999.

An integration of:
Special Needs Offenders Bulletin ◆ January 2000 ◆ Reducing Risk Through Employment and Education 6

tained from, or verified by, collateral contacts. Possession of a

social security number, driver’s

license, automobile, or real

property can be verified by relevant agencies and through online public records searches.

Note that absence of basic information such as social security or

driver’s license number can indicate life skills-associated difficulties.

Based on your findings, recommend to the court conditions regarding employment,

literacy education, GED preparation, or life skills training.

Keep in mind that because the

conditions of release must be

the least restrictive possible, the

court must be persuaded that it

will reduce the risk of nonappearance and harm to the community.

Presentence. Review all

documentation and contact the

pretrial services officer to clarify

and supplement information

contained in the pretrial services report. Interview the offender and his or her immediate family. Consider the

offender’s employment and

education status and recommend conditions that are enforceable in light of risk, needs,

and available community resources. If programs in which

the offender was engaged during pretrial release are available, consider recommending

enrollment in and successful

completion of them as supervision conditions.

Conditions could also include mandatory community

service with employment assistance when the offender’s work

Probation officers in the Southern District of Texas use a Cognitive Skills Assessment Tool

to determine whether an offender has life skills deficits that

may interfere with supervision

(see p. 11). If three of the conditions below are met, officers

consider referring the offender

to the district’s Reasoning and

Rehabilitation Program. The

district believes that any officer

can use this tool to assess an

offender’s cognitive skills and to

develop an appropriate supervision plan.

• The offense conduct was

impulsive (i.e., planning of

Cognitive Skills Assessment Tool

record is spotty or erratic.

Probation. Pay close attention to the pretrial and presentence reports. If the offender

resided in a halfway house, the

officer should review the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) progress

and terminal reports. Also, participation in a BOP-operated

employment or education program for inmates (see p. 8), may

influence the supervision plan.

Structure the initial interview to elicit information about

literacy and cognitive skills that

is not contained in the case file.

Try to engage the offender in a

discussion designed to elicit information about his or her abilities. Information on the

offender’s difficulties, abilities,

and social history can also be

obtained from collateral contacts. ◆

the crime lacked sophistication), or the offender is not

able to think about the consequences of his or her behavior or to set goals.

• There is a history of instability in the individual’s

upbringing or in adult living situations or an inability to develop positive relationships.

• The offender’s employment

history is marked by sporadic periods of employment, frequent job changes,

or other signs of instability.

• The offender has been arrested three times or more

(excluding white collar

crimes).

• There is a history of substance abuse.

• There is a history of truancy, supervision violation,

failure to appear, or warrants issued against the individual.

• The offender did not earn a

high school diploma (versus

GED).

• The offender exhibits poor

social skills—does not listen to the probation officer,

is egocentric, inarticulate,

self-righteous, etc.
7 Special Needs Offenders Bulletin ◆ January 2000 ◆ Reducing Risk Through Employment and Education

Effective supervision of disadvantaged defendants and

offenders requires development

of partnerships with employers

and service providers, identification and packaging of resources, and establishment of

relationships among defendants

or offenders, employers, and

service providers.

Developing Community

Partners. According to a 1999

report issued by the Manhattan

Institute’s Reinventing Probation Council, developing partners in the community can enable probation agencies to supervise offenders effectively,

impose greater leverage and accountability over them, and

return them safely to the community. Potential community

partners include neighborhood

groups, schools, businesses, and

local government and nonprofit human service and criminal justice agencies. Because

community partners can vary

widely in quality, they must be

evaluated carefully. A good

community partner will be

clear about the opportunities or

services it provides; possess a

well-trained, experienced staff;

offer comprehensive services or

provide formal referrals; have

experience providing services

to persons who have been involved in the criminal justice

system; and possess a reputation

for success and high-quality

work within the community

and among its clients. Not all

community partners will meet

each criterion equally well.

Mapping Resources. The

gathering and compiling of information about community

resources—resource mapping—usually takes the form of

a community resources manual.

Occasionally, an officer will

find that community resource

mapping already has been accomplished by another agency,

such as the local pretrial services office or a local nonprofit

organization. In the District of

Columbia, for example, DC

CURE, a local affiliate of a national prison reform organization with chapters in 43 states,

published Starting Out, Starting

Over, Staying Out: A Guide for

District of Columbia Ex-Offenders (Housing, Food, Employment

and Other Resources).

Techniques for mapping

community resources include

• internet research of districtbased nonprofit service providers and government human services agencies and

of national organizations

such as Habitat for Humanity, United Way, Salvation

Army, Volunteers of America, and National Indian

Justice Center

• phone contact and site visits with local health and

employment services agencies, places of worship, community-based organizations, public libraries, charitable organizations, and local probation and pretrial

services agencies

• phone contact and site visits with employers with

whom defendants and offenders have been placed

• consulting the National

Consumer Phonebook

A useful community resources manual should include

a map of the locality and contain information on basic government services, such as obtaining a birth certificate, social security number, food

stamps, etc.; where to obtain

overnight, transitional, permanent, and family housing, as

well as emergency food and free

or low-cost clothing; public

transportation; substance abuse

treatment and free or low-cost

health and legal services; job

hunting, training, literacy, and

GED programs; services for

women; community service

placements; and employers

who hire persons involved in

the criminal justice system.

Brokering Services. To ensure the availability of services

to defendants and offenders,

officers must establish relationships with the individuals and

with those who provide jobs

REFERRAL AND

COORDINATION OF

SERVICES
Special Needs Offenders Bulletin ◆ January 2000 ◆ Reducing Risk Through Employment and Education 8

and deliver services. To build

such relationships, officers must

show their commitment to assisting defendants or offenders

by being available, willing to

listen, and proactive in providing ideas and advice. At the

same time, officers must show

an understanding of the complexity of the employers’ and

service providers’ needs and a

willingness to resolve crises as

they arise. Officers must provide the defendants or offenders with complete information

about employment and services, give employers and service providers complete information about defendants or offenders, and monitor the success of the arrangement.

Thus, as a service broker, the

officer fulfills three different

roles: advocate, agent, and mediator. Advocacy involves aggressive networking and promotion of community supports

and opportunities in employment, education, and training

for those defendants or offenders motivated to take advantage

of them. Working as an agent

involves carefully screening

candidates for a particular job

or program and vice versa. Mediation requires the officer to

link the defendant or offender

and employer and service providers and to communicate

regularly with all parties, actively helping to resolve disputes. Ultimately, brokering

creates supervision options for

defendant and offender employment and education. ◆

The Bureau of Prisons

(BOP) sponsors a number

of programs that officers should

be aware of. Note that offenders

incarcerated for 20 months or less

are ineligible for participation in

many BOP programs.

The Inmate Placement Program Branch sponsors mock job

fairs in federal, state, and

county correctional facilities. It

also works with Federal Prison

Industries suppliers to obtain

job information that is posted

in selected federal prisons. After internal review, inmates

with targeted skills are invited

to apply directly to the companies. In addition, the branch,

in cooperation with the National Institute of Corrections

Academy, participates in training programs for offender job

placement specialists, including

U.S. probation officers.

For more information on

branch activities, including mock

job fair schedules and training for

federal job placement specialists,

consult the branch’s web site at

www.unicor.gov/ placement, or

call (202) 305-3860.

Each federal facility also has

its own education department

with instructional staff, as well

as contracts with education and

training providers and community volunteer programs. With

few exceptions, an inmate who

does not have a high school

diploma or GED must participate in a literacy program for a

minimum of 240 instructional

hours or until he or she earns a

GED. BOP currently emphasizes educational programs in

literacy, General Educational

Development (GED), English

as a Second Language (ESL),

and occupational training.

BOP institutions also offer

parenting education, access to

community-based social services, and parent-child visiting

room activities. In addition, the

BOP operates a release preparation program to assist inmates

in making the transition to society. Pre-release program coordinators at each facility invite

representatives from probation,

halfway house contractors, and

other government agencies to

provide guidance to inmates

who are close to release.

For a complete list of occupational training programs available at BOP facilities, information on BOP inmate education

programs, or information on the

prerelease program, contact the

Bureau of Prisons, Education

Branch, at (202) 305-3800,

or log on to their web site at

www.bop.gov. ◆

RELEVANT BOP

PROGRAMS
9 Special Needs Offenders Bulletin ◆ January 2000 ◆ Reducing Risk Through Employment and Education

Not surprisingly, more and

more districts are creating in-house programs to assist

defendants and offenders with

employment and life skills issues.

The Northern District of

California probation office created the Probation Employment Program (PEP) to assist

offenders with pre-employment

services, job placement, and

career enhancement opportunities. The program uses inhouse employment specialists

assisted by interns from local

colleges and features internetdriven research on employment

and community resources, as

well as pre-employment workshops.

The district’s pretrial services office also has created an

employment assistance program. It features an officerstaffed employment committee

that identifies employers and

works with them to address

problems that arise during referral. Thorough screening is a

key facet of the program, which

also features an employment resources manual listing public

and private agencies that can

help defendants find jobs or

training.

The Southern District of

West Virginia’s probation office

created its Offender Employment Assistance Program

(OEAP) in response to a study

DEVELOPING IN-HOUSE

JOB ASSISTANCE AND

LIFE SKILLS PROGRAMS

that revealed high unemployment levels among the district’s

defendants and offenders. Officers refer offenders to the

district’s OEAP coordinator,

who executes Contracts of Understanding with offenders and

provides them with an Offender Handbook. The coordinator counsels offenders on jobsearch skills and requires each

offender to complete a mock

job application, providing feedback and advice. The coordinator also informs offenders of

federal incentives available to

employers who hire offenders,

such as the Federal Bonding

Program, the Targeted Jobs Tax

Credit, and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, and accompanies offenders on visits to local employment services offices, instructing offenders in

how to use the services’ facilities. It is important to note that

the coordinator merely consults

with supervising probation officers and does not assume full

supervision of the offenders.

The Reasoning and Rehabilitation program in the

Southern District of Texas’s

probation office helps offenders who have poor social skills

and a history of substance

abuse, unstable upbringing or

employment, arrests, or truancy. Officers use a Cognitive

Skills Assessment Tool (see

p. 6) to screen offenders and refer those eligible to the program. The program’s stated goal

is “pro-social competence and

adjustment, thereby reducing

recidivism of offenders.” Specially trained officers lead

groups of offenders through the

20-week program, which includes lessons in thinking creatively, improving social skills,

enhancing values, negotiating,

confronting risky situations,

preventing substance abuse relapse, and reasoning critically. ◆

• buy-in of chiefs, deputy

chiefs, supervisors, officers,

and staff

• buy-in of defendants/offenders

• systematic approach attentive to the needs and circumstances of district and

defendant/offender

• adequate screening of defendants/offenders

• coordination with and follow-up by supervising officers

Characteristics of

Successful In-house

Programs
Special Needs Offenders Bulletin ◆ January 2000 ◆ Reducing Risk Through Employment and Education 10

Disadvantaged defendants

and offenders resist intercession by probation and pretrial services officers for a number of reasons. They may see

themselves as not having problems. They may resent, distrust,

or dislike the officers. They may

automatically rebel against anything to do with the criminal

justice system. They may feel

that the only power they have

is to resist. Or they may be

afraid of what they might find

out about themselves during

supervision.

This last factor, alone or in

combination with others, is frequently present in disadvantaged defendants and offenders.

Resistance may also be due either to an inability to behave

according to societal conventions because of the individual’s

history or to an inability to see

a reason for observing those

conventions.

Officers must use strategies

that help break through resistance and establish trust. To

begin with, they should identify the defendant’s or offender’s “transferable

assets.” Engage

defendants or offenders in a discussion of what

they think their

abilities are. Note

that some knowledge, skills, and

abilities exhibited in criminal

behavior (e.g.,

leadership ability,

business acumen,

organizational

skills, etc.) are

transferable to

the mainstream.

Temporarily suspend belief when

you listen to the

defendant’s or

offender’s story. Try to understand the individual’s reality,

look for signs of frustration with

past counterproductive behavior, and address that frustration

by offering concrete proposals

for assistance.

Further, validate his or her

perspective to the extent possible. At the least, provide feedback that acknowledges you

understand the person’s viewpoint. When appropriate, admit that he or she is right or is

probably right about a specific

issue.

After you have heard the

person out, it may be beneficial

to make a contract with him or

her. Defensive behavior frequently is the result of the

power imbalance between the

officer and the defendant or

offender. The officer should

attempt to counteract negative

perceptions by providing the

individual an opportunity for

input into supervision, notice

of consequences, and officer accountability. This approach is

especially useful with defendants and offenders who do not

see an incentive to comply with

societal conventions. It can

also help identify collateral

contacts with whom the officer

can network to build trust and

gain assistance in providing

support for correctional treatment.

Also, emphasize incentives

that appeal to the defendant’s

or offender’s self-interest, such

as enhanced employability, selfesteem, and the esteem of significant others. And consult

with successful defendants or

offenders, current or former, on

ways of penetrating a resistant

individual’s defenses. Lastly,

supervise in a way appropriate

to the defendant’s or offenders

culture or ethnicity. ◆

OVERCOMING

RESISTANCE

The Southern District of West

Virginia’s Offender Employment Assistance Program uses

an interesting technique to

overcome resistance to seeking

employment: mandatory community service. In consultation

with the SUSPO, the probation officer petitions the court

to impose community service.

This intermediate sanction

acts as an incentive by presenting the offender with a choice:

engage in community service,

conduct a bona fide job search,

or violate release conditions

and face the consequences.

Like employment or education programs, community service should be viewed as a way

of using informal social controls

to facilitate supervision. The

best placements are those that

not only provide job skills and

contacts but permit offenders to

establish meaningful relationships which can help them

when they re-enter the community and deter them from reoffending.

Mandatory Community Service

as an Incentive
11 Special Needs Offenders Bulletin ◆ January 2000 ◆ Reducing Risk Through Employment and Education

Often, the effectiveness of

supervision is stymied because the defendant or offender

and the officer are so at odds in

their mastery of basic life

skills—skills that middle class

officers may understandably

take for granted, such as raising a child, managing money,

controlling anger, etc. Such

deficiencies can lead to

adversarial relationships, not

just with the officer but with

family members, friends, employers, community service

sponsors, and service providers.

Containing and stabilizing

conflict is critical in maximizing a defendant’s or offender’s

chances for compliance with

supervision conditions. Officers

should do their best to identify

and prevent life skills-related

sources of potential conflict by

doing the following five things:

1. Conduct thorough risk and

needs assessments.

2. Approach each supervision

contact with the defendant

or offender in a deliberate

fashion, permitting time for

difficulties to surface.

3. Hand over the conversation during supervision

contacts to defendants or

offenders to let them raise

concerns.

FIVE THINGS OFFICERS

CAN DO TO MITIGATE

LIFE SKILLS-RELATED

CONFLICT

4. Sit quietly for a while during contacts, allowing the

defendant or offender to

speak and difficulties to surface.

5. Explore basic areas of concern that middle-class individuals tend to take for

granted.

Officers can contain and

stabilize conflicts by identifying

the parties involved directly in

the conflict and the specific

causes of the conflict, then

mediating the dispute by

• identifying collateral parties

that can help resolve the

conflict (e.g., employers

and service providers)

• meeting with all parties to

discuss options and develop

a strategy for resolving the

conflict

• coordinating strategy implementation and maintaining contact with all parties to monitor progress. ◆

This bulletin serves as a selfstudy guide that presents the

topic of reducing risk through

employment and education

and helps officers and managers further explore related case

management strategies. Officers and managers should continue developing expertise

concerning this defendant and

offender population by reading relevant books, inviting

local experts to speak at in-disDEVELOPING IN-DISTRICT

EXPERTISE

trict training programs, attending the Center’s February

satellite broadcast on reducing

risk through employment and

education, and participating in

the on-line discussion that will

follow in April and May. Contact Mark Sherman at (202)

502-4115 for additional information about the Special

Needs Offenders Series on

Reducing Risk Through Employment and Education.
Administrative Office of the United

States Courts. Supervision of Federal

Offenders, Monograph 109 (1993

Revision). Washington, D.C.: Administrative Office of the United

States Courts, 1993.

—. The Presentence Investigation Report

for Defendants Sentenced Under the

Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Publication 107 Washington, D.C.:

Administrative Office of the

United States Courts, 1992.

Altschuler, David M.; Armstrong, Troy

L.; and MacKenzie, Doris Layton.

Reintegration, Supervised Release,

and Intensive Aftercare NCJ 175715.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention, July

1999.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics,

1996 NCJ 172849. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau

of Justice Statistics, November

1998.

Clark, Michael D. “Strength-Based

Practice: The ABC’s of Working

with Adolescents Who Don’t Want

to Work With You.” Federal Probation, 62 (June 1998): 46–53.

Chavaria, Frederick R. “Probation and

Cognitive Skills.” Federal Probation,

61 (June 1997): 57–60.

Dunagan, Javondlynn M. Improving

Employment Resources for Federal

Offenders in the Northern District of

Illinois: In-District Report. Washington, D.C.: Federal Judicial Center,

Leadership Development Program,

(undated).

SELECTED REFERENCES

Eaglin, James B.; Gilbert, Scott;

Hooper, Laural; and Lombard,

Patricia. RPI Profiles: Descriptive

Information About Offenders

Grouped by Their RPI Scores. Washington, D.C.: Federal Judicial Center, May 1997.

Finn, Peter. “Job Placement for Offenders.” National Institute of Justice Journal (July 1999): 2–11.

Fulton, Betsy A. Restoring Hope

Through Community Partnerships:

The Real Deal in Crime Control – A

Handbook for Community Corrections. Lexington, KY: American

Probation and Parole Association,

1996.

Greene, Marcia Slacum. “Going Legit.”

Washington Post, July 11, 1999: A1.

—. “Ex-Crew Member Sentenced in

Beating.” Washington Post, September 29, 1999: B1.

Kuhn, Danny R. “Appalachians on

Probation: Cultural Considerations

for the Officers Who Supervise

Them.” Federal Probation, 59 (September 1995): 3–9.

—. An Offender Employment Assistance

Program for the Southern District of

West Virginia: In-District Report.

Washington, D.C.: Federal Judicial

Center, Leadership Development

Program, December 1997.

Morgan, Kathryn D., “Factors Influencing Probation Outcome: A Review

of the Literature.” Federal Probation

57 (June 1993): 23–29.

Peoples, Jacqueline M. “Helping Pretrial Services Clients Find Jobs.”

Federal Probation 59 (March 1995):

14–18.

Sherman, Lawrence W.; Gottfredson,

Denise C.; MacKenzie, Doris L.;

Eck, John; Reuter, Peter; and

Bushway, Shawn D. Preventing

Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t,

What’s Promising NCJ 171676.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, National Institute of Justice, July 1998.

United States Probation Office for the

Northern District of California.

1998 Annual Report. San Francisco, CA: United States Probation

Office for the Northern District of

California, 1999.

Van Wormer, Katherine. “The

Strengths Perspective: A Paradigm

for Correctional Counseling.” Federal Probation, 63 (June 1999): 51–

58.